Netflix winning Oscars is Great for Film...But a Big Problem for Cinema

The 91^st Academy Awards took place last Sunday, with Green Book taking home the top prize. However the main topic of discussion has since been about Roma (the supposed favourite to win Best Picture last week), and the wider issue of whether films made for streaming should be eligible for an Academy Award. Industry experts, cinema chains, fans, and most notably Steven Spielberg, have voiced their opinion on the subject, with no side having a clear majority.

Spielberg had previously said that “Once you commit to a television format, you’re a TV movie”. He then stated a few weeks ago “I hope all of us really continue to believe that the greatest contributions we can make as filmmakers is to give audiences the motion picture theatrical experience” and that he is a “firm believer that theatres need to be around forever.” And this last point is why this whole situation is so complicated - by allowing streaming services like Netflix to compete at what is western cinema’s most prestigious award, is there a risk of damaging the traditional film industry?

Now there are two sides to this argument, and I myself am quite torn as to which I lean towards. On the one hand, Spielberg is actually completely right. With the rise of streaming services, and the vast improvement in the quality of TV, audiences have never before had such a wide array of content to choose from, which has meant staying at home to watch Netflix is now a legitimate alternative to going to the cinema. I personally believe there is no better experience of watching films than in a cinema, and this should be protected. The theatrical experience is unrivalled…no home entertainment system can beat the sound, visual, and audience experience you get from watching a film in the cinema. VUE – a leading UK cinema chain – recently put out a statement saying they will be severing ties with BAFTA after the body included Roma (which subsequently won Best Picture) for awards contention. This was a big statement, and they are worried by the damage this could do to their industry. Put simply, firms like Netflix and Amazon have enough money to compete with traditional cinema, luring in the best talent with promise of “creative freedom”, and the industry is worried (and rightfully so), that the future of entertainment will heavily be focused around home entertainment, not theatrical viewing. By winning prestigious awards, Netflix and co are further legitimised as studios…just without the studio business model. If this continues, many fear that cinemas and film studios will not be able to compete, putting the risk of the traditional cinema in doubt.

Unfortunately, money talks and many people now feel that streaming services offer better value for money, and will only go to the cinema to see the big “tent-pole" films a la Avengers, etc. Traditional cinema must continue and thrive, but changing audience habits mean not all types of film can exist in cinema. Releasing films theatrically is expensive, and studios are selective of which films make the cut and go forward into actual production.

This leads to the opposing argument - Netflix and co provide an opportunity for film makers to tell the stories they want to tell. With streaming services, subscribers are what makes them money. The cost of distribution and advertising films is significantly reduced, and there isn’t pressure for one particular film to perform well, hence why streaming services can take risks with their films. Roma is made to be seen in cinema. Mowgli is made to be seen in cinema. The Irishman (Martin Scorsese’s upcoming film which is being released on Netflix), is being made to be seen IN CINEMA. But there is a reason why traditional studios decide not to distribute these films, and it all falls down to money! Studios believed that these films wouldn’t make money, and therefore did not believe in giving them a full theatrical release. Come Netflix the saviour, who is able to finance these films and bring those stories to millions of homes. Should the films’ producers, directors, writers, editors and others not be awarded simply because a studio did not believe it would make money? The simple answer is no! The people involved in these films deserve to be awarded for their efforts – regardless of how they have been distributed. It is not the artist’s fault that their film was not shown on the big screen, rather it is just a reflection of what audiences want to go watch on the big screen.

The Academy Awards is supposed to be celebrating the best in film, and if the best film in a given year is distributed by Netflix, then it should not in any way hinder its chances of winning Best Picture. Unfortunately, many in the industry do not agree, and believe the awards should only celebrate the best in “cinema”. And this is why I am torn. I want cinema to thrive in the future - like I said, the experience of watching a film on the big screen is unrivalled. But equally, I want films and stories of all types, from all people, to be celebrated on the biggest stage, even if that film comes from a non-traditional studio. This issue is only going to become more heated. Netflix and Amazon are already established studios, with Disney, Apple, and more soon to enter the streaming market. It is only a matter of time before a “streaming movie” wins Best Picture at the Oscars. Just how bad this will prove to be for traditional cinema (if at all) is impossible to tell.

It feels as though we are being asked to choose what we value more…the art? Or the experience? Money aside, the answer to this could very well define the future of the film industry…I just hope we remain equally passionate about both.