Still, there are positive signs. Two of the major Best Picture nominees, with overlapping Best Director nominations, are Get Out and Dunkirk. These are both important nominations in terms of demonstrating the organisation’s populist bona fides. A horror movie that was put on wide release nearly thirteen months before the ceremony at which it will compete, Get Out recalls the populist appeal of nineties nominees like Silence of the Lambs. More than that, Get Out has legitimate cultural appeal. It is the second most financially successful of the nominees, and one of only two films on the ballot to earn more than the average box office returns. It inspired debate and discussion, attracting fans among critics and regular movie-goers, prompting viral phenomena like “the Get Out challenge.” It is a populist nominee, and deservedly so.
Similarly, Dunkirk was a summer blockbuster, albeit one more ambitious and artful than many of its contemporaries. It is the highest grossing of the Best Picture nominees. It also marks the first time that Christopher Nolan has been nominated for Best Director, which feels like something of a full circle given the impact that The Dark Knight had on the organisation. (Inception did pick up a Best Picture nomination after the category expanded, but Nolan was conspicuously absent from the Best Director nominees.) Dunkirk demonstrates that big-budget serious-minded crowd-pleasing films are still feasible, and that the Academy is still willing to recognise them. It is astounding that Nolan had to wait until his tenth film to receive a Best Director nomination, given how skilfully he has managed to blend serious artful filmmaking with popular box office hits.
However, the most promising sign might exist below the line. Netflix was not able to secure a Best Picture nomination for Mudbound, but the film did score in a number of prestigious categories; adapted screenplay, original song, supporting actress, cinematography. These nominations might signal that the Academy is willing to take Netflix seriously as a creative force. This is important, because it suggests a fundamentally different approach in how the Academy thinks about cinema.
Amazon had picked up wins and nominations in earlier years for films like Manchester by the Sea, but it secured those nominations through a very traditional process. Amazon might have been a streaming service, but Manchester by the Sea and The Big Sick released in cinemas in order to build awards credibility. In contrast, Netflix has never really shown itself to be particularly interested in playing that game; its primary objective is to supply content to its userbase of its 117.58 million subscribers worldwide. That figure is important, because it suggests that Netflix has bigger reach than the broadcast of the Academy Awards.
In some ways, Netflix represents the future of populist filmmaking, as discomforting as that might be to certain purists and critics. Netflix provides a platform that is readily accessible to anybody with an internet connection. Indeed, it is a lot easier to watch Mudbound than Lady Bird or The Shape of Water, even without a pre-existing Netflix connection; a user can sign up to the service for less than the price of a cinema ticket. More than that, Netflix has demonstrated an interest in investing in the sorts of mid-budget fare that major studios can no longer produce due their shifting economic models. Netflix has made itself home to directors like Duncan Jones, Bong Joon-ho and Martin Scorsese. In doing so, the studio has also made the films of these directors accessible to a far wider audience than most mid- or low-budget films in theatrical release.
Indeed, this might be the test for the Academy Awards going forward, confronting the challenging of a shifting multimedia landscape. If the Academy can no longer find that many broad crowd-pleasing films in cinemas, will it be willing to look elsewhere? Time will tell, but these nominations suggest a few tentative steps in the right direction.
CinÉireann / February 2018 29
Dunkirk
Lady Bird