The Italian press has criticised the Venice jury president for handing out two major awards to his friends: his ex-girlfriend Sofia Coppola who received the top Golden Lion award, and his mentor Monte Hellman who was given a special career award. Paolo Mereghetti, film critic for Italian daily Corriere della Sera, wrote this morning that “the [jury] presidency of Quentin Tarantino runs the risk of being the most obvious conflict of interest, given that Somewhere and [Hellman’s] Road to Nowhere seemed charming and intriguing but nothing more”. The London critics weren’t particularly wowed when they reviewed Somewhere after its Venice premiere. “For all the similarities, this does not have the brilliant seriocomic moments of Lost In Translation. If that was her hit single, then this is the B-side,” said the Guardian. The London Evening Standard said the film lacked drama. Tarantino has rejected suggestions of awarding his friends. “I wasn’t going to let anything like that affect me at all,” he told reporters after the awards ceremony. “I was just going to literally respond to the film. There was no me steering any direction.” Tarantino said Coppola’s award had been a unanimous jury decision. “It enchanted us from the first,” said Tarantino, “Being her friend didn’t affect me or make me sway the jury in any way. The other members of the jury don’t know her at all. They just loved the film. We kept coming back to it, as one of us said, because ‘it’s a great fucking movie,’ all right?”


I like and respect Quentin, but he and the rest of the jury (and the officials at the Festival) had to know this would come up. In most arenas where there is a personal relationship (past or present) and you are voting on something like this, you recuse yourself from voting on that particular instance where a conflict of interest could be shown or implied. Even if this in innocent and his friends deserved to win, it will most likely taint these prizes.
How is this any different than any other festival or rather anything in Hollywood. It’s all built off of favoritism and nephotism. No surprise here
You’re painting your cynicism with a pretty broad brush there, don’t you think? Not being surprised isn’t the same as knowing what you’re talking about.
Online press is less caustic about Tarantino Jury decisions, but I must admit that many people is a little puzzled about Somewhere winning golden lion. In italy the movie opened last weekend, and since then it didn’t benefit from a nice buzz: people find it boring.
The jury decided also to change a rule that imposes that a movie which wins a golden lion, a silver lion or a special jury prize can’t win a prize for the actors. They decided to change the rule because wanted to give 2 prizes to Essential Killing, but we are all asking: why the festival has rules if then a jury can decide not to follow it?
Tarantino’s behaviour was very odd during the post-cerimony press conference, he contested a chilean journalist who was asking about 4 prizes given to american movies/actors – Tarantino said that it was false (but it’s true -_-)…
Tarantino has been conflicted since his very first film which he plagiarized. Maybe now people will stand up to this goonish looking buffoon.
Sofia and Monte are great, but Emporer Tarantino has no clothes. He’s never had any clothes. The most perplexing phenomenon in cinema over the past two decades is why anyone thinks that the poorly executed remakes of Hong Kong action adventures that he churns out are even reasonably competent let alone brilliant. He’s like the Clay Aiken of Cinema. He has no clothes. Look again and you’ll see.
Okay, first off, it’s “Emperor”… Second, he does wear clothes… Third, “Pulp Fiction” could be one of the ten greatest films ever made. Learn about movies. Learn to spell… and not necessarily in that order.
Jackie Brown is a stone masterpiece that only grows richer with time. Hermosa Beach, 1997…
Hermosa Beach?! Anyone from Hermosa can tell from the waterline that though it may supposed to be Hermosa, it wasn’t. My guess is that they shot in Playa Del Rey — hence the breakwater.
so a pretentious hack director likes giving pretentious awards to his pretentious hack filmmaker friends at a pretenctious hack festival. only pretentious hacks would care.
So sorry bro – we can’t all be Michael Bay.
Favouritism in Hollywood, I don’t believe it!
Of course you look at a film differently when it’s made by someone close to your heart (which may explain his emotional moment when handing out the award). But favouritism? No. I don’t see Tarantino capable of swaying this jury or even wanting to.
here’s all i can figure
the jury all had various favorite movies
then someone (tarantino?) comes up with the idea of each juror marking a ballot with first to last choices.
then you start counting, eliminating the film with the lowest count, until you end up with just one.
so yeah, you’ve got unanimous
but it’s more like the unamious compromise
it’s why harvey weinstein thought he had a chance to get tarantino’s ‘inglorious basterds’ in the winner’s circle last year
there are ten films nominated, and a similar system is used
so it won’t be a simple, who got the most votes in a simple first ballot….
hope i’m making this clear
maybe someone with a better understanding of how this kind of voting works could explain it
hence: jury president gets to come out saying, we have a unanimous vote
quentin changed some other rules on how to make the selection, so why not the voting process?
or maybe it was someone else on the jury?
or maybe that’s how it is always done.
tarantino just said this:
“Sure, I created guidelines but she won it fair and square and unanimously.”
would like to know what the ‘guidelines’ were…
Even I can tell Tarantino is full of some B.S. I don’t care what these italian film reviewers care to say, but when a film that looks like it came outta nowhere to win the festivel, and her ex is the president. Kinda fishy. But then again, those that expected a different outcome shouldn’t have hired Tarantino to begin with.
