Palme d'Or or Oscar?

This will forever be one of the greatest comparisons in film history. Which is more prestigious? Which would directors/producers rather have? Commercial success or critical acclaim? And most importantly, do either actually mean anything? To further complicate the discussion... is it Hollywood vs. the world? Festival Juries vs. Academy? And does the timing matter?

[Some interesting differences that need to be pointed out are these. The Palme d'Or is presented to the director of the winning film, whereas the Oscar for Best Picture is given to the producer[s] of the winning film. There have been only 18 U.S. winners of the Palme d'Or and only 10 Best Picture winners have been "financed" from outside the U.S. (This also is part of the distinction above. The nationality of the director determines whether a film is American or not for the Palme d'Or, as opposed the where the financing comes from for the Best Picture Oscar).]

The first question is completely unanswerable without tackling the other questions first. The matter of prestige is completely subjective in pretty much any comparison, whether it be the Best Colleges in America, or the best films ever made. And, inherently, the second question can not be answered without answering the first. Of course, directors and producers alike would like to win the most prestigious award there is for their craft. Which takes us to question three.

Commercial success or critical acclaim? There has long been an argument over which is more important. It follows the same lines as the question of what directors and producers prefer to make... passion projects or blockbusters. For most directors it seems that an equal balance is important. Very few films have ever been able to tout both commercial success and critical acclaim. Arguably, looking through the list of winners of both awards you could argue that the Oscar represents more films that have achieved commercial success. At least, to the American movie-goer, the short lists for Oscars probably contains at least a few recognizable names. Whereas, the short lists for Palme d'Or (and Grand Prix prior to the Palme's existence) may contain a bunch of names that are unfamiliar to the American movie-goer.

There have only ever been two films that have won both a Palme d'Or (One a Grand Prix winner) and a Best Picture Oscar. Those films are The Lost Weekend and Marty. Both of which you probably have never heard of.

Of course, it has long been said that you cannot attain an Oscar for Best Picture without some commercial success. If that is the case, can we assume that the Best Picture Oscar does not measure critical acclaim. I doubt it.

So, what does it mean for your film to win one of these awards. In the U.S., the Palme d'Or is rarely tracked and therefore does not translate to a fever pitch about that film in the wake of it winning the award. On the other hand, an Oscar for Best Picture certainly translates to more time and theaters, which translates to more box office revenue. But also, it certainly means that you will spend some time at the top of the rental and on-demand markets, as well as DVD and Blue-ray sales. So, perhaps commercial success breeds even more commercial success.