Written by Andreas Babiolakis

This review is a part of the Palme d’Or Project: a review of every single Palme d’Or winner at Cannes Film Festival. The Hireling won the eighteenth Palme d’Or — temporarily reverted back to the Grand Prix — at the 1973 festival, which it shared with Scarecrow.

The film was selected by the following jury.
Jury President: Ingrid Bergman.
Jury: Jean Delannoy, Lawrence Durrell, Rodolfo Echeverría, Bolesław Michałek, François Nourissier, Leo Pestelli, Sydney Pollack, Robert Rozhdestvensky.

The Palme d’Or has become synonymous with daring, challenging works, especially when compared to other major film awards (particularly the Oscars), so finding a winner of said award that feels safe or basic feels almost contradictory, to say the least. Alas, that’s where we are with Alan Bridges’ The Hireling: a decent film that plays by the rules and only goes as far as its comfort zone allows it to. Outside of strong acting and some emotional depth, not much about The Hireling goes the distance whatsoever. It’s a fine film to watch, but I am perplexed as to how such a simplistic, borderline forgettable film left enough of an impression on the Cannes jury that it won the festival’s top prize, especially over some masterpieces like The Mother and the Whore and Fantastic Planet. The film did tie with Scarecrow, so maybe only some jury members were won over by it. Either way — and I don’t mean to be rude — I am just confused as to how The Hireling felt like the film to beat for the jury members that voted in favour of it. There’s subjective disagreement, and then there’s trying to find the innovation or spark in a film that takes some serious topics in a pedestrian fashion.

Lady Franklin is grieving the death of her husband when she confides in a chauffeur after he takes her to and from her toxic mother; he instantly becomes someone she can talk to and a shoulder to lean on. There’s something that could have been special here with this arrangement in the film, especially regarding the approach to those that are traumatized surrounding large scaled global events (The Hireling takes place post World War I), but the film settles for a bit of a typical romance film instead (although I do commend it for having a different ending, but its sloppiness is also somewhat inexcusable). Again, The Hireling doesn’t really do as much as it could with a possibly worthwhile storyline, and I felt like I kept waiting for something more substantial to take place.

The ending can be seen as unique enough to make you feel like The Hireling was more creative and visceral than it truly is, but allow the days after you watch it to be the judge of that. Even with its pugnacious — and borderline New Hollywood — ending, and its brief encounters with mental health discussions, The Hireling kind of just exists as-is and does just enough to even be a film. It doesn’t hurt to watch, but just-fine isn’t exactly what wins awards in my eyes. Perhaps there is a cinematic beauty to the film that doesn’t translate well in today’s age that I may also be missing, because that could explain what drew jury members to the film. I don’t mean to be so harsh towards a film that’s actually okay, but I also think it’s unusual for a film this unimpressionable to leave an impact on some highly respected industry members. Maybe I don’t get it, but Palme d’Or winners typically push you or the medium of cinema beyond our limits. On-par filmmaking and non-daring storytelling feel like an anomaly within the history of Cannes.

Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.