Determining Oscar Eligibility

[Big Magilla]

It was an independent film with different distributers for each release. I think the L.A. distributor went out of business. It was picked up by the Goldwyn Company for its extremely limited New York release three years later.

[Reza]

I remember being confused by the release of the Glenda Jackson film Stevie. It came out in London in 1978 with Mona Washbourne getting a Bafta nod. Also got Golden Globe nods for Jackson and Washborne as it opened in LA that same year. And won for Wasbourne at the LA Film Critics.

And then years later in 1981 the film started cropping up on critics awards lists all over again - nominated for or winning at the New York Film Critics, Boston Society of Film Critics, National Society of Film Critics and the National Board of Review.

The reverse thing happened with the film as Mister Tee mentioned below about some other similar cases. It came out in LA in 1978 and New York didn't get it till 1981. I still found it strange that a film being mentioned for awards in 1978 goes missing in NY for 3 years

[OscarGuy]

The Father was eligible for most 1/1/20-12/31/20 eligibility windows. At the time, everyone was promised an eligibility release, so those of us with broader, more international memberships got a little screwed on that one.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
At some point, this discrepancy was eliminated -- everything shown in LA was screened in NY and deemed eligible whether it had opened yet or not. But this past year might re-create the old disparity. NY voted on a strict 2020-release standard, while AMPAS extended its deadline. As far as I know, neither The Father nor Judas and the Black Messiah were eligible at either NY or National (it was eligible in LA; in fact, won Editing) -- you'd think Hopkins, at minimum, would have figure in their voting had his film been in contention. It's possible we'll see them turn up in early December's vote.

At the rate we're going...

[Mister Tee]

By the time I was heavily following the Oscars, this strategy mostly focused on foreign-language films. These would often open at the NY Film Festival in September/October, move on to exclusive runs in a NY Rugoff theatre, and not show up in LA till after New Years. I saw The Battle of Algiers in Fall of 1967, though it wasn't eligible for Oscars until 1968. And there was that infamous run of films that won best picture from the NY Critics -- Cries and Whispers, Day for Night, Amarcord -- but weren't eligible for Oscars until a year hence. (Steven Spielberg will always remember.) As Magilla notes,the two cities are now pretty much in sync.

It also, of course, occasionally went the other way around -- films that were given mostly token release in LA (generally a one-week "qualifying engagement") but held for NY till the following year, meaning they were eligible for the NY Critics' awards a year after they competed at the Oscars. Gregory Peck, in fact, won best actor in NY in 1950 for 12 O'Clock High, a year after he'd been Oscar-nominated. Peck was eligible to repeat the feat with To Kill a Mockingbird, which opened late December in LA but didn't hit NY till it opened at Radio City Music Hall in February. (He couldn't have won in 1962, anyway; owing to the newspaper strike, there were no NY prizes that year.)

It seemed, every year, there were these special-qualifying-runs, and they rarely amounted anything. But, in 1973, The Last Detail managed three prime Oscar nominations...and, in 1974, it was part (along with Chinatown) of Jack Nicholson's best actor prize from NY. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore similarly benefited from the one-week engagement, getting a similar-though-female set of three Oscar nominations. Burstyn and Ladd would have been eligible at NY in 1975, though neither showed up in any voting I saw.

At some point, this discrepancy was eliminated -- everything shown in LA was screened in NY and deemed eligible whether it had opened yet or not. But this past year might re-create the old disparity. NY voted on a strict 2020-release standard, while AMPAS extended its deadline. As far as I know, neither The Father nor Judas and the Black Messiah were eligible at either NY or National (it was eligible in LA; in fact, won Editing) -- you'd think Hopkins, at minimum, would have figure in their voting had his film been in contention. It's possible we'll see them turn up in early December's vote.

[Reza]

Thanks for explaining. The mystery solved.

[Big Magilla]

Why did many films release a year or two later in Los Angeles? New York always got them first.

I can understand small towns in America getting films later but Los Angeles (Hollywood) was/is the film capital of the world. So why was it treated like New York's step sister?

It mostly had to do with studio politics. Los Angeles was/is the show business capital of the world but New York had the major critics.

Although many films had their world premieres in Los Angeles, many more had them in New York where a good review would stir more public interest in a film than it would in L.A.

Foreign films, which were mostly released by small companies, were almost always held back from an L.A. release for months after the film had been a critical hit in New York.

For some years, Oscar eligibility extended to early January which is why Fox's In Old Chicago, not shown anywhere prior to January 1938, was a 1937 Oscar nominee.

How Green Was My Valley was not shown in L.A. until early 1942 because Daryl Zanuck held it back until the last possible day to avoid the problem Fox had when The Grapes of Wrath, released in early 1940, was overshadowed by Rebecca, also an early 1940 release but one which was rereleased at year's end to be fresh in Oscar voters' minds.

That game hurt United Artists' strategy for In Which We Serve in 1942 when Oscar eligibility dates were moved back to a straight calendar year and the film couldn't find a booking in time. That's why it was given a special award for 1942 and was still able to compete in 1943.

Warner Bros. played the game with Casablanca, held back for months after its New York release when it was announced that Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin would be meeting in Casablanca in January 1943, tying in the film's L.A. and national release to the meeting date.

Adam's Rib, MGM's best shot at a 1949 Oscar was held back because Dore Schary didn't want it take votes away from Battleground.

Paramount in 1963 had both Patricia Neal in Hud and Natalie Wood in Love with the Proper Stranger as Oscar front-runners so they withheld Jean Simmons' Oscar vehicle, All the Way Home, until 1964 in L.A. where it got lost in the shuffle.

They all played the game.

And so it went until recent times when simultaneous N.Y. and L.A. release dates became the standard.

[Reza]

Why did many films release a year or two later in Los Angeles? New York always got them first.

I can understand small towns in America getting films later but Los Angeles (Hollywood) was/is the film capital of the world. So why was it treated like New York's step sister?

[Big Magilla]

A few more findings.

Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast and Ford's The Fugitive, both 1947 in New York, were 1948 in L.A.

Queen of Spades and Woman of Dolwyn, both 1949 in New York, were 1950 and 1951 respectively in L.A.

Marius, the first film of Pagnol's trilogy was shown in New York in 1931 without subtitles. Marius with subtitles was rereleased in New York in 1948 along with the premieres of Fanny (1936), and Cesar (1948), In L.A., Fanny, the middle film of the trilogy, was released in 1948, Cesar, the last film of the trilogy in 1949, and Marius, the first film of the trilogy in 1950.

[Big Magilla]

Revised http://cinemasight.com/oscar-profile-46 ... my-awards/ to correct eligibility info. regarding Steamboat Bill, Jr.

[Big Magilla]

The Academy Collection search machine is a better resource than Newspapers.com - it includes release dates for films that were not not eligible for Oscar for one reason or another including Tokyo Story, Andrei Rublev, and Yi Yi.

1928's L'Argent is shown to have been released in France only,

[Big Magilla]

These early "reminder" lists seem not to be reminder lists, but lists of submissions, some of which are invalid.

1927/28 lists The Big Parade (1925) and Beau Geste (1926) which are obviously invalid. Street Angel is listed for both 1927/28 and 1928/29.

I also found John Ford's Four Sons listed for both 1927/28 and 1928/29. The first one is the correct one for this film which had its world premiere Feb 7, 1928. Street Angel is listed for both 1927/28 and 1928/29.

Also, The Barker, a December 1928 release, listed for both 1927/28 and 1928/29. The later date is the correct one for this.

Found The Man Who Laughs in 1928/29 which seems to be correct.

Couldn't find Frtiz Lang's M, a verified 1933 release in L.A., but did find Joseph Losey's 1951 remake.

Found Lang's Scarlet Street in 1946, not 1945.

Found September Affair listed for 1951, not 1950.

[Big Magilla]

Wow, Mateo. Thanks for that. Looks like I'm going to be up for the rest of the night perusing this list.

I knew Queen Christina was 1934 and Murder, My Sweet was 1945, but I'm sure I'll find some I didn't know.

That CinemaSight article is mine. The confirmation of Steamboat Bill, Jr. for 1928/29 was based on Inside Oscar. That's for catching that as well.

[Mateo]

I recently discovered the website, And The Oscar Goes To..., and its database of Academy reminder lists of eligible releases from 1927/28 to present day: https://www.atogt.com/askoscar/display- ... =list-text

Whoever is behind the website seems to have reviewed and scanned each Academy booklet of eligible releases. They list the dimensions of each reminder booklet, page amounts, and the number of eligible films listed within each booklet. They credit AMPAS for the information, making me wonder if they, too, visited the Margaret Herrick Library.

Their data seems credible. The website has A Christmas Carol eligible for 1951, not 1952; All That Heaven Allows eligible in 1955, not 1956; and Red Dust eligible in 32/33, not 31/32. Interestingly (and perplexingly), they don't have Steamboat Bill, Jr. listed as eligible for 27/28 OR 28/29. Though Cinema Sight seems to confirm that Steamboat was, in fact, included as eligible by the Academy for the 28/29 awards: http://cinemasight.com/oscar-profile-46 ... my-awards/

As for LA release dates, you might find this official Academy database even easier to use than Newspapers.com: https://collections.new.oscars.org/search/advanced. Simply enter a film title in their "Title-exact" search engine, search the entry, and the generated result will include an exact LA release date. For example, I just searched Queen Christina and "1934-02-10 (LA release)" was included in the results.

I've found both resources very helpful! I've also had quite a few of my Oscar eligibility assumptions corrected (e.g. who knew Murder, My Sweet was eligible in 1945, not 1944?)

[Big Magilla]

At some point I had asked Damien (Bona) why there were eligibility errors in Inside Oscar. He said that Mason (Wylie) had done that part of the research. The list for each year under the Nominations section of Inside Oscar came from his research at the Academy's Margaret Herrick Library. Apparently they were culled from lists of films that voters had submitted. Although the Academy regularly discarded ineligible entries, a few slipped through.

This would explain why Red Dust was listed as eligible for 1931/32 instead of 1932/33 and All That Heaven Allows was listed for 1956 instead of 1955.

One error that no one seems ever to have caught is the listing of Steamboat Bill, Jr. which Inside Oscar listed as eligible in 1928/29, something that other bloggers have relied on ever since. I had assumed that the film, which opened in New York in May 1928, had not opened in Los Angeles until August or later. A check with the Los Angeles Times archive on Newspapers.com, however, shows that the film opened in L.A. in April 1928 and would have been eligible for the first year's awards.

Three other mysteries solved:

I had assumed that the reason Street Angel was listed as one of the films for which Janet Gaynor won the first Best Actress award was because voters had seen it after the eligibility period but before the voting for the first awards took place, and that the Cinematography and Art Direction citations for 1928/29 were made during the film's true eligibility period. Nope. It, too, opened in L.A. in April 1928 adndshould only have been considered for awards in the first year.

The 1928 French film of Zola's L'Argent is believed by some bloggers to have been released in the U.S. in December 1928, making it eligible for the 1928/29 awards. Again, nope. The film was reviewed by the N.Y. Times at that time but it was based on a viewing of the three hour plus film in Paris. It was never reviewed in the L.A. Times.

The 1951 version of A Christmas Carol, believed to be stymied in its original distribution beyond its New York showing in the U.S., didn't play L.A. until the following year. Not so. The Alastair Sim version of the Dickens classic did indeed play L.A. in November 1951.

To read contemporaneous L.A. Times reviews or other film articles you need a subscription to Newspapers.com, but you don't need a subscription to search for a film's mention in either a review, advertisement, or theatre listing. You just to have to search on a key word, be it part of the title or the name of the film's director or one of its stars, and the year in which you want the search to determine when the film played L.A. and thus became eligible for Academy Awards.