The Nature Boy

The Palme seems REALLY beholden to political machinations. I of course realize and lament the trend for Oscar to go that way too, but I respect the Academy based on the notion that there is a greater cross section of voters. For the festival world though, the Palme is it, better than Sundance, Berlin or Toronto.

pro-bassoonist

Huh?

The Cannes jury is "beholden to political machinations"??? I leave this one withtout a comment!!

Palm d'Or is clearly the better one though these two forums are quite different as they do not award the "best film" as many Americans would put it.

If there is a political bias and insincerity in any of the two forums...then it is more than clear that we should "credit" the Oscars for them. A single look at the academy awards history would show that a foreign film has NEVER EVER WON THE TOP PRIZE-BEST FILM!!

Are you trying to tell me that since the invention of the film camera no foreign film EVER deserved to be recongnized??...that only American cinema is worthy of recognition??

Yet, the award for "best" film-Palm d'Or has been awarded to films originating from a variety of different countries- from Serbia to the US.

The close-mindedness, political manipulating, and sheer biass are clearly in our own yard!! I am waiting to see the day when a French film will get "best picture" in the US yet the French have recognized films that many younger Americans nowadays consider modern classics....Pulp Fiction ring a bell??



Palm d'Or clearly the better one hence my vote for it.

LasVegasMichael

Academy bar none. I respect the Academy (with the exception Robbins and Sarandon). Couldn't care less about the French "award". Didn't even know it existed until Pulp Fiction.

pro-bassoonist

It is not a French "award"...the location of the Festival has nothing to do with its mission. In fact, this year's jury was clearly "American".

Pro-B

Supermallet

I would go with the Palme D'Or. They tend to make more interesting and daring choices than the Academy. Considering that they're also not claiming to be choosing the best film of the year, and also award other prizes to deserving films. Furthermore, they also tend to "share the wealth," not awarding everything to one or two films.

The Academy tends to award a lot more to one particular film, and will often ignore outstanding edgier films.

docF94

While if a film wins one or the other, I will be intrigued by it, I give more respect to the winner of the Palme d'Or. There are several reasons. 1) I have never seen a winner of the Palme before it's won. So the winner goes into theatres as Cannes Champ. I have seen 9/10 of best Picture winners before the awards, and usually a majority of the other nominees. And my pick is rarely the winner - I often favor another nominated film.

Also, as previously mentioned, there's a lot more variety in the winner of the Palme. It's a much harder award to predict, because the variety of films in competition is much bigger, and from all over the place. At the Oscars, the Best Picture winner is a big Hollywood picture, or an American independent. And while the films are often good, the winner beat four other films, not the forty or whatever screened in Cannes. The winner of the Palme has no reflection on its box-office potential, while the winner of best Picture is usually a big performer already, and rakes in millions more as a result.

That's not to say an Oscar is a lesser award - I think it holds enormous sway with moviegoers in America, and represents what Hollywood feels is the cream of its crop. However, in reading through the list, it seems to me the Palme d'Or winners tend to age better than their Oscar counterparts. In both cases, the winner is not necessarily my best picture of the year, but when I haven't seen the winner of the Palme, and the winner of the Oscar from the same year - 2001 is an example year, as is 1998 - I'm much more eager to see the the Cannes winner. And in 1989, both awards were wrong. A Fish Called Wanda was better than all of them.

Viszontlátásra.

Rivero

The Palme d'Or. Just compare the two lists, their winners are better. I mean Gladiator? Titanic? Please.

pro-bassoonist

The Nature Boy

Two Cannes "political" awards in recent years off the top of my head are Barton Fink and Bowling for Columbine. I should say, SEEM to be, but it's specualted by several independent people in attendance that saw many films at both festivals. I can research more if you like. And I won't deny the politicalization of the award or even nomination process in Hollywood. Begining most greviously with Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan in 98 or 99, that award has been devalued.

Your assertion that no foreign film has won the Oscar is wrong, but excusable. No FOREIGN LANGUAGE film has ever won, but several British productions have, including Lawrence of Arabia and Braveheart. By their very origin, nature and creation, award shows are self congratuatory. Hollywood created the Oscars, the base is mostly academy actors who may not SEE many foreign language films, so naturally they vote American. I'm not saying it's the defininative award, if you know any actors, you realize that they are generally dopey people to begin with. So it's not suprising many don't want to sit through subtitles, and the Academy did make concessions to realize the impact of foreign film with it's own Oscar.

The Palme is the coronation of a festival, with a much smaller voting block, and a lot fewer people to influence. And as has been pointed out, it's apples to car mufflers. The Academy has the sweep of all theatrical releases and the Palme has what's in it's festival. It's not a slight on either, but by virtue of the field, the Oscar is a much tough award to win.

A foreign film has never won the Oscar, but it's got less to do with politics and more to do with ignorance of the field. There is a difference.

pro-bassoonist

I don’t understand your presumption that since “Hollywood created the Oscars, the base is mostly academy actors who may not SEE many foreign language films, so naturally they vote American.” This is anything but “natural”. I will say it again- to imply that only the US produces worthy of recognition films is not an ignorance as you want to describe it, it is a form of cultural genocide. I don’t understand why everyone on this earth has to be proficient in English and most importantly I don’t understand why other countries have to produce their films in English so that they could be eligible for recognition (I refer to Oscar for Best Film). Perhaps you could explain this phenomenon to me??


I know quite a few actors as I have created some great friendships over the years and actors are anything but “generally dopey people to begin with”. What is surprising to me is the fact that you have concluded so eloquently that subtitles are indeed what bars foreign films from being recognized in America (by both audience and academy voters).


While in Cannes the voting block as you put it is much smaller, a statement with which I agree, this does not negate the impact of the films that indeed get recognized by it. In fact, I would argue with you that outside of America many of the films that have won the Palm d’Or are much more respected and the directors that have created them have much more clout, both culturally and sociologically, than what you could imagine. Example- names such as Fellini, Kurosawa, Kusturica, Antonioni, are nowadays considered as the pillars of classic cinema as we know it. Yet not once have they been recognized by the Academy. With the status these directors have you surely are not trying to tell me that their works did not make the prestigious Oscar list because the Americans had to “read” them, are you? Funny how other nations managed to “read” them yet we concluded that these directors and their work are not worthy of our attention.




Last but not least, ignorance has a lot to do with politics. Ignorance is nurtured by politics. And as the history of the Academy Awards in this country reveals…quite successfully!!

Cheers,
Pro-B

The Nature Boy

It's not genocide, it's not anything, it is the way it is, so I'd suggest relaxing. You have a taste in the film that leads you to check out foreign/art flicks. I share that taste, but I've long given up trying to convert the herd. I only feel comfortable commenting on films in the last 20 years, since I lived through their exhibition and academy push. Some fine foreign films have come along, and some have been nominated, like Red, Crouching Tiger or Life is Beautiful. All were fine films, but I can't say they were robbed at the Oscars in a given year. You want to talk 2000 and Gladiator, I'll listen. I think it's as much a bias to films outside Hollywood as anything. Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese have exactly one best director and one best picture between them, a bias perhaps owed to their rich NY roots. Don't ignore the older voting block too. These foreign films were largely championed by younger film brats, and in many cases are still today in places like this forum. Simple math shows more academy members to be over 50, more set in their expectations, and while some boomers may reflect fondly on Godard or Truffuat or Bergman or Kurosawa, by and large, they are going to be drawn to accessibility, and many foreign films require some work, on many levels.

Quote:

I know quite a few actors as I have created some great friendships over the years and actors are anything but “generally dopey people to begin with”. What is surprising to me is the fact that you have concluded so eloquently that subtitles are indeed what bars foreign films from being recognized in America (by both audience and academy voters).

I don't think it's outrageous to suggest it's part of the reasoning. Why the rush to release a dubbed Life is Beautiful or Crouching Tiger theatrically during the Oscar push? Could the people actually pushing these things maybe realize that subtitles ARE an obstactle. Not the sole obstacle, but one that is corrected more often than not in the midst of Oscar pushes.

Quote:

While in Cannes the voting block as you put it is much smaller, a statement with which I agree, this does not negate the impact of the films that indeed get recognized by it. In fact, I would argue with you that outside of America many of the films that have won the Palm d’Or are much more respected and the directors that have created them have much more clout, both culturally and sociologically, than what you could imagine. Example- names such as Fellini, Kurosawa, Kusturica, Antonioni, are nowadays considered as the pillars of classic cinema as we know it. Yet not once have they been recognized by the Academy. With the status these directors have you surely are not trying to tell me that their works did not make the prestigious Oscar list because the Americans had to “read” them, are you? Funny how other nations managed to “read” them yet we concluded that these directors and their work are not worthy of our attention.

Why should I care what's respected outside of America when you get right down to it? I'm an American living in America. Again, Scorsese was never recognized, nor was Kubrick, Altman, Hitchcock, King Vidor. Sometimes, you've got to make the right movie in the right year and sometimes you've got to get lucky.

And that's not to say I don't respect classic or current foreign and art film. But I will say this though, the "international respect" crowd is just as jaded or biased as you suggest Hollywood is. I've spent the last 2 years going through the Sight and Sound top 10 lists, and there are some films that are just not strong that are voted for year after year, for whatever reason. And there are many amazing and phenomenal films to be fair, but the one trend is a definate slap to American film on those lists. It doesn't bother me in anyway, but I accept that it's the way it is.

Quote:

Last but not least, ignorance has a lot to do with politics. Ignorance is nurtured by politics. And as the history of the Academy Awards in this country reveals…quite successfully!!

Cheers,
Pro-B

This I don't get at all and wish you could explain? American politcal ideaology as a whole?

Whatever the "respect" of the Palm is, the vast number of people in this business don't dream of winning a festival at a banquet, they dream of holding that little gold man on the biggest stage of them all. Even those that win the Palm.

sundog

Palme d'Or, by a slim margin. Cannes, a victim of media hype as much as the Oscars, presents a more balanced perspective on world cinema. The Academy Awards marginalize foreign films to a minor category, and even limits the possible nominees to one film per country. Thereby forcing the submitting countries to make a submission based on how it might appeal to Academy voters.

I'll give the Academy credit. The Oscars at least present a good barometer for the direction of American film, an industry that has a massive influence across the globe. But that same industry's isolationist tendencies still put me off.

Jaymole

I prefer the Palm d'Or as they aren't as close minded as the Academy.

I absolutely agree.