Cannes Diary #9: Rock n' Sex on the Croisette

by Elisa Giudici

Two disappointing movies for me today. But at least they're the kind of disappointments that spark intense discussion among cinephiles. I was not blown away either by Claire Denis Stars at Noon or Baz Luhrmann's Elvis, but there has been a wide range of interesting opinions on both in the press room today in Cannes; The audience will be the final judge...

STARS AT NOON by Claire Denis (France)
COMPETITION FILM

The line between political turmoil in Central America and foreign invisible hands messing around with their future has never been as blurry as it is in the time-expanding, exposition-free Denis movie. Nor as sexy: the two stars, are unable to stay away from each other for the bare minimum of time it would take to make something happen in this political thriller. We spend more time in bed than in the streets. (I am not complaining, mind you.) Not even Trish (Margaret Qualley) having her period can slow them down. The most memorable moment, carrying the distinct signature of Denis, is when our protagonist slowly wipes blood from the hands and mouth of the so white, so British, so mysterious stranger (Joe Alwyn) she's decided to entangle. The general atmosphere of slow, hot carnality fuelled by the lack of air conditioning or an easy way out from an increasingly dangerous situation is deliciously sweaty and pungent.

The plot? Two white, hot, wild characters are in Central America in the middle of political turmoil, for muddy and never specified reasons. Stars at Noon is essentially all atmosphere, spinning entirely around its protagonist's willingness to put herself in danger. Qualley deserves praise for her ability to sell this fearless freedom seeker though her Trish feels torn from the same page as her role in Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood. Qualley is pure sensual energy but unfortunately the film around her doesn't work.  

ELVIS by Baz Luhrmann (Australia)
OUT OF COMPETITION

The Pressroom is split on Elvis and I expect the movie to be just as polarizing for audiences. This time for me it's a no, primarily because I find Luhrmann's "bold" artistic choices weaker than expected. The title is misleading, too. This movie is all but about Elvis, who is a spectator and a secondary character in his own story. A more honest, less appealing title would have been “Colonel Parker”. The sulfurous character is the protagonist villain, our point of view through whom Elvis is seen, the narrator, and the person whose biography is truly being told here.  Tom Hanks is enjoying every second of his vacation from “good, reassuring, positive character” as Parker.

The end credit of the movie proclaims “the influence of Elvis music is undying”, which is striking considering how little of the superstar's genius is shown. Elvis as a musician and a songwriter is almost entirely absent. Instead we see Elvis as a young performer constantly borrowing inspiration from others, never having any ideas of his own. His only artistic merit is to be able to “put on a good show”. It is difficult to grasp the reason behind the Elvis’ hysteria because the movie shows us only his weakness, his emotional and pharmacological dependencies. He becomes the victim of the story with no agency at all. It's striking to note how eager the movie is to name-drop a very long list of Elvis' colleagues and rival while paying lip service to his title as "the king of rock ‘n roll". With so little space left for the man himself, it's surprising how good Austin Butler is at avoiding the territory of caricature! 

I would have loved this operation (rewriting the history of a music legend as an exploitation of a young, white kid with the right look and moves) if it was the real intent of the movie, but it isn't. Elvis is 2 hours and 39 minutes long. Across that sprawling running time Luhrmann is unable to decide whether to kill the myth of Elvis or reenforce it. In the end it's a familiar story, rather than the exceptional example, of a business showman destroying the life of an artist in order to milk every single dollar he can from his golden goose. As for the visual style, it’s Baz Luhrmann so it's over the top again in that frantic, frenetically edited way.

All that said a good share of people will love this Elvis because of Luhrmann's surprise take and chaotic energy. I did not love it for similar reasons. To work a gamble like this, where the mythic subject isn't the subject, Elvis isn't radical or chaotic enough.

more tomorrow

Day 1 Opening Night, Coupez!
Day 2 Tom Cruise, The Eight Mountains, Scarlet
Day 3 Armageddon Time, EO, Tchaivosky's Wife
Day 4 Corsage, Brother and Sister, When You Finish Saving the World
Day 5 3000 Years of Longing, RMN, Triangle of Sadness, Boy From Heaven
Day 6 Holy Spider, Men, Smoking Makes You Cough, Marcel!
Day 7 Decision to Leave, Crimes of the Future, Forever Young
Day 8 Silent Twins, Tori and Lokita, Nostalgia

Comments

[thevoid99]

I read on Indiewire that the Elvis movie is somewhat similar to Bohemian Rhapsody and that scares me. I love Baz Luhrmann but if he created something that skips a lot of things and doesn't do enough on who the King is... then oh fuck.

At least there's John Carpenter's TV movie from 1979 with Kurt Russell. It's an amazing film that gets overlooked and I don't know why people still don't talk about it. It features a break-out performance from Kurt Russell in his first of many collaborations with Carpenter and I think he actually nailed Elvis much better than anyone who played the King (w/ a small exception to Jack White on Walk Hard) since. Plus, Russell had the better advantage since he did work with Elvis in It Happened at the World's Fair in playing someone Elvis paid a quarter to kick him in the shins just to get a girl.

Then, there's this little clip from 3000 Miles to Graceland:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcqjecuVhUw

[brookesboy]

This is a fascinating review even if I differ on a list of things. I do think it's important to fact-check one point--Elvis was not a songwriter, even though his label insisted on his getting credit on his early hits. He did no work on those. He did write a few songs later on, but he is not known as a songwriter.