Amazon's Best Picture Oscar Nod Makes History For Streaming Media (fortune.com)

Hollywood is buzzing after Tuesday morning's long-awaited Oscar nominations announcements, finally revealing who will be competing for an Academy Award on Feb. 26. One of the biggest stories of the morning was the nominations haul scored by e-commerce giant Amazon and its streaming video arm, Amazon Studios. From a report: The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gave Amazon's big Oscar contender, director Kenneth Lonergan's devastating drama Manchester by the Sea, six total nominations on Tuesday. Manchester by the Sea, which Amazon co-distributed with indie studio Roadside Attractions, is nominated for Best Picture, while Lonergan is nominated in both the directing and original screenplay categories. Actors Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, and Lucas Hedges all also scored acting category nods. In total, Amazon has seven nominations, with the Iranian thriller The Salesman -- which Amazon is distributing in the U.S. -- up for Best Foreign Picture. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has made no secret about his desire to win an Academy Award -- an accomplishment no streaming service has yet pulled off -- and the company has spent a lot of money building out its portfolio of original feature films as it looks to compete with more traditional Hollywood studios. Last year, Amazon saw its Oscar hopes dashed after the company's collaboration with director Spike Lee on the film Chi-Raq failed to garner any nominations. But Amazon also spent a reported $10 million on the distribution rights to Manchester by the Sea at last year's Sundance Film Festival.

Comments

I downloaded the screener this morning

[Anonymous Coward]

then deleted it. what garbage
also moana was ok.

Re: I downloaded the screener this morning

[ArmoredDragon]

From what I understand, it's a poorly kept secret that the Oscars are all about bribery to get nominations, and then even more bribery to get awards.

And it makes perfect sense because a lot of average movies win awards. I remember seeing Lost in Translation get a ton of awards, then seeing the movie and being completely bored the whole time. Bill Murray is an awesome actor, but that movie was shit, and didn't deserve any awards at all, nevermind 6.

Re: I downloaded the screener this morning

[Frosty Piss]

Lost in Translation was an excellent movie. Perhaps it was too cerebral for you...

Re: I downloaded the screener this morning

[Trogre]

No, it really wasn't.

Not available for streaming at the moment

[ardmhacha]

This movie is currently only available to see in movie theaters and in fact would not be eligible for the Oscars if it was just a streaming movie.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[SuperKendall]

I was wondering about that, I mean good for Amazon but if it's not streaming before winning how does it really make this a first for streaming media?

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[will_die]

Looking at news sites they are saying that Amazon is the first streaming service to get an oscar nomination.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[Nidi62]

And on top of that, according to the summary, all Amazon did was purchase distribution rights to the movie. They weren't involved in creating it in any way. They didn't earn an Oscar nomination, they bought one.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[hey!]

I don't think Amazon even thinks what it's doing that way.

Amazon's corporate philosophy I think can be summed up this way: Bezos wants Amazon to do everything and win at it. It wants to sell books. It wants to publish books. It wants to stream video and produce the content it is streaming, and provide infrastructure for its competitors like Netflix -- and devices upon which consumers play that content. It's only a matter of time before it becomes a virtual manufacturer of things like cars -- it already sells them.

So a win here wouldn't be a win for Amazon as a streaming service; it'd be a win in its quest to play a role in everything people consume.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[sexconker]

SAG members got copies over a month ago. I sat through the depressing snoozefest over the holidays as a result.

Synopsis for those who are considering watching the movie:

A kid's dad gets sick (heart disease I think) and his trash mom is all like "fuck this I'm out". Later, the dad dies and the kid's uncle has to come and deal with the affairs and take care of the kid. The kid is angry/angsty/etc. because his dad is dead. The uncle can't keep it together because he has a bad history with the town.

Everything is revealed out of order in flashbacks that will leave you asking "When is this?" and "Who is that?". Eventually it's revealed that the uncle got drunk one night, lit a fire to warm the house, decided to go out for cigarettes or something, and (you guessed it) came back to a well-done house, wife, and child. Despite all the vagueness and time jumping, you can see this coming a mile away once he's starting the fire.

There's an attempted suicide by the uncle and a bunch of flashbacks with the kid, the dad, and the uncle. Basically the dad forces the uncle to get his life back on track. With the dad dead, the uncle can't fucking deal with the kid and the town, and he can't even handle this lady trying to jump his bones. So he wants to sell the house and move back to wherever he lives and go back to his shitty apartment repair job. The kid wants to stay and finish high school. The uncle's like "No, fuck this town.", but the kid's like "No, fuck you! I'm gonna live with my mom!". The mom and her new husband/boyfriend/whatever show up out of the blue and are all about trying to take the kid in. The uncle knows she's trash and is probably just trying to weasel in on the house is like "No, fuck that!".

There was some compromise mentioned where the uncle would go back and leave the kid at the dead dad's house until it was sold, or with some family friends (not the mom) most of the year, with the uncle coming to visit occasionally.

I sat through the whole thing and I honestly can't tell you what the resolution, if any, turned out to be. My guess is the uncle lives in the house with the kid permanently, and finally gives that lady (who was flirting with him from the moment he stepped back into town) the time of day. But it's just a guess. I simply can't remember because it was so incredibly dull, depressing, and boring.

There was some sort of scene with them bouncing and throwing a ball. It went on for a bit and I think it was just to show that they are moving on with their lives and have dealt with their grief or some shit. I don't know when chronologically this scene takes place (it's toward the end of the movie, but who knows what that means in terms of the storyline), so I can't tell you how significant it is. It was significant enough in the director's eyes for it to go on for too damned long.

If you get sick of being happy, or there's a day where you look out the window and say "I wish there were less sun and that sky was about 7 pantone steps more grey", give it a watch.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[ScentCone]

They didn't earn an Oscar nomination, they bought one.

Which is what EVERY production company does. They take money they already have or can attract from investors. Other people actually act, do makeup, edit, design sets ... you know, actually make the movie. Amazon is just doing what's been done for many decades - bought movies. Whether they buy it in advance, or buy the investment from someone who put the money up first, it's the same thing. Meanwhile, they are also actually getting more into the weeds of directly creating the entertainment products. Large production/studio outfits engage at all of these levels and always have.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[phantomfive]

There was some sort of scene with them bouncing and throwing a ball.

Reminds me of the ending to A Wrinkle in Time

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[Nidi62]

At least production companies and producers are actually putting their money in up front. It carries a risk of loss and directly contributes to creating the film by helping to fund the crew, makeup, sets, etc. Amazon bought the rights after it was screened at Sundance, which means the whole movie was already done.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[ScentCone]

Yes. Just like lots of studios risk buying already-made films, gambling that price on their conclusion that it will succeed with audiences and not lose them money. Most large studios do that, even when, like Amazon is, they are also advance-funding many other productions.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[Anonymous Coward]

that will leave you asking "When is this?" and "Who is that?"

You're either retarded or weren't paying attention.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you've never heard of kodi.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[youngone]

Maybe the movie is so awful it's not worth paying attention to. You know, like the Titanic.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[sexconker]

No, it wasn't just me. Other family members had the same problem. The time jumps are across enough years and done frequently enough that you can't really track people easily. This is made worse by the fact that they all sort of sound the same and a lot of the shots are from a distance or done where you only see the back of their head. The fishing boat shot, for example.

Some of the scenes are especially jarring because you aren't given any time reference UNTIL you start wondering who the fuck a particular character is. One family member asked "Wait, didn't he die?" during one of the scenes. Until you start second-guessing every new scene with "Is this a flashback? If so, then..." and start playing the match game with characters across a decade, it's a mess.

If it was their goal to create a disorienting spiral of bleakness, then good job!

Re: Not available for streaming at the moment

[Frosty Piss]

Awesome review!

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[Anonymous Coward]

The movie is great and has been overwhelmingly praised by both critics and non-critics alike. If you have trouble following this incredibly straight forward movie you're a god damn retard.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[davide marney]

It is interesting that you are able to describe an entire movie, yet still miss it what it was about.

I say this not as a criticism, because you sound like a smart person, you were obviously paying close attention, and you write about it very well. It is just very interesting because you clearly had some expectations about what the movie would be about, and those expectations were completely unfilled.

What you may not have been expecting is to see a movie that is entirely about EMOTION. Not plot. Not dialog. Not even characters, really. The plot, such as it is, is about intertwining emotional journeys, not physical ones. Each of the time jumps follows a clear arc in that journey, almost literally step by step. You have to jump through time -- you have to! -- to understand how each character wound up where they are today, and where they are going. That's because emotional development lags outward events, sometimes by years and years. And sometimes, outward events continue on, but emotional development stops in its tracks.

This is probably not a young person's movie, and again I say that with no disrespect intended. But I think you have to have some life experience with how discontinuous emotional development and outward events truly are, if you are going to appreciate this movie.

Let me just one other thing that might help. The intentional use of the long shots, the shots from a distance, vs. the shots close up are used to reflect the inner, emotional state you are supposed to be feeling. If the director wants you to feel detached, the camera sits back to audience-at-a-play distance, and events play out flatly. If he wants you to feel like you're gaining some insight, he uses a long lens with a close up, as if you're listening inside someone's head. It's really quite brilliantly done. And notice that the only time you really feel the full, borderless, bright light is when they are in the boat. The camera then pulls way out so you can take it all in. You're supposed to feel unbounded and free, which explains why the boat is so important in the emotional story. On land, everything is sad and laden. But we can't be sad all the time, there must be some release. The sea is that.

Re:Not available for streaming at the moment

[sexconker]

It is just very interesting because you clearly had some expectations about what the movie would be about, and those expectations were completely unfilled.

I had never heard of the movie before arriving for the holidays and being told we were going to watch it and that it stars "Baby Affleck" The SAG member in the family gets stacks and stacks of DVDs every year and chews through them as some sort of duty. If anything, my lack of expectations made the film worse. I didn't expect a mire of depression, I didn't know it was about loss and grief. I didn't expect incessant flashbacks.

I understand all the emotional shit, I just don't care to watch a movie about it. It was ultimately uninteresting. You say that you need some life experience to get or appreciate this movie, I say people with "life experience" have no need for a grey rehash of a stereotypical story of grief. It was bland and predictable by design to appear real and relatable. The problem is it was still bland and predictable. 100% of my family who watched it, young and old, agreed.

Even if you think all the flashbacks had to be done (and I agree that some amount was needed), they could have been done in a clearer or more consistent way. I'd stake my life on someone involved in the production saying they should add a simple text overlay with the year whenever time switches, and the director getting up in arms about violating his artistic vision of a confusing wallow of self-pity.
Even if you find a text overlay abhorrent, there are many other ways to do this effectively. Visual effects (a color grading change or a vignetting effect) can be done as subtly as desired but still be effective. Simple editing where you bring the audio track of the flashback in early, at the tail end of the present day shot, before cutting over to it is also a common method. Following a pattern to flashback cuts, or at least having some visual landmark that exists in one time but not the other, would also help. (For one family member, this was the dead dad.)

I understand why they had those distant shots and what the director/cinematographer was trying to do. To me it was distracting in many cases and added nothing of substance.

As I said in my first post, this is a depressing and dull movie. I didn't say it was a bad movie, but I certainly think it's overrated and flawed. You're right, this movie isn't about plot or character development. Don't watch it for that. Watch this movie if you want to be depressed (and some people do enjoy depressing movies). This is what I recommended in my first post:

If you get sick of being happy, or there's a day where you look out the window and say "I wish there were less sun and that sky was about 7 pantone steps more grey", give it a watch.

Hollywood is Buzzing!

[RobotRunAmok]

And I'm All A-Titter!!! Oooooh!

Streaming media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, not yet. This is a first-run movie currently in the theaters.

Streaming has not come into the picture yet, so I'm not sure how this is a "win for streaming"? Nothing has been streamed yet.

Re:Streaming media?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Um, not yet. This is a first-run movie currently in the theaters.

Streaming has not come into the picture yet, so I'm not sure how this is a "win for streaming"? Nothing has been streamed yet.

It's an eventual win for Amazon's lock-in, anyway. Of course I wouldn't be surprised if this joined the list of items where "you may have Prime streaming, but you still have to pay extra to see this".

slashvertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much Bezos is spending to buy an Oscar?

Re:slashvertisement

[phantomfive]

I wonder how much Bezos is spending to buy an Oscar?

Good point. Not only is it an old, irrelevant awards ceremony, it's been irrelevant for a long time because of how you can buy influence.

Re:slashvertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

1) It's not irrelevant to the entertainment industry.
2) Given how much of the general populace pays close attention to it and enjoys it, you're claims of irrelevancy have no basis in reality.
3) It's always been a marketing event, never an objective competition based on merit. So, the major (and only) premise of your argument is completely invalid.

Re:slashvertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

1) It's irrelevant to the general populace
2) Some people watch it, but not many really care who wins. Especially now that it's all about "inclusiveness"
3) Irrelevant for a long time still means it's irrelevant

Seriously? They bet on Spike Lee in 2015?

[elrous0]

Amazon saw its Oscar hopes dashed after the company's collaboration with director Spike Lee on the film Chi-Raq failed to garner any nominations.

I guess they didn't get the memo that he hasn't made a decent movie in over 20 years.

Washed up old awards ceremony

[phantomfive]

A washed up old awards ceremony struggling to remain relevant.
Maybe that's too harsh, but it's never something I watched except when there was nothing else good on tv.

Re:Washed up old awards ceremony

[Anonymous Coward]

Jimmy Failon is hosting this year so you know it's going to be good...

Re:Washed up old awards ceremony

[neo-mkrey]

More like Hollywood's annual mutual masturbation party.

Re: Washed up old awards ceremony

[Frosty Piss]

What's wrong with mutual masturbation? You and your buddy feeling guilty?

Re:Washed up old awards ceremony

[Anonymous Coward]

...it's never something I watched except when there was nothing else good on tv.

Or, as Chris Rock might say, perhaps at isolated moments when you're feeling a little gay.

Buying an Oscar

[linuxwrangler]

"...Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has made no secret about his desire to win an Academy Award..."

And he's throwing cash around to do it. According to FiveThirtyEight, "Loving" and "Manchester by the Sea" are roughly tied in ad-space purchases in the Hollywood Reporter which is over double that of their nearest competitors:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...

So-

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

If you can't win with artistic talent, win with spending talent, that's the gist I get from the summary...

The Oscars have changed a bit.

[newcastlejon]

Since when has there been an award category for "deepest pockets"?

Bezos may want to win an Oscar, but until he actually makes a movie he never will.