Ovation Inflation Revisited

Do Standing Ovations Signal the Decline of Cinema?

Occasionally, as with Guillermo del Toro’s 2006 ‘Pan’s Labyrinth,’ in-the-moment hosannas (a 22-minute eruption) correspond with lasting acclaim. More often, roars of approval are simply a bizarre admixture.

The Hollywood ReporterGary Baum

It's that time of year again...

In recent years, Cannes’ increasingly standardized custom of drawn-out standing ovations — subject of sneers as well as sympathy — has received much attention: explained as sociology, critiqued as pathology. But as the 78th annual film festival gets underway, and the trend shows no sign of abatement, it’s worth considering the signal behind all the noise. The unrelenting, excessive applause isn’t just joyous. Underneath, it’s desperate, and a revealing indicator of the decline of what’s ostensibly being celebrated.

Which is to say, the ovations aren’t mere vexation. They’re damnation.

I had good timing on reading this pieces as it reminded me that it was exactly one year ago today when I wrote my own:

It’s pretty clear at this point that we need some sort of standards body regulating the standing ovation industry at the Cannes Film Festival. The numbers are both out of control and all over the place. If nothing else, we need a rating/ranking system to be able to put context around the ovations. Because they're a totally serious and not at all silly measuring stick.

For the past few days, Xitter has been lit up with word that so-and-so movie got such-and-such minutes of ovations. At first, I was falling victim to this: "wow, must be a great work of art!" Then the headlines kept coming and coming and coming. And you quickly see some problems and also some weird patterns emerging...

But really, that was just a comical collection of links where the jokes wrote themselves. I mean, just look at the movies mentioned in the headlines I collected that day (ovation length in parentheses):

• Oh, Canada (3 or 4 minutes)
• The Second Act (3.5 minutes)
• Rumours (4 minutes)
• Kinds of Kindness (4.5 minutes)
• The Surfer (6 minutes)
• Furiosa (6 or 8 minutes)
• Bird (7 minutes)
• Horizon (7 or 10 or 11 minutes)
• Megalopolis (7 or 10 minutes)
• Emilia Perez (9 or 11 minutes)
• The Substance (9 or 11 or 13 minutes)

With the benefit of hindsight, what can we say about these films now? Well you probably still haven't heard of about half of them for one thing, despite each of them now being fully released. The biggest success of the bunch was undoubtedly Emilia Perez, which was doing well during awards season before some cast controversy seemed to destroy any grander chances it had. The Substance too got a lot of award buzz, notably for Demi Moore, which got her a Golden Globe, but not an Oscar. Furiosa was undoubtedly the biggest of the bunch from a budget and expectation perspective, but it ended up bombing at the box office (even though it was quite good). Two bigger bombs were more easily predicable – despite the ovations of varying reported lengths – Horizon and Megalopolis.

So, at best, the ovation length might tell us what movies may get some award nominations. But certainly not always, as that "11 minute" ovation for Horizon can attest. They certainly don't seem correlated with actual popularity at all. And while it's obviously subjective, they don't seem particularly correlated to a movie actually being any good or not either. It's all just performative – back to Baum:

For his part, Cannes boss Thierry Frémaux has endorsed the practice, explaining in 2022 that encouraging ovations is part of his job: “I pay attention to the screening, how long to keep the room in the dark, whether to cut the credits or not, the best moment to turn on the light, et cetera. Every screening is a celebration, and the participation of the audience makes that celebration much better. People want to participate!”

Perhaps after the clear ridiculousness of last year, I do feel like I haven't seen nearly as many headlines about the ovation lengths this year, or perhaps I've just tuned them out, knowing such headlines are a waste of time. Though shout-out to Richard Linklater's "Electric 10-Minute-Plus" ovation this year. Then again, he made a movie which is a "love letter to French New Wave". I mean, the movie is about Jean-Luc Godard making Breathless. It's shot in 4:3. In black and white. And entirely in French. This isn't a movie, it's Cannes standing ovation bait!¹

One more thing: the close cousin to the film festival standing ovation may be the early screening social media reaction. I can't tell you how many times in recent years that I've read that a movie is the single greatest achievement in human history based off of such "exclusive" early reactions, only for the movie to be... anything ranging from fine to crap.

Last week, word came in about the "astonishing" new Mission: Impossible film. "Pure cinema" also made it into the yes, breathless, headline. Might this be the best action movie of all time? Well, a few days later after critics saw it, the consensus is... It's fine. Not as good as the last one.

The standing ovation time for Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning? Five minutes. Or seven and a half minutes. Or "nearly eight" minutes.

Ovation Inflation

What is going on at Cannes and *who* is counting?

SpyglassM.G. Siegler

¹ I'm sure it's great. Because all Linklater movies are great. But still!