There is so much William Carlos Williams in this film. He's mentioned at least a dozen times; we hear his poems; etc.

Three or four. You've heard about everything so far with just two exceptions (which I'll double back to eventually), plus some sidebar titles I bailed on because they weren't doing anything for me. Bear in mind that I have to spend several hours every day writing these dispatches! Cuts into my viewing time.

That I liked. Not enough for it to crack my top 10 that year, but solid thumbs up (would be B+ here).

Lukewarm on that too!

Maybe? If making it five hours de-emphasized LaBeouf's role, that would likely be a good thing.

It's about equally inane. Don't want to spoil it for anyone who might not want it spoiled, but if you look up the Wiki entry for the source novella, it has a pretty detailed plot summary. The twist is different (and way dumber), but maybe you can guess how it's different if I tell you that there are no letters or…

As I say, she has a new film that's in the can. It was anticipated to be here, but she apparently just couldn't finish it in time. I expect to see it come fall.

Screens Thursday.

As a rule, I think films should be released as the filmmaker intended, so I would never say that American Honey "should" be trimmed. Could it be trimmed significantly without being badly damaged? Probably. But word is that Arnold's rough cut ran five hours, so she likely already thinks she's skinned it to the bone.

Looks that way. Calibrate accordingly.

The film definitely isn't for everyone. Most great films aren't.

I can generally hear the difference, myself. But it does require some concentration. (Then again, so does noting the color of subtitles.)

Presumably because it's not possible. For films at Cannes in neither French nor English, there are French subs hard-coded (or whatever the term is) on the print itself and English subs projected on a strip immediately below the screen. My guess would be that the latter process doesn't offer multiple colors.

I'm of the same mind. That's why it's frustrating when films are directed in a way that raises such questions as they unfold. Not a response that I can choose to turn off.

I did not notice any Kaminski-glow, for a change.

This really isn't much of a spoiler. Depending on your audience you might not have anything like the same feeling of "this must be the end" (and if you look at your watch you'll see it's not even close).

Both of its screenings conflicted with other films, unfortunately (the Dumont and the Ade). I might catch up with it at the end of the festival should it win a prize.

You're right, that was needlessly prolix. It made sense in my head because the sister is actually in the film, whereas the late husband obviously is not. So Reginald registers in your head as Catherine's brother—that's the primary relationship onscreen. But I didn't think it through.

That's what I wrote. It got changed by a copy editor, apparently. Good catch.

Thank you for noticing. Criterion happens to have released three of my all-time favorite films (this + Only Angels Have Wings + Brief Encounter) in the past couple months, so it's been an unprecedented stretch of A's for me. The standard complaint is that I lowball obvious masterpieces.