When I wrote my inaugural Critic’s Take some seven Cannes ago, it made sense to explore the apparent chasm between the films celebrated at cinema’s high temple — where austere and unsparing fare could feed the zeitgeist — and those that made inroads within the American industry, where hard auteurism had a tougher time cracking the mainstream, Palme d’Or or not.
Suffice it to say, I didn’t have a similar impetus this time around. How could I? Not when Cannes rides high on recent awards glories as festival honcho Thierry Frémaux relishes his kingmaker status; not when so many international distinctions have collapsed; and not when the very nature of a Palme d’Or has so strikingly shifted in the intervening decade.
Indeed, the cascading effects of streaming wars, labor unrest and widespread social shifts have fundamentally altered film culture. Since that first column, the theatrical market has continued to contract, just as a younger and ever more global AMPAS body has rethought what could (or should) be an awards contender. Cannes responded by redefining mainstream cinema on its own terms, while its juries followed suit, refashioning the brand into a beacon for crossover fare.
Tracking this move has been fascinating. Barely a generation ago, Cannes’ May perch kept so many fall-season titles frustratingly out of reach; today, that same freestanding slot has become all the more valuable, giving proven international players a golden lacquer that doesn’t dull over the course of a 10-month grind.
Going into this year’s edition, the festival’s highest accolade stands as a promise — a Commercial Filmmaking Seal of Approval for auteurist work that can play to packed auditoriums while delivering communal highs. Hell, don’t take my word for it: Two-time Palme winner and 2023 jury president Ruben Östlund even said as much after exalting “Anatomy of a Fall,” singling out the “collective experience” created by “Anatomy” and the year’s other top contenders, which he described as “what cinema should be.”
So who from this year’s crop might follow a path blazed in recent years by Östlund (“The Square” and “Triangle of Sadness”), Bong Joon Ho (“Parasite”), Justine Triet (“Anatomy of a Fall”) and Sean Baker (“Anora”)? And which competitors might jury president Juliette Binoche cast onto an international stage shared last year by Jacques Audiard (“Emilia Pérez”), Coralie Fargeat (“The Substance”) and that taciturn cat from “Flow,” all of whom rode Cannes momentum to stateside acclaim?
If past is precedent, and if Neon hasn’t lost its Midas touch, then all eyes should look to filmmakers Julia Ducournau (“Alpha”) and Joachim Trier (“Sentimental Value”). Both directors won approval from Spike Lee’s 2021 jury, Ducournau with “Titane” and Trier with “The Worst Person in the World,” leaving that year’s edition as standard-bearers for Cannes’ more populist entente. And both enter this latest race benefiting from the built-in cinephile fan base of a distributor that hasn’t let a Palme d’Or slip by in five years.
Of course, Lee himself will also be back, this time with an Akira Kurosawa remake led by Denzel Washington and lifted by the brand allegiance and global reach of
an A24/Apple TV+ partnership. And even though Lee’s “Highest 2 Lowest” will play out of competition, such distinctions become trivial when a film explodes off the screen.
Consider “Elvis” or “Mad Max: Fury Road.” Or go right to Tom Cruise, Mr. Movies himself — he’ll be here too, working his ass off to position “Mission: Impossible–The Final Reckoning” for the same international windfall that greeted his previous Cannes foray, “Top Gun: Maverick.”
Still, established figures like Cruise and, to a different extent, Wes Anderson share a reciprocal relationship with the Riviera showcase, lending the festival star power in return for the glow of prestige and the chance to promote their imminent releases at the third-most-press-rabid event on the planet. (The world of sports reportedly has the two top spots with the Olympics and World Cup.)
Younger names like Ari Aster, however, have wider aspirations and riskier bets as they head to a festival that has always had a mercurial way with such thirtysomething directors of promise. Might Aster, something of a mainstream provocateur with “Hereditary,” “Midsommar” and now “Eddington,” emerge as a generational icon like Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino before him, or might he see his career momentum cut short, as was the unfortunate case for Richard Kelly and David Robert Mitchell? That tension is ever present — and, at least for us in the bleachers — ever invigorating. It’s what keeps us coming back, what keeps us on our toes.
Fortunes rise and fall here, while the wheel never stops turning. In 2019, actress Hafsia Herzi walked the red carpet for Abdellatif Kechiche’s “Mektoub, My Love: Intermezzo,” a film so reviled that it never screened again after Cannes. Six years later, director Herzi will compete for the top prize with her queer coming-of-age drama “The Little Sister,” landing an exclusive competition slot that could change her standing within the European sector.
Within this new paradigm, Cannes’ independence is an asset, shaping awards fortunes by remaining ever so aloof. The festival also exists to cast heretofore little-known directors like Mascha Schilinski onto a wholly different trajectory should her generational saga “Sound of Falling” catch the imagination of this year’s jury, or to make film history should dissident auteur Jafar Panahi complete a festival triple crown by winning Cannes’ highest honor for “A Simple Accident” after taking the top prize in Berlin for “Taxi” and in Venice for “The Circle.”
Deciding it all is Binoche, herself emblematic of Cannes’ promise. Like the wider festival, the French-born, Oscar-acclaimed star transcends easy categorization, staying ever relevant by threading film culture into a global continuum.
This story first ran in the Cannes issue of TheWrap’s awards magazine. Read more from that issue here.
