The Best Actor in the Vase of Meiyu

Chapter 1185 The salted fish turns over
December 26th, the day after Christmas, was a busy Friday.

Just now, all the tickets for the preview of "Elephant" were sold out, causing a small sensation. Who could have thought that an independent art film could create such a stir during the holiday season?
Later, Roger Ebert played the role of a pioneer, taking the initiative to escort the "elephant", and once again attracted countless attention with full praise. Can this become an opportunity to reverse the situation of the film's North American media reputation?
The answer...is yes.

First of all, the controversy still exists objectively, and the criticism is even worse than that in Cannes.

Very, "a formalistic exhibition that is arrogant but empty."

Twenty-five points, "Looking up at the sky at a 45-degree angle and pretending to be sad cannot be called art."

Twenty points, "The very existence of the film is an exercise in frustration."

Complaints, contempt, disdain, and full fire.

These professional film critics will not be soft-hearted. They will definitely not give it a higher rating just because it is the Palme d'Or, nor will they give it a new rating just because Roger endorses it.

Good is good, bad is bad, everyone has their own opinion.

There is no exception for any director, actor or producer. Even for someone like Steven Spielberg who has maintained a stable quality of his works for ten years, every work is a new adventure, and film critics must re-examine and re-evaluate it.

There are no exceptions.

This is exactly the same as in Cannes. No one gives special treatment to a certain work just because of the halo of the Cannes main competition. Watching a movie is a private matter and everyone is allowed to have their own opinions.

Even if it's unwelcome.

However, the slight difference is that while Cannes gathers countless media, the official program guide can only accommodate comments from ten film critics, and it is difficult to display the opinions of different reviews from different program guides together; while back in North America, media reviews provide a platform that allows professional media to speak freely, put their opinions on the table, and finally form an average score, giving us a glimpse into the media's comprehensive evaluation.

Criticism, yes.

There were praises, too. And this time, the energy exploded in an overwhelming manner, even to the point of shocking.

"Premiere", 100 points, "I have never been interested in Gus Van Sant's works, but this time, it is a masterpiece, an unparalleled masterpiece."

"Empire", 100 points, "You will be anxious, you will worry, you will be afraid, you will be scared, and most importantly, you will think. This is what makes this movie different from others."

"Variety Show", 100 points, "The atmosphere created by the entire movie is so calm and so real, it has a creepy power that gets into your skin."

"The Hollywood Reporter", 100 points, "For most of the movie, I was confused about whether I should see this work as a documentary or a work of art, until a certain point in time, I suddenly realized that Gus Van Sant did it on purpose. From that moment on, I fell into fear and despair."

"The New Yorker", 100 points, "I believe some people think that this is just a crude attempt to transform the text of news reports into images, but Gus Van Sant has done much more than that. The truly important part of the film is not what is seen, but precisely what is not seen."

The Wall Street Journal, 100 points, "The film's photography and sound effects demonstrate masterful craftsmanship."

Dumbfounded, dumbfounded.

Is this... is this really happening?
Full marks to the screen?

real or fake?

Imagine the controversy that "Elephant" encountered in Cannes. The first thing that caught our eyes was a chorus of negative reviews, and the final official program score was also disappointing. As a result, now that it is officially released in North America, it has ushered in a reversal of word-of-mouth.

What happened during this period?
In response, The Hollywood Reporter wrote a special report for "Elephant", deeply analyzing the differences in the film's reviews in Europe and North America.

In essence, it is still related to the incident itself. Similar incidents have occurred again and again in North America, and the discussion surrounding guns has always been heated, but the problem has not been solved. This is evolving into a social problem.

The key point is that parents imagine school to be a safe place where they don't need to worry about their children's health or even life; but now, escorting their children to school every day requires fear, and no one knows when and where the next tragedy will occur.

This is very bad.

What the "elephant" presents is exactly this kind of scene, a school scene that parents cannot see, students are not aware of, but it really exists. Long before the advent of guns, the invisible violence has penetrated into every aspect of campus culture.

It was a shock.

So, all North American film critics went into a frenzy.

In fact, not all media have lost their minds. Among these ratings, there are bad reviews, medium reviews, and even among the good reviews, there are rational reviews with scores of 70 or 75 points. If you take a closer look at the whole picture, you can realize that controversy is still the core of the movie.

Just like the incident in real life, it still sparks debates with different opinions and positions, and the same is true for "The Elephant". Some people like it, while others hate it.

However, in this bustling controversy, the sudden appearance of full marks of praise was indeed very eye-catching and easily captured the focus.

In stark contrast to the treatment in Cannes, the "Elephant" finally turned the situation around in North America, and cheers stood out from the hustle and bustle of controversy.

incredible!

Unbelievable!
The praise and applause are grabbing all the attention with overwhelming force. Even the TMZ website exclaimed:

"The Elephant Stole Christmas!"

Two months ago, when "Master and Commander" and "The Butterfly Effect" were released simultaneously, the number of the first batch of media reviews showed the difference in publicity investment; however, "The Butterfly Effect" came from behind to complete the reversal. Although it was not the credit of New Line Cinema, it was still the effect brought about by publicity.

The same is true for the "elephant" in front of us.

Although HBO did not launch a massive publicity campaign, the media and the audience flocked to the film. No matter what, "Elephant" is the first American film to win the Palme d'Or after "Pulp Fiction" a full decade later, so the local media must still pay some attention to it.

then.

Fifty-two media outlets.

In other words, more than fifty media outlets supplied box office revenue for "Elephant", and media reporters also contributed to the sold-out frenzy across the United States on Friday. In the end, the number of media reviews surpassed "Master and Commander", "The Butterfly Effect", and "The Lord of the Rings 3", making it the most sought-after movie in this year's holiday season.

It's horrifying.

HBO had no regard for awards season PR, yet its nonchalant attitude created a wave of enthusiasm and captured the public's attention.

Finally, the media review came out:

Seventy-seven points.

"Elephant" made a great comeback in its North American preview, reversing the controversial situation during its screening at the Cannes Film Festival and igniting its reputation.

Now, "The Elephant" is no longer a Palme d'Or-winning art film that is not popular among the general public, at least, judging from the market reaction.

(End of this chapter)