Cool News
Elston Gunn Asks “What Is Oscar Trying To Say To Documentaries?!”
Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.
I find myself at a loss to explain a motherfucking thing the Academy does in regards to documentaries. Been that way for yeeeeears.
Elston’s got something to say. Something you should take seriously if you care about the Oscars being any sort of fair indicator of quality.
Hello. Elston Gunn here.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have quietly established new eligibility rules for documentary features.
In addition to a seven-day qualifying exhibition where docs have to play for at least seven consecutive days, twice a day, in either New York or Los Angeles, they now must complete a multi-state theatrical rollout of fourteen other markets (!) in at least ten different states (!!) twice a day for at least three consecutive days each.
The seven-day qualifying exhibition also must be completed by August 31, 2007. So, any doc that premieres at this year's Toronto International Film Festival (which likes to secure world premieres) in mid-September obviously won't make that August deadline and therefore will have to wait for submission the following year (2009 awards show).
Short documentaries now must also run in at least for additional cities in the U.S. once a day for two consecutive days.
Furthermore, documentaries filmed digitally must be shot in a particular format and meet certain projection requirements if they want to avoid being blown up to 16mm, 35mm or 70mm.
If the above mentioned requirements aren't enough, keep in mind these films still must be marketed in a way that is considered "customary" to the industry, and festivals or special screenings do not count toward the qualifying exhibitions.
It's like the MPAA's screener ban all over again.
Which is to say, that the smaller budgeted documentary features will be the ones to suffer. You could shoot the greatest documentary of all time for $100 on mini-DV and you're still going to have to jump through fiery hoops or pay a hefty price to get the Oscars to consider thinking about at least putting it on their nominee shortlist.
"More engagements for qualifying means more money," says Mark Urman, THINKFilm's Head of U.S. Theatrical Releasing. "More importantly, 35mm prints need to be in Academy hands at the end of November. You need to pull the trigger on blowup before you get nominated and, in fact, before you even make the shortlist. You need to be very serious, confident and well-endowed to do so."
"This new rule is like requiring a narrative feature to be released on 2000 screens in order to qualify for Best Picture," says Glen Reynolds, owner of the producer rep company Circus Road Films. "Hardly any documentaries get released over 10 states. So it will limit the choices to the few really big docs like AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and then maybe a doc that some random financier managed to four-wall across the country. It’s too risky for distributors to put most documentaries out this wide."
"Risky" is how Jonathan Caouette describes his film TARNATION, which he made for $200 (before film transfer and music rights), incorporating home movies and assembling it using iMovie. Caouette's film did eventually play in more than ten states and was nominated for an Independent Spirit Award, though.
"I think there is so much unseen talent in this world and I was fortunate enough to have the endorsement of Gus Van Sant and John Cameron Mitchell to come on as champions for the film, so this helped TARNATION get the attention that it most likely never would have received," says Caouette.
Many documentaries need nominations and awards to get the word out that they exist at all, especially those who aren't nurtured by larger studios.
"I think, yes, awards in general do and can boost a film's profile, " continues Caouette, who is at work on three more films. "My film, personally, was a struggle because it was so way outside of the box in every aspect and just plain unprecedented. The fact that I really made this film initially for $200 and some change frightened the industry. Therefore, even sight unseen people were referring to the film as risky. No one at first wanted to buy the film until my distributor, God rest their soul, came on. Then the awards began happening and then people really started to notice it. Life is strange."
"The sad part is that these new requirements actually will wipe out about seventy five to eighty percent of feature documentary submissions," says Curt Johnson, who won an Oscar for the short doc THOTH in 2002 and whose documentary YOUR MOMMY KILLS ANIMALS will be released in the fall (I did a Q&A with Johnson last year for AICN while he was in post-production on the film). "Not many people can afford all that just to fall into being considered for an Academy Award."
Johnson continues, "With YOUR MOMMY KILLS ANIMALS I had to do sneak peek screenings around the country just to get the distributors attention along with the reviews so theaters would see that they could make money off it. Aside from Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock's docs, most people still don't view docs as a moneymaker and since my film doesn't take a viewpoint, that really confused the studios which forced me to do some real outside the box stuff to promote the film like a 6-foot bunny in Toronto and the music video that hits next month."
However, the new projection rule threw Johnson for a moment.
"That's the only tricky part for the film right now," Johnson says. "I was a little confused because if you blow your film up to 35mm, there are no restrictions on projector, but with HD, it's very specific. I met with the distributor and found out that getting a theater with that specific projector will add another $9,000 to the run. We're lucky that we shot it on the HD format that just falls in line with the requirement, otherwise I
would've had to do the usual 35 mm blowup that costs around $29,000."
That's a lot of extra capital to be spent by somebody.
"It will cost a lot of money to see it through," adds Urman. "Films that don't have distributors or films with small distribs will take a beating. Bear in mind, a lot of films find distribution only after shortlisting. Who pays until then?"
And if these new rules would've been in effect a decade ago, the awards and nominations list of years past could be unrecognizable.
Says Urman, "I've had four nominees in the past five years and some of them would not have qualified, or I'd have had to spend a lot more to get them there with no guarantee of payback."
Elston Gunn
-
+ Expand All
-
I've only been on here 2 days!!
-
lost all credibility when they started giving Oscar's to Moore's Mockumentaries.
-
Congrats! Expect Harry and the gang to show up on your front door and congratulate you! YOU'RE THE BEST!
-
Moore has a unique approach, it's like marmite, you either love it or hate it!
-
Ha ha, you're so very funny!!!! I've been lurking for years and have now achieved my lifelong dream of posting FIRST in a tb!!!!! Can you hear the sarcasm??!!
-
Fuck 'em, what do they know anyway?
-
is as focused on Film-as-Art as the RIAA is on Music-as-Art? The only way this makes sense is if Commerce is a key component of...whoa, what am I saying?
The Academy is telling us that "real" films cost a lot of money, and that films made with little money are not legitimate enterprises. Additionally, films that have a very limited theatrical audience are also not worthy of Academy notice. (That leaves "Grindhouse" out!)
I have not watched the Oscar broadcast in years, based on the belief that the Academy Awards are worthless. Here's more proof to back up my belief.
Could it be that the main reason behind these new restrictions is an attempt by the Academy to squelch political or controversial films? Just when it looked like filmmaking was going to become a truly egalitarian form of expression, the Academy tries to smash that idea like a cheap MiniDV camera.
The beauty is that film distribution is in the middle of a revolution, and while a nomination for an Oscar can bring a tremendous amount of attention to a documentary, I'd be willing to bet that an equally huge audience is present every day on the Internet, and they're starving for good content.
I have to get going; I'll be late for work. Well done, Elston Gunn. Thanks for keeping us informed. -
Sucka!
-
Darn you michael bay
-
All that matters is the box office/viewers if you want to know how your movie did. Crash won best picture...it made shit. Angels in America won some awards and got good reviews...no one watched it, even those with stolen HBO. As for docu's I guess the idea isn;t to make money, or to win awards. But to get people to think about the world we live in. Isn;t that a reward in its own? Well unless you're Moore and wanna just make money.
-
Yes, these rules are ridiculous, but honestly, while I don't claim to be intimately connected to the scene, I doubt 95% of the documentarians out there really give a shit. The distributors are pissed, naturally, it means more money and more work for them. But it's the Oscars; they never even nominate anyone who deserves to win in the first place. All this tells me is that we'll be seeing more Holocaust documentaries win.
-
Just makes it easier for Michael Moore to win again.
-
Since almost every successfull documentary is followed by another one, that tries to prove the first one wrong. Have you heard of that documentary that tries to tell us that "An Inconvinient Truth" is propaganda, because the global warming is a natural process and as normal as summer and winter?
-
Too bad the Academy doesn't require documentaries to actually tell the truth.
-
...I think their attitude toward documentaries became quite clear.
-
like the stuff that Moore and Spurlock both make - supposedly 'provocative' fare that's full of half-assed, headline-grabbing tendentious claims - instead of insightful, analytical stuff that rarely draws a crowd because it doesn't pander to simplistic positions like "fast food = bad" or "global warming = bad". fuck the Academy. fuck them in their stupid asses.
-
They're just trying to pander to the big money major studio documentaries and stifle the independent documentaries, much like the MPAA is there for the studios. Maybe we'll get lucky, though, and Kirby Dick will use this as an opportunity to make a sequel to "This Film is Not Yet Rated" - "This Film is Not Yet Submitted for an Oscar", covering the bias inherent in the new system.
-
...And they make money by 'confirming' the beliefs of other fellow head-nodders on a particular subject. "Hey! Our movies is about the evil plight of the Immigrant Smog War Rat! Come see!" "Wow! A movie about the Immigrant Smog War Rat that will confirm everything I already feel about the Immigrant Smog War Rat!!! Yup, I gotta pay to see this!" Todays docs suck for the most part. Special interest slants made for easy swallowing.
-
Only the big boys can play? Awards are played out - some years there are multiple qualified films, other years there are none. The nomination itself should be an oscar. Enough with assuming there will always be exactly five good movies to choose from. This will prevent any "director who is due gets an award for a lesser movie" wins.
-
For all the commercialized and political crap about the Oscars, the one nice thing you could say is that at least some aspiring filmmakers had a chance to get the ultimate exposure for simply doing good work. One thing I always appreciated about the documentary categories was that I was at least going to find out about some interesting stuff people were doing that I otherwise might not find out about at all. And while the category was becoming increasingly commercial by picking whatever documentary made it into theaters as a nominee and likely winner, there were still other lesser known ones getting nominations. And when good ones got the shaft, there was a discussion about it in the media that gave those ones exposure anyway. This pretty much reduces the category to meaningless. If this is the way they're going to do things, I don't see why I should bother to watch anymore.
-
personaly I think the Academy is a colelction of fuckwits if ever there was one. However, I kind of see thier point here. How many times has a documentary won and you go "who the fuck even heard of that let alone saw it?" I like the idea of requiring more screens - but - the implementation sucks - the number is too high. -
actually having true documentaries instead of political hit pieces and fantasies/fairy tales..um Mr.Gore...er Mr. Moore.
-
Now nobody will see my film about crinoline. Waah.
Life is not fair, and neither is the Academy. Suck it up. -
May 07, 2007 3:43:54 PM CDT
I thought real artists weren't in it for the awards.
by excaliburffolkes
Is the Academy being mobbed with documentary submissions that they feel they must institute hurdles to limit the ones that qualify?
-
Too true.
-
Or the Blockbuster Entertainment awards. Whatever happened to those?
-
I have never heard of 75% of the films nominated in ANY catagory
-
My local theaters can digitally project off a standard DVD. I have not seen the new rules but it looks like even if you went out on Standard def DVD to all the indi theaters that have SD video projection that would not count if not they were not HD projectors or shot on a higher HD format than HDV? The silly part is if you blow up to 35 mm you could shoot in SD mini-Dv and that would be OK or did they ban mini-Dv too?
-
make me sick with their twisted facts and far left bias. Documentaries make me want to puke.
-
Well we indi's can buy a RED HD camera I guess but that will still add another $25,000 to the budget of any doc.
-
But do docs really need Academy support? Sure, you get a gold statue and shit, but the Academy Awards are sliding into irrelevance like the Miss America Pageant. I'd rather see a documentary that won the Peabody. That's a better hallmark of quality to me.
-
Because, yeah, the Academy Awards are a joke these. They don't necessarily reward the "best" film, they base their decisions on box office and politics (and bocx office politics?). However, here's the thing...so many people in this country will make a decision based on the fact that a film won an Academy Award or two. Here's another thing, just because a film is praised by the Academy doesn't mean it's bad...people are sort of taking this mental approach that, "shit, it won an Academy Award, it must be some fabricated bullshit." Not necessarily. And finally, this hurts the documentary filmmakers because now films that might have originally gotten recognition and distribution won't get it....or have to fight so much harder (it's hard enough as it is!!) and pay ridiculous amounts of money that didn't need to be spent originally.
-
What's with all the carping about the Left leaning documentaries? What turns out to be the case is quite often docs are made to expose the truth in a case where the truth has been suppressed by corporations or governments. So yes, that makes them a little progressive.
There are plenty of docs that are biographic, etc, but I think the main issue here is that most documentaries are not commercial. The Academy is there to support the US Film Industry, not a ragtag bunch of filmmakers whose movies are not fiction...well, usually not. The more I think about it, I think this step by the Academy is actually a sign of integrity. They're finally just coming straight out and saying, "We don't care about those odd little documentaries. Away with them."
All we'll be left with are docs funded by those with vested interests in getting out a certain POV (aka propaganda). -
Don't get too excited about that RED camera. The test that Peter Jackson shot was hardly a good demonstration of an HD camera's performance. If it turns out to be a good camera, fantastic. I think the jury is still out. (Hell, the jury hasn't even been selected yet.)
-
narrative and documentary alike. It's not that docs need the Oscar nominations for artistic validation, but they sure help bring eyes to your film, and that's ultimately the mission here.
-
Way to go, guys. Underminding human intelligence. Most studios try to anyhow. I say Wild Hogs needs at least 6 sequels!
-
And that didn't win shit. Scariest film of all time too. Who cares what Oscars think anyway. Just get rid of the category and add a new relevant one like say, best explosion or whatever.
-
When you consider the recent proliferation of small film festivals, the advent of DV features, and the internet as a means of self-distribution the Academy is probably drowning in entries. This is not proof that the academy id evil, it's proof that the Academy is IRRELEVANT. It's purpose of awarding film was started when there was nothing outside of Hollywood, the Foreign Film Category is even a joke, and just as prohibitive as Docs and Shorts. Let me put it this way, do you remember that year to save time they started making all the 'lesser' winners accept their awards in the audience and didn't even get to show a clip? For a lot of small-timers that's their one chance to be commended on the same level as the big boys and they get segregated. The Oscars was built for old Hollywood, and Old Hollywood is as dead as Dillinger.
-
I can't see why anyone takes the Oscars seriously at all anymore - when was the last time that the shortlists (never mind the actual winners) contained any real suprises?
-
Spiderman 3 grosses in three days higher than the gdp of every Sub-Saharan African country but Hollywood is dead? Riiiight...
-
i mean i sure dont think the oscars mean anything anymore, if they ever did, but putting those kind of restraints on an entire school of filmmaking, one that was never conceived to make any money in the first place, that is completely fucked up. then again, maybe this will just serve to take away even more credibility from the academy and expose them as a bunch of rich old idiots (and dakota fanning)
-
Rat Bastard!!! You, too, Laura Ingalls!
-
major Summer releases that cumulatively cost several times the GDP of a Sub-Saharan African Country. It is also a product of anew releasing system that sends prints to every corner of the world simultaneously. It is also the product of an ideology of mass market saturation. With final costs amounting to about $350 million, Spiderman 3 is hardly representative of "Old Hollywood." By the way, Old Hollywood didn't even really like advertising on television and it wasn't until Spielberg pushed forward the idea in the 70's with 'Jaws.' I was pointing out the fact that the Oscars started as a way to award the likes of Chaplin and DeMille, and is hardly vital to the era of youtube and digital cable. I was making NO STATEMENT referring to the money making prowess of massive banks with billions of dollars at their disposal, which is what Hollywood is now.
-
Concerning documentaries, this decision is going to hurt way too many small gems that never get much screen time in the first place. But with that said, the winners and nominees in the last few years have involved big name celebrities pushing left-wing agendas anyways.
But regaurdless of politics or beleifs, the oscars rob deserving people of their awards based on their own politics and money-making (i.e. mr. moore and giving jennifer hudson an oscar over much more deserving and experienced actresses). -
Isn't it obvious? I really don't known what their purpose is.
-
I know there are really bad reasons for this, but I can't help think that the big reason is that it will ultimately cut out most of the required viewing work.
-
So here is what the academy learned from the Hoop Dreams episode of 94...
1. Fuck over the great films
2. Reward much lesser films that dont really deserve a damn thing.
-
I've seen so many excellent documentaries at festivals and these new "coffin nails" of rules go further to ensure that they won't see the light of day. I guess this is another reminder of The Studios bottomless thirst for monopolies on all media. I want to shake somebody and scream at them. But who? Would they listen anyway? Would it matter?
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- HOUSE 2004-2012 -- 141 total posts 127 posts
- Kurtzman And Boborci Producing An Adaptation Of Anne Rice's Lestat Novel TALE OF THE BODY THIEF?? -- 321 total posts 112 posts
- DOUGLAS TRUMBULL is going to destroy our minds and reveal awesome beyond our mortal imaginations! -- 108 total posts 108 posts
- OK. So Harrison Ford Isn't In Talks For The New BLADE RUNNER. But... -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- Thursday Is Sweeps Day Eight!! Yack Here About OFFICE, ROCK, UP, WIPEOUT, PERSON, FINDER, MENTALIST, IDOL, BANG, ROB, ANATOMY, JERSEY & More!! -- 96 total posts 96 posts
- Check out Colin Farrell in these new pics from SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS -- 82 total posts 82 posts
- Billy Connolly joins The Hobbit!?! Say whaaaaa....???? -- 79 total posts 79 posts
- Nice And Splattery MACHETE KILLS Promo Art!! -- 66 total posts 66 posts
- Mike Fleming confirms AICN scoop on Sly & Arnold teaming up in THE TOMB!!! -- 96 total posts 61 posts
- In That New 300 Movie Spin-Off Thingy, Xerxes And Artemisia Will Be Played By... -- 58 total posts 58 posts