The feud between traditional film studios and new streaming studios heated up last week as Cannes Film Festival announced movies from streaming services like Netflix and Amazon won't be allowed to compete anymore. The rule change came alongside separate reports of director Steven Spielberg stating he believes films from streaming studios like Netflix shouldn't be allowed to compete at the Oscars. Other filmmakers such as Christopher Nolan have voiced similar views. Two years ago, the Academy altered their rules to require longer theatrical release schedules for films seeking Oscar consideration.
Theaters and major studios have been feeling pressure from Netflix, Amazon, and other new studios and streaming services, leading to a lot of debates over same-day home release or brief theatrical runs for otherwise streaming pictures. It's worth noting that despite the widespread growing competition from online content and home entertainment, theatrical revenue is actually generally increasing worldwide year after year, with only rare occasional dips during particular economic downturns.
Even domestic box office, which most entertainment press constantly pretends is struggling and in danger, is usually increasing year by year -- during the past six years, domestic box office revenue increased four out of those six years, with last year's decline being a relatively small 2.7% and still becoming the third-biggest domestic box office of all time with $11.07 billion in receipts (the two biggest years were 2016's $11.37 billion, followed by 2015's $11.12 billion). And this year's huge slate of blockbusters looks likely to top last year.
In fact, the home entertainment boom and rise of new platforms in which to buy and consume content is a benefit for theatrical releases and major studios. The problem for studios and theaters isn't that streaming services exist with new original content, but rather simply that studios and theaters have been too reluctant to embrace change and take full advantage of the opportunities these new entertainment advances provide.
Resistance to change perpetually hurts Hollywood, in pretty much every context where change is significant and inevitable. And that's really at the heart of the entire movement to marginalize and exclude Netflix and Amazon from festivals and awards. The opposition to them is shortsighted and unfair, as an analysis of the facts makes clear.
Many small indie films get a brief, limited release in a handful of theaters in New York and LA to qualify for Oscar consideration. They wind up created primarily as award-season creations not really intended to even earn much box office or viewership, instead justifying their existence as art for its own sake. This isn't even a controversial statement, plenty of studios and filmmakers readily admit to these truths.
Which is of course completely fine. I’d never consider it valid to criticize such filmmaking, nor support any claim that they are underserving of award eligibility purely because of artistic intent, audience size, or number of theatrical screenings. Likewise, I’d never let ulterior motivations and preferences about who should be “allowed” to make “real” movies, or concerns about business competition and evolutions in distribution and creation of cinema, cause me to lobby to block films from award consideration.
Treating Netflix and Amazon movies as ineligible simply because some people judge their theatrical distribution to be inadequately motivated, and to claim the artistic skill put into them isn’t worthy of true film consideration, is severely problematic. It’s wrong as a judgment of the artistic creations of those filmmakers, it’s wrong as a presumption about other people's motives, it’s wrong as a focus on business competition over artistic merit when it comes to awards, and it’s wrong as an overall rejection of the evolution of cinema and distribution in a new era.
I’ve seen plenty of theatrical wide release pictures far less deserving of award consideration than some of the exceptional content released by Netflix and Amazon. I’ve seen indie films get award consideration despite brief, limited run theatrical appearances merely to meet the criteria for award consideration. I’ve seen terrific theatrical releases with great artistic merit, which were filmed on an iPhone. And I have seen original Netflix and Amazon pictures that should’ve been nominated for multiple major awards.
The claim that some of these films don’t deserve award consideration because they are filmed in a way better suited for television, or other similar claims that the artistic approach and quality doesn’t meet true theatrical standards, is at odds with the fact most of the films actually are of excellent quality, and that plenty of Oscar nominees and winners adhere to a wide variety of approaches and technical skill levels.
The truth is, we all know the underlying reason behind this is really rooted in the ongoing competition between major studios and new distribution platforms and content creators. The desire is to shut Netflix and Amazon out simply because they are Netflix and Amazon. The arguments for banning filmmakers’ art based on who distributes it or funds it don't meet the standards of fairness or concern for the integrity of awards.
People booed the Netflix film Okja at Cannes last year, a silly and myopic display of resentment not toward the art itself but rather due to a self-righteous sense of defending the ivory towers of artistic integrity against supposed interlopers whose imagined sin is creating additional distribution and viewing platforms for cinema, especially filmmaking that in past eras would never have seen the light of day in the first place due to the comparatively closed nature of studios.
Cannes now bans Netflix and Amazon films from competion, and the festival makes no secret of the fact this decision is entirely rooted in how long the films run in theaters and how quickly they premiere on streaming services. In other words, nothing at all really related to the artistic merit and quality of the films, or even the precise question of the films having theatrical releases (since the real issue is when and how long they get released). It's due to complaints from theaters and unions, about how the different release models for these films impact those groups' pocketbooks and businesses.
Cannes attendees booed a movie only because they're biased against the studio behind the film, because of who makes how much money from a type of release schedule. And Cannes now bans movies because important businesses weren't making enough money, or fear the competition from a different business. That's the bottom line, and it's sad.
