The Best Actor in the Vase of Meiyu

Chapter 2106 Discussing matters as they arise
The Palme d'Or, really?
"Give me a break, it's just those people who fawn over Anson talking nonsense."

"He's not even on the same level as Haneke."

"It's just Anson's traffic."

"Please do not try to compare yourself to Haneke; they are far inferior. To discuss them on the same level is to insult Haneke."

"Actually, it's just so-so."

A wave of sighs swept through the crowd.

Cannes film fans were stunned. Wait, something's not right. What's going on?

One viewpoint quickly gained a large number of supporters:
"Walking with the Song" is a standard Oscar-season biographical film assignment, lacking originality and highlights. It doesn't even rank among the Oscar-worthy works, falling far short of "A Beautiful Mind" and falling short of this year's opening film, "Match Point." The fact that such a film made it into the Cannes main competition is entirely due to Anson's popularity, and there's really no need to make a fuss about it.

A bucket of cold water was poured down, chilling you to the bone.

Based on this viewpoint, various branches of opinion approach the topic from different angles and perspectives, gradually revealing the true feeling of "walking with the song".

First and foremost, it's the story.

It's not surprising to sing praises to the love story of Johnny Cash and Joan Carter. Stories like "Amadeus" and "A Beautiful Mind" have artistically adapted real-life events, or even distorted the facts. This is commonplace in the film industry. The real problem lies in the character arcs.

Johnny's storyline, along with the subplots involving Jack, Ray, Vivian, the band members, and others, all remain unresolved. The most critical regret is the lack of a character arc. While the film completes the arc of love and redemption, it fails to close the narrative loop through the threads of family of origin and religious conversion.

The same applies to Joan Carter. To avoid alienating the audience, neither of her ex-husbands appears. This wouldn't be a problem in itself; it's just a narrative trick. The problem lies in her marital struggles, her public humiliation, and how she achieves self-redemption by saving Johnny. These plot points are briefly mentioned in the film but then completely glossed over, leading her to become a perfect saintly figure, existing solely to save Johnny.

Essentially a tool.

Of course, it's not bad; a score of 70 is definitely achievable. The script avoids the common pitfalls of biographical films, which often rely on a chronological narrative. It grasps a core storyline and connects the story and characters effectively. This work surpasses most assigned essays.

It's not excellent, let alone a classic.

Secondly, the character development was fairly standard.

Originally, the bond between Johnny and Jack shifted to Joan Carter, creating a clear and complete narrative line. Furthermore, with the bizarre allure and darkness of the entertainment industry as a test, the narrative already had the potential to be explored in depth.

Unfortunately, Mangold is a good student, only scratching the surface and never getting to the point. He doesn't delve into human nature as profoundly as in "Hidden Camera," and even when it comes to satirizing human nature in a highly entertaining context like "Match Point," it still appears superficial, rigid, and perfunctory, falling far short of its intended entertainment value.
Finally, there's a shot of the director.

The scheduling, editing, composition, and even the way it ends are all too meticulous and orderly.

Simply put, this is a 70-point answer sheet from a good student who is obedient and sensible. It's not bad, but it's also quite far from excellent.

One could say that "Walking with Songs" is a typical award season themed essay, with every detail from beginning to end pursuing moderation and stability.

However, such works would appear mediocre at Cannes. In the past two years, a trend has been quietly emerging at the Venice Film Festival: in order to attract viewers, they are importing more and more Hollywood awards season films, thus evolving into a prelude to the awards season.

From a survival perspective, it's undeniable that Venice attracts a steady stream of top Hollywood stars; more importantly, awards season films are not a derogatory term, and there are many excellent works among them, so there's no need to treat them like monsters to be avoided.

So, where is the problem?
"Movie".

Indeed, the Oscars are a very important award in the film industry, and countless legendary classics have been born in the long history of film. However, in the last five years, especially since "Shakespeare in Love" defeated "Saving Private Ryan", awards season films are becoming a pattern, a formula, and a template.

In other words, there is a loss of originality because the aesthetics of the Academy judges have become formulaic. In order to win the Oscar, film companies have begun to cater to the Academy's aesthetics, and naturally, there are more and more assigned topics.

However, film festivals cannot do that.

One of the greatest charms of film festivals lies in their uncertainty. The uncertainty of the jury opens up all possibilities, allowing them to embrace all kinds of film forms, encouraging directors and producers to unleash their artistic talents, bravely explore the boundaries of art, and bring more unknown possibilities.

In essence, the aesthetic standards and the attributes of works differ between the three major European film festivals and the Oscars.

It's not unusual for Berlin, Cannes, and Venice to have Oscar-caliber films nominated for their main competitions every year; the problem is that Berlin and Cannes maintain their standards, even when the films are assigned topics, they still select works that have the author's own voice, but Venice does not.

Therefore, Venice's problem is not that it accepts awards season works, but that it indiscriminately embraces all awards season works, losing its own edges and colors, and is gradually evolving into a part of the awards season, which is fatal.

Now that "Singing Along" has appeared in Cannes, does this mean that Cannes has also fallen after Venice?
For that small group of die-hard film festival enthusiasts, a chorus of lamentations erupted—

"It's all Anson's fault."

If it weren't for Anson, how could "Walking with Song" have made it into the Cannes main competition? Has Cannes now fallen to the same level as Venice?

Hearing discussions surrounding the Palme d'Or and comparing Mangold and Haneke is particularly painful for them, as it feels like being slowly tortured.

An utter and utter torment.

But is that really the case? Or is that all there is to it?

If it were only this way, with voices overwhelmingly in favor, "Walking with the Song" would not be able to stand in the eye of the storm, because once a consensus is reached, there will be no controversy, and without controversy, there will be no buzz or traffic.

More importantly, what happened in the Lumière Hall after the premiere?

Is it just because of Anson?
Whether it's Anson, Mangold, or Reese, none of them have yet achieved such a level of influence in continental Europe or in the film industry, eliciting a standing ovation that lasted for fourteen minutes at Cannes.

In Venice or Toronto, it wouldn't be a problem; let alone fourteen minutes, twenty-four minutes would be possible. But in Cannes, it's impossible.

So, does this mean that "Walking with Song" isn't so...mediocre, and that the film still has exciting and anticipated aspects?
Finally, the press conference ended, and another group of media flocked to the streets and alleys of Cannes, and the heated discussion quietly began to change.

(End of this chapter)