Why Some Filmmakers Think Oscars Doc Voters Should ‘Suck It’ for Ignoring Celebrity Subjects

by

During an appearance on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” Will Ferrell humorously advised Oscar documentary branch voters to express disapproval, as they had overlooked “Will & Harper” in the category for best documentary feature. While Ferrell was being playful, it reflected a sentiment shared by many documentary branch members who felt disappointed about the film’s exclusion.

Netflix purchased “Will & Harper” for a reported substantial amount following its well-received debut at the Sundance Film Festival last year. This documentary chronicles a road trip taken by Will Ferrell and Harper Steele after she revealed her transgender identity, which occurred 30 years into their friendship. Despite addressing a contentious, relevant topic – gender transition – the film was successful, largely due to Ferrell’s fame. However, some opinions within the documentary industry suggest that this success could be the reason why the film wasn’t nominated for an award.

In recent years, some of the most highly praised, popular documentaries have been overlooked by the Oscars, meaning that many top-rated non-fiction titles on streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple are absent from the Dolby Theatre. Titles such as Morgan Neville’s “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”, Steve James’ “Life Itself”, Matthew Heineman’s “American Symphony”, Davis Guggenheim’s “Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie”, and Brett Morgen’s “Jane” fall into this category. Although “Will & Harper” made the documentary shortlist, two critically acclaimed, well-loved documentaries from 2024 – “Luther: Never Too Much” about Luther Vandross and “Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story” about Christopher Reeve – were not included.

As a movie enthusiast and reviewer, I’ve been privy to some intriguing insights from my fellow cinephiles in the doc branch this year. They’ve shared their thoughts on the Oscar nominations, particularly noting a trend where celebrity-led films aren’t taking home the prizes. Instead, it seems that streaming platforms are leaning towards more commercially viable subjects, veering away from politically and topically charged content.

Once again, I find myself eagerly anticipating the 2025 lineup of nominated documentaries, each one diving deep into pressing global issues. Two of these contenders – “Black Box Diaries” by Shiori Ito and “Sugarcane” by Julian Brave NoiseCat and Emily Kassie – have gained support from streaming giants MTV and Nat Geo. Johan Grimonprez’s “Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat”, another nominee, is distributed by the reputable Kino Lorber. The documentaries “No Other Land” by Basel Adra, Rachel Szor, Hamdan Ballal, and Yuval Abraham, as well as “Porcelain War” by Brendan Bellomo and Slava Leontyev, unfortunately, do not have U.S. distribution at this time. However, I should note that “Porcelain War” did secure a service deal with Picturehouse.

A coastal filmmaker expressed that ‘Will & Harper’ is a movie addressing a crucial, yet challenging topic that many struggle with. This film, however, managed to shed light on the trans issue and promote empathy towards trans individuals in a way not achieved by previous documentaries with smaller audiences. The filmmaker shared that many non-documentary viewers approached them, expressing their appreciation for the movie and how it had significantly altered their perspective on trans people. The filmmaker felt it deserved recognition for this impactful achievement.

A non-U.S. branch representative expressed that in the documentary category, films with commercial appeal don’t face any inherent disadvantages as long as they’re of good quality. However, documentaries centered around celebrities, despite being excellent, often find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, which can be quite unjust.

For four years straight now, it’s been unexpected that Netflix hasn’t been nominated in the documentary feature category, considering their past record of acquiring and creating notable films.

Since 2018, Netflix has garnered seven Oscar nominations and walked away with three Academy Awards in the documentary feature category across four years. The journey began with “Icarus,” a documentary that Netflix purchased at the Sundance Film Festival for an unprecedented $5 million in 2017. This significant sale was then followed by the film’s Oscar win, a milestone that marked documentaries as a crucial component of Netflix’s business strategy. In response, competitors like Apple, Disney, and Amazon started investing heavily in documentaries as well.

