OVP: Best Cinematography (2009)
The Nominees Were...
Mauro Fiore, Avatar
Bruno Delbonnel, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Barry Ackroyd, The Hurt Locker
Robert Richardson, Inglourious Basterds
Christian Berger, The White Ribbon
My Thoughts: Recently, there has been something of a movement to divide the Cinematography category into two different awards: traditional cinematography and cinematography aided by visual effects. If this does pass, it will almost certainly be due to this particular year, where traditional work was bested by a film that was deeply-aided by visual effects (this has been the case for the past three years running, and seems unlikely to change with Gravity in the frontrunner position for 2013).
Since we're already discussing it, let's start with Mauro Fiore's Avatar work, and we'll begin with the same caveat I gave with Claudio Miranda's Life of Pi and Wally Pfister's Inception (for the record, the OVP has gotten me to the point where I don't have to look up cinematographers names on IMDB, which is a great feeling for this guy who loves to memorize): I am not a filmmaker, and I am a lay person when it comes to judging all of these categories. I've never taken a course in cinematography or visual effects, so I have to base this a bit on my own personal judgment, but it's worth noting that Avatar of the four films who have fallen under the "should-they-be-able-to-compete" conversation, is probably the easiest to suss out the visual effects shots, since almost all of the film is indeed visual effects. The look of Avatar is not to be believed-every scene is an absolutely spellbinding mix of blues and pinks and burgundies-it's simply stunning (remember when they had those stories about people being depressed because there was no real Pandora-how crazy was that?). However, this beauty is so much the part of the art director and the visual effects artist that it's hard to justify giving it a trophy for something that is so little the result of the cinematographer. Again, Fiore almost certainly had to work with these two teams more than your average cinematographer, but when it's an award specifically for the cinematographer, all other things being equal, I'm going to side with the traditional cinematography because it requires a sharper skill set for the individual person (in my humbled opinion, which is what this blog is about-the comments section is right there and I'd love to have a debate on this topic).
That being said, I'm not above giving the splendid Avatar this trophy if no other contenders seem worthy, so let's look at the other four. Robert Richardson, he of many, many Oscar nominations, was cited once again for his work in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. I'm consistently a fan of Richardson's work (he hasn't won an OVP Award yet, but he's been in the running), but this wasn't quite up to the same level for me as Django, his later Tarantino film. Part of it is that I am always more impressed when Richardson is going for the wide shots-he manages to catch things on the camera that other cinematographers don't, and while he occasionally has moments of brilliance with close-up shots (think of the "Cat People" sequence in this movie), I'm not as impressed when he's indoors or in close-up (this isn't always the case for me, but with Richardson it isn't as exciting). I'm more impressed with something like the above shot of Melanie Laurent surveying her victims in a wider shot-the camerawork of her looking down is so cheeky, especially when looked at through the lens of later scenes. However, Richardson's movies are always beautiful, even if they aren't up to his usual snuff, and he's not competing against himself, so he's still in contention (apparently I'm going to be A) very parentheses heavy this write-up and B) keeping my cards close to the vest).
Barry Ackroyd's The Hurt Locker is the only filmic piece I wasn't wowed by in this bunch in some capacity. This isn't to say that war can't be haunting, as Greig Fraser proved with his sure-to-be-iconic Zero Dark Thirty assassination scene, but The Hurt Locker never catches me in the same way. For me, I feel like simply making the desert look hot or beautiful isn't enough-there needs to be something more if you're going to win an Oscar nomination, and while the climactic final scenes, with the glow of fire and orange lights on everyone's faces is distinctive, the remainder of the film never does anything for me in this department. This feels like the sort of nomination that comes from being a Best Picture frontrunner that is not entirely without handsomeness in the Cinematography field.
AMPAS's Cinematography Branch, more than any other, is a sucker for a black-and-white movie. Calling back the golden age of warm lighting and elegant shadow, when a film happens to be in crisp black-and-white, it frequently finds itself in this category (anyone else think that Phedon Papamichael may be underestimated for a shot at Nebraska this year?). The White Ribbon, one of the best films of 2009 (the foreign language film category of that year had three truly terrific pictures, and we'll get there eventually), manages to transcend just being in beautiful black-and-white. The film, a truly terrifying picture of Germany before the first World War, uses the dark depictions of human nature in the film in the lighting-frequently juxtaposing what is happening onscreen with shifts in light and shadow. The movie makes night seem brutally hard, but Berger also manages to make the daylight equally terrifying. There is no place to hide, no escape or release, and the bright light and vastness of the countryside aid in this plot device.
Finally, we have the film that got cited for just its cinematography. Nearly every year, there's at least one movie that has no shot in the Best Picture race or another major race that somehow lands in this category thanks to either a big name behind the camera or work that cannot be denied (or in this case, both). The Harry Potter films began to look sensational as the series progressed pass the early Chris Columbus days and into the Alfonso Cuaron and David Yates period, but the Academy may have been at its most correct when it cited this film as the only one to receive a nomination in Best Cinematography. Delbonnel's work here is the sort that you notice more after you see the Oscar nomination (no one went in thinking that this film would be cited for this category instead of Visual Effects or Art Direction), but the lighting of the scenes where Dumbledore retrieves the Horcrux or where Jim Broadbent shows off the fish-it's sublime, rich, and moving. Delbonnel is always partial to a blue or a grey filter, but it's the green that really pops from this movie-showering off the rocky cliffs and finding a hue in the moonlight. To be fair, Delbonnel is relying a bit on Visual Effects in the same mode as Fiore (this film probably would have moved with him to the other category), but it doesn't feel quite the same and there's more interaction between the lighting and the cinematographer here, rather than just the visual effects artist.
Since we're already discussing it, let's start with Mauro Fiore's Avatar work, and we'll begin with the same caveat I gave with Claudio Miranda's Life of Pi and Wally Pfister's Inception (for the record, the OVP has gotten me to the point where I don't have to look up cinematographers names on IMDB, which is a great feeling for this guy who loves to memorize): I am not a filmmaker, and I am a lay person when it comes to judging all of these categories. I've never taken a course in cinematography or visual effects, so I have to base this a bit on my own personal judgment, but it's worth noting that Avatar of the four films who have fallen under the "should-they-be-able-to-compete" conversation, is probably the easiest to suss out the visual effects shots, since almost all of the film is indeed visual effects. The look of Avatar is not to be believed-every scene is an absolutely spellbinding mix of blues and pinks and burgundies-it's simply stunning (remember when they had those stories about people being depressed because there was no real Pandora-how crazy was that?). However, this beauty is so much the part of the art director and the visual effects artist that it's hard to justify giving it a trophy for something that is so little the result of the cinematographer. Again, Fiore almost certainly had to work with these two teams more than your average cinematographer, but when it's an award specifically for the cinematographer, all other things being equal, I'm going to side with the traditional cinematography because it requires a sharper skill set for the individual person (in my humbled opinion, which is what this blog is about-the comments section is right there and I'd love to have a debate on this topic).
That being said, I'm not above giving the splendid Avatar this trophy if no other contenders seem worthy, so let's look at the other four. Robert Richardson, he of many, many Oscar nominations, was cited once again for his work in Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. I'm consistently a fan of Richardson's work (he hasn't won an OVP Award yet, but he's been in the running), but this wasn't quite up to the same level for me as Django, his later Tarantino film. Part of it is that I am always more impressed when Richardson is going for the wide shots-he manages to catch things on the camera that other cinematographers don't, and while he occasionally has moments of brilliance with close-up shots (think of the "Cat People" sequence in this movie), I'm not as impressed when he's indoors or in close-up (this isn't always the case for me, but with Richardson it isn't as exciting). I'm more impressed with something like the above shot of Melanie Laurent surveying her victims in a wider shot-the camerawork of her looking down is so cheeky, especially when looked at through the lens of later scenes. However, Richardson's movies are always beautiful, even if they aren't up to his usual snuff, and he's not competing against himself, so he's still in contention (apparently I'm going to be A) very parentheses heavy this write-up and B) keeping my cards close to the vest).
