Since Cannes is on the home stretch for another year, many festival-goers remain baffled as screenings of films within the Official Selection deliver mixed reactions. The biggest head-scratcher is why certain films are in certain areas; what differentiates films in Official Competition from those in Un Certain Regard? Do the powers that be view films different to the press and then differently again to the public?

The Festival de Cannes website states that films in the Official Competition are selected on the basis of having arthouse origins with an audience appeal, while those in Un Certain Regard must have an original aim and aesthetic.

Sticking by that, they rarely shows films that don’t have an arthouse element to them anyway — as surprisingly discovered by a young American woman also a first attendee — and regularly promote controversial directors like Lars von Trier.

This may create good publicity, but the films themselves only really appeal to those in the industry and those with filmic knowledge behind them.

Initially thinking there was only one case in point for 2011, there was more to come. My first disappointment was the latest film from Naomi Kawase, Hanezu No Tsuki [Hanezu]. Her third film in Competition tells the story of a married woman falling for another man in the region of Asuka where the stories of old get lost and patience is considered a virtue.

While I do agree with that sentiment, patience just doesn’t translate all that well into cinema. Uneventful would be the best word used to describe the first hour of the film and it took a few big moments in the story to regain the audience’s interest.

Kawase said in the press conference following the screening that she’s largely aware of nature and wanted to incorporate that into her latest work, and it’s no doubt her strong point. The cinematography was beautiful, but the finished product was largely disappointing.

The other Japanese contender for the Palme d’Or hasn’t received positive feedback, either. Many journalists and filmmakers have criticised Harakiri: Death of a Samurai [Ichimei] for being unnecessarily violent and overdrawn. An opinion won’t be formed here without having seen the piece, but if you judge it solely on hearsay, it’s not promising.

Lars von Trier’s Melancholia

Then there’s Mr. von Trier. Always one to stir the pot, Melancholia has received mostly positive reviews from critics, but it was his now infamous Nazi comments that have arguably given the Festival what they want.

The Festival’s decision to make him a ‘persona non grata’ (unwelcome person) could mean an end to any hope for Melancholia‘s Palme d’Or chances. But really, it’s exactly what they wanted – and perhaps what this year’s event needed.

It’s debatable whether they needed to take action, but the fact his film remains in competition means that they didn’t think the event was as serious as others did — Argentina’s distributors are still sticking by their decision not to release the film there.

It’s the choice to put these films in ahead of those like Where Do We Go Now? [Et maintenant, on va ou?] that creates debate. The story of a Middle Eastern town that is threatened by the divide between its Christians and Muslims is offbeat but immensely entertaining, and would hold a much more general cinematic appeal.

Cannes is the biggest platform to promote arthouse cinema and does very well in its role – but is there really a distinction between films selected in the two major categories?

Being here it doesn’t seem that way, which is disappointing to those who consider some films unlucky to not be in Official Competition.

The only thing anyone can be certain of is that there will always be the odd shock, or surprise, that throws everyone briefly off course. After all that’s the appeal of Cannes itself – to expect the unexpected. Even if it stirs the pot a bit.

—

For more of Katina’s coverage of the 2011 Cannes film festival, click here.

Follow the author Katina Vangopoulos on Twitter.