OVP: Best Cinematography (2012)
The Nominees Were...
Seamus McGarvey, Anna Karenina
Robert Richardson, Django Unchained
My Thoughts: There are times when I wonder why I signed up for the Oscar Viewing Project. Usually those times are when I look at my Netflix queue and see Norbit or Click coming up on the list and think "am I really going to watch that?!?" Other times, however, I wonder when I am faced with a superb lineup of contenders, which is the case here. Honestly, though you'll see in the "I Would Have Nominated" section below that I'll find something to complain about, these are five excellent nominees, and while I know going into it which nominee I'm going to pick, I'm not 100% certain I'll stay there when I have all of my thoughts written down here.
The photo that you can't quite place above would be Anna Karenina, a great shot from the Joe Wright crew that is destined to get myriad tech nominations each time he makes a movie, it seems. The movie is an oddity, I will admit. The film doesn't ever quite explain its bizarre "is it real or a play" Baz Luhrmann beginnings, but it is a compelling and solid film that is definitely worthy of inclusion here, and really in all of the categories it was nominated for in 2012. The movie's cinematography aids the characters more than any other of the nominated films, and definitely gains points from me for that. I love the way that the lighting becomes so clear when we're dealing with the "real world" scenes in the film, and how we get a dazed, dreamy state whenever we have Anna and Vronsky in the throes of their tragic love affair. You can feel the claustrophobia that McGarvey is trying to throw at us in the first train station scene. This being one of the most famous love stories of all-time, we know we'll be coming back, under far more tragic circumstances again, so he gives us the station from every angle, filling us with dread of what is to come. It's one of many sequences that he dots with extra clarity (think of the dead-on gazes of the women judging Anna), and considering this category oftentimes goes lock-step with the Best Picture categories, it's nice to see McGarvey get the period slot over Les Miz, a far inferior film in this category.
Robert Richardson, a perennial threat for the win and an Academy favorite with three Oscars, came back once again to this category, his second nomination under the guide of Tarantino (Basterds being the first). Richardson's work is strong here, as he typically is, and occasionally perfect-I chose the shot of the blood over the cotton because it's exactly the sort of thing Tarantino dishes out with relish in his movies-a visually beautiful and disgusting shot all in once. Richardson's work here is even better than Basterds, in my opinion, though he's got the advantage of using the films of Sergio Leone as a source of inspiration. The film has a bit too much golden light in the indoor scenes (Richardson's far more glorious outdoors), but that's a minor quibble from a cinematographer who continually finds new ways to amaze.
Speaking of Academy favorites, Janusz Kaminski is rarely out of Oscar's thoughts (though constantly working with Steven Spielberg probably helps in that regard), and once again he finds the beauty in Spielberg's sturdy, epic direction. The reason Kaminski works so well with Spielberg is that he finds the artistry in Spielberg's larger stories. Look at the way he likes to shoot in the morning dawn, or the way that he uses Washington's clouds as a grey backdrop to the even darker worries that Lincoln is experiencing. I used the above shot to illustrate how well Kaminski uses Day-Lewis's profile, so similar to Lincoln's iconic visage, to instate gravitas and to show the shadows and demons that the man is experiencing. Kaminski's best work here looks like an oil painting, and while I personally find him at his most interesting when he's got a darker or less traditional story to back (A.I. or Diving Bell, perhaps?), this is still exceptional.
Roger Deakins is also an Academy favorite, but obviously in a different way than the five-trophies-between-them Richardson and Kaminski. Deakins has a stunning ten-Oscar nominations without ever winning a trophy (though, for the record, he won the OVP trophy in 2010 for True Grit), and the reason is that he is one of those rare creatures that can make almost any film beautiful and better than it has any right to be. I mean, we're talking about a James Bond film here, and yet it has the artistry of Spielberg's epic or Ang Lee's latest. Deakins also knows how to create strong work without resorting to a lot of shadow (though he does that well in the night-time scenes at Skyfall). I mean, the opening sequence of this movie, with the great shots of the bicycles across the Grand Bazaar, don't need an artist's glow around them, and I love the way he uses London's fog as if it's matte painting (which, for the record, it likely is on occasion), setting off the colors of Bond's suits and the drab but pigmented by comparison, interiors of MI6. Once again, a delight from a man who seems destined to remain a bridesmaid (at least you have Caleb Deschanel and Emmanuel Lubezki to keep you company).
Finally, we have Claudio Miranda, and I can hear what you're thinking, "John, I know the other films are beautiful, but this is definitely the most beautiful, so it wins, right?" and I hear you. On its face, the bright lights, brilliant ocean-currents and stunning ocean wildlife of Life of Pi would make this an easy decision, but I can't help but feel a disproportionate number of the scenes are visual effects, and therefore out of Miranda's hands. I'm not a cinematographer or a visual effects artist, obviously, I'm occasionally just a layman who reads a lot about movies, and in this case I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I do like what Miranda is doing in the scenes that are clearly his (the shots in India are all strong), but it's the shots in the ocean which are made up of both the real and the CGI, that won him this trophy, and which would win it for him from me. I want to give it to him, but am not sure I should.
The photo that you can't quite place above would be Anna Karenina, a great shot from the Joe Wright crew that is destined to get myriad tech nominations each time he makes a movie, it seems. The movie is an oddity, I will admit. The film doesn't ever quite explain its bizarre "is it real or a play" Baz Luhrmann beginnings, but it is a compelling and solid film that is definitely worthy of inclusion here, and really in all of the categories it was nominated for in 2012. The movie's cinematography aids the characters more than any other of the nominated films, and definitely gains points from me for that. I love the way that the lighting becomes so clear when we're dealing with the "real world" scenes in the film, and how we get a dazed, dreamy state whenever we have Anna and Vronsky in the throes of their tragic love affair. You can feel the claustrophobia that McGarvey is trying to throw at us in the first train station scene. This being one of the most famous love stories of all-time, we know we'll be coming back, under far more tragic circumstances again, so he gives us the station from every angle, filling us with dread of what is to come. It's one of many sequences that he dots with extra clarity (think of the dead-on gazes of the women judging Anna), and considering this category oftentimes goes lock-step with the Best Picture categories, it's nice to see McGarvey get the period slot over Les Miz, a far inferior film in this category.
Robert Richardson, a perennial threat for the win and an Academy favorite with three Oscars, came back once again to this category, his second nomination under the guide of Tarantino (Basterds being the first). Richardson's work is strong here, as he typically is, and occasionally perfect-I chose the shot of the blood over the cotton because it's exactly the sort of thing Tarantino dishes out with relish in his movies-a visually beautiful and disgusting shot all in once. Richardson's work here is even better than Basterds, in my opinion, though he's got the advantage of using the films of Sergio Leone as a source of inspiration. The film has a bit too much golden light in the indoor scenes (Richardson's far more glorious outdoors), but that's a minor quibble from a cinematographer who continually finds new ways to amaze.
Speaking of Academy favorites, Janusz Kaminski is rarely out of Oscar's thoughts (though constantly working with Steven Spielberg probably helps in that regard), and once again he finds the beauty in Spielberg's sturdy, epic direction. The reason Kaminski works so well with Spielberg is that he finds the artistry in Spielberg's larger stories. Look at the way he likes to shoot in the morning dawn, or the way that he uses Washington's clouds as a grey backdrop to the even darker worries that Lincoln is experiencing. I used the above shot to illustrate how well Kaminski uses Day-Lewis's profile, so similar to Lincoln's iconic visage, to instate gravitas and to show the shadows and demons that the man is experiencing. Kaminski's best work here looks like an oil painting, and while I personally find him at his most interesting when he's got a darker or less traditional story to back (A.I. or Diving Bell, perhaps?), this is still exceptional.
Roger Deakins is also an Academy favorite, but obviously in a different way than the five-trophies-between-them Richardson and Kaminski. Deakins has a stunning ten-Oscar nominations without ever winning a trophy (though, for the record, he won the OVP trophy in 2010 for True Grit), and the reason is that he is one of those rare creatures that can make almost any film beautiful and better than it has any right to be. I mean, we're talking about a James Bond film here, and yet it has the artistry of Spielberg's epic or Ang Lee's latest. Deakins also knows how to create strong work without resorting to a lot of shadow (though he does that well in the night-time scenes at Skyfall). I mean, the opening sequence of this movie, with the great shots of the bicycles across the Grand Bazaar, don't need an artist's glow around them, and I love the way he uses London's fog as if it's matte painting (which, for the record, it likely is on occasion), setting off the colors of Bond's suits and the drab but pigmented by comparison, interiors of MI6. Once again, a delight from a man who seems destined to remain a bridesmaid (at least you have Caleb Deschanel and Emmanuel Lubezki to keep you company).
Finally, we have Claudio Miranda, and I can hear what you're thinking, "John, I know the other films are beautiful, but this is definitely the most beautiful, so it wins, right?" and I hear you. On its face, the bright lights, brilliant ocean-currents and stunning ocean wildlife of Life of Pi would make this an easy decision, but I can't help but feel a disproportionate number of the scenes are visual effects, and therefore out of Miranda's hands. I'm not a cinematographer or a visual effects artist, obviously, I'm occasionally just a layman who reads a lot about movies, and in this case I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. I do like what Miranda is doing in the scenes that are clearly his (the shots in India are all strong), but it's the shots in the ocean which are made up of both the real and the CGI, that won him this trophy, and which would win it for him from me. I want to give it to him, but am not sure I should.
Other Precursor Contenders: The American Society of Cinematographers decided to oust Robert Richardson in favor of Danny Cohen for Les Miserables, an odd choice as the ASC is usually less likely to go for a Best Picture nominee than the Oscars (Roger Deakins won here, likely due to the Visual Effects angle of Miranda's work). Proving that Cohen was likely in sixth place, Les Miz found room at the BAFTA's as well (he was a recent Oscar nominee as well, which adds more credence to this theory), also displacing Richardson. Life of Pi was victorious with the BAFTA's.
Films I Would Have Nominated: Honestly, you could make just as worthy of a lineup with some of the also-rans, a rarity in almost any year and a sign that the Academy had some tough choices on its hands. Wally Pfister continues to be a magician with Christopher Nolan's films, as The Dark Knight Rises was quite epic in its coloring and scale. Mihai Malamaire Jr. created the divine in The Master, but considering that film's relative lack of nominations outside of acting, he probably wasn't much in the race. The real tragedy of 2012's also-rans here, though, was Greig Fraser, who gave us two of the best lensed films of the year, Zero Dark Thirty and Killing Them Softly, and didn't get a nomination for either (seriously, what does this guy have to do to break the "nominated" barrier at the Academy?).
Oscar's Choice: The Academy, much to the chagrin of some, went with Miranda on his first shot at the trophy over Deakins and Kaminski (his likely runners-up).
My Choice: Argh! All right, let me start from the back-Django is coming up the rear, and I'm going to put Anna right in front of it. Lincoln gets the bronze. If Fraser were here he'd win it for either film (especially Killing Them Softly, probably my favorite of the bunch). I guess I just can't quite give it to Miranda, who seems to be getting too much of his credit from the Visual Effects team. So for the second time, Roger Deakins takes the top trophy over an effects-assisted cinematographer, and Miranda gets the silver. Congrats to James Bond on its first OVP trophy ever.
That was my toughest decision so far, and I'm guessing you have thoughts on it-how do you decipher which film should get the trophy when considering Visual Effects-driven movies? Do you think I made the right call on Deakins, or would you have gone with the Academy favorite (or one of the other three)? And am I the only person who is obsessed with what Fraser did in Killing Them Softly?
Also in 2012: Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment