Ranting On...Steven Spielberg & Netflix

In our modern world, it's frequently forgotten that it's easy to be both right and wrong at the same time.  Social media, "cancellation" culture, and the blackhole of Donald Trump have made it so you need to have an opinion immediately, and there should be no room for nuance.  I was struck by this with the quick vitriol that Steven Spielberg received for his comments about Netflix being eligible for the Oscars after the enormous (failed) campaign the platform waged to win Roma the Best Picture Oscar this past Sunday.

Before we begin, I want to sort of start with the stakes specific to what Spielberg said, and then expand on them as I have a lot to say here and think that Spielberg only touched upon part of the problem, and perhaps the least of the problem.  Spielberg has complained that Netflix gets to play by a different set of rules, and that they don't have to make films within the confines of a theatrical release schedule that the rest of the major studios/production companies (including Amblin Entertainment, Spielberg's own company) are forced to be confined within.  Netflix has access to over 100 countries to promote their films, something almost no other studio has, and has upended the historical film model that other studios have created and are required to live by without adapting to a streaming world.  Spielberg's comments were met with harsh criticism, including by his fellow Oscar-nominated directors like Ava DuVernay, who said that the Academy shouldn't make such a decision unilaterally; DuVernay is one of several luminary directors to work with Netflix in recent years, including Martin Scorsese, the Coen Brothers, and of course Alfonso Cuaron, and was nominated for an Oscar for her Netflix film 13th.

Here's the deal, and I'm going to go through what I think Spielberg gets wrong before I dive into what he's very right about, and where I think people are totally assuming the best about Netflix when they should be fearing the worst.  Spielberg is wrong to say that they are competing on different playing fields not because they aren't, but because Academy rules clearly state that Netflix is in the right.  Netflix, to make movies like Roma and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs eligible for Academy Awards, give them limited LA releases.  They aren't, however, the only studio to do this.  Look at a film like Destroyer with Nicole Kidman, released by Annapurna to an extremely limited release last December in hopes of gaining awards traction for Kidman (it worked-she was cited by the Golden Globes).  Annapurna admittedly doesn't have the financial resources or platform to release a film like Destroyer instantly, but it's also trying to get around an arcane Academy rule, that a film just needs to run in one LA theater for one week to be eligible, in the same way that Netflix is trying to get around such a rule.  This qualifier run is something that Spielberg himself even tried in 2017 with his Best Picture-nominated The Post, which at the time felt ridiculous sine he had two very bankable movie stars (Meryl Streep & Tom Hanks) in the picture, and his name alone easily could have gotten the film in plenty of theaters  in December.  That Spielberg is going after only the loophole that impacts Netflix and not the loophole that benefits himself is hypocritical.

This is where my disagreement with Spielberg largely ends, however.  I'll admit that I subscribe to his belief that the theatrical release of films is the ideal way to see a movie, though we both may be clinging to a luddite inclination there because that's how we were raised on movies.  It does feel inappropriate, though, that DuVernay can be nominated for both an Emmy and an Oscar for the same project (13th), as Netflix is getting around the loopholes for both projects there.  But at the heart of Spielberg's argument is that Netflix is here to destroy the movie industry, or at the very least destroy quality filmmaking, and to that I have to kind of agree.

The reason I say this is not because of the theatrical experience becoming extinct if Netflix is the future of film (though I don't like that).  I watch movies in my home too, almost certainly more than someone who is protesting at this article right now (I've seen three already this weekend, and am headed for a fourth after this article is done).  I say this because Netflix's model should scare the tar out of anyone who isn't a household name like Spielberg or Scorsese or DuVernay.  Netflix produces a gargantuan glut of product-in January alone, they will release 38 new series and movies for the platform.  The fact isn't just that there's not enough time to see all of them (there's not enough time to see all theatrical movies either-trust me, I've tried), it's that most of these movies are buried on the platform, and frequently the creators might not even have access to the viewing numbers, which they could use in negotiating future productions if the numbers are good.  Netflix's platform makes it impossible to discover new voices and talents.  Yes, it has been a great way for women and filmmakers of color and LGBTQ+ directors to get their content created, but is it that much better if you make films that no one actually can seek out or discuss?

And Netflix's business model is not sustainable-it simply isn't.  While it likely can exist for a few more years as they expand into world markets, it's certain that they'll start to operate more like a major studio in the future, spending more of their profits to create larger event films like their own Black Panthers or Jurassic Worlds, and less on films like Mudbound, for example.  There will always be room for people like Cuaron or Scorsese, directors who would be able to get their films released at any studio, but Netflix's antipathy to film history and to any care for their properties (unless they're one of the handful that have major names attached) means that independent cinema will disappear under their guise.  This is to say nothing of how Netflix will eventually start taking its own films off of the platform to save on data or residual costs, and those films will truly disappear into the ether, making it impossible to find them on DVD or television or a retro screening (to date The Cloverfield Paradox is the only Netflix movie to get a DVD release, and that was due to Paramount, the film's parent company, mandating it).  The future generations of Spielbergs or Cuarons or Scorseses will get lost in such a system, and we'll just be force-fed whichever films randomly are at the top of the Netflix algorithm that day.  Customer choice is gone with Netflix-instead, you lose your voice or are only given a voice by numbers-and-digits.

Perhaps that's the way of the world now, and perhaps we should all get used to it.  Netflix is hardly the only company that operates in such an existence.  Facebook, Google, Apple-they all do the exact same thing.  But choice and artistic expression are things that are worth fighting for even if you might lose the fight, and I'm not ready for the film industry to devolve into YouTube with a redder logo.  Netflix has created some great movies that are worthy of awards, but that's not really the point.  The point is that history & literature & cinema are littered with cautionary tales of handing over creative freedoms to a faceless corporation, and it never ends well.  I worry that if filmmakers don't heed the root of Spielberg's argument, they could be sealing their own fate when Netflix is the only voice that matters.