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?