Oscars

Vultch

Vultch

Well-known member
Just watching Sky news here and a Caroline Frost the Huffington posts film critic.

When asked if the film Gravity was a runaway winner she said no, you have to strip away the Oscars awarded for technical effects as they don't count.
In her opinion it was an even result between Gravity and twelve yrs a slave.

I'm sure the guys working on the Fx appreciate her comments.
 
Gravity took a lot of awards last night. The FX people deserve most of the credit for that movie, which is why I would have liked to have seen Deakins or Delbonnel win for Cinematography. How much of that was in camera, and how much of the background, even the lighting, can the DP take credit for?
 
Agree...I wonder how many Oscars it would have pulled wit ha 1970's BBC Dr Who el cheapo set.
 
Last edited:
Gravity is similar to Life of Pi in terms of Cinematography - ie, it's not what is conventionally thought of (by people in the industry) as the work of a DP. But, on the other hand, the punters/audience out there, don't differentiate between a 'normally' movie like Nebraska or a VFX laden movie such as Gravity.

Really, there should be a 'Digital Cinematography' Oscar, to accommodate this shift.

Thing is, I really doubt that most of the Academy voters (who'll have seen movies on DVD/Blu-Ray screeners) will even know how much CGI/VFX went into Gravity.
 
hscully said:
How much of that was in camera, and how much of the background, even the lighting, can the DP take credit for?
Click to expand...

I watched the BTS. It seems like Lubezki had a direct hand in lighting the digital sets. They even created a program that helped him light in a more intuitive way.
 
Derek Chingwell said:
Really, there should be a 'Digital Cinematography' Oscar, to accommodate this shift.
Click to expand...

Since most productions are moving to 'digital'... I think you would have to have something along the lines of a CGI 'cinematography' category, or at the very least 'Composite Cinematography, to reflect the combination of live action, with 'significant' CGI generated environments.
 
Batutta said:
I watched the BTS. It seems like Lubezki had a direct hand in lighting the digital sets. They even created a program that helped him light in a more intuitive way.
Click to expand...

Roger Deakins has mentioned on his forum that he has been involved in CGI creation for animated films to give that 'cinematographer' input to the process.

I've also seen BTSs where the cinematographer is 'flying' the virtual camera through the 3-D model space... so I can see where this may become the norm. Once the 'tools' are more like 'cinematography' tools, rather than computer programmer tools, it may very well be that the DP maintains 'control' over the whole project.
 
I think all that matters is if the cinematographer had control over the final image. After all, on a real set, the DP doesn't makes the sets or design the costumes or do the make-up. He just lights them and composes the image. Same thing with a virtual set.
 
Lubezki won the ASC award for best cinematography as well, over Delbonnel and Deakins. Considering it's the ASC, I trust their opinions on what was the best shot film of the year, regardless of how vfx heavy it was
 
Batutta said:
I watched the BTS. It seems like Lubezki had a direct hand in lighting the digital sets. They even created a program that helped him light in a more intuitive way.
Click to expand...

I watched some BTS and I think you're right. I am having a change of heart on this. If the cinematographer is in that deep with the VFX and uses techniques that realize what the camera and light would do if you could "really" put a camera there, then it's the same, just technically another step. It is a beautiful film. I was stunned when I came out of there.
 
We have been having this discussion since "Avatar" won the Oscar for Best Achievement in Cinematography. Emmanuel Lubezki ASC, AMC is, like all the nominees this and every year, a master Cinematographer. To say that he should not be recognized for the outstanding images in "Gravity" because the technology used to produce the images is more layered and much more of a collaborative procedure than traditionally shot films is, IMO, bunk. This is especially true because of the relationship that the director of "Gravity", Alfonso Cuarón, has with Lubezki or as he calls him, "Chivo". Cuarón said in an interview, on The Charlie Rose Show I think, that the first person that he called while he and his son were writing "Gravity" was Lubezki. Lubezki was instrumental in crafting the images in the movie and the Oscar for Best Achievement in Cinematography was justly awarded to him.
 
If anything the cinematography with the actual camera to mesh seamlessly with everything else would be harder would it not? Especially with the long takes and technical difficulties of simulating weightlessness. Otherwise it would have been done before. Innovation (when so seamlessly successful) should always be rewarded over refining what everyone else is doing. The BTS showed me that some of what I thought was fake was real and some things I thought was real was fake. Most importantly I have never been so physiologically affected by a film. Not even close. It might not be citizen kane but I didn't come out of citizen kane unable to speak, barely able to walk, exhausted, exhilarated. I made a phonecall 5 minutes after coming out to discover I couldn't talk or make coherent thoughts, still shaking with adrenaline. I had to watch it 3 times before I could remember to pay attention to any technical details. Plotwise, as far fetched as the overall journey may have been the moments were all small logical steps. A near perfect film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top