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

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

[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

[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

[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.