OVP: Best Cinematography (2004)
The Nominees Were...
Robert Richardson, The Aviator
Zhao Xiaoding, House of Flying Daggers
Caleb Deschanel, The Passion of the Christ
John Mathieson, The Phantom of the Opera
Bruno Delbonnel, A Very Long Engagement
My Thoughts: We move into my favorite tech category (possibly some days my favorite Oscars category, period), Best Cinematography. As you might be starting to realize, the 2004 Oscars was a relatively staid affair. The films cited weren't necessarily bad, and in fact like you'll see here, most of them were pretty good choices all things considered, but overall the year wasn't as strong as it normally was. This is sometimes verboten on social media to say (people tend to get really passionate about their favorites in a given year, even if some forest-for-the-trees clarity is needed), but sometimes movie years aren't as inspired as others, and for me that's 2004. Still, this branch's work in 2004 is proof that you can still make a solid lineup out of a less inspired year, as we have five films that (while not all my picks) would get a thumbs up on their camerawork.
We'll start with House of Flying Daggers, the one film in this bunch getting its sole Oscar nomination. House of Flying Daggers was, in 2004, one of my favorite movies, and a film that quickly became a staple in my household. The cinematography is a big part of that. Zhao Xiaoding is in love with the film's shifting color palette, oftentimes using the film's overwhelming coloring (specifically shades of green) to inform the lighting decisions, making the film feel like it's more mythical than it already is (we're talking about a cascade of perfectly choreographed flying bamboo, so it's definitely a heightened reality). The result is a gorgeous picture, one that feels frame-worthy in virtually every shot.
The Passion of the Christ, as we've already discussed, is a movie of deep controversy & one that thankfully didn't show up in some of the top-line categories (considering its box office & that Mel Gibson was controversial but not a public pariah quite yet, it was totally plausible that this might happen). You might think that nominating Deschanel (a favorite of this branch) was just a gut-check thing, but I honestly think this is some of his best work. The movie, especially early scenes (like in the Garden of Gethsemane) are brilliantly shot, looking like rich, indulgent Renaissance paintings. Deschanel adds some cinematic reaches to Gibson's gory picture, making the film both deeply real but also adding an artistic care to the proceedings that Gibson's later films would lack.
The Aviator's Robert Richardson, like Deschanel, is an AMPAS favorite, so it was inevitable he'd get cited for a Best Picture frontrunner. However, again, this is a figure who is adding something special to the way he frames this movie, particularly DiCaprio's Howard Hughes. Hughes is always slightly askew in the film, just out of frame or shot from an angle in a number of different moments of the film, as if the audience isn't catching exactly what's happening to this mad genius. Richardson's choices in color reflect this to some degree, relying on blue and especially teal to underscore the hands-off approach of Howard Hughes, making sure we understand (like the women in his life) that he cannot be fully touched, fully loved, without taking you down with him.
Color is at the center of A Very Long Engagement, specifically a shade of golden yellow that dominates the entire picture. The movie isn't ugly, and there are moments this works, but of all of the films here that rely too steadily on a color to inform the mood, this is the least successful, partially because it's an omnipresent lens throughout the picture. The sun-dappled French hills might be a good place for such a hue, but then we have it infiltrating interior shots & Paris's busy streets, and suddenly the effect of the lighting starts to evaporate-it's just a filter, not something that feels like it's trying to guide the audience (or bring dimension to the story).
The Phantom of the Opera is a movie that does its homework, I'll give it that. The effect of going from a grey-stained present back to a brightly-colored past is a neat trick, and the way that it borrows from the Lon Chaney sequence with similar camera angles from that 1925 film when the characters are on the roof doesn't go unnoticed (Phantom didn't begin its cinematic tellings with Andrew Lloyd Webber, after all), but the rest of the movie lacks that sort of creativity, and the camerawork is not inventive or anything other than "serviceable" to a too-long picture. Mathieson isn't really a "favorite" of the Academy (this is only his second nomination to date), but it reads like the kind of nomination that happens for an AMPAS beloved since it's so middle-of-the-road.
Other Precursor Contenders: The American Society of Cinematographers goes with just five nominations, so it's frequently similar to Oscar, but weirdly not in 2004. The ASC went with A Very Long Engagement as its winner, and only kept Aviator & Passion of these nominations, adding Collateral & Ray as the final two contenders. BAFTA also did its own thing in 2004, giving Collateral the trophy over Aviator, Finding Neverland, House of Flying Daggers, and The Motorcycle Diaries. Sixth place seems like it was surely Collateral given the precursors, and considering the cameraman on it was Dion Beebe (a beloved AMPAS figure) I'm stunned he didn't get into the actual lineup.
Films I Would Have Nominated: Like I said, this isn't a bad lineup-there's not a true stinker in the bunch here. That said, I would have definitely have found room for at least a couple other films. Probably at the top of that list would be Pedro Almodovar's Bad Education, a movie that pays homage to 1940's film noir but with Pedro's indulgent camera to guide it. I also would've included the daring leaps that Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban would take with the franchise, giving us a gorgeous lighting that would soon become the hallmark of the series (say what you will about the picture's, but they always looked good after this picture).
Oscar's Choice: With Beebe not an option, the Academy went with the Aviator technical sweep & gave this trophy to Richardson.
Oscar's Choice: With Beebe not an option, the Academy went with the Aviator technical sweep & gave this trophy to Richardson.
My Choice: There's not really another option for me-Flying Daggers was not just the best film in this lineup, but it was one of my earliest introductions to what great cinematography could be. Apologies to Deschanel, in second place, who is probably out any chance at an OVP statue if he can't win for his best work. Aviator, Very Long Engagement, and Phantom follow behind.
Those are my thoughts-how about yours? Is everyone sticking to my corner with Flying Daggers, or did I just piss off an army of Robert Richardson fans? Are we all kind of glad that the overuse of filters from the mid-aughts (I blame Clint Eastwood) is finally over? And why was it that Dion Beebe couldn't get into the lineup here? Share your thoughts below!
No comments:
Post a Comment