Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Cinema’ Category

Jihadi terrorism, that is. The news was dominated this past week by the terrorist attack in Manchester. There is not a sentiment I can express about it that hasn’t been by everyone else. Targeting youngsters for death and maiming, and at a festive event no less: ça dépasse l’entendement. One has no words. Je ne sais pas qu’est-ce qu’on peut dire de plus.

I did not scour the internet for articles to read on the atrocity, though stumbled across a few, such as this one from The Independent, “Salman Abedi: How Manchester attacker turned from cannabis-smoking dropout to Isis suicide bomber;” Emily Crockett’s comment in Rolling Stone, “Why Manchester bomber targeted girls: As is so often the case, misogyny was woven into this act of violence;” and the report in The Telegraph that the security services ignored reports from Muslims in Salman Abedi’s neighborhood about his erratic, worrisome behavior. And this editorial in The New York Times: “When terrorists target children.”

Some ten days ago I took a group of a dozen journalists from Denmark, who work the immigration/Islamic radicalism/terrorism beat in their country, on a walking tour of “immigration and the changing face of Paris,” which I periodically lead for the Paris office of Context Travel. The leader of the group was a sharp Copenhagen journalist named Jakob Sheikh (he’s Danish-Pakistani), who has reported extensively on the radicalization of young Muslims in Denmark. Two articles of his have been translated into English, which are particularly pertinent at the present moment, “My childhood friend, the ISIS jihadist,” in Mashable (October 15, 2014), and “Meeting the foreign fighters: how does Islamic State recruit thousands of Westerners?,” in the New Statesman (December 1, 2015).

My mother emailed me the other day, asking, in the context of the Manchester atrocity, if I had done a blog post on Udayan Prasad’s 1997 film My Son the Fanatic, the screenplay of which was written by Hanif Kureishi (and inspired by his 1994 short story in The New Yorker of the same title). I have not, in fact, had a post on the film, as it’s been over ten years since I last saw it. The one thing I’ll say about it here—in addition to it being first-rate and with a great performance by lead actor Om Puri—is that it remains, twenty years after its release, one of the best cinematic treatments one will find of the religious radicalization of the youthful offspring of immigrant families from Muslim countries—here, Pakistanis in the British Midlands—and of the perplexity, indeed despair, this provokes in their parents, who seek nothing more than to work, better their families’ lives, and integrate into the receiving society. But their children feel no such need to “integrate”—whatever integration for them is supposed to entail (those who yammer on about this never say)—or to keep their heads low and not make waves, because they were born into that society and are of it. Anyone interested in the subject should see the film (which is available on Netflix). The late, great Roger Ebert’s review of it is here and the trailer is here. See also Hanif Kureishi’s piece in The Spectator last December 10th, “‘My son the fanatic’ revisited: Can one generation’s mistake be corrected by the next?”

À propos, jihadi terrorism has been the subject of some six French films—feature-length, that have opened theatrically or were initially slated to—over the past couple of years, all which I have seen. If there’s a pic on the topic, I’ll see it, no matter how mixed or negative the reviews. And the reviews are often this, as of the six or so films in question, only one gets the thumbs up from me—more or less—and may be recommended—more or less—which is Le Ciel attendra (English title: Heaven Will Wait), by Marie-Castille Mention-Schaar (who also directed the 2015 Les Héritiers). Moreover, it is the only one of the six or so that found an audience (330K tix sold, which isn’t too bad for a film of this genre).

The story is of two typically French middle-class teenage girls, Sonia (Noémie Merlant, nominated for the ‘most promising actress’ César for her performance) and Mélanie (Naomi Amarger, who lives in Créteil in the film, près de chez moi), with stable, loving families (Sonia’s father is Algerian but totally laïque) and who are doing well at school, but have become self-radicalized, via the internet, into Islamic State-style jihadi Islam. The film depicts their solitary descente aux enfers into Islamic extremism, the desperation of their parents (Sandrine Bonnaire plays the mother of Sonia) when they realize what is happening, and then the efforts to deradicalize them in therapy sessions led by the anthropologist Dounia Bouzar, who plays herself.

Bouzar has had a high-profile in France over the past decade, for her work on Islam and France—she publishes a book a year—and the tidy subventions she has received from the state for her association—the Centre de Prévention contre les Dérives Sectaires liées à l’Islam—and proactive work on deradicalizing French adolescents who have returned from Syria, been caught trying to get there, or contemplated doing so. For the anecdote, I saw Bouzar speak to a packed auditorium at the École Militaire, which seats 700, in January 2015 and which was streamed live to audiences throughout the world, but with her face blurred on the screen for security reasons (as if it was not already well-known to those who would want to know it). She was quite the star.

As for Bouzar’s arguments on self-radicalization and how to counter it—which I won’t try to summarize here—I found them interesting enough, though she has been severely criticized by academics and others who work in her domain, for, entres autres, her exclusive focus on juridical minors (those under age 18), emphasis on converts to jihadi Islam (including heretofore non-practicing Muslims), and of Facebook and other social media as a vector of radicalization. Bouzar and her work are controversial among practitioners and specialists, who consider her analysis of the wellsprings of jihadi radicalization to be problematic (there is also a personal side, as all of Bouzar’s university degrees were obtained after age 35, so she is not considered by some to be a bona fide member of the academic club, even though Olivier Roy was her doctoral thesis supervisor).

Back to Mention-Schaar’s film, French reviews were good (Paris press) to very good (Allociné spectateurs), though Hollywood critics who saw it at the Locarno film festival—here, here, and here—found it unsubtle, overly didactic, and with unconvincing performances. I won’t quibble with the stateside critics, though their objections didn’t bother me as much. One didactic point in the pic’s favor is that it depicted the reality of jihadi self-radicalization in this web 2.0 era by teenagers who have never set foot in a mosque or had actual face-to-face contact with real live salafis. Trailer is here.

As for the other films:

Made in France, by Nicolas Boukhrief: This was scheduled to open in theaters throughout France on November 18, 2015, and with big eye-catching posters (below) in the metro stations and elsewhere in public in the weeks prior. But then there was the terrorist atrocity of November 13th. Bad timing for the pic, the release of which was naturally postponed to a later date, and with the distributor finally announcing that it would go straight to VOD in January ’16 and not open theatrically at all. So one had to see it chez soi, on the small screen. That’s okay. It’s a by-the-numbers thriller, about a Franco-Algerian journalist named Sam (Malik Zidi) who infiltrates a jihadi cell in the Paris area (an alternative English title of the film is ‘Inside the Cell’) to land the big scoop. But then he gets caught in the engrenage—from which he cannot extricate himself—with the fanaticized cell leader Hassan (Dimitri Storoge), who is determined to commit a terrorist atrocity (spoiler alert: nothing happens), and flanked by the other cell members, all stock characters: Driss (Nassim Si Ahmed), the not-too-bright Maghrebi thug; Sidi (Ahmed Drame), the black, who’s not a bad guy deep down; and Christophe (François Civil), the Français de souche convert who’s settling personal scores. A genre film from A to Z. While entertaining, it’s not on the same pedagogical or sociological level—if one is looking for that—as Philippe Faucon’s 2012 La Désintégration. And the depiction of the cell—comprised of men who have not personally known one another for long—is of a bygone era. Jihadi terrorist cells in Europe nowadays are invariably composed of blood relatives. Hollywood press reviews—here and here—are more positive than for ‘Heaven Will Wait’. Trailer is here and interview with the director in The Guardian is here.

Les Cowboys, by Thomas Bidegain: This one, which opened two weeks after the November 13th atrocity, is less about terrorism than the sudden indoctrination of one’s child into a cult—here, salafi Islam, presumably terrorist-inclined—though which is not actually seen. It’s an odd film and from the opening scene, of a Western-style rodeo and hootenanny, with everyone dressed up like cowboys and cowgirls, contra dancing to country music, eating barbecue and burgers et le total, except that they’re all French people in the Bas-Bugey and in precisely 1994, when the story begins. Alain (François Damiens), Stetson on his head, is dancing with his 16-year-old daughter, Kelly, who then vanishes from sight. Alain and his wife, Nicole (Agathe Dronne), find a letter she has written them, saying that she has moved on to another life and bids them adieu. As they quickly learn, she has absconded with her petit ami, named Ahmed, who had become a salafi. She could be in Algeria—then in throes of the Islamist insurgency, though Ahmed’s Algerian immigrant parents, whom Alain knows, have no idea—the Middle East, Afghanistan, or anywhere. So Alain sets out on the obsessive quest to find his daughter, which takes him to Yemen, Pakistan—where he is helped by an American CIA type (played by John C. Reilly)—and other points on the globe, and that spans 17 years, though with him being killed in an automobile accident along the way, and with the search continued by his son (and Kelly’s younger brother), Kid (Finnegan Oldfield), who finally, maybe locates his sister in 2011.

Reviews of the film were good, including in the US, and with Damiens and director Bidegain receiving César nominations. It certainly held my attention, though I had mixed feelings about it. One understood Alain’s desperation as a father but his persona irritated me throughout, with his incessant blowing his stack and flying off the handle. And the ending left me unsatisfied. Bidegain was, as every review took care to mention, inspired by John Ford’s 1956 Western ‘The Searchers’, with Damiens obviously the John Wayne character and modern-day Muslims the savage Comanches. Having never seen ‘The Searchers’, I got it on Netflix in the US after seeing ‘Les Cowboys’. I was fully aware that Ford’s classic is considered a masterpiece and one of the greatest Westerns ever made—that, e.g., Martin Scorsese considers it one of the greatest films ever, period—but, personally speaking, thought it was crappy 1950s dreck, with wooden acting, a stupid story, and racist in the way it portrayed American Indians. And my mother, who has highbrow film tastes and knows well American cinema of the ’50s—when she was a young adult—entirely agreed with me. And no patient explanation of the film’s qualities will change our minds. Voilà. ‘Les Cowboys’, despite its flaws, is better. Trailer is here.

Taj Mahal, by Nicolas Saada. This one opened three weeks after the November 13th terrorist attacks. It reenacts the November 2008 terrorist operation in Bombay by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba—that lasted three days and killed 164 people—entirely from the perspective of an 18-year-old Franco-British girl named Louise (Stacy Martin, the protag in “Volume 1” of Lars von Trier’s preposterous 2014 ‘Nymphomaniac’), who found herself trapped during the attack in a suite at the Taj Mahal hotel, where she was staying with her parents. One hardly sees the terrorists as they maraud through the luxury hotel on their murderous campaign, the idea presumably being that one is supposed to feel the terror of a potential victim as she hides in the suite, keeping in touch with her parents, who are outside, via mobile phone.

I saw the film at an avant-première—on precisely the seventh anniversary of the first day of the attack—with the director and part of the crew present, plus members of the Association Française des Victimes du Terrorisme, who wholeheartedly endorsed the film. The intentions of the director were laudable and the film does have some merit—it was partly shot on location in Bombay—but unfortunately it’s a turkey. If one is expecting a high-octane, edge-of-your-seat thriller, this film is not it. One is struck by the blasé, low-key attitude of the parents (Louis-Do de Lencquesaing and Gina McKee) as they await the dénouement of the terror attack, and with their daughter at imminent risk of violent death. If it were me and my wife, we would, at minimum, be panic-stricken, if not downright hysterical. The general sentiment of Hollywood press critics is that the film was “inert” and low energy (here, here, here, and here). French reviews were more respectful—possibly because director Saada was a longtime critic at Cahiers du Cinéma, so a member of the club—though Allociné spectateurs were not so indulgent. The pic, needless to say, was a total box office failure. French audiences simply didn’t want to see such a film less than a month after November 13th. Trailer is here.

Salafistes, by François Margolin and Lemine Ould Salem. This is a  71-minute documentary that opened in late January 2016 and to controversy, as the ministry of interior sought to prevent its release—arguing that it constituted an “apology for terrorism” (a criminal offense in France)—and with the ministry of culture then trying to forbid it for persons aged 18 and under (which, in France, is exceedingly rare). The film, which finally opened in two theaters in Paris, consists of actual footage, by Mauritanian co-director Ould Salem, of Timbuktu under the rule of AQIM; interviews with radical salafi theologians in Mali, Mauritania, and Tunisia; and then raw footage of Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq carrying out horrendous acts, one of the more shocking being IS fanatics in their pick-ups racing down a desert highway in Iraq, machine-gunning every car they pass, just for the hell of it. In your face. My attitude during the film was who needs this? I am sufficiently well-informed on the subject, the film wasn’t telling me anything I didn’t already know, and watching psychotic people commit acts of gratuitous sadism and mayhem—not to mention salafi theologians (or “theologians”) blather about their crackpot Weltanschauung—is just not something I enjoy doing. But various persons thought the film worthwhile, e.g. former Le Monde editor-in-chief, Natalie Nougayrède, who wrote in The Guardian that “Salafistes is gruelling viewing – but it can help us understand terror.” And Claude Lanzmann, writing in Le Monde, called the documentary a “véritable chef d’œuvre…d’une grande beauté formelle, rapide, efficace, très intelligent,” and slammed the government for trying to block or restrict its release. And The Hollywood Reporter’s Jordan Mintzer also recommended it. Voilà, comme vous voulez. Trailer is here.

Voyage sans retour, by François Gérard. No one saw this film, or practically. It was slated for release in September 2013 but, in the month prior, was subjected to a campaign of denigration on social media, accusing it of being “Islamophobic,” with a lawsuit filed against it by a dodgy (subsequently disbarred) lawyer and actor Samy Naceri, who had a secondary role in the pic, entering into a conflict with the director and also trying to thwart its release. Director Gérard—who is ethnically Algerian (malgré his name)—denied that his film was in any way Islamophobic but the damage was done. It opened in only a couple of independent salles in the Paris area and was gone within two weeks. Vanished into the ether. I saw it via the internet a couple of years later (and needed help from a movie streaming-savvy colleague in finding the pic). In a nutshell, it’s about a Toulousian voyou named Kad (played by Gérard), who runs afoul of a gang of dealers, is obliged to hightail it out of France to England, where he is dragooned into an international terrorist organization, ends up in India and then Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he undergoes terrorist training, and with the idea that he will return to France to commit attentats. But then in Bombay, he runs into a former teacher of his, Nadine (Marie Vincent), who happens to be living there, the two develop sentiments for one another, and with her convincing him of the error of his ways. But he is not out of the woods yet.

The film was said to be loosely inspired by the story of Khaled Kelkal, though I didn’t perceive this at all. The review in Le Monde (one of the few) maintained that while “[f]ragile certes, imparfait assurément, Voyage sans retour est un document choc sur le recrutement des djihadistes dans les banlieues françaises, ce qui le pare d’une dimension testimoniale et pédagogique estimable.” This is too nice. All in all, it is not a good film. The sequence in south Asia is not credible—and particularly the relationship with the former teacher—the acting is mediocre, and one doesn’t give the film a moment’s thought after it’s over. If one wants to see the trailer, voilà. If one wants to actually see the film, good luck.

