Cannes Winners…Huh?
Michael Haneke‘s Amour, a highly admirable, very well realized drama that led me to wonder which form of suicide I should choose when I get older, has won the Cannes Film Festival’s Palme d’Or. Congrats to Haneke and Sony Pictures Classics, which will distribute Amour in the States.
The Grand Prix was won by Matteo Garrone‘s Reality….really? And Carlos Reygadas won Best Director for Post Tenebras Lux? Can someone please tell me what’s going on here? This is fairly close to ridiculous. Reality was just passable and not much more. Reygadas is respected with his share of followers, but Lux sucked and mainly pissed people off.
The “bad guy” who urged the jury to make these calls, I strongly suspect, or refused to go along with other preferences (he allegedly hated Holy Motors) is Italian director Nanni Moretti.
Cristina Flutur and Cosmina Stratan shared the Best Actress prize for their performances as former best friends in Cristian Mungiu‘s Beyond The Hills. And Mungiu won for Best Screenplay.
Benh Zeitlin‘s Beasts of the Southern Wild won for Best First Film — congrats! And Ken Loach‘s The Angels Share won the jury prize.
I am very excited for Amour, although given that it sounds so depressing, maybe exciting is the wrong word. All I know is that Haneke is a major filmmaker and Jean-Louis Trintignant is one of my favorite actors, so I know it will be worth my while.
As for your complaints about the Reygadas award, I don’t blame you. The Cannes Best Director award is a really weird category. A few years ago, Roger Ebert said Brilante Mendoza’s Kinatay was the worst film in the history of the festival (yes, worse than The Brown Bunny), and Mendoza got the award. And I would never want to subject myself to another film by Nuri Bilge Ceylan because I went to see the movie he got his directing award for, Three Monkeys, and fell asleep during it. Let’s just say that’s a category not worth trusting, in my book, although giving it to Drive last year was a smart move.
When films break from the codes of narrative, most of the ADD-plagued American/British critics get left behind. They have a literalist mentality that excludes any serious consideration of non-narrative films. Bravo to Cannes juries (past and present) for being more broad-minded than this.
I know you’re not the first to say/tweet/blog/text this, but “Lux sucked” perfectly summarizes what I’m saying above.
Quite a depressing list. Just finished watching the press conferance and its clear that Moretti doesnt think highly of the more glitzy and more stylised films in competition. His comment about had the US selection been more low-budget and authentic, they could have done better was beyond pretentious.
It was interesting watching the dynamics of the group during the press conference. Other than Arnold, they all came across as meek little sheep who dared nor speak in contradiction to Morrati.
Reygadas is the only interesting choice on this list
Moretti came off as downright reactionary, he basically spoke in nothing but decades-old social-realist cliches
(incidentally Jean-Paul Gaultier told French TV that Carax was only one vote short of winning some prize, gosh I wonder who one of those votes was)
Right JD, I guess that’s why Malick is so beloved by American critics.
Not talking about all American critics Rashad, just the “ADD-plagued” ones, many of whom trashed The Tree of Life when it screened at Cannes.
So were the results the byproduct of “social realist” mindset or broadminded to the point of eccentricity? Quite confusing.
Also, Moretti is only saying what many have said for years: the US films generally aren’t the true indies in comparison to the films from outside the US. Cannes seems unwilling to go deep into US indie scene, maybe the assumption or reality is that Sundance has that covered.
I’ve never heard of Moretti until today. Where should one start with his films?
Sweet Dreams (or Golden Dreams).
…or Son’s Room (forgot to mention that one).
I really liked Caro Diario.
One look at the PTA for Moonrise Kingdom lets you know who really won Cannes.
The most influential director in the competition this year: Wes Anderson by 100 miles. The reason: People actually watch his movies.
When was the last time that a hard-core American studio film won at Cannes? Looking over the list, my guess is Wild at Heart. Others havebeen picked up and distributed by major studios, but they usually start with something smaller.
With all the top talent available in Hollywood, has it really been 20 years since a Hollywood film deserved the honor at Cannes?
“One look at the PTA for Moonrise Kingdom lets you know who really won Cannes.”
Hmm…the one full of Americans and movie stars? Quelle-fucking-surprise!
“The most influential director in the competition this year: Wes Anderson by 100 miles. The reason: People actually watch his movies.”
Why are you even reading about this stuff? Did “Entertainment Tonight” suddenly go off the air? Did you mistype http://www.ew.com or something?
I think if Leos Carax had won Best Director or “Holy Motors” had gotten one of those special made up on the spot prizes a la the one Samuel L. Jackson got for “Jungle Fever”, this list wouldn’t have batted many eyes.
As it is, you get the feeling that any film that made people happy or had the power to thrill them in their seat was instantly nixed by the jury, which all too often seems to be a group of people who have mistaken themselves for an actual jury in the sullen midst of a murder trial.
“With all the top talent available in Hollywood, has it really been 20 years since a Hollywood film deserved the honor at Cannes?”
How is iit that “Wild At Heart” qualifies as a hardcore American studio film and “Pulp Fiction” four years later doesn’t?
If you’re really curious why, just take a look at the American films in competition and you’ll see the handicap they start out with in the first place. It isn’t like the best of the best is getting selected for competition most of the time.
there was nothing “hard-core American studio” about Wild at Heart, it was produced by Propaganda Films (before the sale to Polygram) and distributed by the Samuel Goldwyn Company, both independents
Barton Fink (which won the next year) was distributed and co-produced by Fox, so it has way more of a claim to being a “studio film” — which illustrates pretty well how arbitrary the distinction can be
“How is it that “Wild At Heart” qualifies as a hardcore American studio film and “Pulp Fiction” four years later doesn’t?
If you’re really curious why, just take a look at the American films in competition and you’ll see the handicap they start out with in the first place. It isn’t like the best of the best is getting selected for competition most of the time.”
Hallick, you need to be very, very careful as you are actually paying attention and could run afoul of the Festival Fantasists who patrol these sites.