Winning at Cannes isn't just about being good. It’s about timing, politics, and occasionally, a jury president who decides to set the world on fire. When we talk about winners of the Palme d'Or, we’re looking at a list that ranges from absolute populist masterpieces like Parasite to movies so experimental they leave half the theater scratching their heads in the dark.
Every May, the French Riviera turns into a pressure cooker. Critics are tired. The sun is too bright. The espresso is too expensive. Yet, out of that chaos, one film is handed a gold-plated branch that essentially guarantees it immortality in the history of cinema. But honestly, looking back at the track record, you start to see patterns that have nothing to do with "perfection."
The Myth of the Unanimous Vote
People think the jury sits down and logically agrees on the best film. That’s rarely the case. In 1994, when Quentin Tarantino took the stage for Pulp Fiction, a woman in the audience literally screamed "Scandale!" because she hated it so much. Tarantino, being Tarantino, just gave her the finger. It was legendary. But it highlights the core truth about winners of the Palme d'Or: the award is often a compromise or a coup.
Look at 1987. Under the Sun of Satan won, and the crowd booed so loudly you’d think they’d just watched a snuff film. Maurice Pialat, the director, raised his fist and told the crowd, "If you don't like me, I can tell you I don't like you either." That’s Cannes. It’s high stakes and incredibly thin skin.
Jury presidents have an outsized influence. When Cate Blanchett headed the jury in 2018, the win for Hirokazu Kore-eda’s Shoplifters felt like a victory for quiet, humanist storytelling. Compare that to 2021, when Spike Lee was in charge and accidentally announced the winner—Julia Ducournau’s body-horror odyssey Titane—at the very start of the ceremony instead of the end. Titane is a movie about a woman who has sex with a car. It is visceral, messy, and brilliant. It is also the kind of film that only wins when you have a jury willing to be genuinely weird.
Why Some Winners Disappear and Others Become Legends
Why do we still talk about Taxi Driver (1976) but almost nobody mentions The Mission (1986)? Both are winners of the Palme d'Or, but one defined a generation of filmmaking while the other became a "prestige" footnote.
🔗 Read more: Cry Havoc: Why Jack Carr Just Changed the Reece-verse Forever
It usually comes down to whether the film captured a specific cultural anxiety. Parasite (2019) didn't just win because Bong Joon-ho is a master of blocking and pacing. It won because everyone on the planet was feeling the exact same crushing weight of class disparity. It was the right movie at the exact right moment.
Then you have the "dual winners." It doesn't happen often anymore because the rules changed to prevent it, but in 1979, Apocalypse Now and The Tin Drum shared the prize. Francis Ford Coppola famously said his film wasn't about Vietnam, it was Vietnam. That kind of ego is what the Palme d'Or feeds on. It’s an award for directors who think they’re changing the world, and occasionally, they actually do.
The "Double Winners" Club
Only a handful of directors have managed to win twice. It’s a tiny, elite circle.
- Ken Loach (The Wind That Shakes the Barley, I, Daniel Blake)
- The Dardenne Brothers (Rosetta, L’Enfant)
- Ruben Östlund (The Square, Triangle of Sadness)
- Francis Ford Coppola (The Conversation, Apocalypse Now)
- Michael Haneke (The White Ribbon, Amour)
- Shohei Imamura (The Ballad of Narayama, The Eel)
- Emir Kusturica (When Father Was Away on Business, Underground)
- Alf Sjöberg (Torment, Miss Julie)
- Bille August (Pelle the Conqueror, The Best Intentions)
The fact that Ruben Östlund joined this list so quickly with Triangle of Sadness (2022) sent shockwaves through the industry. Some critics felt he was "gaming the system" by making films specifically designed to trigger the sensibilities of a Cannes jury—satirical, loud, and visually arresting. Whether you like his stuff or not, you have to admit the man knows how to win.
The Politics of the Croisette
You can't talk about winners of the Palme d'Or without talking about the French film industry. There’s always an underlying tension between the homegrown French entries and the Hollywood invaders. When an American film wins, it usually has to be "artistic" enough to pass the sniff test. Think Barton Fink (1991) or The Tree of Life (2011).
💡 You might also like: Colin Macrae Below Deck: Why the Fan-Favorite Engineer Finally Walked Away
But the real drama often happens behind the scenes. The festival has been criticized for decades for its lack of female representation. For the longest time, Jane Campion was the only woman to have won (for The Piano in 1993, and even then, she had to share it with Farewell My Concubine). It took nearly 30 years for Julia Ducournau to become the second woman to win solo. Then Justine Triet won for Anatomy of a Fall in 2023. Things are shifting, but it’s a slow, agonizing grind.
Anatomy of a Fall is actually a great case study in how a Palme d'Or win can launch a film into the mainstream. It started as a courtroom drama in French and German and ended up with five Oscar nominations. That’s the "Cannes Bump." It gives a film a seal of approval that makes American distributors willing to spend millions on marketing.
How to Watch the Winners Without Getting Bored
Let’s be real: some Palme d'Or winners are a slog. They’re slow. They’re long. They have ten-minute shots of a tree blowing in the wind. But if you want to understand cinema, you have to engage with them.
If you’re new to this, don't start with the four-hour Turkish dramas (sorry, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Winter Sleep is great but it's a lot). Start with the "thriller" winners.
Parasite is the obvious entry point. Then go back to The Conversation (1974). It’s a Gene Hackman masterclass in paranoia. If you want something that feels modern and slick, try Anora (2024). Sean Baker’s win was a huge moment for independent American cinema, proving that you can win the biggest prize in the world with a movie that is essentially a high-octane, chaotic comedy-drama about a sex worker and a Russian oligarch's son. It’s fun. It’s heartbreaking. It’s exactly what the festival needs more of.
📖 Related: Cómo salvar a tu favorito: La verdad sobre la votación de La Casa de los Famosos Colombia
Essential Palme d'Or Winners to Stream Right Now
- Pulp Fiction (1994): You’ve probably seen it, but watch it again knowing it beat out Three Colours: Red.
- Shoplifters (2018): A beautiful, quiet story about a family of thieves. It’ll break your heart.
- Taste of Cherry (1997): Abbas Kiarostami’s masterpiece. Minimalist, profound, and controversial because of its ending.
- The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964): A vibrant musical where every single word is sung. It’s gorgeous.
- Blow-Up (1966): If you want to understand the 1960s "cool" aesthetic, this is it.
The Shift Toward "Genre" Movies
For a long time, the winners of the Palme d'Or were expected to be "serious" dramas. Usually period pieces or heavy social realism. But the last decade has seen a massive shift. The festival is finally embracing genre.
Titane is sci-fi horror. Parasite is a dark comedy/thriller. Triangle of Sadness is a broad satire. This isn't an accident. The festival organizers, led by Thierry Frémaux, realized that to stay relevant, they couldn't just be a museum for high art. They had to include films that people actually want to talk about at dinner parties.
This shift hasn't pleased everyone. Traditionalists complain that the "sanctity" of the award is being watered down. But honestly? The "sanctity" was always a bit of a myth. Cannes has always been a circus. It’s a trade show, a fashion show, and a protest venue all rolled into one. The movies that win are just the ones that managed to survive the circus.
What to Look for in Future Winners
If you want to predict who will win in the coming years, don't look at the reviews. Reviews are often wrong. Instead, look at the jury. Who is the president? What is their filmography like? A president like Greta Gerwig is going to look for something very different than a president like Alejandro González Iñárritu.
Also, watch the "standing ovation" reports. They’re usually exaggerated (every movie gets a standing ovation at Cannes, it's polite), but the length matters. A 12-minute ovation is usually a sign of a real contender. A 3-minute one is basically a polite "thanks for coming."
Actionable Steps for Film Buffs
If you want to truly dive into the world of winners of the Palme d'Or, don't just read the list. Experience it.
- Map out the decades. Pick one winner from each decade starting from the 1950s. You’ll see the entire evolution of camera technology and storytelling.
- Follow the "Uncertain Regard" track. Sometimes the best movies aren't in the main competition. This side category often features future Palme d'Or winners early in their careers.
- Check the Criterion Channel or MUBI. These platforms curate Cannes winners better than anyone else. Netflix has a few, but they’re mostly interested in the big hits.
- Read the jury's final press conference. After the winner is announced, the jury usually explains why. It’s often the most revealing part of the whole festival. You’ll find out which movies they fought over and which ones were easy choices.
The Palme d'Or isn't a badge of perfection. It’s a badge of impact. Whether a movie is "good" is subjective, but whether a movie is "important" is often decided on a stage in the South of France. Exploring these films isn't just about watching movies; it's about seeing how the world's taste has changed over the last 80 years.