Re: Best Cinematography 1966
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:02 pm
I can't vote under black and white because I never saw Is Paris Burning? I remember the movie opening -- and getting pretty terrible reviews (despite being the work of well-respected Rene Clement). That it managed this nomination anyway was a fairly strong sign the category's usefulness was at an end.
As were the nods for The Fortune Cookie and Georgy Girl. Although I liked the first film, and adored the second, neither was anything special in the visual department. (Georgy Girl, by the way, is the only one on this side of the slate that I saw on a big screen.)
Were I voting, I'd break probably the way most have. Wexler does a wonderful job of concealing the fact that Virginia Woolf? is basically a one-set play, and is not an ignoble winner. But Howe came closest to notable artistic achievement with Seconds, and might have got my vote in the end.
By the way, did anyone see The Simpsons' parody segment of Virginia Woolf last night? I think it's the first time I've ever seen anyone attempt such a thing, and it was pretty clever.
Over on the color side, I saw a full three of the nominees in theatres-- widescreen theatres, at that.
Not included in that trio were Fantastic Voyage and Hawaii, both of which I saw on television, in the 80s and 90s. The former had some (for the time) great sets and effects, and might have been a contender with today's voting pool. The latter had the advantage of its lush island scenery, though everything about the movie just reeked of bloat and letdown.
I guess The Sand Pebbles probably hits most people the way Hawaii does me -- with only a few minutes less to its running time, it makes for a long slog. But I did see The Sand Pebbles at the Rivoli Theatre, and enjoyed the spectacle. Disclaimer: I was 15 at the time. Anyway, I think its spot in this category is one I wouldn't hotly dispute.
But the other two nominees -- who seem to be grabbing most of our votes -- provide stronger visuals. I have to confess I haven't seen The Professionals since Election Day 1966 (talk about another universe), but my recollection is of crisp, clean outdoor images that captured the hot sun of the Southwest.
A Man for All Seasons, as I've probably noted here before, was a standout among all the era's period costume epics, not so much for its beauty as for its modesty. It didn't seem to be trying to knock us out with its sets and vistas; it felt like it was more interested in creating a believable environment. This served the film well: it was about the only film of its kind from these years that engaged me on a human level. This is a different kind of achievement from what Burnett Guffey brought about just a year later -- less of a one -- but it's way superior to the Cleopatras that we're going to run into in the coming weeks. A semi-enthusiastic vote for Ted Moore (who, without this credit, would be known mainly as the Bond film guy).
As were the nods for The Fortune Cookie and Georgy Girl. Although I liked the first film, and adored the second, neither was anything special in the visual department. (Georgy Girl, by the way, is the only one on this side of the slate that I saw on a big screen.)
Were I voting, I'd break probably the way most have. Wexler does a wonderful job of concealing the fact that Virginia Woolf? is basically a one-set play, and is not an ignoble winner. But Howe came closest to notable artistic achievement with Seconds, and might have got my vote in the end.
By the way, did anyone see The Simpsons' parody segment of Virginia Woolf last night? I think it's the first time I've ever seen anyone attempt such a thing, and it was pretty clever.
Over on the color side, I saw a full three of the nominees in theatres-- widescreen theatres, at that.
Not included in that trio were Fantastic Voyage and Hawaii, both of which I saw on television, in the 80s and 90s. The former had some (for the time) great sets and effects, and might have been a contender with today's voting pool. The latter had the advantage of its lush island scenery, though everything about the movie just reeked of bloat and letdown.
I guess The Sand Pebbles probably hits most people the way Hawaii does me -- with only a few minutes less to its running time, it makes for a long slog. But I did see The Sand Pebbles at the Rivoli Theatre, and enjoyed the spectacle. Disclaimer: I was 15 at the time. Anyway, I think its spot in this category is one I wouldn't hotly dispute.
But the other two nominees -- who seem to be grabbing most of our votes -- provide stronger visuals. I have to confess I haven't seen The Professionals since Election Day 1966 (talk about another universe), but my recollection is of crisp, clean outdoor images that captured the hot sun of the Southwest.
A Man for All Seasons, as I've probably noted here before, was a standout among all the era's period costume epics, not so much for its beauty as for its modesty. It didn't seem to be trying to knock us out with its sets and vistas; it felt like it was more interested in creating a believable environment. This served the film well: it was about the only film of its kind from these years that engaged me on a human level. This is a different kind of achievement from what Burnett Guffey brought about just a year later -- less of a one -- but it's way superior to the Cleopatras that we're going to run into in the coming weeks. A semi-enthusiastic vote for Ted Moore (who, without this credit, would be known mainly as the Bond film guy).