Categories One-by-One: Cinematography

[dws1982]

But what if ASC follows its British cousins and goes for Poor Things? It's not as if the film isn't stunningly photographed -- I'd put the lighting of the skies in Lisbon up against any image in Oppenheimer.

I would argue that is more (or as much) a function of the visual effects than the cinematography.

Some heavy VFX work did not hurt Avatar, Life of Pi, Hugo, Dune, and so many other winners for Cinematography. I mean, I know Poor Things won’t be a benefitiary of the VFX/Cinematography tandem, but voters are not as good as you in pointing out the differences and merits.

Yes, I said that in the second sentence of my post!

[HarryGoldfarb]

But what if ASC follows its British cousins and goes for Poor Things? It's not as if the film isn't stunningly photographed -- I'd put the lighting of the skies in Lisbon up against any image in Oppenheimer.

I would argue that is more (or as much) a function of the visual effects than the cinematography.

Some heavy VFX work did not hurt Avatar, Life of Pi, Hugo, Dune, and so many other winners for Cinematography. I mean, I know Poor Things won’t be a benefitiary of the VFX/Cinematography tandem, but voters are not as good as you in pointing out the differences and merits.

[mlrg]

I'd put the lighting of the skies in Lisbon up against any image in Oppenheimer.

Although the Lisbon portrayed in the film has zero to do with the actual real city, the real Lisbon has in fact a very luminous light specially in the summer

[dws1982]

But what if ASC follows its British cousins and goes for Poor Things? It's not as if the film isn't stunningly photographed -- I'd put the lighting of the skies in Lisbon up against any image in Oppenheimer.

I would argue that is more (or as much) a function of the visual effects than the cinematography. Could still get it some votes here, though.

[Bog]

I forgot to mention...duh....I actually WOULD select El Conde for the win here on merit...with KOTFW as a runner up

[Bog]

Lachman for me....nuff said ...as rough a "memory" of Oscar history as ever....not to speak ill of the dead, but the timing RIGHT at ballot time...oof

Wish he at least could've gotten a "makeup" for Carol.

Sure there's no precedent I can find in the nearly 60 years of combined categories here (as Magilla stated). The closest AT ALL I suppose would be the Blade Runner thing from several years ago...even that had a handful of noms ...but I dream...

[Big Magilla]

Like most, if not all, of the technical categories, Oscar voters with rare exception vote for the film, not the cinematographer. If they did, Ed Lachman and Rodrigo Prieto would own this category. Curiously, neither has won a competitive award from ASC, though Lachman has a well-deserved career achievement award from 2017. This year the Oscar nominated cinematographers mirror the ASC nominees, so the ASC win would give us clue as to what the cinematographers like best, but they're not the only voters here.

Looking at the work itself, I would think that the sheer magnitude of the cinematography would benefit Oppenheimer and Poor Things more than the others although Killers of the Flower Moon would be close behind.

Cinematography is the strongest suit of Maestro which gets an A for effort but the film itself is a letdown. I keep meaning to check out El Conde on Netflix but haven't gotten around to it, so I can't comment on it, but I'd be shocked if a film whose sole nomination is for cinematography would win this category this year.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
But what if ASC follows its British cousins and goes for Poor Things? It's not as if the film isn't stunningly photographed -- I'd put the lighting of the skies in Lisbon up against any image in Oppenheimer. Would we simply say, ASC being weird, and stick to our Oppenheimer guns? A reminder: most of us did that 3 years ago, and watched Erik Messerschmidt roll to a thoroughly unexpected Oscar.

Well, now I'm thinking about it... Also, both Hoytema and Ryan have been up for two films (same filmmaker) but are awaiting their first film.

The pairing of Best Cinematography + Production Design isn't unbreakable but it's on a roll these days. Last year with All Quiet on the Western Front, and onward with Dune, and Mank. But since 2010, we've only seen Hugo and La La Land. But there are plenty of similarities between Oppenheimer and a lot of films that end up missing out. It's a beautiful-looking film but it still mostly takes place in boring rooms. I'm a few months out but I don't recall it being a very pretty-looking film whereas Poor Things is more filled with weirdness and color than any other film.

[Mister Tee]

The nominees:

El Conde (Edward Lachman)
Killers of the Flower Moon (Rodrigo Prieto)
Maestro (Matthew Libatique)
Oppenheimer (Hoyte van Hoytema)
Poor Things (Robbie Ryan)

My initial tendency was to wait for ASC, but that's not till March 3rd. ACE, CAS, and the USC Scripter are also that weekend, so, unless we want to cram all these threads into the final pre-Oscar week, we need to go intrepidly forward without all data. This seems a fairly cut-and-dried place to start.

First thing worth noting about this category: every single nominee uses black-and-white to at least some degree -- some extensively. (The Zone of Interest, had it made it in as some expected, would also have qualified, on the basis of its photo-negative scenes.) This has to be a first since the merging of the two categories in 1967, doesn't it?

Second thing: this is a roster of unrewarded veterans -- each nominee has at least one previous nomination; the group as a whole counts for 14; yet not one of them has as yet won. If this were an acting category, it'd be one of the most exciting match-ups ever. Added sweetener: 4 of the 5 have already been nominated for a film with the same director.

Considering them individually:

El Conde, the black-and-whitest of them, is this year's lucky-to-be-here/we-salute-our-foreign-artists candidate. Given that Lachman was permanently robbed in 2002, I'll never begrudge him a nomination, especially for such solid work.

Maestro's above-the-line nominations aren't universally popular, but it's hard to quibble about any of its tech nods, including this one. Libatique isn't likely to win -- his film just isn't hefty enough alongside three double-digit nominees -- but maybe he's accruing points for a victory down the line.

This is Prieto's 4th citation -- third for late-career Scorsese -- and, up to me, he'd be solidly in the race: I think Killers is a beautifully shot film, teeming with memorable images. But his chances appear to have declined in line with the film's overall prospects.

Oppenheimer has long been thought the front-runner here, and the BAFTA win appears to confirm that. It's a perfectly normal ride-with-the-dominant-film choice, and would be a praiseworthy winner.

The sole bump in the road -- I wonder if anyone even noticed? -- came at the BSC awards, where they chose Poor Things. You can say, well, Ryan's a British isles guy (Irish, not English), and their guild is just as prone to provincialism as ours -- hell, Oppenheimer couldn't even follow it up at BAFTA. And you could easily be correct.

But what if ASC follows its British cousins and goes for Poor Things? It's not as if the film isn't stunningly photographed -- I'd put the lighting of the skies in Lisbon up against any image in Oppenheimer. Would we simply say, ASC being weird, and stick to our Oppenheimer guns? A reminder: most of us did that 3 years ago, and watched Erik Messerschmidt roll to a thoroughly unexpected Oscar.

Disclaimer: probably won't happen; mostly the kind of idle thought one entertains between nominations and ceremonies. But maybe worth considering.