Have we seen the end of the technical juggernaut winning Best Picture?

Matt St. Clair takes a look at how everything from the pandemic to the preferential ballot have all but eliminated the chance of blockbuster films winning Best Picture

It goes without saying that the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the film industry including the way the Academy Awards have run. When movie theaters across the country shut down in March 2020, it led to AMPAS allowing movies released on streaming/VOD to qualify for Oscar consideration and having members watch eligible films on their streaming service known as the Academy Screening Room. 

As AMPAS changes the way voters watch the films in contention to the degree where studios are transitioning from sending physical DVD screeners to having their contenders viewed on AMPAS’ streaming platform, there is one thing about the Academy Awards that will remain constant: The way that they award Best Picture, the biggest prize of all.

Just last year, right before the pandemic hit, the WWI drama 1917 felt primed to win Best Picture. It won three important precursors; the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture-Drama, the Producers Guild of America (PGA) Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture, and the BAFTA Award for Best Film. But then, in a somewhat shock, presenter Jane Fonda announced Parasite as the winner. Despite it having already won Best International Feature, Parasite managed to defy the odds and make history as the first foreign language film to win Best Picture, leading to some people probably asking, “How did that happen?” 

For one, the standing ovation Parasite received when it won Best Cast at the Screen Actors Guild Awards showed a clear sign of passion. Another logical reason is that, unlike 1917, Parasite is a film that plays better on screeners/streaming. While 1917 earned a whopping ten nominations as opposed to Parasite’s six, and was awarded for its technical craftsmanship, it’s still the kind of jaw-dropping experience meant primarily for the big screen which makes a clear difference as to what voters choose when watching the contenders in the comfort of their own home. 

1917 dominating the crafts while missing the top prize fits the ongoing pattern of big-screen technical juggernauts sweeping the tech categories while losing the top prize. For instance, Gravity was the big winner of the 86th Oscars, taking home seven awards out of ten nominations, while losing Best Picture to 12 Years A Slave. Meanwhile, La La Land became the behemoth of the 2016 awards season as it enjoyed enormous box office success and earned eleven Oscar nominations, having won six of them including Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score. Yet, the big-screen event musical lost Best Picture to the small indie drama Moonlight in a stunning upset. Both The Revenant and Mad Max: Fury Road dominating the crafts while losing Best Picture to Spotlight is further proof of this continuous trend.

The preferential ballot system used to vote in Best Picture is another key factor to consider. A system that benefits consensus choices with little to no detractors. It becomes a hindrance to a movie like 1917 because while there may be voters who felt it struck a chord with them, there are those who found it visually stunning but nothing more. Meanwhile, just last year, our eventual winner Nomadland hit the hearts of voters even if it wasn’t everyone’s number one pick while Mank, the nomination leader, proved to be rather polarizing.  

This isn’t to suggest that large-scale films can’t have emotion. The preferential ballot just happens to benefit smaller-scale films that get the feelings running in some way and/or have more passion behind them. For instance, Nomadland was a sweeper throughout last season, but given how The Father over-performed nomination-wise before winning Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actor in an upset victory, and hit voters hard with its heart-wrenching storyline, it might’ve come closer to claiming the top prize than we think.

As of now, it feels like Belfast, an arthouse film striking a chord with viewers thanks to its People’s Choice Award win at TIFF, is the odds-on favorite to win Best Picture while Dune feels primed to be the “1917/Gravity/Mad Max: Fury Road” of this year. The technical juggernaut that cracks the Best Picture field and makes every below-the-line category possible. Its solid $40 million opening should bode well for its Oscar hopes as audiences who’re returning to movie theaters are gravitating towards familiar IP/tentpole fare. But because the theatrical/HBO Max hybrid plan creates an incentive for those who are uneasy about returning to theaters to see it at home, not everyone will experience it the same way as theatergoing audiences will.

If there’s any way Dune can win Best Picture, it’d be if voters want to make a statement about preserving the theatrical experience. Especially with streamers like Amazon, Netflix, and potentially Apple TV+ becoming more of an Oscar season mainstay. Industry figures like Chloe Zhao stressing how cinematic Dune is could only add fuel to its narrative. But ultimately, it all depends on whether it gets high enough rankings. Given how critics have mainly praised Dune for its visuals and technical prowess, could that same sentiment be shared with industry voters? 

Additionally, if voters ranked Dune high on their ballots to make a point about keeping movie theaters alive, then they’d be stressing over preserving an experience that frankly, isn’t in any grave danger. Even in these times, the theatrical experience is still thriving because as previously noted, movies made for big screens are keeping the experience alive. If there’s anything that should cause concern, it’s the state of the theatrical experience for non-franchise, non-horror adult dramas/arthouse films.

When seeing a film at my local arthouse cinema which re-opened a few months ago, each arthouse film that I’ve seen there only lasted about a few weeks. With each franchise film that opens, it causes movies like Titane to lose screens and potentially find a wider audience on streaming/VOD. Also, on its opening weekend, The Last Duel only had three showings at my local cineplex because of the franchise films that are taking up space.

This isn’t to suggest I’m anti-franchise. I’m just simply pointing out the state of things. If 2019 taught us anything, movie theaters are pretty much belonging to the IP behemoth while auteurs like Joel Coen, Martin Scorsese, Steven Soderbergh, and Jane Campion are bringing their risky visions to streamers. So, even as AMPAS voters show animosity towards Netflix, fearing it puts the theatrical experience in jeopardy, it’s going to be a part of the new normal that also includes the Academy Screening Room which is designed to make the films in contention more accessible for those who can’t make FYC screenings or, in these times, aren’t comfortable doing so.

In the end, AMPAS members who allege that Netflix is hurting cinema even as they watch the contenders on their streaming platform and DVD screeners will have to shed their hypocrisy because with the way our theatrical climate is going, arthouse movies like our current Best Picture frontrunner Belfast could have streamers as their safe haven if they can’t even find an audience in arthouse theaters. Before the pandemic even began, A24 entered a partnership with Apple TV+ while NEON began co-distributing with Hulu. Meanwhile, when NEON acquired The Worst Person in the World at Cannes for US distribution, its international rights went to MUBI, another streaming service. 

Between the influence of streamers and the Academy’s own streaming platform, this’ll only benefit the arthouse films that tend to win Best Picture, and which translate better at home, even more than before, making the days of movies like Gladiator and The Return of the King claiming the top prize feel like something of a Pleistocene era. However, as such films winning Best Picture will feel more like a thing of the past, the movies themselves will still live on even if the way we watch them evolves. 

Images courtesy of Universal Pictures/Warner Bros

• Author
• Recent Posts

Matt St. Clair

Matt is a New England-based freelance journalist who lives and breathes the world of cinema and has been an Oscar watcher since the age of eight. His writing can be found on outlets such as The Film Experience, Roger Ebert, Digital Spy, and Slashfilm. He is also a Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic and a Gay & Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association member. You can follow him on Twitter @filmguy619. (He/They)

Latest posts by Matt St. Clair (see all)

• Make It a Double Feature: ‘Serial Mom’ and ‘Strait-Jacket’ - October 24, 2024
• ‘Bring Them Down’ Review: Christopher Andrews’ Rough Crime Drama Features a Sublime Central Barry Keoghan Performance | TIFF - September 18, 2024
• ‘Daniela Forever’ Review: Henry Golding Elevates an Imaginative Sci-Fi Pic That Falls Short of its Full Potential | TIFF - September 9, 2024