Hate to borrow Nikki’s great-n-original buzzword but…… TOLDJA!!!!
In a previous post on this site yesterday I said I hoped — but STRONGLY suspected otherwise — that Tarantino could suspend prior carnal ties to Ms. Coppola and render an objective and unclouded verdict.
Guess the aging Boy Wonder was thinking with his loins and not his love of movies. Cest la vie. Glad to see smart folks in Italy are thinking the same thing. I mean how can a movie get such early bad buzz as this one and then get dubbed the best thing since sliced pizza in Venice?
Sofia may be nice enough but without her filial connections she’s likely just another artsy-fartsy, pretty-faced director hanging out in Tribeca puffing on Nat Shermans and looking for her big break.
This, to be fair, is not to say that she lacks talent. She is talented. But whether her talent is potent enough to escape the gravitational pull of the pack — without, of course, the boost of her famous, powerful last name — remains a huge open question. (And wasn’t there some nattering buzz in Hollywood that her ex-hubby Spike Jonze re-wrote, uncredited, “Lost in Translation”?)
Oh well, just another day in the Hollywood pool, I suppose.
Tribeca as the hang out spot for up and coming directors? (Raises eyebrow archly.)
Her ex-husband re-wrote Lost in Translation??? What kind of bullshit is that? Guess what, I was there. She wrote it. She directed it. She conceived of it. Why does everyone feel like they have to knock someone down for winning?
The funny thing is I’ve actually reads the reviews for Somewhere. Some were mediocre and some were glowing. I have not read a single “terrible” review yet. And the film received a standing ovation from the audience when it premeired.
More importantly, I love how everyone says Sofia gets breaks because os favortism, yet Lisa Cholodenko who’s entire BO output is half of Sofia’s Marie Anoinette BO and has never had anything that connects with audiences is being touted as an Oscar contender.
It’s one thing to be a bunch of jealous Hollywood insiders. It’s another to just make things up that fly in the face of the facts. Sofia is successful because she has an audience. While many of these these other directors do not.
I wholeheartedly agree with your post and touting Cholodenko’s cliched drivel as a contender for any awards is ludicrous.
These awards matter to a handful of people, and certainly not me. Nor will they add a dime to the bottom line.
sadly, these awards carry tremendous weight in the independent, and art film world.
it determines whether a distributor will do print advertising, promotion, everything. even how many theaters they’ll bother getting for the film.
and when audiences see the laurels and garlands, it brings them in.
and venice usually leads to oscar nominations, which means more advertising and theaters, and if you win say, golden globes or oscars, just from the buzz whether it’s bullshit or not, more money pours in, and you’re set.
it’s nuts, but that’s the playground.
this was one damned weird choice though.
has to be something about the voting technique.
I disagee – these awards do translate into dollars. They are free publicity and they start buzz – this movie won the golden lion? now maybe i’ll see it since it won an award and must be good, right? (although in this case, it sounds like favoritism.) If a movie wins an Oscar, etc., I’ll rent it on dvd or maybe i’ll actually buying (if Denzel’s in it, for example) So yeah, these awards do add up for the studios. Not to mention the cachet they add to the talent involved, which allows them to ask for more money on future projects.
wait. favoritism at an awards show? shocking. SHOCKING!
Best Claude Rains Impression: “I am shocked! SHOCKED! To discover that the personal feelings of important people may unfairly influence entertainment awards!”
Interesting Bru-ha-ha but those of us not lucky enough to be in Cannes will just have to wait to see the films to see if they’re as good as Tarantino & the rest of the jury seem to think. You might wanna read Tarantino’s First Film Sucked at the link.
venice.
cannes was months ago
If “unanimous jury decision”, hard to see how favouritism could have played a role unless Tarantino can sway a jury a la fonda in 12 Angry Men.
well, she is foxy.
just kidding – see the movie with no preconceptions: judge for yourself!
What a crock. This entire industry is based on relationships of some sort. So now it’s a problem? Gimme a break. Each year the usual suspects get showered with awards and media coverage based solely on who they are and know as a result. Did anyone actually think “Departed” was an Oscar worthy film? How many times have we seen trash succeed with the proper endorsement. Let’s not take any of this or ourselves too seriously. This is how it’s always been, just maybe not this blatant. It’s called the “good ole boy” network.
lol
Spot on, Curtis.
Any comment that craps on “The Departed” is alright with me. A merely okay remake of a much better film (“Infernal Affairs”) wins Best Picture…and only because Scorsese “was due”? Still a travesty!
