Art Directors Guild Nominations

[abcinyvr]

All set designs begin with a piece of paper (or a computer screen) not a saw and a piece of wood. So there should not be any difference, it is the same craft.

sorry, but to me a set is something tangible. in a movie, a stone wall can be built out of papier-mache, but it actually has to be built to be considered a set...otherwise it is just a special effect.

I completely agree I just meant that they both begin from the same point.

[Penelope]

How so?

Because they are two completely different crafts, with different approaches and different outcomes.

[Big Magilla]

rainBard is right. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the technicians who vote these things see themselves as a dying breed and will continue to vote for the films that employ the most people. It takes a lot more effort and research, and therefore more people, to faithfully resconstruct and/or go out and find or reproduce period deatil than it does contemporary looks, so unless something comes along that is really startling in a contemporary way, period peices will continue to dominate the tech awards. Until such time as the Lucases of this world dominate film-making, and I hope the day never comes, visible hard work will prevail at the Oscars.

[The Original BJ]

I generally agree with your take on the current traditionalism of the art directors, Oscar Guy, but I wouldn't go so far as to say 'never'. I can imagine a not-so-far-off future when the methods of Lucas, Zemeckis, and whoever it is behind 300 flushes have become the standard approach to making eye candy movies, and there's a real paucity of elaborate, impressive 'old fashioned'-style sets used in Hollywood filmmaking, the branch might at that point go for a film that does things a different way. I'm sure they'd collectively rather do that than nominate a bunch of lo-fi independents or foreign films from 'backward' industries.

Or...(shudder)...nominate a contemporary film or two!

[Okri]

How so?

[Penelope]

I don't have a problem with nominations for CG sets incorporated into a live action film, a la Titanic, King Kong, etc., but for a purely animated film such as Ratatouille, it's inappropriate.

[rolotomasi99]

I don't expect the Academy's Art Directors ever to honor mixed-media design (hence why something like 300 or Ratatouille would never make a nod). They are traditionalists and no matter how much the Production Designer is responsible for overall look of the film, they will not recognize someone who doesn't do it the old fashioned way...

i remember during the oscar telecast for 2005 films they showed clips for KING KONG and THE GOBLET OF FIRE for their art direction nominations. along with the physical sets actually built, they also showed clips of the design art of "sets" like the island in KING KONG and the underwater scenes in THE GOBLET OF FIRE. those were completely green screen generated sets.
that was the first time i remember thinking how unfair it was for sets not actually buil to be nominated. perhaps the person choosing the clips for the telecast did not realize those shots had nothing to do with sets, but i find it hard to believe the art director's branch would not have said something.
as far as i am concerned, this is proof the academy is already nominating non-traditional sets. maybe there is another explanation, but that telecast seemed to be the first signs that physical sets are on their way out.

[Mike Kelly]

Let's not forget that movie sets have been enhanced and sometimes completely replaced by matte paintings to for nearly 100 years. From changing Selznick's studio edifice to Tara in Gone With the Wind to Moses presenting Ramses with his new city in The Ten Commandments to the amazing recreation of the Himalayan mountain convent in Black Narcissus. Gangs of New York's sets were great, but I also loved visiting 1930s Radio City Music Hall in Sky Captain... and the noir streets of Sin City.

[rain Bard]

I generally agree with your take on the current traditionalism of the art directors, Oscar Guy, but I wouldn't go so far as to say 'never'. I can imagine a not-so-far-off future when the methods of Lucas, Zemeckis, and whoever it is behind 300 flushes have become the standard approach to making eye candy movies, and there's a real paucity of elaborate, impressive 'old fashioned'-style sets used in Hollywood filmmaking, the branch might at that point go for a film that does things a different way. I'm sure they'd collectively rather do that than nominate a bunch of lo-fi independents or foreign films from 'backward' industries.

[OscarGuy]

The actual title of the award is Art Direction. Set Decorators just happen to receive credit. Now, the rules are designed mainly for those films with set decorators, but it is not exclusive. However, I don't expect the Academy's Art Directors ever to honor mixed-media design (hence why something like 300 or Ratatouille would never make a nod). They are traditionalists and no matter how much the Production Designer is responsible for overall look of the film, they will not recognize someone who doesn't do it the old fashioned way...

here are the official rules in case you're curious.


RULE EIGHT
SPECIAL RULES FOR THE ART DIRECTION AWARD

1.

A Reminder List of all eligible pictures shall be sent with a nominations ballot to all members of the Academy Art Directors Branch, except costume designers, who shall vote in the order of their preference for not more than five productions.
2.

The five productions receiving the highest number of votes shall become the nominations for final voting for the Art Direction Award.
3.

Prior to the mailing of nominations ballots, a meeting of the Academy Art Directors Branch shall be held to rule on the eligibility of all productions for award consideration. Eligibility for this award shall be limited to the production designer and set decorator primarily responsible for the design of the production and the execution of that concept, as verified by the producer. Any submission requesting award eligibility for more than one set decorator or one production designer must be accompanied by a letter of justification submitted by the producer to the Academy no later than December 1, 2007. These extraordinary circumstances will be reviewed at a special meeting of the Art Directors Branch; however, in no case will more than one additional award be considered. An art director may only be considered eligible for this award when there is no production designer credited.
4.

Final voting for the Art Direction Award shall be restricted to active and life Academy members.

Set Decoration
5.

Recognition in the form of the Academy statuette shall be given for the set decoration of the production receiving an award for achievement in art direction.

[Damien]

It doesn't strike me as markedly different from honouring a voice-over artist in the performance categories.

Which has never been done. Not even for Celeste Hom for A Letter To Three Wives.

[rolotomasi99]

Why is it so stupid? The award is for production design (which was undoubtedly done) as much as set direction. It doesn't strike me as markedly different from honouring a voice-over artist in the performance categories.

that issue came up when linda blair was nominated for THE EXORCIST. mercedes mccambridge did the voice of the devil and felt she should have been nominated as well. definitely a tough call, but i would have to side with blair being the sole nominee...though mccambridge still deserved to be recognized.

[rolotomasi99]

I completely disagree with the theory that animated films should not be recognized for Art Direction. First of all, I'm not entirely sure why something must be "constructed" to be a set. The Oscar regardless is going to the Production Designer, NOT the Construction Coordinator or anyone who actually had a hand in building the sets.

sigh...

the oscar for cinematography goes to the director of photography, not the camera handler or film loader. the dp is the one that designs the cinematography -- the lighting, framing, angle, movement, etc. a dozen or more people will play a hand in executing the dp's design...but it actually has to be exectued for it to "count."
conrad hall was a brilliant dp not because he had great ideas, but because he was able to make his ideas work on screen. he would not deserve a single oscar nom if he just went on camera and showed storyboards for all the brilliant camera work he had designed for the movie. he deserves no accolades unless he gets the shot on film.

every set design begins with the designer drawing the set. he has to create an artistic depiction of what he will eventually build. he may not pick up a single hammer, but if his sets are not built they are just ideas with pretty drawings.

animation is something completely different. great animation should be admired for what it is, rather than praising it for something it is not.

[Zahveed]

i found this quote from a new york times article appropriate:


Speaking of ''Gangs of New York,'' Martin Scorsese's film will probably prove to be one of the last historical spectacles to be filmed entirely on built sets. Mr. Scorsese's art director, the brilliant Dante Ferretti, constructed the lower Manhattan of the 1850's in full scale on a back lot at the Cinecittà studios outside Rome. When George Lucas visited his old friend Mr. Scorsese on the set, he told him that he could have accomplished the same thing in the computers back at Skywalker Ranch for far less money than the millions that Mr. Scorsese spent -- and the technology certainly does exist. But when does the digital design of sets (very much on display in ''The Two Towers'') become a branch of animation, rather than art direction?

Mr. Lucas's runaway hit of last year, ''Star Wars: Episode II -- Attack of the Clones,'' received only one nomination -- for visual effects, where it joined two other fantasy films, ''The Two Towers'' and ''Spider-Man.'' While the futuristic cities imagined by Mr. Lucas may not have the pulsing vivacity of Mr. Scorsese's historical reconstruction, they are undoubtedly remarkable feats of imaginative architecture. So why are they ''visual effects'' rather than art direction? The answer, apparently, is because they explode once in a while.

I despise old Lucas' philosophy on filming. I just thought I'd mention that.

[Okri]

Why is it so stupid? The award is for production design (which was undoubtedly done) as much as set direction. It doesn't strike me as markedly different from honouring a voice-over artist in the performance categories.