(https://xixax.com/files/awards06/cine_t.jpg)(https://xixax.com/files/awards06/cine_p.jpg)
Best Cinematography: THE NEW WORLD (Emmanuel Lubezki)
THE NOMINEES
2046
Brokeback Mountain
Good Night, and Good Luck
Munich
The New World
While The New World looks great, really, it's an awesome looking UGLY film. That's why I didn't vote for it. I figured something where the DP really had to push his technical skills and the artistic at the same time was more deserving.
Huh?
Look at movies like Days of Heaven and A River Runs Through It. Both won the oscar for cinematography. Both relied on natural lighting. But both were filmed mainly in magic hour. While The New World was filmed during high-noon and really the light is unflattering to the actors. It's not what you'd normally expect someone to due. I think the results totally fit the movie. But in my opinion the work of Janusz Kaminski was the best display of cinematography this past year. Not only does Munich look great but he practiced multiple techniques to give the movie the life and spirit of the 70's.
I'm not trying to diminish the great work Lubezki did on The New World or anything.
Quote from: killafilm on April 18, 2006, 03:33:58 PM
Not only does Munich look great but he practiced multiple techniques to give the movie the life and spirit of the 70's.
not only does The New World look AMAZING but Lubezki photographed the natural world with such an immense understanding of its profundity, the arrival in the "civlized world" with so much awe, fear, and wonder, really i think his work transcends your pithy standards of "lighthing" and being "unflattering to the actors." who cares that those two movies won best oscar for cinematography? what's that got do with anything.
fuck yes, this was by far the most astonishing cinematography of the year. good goin' xixax. :yabbse-smiley:
yeah i dont think there wasnt any awe fear or wonder on the set that day, so he's pretty much just the lighting guy.
I havent seen The New World (God damn you May release!) so my vote went to Munich for cinematography. It was the major aspect of the film i couldn't stop thinking about.
Quote from: modage on April 18, 2006, 10:07:25 PM
yeah i dont think there wasnt any awe fear or wonder on the set that day, so he's pretty much just the lighting guy.
yeah i dont think you know anything about cinematography or composition. bitch.
Quote from: Hedwig on April 18, 2006, 10:53:55 PM
Quote from: modage on April 18, 2006, 10:07:25 PM
yeah i dont think there wasnt any awe fear or wonder on the set that day, so he's pretty much just the lighting guy.
yeah i dont think you know anything about cinematography or composition. bitch.
Nor do I of you.
Quote from: killafilm on April 18, 2006, 03:33:58 PM
Look at movies like Days of Heaven and A River Runs Through It. Both won the oscar for cinematography. Both relied on natural lighting. But both were filmed mainly in magic hour. While The New World was filmed during high-noon and really the light is unflattering to the actors. It's not what you'd normally expect someone to due. I think the results totally fit the movie. But in my opinion the work of Janusz Kaminski was the best display of cinematography this past year. Not only does Munich look great but he practiced multiple techniques to give the movie the life and spirit of the 70's.
I'm not trying to diminish the great work Lubezki did on The New World or anything.
say that to lubezki when you're rich and famous and see him laugh at you so hard that broccollis fly out of his mouth.
"A lot of people associate Terry with the look of Days of Heaven, and those fans may be disappointed [by The New World]. I hope they don't blame me, but we chose not to shoot with pretty light."
- Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki
I don't think I ever said I didn't like the photography in The New World. But, I think it says something that it wasn't even one of the ASC's nominees. All of the Xixax nominees were top notch.
your lubezki quote doesn't prove anything. he's not knocking The New World, he's just saying that idiots like you who think Malick's films should all have the same look as Days of Heaven should understand that they filmed this movie under a totally different set of circumstances, since they "chose not to shoot with pretty light." i don't think it says anything that it wasn't one of the ASC's nominees or that it didn't win the oscar or whatever, who cares if other award ceremonies acknowledge it? if you really think lighting is the only significant factor in determining the "look" of a film, then i dont think you know anything about cinematography or composition.
Quote from: Hedwig on April 19, 2006, 01:50:42 PM
your lubezki quote doesn't prove anything. he's not knocking The New World, he's just saying that idiots like you who think Malick's films should all have the same look as Days of Heaven should understand that they filmed this movie under a totally different set of circumstances, since they "chose not to shoot with pretty light." i don't think it says anything that it wasn't one of the ASC's nominees or that it didn't win the oscar or whatever, who cares if other award ceremonies acknowledge it? if you really think lighting is the only significant factor in determining the "look" of a film, then i dont think you know anything about cinematography or composition.
Now you're just being a BITCH.
Did I ever say it should have been filmed like Days of Heaven?
-NO
Did I say the way they filmed it totally fit the movie?
