After a successful, if not turbulent, awards campaign during the most recent Oscars season, Netflix’s place among more traditional film studios is facing its biggest challenge yet. Award-winning director Steven Spielberg is reportedly campaigning to disqualify streaming services from the Academy Awards once and for all — but Netflix won’t go down without a fight, as it proved on Twitter this weekend.
IndieWire reports that Spielberg, who heads up the Academy’s directors branch, will argue in favor of changing the Oscars’ rules to prevent streaming services from entering the campaign field at the Academy Board of Governors’ next meeting. Because Netflix is a home-viewing platform, critics like Spielberg say that it’s better-suited for the Emmys, which celebrate TV, a medium inherent to home-viewing.
“Steven feels strongly about the difference between the streaming and theatrical situation,” a spokesperson from Spielberg’s production company, Amblin, told IndieWire. “He’ll be happy if the others will join [his campaign] when that comes up [at the Academy Board of Governors meeting]. He will see what happens.”
In response, Netflix defended itself against Spielberg. Late on Sunday, the Netflix Film account tweeted highlighted the service’s positive contributions to cinema:
We love cinema. Here are some things we also love:
-Access for people who can’t always afford, or live in towns without, theaters
-Letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time
-Giving filmmakers more ways to share art
These things are not mutually exclusive.
The prevailing argument is that the way Netflix eschews typical film releases — bringing its films to viewers’ homes at the same time as theaters — gives it an unfair advantage over other films, and may not meet Academy standards. The company also spends a large amount of money on its campaigns relative to other contenders, and enjoys a much wider potential viewership than films only shown in theaters.
But there’s no evidence to support that Netflix is breaking the current rules, as the Academy allows films that hit theaters for even a single weeks to qualify for awards. Still, traditionalists find Netflix’s practices a cause for concern. The Academy Governors will meet to discuss possible rule changes in April, an Academy spokesperson told IndieWire. It will be the first time the body meets since February’s Oscars ceremony.
The timing of Spielberg’s argument is important; Netflix’s Roma picked up several nominations in major categories this year, including Best Picture, and won three awards. Netflix also won the Best Documentary Short Subject award for Period. End of Sentence, another platform exclusive.
Roma’s nominations, and those of several other Netflix-exclusive films since the service began to seriously campaign for award recognition, has generated widespread controversy among the film industry. Netflix threw big money behind Roma, which the service ran in theaters a few weeks ahead of its platform premiere. Many of the bigger theater chains refused to carry Roma, however, arguing that its streaming presence violated theatrical exclusivity policies.
Netflix does have defenders in the Academy and film industry. Ava DuVernay, who directed exclusives for the platform like the documentary 13th and the upcoming When They See Us, tweeted about Netflix’s positive impact on filmmakers.
“One of the things I value about Netflix is that it distributes black work far/wide,” she said. “190 countries will get WHEN THEY SEE US. Here’s a promo for South Africa. I’ve had just one film distributed wide internationally. Not SELMA. Not WRINKLE. It was 13TH. By Netflix. That matters.”
Actor Bruce Campbell, famously of the Evil Dead series, tweeted, “Sorry, Mr. Spielberg, Roma ain’t no TV movie — it’s as impressive as anything out there. Platforms have become irrelevant. Make a movie with Netflix.”
Comments
Old man yells at cloud.
By ddbrown30 on 03.04.19 1:03pm
Bravo.
By minicarbonara on 03.04.19 1:21pm
lol pretty much
By Penisnipples on 03.04.19 6:16pm
Old rich white man gatekeeps.
By CamelAttack on 03.04.19 6:20pm
I’m so tired of all this nerd gatekeeping.
By Denmarkian on 03.04.19 1:03pm
I somewhat see Spielberg’s point, but I believe that he’s very much on the wrong side of history.
Film is a complicated business, and the people you see at the top (mostly) worked very hard to get to where they are in the business. Beyond their talent and hard work, is the fact that the industry can also be very political, which acts as another barrier to entry, but also offers some protections to those in the industry (Screen Actor’s Guild).
Spielberg might be showing some genuine concern for creators who might be susceptible to being screwed over by the booming streaming business, and he clearly has some opinions as to how the visual medium should exist, but I side with Netflix on this issue.
By BillClam on 03.04.19 1:42pm
The issue is whether a Netflix film is more like a theater film, or an HBO film. Films appearing for the first time on HBO have, since forever, been the subject of the Emmys. If Netflix wins this argument, I don’t see any reason a made-for-TV film airing on ABC shouldn’t also be considered for an Academy Award. For the record – I always thought splitting film into theatrical and television categories was quite dumb and it makes sense that "something in between" has exposed it. A feature film is a feature film. Everything about them is the same except how they are released. But the artistry and skill, which the oscars are supposed to reward, are no different.
By ElTiempo on 03.04.19 4:51pm
If you cut a film for ad breaks then it should not be considered a cinematic film.
By Ra TheGreat on 03.05.19 2:31am
You only say that because movie theaters haven’t figured out how to do it yet without pissing people off.
By CinW on 03.05.19 11:39am
It’s called a Michael Bay movie.
By BillClam on 03.05.19 4:04pm
Plus they’ve been running ads with films since the 1950’s, it’s just been at the start of the showtime.
https://youtu.be/40cT6I21JV4
By CinW on 03.05.19 11:42am
I fully believe made-for-TV movies (which is basically what Netflix films are) should be considered too. Granted most aren’t good enough to stand against the larger films so wouldn’t expect them to be able to compete, but they shouldn’t be automatically excluded a film is a film. Netflix has the same sort of budget and talent as any other cinematic film though so could easily compete.
By kevgallacher on 03.05.19 4:02am
With Spielberg’s logic, he basically argued that the product itself (in this case "Roma") doesn’t matter. What matters is how it is distributed.
If it’s distributed through internet (netflix, amazon, etc) then it’s not a movie but if it’s distributed through cinema then it’s a movie.
This is akin to buying eggs in supermarket means you can call them "eggs" but if you buy them through amazon prime, then they are not "eggs".
This is dumb.
By zeruel13 on 03.05.19 3:21am
Unfortunately that’s the way the Oscars seem to work, it seems to reflect the politics of the time rather the art itself. You also get actors or directors winning awards because it’s their turn. You also get the standard technical awards they give to the most popular films like Star Wars or Marvel films just to acknowledge them as they seem to be exempt from best movie or best director awards. The fact that Black Panther was nominated for Best Movie over Avengers Infinity War or Logan speaks to this theory completely.
By kevgallacher on 03.05.19 4:11am
yes, but at least the oscars is slowly (very slowly) changing which then makes the "old guards" come out with get-off-my-lawn mentality.
By zeruel13 on 03.05.19 4:58am
Why? Members of the Academy get screeners which they watch in little rooms which are nothing more than big home theaters. So what is the difference if an audience for the film does the same?
We could also ask Steven why he keeps calling it film when most of it is digital now.
By Hanoveur on 03.05.19 6:36am
Sounds like Spielberg is just trying to stop one of the nails from going into theaters coffin. I can respect his nostalgia for what theaters offer and it will be sad day when it becomes a relic of time. I think chains like Alamo Drafthouse are in front of the pack for how theaters can adapt. No more of these megaplexes that have to resort to overpriced gimmicks like 4D. I’m going less and less to theaters to see anything except like Marvel flicks and as soon as Disney just streams them day one then maybe I’ll stop all together. However I just went to the Alamo Drafthouse this weekend to see a Terminator 2 4k screening. They make the experience of driving to a location to watch something more fun with a variety of special programming and marathons. They have a sold out screening of Howling 2 your sister is a warewolf coming up, that’s just pure fun.
By Jetset_67 on 03.04.19 1:24pm
Those Ava and Bruce quotes really hit hard. Bravo!
From my point of view: Are you asking to disqualify Netflix because you don’t want some valid competition?
Like Denmarkian pointed out- I’m so tired of all this nerd gatekeeping.
By poneley on 03.04.19 1:41pm
This isn’t really a fight for the integrity of cinema. I don’t see Spielberg campaigning against the absolute glut of sequels, remakes, and shameless rip-offs that plague release schedules.
By FaustsHausUK on 03.04.19 1:43pm
He certainly isn’t, but at the same time, it’s those sequels and blockbusters that pay the bills so smaller "Oscar movies" get made. For example, I’d question whether a film like his Bridge of Spies would have gotten made if Spielberg’s more mainstream, contemporaneous films weren’t rolling in the dough. Sure, it helps when a name like Tom Hanks’s is attached, but still…
By Gokart Mozart on 03.04.19 3:16pm
See, that’s funny, because it seems like Netflix is more than happy to fund Oscar-bait films. Maybe Spielberg can make a film for them workout having to attach his name to the inevitable Jaws reboot . . .
By Foooch on 03.04.19 6:36pm
I get how the funding works. Same with video games and music and all other entertainment. But it was friggen Roma that catalysed Spielberg in this instance – an example of Netflix funding high quality cinema. Surely he would embrace it as it pushes the art form.
By FaustsHausUK on 03.05.19 6:08pm
By Giamatti_Saves on 03.04.19 1:52pm
lol. Zach needs to clarify/elaborate his comment because I don’t see what it has to do with the PR response from Netflix.
As far as I’m concerned, Netflix can claim they love cinema without including a huge back catalog of classic films. Netflix is not claiming they hate classic films or that their new films are better then old films.
I can say I love cars but not be super knowledgeable about classic cars. I’m not claiming I know everything about cars or that new cars are better then old cars.
Zach, you sound like a really weak shill.
By poneley on 03.04.19 2:03pm
Agreed. Whether cinephiles like to admit it or not, there is not a huge demand from average audiences for classic movies. This doesn’t mean that Netflix has any bias against them, but that there is no reason to invest money in securing their rights.
But even if Netflix did show a bias against classic films… that still has absolutely nothing to do with their tweet. Zach could have responded with "There are currently fewer than 40 documentaries about cheese on your streaming platform," and it would have been just about as relevant.
By Insufficient on 03.04.19 2:15pm