criterionforum.org

Oh I see, my French is rather poor.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:They didn't win consecutively. The Dardennes had The Son in between their wins and Kusturica had Time of the Gypsies and Arizona Dream between his.

Except that Haneke didn't win consecutively either. White Ribbon wasn't last year.

edit: my bad, the original question was about consecutive wins so yes August would be the only one.

He won for consecutive films is what they're talking about.

Jazzkammer wrote: It's also somewhat gratifying to know that none of the overhyped American films in Competition won any prizes.

Why?

domino harvey wrote:

Jazzkammer wrote: It's also somewhat gratifying to know that none of the overhyped American films in Competition won any prizes.

Why?

I'm not Jazzkammer, but I'd wager to say it might be because overhyped films, pretty much by definition, tend not to be very good.

That's not the word I noticed first... not that it matters, as the likelihood that he's seen the films he's decrying is negligible

Berlueur wrote:

Duncan Hopper wrote:Only one person voted from Carax, right? And Reygadas only won his at the last minute after a big debate/argument?

Nope, that's not what the quote means. It means that the Carax was one vote short from winning a prize. What remains up in the air is whether it was one vote short from winning a prize or the same prize as the Reygadas.

The same as Reygadas. There were people for and against giving it to Reygadas and they also considered the Carax but Reygadas won by one vote...

Berlueur wrote:Moretti: "I've noticed that some directors were more in love with their style than with their characters"

Isn't that an unusually bitchy thing to say for a jury president...?

Bitchiness is pretty par the course in Cannes juries - that's what makes them so much fun to follow!

I remember Isabelle Huppert's constant eyerolling at the 2009 ceremony.

puxzkkx wrote:I remember Isabelle Huppert's constant eyerolling at the 2009 ceremony.

Yeah well, didn't she face a constant stream of "Haneke only won because you and he are BFFs" type of questions? I'd have been rolling my eyes, too.

Speaking of, Haneke has now seemingly accomplished quite the feat, winning one Palme from a jury allegedly biased in his favor and one allegedly biased strongly against him.

In both cases by all words it seems he was the second choice with Huppert choosing him because everyone was against von Trier and this time around because Moretti hated the Carax.

Quite a world we live in then, when Haneke is the unifying consensus filmmaker.

domino harvey wrote:

Jazzkammer wrote: It's also somewhat gratifying to know that none of the overhyped American films in Competition won any prizes.

Why?

because overhyped European films rule. duh.

Have to say that while winning a prize will be most helpful long term, Holy Motors has gotten a lot of press as far as reaching the eyes and ears of people who care about these sorts of things. Holy Motors will probably do well.

Holy Motors had already sold widely (including to the U.S.) well before the end of the festival -- a Variety article a few days back said Italy was the only major territory still pending. The Palme might've helped in some smaller markets (especially where a theatrical run is concerned), but I think it's doing fine.

I think it was the symbolic victory that would have been more helpful: Carax returning from the wilderness, after two (undeserved) flops, and being validated.

By the way, did anyone else notice the reactions or lack of it from the jury last night? The camera cut to a reaction shot of Moretti when Tatou handed Haneke the Palme D'Or and he sat there almost stone-faced. Diane Krueger was staring into empty space the entire time and quite a few other jury members didn't look particular pleased (flashback to 2009 when Huppert presided over the jury). I appreciated that Arnold was very honest about her appreciation for Post Tenebras Lux and evidently she wasn't alone in that.

Cold Bishop wrote:I think it was the symbolic victory that would have been more helpful: Carax returning from the wilderness, after two (undeserved) flops, and being validated.

Maybe for Carax sense of self, but if he wants to make films without years of fundraising hell what he needs is a financial hit.

I love all this post-Cannes rewriting of history just because no one seems to take Haneke's victories seriously... "Did anyone see the jury that ultimately voted for Haneke's film? Yeah, they all had that "Holy Motors should've won" look on their faces"

Jazzkammer wrote:As if Haneke doesn’t already get enough attention/acclaim. His profile as a highly regarded auteur is well established, and a second Palm D’or (while perhaps being well deserved – he is an admittedly excellent director), does a disservice to many other auspicious talents at the 2012 Cannes that would have benefitted more from this prestigious prize, e.g Loznitsa, Larrain (whose film wasn’t even in the Competition, which is a travesty to begin with), Hong Sang-Soo, Reygadas.

The Garrone winning Grand Prix can be undoubtably chalked up to nationalist bias on Moretti’s part, and the Loach film stealing the third prize seems like a waste, for what is obviously a trifling, minor comedy.

What I can't complain about is Reygadas getting a (consolation) nod for Best Director, and Mungui getting recognition for Best Screenplay. It's also somewhat gratifying to know that none of the overhyped American films in Competition won any prizes.

aside from the nonsense about "overhyped American films" and criticizing films you surely haven't seen yet, I can't help but think your primary argument is even more ridiculous. Since when is Cannes or any other major festival set up to reward director's who need acclaim to further their careers? Suggesting Haneke's film didn't deserve to win because he's won before is absurd. I've seen many attendees who claimed it was easily the best film they saw - if not the most audacious (Holy Motors wins that title easily) and were calling for it's victory the minute it ended when they saw it. Personally, I'll wait until I have a chance to actually watch the films before passing judgment, especially those overhyped American ones. oh, and that "obviously trifling, minor comedy" from Loach....which was also well received by most critics i've read. God forbid a festival recognize a comedy in their awards...the horror!

Two possibilities in general re: Cannes that could help some of you out:

1) The film that the jurors found to be the best wins the competition.

2) The film that the jurors found to be the best doesn't win the competition, making paying attention to the competition or putting any stock in it worthless.

Enjoy!

Brian C wrote:Quite a world we live in then, when Haneke is the unifying consensus filmmaker.

well, this film is the equivalent of oscar bait for cannes, it's not a particularly interesting or exciting film, it doesn't push any boundaries, especially considering haneke and his other works. (yes, i've seen the film). amour was kind of the most obvious choice for what would win the palme.

Did you see the other films in competition?

yeah, i was able to catch a good amount of them. i just got home from a long day of travel.

personal quickly done ranking of the competition films i saw:

Beyond the Hills (Mungiu)
In the Fog (Loznitsa)
The Hunt (Vinterberg)
Killing Them Softly (Dominik)
Rust & Bone (Audiard)
Post Tenebras Lux (Reygadas)
Love (Haneke)
Mud (Nichols)
Holy Motors (Carax)
Reality (Garrone)
After the Battle (Nasrallah)
The Taste of Money (Im)
Like Someone in Love (Kiarostami)
You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet! (Resnais)
Cosmopolis (Cronenberg)
The Paperboy (Daniels)

mfunk9786 wrote:Two possibilities in general re: Cannes that could help some of you out:

1) The film that the jurors found to be the best wins the competition.

2) The film that the jurors found to be the best doesn't win the competition, making paying attention to the competition or putting any stock in it worthless.

Enjoy!

Do you really think that there are no politics involved in jury (group) decisions? Or that there aren't political or industry stakes that make the competition's outcome important outside of aesthetic judgements?

I have not seen the Haneke. I'm sure its fine. It does seem like Cannes bait from what I know about it, especially as a follow up to The White Ribbon, which struck me as pretty cynically targeted towards mopping up awards and plaudits for its "seriousness".

FerdinandGriffon wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Two possibilities in general re: Cannes that could help some of you out:

1) The film that the jurors found to be the best wins the competition.

2) The film that the jurors found to be the best doesn't win the competition, making paying attention to the competition or putting any stock in it worthless.

Enjoy!

Do you really think that there are no politics involved in jury (group) decisions? Or that there aren't political or industry stakes that make the competition's outcome important outside of aesthetic judgements?

I think he's saying that, assuming one disregards the jurors' decisions because of politics, there's no use paying attention to the results; he's not saying that there are no politics involved in those decisions. Of course, as you suggest, it remains frustrating that tremendous opportunities are awarded depending on how well one does in competition, so there are consequences to this charade that go beyond the ceremony. Careers are made for directors who, for some, might seem unworthy of success. On the other hand, as the Fanciful Norwegian has already pointed out, some overlooked films like Holy Motors have already been acquired for worldwide distribution, so there's no need getting too exercised by the results. I think most folks are griping because it is inestimably fun to gripe, even about films they haven't seen. Most of the contenders, however, are doing just fine, thank you; the names are very familiar, whether it's Carax, Haneke, Reygadas, or even a relative newcomer like Nichols (whose Take Shelter, by the way, was far from being an overhyped American film). I would venture to guess that most of the decisive politics precede the festival; all the more reason to disregard Cannes as a baroque ritual (which isn't to say that it's not fun).