Catching Up...

After my delicious dinner on Monday, it was back to JLP to catch some Z's and rest up for another day at the festival. On to the next day...

-Tuesday May 17

My day began with a breakfast at Pan and Cake, a little cafe across the street from our residence. It's run by a sweet family that loves practicing English, and it has good food. Win-win!

Here's my typical breakfast. The best part: French bread. Lots of French bread.

 After eating, it was off to a screening in Cannes, but one unlike any of the films I had seen. An Israeli film called The Slut, I didn't have much expectations going in. Yet, I wasn't prepared for what a truly awful film it was. I nearly fell asleep, and it had a terribly disturbing ending that made me feel ill. Nothing that a delicious lunch and some souvenir shopping couldn't fix! After eating (which I seem to do a lot of over here), it was on to another Israeli movie called Footnote. It won best screenplay today (Sunday the 22nd) in the festival, and it seemed like a great film...but I ended up leaving early. I was dozing off and I guess just wasn't in the mood for its type of film. I will catch it on DVD in the states for sure!

After leaving the theater, I made a quick pit stop at the American pavilion to hop online. Here's what the pavilion looks like:

To the left of this there's a food stand and a conference room where speakers (one being Ryan Gosling...more on that later!) come. Out beyond the tables is the beautiful Mediterranean filled with yachts.

Although it's hard to remember for sure, the rest of my night was more than likely spent writing film reviews and catching up on emails, etc.

-Wednesday May 18
This day was one of the most exciting days of the festival. Here's why:

Yep, that's Ryan Gosling.

Nicholas Winding Refn: Director of "Drive" in competition at Cannes.

Who needs to see a movie when you can see a movie star? I didn't see any films on this day, but it was well worth it. The group heard from two directors early in the day, one being Oliver Schmidt who has directed/worked on many projects, including a vignette in Paris, Je T'aime. Director Jeff Nichols spoke to us as well, focusing on how he got a start in the industry and what's important in getting where you want to be. His movie screening at the festival was called Take Shelter. I didn't get a chance to see it, but it got great reviews. 

After the talks, I took a quick shopping break and got a new sun dress (which I needed like a hole in the head). After this, it was on to see Ryan Gosling! First in line in the hot sun at the American Pavilion, I got to see an actor I've been admiring for years. He and director Nicholas Winding Refn were talking about their film in competition at the festival called Drive. I saw the film a couple of days ago and really liked it--it was entertaining, but nothing like I expected. 

This song was played several times in the movie, and it will forever be stuck in my head. "A reeeeal humaaan beeeing, and a reeeal heeeero."

Film Review Four: "Melancholia"

*Disclaimer: Sorry for the font change halfway through, technical difficulties...

Melancholia: A Grand Finale

Director: Lars von Trier

Lead Actors: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland

Distributor: Trustnordisk

Running Time: 130 minutes

            The apocalypse has been portrayed in several films over time. An asteroid is headed toward earth and modern technology comes to the rescue—long live mankind. But, what happens when nothing is there to save the day?

Lars von Trier’s Melancholia.  

            Within the first ten minutes of the film, it is made clear how it is going to end. And, it is these opening moments that are the most extraordinary in the entire work. Justine (Kirsten Dunst) floats down a stream donning a wedding gown and veil, emptily staring into the camera. A horse kneels before a star-filled sky, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) desperately tries to run on an empty golf course clutching her son. What gives one chills is that all of these images, along with others, are in extreme slow motion and combined with a haunting, epic score that is used throughout the film; there is a great sense of restraint, like trying to scream and not being able to utter a sound.

This sense of helplessness is repeated throughout the entire film—coping with the end of the world wouldn’t leave one empowered. The intro sequence is mesmerizing and beautiful, and just as the story is told during this time, so is the general feel of the film.

            It all begins with a wedding, and an unusual one at that. The bride would rather take a bath, roam the golf course or nap than dance and celebrate with her guests. Justine has just married Michael (Alexander Skarsgård) and something is off. She hides from the wedding party, ventures on the grounds of her sister Claire and brother-in-law John’s (Keifer Sutherland) massive property. Claire desperately tries to keep Justine from falling into a bout of panic and depression as Justine expresses that she feels trapped. On her happiest day, she is quite melancholy.

            Yet, this is only Part One.

            A complete role reversal occurs in the second half of the film, and the work takes a new direction. Mastered through the excellent performances of the actor’s, Part Two of the film shifts to Claire’s perspective. While at first the rational force in the sisters’ relationship, she turns into a nervous wreck as Justine takes on a calm attitude of indifference. Claire is frantic over the possibility of the planet, Melancholia, colliding with earth and the end of life as she knows it. John, a scientist, assures her time and time again that the planet is not going to hit. We want to believe his claims just as much as Claire wishes to.  

            The world in the film is an eerie one. Claire and John’s home, where most of the story takes place, is isolated and devoid of a specific location. The characters are distant from any sort of civilization—they are alone. Because of this isolation, the end of the world is that much more frightening. The camerawork creates this sense of alienation in many of the scenes; with almost a documentary feel, there are several zoom-ins on the action, especially character reactions. It’s as if we are visitors to a foreign planet other than our own. It is familiar, yet distant.

            This loneliness exudes from Kirsten Dunst in her excellent performance. She calls life on earth “evil,” and asserts that even planet earth is alone: she states there is nothing else in the vast universe other than human suffering. This gloom, apathy and then acceptance is easy to understand given the situation the characters face. 

This idea is woven into the film’s very structure, a mark of mastery for von Trier.

Part One: marriage. Part Two: paranoia and dread. The union of these two different stories in the same film parallels the idea of union throughout. Justine and Michael’s marriage ends in disaster, just like the collision of Melancholia and planet earth.

Perhaps the best way to describe my personal experience with Melancholia would be of great impact. During the film, I sat awestruck by its sheer magnitude as well as its uniquely beautiful imagery.

The theater was rumbling upon the film’s conclusion, as if the apocalypse was upon the audience members—it was certainly a visual as well as physical experience. I thought about the film for hours—and then days—after I left the theater. The performances given made me contemplate how I would personally deal with the end of the world, and if I agreed with the film’s statements on life. It made me wonder.

 Looking up at the sky upon exiting the theater, Melancholia raced through my mind and on into my dreams. The end of the world, a rather terrifying idea, was brought to the forefront of my thoughts. Lars von Trier, despite his more than questionable statements, made a wonderful film. I never could have imagined the end of the world as being so beautiful.

Film Review Three: "Oslo, August 31st"

Oslo, August 31^st: An Urban Vignette

Director: Joachim Trier

Lead Actors: Anders Danielsen Lie

Distributor: The Match Factory

Running Time: 96 minutes

            One of the most beautiful aspects of film is that, in such a brief amount of time, an intricate story may be told. Writer and director Joachim Trier’s Oslo, August 31^st is the quintessential example of this phenomenon.

A quick glimpse into the life of one man, Anders (Anders Danielsen Lie) Trier’s second feature film gives us a mere ninety-six minutes of one day. This life is one riddled with thoughts of suicide and struggling with addiction, but full of hope and pleasantness. Trier gives us a lovely quasi-vignette that takes the audience through feelings of happiness, sympathy and disheartenment. One traverses across this spectrum of emotions scene by scene, while being able to fully connect with the main character.  

Anders is a man in his early thirties who has just come out of rehab. He is looking for a job and to reconnect with family and friends with whom he has lost touch. During the course of this rediscovery of past relationships, one theme becomes apparent: no one is perfectly happy in the life they lead, no matter what kind it may be. Anders finds that his friends are struggling, just as he is, with finding themselves and what they want; recovering drug addict or middle-class father of two (a friend Anders visits), everyone has their trials and tribulations in the city. It is as if Oslo is another character in the film, providing the backdrop for these people to interact as well as being the one true connection between them and all of their problems.

 The film opens with several different shots of Oslo paired with off-screen voices speaking about their relation to and memories of the city. The shots appear handheld, amateur and grainy, adding an individual feel to the opening moments of the work. Juxtaposed with the rather calm aesthetic of the rest of the film, these opening images serve to show that the film is a personal narrative. From the onset, memories, experiences and environment are introduced and remain throughout.

            Just as the beginning of the film illuminates the city’s importance, the film’s conclusion does so as well. Several shots of the city with its various sounds conclude the film. Oslo—the city—is a place where several people have stories to tell everyday, one of which comprises Trier’s work.

            Amongst the masses, there are individuals.

Leaving near death behind in nature, in the countryside, the city seems to breathe life into Anders. Oslo urges him to push through the day-long journey we are shown, and he marches on.   This march is to the rhythm of Anders’ own beat because the city, like most of those he comes in contact with, is an old, encouraging friend.

One of the most poignant elements of the film is the soundtrack. Filled with youth and spirit, the selected compositions bring an air of vivacity to the images displayed on screen. As Anders takes a cab into the city, an upbeat song plays over the radio as the camera scans the skyline through the window from his point of view. As if it were gradually coming to life, the music becomes louder and louder, mirroring Anders’ condition upon re-entering the life he used to lead. The chosen music allows the audience member to connect with the main character and allows Anders to seem like a real, everyday person.

While the film does not have the appearance of the French New Wave at first glance, Trier’s work is rather reminiscent of Agnes Varda’s Cleo From 5 to 7. Not only does music play an important role in both films in illuminating the characters’ situations, but the two works also follow one day in the life of the main character. This day is filled with gradual self-discovery and awareness, the characters finding out what is best for them, and how they wish to continue living their lives. Much like Cleo, Anders roams the city attempting to map out where he is headed.

Oslo, August 31^st is the French New Wave meets modern Norway, and it is done very well. 

 While the ending may leave one dismayed or confused with Anders’ ultimate decision, we are left wondering and are enthralled along the way. One of the most remarkable effects the film had on me is that it allowed me to partake in the life of someone very different than myself. Like many films, it allowed me to escape my own life and dive right into another’s.

Yet, Oslo August 31^st is not like many films. It is its own creation. I felt that I was given a believable, beautifully simplistic portrayal of someone struggling in ways that I might not be able to empathize with, but that I can be fascinated by.

The production elements of the film add to this sense of realism in that the story is simply told; no fancy camera movements, no flashy editing—just story. There is nothing particularly striking about the techniques implemented in the film other than that they do not distract. The cinematography is smooth, the editing is logical and the locations are true to the narrative. The simplistic approach taken by Trier allows the audience to be enveloped by the film and to forget that they are watching a movie.

Yet, Oslo, August 31^st calls for the utmost attention. Anders and the city are one, are alive, and this simple yet creative representation of a normal life of one man is a true mark of merit. Trier makes ordinary extraordinary by simply letting a story be told.  

Film Review Two: "The Slut"

The Slut: A Filthy Bhore

Director: Hagar Ben-Asher

Lead Actors: Hagar Ben-Asher, Ishai Golan, IchoAvital

Distributor: Films Distribution

Running Time: 87 minutes

            Imagine a film that moves at the pace of a snail. Now, imagine one that is gratuitous and has no clear purpose.The Slut by Hagar Ben-Asher is this film and so much less.

A poorly executed filmnot only because of Ben-Asher’s direction, but because of her screenplay—as well as her acting—The Slut follows Tamar (Hagar Ben-Asher) who works at a chicken farm throughout her several sexual exploits. The film is slow, and tries desperately to be artistic when it has no substance behind it. Artistry may never be confused with unnecessary sex scenes and a lacking story.

The film begins with the camera tracking over a barren rural landscape of dirt hills anddung heaps, stopping on the massive legs of a horse. The horse starts to run and is suddenly hit by a car, foreshadowing the direction the film goes on to take: something rather ordinary ending in disaster. It is in this same bleak landscape where we are introduced to Tamar, with a man, and from the onset it is shown what she does best. She pleasures the village’s men time and time again, to the point where they come to expect it from her. She pays the man who fixes her bicycle with sexual favors, and does so for every man she seems to come in contact with. These exploits compose the majority of the film, and they are just as uninteresting and uncomfortable as they are pointless.

Painfully blatant and obvious, Tamar is the film’s title.

These males that she services are not her only company, however: she also has two daughters. Instead of adding depth to her character, the young girls demonstrate just how vapid she is. Tamar casts them to the wayside, letting them raise themselves for the most part—except when Shai (Ishai Golan) comes into the picture. A presumedflame from the past, Shai the veterinarian returns to the village to deal with his mother’s passing and the two seem to fall in love. A common progression of story in many films—the rekindling of old romance blossoming into a lasting relationship—The Slut takes this common idea in a ridiculous, disturbing direction that does anything other than offer an interesting take on the idea.

Despite the film’s negative points, there could be a glimmer of hope in this dung heap of a movie. Perhaps attempting to posit a feminist argument, the film does seem to demonstrate elements of female sexual freedom and independence, Ben-Asher being a female director possibly supporting this claim. Tamar is a working single mother, and she does exercise her right to reproductive choices and controlling her own body. She looks out for her own interests, but maybe too much so.

Even the female audience member cannot possibly empathize with or feel for Tamar’s character. She is selfish and ungrateful, especially for the role Shai assumes in her family. The positive representations of female power are thrown out the window when she not only chooses to sleep with the village’s men over Shai, the almost father of her unborn child, but when she thrusts her daughters upon him—the unsuspecting babysitter.

Tamar is not empowered; she is pathetic and destructive.

The feminist façade is ruined not only by Tamar’s actions, but also by the sickening ending that comes out of left field. We are left stunned after a slow hour and a half and walk away totally disturbed beyond belief. We are bored into submission and then slapped in the face with the film’s conclusion, as if Ben-Asher intended to assault her unsuspecting audiences. The film is so void of meaning that the twist, nausea-inducing ending is unwarranted and only adds to its mediocrity.

While Tamar’s character evokes no emotional attachment, Golan’s performance does help create some amount of complexity in the film. The viewer feels for his struggle because, from what is shown of him, he is kind and patient with Tamar’s family. Tamar betrays him, and it is the closest one comes to an emotional reaction to the film. However, this connection to his character is also ruined by the storyline demanded of Ben-Asher’s script; any amount of merit Golan adds to the film is discredited overall.

The production value, like the other elements of the film, is also lackluster. While the repeated slow tracking used in almost every scene is at first intriguing, leaving one waiting for a payoff or for revelation(as well as a possible mark of authorship), it is erased by the horrible storyline: nothing is ever revealed. For example, in one moment Shai leaves the frame to reveal his empty front yard, the camera tracking slowly in on nothing—pointless, and this occurs in almost every scene. The camera captures the drab scenery that mirrors the miserable experience the characters, as well as the audience, have during the course of the film. There is little dialogue, and no striking shots or imagery.

Not the most pleasant of titles, perhaps I should not have been surprised when it left me more than displeased. The film may have even lived up to its title, whoring itself out to audiences by costingthem money, time and their appetite. Upon leaving the theater I was floored by a grab bag of negative emotions that were not worth the cost.

The Slut is a filthy bore. 

As of Late

The past several days have been a complete blur. Keeping busy and having a great time really does make you lose track of time! Since my last post, I've seen quite a few films, a few celebrities and lots more in between. Let's go day by day:

-Saturday May 14: Nighttime 

Saturday night was spent out on the town in Cannes. After I got off the train from Juan-les-Pins, I took a walk up to the castle that overlooks the entire city. It was such a gorgeous view! 

After this, I walked around the streets surrounding the castle (which is now a venue and a museum) that were what I expected European streets to look like. They were narrow, filled with cafes and houses, and very steep. It was the Europe I've always seen in the movies. Pretty hungry, I then went to grab a bite by the beach where they were just finishing the screening of a Fellini film. I walked on the beach some and saw a woman recording her dog walking around in the sand on her phone for a good 10 minutes. Bootsie was having her close-up. The American pavilion was having another party that night, so I went to it next. There was music and dancing, and I didn't end up getting to sleep until 5am. When in Cannes...

-Sunday May 15

Sunday was my day to catch up on sleep. I didn't wake up until 2:30 in the afternoon, and settled for the fact that I wasn't going to see many movies that day. I took the train into Cannes soon after I got up, and met up with some people to watch, get ready for it, 3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy. It was as ridiculous as it sounds, and I got up to leave 30 minutes into the movie.

After lounging at the American pavilion for a spell, I then came back to JLP to change for the premiere of Sean Durkin's Martha Marcy May Marlene. On the way back into Cannes, there was a train attendant on board and I hadn't bought a ticket (as I never do, and no one else does either). I quickly darted to the bathroom and spent the 10 minute ride in hiding.


Once at the Debussy theater, I joined the line with the other students and marched on in to the premiere. Elizabeth Olsen, Mary Kate and Ashley's younger sister, is the star of this film and gave a great performance. The film is about a girl who leaves a cult and struggles with the repercussions and memories of what she went through there as she comes back to the real world. It was an excellent film, and the director and actors were at the premiere! Below are Elizabeth Olsen and Brady Corbet applauding after the screening.

-Monday May 16

Monday brought yet another great screening--this time, it was The Kid with a Bike, a French film by Jean Pierre Dardenne starring Cecile De France. It's about a young boy who struggles with rejection from his father, played by Thomas Doret. It was a beautiful film and I really enjoyed it. I watched the film in one of my favorite theaters at the festival, the Salle du 60. It's on top of the Riviera building near the international pavilions and seats 400 people. The press conferences are held directly next to this theater, so in a few screenings I've heard the press being rather rowdy when a celebrity was being interviewed. I was probably next door to Brad Pitt!

The next part of the day was spent listening to female Iranian director named Marjan. It was such an interesting perspective to hear from: she emphasized what a huge influence the government has on film making in Iran, and that expression is more or less controlled. Not just any film may be shown at the festival, the government decides, and she told us that while at the festival she had to wear her hijab (even though she doesn't wish to). It was great to hear from not only a female director, but from a director of a very different culture. 

Here's I am at the top of the hotel where we've heard from several speakers. The view is beautiful!

 

A big part of the Cannes experience at the festival is begging for tickets. I thought that there would be no night more important for this than the Tree of Life premiere. I held up my sign for about an hour and a half with no luck, which left me pretty disappointed since the film was at the top of my list of ones I wanted to see--I have been drooling over the trailer for months and months. However, I settled for the fact that I would have to catch it later (besides, it got booed and people walked out of the screenings). As I was walking to meet up with people, I passed a woman doing portraits. I stopped, had one done, and ended up with a pretty great souvenir. 

 

After I had accepted defeat, I figured it was time to stuff my face--with delicious pizza. I went to one of my favorite restaurants so far in Cannes called Cafe Roma. Even though the waitress got my order wrong, walked away when I told her and didn't apologize, it still hit the spot.

It's time for bed here, so I will post more tomorrow!

Film Review One: "Sleeping Beauty"

Here is the first film review I've written for my film criticism course here in France:

Sleeping Beauty: A Viewer’s Own Dream

Director: Julia Leigh

Lead Actors: Emily Browning, Ewen Leslie, Rachael Blake

Distributor: Entertainment One Films International

Running Time: 101 minutes

            Upon viewing Julia Leigh’s first film, I was left confused. Not able to wrap my head around what I had just seen, I could not figure out whether this confusion was intentional or without purpose. The Australian director’s work, Sleeping Beauty, demonstrates a defined, visually pleasing style with a lacking story. Not lacking in creativity, but in plot details and clear direction. If her following films continue on in the footsteps of her debut picture, her audiences will more than likely remain lost in a fog, a fog of bewilderment. I was not sure what I had just seen, or if I liked it overall.

In any case, Sleeping Beauty is a beautiful lullaby, with its silent score and dreamlike aesthetics that lull the viewer into a subdued state just like the main character.  

Lucy (Emily Browning) is a college age girl who is in need of money; aside from other aspects of the storyline, this we know for certain. Much different from Browning’s role in Lemony Snicket’s a Series of Unfortunate Events, Browning plays a much more mature, mysterious character. Lucy is late on rent, and may be supporting an alcoholic mother. Working in a restaurant as well as a copy room, Lucy then goes on to be a lingerie model-waitress upon responding to an advertisement in the school newspaper. This job, offered by Clara (Rachael Blake), then leads Lucy to work as somewhat of an unconscious prostitute who is not used for sex, but for the odd pleasures of older men. This is perhaps the most uncomfortable aspect of the film in that we are forced to witness a childlike woman, played to a tee by Browning, be powerless to the whims of these unusual clients. She is small, with an innocent appearance of purity. Lucy peacefully sleeps (after willingly drinking a drugged cup of tea) unbeknownst as to what is being done to her. It’s difficult, uncomfortable, yet captivating because of its mystery. We want to know more.

One may wonder why Lucy decides to comply with such a thing, why she does not find money elsewhere. In fact, in one of the more perplexing scenes, she burns her earnings from a night’s work, gazing into the flame. By this, it is made clear that Lucy might not be in her “careers” for only the money and might suggest a depth to her character that we are never treated to. This is the most striking aspect of the film: it makes us actively think. As soon as the credits rolled, my mind was reeling with theories and questions. The beautiful film was the foundation for intense—almost personal—reflection on our experience with Leigh’s work. Perhaps there is no complete answer, and this open-endedness is intriguing and thought provoking. Sleeping Beauty calls for participation from the audience, something few films today require.

While there are few clues in the storyline, there is an important piece to this intricate puzzle. Lucy has a rather strange relationship with the character deemed Birdmann (Ewen Leslie). She pours him cereal with vodka, she drinks vodka, they talk. They share a mysterious history. And, like the rest of the film, we must accept mere wonderment at what is happening between the two. However, there is great importance to his character, and he could be the key to the film mysteries. Lucy, devoid of much emotion at all, reacts to Birdmann and feels for him. She becomes animated when she visits his apartment and, most importantly, she cries for him. Browning unleashes pure sadness and emotion in her performance, highlighting Birdmann’s importance. However, Lucy’s strange ritual with his character ties in with the overarching feel of the film: nothing may be understood from what we are given.

            The structure of the film is disorienting, yet effective. The constant fades to black and fade ins create a sense that the viewer themselves are simultaneously waking and drifting off to sleep. Yet, one does not want to miss a thing. With each fade I was left yearning for more story, more clues as to what was happening behind the creamy cinematography. Along with this stylistic technique, a facet of the film that cannot be ignored is its extreme silence. It is as if Leigh was attempting to create an environment ideal for sleeping in the theater itself, as the film makes one hesitant to even breathe so as not to break the silence.

The film is barren. The rooms, much like the characters, are sterile. They are stark and devoid of color, all subdued to an eerie soft glow. The appearance reflects the storyline. It lures us in and tempts us relentlessly.

While Leigh may have been a bit too vague in writing the screenplay and directing for her first film, it does demonstrate great artistry and originality—it is left up to interpretation, the story able to be formed by the thoughts of the viewer. Sleeping Beauty is a baffling dream we do not want to wake from.   

Is This Real?

The last couple of days have been quite a rush! I'm currently coming down off of a complete happiness high. More on that later...

Thursday after I rode into Cannes I saw a three films: a Spanish film called Cousinhood, a documentary by Werner Herzog called Cave of Forgotten Dreams, and a film by Gus Van Sant called Restless. In short, Cousinhood was cute and entertaining, Cave of Forgotten Dreams was visually stunning and Restless was okay. I thought the beginning was weak (as well as the story overall...too sappy) but the ending had me tearing up and made up for my initial reaction. However, the best part of the Restless screening was this:

Gus Van Sant, Mia Wasikowska, Henry Hopper, Jason Lew (writer) and Bryce Dallas Howard (producer) were at the premiere. Adrien Brody and Rachel McAdams were also in attendance, both of whom I saw. Such a great night!

After a Friday filled with seeing Sleeping Beauty (disturbing, confusing, but beautiful) and We Need to Talk About Kevin, last night I was at the same party as John C. Reilly and Ezra Miller, both actors in Kevin. This film completely crushed me and was pretty difficult to get through, but it was beautifully done. It should be coming to the states soon if it gets picked up, and I would see it again in a heartbeat.

Here's John C. Reilly soon after he arrived to the "Queer Party" at the American Pavilion in Cannes (he wasn't taking photos with people, but seemed very nice):

Here I am with Ezra Miller. He was a crazy dancer!

After the party, a group of the other girls and I caught a cab back to Juan-les-Pins. It was very late, and I didn't get to sleep until 4am. Six hours later, I was up and ready to head back into Cannes! 

The day started off with seeing a French film called Iris in Bloom. It was very short, yet a little slow. Overall I enjoyed it. Lunch at a cafe followed, then the rest of the students and I attended a talk by filmmaker Jonathan Caouette. He was very down to earth and was great to listen to. Right after hearing him speak, we all headed over to the U.K pavilion to hear Tilda Swinton speak right on the beach, which was amazing! It was especially great because I had seen her most recent film just the day before. She emphasized how important people are in the film industry, and told us that collaborations are of the utmost importance to her when choosing projects. She was a great person in the industry to get to see.

After the talk, it was off to do some shopping. I'm about to head back into Cannes for dinner and nightlife even though there is so much left to tell. I will do so as soon as I can! Before I go, here is a photo of me with one of the several yachts in Cannes. Behind me is a beautiful church that looks like a castle up on the hill: