fredag 24. mai 2013


Blue Is The Warmest Colour

Dir: Abdellatif Kechiche. France-Belgium-Spain 2013. 179mins
The performances are terrific, all the more so because the film contrives to give the impression that it’s delivering a close approximation of undiluted reality.

Director Abdellatif Kechiche is a past master of expansiveness, known for stretching his running times - notably in L’Esquive and The Secret Of The Grain - to allow his dramas the maximum breathing space. The technique again pays terrific dividends inBlue Is The Warmest Colour (La Vie d’Adèle, Chapitre 1 & 2), his return to the present after the period digression of 2009’s Black Venus. Kechiche hits emotional paydirt with a story spanning several years of the early adult life of a young woman, focusing on a passionate lesbian romance. A coy coming-out drama this most definitely isn’t.

Built around two astonishing lead performances, the film breaks new ground in the uninhibited depiction of lesbian sex. But the bedroom scenes are to be taken in the context of an emotionally and psychologically rich drama that touches more nerves, more satisfyingly, than most realist narrative manages.
The ostensibly daunting length may worry distributors, but audiences will feel that hardly a moment is wasted. Festivals will go wild, but expect mixed responses at LGBT events where such an explicit lesbian film from a male director will surely prove controversial.
The drama, based on Julie Maroh’s graphic novel and set in Lille in Northern France, begins with heroine Adèle aged 15. We first see her in a classroom (echoes of bothL’Esquive and Laurent Cantet’s The Class) where she and her schoolmates are studying Marivaux’s text La Vie de Marianne and mulling over the philosophy of emotions. Adèle embarks on a tentative romance with admirer Thomas (Laheurte), but finds herself distracted by fantasies about Emma (Seydoux), an older girl with blue-dyed hair she’s glimpsed in the street.
The two women later meet when Adèle nervously pays a visit to a gay club, and they spark romantically. This causes one of the few scenes in which lesbianism is itself a cause of conflict, as Adèle’s schoolfriends react with hostility to the thought that she might be gay.
Otherwise, lesbianism quickly becomes an unproblematic given in the film, and in Adèle’s life. She and Emma become passionate lovers, and the film gives us several no-holds-barred sex scenes in which there’s no doubt about the strength of their mutual desire. Adèle moves in with Emma, becoming a muse for her art, while she herself, now an adult, becomes a nursery school, then a primary school teacher. When the relationship founders, Adèle must face life without the woman who’s been so important in helping her become herself.
The film will be most controversial, and perhaps most acclaimed, for the boldness of its sexual context. The love scenes are strikingly fresh in the context of mainstream cinema, not just for their uninhibited intensity, but in the fact that they’re about female pleasure presented in a direct, non-mystificatory way.
While lesbian scenes in French cinema have often been treated voyeuristically or presented as transgressive or quasi-mystical - notably in the films of Jean-Claude Brisseau - Kechiche presents the two women’s rather athletic tussles as intensely tender encounters between two living bodies, photographed in an unintrusive, non-objectifying manner. The two actresses are fearless in evoking physical passion, just as intrepid in the emotional intensity they drum up together.
Adèle’s lesbian identity is largely one unproblematic element in the more fundamentally complex business of her growing up. The film never makes an issue about her reluctance to come out to her parents (Aurélien Recoing, Catherine Salée) while one of the key problems in her relationship with Emma is her feeling of inadequacy around her confident, literate lover’s arty friends.
The performances are terrific, all the more so because the film contrives to give the impression that it’s delivering a close approximation of undiluted reality. Seydoux is known as a versatile performer, but she reaches new levels of sensitivity and intensity in seemingly telepathic rapport with near-newcomer Exarchopoulos, who’s previously worked with Jane Birkin among others.
The latter jumps whole-heartedly into her most significant role yet, exposing herself physically and emotionally, and indeed often both - in some scenes, with tears and snot streaming, but never remotely histrionic. What you get in these performances is intelligence, emotion and physicality, and when they come together as combustively as they do here, what you get is something extremely rare - a film that catches the messy, hot complexity of life and love.
Production companies: Alcatraz Films, Wild Bunch SA, Quat’ Sous Films, Scope Pictures, Vertigo Films, France 2 Cinéma
International sales: Wild Bunch,
Producers: Olivier Thery Lapiney, Laurence Clerc
Screenplay: Abdellatif Kechiche, Ghalya Lacroix, inspired by the comic book by Julie Maroh
Cinematography: Sofian El Fani
Editors: Camille Toubkis, Albertine Lastera, Jean-Marie Lengelle, Ghalya Lacroix
Main cast: Léa Seydoux, Adèle Exarchopoulos, Salim Kechiouche, Jérémie Laheurte, Aurélien Recoing

