Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Best Videography Oscar

This is topic Best Videography Oscar in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005723

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 02-22-2009, 09:10 PM:

I know the academy awards are stupid & meaningless, but man was I disappointed Wally Pfister didn't win.

Question - is this the first time the so-called "cinematography" oscar went to a movie shot on home video?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-22-2009, 09:12 PM:

Many cinematographers find shooting video to be more challenging than film. Less latitude, you know.

--jhawk

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2009, 09:19 PM:

I'm pretty disappointed Wally Pfister wasn't picked for his work on The Dark Knight. I don't think the image quality of Slumdog Millionaire was very good at all. If a "digital" based movie deserved the award, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button would have been a more deserving choice.

Isn't this one of those categories in which only people working in that field are allowed to vote? I really have to wonder about that.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 02-22-2009, 09:22 PM:

The Oscar's are such a joke they score a negative 100 on my Give-A-Shit meter. [Big Grin]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-22-2009, 09:42 PM:

The only nominated movie I've seen is Dark Knight and I still know for certain Wally Pfister got screwed on this. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 02-22-2009, 10:04 PM:

...called politics...as most of the awards seems to fall into these past few years..

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2009, 10:10 PM:

Slumdog Millionaire is obviously the favorite of Oscar voters regardless of whether it's really worthy of certain awards it is picking up.

I don't agree with Slumdog Millionaire winning the Best Film Editing Oscar. I think this is another one The Dark Knight should have won.

Wall•E got robbed on the Sound Mixing and Sound Editing Oscars. I can understand The Dark Knight taking the Sound Editing award. Slumdog Millionaire seemed to grab the Sound Mixing award as a gimmie to inflate its total trophy haul on the way to the Best Picture award. There's little doubt of it taking that award at this point in the awards show.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-22-2009, 11:21 PM:

I didn't know that Dennis Hopper directed Slumdog Millionaire. Didn't he win an oscar before, but as an actor in something? Maybe Speed?

I bet some of the older Film-Tech members think Sophia Lauren looks good. You people are crazy. I thought she looked like a zombie and was surprised that pieces didn't start falling off of her. We laughed and laughed at her. She is funny to laugh at because she looks so disgusting. She deserves to be laughed at, I think.

What was up with Queen Shaniqua singing during the "Who died" tribute? I had to mute it. I also muted all of Hugh Jack Man's song and dance numbers because, well, I'm a guy!

The show is still too long. They need to get rid of the useless stuff that nobody cares about like Best Song, Best Short Film, Best Documentary, Best Foreign Film, Best Animated Short Film, Best Use of a Penis Pump, etc etc etc.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2009, 11:43 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
What was up with Queen Shaniqua singing during the "Who died" tribute? I had to mute it.

One positive thing about that segment: the on screen titles for the dead showed an appropriate use of Trajan. It does work well for tombstones.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 02-22-2009, 11:44 PM:

Rourke got robbed, but what are you going to do. Play a special needs person or a gay person and you got yourself an Oscar....BS!!!!!!

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 02-22-2009, 11:53 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Isn't this one of those categories in which only people working in that field are allowed to vote? I really have to wonder about that.

I think the nominees are chosen that way, but the voting for the award is open to everyone who are members.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-23-2009, 05:15 AM:

Setting aside any feelings about winners and losers, I think it was one of the best Oscar shows I've ever seen. The way the presented the acting awards was brilliant and made it all seem so much more personal.

I disagree about Queen Latifah singing during the In Memoriam. I felt it gave the moment an extra feeling of gravitas.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-23-2009, 09:04 AM:

Anslem is correct, all active and life academy members vote for Best Cinematography. See Rule 9.

I think the only exceptional awards not voted on by "everyone" are the Documentary Feature and Documentary Short (voters must have seen them theatrically, or be on the nominating committee), the Foreign Film (voters must have seen all 5 nominees theatrically), and Animated Short and Live Action Short (voters must attend official Academy screenings, or be on the nominating committee).

Many, if not most, of the awards have much more selective nominations processes.

--jhawk

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-23-2009, 09:09 AM:

Most DP's that I've worked with over the years not only couldn't shoot on video but they also couldn't shoot 65mm or VistaVision for many reasons more often relating to the level of Prima Donnaness they live in.

Mark

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 02-23-2009, 09:29 AM:

quote: John Hawkinson
Many cinematographers find shooting video to be more challenging than film. Less latitude, you know.

I bet. That would be like trying to use a keyboard with half the keys.

I haven't seen Slumdog... I don't quite see the point of watching it in the theatre. I'll wait and check it out on video.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-23-2009, 09:33 AM:

For the 81st year in a row, the worst Oscars ever!

Whoever put together the Best of the Dead tribute should be shot. You could barely make out half of them floating around at different angles being hit by bad zooms.

While shooting people, the designer who thought screen panels were a good idea. Watching clips with a seam line through the middle of actors faces. Lovely. They could have at least cut to an insert for the people at home,

And the reflective surface floor mirroring the screen was just gawdawful.

Really terrible set design all around. Almost as bad a Jessica Biel's dress!

As for who wins, who remembers a week from now? In most catagories, you can win with 21% of the vote, so who cares? It really doesn't mean anything. It's all about watching the wretched excess, baby [thumbsup]

edited to correct ugly dress wearer's name

[ 02-23-2009, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Martin McCaffery ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2009, 10:04 AM:

To be fair, Slumdog Millionaire won the motion pictures award at the 2009 American Society of Cinematographers Awards on Feb. 15. The Dark Knight director, Christopher Nolan earned the ASC Board of Governors Award.

I still don't agree with Slumdog Millionaire winning the Best Cinematography Oscar. It's winning over political popularity rather than actual technical/artistic quality. Other movies did the "digital film" thing much better. Slumdog Millionaire may not look as murky and drab as Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, but it still looks a lot like video merely vomited onto a film strip. The imagery could have looked better if the video had been treated better in post production. The movie certainly would have looked better if it had been shot on film and treated in digital intermediate.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-23-2009, 10:49 AM:

As for the Memorium segment...the empty spotlight was a very nice touch at the end.

As for the awards...I know that Slumdog should NOT have won for Cinematography...it isn't that it wasn't the best...it was actually quite bad. So bad, in fact, it bothered me during the movie. For it to win, shows what a joke the award was.

Slumdog also has no business being a "Best Picture." It was okay as a story and poor technically. The actors were fine though....again not a "best picture."

Steve

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 02-23-2009, 01:32 PM:

Slumdawg was the Academy's little baby this year. What we need is an entirely fan-voted legitimate award show so the "big" movies get some credit and not the little POS films that run SR only and look like crap.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2009, 01:47 PM:

The problem with doing a fan-voted popularity contest kind of awards show is too many idiots who really don't know their stuff when it comes to film will vote crap like the latest Underworld installment as Best Picture and give some rap star who can't act the Best Actor award. We already see that kind of junk with the MTV Movie Awards and similar shows.

I like how Rotten Tomatoes has their Golden Tomato Awards system set up. Their system is less subjective than what AMPAS uses. However, they don't weigh in on any of the technical or production design oriented categories. The Golden Tomato Awards get announced right after the end of the year, making it possible for someone to put together an awards program ahead of the Golden Globes and well ahead of the Oscars.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-23-2009, 01:58 PM:

So why don't we all come up with constructive suggestions for improving the Oscar-cast. Outside of "giving the awards to better movies" there must be ways it could be done better.

My idea: Instead of the 3.5-hour show, I think there ought to be a one-hour Oscar show on network TV. The show would feature the following awards:

Best Picture
Best Actor and Actress
Best Supporting Actor and Actress
Best Animated Film
Best Foreign Film
Best Song
Lifetime Acheivement Award, if any

Those are the awards most people care about. Sad to say, but the vast majority of people don't give two hoots about art direction, cinematography, writing, makeup, visual effects, documentaries, shorts, etc. The awards in these "boring" categories (along with the sheer length of the show in general) are what cause people to change the channel.

I would also award Picture and Director simultaneously -- make it one award, since the two awards almost always go to the same movie anyway.

The one-hour show could be edited down from the usual four-hour extravaganza, which would air on Hulu or YouTube, thus saving at least some of the commercial revenues that would be lost from trimming the network time.

The usual 15-minute list of dead celebrities could be a CNN-style 'crawl' across the bottom of the screen during the show.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-23-2009, 02:23 PM:

I think only people who work in specific fields should be able to nominate as well as vote for the winner in a given category. Only cinematographers should be able to nominate and vote in that category.

Membership-wide voting should be limited to the big categories (acting, directing, writing).

The telecast should be shorter. Instead, they went LONGER this year. I couldn't believe this new system with 5 Oscar winners in acting taking forever and a day to kiss the ass of the nominees in the acting categories. It sucked. YAWN!!! I prefer one or two presenters reading a list and perhaps showing a short film clip of each nominee.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-23-2009, 02:43 PM:

I agree. I didn't like the 5 actors/actresses reading their gushy love-letters on why the nominee they were speaking to is a world treasure. They're actors. They are NOT special!

For the dead celebrities segment, I had a hard time reading many of the names and I was watching in HDTV. I can't imagine how it must have looked in SDTV. It was horribly put together.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-23-2009, 02:53 PM:

I was very pleased when Japan won two oscars last night. The first one was for animated short subject, TSUMEKI NO IE (La Maison en Petis Cubes) and OKURIBITO (Departures) for Best Foreign Film. It has been a very long time since Japan won a film Oscar. With the exception of Hisayo Miyazaki full length animated feature SPIRITED AWAY in 2002, the last time a live action film won was SAMURAI (Part one of a trilogy) in the mid fifties and that was a special award before the category for best foreign film was established.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-23-2009, 06:12 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
So why don't we all come up with constructive suggestions for improving the Oscar-cast.

I've been saying this for years, but they need to get William Shatner to host.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-23-2009, 06:32 PM:

quote: Mike Schindler
they need to get William Shatner to host

Heh heh, well he seems to be trying just about everything else so he might as well take a stab at Oscar host. [beer]

Last night's show was significantly better overall than others in recent years.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 02-23-2009, 09:52 PM:

I am going to go out in left field on this:

I think the fact that "Slumdog Millionaire" won so many golden statues is an example of the political correctness that the world seems big on nowadays.

Bollywood is full of good movies, actors, actresses and good story lines. I think Hollywood is trying to send out an olive branch to bring the two even closer together. I am certain that Academy members were steered in a certain direction when it came to voting.

Just so you know, it doesn't really bother me. I mean, everyone deserves their shot at getting the little golden guys. But, yeah, I think there is a political slant to it all of this, and it kinda makes me think that when it comes to awards shows - it's all a little rigged.

I have an extreme appreciation for the country of India and the Hindu religion. As a citizen of the planet earth - I think we will find as time goes on - we will all find ourselves a little closer to each other.

I am just glad that Heath Ledger won the supporting actor award - I went to sleep after that announcement was made....

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-23-2009, 09:57 PM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
I am certain that Academy members were steered in a certain direction when it came to voting

You mean like AMPAS sent out a letter or email or something saying "We'd really appreciate it if you'd vote for Slumdog Millionaire"? I'm trying to imagine how something like that would be kept on the low-down. [Confused]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. They saw, they liked.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 02-23-2009, 10:21 PM:

No, I am not saying that. But as was said before, Best Cinematography? I don't think so.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-24-2009, 09:36 AM:

If a movie is picking up a lot of major awards, sometimes the voters will vote the same film for smaller awards too, just because they loved the movie so much and there was no clear standout (to them) among the rest. The same thing can happen when there are movies the voters haven't seen...they vote for something they HAVE seen, even though it may not be as deserving.

Bottom line, there is no perfect awards contest.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2009, 11:08 AM:

The more I think about it, Slumdog Millionaire is the worst cinematography Oscar winner in at least the last few decades.

I cannot find a previous Oscar winner of that category less worthy of the statue. I think Conrad Hall should have won an Oscar for Tequila Sunrise at the 1988 awards instead of Peter Biziou for Mississippi Burning. But that isn't the sort of "WTF?" kind of shocker we have seen this year.

Further, all four of this year's nominees in the cinematography category, including the digital-sourced Benjamin Button, were better. Some of the AMPAS voters must have really shitty eye sight.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-24-2009, 11:32 AM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
Bollywood is full of good movies, actors, actresses and good story lines.

Not really from what I've seen. The movies are all very childish, with every detail completely spelled out to the audience over and over. No room left for interpretation. Bollywood movies are also king of the flashback... almost all of them feature some sort of flashback.

I haven't seen Slumdog (doesn't seem interesting), but I don't think that was a true Bollywood movie. It was directed by a white guy (Dennis Hopper) and had a bunch of other white guys who worked on it. Also, it didn't have an intermission and from what I hear, lacked many musical numbers.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2009, 11:53 AM:

A movie, such as Saawariya, is more authentic to the "Bollywood" genre, convention or whatever you want to call it.

