On the road to somewhere … Cannes film festival reminds us world cinema and ‘globalism’ are not the same

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Cannes Film Festival Highlights Contrast Between Global Cinema and American Political Sentiment"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 6.2
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The Cannes Film Festival serves as a microcosm of the global cinematic landscape, contrasting sharply with the American political climate, particularly under Donald Trump's administration. The festival, which attracts filmmakers and audiences from around the world, exemplifies the kind of 'globalism' that Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement opposes. As attendees navigate the bustling queues outside the Palais des Festivals, they encounter a rich tapestry of languages and cultures. The Marché du Film highlights this global collaboration, where international professionals engage with American producers, often lured by attractive tax incentives. This stands in stark contrast to Trump’s recent proposals for heavy tariffs on films produced abroad, a move that some at Cannes, including actor Robert De Niro, openly criticized in a rallying call against the president's policies. The festival showcases films that delve into local narratives, often portraying characters and stories deeply rooted in specific places, challenging the notion that 'globalism' equates to a homogenized cinematic experience.

As screenings unfold, a recurring theme emerges: a focus on 'somewhere' narratives that resonate with local identities rather than the cosmopolitan 'anywhere' stories often favored in Hollywood. Films like Amélie Bonnin’s "Partir un Jour" and Mascha Schilinski’s "The Sound of Falling" depict characters grappling with their ties to remote locations, embracing the authenticity of their backgrounds. In contrast, the festival featured fewer 'anywhere' films, which are typically characterized by their broad, global appeal. While some filmmakers, such as Turkish-German director Fatih Akin, continue to explore themes of homeland and belonging, the overall cinematic landscape at Cannes leans towards celebrating localized storytelling. Despite the presence of big-budget productions like the latest "Mission Impossible" installment, which epitomizes the 'anywhere' genre, the festival reflects a growing appreciation for films that honor specific cultural contexts. This shift suggests that while the U.S. film industry may face challenges, the strength of global cinema lies in its ability to tell diverse, place-based stories, ultimately enriching the cinematic experience worldwide.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article highlights the contrast between globalism as represented by the Cannes Film Festival and the nationalist sentiments echoed by figures like Donald Trump. It suggests that the festival serves as a microcosm of world cinema, showcasing diverse voices and perspectives, which stands in stark opposition to the insular views of those who advocate for protectionism in the arts. By focusing on a specific film screened at Cannes, the article illustrates how cinema can bridge cultural divides and challenge prevailing narratives.

Cultural Commentary

The Cannes Film Festival is portrayed as a bastion of globalism, where filmmakers from various backgrounds come together, contrary to the MAGA movement's ideals. It emphasizes the importance of art in fostering global connections and understanding. The mention of Robert De Niro's speech against Trump further reinforces this narrative, portraying the festival as a platform for dissent and cultural expression.

Local vs. Global Tensions

The film "Partir un Jour" serves as a focal point in the discussion of local versus global values. It reflects a sentiment of nostalgia for local traditions and preferences, suggesting that there is beauty and merit in simplicity and authenticity. This theme resonates with those who may feel alienated by the rapid globalization and the perceived loss of local culture.

Potential Manipulation

The article may be seen as somewhat manipulative in its framing of the cultural landscape. It uses emotionally charged language to draw clear lines between "somewhere" and "anywhere" narratives, likely to evoke a response from readers who identify with these sentiments. The focus on Trump's policies and their impact on the film industry serves to align the reader with the author's perspective.

Reliability and Trustworthiness

While the article presents valid points about the dichotomy of local and global cinema, its reliance on emotionally charged examples and specific viewpoints may reduce its objectivity. The framing of events and statements tends to favor a particular narrative, which could influence readers' perceptions. Therefore, its reliability may be questioned, as it selectively highlights aspects that support its argument while potentially downplaying counterarguments.

Influence on Society and Politics

This article could have implications for the cultural discourse surrounding globalization and nationalism. It may galvanize support among those who favor cultural diversity and oppose protectionist policies. Conversely, it could alienate individuals who feel that local cultures are being overshadowed by global influences. The discussion around tariffs and trade could further influence economic policies related to the film industry.

Target Audience

The piece appears to resonate more with audiences who value globalism, diversity, and artistic expression. It is likely to appeal to cultural critics, filmmakers, and those engaged in artistic communities who share concerns about the impact of nationalism on the arts.

Market Impact

In terms of market implications, the article may influence investors and stakeholders within the film industry, particularly those considering international collaborations. The conversation around tariffs could also have broader economic implications, impacting stocks related to entertainment and media companies that rely on global markets.

Geopolitical Relevance

The themes explored in the article connect with current geopolitical discussions about nationalism and global interdependence. As societies grapple with these issues, the article serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between art, culture, and politics in shaping public opinion.

Artificial Intelligence Involvement

While it is difficult to ascertain if AI was used in drafting this article, the structured narrative and persuasive language could suggest some level of AI involvement in content generation. AI models designed for text composition may have influenced the writing style and argumentation. However, the specific sections where AI may have intervened remain unclear.

In summary, the article presents a well-argued perspective on the Cannes Film Festival and its significance within the broader cultural and political discourse. However, its potential biases and emotional framing warrant a critical reading to discern the underlying motivations and implications.

Unanalyzed Article Content

IfDonald Trumpreally wants to save Hollywood, maybe he needs to venture outside his comfort zone and watch more European art house cinema.

TheCannes film festival, which closes on Saturday, is in many ways the very definition of the “globalism” that the American president’s Maga movement despises. Walk past the queues snaking alongside the Palais des Festivals and you hear languages and accents from every corner of the globe. The Marché du Film, where industry professionals strike their deals, is brimming with smart people from all over the world beckoning US producers with irresistible tax incentives – resulting in the kind of movies “produced in foreign lands” that the US president earlier this month proposed punishing with 100% tariffs. At the opening gala, Cannes gave Trump arch-enemy Robert De Niro a platform to rally the world of cinema against the US president, “without violence, but with great passion and determination”.

But then you sit down in a dark screening room at the Palais, the piano strains of Camille Saint-Saëns’ Aquarius trickle over the Cannes trailer, and that distinction is not so clear any more. In French director Amélie Bonnin’s opening film Partir un Jour, driven-but-stressed celebrity chef Cécile is preparing for the opening of her new haute cuisine diner in Paris when news reaches her of the ill health of her father, who runs a run-of-the-mill roadside restaurant called Pit Stop out in the sticks. Cécile’s father ribs his daughter about her disdain for the unsophisticated palates of the “yokels”, but it’s apparent from the outset that the film’s sympathies lie a lorry-ride away from France’s cosmopolitan centre.

If at the heart of the culture war waged by Trump and his populist allies in Europe runs a divide between locally rooted “somewheres” and cosmopolitan “anywheres”, Partir un Jour is very much a “somewhere film”. It ultimately rejects shiso-flavoured lobster, roquefort panna cotta and Michelin stars in favour of boeuf bourguignon, hotdogs and Michelin tires. At Cannes, it turned out to be less of a duff note than the beginning of a theme.

Everywhere you looked, there were stories with a very specific sense of place: of people who are stuck in remote locations (Palme d’Or-buzzy The Sound of Falling by German newcomer Mascha Schilinski, Scottish auteur Lynne Ramsay’s Die, My Love) or return to them (French director’s Dominik Moll’s yellow-vests drama Dossier 137).

The thrill of big-city living was rarely glimpsed on any of the festival’s many screens. Turkish-German director Fatih Akin, who burst on the international scene 20 years ago with explosive urban drama Head-On, came to the Riviera with Amrum, a film set entirely on a remote North Sea island at the end of the second world war. Even Spanish director Oliver Laxe’s techno-infused mystery drama Sirât is not set in a Barcelona night club but a desert rave. The left-behinds? They were not so much ignored as put centre-stage and armed with automatic rifles in “elevated horror” director Ari Aster’s Eddington, a Covid satire so even-handed in its mockery of pandemic follies that it has earned criticism of striving for“Maga compatibility”.

A more lenient view would be that film-makers should have no truck with the binaries conjured up by politicians in the first place, because art at its best dissolves them anyway. Some of the most interesting films at Cannes were somewhere-anywhere films, rooted in a place but allowed to grow outwards. Finnish film-maker Lauri-Matti Parppei’s A Light That Never Goes Out, about a prodigy flautist who returns to his coastal family home after suffering a breakdown, sets out like Bonnin’s but turns a familiar plot on its head: in rural Rauma, protagonist Pauli finds meaning not in folksy simplicity but in joining an experimental noise-core band.

Akin’s Amrum prods the eternal German subject ofHeimat(“homeland”) and comes up with unusual answers. What makes someonebelongto Amrum, wonders the film’s child protagonist at one point. His schoolmates reckon it requires one to be born there, while his Nazi mother believes it runs in the blood. But the island’s oldest inhabitants tell him that’s all nonsense: real Amrumers, they reckon, are those who leave the island at the first opportunity.

“Anywhere” films at Cannes were few and far between, but it’s perhaps no coincidence that those that fit the tag were the ones with most box office potential: Christopher McQuarrie’s eighth instalment of the globe-racing Mission Impossible franchise, and Wes Anderson’s latest all-star ensemble piece The Phoenician Scheme, whose shady industrialist protagonist Zsa-Zsa Korda (Benicio del Toro) doesn’t even need a passport, because “I live anywhere”.

They are anywhere films in terms of their production: M:I 8’s big action set-pieces were filmed in London, Norway and thin airover South Africa, while The Phoenician Scheme is set in the fictional Middle Eastern-looking country of Phoenicia but was shot entirely in a studio in Babelsberg, outside Berlin, Germany. That may be expected of escapist films tilted at the box office, but also applied to two art-house productions with Hollywood involvement: Jennifer Lawrence-starring Die, My Love and Kristen Stewart’s directorial debut The Chronology of Water are set in Montana, California, Texas and Oregon – and filmed in Canada, Latvia and Malta.

These are clearly the kind of “movies made in foreign lands” that Trump wants to see the back of. Yet over the course of the festival the consensus gradually shifted to the assumption that tariffs won’t be the way it’s done, because it would be unworkable. As Anderson asked sarcastically when questioned about the presidential film tariffs: “Can you hold up the movie in customs?”

“Most people think it will just lead to the US copying the British model,” said Andreas Pense, a German lawyer who advises international film projects. The UK has by far been the most successful country in Europe at attracting American films, paying out £553m in tax relief to film companies in 2022-23. “But the US would have to cough up an insane amount of money, and getting that approved won’t be easy,” Pense added. “American productions are just more expensive.”

Some European countries with a presence at Cannes sounded surprisingly optimistic about standing their ground in a tax-incentive arms race with the US. Hungary, for example, does not just offer 30% in rebates to foreign producers making films in the central European state, but can also provide crews that are experienced and cheaper than those in the US, because unions pull much less weight in its cinematic sector than in the US. American productions being filmed outside Budapest this year include cold war spy drama Ponies, featuring Emilia Clarke and Haley Lu Richardson, and alien invasion comedy Alpha Gang, starring Cate Blanchett and Channing Tatum. Its trump card, Hungarian film professionals say, is that Budapest can impersonate anywhere in the world: Paris, Buenos Aires, Moscow, even London and New York. If you are making an anywhere film, what’s to stop you?

Perhaps the US president should take a leaf out of the rulebook of Dogme 95, the notorious Danish avant garde film-making movement. In Cannes, a group of Nordic five film-makers launched a reboot of the self-restricting school of cinema that brought forth Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg. They retained only one rule from the original 1995 manifesto: “The film must be shot where the narrative takes place.”

A post on Truth Social, an executive order that binds all American directors to making American films set in America, and Hollywood’s problems would be solved in one stroke. Next up: work out whether anyone would still want to watch those films.

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian