Hamilton film awards - Will it happen? Should it?- Page 3

[Ledaero]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 2:56pm

Here are the official rules for this year's Oscars: https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/93aa_rules.pdf

First, addressing whether Hamilton is a documentary or not. I agree that Disney's Hamilton is in fact a documentary, since it is documenting a live performance of the production. Historically, filmed stage productions are categorized this way. But here is AMPAS' current definition of a documentary:

"An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released nonfiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial reenactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction."

The key points here are that a) it is a nonfiction motion picture, and b) deals creatively with its subject with an emphasis on fact and not on fiction. 

Hamilton the stage play is clearly a work of fiction, which is the first bit of tension with the definition. But is there an argument that this recording of Hamilton is nonfiction because it is capturing a live event? Or is this filmed version of Hamilton the stage play closer to fiction and that it's just a different medium to view the same story? 

The second point is very interesting too. I'd think if Hamilton wasn't a historical fiction piece, it'd quickly be determined that it isn't using fact. But the historical nature of it throws an unintended wrench into this definition because it is using facts about Alexander Hamilton's life to create its fiction, all based on the nonfiction work of Ron Chernow's book.

The other issue in the Documentary rules, which has been pointed out above already, is: 

"Works that are essentially promotional or instructional are not eligible, nor are works that are essentially unfiltered records of performances."

Is Hamilton an unfiltered record of performance? Does the editing of the camerawork push it to a place of being filtered? The issue lies in the undefined word "essentially," making the ruling entirely subjective to the committee.

I expect that these will be the issues that will be heavily debated by the Documentary Committee over the coming months to determine eligibility.

But also core to this entire debate is Disney's marketing, where they are fully marketing it as a feature film. They aren't not saying its a documentary, but they aren't advertising it as such. Disney will push as hard as they can to make Hamilton considered as a feature film eligible for all Oscar categories. They have a lot of influence to make this happen, and in a year when the Academy is already incredibly unstable and flustered about its own definitions and qualifications, I could see them allowing this to happen. 

I do not think Hamilton should be considered a feature film. Hamilton is a stage play. Film and theatre are entirely different mediums, and this filming of the show does not have enough cinematic elements to blur the lines. Its elements are theatrical, and it wouldn't make sense to equate it on a technical level. If the Academy decides to consider this a feature film, I fear that it'll create a shaky precedent about its own definition of feature film, allowing more non-cinematic pieces to qualify. I would be okay with them giving it a special citation Oscar or allowing it to be considered a documentary, but opening up the rules like that would make a mess that would take years to clean up. 

[iwuldwf]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 3:17pm

This only cites an anonymous Academy source, but: "Sorry, the Hamilton Movie Won’t Be Eligible at Next Year’s Oscars"

https://www.vulture.com/2020/07/the-hamilton-movie-wont-be-eligible-at-next-years-oscars.html

[DaveyG]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 3:18pm

Vulture reports that Hamilton is not Oscar-eligible. 

https://www.vulture.com/2020/07/the-hamilton-movie-wont-be-eligible-at-next-years-oscars.html

[CT2NYC]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 3:31pm

I guess I shouldn’t have been so adamant. Damn, I hate being wrong.

[ErmengardeStopSniveling]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 3:41pm

That settles it. It was nice dreaming for a couple days. And I suppose it's good that Hamilton doesn't set this precedent. 

[Ledaero]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 3:57pm

I'm not sure the Vulture article settles it. They just say an unnamed AMPAS source gave them that info, and that person more than likely is not part of the committee to determine its eligibility. Of course it could be a board member or someone on the committee, but odds are slim especially if they aren't citing names. Nothing is set in stone until the Academy makes an official announcement about it.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 3:59pm

CT2NYC said: "I guess I shouldn’t have been so adamant. Damn,I hate being wrong."

You may not be. I had posited the same theory a while back, but when your pushback against inspired me to look at the wording in the official rules, they don't specifically state that the film's scheduled release must be within the closure period.

The unprecedented coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic mandated the closure of all Los Angeles County movie theaters as of Monday, March 16, 2020. Current Academy Awards rules stipulate that a film be shown in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County for a theatrical qualifying run of at least seven consecutive days, during which period screenings must occur at least three times daily. Until further notice and for the 93rd Awards year only, films that had a previously planned theatrical release but are initially made available through commercial streaming, VOD service or other broadcast may qualify for awards consideration in Best Picture and general entry categories for the 93rd Academy Awards under these provisions:
• That the film be made available on the secure Academy Screening Room member site 
within 60 days of the film’s streaming/VOD release or broadcast;
• That it meets all other eligibility requirements.

Of course, that doesn't mean the Academy can't interpret it's own rules to exclude Hamilton.

[Tag]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 4:30pm

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/hamilton-oscars-disney-plus-1234699198/

While “Give ‘em Hell, Harry,” a recording of the one-man stage play of the same name, earned an Oscar nomination for best actor for James Whitmore in 1976, the rules changed in 1997 when language was added to the documentary category that disqualified recorded stage performances.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 4:46pm

"Until further notice and for the 93rd Awards year only"

Hmmm, upon further reflection, they may be interpreting the above line to refer only to films that would have been eligible for that awards ceremony were it not for the pandemic. Since Hamilton wasn't scheduled for release until next year, under this interpretation of the rule it would be ineligible.

[hork]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 4:46pm

Broadway61004 said: "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)."

My philosophy of film (which I think is shared by most people interested in the subject) is that if it gets a theatrical run, or plays at a film festival, it's a movie. Eddie Murphy Raw is a movie. All of Richard Pryor's filmed stand-up specials are movies. Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl is a movie. Give 'Em Hell Harry is a movie. Opera performances that get shown in theaters for one night are not movies, they are special events. Netflix specials are not movies, they are television. Hamilton was supposed to get a theatrical run, and the only reason it didn't (and, really, the only reason we're having this debate) is because of COVID. Does that turn it from a movie into not a movie? I guess that's up for debate, and my own views are mixed on the subject, but I would have to argue that no, it does not.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 6:30pm

It is not a work of art specifically created for the film medium. Period. It does not merit an Academy Award. It would be like if you considered The Irishman eligible for Best Play because they held screenings in a Broadway house.

[Dolly80]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 6:38pm

It would be a joke if it was considered for the Oscars.

Imagine producing and filming something like 1917, or Parasite... and finding you are up against a filmed recording of a broadway musical? It would be an insult.

I think the recording of Hamilton is great by the way, finally saw it today and enjoyed it a lot more than I was expecting. But it’s not a Motion Picture.

[EDSOSLO858]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 7:00pm

Hamilton has officially been declared ineligible for the Oscars, ending this debate. However, I do see the filmed version getting a bit of Emmy love come Fall 2021.

Updated On: 7/6/20 at 07:00 PM

[Dolly80]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 7:27pm

Jordan Levinson said: "Hamiltonhas officially been declaredineligible for the Oscars, ending this debate. However, I do see the filmed version getting a bit of Emmy love come Fall 2021."

Yeah- we read that about 10 posts up this page. 

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 8:13pm

I do wonder if their original intentions to have a theatrical release would call their Emmy eligibility into question. I don’t know what their rules are. But it seems clear this wasn’t planned to be a television/streaming event.

[Ravenclaw]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 9:14pm

NOWaWarning said: "I do wonder if their original intentions to have a theatrical release would call their Emmy eligibility into question. I don’t know what their rules are. But it seems clear this wasn’t planned to be a television/streaming event."

Neither was HBO’s Bad Education, a film that was independently financed and screened at TIFF last year looking for theatrical distribution. But it sold to HBO, and theatrical plans became TV plans, and the Oscar campaign became an Emmy campaign. A similar thing happened during the last Emmy cycle with Native Son. So, the fact that it was originally intended to be shown in theaters doesn’t preclude it from Emmy consideration.

[NOWaWarning]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 9:23pm

Oh, I see. That makes sense. Thanks!

[blaxx]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 9:54pm

Is it the feeling that Hamilton is God's gift to musical theater that makes people disappointed about this?

I don't deny it's a strong piece of theater, but I feel that some think that the show also deserves an Olympic medal and a Nobel award just for existing. Chill.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 10:27pm

blaxx said: "Is it the feeling that Hamilton is God's gift to musical theater that makes people disappointed about this?

I don't deny it's a strong piece of theater, but I feel that some think that the show also deserves an Olympic medal and a Nobel award just for existing. Chill."

Hamilton has gotten away with things other shows would've been trashed for over the years just because it's Hamilton.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 11:13pm

Jordan Levinson said: "Hamiltonhas officially been declaredineligible for the Oscars, ending this debate. However, I do see the filmed version getting a bit of Emmy love come Fall 2021."

Officially by whom? Every search leads to independent articles citing the same documentary rule I cited. Nothing (that I saw) has an official statement. But Hamilton isn't a documentary, so I'm not sure why a documentary eligibility rule would prohibit them from submitting it in the Best Picture category. The rules are fairly straightforward. Even the first article that was cited claimed it was ineligible for a different reason: that it wasnt being released this year, so the COVID-19 exemption didn't apply.

Now that doesn't mean they can't amend the Best Picture rules tomorrow to exclude stage recordings to remove any doubt.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 11:30pm

JBroadway said: "@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.""

I have always felt that everyone should be entitled to their opinion on any board.  You feel that way and I disagree.  That is fine.  I frequently criticize people for using hyperbole to enhance their argument.  Guess I used little here with my 'remotest stretch' comment.  I acknowledge also that I did not see the docuemtnary short subject you reference.

That said, however, I truly do not believe that Hamilton is even in the spirit of a documentary.  It is a very well filmed version of a great show; it is for me an entertainment, first and foremost.  i think it will be more appropriately included in the Emmy bailiwick when the time comes, and that is where I think it belongs.  For me, it is the same genre -- not talking quality here -- as Sound of Music, The Wiz, Hairspray, Peter Pan, JC Superstar, and Grease (and the ones I am forgetting this minute).  I would even argue that it is less cinematic than some of them, because they are more opened up...Grease for example seemed much more cinematic to me.

I think that some posters here -- I am not singling out anyone, including you -- who fe3el that H needs to win every award ever given.  I have no issue with that, as long as it makes sense.  Neither Best Picture or Best Documentary makes sense to me, as I believe it is neither. Let it win some Emmys, and let a real movie come along and be eligible for Oscars, but not in the documentary category.

 

[Fosse76]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 11:44pm

Jarethan said: "That said, however, I truly do not believe that Hamilton is even in the spirit of a documentary. "

I don't remember if I said it in this thread or another thread, but Hamilton is really no different than movies like  Lincoln, Marie-Antoinette, Thatcher, Walk the Line, etc. Those would never be considered documentaries, so why would Hamilton (being a stage performance notwithstanding)? We might as well call Gypsy and The King and I documentaries as well.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 7/6/20 at 11:58pm

@Fosse - You’ve misunderstood. The argument in favor of Hamilton being considered a documentary has literally nothing at all to do with the content of the show. The show could be about a unicorn playing baseball and I would’ve still made the case for considering it a documentary. Because the entire crux of the argument is that it’s documenting a stage production. The fact the stage production happens to be about a historical topic is just a coincidence, and has nothing to do with my reasons for calling it a documentary.

I can understand if one disagrees with my reasons, but I just want to clear up that misunderstanding about what those reasons actually are.

@Jarathan, you and I agree on one point, which is that this video of Hamilton ultimately doesn’t fit cleanly in any film category - I argued in favor of documentary status, because I see that as the more reasonable of the 2 options. You disagree, and that’s fine. But ultimately, I agree that it shouldn’t be eligible at all, and that the Oscars should be given to pieces in the art form for which the awards were intended.

Updated On: 7/6/20 at 11:58 PM

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 7/7/20 at 12:05am

OK, we’ll just have to agree to disagree, and we’ll see whose post ages better. Deal? - CT2NYC

"Variety has confirmed with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that “recorded stage productions are not eligible for consideration.”



 

 

 

[Speed]

Posted: 7/7/20 at 2:43am

I just don't understand why anyone in this thread even wanted it to win Oscars!  You think this taping holds up to the standard of great Oscar winning films?  The thing opened in 2015 and already won a ton of awards.  This is just a videotape of that which Disney has chosen to share with its subscribers.  I want movies to win Oscars. Not tapes of Broadway shows.  Geesh.