HS Analysis | Kaurismäki’s Cannes award has a bitter taste, but it is still worth celebrating

In the year In 1981, the documentary was completed The Saimaa phenomenonwhich is considered Aki Kaurismäki as the opening shot of films. The film that depicted the musicians’ wet tour became its own phenomenon, and since then Kaurismäki’s films have been more or less known in Finnish cultural life.

At the same time, the world of Kaurismäkela has also become known for its bars, types of people and humorous stories defending the little person.

Aki Kaurismäki’s public persona has also become familiar – talkative, snarky and politically opinionated. When the United States is in the line of fire, when the Grozny destroyers, when the fighter jets.

Kaurismäki is also known as a successful artist and businessman who, despite his position, positions himself against the establishment, as a rival of the opposite side.

On Saturday42 years The Saimaa phenomenon after graduation, Kaurismäki won by directing and scripting Dead leaves – movie won the Prix du Jury at the Cannes Film Festival.

The achievement is of course the most excellent. Similar recognitions can be counted on the fingers of one hand in Finnish cinema.

Prix ​​du jury means third place on the Cannes award scale. Bronze does not remove the value of the recognition.

It’s quite unique to win any award in an event called the Olympics of cinema, which the best strive for and few ever even get to. Doors open for Kaurismäki because he is known in film circles from Los Angeles to Tokyo.

Still the reward has a bitter taste.

Kaurismäki is now 66 years old, and as a filmmaker he had already received international accolades in the past. He has been nominated for an Oscar, he has been awarded as the best director in Berlin and from Cannes he already has the so-called second prize for the film Man without a past.

It should not be forgotten that in 2016 he was also awarded a special Carrosse d’or director’s award at Cannes, whose other winners include such names as Jane Campion, Clint Eastwood, Werner Herzog and Martin Scorsese. So we’re in a pretty tough group.

One However, Kaurismäki has been missing: a big win.

Such as Cannes’ main award, the Palme d’Or, or the American Oscar.

A big win could still change and significantly raise Kaurismäki’s position in the film field: it would bring more audiences, box office revenues, and attention.

So why wouldn’t Kaurismäki aim for this kind of profit when he is making his films ambitiously already in his fifth decade?

The artist’s of course, it suits the image not to ask for medals, and ruining accolades is not part of Kaurismäki’s brand in particular. It is also in line with the fact that Kaurismäki has previously refused to participate in the Oscar competition once, and he has also given up the title of academician.

Of course, we also know that the competition does not fit art in principle. There is no yardstick by which one can evaluate a film’s philosophy as better than another. Competitions are held, however, for many reasons, not the least of which is that films and filmmakers crave our attention. Competitions are also organized for purely commercial reasons: to get us to buy admission tickets!

So Kaurismäki was, now for the fifth time, involved in the Cannes racing series, which is noticed all over the world. So he has specifically wanted to compete with other filmmakers with his films. See who’s who, be on the same stage with other top names.

So the competition and the publicity that follows it matter, of course it does.

I interviewed right after Saturday’s awards gala Dead leaves worked as a producer Misha Jaaria.

Jaari is an experienced producer who was very happy about the award. At the same time, however, he estimates that the Prix du jury would not be “terribly important” for Kaurismäki.

What does it mean?

The fact that Kaurismäki already has a position and that an award like the Prix du jury will not change that. It can also be read between the lines that only a big win would have been revolutionary.

Many expected that too. It was dreamed of. That Kaurismäki would have brought the Golden Palm to Finland.

No one in Finland has ever won a film award of that level.

This did not happen this time, and we can guess the reasons. The best explanation is comedy: the jury chose two films ahead of Kaurismäki, which are very serious dramas at their core, with little room for laughter.

Let’s get back still until 1981 and The Saimaa phenomenonto the movie. An industry publication called Kinolehti wrote about the film after the premiere and ranked it among domestic box office magnets.

Surprisingly, this incense was not liked by the authors. In the next issue, a “correction” was published in the magazine, which, judging by the writing style, was from the sharp pen of the young Aki Kaurismäki.

The authors corrected the cash magnet claim in the text, stating that The Saimaa phenomenon belongs “actually to the category of ‘moderately or weakly successful films, but which have gained popularity among their creators’.” In the name of the truth, we have to say that we would not have been sad at all, even if the information in Kinolehti had been true.”

The article ended with the statement:

“However, sometimes life betrays our dreams. In that respect, it is unfair and cruel.”

This time, life let dreams down in Cannes. The Prix du Jury is still worth celebrating.