Hamilton film awards - Will it happen? Should it? — Page 2

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.

With respect to the Oscars, the Hamilton film is not eligible. To be eligible, a film must be shown to paying audiences in a theater for two weeks in both L.A. and NYC. (I am be off a bit on the details, but it is definitely required to have an audience-paying theater run for some sort.) Of course, the Academy could change the rules, even if temporarily. And Hamilton could satisfy those requirements later; but I've not heard of any plans for this to be in theaters. Some movies on streaming series (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have gotten Oscar noms because they had limited theater runs in order to qualify for such noms.

The answer is nope.

JMPlayer6 said: "I've not heard of any plans for this to be in theaters.



As CT2NYC pointed out by linking the article above, they are making an exception to the usual rules this year because of COVID. But also, it's worth mentioning that Hamilton WAS originally slated to have a wide-release run in cinemas. The only reason Hamilton isn't playing in cinemas is because of COVID.

So let's just say it's eligible.

Who/what gets nominated?

Renee Elise Goldsberry could be a strong Supporting Actress contender. I found her performance as thrilling on screen as it was on stage; Odom slightly less so. The love surrounding Miranda as a person could also help his performance.

We of course don't know what the competition and campaign strategy will be. But considering how much Disney spent on it, and Iger's belief that this was not just a financial investment but a necessary piece of art that should be seen by mass audiences, this could do okay. Maybe not for wins, but at least for nominations.

@Jarathan

Traditionally, that's what most documentaries do, yes. But that doesn't mean it needs those things to be considered a documentary. In my first post, I cited the example of "A Night at The Garden" which was nominated in the documentary short category just a couple years ago, despite just being a bunch of raw footage edited together, with no commentary or interviews or anything like that.

If it were documentary about the making of Hamilton, then it would be documenting the making of Hamilton. This video documents the production of Hamilton itself. I understand it's a bit of a stretch, but I feel like calling it a documentary is more in the spirit of the video than calling it a feature film. And to say that it isn't a documentary "by even the remotest stretch of the imagination" simply isn't true. I feel like I've given pretty reasonable explanations for why it could be considered a documentary, and even if you disagree with them, I don't think it's accurate to say that my argument doesn't even fall within the realm of the "remotest stretch of the imagination."

Broadway61004 said: "So my question to those of you saying that Hamilton should be eligible is, do you feel the following should also be eligible for Best Picture this year?

Met Opera presents "Porgy and Bess" (Live in Cinemas)
Eric Andre: Legalize Everything
Springsteen on Broadway

If the answer is yes, then I understand why you also feel Hamilton should be (I still disagree, but I get where you're coming from). But if the answer is no, then what separates Hamilton from those three titles above?"

1. Porgy and Bess ran in cinemas in February, and not for seven consecutive days in L.A., so, no.

2. Comedy specials are normally represented at the Emmys. A theatrical release like The Original Kings of Comedy would be submitted to the Motion Picture Academy as a documentary. Eric Andre’s special had no theatrical release planned, so, no, it would not be eligible for Oscars.

3. Springsteen on Broadway came out 2 years ago, and it didn’t run in theatres, so, no.

This isn’t about what I think “should” happen. I couldn’t care less if it is or isn’t nominated, but the facts show that it will be eligible, and I don’t understand why anyone is still arguing that. If you don’t think it should be eligible, that’s your personal opinion, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is.

Updated On: 7/6/20 at 01:24 PM

Sorry, you are correct about Springsteen (don't know why I thought that didn't premiere until earlier this year). But replace that with any other filmed concert event.

But my point is that, all 3 of those were live events with a couple of cameras recording them. So why is a comedy special or a rock concert or an opera event that is recorded live to show in cinemas (or in the case of Eric Andre, on Netflix in a year in which the Academy has said streaming films would be eligible) any different from a Broadway show that is recorded? That's my point in this. How are those 3 not films but Hamilton is a film when they're virtually the same thing? (And yes, Hamilton was meant to run longer in the cinemas, but the streaming events can be viewed as many times as possible and the Met Opera ones often replay in cinemas).

Broadway61004 said: "Sorry, you are correct about Springsteen (don't know why I thought that didn't premiere until earlier this year). But replace that with any other filmed concert event.

But my point is that, all 3 of those were live events with a couple of cameras recording them. So why is a comedy special or a rock concert or an opera event that is recorded live to show in cinemas (or in the case of Eric Andre, on Netflix in a year in which the Academy has said streaming films would be eligible) any different from a Broadway show that is recorded? That's my point in this. How are those 3 not films but Hamilton is a film when they're virtually the same thing? (And yes, Hamilton was meant to run longer in the cinemas, but the streaming events can be viewed as many times as possible and the Met Opera ones often replay in cinemas)."

No offense, but it seems like didn't even read what either of us just posted so I'll try to make it as simple as possible: Hamilton will be eligible for the Best Picture Oscar because it is a feature-length work of fiction that had a theatrical release planned. The reasons why the other three are not has already been explained.

JBroadway said: "@CT2NYC

It's true that there are sort of 2 conversations going on here: one being a conversation about whether it SHOULD be eligible, and one about whether it WILL be eligible. Probably because the literal title of this thread poses both of those questions ("Will it happen? Should it?" I think both conversations are worth having, as long as we are clear about which one we're talking about at any given time. It sounds like you were talking about what WILL happen, whileBroadway61004 was asking about whether it SHOULD happen. Obviously the Eric Andre special and the Met streaming videosdon't meet eligible requirements in terms of their theatrical runs, but I think whatBroadway61004 was saying was that artistically, they are all exactly the same thing: videos of live performances. So even if one of them chooses to pursue eligibility while the others don't, the question remains of whether or not videos of live performances deserve to submit themselves for eligibility for an award meant for what is debatably a different art form."

To me, the "Will it happen?" question isn't referring to whether or not it will be eligible, because I don't even think that's up for discussion. "Will the Academy nominate it and/or will it win?" is the question.

Yes, I'm speaking to SHOULD it be eligible, not WILL it (although I actually do still feel the Academy may ultimately rule against it, but that's a completely separate discussion). And just to clarify, I 100% agree none of those other specials I brought up should be eligible either. But to me, Hamilton falls in the exact same category as them, because like those, they are performance events (not designed for film, but rather live capture of a live performance that are then broadcast on another medium). So even though Hamilton is a work of fiction as you noted, it's still a work of fiction for the stage, not film, regardless of whether someone put a camera up and filmed it. Had it been an actual adaptation (which we will undoubtedly get down the road and which absolutely should be eligible for the Oscars) then this would be a different story. But this is not a film adaptation. This is a video recording of a Broadway show. Hence my feeling that it is absolutely ridiculous if this ends up being nominated at the Oscars (again, my opinion, not what I think will or will not happen).

Double post

Updated On: 7/6/20 at 02:09 PM

JBroadway said: "CT2NYC,

With all due respect, it sort of feels like you didn't read my post orBroadway61004's post carefully enough. Or maybe there's something unclear about our wording - if that's the case, I apologize. Or maybe I'm misunderstand you now. Either way,there'sdefinitely some miscommunication happening here.

It seems to me that ONE PART of the original post of this thread was addressing whether or not filmed performances should be eligible. The other questionsof whether it should be nomination, and whether it will be nominated, are also up for discussion. It seems to me that this thread can be a space for all of these questions, as long as we're clear as to which one we're talking about at any given time.

You might see the "should it be eligible?" question as something to "get past" in order to make "progress" in the discussion. I would argue that they are just different facets of the same conversation. Since this is just a message board for discussion, and not a committee trying to make a decision before a deadline, it seems like the broader questions are fair game. It sounds like you aren't at all interested in discussing whether or not it SHOULD be eligible, and that's fine. But does that mean other people have to remove those questions from the equation?"

Fair enough. The only reason I posted today was to answer Broadway61004's question. I realize I don't have anything more to add to the conversation, so I'll try to refrain from commenting, for now.

Updated On: 7/6/20 at 02:45 PM