By SaltyStix Staff 2/22/2008

Our eighth roundtable discussion will be about the best cinematography. Just as before, don't hesitate to jump into the fray with your own thoughts by commenting at the bottom.

Brett: And the nominees are...Roger Deakins - THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD, Seamus McGarvey - ATONEMENT, Janusz Kaminski - THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, Roger Deakins - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, Robert Elswit - THERE WILL BE BLOOD

AJ: From what I've seen, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly has amazing cinematography. I don't know how much of it (or any of it) was done with computers or if it was all camera tricks. The cinematography was great in No Country and Blood, but it was too similar. I assume Jesse James has the same vast, sweeping landscapes that the other two have as well.
My money's on Diving Bell.

Bob: Personally, I love films that use the vast sweeping landscapes, and that combine that with a lack of dialouge to give the feeling that the characters are really in a place of solitude. Yes, the cinematography in No Country and Blood was similar, but I can't see No Country for Old Men not winning this category.
I think it will just come down to the fact that critics and viewers everywhere have been praising this movie. It probably is the most honored film of the year, and I think when in doubt awards are given to the film that has been honored the most.
I don't really know much about The Diving Bell cinematography, but I have to think that No Country has an edge in this category just because of its prominence across the board.

Aaron: I'm going to have to agree with AJ here. The similarity of the landscapes and even the sweeping camera views of those three movies really open it up for movie like Bell and even Atonement to creep in because they are different. Not only in what they look like, but also the camera work. Atonement also has a lot of close camerawork that sets it apart.

Brett: Diving Bell, There Will Be Blood, and Atonement all have a legitamite shot here. Period pieces have the best shot at winning, favorting Atonement and TWWB, but Diving Bell has the veteran at the helm (Kaminski has 2 wins in his last 3 nods). Does it hurt or help Roger Deakins that he has 2 nominations this year?

Aaron: Two really good point I totally missed. I think Kamiski - who has made some GREAT movies has a serious shot, even though he has already won twice. And Roger Deakins will probably not win - people nominated for two movies almost never win for either one. Can anyone name an actor/director who won two awards for the same role/movie?

Bob: In 2000, Stephen Soderbergh was nominated for Best Director for both Traffic and Erin Brockovich, and he won for Traffic. That is the only one I know of off hand, but I'm sure there is another instance.
With that said, I think Deakins has a chance if it is a windfall for one of the two films (most likely No Country), but if there isn't strong support for one of those two films overall, it does really open it up to anybody.
I think I am really biased in this category because I just love films that use the wide open scenic cinematography. It was my favorite thing in Brokeback Mountain, and I also thought it was the only effective thing in Babel.

Brett: I agree with what you said Bob, but I think that the award will go to Kaminski. His resume is probably more than enough to win this award. That, and No Country, TWBB, and Jesse James all had similar cinematography.
I also love that wide open scenic work, mainly because I like landscapes and scenery in film. However, I feel like it is a pretty basic thing to do. There is little that needs to be adjusted on those types of shots. Is that accurate?

AJ: I agree with what Aaron and Brett said earlier. It's pretty hard to compare the cinematography of three films that use wide open expanses. What I respect about TWBB is specifically the scene where the oil well goes up in flames. As I said in another thread, you only get one chance to do something like that (unless you have a crazy huge budget) and there is a ton of coordination that goes into something like that. I don't know if you credit the cinematographer or the director for that, but it was pretty amazing.

Still, my money is on Diving Bell

Brett: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Bob: No Country for Old Men

Aaron: Atonement

SaltyStix Roundtable 1: The Academy's Mistakes

SaltyStix Roundtable 2: Best Animated Feature

SaltyStix Roundtable 3: Best Adapted Screenplay

SaltyStix Roundtable 4: Best Original Screenplay

SaltyStix Roundtable 5: Best Visual Effects

SaltyStix Roundtable 6: Best Art Direction

SaltyStix Roundtable 7: Best Editing

SaltyStix Roundtable 8: Best Costume Design

SaltyStix Roundtable 9: Best Cinematography

SaltyStix Roundtable 10: Best Actor

SaltyStix Roundtable 11: Best Actress

SaltyStix Roundtable 12: Best Supporting Actor

SaltyStix Roundtable 13: Best Supporting Actress

SaltyStix Roundtable 14: Best Director

SaltyStix Roundtable 15: Best Picture

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.