Spielberg, Once a Disrupter of the Future, Now Can’t Abide How It’s All Changing Fast

I didn’t know, thank you for sharing!

You’re linking us to schedules of one-time live broadcasts of Broadway shows and Shakespeare plays.

If these are recorded on film or any sort of digital media, it is not done for the purpose of repeated viewings by many different audiences in a short span of time. You catch them once, the night of the event, (or in rare reruns), and that’s it.

So already they fail the test of what makes a movie eligible: the replication of its screening several times a day for many days.

These filmed stage performances are broadcast as live one-off events to participating remote theater locations or home viewers, as with Great Performances.

We’ve all seen these on PBS for years, decades. They are clearly not movies, right?

As fine a series as Great Performances is, especially for dance and music, as far as I know none of their filmed stage dramas has ever even won an Emmy.

Because they are not filmic. Anyone with eyes and common sense can see that.

How can you ignore the difference between a live realtime broadcast and a movie?

When these stage events are broadcast as single performances, it is almost always only possible to view them once, as a special event, not over and over as we can do with movies.

I believe the question was: what if a filmmaker sets up a camera to record a theater performance in real time so that there is a recording of that performance that can then be reproduced distributed (whether on TV screens or theaters) and later viewed many times during awards season by the public.

The frequent and longterm availability of the filmed narrative has to be part of the eligibility.

This does not happen with the broadcasts in the schedule you link. Not in any way that meets all the other eligibility requirements for an Oscar.

For the reasons I said:
1) It would be dead boring, cinematically.
2) Producers of broadway shows invest millions to sell broadway tickets to recoup their investment and turn a profit.

They do not allow recordings of their investment to be widely distributed so their creation can be viewed remotely over and over. Not while the show is still running on one stage.

Very rarely a reproducible film is made of a performance and meant to be sold. Usualy years later.

If a filmed record like this is made for posterity (or as part of the revenue deal) , it is ordinarily never released for public consumption until long after the stage show has closed. Right?

Not for experimental venue-bending purposes, and not to get an Oscar nom.

How can you not know this?

How can you pretend not understand the stark difference between a live broadcast event and a movie?

bandar q online

Yea no without question for most in worl you still need a moderately high income at least to afford this overblown conspiracy theory ideology of ” overblown cinema” your argument is flawed cos the cumulative month to month subscriptions mean you pay way more than you would a month in comparison going to movies. At least in australia pay tv, stream tv subscriptions are way overprices for their supposed value . Traditional cinema getting bigger you need only look at quality of critically acclaimed blockbuster movies for that fact

Only reason netflix will make entry into oscar race is if oscar sabotage their own public credibility to point they become desperate runout if ideas how to save their own self inflicted bleeding reputation as reflected by their declining ratings and it NOT because netflix is taking over big screen movies it tpo soom spielberg as always fifhting for what right he knows his history and gift of foresight of qhat hot in future and not as in near future and hence sasha i dont think u or i in position to judge a legendary directors assessment of near future.

Much like no demise of desktop pc when laptop introduced they never be netflix taking over big screen movies therefore oscar should redeem their reputation award films that regain public trust for once and thrn save their own awards season from crrating vacuum that only way risk letting in less worthy digital streaming movie

Hollywood Reporter: Cannes Film Festival has banned Netflix films from competition.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-artistic-director-banning-netflix-competition-why-he-allowed-streaming-movies-last-year-1096800

Spooky, yes. Also a bit suspicious. Expect a visit from the authorities.

Jumanji was robbed of eleven oscars.

Hook it to my veins!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e-l_OFcG2g

Will theatres be a thing of the past and follow the slow demise that malls have been going through?

Theory: More theaters would survive where malls fail if fewer theaters had decided to be in malls.

I was probably one of the few people who liked Cranston’s performance. And I really liked Mark Ruffalo too. DiCaprio as well.

I’m thinking the same thing. The Death of Stalin is looking quite solid as well.

Top 11 worst acting nominees of the decade so far:
1) Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl)
2) Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle)
3) Bryan Cranston (Trumbo)
4) Gary Oldman (Darkest Hour)
5) Meryl Streep (Into the Woods)
6) Leonardo DiCaprio (The Revenant) (that was not a great year for best actor)
7) Andrew Garfield (Hacksaw Ridge)
8) Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight)
9) Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers Club)
10) Robert Duvall (The Judge)
11) Alan Arkin (Argo)

And the beautiful part of that was, I got to see those films in a theater. They were unforgettable that way; I’ve seen Le Doulos countless times on a TV screen because I have to; seeing them in the theater, nothing else compared. I will never forget those theatrical screenings.

Sound truly stupendous. I mean that with all sincerity.

You’re by no means a villain for wanting to enjoy your privilege. You’re just a bit self-centered when you fail to understand that millions, billions of people will never be as lucky as you are.

Millions of passionate movie lovers will never in their lifetime be able to see those movies the way you were able to see them.

That’s not the fault of Netflix. It’s the fault of every goddamn multiplex owner on planet earth who could show movies like that if they wanted to. But they choose to show massive amounts of mediocre shit instead.

Yeah, blame Netflix.

Netflix has been in the business of making movies for about 5 years.

But go ahead and blame Netflix for the fact that Touch of Evil has been seen in a glorious first-class movie palace roughly a dozen times in the past 55 fucking years.

~~
You probably know, though you pretend not to: There are screens smaller than the Egyptian but 100x bigger than iPhones.

Millions and millions of people have those dazzling screens. (Because a 65-inch 4K UltraHD is less expensive than an iPhone.) You should get you one. They’re quite nice.

On March 24th, you could’ve have watched any one of 5,000 classics from the 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s on your 65-inch Sony or Samsung.

(On March 24th the Egyptian was showing Smokey and the Bandit.)

Hear hear. I’m a very enthusiastic film lover, but there’s a limit to how many “awards-friendly” films I’m able to watch in theatres, because: a) I don’t live in America & we don’t get everything, b) movies are expensive, c) everything awards-worthy gets released in one mad rush after the Oscars d) I have kids. For any non-tentpole films to reach me in theatres, it needs to win awards / be British / star someone famous & there’s usually a 6 – 9 month waiting period, which is maddening if you’re following the buzz, backlash & anti-backlash online.

But Mudbound & Annihilation? I watched those same time as the rest of you. Both would have been great in cinemas, but then I may not have seen them.

Films I’m very glad I managed to see in cinemas over the past 12 months: 1) Blade Runner 2049 2) Black Panther 3) Phantom Thread 4) Shape of Water (I suppose I’ll include Darkest Hour and Dunkirk as well). But for most of those I had to arrange babysitters / go alone. I’m literally waiting for Lady Bird to come on VOD so I can watch it with my wife, cause I didn’t feel like seeing it alone & we didn’t manage to see it together during the clusterfuck of Awards-movies released in the post-Oscars season. There are many films I’d rather enjoy in the comfort of my home, at my own time & pace – & I don’t think of them as “lesser” cinema, or less worthy of awards recognition.

It also hugely depends on the quality of cinemas you have access to – I watched Benjamin Button at my local arthouse cinema (it didn’t get a traditional cinema release here) & it was awful – terrible sound & no AC. I hate the film, but probably more cause it was a dreadful experience. (to be fair, this was a rare bad experience – my local arthouse cinema has given me about 500 great cinema experiences & 1 or 2 bad ones – but the point is not all cinemas are created equal.)

Oh I see. This was entrapment.

Wrong answer, Ryan. You came up with a good performance.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6c8e92d44b223592e8aab3ff9cfae26580a5b73bf55903f42505744cf13c1406.gif

I’m conflicted when it comes to Netflix And other streaming services.

I’d be okay with everything if only Netflix would do what Amazon does when it releases films. They should release them in theaters THEN make them available on their platform. Amazon does that from what I read but Netflix doesn’t like when Beasts of No Nation was released Which was released in both theaters AND online at the same time/day.
If they want to be part of the film industry they should follow the traditional movie release process and support movie theaters.

This is assuming we want to continue having movie theaters around. We have to support these venues or get rid of them and move onto entirely streaming films. Will theatres be a thing of the past and follow the slow demise that malls have been going through? Is streaming the future? I’m interested to hear what others think in regard to movie theaters vs streaming.

In the end, all I’m saying is, “Play by the rules, Netflix!”

The three movies you cite were all Independent productions that had nothing to do with Netflix at the production phase. They were simply distributors.
Netflix’ actual feature productions haven’t attained that level

Exactly. It is actually Netflix themselves who are denigrating the value of home viewed productions by chasing Oscars rather than Emmys. Why is NETFLIX embarrassed by what they do?

Rules are Rules. Why is Netflix so apparently ashamed of winning Emmys rather than Oscars? It’s Netflix THEMSELVES who are putting down the value of home viewed entertainment — not the Academy, Spielberg or Cannes. Own it. You make movies to be be streamed at home. There have been TV movies made for decades upon decades. Be proud of what you make, not try and do a runaround. Amazon did very well with MANCHESTER BY THE SEA. Made millions at the Box Office. Nominated for and won high profile Oscars, and, I am certain, did great on streaming. Win-Win-Win.

It shall be an interesting test case with Scorsese’s movie that could total $200M all costs in. Will they do a MUDBOUND or BEAST OF NO NATION type of uber limited release for something that expensive (not to mention Scorsese’s ego)?

I don’t really see the point anyway. People should be careful every day not to waste resources. Maybe turning off the lights for one hour can help us understand we don’t need to have that many lights on.

Interesting conundrum

I’d say it’s subjective to each country, both in format and in release year. In the past, the Academy would define films as eligible according to when they made their week-long, LA County, Oscar-qualifying run. That’s how situations like Charlie Chaplin’s 1952 film Limelight competed for the 65th Oscars (honoring 1972 films) and won Best Original Score.

Nowadays, the Academy has limited eligibility thusly: Each film can only make one week-long, LA County, Oscar-qualifying run.
…..
— One, you can have the week-long, LA County, Oscar-qualifying theatrical run for your film at once and boom, your film can compete for the Oscars ceremony that takes place towards the start of the next calendar year. For example, you make your film, show it in an LA County theater, three times a day (with one screening between 6-10pm), starting on January 2 and ending on January 8 of 2019 and you compete for the Oscars ceremony in Feb/Mar of 2020. Simple.

— Or two, whether outside the US or inside the US but outside LA County, you show your film either as a theatrical preview or at a festival, which would declare the work as a film. You then have until New Year’s Eve of the following calendar year to do the week-long, LA County, Oscar-qualifying theatrical run. For example, you can premiere at Sundance or anywhere outside of LA County in early 2019, but wait until Dec. 2020 to do the LA County run and you’d be eligible for the Oscars ceremony in Feb/Mar of 2021.

=====
Once your film passes that window of up to two contained calendar years (including the one in which it premiered), it can no longer compete for the Oscars.

As a film critic who lives in the US, I go by Oscar eligibility when classifying release years. If the film doesn’t get submitted for Oscar consideration, then I go by when it makes its non-festival theatrical release.

I agree that the Oscars should only award single-part works that run longer than 40 min. (along with the three short categories), but I disagree with Mr. Spielberg on his stance about the eligibility rules. The Academy has set up some pretty simple rules to follow to become eligible for the Oscars. Wherever the contending works are exhibited after making their week-long, Oscar-qualifying theatrical runs is totally their prerogative. However, I’d tighten it by forcing Netflix-bound releases to avoid Netflix entirely until after the works have started their week-long, Oscar-qualifying theatrical run, just like as the current rule states for everyone else.

The difference between Netflix and a cinema to me is the difference between going to a concert and listening to a live album. The final product is exactly the same but the experience changes everything. I love listening to The Who’s Live at Isle of Wright but when I went to see Justice live this year I blew the hearing out in my ear, I was that close to the stage.

Spielberg is wrong about Oscar consideration and calling them TV movies is belittling. That said, while a losing battle it may be, I think maintaining a distinction between theatrical and VOD forces preservation. Cinemas will die out; watching movies from your laptop is way more convenient than being gouged by theatre concession and parking prices. Cannes and the Oscars should do what they can to keep theatricality alive though, even if it means removing the road to prestige for Netflix. Neither institution has a history of rewarding popular cinema anyway while Netflix are already running full-force into becoming the new populist film studio, they’re naturally apart as it is.

What would that do? As Cannes has proved, Netflix isn’t probably going to change their ways of distributing films just to be accepted by awards ceremonies or film festivals. Instead you’re throwing away some perfectly good movies that could have been considered by the Oscars and that would be better choices than most of the best picture nominees. What might happen is that Netflix might stop buying these few incredible films that they’d otherwise picked up for distribution. Of course that would be something for the other distributors to be happy about if they were actually interested in buying these movies. But since that is often not the case at least at the level the filmmakers need them to be, that would just mean that those films would not get distribution. Netflix would continue making a lot of horrible movies, they might even put the money they had for their “respectable” films to that garbage as well and make just as much money as they do now. Nothing would change, except that no one would be seeing Mudbound or Okja or Beasts of No Nation, not on the big screen or on the small screen.

That is precisely On Topic, Christophe.

I’m about ready to clock out of this particular panel discussion. Before I get further crucified.

Thanks for reminding us that we’re here to love movies. Not hate the people who bring us movies.

I went to see ‘Mary and the Witch’s Flower’ (Yonebayashi, 2017) with the 5-yo nephew this afternoon at the local movie theater. It’s never too early to make a cinephile and give them the taste and habit of going to the movies and the understanding that cinéma truly belongs there.

The kid loved the film though it was a bit long and scary for his age but well… Despite a few qualms about the story, I found it absolutely gorgeous, especially the inspired production design of those quaint British houses: a wonderful example of succesful cultural appropriation by talented Japanese filmmakers!

Yeah, the confusion is killing me. I’m especially confused when I hear cinephiles rejoicing that movie theaters may become blockbuster-only and big-hearted liberals advocating the “adapt or die” mentality so dear to Ayn Rand and her followers.

OT: 8:30PM – Lights Off!!! #EarthHour

“Let’s be honest, pretty much most of the Netflix movies are terrible”

Paramount is maybe my favorite studio — historically speaking.

They distribute 10 or 12 films a year. Over 90% of them are terrible.

They score brilliantly with roughly one single solitary movie every year that is great.

(mother!, Arrival, Selma. Fantastic. 3 movies in 3 years… along with 36 other Paramount movies in 3 years that I would not pay a nickel to see on any size screen. )

Speaking of Paramount. Annihilation is not a Netflix movie. It’s a Paramount production. Netflix had nothing whatsoever to do with annihilation in production or theatrical distribution in America.

This grand studio guardian of cinema, Paramount?

Paramount looked at Annihilation, hated the ending, tried to force Garland to change it so it wasn’t so bleak. Garland refused.

So Paramount says, “Eh, this movie is too intellectual for us to mess with worldwide. Too brainy for the UK and France. Anyone want to take this dark masterpiece off our hands? We made it but we hate it. Any takers? ”

So Netflix stepped up to rescue it and Netflix is the only reason that anyone anywhere in Europe got to see Annihilation this month.

So go ahead and blame Netflix. Blame Netflix for making it possible for millions of people to see Annihilation, a movie that Paramount was mad about and was ready to bury.

Name for me any of the 5 major studios that don’t make a dozen groaners for every 1 great movie where the elusive magic happens.

You seem to not fully understand the Netflix catalogue. They rarely finance a movie from the ground up. But they do buy distrib rights to a lot of already-completed movies that none of the “majors” want.

Netflix helps 100s of filmmakers get back their investment on movies that have already been made but can’t find a studio to distribute.

Sorry that bugs you.

Most movies are duds, no matter who owns the distrib rights. The vast vast majority are duds.

8000 movies get made every year on this planet. Only 300 of those ever bubble up into our conversation, and each year only about 30 of those are movies of extraordinary lasting value.

Every year since 1915 it’s been this way.

btw, I never have trouble finding what I want on Netflix. I guess I don’t need to be spoon fed.

I browse, I search, I find. It’s not hard.

We’re in total agreement and the truth is I didn’t really address the core of the debate about big screen premiering versus small screen roll-out. You’re absolutely right in stressing that we need to resolve that contradiction. I don’t have a coherent opinion, which is why I didn’t attempt one. Your excellent laying out of the issues remains sound. I’m guessing — I truly don’t know — that Spielberg is worried that movies will be shot differently if their ultimate, revenue-driving, destination is the small screen. I think that suspicion (cynicism?), warranted or not, may need to be teased apart from the question of which awards a movie may deserve to be eligible for. I need to think further about all of this. Thanks very much for your response.

I can’t yet muster even “somewhat airtight logic” in defending movies on the big screen. Just a short list of baggy thoughts — no, make that prejudices and half-baked assumptions:

1. Television goes for jolts. It’s not a visual exploration of character, it’s a visceral one, with blunt cuts and rigorously facial acting to drive home its points. Most actors I’ve talked to say that television acting largely takes place in the small area from the upper lip up to the forehead, obviously concentrating on the eyes. Even the mouth tends to matter more for clear vocal enunciation than it does for the expression of character.

2. One of the reasons I was so furious about the “Crash” Best Picture win was, well, just take a look at it. It’s such TELEVISION. Haggis doesn’t know any other way to compose shots and move the camera — narrow and tight — and his DP wasn’t steeped in movie narrative. That’s why David Denby’s rave review of “Crash” in The New Yorker stunned me. Denby overlooked the visual small screen narrowness of Haggis’ work. (Compare it to the visionary grace and scale Ang Lee and Roderigo Prieto brought to “Brokeback”.) Denby was widely read in the industry at the time, and I continue to suspect that his extraordinary review just may have pushed “Crash” over the line to win Best Picture.

3. Lately on my computer I watched “Pygmalion” with Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller. They were both terrific and put Shaw’s wit over with polish and (seeming) ease. But you could tell that some of the handsome black and white compositions and the cutting would work more effectively on a big screen, where you would also be able to watch these two beautifully trained actors MOVE across a screen. It’s all a bit pinched and foreshortened on a small screen.

4. Take the opposite experience: I recently re-watched “Intolerance” on a large screen at Film Forum in NYC. Packed house. Standing ovation at the end. Griffith’s technique astonishes, and even when his actors seem almost Victorian in their stateliness, he directs them so that the characters’ pathos shines through both in their faces and in the elasticity of their bodies. They’re expressing modern emotions. As for spectacle, he prefigures “Ben Hur” and most large scale movie epics one has seen. Can you imagine watching “Intolerance” on TELEVISION? And preferring it there?

5. Seeing movies on a big screen exposes a viewer not just to the story but how a movie is made, the rhythm of the shots, the expansiveness one moment, the radical close ups the next. Most contributors here are more aware of these techniques than the average moviegoer. But the average moviegoer is affected by, and soaks up, movies’ fluency and scale in ways they probably can’t name, but work on them nonetheless. Very few hours of television have transported me into a medium the way a movie on a big screen can. True, I’ve seen great television. But it’s been great mostly due to character development, not to the fluidity and force of the medium.

In my personal opinion release dates are such a wildly varying system that it is the most simple option to agree upon one country’s release dates.

But the idea that one movie is Oscar eligible and another is Emmy eligible means that there is a difference in the films. Us agreeing on the US release dates being what defines a year doesn’t change what the film is but instead when the film happens to come out. There is no value system in terms of when a movie comes out but people look down on Emmy eligible movies. Defining Annihilation as a movie and Behind the Candelabra as a TV movie means that Annihilation is more worthy of being considered a movie or a theatrical release than Behind the Candelabra even though according to IMDB, Behind the Candelabra played in theatres in thrice as many countries as Annihilation

Lol! I dreamt of Armie Hammer. He was teaching a class I was attending. I spent the whole time trying to take a good picture of him. When he finally looked straight into the camera I was mortified at how rude I was to take his picture without his permission. So I woke up in shame.

Despite the abrupt ending it was pretty nice to see Armie again.

Spielberg makes a decent enough argument for people who want to make movies that cater to 4000 of the most stubborn AMPAS members.

Probably the reason Scorsese doesn’t worry about any of this silliness is because he wants to make movies that cater to 500 million other people.

Funny thing is, Spielberg’s next theatrical movie is not a bit more likely to get nominated for Oscars than Scorsese’s Netflix movie. They’re both equally eligible. They’ll both be nominated on the basis of the movies they make — not on the basis of who financed and distributed their movie.

Main difference between these two directors right now?

Marty is busy making a movie spending $140 million Netflix dollars to lather onto his vision.

And Spielberg is busy licking his wounds after making a theatrical-release movie that many of the AMPAS members he tried to target say put them to sleep.

“a handful of solid indies they acquired at festivals, almost any one of which would have been just as well served having been picked up by a traditional distributor”

I guess all the traditional distributors overslept or called in sick the day those indies were ready to make a better deal.

