ASC Nominates 'Avatar's Cinematography? I Offer Alternatives
I like four out of the five...
Photo: The Weinstein Co.
The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) announced the finalists in contention for their 2010 awards and I am, for the most part, satisfied although while I didn't express my distaste for Avatar's screenplay nomination (which I probably should have), I don't see how Mauro Fiore's work is considered one of the top five cinematographic feats of 2009.
First, for the nominees:
- Avatar (Mauro Fiore)
- The Hurt Locker (Barry Ackroyd)
- Inglourious Basterds (Robert Richardson)
- Nine (Dion Beebe)
- The White Ribbon (Christian Berger)
Ackroyd's work in The Hurt Locker, Richardson for Basterds and Beebe with Nine are all deserving. I love the black-and-white work and composition Michael Haneke and Berger employed for The White Ribbon whil I know some do not. However, Avatar? Let's think of some replacements.
Looking around at comments on a variety of award-related website boards the big one many seem to be bringing up is Greig Fraser's work on Bright Star. I loathed that film, but can't disagree about the film's design and visual appeal.
Roger Deakins is always one to consider, but seeing how his work on Revolutionary Road didn't make the cut last year it will be no surprise if his similar work on the Coens' A Serious Man is overlooked this year.
I think if you talk about Javier Aguirresarobe's work on The Road you have to talk about Shane Hurlbut's duties on Terminator Salvation. Both employ a similar visual style, while Hurlbut had plenty of action to consider, not to mention Christian Bale threatening to destroy his lights.
I guess the digital work of Dante Spinotti (Public Enemies) is out and I haven't heard many championing Andrew Dunn (Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire) is out. So what's left?
This isn't me saying Fiore's work in Avatar is lacking, I just don't see it as one of the year's five best.
Any thoughts? Do you think this is the list the Academy will announce on Tuesday, February 2 when the Oscar nominees occupy our time, or do you see a potential shake-up?
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 26 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Poor Antichrist.
I'm with you. Poor Antichrist. The cinematography was stunning.
i am sorry but i thought harry potter was pretty amazing to watch. and the fact that avatar is getting all this love when the movie isnt even that solid infuriates me.
Harry Potter was shot well so was Angels and Demons–in hindsight, it was probably the best part of the film–I would replace Avatar with Harry Potter in a heartbeat.
Precious was a great movie, but the cinematography is not deserving. It was capable throughout, but there are some parts where the color makes it obvious it was shot digital, and it looks not quite finished enough. That worked okay for the film (at least, it didn't really subtract from it), but it's best it was left out.
What the hell? What about Andrew Lesnie for The Lovely Bones. His work was outstanding for "Bones". I'm really shocked the society didn't recognize his work. If you read the ASC Magazine article on "Bones", it's amazing the creative decisions he made and came up with; not to mention the camera in "Bones" is breathtaking.
I think when the Oscars are announced it'll be The Hurt Locker (maybe), Inglourious Basterds, Nine, The Lovely Bones and The Road for cinematography.
Honestly, Roger Deakins work on A Serious Man was some of the best I've seen from a DP in recent years. This just really upsets me.
Also, Dion Beebe's work on Nine wasn't anything that amazing in my mind. It didn't even compare to his work on Chicago. But, I will say it was better than Avatar (which I don't think can truly be considered since over half of that movie was done on a computer and felt like watching a video game).
One underrated piece of work from a DP this year was Lance Acord's on Wild Things. I thought that was a beautifully shot movie.
Also glad to see Richardson up there because I was quite pleased with his work on Basterds.
All in all, I'm disappointed…:(
And actually, Deakins was nominated for both Rev Road AND The Reader from The ASC
@Kyle Milner: Yeah, probably should have been more specific about Deakins and Revolutionary Road, I was referring solely to Oscar, but I agree with you on his work in A Serious Man, there is something so striking about the way he shot that film. I had the same feeling with Revolutionary Road, but surprisingly not with Doubt.
Deakins work looks really good on A Serious Man, that's true. But I still think he did a better job with No Country For Old Men and "Jesse James". Lately he's just been nominated for the ASC award and no Oscars. I don't think he'll be up this year.
I thought of Wild Things, but I never saw it to judge it; it looked good on the trailer.
Honestly, Aguirresarobe's work on The Road was phenomenal; outstanding use of practicals. And Lesnie I think did the best job of the year with "Bones"; his camera work and lighting are breathtaking. Esp. the camera work
I'm just throwing this out there and I know that this may sound weird to some people, but I observed that The Hangover had good cinematography, even for a comedy. I thought the camera angles and the long scenery shots really captured the exterior beauty of Las Vegas. Now does it deserve a nomination? No it does not, given that the other films this year had obvious better camera work. But the work in the film was still very good I found.
Well, I haven't seen The Lovely Bones, but my photography major friends (and I) think A Serious Man and A Single Man over Avatar.
I was personally less hot on A Single Mans photography – some it seemed…. faux gorgeous, like he was trying too hard. But it still could use a nomination over Avatar.
The Road… I have trouble getting on board there, I thought a lot of the deserving elements in the shots were more the set direction and less the actual shot, but….
we can all agree it beats out Avatar. At least in the classical sense. Some of the camera motion in Avatar worked nicely.
Public Enemies' DP, Dante Spinotti, should get some recognition IMO. Even though I was not too big on the film itself, the cinematography was top-notch.
Public Enemies should make the cut….
Cinematography isn't just about what you see in the frame (mise en scene).
Great looking shots are a commonplace in almost every professional film nowadays, so it's about how the cinematography complements the story and mood of a film.
And it's also about certain things you don't normally think about, such as what you don't see in the frame (Polanski and Tarantino are the best examples off the top of my head). How does the shot add to the understanding and tone of a scene? Does it create the kind of reaction and perspective from the audience that the director wants?
There's a lot of ideas to take into account when it comes to cinematography and for that reason, I feel that it's one of the more misunderstood categories of film production. That being said, the people on the panels who vote for awards like these are almost all currently working (or have worked) within the field and understand how these technical concepts translate narratively. They also take into account how much your film influences the techniques of the industry and how it pushes the boundaries of what is possible. I think when you take some of those thoughts into consideration, Avatar becomes a very obvious nomination, because the overall cinematography and photo realism took the film further than it would have gone otherwise.
But I do agree on Roger Deakins and A Serious Man (which is my favorite film of the year). He's shot an incredible number of amazing films and it's a shame to see that he hasn't been recognized on the most prestigious level with an Oscar. Though I'm sure he's very content in his own mind as he is quite the regular with the ASC. I imagine they were alright leaving him off the ballot for a year :)
I'm disappointed Bruno Delbonnel isn't getting recognition he deserves for his phenomenal work in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. The cinematography really carried the film and elevated it above the previous five installments.
Inglourious Basterds had its script; Avatar had its visual effects; Nine had its singing/dancing and Penelope Cruz. Half Blood Prince would not be the same movie, or nearly as good a movie, without its cinematography.
@Brad Brevet: Why no love for Avatar, Brad? I remember walking away from the theater telling my brother: "well there goes the Oscars for Cinematography & Visual Effects." The cinematography in Avatar was truly awe-inspiring. Are there other films deserving of a nod? sure there are, but to diminish Avatar nomination is just wrong. Nine was very well-done; however, we've seen it all before with Chicago & Dreamgirls…but nothing in that film actually made me go "wow!"
No one is mentioning The Lovely Bones. Has anyone seen that yet? If you do you will agree with me. Andrew Lesnie did a superb job this year; I think the best. His choice of lighting and camera work really fit the film and gave the film a perfect tone. He also made great creative decisions, even down to choosing different cameras to depict the world of the Salmons and the world of George Harvey.
Public Enemies and Angels Demons were good…
The problem I have with Avatar getting a nomination is that more than half the movie is CGI
The live action cinematography is good, but not great
From a technical standpoint the film is very groundbreaking
The PACE cameras they used where very revolutionary for 3D photography
I almost wonder if there needs to be a 2nd award for best cinematography in a CGI movie?
I dont understand the praise for the hurt locker's cinematography. it's choppy, rough, low quality, with shots that don't seem thought out. i know some think it benefits the story, which it might, but in general I thought it was totally lacking.
i loved:
inglourious basterds
avatar
nine
harry potter and the half-blood prince
the lovely bones (an otherwise TERRIBLE movie)
the white ribbon
Dan, mentioning the fact that half the movie is CGI would only compliment the cinematography even further. They have to blend and match live action with a complete CGI environment and still maintain a photo realistic world with space and dimension. I mean, most films that heavily use motion capture and green screen environments at the same time aren't dealing with extremely dynamic moves especially not something with as much action as Avatar.
John, people are praising The Hurt Locker's cinematography because of many different factors. One is the overall feasibility and logistics of how they shot the film. There were several locations that were rather remote and potentially hostile, and obviously those decisions were made for the sake of realism and I think it does translate to the film. The choppy, rough shots complement the aesthetic of the film, environment and situation. Yeah, it's not always my favorite type of style either, but I think the story dictates the aesthetic (editing, pacing, mood, shot selection, etc.).
One thing I will say about The Hurt Locker's cinematography is that some of the shots during the explosions were really quite unique and experimental. It completely shifted the pace of the explosion, but in a good way because it slowed things down for a moment just when you've been sent on an incredible pace. I think the people who vote for awards like these, really appreciate a fresh and unique approach on cinematography.
@Doofy: This is really just speculation but, I'm pretty sure they color the correct the hell out of the HP movies in post. I'm not trying to knock his work or anything (because I am a fan of his) that is just my guess as to why that might not have been nominated.
Cinematography is the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema.
How is lighting a blue screen (avatar) cinematography?
If I could give the Oscar to any film it would be Avatar. The cinematography for the film was ground breaking. When people refer to the CGI environments, they often forget that each shard of light was talked about meticulously. When they first enter the forest you see the shards of light seperating the forest layers from one another. It is only because of the DOP and the collaboration with Director and VFX artists that it looks the way it does.
I know NOBODY who did not find the intial moments in the forest inspiring, and we have the DOP to thank for it as much as anyone else.
and no mention of antichrists wonderful cinematography.
the white ribbon should win hands down, but i agree with what others are saying about harry potter- that was great cinematography.