Oscar Cinematography Nominations

stefancolson said:
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?
Click to expand...

Senior, i watch 2 films per day. Clearly there is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE to cinema than Hollywood. Everything produced in certain system stinks of that system. By influencing your psyche with that stink you in a way force you thinking patterns in that direction. The past 4 years i tried to watch some Oscar nominations, this is the first year where consciously i stayed away because the past years the films became un-watchable. If you think they still produce entertainment, fine with me - i don't. I start yawing before credits finish rolling and in turn have very little patience to waste my time on something that has very little to teach me.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Senior, i watch 2 films per day. Clearly there is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE to cinema than Hollywood. Everything produced in certain system stinks of that system. By influencing your psyche with that stink you in a way force you thinking patterns in that direction. The past 4 years i tried to watch some Oscar nominations, this is the first year where consciously i stayed away because the past years the films became un-watchable. If you think they still produce entertainment, fine with me - i don't. I start yawing before credits finish rolling and in turn have very little patience to waste my time on something that has very little to teach me.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't have the authority or wisdom to declare any approach to be better than any other, but it would seem to me that keeping current with the films that do the best business and get the most praise each year is just knowing your industry and market. I'm certainly not an apologist for the system or the state of mainstream Hollywood cinema, but to say that everything nominated is unwatchable crap that you can learn nothing from seems like gross hyperbole.
 
In 2011 i've seen: Hugo (the first 15 min), Girl with Dragon Tattoo (first 15min), Tree of Life, War Horse (20 min of it)

In 2012 it was: Life of Pi, Lincoln (first 10 min), Skyfall (first 20 min)

... Look at the titles. "Life of Pi"? "Skyfall"???????? Clearly the system is broken if boring films (from cinematic perspective) like those two get nominations.
I know a few Academy people who get to vote - they barely watch the films they are sent so in essence the films most 'talked' about get nominated not the ones who look most extraordinary. Again, "Skyfall" got nominated in 2012??? The DP was bored out of his mind shooting it and yet it's up there with "the best of the bests." I harped at the silliness of the system many times. At some point i just gave up and stopped watching those films - they are drifting away from my interests (see how little time i pay to each film).
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
In 2011 i've seen: Hugo (the first 15 min), Girl with Dragon Tattoo (first 15min), Tree of Life, War Horse (20 min of it)

In 2012 it was: Life of Pi, Lincoln (first 10 min), Skyfall (first 20 min)

... Look at the titles. "Life of Pi"? "Skyfall"???????? Clearly the system is broken if boring films (from cinematic perspective) like those two get nominations.
I know a few Academy people who get to vote - they barely watch the films they are sent so in essence the films most 'talked' about get nominated not the ones who look most extraordinary. Again, "Skyfall" got nominated in 2012??? The DP was bored out of his mind shooting it and yet it's up there with "the best of the bests." I harped at the silliness of the system many times. At some point i just gave up and stopped watching those films - they are drifting away from my interests (see how little time i pay to each film).
Click to expand...

I of course disagree on the point of 'cinematography'. In most cases the various films produced by Hollywood are 'excellent'. Same goes for Sound and Music. On the other hand, one can quibble on such elements as script, story, casting, etc.

In fact, I may loosen my critical eye on truly independent films, because of the fact that they may not have the financial backing that the Hollywood product has.

In a past year, "Beasts of the Southern Wild"(2012) made my motion sick just watching... now that one, had I used my own personal response to viewing the film, should have been on the 'top' (that is to say the bottom) of the Razzie List... which it wasn't.
 
You really thought that Hugo, Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, Tree of Life, Life of Pi, and Skyfall were boring cinematically? I had quite a few complaints about most of those films, but you really consider them to be visually boring? Hugo had some incredible steadicam work and long takes that were pretty stunning. I hated Skyfall (after getting about as hyped for it as a person can be for a film), but I don't know how you can argue that it looked anything but fantastic. To be fair though, much of the best cinematography in those films fell outside of the first 15-20 minutes.
 
One may not like the stories or the writing, but it's hard to say that nothing could be learned or gleaned from those at the top of their profession. Surely, there's much to be gained from the Production Design in American Hustle and Her? The understated, yet quietly beautiful Cinematography in Her, the achievements in technology and VFX in Gravity, the incredible acting in Captain Phillips, the music and sound design of many of the films...

The stories themselves may not be necessarily appealing, but I can't imagine actively avoiding watching what are seen to be some of the best films of the moment, put together by masters of filmmaking craft.

The argument can certainly be made about the state of the Academy awards, but that's not to say the filmmaking craft isn't at a top level, for at least some, if not all the films in contention.

Admittedly, I haven't seen a great deal of Academy nominees from the past couple of years - though that's more to do with being too busy or pre-occupied rather than actively attempting not to see them. This year I've seen quite a few of the films in contention, and for the most part I believe they are quite good films overall.
 
I am genuinely curious which new films Patryk likes in terms of cinematography?
It is certainly understandable that smaller movies get less attention and there are politics involved in both nominations and winners. At least the nominees (unlike the winners) are decided by the branches, so cinematography nominees are selected by cinematographers.
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
Senior, i watch 2 films per day. Clearly there is MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE to cinema than Hollywood. Everything produced in certain system stinks of that system. By influencing your psyche with that stink you in a way force you thinking patterns in that direction. The past 4 years i tried to watch some Oscar nominations, this is the first year where consciously i stayed away because the past years the films became un-watchable. If you think they still produce entertainment, fine with me - i don't. I start yawing before credits finish rolling and in turn have very little patience to waste my time on something that has very little to teach me.
Click to expand...

Is it that you prefer a more shortened, kinetic form of filmmaking? When you say you watch two films a day I get the idea that you're watching short stuff on youtube and vimeo. In that case, maybe you're just predisposed to web filmmaking, which is a unique genre very much coming into its own these days. There is a pretty big difference between these kinds of films and Hollywood's longer, more traditional fare.
 
It's hard for me to imagine that you're not being purposely provocative, Patrick, but that's part of the fun of the forum, I guess ;)

I can understand why you might not like the cinematography in Skyfall. It's all big movie stuff. I also can't tell what is cinematography and what is not in Pi so I'll give you that one. I can even say that if you don't like it that flat shadowy Fincher look then, well that's a matter of taste and so infinitely variable but for my money, Lincoln was beautiful. The way Januz Kaminski shot that was a wonderful example of classical skill - the light and shadow for the time, the beautiful fall off, the locked shots and beautiful wides... for me that was a clinic. Maybe it wasn't the "latest and greatest" but I still think it was a lovely achievement. While we're at it, I thought Kushner's script should have taken best screenplay over Django.
 
I'm not sure how my personal "great cinematography" list would help anyone, but here it is from a recent discoveries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rfAIvoHMeF4#t=447
(0:07:27) - how the managed to stuff this behemoth 50s camera in this tiny corridor still baffles me, but what's more important is that they understood that this is not just a visual trip but rather a way to give a sense of traveling in cramped corridors of a train

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6_kBg3_g10#t=1186
(0:19:57) - this is a cinematic feast - where various lighting cues reflect changing states of human psyche

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lgE2X5sT088#t=3736
(1:02:19) - this is perfect example of cinematic feast - in one shot you got a rain passing in BG, character walking along the train tracks, people pulling down rail barrier, horse carriage stopping at the crossing, camera panning with the character walking as another train passes by)

Those three examples illustrate my frustration with current state of cinematography. In a way the reasons why those examples are so powerful is because the makers stood strongly behind specific ideas. What they were trying to accomplish was so vital that they jumped over the hoops to create those shots. Those were not simple coverage-based shots but whole orchestrated music pieces. The times have changed and cinematography reflects that change. People don't stand for strong ideas in films anymore and thus it's almost pointless to produce powerful images - as no matter how powerful the images are they will only serve in telling some trivial story. So why bother? Maybe this general lack of ambition is healthy, i don't know, maybe Deakins shouldn't care that much about how "SkyFall" looks like because after all it's juts a silly James Bond film...

This ambivalence both makes me sad and invigorates my personal work. If you are a washout who doesn't care about images anymore, well then screw you - i won't pay attention to your work. I have a whole library of films still to watch (even watching 2 films per day) that give me hope that the medium is "not dead" yet.
 
Patryk, if you like long protracted takes that allow character and emotion to develop along with the storyline go watch Gravity in 3D on the biggest screen you can find. It's not neorealism, cinema has moved on from there:-)
 
Thanks Patryk for indulging my curiosity. These are indeed great examples. And there is certainly a ton of terrific stuff that can be glimpsed in Eastern European classics. It is also a whole new discussion whether this is a demonstration of directorial or cinematographic prowess, as such a distinction is imposed traditionally (if somewhat arbitrary) in awards categories. But I was asking more about your new favorites, as in "newly made".
I guess you are too harsh on Skyfall. It is the best looking Bond film, imo. And most probably one of the best looking action movies of all time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfOqLDhGtVk
I second Liam, you should go see Gravity on a big screen. It is a cinematic feast. I don't remember the last time a film pulled me in like this based on pure cinematic virtues.
 
Okay, I get it now. You're a classicist. More power to you. My two favorite filmmakers are Kurosawa and Bergman and their cinematographers Asakazu Nakai and Sven Vilhem Nykvist. Can't get enough of their stuff. So conservative and yet lush. Filmmaking has changed a lot since then, and not always for the better.
 
16mman said:
Okay, I get it now. You're a classicist. More power to you. My two favorite filmmakers are Kurosawa and Bergman and their cinematographers Asakazu Nakai and Sven Vilhem Nykvist. Can't get enough of their stuff. So conservative and yet lush. Filmmaking has changed a lot since then, and not always for the better.
Click to expand...

Even in the heyday of Bergman et al... we had...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top