What makes awards so context-dependent, and why was his controversial?
It was in 1956 when a documentary film received the Palme d'Or for the first time.
For Jacques Cousteau, that was the moment which proved life challenges including a severe car accident, broken career in aviation, uncertain medical prognosis and continuous rehabilitation of his arms had not been in vain. He could have been widely recognised earlier for the invention of the aqualung and breathing set for scuba diving, but never really was. He finally had his golden hour as a film director at the age of 46.
The Silent World was based on a book also authored by Jacques Cousteau and became one of the first examples of underwater cinematography focused on wildlife. In 1956 it was praised for technical innovations, ecological values, and depicted beauty. About 70 years back from now, the project was a huge step towards scientific exploration of the ocean depths. Today, the film which once outperformed works by Akira Kurosawa, Michael Cacoyannis, Ingmar Bergman and other talented directors tends to get reviews like "hard to watch due to its cruelty" or "worth watching only as a historical curio to see how unenlightened people were back then."
President John F. Kennedy presents the National Geographic Society’s Gold Medal to Captain Jacques Cousteau (1961). Image by Abbie Rowe. White House Photographs, Public Domain.
A historical event asks for the context when it comes to its further analysis. Without going too deep into history of cinematography, we are paying attention to the time period when The Silent World appeared and discuss a few ideas worth having in mind when thinking about big awards as such.
Also in the story
- what is special and what is common about The Silent World as an award-winning film?
- how is competition subjective when viewed from a certain moment in history?
- why might you need to look for more than is shown on the screen, even if it's a documentary?
Read full story