Natalie Portman's 'Jackie' coming in December. No awards season shift?

The film 'Jackie,' which stars Portman as Jackie Kennedy, will be released in December after screening at the Toronto Film Festival. Traditional release dates are changing for some kinds of movies, but is the awards season for films set in stone?

Toronto Film Festival/AP
'Jackie' stars Natalie Portman.

The film “Jackie,” which stars Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy, has been acquired by Fox Searchlight and will be released this December, a move that demonstrates the enduring format of the awards hopefuls movie season even as the traditional movie calendar continues to shift.

“Jackie” also stars Peter Sarsgaard, John Hurt, and Greta Gerwig. It impressed critics when it screened at the Toronto Film Festival, which is still going on, and was quickly taken on by Fox Searchlight, which subsequently scheduled the December release date. 

Many critics are pointing to Ms. Portman, who has already won an Oscar for best actress for the movie “Black Swan,” as an awards season contender for her work in the film. They are also seeing Fox Searchlight's choice to release the film in December as a sign that the studio is hopeful Portman could have some success during Oscars season. 

The end of the year is often seen as a time for awards hopefuls to be released. For example, this year will see well-reviewed or anticipated films such as “Queen of Katwe,” “The Birth of a Nation,” “Loving,” and “Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk” released between September and December.

This schedule stays mostly the same, despite the fact that the movie calendar has changed in some ways over the past several years. While months like March and April were previously thought of as quieter months at the multiplex, recent blockbusters like “The Hunger Games” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” were released during that time. 

Some probable awards season contenders like August’s “Florence Foster Jenkins” came out at other times. Yet the awards season calendar mostly stays put. Why is this?

Deadline reporter Pete Hammond writes that smaller movies that come out earlier in the year often struggle because so many other studios stick to the traditional awards season time period. “The problem with so many of these smaller indie movies released earlier in the year is their not-always-deep-pocketed distributors have to mount expensive campaigns on their behalf or they stand little chance against the big guns of fall,” Mr. Hammond writes. 

And Forbes writer Scott Mendelson recently wrote that he thinks studios tried more of a spread-out schedule this year, but that it was a bust, noting that movies such as “Free State of Jones,” and “The Infiltrator” did not do well financially when they came out during non-Oscars season times.

“Theoretically, audiences and critics wouldn’t have to endure a year-end sprint to see all of the relevant Oscar movies,” Mr. Mendelson wrote of spreading out “prestige” movies. “The Oscar conversation wouldn’t be comprised of arbitrarily determined ‘contenders’ which tend to be anointed before they are even released.”

However, when Hollywood tried to alter the schedule, "audiences mostly said: 'No, thank you,'" he observes, saying "It is time to sadly acknowledge that 'Year-round Oscar season' was a failure."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.