Why did “Free Solo” get an Oscar Nomination and “Dawn Wall” did not?

Just curious as to what you all think.  

I loved both films but really thought that "Dawn Wall" was a better movie and had more depth of character and emotion than "Free Solo".

But I am not a film-maker and maybe missed the finer points of documentary films.

Perhaps it was b/c "Free Solo" followed one of the most audacious climbs, pretty much, ever?

Once again, I loved both films but curious as to why one was nominated and one was not.

Because it did.  Doubtful you'll get anything here besides speculation ranging from how easy it is to understand the consequences of free-soloing to the illuminati controlling the academy...

My impression was that Free Solo was a higher quality film, which was more accessible to the non-climbing public. I was telling my non-climbing friends that if they could only see one, and they cared about the story and the characters, to watch Free Solo. If they were interested in difficult rock climbing, they should watch Dawn Wall. That was just the way I felt about the movies, and others could have come away with a completely different impression.

Buck Rogers wrote: Just curious as to what you all think.  

I loved both films but really thought that "Dawn Wall" was a better movie and had more depth of character and emotion than "Free Solo".

But I am not a film-maker and maybe missed the finer points of documentary films.

Perhaps it was b/c "Free Solo" followed one of the most audacious climbs, pretty much, ever?

Once again, I loved both films but curious as to why one was nominated and one was not.

I sincerely doubt that the nominators put much weight in comparing the styles of climbing.

I enjoyed both, but the Dawn Wall felt more like a movie made for climbers. And Honnold's interaction with normies was far more unique than "man works for a long time, man climbs hard thing" even with the horrifying amount of PTSD thrown in.

Because it blew the NARPs minds

Climbing is too main stream now that it has hit hollywood. I am selling all my sheit and finding a different hobby.

Who the #@*& cares about st00pid movies. NAWAMEAN? JAH FEEL ME?

Because Free Solo was produced by National Geographic films, had brand name directors with some previous hype (Meru didn't get nominated but was shortlisted), had widespread distribution for a documentary, and likely had some campaigning by the studios behind the scenes.  Did you think this was a competition based solely on merit? 

because people weren't getting up and leaving the theater with anxiety during the dawn wall

​Read this.​​​

master gumby wrote: Climbing is too main stream now that it has hit hollywood. I am selling all my sheit and finding a different hobby.

Who the #@*& cares about st00pid movies. NAWAMEAN? JAH FEEL ME?

I approached a crag that a small group of youngsters were at yesterday. I swore there was music playing while I was walking up on them. Not surprised, and disappointed. I round the corner and make contact with them, and ask for a partner. They were cleaning the wall and heading out. Yea, ok, it's getting dark. That's fair. Then one of the chicks say "hey, what happened to the tunes?" ugh. Natural tranquility just isn't good enough for these kids. 

And to the OP.  Scrap the politics and popular culture on here, pwease! 

Paul Hutton wrote:And to the OP.  Scrap the politics and popular culture on here, pwease! 

When popular culture intersects with climbing, we are obligated to discuss it. We have no choice; it's a requirement. Didn't you get the memo?

It's just unfortunate that they came out in the same year. You're never going to have two Oscar nominated climbing flicks. The Dawn Wall is a great film and really got overshadowed by Free Solo. Remember how folks were complaining how long the production of Dawn Wall was taking? Heck, Adam Ondra sent it before the film came out, which sort of softened it. I'm not saying making movies is easy, but the production crew is paying the price for dragging their feet on that one.

Does anyone have any idea how much either film has grossed since coming out? I'd be willing to bet that Free Solo has a couple more zeros on the end of that figure.

Free Solo as a film is just a better movie. Better pacing, story development and some incredible cinematography. It was about a person, rather than a feat. The person was someone that audiences could relate to and the feat was something that was completely incomprehensible and terrifying.
Its more grounded in reality.

Dawn Wall, for me, was good but still felt empty. Like: "oh cool, that guy did something really hard."
It felt like a longer drawn out ReelRock primarily focused on climbing rather than the person climbing. And the feat of Dawn Wall is less relatable to a wider audience because people that aren't familiar with climbing dont know the difference between a 10a and 14d.

This is spot-on, Caleb. Free Solo is really about Alex growing as a person, set against the backdrop of an incredible feat. Tommy and Kevin really didn't have quite the need for personal growth and development or, if they did, it's not the focus of the film. So it's just a couple guys doing something really hard and impressive to us climbers. 

I just had this conversation last night after our gym session. As said above, Dawn Wall is a great movie for climbers, because the focus is on climbing. Tommy Caldwell is an amazing human being, and the portrait painted of him by the film is compelling. He's got a lovely family, and he frames his adventures in the context of those he loves. And that heart to heart with Kevin in the portaledge should be the forever example of how men communicate with each other. What's not to like? On the other hand, from the point of view of the craft of film making, Dawn Wall is a bit weak. Sender just doesn't have the money behind the process, compared to National Geographic. I found the sound editing to be poor (true of many Sender films), and the photography seemed a bit grainy and washed out on the later footage. While it doesn't interfere with my enjoyment, it definitely suffers in comparison to Free Solo.
As far as craft goes, Free Solo is standard setting. It's one take, one time. Just like Alex's climb, is had to be perfect. And, it was. The back story about Alex is also compelling. Tommy may be a better climber, but Alex has something going on that puts the viewer into an existential dilemma. If you don't simply push away what you're watching, you confront your own ideas of risk, death, self-expression, commitment to others, and so on. I'm STILL talking with people about this movie, months after first seeing it.
I hope it wins.

Because Dawn Wall should have come out way before but didn’t.

Cron wrote: 
Does anyone have any idea how much either film has grossed since coming out? I'd be willing to bet that Free Solo has a couple more zeros on the end of that figure.

Free Solo:
Opening Weekend USA: $290,205
ReleaseGross USA: $16,292,980 

Dawn Wall:
Opening Weekend USA: $21,615
Gross USA: $66,991

Caleb Hill wrote: Dawn Wall, for me, was good but still felt empty. Like: "oh cool, that guy did something really hard."
It felt like a longer drawn out ReelRock...

If anyone doesn't know, DW was produced and edited by ReelRock.

Dawn Wall was a much better film. Free Solo is nominated for an Oscar because $$$

adam gong wrote: Dawn Wall was a much better film. Free Solo is nominated for an Oscar because $$$

I agree.

This really comes down to the filmmakers. Chai is an experienced director who makes documentaries about many different subjects. Free solo is first and foremost a documentary, and a climbing film second. It's an excellent character study. 

The dawn wall, while great, is  really just a full length climbing film, without much appeal outside the community.