Bollywood movies are usually shot on film, not recorded with digital video cameras -that production practice is more of an American and European thing because us "Honkeys" just love the hell out of that "digital" buzz word. We especially love it when we can slap the term "digital filmmaking" on something that is cheap and unprofessional. "Digital" makes it perfect.

Saawariya has some very good cinematography and looks impressive on Blu-ray. It's a shame Slumdog Millionaire couldn't follow the same production practices.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 02-24-2009, 01:20 PM:

When were the votes due?

Is it possible some voters voted "against" TDK because of Bale's big flip-out.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-24-2009, 01:40 PM:

The votes were due about a week before the show.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-24-2009, 01:48 PM:

Well, remember that after films get nominated for Academy Awards, on most cathegories, only members of the AMPAS under that cathegory vote. Therefore, it was only noted cinematographers that voted for Slumdog as best cinematography of the year.

Not sure if I agree, as I would have to review all the films. But Slumdog had certainly good cinematography. Now, good cinematography doesn't mean just pretty and technically quality pictures. It can mean washed out, overblown, out-of-focus, scratched or anything that can help tell a story.

Hard, contrasty, even noisy pictures can be used to tell a story better than soft, dreamy, colorful Technicolor, or whatever. One is good for Nazi films, the other for Wizard of Oz.

Cinematographers now have a wider range of options with digital (be DI or straight digital), and they no longer have to produce 180º exposed silver grain at 24fps. They can do things that couldn't be done before, like 359º motion blur, compressed HDR backplates, denoised or noisy images, and whatever they think is good for the film.

Slumdog did NOT have bad photograhpy AT ALL. Proof is that it was the Oscar to best photography, voted by noted cinematographers, and also best picture. A movie with blatant BAD photography doesn't win those 2 awards. It may no be the photography YOU like, but it's far from bad.

More proof is that the Asociation of American Cinematographers also gave it the award to best cinematography of the year. If you think you know cinematography better than the ASC, you should be shooting movies now. Let me know and we'll keep you in the rooster for future projects.

If that's not enough, the British also agree with a BAFTA award for best cinematography.

Slumdog isn't, of course, a Bollywood movie. Just a British-Indian movie.

Bollywood is a giant industry and I'm sure we've all here have seen or projected many of their films. You may think that this is good art direction, good cinematography, good score/song/sound Bollywood's style, but others may think it's just textbook material:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIbJCAUOF_4&fmt=22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXP7eESo1M&fmt=18
[The videos are excerpts from 2002's Bollywood's blockbuster Devdas -- lol just noted some of the subtitles are a bit off in those videos and the first one is titled "spin and spin (around)", thus so much camera movement. Plus youtube is notorious for screwing anyone's photography with compression and gamma changes [Wink]

"]

Bollywood, as Hollywood, shoots mostly film for many reasons, most of them having to do with it being cheaper for the run-and-gun style than "last year's" video. They just put their aatons or arri's over their shoulders and push the button. Hours and hours of rehersals thanks to cheap salaries do the rest. If anyone here spends any significant time in London, I'm sure they must have seen some Bollywood shoots somewhere. [Wink]

This is quickly changing, of course, and more and more Bollywood (and other indian styles) are being done digitally thanks to the newer and cheaper cameras and improved workflows.

And, BTW, I've seen plenty of Bollywood's with no flahsbacks ... never thought that was one of their industry's trademark signs as the dance/music numbers surely are.

[ 02-24-2009, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-24-2009, 02:01 PM:

Julio sorta beat me to it.
One has to assume all of the professionals involved with Slumdog Millionaire *chose* for it to look the way it did, and did their professional best to get that look. I didn't mind the look at all. They chose a digital palette and worked with it.

I am surprised the Academy voters (cinematographers or otherwise) went with it, because they usually seem to prefer invisible cinematography, just as they prefer invisible editing. The cinematography in Slumdog calls attention to itself and breaks the wall of separation. That's usually a sin in Hollywood movies, but maybe the Academy is looking for a little sin these days.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-24-2009, 02:11 PM:

Hmm, I guess we have to be careful to separate out how the movie looked in theaters, vs. how it looks on, say Blu-ray. Dark Knight didn't "pop" in 35mm like it does on Blu-ray. So if everyone judged it based on its 35mm look, you could pretty much exclude from consideration the fact that parts of it were shot in genuine IMAX. IMAX sequences looked the same as the rest of the movie to me, in 35mm. Sorry Wally, no award for you just because you went to the extra effort of shooting in IMAX!

On BD though, DK's image quality really draws attention to itself.

I'm just saying.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-24-2009, 02:15 PM:

Julio said, "Well, remember that after films get nominated for Academy Awards, on most cathegories, only members of the AMPAS under that cathegory vote. Therefore, it was only noted cinematographers that voted for Slumdog as best cinematography of the year."

No, this is wrong. Please see my post from page 1, with links to the official rules. Everyone votes for everything, except documentary and live action shorts and features, and foreign films. Nominations are from the branches, but voting is not. Everyone votes for Best Cinematography.

Please be a little more careful before making these claims.

--jhawk

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-24-2009, 02:23 PM:

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/rule09.html

Am I interpreting wrong where it says:

quote:

Rule Nine: Special Rules for the Cinematography Award [For the 81st annual awards]
...
A Reminder List of all eligible motion pictures shall be sent with a nominations ballot to all members of the Academy Cinematographers Branch who shall vote in the order of their preference for not more than five motion pictures.

???

Is this only for nominations and not the awards? Always thought it was the reverse [Confused]

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-24-2009, 02:26 PM:

You are indeed. It goes on to say:

quote: Rule 9

2. The five productions receiving the highest number of votes shall become the nominations for final voting for the Cinematography award.

...

4. Final voting for the Cinematography award shall be restricted to active and life Academy members.

That is the nominations process. Not the final voting process.

--jhawk

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-24-2009, 02:30 PM:

quote: John Hawkinson
That is the nominations process. Not the final voting process.

That's some seriously retarded process, I guess.

Still, it would mean that, to AMPAS cinematographer's (and cinematographer's only), it was one of the top 5. So no POS, I guess. And I guess some of them also voted them as best for the actual final award.

Plus it won the ASC, so that's pretty much the equivalent to the best cinematographers (and cinematographer's only) in the USA.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-24-2009, 02:47 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
That's some seriously retarded process, I guess.

Why? The cinematographers pick the "five best" and everyone votes on which of those five is the "best" best. That way the five nominees are chosen by experts in their field. The general voters then have knowledge that ALL of the nominees are among the best of the best.

If you had it the other way around, then some movie that had a lot of pretty scenery but totally unimaginative camera work might get nominated, where something that's a bit of a trendsetter (which apparently Slumdog is, but I haven't seen it to confirm for myself) might get left out in the cold.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-24-2009, 03:04 PM:

Don't know what to say. I guess you are right. At least, that way, it's one of the top 5 best cinematography's (as chosen by professionals) that's going to win.

Slumdog is just a reasonably good film, tells a story in a compelling way, visually and artistically. It has some technical deficiencies and it's not a masterpiece of cinema, but it's one of the year's best pictures, which is not much to say about the industry in general.

I found the Dark Night, one of the few movies I watched in a theater last year (35mm on a 4Kw prevost on Dolby SRD on JBL 3-ways sound system) overrated. It was good, entertaining and compelling. It was technically correct (with that budget, it better be) and Heath was the deserved best supporting actor. It was one of the best in many cathegories and received nominations for those. It just wasn't the most innovative or remarkable, as it seldom is with "summer blockbusters" which job is to offer the best "tried and true" experience rather than risk innovations or too mush "artsy" stuff. Remarkable, but not overwelming, I found. So deserved the many nominations it got and the few awards.

Slumdog was the opposite, probably. I haven't seen all the films nominated on some of the cathegories, so I can't say for sure, but it's odd it was the best in so many to even opt for nominations, much less wins. So I feel (but I don't know) that indeed Slumdog might just have been over valued to more than the good breath of fresh air it was and good example of story telling with low budget.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 02-24-2009, 10:34 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
Remarkable, but not overwelming

You didn't see a large format presentation.

I will agree with you that it was overrated, though. Ledger's performance, incredible sound design, and jaw-droppingly immersive cinematography all worked together to distract the viewer from a very bland love triangle and a lot of very contrived plot details.

I just wish Pfister had been rewarded for raising the bar for visual presentation when so many (so-called) "film" makers are shooting low resolution video. I felt like Pfister transported me to Gotham City. A video doesn't transport me to another world, it makes me think something is wrong with the picture.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-25-2009, 08:50 AM:

quote: Julio Roberto
Slumdog did NOT have bad photograhpy AT ALL. Proof is that it was the Oscar to best photography, voted by noted cinematographers, and also best picture.

Bullshit. That only underscores the politics of a lot of people in Hollywood "drinking the kool-aid" from that video instead of opening their eyes and judging the picture objectively.

The real proof is on the screen as well as every TV show featuring clips from Slumdog Millionarie. All of it has looked like ass.

I've seen The Dark Knight in IMAX, 2K digital cinema and Blu-ray. It's a far better artistic statement of cinematography -true cinematography at that.

I liked Ben Stiller's joke about how Slumdog Millionaire was shot on someone's cellphone. It was a good precursor to just how loony this fanboy-ism has become about shooting movies in "digital." If the finished result looks like shit it just looks like shit regardless of whether the image was exposed on celluloid or encoded on a disc in binary ones and zeroes.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2009, 09:40 AM:

Well for what it's worth, I saw "The Dark Knight" and it didn't transport me all that much. (I didn't see it large-format, but I'm not a huge fan of large-format anyway.) It was good, but I'd never want to watch it again. It was just an average movie to me. But then I'm not big into superhero movies, especially Batman movies - I just don't like the genre all that much. I do think Ledger was the highlight of the movie but his character didn't "touch" me like it did so many others....because that's not my kind of movie.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 02-25-2009, 11:25 AM:

Slumdog was well shot, and it is a good film, but it didn't deserve eight Oscars. Everyone knows the awards are a load of crap, but at least they get people excited about film and get people through the door.

The Dark Knight sequences shot in IMAX are truly amazing. I have never heard an entire audience gasp when they first encounter the image, even at other IMAX shows. Also, that film has introduced the format to the masses, at least in London. The BFI IMAX are doing shows at 4:30am to keep up with the demand for Wathcmen.

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-25-2009, 11:55 AM:

The December 2008 edition of American Cinematographer carried an interesting article on Slumdog Millionaire .

At the top of the piece Director Danny Boyle is quoted as saying that he and Anthony Dod Mantle, BSC, DFF "focus on emerging technology".

Then Dod Mantle says that Boyle "wanted energy and speed". After initial tests in one of the slum locations Boyle says that film "felt really wrong" for the material, and later on states: "I guess I think the feel of the digital approach is more appropriate to this place...for the 7-year-old age it feels a bit tougher, less precious, more urgent".

The article also reveals how about 60 per cent of the film was shot digitally, with the remainder on 35mm. 35mm appears to have been used in certain situations because the Indian crew was more familiar with it, going by comments by Anthony Dod Mantle.

So it looks like the decision to shoot digital was an aesthetic one. That said, has anyone seen what can be done with 8mm today? Amazing! One could argue they could have achieved the "tougher" look they wanted by using e.g. Super-8, etc.

The camera they used was a very small 2K digital camera, the SI-2K Mini from Silicon Imaging, with a universal lens mount.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-25-2009, 12:20 PM:

I think it was stupid of the Oscars not to play clips of nominees because most viewers haven't watched a lot of the nominated performances. I am a big movie hound and even I was a little indifferent to some of the nominees announcements as I had no clue what they were nominated for or what kind of role. The Indie Spirit Awards was a better awards show. With the singalong and clips, it makes you want to check out those performances. And the Joaquin Phoenix -Christian Bale parody was done much better than Stiller's disappointing take at the Oscars.

Slumdog Millionaire. I thought it looked decent. But other than Boyle getting best director, I disagree with most of its wins. I love Boyle's work in movies and in the absence of a clearcut superior choice, I am fine with him being honored. I personally feel Trainspotting was one of the best movies of the 90s.

I do have to weigh in Sawaariya as brought up here earlier. I thought it looked like a second rate Moulin Rouge even visually. Too tacky looking and too much use of the blue color. One of the worst movies I have ever tried to watch.

I thought the Bruce song in the Wrestler was better than the average songs in Slumdog and Rahman getting for best score was a joke. One thing Bollywood people don't do well is scores. They are better at songs.

Also I agree on the death montage. Very annoying. And while Latifah sang well, the singing along with the shifting frames was needless. As Bale would say , IT WAS FUCKING DISTRACTING.
The death montage is the ONLY montage that viewers care about. They could double the time of the montage spending more time on each person at a relaxed pace and easily remove one of the needless random montages during the show. And low key music plays better than a song. And let the viewers at home have a full screen image of each dead person. Use the creativity in editing together different facets of the actor's life.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-25-2009, 12:22 PM:

Just to clarify my position: Slumdog was a very good movie, well shot, with notable cinematography, certainly one of the top *I* have seen this year, and a lot of people (ASC, AMPAS, BAFTA) think it's about the best.

I have not seen many of the nominated (presumably the "top") films, so I can not properly compare. But I also have the feeling Slumdog didn't deserve that many Oscars, as it was good, acomplished for their resources, and innovative in some aspects, but it's weird it was the very best of the year in so many cathegories.

I have also seen Dark Knight in a reasonably proper presentation, but not large-format. Still, it shouldn't quite make a difference in the sense that if a movie has good cinematography it is still good in 35mm or 70mm or Imax.

I wasn't overly impressed, although certainly good and technically above-average. But as others here, I had no desire to watch it again and I DO like superhero movies and thought it was the best Batman so far. I nonetheless watched it in DVD once more later in English as my theatrical seating was with my significant other in spanish dubbed. (BTW: I found Bale's Batman voice overly distracting, to the point of almost forcing me to fast forward through some of his monologues).

Heath's performance was very convincing and an awesome job. Kudos.

I find both films PROBABLY overated.

But Slumdogs photography was, from my point of view, really good and quite impressive. Even more so considering the circunstances (night/overcast/rain/exterior/interior/set/dreamy/flashback/train/POV/steady/video/film) and low budget.

Batman photography was, from my point of view, conservative/technical, but nothing "special" $200m wouldn't get you. Funny how it gets praised over the use of a "gimmick" like Imax and the Slumdog gets ... slumed over the use of a "gimmick" like a "cellphone". Stiller should've pulled out a GIGANTIC Imax-cellphone to laugh about the opposite side of the spectrum.

BTW, those hating "digital" as "video", please remember that there are NEW digital cameras that very closely resemble 35mm capabilities and image quality while SURPASING IT in some parameters and coming VERY CLOSE TO IT in others and that there are cameras announced for the next year or two that will GREATLY surpass most-or-all quality measurement parameters of EVEN IMAX CAMERAS.

So digtial doesn't mean worse or inferior to film automatically and necessarily. Best digital TODAY means (mostly) a bit worse and a bit inferior to film in SOME circunstances, but digital of SOON-TOMORROW will mean BETTER AND SUPERIOR to film. Yes, this will include latitude, DOF, low light sensitivity, speed, flexibility, resolution, noise (grain), etc, etc. Any and all paremeters of image quaility.

So don't get too complacent on digital=bad speech as it is true today but it will soon enough have to change to film=bad.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-26-2009, 12:18 AM:

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Also I agree on the death montage. Very annoying. And while Latifah sang well, the singing along with the shifting frames was needless. As Bale would say , IT WAS FUCKING DISTRACTING.

I couldn't stand all the camera zooming and panning across those LED panels. Those camera moves made me feel like I was watching a somber episode of CNBC's Mad Money. Where was Jim Cramer?

quote: Julio Roberto
Just to clarify my position: Slumdog was a very good movie, well shot, with notable cinematography, certainly one of the top *I* have seen this year, and a lot of people (ASC, AMPAS, BAFTA) think it's about the best.

Take a look at the comments on Slumdog Millionaire right here in the Film Tech movie reviews section. F-T members were speaking their mind about the bullshit cinematography well before the AMPAS and ASC nominations were even mentioned.

Stick a pretty bow on a piece of crap and it will still stink.

quote: Julio Roberto
BTW, those hating "digital" as "video", please remember that there are NEW digital cameras that very closely resemble 35mm capabilities and image quality while SURPASING IT in some parameters and coming VERY CLOSE TO IT in others and that there are cameras announced for the next year or two that will GREATLY surpass most-or-all quality measurement parameters of EVEN IMAX CAMERAS.

We're talking about movies being produced NOW with technology that is available NOW. Right now, "digital" is NOT better than film. And it won't be for some time to come, despite your optimistic predictions that it's going to happen any day. That especially goes for IMAX.

Even in a "digital" versus "digital" contest, the cinematography of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was infinitely better. David Fincher is one of very few contemporary directors who really understand how compose within the 'scope aspect ratio regardless of whether he is filming in Super35 or shooting digital video.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-26-2009, 12:28 AM:

Digital is video. It cannot NOT be video. It is an electronic reproduction of a moving visual image. It's video, but it's just good video. What's next, CDs aren't music/sound because they are digital?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-26-2009, 03:24 PM:

All semantics. CD's are not records if you choose not to call it that way.

There is no "digital film", as "film" has to be analogue (in practice).

But there is analog and digital video. Up to about 20 years ago, all video was analog and it was called video.

I'm ok with calling it digital video as I'm ok with calling CD's digital records and tapes "analog tapes" and DAT's digital tapes.

But video has been digital and "HD" (i.e. close to intermediate-or-exhibition formats used in theatrical movies) for a while, so I guess that ALL "film" today is video, as it "originates" (in its final form) as a ELECTRONIC digital file (DI) that is "printed back" to an analog media (film).

So almost all (exhibition) "film" today is video (you can't have "film" back from video DI).

But this argument existed 15 years ago with still photography, when digital (photography) wasn't still good enough. People arguing film was superior, better for archiving, etc.

Then digital surpassed film in many quality measurements.

So the argument concentrated in medium and large formats.

But then, digital also surpassed those at reasonable prices.

So nobody (in their right mind) argues today that still "film" (chemical?) photography is tons better than digital alternatives (still digital video?).

The same will happen with moving photography (film? video?).

The only difference is that some of us thinks it may happen in 3-5 years, some think it will happen in 10, and some (who shouldn't be travelling to Vegas), that it won't happen for 20 years.

And a lot of it (be it film or DCinema "video") even originates as "video" today, and virtually all gets converted to "video" and then some shown as video and some shown as "film".

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-26-2009, 03:30 PM:

Records and tapes are physical formats. Perhaps the term you are looking for is "album". Yes, many films go through a video intermediate stage, but we're talking about shooting something with a video camera, not editing. You can exhibit something on film that originated on video, but that doesn't mean it is 100% video or 100% film. It's simply a movie that was shot on video and exhibited on film in some places. And yes, it bugs me when people say that they "film" something with their camcorder. The end.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-26-2009, 03:36 PM:

Hope it doesn't bug you when they say they "photograhped their honeymoon" (with a digital still camera) [Wink]

Anyway, just a quick reminder that English is a foreign language for me and I can not always fully grasp the exact meaning of some terms or posts nor can I exactly express what I'm thinking (as well as I could in Spanish).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-26-2009, 09:29 PM:

Julio,

As for film versus digital still...I don't see the digital by and large exceeding film at this point, still. I'm not a photoshoper, by nature. Digitally shot images still look too flat (2D). What I most certainly conceed to digital for still photography is its convienence and relative ease.

I'm not say that the digital stuff is bad but I certainly don't find that it is a given that digital is the right choice for all applications.

As for digital intermediates...yeah...they suck! They ruin the "film look" and ruin the look, period. This is particlarly true for the 2K DIs...they suck...every single one I've had to endure.

I looked over my review of Slumdog before I knew how it was made...I called it right. It was not only not good cinematography, it was BAD cinematography....to the point it was distracting. The use of digital made the image look cheap and 3rd rate. Nobody should aspire to shoot a movie that incompetently. That fact that it won an award for that "work" shows a problem with how it achieved that award...it still sucks.

As for film's time in the mainstream cinema...it is an absolute crapshoot as to how long that is...and it is mostly in the hands of the exhibitors, not the studios. Don't buy digital, and film will be around a bit longer. Buy digital, and it will leave sooner. Its all about the numbers.

Steve

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-26-2009, 10:07 PM:

Joe--my understanding is that the difference between "video" and "digital cinema" was that a "video" image contains blanking and sync information, whereas a "digital cinema" image is simply a series of still images to be presented in sequence at a particular frame rate.

Do the digital video formats (Digi-Beta, etc.) actually store the blanking and sync information on the tape, or is that information re-created on the fly when the tape is played?

In any case, Slumdog looked bad; I didn't think that it was a bad film, but it is a forgettable film. No one will be talking about it in ten years.