To some observers, 2003 was the apotheosis of an ongoing problem between Hollywood and the festival. Save for "River" and a pair of summer blockbusters (Warners' "The Matrix Reloaded" and "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines") screening Out of Competition, studio presence had dwindled on the Croisette. Acquisitions also were light, sparking media speculation about friction between the two parties: How much do Hollywood and Cannes need each other? With studios platforming mainstream fare alongside the festival programmers' auteurist selections, have they fallen out of touch? Is there still a place where their disparate priorities intersect?

"Hollywood is one of the most creative and prolific places in the world, and Cannes is an international festival, so their coming together is obvious," Fremaux says. "Their needs are the same because Cannes likes the films made in Hollywood, and the festival is endowed with a symbolic and media force that means something to the studios, the directors and the actors."

Adds festival president and former longtime artistic director Gilles Jacob: "Cannes brings to Hollywood, apart from the glamour, the biggest meeting point for the world press and professionals, more than any producer or director would ever dream of. Screening a film in Cannes counts for months of work a filmmaker would have to do by traveling around the world to present his film."

Despite the mutual benefits of a healthy relationship between Hollywood and Cannes, Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert -- who has attended the festival for more than 25 years and written a book (1987's "Two Weeks in the Midday Sun: A Cannes Notebook") about his experiences -- observes signs of imbalance.

"Cannes needs Hollywood because it needs big stars and high-profile productions for its opening and closing weekends," he says. "Hollywood does not really need Cannes because the festival comes at a time of year when Hollywood is typically releasing nonfestival films. To Hollywood, (the Toronto International Film Festival, which takes place annually in September) is more important."

Annette Insdorf, director of undergraduate film studies at Columbia University and Ebert's co-host for IFC's coverage of Cannes' opening and closing ceremonies, agrees.

"Even though many of us attend the festival to discover the best in new films from around the world, the glitter of Hollywood stars helps for press coverage and ensuring status," she says. "On the other hand, Hollywood movies are rarely helped all that much by inclusion in the Cannes festival or even by prizes. It's the independent American films that really benefit from being selected."

Whether the relative paucity of studio titles at the 2003 festival was an anomaly or significant of a larger trend, there are signs of fence-mending this year, which finds Hollywood turning out in force. With Quentin Tarantino, who won the Palme d'Or in 1994 for "Pulp Fiction," serving as president, the Competition jury will consider two broad Hollywood entertainments: Buena Vista's "The Ladykillers," the latest from past Palme d'Or winners and Cannes habitues Joel and Ethan Coen, and, perhaps more surprisingly, "Shrek 2," an eagerly awaited sequel to the animated smash that premiered to great success at the 2001 festival. Out of Competition are a host of other high-profile events, including Tarantino's "Kill Bill-Vol. 2," which premieres on the eve of its French release, Wolfgang Petersen's sword-and-sandal epic "Troy" (Warners), Dimension's "Bad Santa" and MGM's closing-night Cole Porter biopic "De-Lovely."

Fremaux and Jacob insist that Cannes' programming philosophy has not changed since the former took over as artistic director, but this year's selections should at least temporarily assuage grumblings about the festival's rarefied tastes.

"(We believe) the program should take into account the fact that it is destined (to appeal) to every type of audience: professionals, the press, films buffs and, of course, the general public," Jacob says. "Consequently, one must also program genre films and blockbusters as well as auteur directors if they're able to move you to laugh, cry (and) feel fear -- in short, to feel pleasure."

Adds Fremaux: "The evolution of cinema itself determines the outcome of the programming, so much so that Gilles Jacob and I are equally convinced that the official selection should be open to all forms of cinema -- animation, documentaries, genre films -- and all countries, a tradition deeply anchored in the culture of the Festival de Cannes."

There is no better example of that diversity than "Shrek 2," an unabashedly commercial venture that stands out in sharp relief relative to the austere international fare on the Competition slate. Many observers were surprised when the original became the first animated feature in nearly three decades to premiere In Competition in 2001, but set against deep-dish auteurist fare from such Cannes stalwarts as Jean-Luc Godard ("In Praise of Love"), David Lynch ("Mulholland Drive") and Michael Haneke ("The Piano Teacher"), "Shrek's" frivolous charms won over battle-weary critics and audiences.

"I have no indication that this year will be any different," Dreamworks head of marketing Terry Press says. "Cannes is the premier world showcase for cinema, but everybody likes to laugh and have a good time. ('Shrek 2') is definitely the lighter side of Cannes, but if it were just any old sequel, I don't think they would have taken it."

From a more practical standpoint, Press expresses a common theme among industry professionals with regard to the festival: Timing is everything. The honor of being included in Cannes' official selection, or even of winning awards, is a minor part of a larger marketing strategy. If a festival does not coincide with a film's release date or complement its initial media push, then studios will find a more appropriate platform.

"When you have summer product like 'Shrek 2,' timingwise (the festival) comes in May, which is right before the release date of the movie," Press says. "All three animated movies we've brought to Cannes (the 'Shrek' films and 2002's 'Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron') have been summer releases, but when we did (1998's) 'Antz,' which came out in October, we premiered that at the Toronto film festival."

Warners president of international marketing Sue Kroll concurs.

"If we had a film that was perfect for Cannes, but it wasn't due for release until six months after Cannes, (then) we wouldn't go," she says. "It depends on what the title is and what the strategy is. But festivals allow us to create a terrific critical and commercial platform for a film: Since you have the international press there, you can bring your talent in and get your publicity work done in a very efficient way, as well as showcase the film in the most receptive environment possible."

With "River" and 1997's "L.A. Confidential," Warners has been burned by the always-unpredictable Competition jury, coming away with no official prizes only to have those films subsequently open to great acclaim and awards success during their theatrical runs. Fremaux asserts that studios understand the "indisputable independence" of the Cannes jury -- which might prefer to reward more marginal titles that can be helped by the recognition -- but there exists concern that they feel discouraged from entering films In Competition.

"It was hard to believe that ('River' and 'Confidential') were completely overlooked," Ebert says. "I believe ('River' helmer) Clint Eastwood was a little stunned -- so was I, for that matter. But Cannes juries have a way of doing the unexpected, and although we hear that Gilles Jacob has lobbied for balance in the awards, he seems unsuccessful in affecting the outcome."

(After the Coen brothers' "Barton Fink" took three major prizes in 1991, Jacob introduced a rule to forbid multiple prize-winners; the jury asked for that rule to be waived last year.)

"The nature of competition can be a discouraging one," Kroll says.

"In the case of 'Mystic River,' it was Clint Eastwood's desire (to be In Competition), and we thought the movie had a chance. But even if you win an award for something like it or 'L.A. Confidential,' I don't believe it has an impact on the consumer. Losing just discourages the people who worked on the movie; it ends up making them feel bad unnecessarily."

For all of the hoopla about awards and star-sighting, Lions Gate president Tom Ortenberg joins many industry veterans in emphasizing the utility of Cannes as a marketplace first and foremost, one with flexibility to accommodate varying agendas. He says Lions Gate typically approaches a major festival seeking one important acquisition: Last year in Cannes, it was the ambitious ensemble piece "Dogville"; at this year's Sundance Film Festival, it was the horror sensation "Open Water."

"I think it's important for everybody to remember that we're talking about a festival and, separately, a market," Ortenberg says. "Even if there was not a lot of big-time theatrical acquisitions coming out of a festival, that doesn't mean it's a bad festival -- the festival could still be showing terrific films that either already have distribution or might be quality cinema that distributors, for whatever reason, aren't getting excited about releasing. That's a reflection on the market, not on the festival."

The malleability of the Cannes market finds no better example than MGM/United Artists, a company that frequently comes to the Croisette as a buyer and seller, with MGM touting in-house productions like 2004 festival closer "De-Lovely" while UA picks up Competition and sidebar titles such as 2002's "Bowling for Columbine" and 2003's "Osama."

Asked whether the festival accommodates his company's needs, MGM vice chairman and chief operating officer Chris McGurk says: "We've never had a problem. We've brought a number of movies there over the years, whether they're art films or more traditional studio fare. We had a big (James) Bond celebration there a couple of years ago, for instance, but at the same time, (we've brought) smaller movies like (2002's) '24 Hour Party People' and 'All or Nothing.'"

Although the closing-night movie screens after the festival's awards ceremony for the first time this year, McGurk believes that the "De-Lovely" party will "give people a big reason to stick around," including live performances of Porter standards by Natalie Cole, Robbie Williams, Alanis Morissette and Sheryl Crow. In many ways, the event dovetails nicely with many of Cannes' noted strengths, paying historical tribute to the MGM musical tradition while serving up the requisite star power and charged nightlife atmosphere.

As for remaining glimmers of discontent, some would turn to Miramax, which always has carried a reputation as an acquisitions force but took out the checkbook last year for only one film: Denys Arcand's foreign-language Oscar winner "The Barbarian Invasions." Miramax chief operating officer Rick Sands insists that his company's priorities have not shifted, but he believes that his studio has become more selective.

"We're not looking to create bidding wars, and we're not looking to acquire 10 movies during Cannes," Sands says. "We're looking to acquire the few movies that we feel stand out and that we like; if we don't like any of the movies, (then) we won't buy them. The programming (at Cannes) is not based on what sells -- it's a much different picture. Festivals are ultimately judged by critical and audience response; last year was perceived as not a particularly strong year for Cannes."

But Sands echoes many in praising Fremaux.

"I think there was a learning curve going on with new management, and I think they've got it," he says. "Thierry Fremaux has made a lot of good relationships, he's made inroads, and he understands the producer-distributor role. That doesn't mean that anything's been easy, but he actually understands both sides of the equation, which is all you can ask of a festival director."