Barry Ackroyd's The Hurt Locker is the only filmic piece I wasn't wowed by in this bunch in some capacity. This isn't to say that war can't be haunting, as Greig Fraser proved with his sure-to-be-iconic Zero Dark Thirty assassination scene, but The Hurt Locker never catches me in the same way. For me, I feel like simply making the desert look hot or beautiful isn't enough-there needs to be something more if you're going to win an Oscar nomination, and while the climactic final scenes, with the glow of fire and orange lights on everyone's faces is distinctive, the remainder of the film never does anything for me in this department. This feels like the sort of nomination that comes from being a Best Picture frontrunner that is not entirely without handsomeness in the Cinematography field.
AMPAS's Cinematography Branch, more than any other, is a sucker for a black-and-white movie. Calling back the golden age of warm lighting and elegant shadow, when a film happens to be in crisp black-and-white, it frequently finds itself in this category (anyone else think that Phedon Papamichael may be underestimated for a shot at Nebraska this year?). The White Ribbon, one of the best films of 2009 (the foreign language film category of that year had three truly terrific pictures, and we'll get there eventually), manages to transcend just being in beautiful black-and-white. The film, a truly terrifying picture of Germany before the first World War, uses the dark depictions of human nature in the film in the lighting-frequently juxtaposing what is happening onscreen with shifts in light and shadow. The movie makes night seem brutally hard, but Berger also manages to make the daylight equally terrifying. There is no place to hide, no escape or release, and the bright light and vastness of the countryside aid in this plot device.
Finally, we have the film that got cited for just its cinematography. Nearly every year, there's at least one movie that has no shot in the Best Picture race or another major race that somehow lands in this category thanks to either a big name behind the camera or work that cannot be denied (or in this case, both). The Harry Potter films began to look sensational as the series progressed pass the early Chris Columbus days and into the Alfonso Cuaron and David Yates period, but the Academy may have been at its most correct when it cited this film as the only one to receive a nomination in Best Cinematography. Delbonnel's work here is the sort that you notice more after you see the Oscar nomination (no one went in thinking that this film would be cited for this category instead of Visual Effects or Art Direction), but the lighting of the scenes where Dumbledore retrieves the Horcrux or where Jim Broadbent shows off the fish-it's sublime, rich, and moving. Delbonnel is always partial to a blue or a grey filter, but it's the green that really pops from this movie-showering off the rocky cliffs and finding a hue in the moonlight. To be fair, Delbonnel is relying a bit on Visual Effects in the same mode as Fiore (this film probably would have moved with him to the other category), but it doesn't feel quite the same and there's more interaction between the lighting and the cinematographer here, rather than just the visual effects artist.
Other Precursor Contenders: Unlike most of the other guild awards, the ASC Awards don't break out their nominees into multiple categories (I feel like in the Visual Effects blinking contest this awards body will go first if someone pulls the trigger). Therefore, we can make a direct comparison and only Bruno Delbonnel (the surprise nominee of the year) didn't show up here, with the ASC instead going for Dion Beebe's Nine (the win was for Christan Berger). BAFTA got much more adventurous with their lineup, kicking out both Berger and Delbonnel in favor of Trent Opaloch's District 9 and Javier Aguirresarobe's The Road. It's always hard to tell where a sixth place is coming from when the results are this varied; Greig Fraser's Bright Star was probably also in the running, and Hagen Bogdanski's The Young Victoria and Roger Deakins' A Serious Man. However, I think Beebe, who is one of the few mainstream cinematographers I rarely gravitate toward, is probably a strong bet for first runner-up.
Films I Would Have Nominated: Usually one of the most consistently excellent branches in the academy, this isn't a bad lineup, but I wish that Greig Fraser, so excellent and yet never cited for any awards, would have gotten some sort of credit for his dew-dropped coloring in Bright Star.
Oscar's Choice: In one of the few surprises of the 2009 Oscars, Avatar bested The White Ribbon and The Hurt Locker to take the trophy.
My Choice: I'm torn between the unexpected depth of Delbonnel's work in Harry Potter and Berger's icy Germany in The White Ribbon, but at the end of the day I'll go with Berger. Delbonnel follows, with Fiore, Richardson, and Ackroyd bringing up the rear.
This was one of the tougher ones to write and sort through-do you have an equally difficult time picking a winner (it's one of the only categories where a clear frontrunner wasn't apparent going into the Kodak)? Do you side with AMPAS and Avatar, the OVP and The White Ribbon, or are you on a different team entirely? And what film had the best Cinematography of 2009? Share in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment