very strong ovation for Ken Loach, a few minutes ago in Cannes, strongly political speech filmmaker – “dangerous world” we live in, the need for the film to be protest against those who have, against neo-liberalism increased because ” another world is possible, another world is necessary “- for a movie, I, Daniel Blake that it was the most emotionally powerful experiences of this 69th edition of Cannes, which has just ended. The film is also so outraged by the social devastation and human and simultaneously a purity look and a commitment to call for urgent reaction: is the story of Daniel Blake, a woodworker of 59 years of Newcastle who survived a heart attack – It can not work, according to doctors – but that will not survive the bureaucracy of the welfare state. Loach is 80 years old, shooting five decades ago, it was said that The Hall of Jimmy , which held in 2014, would be his last film. It was not, and even if it is I, Daniel Blake , is already as one of their major. It is a new Golden Palm, after The Wind That Shakes the Barley in 2006, and the filmmaker has just joined the group of those who bisaram: Alf Sjöberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Shohei Imamura, Emir Kusturica, Bille August and Michael Haneke.
Many repetitions, this year, by the way. It is the third time that Andrea Arnold received the Jury Prize, after Red Road, in 2006, and Fish Tank in 2009 – and it is true that American Honey is beautiful, it’s all a lyrical and mythological heritage of a cruel territory, America, your movies, dreams and disappointment that the British director takes over and reinvents. mitigated Reaccção, however.
The Grand Prix Juste la fin du Monde , Dolan, ultimately has the effect of the Jury Prize at Mommy in 2014, a sign that the jury would not even let you pass your hand through this film. The Dolan of emotion on stage was also a remake. But there is a difference: Mommy was received two years of consensus, Juste la fin du Monde, work sitting at the grotesque table managed to irritate and exasperate. Why the jury’s passion for this film, which is adapted from a play and that seems to regurgitate Tom a la Ferme , 2013?
Some member of the jury, Arnaud Desplechin or Vanessa Paradis, interviewed the entrance to the Palais des Festivals, they realized, more or less explicitly, decisions that needed long discussions: strong, intense, difficult, were the adjectives used. George Miller, President, said that now was wait to see how people would react. What has happened? Only they know, and in these things there is a code of honor that prevents revelations. But the truth is that the risk of mixing and furniture comfort zone (the displayed selection) that seemed to offer an amazing history – between the films most “popular” of the contest were some possibilities to crown “new” names in Cannes, the Aquarius , Kleber Mendonça Filho (the great movie …), the Elle , Paul Verhoeven (a first in the competition was re-evaluation of his work), passing for Toni Erdman , Maren Ade, who was even the favorite – the jury was with the usual suspects, not left home, and mortgaged this hypothesis explode, doing show and creativity. Signs of commitments, a possible history, not the desired history that seemed to be at hand
The “bet” on Le Client , Asghar Farhadi, is bizarre: two awards for actor Shahab Hosseini (Bérénice Bejo already won in 2013 by the Past, previous film Iranian) and the argument of Farhadi own . The filmmaker did not expect, on the eve of history themselves promoters of the film were convinced that they would not be in the race and did not hide it from journalists. The feeling is that Farhadi’s been here before, with A Separation – is again the Iranian middle class, again the implosion of a family from an incident that will affect a couple changes apartment, the eruption of a darker face and intolerant in the guise of culture and tolerance – but the film is always to reiterate what the viewer should think and feel. more beautiful plan: an open door through which will enter a decisive character to what will happen to the couple, the director cuts before the figure appears, we get the door open in the retina, the possibility of invasion, something not named … but film will then be in charge of “closing” the door to discomfort, explaining his moral lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment