Hamilton film awards - Will it happen? Should it?

This issue has cropped up in several different threads, especially the review thread, and it seems like it ought to have a thread of its own so everyone can argue in one place.

Here's the quick summary of the pros and cons of whether it's even a possibility. For the pros, I borrowed from CT2NYC and added one of my own:

PROS:

1. There's precedent, as James Whitmore got a Best Actor nomination for a filmed stage production of Give 'Em Hell, Harry in 1975. Ingrmar Bergman's The Magic Flute was nominated for Best Costume Design the same year, although there was no audience in the theater.

2. The pandemic creates an unusual situation, and streaming films will be eligible even if they never appear in theaters. And who knows? At the rate things are going, theaters may not reopen this year at all.

3. Even with the anti-streaming bias, that hasn't stopped Netflix films from being nominated and, in the case of Roma, winning several awards.

4. Hamilton seems like a natural in the musical-comedy category of the Golden Globes even if it's overlooked at the Oscars.

5. It was intended as a theatrical release and only turned into a Disney+ thing because of COVID-19.

6. Disney will make a big push for it. They've made a big investment, and some of the reason is the prestige of having Hamilton. Awards are the industry's way of conferring prestige.

7. This is one way to avoid "Oscars So White" talk in a year dominated by Black Lives Matter protests, by honoring performers in Hamilton or the film itself.

CONS:

1. It's not really a film, no matter what was intended or how good it is. It's an event, a filmed stage production just like many others. The only difference is the hype, which will die down by the end of the year.

2. Hollywood is struggling too and isn't going to want to deny a "real" movie or its performers to highlight a Broadway show.

3. Hamilton has already won the Tony, the Grammy and the Pulitzer. Isn't that enough? The actors most likely to be considered have won Tonys too.

4. There will be other films with black performers and creators to honor. And if that's a problem, picking Hamilton - a Broadway musical - won't help.

5. The "precedent" argument is weak, given it was decades ago. The show has a great score, but it can't be nominated for that because there's nothing new.

6. It was filmed in 2016 and has been sitting in a vault somewhere.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, especially with half the year to go and plenty of films at least theoretically scheduled to open in the fall or winter. While I've seen suggestions it could be nominated for an Emmy, I don't think that makes sense unless Disney wants to suddenly make an argument that they paid $75 million for a TV special. My only pro-film awards argument is this: Will there really be 10 better films this year than Hamilton, and should none of the performances be acknowledged?

Updated On: 7/5/20 at 04:40 AM

Laura Dern won a 2020 Best Supporting Actress Oscar for the Netflix film A MARRIAGE STORY.

Jessica Lange won a 1995 Best Actress Oscar for BLUE SKY - *a film completed in 1990 and shelved (studio went bankrupt) then released 4 years later.

*The Academy Awards judges on the release date of the film, not the year it was filmed.

When a movie was filmed has nothing to do with whether a movie should be eligible or win Oscars. Boyhood took twelve years to film, and the entirety of the movie was judged. This is a weird year, so anything can happen, but if the stage show was adapted to a movie, then it would have had a much better shot at Oscar wins if the adaption was very good. Maybe down the line, someone will make that movie...I can't imagine someone will not try.

Disney would be stupid not to submit it for consideration at the Academy Awards. It technically meets the updated requirements caused by the pandemic and is critically acclaimed. Whether or not it is actually treated as a film by voters is beyond the point. You miss all the shots you don't take.

Hamilton meets the definition of feature length film for awards purposes that had every intention of being released in movie theaters. Due to Covid-19, the Academy Awards changed eligibility requirement to allow theatrically-aimed films to debut on streaming platforms and maintain eligibility. They have a small window to actually submit the paperwork and put the film on the Academy's dedicated screener streaming platform. Failure to complete the paperwork and submit the video is one of the few disqualifying factors this year.

Any feature length narrative film that releases in x amount of cities for one week before the end of the calendar, fills out the paperwork, and checks off any other boxes (like the new upload to the screener service requirement) is eligible for the Academy Awards. It's why Netflix will put films like A Marriage or The Irishman in theatres for a week or two in LA and NY. Hundreds of films cross this low threshold each year with no chance of being nominated. It's how strange films like Repo: The Genetic Opera wind up being considered in all categories and getting into the specialized voting rounds for categories like Best Original Song. It's not hard to be considered. It's hard to actually be nominated. Hamilton technically has the same chances as any other film if Disney wants to submit some forms.

What I'm curious about is what awards it is actually eligible for. The score/song categories are out as the rules state these must be written exclusively for the film (in the same way "All That Jazz" was ineligible for Chicago, but "I Move On" was) but I wonder if some of the other technical categories (such as costumes, make-up/hair, production design) have similar requirements. I also can't imagine it's eligible in either screenplay category.

I'd wager it won't get serious consideration for cinematography or director. That leaves the acting categories, Best Picture, Sound and Visual Effects (of which there are none, so also out). Regardless of merit, what categories can it actually submit for?

CT2NYC said: "Hamiltonis a feature film that is neither a documentary"



I can definitely see a case for arguing that it's a feature film, but I think it's up to artistic interpretation. And obviously I think the arguments I made in favor of "documentary" status still hold water. Rather than contradicting me outright, I would genuinely be curious to hear you poke holes in my argument for why it could be considered a documentary.

Updated On: 7/5/20 at 11:17 AM

CT2NYC said: "You won't see it described as such on any website or in any article"



This is just a question of marketing. It can be important to consider marketing when you're categorizing a work of art, yes. But I also think it's important to be critical it, because they want to present in a certain way that gets them the most attention. Not necessarily what best describes what the piece actually IS on an artistic level. And marketing can give us a clue as to how they intend to campaign (they probably want to be eligible for Best Picture), but it doesn't necessarily dictate which category it SHOULD be in.



As far as being a shoo-in in that category is concerned, people thoughtWon't You Be My Neighbor?would be the obvious winner last year, and it wasn't even nominated."



True, but Hamilton is Hamilton. It's rare that a "documentary" (if it were to be considered as such) had such a massive cultural impact surrounding it. Way more than Won't You Be My Neighbor? Plus it would give the Oscars an opportunity to award a "progressive," "important" work of art, without ruffling any feathers by nominating a filmed stage production for Best Picture.



"and enough of it was filmed without an audience to invalidate it as "documentation of a real-life event."



This is an interesting point - probably the best artistic argument against considering it a documentary. Especially if there was a lot of stopping and starting when filming, to get various takes and such. However, I still think you could make a case that the whole thing was still a documentation of a real event; not necessarily in the sense that it was documenting a single, live performance of Hamilton, but that it was documenting "the stage production of Hamilton as it's performed live on Broadway" in a broader sense. It's designed to document exactly how Hamilton is performed onstage when it's in front of an audience, and all of the footage reflects that, even when an audience isn't actually present.

The documentary question is an interesting one. The IMDB lists Passing Strange as a documentary (and that film was also nominated for a Black Reel Award for Best Documentary, so clearly it's a documentary) but not Hamilton, and yet both movies were edited together from three Broadway performances. Is it just because of the extra shots fillmed without an audience that makes Hamilton not considered a documentary? I have to assume so, but I'm not sure if I agree with the distinction or not.

Updated On: 7/5/20 at 12:26 PM

Fosse76 said: "nor are works that areessentially unfiltered records of performances."



Well, as far as the Oscars are concerned, that pretty much settles it. Thanks for pointing that out.

I still think there's a case that the Oscars SHOULD allow filmed performances to be eligible as documentaries. But as for whether Hamilton WILL be eligible as a documentary, this is all the info we need.

I would be highly doubtful, regardless of its eligibility in this unusual year, that the film makers who make up the Academy would see HAMILTON as anything other than what it is: a video taping of a Broadway performance.

If it won't be eligible for an OScar I could see it getting a Golden Globe nomination for Best Musical/Comedy. I mean, it's the Hollywood Foreign Press.

Broadway61004 said: "At this very moment, it is still eligible, but I would be shocked if that doesn't change as we get closer to the Oscars. All the stand up specials that get filmed for Netflix are also not going to be eligible. Nor are any of the Met Live broadcasts that happened in cinemas before the shutdown. Just because they were filmed, doesn't mean they're films.

The Academy doesn't differentiate movies that way. There are technical requirements for the original "print" of the film, which are related to the type of film, projection format, audio formatting, etc. (converting to the required specifications doesn't count). Assuming a movie was "filmed" having met the technical requirements, it mostly needs to exhibit in LA for 7 consecutive days. It could be homeless people acting out The Marriage of Figaro in an alley; it would still be eligible.


And if it is eligible, as others have pointed out, the traditionalists who still believe films are only ones in movie theatres and are already rebelling against streaming films being eligible are going to completely revolt against this and not give it the support it needs to actually be nominated, and certainly not win. For those citing Roma, remember that it lost the big prize to what was widely considered an extremely inferior film, but one that was traditionally released. If a true film on Netflix wasn't enough to qualify in many voters' minds, a Broadway show isn't going to either. "

The COVID-19 pandemic exceptions aside, the streaming films cited all had theatrical releases and were released in accordance with eligibility rules. The streaming platforms were pretty much acting as the studio/distributer.