Oscar Cinematography Award

[Gregory Middleton]

One of the most important criteria I believe is the Visual Interpretation of the Script. The choice of 'what' to do is arguably more important than 'how'. Beautifully crafted images that do not enhance the storytelling may be wonderful in their own way but do not service the film. Its very easy to let vanity get the better of us sometimes.

Slumdog Millionaire benefitted greatly from the shooting style and lighting style. People noticed.

Imagine Children of Men shot more conventionally. Probably not as involving.

[Brian Drysdale]

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.

 

Just looking back, "Rocky" seems to be the nearest equivalent.

 

Of course, I wouldn't expect a "Slumdog Millionaire II"...

 

 

BTW The economic circumstances at the time were also not good.

[Chris Fernando]

What was done that was new, different exciting. What shots in the film are seared into your mind, and will stay with you forever.

 

The up-angle from the ground (or just above :rolleyes: ) on the woman sitting against the wall as the kids run by with the background blooming out in the BG. ;)

[Chris Fernando]

...with the exterior/highlight blooming out in the BG, is what I meant to type.

[K Borowski]

The up-angle from the ground (or just above :rolleyes: ) on the woman sitting against the wall as the kids run by with the background blooming out in the BG. ;)

 

One shot is the best you can do? I have more shots I liked in it than that, and I don't think it should have even been nominated.

 

 

 

 

And hmm, isn't it *interesting* that Rocky also won during a time of economic hardship. It' like the Roman Senators going out and pretending to be poor so that the Plebs would vote for them. I think the whole thing just wreaks of politics.

[frederico parreira]

i think it is sad when a cinematographer is so involved and obsessed with the technical values of its job, that he forgets that an image power has more to do with the feelings and sentiments it evokes, than the small talk technical issues.

 

everyone is entitled to his own taste, but to limit other's taste using yours as a mirror is not an appropriate thing to do, i think.

 

karl, somehow i think you are too rational about this. the art of filmaking is not allways rational... prizes are the same.

 

fred

[David Mullen ASC]

And hmm, isn't it *interesting* that Rocky also won during a time of economic hardship. It' like the Roman Senators going out and pretending to be poor so that the Plebs would vote for them. I think the whole thing just wreaks of politics.

 

As an ASC and Academy voter, I can tell you that there is no collusion between voters, no attempt to make a coherent group political statement, etc. We see these movies on our own and we vote on them on our own. Saying it was "politics" suggests otherwise.

 

I don't understand Karl why you find it so inconceivable that people actually liked the way the movie was shot -- I've talked to plenty of people who feel that way, and many have posted such comments here. There doesn't have to be some conspiracy theory at work here. Why can't you just chalk it down to a difference in opinion and taste?

 

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO LIKED THE WAY THIS MOVIE LOOKED. It's that simple. Roberto Schaeffer, who said on CML that he was not a fan of the movie, said his wife (a talented costume designer) said she thought it should win the cinematography Oscar. My wife, when I got the ballot in the mail, asked if I was going to pick "Slumdog" for the cinematography Oscar. People at the ASC Open House came up to me gushing about "Slumdog Millionaire" and the way it was shot, both students and ASC members. Honestly, some people actually liked the way this movie was photographed.

 

I see this happen every year, whenever some movie gets an award that a particular person disagrees with, there is all this conspiracy talk rather than an acceptance that the majority of voters chosen differently than this person. It happens in political races as well, a refusal to believe the simple explanation over the sinister explanation.

 

For those that didn't like "Slumdog", the explanations have ranged from "it was just due to the marketing campaign", to "the studios planned it this way to encourage the rise of mid-budget movies with no stars", to "it's liberal white guilt" -- despite the large numbers of people out there who actually liked the movie, who come out of the theaters gushing about it. I saw it opening week while on vacation in Washington D.C. and the crowd was very enthusiastic.

 

And as I've said before, I've had top ASC cinematographers walk up to me and start gushing about this movie.

 

Just chalk it up to a difference in taste and move on.

[Joe Taylor]

I finally saw "Slumdog" last night. There are many remarkable shots throughout the film that seem to have been achieved with natural (available light) and more importantly "in-camera." One shot that I question, and I hope someone in-the-know can clarify, is during the big chase at the beginning of the film. It is an aerial shot looking straight down as the kids run through a small gap through the slums. The shot is repeated several more times in sequence with the final shot showing the magnitude of the slums. The sequence itself stops the show and if genuine deserves its just rewards.

 

There are so many other stunning examples. The kids walking the pipelines. The train winding through India. Unlike many film lauded for their "cinematography" these shots were achieved in-camera.

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Just chalk it up to a difference in taste and move on.

 

 

Basically how I feel about this entire situation.

 

Hats off to Anthony Dod Mantle, and may next years winner be an anamorphic, 35mm, $500,000,000 budget, 100% photochemical, shot on virgin Kodak stock produced in the finest labs in the south of France by an artisan, on a solid-gold Panavision Millennium with Zeiss glass ground from the rarest Swarovski crystals.

[K Borowski]

[...]and may next years winner be an anamorphic, 35mm, $500,000,000 budget, 100% photochemical, shot on virgin Kodak stock produced in the finest labs in the south of France by an artisan, on a solid-gold Panavision Millennium with Zeiss glass ground from the rarest Swarovski crystals.

 

. . . because that is exactly how *I* want best cinematography winners to be chosen? Riiiight :blink:

 

Just for the record, I think it was good to bring up "Diving Bell and the Butterfly".

 

After hearing the film lauded by Max on many occasions here, I was shocked to actually see the film. Again, just like "Slumdog", adequately shot, but dull, visually lackluster. Uncreative approach in my opinion.

 

I think it was Kubrick who said something along the lines of "a movie has to be interesting too."

 

I completely agree that certain films call for being visually dull, conventional, uninteresting. But, at the same time, I resent the notion that there aren't perfectly valid ways to put "wow" shots into just about any film.

 

And no, by "wow" shot, I don't mean a shot that cost $5 million to make with a thousand extras and a 5-minute steadicam shot, just something that is visually stimulating. Ultimately, I expect movies to try to give their viewers a "kick" from seeing them, even if they give the audience a kick by making them feel terrible. I am in no way being analytical. I think I am just not seeing how this film can connect with so many people. There are certainly areas of life where my opinions are probably in the minority 10%, but I still feel I am right. I really don't feel that this is the case here. The movie just didn't rise to the level of a cinematic masterpiece. What are costume designers, comedians, people that wouldn't know good cinematography if it hit them in the face, doing passing judgement on this field anyway? Sure David, your wife would have an eye for cinematography; she's a film archivist, right? But costume designers and sound recordists, huh? I certainly wouldn't know the first thing to look for in sound recording, and would only be able to spot really really bad costuming, certainly not qualify myself to distinguish the best in that field.

 

As for "Slumdog" and the supposed available light approach they took. Frankly, what I read borders on being a lie. There was clearly all kinds of bounce and supplemental illumination used. I don't know. Maybe I need to go see it again. I was there, but the "Best Cinematography" wasn't.

[Karel Bata]

Here's an interesting article http://www.definitionmagazine.com/cameras/wallander.htm in which DoP Anthony Dod Mantle talks about his choices across a number of projects.

[Micah Fernandez]

What are costume designers, comedians, people that wouldn't know good cinematography if it hit them in the face, doing passing judgement on this field anyway?

What these people bring is an immediate sincerity in reacting to what they see, without being bogged down by details like what camera and film stock was used, or whether it was lit with an inky or a flashlight.

 

This is kind of like saying "What does the audience know about movies? They wouldn't know a good movie from a porcupine strapped to their forehead!" Just because they don't know how things are done doesn't mean they cannot comprehend what they are seeing.

[Rajavel Olhiveeran]

This forum has not only taught me so much of Cinematography and other elements of Filmmaking........but also humbleness and Patience.

especially after seeing seniors like David Mullen patiently replying to .........'Stuck up' thoughts!!

thanks

[K Borowski]

especially after seeing seniors like David Mullen patiently replying to .........'Stuck up' thoughts!!

 

I get the distinct impression from you and other Indian posters that this is a matter of national pride. I honestly don't know why. I am evaluating what I saw solely in terms of Cinematography; as this is a discussion of the Cinematographic aspects only, maybe you should too?

 

 

As for not caring what lens film stock, camera etc, I actually think all those things are secondary too. Primary things I judge are lighting, composition, camera movement, etc.

 

But to totally discount image quality, and even worse, *lighting* (which, AGAIN, was actually not that bad in this movie; my initial complaints were based on accounts that they hadn't bothered to use supplemental lighting) for a cinematography award would be idiotic. The cinematography award is not, or at least shouldn't be a consolation prize.

[K Borowski]

This is kind of like saying "What does the audience know about movies? They wouldn't know a good movie from a porcupine strapped to their forehead!" Just because they don't know how things are done doesn't mean they cannot comprehend what they are seeing.

 

Popular opinion shouldn't delegate to the Academy who gets the cinematography nod. The masses can hold whatever opinion about any movie, even movies they haven't seen. But obviously, someone who knows about a particular field, like cinematography, or acting, or makeup, or sound recording is going to be far more qualified to gauge the merits of his or her particular field than the lay filmgoer.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[Micah Fernandez]

Popular opinion shouldn't delegate to the Academy who gets the cinematography nod.

As far as I understand it, it is the voters who decide who gets the Academy award, and as David Mullen has explicitly stated in this thread, it IS rather like a popularity contest. That you don't agree with the outcome of this contest in no way disproves the fact that Slumdog Millionaire was a well-made movie that many people enjoyed. That Slumdog won the award does not mean that digital is better than film either. No one's claiming that. It's just that at this point in time, people happened to resonate with the images of this movie more than the other movies that were nominated.

 

The masses can hold whatever opinion about any movie, even movies they haven't seen. But obviously, someone who knows about a particular field, like cinematography, or acting, or makeup, or sound recording is going to be far more qualified to gauge the merits of his or her particular field than the lay filmgoer.

The technical merits, yes, we should be able to better describe the processes and tools that went into crafting the images. But the emotional impact and the impression it leaves in one's mind? We are all on an even playing field in that respect, and that is, rightly, what all movies are judged upon.

[K Borowski]

That Slumdog won the award does not mean that digital is better than film either. No one's claiming that. It's just that at this point in time, people happened to resonate with the images of this movie more than the other movies that were nominated.

 

I'm not concerned with the format it is shot on. Honestly, Benjamin Button would have been a far better choice than this.

 

Last year I coudl've picked a dozen shots / sequences in either "Atonement" or "There Will Be Blood" that made hem award-worthy. Granted, this year's nominees aren't of the same calibre as we've seen in other years, but the best attempt I've heardmade at describing this film's "noteworthy cinematography" listed all of two shots that were good, two.

 

I mean, it'd be one thing if those of you that thought this film deserved it's win could talk about gereat shots here, great shot there, intricate style, a groundbreaking new approach. Yet all I see here are generalizations and vague broad-sweeping claims about how ignorant and biased I am. Instead of going on the attack and calling me ignorant, maybe you can respond in kind by supporting some of your assertions with specific examples of why "Slumdog" deserved a win, rather than digital this, film that. 2/5 of the film was shot on film anyway. If it were this thouse 2/5 that were being judged, I *still* would be just as vehemently opposed to this film winning.

[Gregory Middleton]

Karl,

Not using supplemental lighting does not imply that no other skills and talents are used in creating the images. Choice of camera position, lens, exposure, movement , the way digital data is handled afterwards under the DP's supervision are all part of the equation. Making the right choice to maximize the impact of visualizing the script is crucial in my mind when I evaluate any work. Slumdog probably made the biggest impact.

 

Remember 3 other Oscar nominated films which had many scenes and in one case the whole movie with very little supplemental lighting.

The New World, The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven.

 

 

Popular opinion shouldn't delegate to the Academy who gets the cinematography nod. The masses can hold whatever opinion about any movie, even movies they haven't seen. But obviously, someone who knows about a particular field, like cinematography, or acting, or makeup, or sound recording is going to be far more qualified to gauge the merits of his or her particular field than the lay filmgoer.

[K Borowski]

Remember 3 other Oscar nominated films which had many scenes and in one case the whole movie with very little supplemental lighting.

The New World, The Thin Red Line and Days of Heaven.

 

Once again, a generic defense rather than an argument in defense of "Slumdog". Does anyone want to tell me why "Slumdog Millionaire" deserves its award? Otherwise I am done here. . .

[Gregory Middleton]

Karl,

I'm not sure you're actually interested in an argument in favor of Slumdog. The Oscars are in the end a popularity contest. The membership is very diverse as are their artistic tastes and experience. Obviously you disagree with it winning, but what none of us can disagree with its the effects the cinematography had on the voters because they have made their opinion clear. I believe they voted that way because they found the cinematography fresh, inventive and very effective at immersing the audience in the story. If you want some specific example of that I would cite the following.

 

Overall image Quality or "look".

The higher contrast , higher saturation slightly noisier texture made the most of the environment. It was not the most realistic but complemented the editing style well by making colors stand out more and noticeable in the quick cutting sequences. It also allowed more color to show up reflected in the skin of the actors , which i think made them part of the environment more.

 

Scene when the Muslims and Hindus clash and our 2 your young heros run through the slums.

A great use of a tiny camera to be able to run with them in a real location with limited support. We really feel we are with them instead of watching at a distance. Great use of the short burst steprinted images shot with the DSLR. I can tell you first hand how difficult it is to shoot in India, and the way they chose to shoot got them amazing results that lesser filmmakers would have never achieved.

 

Use of wide lenses in Close ups.

Deliberate choice. Again consistent with an immersive style. Loved the scene when his brother shoots the Pimp.

 

2 Brothers talk at the Construction site. Who doesn't remember the city reflected in the Brothers glasses? Denying us access to his eyes is one thing, their old neighbor hood as the only thing we can see is something else.

 

I think Chris Menges work on The Reader was outstanding as usual. But the Academy Members remembered Slumdog more.

I personally don't think there is only one BEST every year.

Once again, a generic defense rather than an argument in defense of "Slumdog". Does anyone want to tell me why "Slumdog Millionaire" deserves its award? Otherwise I am done here. . .

[DS Williams]

Again, just like "Slumdog", adequately shot, but dull, visually lackluster. Uncreative approach in my opinion.

 

 

Can you explain to me just how the approach was uncreative?

 

I believe Slumdog had the most creative, unconventional approach of all the films nominated this year. That includes their approach to the slums chase sequence, the train sequence, tunnel sequence, ect.

 

I remember sitting in the theater and thinking, "Wow I would have shot that differently but it sure works so well for the story they're telling."

 

And the SI-2k didn't neccessarily look bad at all. I actually think it help up quite nicely. Hats off to the members who voted for this innovative film. Sometimes it's refreshing to choose a different hat for the day.

[DS Williams]

And as Greg mentioned, there is never one BEST film in everyone's eyes. But, it is based on popular vote.

Hate to being politics into this so I'll keep it brief, but just for illustration, it's like the whole Obama vs. McCain debate that sparked up across out nation.

 

In the end it's popularity, and this film resonated with many, many viewers. In fact I haven't talked to a single person who didn't like the film, accept my screenwriting instructor! :P

 

You've made your stance very clear, we all know where you stand, you were disappointed that the film won. Well, that's that! Next year perhaps the winner will resonate with you on a touching, personal level, and you'll argue dogmatically that it clearly deserved the award above all others. Ultimately, it's an opinion based decision, and no opinions is truly the correct one, as it's a subjective judgement.

 

But I do respect your opinion, and the depth of your argument.

[DS Williams]

One of the most important criteria I believe is the Visual Interpretation of the Script. The choice of 'what' to do is arguably more important than 'how'. Beautifully crafted images that do not enhance the storytelling may be wonderful in their own way but do not service the film. Its very easy to let vanity get the better of us sometimes.

Slumdog Millionaire benefitted greatly from the shooting style and lighting style. People noticed.

Imagine Children of Men shot more conventionally. Probably not as involving.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree!

[Rajavel Olhiveeran]

I get the distinct impression from you and other Indian posters that this is a matter of national pride. I honestly don't know why. I am evaluating what I saw solely in terms of Cinematography; as this is a discussion of the Cinematographic aspects only, maybe you should too?

 

 

As for not caring what lens film stock, camera etc, I actually think all those things are secondary too. Primary things I judge are lighting, composition, camera movement, etc.

But to totally discount image quality, and even worse, *lighting* (which, AGAIN, was actually not that bad in this movie; my initial complaints were based on accounts that they hadn't bothered to use supplemental lighting) for a cinematography award would be idiotic. The cinematography award is not, or at least shouldn't be a consolation prize.

 

Karl i am very much aware that this is a discussion of the Cinematographic aspects only.....and i believe thats all i am doing here too!

Dear Karl u have got the wrong impression of me atleast . This Oscar for Cinematography or for Best picture or for Best director and so

on cannot be a matter of National pride at all (according to me)....how can it be when none of them are Indian nationals. But i take immense pride for Oscar for Music going to A.R Rahman because of him being an Indian and that i am just short of working with him.

 

But Karl...i take immense pride as a Cinematographer (not as an Indian) that Anthony Dod has created an imagery for his director to suit his and his script needs and thereby creating good cinema ...which thereby touches the audience at various levels. only we in this forum are talking about filmstock....lighting...composition...camera movement....But the audience is happy to be soaked by the emotion they are experiencing after watching good Cinema! ......and we all are craving to achieve that emotion in audience using the various technology as "TOOLS"...

Tools are just the means ..not the end by itself

 

 

See!what do u mean by 'totally discount image quality'......(my opinion they havent).....but Boss the required emotion is been achieved and what more do u want out of cinema.....see the bigger picture called 'cinema' not just an ingredient called 'cinematography'.....

Ingredients like in cooking have to be right , not more not less, to feel a good taste . . . .

 

sorry if i hit ur pride. didnt mean to...common man arent we all one nation?! Nation of cinematographers toiling for Great Cinema!

cheers!

Edited March 3, 2009 by Rajavel Mohan

[frederico parreira]

karl:

 

i m really not interested in defending slumdog, i just dont agree, at all, with your aproach to the merits of a film/cinematography, and i found this to be an interesting discussion.

 

u said back there that not only camera, lenses, etc, are imprtant, but also, and most important, lighting, composition, camera movement. right? well, i feel that all these aspects are ways to get to a particular experience. it is, in fact, this experience that matters. and cinematographers and general public may respond to the same things, beeing an expert doenst make u 'insensible', does it? sometimes, to make a new, fresh, incredible experience, u need tons of gear and hours and hours of lighting. sometimes, u need a good idea, or a good concept, and ur ready to roll. this doesnt mean one is better than the other. of course planning, lighting, etc, the 'normal' way, is usually prefered, because its more flexible, it gives u more power, more control. but sometimes, u need to go the other way.

because, in the end, what matters is what u see on the screen, and what u feel about it.

no?