What's the price

Competitive - the main - part of the program of the just completed Cannes 2008 caused conflicting opinions among observers and commentators. There were also those who wrinkled their noses. One of my colleague without hesitation titled his report "Festival of Disappointments", and ahead of schedule - in the very first days, having managed to watch three films by that time, no more. The most common opinion about the program: it was, as they say, strong, but did not contain true revelations. What is the fault, of course, is not Cannes, who is trying to collect the best, but cinema in general. To each, however, his own. Personally, with rare exceptions, the Cannes competition left a very pleasant impression on me.

Two unconditional trends:

1) cinema is being politicized, trying to be relevant in every sense. Not Cannes, I emphasize, is being politicized, like, for example, the Berlin Festival, which has long been playing political games (for Cannes, cinema is in the first place), but art is once again being politicized, as the world is being politicized;

2) searches are going on, and new forms are being found.

Winner of the Palme d'Or. This time it was especially difficult to predict the winner of the festival. Because no one has seen it before. I am sure: everyone who made bets at bookmakers lost. Kann loves intrigue (I emphasize: intrigue is not intrigue), and the situation has developed nowhere better for him.

The winning film, The Class by Laurent Kante, famous in France (the English title is akin to the Russian one - the original one sounds like Entre lesmurs, which, in theory, corresponds to our "Within the Four Walls") - jumped on the bandwagon of the Cannes Express at the last moment. It was shown last on the last competition day and repeated on the day of the announcement of the results, also the last, at 21.15, after the announcement of the jury's verdict, so that the negligent journalists who missed the session the day before had time to grab it before leaving Cannes.

For me, the unconditional triumph of the "Class" is still a question. Subject - yes. You can't think of anything more important. Kante analyzes the problem that is relevant for the whole world: what difficulties do the titular nations face today . The action of the picture, 2 hours and 8 minutes long, almost does not go beyond the walls of a high school class in a troubled suburb of Paris, where there are almost no French, but there are Arabs, Negroes, and Chinese. A similar picture (only the national-racial background is different) in the same Moscow.

These new students are not just bullies. They - more seriously - are in no hurry to consider themselves French. They blackmail the teacher with the fact that he is not politically correct, because he uses names like Bill or John (by the way, not French), but not Arabic, for examples in sentences. But they do not recognize political correctness - for their part - in relation to the French. They do not want to learn French either, imposing a new ugly suburban newspeak on the country. When the teacher tries to teach them literary French, he is told that only old-fashioned faggots speak like that - “Are you a faggot, teacher, too?”

And what to do? Here the meaning of the film is truly reasonable, and, probably, it was reasonableness that bribed the jury. To hysteria that we have fallen into a nightmare, that they, the students, are not people, but animals, as some teachers do in the film, is ridiculous. It is time to understand that there will be no other situation. Nowhere in the world. So, we must not give up and patiently try to find a common language with these guys, just like the hero of the film, the French teacher, does. To do this, you must not lie - neither to them nor to yourself. They are not really animals. (What classmates were in my Krasnodar childhood! And nothing! Both I and the country survived.)

Maybe it's right that Kante was awarded. Confused only by the problem of historical justice. The last high-profile victories of the French in their native Cannes: “The Umbrellas of Cherbourg” by Demy (1964), “Man and Woman” by Lelouch (1966) and “Under the Sun of Satan” Piala (1987). None of the classics of the famous "new wave", who determined the future of cinema, did not receive the "Palme d'Or" - neither Godard, nor Truffaut, nor Chabrol, nor Rivette, nor Romer. And Kante got it. How much did you know about him before? Can you stand two hours for one class?

The film, which caused the most stormy applause of the audience. Clint Eastwood's new film, two weeks before the festival, was called The Changeling, which actually means "A child left behind by elves in exchange for a kidnapped one." But in the final list of winners (and Eastwood, together with Deneuve, as masters of masters, was given a fictitious special prize named after the 61st film festival), he turned into The Exchange - we began to translate it as "Change". Let it be so for now.

The Changeling is probably not Eastwood's best picture. Although this is a big, well-shot, immersed in a certain time (1920-1930s), you can’t say that Hollywood cinema at the same time. The picture is good already because I have not seen such a plot - moreover, it is based on a real story, and there are simply no unknown plots in our postmodern time. In 1927, the heroine Angelina Jolie (everyone scolds her, although Eastwood is praised, and she has a super-difficult role: weep for half the film!) 9-year-old son disappears. A year and a half later, the police find him. But already at a meeting at the station, where the boy shouts: “Mom!”, This mother, losing consciousness from horror, assures: this is not him. As "not him" continues in the following days and she makes a statement to the press, she is declared insane and forced into the "Hitler Rest" variant of the mental hospital.

Only a randomly discovered fact helps the heroine escape from a straitjacket and electric shock: we don’t reveal which one . Eastwood's films are always built on paradoxes. It is difficult to imagine a greater - and most courageous - paradox on the topic "there would be no happiness, but misfortune helped."

The best Eastwood films are remarkable in that in their finale the situation is often turned upside down. There is no such thing here and could not be. After all, the film, in fact, is about the tragedy of a woman who spent the rest of her life in the hope that her son would someday be found.

A movie that has been highly anticipated. It is clear that it was the four-and-a-half-hour "Che Guevara" by a unique director. What is unique? Everyone: Steven Soderbergh, at 45, is the only director on the planet who can be considered both a master of marginal (Sex, Lies and Video), Hollywood (Ocean's Friends), and Oscar-winning movies (Traffic, Erin Brockovich).

Despite his ability to work, Soderbergh is a perfectionist director. In the early days of Cannes, there was a joke that when Che Guevara started showing, Soderbergh would still be editing the finale. One way or another, for the first time in the history of Cannes, a competition film did not have a pre-press screening. Did the director really miss the copy in time? For the first time, the film was shown at once in three halls at the same time (two - for the press and the official tuxedo). I don't know about the tuxedo, but for the first time in the press room they arranged a short break between the two parts of the film. Bags of sandwiches and water were distributed free of charge in the foyer - a gesture in the spirit of the on-screen commander Che, who always cared about people, and not only about comrades in a partisan detachment or party.

In general, the film-Leniniana. Despite its length, the epic neatly bypasses both the Cuban revolution itself and its indigestible consequences for active socialists. There is almost no young Fidel on the screen. Che himself lives in the film for exactly two stages of his life (Cuba in 1957-1959 and Bolivia in 1967), bypassing even that significant moment when his famous photograph was taken, which eventually became a global advertising brand.

The film, which, unfortunately, was not accepted. They didn’t accept Synecdoche, New York by Charlie Kaufman - the same Kaufman who, if anyone else remembers, was considered the most advanced screenwriter in Hollywood in the early 2000s (“Being John Malkovich”, “Adaptation”, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” , "Confessions of a Dangerous Man"). Because without regard to the market, he wrote scripts that later brought Oscars, money and made films fashionable in especially narrow circles.

Now, having finally made his debut as a director, Kaufman made a tragicomedy with a typically branded outlandish title. This is such a middle generation Woody Allen, but with even more cockroaches in his head. The genre of the film is clearly insane, with a mixture of everything and everything. Soon after you start watching, you lose the line between the real hero and his completely crazy double. And there are more and more twins. There are so many directorial notions that should cause an active reaction in the audience (even mocking laughter) in each frame that the audience simply does not have enough strength and attention to react. Even a pity, because the finds are truly good. Gradually, the seemingly bantering film becomes more and more sad. His last word is a tough command to the main character-director (over every director, according to this film and the life it reflects, there is also a higher director). This is the command - "Die!".

The main disappointment is on the brink of scandal. And here to whom pleasure, and to whom sadness. Because in assessing the main nightmare of the competition program, the world press is almost akin. Out of love for Wim Wenders, I'm trying to say that the film "Shooting in Palermo" is not so bad (the newspapers translated during the festival as "Shootout in Palermo", but the translation is incorrect - there is no shootout in the film; besides, the Russian distribution title has already been approved) .

Every classic has the right to make a mistake. Make Wenders just a bad film, albeit with Hollywood stars, albeit on a banal topic - how a photographer, with all his glamorous ambitions, suddenly thought about death - no one would say an extra bad word to him. Even with a strange abundance of product placement on the screen, as if in James Bond films (brands of cameras, cars, even beers). But Wenders finished off everyone by dedicating the film to the memory of Ingmar and Michelangelo, who died last year (as in the credits). As if this particular film of his continues their cinema. Well, why?

FOUR BY FOUR

There were 22 films in total in the competition program. Here are eight more of them. Let me clarify that it was a sin to not look at the new works of such masters as the Chinese Jia Zhangke and the Canadian Atom Egoyan - 24 City and Worship, respectively. In the bustle of Cannes, sometimes you just don’t have time to get to the screening, or they don’t let you in (I came in advance, but there are no more seats). However, both films were not awarded.

MY CINEMA

WALTZ WITH BASHIR by Israeli Ari Folman

Plot. Director Folman, an ex-Israeli army soldier who entered Lebanon in 1982, where there was a civil war, cannot remember what happened then. In particular, why didn't the Israelis prevent the massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila? He turns to fellow soldiers for help, but it turns out that their memory has also supplanted the terrible events.

Pros and cons. In terms of genre, this repentance film is a previously unimaginable documentary animation. Why not the usual documentary? Because many surrealistic, super-expressive and poster-satirical scenes could only be realized with the help of a drawing. In addition, the restored memories are still not the full truth, partly a fiction, a dream. Animation makes it clear

Cannes reaction. Many said: "Brilliant", but "Waltz" was the only favorite film that was left without awards

OUT OF THE GAME (LINHA DE PASSE) by Brazilians Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas

Plot. A picture from the creator of the films “Central Station” (“Golden Bear” Berlinale) and “Che Guevara: Diaries of a Motorcyclist”, which makes you think of “Rocco and His Brothers” and “City of God” (although there are no shots here). The fate of four brothers (their mother gave birth to them from different visiting fellows), trying - in their own way - to get out of the slums of Sao Paulo. Lucky - no luck. No luck - you will slide into the abyss, you will become a criminal or a victim of criminals. The only reliable way out is to become a professional football player. But in Brazil, where everyone knows how to play football, go get

Pros and cons. The picture was shot in an innovative way: many, many characters, the plot rushes from one to another, for a long time you don’t understand who is who, but when you take root in the action, you can’t tear yourself away

Cannes reaction. Best Actress Award - Mother - Sandra Corveloni

GOMORRA by Italian Matteo Garrone

Plot. The fate of several people living in poor neighborhoods controlled by the Camorra - the Neapolitan mafia. Blood, everyday murders, fights for money, clan wars, illegal dumping of toxic waste. Even if someone tries to break out of the circle, he is unlikely to succeed: everyone is doomed to become a criminal or a victim of criminals

Pros and cons. The picture was shot in an innovative way: there are many, many characters, the plot rushes from one to another, for a long time you don’t understand who is who, but when you take root in the action, you can’t tear yourself away. Have you already said this in connection with "Outside the Game"? Right. It seems that this form of plot construction, which allows you to embrace the immensity, is becoming a new artistic trend: in Cannes there are no accidental coincidences and intersections. All similarities in the program are carefully orchestrated by its ideologues

Cannes reaction. Grand Prix - the second most important prize

"GREAT" (IL DIVO) by Italian Paolo Sorrentino

Plot. A film from another fashionable young Italian. A wicked satire on politics and, in particular, the long-term head of the Italian government, Giulio Andreotti

Pros and cons. Opponents of the tape say that it is like the transfer of "Dolls". Hardly. Despite the caricature, theatricality and surrealism of many scenes, the characters are by no means masks, and the plot is built on hard facts. There are often captions-comments on the screen. A film that is unpleasant in all respects for politicians from any country, especially corrupt ones. The point is not only that the politicians in the film are corrupt traitors who do not think about the people at all, only about themselves. The fact is that the whole world of politics is truly alien, parallel, not human - that is, diabolical

Cannes reaction. "Jury Prize", the status of which I personally still do not understand

INTERESTING, BUT NOT COMPLETELY MY

"BLINDNESS" (BLINDNESS) by Brazilian Fernando Meirelles

Plot. The creator of the "City of God" and "The Devoted Gardener" made a picture about another end of the world. This time the cause is a pandemic of blindness. Based on the novel by José Samarago

Pros and cons. The film is rational, coldish, predictable in its philosophy (people were, strictly speaking, blind before). One of the main ideas is how thin the protective layer of civilization is, how quickly people lose their human appearance in a crisis situation. Some banality of meaning is redeemed by a color find: since blindness is atypical, “white”, the sick are immersed not in blackness, but in deadly whiteness. But when the only one who retained her sight descends into an unlit basement, the screen plunges into complete darkness for a long time.

Cannes reaction. Some of the critics shouted accusingly: “Boo!” Some (myself included) think the film leaves a good aftertaste

"CHRISTMAS TALE" (UN CONTE DE NOËL) by the Frenchman Arnaud Desplechin

Plot. Passions in a large intellectual family, which must or must not be resolved on Christmas Eve, when some meet for the first time after a long quarrel. The tragedy of the relationship is superimposed on another, long-standing one that the family has not yet overcome: the death at the age of 7 of the first of the sons, who could only be saved by a donor-relative, but no one approached by medical standards. Now the dying mother of the family, portrayed by Catherine Deneuve, needs such a donor.

Pros and cons. Psychologically verified, wonderfully invented (animated inserts, flashbacks), the picture is puzzling in length - 2 hours 30 minutes

Cannes reaction. Arnaud Desplechin is a favorite of Cannes and French critics. They rated his film above all others and predicted the Palme d'Or for him. But the jury awarded only Deneuve - a specially invented prize of the 61st festival

"THE THREE MONKEYS" (ÜÇ MAYMUN) by Nuri Bilge Ceylana

Plot. Passions in the Turkish family, this time small (he-she-adult son) and, as they say, simple. As you gradually understand, it is based on another, long-standing tragedy that the family has not yet overcome: the death at an early age of the youngest son

Pros and cons. The film is artistically correct. Ceylan, who has a reputation as "Turkish Antonioni and Tarkovsky", does not allow himself to sin in the form of, for example, off-screen music. Music can sound from him either from the TV, or like a cell phone ringing, which characterizes the character. There are many hard scenes, typically Jaylan's. But unlike the characters of his “Seasons” – Turkish intellectuals of the European type – these new simple people are somehow uninteresting to me.

Cannes reaction. Ceylan's previous Cannes prizes (the second Grand Prix for "Alienation" and FIPRESCI for "The Four Seasons") now have an award for best director

"SILENCE OF LORNA" (LE SILENCE DE LORNA) by the Belgians Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne

Plot. An Albanian girl, in order to obtain Belgian citizenship, entered into a fictitious marriage with a local drug addict. He was paid for it. This is a scam of the Albanian mafia. Now a girl, already like a Belgian, must marry for the sake of citizenship and also for money, another foreigner - a Russian. But for this, she should not even get a divorce, which will arouse the suspicion of the authorities, but be widowed

Pros and cons. The films of the Dardennes give the impression of a real peeped life, but always - psychological thrillers. Always built around crime. They always have riddles and omissions. In these senses, Lorna is their signature painting. But the height of generalizations (sorry for the pathos) is still not the same as before

Cannes reaction. Best Screenplay Award - Fourth Cannes Dardenne Award after two Palme d'Or (for Rosetta and The Child) and Best Director Award (for The Son)