Jump to content



Photo

Oscar nominations 2016

Oscar Academy Award

  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#21 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2453 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 15 January 2016 - 05:56 AM

Yes Im sure thats the case..  but what I find unbelievable .. is that the DIT is being put in total control of the A camera.. in effect openly being the DOP of the film.. while the actual DOP of some repute .. is demoted to C cam operator with no further creative input.. thats what Tyler claimed no..? 


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 15 January 2016 - 05:59 AM.

  • 0

#22 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2832 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 15 January 2016 - 06:13 AM

I'm watching the film right now. That's not quite right. The DIT was advising John Seale to downrate the cameras  so he abandoned his meters for a while and let the DIT man call the stops. However most of the time he went back to his meters.... particularly when the DIT man was out of range.


  • 0

#23 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 394 posts
  • Director

Posted 15 January 2016 - 07:53 AM

That's exactly what Seale said in that 1h + interview he gave. That's it.


  • 0

#24 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1213 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 15 January 2016 - 08:32 AM

 

What is this award for, you would say? Is it awarded for breaking new ground, for the most stunning film visually, or something else?

 

 

I think 'Best Cinematography' is defined by how effectively the imagery tells the story, and impresses the mood and tone of the piece on to the audience. And also by the style and beauty with which it does so. If a film's cinematography also manages to break new ground technically or creatively at the same time - then I suppose that adds some additional brownie points too.


  • 1

#25 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 394 posts
  • Director

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:26 PM

Bob Richardson did say on the Hollywood Reporters roundtable that there should be separate category for CG heavy movies like Life Of Pi, or Gravity, he specifically talked about Gravity but those movies that are like 90 % CG (even moreso for Gravity), what part of it is the VFX artists' work, and which part is the DP's?


Edited by Manu Delpech, 15 January 2016 - 12:27 PM.

  • 1

#26 Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Student
  • Athens

Posted 15 January 2016 - 12:28 PM

I want to know that, too.


  • 0

#27 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4304 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2016 - 02:24 PM

I'm watching the film right now. That's not quite right. The DIT was advising John Seale to downrate the cameras  so he abandoned his meters for a while and let the DIT man call the stops. However most of the time he went back to his meters.... particularly when the DIT man was out of range.


He abandoned even being involved with the A camera.
  • 0

#28 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4304 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2016 - 02:40 PM

So I don't buy this whole revisionist story you've concocted of Seale basically getting demoted under his DIT and not being responsible for the photography. He probably didn't have as much control over the look of this film as he did on 'Dead Poet's Society' or 'Rain Man' or 'Witness' or 'The Talented Mr. Ripley.' But if you think the DP who shot all those movies is a push-over, well then I think you're just wrong.


My whole point is that he wasn't really the DP of the film, Miller was and he used the DIT/VFX guys to make that film happen. Seale was put on the back burner, relegated to running a C camera. If you can't see that through Seale's body language and how unexcited he was about talking about the film. I saw his frustration throughout the entire interview. There are also more interviews I've read in ICG and AC which were interesting side notes that backup what he said.
  • 0

#29 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4304 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 January 2016 - 02:42 PM

Having spoken to a few quite prominent DPs in the last year, I've heard, entirely off the record, some staggeringly anti-digital bias, some real foul-mouthed rants, and no, they weren't kidding around. So, I wouldn't write it off as joking, no matter who it's coming from. The level of bad-tempered curmudgeonliness was huge, and that's me saying that.


Funny you say that, I've heard similar things.
  • 0

#30 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 875 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 15 January 2016 - 02:42 PM

Just to say something regarding DITS and their relationship with DOPs. 

 

Most of the movies / tv series / commercials I have worked on which have been shot on digital and have had a proper DIT (and there are quite a few now), the DIT makes a lot of suggestions about exposure, especially if the DOP have not shot anything on digital beforehand. 

 

In the ones which were technically and photography difficult the DOP is usually inside a tent with the DIT and didn't get to touch a camera at all so I'm pretty sure that John Seale was very happy when he got the chance to grab the C cam in all that madness of cameras, fx and people! 

 

What is more, the ones which were technically and photography difficult shot on 35mm and 16mm (quite a lot too) with plenty of cameras, the DOP was inside a tent too, taking a look at all the cameras and controlling the frames and the photography through a walkie-talkie.  

 

Have a lovely day!


  • 0

#31 John Sherman

John Sherman

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 January 2016 - 06:58 PM

My whole point is that he wasn't really the DP of the film, Miller was and he used the DIT/VFX guys to make that film happen. Seale was put on the back burner, relegated to running a C camera. If you can't see that through Seale's body language and how unexcited he was about talking about the film. I saw his frustration throughout the entire interview. There are also more interviews I've read in ICG and AC which were interesting side notes that backup what he said.


My copy of AC's Fury Road article is sitting on my desk, and it doesn't back up a single assertion you have made.
  • 0

#32 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1431 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 15 January 2016 - 09:27 PM

I found Fury Road was complete rubbish. The cinematography was okay. But nothing particularly special about it I thought. It draws on the great angles done back in the day of the original Mad Max, when the films were made on the smell of an oily rag, and the great camera angles were not in need of anything else for inspiration.

 

Transposed to a big budget framework it just looks tired and derivative. Tarrantino did a much better job of quoting exploitation cinema with Death Wish. Don't worry about a cast of thousands factor. Or catwalk models in the desert. Don't worry about arty compositions. Just put a tough girl on the bonnet of a speeding car, and make sure the camera sees there's no way she's not in complete and utter danger, and you'll have nailed it.

 

C


Edited by Carl Looper, 15 January 2016 - 09:36 PM.

  • 1

#33 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2053 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 15 January 2016 - 09:28 PM

Let's be a little pragmatic here and break it down.

 

1. Revenant is for me certainly a tour de force that should be awarded, without doubt. It's groundbreaking in many ways. But. Lubezki won two years in a row, Academy is not going to go for a third win right now is my guess.

 

2. Richardson won't win, because it's a theatre piece and he's done it too traditional for today's trends.

 

3. Carol could win just because it's a film right up the Academy's street. I haven't seen it yet, but Lachman is always solid.

 

4. Sicario - yes, Deakins has never won, so he's got good goodwill. But the films subject matter and the fact it's just not a traditional Academy film will preclude this, I think.

 

5. Mad Max. Again, not an Academy film, but sometimes they award leftfield stuff and especially if they feel it might be the last works of that individual. Seale is retired, so they might sway that way as a farewell.

 

I think Carol or Mad Max are the contenders.


  • 0

#34 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 628 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 15 January 2016 - 11:37 PM

Ok. I've been following this thread and I must say, having worked for John Seale in the past, none of Tyler's observations made sense to me. So, I just went straight to a prominent member of his crew who was on FURY ROAD and who also works with me quite often. She says that there is absolutely no basis to these rumors. Once John took over the show from Dean, John was fully leading the ship till the movie was timed and picture locked. There you have it.

G
  • 0

#35 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4304 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 January 2016 - 12:21 AM

Well, I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. I merely stated, I don't feel Mad Max Fury Road deserves a nomination for cinematography because Seale's hands were tied behind his back because the director, VFX crew and DIT. It appeared to me, reading about and listening to him talk, that he was relegated to C camera (kind of a joke) because there was nothing else to do for him but look at a monitor.

In my mind, a cinematographers job is more then staring at a monitor, even if you have a well lubricated crew.

Thank god guys like Lachman, Richardson, and Deakins STILL have their eye in the A camera viewfinder, where it belongs. That's where Seale wanted to be for the entire shoot, but clearly was UNABLE to. That to me is the travesty... a WONDERFUL artist relegated to C camera.
  • -1

#36 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5521 posts
  • Director

Posted 16 January 2016 - 12:37 AM

Sadly the Oscars are a farce no matter who wins.  There is intense wining and dining of the Academy voters by the various producers involved, and everyone knows it goes on.  Why it's not banned, I have no idea.  

 

Second, the Oscars have become a political platform for stars to make speeches about their various BS causes, instead of being a celebration of the artistic and technical achievements in film.

 

Third, the whole show is being overshadowed by America's social problems, as many loud voices feel "everyone" needs to be nominated and win.  Seriously, how much longer will we have to listen to.....it's not fair that another white male won another Oscar.

 

R,


  • 0

#37 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 628 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 16 January 2016 - 12:44 AM

Sadly the Oscars are a farce no matter who wins.  There is intense wining and dining of the Academy voters by the various producers involved, and everyone knows it goes on.  Why it's not banned, I have no idea.  
 
Second, the Oscars have become a political platform for stars to make speeches about their various BS causes, instead of being a celebration of the artistic and technical achievements in film.
 
Third, the whole show is being overshadowed by America's social problems, as many loud voices feel "everyone" needs to be nominated and win.  Seriously, how much longer will we have to listen to.....it's not fair that another white male won another Oscar.
 
R,


Richard, you are not going to believe this but I'm in total agreement with you. I know a producer who gives the ballot to his kid to vote! Pathetic.

G
  • 0

#38 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5521 posts
  • Director

Posted 16 January 2016 - 12:45 AM

Richard, you are not going to believe this but I'm in total agreement with you. I know a producer who gives the ballot to his kid to vote! Pathetic.

G

 

We agree?  Holy *bleep*.

 

This from the Washington Post:

"Oscar-specific marketing campaigns can run the gamut from a few million to tens of millions of dollars, with the promotional budget often outstripping the amount of money it took to make the film (and whittling away whatever earnings it might accrue from an Oscar win), exchanging profit for prestige."

 

R,


  • 0

#39 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5521 posts
  • Director

Posted 16 January 2016 - 12:51 AM

Interestingly enough, Best Cinematography, remains the only category that not one woman has been nominated in, ever.  And they've been handing out these things since 1928.

 

R,


  • 0

#40 Gregory Irwin

Gregory Irwin
  • Sustaining Members
  • 628 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Work is based in Los Angeles but I live elsewhere.

Posted 16 January 2016 - 12:53 AM

Well, I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. I merely stated, I don't feel Mad Max Fury Road deserves a nomination for cinematography because Seale's hands were tied behind his back because the director, VFX crew and DIT. It appeared to me, reading about and listening to him talk, that he was relegated to C camera (kind of a joke) because there was nothing else to do for him but look at a monitor.In my mind, a cinematographers job is more then staring at a monitor, even if you have a well lubricated crew.Thank god guys like Lachman, Richardson, and Deakins STILL have their eye in the A camera viewfinder, where it belongs. That's where Seale wanted to be for the entire shoot, but clearly was UNABLE to. That to me is the travesty... a WONDERFUL artist relegated to C camera.


Apparently, there is no evidence of what you claim Tyler. I sent your opinion to John's crew in Australia and they immediately replied back that there was no such situation. As for John operating the C cam, he enjoys operating when he's able to. But on a movie of that size and complication, he needs to be the leader with an eye on the big picture. He's correct by employing professional camera operators to deal with the minutia. The job is too big to try and do it all. That's why there are operators in the first place.

G
  • 1



New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab