Hey folks, Harry here with L’Homme du Kamino chiming in from Cannes with a damn good selection of titles that he sampled. His review of Polanski's THE PIANIST literally has me drooling to see the film. I mean, this sounds so so soooo so good. L'Homme says that it is Polanski's best film period and that at the least it is his best since CHINATOWN! This is triumphantly wonderful news! Here ya go...

Bonjour Harry,

I know you are a champion of the first-amendment, but i’ll understand if you decide to trim the following reviews to a more “acceptable” length.

So it was cannes then? i didn’t get there until tuesday of week 2, so i haven’t seen “punch-drunk love” or “bowling for columbine” (both won prizes). i also missed “divine intervention” and “the man without a past”, although i really couldn’t care less about the latter despite its grand jury prize.

i have been fortunate enough to see two outstanding films. one won the palme d’or, the other, best director so i’m happy (even though i had been to cannes two years ago and saw two unrivaled masterpieces: requiem for a dream and crouching tiger, both out of competition).

i won’t bother criticising the unbearable level of narcissism / vanity that is so palpable at cannes, it’s borderline suffocating. nay, as a good film geek, i went for the films, glitter being such an ephemeral thing by nature.

so onto the reviews. bear in mind that i don’t like to expand on films i don’t like or that i don’t understand. so the longer the review, the better the film in my humble view. however, i acknowledge no film can be a perfect fit for all spectators, especially in “auteur” cinema. so these are simply my opinions on the films i saw. i decided to wait a couple of days for them to sink into me, which is actually rather indispensable when you’re faced with such idiosyncratic films as those presented in cannes.

SPIDER

dir David Cronenberg; starring Ralph Fiennes, Miranda Richardson, Gabriel Byrne, John Neville

Wanna see Baron Munchhausen play a seriously debilitated patient?

Wanna see what Cronenberg can still do without special effects? without beetles talking through their anuses, without junkie gynecologists, cannibal tv sets,

Wanna see Ralph Fiennes disappear into character?

well, SPIDER is a mixed bunch for me. I’m a Cronenberg afficionado (since i turned uhm... twelve, which is admittedly unhealthy) and i was at first disappointed. major problems: weak plot (as in predictable) and the turgid pace (so slow it’s sometimes inert). however, once i let the movie become memory, i found it felt richer than i had originally reckoned.

i hate spoilers, so i’ll keep the storyline to a minimum (although SPIDER’s plot is bare enough). Fiennes plays the title character, a thirty-something schizophrenic who is let out of the asylum only to be placed in a specialized institute that is run by the stern Mrs Wilkinson (Lynn Redgrave). Supposedly, this institute is meant to gradually reintegrate him into society. However, it becomes very rapidly clear Spider is too alienated to be let out. the movie follows the recollections of his childhood, inspired by the location of the institute, that coincides with the tragic/traumatic beginning of his psychosis. His mind goes back in time and we see his childhood unravel before his present-day “ghost” (physically onscreen but . And as he studies more deeply his memories, the web of his origins unravels and reveals what he has been hiding (aka the reason for his breakdown) comes to (bleak) light.

All of the actors turn in mesmerizing performances. Fiennes is so deeply in Spider’s skin that i forgot it was him, one of the most brilliant actors alive, that was onscreen. That’s how convincing he is. I would say he’s like those perfect special effects that you don’t even spot. He’s like the storm in a perfect storm, like the real hobbits that peopled FOTR, like teddy in AI: so good, he’s invisible. I just hope he hasn’t really lost his mind. Did I mention he barely speaks in this film? Whatever, it’s such a good performance no one will notice it.

Miranda Richardson plays no less than three parts, all three equally effective. She would have stolen every scene if she didn’t play them with Gabriel Byrne. Oh shit, Gabriel Byrne... Forget the Usual Suspects, forget Miller’s Crossing. Sure, he was excellent in these roles, unimaginably good. Forget them, though. Because Gabriel Byrne is a monster. Not the obvious monster, not Gary Oldman in Dracula, not the John Doe of se7en, not even the monster . He’s the Fargo-type monster, the monster next door (if you’re British). He delivers a truly terrorizing performance that is fully balanced in its disequilibrium.

So perfect acting, great sets, superb cinematography... what the hell is wrong with this picture then? The script. It’s just not up to level. Whether it’s the pace or the themes, it’s too little for its participants. You can take it as an effort in minimalism, I find it lacking inspiration. So, despite its clinical exactitude, Spider is a weird web of contradictions. If you love Cronenberg, expect the unexpected from him (which is to say, expect not find anything really unexpected or intense).

RUSSIAN ARK

dir Alexei Sokourov

A single steadicam shot for 92 minutes, gliding across the rooms and the centuries of the Ermitage Palace in Saint Petersbourg? The result is visually and technically as astonishing as the dialogues are pretentious and the characters uninvolving. This reminds me of the Blue in the Face non-sequiturs (despite a visual coherence) without the wit or the grace. Russian Ark is desperately torn between its shallow and pedantic approach of themes that are approached too vastly to mean anything and the instant

A superficial exercice mascarading as a deep reflexion.

ABOUT SCHMIDT

dir Alexander Payne, starring Jack Nicholson, Kathy Bates, Hope Davis, Dermot Mulroney

I confirm this might be Jack’s best role yet. First off, he carries the movie on his shoulders. Secondly, he’s never been seen in this light, not even in the Sean Penn films. This is as nuanced as it gets. This is were you remember that before becoming a star playing himself most of the time, Jack Nicholson is a great actor, in a technical/ magical way. The guy in five easy pieces, the last detail or one flew over the cuckoo’s nest. Oh, and folks, he has grown old. But he’s too damn noble to hide it. And you know what? He doesn’t need to because this film is about getting old, retirement old. And not very many films deal with such portrayals, which makes this film kind of grou nd-breaking in its own sort of discrete way. And which is what makes his performance truly arresting: this isn’t a crumbling actor in his last role. This is still a star shining brightly, but perhaps ready to take risks again for the roles he has yet to play.

