Oscar Cinematography Nominations
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
Grug
Veteran
I'm pretty concerned by the crossover between VFX and Cinematography presented by Gravity too. It's masterfully done no doubt, and I also don't doubt that Chivo had full control over decisions made for the visuals, but clearly the implementation and effectiveness of those visuals was so heavily out of his hands that it really blurs the lines. I think they need a new category to be honest.
A real shame about Bobbitt's work on 12 Years a Slave being snubbed, I thought it was beautifully handled; I feel like The Grandmaster, whilst beautifully shot seems so heavily influenced by Conrad Hall's work on Road to Perdition that it looks almost unoriginal.
And although I think it's objectively very beautiful, I found the look on Inside Llewyn Davis to be a bit too heavy handed for my tastes.
I think this may finally be Deakin's year to be honest. Prisoners was masterfully shot; the Petrol Station/Van scene, the glowing orbs of passing headlights on the nighttime driving sequences, the muted, drizzly horror of the father's search - it's my pick of the bunch.
A real shame about Bobbitt's work on 12 Years a Slave being snubbed, I thought it was beautifully handled; I feel like The Grandmaster, whilst beautifully shot seems so heavily influenced by Conrad Hall's work on Road to Perdition that it looks almost unoriginal.
And although I think it's objectively very beautiful, I found the look on Inside Llewyn Davis to be a bit too heavy handed for my tastes.
I think this may finally be Deakin's year to be honest. Prisoners was masterfully shot; the Petrol Station/Van scene, the glowing orbs of passing headlights on the nighttime driving sequences, the muted, drizzly horror of the father's search - it's my pick of the bunch.
hscully
Veteran
yeah Prisoners is pretty great, and it's hard not to pull for Deakins. The thing about Inside Llewyn Davis that makes it so great is the craft involved in getting that look, so consistent. When I saw the trailer, I thought it was as you say, heavy handed. I didn't think I could take a whole movie looking like that with the bloomy highlights and the, well odd, color palette but as I got into it, I thought it really worked to take you into that world. I was just really pleasantly surprised at how all that worked.
How films gets nomination for cinematography? What films must have for that? For example, Fargo (1996) was nominated for best cinematography (by Roger Deakins), but for me Fargo visuals are very poor. I know, that "cheap tv show" colors, damaged skin tones (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3342959616/tt0116282?ref_=ttmd_md_pv) and dull locations suits the story. But come on, Oscar nomination? For what? Did they in Fargo invented new technology for color grading like in O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) by same Roger Deaking?
Liam Hall
Veteran
It may well do. It looked stunning - the Earth as seen from space does. But, given it was 95% was CGI, who should get their hands on the oscar first? Emamanuel Lubezki or Tim Webber? For me, Webber made the bigger contribution from a cinematography POV despite being VFX supervisor.
Last edited:
Patryk_Rebisz
Veteran
Haven't seen ANY of the Oscar nominated films (and i say it with pride).
Similar statements could be made about Avatar and Life of Pi. Personally, I don't know. Without intimate knowledge of who did what, and how things happened, it's very hard to make the distinction over who had more input into the look of the film. Certainly, from all that I've read, it seems Lubezki still had an incredible amount of input into the look of the film - but then one has to wonder how any of those voting would know who decided what.
Perhaps the award itself should be changed to 'film that looks the best/coolest' or 'film that pioneered cinematographic techniques' (but then, perhaps you could make an argument for The Hobbit being nominated).
It seems that perhaps the Academy are voting for the film that 'looks the best' perhaps, although it does bring into the question of Cinematography in a VFX/CGI film.
Perhaps a second award should be spawned. Certainly, whilst VFX/CGI films, and more traditionally shot films (i.e. those where the film is not over 85% CGI) perhaps require slightly different skillsets, and two Cinematographers working on two films, one of which is CGI and one of which isn't are likely going to be doing very different things, and working in very different ways on their sets.
Does that mean that one is less worthy of a Cinematography credit?
Perhaps it depends specifically on how much input the Cinematographer had into the look of the film. And that's difficult to know unless you're intimately familiar with the entire process of the film.
Certainly Roger Deakins consulted on the visuals and look of films like WALL-E and How to Train your Dragon, though he was not credited as Cinematographer, only Visual Consultant.
If he had picked up a camera and shot some plates, or some reference material, should he have been credited as Cinematographer?
Liam Hall
Veteran
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
In the Wife's 'world', one of the conferences which has a photo competition, they now are distinguishing between 'all in camera' vs. 'composite' entries. A composite entry can include all the non-photographically derived elements (3-d modeling/cgi, etc.).
But the 'all in camera' is intended to be what you'd expect, you walk to the scene, take the shot, and print.
---
To promote in-camera artistry (sooc or straight out of camera) there will now be a category for the purist photographer with no raw adjustments, retouching, Photoshop, etc. allowed.
---
This may be a bit 'hard lined' for people who like to perform 'filtering' or 'color effects', etc... but I think it is in direct response to 'how can 'in camera' photos compete with highly altered images'...
drapeama
Well-known member
Seen Prisoners and Gravity.
For what they are intended, they're both excellent movies. For Cinematography, Prisoners wins hands up. It was such an opportunity for Denis Villeneuve (Québec director) to work with Deakins, and their collaboration shows on-screen.
As other said, Gravity is 95% CGI, which doesn't apply for "Cinematography". They did a good job, and it's a technological achievement, like Avatar once was as well, but it has nothing to do in that category. Makes it win in VFX, then it's another story. That's me.
stefancolson
Well-known member
Why are you proud of being willfully ignorant of some of the most critically lauded films of the year? I can understand not liking them or the system that creates them, but to bury your head in the sand and not even observe what those at the forefront of the field are doing doesn't seem like something to be proud of.
Sharing your opinion is great, but if you haven't even seen the films then how can you have an opinion?
hscully
Veteran
I think your point is good one Where can you draw that line? I understand the intention, of the competition for sure but it must be hard to judge, even for photographs. It's an interesting debate.
Since it's all either digital or DI, I don't think you could make a movie without some grade, and didn't they used to grade with an optical finish?
Even if a photographer messes with the white balance, he or she could "grade" a digital photo. I also think about Gregory Crewdson and all the staging, compositing, and correction he does. Without it, it's not at all his photograph.
In a lot of ways it shows how much larger is the contribution of colorists and VFX artists to the films we all enjoy.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I have been thinking about this "All CGI" movie winning the Oscar for Best Cinematography thing for a while now. While I have a purist instinct that flinches at the thought, I have come to believe that this is proper in today's mainstream motion picture business. Cinematographers that work on the films that end up being nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar are still responsible for the pictorial look of a film whether it was mostly achieved by the large crew necessary for principal photography or by a large crew of CGI artists creating effects in post. The cinematographers that work at that level are still, in conjunction with the director, the author of the look, no matter how it was achieved and they are very deserving of the credit, recognition and, in the case of an Oscar win, the accolades for their work.
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I'm not fond of eoshd at all, but this time he found something really interesting: the absence of stuff shot on RED is very telling
http://www.eoshd.com/content/11914/red-cameras-absent-oscar-cinematography-best-picture-nominees
I didn't have that feeling, but it seems Dragon can't come soon enough for RED...
http://www.eoshd.com/content/11914/red-cameras-absent-oscar-cinematography-best-picture-nominees
I didn't have that feeling, but it seems Dragon can't come soon enough for RED...
The tools are different, but the artistic process is the same. Colorists have replaced negative timers. At the top levels the look of the film is created before the film is shot, a process shared by the director, DP, and production team. Colorists and VFX artists aren't making the decisions in isolation from creative direction.
A practical distinction for the digital age.
But it does not reflect the reality of creative art film photography in the past where we exercised great control over every step of the process: Filter and film stock selection when shooting, controlling the chemical process in development, dusting and spotting negatives, color timing prints, choosing different print stocks and development processes, dodging and burning print exposures to control tone mapping.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Actually there is a sort of historical precedent in the Oscars... from 1939 to 1967, there were nominations for 'best B&W' and 'best Color' films... In this era, it would seem there needs to be a 'best picture visual effects', vs 'best picture color/b&w'... (hey we did have a best picture B&W... and silent to boot, for 2012 Best Picture...).
The problem of course is how much 'visual effects' would indicate a movement of a film from one category to the other...
High1ander
Well-known member
There are yet some films for me to see, I did like Prisoners, and it would be sort of a bummer for Deakins if the one time he doesn't work with the Coens and they end up winning a cinematography Oscar then (well, obviously Delbonnel is great, and he deserves it too), just ironic.