Traversing the Cannes Film Festival

Before I begin the main article of this post I'd like to mention I ended up buying two specific books reccomended by my teacher, Dr. Dill, & Monika Skerbelis in her book I Liked It, Didn't Love It.

The books I picked up were The Thirty Six Dramatic Situations by Georges Polti & Movies and Meaning by Stephen Prince.

If anyone has already read through these and would like to give me some specific pieces to the book I should focus on let me know. You can e-mail me @ xay90@hotmail.com or leave a message on the blog.

Now, with the IIACI program, nothing is done without integrating research & understanding. Cannes was an amazing experience, but I had to bring out of it more than a phenomenal adventure. I also had to retain an educational vantage point as well. Using two books ( Shot by Shot by Steven Katz & In the Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch ) I had to designate professional meaning for my trip.

The essay is a long read (12 pages double spaced), but it gives you some well-rounded insight into the film industry in such a microcosm as The Cannes Film Festival.

“Traversing the Cannes Film Festival-An Expository Essay”

June 11, 2010
SpeTop: Cannes Film Festival-New 490-871
Dr. Janeann Dill, Professor

In his introduction, Steven D. Katz remarks “that film, the art that most resembles our daydreams, is the one most difficult to bring into existence” (Katz ix). Katz specifically refers to the actual creation of a film, from its conception as an idea to the final product, but his words have a remarkable resonance with all activities, projects, and business associated with the film festival. The film industry represents a powerful entity capable of establishing individuals as prominent household names and creating iconic masterpieces that will be renowned across the ages. For every success story, there are a plethora of potential, unexplored endeavors and failed attempts. The Cannes Film Festival is a microcosm of this industry. The reality is strikingly mean, honest, and harsh. The festival became a basic guide into the gritty realism which represents the activities and people who traverse it. It is an eye-opening experience. Success can be attained through a variety of paths. The success of a film is ultimately based within its substance, but there remains a myriad of points a film must traverse before it has the capability to become and is considered successful. As a condensed version of the industry, the Cannes Film Festival held each of these elements physically or symbolically. Either through a physical representation of a situation mirrored by its literal counterpart in the industry or a symbolic representation taking on the spirit of what happens when creating a film, the Cannes Film Festival allows the individual the opportunity to understand many of the facets necessary to create a suitable film. Using the Steven D. Katz’ s Shot by Shot: Visualizing From Concept to Screen and Walter Murch’s In the Blink of an Eye, I will intermix my personal experience of visiting the Cannes Film Festival with the financial and technical aspects of creating a film to fully convey the framework behind the film industry.

A film is a creation, a moving, visual representation of the creator’s finished project. It is a representation of our three-dimensional reality placed onto a two-dimensional surface, but this could be said for photography. Movies go further. A motion picture conveys “the experience of seeing things as they happen” or “presence” (Katz 3). Presence is what photography and art lack. It is what separates film. Presence represents film’s ability to engage the reader to the point he considers himself “within the same spatial/temporal continuum as the pictures on the screen” (Katz 3). To ensure this idea of presence is properly caught on screen, a myriad of tasks must be completed. These tasks include writing, visualizing, shooting, logging, capturing, editing, and more. Before the majority of these tasks can be accomplished a film needs one significant item, funding. Without funding, a film cannot expect to rise past its meager beginnings as a script. It is hard for filmmakers “whose work must be financed by a company or institution” (Katz 5). It is no easier for independent filmmakers who finance their own endeavors. They are able to have more creative range in their projects, yet their ambition is still measured by their budget.

Working as an intern at The American Pavilion, on a smaller scale, introduced me to this understanding through the business and social interaction known as networking. Networking is a system of interrelated business socialization. By introduction, conversation, and impression one can begin to build a relationship within a sphere of individuals with common interests. Networking allows the sharing of common ideas, interests, and services which can allow an individual the ability to enhance their skills in their area of expertise or move up in the corporate ladder. In accordance with the film industry, networking can benefit an individual through various avenues. It can allow a person a job opportunity within the business, an internship under an individual who has more experience, or the opportunity to work with someone on a project in the near future. Networking can never be considered a negative endeavor. More often than not, networking also involves selling yourself or your idea to an audience. This is where the harsh reality of the film industry becomes apparent. The golden rule behind networking is sufficient purpose. There are those individuals who will dispense advice and aid out of kindness or nostalgia since they were once in your position, but this is seldom. As an individual, potential employee, partner, or filmmaker, if you do not contain an idea or craft which serves a productive purpose towards their desires said individual will consider your worth of little value. This makes perfect sense. If you have no business capable of elevating their ambition or monetary status, then you cannot expect a person to feel it necessary to spend their time speaking with you. On several occasions when networking I was either shooed away from the person I was speaking to or asked to leave since, as a college student, I did not have the sufficient status or industry value to warrant attention.

You cannot come into the film industry expecting a handout. You can ask for help but it is not guaranteed. You must make yourself marketable. Unless you can do so through your body of work or your skills within the industry you will not have continual success. All of this connects back into the creation of a film. To find a budget for a film, you must be able to capably network and find that individual, organization, or company who will be willing to finance your project. If your project is not marketable, then it will not be picked up. This can lead to it floundering, becoming nothing more than a pipe dream. This is the fate of a high number of films that could be produced if the project had sufficient funds or the individual who is trying to find funding understood how to display his idea to his audience.



If an individual’s film is lucky enough to be given sufficient funds or the individual is able to fund his own, new torrents of possibilities arise. Along with these possibilities come the procedures of creating the film. A film first begins in the stage of pre-production known as visualization. Visualization is “the merging of the physical act of making or doing with several different mental processes that together we call imagination” (Katz 4). Visualization can be best explained by an individual’s ability to hone his imagination through his craft, therein creating substance pertaining to his expertise. Visualization can be applied to “drawing, writing, or editing a film” but when directed towards the first steps in creating a film, visualization comes in the form of the script or storyboard (Katz 4). By visualizing each sequence in a script or storyboard, gradually building scene to scene, a director strives to “make every shot and every sequence count” (Katz 6).



This only represents the infancy of a film’s birth. Once a script or storyboard is set into motion “the development and implementation of the visual plan” becomes the responsibility of the production designer” (Katz 7). A script or storyboard is only the template of the film. What is written or drawn is not set in stone. Instead, it becomes a guide helping the production designer visualize how scenes can and will be shot. Under the production designer three facets of the process come into play: concept and final design illustrations, planes, elevations, and projections, and continuity sketches and storyboards (Katz 9-22).



Concept and final design illustration’s purpose “is to indicate the mood and feeling of a set, location, costume, or makeup” (Katz 10). Concept illustrations allow the production designer to envision the setting of the film through drawings, and confirm these ideas through their final design illustrations. Plans, elevations, and projections “are highly technical descriptions that give the exact specifications needed to manipulate or fabricate whatever is depicted more evocatively in the design illustrations” (Katz 9). In simpler terms, a plan and elevation allow the production designer a top view of an object as well as front and side views. This gives them the ability to predict the look of a shot as well as its outcome. The plan and elevation work together to form the projection which is “a perspective drawing illustration” of “how the finished set will appear to the camera for any combination of lens and camera positions” (Katz 16). Working through each of these steps allows the production designer to understand the layout of settings before they are made. This cuts down on overbuilding on the set. It also allows the production designer to tailor the set specifically for the necessary shots.



Finally, continuity sketches and story boards become the production designer’s next focus. These two facets of pre-production allow the director and production designer develop an “overview of the entire story” (Katz 19). Doing so allows the director to map out scenes, while ensuring continuity is not lost during the production sequence of the film.



Once the working team reaches this point in pre-production three new phases arise: the script analysis, cinematographic choices, and actor rehearsal (Katz 98). The script analysis is “a logistical and financial forecast of the film” (Katz 103). As grand and over-the-top the writer or producer may envision the film, shots and scenes must be calculated through the film’s budget to ensure every necessary shot is plausible. At this point the director must devise a shot plan detailing his arrangement for each scene from beginning to end. The shot plan must describe “the staging of the action, the size of the shot, the choice of the lens, and the camera angle” (Katz 106). This ensures during production the director and team know the progression of what is being shot at each point and time.



Once the cinematographer arrives, usually late in pre-production, he or she “visits the locations with the director, reviews the storyboards, sets, props, costumes, and makeup, possibly shooting tests of any of these elements” (Katz 115). Essentially shot flow, though it is mainly the director’s call, is overseen by the cinematographer. He or she retains the responsibility for lighting and “executing the framing and camera movement determined by the production designer, the director, and the cinematographer himself” (Katz 115). Ultimately, the cinematographer bridge-way between the director’s vision of the film and the actual tone, mood, and style captured.



When the cast is decided upon, the director must be able to help his cast physically and mentally connect with the script, locations, scenes, and shots. Directors on a major production are seldom given much time for rehearsal. Rehearsal time “for most features is very short (sometimes nonexistent)” (Katz 116). In the short period given the director must tap into the potential talent of his cast through his creative choices in the direction of the film. By doing this the director is able “to create an environment in which the actor can connect with his adventurous impulses and find the unexpected and unpredictable” (Katz 116).



From here production begins which hold its own obstacles to overcome. When the director has gone through his shot plan and captured enough footage the most important piece to forming a film emerges, post production. Editing is the driving force of a film. It can be said it’s the soul of the film, determining the overall quality, outlook, and theme of a movie. If the same footage were given to three different editors you can expect three completely different movies to emerge. This explains a defining theme of editing. It is not “so much a putting together as it is a discovery of a path” (Murch 4). The array of paths that can be taken when editing is endless if an editor is given the creative ability to pursue what he deems appropriate for the film. Beyond this, an abundance of tasks come into play during post-production. Every day is spent on activities serving to clear and illuminate the path which includes “screening, discussions, rewinding, re-screenings, meetings, scheduling, filing trims, note-taking, bookkeeping, and lots of plain deliberative planning” (Murch 4). Simply stated, editing “is cutting out the bad bits” (Murch 10). Of course there are many more pieces which encapsulate this idea, but on a general note sorts through a multi-layered path of footage to find the right combination of shots to make coherent, moving, and enjoyable. It can be considered a diamond in the ruff scenario. What is maddening for the editor is figuring out what footage is truly bad for the film being created. A certain shot or edit, viewed as irrelevant or bad by one director, could be perfect in the eyes of another. Depending on the tone of the film, a shot or edit well placed in one scenario, could be disastrous in another. In this sense “bad” is an arbitrary term. What is bad for one person could be magnificent for another. This is why during post-production the editor or editors must keep a well-versed understanding of the direction of the film. The DNA of man and monkey are “ninety-nine percent” identical, yet the differences between the two are strikingly apparent. Movies work in the same fashion. The slightest cut to a film can change the dynamics of the message, mood, or scene trying to be conveyed. The audience will never know, but the team working the film will. This is why “you could sit in one room with a pile of dailies and another editor could sit in the next room with exactly the same footage and both of you would make different films out of the same material” (Murch 13). Editing is a personal experience based within the mind of those who have direction over the footage. This is all said to convey the deeper frustrations and triumphs within post-production. Here, the director and editor hold creative power over the film. Based on where they take the film determines how it is received.



This leads into another defining piece to a film’s success, the audience. The Cannes Film Festival is a showcase. It is a conglomeration of in-competition and market films looking to gauge their popularity and monetary value. This can only be determined through the audience. At the Cannes Film Festival, the audience participated in two similar, yet distinctly different facets. Audiences were given the opportunity to watch in-competition movies. These movies were in competition for the Palme d’Or award, the most prestigious award given to films at the festival. In this case, the audience was Tim Burton along with a selected panel of well known actors, screenwriters, and composers. The second showcase was in the open-market area of the festival. The open market featured a high concentration of filming companies trying to sell their movie to prospective buyers. This is where the differences can be drawn. The entity that is your audience is not objective. Every person has their own defining theme. This means their taste will differ depending on the film. Once again, the definition of what can be considered “bad” or “good” comes into question. Tim Burton and the 2010 Cannes Film Festival jury may not have the same overall opinion of a film’s quality in comparison to French actress and president of the previous Cannes jury, Isabelle Huppert, and her colleagues. With certainty, it can be assumed if the 2009 and 2010 jury were given a selection of films to rank they would not be identical or similar. The mind of man is an opinionated frontier varying from person to person. This makes the idea of selection for best film an arbitrary endeavor. This can be said for films in the open market as well. Unlike films in competition, these films are meant to be sold to the highest buyer. Buyers, film press, and occasionally regular attendees, if you they have enough room once everyone important has been seated, attend the screenings. The buyer bases his decision to purchase a film on his company’s preference as well as the perceived marketability to an audience. Based on what the buyer wants, one film could be bought while another goes unnoticed.



Walter Murch speaks on the importance of the audience in his chapter “Test Screenings: Referred Pain.” Murch refers to the audience as “the last ten percent” (Murch 52). The audience is the final collaborator in a film if the director wants an outside opinion before it is released to the public. This is not to say the audience’s reactions should be blindly followed. There must be a happy medium between audience and director. The film is the director’s vision, but it must be enjoyable for the intended audience. Before anything else, the film must make a profit. Murch states that every film he has worked on has been screened to small, private group of individuals for their reaction. Different methods were utilized to gauge their thoughts on the movie. The film would be played to small group of individuals; some would know the director while others would be complete strangers. The director would then have a one-on-one conversation with each person and compare their reactions to the film. Another director would listen to the initial reactions, but asked audience members to call two days later and speak on their reaction after lingering on their thoughts (Murch 53-54). Either way, the director would take into account the audience’s reaction while contemplating on his own vision. When editing a film “you can only have faith that what you are doing is the right thing” (Murch 56). There is only so much preparation that can be done before a film must be allowed to stand on its own. Whether a film is being premiered in competition, showcased to buyers, or shown for feedback the audience plays an essential, if not the most important, role in predicting the success of a film. The potential marketability and success of a film is the foremost important factor when considering the focus of a company, or independent director.



The Cannes Film Festival gave me a personal understanding of the film industry’s cutthroat nature. Working through this condensed version of the overall industry, I came to realize the importance of attaining significance within the industry. Without relevance, whether this is educational, financial, or creative, an individual cannot expect to invest time within their project. Working in the works of Walter Murch and Steven D. Katz provided an increasingly layered understanding of why the Cannes Film Festival, and the industry as a whole, works in this harsh and aggressive manner. The road to creating a film is tedious, laborious, and unforgiving. Even when an individual sets quality time into a film it does not necessarily guarantee success. A director, writer, or company does not set off with the intention of creating a terrible film, yet it happens on a regular basis. Even then, the gauge to which an audience considers a film “bad” is subjective. With so many obstacles defining the path towards creating a quality film it is mind-boggling to find the industry so bustling. One must attribute this willingness to venture into the industry a product of what it offers. We may witness a multitude of failures or mediocre endeavors, yet at the top of Cannes we find those who have reached the defining pinnacle of success. Russell Crowe, Tim Burton, James Franco, Ridley Scott, the companies who organize the festival, the directors and cast of films in competition, as well as the abundance of Pavilions representing every segment of the world. These people and organizations represent what so many strive for explaining why individuals strive to create their own masterpiece. The Cannes Film Festival embodies success and those who wish to reach it.

Bibliography

Katz, Steven D. "Film Directing: Shot By Shot." Katz, Steven D. Studio City: Michael Wiese Productions, 1991.

Murch, Walter. "In the Blink Of An Eye: A Perspective on Film Editing." Murch, Walter. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press, 1995.