Ckulakov Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Dear Filmmakers, With "Memoirs of Geisha" winning best cinematography this year do you believe it deserved the award or not. If not, what do you think should have one and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 6, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2006 I wasn't surprised. It won the ASC Award too. What can you say -- it was gorgeous! Sure it's mostly moody eye candy, but it was definitely well-shot. All the nominees were strong in different ways. I try to not analyze award nominees and winners too carefully because on some level, it's not really an accurate indication of the "best" of the year, nor can you really rank these or pit them against each other. All the nominees deserved to be nominated and any of them could have won for all I care. I'm not going to say that one was better than another. How can you really compare a big studio film like "Batman Begins" to a small film like "Brokeback Mountain"? How can you compare a b&w film to a color one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevor Greenfield Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I was pulling for Elswit because Ive been in love with his work for awhile but Geisha probablydeserved to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted March 6, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2006 Compared to a film like 'The New World' that looked great and had a concept as to how it was shot, I think 'Geisha' was all about pretty pictures, which is the right approach for commercials, but much too shallow for a fearture film. There were so many shots in that film where you felt that they just cut them in because they looked good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rajavel Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 oh memoirs of geisha! it was a great cinematic experience.....but not the greatest though. i felt that that they could have done it better (the making of it)....they could have gotten a little more real interms of the location set up....it looked very set'ty...so it really looked like a staged theatre rather than a realistic cinema. and since waht the camera catches really matters.....it would have been better if it had captured more realism...... but was wondering really about all those exterior night sequences......great work. how did they manage that soft night feel...keeping every detail in place. how did they manage...esp the beginning of the film. memories of good images!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Rupe Whiteman Posted March 10, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 10, 2006 oh memoirs of geisha! it was a great cinematic experience.....but not the greatest though. i felt that that they could have done it better (the making of it)....they could have gotten a little more real interms of the location set up....it looked very set'ty...so it really looked like a staged theatre rather than a realistic cinema. and since waht the camera catches really matters.....it would have been better if it had captured more realism...... but was wondering really about all those exterior night sequences......great work. how did they manage that soft night feel...keeping every detail in place. how did they manage...esp the beginning of the film. memories of good images!! ... Not seen the movie yet - but there's a good article in a recent the asc mag - the soft light exterior (a set) was created by rigging a huge 2-part silk above the entire set and thus lighting this gave the soft look mentioned... go read it! Regards, Rupe Whiteman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Maeda Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 "How can you compare a b&w film to a color one?" well easily actually, we do it all the time. i know that the cinematography of 'Andrei Rublyov' is better than that of 'Night Watch'...at least according to the standards i use to judge films. but the real issue is this: the academy awards have a certain perspective and it is one not shared but some filmmakers. watching 'geisha' win might seem funny, but placed in the context of the most recent winners for best picture, it begins to make sense: crash 2006 million dollar baby 2004 return of king 2003 chicago 2002 a beautiful mind 2001 gladiator 2000 american beauty 1999 shakespear in love 1998 titanic 1997 english patient 1996 braveheart 1995 and it goes on and on.... jk :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted March 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 11, 2006 Jason, I'm missing your point. Why does Geisha's win make more sense when you consider the recent Best Picture winners? Sometimes vagueness can be lost on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Maeda Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 sorry. i'm just trying to say that the "academy" has a direction and a mission and seeing all the lame films they've chosen to hail as the best of the year really puts the "geisha" win in perspective. i didn't find the photography of "geisha" to be particularly interesting, but if "gladiator" can win best picture then who really cares what they do? jk :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 ""..but if "gladiator" can win best picture then who really cares what they do?"" ------------------- Run for the hills!! It's the.. :o ACADEMY!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted March 12, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 12, 2006 sorry. i'm just trying to say that the "academy" has a direction and a mission and seeing all the lame films they've chosen to hail as the best of the year really puts the "geisha" win in perspective. jk :ph34r: I don't know that the academy really has a "mission" as far as what movies win. The people with the mission are the studios, that lobby votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 12, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 12, 2006 When a vote doesn't go the way you think it should, it's too cheap and easy to always claim collusion, cheating, politics, etc. rather than admit that some people simply don't vote the way you would. An "agenda" suggests that the Academy voters actually get together and agree on what they are going to vote for (Academy committees DO get together and decide what the nominees will be in many of the categories however.) So it would be easier to ascribe an "agenda" to what gets nominated more than what wins the award. Besides, the ASC also gave the Best Cinematography award to "Memoirs of a Geisha" and obviously many members actually felt it was the best-looking movie of the year. I was not surprised it won at all. It was gorgeous -- rich, colorful, moody, technically-challenging, widescreen period photography, the sort of photography that has always won awards since they started giving out awards for cinematography. It's best not to think too much about awards. If you're nominated or a winner, they are great of course, but ultimately they are not particularly meaningful in determining worth, just popularity at that moment in time. Years before I became an ASC member, I remember telling Roger Deakins (himself many times nominated but never winning the Oscar) that I lost the Spirit Award for "Twin Falls Idaho" and he said "heck, you can't lose what you never had." The work is what matters, not the award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 There were so many shots in that film where you felt that they just cut them in because they looked good. If there were that many "look good" shots, isn't that saying something about the cinematography? After all, that's what is being judged (in theory). If Dion Beebe set out with his director to make a "pretty" film then he's done it, regardless of whether someone thinks it's more like a TV commercial, or someone else thinks it lacks hard realism. If that's what the director wants, and that's what the DoP delivers, then there's no criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter orland Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 (edited) "If Dion Beebe set out with his director to make a "pretty" film then he's done it, regardless of whether someone thinks it's more like a TV commercial, or someone else thinks it lacks hard realism. If that's what the director wants, and that's what the DoP delivers, then there's no criticism." Exactly. This is from the asc interview. Dion Beebe (Jan 28, 2006 10:18:12 AM) "Absolutely, the film, story and director are the main considerations. Everything else is ultimately the means to an end. And whether you choose to tell the story with HD technology or a Super 8 camera, what remains most important is the integrity of the story.I would happily shoot a movie on Super 8 tomorrow if I thought it could help me tell the story. And as a matter of fact I still have my Super 8 standing by just in case. As an Aussie myself, Dion Beebe, along with Donald McAlpine, Andrew Lesnie, Dean Semler, John Seale, Christopher Doyle, etc...etc...are a great inspiration to me, and probably lots of other aspiring cinematographers. Congratulations to him. Edited March 12, 2006 by peter orland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Though I find Emmanuel Lubezki's "The New World" the most exciting piece of cinematography this year, I'm happy with Dion Beebe winning the ASC & Academy awards. I didn't like the film itself too much, but his work (and John Myhre's production design) was really beautiful and a real challenge from a technical point of view, since he was shooting anamorphic at very wide apertures, sometimes even with long lenses. Beebe has teamed again with Michael Mann for "Miami Vice", and I can't wait to see the results! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted March 12, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 12, 2006 Hi, Geisha... yes. Now someone mentions it, I think that's the perfect description. It looked like a commercial. I kept expecting someone to turn around and say, in crippling Japanese accent, "You worth it!" Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted March 13, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 13, 2006 If there were that many "look good" shots, isn't that saying something about the cinematography? After all, that's what is being judged (in theory). Yes, but it's also a bit superficial isn't it? I feel there should be a bit more to cinematography than merely being 'pretty', whether the director set out for that or not. The whole enterprise of 'Memoirs of Geisha' (a Hollywood film which casts Chinese actresses and has them speak English in what is a quintessential Japanese theme) is rather nonsensical to begin with. On the other hand I'm not surprised by the Academy's vote at all since these kind of 'prestige' films that are obviously made with possible awards in mind always fare well at the oscars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Robert Edge Posted March 13, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 13, 2006 On the the other hand I'm not surprised by the Academy's vote at all since these kind of 'prestige' films that are obviously made with possible awards in mind always fare well at the oscars. You mean like Crash and the other four films nominated for Best Film, which combined grossed less than Chronicles of Narnia? I agree with you that the Academy Awards are "a bit superficial". They are supposed to be. People who think that the Academy Awards are about the evaluation of art should spend a day at Cannes during its festival (heavily underwritten, as you no doubt know, by a cosmetics company). Myself, I'm taking a completely chauvinist perspective on this year's Academy Awards. A Canadian produced and wrote Crash, a Canadian company produced/distributed Capote and both Capote and Brokeback Mountain were shot in Canada. Love it... P.S. Have a look at the list of Nobel Prize winners in literature. The Nobel Committee has had a remarkable talent, in hindsight, for getting it wrong. The same