Streaming services’ increasing financial support has turned documentary features and series into as common and respected as high-end scripted programming. With more investors in the market on the production side, filmmakers have access to larger budgets. Titles such as “Knock Down the House,” focusing on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and “Boys State,” about a teenage mock-government conference in Texas, were purchased for over $10 million. This substantial increase in earnings provided several documentarians with the financial cushion they needed to carry on their work.

however, as of 2021, Hollywood ceased to distribute socially relevant documentaries broadly. Instead, algorithms took control, favoring non-fiction content that mainly focused on four areas: true crime stories, cults, sports events, and celebrity gossip among streamers.

Once more, most independent documentarian professionals faced financial difficulties as budgets shrank. While a select few top-tier documentarian directors, often referred to as the industry’s elite, continued to make substantial earnings, the overall independent documentary market was no longer lucrative. Despite this, streaming giants like Netflix, Amazon, Apple, and Disney remained eager to compete in the Documentary Academy Awards and invested millions on courting the Oscar doc branch with lavish entertainment.

But so far, they haven’t been responsive.

A member from the Oscar-nominated branch expresses that when a movie receives significant backing from streaming platforms, it’s frequently perceived as being loved enough, according to the doc-branch mentality.

Based on inside sources, online communities that share information about low-budget films with their members could potentially influence the film industry, perhaps explaining why some Academy Award voters find the lavish campaigning of streaming platforms less appealing.

A well-known filmmaker notes that many of us in our department are constantly battling financial difficulties, even those who have achieved commercial success. Despite these accomplishments, finding funds for a project remains an enormous challenge, both in its production and distribution. The marketing strategies employed by the streaming platforms, which are often modeled on traditional Hollywood campaigns, can sometimes foster feelings of resentment among us.

Historically, branch members have generally been resistant to extending voting rights to the whole Academy once the shortlisted titles are announced, possibly due to concerns that this would predominantly favor the most popular title. Nevertheless, some branch members interviewed by EbMaster are receptive to considering this change.

A branch member who was recently nominated for an Oscar proposes an opt-in system after the shortlist is formed. They believe this should always be managed by the doc branch. While smaller films with limited marketing budgets might not make it to the final nominations, increasing the visibility of all 15 documentaries to those genuinely interested could have a positive impact.

There’s increasing worry within the documentary community that major funders might completely halt their independent documentarian investments.

A renowned filmmaker expresses satisfaction with this year’s nominations, yet admits a sense of concern. If major distributors and streaming platforms perceive they aren’t receiving enough appreciation when investing in documentaries that have both critical acclaim and commercial potential, as well as broad appeal, then it raises concerns about the future health of the documentary industry.

However, another colleague retorts, “Oh, poor thing. The streamers disrupted the independent film industry’s financing and distribution model by entering the market forcefully, squeezing everyone else out – only to withdraw later, leaving little behind. Some might say their continued involvement in independent film (which includes documentaries) stems from a pursuit of awards rather than genuine passion. It appears unlikely that they will re-enter the market significantly. Given the damage they’ve caused, I believe it’s time for us to shift our focus.

Many people within EbMaster’s organization have voiced worries regarding the fate of American documentaries, especially under the Trump administration. Since assuming office, the Trump team has made efforts to reduce PBS funding, and they’ve also altered the funding regulations for the National Endowment for the Arts. Now, applicants must follow guidelines that demand a focus on proposals related to the country’s artistic past, instead of having more general funding.

One voter from the West Coast exclaims, ‘Wow, this is unbelievable!’ about the government’s actions. ‘It feels like a disaster,'” or more casually, “A West Coast voter expresses shock over the administration’s decisions, calling it ‘a catastrophe.’

At a corporate level, Amazon’s decision to employ Brett Ratner for a $40 million documentary on Melania Trump, despite controversies surrounding cancel culture, is sparking debate within the documentary community about the longevity of social issue documentaries. The question arises: Will streaming platforms and studios continue to show interest in films that reflect our divided times, given the current political landscape?

A seasoned voter expresses concern, stating that Trump seems unafraid to wield the powers of government to target the media. This action, they say, is causing a great deal of fear among people.

Read More

2025-02-15 21:49