Oscar nominations 2016

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

I want to know that, too.

[Tyler Purcell]

I'm watching the film right now. That's not quite right. The DIT was advising John Seale to downrate the cameras so he abandoned his meters for a while and let the DIT man call the stops. However most of the time he went back to his meters.... particularly when the DIT man was out of range.

He abandoned even being involved with the A camera.

[Tyler Purcell]

So I don't buy this whole revisionist story you've concocted of Seale basically getting demoted under his DIT and not being responsible for the photography. He probably didn't have as much control over the look of this film as he did on 'Dead Poet's Society' or 'Rain Man' or 'Witness' or 'The Talented Mr. Ripley.' But if you think the DP who shot all those movies is a push-over, well then I think you're just wrong.

My whole point is that he wasn't really the DP of the film, Miller was and he used the DIT/VFX guys to make that film happen. Seale was put on the back burner, relegated to running a C camera. If you can't see that through Seale's body language and how unexcited he was about talking about the film. I saw his frustration throughout the entire interview. There are also more interviews I've read in ICG and AC which were interesting side notes that backup what he said.

[Tyler Purcell]

Having spoken to a few quite prominent DPs in the last year, I've heard, entirely off the record, some staggeringly anti-digital bias, some real foul-mouthed rants, and no, they weren't kidding around. So, I wouldn't write it off as joking, no matter who it's coming from. The level of bad-tempered curmudgeonliness was huge, and that's me saying that.

Funny you say that, I've heard similar things.

[Miguel Angel]

Just to say something regarding DITS and their relationship with DOPs.

 

Most of the movies / tv series / commercials I have worked on which have been shot on digital and have had a proper DIT (and there are quite a few now), the DIT makes a lot of suggestions about exposure, especially if the DOP have not shot anything on digital beforehand.

 

In the ones which were technically and photography difficult the DOP is usually inside a tent with the DIT and didn't get to touch a camera at all so I'm pretty sure that John Seale was very happy when he got the chance to grab the C cam in all that madness of cameras, fx and people!

 

What is more, the ones which were technically and photography difficult shot on 35mm and 16mm (quite a lot too) with plenty of cameras, the DOP was inside a tent too, taking a look at all the cameras and controlling the frames and the photography through a walkie-talkie.

 

Have a lovely day!

[John Sherman]

My whole point is that he wasn't really the DP of the film, Miller was and he used the DIT/VFX guys to make that film happen. Seale was put on the back burner, relegated to running a C camera. If you can't see that through Seale's body language and how unexcited he was about talking about the film. I saw his frustration throughout the entire interview. There are also more interviews I've read in ICG and AC which were interesting side notes that backup what he said.

My copy of AC's Fury Road article is sitting on my desk, and it doesn't back up a single assertion you have made.

[Carl Looper]

I found Fury Road was complete rubbish. The cinematography was okay. But nothing particularly special about it I thought. It draws on the great angles done back in the day of the original Mad Max, when the films were made on the smell of an oily rag, and the great camera angles were not in need of anything else for inspiration.

 

Transposed to a big budget framework it just looks tired and derivative. Tarrantino did a much better job of quoting exploitation cinema with Death Wish. Don't worry about a cast of thousands factor. Or catwalk models in the desert. Don't worry about arty compositions. Just put a tough girl on the bonnet of a speeding car, and make sure the camera sees there's no way she's not in complete and utter danger, and you'll have nailed it.

 

C

Edited January 16, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Let's be a little pragmatic here and break it down.

 

1. Revenant is for me certainly a tour de force that should be awarded, without doubt. It's groundbreaking in many ways. But. Lubezki won two years in a row, Academy is not going to go for a third win right now is my guess.

 

2. Richardson won't win, because it's a theatre piece and he's done it too traditional for today's trends.

 

3. Carol could win just because it's a film right up the Academy's street. I haven't seen it yet, but Lachman is always solid.

 

4. Sicario - yes, Deakins has never won, so he's got good goodwill. But the films subject matter and the fact it's just not a traditional Academy film will preclude this, I think.

 

5. Mad Max. Again, not an Academy film, but sometimes they award leftfield stuff and especially if they feel it might be the last works of that individual. Seale is retired, so they might sway that way as a farewell.

 

I think Carol or Mad Max are the contenders.

[Gregory Irwin]

Ok. I've been following this thread and I must say, having worked for John Seale in the past, none of Tyler's observations made sense to me. So, I just went straight to a prominent member of his crew who was on FURY ROAD and who also works with me quite often. She says that there is absolutely no basis to these rumors. Once John took over the show from Dean, John was fully leading the ship till the movie was timed and picture locked. There you have it.

 

G

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. I merely stated, I don't feel Mad Max Fury Road deserves a nomination for cinematography because Seale's hands were tied behind his back because the director, VFX crew and DIT. It appeared to me, reading about and listening to him talk, that he was relegated to C camera (kind of a joke) because there was nothing else to do for him but look at a monitor.

 

In my mind, a cinematographers job is more then staring at a monitor, even if you have a well lubricated crew.

 

Thank god guys like Lachman, Richardson, and Deakins STILL have their eye in the A camera viewfinder, where it belongs. That's where Seale wanted to be for the entire shoot, but clearly was UNABLE to. That to me is the travesty... a WONDERFUL artist relegated to C camera.

[Guest]

Sadly the Oscars are a farce no matter who wins. There is intense wining and dining of the Academy voters by the various producers involved, and everyone knows it goes on. Why it's not banned, I have no idea.

 

Second, the Oscars have become a political platform for stars to make speeches about their various BS causes, instead of being a celebration of the artistic and technical achievements in film.

 

Third, the whole show is being overshadowed by America's social problems, as many loud voices feel "everyone" needs to be nominated and win. Seriously, how much longer will we have to listen to.....it's not fair that another white male won another Oscar.

 

R,

[Gregory Irwin]

Sadly the Oscars are a farce no matter who wins. There is intense wining and dining of the Academy voters by the various producers involved, and everyone knows it goes on. Why it's not banned, I have no idea.

 

Second, the Oscars have become a political platform for stars to make speeches about their various BS causes, instead of being a celebration of the artistic and technical achievements in film.

 

Third, the whole show is being overshadowed by America's social problems, as many loud voices feel "everyone" needs to be nominated and win. Seriously, how much longer will we have to listen to.....it's not fair that another white male won another Oscar.

 

R,

Richard, you are not going to believe this but I'm in total agreement with you. I know a producer who gives the ballot to his kid to vote! Pathetic.

 

G

[Guest]

Richard, you are not going to believe this but I'm in total agreement with you. I know a producer who gives the ballot to his kid to vote! Pathetic.

 

G

 

We agree? Holy *bleep*.

 

This from the Washington Post:

 

"Oscar-specific marketing campaigns can run the gamut from a few million to tens of millions of dollars, with the promotional budget often outstripping the amount of money it took to make the film (and whittling away whatever earnings it might accrue from an Oscar win), exchanging profit for prestige."

 

R,

[Guest]

Interestingly enough, Best Cinematography, remains the only category that not one woman has been nominated in, ever. And they've been handing out these things since 1928.

 

R,

[Gregory Irwin]

Well, I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. I merely stated, I don't feel Mad Max Fury Road deserves a nomination for cinematography because Seale's hands were tied behind his back because the director, VFX crew and DIT. It appeared to me, reading about and listening to him talk, that he was relegated to C camera (kind of a joke) because there was nothing else to do for him but look at a monitor.In my mind, a cinematographers job is more then staring at a monitor, even if you have a well lubricated crew.Thank god guys like Lachman, Richardson, and Deakins STILL have their eye in the A camera viewfinder, where it belongs. That's where Seale wanted to be for the entire shoot, but clearly was UNABLE to. That to me is the travesty... a WONDERFUL artist relegated to C camera.

Apparently, there is no evidence of what you claim Tyler. I sent your opinion to John's crew in Australia and they immediately replied back that there was no such situation. As for John operating the C cam, he enjoys operating when he's able to. But on a movie of that size and complication, he needs to be the leader with an eye on the big picture. He's correct by employing professional camera operators to deal with the minutia. The job is too big to try and do it all. That's why there are operators in the first place.

 

G

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

For the sake of discussion, who are some female cinematographers you all thought worthy of a nod for 2015?

 

I enjoyed Charlotte Bruus Christensen's work on "Far From the Madding Crowd". In some ways the photography reminded me a lot of Pierre Lhomme's work on the Marchant Ivory film "Maurice".

 

I also liked Maryse Alberti's work on "Freeheld" granted that film was a bit too small and limited to get a major nod.

[Tyler Purcell]

Apparently, there is no evidence of what you claim Tyler. I sent your opinion to John's crew in Australia and they immediately replied back that there was no such situation. As for John operating the C cam, he enjoys operating when he's able to. But on a movie of that size and complication, he needs to be the leader with an eye on the big picture. He's correct by employing professional camera operators to deal with the minutia. The job is too big to try and do it all. That's why there are operators in the first place.

It's all good... I have different feelings then you do based on my deciphering of what I've seen and read.

 

Still, I just listened to Seale talk again in a different interview, stating once again that the film was all Miller's, with no real script and he had little to no input on shot composition. What does a DP do in that case?

[Carl Looper]

My interpretation of what Tyler is saying is that those films which are too big for any one person to both lead the photography and attend to the details, become inherently non-nominatable in Tyler's conception of what a cinematographer award would ideally otherwise recognise.

 

In other words it becomes a "flaw" in such films that they require such an extensive division of labour. It's not a criticism of Seale as such, as if he personally didn't do a good job, but a criticism of the means of production - one that finds anyone (not just in this case but in any case) more 'removed' than they might otherwise be were they on a smaller more intimate project.

 

Its more like a machine in operation than a person. But then film has always been like that. Indeed it's not particular to film. Famous painters didn't always paint their paintings. They had assistants to do the details.

 

C

Edited January 16, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

Macbeth wasn't eligible?

[Manu Delpech]

For the sake of discussion, who are some female cinematographers you all thought worthy of a nod for 2015?

 

I enjoyed Charlotte Bruus Christensen's work on "Far From the Madding Crowd". In some ways the photography reminded me a lot of Pierre Lhomme's work on the Marchant Ivory film "Maurice".

 

I also liked Maryse Alberti's work on "Freeheld" granted that film was a bit too small and limited to get a major nod.

 

Well, Maryse Alberti on Creed.

[Robin R Probyn]

My interpretation of what Tyler is saying is that those films which are too big for any one person to both lead the photography and attend to the details, become inherently non-nominatable in Tyler's conception of what a cinematographer award would ideally otherwise recognise.

 

In other words it becomes a "flaw" in such films that they require such an extensive division of labour. It's not a criticism of Seale as such, as if he personally didn't do a good job, but a criticism of the means of production - one that finds anyone (not just in this case but in any case) more 'removed' than they might otherwise be were they on a smaller more intimate project.

 

Its more like a machine in operation than a person. But then film has always been like that. Indeed it's not particular to film. Famous painters didn't always paint their paintings. They had assistants to do the details.

 

C

 

I dont think this was the point at all.. Tyler never said that Seale wasn't a great DOP.. his point was that Seale had been "demoted " to C cam op..and that the A cam DIT took over all responsibility for A cam.. with Seale having no input whats so ever.. and so should not be nominated for an Oscar for his work on that film.. which is of course totally wrong and based on body language and too much coffee I guess.. :)

[Manu Delpech]

How many DPs get to operate the camera on big budget blockbusters like this one anyway?

[Robin R Probyn]

From the ACS talk..where Seale appears in a very relaxed and happy mood.. its discussed that it wasn't an orthodox type shoot.. a huge amount was done on an Edge/Russian arm..with specialist crew and the rest cramped inside the vehicles .. with the C cam that Seale himself sort of used on the sly.. (rather than being demoted to ! ) on a longer zoom Ext .. they had alot of 5D,s and even I saw a go pro on one of the stills.. so it wasn't a typical narrative type shoot.. otherwise Im sure he would have been operating if he wanted to.. it was a full on action film .. and he in charge of it all as DOP..

 

But there are alot of DP,s who operate on big productions.. Roger Deakins on the Bond film.. Barry Ackroyd on the latest Bourne ..

Edited January 16, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Gregory Irwin]

But there are alot of DP,s who operate on big productions.. Roger Deakins on the Bond film.. Barry Ackroyd on the latest Bourne ..

 

Hoyte van Hoytema on INTERSTELLAR.

 

G

[Robin R Probyn]

For better or worse there seems to be alot more DP,s who operate.. wether thats because more come from doc backgrounds or Indie films .. smaller camera,s not needed geared heads.. which is a real skill in itself.. from what I see in stills most of the operating DP,s are not on wheels.. I assisted B Ackroyd for many years in his early days in the UK.. and he was very open to letting AC,s operate a B cam.. but he always wanted to be on A camera to go with the flow if there was "a happy accident".. he never once had an operator in my knowledge ..

 

I guess there arguments for both.. but clearly on films like MM.. with alot of specialized gear.. better to let the experts do it.. in the ACS talk.. Seale even says he tried the joy stick and was useless at it.. or many camera,s and the DP needs to be checking each one..

Edited January 16, 2016 by Robin R Probyn