Oscar for Best Cinematography

Nuno Dias said:
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...
Click to expand...

So is Monet any less of an artist for doing similar paintings? Or Picasso, or Dali, or Rembrandt. Or for that matter basically any other great artist in history. Having a distinct style is what makes an artist great, I don't see how you could possibly blame Malick for having one.


As for the Tree of Life, I would say you need to get your eyes checked. It was visually awe inspiring.
 
Ok, maybe the perfume commercial analogy was a bit much (although true, as a lot of those commercials do rip off Malick's style). But let's try make on thing clear; movies don't get Oscars for their beauty, as there are plenty of beautiful looking films out there!

Here's why I don't agree, Tree of Life should win: It's not Lubezki's creative efforts in the film, it's Malick's. Malick has that very distinctive style, either in the actor's performances, the editing, and certainly the look, the cinematography. So how much was that Lubezki? Very little, is it fair for him to win the Oscar, as all the major creative visual choices you see in the movie are Malick's? No...

GWDT is no better than Social Network, and certainly not better than Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy, or even a film like 'In Time', for which I thought the cinematography was fantastic, creatively and artistically. What I mean is that, GWDT is really no different than Social Network, lighting, camera wise, so why is one being nominated over the other? Makes no sense...
 
Last edited:
You have a point about was it Malick or Lubezki (though, given Lubezki's other work I don't think it's out-of-the-question to assume he brought a lot to the table). But ultimately, you could have that argument with every film, and I think it does a discredit to cinematographers (not saying you think poorly of cinematographers, just that to take that line of thought to its fullest extent would be to falsely depreciate the work of cinematographers). Lubezki's job was to bring Malick's vision to the screen. Given the parameters that he and Malick set (http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2011/TheTreeofLife/page1.php#), and the level of skill it would take to make a film this beautiful regardless of who's directing, I can't help but give Lubezki full credit for the cinematography of this picture.

Though, I fully agree with you that GWDT wasn't worthy of a nom, and neither, I think, was The Social Network last year. That TTSS was shut out for cinematography this year is almost as big a travesty as Gary Oldman JUST NOW getting nominated for the first time. In Time was such a s--tty movie that I had a hard time enjoying Deakins' genius, but damn that man knows how to light a scene.

-JMT
 
I liked Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy... it had a nice low contrast misty look to everything, although the use of shadows and composition were quite plain contextually. Wonderful costume and production design and locations though.

In Time was alright but the story wasn't really Oscar loving material, it was more like a cool indie B-movie like Equilibrium (and that too looked quite good and was alright)

War Horse was good. Had some great experimental moments, if abit odd, but consistantly good. I liked the cinematography in The Artist and Tree of Life more though.

Totally disagree with you all saying GWTDT shouldn't have been nominated... I want it to win darn it!
 
To be clear, I think it shouldn't have been nominated for cinematography, and neither should The Social Network have -- I think both films deserve their other major noms, especially Rooney Mara for Best Actress.
 
Didn't feel it, to be honest. As I said before, while there were a few nice shots in Dragon Tat, the visual style really didn't wow me at all - and for an epic of that sort, the visuals should be Tinker Tailor level.










gary-oldman-tinker.jpg






benedict.jpg



tinkertailor.jpg
 
I think you can make the argument that all great films are more the style of the director than the cinematographer. I view Cinematographers like I view editors, their job is to bring the director's vision to life. But I think it's pretty obvious that some cinematographers are more able to fulfill that vision than others, and I personally think Lubezki is the greatest cinematographer alive (deakins comes a close 2nd). He is the undisputed master of handheld cinematography.
 
I had really high hopes for Tree of Life when I first saw the trailer. From that alone I already proclaimed it would get a nom, but mainly because I always felt that Lubezki was the Scorsese of cinematography in that he's always nominated and never wins even though he deserves it (especially for Children of Men and The New World), so maybe Tree of Life will be his "The Departed"?

Tinker Tailor is definitely the biggest snub, in my opinion.
 
qazwsx said:
I had really high hopes for Tree of Life when I first saw the trailer. From that alone I already proclaimed it would get a nom, but mainly because I always felt that Lubezki was the Scorsese of cinematography in that he's always nominated and never wins even though he deserves it (especially for Children of Men and The New World), so maybe Tree of Life will be his "The Departed"?
Click to expand...

Deakins is the "Scorsese of cinematography," 9 nominations, 0 wins.
 
I was impressed with the cinematography of Hugo, but less so than most of the other serious contenders (or snubs) that I've seen. Given that I thought Hugo was a pretty C+/B- film overall (mostly based on the script), and the cinematography didn't elevate that much, I can't say I'm rooting for it.
 
Haven't seen Hugo yet, but I love the fact that a man like Richardson which was (and is) such a master at mastering film, is not resisting digital at all.

Again, Lubezki did not contribute all that much to Tree of Life. Tree of Life is a Malick film, as are all of his films. He owns the films in all aspects, and by that I'm not saying that Lubezki is redundant, he's not (although close), nor am I saying that's how it is with all DP/director's partnerships. Just its the case with Malick. As it is with Ridley Scott, Michael Bay or any other more visually oriented directors.

The kind of light, the quality of light, the lensing, the color scheme, the rhythm, etc... these are all Malick's calls. These few directors have specific visual and technical ideas about their films. And that's the case with any Malick film, and certainly with The Tree of Life. So, if Lubezki gets an Oscar, its not only extremely embarrassing, but ridiculous.

Lubezki is an OK DP, and to compare him to Deakins is a tiny bit silly to be honest.
 
Gotta chime in and just say I like the mention of Deakin's work on "In Time". It was his first shot digitally and on the Alexa. I don't think the movie was too good, but it certainly looked good.
I give credit to Deakins since after seeing In Time, I saw a couple other films also shot on alexa...one particularly being "Rampart" and they looked like DVX footage (not literally though, I know) compared to In Time. Proves Deakin's skill.

And in regards to what Nuno Dias is saying about Lubezki's work being more Malick's work..... I will say that's why I think Deakin's is still #1, as everything he does, no matter which director, they all have that "Deakin's" look. I can't really explain it
much, but I'm able to tell - like when "A Beautiful mind" was on TV, before I knew it was shot by Roger, I said "hey, this looks like Roger Deakin's type of cinematography".... It seems Deakin's brings his style to films and directors give him (almost) full cinematography control.


Anyway,
As for the nominees,

Hugo gets some points from me, based on that it was 3d done "right" - pretty much the only 3d film besides Avatar that did so. And had wonderful depth in the lighting, as is one of Richardson's main "signatures" I'd say (the strong back / rim lights). Also the film had a strange, yet effective color pallet.

But I was hoping the Oscar nominee's would've been the same as the ASC one's, with "Tinker, Tailer..." in the mix. Great mood in that film!
 
Michael: Ah you're right about Deakins. He's been nominated so many times for such great films that I always forget he's never won.

I see film making as a collaborative effort and from everything I've read, the reason Malick and Lubezki continued to work with one another on TOL and Malick's new untitled film is because they enjoy collaborating with one another. I'd have to look again, it's probably in ICG or AC, but the TOL crew goes on about the collaborative spirit between the two. Yes Malick is more involved visually than most other directors, but to suggest that Chivo had no say in anything is a bit unfair.
 
Nuno Dias said:
So, if Lubezki gets an Oscar, its not only extremely embarrassing, but ridiculous.

Lubezki is an OK DP, and to compare him to Deakins is a tiny bit silly to be honest.
Click to expand...

- You do know that the Academy Award is for "Best Achievement in Cinematography," not "Best Cinematographer," don't you?

- Lubezki is an "OK DP?" Oh dear... :huh:
 
qazwsx said:
I see film making as a collaborative effort and from everything I've read, the reason Malick and Lubezki continued to work with one another on TOL and Malick's new untitled film is because they enjoy collaborating with one another. I'd have to look again, it's probably in ICG or AC, but the TOL crew goes on about the collaborative spirit between the two. Yes Malick is more involved visually than most other directors, but to suggest that Chivo had no say in anything is a bit unfair.
Click to expand...

Agreed. :beer:
 
Strange how tastes are like this I guess. I'd like GWTDG to win, but the past 3 years winners have been cool films like Inception, Avatar, Slumdog Millionaire - so maybe it'll go to more arty films like The Artist or Tree of Life - I'm sure of it.

I honestly can't remember Hugo to be honest... it's sort of got that LOTR, Golden Compass, fantasy mish mash mix in my brain to really distinguish :\
 
Nuno Dias said:
Lubezki is an OK DP, and to compare him to Deakins is a tiny bit silly to be honest.
Click to expand...


Obviously we're just not going to agree on this. I think Lubezki is the greatest cinematographer in the history of film. Children of Men is the most perfectly shot film i've seen.
 
Nuno Dias said:
Haven't seen Hugo yet, but I love the fact that a man like Richardson which was (and is) such a master at mastering film, is not resisting digital at all.

Again, Lubezki did not contribute all that much to Tree of Life. Tree of Life is a Malick film, as are all of his films. He owns the films in all aspects, and by that I'm not saying that Lubezki is redundant, he's not (although close), nor am I saying that's how it is with all DP/director's partnerships. Just its the case with Malick. As it is with Ridley Scott, Michael Bay or any other more visually oriented directors.

The kind of light, the quality of light, the lensing, the color scheme, the rhythm, etc... these are all Malick's calls. These few directors have specific visual and technical ideas about their films. And that's the case with any Malick film, and certainly with The Tree of Life. So, if Lubezki gets an Oscar, its not only extremely embarrassing, but ridiculous.

Lubezki is an OK DP, and to compare him to Deakins is a tiny bit silly to be honest.
Click to expand...

And how, exactly, do you know the intricacies of Malick and Lubezki's Director/DP relationship? If the answer isn't "from working on The Tree of Life" then you're full of ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top