Oscar for Best Cinematography

J

jghenderson

Well-known member
One of the most interesting awards at the Oscars for me is the Cinematography award. I'm still fuming at Avatar winning two years ago, but oh well.

Who do you have this year? Incase you don't know, it's between:


The Tree of Life
The Artist
Hugo
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
War Horse



For me, it's not even close. The Tree of Life! Lubezki deserves to finally get his Oscar.
 
Well, how is Lubezki's work any better than Guillaume Schiffman, Janusz Kaminski or Bob Richardson? In fact, how did his work in The Tree of Life has any creative superiority to any of the others? I believe his work is ok, beautiful, certainly, but Oscar nom? Really?
 
I don't think The Tree of Life is Lubezki's best work (that would be Children of Men), but it's certainly the best of this year. The Tree of Life was the only film this year that had me awestruck at just how beautiful it was.
 
What I dont get is how some of the films can be nominated when a majority of the audience thinks differently, or films released earlier in the year, which have been much better have been forgotten about, and haven't been nominated.

It seems only movies released only a few months before the nominations are nominated for any award. I guess that means its better to release your film later in the year?
 
Wow, Nuno Dias, I can't imagine anyone would say: " Oscar nom, really?" in regards to Lubezki's work on Tree of Life.
One can argue if he should win or not, but to be surprised at the nomination itself is shocking.

I thought it was common knowledge that the cinematography was the "star" in Tree of Life, for the most part.

Practically every shot is perfecly composed and exposed. Such depth and contrast / latitude throughout, with detail everywhere, nothing blown out except for artistic effect, and nothing crushed. Also some of the best natural looking skin tones in all environments that I've seen.
Pretty much all of it was shot in natural light only. And look at those interior scenes in the kitchens or office building with Sean Penn. Knowing it's all natural light (or practical lamps that you see in the shots) and yet Lubezki managed to get perfect exposure pretty much all the time. The windows are bright, but you can see everything outside of them, same with the darker parts inside.

Also, reading an interview with lubezki in "American Cinematographer", he mentioned how almost every scene wasn't rehersed. It was shot practically like a documentary....lots of hand-held, "grab and go on to the next thing" type of shots. And after knowing that, it's a testament to his skill (to get so many great shots...and all in focus and perfectly exposed in such a rush!)

And the originality in composing such "everyday" events. I'd say it's more difficult to do what lubezki did here then to make more fantastic locations or action type of scenes look interesting. I mean shots of lady's just putting clothes on clothes lines, baby's chasing bubbles or simply walking through a house, a guy watering his lawn, a baby sleeping on his mother, people just walking down the street..... all these simple things are so artisically composed and well lit that they seem "fantastic" (fantasy) and not plain/boring. This scene for instance of kids playing in the street... http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/the-tree-of-life/treeoflife-032.jpg in still form it does it no justice, but if you saw the movie you know what I'm referencing.
heck just go here : http://evanerichards.com/2011/2407 (not my site)

Also his work really fit the mood of each scene (example, the "baby / toddler" scenes having almost all shots at low "baby-height" level), but the fact that the movie's practically as silent a film would get without being an all out silent film like The Artist, boosts the cinematography (in my opinion) since with Lubezki's images and very little dialogue, malik was able to evoke all the emotion needed through the movie. (to those who liked it. ...I myself thought it was okay, but not my cup of tea. ...though as you can tell I enjoyed the cinematography!)


Of course, all nominee's are great.
In the end It's down to Lubezki and Richardson, I think.


EDIT >> this post was in reply to the fact that you wrote that you were shocked that Lubezki even got the Nomination.
....Thinking about it now, perhaps that was a typo and you meant to question why people may think it deserves to WIN over the others.
if that's the case, then I apologiese if my post seemed to talk down to you or angry at you...though I didn't mean anything that way if it did.

I'll let others write why they think it deserves to win. I'm no fan of getting into that kind of personal opinion online. (better talking face to face...but that doesn't help here. ha)

I just had to chime in when I thought you were shocked that it was even nominated at all.
 
Last edited:
DDirector said:
What I dont get is how some of the films can be nominated when a majority of the audience thinks differently, or films released earlier in the year, which have been much better have been forgotten about, and haven't been nominated.

It seems only movies released only a few months before the nominations are nominated for any award. I guess that means its better to release your film later in the year?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's pretty much it. Most serious contenders for Academy Awards are released between September and December, with the majority falling in the Nov-Dec timeframe. This is because it's human nature to be more excited about and think better of a film that you've just seen than one you saw 8 months ago and have seen 40 films since. It's also because it's easier to push Oscar campaigns for a film that's still in its apex of buzz than it is for a film that feels like "old news."

Some films come out early in the year, and are given "reminder campaigns" (Open Road has promised a reminder campaign for The Grey come Oscar season), but these usually aren't nominated for the high profile awards (acting, directing, etc.) with generally an exception or two each year. This year, Midnight in Paris and The Tree of Life are the two major exceptions, with The Help being a small exception on account it was released in August, a month before the usual frame open.

-JMT
 
I'm very much rooting for Lubezki for the win. I'd also like to see The Tree of Life take Best Director and Best Picture (it stands as my #1 of 2011), but I don't think it will. Honestly, though, FoxS would have a much better shot pushing TOL as Best Pic and Best Director against The Artist than it will with The Descendants. The Descendants has lost too many high profile awards to The Artist this season to have a very good shot at dethroning the film, whereas TOL hasn't been in contention for most of the awards, already has a Cannes win, and could get the underdog "surprise comeback" vote if given a strong campaign.
 
Michael Traven said:
I'm very much rooting for Lubezki for the win. I'd also like to see The Tree of Life take Best Director and Best Picture (it stands as my #1 of 2011), but I don't think it will. Honestly, though, FoxS would have a much better shot pushing TOL as Best Pic and Best Director against The Artist than it will with The Descendants. The Descendants has lost too many high profile awards to The Artist this season to have a very good shot at dethroning the film, whereas TOL hasn't been in contention for most of the awards, already has a Cannes win, and could get the underdog "surprise comeback" vote if given a strong campaign.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately I don't think Tree of Life has any hope at all for Best Picture. The Artist is peaking at just the right moment, has all the momentum in the world, was recently released nation-wide, etc. As far as I can tell, The Artist is unstoppable for Best Pic.

Best Director is another thing, and I think it's the most competitive category of the night. While I would love for Malick to win, I think Hazavanicius is gonna take it.
 
I agree, TOL has very little chance at Best Pic. I think it would have a very strong shot if FoxS backed TOL instead of The Descendants, but that's not going to happen, save a miracle. I haven't seen The Artist OR The Descendants (both are on my "to watch" list but neither has made it to my town), but I'm honestly kind of rooting against The Artist. I hate that Harvey can buy his way into every Oscar race -- the man picks some damn good films, but it's his own star that shines brightest during awards season.

-JMT
 
I was kind of the same way, not really rooting for The Artist, until I saw it yesterday. Now im totally on the bandwagon. Aside from maybe The Tree of Life it's easily the best film nominated (I have seen all of them) and I'll be perfectly happy when it wins. I also really hope Dujardin beats Clooney for Best Actor.
 
It's a toss up between "The Tree of Life" and "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" for me.

I loved the cinematography in both of these films, though I was bugged by the "window light" ( not the source of the light, but the quality of the light ) lighting of the boy's room at night in "The Tree of Life", which while beautiful to look at seemed very unnatural for night lighting in a bedroom. This does not look like it's being lit by an incandescent bulb table lamp, common in the 50's and 60's, it looks like "window" light ( a fluorescent bank or large scrim just off to the side ).

Tree_of_Life_Night_Light.jpg
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I really don't get the cinematography nomination for Dragon Tat. I like Jeff Cronenweth, but there was just nothing about that film's visual style that excited or enthralled me. I'd much rather see Hoytema nominated for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
 
...I hated the "James Bond" style intro animation to "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", which seemed really out of place.
 
TheDingo said:
...I hated the "James Bond" style intro animation to "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", which seemed really out of place.
Click to expand...

It did, really. I guess it's in keeping with Fincher's style, though, Fight Club and all that, though the FC opening was much more in tune with the story, and the Dragon Tat opening just felt like a showy demo real for a VFX company.

 
George Steven's Giant (1956) which I had never seen. Also The French Connection which I hadn't seen since I was a kid.

It may seem counter intuitive, but I watch films a lot LESS since I started making them. All formats (at home, theater, internet) I doubt I watch more than two or three films a month.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
George Steven's Giant (1956) which I had never seen. Also The French Connection which I hadn't seen since I was a kid.
Click to expand...

I haven`t seen Giant ( I`ll have to check this out ), and I haven`t seen The French Connection since I was a teenager. ( another one I should probably revisit )

It`s funny watching old films I haven`t seen in a couple of decades, and noticing how I view things a lot differently today. ( John Carpenter`s Escape from New York did not hold up well, but his remake of the The Thing still blows me away when I think about all those effects that had to be done as practicals, no CGI in 1982 )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top