Re: Categories One-by-One: Cinematography
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:11 am
This is a category for which the phrase "on the other hand" might have been coined. It's impossible to settle on a selection without being immediately tempted to change your mind in favor of another nominee.
Of course, the first elimination is easy: if you pick Darkest Hour and it wins, I guarantee you you'll be the only one in your pool to score points. There's simply no reason whatever to expect Delbonnel to triumph.
I don't think Rachel Morrison rates much further up the scale. I'm very happy with her nomination -- a barrier-breaker that's completely deserved -- but it's a definite case of the nomination having to be the reward: the film's profile isn't strong enough, nor the visuals flashy enough, to win in this field.
After that is when I start tearing my hair out. Dunkirk is something of an enigma to me: everything about it (subject matter, reviews, audience size) screams Major Oscar Winner...yet somehow, like a baseball team with a line-up of sluggers but a .500 record, it seems to have settled into second division. Were it the contender it for so long threatened to be, this would no doubt be a category it'd snatch up along the way. Now, there are whispers (from Tapley and Anne Thompson) that, despite the film's lackluster showing at various precursors, Hollywood insiders think it has a real shot at the top prize. If so, this category would be an obvious spot for its unexpected strength to show itself. I don't rule it out...but right at the moment it feels like it's running third.
When was the last time we had two movies as visually stunning as The Shape of Water and Blade Runner 2049, competing against one another in the same year? Each, without the other, would be almost certain to sweep cinematography and production design. As it is, it's hard to know whether to bet on one of them to sweep, or to predict a split -- and, if so, in which direction. The big factor in Shape's favor is, of course, the best picture nomination (as well as its 12 other nods). Best picture nominees have simply done better in the category, over the past decade in particular. If the film were to win, no one would be calling it an outrage; it's well within normal range.
But Roger Deakins' status as the world's most Oscar-ignored cinematographer gives Blade Runner a better shot than a run-of-the-mill non-best picture nominee. Let's note that Blade Runner isn't some weak cousin in this race: it's got five below-the-line nominations, just one fewer than Memoirs of a Geisha when it swept cinematography/costumes/production design. (I know some'll argue Geisha might have made the best picture list in an expanded field, but that's just speculation.) And Blade Runner has won far more of this year's run-up awards -- BAFTA and ASC, of course, but also the vast majority of those minor critics, plus the National Society. (Shape of Water did win at LA Critics, but few other places.) None of this guarantees anything: as Sabin noted, Children of Men also took BAFTA and ASC, but lost to (wait for it) a Guillermo del Toro movie -- AMPAS could decide to disappoint Deakins the way it disappointed Lubezki in 2006 and 2011.
But there's Deakins' reputation to consider. A lot of people are saying No one will know they're voting for Deakins because no names are on the ballot. Well, that same was true in the score category two years ago -- but does anyone want to argue voters didn't realize they were voting for Ennio Morricone? The Hateful Eight was, if anything, way less popular than Blade Runner, but voters singled it out because they wanted to give the legend his reward. I'm not going to argue that Deakins is a household name -- there are presumably publicists who don't know his name. But in the crafts area, I have to assume he's widely known; he's also certainly a known quantity to the many directors, writers and actors who've worked with him over the years. (Remember when Jessica Chastain announced the cinematography winner a few years back with an excited "Chivo"? -- actors know the names of the people who make them look good.) I think Deakins eking out the win partly on the basis of being overdue is not pure fantasy -- it's not like when all those bloggers used to predict Kevin O'Connell year after years for Transformers movies; O'Connell was genuinely unknown except to insiders in his field. Deakins has a reputation, enough of one to maybe win.
Not that I'm ready to ink him in because, as I said at the start, "on the other hand" -- in a trice, I can switch back to Shape of Water, or even be persuaded Dunkirk is ready to rumble. The race is genuinely undecided, and will remain so until the envelope is opened.
Of course, the first elimination is easy: if you pick Darkest Hour and it wins, I guarantee you you'll be the only one in your pool to score points. There's simply no reason whatever to expect Delbonnel to triumph.
I don't think Rachel Morrison rates much further up the scale. I'm very happy with her nomination -- a barrier-breaker that's completely deserved -- but it's a definite case of the nomination having to be the reward: the film's profile isn't strong enough, nor the visuals flashy enough, to win in this field.
After that is when I start tearing my hair out. Dunkirk is something of an enigma to me: everything about it (subject matter, reviews, audience size) screams Major Oscar Winner...yet somehow, like a baseball team with a line-up of sluggers but a .500 record, it seems to have settled into second division. Were it the contender it for so long threatened to be, this would no doubt be a category it'd snatch up along the way. Now, there are whispers (from Tapley and Anne Thompson) that, despite the film's lackluster showing at various precursors, Hollywood insiders think it has a real shot at the top prize. If so, this category would be an obvious spot for its unexpected strength to show itself. I don't rule it out...but right at the moment it feels like it's running third.
When was the last time we had two movies as visually stunning as The Shape of Water and Blade Runner 2049, competing against one another in the same year? Each, without the other, would be almost certain to sweep cinematography and production design. As it is, it's hard to know whether to bet on one of them to sweep, or to predict a split -- and, if so, in which direction. The big factor in Shape's favor is, of course, the best picture nomination (as well as its 12 other nods). Best picture nominees have simply done better in the category, over the past decade in particular. If the film were to win, no one would be calling it an outrage; it's well within normal range.
But Roger Deakins' status as the world's most Oscar-ignored cinematographer gives Blade Runner a better shot than a run-of-the-mill non-best picture nominee. Let's note that Blade Runner isn't some weak cousin in this race: it's got five below-the-line nominations, just one fewer than Memoirs of a Geisha when it swept cinematography/costumes/production design. (I know some'll argue Geisha might have made the best picture list in an expanded field, but that's just speculation.) And Blade Runner has won far more of this year's run-up awards -- BAFTA and ASC, of course, but also the vast majority of those minor critics, plus the National Society. (Shape of Water did win at LA Critics, but few other places.) None of this guarantees anything: as Sabin noted, Children of Men also took BAFTA and ASC, but lost to (wait for it) a Guillermo del Toro movie -- AMPAS could decide to disappoint Deakins the way it disappointed Lubezki in 2006 and 2011.
But there's Deakins' reputation to consider. A lot of people are saying No one will know they're voting for Deakins because no names are on the ballot. Well, that same was true in the score category two years ago -- but does anyone want to argue voters didn't realize they were voting for Ennio Morricone? The Hateful Eight was, if anything, way less popular than Blade Runner, but voters singled it out because they wanted to give the legend his reward. I'm not going to argue that Deakins is a household name -- there are presumably publicists who don't know his name. But in the crafts area, I have to assume he's widely known; he's also certainly a known quantity to the many directors, writers and actors who've worked with him over the years. (Remember when Jessica Chastain announced the cinematography winner a few years back with an excited "Chivo"? -- actors know the names of the people who make them look good.) I think Deakins eking out the win partly on the basis of being overdue is not pure fantasy -- it's not like when all those bloggers used to predict Kevin O'Connell year after years for Transformers movies; O'Connell was genuinely unknown except to insiders in his field. Deakins has a reputation, enough of one to maybe win.
Not that I'm ready to ink him in because, as I said at the start, "on the other hand" -- in a trice, I can switch back to Shape of Water, or even be persuaded Dunkirk is ready to rumble. The race is genuinely undecided, and will remain so until the envelope is opened.