2016 was a monumental year across the globe, but in Hollywood the earthquakes felt more like slight tremors than catastrophic jolts of change. Considering the huge leaps streaming media continues to make, and how the movie industry has become more dependent on international markets than ever this decade, the lack of upheaval was almost worth a sigh of relief.

Not that there wasn’t any drama to deal with. Birth of a Nation director and star Nate Parker experienced a rise and fall over the course of 10 months worthy of a Shakespeare play. And companies like Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Animation are on the brink of massive change that could affect both their products and their bottom lines.

But outside the celebrity and industry scandal, things were almost status quo in 2016. Ticket sales continued to be robust, making 2016 the highest-earning year in box office history. Superhero movies still dominated the box office, accounting for five of the year’s 10 highest-grossing films. And families still flocked en masse to their local multiplexes, with the year’s five biggest animated films (Finding Dory, The Secret Life of Pets, Zootopia, Moana, and Sing) racking up more than $1.5 billion in box office receipts.

All that being said, Hollywood cannot forever avoid the influence of changes across the rest of the political and cultural landscape. And, as you’d expect, that means one of the big questions for 2017 starts with the president-elect.

Will Trump’s potential hard line with China hurt Hollywood?

Donald Trump’s ascension to the White House could mean a lot for Hollywood, from potential Federal Communications Commission regulation changes to less oversight on media monopolies. For the movie industry, however, there has to be serious concern over Trump’s potential hard-line trade negotiations with China. The president-elect has already created a diplomatic scuffle over his call with Taiwan’s president and lashed out against what he calls China’s unfair trade practices. One of the easiest ways for China to retaliate would be to stop screening American films, something that’s got to be causing concern for Hollywood studios.  

China is the fastest-growing theatrical marketplace in the world, as its 1.3 billion citizens get access to more and more modern movie theaters. The country has also relaxed the number of international films it allows to screen publicly in China over the calendar year, which means more revenue for American studios. Granted, Chinese regulations only allow for international companies to earn 25 percent or so of theatrical receipts (distributors earn about 50 percent or more in the US and the rest of the world), but exponentially that could lead to hundreds of millions of dollars as the market continues to grow.  

Here’s one example of how important China is to Hollywood’s studios today: Captain America: Civil War earned $190 million in Chinese ticket sales. Even with only 25 percent, or an estimated $47.5 million, in direct revenue, that’s still more than any other market outside of the US. (Comparatively, South Korea likely took in around $31 million in revenue.)

The hope for Hollywood studios, though, is that American movies still tend to be among the highest-grossing films at the Chinese box office. So if the Chinese government curtailed international product in response to Trump’s actions, it would likely be met with a very frustrated moviegoing population. Still, if Trump continues to rock the boat, it’s one of the easiest ways for China to retaliate and could seriously hurt Hollywood’s bottom line. But considering how little support Trump has received from the industry, will he even care?

Who is running Paramount?

Everyone thought the next big shoe to drop in Hollywood was the expected merger between Viacom and CBS, but Sumner Redstone, who controls the fortunes of both companies, scuttled this plan at the last minute. That leaves a lot of questions about the future of Paramount Pictures, which has had a rocky few years, with some very costly bombs and some questionable financing deals. A shake-up already saw the departure of vice chair Rob Moore (a figure Redstone had to stop from selling part of the studio to Chinese interests), and the vultures are still circling over Paramount chair and CEO Brad Grey, who has been in charge since 2006.

Will new Viacom CEO and president Robert Bakish make a move and bring in a new head of the studio?  If so, it could mean a whole new creative direction for Paramount, which has struggled trying to find new franchises outside of Transformers, Mission: Impossible, and Star Trek.

Will Wonder Woman save the DC Cinematic Universe?

When the 2016 Razzie nominations are announced, you can expect a lot of nominations for Zack Snyder’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and David Ayer’s Suicide Squad. While both movies were ultimately profitable for Warner Bros., together taking in more than $1 billion in ticket sales worldwide, they didn’t leave audiences or critics particularly satisfied.

Patty Jenkins’s Wonder Woman now has the responsibility of redeeming the current iteration of the DC Cinematic Universe, and seems relatively well-positioned to do so: Gal Gadot’s appearance as the legendary hero was arguably the best part of Dawn of Justice, and even DC skeptics have to be somewhat intrigued by the film’s Word War I setting.

The pressure is intense, however. Not only does Wonder Woman need to be a substantial box office hit, but with DC competitor Marvel Studios knocking it out of the park with one movie after the other, Wonder Woman also needs to convince critics, the media, and moviegoers that the DC Universe is truly worth getting excited about.

What is the future of DreamWorks Animation?

So what exactly is going on at DreamWorks Animation? When NBCUniversal first announced it would acquire the publicly traded company in April 2016, Illumination founder Chris Meledandri was named to oversee the animated powerhouse, just as John Lasseter guides both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation for Disney. Something changed, though. A few months later it was publicly revealed that DreamWorks Animation’s co-presidents, Bonnie Arnold and Mireille Soria, would report directly to Universal Pictures chair Donna Langley, and Meledandri’s name was nowhere to be found. If this structure is intended to allow DreamWorks Animation to remain creatively independent, no one at Universal is saying so, which is very odd in an industry where perception can be everything.

In the interim, Universal has dated a number of new DreamWorks films for 2018 and beyond, including How to Train Your Dragon 3 for March 2019. (20th Century Fox is still distributing DreamWorks Animation titles, like the upcoming The Boss Baby, through 2017.) 

Meanwhile, the question of whether a fifth Shrek film is happening looms large over DreamWorks Animation’s future. The billion-dollar franchise seemingly ended in 2010 with Shrek Forever After (also billed as The Final Chapter), but former CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg hinted that another Shrek was on the way this past June, backing up NBCUniversal chief Steve Burke’s statements about wanting to revive the property. Since Universal took over in August there hasn’t been a word on whether that’s truly the case, though. 

Is the film in turnaround? Is DWA’s current management waiting to get all their ducks in a row before an official announcement? Whatever the case, it’s hard to imagine Comcast (NBCUniversal’s parent company) not wanting the valuable DreamWorks property back on the big screen — especially after it paid $3.8 billion for the company.

Are indie newbies Broad Green, Bleecker Street, and the Orchard too small to fail?

There’s a long list of mini majors and independent distributors that have come and gone over the past 15 years, including Picturehouse, ThinkFilm, Mandate, and Artisan, just to name a few. Most of these companies were either merged with other entities or became quick libraries for sale as their founders moved on to new ventures. The most prominent of the most recent crop of indie distributors, A24, continued to kill it in 2016 with hits like The Witch and Moonlight, but not everyone can be an A24. Accordingly, many in Hollywood are wondering how long three of the other newbies, Broad Green, Bleecker Street, and the Orchard, will last.

Bleecker Street looks most likely to be in it for the long haul: It had tremendous success with Eye in the Sky last year ($18 million domestic) and became an awards season player with 2015’s Trumbo. The Orchard (which started in 1997 as a music management firm and is now owned by Sony Music Entertainment) started its film division in 2015 by playing the more conservative Sony Classics game (small acquisition buys that could potentially break out), and has since had some very nice successes, including Hunt for the Wilderpeople and The Music of Strangers.

Broad Green is potentially the biggest mess: The startup had a massive arthouse hit with A Walk in the Woods last year, but followed with a string of financial disappointments, including 99 Homes, The Infiltrator, I Smile Back, and Knight of Cups. It also had little success as a straight distributor for Amazon Studios, with both The Neon Demon and The Dressmaker significantly underperforming. Bad Santa 2 was supposed to take Broad Green in a more commercial direction this fall, but it bombed over the Thanksgiving weekend.

Complicating matters for all three distributors is the massive footprint both the aforementioned Amazon and Netflix are making on the production and acquisition sides of the business. Bleecker and the Orchard seem poised to find their way in the short term, but Broad Green? The clock may be ticking. Speaking of the two streaming giants, though…

Has Amazon Studios won the streaming distributor war with Netflix?

In 2015, Netflix stumbled in its attempt to get the Academy members to consider Beasts of No Nation as a legitimate Oscar contender. The company’s strategy of day-and-date streaming and theatrical releases simply didn’t sit well with most members (or ticket buyers) — and, honestly, Netflix’s branding as a streaming service probably didn’t help matters. This found the streaming giant as a not-so-desirable — but deep-pocketed — buyer at the most recent Sundance and Toronto film festivals.

Amazon Studios, on the other hand, chose a different path, placing its acquisition titles with different distributors before eventually releasing its titles on Amazon Prime, an approach that found more success in 2016. Using the distributor Roadside Attractions, Love & Friendship earned a fantastic $14 million and Manchester by the Sea has nearly $30 million in just six weeks, with a lot more expected Oscar love on the way. And while Amazon stumbled with its Broad Green films, it did okay partnering with Lionsgate on Woody Allen’s Café Society ($11.1 million US).

Amazon is also making its own films: It’s producing Doug Liman’s The Wall, has James Gray’s The Lost City of Z set for April, and is co-financing a remake of Suspira with Dakota Johnson, Chloë Grace Moretz, and Tilda Swinton.

Netflix, which is still a powerhouse when it comes to documentaries, isn’t sitting on the sidelines with original features beyond the Adam Sandler variety: It has David Michôd’s War Machine with Brad Pitt, Duncan Jones’s Mute with Paul Rudd and Alexander Skarsgård, Bong Joon-ho’s Okja with Jake Gyllenhaal, and The Discovery with Rooney Mara and Jason Segel all set for release. (The last will debut at Sundance.) Netflix doesn’t appear to be budging from its day-and-date strategy, though, which is a stark contrast with Amazon’s approach. Will that decision continue to haunt Netflix in 2017?

Are teen movies making a comeback?

The Edge of Seventeen was not the underdog hit STX Entertainment was hoping for (or, quite frankly, needed), but the critically lauded Hailee Steinfeld film could be the first in a slew of new teen-centric movies to hit theaters over the next two years. The teen movie phenomenon hit peaks in the mid-’80s (the pantheon of John Hughes) and around the turn of the century (She’s All That, 10 Things I Hate About You), which means it’s ripe for its next round in Hollywood.

Genres have always been cyclical, but the return of real-world teen stories has been delayed in recent years by genre-adjacent franchises such as Twilight, The Hunger Games, and The Maze Runner. The realistic teen drama genre has poked its head back up here and there, with hits such as The Fault in Our Stars or If I Stay, but there are signs a more sustained comeback may be in the works. Open Road Films has Before I Fall set for March (also debuting at Sundance), and a number of indie teen flicks are set for production this spring. With the dystopian YA genre on its last legs, look for the studios to announce a number of new teen flicks in 2017.

What does the next phase of Jennifer Lawrence's career look like?

No more Katniss and no more Mystique for Jennifer Lawrence (although 20th Century Fox would likely love for her to change her mind about playing a shape-shifting mutant again). With the holiday disappointment Passengers behind her, Lawrence’s upcoming slate drops the sci-fi and fantasy for the time being. She’s already filmed Darren Aronofsky’s dramatic thriller Mother, is prepping Francis Lawrence’s spy thriller Red Sparrow, and is expected to star in Steven Spielberg’s contemporary thriller It’s What I Do and follow that up with Adam McKay’s true-life drama Bad Blood. 

Lawrence has also reportedly co-written a comedy with Amy Schumer where the duo play sisters, although it’s unclear how close that one is to actually going in front of cameras.

Needless to say, Lawrence is staying serious, but in a much more grounded, believable way — which may mean fewer global blockbusters, and happier creative experiences, for the Oscar winner.

2016 was a strange year for Hollywood on the box office front. As expected, Walt Disney Studios dominated and Warner Bros. made a comeback, but there were few breakout surprises, let alone new franchises to truly embrace, outside of Deadpool and Bad Moms. (No, true believers, Doctor Strange doesn’t count. Everyone knew it was going to be a hit.) And while movies that were expected to bomb, such as Warcraft and The Legend of Tarzan, did exactly that, they also sort of didn’t, thanks to the wonders of studio accounting and international sales.

Keeping all that in mind, here’s a snapshot of some of the winners and losers at the box office over the past 12 months. (As a reminder, these opinions are informed by global box office, which is key for a movie to actually earn a profit.)

Winner: Walt Disney Studios

Thanks in part to its subsidiaries Pixar, Marvel Studios, and Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Studios earned more than $2.5 billion in the US and has four of the five top-grossing films of the year so far. By the time Rogue One finishes its run, Disney will likely have secured all five slots and earned more than $2.6 billion in the US and a whopping $7 billion internationally. In fact, blockbusters such as Zootopia, Captain America: Civil War, and The Jungle Book put Disney past the $1 billion domestic mark back in May, the fastest a studio has ever hit that record.

The studio is by far the biggest mouse in Hollywood’s house, and with Beauty and the Beast, Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2, and Star Wars: Episode VIII on deck for 2017, it would be a huge surprise if the studio wasn’t No. 1 again next year. The real question is: With money-generating properties like Marvel and Lucasfilm in the Disney stable, can any of its competitors take back the crown anytime soon?

Winner: Amy Adams

Though it’s uncouth to say such things publicly, Hollywood executives will always privately use the excuse that there are not enough “movie star” actresses who can open a movie — that is, their name is above the title, they’re clearly the center of the film’s marketing … basically, the movie lives and dies on their involvement. Twelve months ago, the only names that could be reliably counted on to seriously move the needle were Jennifer Lawrence and Meryl Streep. A notch down, put Charlize Theron, Sandra Bullock, and Scarlett Johansson in the right flick and you have a decent shot at box office gold.

One actress added herself to that list this year: Amy Adams. The five-time Oscar nominee has been part of a ton of hits, from Enchanted toward the beginning of her career to The Fighter and American Hustle but those were not cases of her being called on to carry the picture by herself. That all changed with Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival, which places Adams front and center on all the marketing materials. The critically acclaimed sci-fi hit has so far taken in $89 million domestically and $144 million worldwide.

Granted, Adams’s other release this year, Nocturnal Animals, has been something of a disappointment, but that ensemble piece’s marketing efforts mostly focused on co-stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Michael Shannon. Adams still isn’t in the Lawrence/Streep stratosphere yet, but she’s one step closer.

Loser: Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk

I could have listed director Ang Lee here as the “loser,” but I simply couldn’t place that tag on one of the greatest filmmakers of the past 30 years. Financially, though, Billy Lynn was a debacle for Sony Pictures and its financing partners. It earned just $1.7 million stateside and another $29 million internationally. With a cost of $40 million, that’s a disaster for everyone involved.

There’s a lot of blame to go around for the movie’s failure, from the decision to push the 120 frame rate version on the first critics and media who screened the film (the wide-release version was easier to watch) to a marketing campaign that just didn’t hit the mark. But sadly, Lee himself is mostly at fault here. He overthought how to direct the actors in this format, his decision to cast newcomer Joe Alwyn in the lead role was a major mistake, and much of the film’s staging left a lot to be desired. (Just how many scenes can you set in the bleachers of an NFL football stadium?)

Lee has never experienced this sort of combined commercial and critical failure in his career; one can only hope his two Oscars keep him from a stint in the dreaded “movie jail.”

Winners: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad

You thought these two movies would be listed under “losers,” right? Wrong. Critics and some moviegoers may have been disappointed by the two DC Comics tentpoles, but Warner Bros. and theater owners weren’t. Batman v Superman earned $873 million global off a reported $250 million production budget, and Suicide Squad took in $745 million with a $175 million negative cost. Even with marketing budgets around $100 million (or more), both films still likely finished in the black during their theatrical runs (or very close to it). When you look at the straight bottom line, that’s profitable by Hollywood standards, and ensured some WB execs earned their year-end bonuses.

Winner: A24

It’s been a pretty fantastic year for the indie distributor every film student in the country dreams of releasing their first film. The Witch took in a fantastic $25 million domestic off a reported $3 million production budget, making it A24’s biggest earner ever after Ex Machina. Sundance player Swiss Army Man earned a solid $4.2 million, and The Lobster was one of the surprise arthouse hits of the summer, taking in $9 million. (Both films had relatively low acquisition prices.) 

The jewel of the year, however, is Moonlight, which has made $12.1 million to date and is already significantly profitable off a production budget rumored to be under $2 million (and more moviegoers should arrive after the Oscar nominations are announced at the end of January). Sure, Morris From America and Krishna were financial disappointments, but throw in the fact that last year’s Room made $9 million in the calendar year, and landed the studio its first Best Picture nod and a Best Actress win, and A24 had its best year yet.

Loser: Broadgreen Pictures

At one point many saw Broadgreen Pictures as potentially the next great mini major distributor. A year after scoring a monster arthouse hit last year with A Walk in the Woods, the studio effectively collapsed in 2016. The two “commercial” films it financed, Bad Santa 2 and The Infiltrator, each lost money at the box office. To make matters worse, Broadgreen acted as a distributor for Amazon Studios’ The Dressmaker and The Neon Demon. While there wasn’t much expected of the former, the latter became the first real black eye for Amazon as it opened to just $589,000 in 783 theaters, one of the worst openings in 500 theaters or more this year. To make matters worse, Bleecker Street, which launched around the same time as Broadgreen, has been much more consistent, with Eye in the Sky taking in $18 million in the arthouse circuit this spring. To say many are watching to see how Broadgreen fares in 2017 is an understatement.

Winner: Amazon Studios

Even if it some of the blame can be put on the distributors Amazon Studios partners with to release its films in theaters, the streaming giant had it share of box office misfires in its first full year of existence. In addition to the aforementioned Neon Demon and Dressmaker, potential commercial player Elvis & Nixon had a theatrical run that was anemic at best.  That being said, Love and Friendship ($14 million US) and Café Society ($11 million US) were strong arthouse hits. More importantly, Amazon’s major Sundance acquisition, Manchester by the Sea, has already earned $22 million and could hit $35 million by the time Oscar nominations are announced next month. Those three wins go a long way toward boosting Amazon Studios in the battle versus rival Netflix to convince major filmmakers to partner with them.

Winner: The Mermaid

Do you know what the No. 12 grossing film in the world was over the past year? Well, it wasn’t released by Hollywood, that’s for sure. The Mermaid (Mei ren yu) is a Chinese sci-fi fantasy directed by Stephen Chow (Kung Fu Hustle) that took in a staggering $526 million in China alone, making it the first film to make more than $500 million in any nation other than the US. (Only six films have ever made more than $500 million in America.) Wonder why Hollywood is so fixated on trying to conquer this bountiful market of 1.3 billion potential moviegoers? Witness The Mermaid.

Losers: The media that got Warcraft wrong

It was based on a video game. The trailers made it look like a Lord of the Rings rip-off. Universal Pictures delayed it by six months. The industry and mainstream entertainment media (including this writer) had every reason to peg Warcraft as a bomb before it ever hit theaters in the United States — and, to a point, they weren’t wrong. Duncan Jones’s fantasy flick took in just $47 million domestically on a reported $160 million budget. But moviegoers around the world apparently didn’t get the memo that the US wasn’t interested, because they flocked to Warcraft, which earned an additional $386.3 million around the world, including a massive $220 million in China alone. That’s something no one expected a year ago.

Winner: Pretty much anyone who made a horror movie

Horror sells. Like, it really sells. Once again this year, there was a laundry list of horror hits that capitalized in big ways on relatively small budgets. The Conjuring 2 ($320.3 million global, cost just $40 million), Don’t Breathe ($153 million global, cost just $9.9 million), Lights Out ($148.9 million global, cost just $4.9 million), The Purge: Election Year ($118.4 million global, cost just $10 million), Blair Witch ($45.4 million global, cost just $5 million), and the previously mentioned The Witch all were cash cows for their respective studios. So it goes without saying that if you’re looking to break into the business in 2017, coming up with a smart horror pitch is your best bet.

Winner: Ben Affleck

Ben Affleck won in two respects in 2016. First, his take on the Dark Knight in Batman v Superman was respected or popular enough (take your pick) to warrant the development of a solo Batman tale to be directed by the Argo filmmaker. Second, he was the face of Warner Bros.’ thriller The Accountant, which went from a buzzed-about early October misfire to a potential franchise starter: The Gavin O’Connor–directed thriller took in $148.3 million off a $44 million production budget. That’s a solid double for Warner Bros. and proves Affleck still has movie star appeal. Of course, Affleck’s drawing power will be tested with Live by Night next month, but we’ll worry about that a year from now.

Loser: Warren Beatty

Before Rules Don’t Apply arrived in theaters in November, the legendary Warren Beatty had not directed a movie in 18 years. He had not starred in one since before 2001. His passion project about Howard Hughes proved he might have stayed away too long. Even with Lily Collins and future Han Solo Alden Ehrenreich, Apply had one of the worst Thanksgiving openers in history, taking in $1.5 million in more than 2,300 theaters. It’s earned just $3.6 million to date and cost $25 million. We’ll let you do the math on that one.

Winner: Woman-centered movies (because we don’t believe in the term “chick flick”)

Bad Moms and its $179 million global gross (on a $20 million budget) is literally keeping newbie mini major STX Entertainment in business, but there were a number of other successes targeted at female audiences that haven’t gotten the hype they deserve. The Warner Bros. romance Me Before You cost as much as Bad Moms and earned $207 million around the world. Despite negative reviews, both The Girl on the Train and How to Be Single were minor hits, earning $172 million and $112 million respectively. And, yes, Ghostbusters didn’t become the blockbuster Sony Pictures was expecting, but American audiences came through: The Paul Feig–conceived reboot made a more than respectable $128 million in the US (which is in line with most of Feig’s hits), even if the film’s $229 million global take meant it couldn’t quite recoup its $144 million production budget.

With more than 350 movies screening over just 11 days, it’s easy for a film or performance to get lost at the Toronto International Film Festival. It’s impossible to even see a quarter of the slate, whether you’re a member of the press or one of the TIFF faithful who try to fit in up to four films a day. That’s one reason Toronto has become more of a “catch up” festival of proven prestige movies that have already earned kudos at early festivals such as Berlin, Cannes, Venice, and Toronto. You see what you can and catch the rest down the road. 

Every so often, however, a performance will be so noteworthy it breaks through the constant stream of red carpet reports.

Case in point, two years ago Eddie Redmayne proved he was truly a talent to be reckoned with in the “this isn’t the biopic we thought it was” drama The Theory of Everything. That same festival, Julianne Moore delivered an iconic turn in Still Alice, a film most critics and media assumed wasn’t a priority because of its subject matter. (I was one of just five critics who attended the world premiere.) Redmayne and Moore went on to win the Best Actor and Best Actress Oscars that February.

But TIFF buzz isn’t just about golden statues. Ten years ago, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan rocked Toronto and transformed Sacha Baron Cohen from a well-known comedian in the UK to a global superstar. Talent does rise to the top, even at an event with so many movies.

The 2016 edition of TIFF only featured a smattering of impressive world premieres — including Lion, Sing, and Lady Macbeth — but there were at least nine great performances worthy of recognition beyond the fest. So, with that in mind, we present our awards for some breakout performances from the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival.

She’s Got The Range Award: Janelle Monáe (Moonlight, Hidden Figures)

Grammy nominee Janelle Monáe has always been a charismatic figure during her live performances and music videos, but whether that charisma translates to acting was an open question. After TIFF, though, the verdict is a resounding, “Yes, it does.” 

In Barry Jenkins’s masterpiece Moonlight, Monáe plays Teresa, the girlfriend of a Miami drug dealer who has taken a shine to Chiron, a young boy whose mother is becoming more and more negligent because of her drug addiction. It’s a key role in Moonlight, as Teresa is a steadying figure during two stages of Chiron’s life. 

Additionally, the promising Hidden Figures only screened about 20 minutes of finished footage, but Monáe’s portrayal of real-life NASA employee Mary Jackson was a standout. Co-stars Octavia Spencer and Taraji P. Henson may get most of the attention when the final film comes out, but Monáe is going to be who moviegoers remember when they walk out of the theater.

2018’s Magazine “It” Girl Award: Florence Pugh (Lady Macbeth)

Based on Nikolai Leskov’s novella Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District, William Oldroyd’s feature directorial debut Lady Macbeth finds young English actress Florence Pugh as a teenage bride basically forced into marriage with an uncaring older man. Pugh is simply transcendent in a dramatic role that is full of wonderfully dark humor and wry manipulation. 

Like Alicia Vikander in A Royal Affair and Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone, this is the sort of role that will put Pugh on the casting sheets for every indie director from London to Los Angeles, and perhaps a few studio flicks as well. A year and a half from now you’ll find her positioned as the new “it” girl on the cover of every fashion magazine she agrees to appear on. Just you wait and see.

This Year’s Best Actress Frontrunner, Pt. 1: Natalie Portman (Jackie)

Make no mistake, Natalie Portman’s portrayal of former first lady Jackie Kennedy during the days before and after President Kennedy’s assassination is simply the best thing she’s ever done. It’s a fully formed performance that dominates every frame she’s in and screams of a career achievement. It also suggests Portman could be in line for another Academy Award, except…

This Year’s Best Actress Frontrunner, Pt. 2: Emma Stone (La La Land)

Sure, she sings and dances up a storm in Damien Chazelle’s enchanting musical, but Emma Stone has simply never been this good before, in a musical or otherwise. As Mia, she’s playing a character bordering on cliché: the small-town girl hoping to make it as an actress in Hollywood. But Stone infuses Mia with a passion that’s incredibly realistic, even with all the fantastic musical numbers going on around her. You’ll immediately believe she’s a lock for Best Actress, until you see the aforementioned Ms. Portman. Take a deep breath and realize this may be an Oscar race for the ages.

Every Performance Gets Better Award: Michael Shannon (Nocturnal Animals)

Unexpectedly, Michael Shannon is slowly becoming the next Samuel L. Jackson, in that he never seems to stop working. He’s already appeared in eight different movies that hit theaters or debuted at festivals this year, and we’re not even counting his corpse cameo in Batman v Superman. 

Shannon has been fantastic this year in Midnight Special and Frank and Lola, but it’s his role as West Texas police detective Bobby Andes in Tom Ford’s thriller Nocturnal Animals that will really turn heads. We won’t spoil the reason why Andes becomes a man with nothing to lose, but Shannon gives him a heartbreaking intensity that makes him the center of attention in scenes with Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Jake Gyllenhaal, who are also at the top of their game and have much louder characters. For fans of the Mud and Boardwalk Empire star, this is an example of peak Shannon.

So Happy To See Your Face Award: Lupita Nyong’o (Queen of Katwe)

It’s been over two years since Lupita Nyong’o won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for 12 Years a Slave, and in that time she’s appeared in just two films, both of them motion capture roles (Star Wars: The Force Awakens and The Jungle Book). While there were some behind-the-scenes circumstances that led to that strange career turn, it’s a joy to see Nyong’o as a living, breathing character in Mira Nair’s Queen of Katwe. 

Nyong’o plays Nakku Harriet, the mother of Phiona Mutesi (newcomer Madina Nalwanga), a young woman from the slums of Uganda who became the nation’s foremost chess prodigy. Katwe is Phiona’s story, but the second half mostly focuses on how her newfound fame and experiences traveling across the continent and to Europe dramatically change her relationship with her family. 

Nyong’o is superb here, and if anything it’s frustrating that we’ve had to wait so long to see her her incredible talents on proper display again. (Note: While she’ll eventually appear as a “real” character in 2018’s Black Panther, the only other film on Nyong’o’s upcoming slate is a return to mo-cap with Star Wars: Episode VIII over a year from now. There is something very troubling about that.)

Give This Woman More Movie Roles Please Award: Gina Rodriguez (Deepwater Horizon)

Newsflash: There is much more to Gina Rodriguez’s talents than Jane the Virgin. In Peter Berg’s upcoming disaster movie Deepwater Horizon, the 32-year-old Golden Globe winner plays Andrea Fleytas, a crew member on the mobile oil-drilling rig that exploded into flames on April 20, 2010. While Berg often diverts too much attention to the bombast of the tragedy itself, somehow through the fireballs and falling debris, Rodriguez delivers the most grounded performance in the picture. So much so that at a pivotal point toward the end of the film, when Andrea refuses to jump off the ship to save herself during the evacuation, your heart breaks at her visceral fear. 

As with Nyong’o, we simply need to see more of Rodriguez on the big screen. The good news is that she’s already wrapped a major role in Alex Garland’s follow up to Ex Machina, Annihilation. Apologies in advance if we demand even more.

This Movie Would Not Work Without You Award: Sunny Pawar (Lion)

A tip of that hat goes to Lion director Garth Davis, but youngster Sunny Pawar delivers a child-actor performance for the ages as Saroo, an Indian boy who finds himself thousands of miles from home after mistakenly playing on a train traveling across the country. As 5-year-old Saroo, the first-time actor simply radiates undeniable talent on screen. 

Sure, much of Pawar’s performance was shaped by Davis and his editor, Alexandre de Franceschi, but some of the things Pawar depicts on camera would be difficult for actors three times his age to convey. A very impressive Dev Patel plays an adult Saroo and dominates the second half of the picture. However, without Pawar in the first half, you simply wouldn’t care.

You’d Never Guess This Guy Was Supposed To Be The Next Transformers Franchise Star Award: Jack Reynor (Free Fire)

Let’s be eternally grateful that Jack Reynor is not returning to the Transformers franchise. After getting a whiff of global fame in the Michael Bay monstrosity Age of Extinction, Reynor is returning to character roles, and audiences are better for it. He already stole the show earlier this year as the hilariously supportive older brother in Sing Street and now he’s almost unrecognizable in Ben Wheatley’s Free Fire.

As Harry, Reynor plays a hothead who ends up being the spark that turns an arms deal into a warehouse firefight. Fire features a large ensemble cast, and while more notable co-stars Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Sharlto Copley, and Cillian Murphy are all on their game, it’s Reynor who steals the movie. He’s so funny and charismatic that you may find yourself actually rooting for him to get out alive, even though he started the mess in the first place. 

Read all of our coverage of this year’s TIFF right here.

Most of the media’s eyes were on Antoine Fuqua’s The Magnificent Seven as the 2016 Toronto International Film Festival got underway Thursday night, thanks to Chris Pratt and Denzel Washington strutting the red carpet. But another important event was underway on the other side of town: the kickoff of the festival’s acclaimed Midnight Madness program.

Over the years, Toronto’s late-night program has either premiered or given a North American debut to genre movies such as The Host, Hostel, and Saw, as well as genre-skewing comedies like What We Do In Shadows and Borat.  

In recent years, director Ben Wheatley has become a favorite on the yearly Madness slate, with films like 2011’s Kill List and the 2012 horror anthology The ABCs of Death. After disappointing with the messy dystopian drama High-Rise last year, the prolific Brit is back with his first true action flick, Free Fire.

Free Fire is basically an excuse for one epic gunfight

The film’s setup is quite simple, even if there are a ton of participants involved.  A group of IRA members led by Frank (Michael Smiley) and Chris (Cillian Murphy) are in the US to secure an illegal shipment of rifles to bring back to Ireland. (The movie supposedly takes place in Boston, but any references to that are fleeting.) Two Americans are brokering the deal: Ord (Armie Hammer, having a blast) and Justine (Brie Larson, winding up one epic eyeroll after another).

The guns are in the hands of Vernon (Sharlto Copley, keeping his native South African accent for comic relief) and Martin (scene stealer Babou Ceesay). The swap is going down in an abandoned factory that is out of earshot, to allow the merchandise to be tested if necessary (as if that was ever a question).

In theory, this should be quick and painless — except two underlings involved on both sides have a rowdy history. Viewers learn early on that the not-so bright Stevo (Sam Riley) is already a pain in Chris and Frank’s asses.  With the arrival of Vernon’s associate Harry (Jack Reynor, making everyone forget he was ever in a Transformers movie), things escalate quickly. The moment both sides have to keep these two hotheads from going after each other, it’s clear someone is going to start shooting, and soon. And that’s pretty much the whole point of the movie.

A lean hour and 26 minutes before credits, Free Fire is basically an excuse for Wheatley and longtime collaborator and cinematographer Laurie Rose to execute a massive shootout in the factory. It helps that the gunfight can go for a while, since the locale is brightly lit and there are a ton of random cement blocks lying around for the shooters to hide behind.  

Oh, and did I mention that most of this crew aren’t precision gunslingers? That’s wonderfully convenient, as within minutes, every participant is nicked or has a minor wound somewhere or another. It’s enough of an injury to piss ’em off, but it inspires more jokes rather than realistic tears. (Hey, guns were fun in the good ol’ days everyone!)

The specter of Quentin Tarantino hangs heavy over this film

In the official studio-supplied production notes, Wheatley, who also serves as the movie’s editor, says he was inspired by Sam Peckinpah’s films, and notably the editing in thrillers such as The Wild Bunch, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, and Pat Garrett & Billy The Kid. Peckinpah’s a fine filmmaker to emulate, except there’s a filmmaking giant who has already fashioned a legendary career partially off of Peckinpah’s influences: Quentin Tarantino.

And indeed, Free Fall’s cast of quirky characters, stark violence, and dark comedy make it actually feel more like one of the numerous Tarantino rip-offs from the ’90s than an homage to ’70s cinema. In fact, if Wheatley had set his film in the former decade, enough time has passed that a direct Tarantino nod might seem more progressive in 2016. Instead, it feels familiar for all the wrong reasons.

The genre movie press has adored Wheatley over the years, and it’s not hard to see why.  With films like Kill List, Sightseers and A Field in England, he brought what seemed like a more artful eye and a genuinely smart perspective to thriller and action tropes.  After getting over his head with High-Rise (have I mentioned how bad that film was yet?), Free Fire is at least a step in a more entertaining direction.  

Sure, too many of the jokes fall flat, and Larson is criminally underutilized; but Reynor and Hammer are the film’s secret weapons, spinning weak one-liners into charismatic winners time and time again. For a Midnight Madness movie, you can’t ask for much better than that.

Free Fire is expected to hit theaters sometime in 2017.

It may seem difficult to believe, but a little more than 15 years ago, Hollywood’s current movie king, Walt Disney Studios, was at something of a crossroads.

The ’90s had marked a new golden era of animation, one that included the release of Oscar-winning classics such as Beauty and the Beast (1991) and The Lion King (1994) and the launch of a lucrative partnership with Steve Jobs’s Pixar Animation Studios. The decade was also a good one for the company’s live-action division, yielding Jerry Bruckheimer blockbusters such as The Rock (1996) and Armageddon (1998). But after all that, Walt Disney Studios ended the 20th century and kicked off the 21st with a whimper.

The legendary “Mouse House” (a moniker affectionately bestowed upon it by industry trade paper Variety) didn’t release one film in 2000 that cracked the top 10 in terms of the year-end box office. In fact, Disney’s highest-grossing film that year landed at number 11; it was Dinosaur, a now-forgotten CG animated tale that was considered a severe financial disappointment. To say times have changed since then is something of an understatement.

As of July 19, Walt Disney Studios is dominating the box office in 2016, with four of the top five highest-grossing pictures to its name. Together, Finding Dory, Captain America: Civil War, Zootopia, and The Jungle Book have earned more than $1.455 billion in ticket sales in the US alone. It’s been a bumpy journey, but under CEO Bob Iger, the family-friendly conglomerate has spent the past 10 years making strategic moves that have transformed it into the envy of every entertainment company in town.

For some perspective on where Walt Disney Studios is today, consider this: After signing Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks Studios to a highly touted and strategic distribution deal in 2009, the publicly traded company just let DreamWorks walk out the door. Spielberg, arguably the greatest populist filmmaker living today, delivered three straight Oscar-nominated pictures to Disney under the DreamWorks banner: War Horse (2011), Lincoln, (2012), and Bridge of Spies (2015). Academy Award nods are great, but Disney still wished Spielberg and his creative showcase well in their recently announced new partnership with Universal Studios and Participant Media.

Why, you might ask? Disney simply no longer needed DreamWorks around.1 That’s the benefit of having a virtual creative factory powered by four of the most successful “brands” in the business: Lucasfilm, Pixar, Marvel Studios, and a revitalized Walt Disney Animation Studios.

A rough start to a new century for the Mouse House

As we alluded to earlier, Disney’s recent past wasn’t always this rosy. For the first few years of the 21st century, the company was dependent on Pixar’s hits to help it maintain its market share (the more hits you deliver, the better financial terms you can demand from theater owners).

Yes, there were occasional successes. The adult-targeting Touchstone division delivered a handful of blockbusters, including Signs (2002), Sweet Home Alabama (2002), and the National Treasure franchise (which debuted in 2004). Meanwhile, the studio’s Disney-branded flicks showed some hints of life, particularly minor sports-themed pictures such as Miracle (2004) and Invincible (2006) and women-driven fare such as The Princess Diaries (2001) and Freaky Friday (2003). But the costly failures outweighed those surprise hits.

Disappointments like Big Trouble (2002), The Alamo (2004), Around the World in 80 Days (2004), and Annapolis (2006) were bad films that audiences weren’t interested in, and no amount of inventive financial accounting could justify their existence. Moreover, Disney’s animation division fell into an incredible slump in the wake of producing out-of-touch duds like Treasure Planet (2002) and Home on the Range (2004), among others.

And that doesn’t even count the drama the independently run Miramax (acquired by Disney in 1993, at the beginning of the indie boom) and its founders the Weinsteins had thrown the company’s way via a dispute over the 2004 release of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. That fight led to a painful divorce that barely worked out for either party in the long run.

Of course, at the time this game of big hits and just-as-big misses was playing out all over Hollywood. The once-lucrative DVD and home entertainment market — the studios’ golden ticket to profitability — was beginning to shrink and would effectively collapse by 2010, due to the advent of digital piracy, video on demand, and online streaming. The industry began to shift toward a “blockbuster or bust” approach, and midrange films with smaller potential profit margins were reduced to fewer and further between.

Franchises became a necessity, and, like a high-stakes poker table, whoever had the most chips would be king. Yet even with Disney’s long history of influence in global entertainment culture, few expected the studio to figure out how to take the crown without building a pipeline of R-rated thrillers and comedies.

Putting the band together: Mickey meets Nemo meets Iron Man meets R2D2

Disney laid the groundwork for its current success in 2006, when it acquired Pixar after then-new Disney CEO Bob Iger found a way to heal a contentious relationship between the two companies. That move led to the hiring of Toy Story director John Lasseter as the chief creative officer of both Pixar and the newly christened Walt Disney Animation Studios.

Within three years (a short window in the world of animated feature films), Lasseter had delivered the surprise hit Tangled (2010), and Disney’s animation offerings soon returned to peak form with one blockbuster after another, including a little trifle you may have heard of called Frozen (2013).

Less than two years after the Pixar acquisition, however, then-independent player Marvel Studios released Iron Man (2008) through a distribution arrangement with Paramount Pictures. Despite a healthy level of fanboy excitement, no one understood just how big a game changer it was at the time. Director Jon Favreau’s astonishing hit signaled the beginning of a franchise universe that wouldn’t just dominate at the box office but would put its characters on kids’ backpacks across the globe.

Fifteen months after Iron Man’s release, in August, 2009, Iger swooped in and acquired the entirety of Marvel — comic books and all — for $4 billion. Back then, many questioned the deal, but in the period since the merger was completed, Marvel Studios films have earned a jaw-dropping $9 billion in worldwide theatrical receipts alone.

Disney’s willingness to let Marvel enjoy relative creative freedom while working its characters into the overall “Disney machine” of theme parks, TV networks, and, of course, merchandising paved the way for the company’s acquisition of its newest crown jewel, Lucasfilm. A casual conversation between George Lucas and Iger in May 2011 eventually led to Disney buying the iconic filmmaker’s company later that year, for a sum of $4.06 billion.

Prior to selling, Lucas had been reticent to let anyone else take the reins of his franchises. His subsequent departure from the company opened the door to new Star Wars and Indiana Jones films, and with an assist from J.J. Abrams, Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens became the highest-grossing film of all time in the United States this past winter, earning an unfathomable $936 million stateside and $2 billion worldwide (Avatar was the previous record holder, taking in $760 million in the US in 2009 and 2010. It still holds the global record of $2.7 billion.)

Oh, and have we mentioned the transformation that Disney’s live-action division underwent during that same time span? While the road was slightly rockier than the studio would like to admit, the division’s strategy of focusing on new versions of classic Disney animated tales led to such hits — at least in terms of finances — as Alice in Wonderland (2010), Maleficent (2014), and, most recently, The Jungle Book.

If you’re wondering why the other Hollywood studios are scratching their heads on how to create more franchise and must-see tentpole films, you only need to look to the industry-wide release schedule. Disney dominates almost all of the key dates through 2020, such as the annual summer movie season kickoff (traditionally the first weekend in May) and the first full weekend in December before the Christmas holiday (a date Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies claimed for years). These days, every other studio is trying to avoid slotting their potential moneymakers anywhere nearby, for fear of being lost in the shadow of Disney’s certain blockbusters.

Finding Dory is the highest-grossing film of 2016 so far.

Today, playing second fiddle to Disney is status quo

How tough is it for the rest of Tinseltown to compete? Simply put, there isn’t much room for error these days.

Paramount, already in a tough position as a battle wages for control of its parent company Viacom, simply doesn’t have enough assets to play the game. The never-ending Transformers series defines the studio at the moment, with at least three more films on the way (and that’s not even counting a possible Bumblebee solo flick).

As long as Tom Cruise is willing, there will be the steady but second-tier-performing Mission: Impossible franchise, but the studio still hasn’t found a way to develop more stories in the Star Trek universe that don’t involve the Enterprise. (CBS, which controls the television rights and is launching a new series in January, certainly has.)

Paramount can still count on an occasional Nickelodeon success like The Spongebob Movie: Sponge Out of Water (2015), but movie studios can’t survive if they are waiting 15 years between animated sequels (a third Spongebob film is scheduled for 2019, but you should believe it when you see it). It’s even more difficult to imagine upcoming releases such as Baywatch, another Vin Diesel XXX thriller no one asked for, or a World War Z sequel moving the needle.

In slightly better shape than its crosstown rival is 20th Century Fox. Ridley Scott breathed new life into the Alien franchise with Prometheus (2012) and is setting the stage for something bigger with Alien: Covenant in 2017. Fox’s animation arm, Blue Sky, is a consistent player of profitable cartoon flicks with the Ice Age series, but the studio’s live-action franchises such as Kingsman and the Planet of the Apes series are minor players, comparatively.

What Fox does have is February’s Deadpool, a breakout shocker that became the ninth-highest-grossing superhero film of all time, thereby proving there is still massive potential in the Marvel mutant titles the studio controls.

And, of course, lurking in the distance are James Cameron’s long-awaited Avatar sequels. It’s already been seven years since the original groundbreaking 3D film hit theaters, and many are wondering if the new films will still resonate with audiences. History warns us not to underestimate Cameron, however, and the blue-skinned Na’vi are still Fox’s best chance to take the spotlight back from Disney.

The outlook is much darker at Sony Pictures, which is still trying to regain its footing after the infamous email hack in 2014. Paul Feig’s new Ghostbusters reboot can overcame misogynistic backlash and relaunched the long-dormant franchise with an impressive $46 million opening weekend, but Sony’s other upcoming tentpoles seem slightly sketchy. They include two Bad Boy sequels, a Jumanji reboot, a gutsy play with Stephen King’s The Dark Tower, a live-action Barbie movie, and an animated Smurfs flick.

Sony is so desperate for franchise success that it’s even playing the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” game, having given up significant rights to Spider-Man by partnering with Marvel Studios to bring the character into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. (The webslinger made his MCU debut in May’s Captain America: Civil War and has his own starring vehicle due out in 2017.) And, it’s worth noting that Fox is allegedly willing to consider the same deal for the Fantastic Four or some pockets of the X-Men properties. That’s how powerful the Marvel brand has become.

Is Universal Studios a one-year wonder or real competition?

In 2015, after 10 straight years where it never ranked higher than third among its competitors, Universal Pictures shocked the industry by pulling the rug out from under Disney to take the domestic box office crown, earning a jaw-dropping $2.44 billion. (Warner Bros. held the previous record of $2.1 billion in 2009.)

Jurassic World was a bigger hit than anyone ever dreamed of, while Minions, Furious 7, Pitch Perfect 2, Straight Outta Compton, and Fifty Shades of Grey all exceeded expectations. Most importantly, aside from Straight Outta Compton, all those films belong to popular franchises that already have new installments on the way (although let’s put an asterisk next to Fifty Shades, as many question whether the forthcoming Fifty Shades Darker will have the same impact).

Consequently, the first half of 2016 has been a completely different story for Universal, with Neighbors 2 and Huntsman: Winter’s War making the studio the poster child for sequels audiences didn’t ask for. The studio does have a new Jason Bourne film coming out at the end of July, it’s attempting to restart its Mummy franchise, and its Illumination Entertainment division has become a powerhouse of billion-dollar animated hits (The Secret Life of Pets, which opened July 8, earned more than Finding Dory in is first weekend).

But outside of the Jurassic Park films, most of those live-action franchises are dying down. The company’s big hope is that with its aforementioned acquisition of DreamWorks, it can challenge Disney on the family front by bringing back old favorites such as Shrek and Donkey.

One challenger stands alone

If anyone can challenge Disney’s dominance, it’s Warner Bros. The former king of the Hollywood hills has a new franchise blossoming in the Harry Potter universe with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, as well as a burgeoning series of Lego Movie flicks that the studio hopes will finally propel a reliable animated pipeline.

And like Disney and Fox, Warner Bros. is counting on its superheroes to set the standard. How important is this plan to the studio’s long-term stability? Well, Warner Bros. was so concerned over moviegoers’ disappointment with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice that it hosted a quick set visit to the already-in-production sequel, Justice League, for some of the more outspoken critics of the Zack Snyder opus and let them publish their findings immediately (usually these reports would be held until just a few months before release).

It may seem like a minor footnote in the grand scheme of things, but it’s practically unheard of for Warner Bros. There is simply too much at stake with the studio’s DC Comics titles for it not to take an aggressive stance with the press and fans.

DC currently has solo films for Wonder Woman, the Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, and the Ben Affleck version of Batman either in post-production or close to being greenlit. It’s one reason all eyes are on August’s Suicide Squad to right the ship. If that title becomes the blockbuster many expect it to be, Warner Bros. can spin off even more potential franchises around Harley Quinn, played by the industry’s new “it” girl Margot Robbie, and Deadshot with the still potently popular Will Smith.

Change is on the horizon, but Disney’s throne is safe for now

In today’s conglomerate-heavy Hollywood, rumors of studio and network consolidation are seemingly always making headlines. Universal’s aforementioned acquisition of DreamWorks and the DreamWorks/Participant Media/Universal pact, as well as Lionsgate’s purchase of Starz in June, are all signs of more deals to come. That would mean new players that could potentially challenge Disney’s stronghold on the box office and entertainment zeitgeist.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that there are a few proven power franchises that could find new homes. One in particular is the venerable 007 series. Controlled by MGM studios, which now distributes its own films, the series may end up remaining at Sony Pictures — where it has lived since 2006’s Casino Royale — but if Warner Bros., Fox, or Universal ends up with the next few James Bond films, it’ll amount capturing a competitor’s queen on a virtual industry chessboard.

Lionsgate has also teased that it might consider revisiting the Twilight universe, and if Fantastic Beasts is successful, a spinoff for the Lion’s own Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, seems just as inevitable. So the question becomes: Are any of these movies likely slow down Disney’s potential era of dominance?

The answer is a resounding no.

Even going beyond the never-ending line of upcoming Marvel and Star Wars flicks, Frozen 2, and the just-announced Wreck-It Ralph sequel, Disney shows no signs of slowing down. The company’s upcoming slate promises powerhouse after powerhouse, with Beauty and the Beast, Toy Story 4, The Incredibles 2, Mary Poppins Returns, and a new Indiana Jones all on the way.

The studio is so primed for future success that when historians look back at the 2010s, you can almost guarantee they will christen it the Decade of Disney. Whether that will be considered a positive or a negative for Hollywood and moviegoers remains to be seen.

CANNES, France — Sean Penn essentially had half an hour of one-on-one time with the global entertainment media on Friday, and if you don’t think he seized that opportunity to take a swipe at Donald Trump, you don’t know Penn.

Appearing at the official Cannes press conference for the romantic drama The Last Face, which he directed, the two-time Oscar winner was easily its most called-upon participant. And when he was asked about whether it is important for films with a message, such as The Last Face, to also entertain their audience, the presidential candidate factored heavily in his response:

“I think it’s important to entertain if entertainment is not synonymous with Donald Trump’s behavior. Too much of film is today,” Penn said. “Greek tragedy is almost forgotten. The hunger is now, I find, pulling us away from our humanity a lot of the time. To find beauty in things is the way to fix things. I just think what we are calling beauty today is [largely] a perversion of [beauty], and that’s lamentable.”

It’s worth noting that Trump has come up numerous times at Cannes this year. In particular, George Clooney flat-out stated during a press conference for Jodie Foster’s Money Monster that Trump will not be president (much to the relief of the global press corps).

Unlike that economic-themed thriller, however, the positive notices for Penn’s The Last Face have been few and far between. When asked about the initial response to the film, the not-so jovial Penn attempted to give the most subdued answer possible.

“I finished the film. It’s not a discussion I can be of any value to,” Penn says. “I’m certain that everyone is going to be well entitled to their response.”

The Last Face centers on two NGO doctors, played by Charlize Theron and Javier Bardem, who initially fall in love while assisting refugees in Western Africa in 2004. Ten years later, Bardem’s character finds Theron’s character to try to rekindle their lost love.

The film then deploys a series of flashbacks to explain why they ended their original affair in the first place — although, when you finally find out, you really don’t care. Bardem and Theron have almost zero chemistry together, and it’s difficult to feel sympathy for the couple when their modern-day life on a beautiful South African estate is intercut with the horrors they experienced in the field.

According to Bardem, he first read a screenplay for The Last Face in 2000. But the film’s early existence at the turn of the millennium only partially explains one of its most jaw-dropping scenes: When a fellow NGO doctor and Bardem’s character’s ex-lover (Adèle Exarchopoulos) arrives at camp to tell him she’s HIV positive, the news is treated as a potentially dramatic death sentence. Bardem and Theron’s characters nervously get tested, and Exarchopoulos’s character is whisked away to Europe for treatment.

Meanwhile, the camp where they are employed as doctors is undoubtedly home to hundreds of HIV-positive African men and women with no chance to secure Western anti-viral drugs — at least not in 2004 — and it’s not even brought up in context. That lack of perspective makes The Last Face arguably the most embarrassing entry in competition at Cannes this year. However, even though Penn is a former Cannes head juror, he doesn’t seem care how his film played. He’s simply counting the hours until the festival is over.

“Being in competition is having this movie seen and responded to. I haven’t seen a single other film that’s here so I don’t even know what the competition is,” Penn said. “I just know that at 7 o’clock tonight the movie starts and when it’s over my work is done.”

CANNES, France — Nicolas Winding Refn’s highly anticipated new film The Neon Demon received quite a reception at its first Cannes Film Festival screening on Thursday. As Sia’s gorgeous closing track “Waving Goodbye” filled the theater, the global press corps reacted with a mix of sustained loud applause and significant boos.

This is nothing new for a Refn film. After Drive ruled Cannes in 2011, his 2013 follow-up, Only God Forgives, was almost eviscerated by the festival critics before finding some notable champions prior to its theatrical release. Based on Refn’s response at The Neon Demon‘s official press conference, this is exactly the sort of response he’d hope for.

“Art is not about good or bad, guys. Those days are over. The internet has changed [everything], so film as an art form is about an experience,” Refn said. “Good or bad is Chinese food or the pepper steak you had at the French bistro last night.”

He continued, “Creativity is about reactions, and reaction is the essence of an experience. An essence of an experience is planting thought. If you don’t react, what are you doing here? There are so many other things in life that are worth doing than just watching a movie or TV show just to consume time. That’s dumb. Go do something else. Living is creativity.”

The Neon Demon, which is currently scheduled for a June release, stars Elle Fanning as Jesse, a mysterious 16-year-old hoping to make it in Los Angeles as a high-end model. As she looks for any way in, she soon meets Gigi (Bella Heathcote) and Sarah (Abbey Lee), two established models who initially don’t see her appeal. It appears the only person who might actually be looking out for her is the overly supportive Ruby (Jena Malone), a makeup artist and — no joke — mortician (more on that later).

Quickly signed by a major agent (a blink-and-you’ll-miss-her Christina Hendricks), Jesse immediately becomes a favorite of major photographers and fashion designers and is branded a rising star. This doesn’t sit well with Gigi and Sarah, who are fearful of losing relevance at the mere age of 21. As the film progresses, Jesse becomes more confident while also increasingly naive to the potential horrors that await her at every turn.

One of The Neon Demon's main themes concerns society's obsession with beauty

The almost eternally smiling Fanning, who missed her senior prom to attend The Neon Demon‘s world premiere, said at the film’s press conference that she was a huge fan of Drive and was intrigued by playing what is arguably the darkest role of her career so far.

“In the beginning we talked about her like she’s Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz because she’s plopped in this world and you don’t really know where she comes from, but she’s innocent and sort of looking at these sparkly things,” Fanning said. “For awhile I thought LA was the Neon Demon because the city is so haunting and so enticing. It sucks you in, but it spits you out.”

It’s worth noting the fact that this story takes place in LA instead of fashion meccas New York or Paris is an early hint that Refn is less concerned with realism than an impressionistic “heightened reality.” In the director’s words, The Neon Demon is “terror and beauty,” “sex and violence,” and “its instinct as a film is to penetrate your mind and let it absorb whatever it is, and it becomes part of you.”

Refn added, “I think there is something very terrifying in even thinking the world can only be about beauty. The reality is if you look around it’s an obsession that has only grown. Even though we try to rationalize it, we try to politicize it, we try to do this and that … the digital revolution has sped up a part of man’s evolution that is to the extreme.”

The filmmaker said that when he first spoke to Fanning about starring in the teenage horror story he said, “Let’s make a movie about the obsession of beauty.” Those are some lofty aspirations, but Refn’s opinion on how the digital age has affected society’s aesthetic perspective is hard to argue with.

“It’s in our television, it’s in our social media, it’s what you guys write about,” Refn says. “But what’s going to happen when the longevity no longer exists? Meaning how we define beauty’s length shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. It all seems to become younger and younger and younger. And that to me is terrifying. I have two daughters, and that is what I found that between [Elle and me], a 45-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl, to be a very universal [fear].”

Why Refn believes The Neon Demon's necrophilia scene is the essence of the film

As you’d expect from a visionary filmmaker of Refn’s caliber, The Neon Demon is filled with stunning imagery, but it’s the unexpectedly gruesome scenes that will truly shock audiences. One of those moments involves Ruby, who is not exactly what she seems. It’s hard to describe out of context, but at one point Ruby crosses a boundary at her less glamorous mortician gig. Refn said he views this “necrophilia scene” as the essence of the film, and can’t heap enough praise upon Malone’s performance in it.

Most of The Neon Demon was shot in chronological order, as Refn tinkered with characters and scenes during production. But because he wanted to shoot at a real morgue, the necrophilia scene had to be shot before the rest of the picture. This made Refn uncomfortable because he wasn’t sure just who Ruby really was yet in the context of the story. Of course, Refn and Malone also had no idea that the scene would find Ruby having some sort of intercourse with a dead body (played by an impressively still living actress).

Refn recalls nervously giving direction, noting, “I sort of have to talk her through. ‘Okay, can you spit in her mouth? Spit. Can you stick your tongue in her mouth? Can you let your hand slide down between her legs? Okay, that’s good, can I get more saliva when you spit on her? Now on the nipples, let’s kiss on the nipples a lot.’ It kind of escalated into this, really, necrophilia scene that was shot three or four times with all these other women in the room. And after that, I was like, “We found her. We found the character. Now go with God.'”

And, again, that’s just one particular scene that The Neon Demon is already notorious for just hours after its debut. It all fits into Refn’s “punk rock” desire to rock the boat.

“It’s like, y’know, whatever you got, I’ll tear it down and I’ll give you something else instead,” Refn said. “That is an important thing because I want my children to have the same attitude, integrity, take no prisoners, whatever you want to call it. Don’t compromise on life or anything, because that’s where you feel life.”

CANNES, France — What often makes the great film festivals of the world so important isn’t just the artistic achievements they unveil, but the snapshot they provide of glaring societal issues bubbling to the surface of our everyday lives.

For example, the Sundance Film Festival is often at the tipping point of America’s latest progressive battle, whether it deals with the environment, civil rights, or Wall Street. But Cannes, which selects movies from all over the globe, tends to reflect a more expansive worldview. And what’s been striking this year is just how many of its films deal with growing anger over income inequality, whether they’re Brazilian, Romanian, from the UK or the good ol’ USA.

