Academy Award Nominations 2008

[Michael Palm]

There Will Be Blood

 

 

 

enough said.

[John Allen]

I think "The Assassination of Jesse James" will win, but if not that then "There Will Be Blood" will.

[Ruairi Robinson]

If Robert Elswitt doesn't win there will be blood.

[Tom Lowe]

If Robert Elswitt doesn't win there will be blood.

 

Damn, I need to see this!

[Mathew Rudenberg]

I haven't even seen Atonement but I'd put my money there - The academy has a pretty strong history of choosing lush period pieces over striking examples of revolutionary camera work.

 

Perhaps the average voter finds it hard to differentiate cinematography from production design.

 

I've given up on them choosing the 'right' film since city of god lost to master and commander (a lush period piece), the new world world lost to Memoirs of a Geisha (a lush period piece), and Children of Men lost to Pans labyrinth (a lush period piece).

 

Now... who's taking bets?

[Ruairi Robinson]

I haven't even seen Atonement but I'd put my money there - The academy has a pretty strong history of choosing lush period pieces over striking examples of revolutionary camera work.

 

Perhaps the average voter finds it hard to differentiate cinematography from production design.

 

I've given up on them choosing the 'right' film since city of god lost to master and commander (a lush period piece), the new world world lost to Memoirs of a Geisha (a lush period piece), and Children of Men lost to Pans labyrinth (a lush period piece).

 

Now... who's taking bets?

 

There will be blood is a lush period piece :)

[mike geranios]

Where is HARRIS SAVIDES? 2 great stories in 2007 ZODIAC AND AMERICAN GANGSTER

[John Holland]

Savides is nominated for a BAFTA for American Gangster .

[John Allen]

I haven't even seen Atonement but I'd put my money there - The academy has a pretty strong history of choosing lush period pieces over striking examples of revolutionary camera work.

 

So is "The Assasination of Jesse James". I also agree with David, Deakins has been nominated 7 times now, it would be crazy for him not to get it.

[Ken Minehan]

Hi Guys, speaking of lush period films, one that i enjoyed very very much was Elizabeth: The Golden Age. I was blown away with the cinematography when i watched this. The lighting was so soft, the camera movement was subtle and very creative. I had never heard of Remi Adefarasin before, but after watching Elizabeth i went to look at some of his other works. He is an amazing cinemtographer. It's a pity he wasn't nominated. I have only seen Atonement out of the list of nominated films want to try and catch the others before the Academy Awards Night.

Ken

[Tom Lowe]

Sorry I posted this on the wrong thread eariler:

 

I finally saw There Will Be Blood. I thought the photography was very good, but not as good as No Country. In fact, I thought the photography on Blood was a little overhyped. The art direction and Lewis' performance are what really impressed me! The soundtrack was great, too.

 

It's my understanding that Blood and No Country were shot in the exact same desert. I thought Blood was shot during some really terrible times of day - right at high noon. I would personally never shoot in a desert like that when the light is directly overhead. It's just ugly and un-cinematic. I did like some of the camera moves, and some of the dark, close-up shots of Lewis talking. The end sort of drifted into Howard Hughes, Citizen Kane territory... stuff I have seen in movies before.

 

As far as Oscars and ASCs, I would have prefered Lust, Caution to Blood for cinematography.

[Jack Williamson]

I finally saw There Will Be Blood. I thought the photography was very good, but not as good as No Country. In fact, I thought the photography on Blood was a little overhyped. The art direction and Lewis' performance are what really impressed me! The soundtrack was great, too.

 

It's my understanding that Blood and No Country were shot in the exact same desert. I thought Blood was shot during some really terrible times of day - right at high noon. I would personally never shoot in a desert like that when the light is directly overhead. It's just ugly and un-cinematic.

 

The photography in There Will Be Blood is brilliant. I feel like you missed the boat here. Describing anything about that film as un-cinematic is laughable in my opinion. Is magic hour the only cinematic time? Not every film can be Days of Heaven. I believe the film was shot at many different times of day, and upon another viewing I think you will see a constantly changing quality of light between scenes.

 

How about the brilliance of the oil explosion scene? It starts during harsh sunlight and the sun slowly sets during its frenetic progression. Until we are in total darkness and Daniel Day Lewis is just a face being lit by fire light in the midst of the dark desert. That change in light over such a big scene was probably extremely difficult to achieve and it works flawlessly, certainly CINEMATIC. And all achieved without a DI.

 

I liked the music too, but how could you miss it? I personally like films with cinematography that does not draw attention to itself. I think Elswit really knows how to do this, but also make things cinematic, and natural/gorgeous upon further analysis. There Will Be Blood is a masterwork. Must things be "pretty" to be good? The fact of the matter is his work is one with the story, and I don't see how it could have been shot any better to tell the story.

 

There were so many phenomenal shots in that film. Take another look. I don't think it is being overhyped. I have heard a lot more about the music and Daniel Day Lewis.

 

However, if memory serves me right, Elswit already won an Oscar and it would be nice to see Deakins win. Still, There Will Be Blood is the best shot film of the year in my opinion. So if you want to ignore people getting their dues, I would say Elswit should win.

 

Jack

[David Mullen ASC]

Nestor Almendros, right around the time he did "Days of Heaven" also did that Jack Nicholson western "Goin' South". I remember this shot of Nicholson coming out of a mine into the harshest overhead noon light imaginable, it was so crisp. I thought it was brilliant. Mining should feel like harsh work, and shooting under the blazing sun helps reinforce that. There was no reason for the landscapes of "There Will Be Blood" to look magical, romantic, inviting, or lyrical. It's a brutal story about a brutal man doing hard work, and the photography reflects that.

 

It's a lot like "Hud" in that regard. When the director called up James Wong Howe to shoot the picture, he said "You won't like it here in Texas -- the sky is bald half the time. Maybe we should find a way of adding clouds in post." But when Howe saw the location, he thought it was perfect -- in fact, he suggested they sometimes use blue filters (in b&w) to make the sky less dramatic, more washed-out. He felt that the photography had to reflect Hud's desire to get out of there, sell the ranch, and move on, that there was nothing romantic about living there.

 

Maybe it's because I grew up in the desert, but I find all types of sunlight interesting, even hard overhead light, if it adds the right feeling to the rocks, etc. and if it makes sense, story-wise. Even "Days of Heaven" showed some farm work going on in overhead harsh sunlight when it made sense. It's just that in Canada, the sun is never quite dead overhead even at noon, unlike New Mexico.

 

That said, I still prefer the two Deakins movies. Maybe it's just me, but I lean towards preferring what I feel is an interpreted, manipulated reality rather than a strictly realistic one. "No Country" has that desert noir style and "Jesse James" that period photography style that is modifying the reality. "There Will Be Blood" is a more honest depiction of a certain lifestyle and working condition, but with less stylization (to me). I love certain moments though, like the burning derrick, the mineshaft scenes, etc.

[Jack Williamson]

I would be satisified if Deakins won too, and I would say he should win for "No Country" but Jesse James was great work as well. But he will win for No Country because it is the higher profile movie. I think he will win again too in the coming years as he only seems to be getting better with age like Connie Hall, and only works with great directors it seems.

 

He should have won for Jarhead, just for the night desert scenes, in my opinion.

 

The academy awards matter, but they don't at the same time. So many victories are just plain frustrating, like Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls, which was based on pure hype and "cinderella story". She wasn't bad in the film, but I think that is as far as you can take it.

 

Meanwhile it took Martin Scorsese until last year to win. Kubrick never won, only for special effects for 2001 not direction. Hitchcock never won, only a lifetime achievement award. They are two of the greatest directors of all time and their combined cinematic influence is everywhere. And they never won.

