Cannes' Dirt

review of Jeff Nichols' MUD movie premièred in Cannes Official competition and the Cannes Film Festival itself. By Daniel Szollosi

It happened to me that I have been dropped down in the world's most prestigious film event: the legendary Cannes Film Festival. And a badge was hanging around my neck. My knowledge was shallow about this event. I heard it about once a year in our national news if by chance I was home by seven o'clock consuming my dinner while my parents were in front of the television. So I knew about the red carpet, celebrities, etc. My badge felt very fancy for my in the first instance until I discovered that bronze, silver, gold and 'diamond' badges are out there – I had to settle with my solid uncoloured blackish one. All my friends were giving me previously super round eyed 'Cannes???!!!' screams but what I actually experienced is to be tiniest fish in the crowd of the badge owners. Hierarchy at its best. So what I had is my naiveté: if this is the world greatest film festival my optimistic me says 'all right, then there must be a certain great value in it!' And indeed, Cannes is a two faced festival: under the cover certain side competitions have great movies to provide, but the Official Competition forms the face of the festival: A great amount of Hollywood mixed with Las Vegas. There you have it.

So long story short: even with a badge it is almost impossible to get into screenings. You have to work really hard for it. Sometimes you succeed. I mean to get into a screening – it does not necessarily mean you will see a good movie. Here is one of them.

The pre–jury who are responsible for the selection sticks to traditions. If someone already have been previously in competition, they prefer to put him on selection again – do not bother what have worked smoothly. So this is how Nichols' new film made it again into competition. With his previous successful film 'Take shelter' he gained so much respect, that now officially he can do no matter what it will be brilliant. I watched Mud's second screening. Thank God I was not present at the première... I can not imagine how would have I survived without leaving right after the 'la fin' and feel obligated to clap like a clown. Actually the audience could not stand clapping for every company logo appeared on the screen as the prologue of the movie on this screening I was attending. And obviously: those hundreds of people were not part of the crew – I would accept if it would have been a crew screening so every company's little bunch give a clap for fun for their team. So they just keep clapping and clapping, laughing and enjoying the pre–intro of the film. But what do they clap for? Do they clap for celebrating the glorious term 'cinema' or they celebrating themselves: 'OMG, we made it, we are sitting in a screening of Cannes! OMG' Screamed the teenage girl with a easily recognizable French accent. The same applies for the wealthier participants of the festival. All right, outside around the harbour there are thousands of yachts and may a few of them belong to some of the leaders of the industry but the rest must be there because they have a yacht even though they don't belong to the film industry but they do want to show off of course: that is what a yacht is for! Then the serious, aged film critics: 'SHHHHHHHH!!!!!! SILENCE!'

So eventually we could begin watching the movie in perfect conditions: silence with not more than 2600 breathing souls around me in the darkness. They say a good edit makes impossible to the viewer to count the edits. Well, somehow it did make me counting. So I could think about a little conspiracy: is it on purpose? maybe a conceptual 'edit counting' art piece? But let me start by give you an outline of the movie. 'Two teenage boys encounter a fugitive and form a pact to help him evade the bounty hunters on his trailer and to reunite him with his true love.' – the official plot. But the storyline could be irrelevant because I personally believe there is something called magic in cinema meaning that the story is just one segment of the value it can carry. Even a good movies' plot may sounds uninteresting – the movie itself can has value. I can be manipulated and convinced: Nolan made an excellent job with the Batman series (but let's just not compare a mastermind to Nichols).

The main character Mud who killed his girlfriend's lover now must hiding on a non–urban mysterious island (smells like cliché?). The boys found his shelter which is a little boat up in sky hold by the branches of a tree. They decide to help this mysterious knight, a true romantic lover who's desire is to get together again with his ex–girlfriend. They become his messengers, the proxy between urban and uncivilized worlds. The story is presented through the eyes of Ellis who matures from an innocent boy to a little man, discovers pure love.

Why this movie did not take my on this journey to Arkansas rough red-neck story? Maybe its predictability ruined it. It exposes honestly the story in the intro of the film just as it is written in the Holy Book of scriptwriting: so didactic to make sure nobody miss anything: a close–up of a bunch of snakes in a hole the two boys passing by even highlighted with a short dialogue 'they are deadly!'. And Nichols never miss a chance to repeat – if he has something to say. The guys are in a hurry, always. So when Neckbone's watch is giving an alarm and then he shouts 'shit!' of course Ellis has to add: 'Oh, we gotta go!' I wonder Jeff might stood up during the première turned around and shouted in front of the audience: 'DO YOU GET IT, OR SHALL WE REWIND?! THEY ARE TWO TEENAGE BOYS THEY WENT SOMEWHERE THEY SHOULD NOT GONE TO! YOU KNOW THAT IS WHAT TEENAGE BOYS DO – THEY GO BEYOND THE LIMITS AND NOW THEY GOTTA HURRY BACK HOME!' Of course the old white haired red-neck who refuses in the beginning to help the boys gives the golden shot from nowhere in the end as a solution of the fight of the fight. For me Jeff spoiled even what I knew will happen. It was predictable when Mud visits the boy for the last time to say goodbye the 'bandits' will try to catch him. But even for the ones who did not feel that coming, before the fight starts he inserts a single clip framing the bandits hiding in the bushes. (and stands up during the premier turns around and shouts: SO SEE, THE EPIC FIGHT IS COMING!)

Back to the Holy Book of scriptwriting: what is the fundamental term that moves every character , that every character must have? Do not forget what have been thought to you, Jeff! If you are about to write a scenario you have to wisely choose what is the motivation of your characters will be! Allright, allright...let's see...Mud, he is a mysterious killer. So he must have a tool to kill, right? Pistol. So not to hassle with this too much stick to the clichés. A pistol is a great, ancient traditional film prop, so let's make this also the motivation to Ellis's friend, Neckbone! Two flies with the same slap. Or let me take a look on the blonde tough country 'barbie' character, the desire of every man (in the movie) acted by Reese Witherspoon. She is lack of motivation – she is herself the motivation. She is physically rounded but mentally flat. Still, she is the only character felt realistic, believable in the whole piece. The fundamental mistake a director can commit to his actress is to give her a role that is under to her real mental capacities – in other words to act a dumb. Most of the actors fail to act a dumb if they are not dumb themselves. They can not do it! Especially not on film when a close up shows their eyes on a forty multiplied twenty square meter screen! Their eyes reveals the actress real IQ points but again I am too naive to believe that someone with that low IQ points like Reese can be in the height of the stars and celebrated. So the bottom line is actually Nichols is not that dumb: he managed to avoid to run into the fundamental mistake a director can make! Nope, he did choose the right actress to his character! That is what we could learn from the press conference. Journalist: Why did you choose to finish your story with love in its focal point with a happy ending? Nichols: I believe in love and I am happily married, I have children. (?!) And the missing finish line is: World peace! Isn't it?

All the critics wrote excellent reviews of this commerce movie. And indeed I may enjoy it as a Monday 10pm movie on some commercial channel as a B movie.

The other face of the festival includes the French Leos Carax who stands for the other side and keep the balance. He makes a single film every dozen of years and gives Denis Lavant – a living hunchback of Notre Dame – the main role. This time also Kyle Minogue features in Holy Motors – might be a reason to put it in the main competition. This is the Red Carpet festival.

