May 17, 2004
Shorts (and Cannes), 5/17.
Pedro Almodóvar's Cannes opener, Bad Education, gets a review from Ryan Gilbey in the new issue of Sight & Sound, one of the reasons Almodóvar's on the cover. The other reviews online: Edward Lawrenson on Shattered Glass and David Jays on
Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter... and Spring.
But three cheers to the S&S editors for their selection of the two features to make available to the mouse-centric among us. We have B Ruby Rich on Kill Bill, Volume 2, the piece she mentioned she was working when Jennie Rose conducted our recent interview. As for Tarantino's lexicon of references in KB2, BRR freely admits she'd have been at a loss without the press kit.
What I can offer up, instead, is a meditation on what KB2 means to me and what it might mean to viewers, too, if positioned in a radically different cinematic universe - one characterised less by ultraviolence and genre quotations than by a remapping of family, a fusion of the horror movie and the revenge narrative through the central figure of the avenging woman, and an emphasis on the corporeal that makes for a surprisingly old-fashioned view of the body and its mortality.
Deal? Deal. For a second helping, we get the launch of a new series in which S&S asks writers "to respond to actors, not only as icons of their age, but also in terms of their expertise, their physical presence and their importance to the films of their day. We begin with David Robinson on the ultimate star, Rudolph Valentino."
Today is definitely Michael Moore Day in Cannes. As Charlotte Higgins writes in the Guardian, Fahrenheit 9/11 "is without doubt the most flaming-hot ticket at the Cannes film festival." So it's with a sort of now-it-can-be-told flare that Jim Rutenberg reveals: "A reporter for The New York Times was invited to a screening of the film last week." Even so, the paper seems to be taking a cautious approach since it was perceived by some to have done a bit of Moore's rabble-rousing for him by breaking news of his run-in with Disney on the front page almost two weeks ago now and then taking his side in the dispute in an editorial. So rather than cheer him on outright, Rutenberg settles for predicting that the film "is likely to have a galvanizing effect among both conservatives and liberals should the film be widely distributed this summer." In other words, it must pack quite a punch.
And finally, David Kipen poses an intriguing question in the Atlantic Monthly: "If France makes movies for the French, and America makes movies for the world, who's left to make movies for America?" It's not an off-the-cuff concern. A stat that pops up early in the piece: Domestic theatrical admissions were down four percent in 2003, but global box office was up five percent. "The movie business is booming abroad precisely because Hollywood is making pictures for the world market - at the expense of customers in America, where, not surprisingly, business is tanking. It's that hoariest of economic clichés, a zero-sum game." What's more, "In less than thirty years, roughly since the premiere of Star Wars, domestic grosses - once the industry's bread and butter - have become a virtual loss leader."
Sprinkled around all this is an amusing pan of Andrew Horton's book, Screenwriting for a Global Market, an alternative reading to the popular take on American films of the 70s ("not the decade of the director but a golden age of screenwriting"), and observations as to why we'll be seeing more movies like the Matrix trilogy and a lot fewer like Mr Smith Goes to Washington. It's a fun, freewheeling ride, but at least two considerations are left out: First, it's the DVD that's putting the whammy on domestic box office far more directly than Hollywood's "Offshoring the Audience," as the clever title to Kipen's piece reads. Americans have adopted the format earlier and in greater numbers, though Europeans, of course, are catching up fast. (And when they do, by the way, Germany's already bloated theatrical arm of the industry is in serious trouble indeed; it won't matter where the films come from, people will be watching them at home.)
Second, Kipen ignores all the indie filmmakers stepping in to make the sort of films Hollywood has abandoned. Politics is box office poison? Then how do we explain the trend Anthony Kaufman's following in the Voice? For that matter, how do we explain Michael Moore's tremendous popularity in Europe? Europeans aren't just flocking to his films in theaterss and catching his earlier ones on state-funded TV. They're buying his books as well. In part, it's a recognition that "problems of the American scene" (a description of a long-gone WGA award Kipen laments) are problems of the global scene as well. Automatically, like it or not.
But as for what seems to be Kipen's main complaint - that Americans are no longer treated to the cadences of American speech or stories that tackle problems of the contemporary American scene - sure they are. On countless channels of nichified cable and satellite TV. It ain't Capra, but it's real.
Posted by dwhudson at May 17, 2004 9:42 AM
You've heard the buzz surrounding "The Day After Tomorrow," the upcoming big budget, Hollywood disaster movie about the earth dealing with the impacts of global warming. While the film, which opens Memorial Day weekend, is science fiction, global warming is science fact, and we're seeing the impacts now.
But we can act to Undo Global Warming. Environmental Defense has released it's "The Day After Tomorrow" Action Center at:
http://www.undoit.org/tdat







Subscribe to GreenCine Daily by email