Tag Archives: Hollywood

Nominees Announced for the 2010 Oscars

Posted on by Colleen Claes
Reply

This morning, the Academy announced the nominations for the 2010 Oscars, coming up on March 7th. The first thought that ran through my head was, What?! No nominations for ‘Broken Embraces’?! At all?! (Expect more on that later.) And then I was relieved that Gabby (Gabourey) Sidibe was indeed nominated for Precious. (And now I’ll just have to keep my fingers crossed that she wins over Sandra Bullock.) Now that I can see it filled, I still find the expanded-to-ten Best Picture category confusing and unnecessary. It just feels sort of random.

Another snub, in my opinion, is in the Best Original Score category. A Single Man definitely deserved to be recognized, but wasn’t.

But enough of that. Here are the 2010 Academy Award nominees after the jump! Share your thoughts and comments.

Continue reading →

Kathryn Bigelow: An End to the ‘Chick Flick’ Stereotype?

Posted on by Colleen Claes
4

Kathryn Bigelow with her DGA Award, Jan. 31st

EDITOR’S NOTE: An updated post borrowing a little from my article at the end of last year, “The December Issue: Women in Film.”

Last night, Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to win the top honor at the Directors Guild of America Awards. She won Best Director of a Feature Film for her movie, The Hurt Locker. Now with the 2010 Oscars coming in March, could Bigelow be the first woman to win the Best Director Academy Award?

Call me an overzealous feminist (making it extra deadly with a film degree), but the mere fact that she’s a female breaking ground for women filmmakers makes me want to root for her at all these awards – regardless of whether the movie was good or not. But as it turns out, The Hurt Locker is good. It’s being heralded as one of the best of the year, receiving acclaim as a terrific film that shows war in a way that no other “war movie” really has.

Since the end of 2009, movie critics and feminist writers have been predicting that Bigelow would become a sort of “power to the women!” darling in the awards season of 2010. When James Cameron (who also happens to be Bigelow’s ex-husband) won Best Director for Avatar at the Golden Globes this year, those rooting for Bigelow began to feel discouraged in terms of her Oscar standing. But this big win at the DGA Awards re-cements her solid chance at getting the award from the Academy this year.

It would not only be a significant moment for Bigelow and all of her accomplishments; it would also be a landmark for women in the film industry. Because the main problem is not just that women don’t win these kinds of awards, but that – more distressingly – there are very few who “make it” and are widely recognized.

Sure, I could make an inclusive list of plenty of women filmmakers who have made brilliant, under-the-radar movies. But as for those I can name off the top of my head? Let’s see…Sofia Coppola (always first)…Um…Nancy Meyer? (Something’s Gotta Give and the like)…Nora Ephron, I guess (You’ve Got Mail, Julie & Julia)…and now, Kathryn Bigelow.

Notice that two of those names are known for their romantic comedies, unfortunately referred to as “chick flicks.” While this does not dismiss their talents and abilities, needless to say it would be glorious for a woman to win for a well-executed action film. It’s glorious enough that she’s being recognized. Maybe audiences will catch on that not all women filmmakers are magnets to sappy romantic comedies. And maybe Hollywood and the industry will eventually stop pigeonholing women directors’ success.

My (female) film history teacher once said (and I apologize for the language): “They call them ‘chick flicks,’ but do you realize that all the other movies are ‘dick flicks?’”

Yes, most of them are. But let’s hold out and hope that one day soon we will be able to count female directors on more than just the fingers of one hand. And recognizing Kathryn Bigelow wouldn’t be a bad start.

Sandra Bullock over Gabourey Sidibe: What is Hollywood Thinking?

Posted on by Colleen Claes
5

The Golden Globes last Sunday announced many awards, but the one most problematic for me was the “Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama” category. Thrilled over Mo’Nique’s win for her supporting role in Precious (and not to mention her wonderful speech), I was almost certain that Gabourey Sidibe would win for the starring role. I predicted wrong, and I watched with much disappointment and confusion as Sandra Bullock went up to accept the award for her role in The Blind Side.

Now, I’ve seen both films. Precious because I knew it was a very important work of 2009. And The Blind Side because – well, frankly – my mother dragged me to it. The latter movie was not as awful as I expected it to be, though I found it to be too preachy. Bullock’s performance as a rich Southern housewife (though based on a true story) came off as campy, and yes, sometimes humorous. The Blind Side may deal with issues of race, acceptance, and social class, but come on – it’s no Precious. I think we can all agree on that. Without making this a two-in-one movie review, I just found Precious to be unlike anything I’ve ever seen before: unnerving, uplifting, raw, emotional, revealing, gritty, and beautiful all at the same time. It hit me in a way that no film has ever hit me before. And while many of the performances and aspects were incredible, I believe it was Sidibe’s first-time performance (ever) as Claireece “Precious” Jones that made it so uniquely impacting.

And yet, there I am, watching Sandy hold up the Golden Globe and give her acceptance speech. Initial reactions that ran through me included something along the lines of, Are you kidding me?! and She better not win that Oscar over Gabby… While the Globes don’t always act as a prelude to the Oscar nominations and wins, it’s a definite possibility.

To further my agitation more, Sandra Bullock won for “Best Actress” at the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards this weekend. Once again, Gabourey Sidibe was in the list of nominees. The SAG Awards are a big deal for actors in the industry, and it makes me wonder why they would also pick Bullock over Gabby. Do the panels think that Sidibe is too young and inexperienced to merit anything more than a nomination? Or do they really believe Sandra Bullock’s performance as an exaggeratedly ballsy Southern Belle is more deserving of the award? Part of me wonders if these people feel sorry for Bullock’s previous career, so they’re proud of her for doing something less mediocre this year.

I think it’s safe to say at this point that the Oscars will have to choose between the two. With the nominations announcement coming up on February 2nd, the 82nd annual Academy Awards have a chance to flip it on the rest of Hollywood and award the deserving and incredible Gabourey Sidibe. But alas, there’s a great chance now (especially with all the hoopla) that the Academy will also give it to Sandra Bullock instead.

I hope for the sake of cinema that the Oscars choose to turn things around and give it to the star of Precious. It would be glorious to see the young woman up on stage holding a statue for that role. Sure, Bullock did a good enough job in The Blind Side. But overlooking Sidibe’s first shot at acting with her powerful performance as one of the most challenging and socially important characters we’ve seen in years? That would just seem like a huge step back for film.

Best and Worst of the 2010 Golden Globes

Posted on by Colleen Claes
8

BEST:

  • All of the NBC jabs. From everyone.
  • The opening jokes from Ricky Gervais about the differences between the British and American Office
  • Mo’Nique winning for Precious. Totally deserved it. Her speech was touching also.
  • Alec Baldwin winning for 30 Rock
  • Ricky Gervais: “I enjoy a drink as much as the next man…Unless the next man is Mel Gibson!”
  • Christopher Waltz winning for his performance in Inglourious Basterds
  • Martin Scorsese’s cute speech sounding more like a film school lecture than an acceptance speech for a career achievement award
  • This tweet from Lizz Winstead of The Daily Show: “James Cameron is looking more and more like Bea Arthur.”

WORST:

  • Most of Gervais’ hosting
  • Alec Baldwin not being present to accept his award for 30 Rock
  • Sandra Bullock winning for The Blind Side over Gabby Sidibe in Precious. Yes, you read that right. SANDRA BULLOCK won over PRECIOUS’s Gabby Sidibe.
  • James Cameron winning Best Director and then quoting his own movie in the “Na’vi language”
  • The poor layout of the awards ceremony making it difficult for anyone to get up to the front to accept their awards
  • Cuing the music for everyone EXCEPT Meryl Streep
  • A lack of awards for Inglourious Basterds, which I had expected
  • A lack of awards for Precious, which I hadn’t expected
  • A lack of George Clooney, just in general
  • Chloe Sevigny’s dress, which apparently “got stepped on and ripped,” even though you couldn’t tell a difference because it was kind of a mess

I never regret watching the Globes, but this year I think I enjoyed baking cookies during the show more than I enjoyed the actual awards ceremony itself. (Crunchy fudge cookies, for anyone who’s wondering.)

The December Issue: Women in Film

Posted on by Colleen Claes
2

This month, the New York Times seems to be rampant with features about women in film. It’s funny that it should seem that way, because in the past month, only two notable articles have been published on the subject. Two very lengthy, in-depth, and important articles, nonetheless.

This all came to my attention when my friend Brittany shared an incredible Jezebel interview with me. The women’s interests blog interviewed Manohla Dargis, the Times co-chief film critic. She had some strong and honest words for Hollywood’s rejection, or even fear (see this Washington Post article by Ann Hornaday) of women’s presence and influence in the film industry.

The Jezebel interview followed Dargis up on her own Times article on the subject, “Women in Film 2009 – At the Box Office but Not Directing.”

Basically, Dargis voices the truth: There’s a severe lack of women in Hollywood, and – in the film business – men are allowed to fail in ways that women are not. Take this quote from Dargis in the Jezebel interview:

Do you think that a woman would have been able to get forty million dollars to make a puppet movie the way that Wes Anderson has been able to make, bringing to bear all the publicity and advertising budget of Fox? After two movies that didn’t make a lot of money? I think this is true for a lot of black filmmakers too – they’re held to a higher standard. And an unfair standard. You can be a male filmmaker and if you’re perceived as a genius – a boy genius or a fully-formed adult genius – that you are allowed to fail in a way that a woman is not allowed to fail.

The first thoughts that went through my mind were something like – Hell yeah! and Wow, I’ve never actually heard someone in the industry say those things before. I think it’s simultaneously crucial and disheartening for a female film expert to come out and say these things. Because now that they’ve been said by someone who knows, it’s suddenly a harsh reality and not just something for us feminists to rant about amongst ourselves.

The day after the Jezebel-Dargis interview, another female Times writer wrote about women in film. Daphne Merkin’s “Can Anybody Make a Movie for Women?” is a seven-page cover article revolving around director Nancy Meyers (Something’s Gotta Give). With Meyers’ newest film It’s Complicated (starring Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin), critics seem to be noticing an “aimed towards middle-aged women” trend. They’re either annoyed by it and dismiss it, or they try to delve into it and give Meyers some credit, like Merkin.

Similar to Dargis, one of Merkin’s points is that women are condemned for certain techniques and choices that perhaps a male director would not be. For instance, on the flack Meyers gets for doing numerous takes during filming:

John Burnham, the I.C.M. agent, has a simpler, X-versus-Y-chromosome view of the whole thing. “If Mike Nichols said to do another take,” he crisply notes, “there would never be any issue.”

There’s another point that caught my attention concerning women directors’ aesthetic choices:

Meyers herself is unapologetic about creating sets that look as if they might be photographed in a shelter magazine, most notably the mouthwatering Hamptons house in Something’s Gotta Give, which did actually make an appearance in Architectural Digest. “The fact that there is nice fabric on the chairs is fun,” she says. [and later]…”I like that stuff.”

This reminds me of the general public’s rejection of Sofia Coppola’s extreme ornamental aesthetic in Marie Antoinette. (See my post defending the film from a few months back.) Men make pretty movies all the time. But when a woman does it, it’s suddenly “too feminine,” which automatically reads as: “not real film.” There are some films that we normally “wouldn’t know” were directed by women (see: “didn’t think a woman directed it because there are so few and this one didn’t look that ‘girly’”) – such as American Psycho, for instance. But can the “for women, by women” concept in film ever be taken seriously, without the eye-rolling and the “told ya so’s” of Hollywood and audiences?

Yes, some films directed towards women are awful in terms of “good film.” These, of course, would be the “chick flicks,” though I hate the term. And though I know plenty of men who love Meyers’ Something’s Gotta Give and her other films, she is being dubbed as the director of “postmenopausal chick flicks” (as Merkin says), or middle-aged women’s fairy tale love stories. Dargis says she enjoys Meyers’ films, but doesn’t think they’re necessarily “good as films”, while Merkin applauds the director for at least making middle-aged women be sexy and fall in love in movies. (And really, what other movies really care to set that kind of standard other than Meyers’?)

But until there are more options for women to see themselves reflected on the big screen, most of them will continue to flock to the “chick flicks.” As Dargis profoundly assesses:

There’s a reason that women go to movies like Mamma Mia. It’s a terrible movie… but women are starved for representation of themselves. I go back to Spike Lee and She’s Gotta Have It. I remember going to see it at the Quad in New York, surrounded by a black audience. People are starved for representations of themselves.

Minorities are starved for images they can relate to on the big screen. Images of themselves, which are largely absent in Hollywood. Damn. I had never really looked at it that way before, but it’s so hideously true.

As for women in film, I’m reminded of something my female film history teacher once said (and I apologize for the language): “They call them ‘chick flicks,’ but do you realize that all the other movies are ‘dick flicks’?”

Yes, the rest of them are. But let’s hold out and hope that one day we will be able to count female directors on more than just the fingers of one hand.

Things to Look Forward to in 2010, #3: Golden Globes

Posted on by Colleen Claes
3
 

 

Photo by: Peter Dutton, 2009 // CC BY-SA 2.0 (Wikipedia Commons)

Yesterday the Hollywood Foreign Press Association announced their nominees for the 2010 Golden Globe awards.

Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air (starring George Clooney) led the award nods with six nominations. Precious followed close behind, earning three nominations, including Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress. Both of the films are up for Best Motion Picture, along with Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and Inglourious Basterds.

You can see the nominees for all of the categories on the HFPA Golden Globe website.

I’m looking forward to the Golden Globes in 2010 for the same reason I look forward to them every year; and that is, they’re much more fun than the Oscars. The celebrities drink, mingle, and have a good time. And of course, you get to root for your favorite television series in addition to your favorite films during the ceremony.

Ultimately, I hope 30 Rock wins Best Comedy/Musical Television series (again), that a woman wins Best Director (Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker), and that Precious gets some major recognition. Other than that, I’ll just enjoy watching the celebrities relax and enjoy themselves in a way that they would not if it were the uptight Oscars.

Newest Hollywood Trend: Borrowing Susanne Bier

Posted on by Colleen Claes
1

On December 4, Lionsgate will release a film called Brothers, described as a “drama/war” film on Wikipedia. The movie stars Natalie Portman, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Tobey Maguire, and is directed by Irish filmmaker, Jim Sheridan. It’s an American remake of a Danish movie by the same title, directed by Susanne Bier (After the Wedding, Things We Lost in the Fire), written by Anders Thomas Jensen, and released in 2004.

Now why is a film that not many people have heard of from just five years ago being remade? Well, I have some thoughts on that.

On April 26, 2007, Zach Braff made the following announcement on his official blog:

What else? My dream-first choice- hero of mine – actor wants to do the next film I’m set to direct, “Open Hearts”, but I don’t think I’m gonna be able to direct it this summer as I had hoped since I’m due to be back at Scrubs on August 1st.

Open Hearts will also be an American remake of a Danish film of the same name, this one released in 2002…and also directed by Susanne Bier and written by Anders Thomas Jensen. It’s a Dogme 95 film, which in brief means that it’s devoid of all the “fancy” tricks and methods of conventional filmmaking. (You can read more details about it in another post from a few weeks ago.) Essentially, Bier’s Open Hearts is a story of a woman who cheats on her paralyzed husband…with the husband of the woman who caused the tragic accident.

The tone of Bier’s film is uncomfortable, primarily, with a stroke of raw heartbreak. It sounds like a melodrama, but it feels more like a couple’s home videos you were never, ever supposed to see.

What will Zach Braff do with this story? I honestly don’t think I want to know. But I’ll take a guess anyway – I think he’ll ruin it. I think he’ll try to capture the same effect, but while playing a Thievery Corporation song on top of it. I think he’ll cast well-known “indie” actors, and I think the film will look nice and pretty, with well-composed shots throughout. But hey, maybe he’ll prove me wrong. We’ll have to see in 2011, which is currently the estimated release of Braff’s remake.