Read Full Post »

[update below] [2nd update below] [3rd update below] [4th update below] [5th update below]

The Financial Times website has a 15-minute video report, dated March 31st, on “the town that turned to Le Pen.” The town in question is Hénin-Beaumont, in the heart of France’s northern Rust Belt, which has become a Front National fief since Steeve Briois, a party heavyweight and Marine Le Pen ally, was comfortably elected mayor in 2014—and with Marine having lost the legislative constituency in 2012 by the narrowest of margins (0.22%; though she had the satisfaction of trouncing Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the 1st round). The FN is presenting Hénin-Beaumont as a model of FN good governance (contrasting with Vitrolles, the FN’s showcase municipality in the 1997-2001 period, where the FN experience ended in fiasco). If the 2015 regional election score in Hénin-Beaumont is any indication—Marine LP’s list taking 60% of the vote—the FN will be running the town for a while to come. So the FT’s Paris bureau chief Anne-Sylvaine Chassany went up there to find out what’s going on. Her report is worth the watch.

On the subject of Hénin-Beaumont and the FN, a feature-length film, directed by Lucas Belvaux, opened in February, Chez nous (in English: This is our land; FYI, “On-est-chez-nous!” is the chant most often heard at FN rallies). The FN flipped out when the film’s imminent release was announced in January, denouncing it as malevolent propaganda whose sole intention was to sully the party during the presidential campaign, and with the FN’s troll army going into action on social media to trash it—though, as one could have expected, not a single FN person had actually seen the film. Here’s a description of the plot, which I’ve cribbed from Atlantico and modified à ma guise

In Hénart, a fictitious town in the north, everyone knows and likes Pauline Duhez (Émilie Dequenne), a self-employed nurse who is out and about making house calls almost every day. It is thus normal that on the occasion of the municipal elections, Philippe Berthier (André Dussollier), a well-to-do medical doctor, former member of the European Parliament, and prominent local notable, proposes that she join the list of Agnès Dorgelle (Catherine Jacob), the national leader of the Rassemblement National Populaire (RNP). Berthier’s plan is the following: Pauline will be the n°2 on the list, behind the Parisian Dorgelle, and do the job for her as mayor while Dorgelle gives priority to her commitments on the national level.

Pauline, who is mostly apolitical, hesitates at first, saying she lacks the experience and is not sure she would be up to the job, but then succumbs to Dr. Berthier’s entreaties, adopts the RNP’s positions and eagerly plunges into the campaign, even though it means some changes in her work – which she loves – as a nurse. But things start to get complicated: with patients, who disapprove of her engagement with the RNP, and, above all, her retired former trade unionist, PCF-voting father, who stops speaking to her when he sees her on television as the RNP candidate. She then learns that Berthier has concealed from her shady parts of his political past. Adding to this is her new boyfriend, Stanko (Guillaume Gouix), with whom she had gone out in high school two decades earlier, who had been a member of the RNP’s security detachment of tough guys under Berthier’s supervision but been expelled for extremism and violent behavior – as this was tarnishing the public image of the RNP, which wants to appear respectable – and is now in a gang of neo-Nazi/skinhead goons that goes on migrant-bashing expeditions at night, but which he has concealed from Pauline.

So what was to have been a cakewalk to victory in the election becomes more complicated for Pauline. Skeletons come out of the closet and with Agnès Dorgelle, who wants people to forget about the past declarations of her father – from whom she had inherited the RNP leadership – on Jews, Arabs, and immigrants, is having a hard time burying the sulfurous past of her close collaborators. But she forges on…

It is rather obvious from the outset that Hénart is Hénin-Beaumont—the film was shot in the vicinity: in Bethune, Lens, and other localities in the Pas-de-Calais—the RNP is the FN’s big tent RBM (Rassemblement Bleu Marine), and the blond Agnès Dorgelle is, of course, Marine Le Pen. The FN’s ire toward the film, as Le Monde’s Raphaëlle Bacqué reported, was indeed focused on the casting of Catherine Jacob as the Marine lookalike, with, e.g., Steeve Briois calling her a “pot à tabac” (an uncomplimentary expression for a short, overweight woman)—not that the frontistes could have said anything else about the film, as they had not and would not see it.

Reviews were good on the whole—by critics and Allociné spectateurs alike, though there was an early troll campaign to lower its Allociné rating—but with some critics reproaching it for being too unsubtle. I thought it was quite good myself. The casting is pitch-perfect, particularly Émilie Dequenne, who merits a César nomination for her performance (pour mémoire, she was nominated for one in 2015, for her role in Belvaux’s Pas son genre). André Dussollier is likewise first-rate as the provincial bourgeois facho. And the depiction of the FN’s modus operandi and rhetoric is totally on target. I detected nothing that did not ring true and, with the exception of the flawed final scene, no contrivances. The film is very good in its portrayal of the cynicism of the FN, of the way it goes about recruiting and then manipulating candidates on the local level—and it is absolutely the case that the party seeks out political novices and ingenues, whose strings can be pulled from on high. Also spot on is the ambiguity of the party’s relationship with the violent elements on its fringe, whom it wants to keep out of sight, not out of fundamental political differences but because the goons make the party look bad and undermine its efforts at respectability and de-demonization.

Hollywood press critics who saw ‘Chez nous’ at the Rotterdam film festival gave it the thumbs up, e.g. from The Hollywood ReporterScreen Daily, and Variety, with the latter’s Jay Weissberg having this to say

The film is a shoo-in for Stateside distribution, since Belvaux’s theme is the cinematic equivalent of all those articles trying to understand the disgruntled white voters who supported Trump.

See also critic Boyd van Hoeij’s March 9th piece in The Atlantic, “Inside France’s most controversial film of the moment.”

The film has not been a big hit at the box office—with a mere 310,000 tickets sold seven weeks after its release—which is too bad (as I had declared on social media after seeing it that it was “Un bon film, à voir par tout citoyen avant le 1er tour de l’élection présidentielle”…). As for why it has been a relative commercial failure, perhaps people just don’t want to see an overly political film, particularly when they’re being bombarded daily with politics, and during an interminable, exasperating campaign to boot. Allez savoir. Émilie Dequenne and Lucas Belvaux appeared on February 4th on France 2’s late night “On n’est pas couché.” Trailer is here.

On how the FN operates behind the scenes—and manipulates and exploits its own candidates—France 2’s Envoyé Spécial had an exceptional one-hour reportage on March 16th, “Front national: les hommes de l’ombre,” on the three men at the heart of the FN’s finances: Frédéric Chatillon, Axel Loustau, and Nicolas Crochet. The three are formally independent businessmen and simple FN members with no official function in the party—and have no public profile—but are, in fact, in Marine LP’s inner circle. They’re her closest associates and her buddies—particularly Chatillon—whom she’s known since her late teens-early 20s, having partied together in their wild-and-crazy youth and who knows what else. And, as it happens, the three camarades were militants during their student days in the extreme right-wing GUD, known since its inception for physically bashing leftists. As one learns in the reportage, while Chatillon et al may no longer wear black rangers and wield truncheons, their facho politics have not changed an iota. They’re way out there on the extreme right, with the requisite antisemitism and all; thus their non-public profile in the party. If Marine is going to de-demonize the FN, the three camarades must stay out of sight.

But this is hard to do, as the three are so central to the FN’s money-making operations and corruption—and which involves, entre autres, legally obligating novice FN candidates to purchase their campaign material and other services at inflated prices from enterprises owned by Chatillon et al. Marine LP’s former geopolitical adviser, Aymeric Chauperade, is thus quoted in the reportage

Marine Le Pen minore ou néglige la dangerosité de ces gens-là. Il n’y a aucune raison que ce groupe disparaisse. C’est le groupe qui aura amené Marine Le Pen au pouvoir. Manifestement elle ne peut rien faire sans eux et elle ne peut rien faire contre eux, c’est ça qui est évidemment très grave.

It was said that Chauperade broke with Marine in 2015 over foreign policy differences but he asserts in the reportage that it was due to the influence of the three camarades. The Envoyé Spécial report, which is a must, may be watched here.

On Chatillon et al, also see the articles in the March 22nd and March 29th issues of Le Canard Enchaîné (to enlarge the images, right click to open in a new tab).

Another reportage—this in English—is a half hour analysis on the BBC, first aired on March 20th, “Detoxifying France’s National Front.” The description:

Has Front National leader Marine Le Pen really detoxified the party founded by her father 40 years ago? Is it a right-wing protest movement or a party seriously preparing for power? Anand Menon, professor of European politics at Kings College London, analyses the process the French call dédiabolisation. Le Pen has banished the name of the party and even her own surname from election posters and leaflets. Her party is making inroads into socialist and communist fiefdoms in northern and eastern France. Combining nationalism with a message designed to reach out to the left, she speaks up loudly for the have-nots, people who live in the land she calls “the forgotten France.” She targets trade unionists, teachers and gay voters. But widening the party’s appeal leads to a tricky balancing act. Can Marine Le Pen manage the process of political exorcism without alienating die-hard supporters?

Stanford University professor and FN specialist Cécile Alduy, who posted the link on Facebook, wrote that it’s “[o]ne of the best radio shows I’ve listened to in a long time, and the best reporting on the National Front in English you can find around.” Indeed.

L’Obs/Rue 89 has a post dated March 26th on the research of Université d’Avignon political scientist Christèle Marchand-Lagier, “Qui vote FN? Pourquoi? 3 idées reçues sur les électeurs du Front national.” Based on years of interviewing FN voters in the Vaucluse—Marion Maréchal-Le Pen’s fief and an FN bastion—Marchand-Lagier concludes that many FN voters (a) are not particularly ideological, are not well-informed about the FN’s program, and don’t vote for the party with the expectation that it will come to power and change their lives for the better; (b) are far more middle class than lower; and (c) could change their votes in the future, signifying that a significant portion of the FN’s vote remains one of protest rather than adhesion. That’s good to know.

Also refuting idées reçues is demographer Hervé Le Bras in a piece in Slate.fr, dated April 10th, “Qui vote FN? Pas forcément ceux à qui l’on pense.” Cool maps, as one usually finds in Le Bras’ publications. In short, a sizable part of the FN vote resembles that of Trump’s in the US: periurban, small provincial towns, and rural (i.e. not urban); middle class but who fear downward mobility (and which they see around them); and a sentiment of isolation from mainstream (urban) society and abandonment by the state.

Marine LP is having her Paris rally next Monday, five years to the day from the one in 2012. And as with that one, it will be held at the Zénith, which seats 6,300 (and with no standing room-only pit). This is not the largest arena in the city, e.g. some 12,000 can pack the Palais des Sports, and Bercy—where Emmanuel Macron will be holding his rally on Monday as well—can accommodate 20,000. Marine may be high in the polls—in the one out today from IPSOS, she’s tied with Macron for first, at 24%—but still can’t draw big crowds, and certainly not from the Paris region. Not what one would expect from a candidate who has an outside chance of being elected president of the French republic.

UPDATE: The New York Times’ Adam Nossiter has a detailed article (April 13th) on Marine LP and Frédéric Chatillon et al, “Le Pen’s inner circle fuels doubt about bid to ‘un-demonize’ her party.”

2nd UPDATE: Valérie Igounet and Vincent Jarousseau—a historian at the CNRS and photographer-documentarian, respectively—have a photoessay in the Spring 2017 issue of Dissent, “Scenes from the Front: France’s Front National in Power,” which is mainly of Hénin-Beaumont.

3rd UPDATE: Paris-based journalist Scott Sayare has a very good article (April 20th) in The Guardian on “How Marine Le Pen played the media.” The lede: “For years, she has accused French journalists of bias against her family and her party. Yet Marine Le Pen has managed to lead the far-right Front National into the political mainstream – and she couldn’t have done it without the press.”

4th UPDATE: Cécile Alduy of Stanford University has a must-read piece (April 23rd) in Politico, “What a 1973 French novel tells us about Marine Le Pen, Steve Bannon and the rise of the populist right.” The lede: “Stridently anti-immigrant, The Camp of Saints was originally ignored or pilloried. Now, it’s found a following.”

5th UPDATE: France Culture’s excellent ‘La Suite dans les idées’ program, hosted by Sylvain Bourmeau, has a half-hour interview (May 27th) with University of Rouen sociologist Violaine Girard, entitled “Le FN pavillonnaire est-il vraiment si populaire?,” in which Girard, based on her field research, refutes the idée reçue that periurban FN voters are victims of the economic crisis and experiencing downward mobility.

Read Full Post »

Democracy: the movie

Yesterday was the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, a.k.a. the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, which was the precursor to the Treaty of Maastricht, a.k.a. the Treaty on European Union, signed thirty-five years later. It is no exaggeration to say that the Treaty of Rome was an event of world-historical importance; one of the most momentous of the past seventy years. To mark the occasion, I want to strongly, enthusiastically recommend a terrific 1½ hour German documentary, Democracy, that I saw for the first time last October at the Festival du Cinéma Allemand in Paris, and with director David Bernet present (the film’s title in German carries the subtitle “Im Rausch der Daten”: inside the noise of data). The subject is the legislative process within the institutions of the European Union—and the European Parliament in particular—over the General Data Protection Regulation, a process that began in 2012 and lasted three years. ‘Democracy’ is, quite simply, the best behind-the-scenes documentary one will see on how the European Union actually works—of how EU legislation is crafted and adopted—and over an issue of great importance to the 500-odd million citizens of the Union’s member states—and who, thanks to the GDPR, will enjoy greater protection in regard to their personal information on the Internet than do Americans or others. Among other things, the documentary will also lay to rest any lingering notions of a “democratic deficit” in the institutions of the European Union (of a deficit greater than that in the institutions of any given member state, in any case). Here’s a synopsis from this website (and where a trailer with English subtitles may be seen)

Few things are more unwieldy and lacking in transparency than European politics. Who’s really running the show in Brussels? What’s the true role of the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers? And how do the new laws and regulations that apply to all 28 member states get made? For two years, Democracy followed several key figures behind the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, a controversial issue among European policymakers. The film starts in 2014 with the European Parliament approving the new regulation, and then leaps two years back to the start of the negotiations. Rapporteur Jan Philipp Albrecht is the German Green Party [member of the European Parliament] tasked with steering and overseeing the entire process. We see him talking with lobbyists and civil rights activists, joining fringe gatherings and debates, participating in think tanks, talking with colleagues in the corridors of power, and reporting to EU Commissioner Viviane Reding [who held the Justice, Fundamental Rights, and Citizenship file]. Often patient but sometimes visibly frustrated, he counters opponents’ arguments about a new regulation that met particularly intense resistance from big businesses working with large amounts of personal data.

The documentary has protagonists and heroes, notably Jan Philipp Albrecht and the Luxembourgeoise Viviane Reding mentioned above, but also, among others, the citizens’ lobbyists Paolo Balboni of the European Privacy Association and Katarzyna Szymielewicz of the Warsaw-based Panoptykon Foundation. And, indirectly, Edward Snowden, who naturally makes an appearance. The stakes in the legislation were huge for big data-mining corporate interests—Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon et al—but the only lobbyist interviewed on that side was from the Cary, North Carolina-based IT company SAS; I initially thought this was a shortcoming of the documentary, but, as one learns, the big data operators (Google et al), though omnipresent throughout, declined to be interviewed by director Bernet.

After seeing the film last October, I declared to all and sundry that every citizen of an EU member state should be obliged to see it—so as to see how the EU actually works—and that the film should also be screened in university courses on contemporary Europe. When I asked Bernet how one could obtain the DVD (and with English and French subtitles), he said to look on Amazon.de, so I had a copy ordered for a course I teach on European politics to American undergraduates on a semester abroad. As it happens, we watched it in class last week, with the students finding it most interesting—and one saying that she wanted to see it again—and a good discussion ensuing. The pedagogical value of the film was confirmed.

University of Cambridge technology law and policy specialist Julia Powles had a review essay on the film in The Guardian, “Democracy: the film that gets behind the scenes of the European privacy debate,” on its debut in Germany in November 2015. The lede: “As nationalism sweeps Europe, a subtle cinematic triumph about an unlikely subject animates the hopes of transnational democracy.”

Also see the review from June 2016 in ZDNet, by journalist Wendy M. Grossman, who specializes in IT and privacy issues, in which she writes that

Democracy is almost as extraordinary an achievement as the passage of the GDPR: Bernet manages to make data protection law and legislative compromise engrossing. Who knew that was even possible?

Film critic Jordan Mintzer has a review in The Hollywood Reporter, which begins

Watching a government at work can be akin to watching flies fornicate, so director David Bernet deserves credit for making the most out of a particularly tedious bureaucratic nightmare in Democracy, a rare and insightful glimpse into the inner workings of the European Parliament…

Two thoughts. First, Democracy is an excellent antidote to the half-baked, ill-informed Euroscepticism that presently pervades public opinion in the EU’s member states. Second, it makes Brexit that much more incomprehensible. Honestly, why would the Brits want to be left out of the legislative process one sees in the film, which will necessarily affect them whether they remain in the EU or leave? It makes no sense.

Read Full Post »

I was reading the other day a lengthy enquête on Turkey in Le Monde dated Feb. 27th, on the resistance by Turkish civil society to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s implacable determination to consolidate his dictatorship and crush all opposition to his rule. The piece, by journalist Marc Semo, begins with an account of the ethnologist Ahmet Kerim Gültekin, who was abruptly dismissed from his professorship at Manzur University in Tunceli after last July’s attempted coup d’état—which he had nothing whatever to do with—and thereby from the civil service, and with his passport revoked, thus preventing him from seeking employment abroad. But it’s not as if there are other options available to him in Turkey, even as a waiter in a restaurant, as any employer will see, upon registering his social security number, that he had been fired from his job in the post-coup purge, and will thus not want to touch him with a ten foot pole. So he is unemployable, a “dead man walking.” But he resists, vaille que vaille. There are tens of thousands like him in Turkey.

As it happens, I saw a film on this precise theme last week—the day before reading the above article—the final one by Poland’s great director Andrzej Wajda, who died last October: Afterimage (in France: Les Fleurs bleues), which recounts the story of the persecution by Poland’s Communist regime of the country’s renowned avant-garde painter Władysław Strzemiński, from 1948—when he was fired from his position at the State Higher School of the Visual Arts in Łódź, of which he was one of the founders—to his death in destitution in 1952 (at age 59). Strzemiński—who had an arm and a leg blown off during WWI—was fired from his institute for his uncompromising rejection of the official doctrine of socialist realism as imposed by the Soviet Union. Not only was the blacklisted painter—who was Poland’s greatest of his era—unable to obtain steady employment but was deprived of ration cards to buy food or even oil paints and brushes, the sale of which was controlled by the state. But Strzemiński refused to capitulate to the commissars. And he died broken and destitute.

As for the film, it’s typical Andrzej Wajda: well-done, with a not so subtle political message (see my post on his previous one, Wałęsa: Man of Hope), and, in this case, tragic (as was his 2007 Katyń). It is as powerful an indictment of the Communist regime in Poland—indeed of every ‘really existing socialist’ regime of the sort—as one will find. For a discussion of Strzemiński’s life and œuvre—though which mentions his political persecution only in passing—go here. And to see some of his art, go here. The trailer of the film is here.

Back to Turkey, I read a sad essay this weekend—which makes one almost want to cry—dated last October 5th, on the Big Roundtable blog (h/t Claire B.) by writer Selin Thomas, “My shattered Istanbul: Turkey is slipping away from my family, collapsing into the arms of a tyrant. We thought she was ours. Maybe we were wrong.” 😥

Read Full Post »

2017 Oscars

tmg-article_tall

The list of nominees is here. For only the second time in my now long life I’ve managed to see all the films in the top categories. I so far have blog posts on none—having slacked off on film reviews over the past year—but intend to get one up soon on the Afro-American themed films, plus another on the Second World War one (along with others on that topic). I’ll also have a special one on films set in Texas. And the foreign ones too. For the others, here’s my capsule assessment, beginning with the Best Picture nominees.

Manchester by the Sea: I was eagerly looking forward to seeing this, in view of the stellar reviews—a 96 score on Metacritic and 4.5/4.2 on Allociné—and dithyrambic reactions on social media. But then a highbrow New York-based intello-cinephile friend—whose views I take with the utmost seriousness—told me that it was “terribly overrated.” My reply to him after seeing: “It’s not a chef d’œuvre but I wouldn’t say it’s overrated—let alone hugely so—this implying that it’s not that good. It’s an engaging film—which, for me, means that I didn’t start checking the time on my phone half way through—and well acted. It won’t make AWAV’s Top 10 of the year but could make Honorable Mention [which it did].” After reading novelist Francine Prose’s essay on the film in the NYR blog, I emailed him that “[m]y estimation of Manchester is increasing…” But then I received this from a faithful Provence-based AWAV reader: “Interesting movie, great acting, sensible directing, but spoiled right in the middle [in the scene of the house burning] by a horrible mistake: the lengthy, insisting, emphatic, pompous, pathetic extract from Adagio d’Albinoni pasted wall to wall, several minutes of it, over the most dramatic silent scene in the movie… I couldn’t believe it! Not even a stupid producer would dare to ask that from a director.” Well! I didn’t fixate on the musical score myself, though can see the objection. Chacun son goût, comme on dit.

La La Land: I can’t remember the last time a movie was both so hyped and aroused such wildly diverging reactions from friends and colleagues on both sides of the ocean, ranging from gushing thumbs way up—with some loving it (e.g. a highbrow academic friend informed his thousands of social media fans that it was “enchanting”)—to vehement thumbs way down: e.g. one French journalist/Facebook friend so hated the pic that he fired off a 1,000-word diatribe ripping it to smithereens. Ouf! FYI, it’s a big hit in France, with an impressive 4.3/4.4 score on Allociné, though there does appear to have been a backlash against the film among some Anglophone critics. Now I normally do not care for musicals myself and tend to avoid them, though, in view of the hype, was certainly going to see this one. A highbrow cinesnob friend in the DC area who always likes a good musical (‘Singin’ in the Rain’ is his all-time favorite)—but otherwise rubbishes 85% of the films he sees—nonetheless dumped on ‘La La Land’, calling it “forgettable” and predicting that I would share his viewpoint.

Upon seeing it—with my 86-year-old mother, a lifelong cinephile herself and who grew up with musicals—I emailed the following to my cinesnob friend: “I started out not liking it… [b]ut then my attitude changed half way through, as the story started to come together—of [the protags’] relationship—and I came to appreciate some of the music—notably the band’s score in the nightclub—and choreography. And then talking about the movie with my mother, who liked it and, as is her wont, launched into a lengthy analysis (and which continued at home; and my mother’s film analyses are [on your highbrow level]). So my final verdict is a moderate thumbs up… Oh yes, my mother was also impressed with Ryan Gosling—whom she hadn’t seen before—of his talent as a musician and dancer. And found him physically graceful, reminding her of Marlon Brando. I was also impressed with his musical talent (on the keyboards).”

And then there was this reaction from my aforementioned New York-based intello-cinephile friend—and who has published articles on jazz, among many other subjects: “I liked it much more than I expected to. Sure, the jazz stuff is a bit silly, but it’s not a film about jazz, or about anything meant to resemble reality: it’s an ode to old Hollywood musicals, to the city of Los Angeles, and jazz is but a backdrop. To argue over the use of John Legend in the film is also to take the film too seriously. The two principals are charming, their relationship is believable and sympathetic, the use of color and setting striking. The music isn’t memorable, a weakness, except for that one song he sings and then later plays solo on piano. The film is not perfect, but for the most part I found it absorbing and delightful in an old-fashioned sort of way.” I’ll go along with that. [UPDATE: My mother has a review of ‘La Land Land’ on her blog here that is well worth reading (March 6th).]

Arrival: I had zero interest in seeing this when it came out here in December—under the title ‘Premier contact’—and despite the top reviews (4.1/4.1 in Allociné), as it looked to be a science fiction film, a genre I normally avoid. And I didn’t get any word-of-mouth on it (and still haven’t, apart from a shrug by a student). But in view of its Oscar nominations I decided I had to check it out, persuading an academic friend with whom I periodically see movies to come along. Now my friend—who is intellectually brilliant and analyses films on a rather higher level than I—knew absolutely nothing about it, so went into it blind, as was more or less the case with me. We were immediately impressed that the salle at the UGC Ciné Cité Les Halles multiplex was packed and two months after its sortie, signifying positive word-of-mouth. And we were impressed leaving the theater at the end, this time with the film itself, which surprised us both. It is, on the surface, a science fiction movie but is way more than that. It is a philosophical meditation on temporality and language, a “beautiful, astonishing, incredibly sophisticated film,” to paraphrase my friend. I am not capable of textually recounting her typically sophisticated analysis, nor my own thoughts at the moment—it was four weeks ago—so will simply link to the excellent review essay by the well-known science and technology writer-author James Gleick in The New York Review of Books, which is all one needs to read on the film.

Lion: I saw this just last night. The salle at UGC Opéra was almost full to capacity, which is not surprising in view of the manifestly positive word-of-mouth (reflected in the 4.5 audience score on Allociné). It’s a crowd-pleaser. One is totally caught up in the first half of the film, in India, and with one’s heart melting for the little Saroo all alone on the streets of Calcutta. Ça crève le cœur. One wants to take him into one’s arms and hug him to death. But the second half, in Australia, is less satisfying. I’m a sucker for sentimentality but it was laid on a little too heavily here. My tears were not jerked. And while Dev Patel and Nicole Kidman are nominees for best supporting actor and actress, respectively, I was not bowled over by their performances. The cinematography is impressive, though. And of course it has a happy ending, so one leaves the theater feeling good. The pic, while hardly a chef d’œuvre, may be seen.

And then there are these:

Captain Fantastic: I didn’t bother with this one when it came out—and despite the 4.4 Allociné audience rating—catching up with it on account of Viggo Mortensen’s best actor nomination. What to say, it’s a good, entertaining movie and with fine acting. I enjoyed it. And it is by far the most sophisticated Hollywood movie ever made in the way it treats left-wing politics, at least on the level of rhetoric. Hollywood invariably bombs when it comes to this but not this movie. Director-screenwriter Matt Ross knows the left, that’s for sure.

Florence Foster Jenkins: I thought that this would be anticlimactic after Xavier Giannoli’s 2015 Marguerite, which was inspired by the life of Florence FJ, but not at all. Having seen ‘Marguerite’ I knew the story, but was entertained nonetheless. The acting is excellent and with Meryl Streep more than deserving her best actress nomination. Too bad Simon Helberg wasn’t nominated for best supporting actor. The depiction of mid 1940s New York City is also impeccable. Voilà, c’est tout.

Jackie: I didn’t feel overly compelled to see this one, doing so mainly on account of Natalie Portman (best actress nominee)—for whom I have a well-known soft spot—playing the lead role. Director Pablo Larraín, who’s Chilean (he directed the terrific film No, among others), apparently said that he wouldn’t do the film if Portman didn’t take the role. She is, needless to say, perfectly cast as Jackie Kennedy. The pic is all Natalie P., and she’s great. Other than that, it left me indifferent. I gave it no thought after leaving the cinoche. Not even Natalie.

Sully: This received one nomination, for a category I have no opinion on (best sound editing). A perfect popcorn movie (though I never buy popcorn in movie theaters myself). Clint Eastwood’s most entertaining movie since ‘Invictus’. And Tom Hanks is impeccable in the lead role. French critics and audiences alike gave it the thumbs up, which is hardly a surprise (3.8/4.2 on Allociné). C’est tout ce que j’ai à dire.

My vote:

BEST PICTURE: ‘Moonlight’.
No hesitation on this, though I wouldn’t be surprised if the crowd-pleasing ‘Hidden Figures’ wins. I will be disgusted if it’s ‘La La Land’, which ranks close to last of the nine nominees.

BEST DIRECTOR: Mel Gibson (Hacksaw Ridge).
A politically incorrect choice, I know. I was impressed with this film, however, and found the reenactment of the Battle of Okinawa to be a directorial feat. Denis Villeneuve (Arrival) and Berry Jenkins (Moonlight) are tied for a close second.

BEST ACTOR: Denzel Washington (Fences).
Denzel has played his role here dozens of times on the stage but it’s a tour de force nonetheless. The other nominees are meritorious.

BEST ACTRESS: Natalie Portman (Jackie).
This is a close one. Isabelle Huppert is stellar in ‘Elle’ but this is not an American film and she already won the César for it yesterday. Meryl Streep is tops in ‘Florence Foster Jenkins’ but for her to get it would be like the New England Patriots winning the Super Bowl. Deserved but happens all the time. Ruth Negga in ‘Loving’: I wouldn’t rank her first here. Emma Stone in ‘La La Land’ did not knock my socks off.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Mahershala Ali (Moonlight).
He’s awesome in this. Michael Shannon (Nocturnal Animals) and Jeff Bridges (Hell or High Water) are tied for second.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Octavia Spencer (Hidden Figures).
All the nominees here, Nicole Kidman (Lion) excepted, are credible winners.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: ‘The Salesman’ by Asghar Farhadi.
In view of the political context, I would be shocked if this didn’t win. Maren Ade’s ‘Toni Erdmann’ is very good. I haven’t seen the other nominees.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: ‘Fire at Sea’.
This is the only one I’ve seen, and it’s good. I have been reliably informed that ‘I Am Not Your Negro’, ‘O.J.: Made in America’, and ’13th’ are all amazing but I haven’t seen them yet. When they come to France, I will illico.

Table showing 2017 Oscar nominees in top categories. TNS 2017

Table showing 2017 Oscar nominees in top categories. TNS 2017

 

Read Full Post »

2017 César awards

cesar

[update below]

France’s Oscars. The ceremony is tomorrow (Friday)—two days before the US Academy Awards comme d’hab’—at the Salle Pleyel. The full list of nominees is here. Leading with eleven nominations each are Elle and Frantz, Ma Loute (Slack Bay) has nine, Mal de pierres (From the Land of the Moon) eight, Divines seven, Juste la fin du monde (It’s Only the End of the World) and La Danseuse (The Dancer) six each, and Chocolat and Victoria (In Bed with Victoria) five a piece. As it happens, I don’t have blog posts on any—I haven’t written too much on cinema over the past year—but will soon enough, inshallah. But as I have seen the movies, I possess the necessary qualifications to cast a virtual ballot. So voilà:

BEST FILM: Les Innocentes (The Innocents).
It’s a toss-up between this and Frantz. There was, in fact, no really outstanding French film last year. A number were good, indeed quite—such as these two—but there were no chefs d’œuvre. Elle is a gripping drame psychologique but I had somewhat mixed feelings about it leaving the theater. As for Divines, see the ‘best first film’ category below. Three of the seven nominees, it should be said, do not belong: Ma Loute (screwball comedy that critics liked far more than did the unwashed public, of which I am a part), Mal de pierres (bof), and Victoria (frivolous waste-of-time rom-com).

BEST DIRECTOR: Anne Fontaine for Les Innocentes.
François Ozon for Frantz is equally worthy. If Xavier Dolan wins for his execrable Juste la fin du monde, I will forever lose respect for the Académie des Arts et Techniques du Cinéma.

BEST ACTOR: Nicolas Duvauchelle in Je ne suis pas un salaud (A Decent Man).
There are any number of worthy winners, e.g. Omar Sy in Chocolat and François Cluzet in Médecin de campagne (Irreplaceable) but Duvauchelle is a very good actor and deserves it for his role in this engaging film.

BEST ACTRESS: Isabelle Huppert in Elle.
She’s France’s greatest living actress. And her performance here is a tour de force. Other nominees are certainly meritorious: Marina Foïs is powerful as a sociopathic stalker in Irréprochable (Faultless), as is Judith Chemla in Une vie (A Woman’s Life) as an early 19th century bourgeois woman trapped in the gender roles of the era. And the sublime Marion Cotillard is tops in the otherwise unexceptional Mal de pierres. I did not, however, care for Sidse Babett Knudsen in La Fille de Brest (150 Milligrams).

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: James Thierrée in Chocolat.
Laurent Lafitte in Elle is the runner-up. If Vincent Cassel wins for his role in the atrocious Juste la fin du monde—or for any role in any film—I will be sorely tempted to commit an unlawful act…

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Déborah Lukumuena in Divines.
She is memorable in her role in this, just a little more so than the other nominees in theirs.

MOST PROMISING ACTOR: Corentin Fila in Quand on a 17 ans (Being 17).
The other nominees are worthy but he gets the edge.

MOST PROMISING ACTRESS: Oulaya Amamra in Divines.
Absolutely totally. A Star Is Born.

BEST FIRST FILM: Divines.
Hands down. A very good movie. One of the best in years in the banlieue racaille genre.

BEST DOCUMENTARY: Fuocoammare (Fire at Sea).
I’ve only seen one of the others in this category but this one is very good and, in view of the subject matter, deserves to win IMHO.

BEST FOREIGN FILM: Graduation by Cristian Mungiu.
Maren Ade’s Toni Erdmann is a close runner-up, followed by Kleber Mendonça Filho’s Aquarius. Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake is certainly the top gauchiste film of the year. The Dardenne brothers’ The Unknown Girl is honorable but not their best. Manchester by the Sea? Nah. If Xavier Dolan’s abominable Juste la fin du monde wins, I think I’ll…

UPDATE: The list of the winners is here. I nailed it on half the categories above, including the trifecta for ‘Divines’.  ‘Elle’ won for best film, which was hardly a surprise. Gaspard Ulliel winning best actor for the detestable ‘Juste la fin du monde’ was incomprehensible, as was Xavier Dolan for best director. My respect for the AATC is definitively lost.

cesars-2017-nominations_1_1400_1364

Read Full Post »

Best (and worst) movies of 2016

In keeping with AWAV’s annual end-of-year tradition, I offer my list of the best and worst movies of the year (for last year’s, see here). The movies here opened in theaters this year in France or the U.S. Some have dedicated blog posts, the others will in due course, inshallah. N.B. Several well-reviewed Hollywood movies—and that figure on the “best of” lists of US critics—are opening in France after the new year, so I have yet to see them (e.g. Moonlight, La La Land, Loving). And not being a Pedro Almodóvar fan, I did not see his latest, Julieta, which has been praised to the heavens by all and sundry.

TOP 10:
Apprentice
Aquarius
As I Open My Eyes (على حلة عيني)
Embrace of the Serpent (El abrazo de la serpiente)
Graduation (Bacalaureat)
Hedi (نحبك هادي)
Paterson
Spotlight
The Salesman (فروشنده)
Toni Erdmann

HONORABLE MENTION:
A War (Krigen)
Hell or High Water
Ma’Rosa
Manchester by the Sea
Tangerines (მანდარინები Mandariinid)

BEST MOVIE FROM JORDAN:
Theeb (ذيب)

BEST MOVIE FROM EGYPT:
Clash (إشتباك)

BEST MOVIE FROM CUBA:
Behavior (Conducta)

BEST MOVIE FROM MEXICO:
A Monster with a Thousand Heads (Un monstruo de mil cabezas)

BEST MOVIE FROM ARGENTINA:
The Clan (El Clan)

SECOND BEST MOVIE FROM ARGENTINA:
Paulina (La patota)

BEST MOVIE FROM ICELAND:
Sparrows (Þrestir)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE MAINLY SET IN ICELAND:
The Aquatic Effect (L’Effet aquatique)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE MAINLY SET IN GREENLAND:
Journey to Greenland (Le Voyage au Groenland)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE MAINLY SET IN POLAND:
The Innocents (Les Innocents)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE MAINLY SET IN GERMANY:
Frantz

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE MAINLY SET IN CYPRUS:
The Stopover (Voir du Pays)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE MAINLY SET IN CHAD:
The White Knights (Les Chevaliers blancs)

MOST IDIOTIC MOVIE FROM FRANCE MAINLY SET IN FRENCH GUIANA:
La Loi de la jungle

MOST FEEL-GOOD MOVIE FROM FRANCE WITH AN ALGERIA THEME:
Good Luck Algeria

MOST HILARIOUS MOVIE FROM FRANCE WITH AN ALGERIA THEME:
One Man and His Cow (La Vache)

MOST TOUCHING MOVIE FROM FRANCE WITH AN ALGERIA THEME:
Two Birds, One Stone (D’une pierre deux coups)

MOST INTERESTING DOCUMENTARY FROM FRANCE WITH AN ALGERIA THEME:
Algérie du possible

MOST IN-YOUR-FACE DOCUMENTARY FROM FRANCE ABOUT JIHADIST TERRORISTS:
Salafistes

MOST AMUSING ENGAGÉ DOCUMENTARY FROM FRANCE ON HOW A WORKER GOT THE BETTER OF HIS EX-BOSS AND MADE HIM LOOK RIDICULOUS WHILE HE WAS AT IT:
Thanks Boss! (Merci Patron!)

MOST AMAZING FRANCO-IRAQI DOCUMENTARY ON IRAQ IN THE PERIOD PRECEDING THE 2003 AMERICAN INVASION:
Homeland: Iraq Year Zero: Part 1 (وطن: العراق السنة صفر: جزء ١)

MOST AMAZING FRANCO-IRAQI DOCUMENTARY ON IRAQ IN THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE 2003 AMERICAN INVASION:
Homeland: Iraq Year Zero: Part 2 (وطن: العراق السنة صفر: جزء ٢)

MOST GRATIFYING FRANCO-GERMAN-IRANIAN DOCUMENTARY ON IRANIAN WOMEN WHO ARE DETERMINED TO PLAY MUSIC AND SING WHETHER THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC LIKES IT OR NOT:
No Land’s Song (آواز بی‌سرزمین)

MOST SURPRISINGLY ENGAGING THREE HOUR DOCUMENTARY WITH NO NARRATION ON A MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT NEIGHBORHOOD IN NEW YORK CITY:
In Jackson Heights

BEST DOCUMENTARY FROM ITALY ON THE CURRENT MIGRATION CRISIS IN EUROPE:
Fire at Sea (Fuocoammare)

BEST DOCUMENTARY EVER ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION:
Democracy (Democracy: Im Rausch der Daten)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE ON ISLAMIST SELF-RADICALIZATION IN THE WEB 2.0 ERA:
Heaven Will Wait (Le Ciel attendra)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE ABOUT BADASS DRUG-DEALING CHICKS IN A GHETTO HOUSING PROJECT:
Divines

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE ABOUT BADASS DRUG-DEALING DUDES IN A GHETTO HOUSING PROJECT:
Chouf

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE ABOUT A WALLISIAN RUGBY PLAYER FROM NEW CALEDONIA WHO ENDS UP IN THE LOT-ET-GARONNE:
Mercenary (Mercenaire)

BEST MOST POWERFUL HOLLYWOOD MOVIE ON THE HORRORS OF WAR:
Hacksaw Ridge

BEST HOLLYWOOD MOVIE SHOWING HOW RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GAY WOMEN ARE REALLY QUITE DIFFERENT FROM RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GAY MEN:
Carol

BEST INDY MOVIE ON THE DILEMMAS OF GENTRIFICATION:
Little Men

BEST MOVIE FROM CHINA ABOUT THE LEGACY OF THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION:
Red Amnesia (闯入者)

BEST MOVIE FROM CAMBODIA ABOUT RURAL MIGRANT YOUTH FINDING THEIR WAY IN THE BIG CITY:
Diamond Island (កោះពេជ្រ)

BEST MOVIE FROM INDIA ABOUT LOWER CLASS WOMEN IN GUJARAT WHO ARE FED UP WITH MISOGYNY:
Parched (पार्चड)

BEST MOVIE FROM INDIA ABOUT UPPER CLASS WOMEN IN GOA WHO ARE FED UP WITH MISOGYNY:
Angry Indian Goddesses (ऐंग्री इंडियन गोड्डेस्सेस)

BEST MOVIE FROM RUSSIA ABOUT A TEENAGE RELIGIOUS FANATIC AND HIS MILITANTLY SECULAR TEACHER:
The Student (Ученик)

MOST COMPLEX MOVIE FROM IRAN:
Nahid (ناهید)

MOST ABSORBING MOVIE FROM GERMANY ABOUT A HEROIC NAZI-HUNTING PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:
The People vs. Fritz Bauer (Der Staat gegen Fritz Bauer)

MOST HEARTWARMING TRIFLE OF A MOVIE FROM FINLAND:
The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Mäki (Hymyilevä mies)

MOST OVERRATED MOVIE FROM GREAT BRITAIN:
45 Years

MOST OVERRATED MOVIE FROM SOUTH KOREA:
The Handmaiden (아가씨)

MOST BLOATED MOVIE FROM ROMANIA:
Sieranevada

BLEAKEST MOVIE FROM ROMANIA:
Dogs (Câini)

DARKEST MOVIE FROM BELGIUM:
The Ardennes (D’Ardennen)

MOST EXCRUCIATINGLY PAINFUL TO WATCH MOVIE FROM FRANCE REENACTING A HORRIFIC ANTISEMITIC CRIME COMMITTED BY A GANG OF LOWLIFE DREGS IN A PARIS BANLIEUE:
Tout, tout de suite

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE WITH ISABELLE HUPPERT IN THE LEAD ROLE:
Elle

SECOND BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE WITH ISABELLE HUPPERT IN THE LEAD ROLE:
Things to Come (L’Avenir)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE WITH FRANÇOIS CLUZET IN THE LEAD ROLE:
Irreplaceable (Médecin de campagne)

BEST MOVIE FROM FRANCE WITH NICOLAS DUVAUCHELLE IN THE LEAD ROLE:
A Decent Man (Je ne suis pas un salaud)

BEST HOLLYWOOD MOVIE WITH BRIE LARSON IN THE LEAD ROLE:
Room

BEST HOLLYWOOD MOVIE WITH BRYAN CRANSTON IN THE LEAD ROLE:
Trumbo

BEST HOLLYWOOD MOVIE WITH MERYL STREEP AND HUGH GRANT IN THE LEAD ROLES:
Florence Foster Jenkins

BEST BRITISH MOVIE WITH EDDIE REDMAYNE AND ALICIA VIKANDER IN THE LEAD ROLES:
The Danish Girl

MOST UNSATISFYING PALESTINIAN MOVIE WITH HIAM ABBASS IN THE LEAD ROLE:
Dégradé (ديچرادي)

BEST MOVIE BY ALEJANDRO G. IÑÁRRITU:
The Revenant

BEST MOVIE BY KEN LOACH:
I, Daniel Blake

BEST NOT BAD MOVIE BY WOODY ALLEN:
Café Society

BEST TEENAGE ROAD MOVIE BY FATIH AKIN:
Tschick

BEST CROWD-PLEASING MOVIE BY CLINT EASTWOOD:
Sully

BEST MOVIE BY JEAN-PIERRE & LUC DARDENNE THAT IS NOT THEIR BEST MOVIE:
The Unknown Girl (La Fille inconnue)

MOST ENTERTAININGLY INSIGNIFICANT MOVIE BY RICHARD LINKLATER:
Everybody Wants Some!!

MOST SKIPPABLE MOVIE BY JEFF NICHOLS:
Midnight Special

MOST TRIVIAL MOVIE BY JOEL & ETHAN COEN:
Hail, Caesar!

MOST MAUDLIN MOVIE BY NAOMI KAWASE:
Sweet Bean (あん)

MOST TEDIOUS MOVIE BY REBECCA ZLOTOWSKI:
Planetarium

MOST WASTE OF TIME OF A MOVIE BY OLIVIER ASSAYAS:
Personal Shopper

MOST DESPICABLE MOVIE BY QUENTIN TARANTINO:
The Hateful Eight

WORST MOVIE OF THE YEAR PERIOD BY XAVIER DOLAN:
It’s Only the End of the World (Juste la fin du monde)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: