On the rise, fall, and general chaos of "Hamilton" as an Oscar contender.
Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 1:00PM by Nathaniel R
Hamilton won 11 Tony Awards in 2016. Now some fans want that same production to win Oscars, too.Have you been following the story on Hamilton as an Oscar contender? It has not been easy to follow! As you all know, the Academy Awards are in chaos this year due to COVID-19. In addition to pushing the ceremony back and changing the calendar of eligibility, they'd previously announced a bending of their "must play in theaters for a week" rules to allow for streaming films that only MEANT to play in theaters. That loophole was meant to close again after the COVID crisis was over but once you've made a loophole that big, it usually grows in size. Now suddenly everything wants to be an Oscar contender. Or at least fans of everything want their favourite thing to be one. It's yet another reminder of the cultural dominance of the Oscars (despite cries of "irrelevant!" each season) that it's considered the "top" award.
The Oscar rule change about streaming eligibility was meant to make up for movie theaters being closed for months on end but it was always going to be problematic. Exactly how will the Academy enforce a "meant to" clause?
-Does that include films that hoped to play in theaters but sold to streaming services at festivals instead?
-Does that include entertainments that planned non-traditional event screenings in theaters and then couldn't even do that?
-Will that include films that had no specific plans, either way, other than to sell to a distributor and then sold to streamers after the shutdown because those were the only venues buying?
Hamilton's rap battles are a joy. Now come the semantic battles over whether or not it's "a movie"
In the past a theatrical release has not been the be all / end all of Oscar eligibility. Special engagements screenings like Fathom Events, for example, which is typically where'd you'd been able to see filmed records of live shows like Hamilton, have not automatically translated to Oscar eligibility so who is to say what kind of theatrical release Disney would have actually mounted for the filmed stage production of Hamilton? Nevertheless the quality of the live-recording was so high that fans and pundits alike pounced and pronounced it "Oscar eligible!".
That may or may not prove to be wishful thinking but it was definitely premature. Within a couple of days Variety had claimed that the "movie" was not in fact eligible, citing an Oscar documentary rule against recorded live events. Vanity Fair, in an article in which we're extensively quoted (plug plug), later countered that that's possibly just the beginning of the story and it might be eligible for some (other) categories.
These statements or arguments often don't take into account that the Academy sometimes rules against their own rulings. Why for instance was the found footage Nazi-rally short A Night at the Garden nominated in 2017 when the filmmaker Marshall Curry only edited the footage someone else shot of a live event back in 1939 and overlayed a score on top of it? That seems like a direct violation of their rules against recorded live events.
At any rate Disney knows that the filmed record of Hamilton is an awards contender (of some kind) and will be submitting it for prizes as they see fit later. Each organization will then have to make a determination. We'd personally be most comfortable with an Emmy play. Live tapings of musical productions (with an audience) have become regular there as we saw with the terrific Jesus Christ Superstar Live.
Hamilton (2020) is very good but it is not a movie.
It is a recording of a theatrical event using cinematic tools. Just because a piece of entertainment calls itself a "movie" does not mean it is one in the spiritual sense. It's not any more a "movie" than The Lion King (2019) was the "live-action film" as it promoted itself to be (considering it was entirely computer-animated). I was called a "gatekeeper" for stating that Hamilton (2020) should not be Oscar eligible on Twitter. Others argued that since it uses cameras, editing, and sound mixing (all traditional cinema tools and require artistic decisions specifically for this format/ event) it is, thus, a "movie" and I was wrong. Full stop.
My counter argument to that is that if cinematic tools and decision-making are all that's necessary to be a "movie" then every live sporting event or concert broadcast on television is, officially then, a movie. They all use sound recording equipment, multiple cameras, and editing choices. As is every music video, tiktok, and television episode. I once attended a season premiere of Mad Men at an invite only screening in Times Square projected onto a big screen. Should it have then been considered a movie, and Oscar eligible? Mad Men is better than the bulk of films released in any given year but it is a television show, however cinematic it often successfully aspired to be. Saying an apple is not an orange even though they're both fruits is not, in our minds, gatekeeping or elitist but merely factual. But we've been surprised that many have vociferously disagreed.
Where do you stand?
Reader Comments (64)
This has been an exciting debate to read. When I mentioned at the beginning that the Academy needs to come up with some more rigid rules for this sort of thing, I was serious.
I think it has to be more than "meant to" or "intent", it needs to be something more solid such as 51% of the creative process has to be specifically designed for this theatrical production. That would disqualify something like Hamilton, but would probably allow in The Magic Flute. So, in essence, how new/different is it from the original?
They use things like this for Adapted Screenplay and International (nee Foreign Language) movies, so I don't see why they couldn't come up with a rule in this case, and they better do it quickly.
PS I am thrilled to see people mention The Magic Flute one of the greatest movies ever, and I don't even like opera!
Nathaniel is correct.
Dave -- thanks for enjoying the debate. I think it's an interesting conversation partially because I was so surprised by how vehemently people felt differently than I. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that nobody would think it was a movie if they hadn't loved it. But since they loved it, they dont care about the standards or definitions. Which is fine but I wish people would admit it.. But perhaps I'm wrong? Maybe some of the people claiming this ias a movie really do think that any theatrical event that's recorded (which is almost all of them on Broadway now -- there are extensive video archives at the performing arts library in NYC) is a movie and if so... well, good on them for consistency's sake!
I really don't mean to be rigid even though that's how it comes across to some.It's just that movies are my favourite artform so I feel protective of them. I LOVE live theater too but i've never felt the need to smoosh them together... though it is interesting when a piece tries to move from one medium to the other to see what changes (for better and worse) are made.
I just remembered, the film version of Stop the World - I Want to Get Off is also a hybrid movie/filmed stage performance. It's pretty obscure now, but it did get an Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Score in 1966.
Here's a meta question: if they screened this filmed version of Hamilton at the Richard Rodgers Theatre, is it still theatrical production?
An interesting conversation, but also kind of annoying because isn't Hamilton so obviously not a movie? There are plenty of Broadway film adaptations that are nominated for Oscars. Hamilton is not that. It is just a filmed recording of the stage play. Not that complicated and I'm not sure why people think it should be nominated for an Oscar, anymore than Springsteen on Broadway shouldn't be, even though that too was an amazing viewing experience.
Like Nat said, it's the same when people put episodes of Twin Peaks on Top 10 movie lists. Or even Beyonce's Lemonade.
I get the idea of not knowing what to do with certain experimental films, or films that have been cut from longer miniseries, but this one is pretty clear and shouldn't cause that much confusion.
It should never have been an Oscar contender as that would only make a mockery of the movies as artform.
Hamilton is overrated and it is not a movie.
I'm with Rama- it doesn't feel or look like a movie. The best part for me was the King and Groff should be nominated for an award. Miranda is very talented writer-composer but he is not a movie star
I just saw a clip of "Stop the World I Want to Get Off" movie and I can see why they filmed it that way- not as an actual movie- it's the sort of theatrical conceit that does not translate well to the screen.
Hamilton is not a movie.
In 1975, the videotaped live-on-stage presentation of Give Em Hell, Harry was released in theaters, and even earned James Whitmore an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. I have been pissed off over this FOR YEARS!
I adore Renee Elise Goldsberry, and would love for her to have an Academy Award nomination...
BUT Hamilton is not not NOT a movie. Mic drop.
After actually reading all comments I can see both sides. Nathaniel’s view is valid, not necessarily correct.
Nathaniel - I can see what those that disagree with you are saying, but the snotty condescending “they’re only saying it because they love it” is a bit shitty. I personally didn’t like it despite it being very well put together, yet can see their side. Don’t be that trifling hoe who assigns personal motivations just to bolster your argument. When you get in defensive mode you are qwhite insufferable.
Lemonade was never intended for theaters. YouTube. Springsteen on Broadway was Netflix. Twin Peaks was on Showtime. Hamilton was intending a THEATRICAL release next year. For Oscar eligibility purposes, it would have qualified as a film. If you want to get into tired semantics over what was intended or originally envisioned in the stage production vs. now, fine. But don't condescend to people who think otherwise. I'm trying to see the other side of the argument that this stage production doesn't reach arbitrary cinematic "standards," but it's difficult to do that when people are being so fucking obnoxious here about being "right" that Hamilton isn't a film and that's THAT! No, it's not that cut and dry.
"This is not a documentary- it's a recording of a stage performance."
Well I don't know if I agree with that. What are documentaries doing in their most basic form but documenting something. STOP MAKING SENSE is a documentary. HOMECOMING is a documentary. What about RAW or I'M THE ONE THAT I WANT?
Personally, I draw the line at something ephemeral. The spirit of a project. Was the spirit of a project to produce a film or just a recording? Hmmm...