suspecting the awards had happened some days ago i googled and, yeah.
here's a trashy af variety article:http://variety.com/2016/film/in-contention/cannes-winners-underscore-contrast-between-creators-and-critics-1201780883/
Cannes Winners Underscore Contrast Between Creators and Critics
We say it every year — often repeatedly — over the course of Oscar season, as we puzzle over the quirks and oversights of the Academy’s choices: Actors and filmmakers are not critics.
first of all, i hope everyone's mother loves them. second of all, i, me, i say it every moment i have to -- like now -- critics are not actors or filmmakers.
critics are, per their job, cultural arbiters. me, i'm not into arbitration. it's not my scene.
and i don't think the scene needs to be shaped like this. remember in Obama's commencement speech when he called out Bernie for shittalking him, said it like this: That's not how you treat a comrade.
people don't exist without culture, and culture doesn't exist without people. i respect critics from the fundamental perspective of the spirit being enacted, i support them as supporters of cinema, and oh it's undeniable that there've been significant and powerful perspective shifts made within all art fields and grown from within a critical realm, but this^ is sass that doesn't realize it's creating the battle:
this year’s Competition awards, which left the festival’s press contingent largely, sometimes angrily, baffled.
so the people i rely on to share with me the passions of cinema, they can be the ones who create angry atmospheres around movies being made.
“How the hell did the best Cannes Competition lineup in about 15 years yield the worst set of winners?” tweeted Variety‘s newest critic Jessica Kiang
i think that helps your sass, but i don't think it helps cinema.
Even Andrea Arnold’s undisciplined but rapturous “American Honey” got its share of festival boos — and was rewarded with the Jury Prize, the third of Arnold’s career. (If juries didn’t change every year, one might have thought to switch things up a little. But it’s important to note that juries vote with little sense of what has gone before. Again, they aren’t journalists.)
"even" "got its" "boos" "Again, they aren't journalists." this is a public airing of private grievances, and projection upon cinema of one's own framework, as if it is the critics we rely on to save cinema. no, there is more in cinema than what you want from it.
this is rich:
That’s a disappointment not just to fans of the film, but those who were hoping the jury’s choices would reflect what had become the festival’s major talking point: the unusually high presence of female-driven stories in the Competition.damned if you do, damned if you don't
. specifically: i look forward to the awards when women slamdunk the fest, it'll happen, when it does. but this is grabbing around topics outside the movies themselves.
Critics and jurors may come to Cannes from very different places, but it might well be that no one feels justice was entirely done tonight.
Except Xavier Dolan.
i don't see the problem with this method, the one in which the artist does not dwell on the worries being offered to the conversation but, in fact and obviously, searches through art for but the pleasures in this world.
no personal offense to the writer of the article, which is standard yellow journalism, attracts the readers.