 

However, it helps those who win and are nominated to get more opportunities to participate in the creation of films. Or in the case of Deakins, will validate his talent in a public forum, but we all know he is one of the greatest living cinematographers. I am not sure it will change his career much. He will still be offered the DP job on great projects again and again.

 

What we need is David Mullen to get a high profile project like No Country because that is about 75% of the battle to DP greatness. Then he will have to change his screen name to:

 

Academy Award Winner M. David Mullen, ASC

 

Jack

[Tom Lowe]

How about the brilliance of the oil explosion scene? It starts during harsh sunlight and the sun slowly sets during its frenetic progression. Until we are in total darkness and Daniel Day Lewis is just a face being lit by fire light in the midst of the dark desert. That change in light over such a big scene was probably extremely difficult to achieve and it works flawlessly, certainly CINEMATIC. And all achieved without a DI.

 

No offense, but that was a continuity nightmare! How can that wooden structure soaked with flaming, blasting oil catch fire in broad daylight (mid day) and burn into the night??? That structure would have been toast in about 30 minutes max! It seems to me that they only shot the night stuff of the burning tower because it would look cool, which it did. But it totally did not match the reality of the story. On the other hand, I thought the dawn chase in the desert in No Country was a far more impressive achievement with that type of lighting.

 

As far as shooting in broad daylight in a desert like that, I am saying I wouldn't do it. I have been out in the middle of many deserts during the day with my DLSR, and I simply never, ever take any pictures at that time of day, unless it's like a coyote or something fleeting I am trying to catch. I simply hate that light. The desert looks awful at that time of day. I will go for a hike or a drive or read a book or something, and wait for the light to get warmer and more beautiful. That's just my personal taste. I didn't care for the look of most of those shots.

[Daniel Carruthers]

Considering elswitt shot at high noon for alot of the film I thought he did a great job at making highnoon look good. whether its for gritty realism or just because he had no choice? he pulled it off very well.

Wheres alot of other people like myself could not do it as well as he did.

I noticed what seemed to make the high noon shots work so well is that most of the actots where wearing hats that shaded out there eyes.

[Jack Williamson]

No offense, but that was a continuity nightmare! How can that wooden structure soaked with flaming, blasting oil catch fire in broad daylight (mid day) and burn into the night??? That structure would have been toast in about 30 minutes max! It seems to me that they only shot the night stuff of the burning tower because it would look cool, which it did. But it totally did not match the reality of the story. On the other hand, I thought the dawn chase in the desert in No Country was a far more impressive achievement with that type of lighting.

 

As far as shooting in broad daylight in a desert like that, I am saying I wouldn't do it. I have been out in the middle of many deserts during the day with my DLSR, and I simply never, ever take any pictures at that time of day, unless it's like a coyote or something fleeting I am trying to catch. I simply hate that light. The desert looks awful at that time of day. I will go for a hike or a drive or read a book or something, and wait for the light to get warmer and more beautiful. That's just my personal taste. I didn't care for the look of most of those shots.

 

Obviously your taste leans more toward romantic photography and sunsets, for example, you suggest Lust, Caution before Blood for nominations and that speaks volumes. As far as the sequence goes, I don't feel like it was a continuity nightmare at all, and I won't take offense because I did not make the film.

 

Deakins dawn sequence was great, but what Elswit did in their will be blood was more powerful to me. Both illustrate the passing of time in an a slightly unrealistic manner, after all it is a movie. I don't see how the oil tower burning for a while could be so bothersome. I don't know how that all works as I have never been around a wooden oil tower that catches fire. I would imagine the fire was busy burning the oil and the wood was just a bystander could be a way to explain it. Houses have burned badly for hours and hours and not collapsed. Again, that doesn't matter much, as it is a movie in the end, and not a documentary. I would not call it a continuity nightmare, as it was a deliberate choice that I feel works.

 

Also your description of the end of the film slipping into Citizen Kane, Howard Hughes mode is odd. I didn't know that was a type of photography. Again, more like a story point that you did not enjoy. Saying it is stuff you have seen in movies before doesn't make much sense to me either. That is a statement you can say just about every film. How about No Country. How many times is someone going to find a bundle of dirty money in a film? A lot more than rich Tycoons lose their minds and live in isolation. And what about the photography? We have all seen dawn sequences, and deserts, and dark hotel rooms, etc. Deakins did not invent these situations, just like anyone who makes films nowadays. But we can still appreciate his work. A "Citizen Kane/Howard Hughes moment" would not have much to do with Elswit anyway, but he certainly lit it well. I didn't find the story point tired at all by the way. Also, I have seen romantic photography everywhere in the cinema, that doesn't mean Lust, Caution loses any of its quality of photography.

 

But this is all a matter of taste. So maybe you just didn't like There Will Be Blood, and I can respect that, but if that is the case dismissing the cinematography should be separate from dismissing the story. I think it was a perfect film, not in the sense that everyone should love it, but the filmmakers set out to do something, and they achieved their goals. It's not a matter of finding the film's flaws, because there aren't any. It's just a matter of reacting. Much like No Country which I also found to be flawless as well.

 

Jack

[Jason Debus]

I could see any one of the nominations winning, it's really that close this year. My personal favorite is Diving Bell & the Butterfly, I think the cinematography was such an integral part of making that film work. If the academy votes 'pretty' then it will be Atonement, which would seem a strange winner given the competition.

[Tom Lowe]

Obviously your taste leans more toward romantic photography and sunsets, for example, you suggest Lust, Caution before Blood for nominations and that speaks volumes. As far as the sequence goes, I don't feel like it was a continuity nightmare at all, and I won't take offense because I did not make the film.

 

Deakins dawn sequence was great, but what Elswit did in their will be blood was more powerful to me. Both illustrate the passing of time in an a slightly unrealistic manner, after all it is a movie. I don't see how the oil tower burning for a while could be so bothersome. I don't know how that all works as I have never been around a wooden oil tower that catches fire. I would imagine the fire was busy burning the oil and the wood was just a bystander could be a way to explain it. Houses have burned badly for hours and hours and not collapsed. Again, that doesn't matter much, as it is a movie in the end, and not a documentary. I would not call it a continuity nightmare, as it was a deliberate choice that I feel works.

 

Also your description of the end of the film slipping into Citizen Kane, Howard Hughes mode is odd. I didn't know that was a type of photography. Again, more like a story point that you did not enjoy. Saying it is stuff you have seen in movies before doesn't make much sense to me either. That is a statement you can say just about every film. How about No Country. How many times is someone going to find a bundle of dirty money in a film? A lot more than rich Tycoons lose their minds and live in isolation. And what about the photography? We have all seen dawn sequences, and deserts, and dark hotel rooms, etc. Deakins did not invent these situations, just like anyone who makes films nowadays. But we can still appreciate his work. A "Citizen Kane/Howard Hughes moment" would not have much to do with Elswit anyway, but he certainly lit it well. I didn't find the story point tired at all by the way. Also, I have seen romantic photography everywhere in the cinema, that doesn't mean Lust, Caution loses any of its quality of photography.

 

But this is all a matter of taste. So maybe you just didn't like There Will Be Blood, and I can respect that, but if that is the case dismissing the cinematography should be separate from dismissing the story. I think it was a perfect film, not in the sense that everyone should love it, but the filmmakers set out to do something, and they achieved their goals. It's not a matter of finding the film's flaws, because there aren't any. It's just a matter of reacting. Much like No Country which I also found to be flawless as well.

 

Jack

 

Many of us here talk about the photography of films, AND whether we enjoyed the stories and acting, etc. I think my language was clear when I was speaking about photography vs story or acting or art direction. I really did enjoy There Will Be Blood, but the photography isn't in my top three. You're saying that my "taste leans more toward romantic photography and sunsets," which is true, but this year, my favorite picture in terms of cinematography was No Country, which is hardly a pretty picture. I liked it better than Lust or Jesse James, both of which are very beautiful pictures, so I can appreciate photography that is not pretty nor shot at magic hour. :)

 

And as far as saying that No Country was stuff we had all seen before (bag of money), I don't think anyone has ever seen a pitbull chase in a river before! :lol:

 

Now back to the point. What exactly did you like so much about Blood? What specific scenes or shots? You mentioned the burning tower. What else?

[Jack Williamson]

Many of us here talk about the photography of films, AND whether we enjoyed the stories and acting, etc. I think my language was clear when I was speaking about photography vs story or acting or art direction. I really did enjoy There Will Be Blood, but the photography isn't in my top three. You're saying that my "taste leans more toward romantic photography and sunsets," which is true, but this year, my favorite picture in terms of cinematography was No Country, which is hardly a pretty picture. I liked it better than Lust or Jesse James, both of which are very beautiful pictures, so I can appreciate photography that is not pretty nor shot at magic hour. :)

 

And as far as saying that No Country was stuff we had all seen before (bag of money), I don't think anyone has ever seen a pitbull chase in a river before! :lol:

 

Now back to the point. What exactly did you like so much about Blood? What specific scenes or shots? You mentioned the burning tower. What else?

 

The stuff that stands out in my mind as far as photography in Blood, my favorite stuff is:

 

The opening in the mine shaft. And above ground.

 

The first community interior where everyone is in chaos and Plainview ends up leaving. Then the the tracking shot when he leaves. It's night and the oil is spilling down the road and everyone is trying to grab it in buckets.

 

His office when he is visited by Paul Sunday.

 

The interiors of the church, especially when it is made bigger and Plainview is forced to scream about his son.

 

The Sunday Ranch interior when Eli attacks his father.

 

The bowling alley at the end.

 

The oil explosion sequence. One shot in particular with Plainview and the Ciaran Hinds Character in the foreground and all the oil workers in the background silouetted.

 

This is just my favorite stuff though. I really loved all of it, and found it all to be incredibly appropriate for the story.

 

Anyway, I am sure you are able to enjoy all types of cinematography or why else would you be here. I just felt some of your comments were not cinematography related about Blood.

 

It really doesn't matter. I just feel strongly about the film and I like to defend films I love.

 

P.S.

 

I might have not seen a dog chase like that one, but I sure as hell have seen a lot of dog chases, which was my point initially.

 

How many Citizen Kane crumbling tycoons have we seen yelling "A bastard in a basket!" to his def son before Blood? Zero. Both films are extremely original and worth the price of multiple admissions. If they didn't build on common archetypes, events and stories that have come before, then they probably wouldn't be accessible to audiences. It would be avant garde I suppose. That is why I did not get your Citizen Kane/Howad Hughes comment. The last thing on my mind when watching that portion of the film was "I have seen this before."

 

Jack

[Daniel Carruthers]

This is a really tough year. There will be blood had some great photography, great choice of lenses, some of the best anamorphic work Ive seen in awhile. I love the scene when we first see paul preach to his church audiance, the camera follows plainview inside the church its all one take as we see paul do hi thing with that old lady than he screams at the camera saying begone the camera slowly creeps out of the church than back in, the camera work really worked well with paul performance.

Im surprised he is not nominated for best supporting actor?

But my favorite this year would have to be

assasination of jesse james

diving bell and the butterfly

atonement

there will be blood

no country for old men

 

I have to see no country again, when I first watched it I was sucked into the story I didnt pay much attention to the cinematography, which is usually the best cinematography.

but I remember the night to dawn sequence very well. and the apartment scene when atone is behind the door with the light and shadows coming through the crack

[Brad Grimmett]

As far as shooting in broad daylight in a desert like that, I am saying I wouldn't do it.

So you're saying that you'd tell the producers and director that they'd have to wait a couple hours until the light was better? If you did you wouldn't be working on the project for long. Schedules and budgets don't generally allow for hours of breaks in the middle of the day to wait for the light while the whole cast and crew are on the clock. You have a certain amount of pages to shoot every day, and if you, as the cinematographer, are holding up the whole company to wait for the light to change, you're not going to make your days. Any cinematographer causing a film to miss their days on a regular basis is most likely going to be fired. Yes, it would be great if we could all shoot in the perfect light all the time, but it's not practical, and it's not the only important part of the film.

[Tom Lowe]

So you're saying that you'd tell the producers and director that they'd have to wait a couple hours until the light was better? If you did you wouldn't be working on the project for long. Schedules and budgets don't generally allow for hours of breaks in the middle of the day to wait for the light while the whole cast and crew are on the clock. You have a certain amount of pages to shoot every day, and if you, as the cinematographer, are holding up the whole company to wait for the light to change, you're not going to make your days. Any cinematographer causing a film to miss their days on a regular basis is most likely going to be fired. Yes, it would be great if we could all shoot in the perfect light all the time, but it's not practical, and it's not the only important part of the film.

 

I'm a director, not a DP, so yes I would wait. I do wait. I make waiting for good light the priority of all my shoots. People who know me will attest to this. :)

 

Or I would keep the crew busy shooting interiors or other stuff during the broad daylight.

 

Let me give an example. I spend a lot of time out at Joshua Tree, but I would never, ever shoot there during broad daylight. My camera simply does not come out when the light is very blue and harsh. Joshua Tree is actually kind of an ugly place in broad daylight:

 

 

But as soon as the sun starts going down (or coming up), the desert turns into a magical, beautiful place:

 

Edited February 4, 2008 by Tom Lowe

[David Mullen ASC]

But what if the story called for ugliness and not beauty and magic? What if the landscape is meant to look harsh and uninviting, relentless and cruel? What if the characters are supposed to be dying of thirst in the desert? The second photo makes it look like a vacation spot on the cover of Sunset Magazine, or an add for a desert resort. At least the first one looks like the desert could possibly kill someone.

 

Look at the "Anvil" sequence in "Lawrence of Arabia", much of it shot in harsh overhead light, meant to suggest the sun is literally pounding the people to death. Sunset light would suggest a relief, salvation.

 

It's all about story, not making pretty pictures. It's not always appropriate to romanticize nature, to always look for beauty, to turn everything into a postcard or nature calendar. Sometimes you have to find ways of making the landscape look deadly, desolate, unappealing. And sometimes the story is very time-of-day specific (ala "High Noon" -- wouldn't make much sense to shoot the shoot-out at sunset.)

 

Also, there can be stark beauty in sunlight even when it's overhead. Sometimes you have to embrace nature in all its variations, not just when it's at it most lush and romantic.

[Tom Lowe]

But what if the story called for ugliness and not beauty and magic? What if the landscape is meant to look harsh and uninviting, relentless and cruel?

 

A desert can look cruel at 4pm too. :) It just seems unfathomable to me to shoot at high noon. And in fact, those shots looked very ugly to me in Blood. The only exception I can think of is that several of the high noon shots in The Searchers were good (would have been better later or earlier in the day, IMO), but that might have been a benefit of 65mm stock, keeping the skies from blowing out, etc. Lawrence of Arabia also fits in with The Searchers, although my favorite shots in Lawrence were not at high noon.

 

It's not just the color temp, but also the textures that change as the sun sinks in the sky in a desert. Textures on rocks and landscapes.

 

Another exception would be black and white film, or a film like Northfork, which is very desaturated. A desert with cloudy skies can also look decent mid day.

 

These are just my personal tastes.

 

Edit: Yes the scene in Lawrence crossing the desert had to be shot at high noon, no doubt.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Tom Lowe