This is a highly interesting movie and to put it in simple words it is a MOCKUMENTARY. The cast is excellent and it is a satire on what reading too much into a movie can do to the general viewing of the movie. It makes a pretend documentary into a kind of black comedy of what Critics and their in depth reading "into" movies of so much; that the absurdities of the movie industry comes to light. Especially when it comes to movie awards. Watch it like a documentary but think of it as a comedy.
25 Reviews
Almost a Good Movie
claudio_carvalho24 April 2010
In Cannes, the actress Alice Palmer (Greta Scacchi) wants to have her debut in the cinema industry as director and her two friends have written a screenplay to Gena Rowlands. However they are approached by the counterfeit crasher Kaz Naiman (Zack Norman) that convince them to rewrite the scrip to the famous French actress Millie Marquand (Anouk Aimée) that is in the festival; in return he would sponsor the feature with three million dollars. Millie loves the screenplay and promises to make the film. However, the powerful producer Rick Yorkin (Ron Silver) is producing a blockbuster with Tom Hanks and Simone Duvall and needs Millie Marquand and needs Millie Marquand to perform the role of Tom Hanks' mother. Millie's former husband, the director Viktor Kovner (Maximilian Schell) is in Cannes and Rick manipulates him to convince Millie to accept the part. Meanwhile the promising debutant star Blue (Jenny Gabrielle) becomes a hit in the festival but is divided between her lover and her career.
"Festival in Cannes" is almost a good movie. The idea of shooting in the backstage of the Cannes Film Festival 1999 like in a documentary is creative and interesting. However, the naiveness of the characters like Blue, Alice Palmer and Millie Marquand associated to the verbose screenplay are bothersome in the end of 100 minutes running time. Further, Maximilian Schell is awful and the ham Zack Norman is totally unconvincing. This movie was released on VHS by Paramount distributor in Brazil. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Um Festival em Cannes" ("A Festival in Cannes")
"Festival in Cannes" is almost a good movie. The idea of shooting in the backstage of the Cannes Film Festival 1999 like in a documentary is creative and interesting. However, the naiveness of the characters like Blue, Alice Palmer and Millie Marquand associated to the verbose screenplay are bothersome in the end of 100 minutes running time. Further, Maximilian Schell is awful and the ham Zack Norman is totally unconvincing. This movie was released on VHS by Paramount distributor in Brazil. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Um Festival em Cannes" ("A Festival in Cannes")
A nice leisurely little stroll
planktonrules13 April 2008
This is a unusual little film that may not appeal to many film fans since it doesn't have the usual style of storytelling. Instead of a traditional narrative, it's a slice of life featuring some happenings to some relatively minor stars at Cannes. There are no explosions, sex or great laughs--just some decent acting and characterizations. As for folks like me who are not huge fans of the typical Hollywood fare, this is a welcome film.
The film is shot in Cannes and occurs during the yearly film festival. Two groups of people are trying to get a film made and unfortunately their plans become inextricably connected. They BOTH want the same star (played by Anouk Aimée) for their films and it seems she can't do both. One is a smaller role in a big-budget film, the other is a starring role in an independent film.
Along the way, you get to meet a lot of interesting characters and see that many of them are very shallow liars and many of them are pretty insecure despite all their successes. While there are no huge fireworks in the film, it sure felt like you had a behind the scenes look at how films are made (with all the wheeling and dealing) as well as some insights into the people who make them. Rarely boring, sometimes funny and occasionally poignant--this is a nice little film.
The film is shot in Cannes and occurs during the yearly film festival. Two groups of people are trying to get a film made and unfortunately their plans become inextricably connected. They BOTH want the same star (played by Anouk Aimée) for their films and it seems she can't do both. One is a smaller role in a big-budget film, the other is a starring role in an independent film.
Along the way, you get to meet a lot of interesting characters and see that many of them are very shallow liars and many of them are pretty insecure despite all their successes. While there are no huge fireworks in the film, it sure felt like you had a behind the scenes look at how films are made (with all the wheeling and dealing) as well as some insights into the people who make them. Rarely boring, sometimes funny and occasionally poignant--this is a nice little film.
A fun movie.
beatleboy-18 February 2004
This is a fun movie, and a good behind-the-scenes-look at moviemaking, both indie and "big studio" productions. The plot is very simple and all of the players move in and out of "the deal" at different times. The "deal" even begins to take on a life of its own with most of the characters compromising their interests to be a part of it. Very good character studies. I think this movie should have used all of the actors real names, as it seemed contrived to have a fictional name for Anouk Aimee.
Bad Acting!!
elo-equipamentos17 October 2017
It's a fine example of a boring movie, every characters aren't interesting apart Zack Norman who already is funny by yourself, the main cast didn't help too much, Maximilian Schell outdated like Anouk Aimée, Greta Scachi is vague and Ron Silver no make sense at all, the only interesting thing is to see how works the festival in Cannes on behind the scenes!!
Resume:
First watch: 2017 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6
Resume:
First watch: 2017 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6
What a Waste of Time!
britishsteamwave16 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".
I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!
The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.
I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.
I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!
The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.
I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.
This is a very smart and witty film.
chrisjcollins77721 March 2002
I really enjoyed this movie.
It simultaneously captures the feel of a glitzy French film festival and the deal making that go into getting a movie made.
The entire cast is superb, and Mr. Jaglom's technique of allowing the actors to do a lot of improvising makes for scenes that feel like real interaction between people, as opposed to a couple of actors reciting lines from a screenplay. The French pop ditties within the score was also a nice touch.
Do yourself a favor and see this film.
It simultaneously captures the feel of a glitzy French film festival and the deal making that go into getting a movie made.
The entire cast is superb, and Mr. Jaglom's technique of allowing the actors to do a lot of improvising makes for scenes that feel like real interaction between people, as opposed to a couple of actors reciting lines from a screenplay. The French pop ditties within the score was also a nice touch.
Do yourself a favor and see this film.
What a waste of my time
IsabelaMacavei3 August 2013
I can't believe that I wasted my time watching this movie. I kept on re-reading the DVD cover trying to clarify the name of the movie and if it's a documentary or a film itself. The camera man looked to stumble wobbling the screen to get me dizzy. It's such a bad representation of Cannes, it's ridiculous! Seriously, how was Bill Silver convinced to do this movie, is a mystery to me!!! The cheesy scenes that smell of dead rat to any common sense person and all those wanna-be stars with the exception of Blue who in her innocence and silliness had more common sense than everybody all together in the movie. I'd skip this movie all together. It seems like it was made in the 1920s and even then, they had better techniques than this one. If you already bought the movie, well, you deserve to watch your money going down the drain. Not work even to watch the trailer! Ugh!
brilliant
starringnadia23 March 2002
I loved this movie so much... Jaglom is wonderful at bringing out the best in actors because he allows them to act so freely! My favorite character was Barry played by Alex Craig Mann. He was incredibly manipulative at first and then he became wonderfully vulnerable.
I don't remember when I have cared less...
ajharper-28 March 2002
I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree.
Absolutely worth seeing
asdalin4 March 2002
I saw Festival in Cannes this evening in my film class and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was far from a documentary (as was posted earlier), but rather an interesting insight into some of the things that can go on at this, or any other festival. The characters were fun to watch and to follow through their few days in Cannes. I found the film interesting and the end was extremely satisfying -- it all made sense. It was beautifully shot and made me wish I could see Cannes in person. Of course it showed how people can be wooed with simple words, but it showed so much more than that. The cast was superb. If you enjoy movies, see this one. It was a treat.
A film looking for a story.
dointhefish26 March 2002
An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.
Delish! Decadant! Truthful to the core!
jma20009 March 2002
Sorry that some fans didn't care for this film, I found it deliciously decadent and oh-so-painfully-truthful! It had all the schmaltz and flavor of a run down fan dancer. So delicate at one time, and now so abused. If you really desire to see the Festival as it is, then view this movie. Mr. Schell is excellent, as well as the gentleman that plays the sleeze-ball Kaz. Truly a remarkable film in that it makes you think/feel documentary. Ala Robert Altman and his unscripted dialogue. The audience in my theatre snickered half the film, and there were some real good laughs at some of the irony. Only drawback was the cameraman. He gave us a splitting headache whenever filming Ms. Aimee and Mr. Schell on the boardwalk. Otherwise, go see it. Enjoy!
Ennui américaine
sylvian9 June 2007
Movie industry is tricky business. Because, you see, decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off moronic bullshit. Like, say: "Should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid pseudo-dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters. (No sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.
the backstage of Cannes, where a real passion lives
lazymad21 June 2005
One of my most favourite movies, I recommend it to everyone, especially is you want to make a movie yourself, so that you could get an impression of the heart of the entertainment world, it's backstage. A very smart and passionate film, acting is delicate and fine (all the cast acts well, and it's hard to find the best actor, but I'd like to mention Maximilian Schell here, his part is really dainty, I admire him every time I watch this), the characters are interesting, and the plot, too. I can't think of any weak points. Cannes are picturesque, what I'd like to outline is the songs - beautiful french chanson - Charles Trenet, Edit Piaf. Very nice songs. Henry Jaglom proves to be a subtle artist and a keen observer. Delicate is maybe the key word to describe the film. It's very light and graceful, though it deals with the trivia of life. A little bit of tear, a bit of smile, a bit of romance, some coolness and some passion - these controversial points meet and emerge into each other thus making the film delicate and graceful.
How pretentious and trite is the film industry....just watch the movie.
buffalo-1624 February 2002
I recently viewed this atrocity in my film program, and I thought it was awful, as I said in my tagline, it was pretentious, trite, petty and phenomenally self-important.
I consider myself a fan of film, and all the things that film has to offer. If I want to watch a documentary on the Cannes Festival, I will watch A&E....and they would probably be alot more objective about it.
I dont recommend it, period.
I consider myself a fan of film, and all the things that film has to offer. If I want to watch a documentary on the Cannes Festival, I will watch A&E....and they would probably be alot more objective about it.
I dont recommend it, period.
No "Deja Vu" but still a delight
mgeorge-411 March 2002
As a long-time fan of Henry Jaglom, I'd have to put Festival in Cannes slightly behind his last couple of films, the wonderful "Deja Vu" and "Last Summer in the Hamptons." His work is definitely not to everyone's taste -- none of his characters is free of either self-absorption or self-destructiveness -- but those who don't need clear heroes and villains are well-rewarded with psychologically complex and often highly comic portrayals.
This is more in the spirit of "Venice/Venice" and his earlier, more confessional films with the difference being that Henry's not onscreen. Still, his longtime collaborator Zack Norman gives his best performance ever, Anouk Aimee and Maximilian Schell fully embody both the mystery and deluded romanticism they're meant to evoke and a fine array of new faces (especially Alex Craig Mann and the two female writer/producers) step up to Jaglom's "process" and execute it more seamlessly than ever before. Henry's somewhat distracting habit of arhythmic cross-cutting within dialogue scenes has been almost completely cured -- "Festival" has gorgeous long takes that allow the scenes to completely develop their internal tensions. The production values are also the best ever for one of his films; he and his crew really conveyed the spirit of a festival that is really a market.
My main quibble is that his ending is not as satisfying as those of his last films; it, too, harks back to the looser wrap-ups of his earlier work -- even a bit more certainty about the resolution of a couple of the storylines would have helped this feel a little grander in conception.
This is more in the spirit of "Venice/Venice" and his earlier, more confessional films with the difference being that Henry's not onscreen. Still, his longtime collaborator Zack Norman gives his best performance ever, Anouk Aimee and Maximilian Schell fully embody both the mystery and deluded romanticism they're meant to evoke and a fine array of new faces (especially Alex Craig Mann and the two female writer/producers) step up to Jaglom's "process" and execute it more seamlessly than ever before. Henry's somewhat distracting habit of arhythmic cross-cutting within dialogue scenes has been almost completely cured -- "Festival" has gorgeous long takes that allow the scenes to completely develop their internal tensions. The production values are also the best ever for one of his films; he and his crew really conveyed the spirit of a festival that is really a market.
My main quibble is that his ending is not as satisfying as those of his last films; it, too, harks back to the looser wrap-ups of his earlier work -- even a bit more certainty about the resolution of a couple of the storylines would have helped this feel a little grander in conception.
Cannes Film Festival
DogePelis201520 May 2021
One day at the Cannes Film festival and all the dealing that goes on there
paulporterus30 March 2011
This is a fun film especially if you love the "backstage" genre. Everyone in it is good and it looks like they are having a lot of fun making it. Aimee ,best know in America for the 60's big hit "A Man & A Woman" is great as what she is-a older actress looking for a good role. Schell also play in type,but the best one in the film is Scacchi,who too many times plays the glamorous type, is great here playing a naive would- be director-and she is beautiful!!!!!.The whole thing takes place during a beautiful summer day at the Cannes Film Festival-with producers wheeling and dealing.It makes you wonder if all this is really how movies work and if it is-how any ever get made. Its real-thousands of extras who are just the regular people in the city,plus a few B-level actors playing walk-ons add to the effect The hand held camera is a little too much sometimes-but its no big deal. Sit back and relax and enjoy the acting,the script,the scenes of Cannes and the whole movie.
brilliant
starringnadia23 March 2002
I loved this movie so much... Jalome is wonderful at bringing out the best in actors because he allows them to act so freely! My favorite character was Barry played by Alex Craig Mann. He was incredibly manipulative at first and then he became wonderfully vulnerable.
I enjoyed this movie tres beaucoup
marymorrissey29 November 2005
I went in expecting nothing since all I"d ever seen of HJ was about a half hour, as much as I could stand, of "Always" a really unbearable movie, starring him, of the lovesick clueless guy somehow had gorgeous girlfriend and now shall mope for 90 minutes and she thinks he's cute even now for some mysterious reason even though it's over while the audience well, simply has to endure him, variety.
Anyway I thought it was pretty great this movie, really well plotted, I liked the actresses in particular: anouk, gretta and the girl who played "Blue". . . they were all really wonderful. The characters were vividly drawn and I thought it was a really well written human comedy.
What I would encourage him to do in the future however is to try something other than a score that shows your movie as being a knock off of woody allen or gives that feeling, which this music did. The film would have seemed a lot more his own had he had a different sound to go with.
Anyway I thought it was pretty great this movie, really well plotted, I liked the actresses in particular: anouk, gretta and the girl who played "Blue". . . they were all really wonderful. The characters were vividly drawn and I thought it was a really well written human comedy.
What I would encourage him to do in the future however is to try something other than a score that shows your movie as being a knock off of woody allen or gives that feeling, which this music did. The film would have seemed a lot more his own had he had a different sound to go with.
Cute romantic comedy
emi-liu29 February 2008
It seems that this is a hate-it or love-it movie. I loved it. If you don't look deep into this movie and don't take it too seriously, you'll enjoy it. There are some good romantic scenes in it, some good lines and great comic moments. Anouk Aimée was wonderful as Millie, a troubled, aging actress looking for a role to help her out of her financial problems, who had to choose between an indie movie with a bigger part for her, or a smaller part in a big-studio movie. I also found Greta Scacchi (played Alice Palmer) believable as an aspiring director and Ron Silver (played Rick Yorkin) wasn't bad either. If you watch it at home, take a glass of wine, relax and enjoy this light movie!
Vicious non-satire of Holywood deal-making from the inside.
Grover-1517 July 2003
Henry Jaglom, who knows his way around movie deal-making from the inside, made a vicious thrust at the film industry, located at Cannes with an all-star cast and a wealth of cameos. Critics who panned this brilliant non-lampoon missed the point. If movie nuts (like myself) ever entertained fantasies of making a big time film, Henry Jaglom's satire will cure them.
Not that good
gianello6 March 2002
I saw this at a preview given by Talk Cinema at the local SUNY college. As with all Jaglom movies, there is some good dialogue and moments, but it really doesn't hold together well for its entire length. I wouldn't recommend it, but I doubt it will get a wide distribution.
How much more can we Jaglomistas take?
stuhh20011 March 2004
First of all, the man was an intimate of Orson Welles, and he gets the incredibly beautiful Anouk Aimee, Maximilian Schell, Ron Silver, and Greta Scacchi, all big stars to work, probably for scale, so he can't be a total idiot. (Let's pray on that!) But after years of hoping Henry will eventually "say something" in one of his films, it looks like Henry has nothing to say. The best thing I can say about this film is that it's the best looking film he's ever made. He's finally out of the home movie look, and it looks like a professional movie, but a creepy feeling is coming over me that this is an overindulged little boy playing with a movie camera, AND WE LOYAL FANS LET HIM GET AWAY WITH IT! His brother said so much about Henry as a kid and now I believe it. If Zack Norman is portraying an oily, unctous, creep, he won me over. I cringed evey time he came on screen. Max Schell is surely on of the most charming men that ever lived. But the real question is, DOES HENRY JAGLOM HAVE ANTHING TO SAY? I REALLY DOUBT IT.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
