It’s Hard to Ignore A24

A24 has positioned itself as a shining hope for independent and arthouse cinema in the eyes of many. Over the last decade, this studio has produced and distributed films distinguished by their unabashed uniqueness and authenticity. All the while, they have cultivated a brand that has proven to have an unrelenting grip on young film lovers, developing what is often dubbed in the media as the “cult of A24.”

It was not until a few years ago that I had realized that a mass amount of the films that were formative in my adolescence and more specifically, my love and taste for movies, were marked by the same studio. I particularly remember watching Harmony Korine’s infamous Spring Breakers (2013) at 12 years old and coming back to it a few years older with some of the same inconclusive thoughts on what I had just watched. Spring Breakers is considered to be A24’s breakthrough film earning $31.7 million at the international box office on a $5 million budget. Despite its contentiousness amongst critics and audiences alike, it would not be long before A24 would meet this type of box office success again and eventually garner its reputation for quality with films like Ex Machina (2014), Room (2015), Moonlight (2016), The Florida Project (2017), and many more. 

When asked what types of movie one likes, it is not uncommon to get the blanket response of “A24 films” and there is something to be said about the significance of their branding that has cemented this type of loyalty and high praise, especially amongst relatively young audiences  and online film communities. Because surely, A24 is not the only company producing and distributing indie turned hit films in the Internet Age–Neon, for instance, is tied to both I,Tonya (2017) and Parasite (2019) respectively, but besides A24’s head start, there’s a clear distinction in the way being linked to the studio inevitably characterizes a film.

From their inception, they have released films that blend notable directorial and acting talents  with concepts that are a departure from the traditional tentpole films that dominate the box office. However, with social media, being unorthodox is a much less daunting obstacle for the company as they utilize online platforms as a vessel to directly interact with their target audience of Millenials and Gen Z. Heavily reliant on social media marketing (whether that be executed themselves, or building off of fan-made hype), the way A24 films have resonated with their target audiences cannot go unnoticed. The proof of influence has been posted online, generating even more cultural relevance for each film whenever popular discourse around them circulates. The thematic and aesthetic impact of films like Mid 90s (2018), Midsommar (2019), and Pearl (2022) is often seen through popular costumes and ever-present soundbite trends. 

Speaking further to the aesthetic quality of the brand and its ability to monetize on top of their films, the A24 website has an additional shop section in which merchandise that is either film specific or branded with the A24 logo can be purchased. Featured on the shop are a plethora of items including exclusive apparel, alternative poster prints, zines (pamphlets featuring original or adapted text and art designs), soundtrack vinyls, screenplay books, kitchenware, stationary, blankets, and more. A crafted wishlist for their most loyal of fans, or a one stop shop for fans of a particular film. Long after a film’s release, new pieces are added and restocked. This is a strategic way to constantly provide adjacent products for new fans of each film. Seeing the A24 branded shirts and hats in real life further cemented for me just how well these community building tactics have been truly working for this company.

All of this, in addition to the continuous Academy acclaim in the last few years, has gone on to strengthen the presence of their films in mainstream spaces. When explaining the impact of the films that this studio produces and distributes, the significance of their Academy wins cannot go unacknowledged, particularly with Moonlight (2016) directed by Barry Jenkins and Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022) directed by Daniels. In 2017, Moonlight took home Best Picture at the 89th Oscar Awards as one of the handful of Best Picture winners to feature a predominantly Black cast and Black protagonist, as well as the first to center a LGBTQ+ story. A few years later, Daniels’ production received a dominating seven wins including Best Picture and several of the main acting awards, making A24 the lead distributor at the 95th Oscars. It is no small feat that films made by and starring minority individuals were campaigned and propelled to the forefront of conversation. Everything Everywhere All At Once is additionally the first A24 film to cross $100 million at the international box office which shows strong promise for the future of subversive cinema to be successful with something akin to mainstream marketing. 

In the presence of many shining successes and their cultural stronghold, to more holistically represent the state of A24 films it is worth noting that, much like any other indie film studio and distribution company, not everything is marginally profitable, let alone a smash. In fact, Ari Aster’s (Midsommar, Hereditary) new film, Beau Is Afraid, starring Joaquin Phoenix was recently met with $11.5 million at the box office, despite having a $35 million price tag–the most expensive film for A24 thus far. With this specific film, the deficit is less of an issue being that Aster sustains the mix of nontraditional and mainstream which ignites some conversation and adds to the studios reputation of divisive film, but this type of deficit can be seen amongst many of the company’s other produced and distributed projects. For this reason, it is expected that the company will evolve to better offset this loss, and possibly widen their horizon for the types of films they want to be attached to.

Earlier this year, The Wrap reported that A24 is amending its strategy to make room for films that are more commercial and potentially profitable. This includes more action films and more franchisable films with recognizable IP. Interestingly, A24 was recently in a battle with Marimax for the Halloween franchise’s TV rights. This alleged new business model has come with speculation about the future of A24. A partial departure from the dominating emphasis on experimental and distinctive film, some wonder if sacrificing their current business model to privilege the mainstream will alter A24’s current characterization amongst audiences. 
The numerous revivals and reimaginings of established IP has reinforced how the particulars of who is involved in the making of a the film or tv product can ultimately impact the quality, evidently, often to its detriment. The generally auteur-first method of A24 and the acclaimed talent relationships that already exist could bring a worthy perspective to revitalized works. After the release of Greta Gerwig’s Barbie, Mattel Films specifically teased the new Barney live action as an “A24-type” of “surrealistic” movie. Their eccentric qualities are known throughout the industry, and as A24 takes on their own approach to known works, the result could be fascinating. As long as they shuffle in these new productions with the same (or even greater) attention to featuring diverse filmmakers with creative visions, this new model could offer viewers a wider range of experiences that are in line with the idiosyncrasies of the company. It challenges the company to amend their structure to a further degree, while hopefully sustaining the features that made them so beloved in the first place. Ultimately, it is an evolution with the potential to expand the reach of compelling, polarizing, and often neglected stories.