Posted 25 January 2011 - 01:10 PM
Posted 26 January 2011 - 03:57 AM
But still interesting nominees, The Social Network's there this year as well, there's been digital at the Oscars quite a bit lately. But I would be pleased if Roger Deakin's finally got an Oscar because he's work has been so consistently fantastic.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 06:53 AM
I thought "Shutter Island" was the best cinematography of 2010 - not very innovative, but beautifully crafted. But who cares? Not eve nominated...
So I think Roger Deakins will win, although I think we've seen better work from him (beautifully shot Western: Jesse James).
"Social Network" Seriously? After 10min in the theater I regretted not having waited for the blu-ray to rent - viually most underwhelming movie of Fincher ever. Very-well written film, but not well crafted, partly due to technical limitations, IMHO.
"Black Swan" is the best film of 2010, IMHO - see it! Visually very "involving" but not very well lit in every scene, IMHO. Again, lack of "depth" due to limiting technology. By the way, Super16-shot "Hurt Locker" was also nominated for best cinematography. The Academy doesn't care a bit about technology. But if you want HDSLR-footage, you might be disappointed. Only 3 scenes in it with about 1min screentime.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 12:56 PM
"Social Network" Seriously?
It should definitely win for "Most Annoying Ad Campaign". I'm almost reluctant to pop in the screener, the freakin' ads are inescapable.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 02:05 PM
Roger Deakin's is sorely overdue, but "True Grit" was not his best work (the green-screened midnight ride climax was painful to watch), and I want him to win for an undeniable masterpiece, something on par with his double nominated work back in '07. If he wins, it won't be because his work was the best, but because he's overdue, and I just KNOW he's got another masterwork in him. At least.
Regarding "Black Swan," I felt many of the stylistic choices made were the wrong ones. The lighting was not what I thought was right for the film, and the inconsistent grain structure from shot to shot (sharp one minute, a swarm of gnats the next) was distracting. And I just. really. **(obscenity removed)**. hate. shaky-cam.
I was struck by "The King's Speech," and in this case that's not a good thing. The odd compositions (wallpaper anyone?) and the almost fisheye wide angle lenses drew attention to themselves, but I'm mot sure they served the story. It felt like he was trying too hard.
"The Social Network" felt utterly conventional to me. As I wrote in a different thread, I'm really getting burned out on the whole trend of lighting every night scene piss yellow. It just feels derivative of Pfister's work, and I'd rather give an Oscar to the guy who sat on the forefront of this style, rather than someone who just rode his coattails and appropriated it without adding anything new.
Which brings me to Wally Pfister and "Inception." I admit I was mixed on his work when I first saw the film, feeling that he could've done more to explore the lighting possibilities of each of the multilayered dreams. I think he could've flexed his muscles a bit more. However, he did do a good job of making coherent what was a very complex story structure, and I just love the guy to death for keeping 65mm alive (albeit on life support).
So my vote would be for Wally Pfister, and I think Inception will clean up in the technical categories year.
Posted 26 January 2011 - 07:33 PM