Categories One-by-One: Cinematography

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:39 pm

anonymous wrote:An interesting article on the cinematography of Avatar.

I'd recommend people who think its nomination is "ridiculous" to read it.

“We also devised a way to have more control over the interocular distance — on Avatar, some shots were down to 1/3-inch interocular, and others were all the way out to 2 inches,” Pace adds. “With all of those elements combined, you’ve got an intense 3-D system.”
??? ??? ???

There was nothing in the article which changed my opinion of the artistic accomplishment of the cinematography of AVATAR. However, I am more impressed with its technical achievements. If only there were some night to celebrate all the major technical achievements of filmmakers from 2009.

Oh, wait, there is.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5234
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Postby anonymous1980 » Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:06 am

An interesting article on the cinematography of Avatar.

I'd recommend people who think its nomination is "ridiculous" to read it.




Edited By anonymous on 1267172755

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Other than Best Picture, this category is the biggest mystery so far. The ASC award winner will certainly help clear things up, but the Academy often differs from the ASC.

I have seen all the nominees except THE WHITE RIBBON. A win for it seems unlikely, but not impossible.

THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE seems the least likely to win.

AVATAR's nomination is ridiculous and a win would be even more insulting, but the Academy likes big cinematography (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON, THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD, etc.) so a win is very possible.

If love for THE HURT LOCKER is as wide-spread as it seems, than it could easily and deservedly win. However, its minimalist style certainly makes it very out of place from the past decade's winners.

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS would seem the most likely candidate, except this would be Robert Richardson's third win. That would be as many wins as legends like Conrad Hall and Vittorio Storaro, and only one win away from the record of four held by Leon Shamroy and Joseph Ruttenberg (their wins came from 18 and 10 nominations respectively, while Richardson is on only his sixth nomination). This would also be three more wins than Roger Deakins. :angry:

Still, it seems like INGLORIOUS BASTERDS has the best chance. I will be hoping for THE WHITE RIBBON or THE HURT LOCKER to win, and dreading a win by AVATAR. I can accept INGLORIOUS BASTERDS as a compromise.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1267062043
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4222
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Postby The Original BJ » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:34 am

I'd want to see how the ASC votes before making a prediction, especially in a race like this, without a clear frontrunner.

I assume Harry Potter is out of the running, due to not being serious enough a film.

Sadly, I think The White Ribbon, despite the stunning photography (the clear best of the nominees, IMO), is out too. If voters wouldn't go black-and-white for Good Night, and Good Luck or The Man Who Wasn't There, something even further out in left field probably isn't going to do the trick.

Avatar is sort of a wild card here. I could certainly see enthusiasm for the visuals sweeping it along in this race, but anonymous's point that there might be some hesitation to honor such effects-driven photography could hurt it as well.

The camera work in The Hurt Locker is terrific and exciting, but I feel like it's not "beautiful" enough to triumph here.

I, too, am leaning towards Basterds, and I wonder if it might be sort of a compromise choice. It's not as auteurist-y as White Ribbon, but it definitely has a singular look. The film might not be as eye-popping visually as Avatar, but it's still very handsomely mounted. And Basterds might not have the overall enthusiasm that Hurt Locker does, but it's still very well-liked by this group, and if voters want to toss another trophy towards Tarantino's film, this seems like one of the most likely places for them to do it.

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5234
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Postby anonymous1980 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:52 am

The nominees:

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

Probably one of the toughest categories of the night. Harry Potter probably is the least likely but it's Delbonnel's third nomination so he could probably be seen as due. Avatar is hurt by the fact that it's probably well-known that most of Mauro Fiore's work is pixels, 1's and 0's and doesn't involve much of actual lighting.

The White Ribbon is a black & white effort that's getting heaps of praise so I think it's a spoiler. But I think this race is between The Hurt Locker and Inglourious Basterds. Someone pointed out that "pretty" cinematography trumps "gritty" cinematography much of the time so I'm going with Inglourious Basterds by Academy favorite Robert Richardson but just barely.


Return to “82nd Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest