I regret that not that many of the 17 films screened, so far, in this year's Cannes Film Festival competition were good. And that's not just me. The daily critics' panels for Le Film Francais and Screen International are negative as I've seen them.
It is fascinating to me that there's a sharp divide between Anglo and French critics amongst these grids. Reflect that French critics are often noted for more intellectual, theoretical reviews, and American critics are more often populist. Which group is the correct one? There is, of course, no right answer. Cinema, like most art forms, is highly subjective.
For example, Coppola’s “Megalopolis” is much more liked by the French than the English. Cahiers du Cinema’s Marcos Uzal and Les Inrockuptibles Jean-Jaky Goldberg believe that Coppola’s “Megalopolis” deserves the Palme d’Or.
This year’s grids have been wild to follow. As of this moment, Le Film Francais’ batch of critics seem to be leaning more towards Jacques Audiard’s “Emilia Perez,” or even “Megalopolis,” as their consensus favorite. Whereas Screen International’s grid has Sean Baker’s “Anora” in the lead with a 3.3 score — the only film from this year’s competition to crack the 3 and above mark.
French critics seem split on “Anora,” whereas U.S. critics are backing it fully. Of course, these grids are meaningless when it comes to what might win the Palme d’Or. In 2016, Maren Ade’s “Toni Erdmann” set an all-time jury grid record with a 3.8 score but ended up winning no awards during the closing ceremony.
This year, I’m part of IONCINEMA’s batch of deliberators, which, unlike the others, is a healthy mix of critics from countries like Italy, Brazil, France, Spain, Germany, China, and Japan. Baker’s “Anora” is the current leader on that one, with a 3.8 rating (out of 5).
Below, you can check out the most popular assemblage of Cannes critics, Screen’s grid, which, this year, is said to have the lowest overall score of films since the grid began back in 2010. It’s not been the strongest Cannes for quality films.
