My list is somewhat varied, which I had not necessarily intended. They're all basically doing different things. On paper, you can't find more different American shooters than Cronenweth, Libatique, Pope, and Richardson. I think they're all on the top of their games. Cronenweth is a fantastic cinematographer. His work on The Social Network owes a huge debt to Fincher's editing plan, but I think it's a beautifully shot film that perfectly compliments how Fincher needs to frame his actors to zip the production along. Fight Club fanboy that I am, I forgot how much I missed his touch. I'll just cop to that on personal taste. I don't find Black Swan ugly and murky at all. If anything, I am fascinated at how they got the 5D and the 7D to look so much like Super-16. I had not even questioned it. I found the aesthetic absolutely intoxicating, and the choice to blend SFX within the grain pretty exemplary. I love how whiplash the cinematography is. I can't really imagine the film without it, although there seems to be something of a firestorm a'brewin' as to what Black Swan means and whether or not it is worth a damn. Aronofsky is not a thinker. It either thrives as a technical tour de force or falls flat, and I will live in the former camp.
I've talked about Scott Pilgrim to death. I think it's a gorgeous looking movie with some of Pope's finest action cinematography. It's replete with iconic, lovely imagery. Wild Grass is an insane film, but Eric Gautier's cinematography is impossible lovely. The color palette is gorgeous. And finally, I've said for a while that when Scorsese has a good story, he needs Michael Ballhaus. When he doesn't, he needs Richardson. Shutter Island is not a good story but his collaboration with Robert Richardson exemplifies everything he can do with this gaudy shooter when pressed. It's a dumb movie full of electric moments, and it constitutes the best work by Bobby Dick since Snow Falling on Cedars and perhaps his best collaboration with Scorsese, period.
National Society of Film Critics Winners
No, only two -- Social Network, where the camera work is highly proficient but unremarkable. And Black Swan -- the acclaim for that ugly, murky photography just eludes me. I will see the other 3 over the next few weeks.Sabin wrote:I have not seen one of those films. Have you seen all of my five?
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
I haven't seen True Grit yet (I'm never at the front of the line for a Coen Brothers movies), but, gee, Sabin none of my current Top 5 Cinematography choices is included in your list:
1. Vincere – Daniele Cipri
2. Women Without Men – Martin Gschlact
3. I Am Love – Yorick Le Saux
4. The American – Martin Ruhe
5. Let Me In – Greig Fraser
1. Vincere – Daniele Cipri
2. Women Without Men – Martin Gschlact
3. I Am Love – Yorick Le Saux
4. The American – Martin Ruhe
5. Let Me In – Greig Fraser
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
I think that there are few shooters more in need of an Oscar than Roger Deakins. He should have won several times over by now. But True Grit suffers from an overly modest scale. I like how the Coens play with distance but if I didn't know that Deakins shot it, I wouldn't have guessed outside of an handful of images.
My favorite works of cinematography this year are:
Jeff Cronenweth, The Social Network
Eric Gautier, Wild Grass
Matthew Libatique, Black Swan
Bill Pope, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Robert Richardson, Shutter Island
Any one of these, I would call a deserving winner, but I would also happily extend citations to Kyung-pyo Hong for Mother, Pawel Edelman for The Ghost Writer, Harris Savides for Greenberg, Claudio Miranda for Tron Legacy, Yves Cape for White Material, Michael McDonough for Winter's Bone, and Xavier Perez Grobet for I Love You Phillip Morris, and of course Thimios Bakatikas for Dogtooth and Bernhard Keller for Everyone Else. Also, while I don't like Inception, Wally Pfister certainly does some some lovely imagery even if I don't believe it aids in good storytelling.
Roger Deakins' work seems like Emmanuel Lubeszki's for Burn After Reading. I liked how A Serious Man was shot, and No Country... is almost entirely composed of gorgeous, prophetic imagery, but True Grit has to be his most undistinguished collaboration with the Coens since Intolerable Cruelty.
Edited By Sabin on 1294717716
My favorite works of cinematography this year are:
Jeff Cronenweth, The Social Network
Eric Gautier, Wild Grass
Matthew Libatique, Black Swan
Bill Pope, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Robert Richardson, Shutter Island
Any one of these, I would call a deserving winner, but I would also happily extend citations to Kyung-pyo Hong for Mother, Pawel Edelman for The Ghost Writer, Harris Savides for Greenberg, Claudio Miranda for Tron Legacy, Yves Cape for White Material, Michael McDonough for Winter's Bone, and Xavier Perez Grobet for I Love You Phillip Morris, and of course Thimios Bakatikas for Dogtooth and Bernhard Keller for Everyone Else. Also, while I don't like Inception, Wally Pfister certainly does some some lovely imagery even if I don't believe it aids in good storytelling.
Roger Deakins' work seems like Emmanuel Lubeszki's for Burn After Reading. I liked how A Serious Man was shot, and No Country... is almost entirely composed of gorgeous, prophetic imagery, but True Grit has to be his most undistinguished collaboration with the Coens since Intolerable Cruelty.
Edited By Sabin on 1294717716
"How's the despair?"
Sabin wrote:A cinematography win for True Grit makes no sense to me. It's a fine looking film but one of the most undistinguished of the Coens' near-career collaboration with Deakins.
I don't think I've seen a more iconic image this season than the older Mattie walking stridently into the prairie at the film's close. Exquisite in its simplicity, yet full of meaning for the story as well.
I'm happy for Olivia Williams, but I generally find her a rather uncharismatic actress. She seemed miscast in An Education last year. Hers' is definitely not the Oscar nomination morning surprise nod I'm hoping for later this month.
Edited By flipp525 on 1294606484
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Also yesterday:
The NSFC issued a statement that protests the MPAA ratings board's continued inconsistent and censorious practices and asks for a reexamination and overhaul of the system. (Full statement below.)
The Society also issued a statement condemning Iran’s harsh December 18, 2010 sentences of directors Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof. (Full statement below.)
STATEMENTS:
STATEMENT ON THE MPAA RATINGS SYSTEM
The members of the National Society of Film Critics applaud the recent decision by the Classification & Ratings Administration of the Motion Picture Association of America to change the rating of "Blue Valentine" from NC-17 to R. But several other recent decisions by CARA have been allowed to stand, and these call into question the integrity and legitimacy of that office as it is presently constituted.
"The King's Speech," the drama about King George VI's attempt to overcome his speech impediment, was rated R for "language," specifically, several moments where the King is instructed by his speech therapist to swear to relieve the pressure of his stammer.
"The Tillman Story," the documentary about the military cover-up of the death of Corporal Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, was similarly rated R for "language." In the case of that film the offending content is the agitated language of soldiers in combat fearing for their lives.
"A Film Unfinished," which contains footage taken by the Nazis inside the Warsaw Ghetto, was given an R for “disturbing images of Holocaust atrocities, including graphic nudity.”
In the case of the documentaries “The Tillman Story” and “A Film Unfinished,” this amounts to CARA assigning a rating to reality.
In an editorial on the MPAA's web site, Joan Graves, the head of CARA, claims, "These ratings are purely informational."
This is simply untrue.
An R rating restricts who can get in to see a film and thus its potential earnings. An NC-17 rating, such as was originally assigned to "Blue Valentine," will keep a film out of many theater chains and can deny its being advertised on most television networks and in many newspapers.
This can have an especially damaging effect on the earning potential of independently made films, such as those mentioned above, which do not have access to the large advertising budgets at the disposal of the major studios — studios, which, as CARA’s record indicates, have received much more lenient ratings for similar content.
Another damaging inconsistency is CARA’s record of judging sexual content more harshly than it does violence. We by no means advocate condemning violence in movies, and we do not believe we are doing so by pointing out that there is no equivalence between an R given to the most explicit horror images and the same rating given to a drama in which King George VI utters a four letter word. And certainly no equivalence to a historical document showing the emaciated bodies of dead Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Despite Ms. Graves' contention that CARA decisions are "purely informational," it's clear that the board has become an agency of de facto censorship. There is a difference between giving parents the information they need to make a decision as to which films they want their children to see, and a system whose decisions make it harder for adults — and their children — to see films clearly meant for them.
The National Society of Film Critics believes that CARA has for too long demonstrated these inconsistencies and has refused to explain itself. We would like to believe that the major studios who constitute the membership of the MPAA care enough about the availability of movies to recognize that the ratings system should be open and consistent, not arbitrary and unfair, and that films from independent distributors should be judged by the same criteria as their own releases. It has become a system that enforces the kind of moral policing that, when it was founded in 1968, it was intended to prevent.
STATEMENT ON JAILED IRANIAN DIRECTORS
On December 18, 2010, an Iranian court sentenced Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof to six years in prison and banned both from filmmaking for 20 years for “colluding in gatherings and making propaganda against the regime.”
The members of the National Society of Film Critics add their voices to those of the many other individuals and organizations who have protested this injustice. We strongly urge the Iranian government to release both artists, whose work can only further the advancement of such values as justice, compassion, tolerance, and human dignity. Jafar Panahi’s films in particular have won international awards, earned the accolades of critics all over the world, and delighted and inspired audiences everywhere they are shown.
Not only does the court’s decision impose an outrageous penalty on artists whose sole crime is telling the truth, but it deprives Iran and the world of future works by filmmakers of outstanding talent and vision.
We intend our protest to affirm the value of artistic expression and the power of cinema to transcend political differences and unite people in their common humanity. We hope that the Iranian government will recognize the wisdom of releasing Mr. Panahi and Mr. Rasoulof immediately in the name of these universal principles.
The NSFC issued a statement that protests the MPAA ratings board's continued inconsistent and censorious practices and asks for a reexamination and overhaul of the system. (Full statement below.)
The Society also issued a statement condemning Iran’s harsh December 18, 2010 sentences of directors Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof. (Full statement below.)
STATEMENTS:
STATEMENT ON THE MPAA RATINGS SYSTEM
The members of the National Society of Film Critics applaud the recent decision by the Classification & Ratings Administration of the Motion Picture Association of America to change the rating of "Blue Valentine" from NC-17 to R. But several other recent decisions by CARA have been allowed to stand, and these call into question the integrity and legitimacy of that office as it is presently constituted.
"The King's Speech," the drama about King George VI's attempt to overcome his speech impediment, was rated R for "language," specifically, several moments where the King is instructed by his speech therapist to swear to relieve the pressure of his stammer.
"The Tillman Story," the documentary about the military cover-up of the death of Corporal Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, was similarly rated R for "language." In the case of that film the offending content is the agitated language of soldiers in combat fearing for their lives.
"A Film Unfinished," which contains footage taken by the Nazis inside the Warsaw Ghetto, was given an R for “disturbing images of Holocaust atrocities, including graphic nudity.”
In the case of the documentaries “The Tillman Story” and “A Film Unfinished,” this amounts to CARA assigning a rating to reality.
In an editorial on the MPAA's web site, Joan Graves, the head of CARA, claims, "These ratings are purely informational."
This is simply untrue.
An R rating restricts who can get in to see a film and thus its potential earnings. An NC-17 rating, such as was originally assigned to "Blue Valentine," will keep a film out of many theater chains and can deny its being advertised on most television networks and in many newspapers.
This can have an especially damaging effect on the earning potential of independently made films, such as those mentioned above, which do not have access to the large advertising budgets at the disposal of the major studios — studios, which, as CARA’s record indicates, have received much more lenient ratings for similar content.
Another damaging inconsistency is CARA’s record of judging sexual content more harshly than it does violence. We by no means advocate condemning violence in movies, and we do not believe we are doing so by pointing out that there is no equivalence between an R given to the most explicit horror images and the same rating given to a drama in which King George VI utters a four letter word. And certainly no equivalence to a historical document showing the emaciated bodies of dead Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Despite Ms. Graves' contention that CARA decisions are "purely informational," it's clear that the board has become an agency of de facto censorship. There is a difference between giving parents the information they need to make a decision as to which films they want their children to see, and a system whose decisions make it harder for adults — and their children — to see films clearly meant for them.
The National Society of Film Critics believes that CARA has for too long demonstrated these inconsistencies and has refused to explain itself. We would like to believe that the major studios who constitute the membership of the MPAA care enough about the availability of movies to recognize that the ratings system should be open and consistent, not arbitrary and unfair, and that films from independent distributors should be judged by the same criteria as their own releases. It has become a system that enforces the kind of moral policing that, when it was founded in 1968, it was intended to prevent.
STATEMENT ON JAILED IRANIAN DIRECTORS
On December 18, 2010, an Iranian court sentenced Jafar Panahi and Mohammad Rasoulof to six years in prison and banned both from filmmaking for 20 years for “colluding in gatherings and making propaganda against the regime.”
The members of the National Society of Film Critics add their voices to those of the many other individuals and organizations who have protested this injustice. We strongly urge the Iranian government to release both artists, whose work can only further the advancement of such values as justice, compassion, tolerance, and human dignity. Jafar Panahi’s films in particular have won international awards, earned the accolades of critics all over the world, and delighted and inspired audiences everywhere they are shown.
Not only does the court’s decision impose an outrageous penalty on artists whose sole crime is telling the truth, but it deprives Iran and the world of future works by filmmakers of outstanding talent and vision.
We intend our protest to affirm the value of artistic expression and the power of cinema to transcend political differences and unite people in their common humanity. We hope that the Iranian government will recognize the wisdom of releasing Mr. Panahi and Mr. Rasoulof immediately in the name of these universal principles.
Also, I was looking at their website.
The All-Time LAFCA Winner was five awards to Sideways, and they've given four to L.A. Confidential, The Insider, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, There Will Be Blood, and The Social Network. The All-Time NYFCCA Winner is Far From Heaven with five for Picture, Director, Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress, and Cinematography, and I suppose Broadcast News won five as well although its Best Actor award for Jack Nicholson felt like something of a cheat. They've also given four awards to A Man for All Seasons, Annie Hall, Prizzi's Honor, The Silence of the Lambs, Sideways, and No Country for Old Men.
The National Society of Film Critics has given four awards to Scenes from a Marriage, Nashville, Atlantic City, Tootsie, Blue Velvet, Unforgiven, Schindler's List, Breaking the Waves, The Pianist, There Will Be Blood, and now The Social Network. Something to keep in mind for future predictions.
The Social Network is the fourth film to win for Picture, Director, Screenplay, and a Performance from the NSFC. The NYFCC has given that distinction out for Broadcast News and No Country for Old Men. The LAFCA has given that distinction to Sideways.
The All-Time LAFCA Winner was five awards to Sideways, and they've given four to L.A. Confidential, The Insider, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, There Will Be Blood, and The Social Network. The All-Time NYFCCA Winner is Far From Heaven with five for Picture, Director, Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress, and Cinematography, and I suppose Broadcast News won five as well although its Best Actor award for Jack Nicholson felt like something of a cheat. They've also given four awards to A Man for All Seasons, Annie Hall, Prizzi's Honor, The Silence of the Lambs, Sideways, and No Country for Old Men.
The National Society of Film Critics has given four awards to Scenes from a Marriage, Nashville, Atlantic City, Tootsie, Blue Velvet, Unforgiven, Schindler's List, Breaking the Waves, The Pianist, There Will Be Blood, and now The Social Network. Something to keep in mind for future predictions.
The Social Network is the fourth film to win for Picture, Director, Screenplay, and a Performance from the NSFC. The NYFCC has given that distinction out for Broadcast News and No Country for Old Men. The LAFCA has given that distinction to Sideways.
"How's the despair?"
Freshness amidst consensus. I like it.
And a little weird dullness. I seem to like Geoffrey Rush more than some on this board, but his work on The King's Speech constitutes little more than taking Quaaludes and remembering lines. He's fine, but what on Earth could this group see in his performance? For a group that cited Giovanna Mezzogiorno and Olivia Williams, a win for Geoffrey Rush (let alone mere citations for the perfectly fine Bale and Renner) is just dingy.
I was unsure about Eisenberg's perceived "lock" status going into the race, but he's not going anywhere. I think Firth is going to continue his roll into a win, but he's no juggernaut. He has some mild competition from Franco and Eisenberg, but I don't think he needs to worry. I think Bale might be in an even safer position though.
Williams' win is fantastic. She is a gorgeous actress who has deserved acclamation for years now, and for the life of me I don't understand how these groups can rally around such milquetoast contenders as Amy Adams or Melissa Leo (Jacki Weaver I understand if not agree with).
A cinematography win for True Grit makes no sense to me. It's a fine looking film but one of the most undistinguished of the Coens' near-career collaboration with Deakins.
And a little weird dullness. I seem to like Geoffrey Rush more than some on this board, but his work on The King's Speech constitutes little more than taking Quaaludes and remembering lines. He's fine, but what on Earth could this group see in his performance? For a group that cited Giovanna Mezzogiorno and Olivia Williams, a win for Geoffrey Rush (let alone mere citations for the perfectly fine Bale and Renner) is just dingy.
I was unsure about Eisenberg's perceived "lock" status going into the race, but he's not going anywhere. I think Firth is going to continue his roll into a win, but he's no juggernaut. He has some mild competition from Franco and Eisenberg, but I don't think he needs to worry. I think Bale might be in an even safer position though.
Williams' win is fantastic. She is a gorgeous actress who has deserved acclamation for years now, and for the life of me I don't understand how these groups can rally around such milquetoast contenders as Amy Adams or Melissa Leo (Jacki Weaver I understand if not agree with).
A cinematography win for True Grit makes no sense to me. It's a fine looking film but one of the most undistinguished of the Coens' near-career collaboration with Deakins.
"How's the despair?"
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19336
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea it was available on demand.tootpadu wrote:Apparently, Vincere's Oscar ineligibility is due to its distributors policy to release the film simultaneously in theatres and on VOD.Big Magilla wrote:I don't know why Vincere is ineligible. It could be as simple as the producers not filing the requisite paperwork for consideration.