MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

BYOB Cannes

byob speedy

8 Responses to “BYOB Cannes”

  1. Pete B. says:

    I know it’s going to be discussed in the box office write-ups, but WOW does George Miller deliver in MM:FR. Chrome & Shiny indeed.

  2. PTA Fluffer says:

    MM:FR is a staggering work of cinema. An all-timer. Among many other things it is also quite the trenchant allegory about mankind heading over the fossil fuel cliff, not to mention the strongest statement of female empowerment since, well, probably ever.

  3. Amblinman says:

    I swear I’m going to root for an actual fucking apocalypse when Pitch Perfect 2 beats Max this weekend.

  4. Kevin says:

    MM:FR is the best movie I’ve seen in forever. Maybe since AVATAR.

  5. Bulldog68 says:

    I instantly wanted to hit repeat when Mad Max was over. An awesome cinematic experience. I’m still high from its octane fumes.

    Dave, I’d really be interested in your review. I’m always cautious when a movie receives such universal pre-release praise, and inevitably let down, but man does this deserve every one of those glowing reviews.

  6. AdamL says:

    Saw MM last night – thought the 3D was worth it personally and a very good film.

    The Jurassic World trailer that played before had me wondering if I have ever seen a worse trailer in my life however. That film looks about as wretched as any film can be.

  7. EtGuild2 says:

    Seems the theme at Cannes is “Year of the Batshit,” between “Tale of Tales,” Gasper Noe’s “Love” and “The Lobster.”

  8. Triple Option says:

    I caught up to Ultron this w/e. Holy crap, this isn’t a brand new phenomenon but it was so nauseating seeing ALL the freckin’ movie in the trailers for the upcoming films. Seriously, can you stop? Signed, The World. It reminds me of high school, burning through some movie on vhs to pick out the gist of it for a test I would take of it in Lit. They play so many of them. The clips show too much. I’m already disoriented by the volume of sound and quantity of ads they blast while waiting for the film to start, now I have to the unpleasant experience of seeing spoilers to films I was borderline on seeing to begin with.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin