Oscar for Best Cinematography

I'd agree on both of those (Escape From New York not holding up and The Thing being basically a masterpiece).

I have a much younger finance' (she's 30 and I'm 45), so I spend a lot of my movie watching introducing her to all the great films she's missed (Bullitt is high on the list right now).

I also think consciously or unconsciously I'm almost avoiding "current" films because I don't want to be influenced by them. My stuff has a very retro aesthetic. Don't get me wrong if somebody said 'Hey man, let's go see The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" I'd go, but I don't seem to seek out new films on my own. I also watch a lot of docs, which is made even weirder by the fact I have less than zero desire to make a doc. Actually, maybe that makes perfect sense...
 
TheDingo said:
For me the "golden" years for Hollywood have always been the 60's and 70's, when story and acting were often the most important part of the film. ( before the great CGI plague came along and destroyed the art of story-telling )
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned it in a different forum, but it took a 10 email thread for my editor to sell me on doing a sky replacement on my last film. That's how anti any kind of computer effects I am.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
That's how anti any kind of computer effects I am.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with CGI when it's used like it was in Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", which many people don't think of as a heavy CGI movie, when it actually was. ( i.e. the CGI works invisibly in the background, and never draws attention to itself )
 
Watched Carpenter's The Thing last night. It's an above average film but I can't help but compare it to Alien. Now THAT is a masterpiece.
 
TheDingo said:
I have no problem with CGI when it's used like it was in Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", which many people don't think of as a heavy CGI movie, when it actually was. ( i.e. the CGI works invisibly in the background, and never draws attention to itself )
Click to expand...

This. It's crazy to think that The Terminator was made 20 years ago and many films these days don't have CGI as subtle and as well done, as in that film.
 
Searcher said:
This. It's crazy to think that The Terminator was made 20 years ago and many films these days don't have CGI as subtle and as well done, as in that film.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Between that and Jurassic Park, modern filmmakers could really learn a thing or two about how to do CGI properly.
 
I've seen the Descendants, Midnight in Paris, Tree of Life, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Warhorse. Haven't seen The Artist and Hugo. From the ones I've seen, for best cinematography, only the Tree of Life and Warhorse are Oscar worthy. The GWDT is nice and I'm happy s a future red owner to see it nominated, but while it has an interesting and very effective cinematography for the film, its just not at the same level of the other 2. The Artist looks interesting, since its tribute in cinematography to another era of cinema. Hugo I really want to see to see what Scorcese could come up with the integration of the 3rd dimension in his filmmaking. If there's a director that knows the language of cinema its Scorcese, so I'm sure the 3D cinematography will go well beyond the simple "wow" and "in your face scare" language.

Riht now I have to say Tree of Life my favorite- however, those CGI dinosaurs and "Universe shots (also CGI?) I really, really disliked. Warhorse is classic cinematography at its best, with very clever framing and camera angles, as well as fantastic use of color and light. A close call, for me, between these 2 right now. Need to see The Artist and Hugo to really be able to place my final bet :)
 
BTW, why the hell didn't Eduardo Serra get any Academy love for HP7.2? The framing on that film was a mind-f--k.
 
SPZ said:
I've seen the Descendants, Midnight in Paris, Tree of Life, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Warhorse. Haven't seen The Artist and Hugo. From the ones I've seen, for best cinematography, only the Tree of Life and Warhorse are Oscar worthy. The GWDT is nice and I'm happy s a future red owner to see it nominated, but while it has an interesting and very effective cinematography for the film, its just not at the same level of the other 2. The Artist looks interesting, since its tribute in cinematography to another era of cinema. Hugo I really want to see to see what Scorcese could come up with the integration of the 3rd dimension in his filmmaking. If there's a director that knows the language of cinema its Scorcese, so I'm sure the 3D cinematography will go well beyond the simple "wow" and "in your face scare" language.

Riht now I have to say Tree of Life my favorite- however, those CGI dinosaurs and "Universe shots (also CGI?) I really, really disliked. Warhorse is classic cinematography at its best, with very clever framing and camera angles, as well as fantastic use of color and light. A close call, for me, between these 2 right now. Need to see The Artist and Hugo to really be able to place my final bet :)
Click to expand...


You absolutely need to see Hugo in 3D if you can. I hate 3D (I thought Avatar's 3D was crap), but Hugo was the first film i've ever seen where I thought it actually worked. Leave it to someone like Scorcese to finally get 3D right. And yeah the Artist was also very nice. I would put it above War Horse and GWTDT.

As for the Tree of Life, it's sad that you, and probably a lot of people, think the universe shots were CGI. They were actually all real shots made by the guy who did the special effects for 2001: A Space Odyssey. He used all sorts of chemicals and strange things to create the shots and I personally thought they were stunning.
 
jghenderson said:
You absolutely need to see Hugo in 3D if you can. I hate 3D (I thought Avatar's 3D was crap), but Hugo was the first film i've ever seen where I thought it actually worked. Leave it to someone like Scorcese to finally get 3D right. And yeah the Artist was also very nice. I would put it above War Horse and GWTDT.

As for the Tree of Life, it's sad that you, and probably a lot of people, think the universe shots were CGI. They were actually all real shots made by the guy who did the special effects for 2001: A Space Odyssey. He used all sorts of chemicals and strange things to create the shots and I personally thought they were stunning.
Click to expand...

You just made me want to go see Hugo even more! Definitely need to see both films- they were the ones I really wanted to see in the first place of all nominees! (Both Films still didn't open over here...)

Didn't really know about that, JG... However this really raises an interesting question. Its a Special Effect shot like those in the Tree of Life considered "Cinematography" ? In a very vast sense it should, but, then again, were those shots done by the cinematographer in the first place? Its a bit of a grey area... ( you have to agree, however, those dinosaurs were a bit bellow the quality of the rest of the film...)
 
Last edited:
SPZ said:
those CGI dinosaurs and "Universe shots (also CGI?) I really, really disliked
Click to expand...

I didn't mind the interstellar and planetary shots at all, but the whole CGI dinosaur thing seemed unnecessary and could have been left out.
 
Was anyone else appalled that the artist was nominated for best cinematography? Maybe i'm just a bit cynical (I thought the film was charming, but thats about it) but all it did was immitate and older and much simpler style. There was nothing particularly interesting or innovative in the way it was shot, as opposed to the stunningly shot Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
 
Ah it looks like a hard choice this year. Remember it's all political and an opinion at the end of the day...

I saw Tree of Life and The Artist when they premiered at Cannes, and I was impressed.

The Tree of Life felt so organic and spontaneous and the cinematography was pretty surreal (day for night?) in places. I liked it, although it did feel like an incredibly well shot vimeo camera test in places (yay blur and flowers and light leaks...). I dare say it might win because of how fresh it feels, in comparison to other films, and because of Lubezki for a win.

I love the Artist, and the black and white and 4:3 aspect ratio and the big lighting rigs and the softness, it's great but I wouldn't say it should be Best this year... but I can see it winning because as a package it works and it's so different and might even be the last B/W to win for a while.

The last film I saw was The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and I was also impressed. The lighting techniques, the Swedish look, and just how clean (and yet still looking deep and textured) and precisely filmed is great... I like it. I'd personally go with this just because.

And I liked The Avatar win ;)
 
It will be a real downer if the GWDT or Tree of Life win. Both are just so predictable types of work, cinematography wise. Nothing new. The Tree of Life is just like any other Malick film, and not even at his best, it seems like he keeps doing the same film over and over again for the last 20 years, ok we got it, life and birds are beautiful, move on already. GWDT is just a couple of steps down of Social Network, and if wasn't even nominated, I don't understand why this is.

Hugo or The Artist for sure. They are miles away in artistry from any of the other predictable works. I don't even understand how Tree of Life or GWDT are even nominated, one looks like a perfume commercial the other like a TV movie.

Oh well...
 
While, I do agree Tree of Life does share alot of Malick's previous films traits and perfume commercials... GWDT is so much more than a TV movie. Have you seen the original swedish movie adaptation of GWDT? That looked like a TV movie! The new one is very cinematic, and in my opinion, looks stronger than the Social Network. I thought the Social Network looked too shallow and brownie drab to me.
 
Lammy said:
While, I do agree Tree of Life does share alot of Malick's previous films traits and perfume commercials... GWDT is so much more than a TV movie. Have you seen the original swedish movie adaptation of GWDT? That looked like a TV movie! The new one is very cinematic, and in my opinion, looks stronger than the Social Network. I thought the Social Network looked too shallow and brownie drab to me.
Click to expand...

Wait, was GWDT not the perfume commercial one? 'Cause, like, I see this and I think "Oh man, I wanna buy some perfume!":

rooney-mara-W-magazine.jpg
 
On a more serious note, if Lubezki doesn't win, there's no hope for the future of movies. No, srsly... I haven't seen The Artist, but from the commercials, I'd say it looks like a good throwback. But like Leatherheads, throwback movies shouldn't be nominated just because they can rip other movies off. FFS, if I do a shot-for-shot of Goodfellas, does that suddenly become excellence in filmmaking, or is Goodfellas still young enough that it's just a rip-off?

It takes a little effort, but if you earnestly try to watch Leatherheads as if it were made in 1938, you'd see what an excellent job Clooney did of replicating a classic, goofy style akin to a Hawks-Grant film. That's great, and while I very much like the movie, Leatherheads didn't deserve to be nominated simply because it replicated an old style (and it rightfully wasn't nominated, though that probably would've turned out differently if Harvey Weinstein had thrown his weight behind it).

IMHO.

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