The hour of triumph lasts one minuteResults of the Cannes festival give open space for the most different interpretations, except one that distribution of prizes is only private opinion of jury and concrete people entering into it. The festival in Kanne so has managed to put itself that its any verdict is perceived as almost court divine. Or, on the contrary, in each decision any artful intrigue, the secret underlying reason, any break of a policy sees.
especially love these reasonings the Russian mass-media. They are excited not with cinema, and a policy. If our films have not got to competition, it always an occasion to discontent: us humiliate, offend, do not respect. If, as this time, two pictures took at once, means, we ahead of a planet of all and are simply obliged to leave from festival with prizes. When it does not occur, again plaints: us do not love, do not appreciate, do not understand.
this year there was a supernumerary situation. Alexander Sokurov`s film “ Alexander “ Has got in favourites of competition, “ Exile “ Andrey Zvyagintsev it has been met ambiguously. However the jury has not obeyed public opinion and has given out a prize to Konstantin Lavronenko - to the main actor “ Exiles “ having left “ to Alexander “ without prizes. Without knowing how to react, mass-media have given out the following version: a prize for Lavronenko have paid off or have apologised for display of the Antirussian propaganda tape about business of Litvinenko. Also sounds beautifully, and even surnames are rhymed: Lavronenko for Litvinenko.
Actually all these deep reasonings arise from complexes and inadequate representations about themselves as about a centre of the universe. As to film display about Litvinenko, here Cannes it is only true to itself. Positioning itself as a monastery of high art, it, however, never reminded a tower from an ivory. Quarter of the century back here won “ the Person from iron “ Andrzej Vajdy, the manifesto of the Polish Solidarity and “ Road “ Jylmaza Gjuneja, the Turkish dissident who has stayed in prison. And on 50 - m anniversary festival have awarded the Golden Palm to a film of Iranian Abbasa Kiarostami “ Taste of a sweet cherry “ forbidden in the homeland, and then “ to Farenheit 9/ 11 “ in which Michael Moore naveshal all dogs on George Bush and its administration. And this year in different sections of festival showed film lampoons on Berlusconi and the American presidents, and also Moore`s new film which this time smashes the American system of public health services.
even if the film has been declared Litvinenko at the last minute (as speak, with infringement of festival regulations), anybody in Kanne to report to us, especially does not intend to apologise. Russia occupies in the Cannes cultural policy far not the main place, and it is time to get used to it. When the festival has arisen on Second World War ruins, the USSR - the country - the winner - was besides one of few kept film production. Therefore it is no wonder that those years our films along with the French and American were in the lead in Kanne quantitatively and often received prizes. But already from the middle 1960 - h the festival began to turn from review of the countries to exclusive club of cinema authors. The USSR on - former diplomatically invited in competition and jury, but its participation any more did not do weather. And into author`s club of festival have managed to enter only Andrey Tarkovsky and Andrey Konchalovsky, besides replaced at that time a residence and not so not representing the Soviet cinema.
after short new splash in interest to reorganisation Russia again in sight of Kanna there were few authors - Nikita Mikhalkov, Pavel Lungin, Alexander Sokurov. Till now any of the films representing commercial boom of the Russian film industry, has not got to the Cannes official program. Therefore to speak about Russia as about the participant of the Cannes festival it is possible, but it is not quite correct, or it is necessary to realise that it is a question of a certain symbolical participation.
so in general - that themselves in the Cannes context other countries also consider. Americans perfectly understand that they are necessary to Kannu more than it to them. Frenchmen aspire to squeeze out a maximum of the festival for market prospects, but in general - that easy concern to that here did not receive twenty years the Golden Palm. Germans sometimes are nervous, if them do not take, the countries rejoice any possibility to drag the picture in Cannes, and in case of a victory as this year Romania, have lawful feeling of national pride less. But perfectly understand that it also has carried and that every year such luck will not be: The hour of triumph comes and leaves.
a victory of the Romanian film “ 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days “ all removed in two modest scenery for $600 thousand, says first of all that the world became much wider, not all is more diverse also in it defines scale of budgets and ambitions. In effect, priorities of the Cannes festival remain the same that fifty years ago when Michael Kalatozova`s film " became a triumpher; cranes " Fly;. After short hobby cynical sinefilstvom Quentin Tarantino the festival has returned to that is a basis of a normal cultural policy. Encouraging innovations and sensations, here first of all think of ethics and humanism. It became the main vector of last Cannes program which looked through even in the most tragical and cruel films. And on Tarantino public has come to have a good time only, neighed at everyone next fuck, but as the leader of a yesterday`s idol already nobody considers. As to the Russian films, they just answered the basic vector. Also have not casually got to the competitive program which and is a festival choice. And to whom have given an award to whom is not present is already a choice of several people, start up authoritative, but not necessarily defining world politics.