Bush Basheroo

Seamas McSwiney delivers his customary report from the Festival de Cannes. This year politics was inescapable, both on and off-screen.

Just when does the politics end and the cinema begin? Or is it the other way around? Where does the cinema end and the politics begin?

The success of Cannes 2004, and its heightened visibility, was particularly down to politics. Both the politics of cinema and the politics in cinema. From diplomacy to spin to publicity to propaganda, the whole arsenal was deployed.

The diplomacy began well ahead of time, quite possibly during last year's festival when it was plain to see that the lack of tinseltown stars and a particularly unexciting crop in competition, opened the floodgates of criticism, from star-struck populists to die-hard cinephiles alike. This year, Cannes played the eclectic equation and invited a menu much more spectacular in its diversity than in sheer quality. In fact the quality wasn't that much better than last year's dodgy vintage, it's just that it was spun and perceived to be much better because there was something for everyone and because repairing Franco-American cordiality was prioritised. Hollywood got their promotional launch screenings and Cannes got their daily diet of celebrity served up on the red carpet: Quentin, Pedro, Brad & Jennifer, Adrian, Cameron, Eddie, Pedro & Melanie, Uma, Salman, Ornella, Tom (H), Sean, Kathleen, Billy Bob… for some of the recognisable first names.

The diversity factor of the films was also enhanced with the inclusion of documentary and animation in the main competition, alongside the regular auteur offerings, mainstream entertainment movies and Asian art house films.

The full article is printed in Film Ireland 99