Paying to leave university, or letting children vote on films

Peter Thiel is not in Locarno. This article compares two ways of treating young people as competent judges: one adopted by the festival, the other by an American foundation.

The organisational novelty of the 79th edition concerns Locarno Kids, which becomes a competitive section for the first time. Nine films are contesting the Locarno Kids Award la Mobiliare, decided by the vote of the youngest audience.

In 2010 Thiel launched the Thiel Fellowship. The programme selects young people below a certain age and pays them a grant of 100,000 dollars, spread over two years, on condition that they leave university or do not enrol and instead work on a project of their own.

The same premise, two conclusions

Both initiatives start from the same observation: young people are capable of judgements that adults tend not to ask them for.

The conclusions diverge on one specific point. The American grant removes those selected from an educational institution, on the premise that university holds back anyone who already has something to build. The festival makes the opposite move, bringing children into an institution and giving them a formal role in a mechanism that until now was reserved for adults.

There is also a question of scale. The Thiel Fellowship selects a few dozen people each year, chosen for individual potential. Locarno Kids selects nobody: anyone of the right age can vote.

The practical difference is considerable. The first model identifies a handful of exceptions and takes them out of the common path. The second alters the common path, and asks everyone to exercise a judgement.

The festival also offers a telling biographical counter-example. Isabella Rossellini, who received the Excellence Award, told the audience at Forum @ Spazio Cinema that she did everything late: a model at 27, an actress at 32, a graduate in ethology at 55. Her career as a director began after she returned to university.

A single case proves nothing, but it shows that the thesis about accelerating careers has at least one visible exception. Between the two models, the choice comes down to what one wants to optimise: the time a talent needs to emerge, or the number of people put in a position to express a judgement.