And as a fan of Election, I think it’s safe to say Alexander Payne not only confirms his emergence as an immensely original, innovative and witty director but he goes beyond what was to be expected of him. His craft is as subtle as Nicholson. He is as sensitive as he was irreverent in Election. Which doesn’t mean he’s lost his irony, far from it. It’s just that the little gems of irony in this picture are less emphasized than in Election and possibly, that makes them more provocative.

Maybe it’s the Midwest settings, but this reminded me of the Coen brothers. Only the Coen brothers rarely go for touching storylines. And About Schmidt is as quirky as it is moving. I swear the ending almost moved me to tears and that’s pretty rare for me. No cheese here, it’s just toast-perfect. No corniness here, a couple of moments i liked aside, just... reality seen from a very unusual filter, a very rich yet very austere filter. A very weird yet immediately recognizable gentleman. I don’t know if this will be a crowd-pleaser, it’s far out of the norm. But given the level of the film, maybe the norm should adapt itself.

THE PIANIST

dir Roman Polanski starring Adrien Brody, Emilia Fox, Thomas Kretschman

This film felt like the ideal companion to Schindler’s list. Indeed, it depicts the same events from a totally different perspective: that of a single victim, a Jewish pianist who miraculously survives in Warsaw throughout the Second World War. If Schindler’s List was an ensemble shot, The Pianist is a subjective camera.

A lot of critics said the film was academic. I think that’s totally wrong. For one, the film doesn’t have a voice-over and its main character is a man condemned to silence. He has lived through the most atrocious moments but his pain, as well as his passion, must be kept secret or else he will die. Secondly, it’s still very reminescent of older, original Polanskis, such as the lodger or Chinatown. Thridly, the fact that its plot is linear doesn’t mean it’s structured. The film’s structure feels like it’s been shell-shocked like its hero. Finally, this is an adaptation of an autobiography and as such, you would never expect such a visual rendition. It’s as though everything were action because the events are so monstrous they defy analysis.

Adrien Brody is in virtually all of the frames but he delivers a mostly physical perfomance since his character isn’t allowed to say much. It’s one of those performances. Those who weren’t impressed by his charisma in Summer of Sam or Bread and Roses will have no choice but to fold here. This is a DeNiro-great performance, this is a Keitel-great perfomance, this is a Norton-has-competition great perfomance. Except it’s almost a silent part. His movements and his eyes deliver thousands of words and emotions but his lips barely move. It’s like watching the world’s most charismatic magician. I can’t begin to say how towering and emotional he is. This kid is too young to be so commanding but... magic happens in the gravest instances.

you can only thank the movie gods for pairing him with polanski.

Because this is pure Polanski, despite what you might have read elsewhere. This is beyond desperation, beyond biography. This is a heart-breaking story within heart-deadening history. If some movies can make you dream, others can haunt you, in the most essential way. This was the most important film in cannes this year, not only because of its subject-matter so many have misused. This is one that deserves to become film history. Polanski lived the same events in the same place from age 5 to the end of the war. So this film is also partially autobiographical for him. But never does he fall for sentimentality. His depiction is utterly real, uncensored and brutal. It’s also extremely masterful. You can tell he’s invested himself totally in the making of this film. This is easily his best since Chinatown. For me, it’s his best, period.

Forget the 9th gate, Roman Polanski is reborn at nearly 70.

Chiwaseon (Drunk on Women and Painting)

dir Im Kon-Thep

Okay, it’s a Korean film about a Korean painter of the 19th century. It’s two hours long. But, wouldn’t you know it, it’s a masterpiece. I don’t agree with the review I read here in the sense that this film is first and foremost an analysis of what artistic representation is all about. The biopic is a pretext for this analysis.

Indeed, the life of the artist is far less prominent than his quest to redefine his art. This quest is the obsession that runs through the whole film, the events he goes through, personal and political, the people he meets, are only episodes surrounding this obsession. Which is what makes the film so great.

For this is the reflexion of a master film-maker on his own art, through the lens of this immense character that is Oh-won. I don’t think any artist can distance himself from the reflexions of this protagonist as they touch on what it is to reinterpretate reality. Along with this obsession, there is the place of vice in an artist’s growth. As Oh-won cries when he is locked to paint in the royal academy, a monastery-like setting: “There’s no alcohol! There are no women... I can’t paint if I don’t have a hard-on!”

Aside from these deep thoughts, I whole-heartedly agree with the reviewer who noted the exceptional intensity of the main actor. But the film is also very briskly paced, almost as though the scenes were too rapidly cut (an impression one doesn’t often feel in cannes, where films are... uhm... contemplatively slow), but it’s to an arresting effect. The cinematography is truly a work of art, especially in exterior locations, where sumptious landscapes are followed by close-ups of gorgeous details (flowers, animals)... clearly emphasizing the importance of nature in oriental art. Some of these shots are so breath-takingly beautiful you can only wonder how they had the time to get them so perfectly.

I need to see this one again because it is so dense it demands repeat viewings. And please, don’t think it will bore you if it comes out Stateside, this is a great film on art, on painting as much as on filming.

Well, that’s about all for me. You can call me L’Homme de Kamino. Hope you get to see these films ASAP if you’re expecting them. Apologies for syntax/ spelling errors, yo soy frances.

Peace, love and film-going.

L’Homme du Kamino