Editing article

Title

Summary

Content

</figure>

The manner of Moonlight’s Best Picture win at the Oscars may have been <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2017/02/2017-oscars/517761/">bizarre and shocking</a>, but in toppling expected favorite La La Land, Barry Jenkins’s film set a number of milestones. It’s the lowest-budgeted film to win the prize since Delbert Mann’s Marty in 1955; if adjusting for inflation, it’s the lowest ever. It’s the first movie centered on an LGBTQ character to be named Best Picture, and the first whose cast is entirely people of color. Beyond that, it’s incredible that Moonlight beat La La Land simply because the latter seemed like a film aimed at Academy voters—a well-made original musical about artistry and Hollywood dreams, shot through with nostalgia for the industry’s Golden Age.

But maybe it shouldn’t be so surprising that Moonlight took Best Picture. <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/moonlight-barry-jenkins-review/505409/">It’s a stunning film</a>, but also in some ways one that fits a mold the Academy has been leaning toward in recent years. For decades, it was very unusual for the movie with the most awards of the night to lose the Best Picture race. But in recent years, that’s been the norm. For decades, splits between Best Picture and Best Director (as happened at last night’s Oscars) were a relative rarity; in the last 20 years, it’s happened 8 times. Moonlight is a unique film, and one that tells the kind of story the Academy Awards have largely ignored through its history—but it’s also the kind of smaller, more intimate tale that voters have started warming to.

Moonlight won three Academy Awards this year: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Mahershala Ali), and Best Adapted Screenplay for Jenkins and Tarell Alvin McCraney. Last year’s Best Picture winner Spotlight took only two trophies, and in 2015, Birdman won four. The year before that, 12 Years a Slave won three, as did Argo in 2013. In every case, there was another more opulent production that won at least as many trophies, if not more: The Revenant, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Gravity, and Life of Pi, respectively (with all but Budapest winning Best Director but not Best Picture). La La Land seems to belong to this new ticket-splitting norm, where voters chalk up a bunch of technical wins for the glitzy frontrunner, but give Best Picture to the more critically acclaimed, smaller production.

Again, this is not to discount Moonlight’s game-changing triumph. Though movies like Spotlight and Birdman were independent works, they were made on a much bigger budget and distributed by more established indie wings of major studios (Moonlight’s distributor was A24, a company <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/09/profile_of_the_independent_film_distributor_a24_the_company_behind_spring.html">founded only five years ago</a> that has quickly become one of the most respected names in American art cinema). Still, only one major studio has won Best Picture in the last decade—Warner Bros. (for Argo and The Departed). As Hollywood’s major production companies have tilted away from prestige films to focus more heavily on big tentpole franchises, the Best Picture nominations list is mostly filled with indie and “mid-major” companies, (with streaming service Amazon making <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/01/how-amazon-got-a-best-picture-oscar-nomination/514325/">its own breakthrough</a> this year for Manchester by the Sea).

If things had been already edging in this direction, then Moonlight might be the beginning of an even bigger sea change. Of this year’s nine Best Picture nominees, it is the lowest-grossing (having made $22 million in the fourth months since its release, behind the next lowest Hell or High Water with $27 million). The Oscars used to have a certain reverence for perfectly well reviewed films that broke out in a major way. It’s how consensus choices like A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, Braveheart, and Forrest Gump took the prize over more acclaimed movies. La La Land fits that mold well—but that mold may have been broken.

It helps that Moonlight was universally heralded, getting the kind of rapturous critical raves that come once in a generation, rather than once a year. It was also a beautifully made film on every level, attracting support from a wider swath of Academy branches (it was nominated for its music, cinematography, and editing along with the expected writing, acting, and directing nods). That’s crucial for a Best Picture win, because people from every Academy branch get to vote on the winners, and it’s what had kept smaller, less technically impressive indie movies from winning in the past. Perhaps next year the trophy will go to some big epic that hits at the box office, like Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, and this recent pattern will be upended. Either way, Moonlight’s win is shocking enough to be remembered forever. The thing to watch for now is if it’s a magical Oscars anomaly, or a sign of profound change for the Academy.

Author

Link

Published date

Image url

Feed url

Guid

Hidden blurb

--- !ruby/object:Feedjira::Parser::AtomEntry
entry_id: tag:thewire.com,2017:50-517947
content: "\n\n \n<figure class=\"lead-image\">\n\n \n \n \n \n
 \ \n <img\n src=\"http://cdn.thewire.com/media/img/mt/2017/02/AP_17058201688885/lead_large.jpg\"\n
 \ alt=\"Image \"\n title=\"What &lt;em&gt;Moonlight&lt;/em&gt;’s
 Win Says About the Oscars’ Future\"\n >\n \n \n \n\n\n
 \ \n \n\n</figure>\n\nThe manner of Moonlight’s Best Picture win
 at the Oscars may have been <a href=\"https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2017/02/2017-oscars/517761/\">bizarre
 and shocking</a>, but in toppling expected favorite La La Land, Barry Jenkins’s
 film set a number of milestones. It’s the lowest-budgeted film to win the prize
 since Delbert Mann’s Marty in 1955; if adjusting for inflation, it’s the
 lowest ever. It’s the first movie centered on an LGBTQ character to be named Best
 Picture, and the first whose cast is entirely people of color. Beyond that, it’s
 incredible that Moonlight beat La La Land simply because the latter
 seemed like a film aimed at Academy voters—a well-made original musical about artistry
 and Hollywood dreams, shot through with nostalgia for the industry’s Golden Age.\n\n<aside
 class=\"callout-placeholder\" data-source=\"curated\"></aside>\n\nBut maybe it
 shouldn’t be so surprising that Moonlight took Best Picture. <a href=\"https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/moonlight-barry-jenkins-review/505409/\">It’s
 a stunning film</a>, but also in some ways one that fits a mold the Academy has
 been leaning toward in recent years. For decades, it was very unusual for the movie
 with the most awards of the night to lose the Best Picture race. But in recent years,
 that’s been the norm. For decades, splits between Best Picture and Best Director
 (as happened at last night’s Oscars) were a relative rarity; in the last 20 years,
 it’s happened 8 times. Moonlight is a unique film, and one that tells the
 kind of story the Academy Awards have largely ignored through its history—but it’s
 also the kind of smaller, more intimate tale that voters have started warming to.\n\nMoonlight
 won three Academy Awards this year: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Mahershala
 Ali), and Best Adapted Screenplay for Jenkins and Tarell Alvin McCraney. Last year’s
 Best Picture winner Spotlight took only two trophies, and in 2015, Birdman
 won four. The year before that, 12 Years a Slave won three, as did
 Argo in 2013. In every case, there was another more opulent production
 that won at least as many trophies, if not more: The Revenant, The
 Grand Budapest Hotel, Gravity, and Life of Pi, respectively
 (with all but Budapest winning Best Director but not Best Picture). La
 La Land seems to belong to this new ticket-splitting norm, where voters chalk
 up a bunch of technical wins for the glitzy frontrunner, but give Best Picture to
 the more critically acclaimed, smaller production.\n\nAgain, this is not
 to discount Moonlight’s game-changing triumph. Though movies like Spotlight
 and Birdman were independent works, they were made on a much bigger budget
 and distributed by more established indie wings of major studios (Moonlight’s
 distributor was A24, a company <a href=\"http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/09/profile_of_the_independent_film_distributor_a24_the_company_behind_spring.html\">founded
 only five years ago</a> that has quickly become one of the most respected names
 in American art cinema). Still, only one major studio has won Best Picture in the
 last decade—Warner Bros. (for Argo and The Departed). As Hollywood’s
 major production companies have tilted away from prestige films to focus more heavily
 on big tentpole franchises, the Best Picture nominations list is mostly filled with
 indie and “mid-major” companies, (with streaming service Amazon making <a href=\"https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/01/how-amazon-got-a-best-picture-oscar-nomination/514325/\">its
 own breakthrough</a> this year for Manchester by the Sea).\n\nIf
 things had been already edging in this direction, then Moonlight might
 be the beginning of an even bigger sea change. Of this year’s nine Best Picture
 nominees, it is the lowest-grossing (having made $22 million in the fourth months
 since its release, behind the next lowest Hell or High Water with $27 million).
 The Oscars used to have a certain reverence for perfectly well reviewed films that
 broke out in a major way. It’s how consensus choices like A Beautiful Mind,
 Gladiator, Braveheart, and Forrest Gump took the prize
 over more acclaimed movies. La La Land fits that mold well—but that mold
 may have been broken.\n\nIt helps that Moonlight was universally
 heralded, getting the kind of rapturous critical raves that come once in a generation,
 rather than once a year. It was also a beautifully made film on every level, attracting
 support from a wider swath of Academy branches (it was nominated for its music,
 cinematography, and editing along with the expected writing, acting, and directing
 nods). That’s crucial for a Best Picture win, because people from every Academy
 branch get to vote on the winners, and it’s what had kept smaller, less technically
 impressive indie movies from winning in the past. Perhaps next year the trophy will
 go to some big epic that hits at the box office, like Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk,
 and this recent pattern will be upended. Either way, Moonlight’s win is
 shocking enough to be remembered forever. The thing to watch for now is if it’s
 a magical Oscars anomaly, or a sign of profound change for the Academy.\n"
author: David Sims
title_type:
published: 2017-02-27 17:49:00.000000000 Z
summary: The stunning film’s unexpected triumph is part of a larger trend toward more
 small and intimate projects for the Academy.
links:
- https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/02/what-moonlights-win-says-about-the-oscars-future/517947/
title: What Moonlight’s Win Says About the Oscars’ Future
carlessian_info:
 news_filer_version: 2
 newspaper: US general30
 macro_region: USA
rss_fields:
- entry_id
- content
- author
- title_type
- published
- summary
- links
- title
- categories
categories:
- Culture
url: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/02/what-moonlights-win-says-about-the-oscars-future/517947/

Language

Active

Ricc internal notes

Ricc source

Show this article Back to articles