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.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