I saw a short film embedded in a feature sketch movie 7 days in Havana. It told the story of a film festival from the point of view of a celebrated director played by truly celebrated director, Emir Kusturica. The point of this piece is to express the contradiction, the ambivalence of an event like a film festival itself. Everybody is so excited about it except the film director himself. He is having a conlict with his wife and this journey is right in the middle of it. He does not care at all about this event. A director like Emir Kusturica has a thirst for real life experiences (as Richard Florida defines the desires of the creative mind) and rather wear a borrowed toxido he would feel more pleasant in a dirty tank top and flip–flops, drink some spirits followed with beers and cigarettes and listen to his drivers trombone solo in a smoky underground jazz bar. All right, he appears on stage after throwing up behind the screen, receives the award but only because he is obligated to do so. But I am sure Nichols and Kusturica just does not match just like the two face of the festival. The critics were so good they even expected to be the winner. Praise the Lord they gave the Palm to Haneke.

I imagined 2600 film experts and veterans coming together to experience a movie never seen before – that was not the case at all what so ever. I admit: I am naive and I have been trained and experienced in smaller scale film festivals like the National Hungarian film week or Titanic film festival, Budapest. These smaller scale festivals you run into also a great amount of crap. But in a sense that they have no readable message, they have something irregular. They are unique pieces of crap. But Nicols' is artificial, it is full of with 'E' component actually you can spot these component and smell them one by one and he did not even tried to hide it! He put them all together in a bowl and the master piece is ready! You could ask – maybe you should mix them together before put it on the table...?

Another performance nicely resonates with the Cannes Phenomena as a whole: Sacha Baron Cohen appeared in Cannes as his new character, The Dictator. He took a tour around the center of the city on the back of his camel, Osama. When he reached the shore with all the stores such as Bvlgari, Chanel he chose wisely walked into Ralph Lauren store and bought a nice scarf – for his camel. I am pretty sure he had the idea to use it as toilet paper. The receipt of Cannes is a great amount of films made with strict guidelines and some unique more artistic experimental innovative pieces. The first half has to attract the grand public: the baits are the celebrities. The celebrities took the social role of the royalties from previous times. They are the desire of the public the are sacred: everybody wants to get close to them. So I have been betrayed by my expectations. Why did I expect any kind of innovation from these movies meant to watch by the grand-grand public? They have no hunger for innovation: they hunger the blonde country barbie – which I find obviously fusty and boring. I expected something dramatic in terms of innovation: but as these film pieces form part of the mainstream media they are week in such term. And it is not by accident that the world most famous advertising festival takes place here as well.

Maybe it is crap! – said Lars von Trier about his movie on the previous Cannes press conference (and then got banned for a lifetime for other reasons). I hope I will not be labelled a Nazi just because quoting von Trier.

Dániel Szöllősi

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Smith, Zadie (25 November 2010) – Generation Why, article http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/25/generation–why/?pagination=false

Nichols, Jeff – MUD, 135 min, american feature film, 2012 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1935179/

Pablo Trapero, Juan Carlos Tabío, Elia Suleiman, Gaspar Noé, Laurent Cantet, Benicio Del ToroPablo Trapero Julio Medem (2012) – 7 días en La Habana / 7 Days in Havana, feature sketch film, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1797348/

Brooks, Xan (15 May 2012) – The court of Cannes, article appeared in Guardian online http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/15/the–court–of–cannes?INTCMP=SRCH [12 June 2012]

Woody, Allen – Stardust memories, feature film

http://www.arktimes.com/RockCandy/archives/2012/05/30/heres–what–some–critics–had–to–say–about–jeff–nichols–mud

Gray, Spalding (1992) – A monster in a box, 90 mins monologue performance

Csillag, Márton 06.02.2012 – Ezért mész jövőre Cannes–ba / That is why you go to Cannes next year, video riport http://index.hu/video/2012/06/02/ezert_mesz_jovore_cannes–ba/?s=cannes

Cannes 2012: Sacha Baron Cohen pulls camel stunt http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/cannes–film–festival/9269511/Cannes–2012–Sacha–Baron–Cohen–pulls–camel–stunt.html

Solomons, Jason – Cannes 2012: Mud – review Matthew McConaughey gives the best performance of his career as a fugitive befriended by two Mississippi boys

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/26/mud–film–review–cannes–matthew–mcconaughey