Another glorious and sunny day in the sensual international city of Cannes – the jewel of the fantastic Cote D’Azur! And I’m thinking about Gore Vidal, having just read two of his memoirs.

He writes in Point to Point Navigation: "The only thing I ever really liked to do was go to the movies. Movies are the ‘Lingua Franca’ of the 20th century. The Tenth Muse, as they call the movies in Italy, has driven the other nine right off Parnassus – or off the peak anyway."

Movies have been and still are so influential in my life that, in a sense, my very consciousness has been shaped (and continues to be) by the art of motion pictures. I think like a movie! I am a movie!

Quite bizarre, I know, but it expresses itself often as a romantic and unrealistic human being whose very idea of life is shaped by this form of "show business," invented by largely immigrant entrepreneurs who were developing a new form of entertainment. An entertainment that was in no way a vehicle for enlightenment or education and, most definitely, not a new art form!

In "Report from Cannes" I’m going to write about a lot of movies, excellent movies mostly – and mostly connected to my reaction to the sights and sounds of the exotic Riviera. This correlation is made by a mind shaped by almost 70 years of movie going. In the coming entries I plan to give you my list of 100 Movies that You Should Not Miss!

As I sit here on the Festival Bar patio with my petit dejeuner (café au lait with a croissant et un pain de chocolat) it strikes me what an fascinating and exciting place Cannes is. No surprise that scores of visitors throng its restaurants, apartments, hotels, bars, casinos and beaches all year long. Many of its visitors are not vacationers but are here for business attending one or more back-to-back conventions, markets and events, crowned of course by the Cannes Film Festival in May; a literal orgy of press, self-centeredness, partying, movies, substance-abuse and unrelenting sex. I bet there are more than 8,000,000 stories in this very naked city – and I’ve experienced many of them! In the coming days, we’ll be telling some. There is no shortage of material, only the will to report and the will to resist the natural ennui and the impulse to pleasure that is, in my opinion, the essence of the Riviera.
 
For me, the soul of the Riviera is film. The Cannes Film Festival is held each May and captures the attention of all the serious movie goers in the world. Hollywood is commercial, Cannes is art! An oversimplification, but useful. So aside from the stories, thoughts, observations and musings that will be forthcoming, I’ll also provide you with movies — lots of movies. I’m aware of a great transformation happening in our ability to view great, often older, sometimes black & white movies. And not just them but also those more recent films that have tended to be overlooked or just plain forgotten.

With the advent of superior quality home theatre ( large, ultra-clear screens, surround sound, etc.) another avenue is opening for cinephiles who like, love, and even demand to watch at home great examples of what I believe to have been the greatest art form of the 20th century: the motion picture. And I understand that group is now large enough to be catered to by the re-mastering of classic films to DVD like "The Searchers" by John Ford and "The Third Man" by Sir Carol Reed for example – and with many more already on the shelves.

It’s being suggested that the youth of today are what is described as a "platform agnostic" to how they view their entertainment – any viewing device or medium will do for their games, TV shows, movies, etc. When I apply this idea to movies it alarms me, I guess because I fall into the "purist" class when it comes to watching motion pictures. I prefer a theatre for movies but have settled into a fairly elaborate home version — a 63" plasma screen with excellent surround sound. So I guess I’m a somewhat corrupted purist – or, a purist in my mind only. 

Today’s young movie viewers seem satisfied with the cinematic experience via iPods, cell phones, tiny airplane screens, computers, and any kind of TV set — almost all with abysmal sound and severely reduced picture quality, which I think gives the viewer a much defiled experience. But they don’t seem to care! Is it because there is so much entertainment available on for new gadgets that the great screen classics are reduced to novelty experiences? Would any of us who love the art of cinema like to watch "The Conformist" on a tiny iPod? 

I remember seeing "Shane" at a revival theatre about 20 years ago (it was a new Technicolor print) with a young companion. I was thrilled and excited once again by the experience while my young friend was stunned and sat in disbelief as the beauty and power of the work stirred her to tears. Is "Shane" going to have that effect on the individual watching on his cell phone while on the subway returning home from work? Maybe he’s only watching it because it is listed as a classic – will he "get it?" I doubt it! But maybe I’m a Luddite.

In any event every report will include, somewhat idiosyncratically, a movie review or comment for you, from my list of 100 Movies that You Should Not Miss. The films will be randomly chosen and are my choices of excellence over the past 70 years. Today it’s "Shane." We watched it last night and it brought me back to the Paramount Theatre and a time when these experiences were available only in images 30 feet high played out in a darkened "palace" while holding in thrall a young boy who, like Gore Vidal, only liked going to the movies.

Movie Review:

Shane

Directed by George Stevens — Paramount Pictures 1951
Starring: Alan Ladd, Van Heflin, Jean Arthur, Brandon de Wilde, and (Walter) Jack Palanca

When I first saw "Shane" – possibly my favorite movie of all –in the winter of 1953 I was stunned (I don’t know what delayed its release, having been made in 1951). Aside from the sheer romance of the story and the flawless acting of the performers, "Shane" presented us western fans (and the western was an active genre then) with so many firsts that today are just normal and expected parts of the cinema landscape.

To name a few: shooting on location, using the geography as an integral part of telling the story, developing extra loud sound effects such as gunshots, costumes that seemed more authentic, sets such as the town itself that presented a bleak and dangerous image such as had never been seen before, etc., etc.

Shane the gunfighter arrives at the Starrett homestead.

But this was the background only to a heroic story of mythic proportions. In one of the early posters for the movie, the cut line under the title "Shane" was "There never was a man like Shane." Of course! There never was a man like Shane.

This story of struggle and conflict between the cattlemen and their "need" for free range and the farmers who had to enclose it. It is based on actual historical clashes such as the Johnson County Wars, and is told through the eyes of Joey – the young son of Joe and Marian Starrett, a farm family faced with violence and ultimately murder at the hands of Ryker and his men, cattlemen sworn to rid the range of Starrett and the rest of the ‘sodbusters’.

Shane rides into the Valley, down from the majesty of the surrounding mountains. He decides to renounce his role as a gunfighter, and trades his buckskins for farm clothes to work on the Starrett homestead. He is inevitably drawn into the conflict while Joey worships him and Marian begins to have unexpressed feelings for him that are uncomfortable even for the audience.

Jack Palance in a career-making role as the gunman Wilson, who is about to
murder Stonewall (a feisty homesteader).

As Shane’s prowess with a gun becomes recognized Ryker recruits Jack Wilson, a gunfighter from Cheyenne played with evil and oily intensity by the then-known as (Walter) Jack Palance in his ground breaking performance. The build-up to the final shootout is methodical and taut while the scenes of Joey chasing Shane to town as the showdown is about to happen are exciting, sad and very, very romantic.

The gunfight between Shane and Wilson is classic – and the ensuing departure of Shane, while Joey cries out, "Shane, come back, we need you!" over and over as the mythical figure of the grievously wounded Shane disappears into the mountains from where he came leaves not a dry eye in the house.

"Shane" is a masterpiece of filmmaking regardless of genre and, in my view, is the greatest western ever made as well as quite possibly my favorite movie of all time.

It just works so well on so many levels — the story, acting, photography, sets, music, and the rendering of heroic and mythic storytelling in the guise of believable characters, caught up in real life situations that were based on historical events.

The classic showdown between Wilson and Shane.

I was 17 years old when I saw "Shane" – I loved Shane as much as Joey did and wanted him to come back just as badly. I needed Shane too, and still do! Don’t we all?

But finally, the power of this movie is that the only person who knows that "there never was a man like Shane” is Shane himself. He knows that the real heroes of life are the humble, hardworking family people – and he says it in his eulogy for Stonewall (who was gunned down by Wilson). Shane tried the homestead life but this story required that he put on his buckskins and gun once again and do battle for the righteous – the knight errant who confronts evil at huge personal cost.

And when he does, as he must, we all feel terrible and elated at the same time. The most bittersweet of endings.