On the rise, fall, and general chaos of "Hamilton" as an Oscar contender.
Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 1:00PM by Nathaniel R
Hamilton won 11 Tony Awards in 2016. Now some fans want that same production to win Oscars, too.Have you been following the story on Hamilton as an Oscar contender? It has not been easy to follow! As you all know, the Academy Awards are in chaos this year due to COVID-19. In addition to pushing the ceremony back and changing the calendar of eligibility, they'd previously announced a bending of their "must play in theaters for a week" rules to allow for streaming films that only MEANT to play in theaters. That loophole was meant to close again after the COVID crisis was over but once you've made a loophole that big, it usually grows in size. Now suddenly everything wants to be an Oscar contender. Or at least fans of everything want their favourite thing to be one. It's yet another reminder of the cultural dominance of the Oscars (despite cries of "irrelevant!" each season) that it's considered the "top" award.
The Oscar rule change about streaming eligibility was meant to make up for movie theaters being closed for months on end but it was always going to be problematic. Exactly how will the Academy enforce a "meant to" clause?
-Does that include films that hoped to play in theaters but sold to streaming services at festivals instead?
-Does that include entertainments that planned non-traditional event screenings in theaters and then couldn't even do that?
-Will that include films that had no specific plans, either way, other than to sell to a distributor and then sold to streamers after the shutdown because those were the only venues buying?
Hamilton's rap battles are a joy. Now come the semantic battles over whether or not it's "a movie"
In the past a theatrical release has not been the be all / end all of Oscar eligibility. Special engagements screenings like Fathom Events, for example, which is typically where'd you'd been able to see filmed records of live shows like Hamilton, have not automatically translated to Oscar eligibility so who is to say what kind of theatrical release Disney would have actually mounted for the filmed stage production of Hamilton? Nevertheless the quality of the live-recording was so high that fans and pundits alike pounced and pronounced it "Oscar eligible!".
That may or may not prove to be wishful thinking but it was definitely premature. Within a couple of days Variety had claimed that the "movie" was not in fact eligible, citing an Oscar documentary rule against recorded live events. Vanity Fair, in an article in which we're extensively quoted (plug plug), later countered that that's possibly just the beginning of the story and it might be eligible for some (other) categories.
These statements or arguments often don't take into account that the Academy sometimes rules against their own rulings. Why for instance was the found footage Nazi-rally short A Night at the Garden nominated in 2017 when the filmmaker Marshall Curry only edited the footage someone else shot of a live event back in 1939 and overlayed a score on top of it? That seems like a direct violation of their rules against recorded live events.
At any rate Disney knows that the filmed record of Hamilton is an awards contender (of some kind) and will be submitting it for prizes as they see fit later. Each organization will then have to make a determination. We'd personally be most comfortable with an Emmy play. Live tapings of musical productions (with an audience) have become regular there as we saw with the terrific Jesus Christ Superstar Live.
Hamilton (2020) is very good but it is not a movie.
It is a recording of a theatrical event using cinematic tools. Just because a piece of entertainment calls itself a "movie" does not mean it is one in the spiritual sense. It's not any more a "movie" than The Lion King (2019) was the "live-action film" as it promoted itself to be (considering it was entirely computer-animated). I was called a "gatekeeper" for stating that Hamilton (2020) should not be Oscar eligible on Twitter. Others argued that since it uses cameras, editing, and sound mixing (all traditional cinema tools and require artistic decisions specifically for this format/ event) it is, thus, a "movie" and I was wrong. Full stop.
My counter argument to that is that if cinematic tools and decision-making are all that's necessary to be a "movie" then every live sporting event or concert broadcast on television is, officially then, a movie. They all use sound recording equipment, multiple cameras, and editing choices. As is every music video, tiktok, and television episode. I once attended a season premiere of Mad Men at an invite only screening in Times Square projected onto a big screen. Should it have then been considered a movie, and Oscar eligible? Mad Men is better than the bulk of films released in any given year but it is a television show, however cinematic it often successfully aspired to be. Saying an apple is not an orange even though they're both fruits is not, in our minds, gatekeeping or elitist but merely factual. But we've been surprised that many have vociferously disagreed.
Where do you stand?
Reader Comments (64)
I love/am obsessed with HAMILTON. I agree with you that it shouldn't be Oscar-eligible.
Once again, Nathaniel is right and so many people are incredibly dumb.
“Hamilton (2020) is very good but it is not a movie.”
I couldn't agree more!
It's really interesting.
Coronavirus-related platform issues aside, and just thinking of the content:
Any live-action film that doesn't include visual effects is, in a way, a recording of a live event. A Ken Loach film, for example, is a series of live events (people doing things - in this case, acting) filmed by motion picture cameras, and then edited together to tell a story. On that level, it's the same as the "film" of Hamilton.
The difference, though, is that the general public was not able to buy tickets to a live event of people acting their parts in a Ken Loach film. What they did was not theatre. What the cast and crew of Hamilton did was theatre.
The biggest Oscar comparison is, of course, the film recording that was made of a performance of the one-man play "Give 'Em Hell, Harry" starring James Whitmore and for which Whitmore was nominated for Best Actor 1975. But I'm not sure how that was eligible and whether subsequent rules have made that sort of film ineligible. Richard Pryor, for example, was shortlisted for a 1979 National Society of Film Critics Best Actor award for his performance in Richard Pryor: Live in Concert. But I can't find any other obvious examples of concert films/stage productions receiving nominations or mentions for film awards.
Coming close is the 1965 film Othello, a restaging of the National Theatre's successful production starring Laurence Olivier, Frank Finlay, Joyce Redman and Maggie Smith, filmed - as I understand it - on enlarged versions of the NT's stage sets, and for which all four actors received Oscar nominations (Finlay in a spectacular but understandable "he's not the title character" display of category fraud!).
This year's rules don't seem to define what a "motion picture" is or isn't, in terms of content or aesthetics. The Documentary rules do, however, say that "works that are essentially unfiltered records of performances" are ineligible.
So, is Hamilton
- ineligible in the Documentary category but eligible for Best Picture etc.
- ineligible in all categories
- eligible on the grounds that it is a motion picture?
It'll be interesting to see what happens.
It's not a movie, but is rather more like the Academy Awards ceremony itself, or the Olympics. Exactly as you say it is.
The Academy is going to have to come up with some more rigid rules though for this sort of thing because the difference between the bigscreen at a movie theater and the bigscreen at your house is only going to get fuzzier.
Further to my earlier post: I should say that my feeling is that Hamilton shouldn't be eligible - for the reasons Nathaniel and others have said.
But I agree with Dave in Hollywood that things will get less clear unless there's a way to define what is and isn't eligible, content-wise, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Technology is changing the nature of film. Why are so many resistant?
Those of a certain age will remember the Cable ACE Award when in 1978 the Emmys presiding body ruled these new cable television programs shouldn’t compete with network fare. That dumb ass prize finally faded away 20 years later.
Besides, wasn’t all this settled back in the 1970s when James Whitmore was nominated as Best Actor for a live recording of his one man stage play Give ‘Em Hell, Harry?
HAMILTON doesn't need this. Its creators won't be in the need to see their legacy hurt in a way.
We know many voters will not accept it and vote for it, even if it's somehow deemed eligible. But let's take a look at the categories. Where is it to get nominated?
1. Picture - Okay, maybe. I doubt it.
2. Directing - Won't happen in a million years. Not with the dull cinematic choices.
3. Editing - Never ever. Such a mediocre job. It actually hurts more than any other craft involved.
4. Music - NOT ELIGIBLE.
5. Song - NOT ELIGIBLE.
6. Cinematography - Won't happen. The lighting is the stage lighting. Camera movement lacks variety and cinematic feel.
7. Adapted Screenplay - It's the stage musical. Nothing changed because it's not a film. They won't go there.
8. Costume Design - If you read the guidelines, the costumes must be created specifically for the film. So NOT ELIGIBLE.
9. Production Design - Will this be deemed eligible at all, even if the whole thing is?
10. Acting categories - Probably Odom, Jr. At best.
11. Sound - With a single category, I doubt it.
So, will they go there? To get a total of 1-2 nominations? This would be a slap in the face, even if it's eligible.
I agree with you Nathaniel, this recording of Hamilton, while excellent, is not a movie and therefore should not be eligible for Oscars. What it is is something I'm very grateful for, because it means I finally got to see what all the fuss was about with Hamilton (and it is as excellent as everyone has said), but there's a certain language to cinema, a language that this recording isn't speaking. This recording is speaking the language of theater, and therefore it should be judged and awarded as theater (which it already has). They just established a rule to prevent documentaries from being eligible at both the Oscars and the Emmys (after that OJ documentary won at both), so having this be eligible for Oscars after that would seem pretty silly.
It's not film, it's theater.
It drives me crazy when people shortlist Julianne More in Vanya on 42nd Street for the same reason. I don't care how fabulous everyone is in that movie—it's a taped theater experience.
Hollywood won't rest until it hands LMM an Oscar. But they can wait a few more years for him to win for a mediocre Disney movie than Hamilton, which, as you said, is not a movie.
While I tend to agree that Hamilton shouldn't be eligible for most Oscar categories, I fear being too dogmatic about what is and isn't cinema. Maybe it's because I studied Theatre in college and explored (a lot) the soluble barriers between different performing arts, but when we start being too strict about these sorts of classifications we end up limiting our own perception of what an art form could be, what it could evolve into being.
For instance, trying to keep documentary and narrative filmmaking as two separate things may be a useful tool, but it limits how we approach certain works, too concerned with putting them in boxes. I especially see this in regards to the competition selections at film festivals, For example, in what box does Kiarostami's Close-Up fit? Does it matter? Honestly, I don't think it does.
James already mentioned Vanya on 42nd Street as an example that shouldn't be considered eligible for these things, but I personally find it preposterous to view that production as not a work of cinema. Same thing with Bergman's The Magic Flute and Peter Brook's Marat/Sade, which I believe are stone-cold masterpieces and among the best marriages of Theatre and Cinema.
I think it would be a mistake for Disney to push Hamilton for the Oscars. The Academy won’t bite, except *maybe* for actors like Renée Elise Goldsberry, and the low nomination count + the stories about failed Oscar dreams will tarnish the property forever. Does anyone think we’re not getting a *real* Hamilton movie in the next 10 years? Will Disney (who I assume will distribute it) want that eventual movie to feel like a stale remake?
"Hollywood won't rest until it hands LMM an Oscar. But they can wait a few more years for him to win for a mediocre Disney movie..."
IN THE HEIGHTS is right there. It would be releasing this summer if it weren't for *all of this*...
"Now suddenly everything wants to be an Oscar contender...It's yet another reminder of the cultural dominance of the Oscars (despite cries of 'irrelevant!' each season) that it's considered the "top" award."
This is very true; despite the cries of irrelevancy, I seem to hear more and more references to the Oscar with each passing year. Actors are increasingly described in their relation to that one award in the press, even if it's not connected to the event being described--"the Oscar-nominated actor was seen purchasing organic bananas at his local supermarket;" "Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence proud to pee in sinks," etc.
Actors and studios seem thirstier and more aggressive with their campaigning than they were in previous decades. So much attention is paid to the Oscars, and there are months of build up with the precursor prizes...it makes the whole thing seem more important than it really is.
I miss the days when people weren't so openly desperate for Academy consideration. If you got nominated, it was nice; if you won, it was even better, but people didn't act like an Oscar was the equivalent of a Nobel Prize like they do today.
Hard agree with you, Nathaniel!
Cláudio: Those are really good examples - The Magic Flute, another Oscar-nominated film, even shows audience members in the theatre watching the production. There's also Swimmning to Cambodia, in which Spalding Gray sits at a table on a stage and talks about his life - definitely a movie (and one for which he was nominated for the Independent Spirit Awards). I tend to agree with you about not wanting to limit what film is or could be. It's just the Academy rules are pretty vague when an example such as Hamilton arises. That said, vagueness can be good as it can give eligibility to something that does push at the boundaries of definition. It's for this reason that I'm opposed to any clearer rules around what constitutes a leading role or a supporting role; although I loathe the greed of category fraud, as son as one starts to put a rule together, there's always an acceptable - even delightful - example that falls outside the rule.
Mike M.: I miss those days too. I started following the race in 1987, and back then - and well into the '90s - things tended to happen in this order: a film got made and released, people watched it and liked it, and then at the end of the year voters were reminded of it in case they wanted to vote for it at the Oscars. Now it often happens virtually in the opposite order: a film is announced, voters are reminded that they will surely want to vote for it when the Oscars come round, then people decide what they think about the film, then they watch it (at festivals), and then it gets released. Perhaps most depressingly, it gives the impression that a lot of people are only, or primarily, interested in making films because they want to win an Oscar. The season has become a year-round thing (something that, at least, this site, led by Nathaniel, keeps in sensible perspective).
Edward L., this is actually fake. Bergman's Magic Flute isn't a taped performance of a real production. It was directed by Bergman specifically to be filmed, so it's pretty different. And unlike Hamilton, it's very cinematic.
Zoooey: Thanks: my bad - temporary forgetfulness. But The Magic Flute is an Oscar oddity in a different way: it was a made-for-TV movie and actually shown on Swedish TV in advance of its cinema release. I think that that would rule it out of Oscar contention under the current rules.
Not even as a documentary? Based on the new rules, would DA Pennebaker's "Original Cast Album: Company" be considered a recording of a live event?
Zoooey -- I suppose you're classifying a real production as one that is commercially staged for a paying audience. Both "Vanya on the 42nd Street" and "Magic Flute" use theatrical staging (though recreated in a studio in Bergman's case), setting, and techniques. Malle's picture was recorded with an audience, even though they were invitees and not paying patrons. In the other case I mentioned, Brook's "Marat/Sade" directly grew out of the famous stage production of the same name, even though it was filmed with different staging and no regular audience.
I get your point, of course. They are different from "Hamilton", notoriously so.
That being said, I find the drawing of very unbending lines between what is and isn't cinema to be troublesome, hence my previous comments.
Edward L. - Absolutely, but it must have been much harder to track these things in the 70s. I've read, maybe even here, that a foreign language film submitted by Uruguay (but from Argentina) was nominated in the early 90s. Such things must have happened quite a lot. After all, Fanny and Alexander was also a miniseries and it was originally conceived for TV. Nowadays, it would be deemed ineligible right away but it was a huge contender in the 80s.
Claudio -- i get your point and it is the most subtle and best counter argument i've heard to my feelings about this. But otherwise i've been absolutely thrown that there are so many people who think a camera recording a theater show is suddenly cinema. It's still theater and theater is magical!
I keep hearing "but they made camera choices" and I'm wondering if people just dont realize how practically everything we see on tv and online no matter how haphazhard lookingi s a collection of choices. Live broadcasts have directors and lighting and editing that are decided in the moment (with some parameters of planning of course) and I imagine Hamilton was like that only in reverse with lots of preplanning as to which angles to shoot from.
These are all creative choices that artists have to make, yes, but there are awards for these things already!!!
i guess i just feel that people don't really respect movies because they always want things that aren't movies to be considered movies so they can name them "best" see also that weird TWIN PEAKS S3 on top ten movie lists situation a few years back.
While I do feel more comfortable with it competing for Emmys, I wouldn't have been upset if it were found to be Oscar eligible. That would've been an issue with the rules, not the art, in my opinion.
Absolutely agree. Save the Oscars for an actual film adaptation. (In which Naya Rivera would’ve been a perfect Angelica...)
