The 64th Annual Cannes Film Festival wrapped up this week. It was the usual bump, push, and grind through the entrance line to see some of the hottest films directed by some of the hottest directors, starring some of the hottest film stars. But what is it that makes Cannes so hot? This was the question that kept boiling through my own head as I searched for an angle on which to write this article. There’s certainly a certain je ne sais qua pas in the air that makes even the lowliest of spectators excited about just being there. But beyond the glitz and glamour of the red carpet is hopefully something more important – the artistry of filmmaking. Since filmmaking is the 7th art form, I’m always looking for what’s new and exciting in the process of the art – hoping (usually beyond hope) that someone will step forward and move the form into a new and exciting direction. Unfortunately, I can’t say that this year’s festival was a Renaissance year, but there were definitely some notable films that were… well, notable.

On the European front, one film in particular, entitled Michael, directed by Austrian filmmaker Markus Schleinzer, stood out. Beyond it’s taboo subject matter of pedophilia, it did what several other films I have seen at festivals, which I consider “art”, have done: the director creates a Carvaggio experience with every frame. The script for the hour and 36 minute feature couldn’t have been more than 20 pages – the dialogue so sparce that words almost became an intrusion on the visual experience! In fact, it was almost as if Schleinzer considered words themselves more vulgar than the subject matter he was tackling. Being a lover of words myself, it was a bit difficult for me to accept that a film could create such complex characters without the usual tool of characterization through dialogue, but in the end, it was the pictures that spoke a thousand words. I found myself at times wondering how in the world he was able to capture such intimate and intense moments, especially with a 10 year-old child as the lead actor, but I think that’s what great art does – brings you to a place of awe – not a place of “I could have done that better” but a place of “how?” Of course this particular film did lack in plot structure in the end – the falling action a bit too convenient and the resolution grossly contrived. There was no catharsis for the audience – which albeit may have been intentional on the director’s part, left my fellow journalists and myself leaving the theater with a big ball of disgust in our stomachs that we carried around for days.

Another film in competition entitled Le Gamin Au Velo or The Kid With a Bike by the celebrated French filmmakers Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne was a nice little story again centered on a young boy, but this time the boy finds a nice hairdresser who acts as a surrogate parent when his father leaves him for another life. Although predictable, it was well-acted, and I do believe a certain amount of kudos need to be given to the directors for choosing to make a movie that exposes the causes of a juvenile delinquent mind, while at the same time sending the positive message that ordinary people like you and me can make a real difference in this world. I left the theater not with a big ball of disgust in my stomach, but with a happy tear in my eye.

On the American front there were a few representational films. The only film by an American director actually in competition was The Tree of Life by Terrence Malick, starring Brad Pitt. Unfortunately, the film was to be premiered later in the week so I didn’t get a chance to see it. However, there were several films that focused on American themes that were in competition, albeit directed by non-American filmmakers. Perhaps the one most notable, as it was creating the most buzz in journalistic circles while I was there, is We Need to Talk About Kevin, by Scottish-born filmmaker Lynne Ramsay. American actor John C. Reilly (Franklin) plays the husband to actress Tilda Swinton (Eva), who grapples with her own responsibility in raising a child who goes on a shooting rampage, killing several of his classmates and teachers. The film, told through a series of letters that the character Eva writes to her husband, explores the complexity and responsibility of motherhood, or the lack thereof. This theme segues into the morality behind creating another life (aka a child) and the consequences to the child, and society at large, of not being a good parent.

Fortunately, not all films at the Cannes Film Festival that I saw made me so disheartened that I wanted to go drown myself in the Mediterranean Sea! After several days of seeing such depressing films, it was actually quite nice to see Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides directed by Rob Marshall. Fans of Johnny Depp won’t be disappointed. He delivers the same comedic swashbuckler style we’ve come to expect and love from him. A bit of a surprise, however, was the casting of Penelope Cruz as the daughter of infamous pirate Blackbeard, and Depp’s love interest in the film. The chemistry between the two didn’t really work for me.

Another bright spot, where I though the chemistry was magnetic between the two leads was The Artist by French director Michel Hazanavicius. The film was added to the competition a bit late in the game, perhaps because the jury realized that they were going to have to start handing out free samples of Prozac if they didn’t add something light to their repertoire of doom and gloom. I highly recommend this one; it’s just a feel good movie. Centered around the character of George Valentin, a fictitious silent-film star played by Jean Dujardin, the film traces the harsh reality that many great actors and actresses faced during the 1920’s, when the new technology of sound swept the carpet of success right from under the feet of many A-list celebrities. I really liked that the director imitated the style of silent filmmaking in telling a story about a silent film star. There was no sound in the film – other than a musical score – and the film was full of recognizable silent film techniques – from the melodramatic acting style to the placement of inter-titles at emotionally intense moments. It was a joy to watch and made you long for a time when storylines for films focused on love, adventure, and making you laugh.

Other than that, there were a few feel-good documentaries that I saw, including Christian Rouaud’s Tous Au Larzac, which traced the unlikely civil disobedience of a group of farmers fighting a military base expansion in the French region of Aveyron, known for breeding sheep that produce milk used in making Roquefort cheese. Yeah, I know, I walked out after the first 30 minutes – not to say that it wasn’t good, just something I would have preferred to watch on the Discovery Channel. Another film I walked out on was Kim Ki-Duk’s Arirang, which was to put it politely just awful! It’s the first film the Korean filmmaker has made since his career came to a screeching halt after an actress almost accidently died during his 2008 production of Dream. Shot on a handycam, Arirang is cheap through and through. But if I had to point out its’ cheapest aspect, it would probably be the pomposity of anyone thinking that airing their dirty emotional laundry is a good topic on which to make a film! I’m just happy I left before he supposedly turned to the audience and tells them all to basically go fuck themselves. I think Andy Warhol did that about fifty years ago, but in a much more creative way.

The last caveat of interest that I saw while in attendance was Toomelah by Ivan Sen. It’s theme of the devastating affects Imperialism can have on an indigenous group of people is certainly universal. The cinéma vérité style was captivating and drew you into the storyline. The main character, a 10 year-old boy, is searching for an identity, any identity, even if it means associating with a group of gangsters. Of course one couldn’t help but feel disheartened that these people were living in such squalor. It disturbed me that the director used real people to make this fictitious film. I didn’t like it when they did that with Slum Dog Millionaire a couple of years ago, and the same feeling that these people were being exploited crept into my consciousness. I saw the two main “actors” (the father and son) sitting on a sidewalk outside a fancy restaurant the day after I saw the film. When I went up to them to compliment them on what a great job they did, both of them grinned from ear to ear. I just hope the director does the right thing and pays them adequately; otherwise, he’s as guilty of exploiting them as the Imperialist were a100 years ago!

So that’s my Cannes experience in a nutshell. I do hope some of the film selections (other than the obvious American ones) will play to US audiences. There’s one thing that the rest of the world appears to be doing better than the Americans – creating character driven storylines that are engaging and emotionally moving. Not that this type of filmmaking is anything new, but at the heart of any good film is of course a good storyline and well-developed characters. And there’s something that Americans are doing better than the rest of the world – making action-packed films that are just fun to watch. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get two for one? Until that happens, we’ll keep watching the same old type of cinema. Maybe next year, with a little luck, a Michelangelo will show up and walk down the red carpet, starting a true Renaissance in filmmaking.