OVP: Best Cinematography (2001)
The Nominees Were...
Bruno Delbonnel, Amelie
Slawomir Idziak, Black Hawk Down
Andrew Lesnie, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Roger Deakins, The Man Who Wasn't There
Donald M. McAlpine, Moulin Rouge!
My Thoughts: Every Oscar category goes through trends. What is in-fashion in one decade will slowly move out of fashion the next...it's why a certain style of actor might be really popular for a while and then never get nominated again even if they never stop working. In the early 2000's, color filters became really popular at the movies, and would eventually become the norm in a lot of cinema ranging from City of God to most of the films of Clint Eastwood. These were a mixed bag for me. On occasion I liked them (I think one of the best uses, and one I nominated for a My Ballot prize, was in Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima), but by-and-large I think they are distracting and maybe trying to make less interesting scenes more involving in movies without actually fixing what's wrong with said scene.
Two of our nominees in 2001 used these, and in both cases, I found they had mixed results. The better of the two would be Amelie, a film that I was in-the-middle on but I'm going to walk on tiptoes around because it is my friend Robin's favorite movie and he is one of my friends who I know reads this blog regularly. I don't think all of Amelie is successful when it comes to the cinematography, particularly in the way it keeps the cutesy lighting on during some of the grossest sequences in the movie, but it's also a clear homage to a specific type of movie-making, the French films of the 1960's, which did use color in spectacular and new ways, and I can support that even if it's not entirely my thing.
Black Hawk Down is the other movie, and here I'm less interested. The hyper-yellow & blue look of the film was pioneering, and clearly inspired by video games of the era, but I do wonder if you kick off a trend that isn't that worth having to begin with, should you get points for being influential? The movie doesn't really need this look, it just sort of makes the film look grainy & generic from scene-to-scene. I get what's happening here, and it does make it standout compared to other war films (and the way the action sequences are filmed, outside of the color lens, are solid), but I wasn't invested.
In proof that I can be objective about movies that I totally love, Moulin Rouge! is a great movie and one with a lot of technical merits...whose cinematography is not its strong suit. Part of this is driven by the array of colors and the zoom-pow of the story...trying to find any consistent visual storytelling when the goal is to make it seem like a rave is going to be a challenge for the cameraman. But while I do like the ways some of the musical numbers are lensed (the zooming in the "Elephant Love Medley" is flawless, no notes), much of the film is shot through too much closeup, and the color schemes were too erratic for my taste. More is more is the ethos of Moulin Rouge!, and it works for the most part (save for the cinematography).
That leaves us with the two contenders I genuinely adored of this bunch. If you've been reading these write-ups for a while (links to all past contests at the bottom of this page) you'll know I'm the world's biggest Roger Deakins stan (he's gotten nine My Ballot nominations so far, including three gold medals). The film itself doesn't really work. I love the Coen Brothers, but they aren't infallible, and their homage to film noir feels a bit hollow. But that doesn't take away from what Deakins is doing with his cinematography, giving us something similar to the films of Out of the Past or Pickup on South Street, precise looks at every character in glorious, masterfully shot black-and-white. Deakins use of light is pretty much unequalled by those around him.
We'll end with Andrew Lesnie's oil painting aesthetic in The Fellowship of the Ring. Lesnie is handicapped a bit when it comes to the rules of the OVP (where I can only lens what's in front of me, not consider his larger career), as much of his vision comes together best when you consider all three films collectively. Still, the work here is gorgeous, the way that he gives us a consistent color palette (aided by using the New Zealand landscape and not a mess of CGI to make many of the background shots), and the use of long-shot for us to understand the weight of the journey. I particularly loved the way he shoots certain characters like Aragorn, Galadriel, & Gandalf from the perspectives of Frodo in key shots, reminding us of how the big world is for our smaller characters.
Other Precursor Contenders: The American Society of Cinematographers picked The Man Who Wasn't There (this was around the start of the "when the hell is Roger Deakins going to get an Oscar?" conversation) atop Amelie, Moulin Rouge!, Pearl Harbor, and The Fellowship of the Ring. BAFTA also went with Deakins (black-and-white wasn't as common in 2001 as it is now, so this might've helped him a bit), against the exact Oscar lineup. In terms of sixth place...maybe A Beautiful Mind? The film was also shot by Roger Deakins (it's one of those situations where he might've won earlier had they nominated him for a lesser film), though Pearl Harbor or even AI: Artificial Intelligence could've been options.
Films I Would Have Nominated: In the Mood for Love is one of the sexiest, most beautiful movies I've ever seen. Even with no mentions anywhere else (and it should've had plenty), the cinematography citation should've been a lock.
Oscar's Choice: If only the Cinematography branch got to vote here, we'd be in a spot where Deakins was winning his first statue. But with the entire Academy voting, you just can't stop the Fellowship juggernaut (at least not until we get to the Big 8 categories...then somehow the train runs out of steam).
Oscar's Choice: If only the Cinematography branch got to vote here, we'd be in a spot where Deakins was winning his first statue. But with the entire Academy voting, you just can't stop the Fellowship juggernaut (at least not until we get to the Big 8 categories...then somehow the train runs out of steam).
My Choice: I'm going to go with Lesnie. I think what he's doing kicking off Fellowship is a more ambitious (and beautiful) look than what Deakins is doing in Man Who Wasn't There. Behind them would be Amelie, Moulin Rouge, and then Black Hawk Down.
Those are my thoughts-how about yours? Is everyone sticking with Oscar & I with the Fellowship, or do you want to strike out on your own (I'm realizing right now that I've been weirdly in-line with Oscar, which will change pretty dramatically on the back-half of these awards)? Why do you think it took so long to get Roger Deakins a statue? And was A Beautiful Mind, Pearl Harbor, or AI our sixth place? Share your thoughts below!
No comments:
Post a Comment