Inside A24's Divisive Body of Work

The Logo Synonymous With Quality

“A24”. The three magical letters granting any film a certified sign of quality. The New York-based production house, once a distribution specialist for independent arthouse projects, hit the ground running as a production company with 2016’s Best Picture, Moonlight, and slowly cemented itself as a budding mini major with follow-up indie-favorites such as Hereditary, Lady Bird and Uncut Gems. The studio’s auteur-driven strategy has been key to its meteoric rise, casually entrusting a carefully curated array of first-time talents with sizable budgets, as well as identifying stylistic, under-the-radar international productions for American releases.

With an emphasis on “stylistic,” when you watch an A24 film, you know it is an A24 film. Common characteristics might include, but are not limited to: (1) stylistic cinematography far removed from Hollywood’s wheelhouse; (2) a copious amount of allegorical/metaphorical images aimed squarely at adult demographics; and (3), perhaps the most distinct aspect of an A24 “joint,” the film should be a broody, unnerving slow burn filled with expert visual storytelling. The aforementioned are so synonymous with A24 that one of its own executive, Steven Frank, mistakenly, and jubilantly, thought Parasite was one of the studio’s purchases after its defining Oscar win: “What do you mean not one of ours? It’s a moody, atmospheric thriller set in a foreign country. Who else would have the balls to distribute that?”

A24 Bingo for Your Perusal (Credit: Joel Davis Warren)

In taking on original, singular artistic visions with mid-to-low budgets as its modus operandi, A24 admittedly operates under much lower stakes than say, Focus Features or Blumhouse, which are under direct management from the Big Five. But there is still considerable risk involved: after all, who would want to see a fantasy reimagining of a 14th century poem based on a knight who might or might not have existed? With New York City as its home, the studio’s significance to the city and to the massive independent filmmaking community here is undeniable and growing: the crowded crop of film graduates refer to A24’s LinkedIn every year as they hope to be the next Robert Eggers, Ari Aster or Barry Jenkins, or just simply to work in the company, with the belief that their short films or final theses are up-to-snuff for the notoriously selective studio.

Even when A24 films are not homeruns, the finished products would usually be well-shot, thought-provoking fares. But therein lies the dilemma with A24 films: a quick survey of the studio’s 85-film slate on Rotten Tomatoes and/or CinemaScore shows that, while generally adored by critics, A24 most well-known fares typically score low amongst general audiences. For example, The VVitch (yes, the “Double V-itch”) raked in a Certified-Fresh 90% amongst critics, but could not muster a Fresh rating amongst audiences at 59%; same goes for other wide releases in Hereditary (89% vs. 68% and a D+ on CinemaScore), Midsommar (83% vs. 63% and C+), It Comes At Night (87% vs. 44% and D), Uncut Gems (92% vs. 59%) and most recently, The Green Knight (88% vs. 49% and C+). Granted, it may be a small sample size, and admittedly seen from the more negative side of the conversation (Moonlight, The Farewell, Lady Bird and The Lighthouse are all unanimously acclaimed), but it does provide legs for the argument: Are A24 films actually praiseworthy films, or are they just a predisposed byproduct of A24’s near-spotless reputation?

A24's Award-Winning Slate

The “critics vs. audience” debate is as controversial as “the chicken or the egg," and there’s no arguing whether one is right or wrong: a “Certified Fresh” film for one can be the other’s worst film of the year. “The Green Knight,” a love letter by David Lowery to the folk poem about Sir Garwain and praised all-around by critics, is also regarded as “long,”"slow,” and “disappointing,” according to audiences from an exit survey conducted at the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Downtown Brooklyn. The film, which tells the story of Sir Gawain’s journey and forging of knighthood through the ominous and mystical woods, seemingly sets up a final comeuppance for the arrogant Sir Gawain as he is to be beheaded by the titular character. The climax, however, ultimately pulls the “It was all a dream” stunt on its audience, and ends with a half-hearted line from the Knight left up to interpretation: “Now, off with your head." Many unexplained moments or unresolved plot points also left the semi-packed theater frustrated, alongside some baffling camerawork and shot selections from David Lowery: one audience member mentioned a 3-minute 360 shot as “cringe-inducing” and “drags out the film”. A quick browse through movie forums and discussion sites on Reddit and Letterboxd would bring about the same sentiment expressed by the frustrated crowd at Alamo. The artistry of the film is drowned out by an inability, or unwillingess, to satisfy audiences with the traditional Hollywood formula.

Should this bravery and entrusting of a singular vision from A24 be praised or be damned?

Had “The Green Knight” been distributed by other less flashy studios with non-distinctive characteristics and smaller press coverage, say Neon or Bleecker Street, would it still be as highly regarded as it is? A24 sells their films not as quality products, but as an extension of its brand identity: in only eight years, the company has retained its place in the cultural zeitgeist in a way that few other studios have in twenty. The unanimous praise from critics alongside the plethora of awards and a dedicated fanbase have propelled A24 into uncharted territory, where the studio can afford to make films classified as “hard to watch” or “not a crowdpleaser”, and still continue to be successful and adored by many. The surprising nature of A24’s critical and audience divide can be characterized as “audience-proof,” contradictory as it may seem.

Recently, per multiple outlets, A24 has explored a buyout priced at $3 billion dollars, an astronomical fee for what is essentially a fledgling, offbeat indie startup. For reference, Amazon acquired MGM, the long-standing film studio with the rights to James Bond and Rocky, for $8.6 billion, only just over three times A24’s asking price for its near 100-year catalogue of films. The numbers, however, support this estimation: A24 films rarely bomb due to its low-budget nature and economical filmmaking style, and whoever has A24’s name slapped in front of their posters will have the trust of general audiences, even if they might leave disappointed.

Personally, I like A24 films: they are a breath of fresh air into an otherwise stalling industry filled with reboots, rehashes, derivative concepts and adaptations of existing IPs. I don't necessarily love the studio, especially with their gradual trend towards Gen-Z pandering.

And I do understand the divisive nature of these films: the studio is not exactly a champion of feel-good cinema, and the films rarely offer satisfying conclusions or breathtaking escapism like your average blockbuster. But in carving out its own unique space in the industry, as fearless believers of auteur cinema, with an almost religious resistance to formulaic filmmaking, they are the mighty last knights protecting a diminishing breed, keepers at the gate of boundary-pushing creativity, come hell or high water.

Even with gargantuan financial investments to come in the form of its partnership with Apple TV+, A24 is not changing its trajectory any time soon: they only agreed to co-produce arthouse films for the “fledgling” start-up streaming service, with many productions already in the pipeline attached to exciting talents. The first of their joint-productions, Tragedy of Macbeth, feels like A24 finally unleashed, with a glitzy cast (Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand) led by Joel Coen, one half of the Coen Brothers, in what is essentially a glorified stageplay adaptation of Shakespeare’s ubiquitous king. In eliminating any box-office worries, Apple TV+ has given A24 its own sandbox to play in: whether they will build a sandcastle or blow up the sandbox remains to be seen.

A24 has signed a first-look deal with Travis Scott's production company, Cactus Jack Films

In early August, the studio signed a production deal with Travis Scott’s Cactus Jack Films, focusing mostly on Scott’s “special projects,” the nature of which we can only guess. In light of Scott’s recent Astroworld debacle, it would be wise to suggest that A24 will be focusing more on the former deal with the tech giant rather than the headline-grabbing rapper. Coincidentally, Scott is perpetually linked with another groanworthy, heavily scrutinized household name: the Kardashians, by proxy of his relationship with Kylie Jenner. In some ways, A24 is similar to the Kardashians: the viewers might not like them or their products, but we cannot wait to see what shenanigans they are up to next.