As well as the phony set-up when Spielberg and Lucas “just happened” to present the Oscar gave to Scorsese. To this day, does no one in the Boston PD suspect Matt Damon was a “plant”.
Curtis, I agree with you almost completely in your analysis of Hollywood and its self-congratulatory awards, favoritism, etc. BUT – yes, I thought “The Departed” was fantastic and I was very glad it won the Oscar. Maybe it would have won even if it weren’t a good movie, but it sure was a good movie.
Many press outlets are reporting that the festival is a snoozer, none of the films seem to be standouts. This many be the biggest story to come out of the festival…..if it’s true.
Tarantino obviously had a huge conflict of interests. Whether he was swayed by his friendships or not, sadly, these awards are forever tainted.
these awards have always been tainted!
“These awards are forever tainted.”
Who gives a rat’s ass?
THe filmmakers that received the awards, and possibly fairly, probably give a rat’s ass. Moron.
No, a-hole, I simply meant that this is a tempest in a teacup. These festivals have a very limited effect on the ticket-paying public these days. It’s somewhat of an intellectual circle-jerk between critics, publicists and studios who are all discovering a fickle public is making their own minds up about what they want to see. “Scott Pilgrim” and “Kick Ass” anyone? The entire number of people who will go see anything by Sophia Coppola will be dwarfed by one day’s grosses for Twilight. I guess it’s fun for dicks like you, Terry, to think you are relevant, but you are not. (And as a caveat, that’s not to say I am any better.)
Um, I think you’re thinking of Aronofsky or Cholodenko’s grosses. Sofia’s last two films have brought in 120 mil and 60 mil worldwide. Twilight never made 120 mil in a day. Sofia actually has an audience. Which is why her win shouldn’t be so unexpected.
More pathetic responses — like favoritism does not (and has not) run rampant in everything “film business” since the beginning of time… from moguls giving their mistresses writing credits to
USC kids getting all kinds of jobs just because they went to USC… to people like Jack Giarraputo “producing” huge comedies because he’s bff’s with Sandler. And by the way – NO disrespect to these folks; you get what you can in this business, period.
Well isn’t Hollywood suppose to be kissing QTs ass anyway so why are we surprised.
The Venice film festival is not that important anyway; people only care about Cannes and the Oscars, and more often than not they make stupid/political decisions as well. The Nobel Prize is perhaps the stupidest and most political of them all yet people still pay attention.
I applaud Tarantino for doing what he wanted despite the repurcussions. Who cares what the “London media” think anyway, what do they know about anything?
And like all these film critics don’t play favorites?? I saw Black Swan in Telluride and thought it was AWFUL. But all the film critics went nuts for it like they seemingly do for every Darren Aronofsky film. If you read most of the reviews of that film by the online blogger geeks they all starts out their review saying that Aronsofky is their favorite director and they think he’s a genius. Really? Ok. Doesn’t mean you have to go ape crazy over all his bad films.
Your comment is spot on, critics. No one would have said anything if Aronofsky won. Yet, he’s never had a sinlge hit movie despite tons of awards, reviewer and blogger love and all kinds of great press. Most of his movies have lost money and even The Wrestler barely made 40 mil worldwide.
Lost In Translation made 120 mil on a 4 million dollar budget and while Marie Antoinette was considered a disappointment it still made more than 15 million more than Aronfsky’s highest grossing pic worldwide.
Aronofsky and a lot of other directors live solely off the kindness of festival awards, critics and dumb development people. So why those people always get the benefit of the doubt I have no idea. A lot of people actually go to Sofia’s films. People who pay money, rather than bloggers who get in free.
Can we please stop judging movies by how much money they make? PLEASE???
No wonder this town thinks Spielberg is god. Steals from the best, but hey, he rakes in the $$. So maybe that’s why they don’t scream when QT or any of the other hacks do it too. Hey, The Other Guys made more than The Godfather…it must be BETTER.
Perhaps that’s why Aronofsky gets so much respect. He doesn’t make movies solely for box office. He experiments and pushes boundaries. Unfortunately, he sometimes fails, but that’s necessary for a creator to develop. There are very few directors today who wouldn’t give their eye teeth to have made something as bold as Requiem for a Dream.
Festivals were supposed to award and give support to films for their artistic merit, not their box office potential, though sadly, they’ve been taken over by the studios and smaller films don’t have a chance. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value to great films that might not fill up the multiplex in Omaha. They’re just not made in Hollywood anymore.
Wow. Next headline: “Accusers charged with Obvious-ism.” There’s a reason no one but industry flacks gives a damn about these awards. These people might as well be on stage performing oral sex on one another, for all the favoritism they reek of.
No THAT would put asses in seats.
Might be tough to find judges who aren’t closely related, in some way, in the film industry. If not impossible.