Already a festival regular, who won the prize for his last film “The White Ribbon,” unlike his previous much more divisive pictures, this one was almost universally, well, loved. Anchored by two powerful performances by Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva, this punishing tale about an elderly couple facing death straight in the face had a heart and humanity that Haneke has never quite shown before. It’s a well deserved win, and one that most can agree on.
The rest of the winners:
Palme d’Or: Michael Haneke “Amour”
Grand Prix: Matteo Garrone “Reality”
Best Actress (tie): Cosmina Straten & Cristina Flutur, “Beyond The Hills”
Best Actor: Mads Mikkelsen “The Hunt”
Best Director: Carlos Reygadas “Post Tenebras Lux”
Cannes Prix De Scenario (screenplay): Cristian Mungiu “Beyond The Hills”
Jury Prize: Ken Loach “The Angels’ Share”
Caméra d’or: Benh Zeitlin “Beasts Of The Southern Wild”
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.
I’m excited for Haneke and especially for Mungiu, I can’t wait to see Beyond the Hills. Directing prize for Reygadas is really interesting too. I don’t know when I’ll get the chance to see Post Tenebras Lux but it certainly won’t be soon enough.
The best news of the day though was the announcement that Holy Motors got a US distributor.
hope it was better than White Ribbon
so Reality is no good then?
Carlos is a bloody bore. Totally derivative and predictable most of the time. Stock CCC.
I can sense the yawns.
I am happy that Beasts got the Camera D’Or.
man! i had heard that the haneke movie wasn’t that good. i haven’t seen it, of course, so i guess i could not have known. still, i would have bet money on reygadas winning. at least he got something.
At least it wasn’t Breasts….
Apologies… not really sure what to make of Cannes…
Yay another hard on for Haneke thread thanks to the fucking French who love Haneke up their asses.
I wonder if this had more to do with Cannes having a weak year. In other words, do you think it would’ve won had it played last year? My suspicion is, particularly because Haneke is a past winner, probably not.
Having said that, everything I’ve read about Amour is that it’s good (maybe even better than The White Ribbon).
I was bummed to learn De rouille et d’os didn’t get anything. :( My interest has been piqued to see Reygadas’ entry—I still haven’t seen anything by him or Haneke.
…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 Hong Sang-Soo, Reygadas.
So you are saying that if you were on a film festival jury you would not give a prize to the best film but rather to filmmakers whose talent you admire the most and who you think deserves to get recognition? And that you would then expect everyone else on the jury to do the same or… it would be a travesty? Are you kidding?
These festivals do get political from time to time and spreading the wealth is certainly commendable but just tossing an award to help give a filmmaker a leg-up or groveling to Hong Sang-Soo, et al because of their past achievements would be the real travesty.
It should be noted that Haneke is hardly a household name in the US. The White Ribbon made $2 million in US box office, which is pretty modest. And winning the Palme d’or is not a recipe for success. Uncle Boonmee made $184,000 domestic box office.
Michael Haneke is an outstanding director that completely deserves his awards and recognition. I don’t see anyone complaining about the Dardenne brothers also winning it twice for movies that are not of the same quality as Haneke’s. I don’t think much of his early efforts like Benny’s Video, The Seventh Continent and 71 Fragments. But from Funny Games onwards his films have been highly impressive (besides perhaps the Funny Games remake which was unnecessary in my opinion or Time of the Wolf which I still haven’t finished). He seems to have finally cemented his status as one the greats. Also happy for Jean-Louis Trintignant.
@Santino: there are very few films I can think of that are better than The White Ribbon.
Matt L – I am saying that if I was on a film festival jury, those things would not necessarily dictate who I give the prize to, but they would be significant factors. Furthermore, the fact that Haneke won the Palm D’or three years ago would be an overriding factor in me ruling him out as the prize-winner this year.
I think that once a filmmaker has won the Palm D’or, their films should be relegated to the Un Certain Regard sidebar for the next five years, to be fair to underrecognized, but equally talented, directors that deserve a shot at the Palm.
Likewise, the Dardenne Brothers’ latest definitely did not deserve to be in the Competition last year (let alone win the second best prize). A systemic Francophone bias would explain this.
@ Caligula: It’s like saying The Conversation (which won the Palm d’Or) shouldn’t have been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar or should have been given a Golden Globe nod at best in ’76 because The Godfather won it in ’74 (my, was Coppola hot in the 70s!!!)
No, not at all
Also, I look forward to Gotz Spielmann receiving the crown as Austria’s finest.
@ Caligula — so you want the jury to be judging directors not films? This is not the freakin’ Nobel Prize. This is a film festival. It’s about what is considered the best work at the festival. Listen, I’m actually no fan of Haneke but i was happy to see that the jury was not doing exactly what you are saying you’d like them to do.
Welcome Haneke!!! Loved that White Ribbon!!! Can’t wait to see what sort of hijinks you got yourself into in your new rom-com Love!!!
Also, Jacques Cousteau won a Palm? With the help of Louis Malle, but still interesting.
Also, David Lynch only won one Palm for…..Wild At Heart?
I am also excited for the new Thomas Vinterberg film The Hunt, which not only won Mads Mikkelsen Best Actor performance, but also won the Prize of the Ecumenical Jury.
And why would Haneke be put in the Un Certain Regard category? That section was particularly set aside for new, emerging talent, so to have them competing against directors like Haneke would be incredibly unfair to newer filmmakers.
Also, on a much less serious note, I just noticed that not only is there a Palm Dog award (for the best performance by a dog in a film), but also that they consider canine performances in animated films, like The Triplets of Belleville. Strange.
Even if I find it a tad excessive that Haneke won for back to back films, even if I haven’t seen his latest effort, I think many of the most outspoken Mubians can be out of touch sometimes when they have a tendency to regard someone like Haneke as mainstream. Yes, he gets wider distribution than Hong Sangsoo or Aichatpong in North America, but I’m sure Bresson and Be rgman received wider distribution than Rivette and Jancso back in the sixties and early seventies, and that doesn’t necessarily mean the more widely distributed filmmaker is inferior. I’m not a Haneke fanboy by any means, but I have nothing against him. Okay, maybe I’m running off course here, but still, the point I’m trying to make is Fellini, Bergman, and Godard were a hell of a lot more well-known internationally back in the day than Haneke is today, yet nobody looks down on the former three because of their name recognition relative to that of Rivette. Okay, maybe they do, but not in the sense I mean. Perhaps this rant hasn’t really served a purpose, but I’m just trying to say, “stop acting like Haneke is ‘art-house’ for the masses” when he’s clearly not (Almodovar would be “art-hous” for the masses), even if he’s more known than Joe or Hong, and besides, it serves no purpose bringing an artist’s level of fame into the equation when discussing the quality of their art. Great art is great art, end of story. I’m not necessarily saying Haneke is “one of the greats”, I’m just protesting pathological anti-mainstreamism when the targets of such a sentiment aren’t even mainstream to begin with. I’m sure adjusted for inflation The 400 Blows and 8 1/2 made a lot more than $2 million. Just saying. Fincher, Tarantino, Wes Anderson, and the Coen Bros. are mainstream. Haneke is not mainstream. The only filmmaker working today who casual film viewers see as “art-house” that I would call mainstream is Almodovar.
well said Pieces. i know film fans that haven’t even seen one Haneke film, surprisingly enough!! and to be honest, even ones i’ve met that enjoy his films haven’t seen anything made before ‘Funny Games’. at least outside of Mubi anyway.
He may be a festival fav, but the reality is that his films are too hard hitting and/or slow to be truly mainstream. The average mainstream viewer would be bored as hell watching ‘The White Ribbon’.
and no doubt that directors like Fellini and Bergman were more popular in their day than Haneke is in 2012. Many of their films were distributed by major studios in the U.S
“…the point I’m trying to make is Fellini, Bergman, and Godard were a hell of a lot more well-known internationally back in the day than Haneke is today…”
If it’s true, it would mean that the audience of the great film art has narrowed and to get a wider exposure a director must appeal to the masses more like the Coens and Tarantino. And no doubt it is possible to create great art with mass appeal, but still such a tendency seems sad…
Funny how in all these descriptions “mainstream” is a synonym for “American”. So it begs the question, is there a “mainstream” auteur who is not American (or at least not making films in English)?
I wish I could chime in with an informed opinion about the Haneke win. Haven’t seen the film (or the competition it was up against). Not sure he deserved back-to-back Palme wins. Is he really THAT good? For my tastes, “The White Ribbon” wasn’t anything more than rote melodrama. Small-town people with degenerate behavior behind closed doors, flawed families, etc. And is it supposed to be profound just because…cue the evil empire music…dun, dun, dunnnnn!…these mischievous children grow up to become Nazis?! Too simple for me.
Anyway, that list of Cannes double-winners is not exactly a who’s who of the greatest auteurs that ever lived. Perhaps that’s not a coincidence and we shouldn’t put so much stock into the Palme.
Oh oh.. does this mean that he is getting too popular now? I’m sure a lot of Mubi user’s may start not liking him.
I can’t wait to see this new film of his though.
No, actually I think he’s still fairly undervalued. His name rarely comes up when people discuss the most important filmmakers working today, and he’s definitely not considered one for the ages. I’d say his impact on the hardcore cinephile circle is rather negligible. Again, ditto for the rest of that list of double-winners.
“no doubt that directors like Fellini and Bergman were more popular in their day than Haneke is in 2012. Many of their films were distributed by major studios in the U.S”
Heh. . . things were quite different back then. Here’s a nugget about Summer With Monika from Dave Kehr:
“Ingmar Bergman’s “Summer with Monika” was the first of his films to receive distribution outside of Sweden, though as the poster above suggests — from “America’s Fearless Showman,” Kroger Babb — it probably wasn’t Bergman’s sensitive direction that was bringing in the crowds. Babb’s version was cut, re-scored (by lounge music legend Les Baxter, in his first work for the movies) and reportedly filled out with additional nude scenes shot by Jerald Intrator, the director of “Striporama.” "
LOL—- the nude scenes always bring them in!
Sounds like the Haneke haters are going to have trouble with his new film considering it’s supposed to be a more “humane” Haneke.
I’m happy Mikkelson won best actor. The Hunt sounds great.