Century 16 by Cinemark at the South Point Hotel Casino
Ethan Miller/Getty Images
In the 24 hours since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced it will be expanding the theatrical release requirements for a film eligible for a Best Picture Oscar starting in 2024, there has been much excitement across much of Hollywood the news.
The conclusion most seem to reach is best summed up by a comment shared with me by one of the many awards strategists who attended the Telluride Film Festival’s West Hollywood celebration on Wednesday night: “It’s like the inclusion standards [which the Academy now requires a film to meet in order to be eligible for best picture] – It gives everyone something to get upset about for a while, but it doesn’t really change anything [because the requirements are so easily met].”
By requiring films to be shown in more markets and for longer periods of time, the Academy appears to be trying to support cinemas and highlight the difference between films made for the big and small screens. As such, the audience that seemed most likely to be impacted by the change appeared to be streamers — including Amazon, Apple, Hulu, and Netflix — who tend to place slightly less emphasis on big-screen exposure than others due to their business model. People who want to consume their movies will have a reason to subscribe to their platforms.
But it seems that virtually every film by a streamer that has ever been a serious contender for Best Picture, and certainly every film by a streamer that has actually been nominated for Best Picture (like Amazon’s Sound of Metal) or won (CODA from Apple) would have met the new requirements. That includes all nine Best Picture nominees from Netflix, the streamer that’s had the most controversial relationship with major cinema chains, only collaborating with them on a week-long release of Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery. In fact, Mank, The Trial of the Chicago 7, Roma, The Irishman, Marriage Story, The Power of the Dog, Don’t Look Up, and All Quiet on the Western Front” all shown in at least 100 independently operated theaters, including screens, in all 10 markets designated by the Academy, as well as others around the world.
A pricing strategist linked to one of the major streamers says: “Yes, [the new requirements] That means we have to do more theaters for more films than we probably would have, but I think it’s good. It will give us an excuse not to seek qualified releases for films that don’t stand a real chance, just for the sake of talent and filmmaker relationships. And it will help us with the films that really have a chance, because we have to make the general consumers aware of these films. We found that if no one is talking about your film in the zeitgeist, it probably won’t reach the voters either. So this will help address that issue.”
The strategist also noted that streamers will likely insist on formal partnerships with independent theater chains like Alamo Drafthouse, which has 39 locations across the country, allowing some films to qualify by showing in just one theater in certain cities .
There was also early speculation that the Academy’s new requirements could hurt arthouse distributors – providers such as A24, Focus, IFC, Neon, Roadside Attractions and Sony Classics – who, some speculated, may not have the financial resources to do so , to release a film so widely . But a top executive at one such organization said that these companies had long since released most of their films in the circulation now prescribed by the Academy, and that, moreover, a more lively cinema environment would greatly benefit all of these companies. More popular movies in more theaters would mean more people going to the cinema more often, he argued. In other words, a rising tide would lift all ships.
“This isn’t going to affect anything except maybe some random beach releasing movie,” quipped another strategist, cheekily referring to one of the really smaller distributors out there.
Another class of films that some feared might be particularly affected by the Academy’s new requirements: non-English language films, which in recent years have been increasingly accepted by Academy members in the Best Picture category — don’t just think to the aforementioned Roma and All Quiet on the Western Front, but also Amour, Parasite (which was the first non-English language film to win this award), Minari and Drive My Car. But once again, it seems that the theatrical releases that each of these films received – along with a host of other non-English language titles that were thought to be on the verge of receiving a Best Picture nomination, such as “Ida” , “Another Round” and “Another Round”. RRR – would have given them the best picture credit under the new terms.
It seems that with the new requirements, only one type of film faces a significantly higher hurdle to earn a Best Picture nomination: documentaries. No documentary has ever been nominated for a top Oscar, but a few — including Hoop Dreams and Fahrenheit 9/11 — may have come close. But only a handful of documents created by someone other than Michael Moore have ever found wide distribution in cinemas, so the likelihood that this glass ceiling will perhaps be broken in the future is even less than in the past.
So what is the bottom line? Will 301 films be eligible for the Best Picture Oscar in early 2025 like in early 2023? That number is likely to shrink somewhat. But for a film that had a real chance of earning a Best Picture nomination in early 2023, wouldn’t it also have a chance in early 2025? That seems doubtful.