How are the knee-jerk booing, the money-based ban, and the claim these aren't "real" films deserving of "true art" consideration any different than the years of widespread resentment and skepticism toward artists like Steven Spielberg or George Lucas due to their supposed sin of creating the modern era of blockbusters? Plenty of people insist such films aren't "true art," and that these films and filmmakers ruined cinema. The filmmakers spent years or decades being rejected and ignored by awards organizations.
Should Cannes have banned movies in the 1970s and 1980s that got wide releases and big-budget marketing campaigns, under the premise it hurts more traditional artistic films using the traditional slower, less expensive, less "loud" release model? Should studios engaging in the new blockbuster summer release model have been banned, and artists making such movies deprived of competing at Cannes, at the Oscars, and so on?
Spielberg for example surely knows the pain of such blind rejection and dismissal of his work as "true film" as opposed to "popcorn entertainment" or "movies, not films." Likewise, Christopher Nolan spent years waiting for awards recognition for his work because it often wasn't taken seriously due to falling into certain genre categories, or -- in some of the most offensive treatment of an artist for reasons entirely unrelated to their specific work or personal behavior -- due to pure resentment toward Nolan due to the way his fanbase treated critics or awards groups.
I've no doubt those filmmakers were unhappy with the way awards groups treated them and dismissed much of their work in previous years. And no doubt, they'd balk at any suggestion their films and other similar work should be ignored and outright banned from participation in film festivals and awards consideration based entirely on narrow interpretations of which art is "valid" or "worthy."
When such negative attitudes ignore glaringly obvious comparisons and similarities to other situations -- again, low-budget indie films that get only a short, limited release precisely to qualify for awards consideration -- it drives home the point this is all really a fight between major studios and new companies offering diverse viewing platforms for content that competes with traditional expectations.
And let's be clear, these comparisons aren't really limited to low-budget indie movies either. How many times has a major awards-contending film from an iconic filmmaker, produced and distributed by a major traditional studio, received only an initially limited short run at a film festival and a week or two in January, merely to technically qualify for the Academy Awards? Everybody knows full well that releasing in the last few months prior to the Oscar nominations significantly increases the odds of getting a nomination, while films released in the spring, summer, or early fall -- with longer, traditional theatrical runs -- get overshadowed and even forgotten simply because the last-minute qualifiers in December and January are more recent and thus more likely to come to mind for a lot of Academy voters.
Is it at all fair to squeak by, with a late-year film festival and a last-minute theatrical release in New York City and Los Angeles, to leapfrog movies that spent years during the actual year of awards -- since films can qualify via film festivals during the given year, and then open in January the following year with a one-week LA run, and still be nominated for the preceding year. Indeed, this is fairly common, and plenty of major awards nominees from big-name directors and major studios have used this trick. It's a case of finding the bare minimum requirement to qualify as late as possible, in order to take advantage of proximity to award balloting and get the most impact from award marketing and media coverage. Is it against the rules? No, but it uses the rules to tilt the playing field and gain what plenty of people could reasonably call an unfair advantage.
And if watching these movies on television is so problematic, then the award organizations and voters should end the practice of receiving and watching screener DVDs/Blu-rays at home. The fact is, many award season voters rely on screeners to catch up on award contenders. Should there be a prohibition on watching award contenders on TV? Should there be a demand for purely theatrical viewing of contenders before voting? Because it seems odd to argue against including movies made by streaming services, and to call their artistic creations inadequate for consideration as cinematic art, but to then accept a large portion of award organizations and voters watching most award contenders at home on TV.
These examples and concerns seem far more valid, I feel, than arguing against festival inclusion and award consideration based on who produced or distributed a film, as an extension of a pure business fight between rival distribution platforms.
Now I'd like to directly address the claim that films distributed by Netflix and Amazon are somehow of lesser quality and are really "TV movies." Nominations and wins come down to whether the voters at festivals and award organizations choose to nominate a given film, so why try to remove voters' options? If these films aren't of cinematic quality in the first place, there's no need to take action to block them since presumably they won't get votes or nominations anyway. The only reason to block them in the first place is if there's a fear they will get nominated on merit.
Which, of course, is exactly what keeps happening. The truth is, plenty of films from Netflix and Amazon have been included in festivals and earned nominations at various award organizations, including major ones like the guilds and Oscars. Is this a case of thousands upon thousands of guild members and Academy voters having such poor artistic taste they keep regularly nominating films lacking true cinematic value? And really, which is worse in an artistic sense, voting for a Netflix film because you really like it regardless of who distributed it, or refusing to vote for a Netflix film because -- regardless of its artistic quality -- you oppose inclusion of the studio behind it?
Let me just name a sample of recent releases from Netflix and Amazon that disprove the notion these films are just glorified TV movies undeserving of festival and award consideration: Mudbound, Beasts of No Nation, The Handmaiden, First They Killed My Father, Chi-Raq, The Salesman, Okja, To the Bone, Last Flag Flying, I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore, Manchester by the Sea, Paterson, 13th, Icarus, Strong Island, Virunga, and What Happened, Miss Simone?
Maybe you notice how many Oscar nominees and winners are on that list, and how many of them got nominations and wins at festivals and other award organizations. What should we think of the opinion that these films aren't worthy of being allowed to even screen at festivals, that they aren't worthy of being allowed for consideration for theatrical awards, that they are not really cinematic in quality or perspective? Can someone watch Mudbound or The Handmaiden and seriously walk away claiming these aren't theatrical releases, these aren't cinematic productions, and that they should be outright banned from participation in film festivals and film award ceremonies?
The debate over film distribution is a business debate, not an artistic one, as far as concerns about quality and integrity of cinematic vision and creation. If some artists are worried that streaming services threaten their status as creators of globally consumed multi-million dollar content, alongside concerns about the threat home entertainment represents to global theatrical outlets, that's fine and they have every right to argue their case and defend their own status, power, artistic preferences, and view of cinema.
However, their arguments too often point to concern about financial stability for theatrical filmmaking and the competition issue between cinema and home entertainment, but then resort to negative claims about the artistic integrity of these films to justify shutting them out, since the pure business complaints sound less authentic when pursuing festival and award season bans.
Advancing such positions doesn't just endanger the integrity of festivals and awards by embroiling them in ulterior business motives instead of true artistic merit, although that's one obvious result. It also endangers indie films and other releases that will be blocked from participation under the same sort of rules, if bans against Netflix and Amazon films gather steam and result in barring them from other award competitions. After all, if a low-budget indie release seems too good and too popular, it is in the best interests of bigger, more established filmmakers and major studios to throw up obstacles in the path of smaller challengers and up-and-coming filmmakers.
If you think that concern is a stretch, I'd point out such hypothetical reactions are not different from the battle against Netflix and Amazon pictures. Many of the films released by those studios are indeed smaller and lower-budget pictures, often created by new filmmakers or filmmakers who haven't been able to secure studio backing for their projects for various reasons (many of them being women and/or people of color, which must be purely a coincidence...). If filmmakers and studios want to block participation by rivals and new studios and new platforms, there's no real reason to think they wouldn't use such success to block other rivals in other ways, too.
After all, they already do this sort of thing, of course, to the extent the rules allow it. Encouraging supporters of a given film to list a rival strong contender at the bottom of voting ballots, smearing films and filmmakers with whisper campaigns and other little dirty tricks, trying to sabotage films' eligibility and award campaigning, and so on is commonplace during award season. Even breaking the rules happens, and when caught producers pay a price for it. If the rules change to expand the circumstances under which competitors can be blocked and sabotaged, why would anyone think bigger, stronger competitors wouldn't use it the same way they already use rules to gain advantages?
The targeting of Netflix and Amazon pictures for complaints and banning at festivals and award ceremonies is just another example of the perpetual battles for control, power, and prestige in Hollywood. In that sense, it's typical. But rule changes and bans against particular studios and forms of content creation, carving out special regulation against specific art and artists to obstruct emerging threats to existing traditional business models, imperils the authenticity of festivals or awards and diminishes their integrity.
Perhaps some filmmakers and studios will consider refusing to screen movie at Cannes and other festivals or awards ceremonies that ban films for business and financial considerations instead of true artistic ones. Don't get me wrong, Cannes can do whatever they want, it's their festival and so they can ban or allow whatever films they choose. But just as it's their choice to decide who can participate and which art they feel adheres to approved business models, so too is it the right of filmmakers and studios to choose whether to participate at festivals which engage in such bans.
I don't expect that to happen, of course. Major studios and many major filmmakers are opposed to Netflix and Amazon precisely because they see it as competition undermining the traditional production and release methods most advantageous to said studios and filmmakers. Thus many of them won't endanger the very systems favoring their positions of power and dominance. Meanwhile, other filmmakers denied access to studios and traditional methods -- be it due to financial realities of the industry, continued systemic racism and sexism, or other reasons -- will continue to find some alternative options for get their films made and released via Netflix and Amazon. And viewers still love theaters, but will also continue their embrace of home entertainment.
Time and evolution favor the new filmmakers and platforms, just as happened decades ago when new filmmakers with new approaches and new release methods for their art arrived on the scene to change modern cinema despite complaints and attempts to deny them awards. Those opposed to Netflix and Amazon are on the losing side of history.
[Note: Some readers apparently misunderstood aspects of this article, so let me say for the record I am a huge lifelong fan of Steven Spielberg's films, and a fan of him as a filmmaker and as a person overall. His movies, along with the 1970s and early-1980s work of George Lucas, Richard Donner, and Martin Scorsese defined my childhood love of cinema and provided the escapism and view of a larger world so important in my formative early years. This article is critical of a particular set of arguments and viewpoints regarding film distribution, that's all, and my hope is that those who had skeptical or negative attitudes toward Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming companies' theatrical releases will reconsider at least some of the details of their views and arguments in light of the points I make here.]
Box office figures and tallies based on data via Box Office Mojo , Rentrak, and TheNumbers.
Follow me on Twitter, on Google+, and on Quora. Read my blog.