is true of the Pulitzer and the Booker. As Mr. Mullen says, in the long term it is about the work, not the awards. The great thing about the people who run big film award shows (whether the show runs for a night or a week), unlike their literary counterparts, is that they know that they are dead in the water unless they take a back seat to the fashion industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon-Hebert Barto Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 (edited) Maybe I'm a poop-head but I can't stand award shows for any artistic endeavor. We might as well pit Van Goghs work againts ....well, hell, whoever else's work!!! "...and this year the award goes to Starry Night..." "...for best pigmentation in an oil painting the award goes to..." Screw all that nonsense. These shows are there for hollywood peeps to watch there own work in a mastubatory way. It's all about "I" and "me" and "we", and I say "we" in the "WE WON" kind of way. I'm glad that Jack Nicolson said "..and the winner is..." becuase that's the truth. The oscars are a political sweepstakes that make me want to vomit. Sorry for being crude and bringing this down to an ugly and unprofessional level. This is the way I feel. That also goes for the so-called Independent Spirit Awards. If you get money from Fine Line Pictures your film ain't independent, baby!!! People like J. Pheonix, " I like doing indy films. I just did one for fox searchlight..." Yeah, owned by Fox news and Rupert Murdoch whom Pheonix claims to hate. These people talk out of their collective asses all the time. Come to my Global Warming/Green Energy party next week and maybe you'll leave next week with an award!!! It is not about congradulating each other on their well done work but about feeling oh-so-cool and with-it and"I'm right, f*** the fly over country..." Ok, I see this post is getting waaayyy off topic so I close saying this: I understand that not all people in Hollywood are jerks, and being a "jerk" is subjective. However, the Oscars are a grand carnival, a street parade of hypocrites. P.S. I did watch it and must echo the soon-to-be motto of the Oscars, " It's hard out here for a pimp...". You're damn right it is! Edited March 13, 2006 by BARCA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Robert Edge Posted March 13, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 13, 2006 If you guys get a chance to see the BBC/Arte documentary French Beauty, don't pass up the opportunity. It's a fun film, and implicitly raises the provocative question of whether the film industry, at the high end, is essentially a marketing platform for the luxury goods industries, especially the fashion industry. How's this for a thought... Karl Lagerfeld and Vera Wang and the women they dress are more important to the success of the Academy Awards, as an event, than the Stephen Spielbergs and the Jack Nicholsons and a bunch of cinematographers that nobody has ever heard of. Find the next Marilyn Munroe and watch the ratings go through the roof. Meanwhile, God save us from George Clooney and his lectures, especially the ones that he thinly disguises as a motion picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted March 14, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2006 Meanwhile, God save us from George Clooney and his lectures, especially the ones that he thinly disguises as a motion picture. So a movie about fighting McCarthyism is a lecture? Good Night and Good Luck is Based on facts and history. I don't understand why you consider it a "lecture". The movie is about real people who had the balls to stand up to government officials who were abusing their power and persecuting American citizens for little or no reason. Even if the film IS a "lecture", it's certainly an important lecture, and one worth paying attention to. Syriana is also based on facts, and although those facts are less documented than those dealt with in Good Night and Good Luck, they're very relevant to our global situation right now. I think simply dismissing films that are considered to be important by many people is a copout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Maeda Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 gladiator...return of the king... it's ok to make a fun movie that makes buckets of cash. its ok to have an awards ceremony to honor that. but the oscars are hardly worth discussing for lovers of film as art. watch "titanic" and then watch "landscape in the mist" and then never watch the academy awards again. jk :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Spear Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 "..but the oscars are hardly worth discussing for lovers of film as art." Name one film that took home an Oscar for best picture that wasn't, in one way or another, an artistic masterpiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Mottram Posted March 14, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted March 14, 2006 "..but the oscars are hardly worth discussing for lovers of film as art." Name one film that took home an Oscar for best picture that wasn't, in one way or another, an artistic masterpiece. Are you being serious? can you tell me one thing about Crash (chosen because it's the most recent) you'd describe as an artistic masterpiece. in fact, while we're on the subject, tell me one best picture that was a masterpiece in any shape or form from the last ten years (cant be bothered to go back any further). Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Maeda Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 no problem jonathan, it's as easy as cutting and pasting the list i already typed on page 1 of this thread: crash 2006 million dollar baby 2004 return of king 2003 chicago 2002 a beautiful mind 2001 gladiator 2000 american beauty 1999 shakespear in love 1998 titanic 1997 english patient 1996 braveheart 1995 then again i see what you're saying. "braveheart" really was a masterpiece. jk :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now