"
Festival in Cannes"
*** (out of ****)
This review is dedicated to filmmaker Henry Jaglom, who passed away on September 22, 2025 at the age of 87.
"Festival in Cannes" (2002) was the first film I ever saw in a movie theater directed by the late Henry Jaglom. It was an experience that has stayed with me all of these years later; and one that I fondly recalled upon hearing of the recent passing of the sometimes maverick, independent filmmaker.
I had come across a mixed review of Jaglom's film in the Chicago Tribune, written by movie critic Michael Wilmington, who called the film an "acid valentine". He went on to describe the film as having "moments that are marvelously fresh and alive and others that seem a bit half-baked." Despite my great admiration for Wilmington, I had decided to take a chance and see "Cannes". I thought sometimes really good films go under the radar and are ignored by the public. Perhaps "Festival in Cannes" would turn out to be another example of that.
The film was only playing in one theater in Chicago and was practically empty. That didn't deter me but seemed to validate my initial suspicions of the American movie going public's taste. And then the film started. French music played over a montage of celebrities at the Cannes film festival throughout the years. This, I immediately thought, was going to be both a celebration of cinema and a satirical look at the behind the scenes world of the industry. The question was what kind of insights would Henry Jaglom have, who ever he was?
It wasn't until after I had seen "Festival in Cannes" that I would come to know who Henry Jaglom indeed was. He was an uncredited editor on the film "Easy Rider" (1969), the emblematic film of "New Hollywood" representing a major shift in film culture. Jaglom, though not as universally well known, was part of this movement of young filmmakers creating a generational transformation in the late 1960s / early 70s which included Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich and Woody Allen among others. Jaglom would make his directorial debut a couple years after "Easy Rider" with his film, "A Safe Place" (1971) starring Tuesday Weld with roles for Jack Nicholson and Orson Welles, for whom Jaglom would become a trusted confidant to, as highlighted in Jaglom's book, My Lunches with Orson.
Jaglom spent his career working outside of the Hollywood studio system. It may have costed him greater fame, bigger budgets, and the opportunity to work with major stars but he would have lost something important in the process; his artistic freedom. Jaglom knew what Hollywood could do to an artist. He understood the movers and shakers; and all that had to go into getting a film into production. "Festival in Cannes" in some ways is a biting look into this kind of deal making. If you aren't familiar with Jaglom's work and his interests however that may be all you'll think the film is about. Jaglom had often centered his films around relationships between men and women and their search for love.
In "Cannes" Jaglom juxtaposes the Hollywood deal making with characters seemingly falling in love with each other. That may hit at the true intent of Jaglom's film; what is the difference between lying to secure a film deal and the lying men do to manipulate women into falling in love with them? In the end it is all the same. Take for example a scene between a middle-aged actress, Alice Palmer (Greta Scacchi) and a renowned older leading lady, Millie Marquand (Anouk Aimee). They are discussing the limitations that come along with growing older in the business and the lack of roles available to women "of a certain age". Men, they both say, have trained women to only find value in themselves through their looks. The actresses almost hunger to hear men tell them they are beautiful. "Festival in Cannes" is filled with a lot of little moments like this. At first glance it seems to be distracting us from the "bigger story" of the deal making but quietly these scenes, I suspect, are really the true point Jaglom wants to make.
As "Festival in Cannes" begins we learn Alice would like to direct her first feature film. Alice wants to make a "personal film". The kind of film Hollywood doesn't make anymore. In Alice's film it would center on a 60ish year old woman who after years of giving herself to her family would find time for herself. While in Cannes, for the film festival, Alice and her co-writers are approached by a film producer, Kaz Naiman (Zack Norman, who sadly passed away last year). Alice is originally apprehensive of Kaz, who she feels is a bit of a slimy mover-and-shaker, but Kaz has a certain charm about him. He is confident and very generous with his praise. So when Kaz says he has secured three million dollars for Alice's picture, suddenly she is all ears. There is a hitch however. The money comes with the condition the famed French actress Millie Marquand star in the film. This would be a major compromise for Alice, who had envisioned Gene Rowlands playing the role. In fact she told Kaz, the character was written with Rowlands in mind. It is funny though, with three million dollars dangling before her, Alice now thinks Millie may be perfect in the part. The conflict is a major Hollywood producer, Rick Yorkin (Ron Silver) is in town and wants to sign Millie in a new Tom Hanks film he is working on. Hanks will only do the film if Millie is in it. Which offer will Millie accept; the personal project that has meaning and is a starring role or the big budget Hollywood film where she can make a lot of money but will be given a supporting role?
On it's surface, that is the main thrust of the film but Jaglom juggles a lot of sub-plot lines into the story. One that the film spends some time on involves a young actress named Blue (Jenny Gabrielle) who is making her acting debut in a film that is generating lots of positive word-of-mouth and turning Blue into perhaps the next big thing. Blue is uncomfortable with the attention and the implications of what kind of life this could lead to. She meets Rick's assistant, Barry (Alex Craig Mann) and the two seem to be developing a very serious romance.
This sub-plot mirrors two others; one that is between Rick and Alice and the other between Millie and Viktor (Maximilian Schell), her old lover and once a prominent filmmaker. Rick and Alice repeatedly get together as Rick tries his best to persuade Alice to either find another actress or change her shooting schedule to allow Millie to appear in the Hanks film first. By constantly meeting, "Festival in Cannes" almost suggest a romance could be blooming between these two as well. Meanwhile Millie and Viktor reminiscence about their past together and Millie asks Viktor for career advice.
While there may be a natural tendency for an audience to become engage in the romance subplots between these characters, that isn't the point. The emphasis should be here are more examples of the shallow ways men interact with women. All Barry sees when he looks at Blue is a bright future in Hollywood. In one scene Barry and Rick get into an argument over Blue's career concerning what her next project should be. What complicates the scene is Blue is standing in front of both men. She is an afterthought in their conversation. No one asks her what would she like to do next. By contrasting Blue to Millie what Jaglom is doing is showing the audience the vicious cycle of the treatment of women in film. We are seeing how it starts and where it ends up. And comparing Blue's potential romance to Alice's, Jaglom is showcasing another cycle, this one less about film and more so about the performance of courtship. If you aren't immediately attuned to Jaglom's plot structure in "Cannes" you can miss the connection, which would make the film feel disjointed. That is probably why the otherwise very good New York Times critic Stephen Holden wrote in his review, "Many of the characters spend the movie badly lying to one another. Then suddenly, near the end, they pair off and begin hugging and dancing around. The abrupt change from bitter to warm-and-fuzzy doesn't compute." It isn't abrupt at all. Jaglom had been weaving this "contradiction" together from the start of the film.
If there was room however for audiences and critics to fail to see the link between these ideas, that speaks to a flaw of the film and Jaglom's inability to do a better job in guiding the audience's eyes. Like his hero Orson Welles, Jaglom is a trickster here making us think this is a biting movie satire when it really has other goals. Why is the film called "Festival in Cannes". Why does the poster show an actress dancing with a cell phone in her hand? Why did the movie's trailer focus on the deal making aspect? Did it all just help to make the film more marketable? Maybe. But now a lot of critics are going to misinterpret the film. Some critics had an inclination to not look so closely for meaning into Jaglom's films. He wasn't considered an "auteur" by their standards, which honestly wasn't fair. There were thematic links between all of his films. A Jaglom film was unmistakable.
The other flaw of the film in Jaglom's story is nothing feels resolved by the end of the film. Each character is wheeling and dealing and going back on their word. By the time the film ends we never see one contract signed. Instead the movie ends with two characters embracing, kissing each other. But even that is left up in the air. Will this couple, or any of the couples, actually stay together? Or does Cannes simply bring out the lover (or liar) in all of us?
For some though the Hollywood satire may be the more entertaining scenes in the film. They are more developed and add humor. "Festival in Cannes" wasn't quite at the level of Robert Altman's
"The Player" (1992) - which itself was more than an industry satire but a morality study - but Jaglom also blends fact and fiction effortlessly together. When actors like William Shatner and Faye Dunaway appear on-screen, are they playing characters or do they appear as themselves? Much of the cinematography done by Jaglom regular Hanania Baer has a handheld shaky quality to it, as if this was all being secretly filmed on the Croisette. It creates an unnecessary and distracting contrast in styles.
What I loved most about "Cannes" however when I first saw it and now again revisiting it was Zack Norman's performance. Norman plays Kaz as a fast-talking, wild hand gesturing, at times overly confident charmer. It reminds me of Woody Allen. Think of Allen's performance in "Broadway Danny Rose" (1984). That's the upbeat tempo Norman is performing at. The downside is neither Norman or Jaglom have Allen's sense of humor and gift for one-liners. That would have taken Norman over the top. Norman would play a variation of this character in later Jaglom films such as
"Hollywood Dreams" (2006) and
"Queen of the Lot" (2010). But here Norman delivers one of his finest and funniest performances in a Jaglom film, on par with his work in
"Sitting Ducks" (1980).
In addition to Norman; Ron Silver, Anouk Aimee and Maximilian Schell all come out looking very good. This is the difference between having professional actors and amateurs, who Jaglom would sometimes cast in his films. When you are dealing with professionals they can make underdeveloped characters work because of their screen presence. They simply make you want to watch them. Aimee and Schell in particular are fascinating together making us believe they are a couple with a long history together. Even a cameo performance by the great Peter Bogdanovich is compelling and serves as another example of how men treat women. Listen carefully to his dialogue regarding Irene Dunne and the film "I Remember Mamma" (1948) and pay attention to how he treats his girlfriend (played by his real life wife Louise Stratten, the sister of Dorothy Stratten, who Bogdanovich once had an affair with).
"Festival in Cannes" was Jaglom's follow-up to his most mainstream film, "Deja Vu" (1998), which starred his than wife Victoria Foyt. Jaglom's work with Foyt represented a career high point - critically speaking - signifying a change of direction in Jaglom's films. He would no longer star in his own work and with Foyt co-writing the films, her input was able to add more dimension to the characters. "Last Summer at the Hamptons" (1996) would be an example. She is sadly missing in this film, but to the two would collaborate on one more film together, "Going Shopping" (2005). Still "Cannes" secured some very good reviews from critics. Scott Foundas at
Variety called this Jaglom's "quickest and funniest picture in years and his most accessible." while Rex Reed over at the
New York Observer declared it "daffy, engrossing, enlightening, and entertaining".
The praise was well earned. While many critics often feel a director's later works don't equal their early successes; I've often argued against such thinking. Great filmmakers are capable of telling great stories throughout their career, but in the case of Henry Jaglom, I'd have to agree with the consensus. Jaglom's career went on a sad decline in his later years. "Festival in Cannes" was the last worthwhile film he directed, though he continued to make films until 2017 with "Train to Zakopane". It was in some ways a fitting end to his career as it told a very emotional story based on an experience Jaglom's father had. It seemed to have been a story Jaglom wanted to tell for a while.
And that lends itself to what made Jaglom a sometimes divisive figure; the personal nature of his work. When reviewing Jaglom's "Venice / Venice" (1993), Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert wrote, "Jaglom has been more or less charting his life for a dozen years now, gathering his friends in front of the camera for mutual analysis, heavy on the psychobabble." Jaglom's films were personal diaries. We may not have known Jaglom in real life but you could tell what was on his mind by watching his films. To write a negative review of a Jaglom film was to write a negative review of Jaglom the man. He may have said bad reviews didn't bother him, but it most certainly bothered those around him. This wasn't unique to Jaglom as most filmmakers are dismissive of critics and protective of their work. But with Jaglom you were operating on a different level. A critic could be accused of personal insult just reviewing one of his films.
In a way it made Jaglom comparable to Francis Ford Coppola. Movies were a familial experience. Just as Coppola would cast his sister (Talia Shire), nephew (Nicholas Cage) and daughter (Sofia Coppola), so too would Jaglom cast wives and family into his films - Foyt, Patrice Townsend, Michael Emil, Tanna Frederick, and his children (Sabrina and Simon, who both appear in "Cannes").
While Jaglom was never appreciated at the same level as Scorsese, Coppola, Altman or Mike Leigh - a fellow British compatriot - Jaglom was a maestro, though in a minor key. Jaglom's films didn't touch on the big subjects their work did, though he still made personal, quirky, and charming films. It was difficult not to admire his independent spirit, spending a career outside the Hollywood system. How many notable filmmakers come to mind that accomplished that? Off the top of my head only Roger Corman comes to my mind, another figure I admired.
In addition to directing movies, Jaglom was also a good actor, having studied with the legendary Lee Strasberg. He even taught acting as well. Outside of his own films, Jaglom appeared in Jack Nicholson's directorial effort, "Drive, He Said" (1971) and Dennis Hopper's "The Last Movie" (1971). Jaglom also spent a considerable amount of time directing in the theater. "Zakopane" for example was a theatrical play before Jaglom made it into a film. As was his film
"Just 45 Minutes From Broadway" (2012). He was even the subject matter of a documentary, the aptly titled, "Who Is Henry Jaglom?" (1997).
Over the course of his career Jaglom directed 21 feature-length films and since the start of this blog, I have reviewed half of his films. He was one of the most reviewed directors on here. Although I haven't reviewed any of his films over the last few years, the thought of knowing there will never be a new Henry Jaglom film is sad. For those with an adventurous cinematic appetite, the films of Henry Jaglom may prove to be rewarding. I would suggest seeing his first film ("A Safe Place"), as well as "Tracks" (1977) with Dennis Hopper, "Sitting Ducks",
"Someone to Love" (1987), "Last Summer at the Hamptons", "Deja Vu" and of course "Festival in Cannes".
"Festival in Cannes" can be an uneven experience but it has its pleasures - Zack Norman's performance among them. It is both a biting look at Hollywood and a revealing and disturbing look at how women are treated in Hollywood. Unfortunately that message in "Cannes" got lost in the critical reviews. It is what gives the film some of its heart and more sympathetic scenes, not to mention opportunities to give Scacchi and Aimee some fine acting moments.