torsdag 23. mai 2013

CANNES 2013:

The Great Gatsby

Luhrmann’s Gatsbymostly captures the book’s story beats, playing up the period detail without necessarily digging into Fitzgerald’s social commentary.

Dir: Baz Luhrmann. US. 2013. 141mins
Anyone who has seen director Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge or Romeo + Juliet shouldn’t be asking if he would take liberties with an adaptation of The Great Gatsby but, rather, precisely how many liberties he’d take — and if they’d prove successful. The operatic, somewhat cheeky filmmaker latches onto the doomed love story at the heart of author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s literary classic, and his gift for melodramatic theatrics keeps this Jazz Age cautionary tale eye-popping. But because Luhrmann is always thirsting for the next grand gesture — the next emotional crescendo — the book’s subtlety and shading get trampled under his overblown aesthetic.

Releasing in the US on May 10 before serving as the opening night film at this year’s Cannes Film Festival,The Great Gatsby doesn’t lack for star power thanks to Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire and (to a lesser degree) Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton. Audiences’ familiarity with the source material — paired with Luhrmann’s reputation for outlandish, idiosyncratic movies — will certainly drive curiosity. And the fact that it’s been shot in 3D will only help boost receipts for a movie that, for better or worse, looks to be unlike just about anything else this summer: a serious blockbuster drama with big stars and a hip attitude.
Preserving the core plot and characters of Fitzgerald’s slim 1925 novel, this Great Gatsby differs from the book most notably in that aspiring writer Nick Carraway (Maguire) tells the story not to the reader but to a therapist, recounting the summer of 1922 in Long Island when he lived next door to a mysterious, charming millionaire named Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio) whose fortune’s origin is the subject of much debate amongst the New Yorkers who frequent his many fabulous parties.
Carraway admires Gatsby, whom he regards as a fellow self-made man, unlike cousin Daisy Buchanan (Mulligan)’s husband Tom (Edgerton), an arrogant brute who is the heir to a wealthy family and enjoys taking many mistresses. Observing these individuals from the outside, Carraway finds himself drawn into their web when Gatsby has him arrange a surprise meeting with Daisy, with whom he had a passionate but brief love affair five years ago, long before she met and married Tom.
Of Luhrmann’s previous films, The Great Gatsby probably most closely resembles Moulin Rouge with its mixture of flamboyant party scenes and overripe romantic intrigue. Working with several of his frequent collaborators — including cowriter Craig Pearce, production designer and costume designer Catherine Martin, and composer Craig Armstrong — the director has fashioned a striking period piece that emphasises the 1920s’ freewheeling energy and boundless enthusiasm in the wake of an economic boom and World War I’s end, not to mention a strain of rebelliousness in response to Prohibition. As he’s done in the past, Luhrmann isn’t aiming to re-create a period precisely — rather, he wants to make a bustling, comic-book exaggeration that amplifies his audience’s collective impression of a bygone era.
As a result, in the film Gatsby doesn’t simply have lavish soirees at his mansion: They’re filled with impossibly beautiful people all wearing the most incredibly wonderful outfits while anachronistic hip-hop and club music blares through the opulent rooms. It’s but one example in this Great Gatsby of how Luhrmann indulges his exuberance for oversized set pieces and spectacle. (In this regard, the 3D, though hardly essential, does add some visual oomph.) The downside to such an approach is that while it makes for excellent “for your consideration” ads for award season in the technical categories, it doesn’t do much to suggest the small-scale drama going on between the central characters.
The most adversely affected is Carraway. Though the filmmakers have probably wisely decided to avoid wall-to-wall voiceover, which would have honoured Carraway’s first-person narration in the book but might have become tiresome in a movie, The Great Gatsbyessentially takes the character who’s meant to be our surrogate and sticks him on the sidelines. It also doesn’t help that Maguire seems to have been encouraged to play Carraway as a somewhat meek, ineffectual man, losing the book’s sharply wry and melancholy viewpoint in the process.
DiCaprio fares far better as Gatsby, a poignant figure laid low by his desire to acquire enough riches to win back his true love. It’s been 17 years since DiCaprio appeared in Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, but you can see much of the last decade of his career in his portrayal of Gatsby: the thwarted ambition of Howard Hughes from The Aviator, the dark intensity of Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island, and the romantic anguish of Dom Cobb from Inception.
Of late, DiCaprio seems drawn to roles where he plays dashing, confident, worldly men who cannot overcome some fatal flaw that threatens to undo everything they’ve accomplished. His Gatsby is very much cut from the same cloth, and while it’s largely affecting — now well into his thirties, he can better utilise his still-boyish face to wring great pathos — it’s also a touch familiar at this point.
Because this film adaptation homes in on the love story between Gatsby and Daisy, it’s important that both leads suggest the agony of years spent apart from one another. But while Mulligan brings a coquettish spark to Daisy, she fails to convey the complexity of a woman who could bewitch a man so. Consequently, their exchanges come across as somewhat one-sided, but not in a way that seems intentional on Luhrmann’s part. Gatsby yearns for Daisy and has done desperate things to reunite with her, but we never quite understand what is so haunting about her.
The rest of the cast mostly hovers in the background, with Edgerton not given much screen time to make Tom a weighty adversary to Gatsby. Isla Fisher, playing Tom’s mistress Myrtle, is rather disposable, but Elizabeth Debicki captures our fancy as the sassy Jordan Baker, although her role has been greatly diminished from the book, leaving the actress little to do but bat her eyes at Carraway.
Expecting Luhrmann to be deeply faithful to Fitzgerald’s work was always a futile hope. (His irreverent, knowingly over-the-top style practically goads the easily offended to storm of in a huff at the small changes he’s made to the text.) But, in truth, Luhrmann’s Gatsby mostly captures the book’s story beats, playing up the period detail without necessarily digging into Fitzgerald’s social commentary. The director seems less concerned than the author was in depicting this grand tragedy as emblematic of a fleeting moment in American life. Instead, Luhrmann, as he’s done throughout his career, uses the material as a springboard for an unbridled tale about true love.
It’s a testament to Luhrmann’s self-assurance that, despite his movie’s lack of nuance, he still almost manages to make his bold, overbearing vision work on its own terms. However, it is ironic that The Great Gatsby is at its best near the finale when it’s relatively restrained by Luhrmann’s standards, letting the full weight of Fitzgerald’s ending work its magic and illustrate the depth of Gatsby’s folly. Because Luhrmann cares little for the subtle, understated moment, his adaptation often lets the Roaring Twenties roar on nonstop. Showman that he is, he knows how to wrap up his films. Unfortunately, he’s not always as good at building them dramatically.
Production companies: Village Roadshow Pictures, A&E Television, Bazmark, Red Wagon Entertainment
Domestic distribution: Warner Bros. Pictures,
Producers: Baz Luhrmann, Catherine Martin, Douglas Wick, Lucy Fisher, Catherine Knapman
Executive producers: Barrie M. Osborne, Shawn “Jay Z” Carter, Bruce Berman
Screenplay: Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce, based on the novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald
Cinematography: Simon Duggan
Production designer: Catherine Martin
Editors: Matt Villa, Jason Ballantine, Jonathan Redmond
Music: Craig Armstrong
Main Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher, Jason Clarke

CANNES 2013 

All Is Lost

All Is Lost is a fascinating attempt to eschew the conventions of the battle-for-survival genre.

Engrossing both dramatically and as a minimalist narrative exercise, All Is Lost is a survival-at-sea story powered by an emphasis on realism and a refusal to allow any false emotional beats to impede on this unsentimental tale. Starring Robert Redford in a nearly wordless performance that features no one else on screen, this follow-up film from Margin Callfilmmaker J.C. Chandor couldn’t be more different than that razor-sharp, dialogue-driven ensemble piece. Thankfully, his boldness in going another direction pays off rather handsomely.

After premiering at Cannes in the festival’s Out Of Competition section, All Is Lost is expected to be released in the US at the end of October, with an awards push for Redford inevitable. Considering the success of other survival stories such as Cast Away127 Hours and Life Of Pi, there certainly could be an audience for this stripped-down affair, especially if crowds are curious to experience the movie’s spartan production. Internationally, the lack of dialogue could also be helpful, the story so elemental that it transcends language.

Working from his original screenplay, Chandor introduces us to his nameless protagonist (Redford) who wakes up in his sailboat in the middle of the ocean to discover that it’s been hit by a stray freight container, water seeping in quickly. He’s able to keep the boat from sinking, but the water does enough damage to the radio and other electrical equipment that he needs to figure out a way to get help, especially since a ferocious storm is heading directly for him.
Among its other attributes, All Is Lost is a fascinating attempt to eschew the conventions of the battle-for-survival genre. Ordinarily, a tale about a lone man fighting for his life in the middle of nature requires the filmmaker to create a backstory (either in the film’s introduction or with flashbacks throughout) that flesh out the character so as to create a rooting interest. Along the same lines, the character’s life-or-death ordeal is usually meant to be a poetic metaphor for a personal issue that has been an obstacle to his emotional growth. The character isn’t just trying to stay alive — he’s learning a lesson about himself.
Quite successfully, Chandor removes all these tropes — as well as the need for the character to verbalise what he’s doing or how he’s feeling — to present a pure survival story. We learn almost nothing about Redford’s character, and the actor’s performance concentrates on the physical business of repairing the boat and braving the next storm that comes his way. There’s no inner life to the man, but All Is Lost forcefully argues that such character details are irrelevant in the midst of such a frightening situation. Plus, it leaves the audience to speculate tantalisingly about who this man was before we met him.
Wisely, Chandor has made the character a smart, resourceful outdoorsman. Staying calm during the escalating dangers, the man knows his boat and its supplies thoroughly, and part of the movie’s allure is in seeing how he uses what he has on hand to fix a hole or produce fresh water. The one intriguing comparison toMargin Call is that, like that talky film, Chandor doesn’t worry about making every little moment aboard the boat understandable.
In Margin Call, Chandor filled the dialogue with byzantine financial jargon that the audience slowly began to understand by noticing the characters’ reactions. Similarly, All Is Lost may occasionally be confusing for those who aren’t nautically-inclined, but Chandor has faith in the viewer that Redford’s confident, intuitive performance will provide enough information for why his character is doing certain things to keep his leaky, damaged boat afloat.
In adherence to his movie’s lean style, Chandor and his cinematographer Frank G. DeMarco (as well as his underwater director of photography Peter Zuccarini) giveAll Is Lost a gorgeous look without allowing the character’s struggle to turn picturesque. Chandor’s shot selection avoids showiness, but editor Pete Beaudreau cuts around just enough so that the film never becomes too static. Admittedly, some of the mediocre effects shots betray All Is Lost’s relatively small budget, a greater disappointment because of the realism that’s achieved elsewhere. But even if the film’s trajectory ultimately doesn’t differ that much from other survival stories’, Chandor’s commitment to his approach helps make it stand out among its peers.
Production companies: Black Bear Pictures, Treehouse Pictures, FilmNation Entertainment, Sudden Storm Entertainment, Before The Door, Washington Square Films
International sales: FilmNation,
US distribution: Lionsgate,, and Roadside Attractions,
Producers: Neal Dodson, Anna Gerb, Justin Nappi, Teddy Schwarzman
Executive producers: Cassian Elwes, Laura Rister, Glen Basner, Joshua Blum, Zachary Quinto, Corey Moosa, Howard Cohen, Eric D’Arbeloff, Robert Ogden Barnum, Kevin Turen
Cinematography: Frank G. DeMarco
Production designer: John P. Goldsmith
Editor: Pete Beaudreau
Music: Alex Ebert
Main cast: Robert Redford

torsdag 27. mai 2010

CANNES 2010:

Grand Prize goes to Xavier Beauvois’ Of Gods And Men; Amalric wins directing prize for On Tour.

In something of a surprise, Apichatpong Weerasethakul’sUncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives has won the Palme d’Or. Tim Burton’s jury awarded the Thai film with its top honour on Sunday evening in Cannes as the festival wrapped. The film sees a man revisit his past as he faces imminent death.

The Grand Prize went to Xavier Beauvois’ Of Gods And Men which had been expected to take home a top award. The Jury Prize went to Mahamat-Saleh Haroun’sA Screaming Man (Un Homme Qui Cri). The film is set in modern-day Chad where a man is constantly harassed to contribute to the so-called war effort.

Frenchman Mathieu Amalric took the directing prize forOn Tour (Tournee), his look at a burlesque troupe traveling through France. Screenplay honors went to Lee Chang Dong for Poetry.

In one of the most emotional moments of the evening, Juliette Binoche won the best actress award for Abbas Kiarostami’s Certified Copy. Binoche paid tribute to Jafar Panahi, the Iranian director who had been asked to be on the jury but is currently under arrest in Iran.

In a tie, Javier Bardem and Elio Germano won the best actor prizes. Bardem took his award for Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s Biutifulwhile Germano won for Daniele Luchetti’s La Nostra Vita.

The Camera d’Or – given to a first time feature filmmaker – went to Michael Rowe for Leap Year (Ano Bisiesto).

The short film to win the Palme d’Or was Chienne D’Histoire by Serge Avedikian. The Jury Prize for a short went to Micky Bader by Frida Kempff.

One of the best-reviewed films of the festival, Mike Leigh’s Another Year, went prizeless.

mandag 25. mai 2009

Cannes 2009: Prix Exceptionelle og beste kortfilm

Alain Resnais og Joa Salvasia

Wild Grass
-regissør Alain Resnais kom opp på scenen for å motta «the Exceptional Prize of the Cannes Film Festival.» Den 87-årige veteranen var med i konkurransen for sjette gang med WildGrass.
Til slutt ble prisen for beste kortfilm gitt til Portugals Joao Salaviza for Arena. Spesiell heder gikk også til The $6.50 Man av Mark Albiston og Louis Sutherland.
Med dette var verdens største mediabegivenhet, Cannes-festivalen 2009, over for denne gang.

Cannes 2009: CAMERA D’OR

Australias Sanson & Delilah

Til ære for en førstegangsfilm, ble Camera d’Or gitt til Australias Warwick Thornton for Samson & Delilah. Filmen konkurrerte i Un Certain Regard. I samme Camera d’Or-anledning fremhevet juryen Scandar Copti og Yaron Shani’s Ajami som hadde deltatt i konkurransen Directors’ Fortnight.

Cannes 2009: Juryens Grand Prize

Juryens pris ble delt mellom to filmer, Andrea Arnolds Fish Tank and Park Chan Wooks Thirst. Arnold har nå vunnet den gjeve prisen to ganger, sist for sin første film Red Road i 2006. Park’s Old Boy tok Grand Prize i 2004.

Cannes 2009: Regisørprisen og manusprisen

Prisen for beste regisør gikk til Brillante Mendoza for Kinatay. Den fillipiske regisøren var ifjor i Cannes med sin Serbis. Prisen for beste filmmanus ble gitt til kineseren Mei Feng for Lou Ye’s Spring Fever. Ye mottok prisen på vegne av sin manusforfatter.


Charlotte Gainsbourg, Antichrist

Beste skuespillerinne-prisen gikk til Charlotte Gainsbourg for Lars Von Trier’s kontroversielle Antichrist. Skuespillerinnen, som kommer fra en kreativt dynasti i Frankrike, takket sin mor Jane Birkin og sin avdøde far, Serge Gainsbourg.


Christoph Waltz,
Inglourious Basterds

Beste skuespiller-prisen gikk til Christoph Waltz for hans portrett av oberst Hans Landa in Quentin Tarantinos Inglourious Basterds. Den overveldede Waltz takket sin regissør og sa «Du har gitt meg mitt kall (som skuespiller) tilbake!» I samsvar med sin rollefigurs lingvistiske dyktighet, blandet Waltz fransk, tysk og engelsk inn i talen sin.


Jacques Audiards A Prophet
vant Grand Jury Prize, men fikk ikke andre priser til tross for at hovedrolleinnehaver Tahar Rahim var tippet som mottaker av Beste skuespiller.

Cannes 2009: PALME D’OR

Gullpalmen til Michael Hanekes
The White Ribbon.

Regissøren mottok den ettertraktede utmerkelsen – hans tredje hovedpremie på festivalen fra juryens president Isabelle Huppert, som spilte i hans 2001 prisvinner La Pianiste. Det hvite båndet forteller historien om livet i en liten tysk landsby som utsettes for mange tragedier og merkelige hendelser mend Den første verdenskrig nærmer seg.
Haneke kommenterte seieren med følgende uttalelse til sin kone: «Jeg kan si at i dette øyeblikk er jeg virkelig lykkelig.»


Arthouse sikret seg Gullpalmevinneren
Det hvite båndet

Dir: Michael Haneke. 2009. Tyskl./Østerr./Frankr./Italia. 45 min.

Når han er i toppform, er Michael Hanekes kunstneriske dyktighet og ufeilbarlige kontroll over sitt materiale vanskelig å overgå. Og det er åpenbart at han er i toppform i Det hvite båndet, en nøye konstruert og tilpasset vev av onsdskap og intriger i en nordtysk landsby fra tiden før 1. verdenskrig. Det er et rikt detaljert filmverk, fylt av illevarslende undertoner om onde gjerninger – nettopp de tingene Hanekes filmer er kjent for. Det hvite båndet vil ikke skuffe hans fans som har ventet på ferskt materiale etter hans eksperimentelle gjeninnspilling av den amerikanske Funny Games.

Arthouse kjøpte de norske rettighetene allerede midtveis i Cannes-festivalen og antydet da at Det hvite båndet hadde potensiale til å vinne Gullpalmen. Det er ikke den mest lettselgelige filmen – den er nesten to og en halv time lang, tatt opp i sort/hvitt og har en overflod av gemene figurer, men Hanekes navn, størrelsen på verket, og en ukarakteristisk varm hovedperson, for ikke å forglemme det faktum at filmen helt fra begynnelsen av er en ekte krimi-gåte med all den uhygge og spenning som hører med til denne genren. Og sist, men ikke minst: det faktum at den vant Palme d’Or!

Filmen fungerer på flere nivåer – som en historie om skinnhellige voksne og deres ubalanserte barn, et bilde av livet i et patriarkalsk samfunn og et samtidsbilde av hvordan det 20. århundrets Tyskland ble skapt.

Handlingen i Det hvite båndet er lagt til de to årene 1913 - 1914 i et strengt protestantisk bondesamfunn i Nord-Tyskland. Historien er fortalt gjennom ordene til en gammel mann, som ser tilbake på sine år som landsbyskolens lærer. Handlingen begynner med en mystisk ulykke når landsbylegen faller av hesten og brekker kravebenet. Det virker som hesten snublet i en tråd som var blitt festet ved porten til huset hans.

Grusomhet og urettferdighet går hånd i hanske i Hanekes landsby, fra husmannsbøndene som er avhengige av baronens gode vilje til mannfolkenes behandling av barna og kvinnene.

Men alt er ikke så rett frem som det kan synes. Muligheten for at barna selv er blitt uhyrer bærer grøssende, underforstående varsel om de hendelser som kommer til å skje i Tyskland over de neste tredve årene.

Christian Friedel
Burghart Klaussner
Maria-Victoria Dragus
Leonard Praxouf

fredag 22. mai 2009

Cannes 2009: ANTICHRIST


Dir/scr Lars von Trier. Danmark. 2009. 104 min.

Veteran-provocatør Lars von Trier må ha følt seg tatt for gitt, for han gjør hva som helst for å få vår oppmerksomhet i sin barokke skrekkfilm Antichrist. Filmen kan beskrives som sjokkartet på mer enn én måte, og ble møtt både med latter og buing da den ble vist i konkurranse i Cannes. Dette bisarre, stadig mer hysteriske melodrama for to (Willem Dafoe og Charlotte Gainsbourg) er tilsynelatende von Triers første forsøk på horror-genren, mens hans nikk til det konvensjonelle virker i realiteten som et forsøk på å utvide krigen mellom kjønnene enda lenger enn selv hans store forbilde og inspirator Strindberg noen gang gjorde.

Noen av von Trier fans vil ønske velkommen hans retur til utbroderende visuell oppfinnsomhet som han ga på båten da han grunnla Dogme. Men i den vide verden vil nok Antichrist oppfattes som for ujevn og grov for arthouse-publikummet, mens horrorfans – uansett hvor dyktig filmens innsalg vil bli - kommer til å avsky filmen, på samme måte som de gjorde med Michael Haneke’s US Funny Games gjeninnspilling.


TrustNordisk har solgt Antichrist til tross for blandede kritikker

Bare noen dager etter den stormfulle visningen av Lars Von Triers Antichrist, en film som har sådd fiendtlig splid blant kritikerne under årets Cannes Film Festival, er to hovedsalg av filmen gjennomført.

TrustNordisk har funnet en britisk kjøper med muskler i distributøren Artificial Eye. Filmen er også solgt til USA gjennom IFC, som har kjøpt opp en drøss av titlene i Cannes’ festivalkonkurranse.

Tidligere denne uken (uke 21) uttrykte flere distributører motvilje mot å vise filmen i den versjon som ble vist i Cannes, der nærbilder av kjønnsorganer som mutileres, ejakulasjon av blod så vel som sex-penetrasjon inngår.

Imidlertid har Von Trier allerede forberedt en «pyntelig, katolsk versjon» der de fire mest ekstreme sekvensene er utelatt. Versjonen vis i Cannes var den «uskikkelige, protestantiske versjonen».

En opprømt Peter Aalbæk Jensen, viseadministrerende i Zentropa, som produserte filmen, sa på en pressekonferanse i Cannes at distributørene som har kjøpt filmen, kan vise den versjonen de måtte ønske .

Aalbæk Jensen sa at TrustNordisk hadde fått betalt en av de høyeste prisene de hadde oppnådd i de seneste årene for Antichrist i Storbritannia.

Han avslørte også hvordan Von Trier hadde endret filmmanuset for Antichrist etter at Aalbæk Jensen kom i skade for å avsløre hvordan filmen slutter til journalister.. Han la til at: «elementet med en kvinne som Satan, var ikke del av den første filmen, Satan var naturen. Egentlig synes jeg vi har fått en meget bedre film fordi jeg avslørte slutten... selv om Lars straffet meg ved å lage Manderlay.»


President Bill Clinton, Sharon Stone, Annie Lennox og Harvey Weinstein stilte opp for amfAR i Cannes for å samle inn penger til AIDS-forskning

Hva er amfAR? video
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, er en av verdens ledende nonprofit organisasjoner hvis formål er å fremme forskning på AIDS, å hindre spredning av HIV, behandlingsutdannelse og lobbyvirksomhet for en sunn AIDS-politikk. Siden 1985 har amfAR investert nesten $290 millioner i sitt program og har delt ut stipender til mer enn 2000 forskerteams verden rundt.