The most blatant and commercial example is Jodie Foster’s Money Monster (read Vox’s review of the film here). The George Clooney and Julia Roberts thriller debuted out of competition, and while it touches on growing frustration, it certainly is not the most effective at addressing it.

Ken Loach, in contrast, earned rave reviews for his British drama I, Daniel Blake, which centers on a 59-year-old craftsman (Dave Johns) who is battling to keep his welfare benefits even though a medical condition prevents him from working. Of course, this is familiar territory for Loach, a former Palme d’Or winner who has made a career of tackling the tales of the disenfranchised. It’s actually the more unexpected depictions of economic disparity that are truly resonating throughout the festival.

Aquarius and Hell or High Water address affordable housing and homeowners' rights

During the world premiere of Kleber Mendonça Filho’s Aquarius, the cast and crew held signs protesting the current Brazilian government, both on the red carpet and inside the theater; their anger is palatable in the film itself. Aquarius centers on Dona Clara (Sonia Braga), a 65-year-old widow and respected journalist who is currently the last resident of her condominium building, a beachfront property that new owners are increasingly impatient to redevelop.

Dona’s journey to protect her rights touches on government corruption, class prejudice, and overt racism. (One powerful moment finds the young project manager congratulating her for her success in spite of her darker complexion.) The picture will earn deserved Oscar buzz for Braga, but more importantly, its story will be relatable to many people who are dealing with overzealous landlords or developers across the world.

The fight for homeowners’ rights is also a key plot point of David Mackenzie’s fantastic Hell or High Water, a thriller CBS Films will release in August. Ostensibly a chase movie, it follows a Texas ranger (Jeff Bridges) on the verge of retirement as he attempts to figure out why two robbers (Chris Pine, Ben Foster) are hitting only select branches of one particular bank. To reveal more would spoil the drama, but it’s a smart way of incorporating mortgage lender corruption in an unexpected context.

Hell or High Water also touches on the economic hardships faced by many in Western Texas who simply do not believe they will ever find their way to a better future, let alone the comfortable middle class. (Katy Mixon is heartbreaking as a waitress who refuses to hand over a $200 tip left by Pine’s character because it’s the only way she can pay her rent.) The film is not overtly political in any way, but the small-town characters are the fuel of the anti-establishment anger on display in the current presidential contest.

American Honey examines poverty all across the United States

The most obvious film at Cannes about the underclass of the United States, in particular, is Andrea Arnold’s American Honey (read more about the film in our earlier Cannes coverage here). In the first scene of the beautifully filmed drama, Star (newcomer Sasha Lane) is picking out food that she hopes is still edible from a dumpster with the two kids she’s been suckered into taking care of. Eventually she “escapes” that hell to the not-so-greener pastures of a sales crew of late-teen and early 20-somethings who travel the country peddling magazine subscriptions.

As Star quickly learns, the group really isn’t selling periodicals but a story that convinces people to give them money. They travel by van from one city to another, sleeping in crappy motels and spending their days going door to door in hopes of selling a $40 to $60 “subscription.”

While much of the film feels improvised (and some of the dialogue is), Arnold did a large amount of research traveling across the country and spending time with real crews to give American Honey a legitimacy that’s hard to argue with. That realism extends to cast of American Honey as well; many of them, like Lane, are nonprofessional actors who have either experienced this transient lifestyle themselves or have struggled to keep themselves afloat.

Bacalaureat and Toni Erdmann highlight economic disparity in Romania

Two of this year’s films concentrate on economic issues in Romania.

Cristian Mungiu’s Bacalaureat (which is also being released under the translated title of Graduation) focuses on Romeo Aldea (Adrian Titieni), a respected doctor who’s desperate to make sure his daughter (Maria Dragus) passes her final exams so she can collect a scholarship to attend a university in Great Britain. Aldea returned to Romania after the fall of the communist regime and often remarks that his generation couldn’t change the corruption in the country; he wants his daughter to seek better opportunities abroad.

This year’s expected Palme d’Or winner, Maren Ade’s Toni Erdmann, is primarily about a father (Peter Simonischek) attempting to open the eyes of his 30-something workaholic daughter Ines (Sandra Hüller), a woman who is drowning in a job she hates in Bucharest, Romania. A schoolteacher, he’s disheartened to discover that her senior position at a respected consulting firm basically has her formulating different scenarios to help her client lay off skilled workers and find cheaper workers elsewhere.

When he accompanies her to an offsite visit, he’s horrified to discover that one comical exchange he has with a employee gets the employee immediately fired — an event that Ines punctuates by bluntly revealing that the employee would have been laid off anyway.

Granted, Cannes clearly took full advantage of the current political environment by programming these films this year. What’s especially revealing is that many of them were in development for the past three to five years, when the world was seemingly preoccupied with other, more pressing issues. Considering the age of Donald Trump in America and a visceral anger and distrust of most financial institutions around the world, you can just imagine the stories filmmakers will screen at Cannes next year.

CANNES, France — The fact that the 2016 Cannes Film Festival reached its halfway point and the boo-birds had been very quiet so far was, for lack of a better word, suspicious. Of course, the notoriously shady global press corps and select film industry illuminati can’t help but vent their frustrations on something, and the first victim of 2016 turned out to be Olivier Assayas’s Personal Shopper.

The second collaboration between Assayas and Kristen Stewart after 2014’s Clouds of Sils Maria, Shopper finds the Twilight star portraying Maureen, a 27-year-old American who is working in Paris as a personal shopper for a European celebrity. The gig involves traveling to different fashion houses and picking out clothes for the celebrity to wear.

Maureen is miserable, but the job allows her to remain in the city where she’s waiting for her twin, Lewis, to contact her. The twist is that her brother has recently passed away; both siblings considered themselves mediums who could connect to the spirit world, and because of their “sensitive” abilities, Lewis promised to contact her within three months of his passing if he died before her.

In fact, the film’s opening sequence involves Maureen spending the night at a Lewis’s now-abandoned home as she searches for any sign from the other side. But that’s only half of the story.

The genre elements work for the most part, but Personal Shopper is really about Maureen overcoming fear to find her own identity. Along the way, Assayas peppers in a murder subplot, a text-based mystery between Paris and London that features almost no dialogue, and, oh yes, a not-so-benevolent and scary spirit.

It would spoil the movie to discuss its final scene, but suffice to say that Personal Shopper‘s ending is ambiguous — and that’s one possible explanation for the audience’s boos at Cannes.

“Movies have a life of their own. What is exciting about Cannes is that yesterday no one had seen the film,” Assayas said during a press conference the following day. “[Now] the whole world had seen it. [The ending] is a very intense, very powerful moment.”

He continued, “It’s interesting because it happens to me once in awhile where people just don’t get the ending. To me it’s kind of pretty clear that Maureen finds some sort of reconciliation.”

Assayas then went on to explain what actually happened to Maureen (a spoiler that wouldn’t make sense out of context, even if I did include it here). Stewart, who was sitting next to Assayas during the press conference, immediately jumped, as the filmmaker revealed something he wouldn’t tell her during production. “This is answering the question! This is crazy.”

It goes without saying that it’s generally a bad thing to have your film booed at Cannes. Personal Shopper may be the most polarizing picture of the festival so far, but some critics are helping turn the tide. In Time Out, Guy Lodge described it as a “glassy sashay through multiple, splintered genres and levels of consciousness” while the Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw raved, giving it five out of five stars and calling Stewart’s performance “tremendous.”

That being said, Variety’s Peter Debruge labeled it “one of the most divisive films of Stewart’s career” and the Hollywood Reporter’s Todd McCarthy simply didn’t spark to the material, calling it “spooky hokum.” Indeed, upon hearing those assessments, Personal Shopper‘s visceral, boo-filled reception at Cannes might be a little easier to understand.

Assayas said one of his goals with the film was to connect the reality we live in to our imagination. He explained, “We live on both sides of that mirror. We do a job, and we have an imagination. We have our memories. It’s a very inhabited solitude. I think the character of Maureen is looking for doors and passages in those two worlds.”

Stewart — who juggled 16-hour days seven days a week while shooting Personal Shopper — described it as one of the toughest jobs of her career. And, one she’s quite proud of.

“I don’t mean to sound so dramatic or actor-y, like, ‘It almost broke me,’ but genuinely I [now feel I] can do anything,” Stewart said. “This movie made me feel like there is nothing I can’t put myself through. I never felt so good for feeling so bad.”