Fan Fare

There’s mud at Glastonbury, and it ain’t glorious

Mud, mud, glorious mud. Or so goes the popular English song.

It’s a phrase often applied to the Glastonbury music festival, where the combination of some 180,000 people, rain and 900 acres of grassy fields in an English valley can produce an awful lot of the stuff.

At only my second Glastonbury after last year’s sun-baked edition, the rain and mud has come as a bit of a shock. Of course I’m careful who I complain to at the festival – veterans merely shrug their shoulders and say something like “nothing compared to …” and name a year when the conditions were particularly unpleasant.

Getting from one venue to the next is not easy at the best of times in Glastonbury, with crowds and a poor sense of direction often getting in my way. Now it takes at least twice as long as I trudge through sticky, squelchy mud and try to avoid the kind of messy belly flops I’ve seen performed – mostly accidentally – by fellow festival goers.

Keeping the tent from turning into a mud bath is another challenge, and taking notes in the rain a further frustration.

But then again, I’m not complaining. I’ve decided that if you haven’t done Glastonbury in less clement climes than 2010, then you haven’t really done Glastonbury at all. That said, I do catch myself thinking back to last year and how easy it all was.

At least the Met Office has some good news. They predict that after today’s rain, things will improve on Saturday and Sunday. Probably not in time to dry the mud, however.

Lady Gaga has monsters, Cheryl Cole has soldiers

Has Cheryl Cole gone Gaga?

The British singer, who is not the global phenomenon that is Lady Gaga, has written a message to her fans following her embarrassing fallout with the makers of the U.S. version of “X Factor”, who apparently did not want her on the judging panel having initially said that they did.

Cole’s website was silent throughout the fiasco which dominated British tabloid headlines for days, but she has finally broken her silence with a missive posted on Sunday reassuring the world that she is fine despite the setbacks and has been spending time with her friends, family and “doggys”. Well, in fact she doesn’t mention any setbacks, but merely describes the last few weeks as “the weirdest”.

What struck me about the post was her reference to her fans as “my little soldiers” who “mean the world” to her. It recalls Lady Gaga’s description of her most avid followers as “little monsters”, a term of endearment which hints at a relationship beyond the normal star-fan connection. Some people view this axis as unhealthy, and liken it to a personality cult, whereas many of the millions of fans in question embrace Gaga and say she is an inspiration to them. Will Cole be able to replicate this kind of bond with her devotees?

Cannes – let the guessing game commence

Phew. Eleven days gone and the end is in sight at the Cannes film festival.

No, this is not a bad a assignment to have as a journalist, and no, we aren’t complaining, but yes, the end of the busiest festival  many of us can remember is a relief.

2011 has had it all — good movies (I can’t tell you my personal choices — this is Reuters!), big stars, great parties, huge interest from the outside world and a big dose of controversy.

The moment we will all remember above all else is the shock expulsion of Danish director Lars Von Trier for his strange outburst during a press conference in which he joked about being a Nazi, a Hitler sympathiser and used the phrase “final solution” to boot.

People variously found it funny, ill-advised, embarrassing, naive or just downright offensive. Kirsten Dunst, the star of Von Trier’s latest movie “Melancholia”, visibly squirmed as the director dug himself into a deeper and deeper hole. In subsequent interviews the arch-provocateur expressed a mixture of regret and defiance, and many of the festival’s reporters and critics disagree with Cannes’ decision to expel him.

That aside, there has been a string of hotly-discussed films — Melancholia itself, Terrence Malick’s epic “The Tree of Life”, the wonderfully comic “Le Havre” and “The Artist”, the touching “The Kid With a Bike”, the stylish “Drive”, subtle “Once Upon a Time in Anatolia” and the radiant “The Source”.

All eight movies, and arguably two or three more, could win the top prize in Cannes when awards are handed out on Sunday evening, all for very different reasons.

Does director Malick exist?

Admittedly with tongue firmly in cheek, French reporters in Cannes for the film festival are pondering the unthinkable — does U.S. director Terrence Malick actually exist?

Most film makers are only too happy to share the limelight with their cast at the world’s biggest showcase, bathed in sunshine so far this year and the scene of an endless circus of screenings, press conferences and parties frequented by the beautiful people.

Not so Malick. The notoriously shy director’s “The Tree of Life”, starring Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, is in competition this year and is one of the most talked-about movies at the festival so far. Only his fifth feature film and the first for six years, anticipation was high for a picture that tackles nothing less than the question of the meaning of life. Yet the 67-year-old “The Thin Red Line” director is nowhere to be seen. Pitt took most of the questions during the post-screening press conference, and Malick did not show on the red carpet.

Presenters on the festival’s official television channel joked that he may not actually exist. One said that Malick had been caught on camera briefly on Monday by a journalist who actually thought he was Brian de Palma.

Many reporters assumed Malick was not in Cannes, but French director Luc Besson suggested that the sighting may have been genuine. “He is shy, he’s just very shy,” he said on the red carpet before the world premiere of The Tree of Life. “He’s not far from here.”

You talking to me? De Niro perplexes at Cannes

Robert De Niro is known for explosive performances, lighting up movies as a mobster, conquistador or evil CIA stepdad. But to journalists, he has an entirely different reputation — as one of the toughest people to interview in showbusiness.

When facing reporters, the “Goodfellas” star has not always felt compelled to wax poetic. In fact, he barely waxes at all: De Niro has been known to field questions with abrupt ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, leave pregnant silences that can make the most seasoned interviewers squirm — or simply shrug his shoulders.

At the start of the Cannes film festival, running May 11-22, De Niro is proving true to himself. At a press conference to introduce the jury which he is presiding over this year, he gave a classically non-committal performance. A sample of De Niro-isms:

“Every movie is different.” “I’m not sure what we’re looking for.” “We’ll know when we see the movies.” “Some people will feel strongly about movies. Others won’t.” “I suppose it can get political, but that’s what it is.”

Previous jury heads have been less concerned with conveying stoic impartiality. In 2005, when Serbian director Emir Kusturica was in charge, at the end of the festival he complained about a competition lineup that fell short of his expectations.

De Niro did threaten to break with form briefly, when a French reporter stood up and asked him, quoting a well-known and unprintably rude line from “Raging Bull”, whether the actor had slept with his wife.

Looking briefly off-balance, De Niro asked the moderator to repeat the question. Then he cracked one of his signature one-side smiles, apparently contemplating a witty response.

Woody back on form in Cannes. Phew!

I, along with just about every other reporter and critic in Cannes for the film festival this year, was a little nervous about Woody Allen being chosen to open the event with his romantic comedy “Midnight In Paris”. Many cinephiles feel the 75-year-old Oscar winner has failed to live up to his famously high standards in recent outings. In Britain, at least, “Match Point” was not much loved while “Cassandra’s Dream” was broadly unpopular.

But Midnight In Paris quickly won over the notoriously picky Cannes crowd at a press screening today, with laughter (in all the right places) and warm applause as the credits rolled on what he has described as his “love letter to Paris”. The surreal tale follows Hollywood scriptwriter Gil, played by Owen Wilson, who is in Paris and travels back in time each night to the 1920s, where he meets his heroes including Ernest Hemingway and Scott Fitzgerald. As he grows closer to Picasso’s lover Adriana, played by Marion Cotillard, he moves ever further from his present-day fiancee, played by Rachel McAdams.

There are plenty of in-jokes for the culture vultures — it helps, for example, to know the paintings of Salvador Dali or the films of Luis Bunuel or the novels of Hemingway. But it’s not a must and the humour tends to work well, not least when Michael Sheen delivers the pretentious lines of odious intellectual snob Paul, an expert in everything and anything.

Wilson shares some of the classic Allen-as-actor mannerisms — the lost look and the uncertainty — but the differences are more striking. ”He’s the opposite of me,” Allen said of his central hero. “I’m very nervous and New York, he’s very West Coast, very blond, very ‘on the beach’, very athletic. He speaks nothing like me. If I got someone more like me we would have lost a dimension. He brought a dimension that was very different from what I imagined when I wrote it.”

Cannes organisers will be relieved to have got off to such a good start. Opening films have a habit  of putting a downer on the festival. In 2006, “The Da Vinci Code” had the honoured slot but bombed and cast a pall over the first few days of the 11-day cinema showcase. Not so in 2011. Phew.

Have Gaddafi stars gone far enough?

Beyonce, Nelly Furtado and Mariah Carey have all tried to repair any damage that their links to the tainted regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi may have caused them.

On Monday, Furtado tweeted that she would give away the $1 million she earned for just 45 minutes performing before the clan in Italy in 2007. OK, it’s a start, but when, and to whom, and how will anyone know?

Then Beyonce issued a statement saying she had already donated her Gaddafi-stained fee to a Haiti charity. This is also problematic. Judging by comments which stories on this issue have prompted, some people want to know for sure that the money Beyonce so admirably gave to a good cause was the money she earned from the New Year’s Eve concert hosted by one of the Libyan leader’s sons. Otherwise, they argue, the singer is merely avoiding coughing up another million in addition to money she already decided to give.

And finally came Mariah Carey, who took to the web on Thursday with her own response. She, like Beyonce, has been embarrassed by her participation in Gaddafi-hosted New Year’s eve parties on the Caribbean island of St. Barts, a predicament her PR team described as “a slight pr problem”.

A statement on her website called Gaddafi a “vicious, crazy dictator”, but then went on to say that Carey’s involvement at the show was before Libya was in the news and the fact that it was now an issue was “sort of ridiculous”. Carey was described as “very philanthropic” and the statement went on to list her charitable ventures to date, including donating earnings from her song “Hero” to good causes. For good measure, Carey also said she would donate any proceeds from a new song called “Save the Day” “for human rights issues”.

Carey’s own statement read: “I was naive and unaware of who I was booked to perform for. I feel horrible and embarrassed to have participated in this mess. Going forward, this is a lesson for all artists to learn from. We need to be more aware and take more responsibility regardless of who books our shows. Ultimately we as artists are to be held accountable.”

Opinions on these various actions are mixed. Some readers praise the artists for facing up to the truth, and express some sympathy at the way world events have swung against them in recent weeks. Others don’t buy it. All three stars are accused of putting their paychecks before their principles, and some commentators doubt the sincerity of their response to the problem.

from Photographers Blog:

The room where no one says cheese

You’ve just won your Oscar, given your acceptance speech to the world and are whisked off stage. The world watching on television goes to a commercial break as you are escorted off to meet the press, first stop “The Photo Room”.

You come around a corner and step up onto a 60-foot long low-rise stage. Behind you are three 10-foot golden Oscar statuettes, each surrounded by a bouquet of colorful flowers. In front of you is a grandstand of 60 well-dressed photographers who all want you to hold up your award and look at them, and no one says cheese.

In actuality “The Photo Room” has very little to do with the art of photography on Oscar night. We have all come in days prior and hung strobe lights, tested power packs, synced our data feeds out of our digital cameras, inputed IPTC codes, selected the IP addresses back to our editors and tweaked our lighting from edge to edge. On Oscar night it’s all about the winner looking at you.

So the photographers yell: “to your left,” “to your right,” “over here,” “kiss the trophy,” “look up,” “look down” and “it’s me."

They yell, I yell, “put the Oscars together” and “get closer.” We are all trying to compose a picture as if we are the only photographer in the room and have the undivided attention of the winner and their magical award.

New Dads Elton John, David Furnish plan more movies

Now that they have baby Zachary to look after, Elton John and David Furnish may follow up their animated movie “Gnomeo and Juliet” with more kids’ films. Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John was born on Christmas Day at a Los Angeles hospital to a surrogate mother.

The celebrity couple produced the feel-good, gnome-infested take on William Shakespeare’s bleak tragedy “Romeo and Juliet”, and the film hits theatres in Britain and the United States on Feb. 11. At the London premiere this weekend, the couple walked the red carpet along with some of the stars who provided voices, including Emily Blunt, Stephen Merchant and Matt Lucas.

“We’d love to make more kids’ films. This has been really wonderful,” Furnish told reporters. “We’re very excited that in four or five years’ time, Zachary will be able to see this film … It is such a British film, it is lots of fun, the tongue is very firmly planted in the cheek and it is great to be here.”

Pop star John appeared relaxed about tinkering with one of the revered Bard’s most cherished works.

“We changed the ending,” he said. “We made it into the greatest love story ever told because the original one ends in tragedy and we had poetic licence with this one. I don’t think Bill (William) Shakespeare would have been upset with a gnome changing the ending.”

John, who is included on the music credits of the new movie, has previously found success with animated movie compositions. Three of his works for “The Lion King” were nominated for best original song Oscars, and “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” eventually won the prize.

Did Gervais go too far at Globes?

The day after the Golden Globes, and, in Britain at least, there is as much media chatter about show host Ricky Gervais and his no-holds-barred approach as there is about Colin Firth’s acting award for his portrayal of the stammering King George VI in “The King’s Speech”.

Normally the reaction on this side of the pond to major U.S. movie award shows is to champion the victorious Brits, or otherwise bemoan their failure. This year would have been no exception — joy for Firth, otherwise disappointment for the film about the British monarchy — were it not for Gervais and his less-than-gentle jokes that took aim at, among others, Charlie Sheen, Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp of “The Tourist”, The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, Cher, the actresses in Sex and the City, prominent Scientologists and Hugh Hefner.

The Gawker website’s reaction summed up its jaw-dropping bluntness: “Holy wow. Ricky Gervais … just opened the show with one of the most unrelentingly harsh and uncomfortable monologues in awards history.”

Some of the stars there on the night felt the need to hit back — Robert Downey Jr., the butt of one of Gervais’ less-than-flattering jibes, suggested that the host’s words were “hugely mean-spirited, with mildly sinister undertones”. The LA Times called the event a “snarkfest” and wrote of the “corrosive tone” Gervais set. Reflecting how taken aback some viewers were with his repartee, there was even online speculation that he had been sacked mid-show when he failed to appear for nearly an hour.

The BBC has just quoted a statement from Gervais saying: ”I did every single introduction I was meant to. There just happened to be a long gap. The atmosphere backstage and at the after show was great.”

Entertainment Weekly came out on Gervais’ side, commenting: “Oh Ricky, you’ll never work in this town again, and we love you for it”. And The Hollywood Reporter also speculated that the British comedian may have just hosted his last major awards ceremony in the United States:  “‘I warned them.’ Returning Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais did indeed let it be known that he wasn’t going to hold back in skewering Hollywood’s most famous celebrities. And, in what will undoubtedly be his last hosting gig for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (and, who knows, maybe any Stateside awards) he didn’t disappoint.”

Did Gervais go too far? Was he merely voicing what the wide public thinks and says? Should such thoughts and words be kept private, rather than aired on an awards show viewed by millions of people around the world? Are celebrities paid enough to deserve the odd bout of public humiliation?