Jump to content


Photo

Oscar Nominations


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:11 PM

http://oscar.go.com/...s?fullsite=true


  • 0

#2 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 16 January 2014 - 02:19 PM

More specifically, the films nominated for Best Cinematography

The Grandmaster
Philippe Le Sourd

Gravity
Emmanuel Lubezki

Inside Llewyn Davis
Bruno Delbonnel

Nebraska
Phedon Papamichael

Prisoners
Roger A. Deakins


  • 0

#3 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:28 PM

I just want to see The Hunt win for Best Foreign Language film.  That's filmmaking that Ingmar Bergman would be pleased with if he were still alive today.


  • 0

#4 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:51 PM

I'm not sure about Foreign Film, but I'm betting Gravity sweeps the Oscars, wins both Best Picture, Director and Sandra Bullock wins Best Actress. I'm also certain it will win for cinematography and special effects as well.


Edited by James Steven Beverly, 16 January 2014 - 03:53 PM.

  • 0

#5 Young Pizzy

Young Pizzy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lagos, Nigeria

Posted 16 January 2014 - 04:55 PM

For me, I love Roger's work on Prisoners, so I would love to see it Win :)
  • 0

#6 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 16 January 2014 - 05:06 PM

 

I suspect it will be Gravity or Nebraska but I'm rooting for The Grandmaster.

The academy are always disappointing though.

 

Freya


Edited by Freya Black, 16 January 2014 - 05:07 PM.

  • 0

#7 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 16 January 2014 - 10:27 PM

Apparently ALL the nominated pictures have alternate titles:

 

http://www.collegehu...ominated-movies


  • 0

#8 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 17 January 2014 - 03:58 PM

Saw American Hustle last night and I don't understand why it garnered so many Golden Globe Awards & Oscar Nominations.  Interesting cinematography but nothing truly memorable.  Acting was by no means Oscar-worthy and the story structure was all over the place.  I'm all for non-traditional structure, but sometimes you have to stick with what works - a three act narrative.  The best part of the film was, naturally, the scene with De Niro.  Otherwise, a mediocre film at best.


  • 0

#9 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 January 2014 - 05:50 PM

I agree a very over rated film , very surprised with all its nominations .
  • 0

#10 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 17 January 2014 - 05:54 PM

 Interesting cinematography but nothing truly memorable. 

 

What struck me about American Hustle's cinematography was that it seemed almost the whole movie was operated on a Steadicam. There were very few static or dolly shots. 


  • 0

#11 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:15 PM

That's been something of a trend for a while, now and I'm still waiting for filmmakers to remember that there are these things called tripods.  This constant "floating-camera" feeling just isn't appropriate for every single shot in a film. 

 

But that's something of a reflection of today's society - everyone & everything has to be in constant motion.


  • 0

#12 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 17 January 2014 - 06:21 PM

The Steadicam, combined with nonrestrictive lighting, might have been a creative decision allowing the actors and camera operator more freedom during the performance.


  • 1

#13 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:09 PM

Possibly, but that's similar to what Michael Douglas said on Inside the Actor's Studio regarding Steven Soderbergh's directorial approach: that he uses a long lens to allow the actors more freedom to perform.  That's fine if that's what you want to do, but I don't believe the director should sacrifice the visual image in favor of the performance.  Part of being an actor is being able to perform under all sorts of conditions.  Film is not a pseudo-stage play. 

 

The performance vs. camera thinking also really doesn't fly when you have a director like Scorsese, who has arguably moved the camera more dynamically than any other director working today, and still managed to pull some of the best performances out of his actors. 

 

My point is that you can use all the on-set techniques you want.  At the end of the day, you either have a talented cast & crew or you don't.


  • 0

#14 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 17 January 2014 - 11:00 PM

You wanna talk about talent? THIS is talent!:

 


  • 0

#15 Michael LaVoie

Michael LaVoie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 January 2014 - 09:32 AM

 

What struck me about American Hustle's cinematography was that it seemed almost the whole movie was operated on a Steadicam. There were very few static or dolly shots. 

He did that on his last two films The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook.  Not a fan of it. Or the rapid fire editing.   It feels like you're watching the movie at 2x the normal speed. As though we'd all be bored if he slowed it down to a normal pace. It's good for a director to show some restraint when it comes to moving the camera and spinning around actors who are doing nothing more than having casual dialogue with one another.   His first film Spanking the Monkey was a really great little indie that showed the performances off really well through simple modest means.


  • 0

#16 Gregory Irwin

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

Posted 27 January 2014 - 09:46 AM

What struck me about American Hustle's cinematography was that it seemed almost the whole movie was operated on a Steadicam. There were very few static or dolly shots.


It was ALL steadicam. There was only one or two shots that the camera sat on a sand bag inside the front and back seat of a car. That was it!

G
  • 0


Glidecam

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Technodolly

Tai Audio

The Slider

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Opal

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks