Oscar Cinematography Award

[Kevin Armstrong]

I think its interesting that one year removed from elswitt's "there will be blood" which was purely photochemical from start to finish, this year, "slumdog millionaire" was shot with a variety of analoguous and digital acquisition formats, including the Si-2k mini, which was chosen purely for its size, weight, and the "less intimidating" factors, and not chosen for its superior image quality (or lack thereof, rather). realizing that this application fit this paticular production, the filmmakers chose to sacrifice image quality for the sake of telling the story better. this is certainly not the case for many of todays producers caught up in the marketing hype and demand to use bleeding edge technology, or on the flip side, waste money on shooting 35mm (consuming much higher % of the overall budget that could be reserved for higher production value in front of the image plane, not behind it) the long forgotten argument that was, is, and will forever be true- if your story is strong, pixel count and film vs. digital, DI or no DI, 4k scan or 2k scan is irrelevant. it is all an argument reserved for those who cannot execute or choose not to do so.

[Michael Collier]

argument that was, is, and will forever be true- if your story is strong, pixel count and film vs. digital, DI or no DI, 4k scan or 2k scan is irrelevant.

 

I couldn't more strongly disagree with this notion. I get the idea your trying to put across, but these things do matter. I haven't seen SDM yet, so I won't comment directly on the film, but that attitude implies (or at least, I am prompted to infer) that story is everything and image is nothing, or at least image can be sacrificed for story.

 

As someone who worked on a feature (not as DoP) that had excelent story but terrible shooting (not just a format problem) I know that bad images affect an audience. I expect SDM had provocative and emotional images despite the format, and somehow the format worked for the story at hand. But format isn't the only thing that imparts quality to an image, and that doesn't mean a blanket statement like image quality isn't very important will be read as true. Its like saying acting doesn't matter if the dialogue is good enough.

 

I suppose more than anything I object to the comment about wasting money on 35mm film. Film making is a balance, and yes film isn't cheap, but by no means is it a detrimental cost to the production value of a film. If we were talking about a 200k film maybe, but most indies and certainly all studio features can well afford film. Hell, if all things are equal and you need a film print for distribution, its going to cost you at least 100k-200k for either format, digital or film. A DI is way more expensive than a photochemical print.

 

I understand that your trying to put forward an idea of 'rise up against the technical aspect of film making and focus on the story' but as a cinematographer, the technical aspect of a film is part of the story. The net effect of all technical decisions made will ingrain a tangible feeling subliminally in the minds of the viewer. Now if your saying that we should not be exclusively bound to the technical side of cinematography with little regard for story, then I would agree, but it doesn't read quite that way on the net.

[Brian Drysdale]

Approx 40% of Slumdog Millionaire was shot on 35mm film, so there's no purely digital approach in the film. There appears to have been a lot of work done in post matching everything, so I don't think that this particular film can be used as an example of a low budget means of filmmaking.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm never comfortable with the argument that by not shooting 35mm, you can shift money into "production value", since shooting in 35mm is a form of production value. Certainly when resources are limited, you have to prioritize, but there's no free lunch. You can go to the most exotic or distant location in the world, but if you don't capture it at a quality level you deem appropriate, then you're not really spending your money wisely.

 

What's constitutes production value is different for every production -- it may be a name actor or it may be a location or it may mean sets & costumes, etc. You spend your money where you can get the most bang for your budget, and there are cases even in low-budget filmmaking where that may mean shooting on 35mm. If you're trying to do a Malick-esque landscape movie, for example, it probably would not be as effective to shoot it on DV where the wide shots would not hold-up. However, if you are shooting a movie of two people in a hotel room for two hours, probably IMAX would be somewhat wasted...

[K Borowski]

I have to agree that it was difficult to tell what was what in this film. Unfortunately, the way they accomplished this seems to be by digitally softening the 35mm footage. Whole movie was very very flat, which strikes me as totally counterintuitive for a movie about the very colorful land of India.

 

Only problem with this notion that the format doesn't matter is that this film I feel gives you NOTHING back from the ease of use of digital in terms of the value of the cinematography.

 

Asides from a nice shot of the Taj Mahal, and a nice scenic vista during one of the train-ride sequences, and of course the now-famous beauty shot of Latika standing in front of the train, I can't think of any other "wow" shots in the whole film. For a film that is supposed to represent the pinnacle of the last year of filmmaking shown in the United States of America, I can't reconcile this with what I saw last night.

[Ram Shani]

maybe they said:

 

we will shoot Slumdog Millionaire with slumdog format:)

 

so the is the right format for the film

 

i think it was just for the hype. because if i remember right. the movie "city of god" which take place in the same kind of "world" in Brazil shoot all with 35mm with small cam's. so size isn't issue

[Brian Drysdale]

i think it was just for the hype. because if i remember right. the movie "city of god" which take place in the same kind of "world" in Brazil shoot all with 35mm with small cam's. so size isn't issue

 

"City of God" was a mix of Super 16 and 35mm.

 

From that much quoted big data base:

Camera

Aaton 35-III, Zeiss and Angenieux Lenses

Aaton A-Minima, Zeiss and Angenieux Lenses

Aaton XTR Prod, Zeiss and Angenieux Lenses

 

The SI 2k should give a resolution in the Super 16 ballpark and it looked better than I was expecting.

 

Perhaps they didn't want the colours to jump out at you; making that choice is a creative decision. Bollywood films have traditionally been very colourful, going the other direction makes sense if it helps the story. Although to me Slumdog doesn't look that much less colourful than a number of documentaries I've seen about India on the BBC.

 

There's no point in putting "wow" shots into a film if they don't serve the story and in the process cause an imbalance; editors tend to make such shots hit the cutting room floor. The shots I rather liked were the high shots of the slums with the kids fleeing through the maze.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Brian Drysdale

[Andy_Alderslade]

maybe they said:

 

we will shoot Slumdog Millionaire with slumdog format:)

 

so the is the right format for the film

 

i think it was just for the hype. because if i remember right. the movie "city of god" which take place in the same kind of "world" in Brazil shoot all with 35mm with small cam's. so size isn't issue

 

City of God actually used the now popular Super 16 for drama and Super 35 for wides approach, though its sequel City of Men was shot almost totally 35mm, on an Arri BL would you believe.

[timHealy]

if your story is strong, pixel count and film vs. digital, DI or no DI, 4k scan or 2k scan is irrelevant.

 

Personally I think you are right, just as long as the story is compelling. If a story is weak then no way.

 

Best

 

Tim

[Brian Drysdale]

Personally I think you are right, just as long as the story is compelling. If a story is weak then no way.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

It's rather like some one planning to make a Dogma film - you better have the good script and actors rather than just making something on the cheap and applying a label to cover up the cracks.

 

Whatever else "Slumdog Millionaire" has achieved, it certainly seems to have a caused a debate on cinematography in drama films.

[K Borowski]

Personally I think you are right, just as long as the story is compelling. If a story is weak then no way.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

Umm, for a CINEMATOGRAPHY Award?

[K Borowski]

The SI 2k should give a resolution in the Super 16 ballpark and it looked better than I was expecting.

 

Perhaps they didn't want the colours to jump out at you; making that choice is a creative decision. Bollywood films have traditionally been very colourful, going the other direction makes sense if it helps the story. Although to me Slumdog doesn't look that much less colourful than a number of documentaries I've seen about India on the BBC.

 

There's no point in putting "wow" shots into a film if they don't serve the story and in the process cause an imbalance; editors tend to make such shots hit the cutting room floor. The shots I rather liked were the high shots of the slums with the kids fleeing through the maze.

 

I think shooting on S16 as opposed to 35mm should make it more difficult to win a "Best Cinematography" nod too. S16 will certainly suffer just as much on long shots as "Slumdog" did. Having bleary, blurry, hard-to-make-out long shots might be an artistic choice, but it also has said negative consequences to actually seeing what is in the shot and what is going on.

 

I can accept that having muted colors is a creative decision, if you can accept that not having pop and distinctive flavor to colors is perhaps another negative impact with the film's visual appeal for the purposes of awards.

 

I agree that avoiding "wow" shots is a creative choice, and perhaps the best choice for certain films, if you will accept that, sacrificing yet another opportunity to leave an indelible impression in the minds of one's viewers will hurt one's film's chances of winning the award for "best" in terms of cinematography.

 

The shots that you liked, if I read your post correctly, are the same shots I complained about because they were a smeary, noisy mess, and it was hard to make out what was even going on because of the softness.

 

 

I don't see what the disagreement is, honestly. I like "Blair Witch Project", and "Collateral" even, because all of the arguments I here for the use of video in films are certainly done with a deliberate stylistic intent, that I can see. If either of the films I mentioned won the Cinematography award for being new and innovative, I would applaud the decision (though I think either of those years there were better candidates that won instead).

 

However, I think that people need to accept that there are benefits and disadvantages to any format. Just as 65mm 15P wouldn't have served "Slumdog" well, using a consumer video camera for long shots, and in a controlled studio environment where the argument about "run and gun shooting style" holds no water whatsoever, I feel, is equally detrimental to the story, even to the ability of being able to clearly see what is going on.

[Brian Drysdale]

I think shooting on S16 as opposed to 35mm should make it more difficult to win a "Best Cinematography" nod too. S16 will certainly suffer just as much on long shots as "Slumdog" did. Having bleary, blurry, hard-to-make-out long shots might be an artistic choice, but it also has said negative consequences to actually seeing what is in the shot and what is going on.

 

I can accept that having muted colors is a creative decision, if you can accept that not having pop and distinctive flavor to colors is perhaps another negative impact with the film's visual appeal for the purposes of awards.

 

I agree that avoiding "wow" shots is a creative choice, and perhaps the best choice for certain films, if you will accept that, sacrificing yet another opportunity to leave an indelible impression in the minds of one's viewers will hurt one's film's chances of winning the award for "best" in terms of cinematography.

 

The shots that you liked, if I read your post correctly, are the same shots I complained about because they were a smeary, noisy mess, and it was hard to make out what was even going on because of the softness.

 

 

The shots I had in mind were wide and static. You could be thinking of the double printed Canon stills camera material. I can't say that I saw any shots where I couldn't make out what was going on. Although, a "smearly noisy mess" is as much a creative choice as using a narrow shutter angle like on "Saving Private Ryan".

 

I think any "wow" factor should come from the images reflecting on the characters and the dramatic needs of the story, anything else should be on the cutting room floor. Fortunately colour saturation isn't a requirement to win a cinematography award, "Schindler's List" is almost completely B & W apart from the post script and the girl in the red coat.

 

There's no reason why a Super 16 film couldn't win the award, "City of God" was nominated for cinematoghy and a lot of that was shot on Super 16.

[K Borowski]

There's no reason why a Super 16 film couldn't win the award, "City of God" was nominated for cinematoghy and a lot of that was shot on Super 16.

 

Yet again, that's not what I said. I said it would make it harder, were I judging it. I have the distinct feeling that you are trying to twist my words, through generalization or by taking them totally out of context, into broad-sweeping reactionary generalizations.

 

 

You keep talking about "Serving the Story". That is fine. But "Best Cinematography" isn't the "Best Story-Serving Cinematography Prize". I would even say that some films fail in terms of story, yet are worth seeing solely for their stunning cinematography, such as "The Thin Red Line" or "2001".

 

Do you disagree that certain film projects require cinematography that will probably be at reduced chances of winning the Academy Award?

 

That's like saying that "Best Picture" awards have to consider all genres of scripts equally. Obviously, a horror movie or a rom com is going to be at reduced chances of winning best picture.

[David Mullen ASC]

If you're saying that it was a long-shot for "Slumdog Millionaire" to win, I'd agree. But it beat those odds. Generally more experimental or roughly-shot movies have a smaller chance of getting nominated or winning. That's not the same thing as saying that they don't deserve nominations or awards though.

 

I was watching the new Blu-Ray of "The French Connection"(a great work of cinematography!) and it has some scenes at night that are so push-processed as to look a bit bizarre, barely any detail is on the negative, the grain is huge, the focus is soft. A lot of the movie is not what you would call technically polished and sometimes has more of a 16mm feeling. Yet it was nominated for Best Cinematography at the Oscars (it lost to "Fiddler on the Roof" I believe.) I'm sure some felt at the time that this was a controversial nomination for a Cinematography award.

 

Karl, you have a right to not like the movie now that you've seen it, or not like the way it looked. I've only been arguing with your logic in why things get nominated for awards, the implication that the movie can't use a lot of available light because, for some reason, that's too cheap and easy, or that it has to meet some higher technical standard, which is fine if that's your own requirement... it's just not the reason why movies get nominations, not even for their cinematography. One day if you create your own award, you can make up whatever requirements you want.

 

You've also demonstrated a clear bias against digital technology by the implication that experimenting with alternative film processing or film formats is somehow more acceptable and more artistic than doing the same thing with digital cameras and digital processing, that in the first case, it's artistic license, but in the second, it's somehow a filmmaker being lazy and cutting corners.

 

I didn't vote for "Slumdog" to win, but when I sat down and thought of what five movies to nominate for both the ASC Awards and Academy Awards, that movie kept coming into my mind as being one of the more distinct cinematic experiences of the year, thanks in no small part to how it was shot. It would have been a travesty for it to NOT get a nomination. Now I have to admit that overall, this was not a year of movies where the cinematography blew me away, so I'm talking about coming up with a list of five movies that I thought were the best for the 2008.

 

But when it comes to what should win, when there is no obvious pick in my mind, I have to rely more on my personal taste, what excites me as a cinematographer (knowing that the rest of the Academy voters are not necessarily going to have my perspective), and "Slumdog" wasn't it for me. But that's not because I have some technical litmus test that the movie failed, it has more to do with what movies I thought were more visually evocative, for me.

 

But plenty of great cinematographers at events have come up to me and said "My God, did you see 'Slumdog Millionaire'!" -- better cinematographers than me -- so I can't dismiss that sort of reaction, there has to be something behind it. I felt the same way, hence why I nominated it, but just not to that degree, not enough to win. But for many other cinematographers, that visual approach touched a nerve in them, deeply. I have to respect that if I respect them.

 

This is why it's an artform. And a little controversy now and then is not a bad thing. Next year the award will go to some beautifully shot period movie, maybe shot in 35mm anamorphic, and someone is going to complain that the Academy always favors conventional beauty and technical perfection, ignoring last year's win. It's the nature of awards. Some years, the voters worry about being behind the times and they vote for something that seems fresh and cutting-edge, and then the next year, they do the opposite and movies like "Godfather" and "Blade Runner" don't even get cinematography nominations.

[Brian Drysdale]

You keep talking about "Serving the Story". That is fine. But "Best Cinematography" isn't the "Best Story-Serving Cinematography Prize". I would even say that some films fail in terms of story, yet are worth seeing solely for their stunning cinematography, such as "The Thin Red Line" or "2001".

 

Do you disagree that certain film projects require cinematography that will probably be at reduced chances of winning the Academy Award?

 

That's like saying that "Best Picture" awards have to consider all genres of scripts equally. Obviously, a horror movie or a rom com is going to be at reduced chances of winning best picture.

 

I'm sure there are productions out there that have even better cinematography than those nominated, but we are discussing narrative feature films. In the examples you put forward the cinematography serves the story as it's being told. If the cinematography doesn't serve the story as being told by the director, why is there?

 

If you want stunning cinematography with a slight story watch "Jonathan Livingstone Seagull", which did win the cinematography award and has stunning seascapes.

 

The Academy voters like their gravitas for best picture, but Rom Coms are in the nominations for best pictures. The horror genre has problems, it really needs to improve on all fronts and get up to "The Exorcist" standard again. Although, elements of horror are in some nominated films.

 

Making things "harder" can result in stifling the art or become irrelevant like the art academy in 19th century France.

[David Mullen ASC]

Speaking of awards, this issue of the types of movies that get nominated comes up over at the ASC. A number of members like me or Amy Vincent who could be called "indie feature DP's" feel that there is no category that covers what we do -- there are two TV cinematography awards, and the feature award, but rarely do the feature nominations vary much from the Academy nominations, and they are dominated by studio movies with decent budgets.

 

I feel there needs to be a category where the nominees are closer to what the Independent Spirit Awards nominate, or the film festivals and film critics nominate, something that allows smaller movies and foreign movies to compete.

 

Truth is, let us admit, a smaller movie like "Slumdog" racking up awards is somewhat of a fluke for the Oscars. It happens now & then, but generally a small movie is so outgunned in budget and thus production design than a small movie, that it barely has a chance.

 

So to some degree I celebrate "Slumdog"'s success because it beat all those odds.

[Kevin Armstrong]

For the Record, this topic was started to bring to light the fact that, at least in this case, as well as with the dark knight, the filmmakers, not some studio head or corporation, were able to decide on which format best suited the needs of the picture, for the purpose of telling the story more effectively. this is what should be celebrated, not the film vs digital blah blah blah. now if the DP would get paid for DI and Post work more often, perhaps we could avoid the upcoming, imminent, future oscar for "best colorist" award.

[David Mullen ASC]

So Karl, I'm still not clear on what you are saying, so let me ask you point blank:

 

Should a movie shot on anything lower in resolution than 35mm get an Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography? Should a movie shot in HD or Super-16? You seem to be suggesting "no" but I'm not sure because you also say it should be "harder" which suggests that you think they can be nominated despite being lower in resolution. If that's the case, then what would be the mitigating factor that would allow them to be nominated?

[K Borowski]

You've also demonstrated a clear bias against digital technology by the implication that experimenting with alternative film processing or film formats is somehow more acceptable and more artistic than doing the same thing with digital cameras and digital processing, that in the first case, it's artistic license, but in the second, it's somehow a filmmaker being lazy and cutting corners.

 

I didn't vote for "Slumdog" to win, but when I sat down and thought of what five movies to nominate for both the ASC Awards and Academy Awards, that movie kept coming into my mind as being one of the more distinct cinematic experiences of the year, thanks in no small part to how it was shot. It would have been a travesty for it to NOT get a nomination. Now I have to admit that overall, this was not a year of movies where the cinematography blew me away, so I'm talking about coming up with a list of five movies that I thought were the best for the 2008.

 

That was not my intention. I think, when deviating from the norm, there should be a motivation. Being different for the sake of being different doesn't automatically make a movie award-worthy. Likewise, I think digital technology, just as alternative processing effects, should really have some motivation, other than cost, for being used in a film. Trust me, the converse will be true when digital becomes mainstream. "Why did you use grainy film for your movie? Digital is so much cleaner, more neutral," is going to be a rallying call after digital superceeds film. In the interim, however, I think I make a valid argument that anything "alternative", "degraded" needs to have a motivation, just like anything in film making that wins an award should have a purpose, a motivation. I keep hearing you refer to shots where too much grain are comparable to the use of digital in this film, or the look of "Man on Fire". However, for the most part, these are isolated, or unintentional shots in movies. If every shot in "Man on Fire" were hand-cranked (I'm not refering to X-processing, which is a safe, often subtle effect) burned in, flashed, or rolled out to the point that the whole movie took on the looks of the select sequences where it occurred, it wouldn't have deserved an award either, because the effect would have been overused to the point where it detracted from the story. It was motivated, to intentionally surreal-ly portray the sequences of the movie in which it was used.

 

Everyone keeps saying this film is distinct. I would agree. I don't think it is distinct because of the cinematography though. I think the story is unique and different. Honestly, I think the cinematography award this year has more to do with the current economic situation, and being either a sort of "safe compromise" as opposed to "Dark Knight" or "Benjamin Button" than it does with the merits of "Slumdog". Again, I think what I read, and some of my earlier interpretations of the film are totally detached from the actual film. The "low key shooting style argument" they made for using the SI-2K, doesn't hold any water at all, because all of the shots from the "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" set appeared to be shot on HD, and some of the daylight, outdoor shots on 35mm, mostly the glamor shots or big-impact shots appear to be shot on 35mm. This is obviously quite obtrusive.

 

We can agree that unconventional choices are exciting, but argue against awards that are given out unfairly. After all, in any artistic endeavour judged by human beings, there is always the potential for bad choices bad decisions. They can't always be quantified, but there are other famous incidents in the history of the Academy Awards where there is almost-unanimous consent that a "bad" decision was made. I recall an incident where, if I recall correctly, Kurt Douglas refused an Academy Award because he didn't belive the process was fair, and something about I think the guy who played Don Corleone in "The Godfather" not winning best actor, but winning a so-called "make-up prize" in the awards the following year.

 

Just as I hope a 35mm anamorphic film doesn't win next year to "make up" for this year I hope a digital movie will eventually win an award for being "better" than 35mm, for doing something that it couldn't have done (other than being done non-cinematic reasons). That is like giving a film like "Kinky Boots" a gay film festival award for portraying what many of my gay friends have told me was an offensive, stereotypical representation of the gay lifestyle. Or it is like picking a minority group or a woman for a field to prove that one is not biased. That is probably going to get a huge backlash, and is not a perfect analogy, so let me try again: We have to look at each individual case based on its merits, and not allow past failures or bias or bad decisions to influence future ones. We have to be objective even when our objectivity LOOKS biased. A digital movie shouldn't win because it is "about time that a digial movie won" or to show that the Academy doesn't have a "film bias", but because the Academy really IS objective and unbiased.

 

The Academy Award for Cinematography shouldn't be given out for the runner up for "Best Picture", or as a safe compromise to an IMAX film vs. an all-HD movie, or as a nod to a film that accomplished far beyond what films of its means and subject matter usually accomplish. It should be given to movies that have the best, most evocative, moving, and cohesive collective set of imagery, whose form and function rise beyond the mere technical act of recording movies on a substrate, a piece of plastic, a cell of silicon, or as a magnetic signal imbedded in tape. It is when a collection of shots takes on a cohesiveness that tells its own story and accentuates the dramatic story's telling, when you can look at frames of a film individually as works of art, that I feel a movie should win this award.

[K Borowski]

So Karl, I'm still not clear on what you are saying, so let me ask you point blank:

 

Should a movie shot on anything lower in resolution than 35mm get an Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography? Should a movie shot in HD or Super-16? You seem to be suggesting "no" but I'm not sure because you also say it should be "harder" which suggests that you think they can be nominated despite being lower in resolution. If that's the case, then what would be the mitigating factor that would allow them to be nominated?

 

I guess what I am saying David, is that things that are new, and different, that deviate from the norm should have a motivated reason for doing so. Unlike "Collateral", "Slumdog Millionaire" just didn't seem to benefit from deviating from the norm. It wasn't a powerful expression of new technology. Frankly, while it was certainly competently shot, it didn't display images that moved me. Also, the technical and artistic deviations from the norm that I observed don't match with the explanations that I've seen given by the team that shot this film.

[Chris Fernando]

So what was the artistic merit behind shooting a bank robbery in 70mm?

 

IMHO, I thought it meshed formats together well and the slum/chase sequence worked perfectly.

 

To each his own, I guess.

[K Borowski]

So what was the artistic merit behind shooting a bank robbery in 70mm?

 

IMHO, I thought it meshed formats together well and the slum/chase sequence worked perfectly.

 

To each his own, I guess.

 

They didn't shoot it in 70mm, they shot it in 65mm :P

 

I think IMAX was a good choice for "Dark Knight" because it very effectively portrayed the "larger than life" aspects of Superheroes. It portrayed average people like ants. Visually the film was multi-faceted, intricate. Oh, and it "seamlessly merged" two formats too. It did something new different, innovative, and above & beyond anything I had ever seen on the big screen before.

 

Instead of pointing out my preferences, how about defending and expounding upon yours. All I hear are generalized arguements about how they blened two formats together seamlessly. How is that award-worthy? I keep hearing that SI-2K suited this story well. How? What were some of your favorite, specific shots, or sequences, or transitions. What was done that was new, different exciting. What shots in the film are seared into your mind, and will stay with you forever.

 

What in "Slumdog" is cinematically, new, exceptional, and makes the film worthy of the highest award that a cinematographer can achieve?

[Brian Drysdale]

It is when a collection of shots takes on a cohesiveness that tells its own story and accentuates the dramatic story's telling, when you can look at frames of a film individually as works of art, that I feel a movie should win this award.

 

Quite a few now classic photographs were taken as "snapshots" by the photographer, who is going define these single frames as art? I expect you can single frames in Slumdog just you can amongst the other nominees.

 

The Academy quite often doesn't give the awards to the films which in later years almost define a period of cinema, so I wouldn't get too precious about all this. Some don't even get nominated.

[David Mullen ASC]

Remember Karl, movies are competing for awards with other movies for the same year, so the level of being "new" or "innovative" is only in relation to the other nominees, not for all time. You could say that "The Changeling" and "The Reader" represent a classical approach that was technically conventional but artistically well-done, whereas "Benjamin Button", "The Dark Knight" and "Slumdog Millionaire" also had some level of technological innovation involved to achieve their artistic goals. And where, in terms of lighting, "Benjamin Button" and "The Dark Knight" fall into the same classical conventions of elegant, atmospheric mood lighting, "Slumdog" veers into the rougher, semi-documentary territory that got movies like "The French Connection" and "City of God" nominated, or the more abstracted work of "Diving Bell and the Butterfly".

 

Personally I think it's a good thing when award nominations represent the breadth of what is possible in cinematography, and many younger cinematographers are going to find something in there to be inspired by, whether it is the elegant mood of "The Reader" or the rough run-n-gun high-energy of "Slumdog", or the epic scale of "The Dark Knight".

 

What wins after that is more of a popularity contest -- unless I'm personally the winner, I try to not take it too seriously. You're comparing such unlike movie often. We wouldn't put a classical music album and a hip-hop album in the same awards category.

 

The awards and nominations are a good bell weather of popular culture and mainstream stylistic trends, hence why they are historically interesting to study. But I don't buy the notion that the Academy Award is the authoritative say on what was the best for all times. It represents the opinions of a select group of people at one moment in history, and sure, that opinion may differ from yours.

 

Certainly your objections to "Slumdog" took on a lot more credence once you saw the movie and weren't making odd comments about how using too much available light made it less award-worthy, etc.

 

But at some point, these arguments seem to boil down to "I don't like pizza so all you pizza lovers are going to have to explain to me why you like pizza." What seems like a weakness to you may seem like a strength to another.

 

I mean, you can fold your arms and say "I wasn't impressed" -- that is an honest reaction -- but the trouble is that some people were impressed and that tends to be an immediate reaction, not an intellectualized one after-the-fact. That's part of the nature of experiencing art, it can't always be verbalized. I heard that quote the other day where Elvis Costello said that "talking about music was like dancing about architecture." Suffice to say that some were impressed by "Slumdog Millionaire" and we can throw around terms like "energy", etc. but if you saw the same movie and didn't "see" that, then I'm not sure what more we can say.

 

Last year a number of DP's thought that "Diving Bell and the Butterfly" was the best photographed movie of the year, not for technical reasons, but because it had an exhilarating quality that expressed a certain exploration of the possibilities of cinema, how the camera can help you experience a world. It wasn't about the grain level or color saturation or sharpness, that was not the part that was inspirational. "Slumdog" has some of that liberating feeling, the possibility that the camera is not bound by the logistics of shooting in a crowded slum but can go anywhere while still using actors to tell a narrative. In that respect, it reminded me of the early French New Wave movies like "The 400 Blows". No, in the bigger picture, maybe it won't have the same long-term resonance and will just be a footnote in cinematic history. As I said, these awards are just about the movies of 2008.

 

We've been talking about this award far more than in some previous years, which is perhaps a good thing when a movie comes along now and then and causes an argument! It's good to re-examine, now and then, our notions on art.