-Yes
The fact that it wasn't nominated by the ASC does matter. Cinematography is a technical craft. When the ASC nominates someone it's a remark on their abilities to use photographic techniques to reach an artistic expression (but note that Munich wasn't nominated either, so umm...). To that extent I'll once again say that it's in MY OPINION that Munich is the better picture. And not just through 'lighting' but through composition, the use of the zoom, mixed color temps, silver retention, different color schemes all to service the STORY.
Quote from: killafilm on April 19, 2006, 06:01:14 PM
Did I ever say it should have been filmed like Days of Heaven?
-NO
wow so you're admitting that saying Days of Heaven was lit naturally, filmed in magic hour, and awarded an oscar added nothing to your argument. so pointless.
Quote from: killafilm on April 19, 2006, 06:01:14 PM
The fact that it wasn't nominated by the ASC does matter. Cinematography is a technical craft. When the ASC nominates someone it's a remark on their abilities to use photographic techniques to reach an artistic expression (but note that Munich wasn't nominated either, so umm...).
i know what the ASC's criteria are for nominations, killadouche, thanks for educatin' me. tell me why i have to keep repeating myself here: you continually cite award recognition as if its a sign of validation for a filmmaker. who gives a fuck if an artist is nominated for an award, why should the consensus of a bunch of idiot voters lend any credence to your argument or undermine an opposing viewpoint? how naive can you be to believe that the voters nominate films based solely on quality and artistic merit? oh geeeez, ya know, scorsese's not that good cause he's never won an academy award. sure.
your points make no sense, from "it's an awesome looking UGLY film" to this ridiculous nonsense.
You're an angry man, Hedwig.
what is cinematography really?
not to increase the animosity on this here thread or anything, but killafilm's interpretation of the luzbeski quote and his subsequent definition of cinematography are both very superficial. to think that an entire film can be filmmed in high noon light which meant ugly light which meant ugly actors, or
Quote"The fact that it wasn't nominated by the ASC does matter. Cinematography is a technical craft. When the ASC nominates someone it's a remark on their abilities to use photographic techniques to reach an artistic expression (but note that Munich wasn't nominated either, so umm...). To that extent I'll once again say that it's in MY OPINION that Munich is the better picture. And not just through 'lighting' but through composition, the use of the zoom, mixed color temps, silver retention, different color schemes all to service the STORY."
which is like a lot of words for a very inarticulate stab at cinematography--by first inserting some kinda awards-ceremony-esque speech and then secondly telling us the most basic and superficial elements of what he thinks cinematography is comprised of. these are like film buff words.
Quote from: pete on April 20, 2006, 12:05:39 AM
these are like film buff words.
A lot of insults have been thrown around, but you just dropped the big one.
i havent' seen The New World, but when I read the american cinematographer article about it I was waaay more excited about Lubeszki's work than, for example, Rodrigo Prieto's in Brokeback Mountain...
Judging cinematography can be very subjective, techical stuff is not always the primary concern. I agree that Munich has a superb cinematography, but if I had to choose a film in which I personally enjoyed the screen experience due to cinematography last year, I guess that would be Pride & Prejudice, and no one has said anything aobut it on this thread or the movie received any kind of recognition for it...but for me it was trully wonderful to look at...
The ASC is a respectable group, but they are also kind of political too, they have their own sacred cows and all. They have honored Lubesxki before, and maybe this time they wanted to honor someone else....
I'm happy with xixax honoring the new world...
I had to step back and think this over for awhile.
I think (hopefully) that this will explain where I'm coming from. I worked on a project with Jack N. Green's son (so there is some bias here), and we were just talking about his dads career and some of the high points. Obviously Unforgiven is a great great film, but I don't think I'd ever really thought about the cinematography. And when we got to this film he mad a quip about it not getting the oscar. His personal complaint (not his dads) was that the winning film was shot mainly in natural light in gorgeous exteriors. While most of Unforgiven was filmed at night in period, thus having to replicate oil lanterns of the times. Which is not an easy task, and it's in my opinion Green took the high road and made it quite natural. So maybe that's coming more from a filmmakers perspective rather a critics.
And I find it kinda funny that I was getting attacked, when I did indeed list The New World as my favorite movie of the year.
Pete, just wondering, have you ever worked on a film? One that was shot on film?
Sorry, I don't mean to continue the attack here, but do you have your own opinion of this at all? You keep quoting others and their opinions to back your point.
Also, your friend's reason was dumb. "It should win an Oscar because it wasn't natural light and that's like, way harder to do".
I didn't say friend.
yes I've shot things on film, not with jack green's son though. I read the American Cinematographer just like you do, but I don't really care about what the cinematographers say about the quality of their lights I just watch whatever is onscreen. I do not have a "good light bad light dichotomy" not even when I shot those projects back in my school days. as you grow old, if you don't become an idiot or a snob, you'll realize that cinematography is way than the sum of lighting and composition and lens. the way you gladly list what you consider cinematography should be, a list that most cinematographers with soul will tell you should not dictate what is good or bad cinematography, shows that you've still got a lot to soak up in your pursuit for good filmmaking.
This is the dullest throwdown ever.