Films that should have won the oscar for cinematography (1 Viewer)

[Vincent_P]

I find it incredible that Emanuel Lubeski finally won his own overdue Oscar for a movie that was almost entirely created in a computer (GRAVITY). That just seemed utterly ridiculous to me, but then again two other films that were largely CGI creations have also won for Cinematography in recent years- AVATAR and LIFE OF PI. I'm thinking Deakins needs to shoot a really over-the-top CGI-fest and then he'll finally win (I thought he should have won against Lubeski for his superb work on PRISONERS).


EDIT: I see Josh Steinberg made some similar points in post #16.


Vincent

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Thanks Vincent! Almost no one I've had cinematography conversations with have agreed with me on Gravity or even been willing to concede that it was a reasonable point so I'm just happy not to be the only one. Then again, the effects in that movie are so good that most of those people don't believe it's as much CGI as it is. Someone should have gotten an award for it being that good in that regard, and maybe there isn't an award in existence yet for that kind of filmmaking.

Craig - I have to agree, the work Deakins did in Jesse James was outstanding and I think it's superior to No Country.

I also think There Will Be Blood was better overall than both of those - but it's really, really close. If Jesse James had won instead you'd get no argument from me. In the end I think I just liked TWBB best overall of those three movies so that probably is coloring my decision. They're all spectacular looking movies.

Skyfall was an incredibly shot film. Sam Mendes always manages to work with genius cinematographers and that one was no exception. It's not my favorite Craig 007 movie overall but visually it's the one that has really stayed with me. Even relatively straightforward stuff like the establishing aerials over Macau (which for all I know could have been second unit) are stunning. Just a beautiful looking movie from start to finish.

Prisoners was also an incredibly well shot movie. You could freeze frame just about anything in there and sell it as a work of art. Same for Skyfall for that matter. Deakins somehow keeps getting better and better and it's not like he was ever bad to begin with!

 

[ROclockCK]

Almost no one I've had cinematography conversations with have agreed with me on Gravity or even been willing to concede that it was a reasonable point so I'm just happy not to be the only one. Then again, the effects in that movie are so good that most of those people don't believe it's as much CGI as it is....


...I have to agree, the work Deakins did in Jesse James was outstanding and I think it's superior to No Country.

But. But. But...


As I recall, Roger Deakins was one of the earliest adoptees of digital post, if not the first*. For years now, his 'look', regardless how expressive and persuasive it may be, has been achieved almost entirely within the digital realm...as I understand it from various articles and interviews, his work on set is pretty much just the basic lighting and capture.


It just seems a tad weird to me Josh that you would question Lubeski's Gravity win - primarily, it would seem, for his extremely complex, physically challenging, and very convincing 1st unit capture geometry simulating weightlessness - while giving Deakins a pass on his almost end-to-end digital image manipulation post production. No disputing that Deakins' vision and taste are impeccable, and his results gorgeous, but I can't think of one of his films during the past 20 years that would qualify as cinematography in the classic sense. Even when originating on film and output back to film, they've still gone through that 'any-look-is-possible' digital paintbox.


So the ratio of CGI elements notwithstanding, image contouring in the digital realm is either a valid tool for modern cinematographers...or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.


* I'm thinking it was for the Coens' O Brother, Where Art Thou, but I need to look that up.

 

[ROclockCK]

I find it incredible that Emanuel Lubeski finally won his own overdue Oscar for a movie that was almost entirely created in a computer (GRAVITY). That just seemed utterly ridiculous to me, but then again two other films that were largely CGI creations have also won for Cinematography in recent years- AVATAR and LIFE OF PI. I'm thinking Deakins needs to shoot a really over-the-top CGI-fest and then he'll finally win (I thought he should have won against Lubeski for his superb work on PRISONERS).


EDIT: I see Josh Steinberg made some similar points in post #16.


Vincent

Well, you can have the best CGI that money can buy and talent can deliver Vincent, but if the 1st unit lighting, camera placement, and movements are off - even if virtually captured - then the picture's immersive spell will be broken.


So IMO, it's too easy to say Gravity was just a CGI show, and those effects made the picture...when it was actually the arduous, mind-bogglingly complex work by the entire 1st unit team which sold those effects, and ultimately the space environment being depicted. I thought the level of integration was astounding...one of the few times where I simply couldn't tell where the real left off and the virtual began*. Perhaps, as Josh suggests, we're talking about an entirely new hybrid craft here...something like "Image Integrity"?


* ...except, I suppose, by conventional logic, as in, "No way could they stage something like that at scale in an earthbound full gravity environment".

 

[Sam Favate]

Gordon Willis was not nominated for either Godfather or Godfather II, which is something I will never understand.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But. But. But...

As I recall, Roger Deakins was one of the earliest adoptees of digital post, if not the first*. For years now, his 'look', regardless how expressive and persuasive it may be, has been achieved almost entirely within the digital realm...as I understand it from various articles and interviews, his work on set is pretty much just the basic lighting and capture.

It just seems a tad weird to me Josh that you would question Lubeski's Gravity win - primarily, it would seem, for his extremely complex, physically challenging, and very convincing 1st unit capture geometry simulating weightlessness - while giving Deakins a pass on his almost end-to-end digital image manipulation post production. No disputing that Deakins' vision and taste are impeccable, and his results gorgeous, but I can't think of one of his films during the past 20 years that would qualify as cinematography in the classic sense. Even when originating on film and output back to film, they've still gone through that 'any-look-is-possible' digital paintbox.

So the ratio of CGI elements notwithstanding, image contouring in the digital realm is either a valid tool for modern cinematographers...or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.

* I'm thinking it was for the Coens' O Brother, Where Art Thou, but I need to look that up.

I'd argue that "Gravity" is at least 90% CGI (the only thing that's real for a large portion of the film is the actor's faces), and while all of that is very good CGI, very little of it actually went before an actual camera. What's shot by Lubeski is indeed very well shot, and I think there should be some recognition of that, but I don't think an award has yet been invented that really covers what he did there. It's breathtaking work but I don't know if it's cinematography in the traditional sense.

Whereas Deakins did shoot Jesse James with a camera, on actual sets, with real actors, doing more than just shooting their faces and having animators create their bodies and surrounding environments. Yes, the image was manipulated digitally, but I'd argue that Deakins use of the DI process is an evolution of traditional photochemical timing and not a new medium onto itself.

So that's my argument - it's not that digital image manipulation disqualifies something from winning but that too much of "Gravity" was CGI for it to count. I'm sure that for a lot of voters, they looked at the magnificent opening sequence and thought, "this is amazing photography" but with the exception of Bullock and Clooney's faces, none of that is real. The space shuttle is animated, the earth backdrop is animated, the astronaut bodies are animated. That was all invented inside a computer. And I don't think it's necessarily fair that a movie where almost none of the elements that appear onscreen were shot with an actual camera should be eligible for the same photography award as something that was mostly shot with cameras.

I'd make the same argument against "Avatar" winning that award - the shots and sequences that were likely in the voters minds weren't ones that had anything to do with photography. They're thinking of Pandora lit up at night, of the floating mountains, the rain forests - which are all utterly convincing but not real.

As filmmakers continue to pioneer these new techniques of creating photorealistic environments that are indeed impressive, perhaps a new award category needs to be created that recognizes that. "Best Integration Of Live Action Elements Within A Photorealistic CGI Environment" is way too clunky a title for an award but that's the general idea.

To bring it back to what you were asking of me, I think the ratio of CGI in Gravity is simply too high for it to qualify for a live action photography award. For the Academy's award for Best Animated Film, there's a rule that to be eligible, at least a certain percentage of the film has to be animated - I think 75%. So "The Lego Movie" which has one live action sequence would be eligible, but something like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" which was mostly live action wouldn't be (if that award had existed then). I think having a similar rule for cinematography where a certain percentage of the film has to be actual photography vs visual effects would be a fair and reasonable standard.

 

[Peter Neski]

Chinatown or Godfather 2 instead of towering inferno


1900 hard to think of a better job and twice as long

Once upon a time in America

Heavens Gate

Manhunter

Sheltering sky

The Spider's Stratagem

El Sur

 

[Lord Dalek]

Gordon Willis was not nominated for either Godfather or Godfather II, which is something I will never understand.

Well its kinda hard to get nominated when its too dark to see what you shot.

 

[ROclockCK]

As filmmakers continue to pioneer these new techniques of creating photorealistic environments that are indeed impressive, perhaps a new award category needs to be created that recognizes that. "Best Integration Of Live Action Elements Within A Photorealistic CGI Environment" is way too clunky a title for an award but that's the general idea.

To bring it back to what you were asking of me, I think the ratio of CGI in Gravity is simply too high for it to qualify for a live action photography award. For the Academy's award for Best Animated Film, there's a rule that to be eligible, at least a certain percentage of the film has to be animated - I think 75%. So "The Lego Movie" which has one live action sequence would be eligible, but something like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" which was mostly live action wouldn't be (if that award had existed then). I think having a similar rule for cinematography where a certain percentage of the film has to be actual photography vs visual effects would be a fair and reasonable standard.

Make no mistake Josh, I see your point, and agree with the need for some kind of 'Visual Integration' or 'Visual Stylist' award. Cinematography alone just ain't cuttin' it anymore.


Coincidentally, last night I saw one of last year's Oscar & Bafta nominees, Mr. Turner, and it was literally "painterly". Dick Pope's expressionist visual style certainly mirrored the subject, and was indeed tastefully and seamlessly integrated, but didn't appear the result of what we would regard as the purview of a traditional lighting cameraman.


But Cinematography has been on this 'slippery slope' for so long now it's practically become a wagon train of toboggans whizzing down the hill. I guess I just don't see it as a standalone craft anymore, especially post-millennium.

 

[seangood79]

Back in the day, they used to split the cinematography, art direction, and costume design into black and white and color categories. Maybe it's time to split these categories up into practical and virtual.

Avatar also won for art direction, I wonder how that set existed in a computer.

But seeing how they're looking for ways to shorten the ceremony every year, I doubt we'll see more categories any time soon.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Make no mistake Josh, I see your point, and agree with the need for some kind of 'Visual Integration' or 'Visual Stylist' award. Cinematography alone just ain't cuttin' it anymore.


Coincidentally, last night I saw one of last year's Oscar & Bafta nominees, Mr. Turner, and it was literally "painterly". Dick Pope's expressionist visual style certainly mirrored the subject, and was indeed tastefully and seamlessly integrated, but didn't appear the result of what we would regard as the purview of a traditional lighting cameraman.


But Cinematography has been on this 'slippery slope' for so long now it's practically become a wagon train of toboggans whizzing down the hill. I guess I just don't see it as a standalone craft anymore, especially post-millennium.

Some of these Visual Effects Supervisors are also cinematographers, or were, and there are categories for Visual Effects and Production Design, so why would there need to be an additional category in your opinion?

 

[ROclockCK]

Uhm...recognizing the significantly different shooting style and workflow??? I mean, these guys aren't John Alcott trooping across Ireland with Kubrick in search of the perfect location and light. Somehow that distinction should be appreciated, at least by the awards bodies.


Actually, there's a revealing little featurette on the Blu-ray of Mr. Turner wherein the creative team discusses the palette for this film, with several key interviews noting how carefully they planned its look as the cinematic equivalent of Turner's expressionism. Nothing at all wrong with that...in fact, it's very effectively implemented overall. But when you compare the raw on set production footage to how those shots and scenes looked in the film...whoa...that was some heavy duty digital manipulation there, way beyond mere lights and filters.


Personally, whatever works for the film narrative, works for me, however it happened to be achieved. I'm not a snob about any of that. It's just that I don't regard modern Cinematographers with the same awe and enthusiasm as a Geoffrey Unsworth, Gregg Toland, Jack Cardiff, Freddie Young, Leon Shamroy, Gordon Willis, or Vilmos Zsigmond, among countless other golden, silver, and bronze era craftsmen who had to work without any digital safety net...they had get it right in real time every time they grabbed hold of that trapeze.


All I know is I used to go out of my way to see movies based soley on who lensed them. Today, not so much...it's a world of other priorities now.

 

[Matt Hough]

For those of you criticizing recent cinematography wins, let us not forget that cinematographers nominate cinematographers for this award. True, the entire Academy membership votes on the winners, but only their peers choose who will be nominated, so those films which feature photography heavily aided by CG must have Academy directors of photography who surely realize what they're doing by putting those artists up for the top prize.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Uhm...recognizing the significantly different shooting style and workflow??? I mean, these guys aren't John Alcott trooping across Ireland with Kubrick in search of the perfect location and light. Somehow that distinction should be appreciated, at least by the awards bodies.


Actually, there's a revealing little featurette on the Blu-ray of Mr. Turner wherein the creative team discusses the palette for this film, with several key interviews noting how carefully they planned its look as the cinematic equivalent of Turner's expressionism. Nothing at all wrong with that...in fact, it's very effectively implemented overall. But when you compare the raw on set production footage to how those shots and scenes looked in the film...whoa...that was some heavy duty digital manipulation there, way beyond mere lights and filters.


Personally, whatever works for the film narrative, works for me, however it happened to be achieved. I'm not a snob about any of that. It's just that I don't regard modern Cinematographers with the same awe and enthusiasm as a Geoffrey Unsworth, Gregg Toland, Jack Cardiff, Freddie Young, Leon Shamroy, Gordon Willis, or Vilmos Zsigmond, among countless other golden, silver, and bronze era craftsmen who had to work without any digital safety net...they had get it right in real time every time they grabbed hold of that trapeze.


All I know is I used to go out of my way to see movies based soley on who lensed them. Today, not so much...it's a world of other priorities now.

Uhm... really didn't answer the question. The Visual Effects award is usually given to a team, and they thank, and share the award with, others who worked with them. There still needs to be another award?

 

[ROclockCK]

Actually, the rationale was in Josh's post:

To bring it back to what you were asking of me, I think the ratio of CGI in Gravity is simply too high for it to qualify for a live action photography award. For the Academy's award for Best Animated Film, there's a rule that to be eligible, at least a certain percentage of the film has to be animated - I think 75%. So "The Lego Movie" which has one live action sequence would be eligible, but something like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" which was mostly live action wouldn't be (if that award had existed then). I think having a similar rule for cinematography where a certain percentage of the film has to be actual photography vs visual effects would be a fair and reasonable standard.

I was merely agreeing with, and amplifying that view.

 

[ROclockCK]

For those of you criticizing recent cinematography wins, let us not forget that cinematographers nominate cinematographers for this award. True, the entire Academy membership votes on the winners, but only their peers choose who will be nominated, so those films which feature photography heavily aided by CG must have Academy directors of photography who surely realize what they're doing by putting those artists up for the top prize.

Bingo. At it's heart, it's a trade award Matt, with all the politics and favouritism that occurs in any other field, including any of our own. Fans always hit that wall when it comes to any discussion about creative merit, which is why I don't get too buzzed about the production aspects of filmmaking either way anymore. I mean, if it works on screen, then that's good enough for me. It's just a very different toolbox and workflow now.


Yet wonderful Cinematography still surfaces, like the work of Robert Elswit for last year's underappreciated Nightcrawler, or the steady stream of dark dream states lensed by Cronenberg's third eye Peter Suschitsky.

 

[Alan Tully]

There's plenty of older films, but thinking of a modern film...The Wolfman 2010. It does look stunning, & I don't usually like desaturated pictures, but The Wolfman gets it bang on. I like to look at the Blu-ray once a year, a really beautiful looking movie.

 

[ROclockCK]

Speaking of desaturation, "What if Man of Steel was iN COLOR?"

 

[Vincent_P]

Well its kinda hard to get nominated when its too dark to see what you shot.

I've watched both of those movies many times and have never had any trouble seeing what was shot. What a ridiculous comment you've made, Lord Dalek, about two of the greatest American films ever made. If audiences couldn't "see what was shot" neither of those films would be as justifiably revered as they are.


Vincent

 

[Vincent_P]

Yet wonderful Cinematography still surfaces, like the work of Robert Elswit for last year's underappreciated Nightcrawler, or the steady stream of dark dream states lensed by Cronenberg's third eye Peter Suschitsky.

I just started watching this on Netflix streaming (heresy, I know) and am blown away by the depth-of-field of some of those night shots. Gorgeous work here!


Vincent