The curtain is about to fall on the 78th edition of the Cannes Film Festival. In a few hours, the jury chaired by Juliette Binoche will unveil her record. A rich edition, where aesthetic proposals have multiplied, with a delicate balance between political cinema, intimate accounts, formal experiments and great performance of actors. As the end approaches, speculations are multiplying, criticisms exchange, compare, defend their favorites. And as often, predictions diverge.
On the international press side, two titles are very clearly emerging among the favorites for the Palme d’Or. Most often cited is Sentimental value Norwegian Joachim Triera family drama all in delicacy, carried by Renate Reinsve and Stellan Skarsgård. The film moved to tears part of the criticism, and its projection was followed by an ovation of 19 minutes. Sensitive, fine, of rare emotional accuracy, Sentimental value is part of the line of intimate works celebrated in Cannes in recent years. Distributed by Neon, already behind several recent fins, it checks all the boxes of the “reasonable” favorite.
But another title also comes up regularly in journalists’ papers: A simple accident/it was just an accident From Jafar Panahi, daring, political, funny and tragic Iranian film at the same time. Jafar Panahi, always prevented from shooting in his country, delivers here a story of great formal freedom, where social satire infiltrates the springs of an almost burlesque comedy. Many critics welcome this film as one of the most impactful in the selection. Including myself.
A simple accident just has to win the 2025 citizenship prize awarded by the association Clap Citizen Cannes.
These are the two films I place, personally, at the top of my own list. I still have three films in competition to discover, but these are already imposed by their power. Jafar Panahi on the one hand, for its ability to say Iran today, and moreover all humanity, with a salutary black humor, and Joachim sort on the other, for this overwhelming way of telling mourning, filial love and the passing time. Two radically different proposals, but also controlled.
For interpretation prizes, international criticism willingly lean on the side of Josh O’Connor (The Mastermind) And Yui Suzuki (Renoir), often cited as favorites. No doubt solid performance, but for my part, my eyes are doing elsewhere.
On the feminine side, Parinaz Izadyar upset me in Woman and Child by Saeed Roustaee. She embodies a mother taken in an infernal social and judicial situation with remarkable modesty and intensity. Her haunted face, her injured dignity, her silent determination: she composes an unforgettable character.
Renate Reinsve was also great in its role in Sentimental value, The panic scene before his first is just extraordinary. Throughout the film, she knew how to play her role with a large palette of correct emotions.
Another possibility perhaps lies in Léa Druckergreat in File 137. She plays with great precision, making palpable the moral ambiguity of her character. A difficult role, playing with rigor. She is a bit like the favorite of the French press.
In men, why not imagine Tahar Rahim crowned for Alpha from Julia Ducournau? Its performance is all in tension, crossed by a contained rage, of a raw despair. He impresses with his total commitment in this physical and interior role at the same time. Few journalists have quoted it in their predictions, but that does not mean anything to Cannes.
Regarding other prices, the press seems quite unanimous on the quality of The Secret Agent From Kleber Mendonça Filho, often mentioned for a Grand Prix. Ambitious, dense, political film, it is imposed by the mastery of its narration, its visual power and its contemporary scope. He also appears in my personal choices.
As of Woman and Childit deserves at least at least a price for the best scenario, as its narrative construction brilliantly marries social tension and intimate collapse. The work of Saeed Roustaee, in terms of writing, is remarkable. The film confuses by its various “twists”, each time it feels like the film goes in one direction, it takes another, to our surprise. Without forgetting that the suspense remains until the last minute.
Another film has caused a lot of ink to flow: Sirat,, Regularly quoted by criticism during the festival. He marked, confused, caused. His place in the charts is possible, although his extreme singularity can also serve him. He fascinates as much as he questions: it is often a good sign in Cannes, but the jury will decide.
In any case, the lines are not yet frozen. The variety of films cited, divergences of opinion, possible surprises – all this recalls that the Cannes track record often escapes the linear logics. And that’s what makes him so exciting.
See you this evening for the jury’s response. The dice are launched, the games are made!
Neïla Driss