But back to the more timely matter. Bier and Jensen’s film from 2004, Brothers (Brødre), is not a Dogme 95 film, but it still retains a candid and uncomfortably honest spirit such as in Open Hearts. The plot – again – sounds like a melodrama: When the older brother is declared dead while fighting in Afghanistan, the younger brother starts to take care of the widowed wife and her kids. Within time, the younger brother and the widow fall for each other. However, everyone’s lives get turned upside down when they find out the older brother is actually still alive.

It sounds like a soap opera, but it doesn’t feel like one when you watch it. This is the best trailer I found for the original Brothers, which might give you little insight into the tone of the movie.

What sparked this post was this trailer (Trailer 1) for the remake. No, you can’t always judge a movie by its trailer, but something already seems off about it. The scenes look almost identical to the original, but it feels like a sensational love story that turns into a thriller. “This is not right,” my mind keeps saying as I watch the preview. Hearing Natalie Portman murmur apathetically, “I thought you were dead” doesn’t help matters much either. This is how the film could turn out: forced emotion with bland, uninterested acting and not-so-subtle writing. (One of the reasons these stories worked in Bier’s films is because Jensen wrote them with the philosophy that not everything needs to be said.)

You could easily argue that these are remakes, and given that alone, they are supposed to different. They are supposed to be reinterpreted based on whatever style or mood the filmmakers are trying to achieve. This is true. But I believe these remakes are completely pointless. For one, these are not classic films. Instead, they are relatively unknown, foreign, contemporary films. They were both released less than ten years ago.

But I think Hollywood executives and directors like Zach Braff see these films and are merely struck by their brutal honesty. Then they say, “Hey, that was pretty good…I’m going to tell that story myself!” But the thing is – you’re stripping that story of the rawness and grittiness that made it good in the first place. Without these things, it just becomes another adulterous melodrama, and all you’re left with is the soap opera plotline played out by some well-known actors.

This is not about elitism, or liking something just because it’s smaller and lesser-known.  It’s about the essence of something. And when you change the essence of something unique and specifically good, it just looks like anything else.

In a few sentences? These Danish movies work because they aren‘t Hollywood. Taking something that’s great because it’s not Hollywood and then making it Hollywood? That might be the definition of “counterproductive.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: I will give Sheridan’s Brothers a fair chance and see it when it comes out in theaters. I will also try to be as unbiased as possible when analyzing the film’s quality in a review. This, however, is just a rant/observation.

Oscar the Greedy

Posted on by Colleen Claes
1

The Oscars keep changin’ up their program. In 2010, The 82nd annual Academy Awards will have not one, but two hosts for the first time since 1987. Luckily, these two are none other than Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. But this isn’t the first big change the Academy has made to its next ceremony.

Quite a few months ago, The Academy announced that it was expanding its Best Picture category to include ten nominees instead of the normal five. According to a Variety article, this will not affect any other categories, such as Best Director. This seems a little odd…And to top it off, the people at the Oscars are possibly drawing on the past once again for this big change. Variety says:

The Acad had 10 pic nominees between 1931 and 1943.

(Quick note: “The Acad” is short for “The Academy.” Variety loves to do these kinds of things with their lingo. See: “thesp” instead of the completely normal and necessary “actor.”)

All trivial nicknames aside, I personally find it odd that The Academy is opting to go back to something that hasn’t happened since 1943. And it’s such an obvious change. The expansion of the Best Picture nominee seems…pointless. After all of the past films that have been overlooked for Best Picture (ahem, Children of Men, anyone?), you could look at this as a good thing. However, given The Academy’s record taste in nominees, I can assume this just means five MORE not-so-deserving films to be added to the list.

Of course, I’m sure that the phrase “deserving films” means something entirely different to me than what it means to the Oscars. Come to think of it, maybe there’s no point in debating the relevancy of what is Oscar worthy, seeing as how I’ve rarely agreed with The Academy’s decisions in past ceremonies…

Oh hell, who am I kidding? I’ll watch the Oscars in 2010 just like I do every year. I’ll throw a small viewing party, sip on champagne and pretend to be Charlize Theron while hoping from the bottom of my little heart that the unassuming film wins it all. Because that’s what the Oscars mean to me – hoping for what probably won’t happen. And this coming year, I suppose I’ll have five more reasons to yell and throw empty plastic cups at the TV screen.

Polanski’s Friends Tut-tut at Rape Crime

Posted on by Colleen Claes
11
PolanskiIFFKV

Photo: Wikipedia Commons

The more directors and actors that sign the Polanski apologist petition, the more I want to forget I ever studied film and go into sales.

For anyone who hasn’t read the actual petition word for word, it reads as follows (and no, I’m not kidding):

Apprehended like a common terrorist Saturday evening, September 26, as he came to receive a prize for his entire body of work, Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison.

He risks extradition to the United States for an episode that happened years ago and whose principal plaintiff repeatedly and emphatically declares she has put it behind her and abandoned any wish for legal proceedings.

Seventy-six years old, a survivor of Nazism and of Stalinist persecutions in Poland, Roman Polanski risks spending the rest of his life in jail for deeds which would be beyond the statute-of-limitations in Europe.

We ask the Swiss courts to free him immediately and not to turn this ingenious filmmaker into a martyr of a politico-legal imbroglio that is unworthy of two democracies like Switzerland and the United States. Good sense, as well as honor, require it.

Obviously, I’ve bolded the phrases that stand out as most ridiculous to me, mostly due to their elitist and pompous nature. But please note especially that the rape of a 13-year-old child has been belittled to a mere “episode.” Wait, you mean to tell me he was arrested after 32 years for fleeing the country in escape of punishment for a MERE episode?! What absurdity!

Replace “an episode” with “unlawful sex with a minor” (as the law calls it), or more realistically (given the survivor’s account): “the drugging and raping of a 13-year-old girl,” and it doesn’t sound as petty somehow.

These are the things that seem to be trending mentions in Polanski’s defense: the fact that he survived Nazi-occupied Poland and an Austrian concentration camp, the murder of his pregnant wife Sharon Tate by the Manson family (as indescribably horrid as those events must have been – there’s no arguing that), and the fact that he is one of our most celebrated directors of contemporary film. I’m sorry, but none of these excuse Roman Polanski from pleading guilty to charges of unlawful sex with a minor (whom he also drugged and intoxicated, mind you) and fleeing the U.S. in order to escape punishment. Do we bring up a painful past – and so adamantly – for other men who have plead guilty to the same crime?

Oh, but then there’s Harvey Weinstein. (Of The Weinstein Company and co-founder of Miramax, for anyone who doesn’t know.) He released a statement saying, amongst other astonishing things, “Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time.”

SO-CALLED crime? So now Harvey Weinstein is more apt than the law to determine what’s a REAL crime and what’s a SO-CALLED crime? God help us that he ever goes into law, because then, apparently, raping a minor would only be a SO-CALLED crime. But see, by calling it a “so-called crime,” again, Hollywood elitist assholes can trick themselves and their peers into thinking that no justice need be served, because there’s nothing of real importance or legitimacy to serve justice for.

Way to go, gang. Just keep telling yourselves that. Oh, and by the way, I’m pretty sure Polanski has NOT “served his time” by prancing around Europe freely, remarrying (to a woman 30 years his junior, of course) and having children, while making and releasing films and even winning an Oscar for one of them. Actually, on second thought, that does sound awful. Like, pure torture.

Weinstein also added:

It is a shocking way to treat such a man. Polanski went through the Holocaust and the murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by the Manson family. How do you go from the Holocaust to the Manson family with any sort of dignity? In those circumstances, most people could not contribute to art and make the kind of beautiful movies he continues to make.

See, in Hollywood, making “beautiful movies” should excuse a fugitive of 30 years.

I’m at a point where I think I am more disgusted with Polanski’s supporters than Polanski himself. That said, we actually have no recent statements from Polanski to go off of. But the words of his supporters say it all. Too much, actually. All of these film festival directors, studio execs, actors, and of course, directors, have proven once and for all that they live in their own little world, with their own little euphemisms to belittle words like “rape” and “crime.” For those who live in this world – the one I’m writing from, the one that everyone else who’s outraged by this lives in – Hollywood has never looked so despicable.

There are two questions for Polanski apologists to consider: 1) What if it was YOUR daughter 30 years ago? and 2) In the words of Joy Behar, “What if Polanski was a plumber?” Would you still support him fiercely then?

Bottom line: Roman Polanski and his allies should feel lucky that he was able to “continue” to make “beautiful movies” all these years, instead of doing what he SHOULD have done – which is, serve time for the crime he pleaded guilty to over 30 years ago.

What’s not to understand about this, I ask you? ALL of you, listed below, who have (thus far) signed the “Free Polanski” petition? What’s NOT to understand?

Fatih Akin, Stephane Allagnon, Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Wes Anderson, Jean-Jacques Annaud, Alexandre Arcady, Fanny Ardant, Asia Argento, Darren Aronofsky, Olivier Assayas, Alexander Astruc, Gabriel Auer, Luc Barnier , Christophe Barratier, Xavier Beauvois , Liria Begeja , Gilles Behat, Jean-Jacques Beineix, Marco Bellochio, Monica Bellucci, Djamel Bennecib, Giuseppe Bertolucci , Patrick Bouchitey, Paul Boujenah, Jacques Bral, Patrick Braoudé, André Buytaers, Christian Carion, Henning Carlsen, Jean-michel Carre, Mathieu Celary, Patrice Chéreau, Elie Chouraqui, Souleymane Cissé, Alain Corneau, Jérôme Cornuau, Miguel Courtois, Dominique Crevecoeur, Alfonso Cuaron, Luc et Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Jonathan Demme, Alexandre Desplat, Rosalinde et Michel Deville, Georges Dybman, Jacques Fansten, Joël Farges, Gianluca Farinelli (Cinémathèque de de Bologne), Etienne Faure, Michel Ferry, Scott Foundas, Stephen Frears, Thierry Frémaux, Sam Gabarski, René Gainville, Tony Gatlif, Costa Gavras, Jean-Marc Ghanassia, Terry Gilliam, Christian Gion, Marc Guidoni, Buck Henry, David Heyman, Laurent Heynemann, Robert Hossein, Jean-Loup Hubert, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Gilles Jacob, Just Jaeckin, Alain Jessua, Pierre Jolivet, Kent Jones (World Cinema Foundation), Roger Kahane, Nelly Kaplan, Wong Kar Waï, Ladislas Kijno, Harmony Korinne, Jan Kounen, Diane Kurys, Emir Kusturica, John Landis, Claude Lanzmann, André Larquié, Vinciane Lecocq, Patrice Leconte, Claude Lelouch, Gérard Lenne, David Lynch, Michael Mann, François Margolin, Jean-PierreMarois, Tonie Marshall, Mario Martone, Nicolas Mauvernay, Radu Mihaileanu, Claude Miller, Mario Monicelli, Jeanne Moreau, Sandra Nicolier, Michel Ocelot, Alexander Payne, Richard Pena (Directeur Festival de NY), Michele Placido, Philippe Radault, Jean-Paul Rappeneau, Raphael Rebibo, Yasmina Reza, Jacques Richard, Laurence Roulet, Walter Salles, Jean-Paul Salomé, Marc Sandberg, Jerry Schatzberg, Julian Schnabel, Barbet Schroeder, Ettore Scola, Martin Scorsese, Charlotte Silvera, Abderrahmane Sissako, Paolo Sorrentino, Guillaume Stirn, Tilda Swinton, Jean-Charles Tacchella, Radovan Tadic, Danis Tanovic, Bertrand Tavernier, Cécile Telerman, Alain Terzian, Pascal Thomas, Giuseppe Tornatore, Serge Toubiana, Nadine Trintignant, Tom Tykwer, Alexandre Tylski, Betrand Van Effenterre, Wim Wenders.‡