Who do you think 81th Academy Award for Best Cinematography, will go to?

[Juan Pablo Ramirez]

Imagine if the Oscars were awarded based solely on technical achievement, they'd be swept by Michael Bay movies. :P

 

LOL, but you are correct if we go by technical perfecion only we wuold have to give transformers every oscar cause transformers is shot by the book, perfect exposure, balanced framing, everything you learn in filmschool, but somehow for me that kind of cinematograhpy is dull and void of meaning

[Daniel Sheehy]

Lighting with the sun, is essentially just aiming for exposure. You can obviously still control where you place the subject, but it is essentially "defensive lighting"....

That statement is just so absolutely incorrect that I'm not sure what to say!

 

I think relying on existing / sunlight is one of the greatest challenges in shooting, because it takes a huge amount of control away from you. In a sense, playing with artificial light is easier, because you have so much control. With natural light... well you have to work with what you've got... and it's not going to wait for you.

 

Lighting is an important part of the cinematographer's job, but it is not the sum total of his (or her) existence.

[K Borowski]

That statement is just so absolutely incorrect that I'm not sure what to say!

 

I think relying on existing / sunlight is one of the greatest challenges in shooting, because it takes a huge amount of control away from you. In a sense, playing with artificial light is easier, because you have so much control. With natural light... well you have to work with what you've got... and it's not going to wait for you.

 

Lighting is an important part of the cinematographer's job, but it is not the sum total of his (or her) existence.

 

You've taken what I said totally out of context, as has everyone else.

 

 

In any case, having caught the 7PM show at the local theatre last night, I don't care what this movie was shot on 8mm, 65mm, HD, 4K, or VHS, it did NOT deserve a cinematography nod. I counted maybe two shots that were out-of-the-ordinary. The whole thing was so soft, grainy, and noisy, that it did at times become distracting, almost like the whole thing was out of focus. 2K on top of the source material certainly didn't help.

 

The rest was certainly competent, but bland visually. I don't care if it suited the story or not; I do NOT see how it deserved a Best Cinematography award.

[K Borowski]

Nor should the volume of make-up you slather on an actor be proportional to the degree of artistic merit, just as the volume and degree of artificial light you pour onto the subject is not proportional to the artistic merit. Where do you guys get these notions on art?

 

Look at "Man on Fire" -- it used cross-processed reversal stocks in a hard-cranked camera to get jumps, double-exposures, roll-outs, burn-outs, etc. -- all the mistakes that probably would have gotten a silent cameraman fired in the 1920's... It hardly meets any definition of technical perfection, the colors and contrast are all out of whack, but it clearly is an artistic expression -- and even if you admit that, to then turn around and say that because he used 35mm cameras and filmstock, it still meets the standards for "good cinematography" but had he used any other technology, it wouldn't have, well, that's completely arbitrary.

 

It's a little like saying that a Beethoven symphony is "good music" but the Sex Pistols is not, when the two have completely different artistic aims. Punk rock may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it is still a legitimate form of musical expression. Not everything in art is about technical perfection or complexity.

 

First of all, it doesn't have to do with what is "OK" or not, it has to do with what is award-worthy, or is considered by the Academy to be the best example of cinematography displayed in the U.S. this year.

 

Who is saying it has to do with how much makeup or lighting? It has to do with attempting to CONTROL the light, the makeup.

 

This discussion is academic and irrelevant though. From what I saw there was clearly fill used. Articles I read made it sound like all of the location shots were done totally sans light.

 

Even a reflector or not a reflector is a choice. Just from what I have learned though, due to the media we work with, photographing something as it is renders a harsh image that looks different than the way the human eye perceives it. The attempt that is made with lighting (at least as I do it) is to make everything look pleasing and natural, or to simulate natural light in a certain situation as the human eye perceives it, or even make it unrealistic or overly dramatic to suit the story.

 

Hell, I've seen some pictures where they use GOBOs to BLOCK natural light. I guess I feel that there should be some attempt to control to light if you want to win an award for cinematography. Again, since they clearly did exercise control, this discussion is more academic than a commentary on "Slumdog Millionaire".

 

The way I read it, they gave discreetness a priority over all other priorites, certainly praiseworthy for attempting to capture a "slice of life", but not when talking about potential nominees for the best cinematography nod. . .

 

I think the "Man on Fire" analogy is a real stretch too. Haven't seen it in a while, but weren't those just for Denzel Washington's character's flashbacks? "Altered" POV shots or dramatic shots have become almost common-place, so the method is pretty-well established. I think you and I would both find it quite obnoxious, and not award-worthy, if the entire movie were hand-cranked at an irregular speed.

 

Maybe I am a bit unusual in my musical tastes, but I can derive enjoyment from really any form of music that isn't blatant commercial exploitation. I agree it would be difficult to have awards that would compare classical to gangster rap and classical orchestral music.

 

However, ultimately, the production values and the difficulty should, in my opinion, play into the equation somewhere.

[Daniel Sheehy]

...In any case, having caught the 7PM show at the local theatre last night, I don't care what this movie was shot on 8mm, 65mm, HD, 4K, or VHS, it did NOT deserve a cinematography nod. I counted maybe two shots that were out-of-the-ordinary. The whole thing was so soft, grainy, and noisy, that it did at times become distracting, almost like the whole thing was out of focus. 2K on top of the source material certainly didn't help.

 

The rest was certainly competent, but bland visually. I don't care if it suited the story or not; I do NOT see how it deserved a Best Cinematography award.

Any chance you had a bias against it before you even watched it? :)

 

I watched it before I even knew it was nominated and I enjoyed it. I can't say the cinematography struck me as being awe inspiring.. but neither did it (for me) take anything away from the story. It simply did it's job - complemented and supported the story without drawing attention to itself.

 

.. I guess I feel that there should be some attempt to control to light if you want to win an award for cinematography...

This is the heart of the argument.

I on the other hand disagree.. I see the cinematographers art as being able to 'see' the potential for the shot, manipulate or control the light as and if necessary, frame and capture the image... I disagree with the emphasis on controlling light.

Unless I'm mistaken, your definition draws a line and bars many landscape shots from being considered examples of great cinematography.

 

What with all the hype now.. I might even go and watch it again simply for a technical critique...

[K Borowski]

It simply did it's job - complemented and supported the story without drawing attention to itself.

 

Wow, THAT is how they should give out the award?

 

When I continually hear this tired cliche, I pause to question my passion for this field.

 

Were you one of the people that said they were insulted by Ben Stiller's antics during the award? This is several orders of magnitude more insulting. I mean, if the job of cinematographer is to just show up and set up lights and try to stay out of the way, it makes it sound about as fun as being a f*cking clerk at a bank.

 

That is not what I think cinematography should be at all, a bunch of boring, bland, unobtrusive images that don't draw attention to themselves. :blink:

[K Borowski]

Oh, one other thing I just noticed. Do you honestly think I would fork out $6.50 to see a film just to come up with ammunition to bash it? Maybe I am one of those people that gets better with placebo medicine too, or a Republican that voted for John McCain.

 

The movie was visually, objectively, adequate. It was not award-worthy.

[Micah Fernandez]

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't be into cinematography if it were as easy as just turning on a camera, no lights required. If it isn't challenging, it isn't fulfilling. . .

Well, if this is at the heart of your philosophy about cinematography, fine. I, and I'm sure many other working cinematographers, heartily disagree however. I'm not on set to make a shoot "challenging" just so I can be personally fulfilled. I'm on set because the director trusts my creative mind to imagine, in tandem with him, the best possible images for the story and that I have the technical skill to execute those images, to get it on film or digital media as closely to our imaginations as possible. If it means that I have to send in the rigging team in the wee hours of the morning to rig a thousand units, so be it. If it means that I don't have to do anything but roll the camera, so be it. Neither of these approaches are "better", the only thing that matters is that we get the shot we need. If I as a director had a DP that was trying to complicate the shot just for the sake of making things "challenging", I'd have to take him aside for a little chat and let him know that I can't have his grandstanding overrun the production.

[Daniel Sheehy]

..Were you one of the people that said they were insulted by Ben Stiller's antics during the award?..

No. I find him contrived rather than funny.

 

That is not what I think cinematography should be at all, a bunch of boring, bland, unobtrusive images that don't draw attention to themselves. :blink:

And that is not at all what I am suggesting it should be.

But I do believe that cinematography that draws attention to itself, over and above it's role in the story line, is inappropriate in a drama.

[K Borowski]

I'm not on set to make a shoot "challenging" just so I can be personally fulfilled.

 

Did I say this?

 

Sheesh, whether I say it or not, you people are totally misconstruing my comments. What is this, politics? :P

[Micah Fernandez]

Did I say this?

 

Sheesh, whether I say it or not, you people are totally misconstruing my comments. What is this, politics? :P

Well, if more than a few people think you're saying something to that effect, maybe you aren't communicating as clearly as you think you are? :)

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the "Man on Fire" analogy is a real stretch too. Haven't seen it in a while, but weren't those just for Denzel Washington's character's flashbacks?

 

No.

[Hal Smith]

I feel that there are those here who do not understand the meaning of the phrase "Ad Hominem Attacks" and just how destructive they are to any civilized discussion.

 

{"Ad Hominem" Literally "Argument against the man". Consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking, or appealing to a characteristic or belief of, the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.}

[Will Earl]

I would think that for many voters the technical aspects or the level-of-difficulty of a film do factor into their final decision, along with other factors such as aesthetics, movement, style, how-it-works-with-the-story, if-they-liked-the-film, personal bias, etc. How much each factor plays into the voting decision is up to the individual voter.

 

'Best' is a rather vague thing to define. Do the academy give any guidelines to voters as to what they should consider as being 'best' or is it something that is left up to each voter to figure out for themselves?