Right. Meanwhile Disney makes all its money creating cinematic masterpieces.

I forgot about that.

Now you’re trying to scare me.

Netflix made most of that money by selling TV and movies licensed from studios. They’re good at that. But when it comes to original movies they pretty clearly have work to do. At the moment they’re more analogous to a TV Network, a huge sprawling TV network than they are to a movie studio.

Guys. This is not a debate.

We can all have our opinions and I totally 100% respect everyone’s right to feel any way that anyone wants to feel about Netflix. But there’s no debate because the matter of Netflix vis a vis the Oscars has already been decided.

Netflix movies are eligible for the Oscars. Netflix movies get nominated for Oscars and win Oscars.

Netflix has already won an Oscar (The White Helmets). Netflix is already being nominated for big-time revolutionizing ground-breaking Oscars. (Mudbound)

The fight against Netflix being invited to Oscars is over, because Netflix won the fight already.

Hate that if it makes you feel good to hate it. Love it if you enjoy loving it.

Let’s not fuss about something that is already happening and beyond anyone’s control to change, delay, or accelerate.

Let’s let Scorsese soak up $140 million that Netflix is lavishing on him.

Let’s let Spielberg make his BFGs and his Ready Player Ones and pine for the days when he made his Minority Reports and his Empires of the Suns.

Let’s just all go watch Doctor Foster a BBC drama now on Netflix — Sasha told me about this yesterday and I’m addicted to it already after just 2 hours. (It’s so far only 10 episodes so I will need to try to revel in its pleasures slowly, like tantric sex.)

And maybe let’s try to be happy that Netflix delivers to our homes 1000s and 1000s of fantastic cinematic treasures — epic and intimate, new and old, big and small — all instantaneously available for millions and millions of fantastic people like us to see.

Yeah but there are plenty of movies that were meant to be released theatrically that never got a distribution deal and came out direct to video or on cable. So what are those? Cinema or TV?

We have to look at this pragmatically. Making the Academy rules about theatrical distribution more strict would encourage Netflix to give its movies larger theatrical releases, thus providing more people with a chance to see movies like Mudbound in theaters while still allowing anyone who just wants to watch them on Netflix ever opportunity to do so once the theatrical window ends. Making the Academy rules looser only encourages Netflix to give them even less of a theatrical release and takes the option of seeing these movies in theaters away from more people all just to benefit a handful of movies that chose to sell to Netfilx instead of a distributor.

I’m not seeing a contradiction between the two. In 2013 he predicted that smaller films would be relegated to the small screen but that doesn’t mean that’s a future he actually wanted to see. I for one predict global warming will turn the world into a desolate wasteland and I might just be right, that doesn’t mean I don’t want greenhouse emissions lowered just because that’s “the future” and it’s “inevitable.”

You couldn’t HANDLE Canadian Netflix Ryan! It’s so f-ing shitty. 🙂

Very intellectual discussion. Now I think we should also watch TV series in theaters to really enjoy them fully or maybe I should just see an ophtalmologist. Time to go to bed. Big day tomorrow. Will probably have nightmares about all the edits I could/should have done.

I wish all the Academy voters had been forced to watch The Blind Side in IMAX at maximum volume.

All I know is for ages everyone agreed that films released in theaters were eligible for Oscars and films released on TV/home entertainment were eligible for Emmys. I do think that many mini-series such as BBC’s 1995 ‘Pride and Prejudice’ or the 2003 Russia-1 adaptation of Dostoevsky’s ‘The Idiot’ are much better than most cinema films or even better than many Oscar nominees but I really don’t see the point of advocating for them at the Oscars or complaining that they should be considered as cinema films because they were made for TV and released on TV.

All of a sudden things are blurred because Netflix releases some of its films simultaneously on the internet and in a few theaters so as to be eligible for Oscars. The situation is different in France where the definition of what constitutes a film of cinema (oeuvre cinématographique) is actually written into law which clearly stipulates that a film of cinema must be released exclusively in theaters for a certain length of time before it can be sold or rented for home entertainment and it must even wait a couple years before hitting subscription-based streaming platforms such as Netflix.

The Cannes Film Festival has no theatrical release requirement so as to allow films that may not have a distributor yet to participate and gain some publicity, but it cannot accept films whose distributors have made it clear they have no intention to show the film in theaters.

Update: I do think Jennifer Ehle’s performance in BBC’s ‘Pride and Prejudice’ and Evgenyi Mironov’s performance in Russia-1’s ‘The Idiot’ were oscar-worthy and I want to see them on a massive screen now.

So now I’m confused about my own feelings, are you proud of yourself?

Only if I can bitch about Netflix.

Ok thx! I love Cherry’s humor obvs., but I want to make sure I’m not missing a cultural reference.

It’s the NY/LA requirement that allows these people to be metropolitan snobs. So they engineer everything to make that the standard so they can continue to be “better” than us. It’s the Academy’s rule. They can change it anytime they want. How many times have they changed the Best Song rule? That’s the whole point of this article. The looking down upon others’ art from someone who should know better as the creator of the first blockbuster, JAWS. He was once a man of the people. Now he thinks stuff like MUDBOUND is a “TV movie”. Well in my opinion his historical movies are so far from epic they might as well be flip books.

p.s. After reading this article, I was thinking about how the best theater experience I ever had was watching the reissue of Star Wars at the Zeigfeld Theater. None of them cared to save that piece of history did they? How many held of their premieres there and could have afforded to buy it 1000 times over? They’re full of it, Ferdinand. They just like complaining when they can actually do something about it.

Makes a lot of sense too. I don’t think a movie director supporting the cinema itself is wrong

Adopt me, daddy?

The notion of what is killing cinema is incredibly subjective but two things seem to apply to everyone: everyone seems to think that cinema is in danger of dying for some reason and everyone seems to be participating in something that some people think is killing cinema. Even the Cannes film festival isn’t as clean as one might think as for example the festival is no longer showing film copies of even the classics that were originally projected on film in theatres

Don’t forget Universal Healthcare.

That’s higher on my list of worries than worrying about what eligibility rule that the Oscars and Emmys want to establish for themselves.

The rules are simple. You don’t have to worry about it.

Let the Oscars decide what is eligible. Then watch and enjoy any movie you want on any platform where it’s most fun and easiest for you to watch it.

There is already consistency and simplicity to the rule: Screen your movie in an LA theater for one week without showing it on TV first.

Abide by those 16 words and your movie is eligible. Voila! Your movie is Oscar eligible.

How is that difficult to grasp?

Q: If someone filmed a performance of Hamilton, should that qualify for an Oscar?
A: No. (Unless this uncinematic oddity you describe were to screen in LA for one week, in which case: Yes. Reason this never happens: Broadway won’t allow it.)

Q: Should documentaries compete for the top prize?
A: Yes. They already can. As long as they meet the eligibility rules. Fahrenheit 9/11 won the Cannes’ Palme d’Or. Nobody whined like a baby about it.

Q: Can Netflix movies be permitted to compete for both Oscars and Emmys?
A: No. Distributors must choose one path. That’s that.

Q: Can a 2 hour television pilot be permitted to submit to the Academy?
A: No. Not if it airs on TV first. But if it never airs on television and is screened in LA for one week, then yes, it is eligible.

(Parallel Example: One of the greatest monuments in world cinema, Fanny and Alexander, was made for TV, conceived by Bergman as a 6-hour miniseries. But it never aired on Swedish TV in that form until 2007. So Bergman gutted it (pretty much his own words) and slashed it down to 3 hours. It screened in theaters. It won 4 Oscars.

Repeat: Fanny and Alexander was made for TV — but since it wasn’t broadcast it was eligible for the Oscars, was nominated for 6 Oscars and won 4. Did I mention that it was made for TV?)

See how easy it is to “delineate”?

I’m here to answer all your delineation questions.

But anyone can answer these questions. All you have to do is use common sense and read the effing rules.

The very least that NF can do is release it theatrical for one week.

They do that already. That’s how Mudbound was eligible and that’s how Mudbound got 4 Oscar nominations: By following the Academy rules.

Hard to understand how so many get pissed when a distributor follows the rules set by the Oscars themselves.

That’s what rules are for. To establish standards.

Spielberg (and anyone else) can bitch and whine all they want. But Netflix fulfills those requirements.

Sally. Nobody who lives in small towns gets to see all the movies that are shown in LA.

There are thousands of readers on this site who never got a chance to see Room, or Manchester by the Sea, or Her in a theater — even if they wanted to drive 100 miles to try to find them.

Non-mainstream movies are never shown at most crappy multiplex in small town America because the idiot owners of those multiplexes refuse to screen less profitable movies — because they want Transformers 4 on six screens.

Millions of people across America never had a chance to Call Me By Your Name in their towns because theater owners would rather show some nonsense cheap-ass junk religious film instead of a movie about gay romance.

Just because not everyone lives in large cities and can’t see a lot of great movies on a big screen, does not mean that movies that never play in everyone’s hometown should not be eligible for the Oscars.

Exactly. And my opinion is that for example Black Mirror “episodes” (from what I’ve read, I haven’t seen any of them) are movies since they are individual narratives each meant to be experienced on their own. To me there’s not that much difference between that and the Cloverfield idea of smart genre storytellers getting a platform to get more people to see their movies and have larger budgets than they otherwise would

In French, the word cinéma actually means movie theater in addition to designating the art form of motion pictures. That’s why the two concepts are so interwoven in our silly French heads: the art form and the place where said art form is best enjoyed.

In fact, now that I think about it, it’s the same in the US, where people go to “the movies” implying that the movie theater is the place where movies belong.

I’ve never quite understood this “movies that aren’t released in theatres shouldn’t be eligible for the Oscars or are TV movies” argument. If we have these two awards, the Oscars and the Emmys, in my opinion they should award art that is at its heart and at its pure structure completely different. If there is a difference between Emmy eligible narratives and Oscar eligible narratives, the difference needs to be within the products themselves and that difference needs to be seen by a person no matter whether this person happens to see this work in a theatre or on a TV screen.

That divide should in my opinion between the way these stories pace their narratives and the way they are made. A movie has been made by a singular crew from a singular script, telling a singular story in a singular whole, without cutting the story to smaller parts that are meant to work as their own mini-stories within the larger story. This basic nature leads to a director-driven product where the storytelling is paced in a certain way. Series instead are formed out of smaller parts that usually are meaningful in and of themselves, having a beginning, a middle and an end or some thematic whole that paces the story within the episode. The crew, the writer and the director might easily change and the showrunner is usually the visionary in control of the whole.

To me this kind of divide is the only reasonable way of dividing Oscar and Emmy eligible products. If we start defining them by things like theatrical distribution, they become automatically political phrases, trying to push through a certain agenda of how things should be and how art should be experienced instead of what a piece of filmmaking is in its structure. I do personally believe that the movie theatre experience is invaluable but to me the notion that we should define what a movie is and thus what should be Oscar eligible based on these opinions is wrong and has nothing to do with what a movie is.

The notion of movies that have only been released in theatres being allowed to be Oscar eligible also loses all of its meaning once the season is over because 99% of people who see the movie after the season is over are going to see the movie on the small screen. If Netflix movies shouldn’t be Oscar eligible because people see them on the small screen, are people who see the movies after the season not worthy of discussing these movies because they didn’t see them on the big screen? If you haven’t seen Citizen Kane on the big screen, should you consider it to be a TV movie in your personal rankings?

And if we define Oscar eligible work as something that plays in theatres for a certain amount of time before premiering on streaming/Blu-ray, then we could theoretically start having several very odd products being Oscar eligible. For example as a thought experiment would you say that a season of a series that premieres a new episode every week in theatres and premieres on DVD only three months after the final episode has premiered in theatres should be Oscar eligible? That is something that respects the theatrical experience as much as a movie and if that is the only element that should define Oscar eligibility, then that would automatically make it Oscar eligible. And if there are other elements that define a series as something different than a movie, why do we need to use the theatrical experience as a definition for something being a movie when there are more meaningful ways of defining the same thing.

Also, what is the obsession with where something plays first? If a movie were to premiere on Netflix and then in theatres three months later but would be seen by more people in theatres, wouldn’t that also be saving the theatrical experience the way the “an Oscar eligible product should premiere in theatres” people want a movie to do? So the idea of a work premiering in theatres to be considered doesn’t really work. And since with several works that everyone describes as movies more people see the movie in other places than the theatre anyway, we can’t define that by the “majority seeing the product in a theatre” element alone either. So wouldn’t at that point the only thing of importance become that the product plays at a theatre somewhere and someone sees the product there? And I don’t think that is the point of the idea of having theatrical experience as part of the definition of Oscar eligibility as for example Twin Peaks: The Return, which I don’t think these people would define as a movie (even though it is), would be Oscar eligible by the definition of an eligible work having to play in theatres due to its MoMA screenings.

So until someone can explain to me why the theatrical experience needs to be part of the definition of what a movie is and can make an at least somewhat airtight logic for what counts as a film that supports the theatrical experience, I will not consider Netflix movies to be anything but movies

Then award shows will have to coalesce since there will be virtually no distinction between a movie, a tv show and a video game for that matter. At that point, just make a giant award for best recorded entertainment.

However until the movie theater goes the way of the dodo, and with the box office of something like Black Panther that’s not happening yet, then Oscar movies should be in a cinema.

Again as I said, why can’t Netflix just do all three(theatrical, home video, stream)? Everyone is happy then. Simple solution.

Plus the Andy Serkis example is just a poor analogy. As anyone who has seen the raw footage can attest, he is clearly acting as much as Gary Oldman was under a bunch of prosthetics. Simply a different form of make-up.

Well, to be fair you can just subscribe for a month and watch the films you’re interested in, it will still be less expensive than watching them in theaters, though I do prefer to see films in theaters when possible and feel like I’m bankrolling the industry. Most streaming services also offer a free trial for the very first month of subscription.

What I do is I try a new streaming service every month: I make a list of the available films and series I want to watch and I even calculate the moment at which the subscription saves me money compared to how much it would cost to rent a single film online. Usually it takes only 3 films to make the subscription profitable.

I always arrive 15 minutes after the film starts to avoid the ads and trailers. This is why film festivals are the best, no ads, no trailers, just movies.

With new technology the virtual reality headset experience for watching a movie will be superior and more immersive than cramped spaces with loud people on their phones, over-priced food and endless ads shoved down our throat. Movie theaters can’t die soon enough for me. They will still be around as retro throwbacks like bowling alleys.

I agree with Sasha on this. The future of movie watching with the advent of augmented reality will mean the best experience for film will be in our own home using a device that immerses us in the experience on our own timeline with our own snacks minus all the forced fed ads. Going to a movie theatre will be a quaint retro thing like bowling. The industry will make more money off people like me who will buy movies (cough A Wrinkle in Time cough) BEFORE the reviews come out. I wait for them to stream or on disk now so often know what to avoid. Tell me I can watch on opening day from home? Rack up the credit card miles.

Yup!!

Twin Peaks: The Return is a movie. The best film of 2017.

!!! NETFLIX BANNED FROM CANNES COMPETITION !!!

Thierry Frémeaux, head of the Cannes Film Festival, made the announcement today:

“Last year, when we selected these two films [‘Okja’ and ‘The Meyerowitz Stories’], I thought I could convince Netflix to release them in cinemas. I was presumptuous, they refused.”

“The Netflix people loved the red carpet and would like to be present with other films. But they understand that the intransigence of their own model is now the opposite of ours.”

“The history of cinema and the history of the internet are two different things.”

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-artistic-director-banning-netflix-competition-why-he-allowed-streaming-movies-last-year-1096800

It was high time the industry started reacting. Notwithstanding the quality of the films, they just can’t reward Netflix for doing away with cinémas, which have been the main source of revenue for filmmakers for so long.

Beasts of No Nation, I dont feel at home in this world anymore, Mudbound. That list will keep growing and eventually be hard to ignore.

Thank you for writing philosophical articles like this. This is an important issue for me because I absolutely love my cinema experience and only tolerate television when its the only option remaining.

I think the first underlying question is this: should films be allowed to compete for both an Oscar AND an Emmy? Once that question is addressed, most other questions will fall into place. If yes, any further discussion is mute. If no, there will simply have to be a dividing line placed somewhere – cinema screen release (theatre) vs personal screen release (television/internet) being the most obvious partition – which is what I think Spielberg might have been trying to say. However, that raises a further underlying question that’s at the heart of the matter: which of these options will strengthen or dilute each academy? They each care about their ‘brand’ more than anything else. My opinion is that a ‘yes’ answer (that films should be allowed to compete for both an Oscar AND Emmy) will dilute AMPAS and strengthen the Television Academy by giving it more clout. The Emmys are huge, but still little compared to the Oscars. I don’t think the Television Academy will want to join with AMPAS to create joint rules about which films can be nominated within each of their academies. AMPAS is will most likely create their own rules and make their own dividing line to separate themselves from the Television Academy.

The internet has obviously blurred the line between traditional cinema and television. What ARE major films when they’re released on the small screen? What IS television anymore? What IS television when I was able to go to my cool, local movie theatre, get cooked food that was prepared in their theatre kitchen, along with a beer – and watch “Twin Peaks: The Return” every Sunday eve on the big screen with big sound? And yes, they also play things like tons of second-run movies, Game of Thrones, sports events, film festivals, and this weekend they’re showing 60 Minutes with Stormy Daniels talking about her affair with Donald Trump. So what are they: a movie theatre or a tv cinema? Talk about blurring the lines. They have one guideline: you should talk with someone you don’t know about what you’re seeing. As blockbusters become more dominant at theatres, this theatre’s success has proven what smaller theatres can do to transform themselves. They’re like a community event space with two giant screens for movietvstream.

I get so disappointed when I hear Lucas and Spielberg talk about tentpole movies being the only ones in our future cinemas. Like they’re WILLING it to happen. And I love the films they each make (uhhh, most of them). Someone needs to sit them down and make them watch “Cinema Paradiso” ten times over.

Dammit, I want my movies in the cinema, where they belong! I’ve seen every Oscar nominee since 2005 and most of them for many years before that. Yes, I mean ALL of the 50-60ish nominees every single year (no judgements, it’s just something I do). In 2017, I saw 41 of the 59 nominees in a theatre and only 18 via streaming. Previous years are about the same average. I obviously see a lot of films. WHY do I prefer the cinema over television? Big screen; big sound. I want to give a couple hours and be transported into characters and the story. I want to feel and experience. I want immersion. I can’t get any of that at home with my 50″ screen. To this day, my favorite day in the cinema was sitting through “Apocalypse Now” three times straight – the first normally, the second with my ears plugged (just watching), the third with my eyes closed (just listening). I’d never even bother at home with my TV.

At least there are some short ‘qualifying’ releases. I’m lucky enough to live in an area where I had the privilege of watching “Beasts of No Nation” on the big screen with big sound – even though it only played for a week for a handful of people. I wish everyone could have seen just how riveting and mesmerizing that film was outside of a netflix-sized home screen. My personal pick was Idris Elba for best supporting actor – but he didn’t even have a chance for getting enough votes having mostly been seen on the small screen.

So what to do? This new world order of major movies going straight to streaming and traditional television being broadcast in the cinema? Oh yeah … and what about those theatre plays from Broadway and London being broadcast in hundreds of cinemas by Fathom Events? Should those productions qualify for the Oscars because they’re only released to theatres and not available for streaming on your personal screen?

Aww to hell with it. AMPAS and the Television Academy should just merge already. And the Tonys too.

Spielberg and Lucas. Whatever they say carries so much power because of who they are. Since I see so many movies, I think I carry just a wee, small bit of clout. Probably mistakenly, but I think I do. I would hope Lucas and Spielberg correct themselves and say that blockbusters and tentpoles will likely play in the major theatres as events AND ALSO that they’ll help smaller theatres nationwide to transform themselves into community event spaces with big (or medium-sized) screens and great sound for all the other films that shouldn’t get squeezed onto streaming services only. They have the power to make it happen. If they don’t do it for people like me (I’m not delusional, I know they won’t), at least do it for Toto, the little boy in “Cinema Paradiso” … who simply marvels at the small, inconsequential, yet magical movies he sees … just like the little boy inside me … and hopefully still inside Lucas and Spielberg.

I’m very young & see about 50 movies in the theatre each year. Dunkirk gave me that thrill that you can only get in a huge loud (IMAX in this case) theatre! Spielberg is genius and understands that theatre effect, as does Nolan. It’s a tricky subject tho bcuz streaming is flourishing more than ever and it could be looked at as a positive as it opens up more opportunities!

But Spielberg is right and it’s rather obvious.