Immanuel: Huh, what?
He was stunned, his steps involuntarily coming to a halt.
Now, Immanuel finally understood what was happening in front of him.
Usually, the mornings at film festivals are busy and noisy. The premieres and subsequent screenings run from morning to night, and reporters are practically running, with no time to stop—convenience store sandwiches are their closest companions.
But now?
Journalists holding official festival publications were stopping in small groups, some seriously reading as if doubting their own eyes, others looking around, seemingly searching for someone to talk to, while some wore expressions of bewildered amusement, hands on their hips, sighing deeply. A small slice of the scene revealed the turbulence beneath the surface.
A moment ago, Immanuel hadn't noticed anything unusual, only catching a glimpse that left him a bit puzzled. He hadn't had time to think before he, too, stopped in his tracks.
He looked at the rating, then looked again.
Both absurd and shocked, stunned and surprised.
His first thought was:
Did some critics check the wrong box on the rating sheet?
Such things are rare but do happen. When critics submit their ratings, they might make a mistake, like filling out an answer sheet incorrectly, causing a chain of errors in the final tally.
Otherwise…how could this be?
2.1 points?
How could it be just 2.1? Is there some misunderstanding here?
When he looked up again, Immanuel saw the confused looks of several colleagues, their eyes meeting in bewilderment, struggling to find the right words.
The shock and impact were no less than what the cast and crew experienced.
Has such a situation ever occurred in Cannes before?
A premiere received thunderous applause, but the official publication was dismal?
Well…it might not be the first time. It's not a common occurrence, but it's not unheard of either.
After all, the official publication is also like a small jury—a small group's opinion.
But why?
Immanuel was a photojournalist, busy on the red carpet yesterday, so she didn't have the chance to see "Elephant" firsthand or attend the post-screening press conference. However, rumors from colleagues were rampant. On her way to the Palais des Festivals, she heard a lot. "Elephant" was definitely the talk of the town.
Since she hadn't seen the film, she didn't have any preconceived notions.
This allowed Immanuel to regain her composure quickly after the initial shock.
While hurrying to the Palais des Festivals to prepare for a full day of work, she carefully read the first wave of reviews for "Elephant."
Like the official publication rating, the reviews were equally divisive.
The highest score was four stars.
0.5 stars: "A heap of meaningless images pieced together in a void of formalism. Even the emptiness is not well-executed."
4 stars: "Simple, effective, astonishing. I've never been fond of Gus Van Sant's recent attempts at imagery, which seemed like self-indulgent whining. But 'Elephant' is an undeniably brilliant attempt. Perfect."
1 star: "The film itself is a failed excuse—clumsy, shallow, arrogant, and crude. Gus Van Sant's imagery is utterly devoid of charm."
4 stars: "The film is captivating, the effect stunning, although not entirely realistic—none of the characters carry a cell phone. Still, it opens a gateway between reality and fiction, pinning the audience to their seats."
1.5 stars: "A malicious, crude, meaningless consumption of suffering. Gus Van Sant is opportunistic without trying to process or express anything. Apart from exploiting people's anger and empathy, the film has no value."
4 stars: "Simple yet real. This makes the school shootings in real life look terrifying and insane while also being painfully vivid. It reminds us once again that movies are much more than just movies—they show us what the power of imagery can convey."
1 star: "Is the film terrible? Not really as bad as the NRA, which shamelessly held its annual conference near the Columbine High School after the incident. Gus Van Sant's hands aren't covered in blood, but he is still exploiting the issue, sharing 'blood-soaked buns.'"
Praise and criticism flew together, with heated, confrontational discussions continuing beyond the film itself, sparking a storm of debate.
Either you love it or hate it. This extreme tug-of-war of opinions pushed "Elephant" to the peak of controversy, igniting Cannes in full.
Immanuel's heart pounded wildly. She couldn't tell whether this was good or bad.
After all, this is Cannes, a place that has always welcomed and even embraced controversy. Unlike "Spider-Man" or "Catch Me If You Can," "Elephant" stood at the eye of the storm, sparking widespread discussion—or rather, debate.
When Immanuel arrived at the Palais des Festivals, the scene was particularly chaotic.
Everyone was talking about "Elephant," literally.
Especially after experiencing the thunderous applause in the Lumière Hall after the premiere, waking up the next morning, a variety of opinions erupted like a volcano, flooding this coastal town.
Immanuel felt a bit panicked, wondering if she was the last person in Cannes who hadn't seen "Elephant."
...No way, right?
"I think it's a masterpiece..."
"How could it be? It's just pretending to be a documentary, reenacting the event without doing anything else. Even a middle school student could do that."
"No, no, no. The calmness is only on the surface. It looks simple, but the film has been laying the groundwork from the beginning. People's indifference to violence is like the elephant in the room..."
The world was abuzz.
Sitting in the café, Roger Ebert quietly watched the commotion. His laptop screen in front of him, the cursor blinked.
A typical Cannes morning, ordinary yet extraordinary.
In North America, films are released every week, but attention usually focuses on one or two works, allowing critics to finish their work on time and add fuel to the media's fire.
But in Cannes, five, six, seven, or eight films premiere daily for ten straight days. Even without eating, drinking, or sleeping, you can't watch them all. The critics can't keep up with writing their reviews immediately.
Every day is overtime—a painful pleasure.
Every film festival takes a toll, leaving you utterly exhausted, swearing you won't do it again. But when the next festival rolls around, you're back, planning your viewing schedule.
Roger Ebert was no exception. Even as one of North America's top critics, he struggled with this yearly dilemma.
But when you're in it, you can't help but be glad you're there.
Otherwise, wouldn't you miss "Elephant"?
---