There is significant misinformation about Ingmar Bergman's films from the '70s being shared here. In 1974, Scenes from a Marriage, initiallly a front runner for Best Actress Liv Ullmann and Best Director Ingmar Bergman, was disqualified because it was shown on Swedish television in April 1973, more than a year before its theatrical release in the US in September 1974. Due to the previous television showing, AMPAS disqualified the acclaimed edited version of the miniseries. Protests spring up including a famed letter signed by Oscar winning actresses and directors supporting the film's ability to participate in the 1974 Academy Awards. The brouhaha was to no avail.
Bergman learned his lesson. After the debacle he released his films edited from television miniseries theatrically before they were shown on Swedish television.
Face to Face, a theatrical edit from a television miniseries, was released in the US on April 5, 1976 and subsequently shown on Swedish television on April 28, 1976. As a result both Bergman and Ullmann were nominated for Oscars.
Fanny and Alexander, a theatrical edit from a television miniseries, was released in Sweden in theaters in December 1982 and in the US in June 1983, The miniseries was not televised in Sweden till December 1983.
The exception to all this was Bergman's surprising hit of the opera The Magic Flute. The proposed film reached a high level of excitement when it initially announced that Barbra Streisand had agreed to play the Queen of the Night for the legendary filmmaker. That fell though, unfortunately. Bergman shot The Magic Flute, now a television movie, which aired in Sweden in January of 1975. The filmed opera was so popular that it was subsequently released theatrically in Sweden in October. The film was released the following month in the US. In this case, AMPAS permitted The Magic Flute to be considered for Oscars. It was nominated for its costumes.
James -- Could you be so kind and point out the misinformation in my post? I would be extremely grateful.
I love love love Hamilton. But Nathaniel is right. In a few years, they will make the definitive movie version of Hamilton. It will win Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress (no matter who is in the cast). It won't win Best Actress, because it never does.
We can wait until then.
Zooey,
You state that because Fanny and Alexander was conceived as a miniseries it would immediately be declared ineligible. As I wrote, Scenes from a Marriage was disqualified for being broadcast on television before a theatrical release. That is the rule. Intentions were irrelevant.
The release date is factor used to determine eligibility. As written in my first post, Bergman carefully insured that both Face to Face and Fanny and Alexander had theatrical runs prior to being television to insure consideration.
James -- Nowadays, it would. Remember the change in the documentary categories. I believe it would be extended to regular categories without a doubt. No matter whether it's first shown in cinemas, if it's conceived as a miniseries, it's out. This was my statement (with a very clear reference to today) and I'm certain this would be the case.
"Hamilton" should be as eligible for the Oscars as anything going right now. Shoot your shot, Disney! It will either work or it won't work. Life will continue on regardless, or whatever semblance of "life" we're calling ourselves currently living.
I am grateful for all the thoughtful and knowledgeable posts on this topic.
When I started reading this article I was firmly with Nathaniel, Hamilton is not a film.
I love Bergman's "The Magic Flute", and do consider it to be a film, the way it was shot is very different than "Hamilton".
However, it does give me pause when we see how a cherished film can be a 'grey area' according to Academy rules. I remember the brouhaha over "Scenes From a Marriage".
At the risk of sounding stuffy I hope the Academy holds firm on "Hamilton" - it is a performance.
If they wanted to adapt it to the medium, they could have done so.
Zoooey
You are comparing apples and oranges. O.J. Made in America was released theatrically at its 7 hour, 47 minutes miniseries length that was the same run time on television.
Bergman's reconstructed his films from his Swedish miniseries of similar length to show theatrically at conventional running times. For instance Fanny and Alexander the miniseries was five hours and 12 minutes. The film ran three hours and eight minutes. If you have watched both, you know they are extremely different and stand alone as cinema.
Sorry. I don't agree that the new documentary rule applies to narrative film.
It's not a movie.
That's incredibly disingenuous liking Hamilton's Oscar chances to a sporting event's Oscar chances. The narrative and cinematic structure to this production of Hamilton is clearly present. Competing at the Oscars is fine. By the time a "movie" according to your precise and lofty standards, the current Broadway cast will have aged out of their roles. Then a younger cast that's decidedly inferior will make a lesser product to satisfy the Academy "old guard." Total bullshit. Fight for the eligibility and whatever happens, happens.
I totally agree that it shouldn't be eligible for Oscars. As you said, the Emmys have a category for filmed productions to honor the technical aspects needed to make it into something that can be watched on any screen. If the Oscars did deem this eligible, any play in the future could win Oscars, which doesn't seem fair.
What's not as clear to me is what differentiates films that premiere on streaming services and are considered Emmy-eligible TV movies, like Bad Education, Selah and the Spades, and Troop Zero, from movies that are aired the same way and compete for the Oscars, like so much of Netflix's fare. I'm assuming Greyhound will compete at the Oscars, but what about An American Pickle, premiering next month on HBO Max? There has to some consistency, right?
I think it's a film because the intention was to release it in theatres. It would be a made for TV live event (or whatever the category that allowed filmed plays in is called) if it was intended for a TV broadcast or just to release on streaming. I don't think it's just a recording of a live event with the level of editing that went into it.
If it's a better fit for a Documentary prize when it comes to film, so be it. It's exceptionally well produced with strong editing, cinematography, and sound design. Anyone who has tried to record live audio and lights for a theatrical production knows how challenging it is to make it actually reflect the live performance.
Even still, calling it a documentary does not mean that we don't get to recognize the incredible skill of the actors onscreen. Renee Elise Goldsberry and Jonathan Groff, in particular, pop onscreen in their performances.
Also, there have been filmed theatrical performances nominated for the Academy Awards in the past. James Whitmore was nominated for Best Actor for a stageplay performance in 1976. There was also a filmed stage production of The Magic Flute nominated for Costumes that year.
The Oscars have changed their rules to not allow unfiltered recordings of other performances. That's fine. I don't agree that this is unfiltered. It is a planned recording with clear signs of editing and multicamera work. You don't just suddenly get a close-up of the actors faces delivered to your lap when you're sitting in a theatre. Scenes that are staged upstage aren't magically pushed to the foreground. You don't get to watch scenes from above when you're sitting in the orchestra, below when you're in the mezzanine, or constantly switching from all different angles in the theatre. I could go on.
Basically, the only question on my mind is if it's a documentary or narrative feature. If it's a documentary, it's a documentary with scripted acting performances. If it's a narrative feature film, the screenplay, score, production design, and costumes were not designed for film and shouldn't be eligible. Wherever it's deemed eligible, it will likely score many nominations and wins.
Do you remember Pina? What if it had only performances and nothing else? Would it be a documentary?
It's a recording of a play not a film - it should not be an Oscar contender- yes I can see it getting a few Emmy nominations- and who knows about those wacky Golden Globe people- oh yeah they have a tv category too
RQ -- how is it disingenous? everything you're talking about with its structure is directly from the stage play. I saw it on Broadway with this cast.They filmed multiple performances and edited them together into one performance. It's literally a recording of the stage production. That's exactly how it plays out. The only changes were to drop a few swear words at Disney's request.
Many stage shows have been filmed like this. I recently saw a streaming broadcast of the National Theater's production of Frankenstein. Like Hamilton it was beautifully cinematic with multiple camera angels, strong performances, and good editing (while also being a recording of a literal theatrical performance). It also played in theaters (Fathom Events), So should all Broadway and West End shows that are recorded now be eligible for Oscars? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I don't think it's a "lofty standard" to say that if a stage show wants movie prizes it needs to be adapted into a movie.
I am EXTREMELY grateful that this recoding exists. It's a great great show and I absolutely agree with you that the cast is tremendous and a movie version would be hard pressed to top it and would probably mess up casting. But these actors already won (Renee, Leslie, Daveed) or were nominated (LinManuel, Jonathan, Christopher, Philippa) for the top awards for these exact performances in their exact artform -- the Tonys!
It strikes me as *another* way to exclude worthy films from earlier in the year or indie movies. Like, this will eventually get its cinematic adaptation and whether that will be good or not is obviously up to the hands of future's fate, but to kneecap it by nominating this version that is about 85% (from my understanding, I haven't seen the live show or the Disney+ version) decisions made in the theatrical version. Like, its costumes were designed *for the stage*. The acting choices were made *for the stage*. The sets were built *for the stage*.
The only categories it could theoretically compete in is editing and sound and, tbh, I have no issue with that. The film *was* planned to get a theatrical release, albeit in 2021 so they won't be able to "prove" scheduling like the AMPAS rules seem to suggest they'd need to.
And as it pertains to the documentary category... well, that's its own thing. I can't imagine the branch ever nominating it just like how they wouldn't nominate a concert film anymore (and haven't for a long time). I think concert docs are the most comparable and I haven't no issue with wanting to nominate those for things like editing or even Best Picture. But in the case of Hamilton, it just seems silly to nominate it now.
The Emmys have their own eligibilities for things like this. They give trophies to stage performances (Elaine Stritch comes to mind). But then stuff like the live broadway musicals they've been doing lately have been created specifically with airing on TV in mind. So...
"Hamilton" is a filmed theatrical experience. It would never be eligible for an Oscar in the past and there is no reason to consider it for one now.
Damn even if I lean closer to your opinion you really get a defensive almost condescending tone in these articles Nathaniel. Please take care of yourself. You don't think it's perceivable but your mental state really conveys itself clearly through your writings. xo
Meh, whatever they decide it doesn't matter much to me. Plus Claudio coming through in the comments and making Nathaniel look like a whiny philistine was pretty funny. Claudio for leader of TFE, Nathaniel for semi-retirement! (Just kidding, you utilize your shining star well Nathaniel)
"I saw it on Broadway with this cast" That privilege may be subconsciously biasing your view Nathaniel. Robert G. makes some good points, for regular less privileged folks like us with this being our first exposure to the full showing i'm surprised that we are more perceptive of the intricate camera work that you might simply put down to the staging you were blessed enough to view in person.
Also if you are confident that the Academy will think like you do, it will be lucky to get even one nomination and Broadway shows probably won't bother trying to put themselves up for consideration when regular cinema business is back and running.
From what we know of Lin-Manuel Miranda he will very shortly release a statement or tweet saying that this version of Hamilton will not be seeking Academy Award consideration and to keep safe and excited for a feature film version once the world is safer to do so.
I think what makes it murky is being on Disney TV Plus (or whatever it's called; not a subscriber). If this had aired on NBC like "The Sound of Music" or "JCS," it would go straight to the Emmys b/c it was designed specially for television. "Hamilton" is not that. It was planning a theatrical release for 2021 that was stalled b/c of COVID-19. That by definition makes it a movie. Don't over-complicate it by calling it a "concert film" (it's not--both the narrative and cinematic structure is clear), nor is it a "documentary" (the making of "Hamilton" special already exists--see that on PBS or A&E). I'm perfectly fine with it being Oscars-eligible. I'm not interested in semantics, and that's what it looks like when I read post after post that condescends to anyone who dares think that this is indeed a movie that counts as much as anything else for Oscar consideration. We're not dumb or short-sighted, but we recognize that definitions of film are ever-evolving in the age of streaming and quarantine. The Oscar purists of the world are in for a rude awakening in the coming decade or earlier. So whatever, go for it Disney! There's nothing to lose in the effort of trying.
This is not a documentary- it's a recording of a stage performance.
Was the precedent for "Hamilton" not already established with James Whitmore in "Give em Hell, Harry!"? Is that not a real cinematic "performance" b/c it's on stage? I know that internet punditry didn't exist back then, but did the Pauline Kael's and Roger Ebert's of the world throw bitchfits over Whitmore's Oscar nomination or not?
Sam I Am - I don't remember if Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael threw bitchfits, but I certainly did for the reasons everyone has been stating.
And if Hamilton is deemed eligible (I really don't care one way or the other - just as long as it's not also eligible for the Emmys - no double dipping!), it would be cool if those Live from the Met broadcasts would be eligible. There have been weekends when my most pleasurable theatrical experiences were watching Les Troyens or Norma or Semiramide, which beat any "real" movies I saw.