Why now?
Winning an Oscar is quite difficult. Anderson will be the first to acknowledge that. Back in 2008, his There Will Be Blood was instantly recognized as a classic, but that didn’t keep the voters from choosing the Coen Brothers’ No Country for Old Men instead. Competition is crucial, especially when your big opponent is equally lauded as “masterful.”
Despite the Oscars loss, There Will Be Blood appeared number one on the Guardian’s list of best films of the 21st century, described as a “strange masterpiece.” “Strange” isn’t a word unfamiliar to Anderson. From a young dishwasher turned porn star in Boogie Nights, to the toxic power dynamics of Phantom Thread, his films are highly unusual. The opposite of what voters typically reward, preferring clear and digestible themes.
Nearly 30 years after his first nomination for Boogie Nights, the stars aligned. Early in his career described as a wunderkind and later the "foremost filmmaking talent of his generation", voters decided it was time for Anderson to win. But his reputation alone wasn’t enough. He also needed to find a balance between his “strangeness” and broad relevance. And that wasn’t guaranteed.
How do you turn "unfilmable" into gold?
Anderson found his inspiration for One Battle After Another in Vineland, a novel about the political climate of the 60s in America. The author is Thomas Pynchon, an American novelist who is known for complex works with many characters and subplots. His books are regarded as “unfilmable.” It’s not the first time Anderson has tried to adapt an unfilmable Pynchon novel. In 2014, he tried it with Inherent Vice; it closely followed the dense source material and was just as confusing.
For his recent attempt, he took a different approach. One Battle kept the core of Vineland (a past revolutionary and his daughter are threatened by a returning enemy) and put it in modern-day America. That choice made it more relevant, which is an important part in winning votes. The result was a loose adaptation of the book, featuring fewer characters, a streamlined storyline and a car-chase scene. His most accessible work yet.
What was DiCaprio’s part in the victory?
Anderson has worked with many outstanding actors before. Tom Cruise, Julianne Moore, Daniel Day-Lewis, … But there’s one actor he has been wanting to work with for a long time and never had: Leonardo DiCaprio. Anderson envisioned him as the star of Boogie Nights, but DiCaprio eventually chose Titanic instead. 30 years later, they finally made a film together.
It’s easy to see why Anderson wanted to work with him. Of DiCaprio’s last 18 films where he played a leading role, 15 of them had at least one nomination, and 11 were nominated for Best Picture. He is also considered one of the last great movie stars and was a key figure in Warner Bros. deciding to invest $130 million dollars in the film. His performance earned him a Best Actor nomination, but his name on the poster mattered just as much. It brings in the money, and the attention of voters.
Why did Warner Bros. want to win?
Warner Bros. gamble to invest such a significant amount of money didn’t pay off at the box office. One Battle After Another lost the studio about $100 million, so they needed to find a way to capitalize on that risk nonetheless.
Enter the Oscar Race, where massive studios spend enormous amounts of money, in an attempt to receive the Little Golden Man. They are willing to spend big on the Oscars, because a win means a longer commercial lifespan for the film. Especially in the case of One Battle, it was crucial.
Warner Bros. was in a strong position, since they had the two frontrunners of the Oscars this year. One Battle, and Sinners. They reportedly split a budget of $30 million between the two films, solely for Oscar campaigning. This means generating “positive buzz”, by using marketing strategies to position the film as culturally relevant, but also networking and lobbying. In the end, the investment paid off. The box office flop had won Hollywood’s biggest prize.
What changes for Anderson?
That’s up for debate. The Oscars are seeing a decline in viewership, and there is genuine debate about whether the Oscars are still relevant. So, if the audience declines, will the impact follow the same trend? Not necessarily. Within the industry, it still has an effect. Actors see more opportunities and higher salaries after winning, and directors gain more creative freedom.
It’s not sure whether that will be the case for Anderson. When Scorsese took home his first Oscar in 2007, he was already named among the greatest American living directors, so the impact of the statuette is questionable. The same can be said about Anderson. His status within the industry was already quite big and will perhaps not benefit massively from his Oscars success.
Those analyses skip over one aspect, in the end, which is the personal one. The best insight is probably from PTA himself. After taking home his second award of the evening for Best Director, he said, “There will always be some doubt in your heart that you deserve it, but there’s no question at the pleasure of having it for myself.” [sic]