The Hot Blog

RENNER POWER.

About time someone other than the director received some attention.

District 9 could truly mess Avatar the hell up. Looking at such a large ballot Best Picture, it actually feels... Unfair. Huh.

The ten nominee Best Picture fiasco is made even sillier by that official ballot. The BP box couldn't even bother with a perspective shadow for the remainder of its box.

Can they just give Chris Nolan an honorary and admit they fucked up already?

I think it's a really good group, so thrilled they put in A Serious Man, which might have been the best film of last year.

Yeah, Mackie deserved a nod, but not a shock. Also not a shock to see Invictus and Nine get snubbed, if that's the proper word - did people actually forget that Nine didn't get mediocre reviews, it got HORRIBLE reviews on the level of Tranformers.

Animated category is quite strong, though I cannot be the only one who has never heard of The Secret of Kells. Looks like neither Star Trek nor The Hangover got the possible love, but let's get serious....this is a very commercial group, but very respectable one, too. Both of those films would have been crossing the respectability line and neither of them were deserving in my opinion, anyway.

Would have liked to see Moon get something, but it was not to be. I really want to see In the Loop and sorry I missed it in theaters.

Doc category is quite competitive - I actually saw Food Inc and The Cove, back to back - I was expecting to love Cove more, but actually found Food Inc the much stronger film. It's really a battle between head and heart and I will be curious to see which way the Academy goes for. Seeing Tyson get in there would have been nice, but it was never going to happen.

One bone to pick and it's an increasingly bigger one - why the hell are they keeping Best Visual Effects to three nods? Hasn't it grown to the point where there are literally dozens of strong performers to choose from, every year??? The three they picked are quite deserving - Trek really had some amazing effects and Avatar and District 9 kind of go without saying - but there were other achievements, as well. Moon was one I would push for, of course. And look, the movie was pretty lousy, but the effects in 2012 were AMAZING - that crew truly deserved some recognition.

Others appear surprised at:

No Moon.

No 500 Days of Summer.

No RDJ after a GG WIN.

Didn't they make the animated award to keep them OUT of the Best Pic category?

My biggest disappointment? No "Partly Cloudy" for animated short. I'm on record as saying that Up is the best film Pixar's ever made (well-deserving of its Best Pic nod, thank you very much). But PC is some of the best short work they've ever done too, and I have to think they submitted it. Bummer.

I forgot about 500 Days of Summer, especially with all of the new buzz about Webb, thought it could get a screenplay nod.

Sherlock was never going to get an acting nod for Downey - if they didn't give it to him, last year for Iron Man, he wasn't going to get it, this year. I am curious why Warners didn't at least run a campaign for Jude Law - he really was great in that film and the main reason it works. I am thrilled to see that Hans Zimmer got a nod for the score, though - it's definitely the catchiest score of the year.

Oopsie -- the list linked on the home page mistakenly has this year's Costume Design nominees under Cinematography, while the nominees listed under Costume Design are from last year.

Thought for a second that all 5 Cinematography nominees were women! That would've been revolutionary, huh?

Cinematography:
AVATAR
HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
HURT LOCKER
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
THE WHITE RIBBON

Tofu, yes, the animated category was to recognize those movies as it is hard for them to get best picture (don't think they made the category to necessarily keep them out); however, with 10 nominations now for best picture, there's no reason to leave them out.

What we will never know, but would be interesting, is would Up have made Best Picture in a field of 5?

Lack of acting and screenplay nods has to make Avatar vulnerable, along with the fact that Hurt Locker matched its overall number of nods.

Only Best Pic contenders not nominated for screenplay are Avatar and The Blind Side.

Only screenplay nominees not up for Best Pic are In the Loop and The Messenger (thrilled about both choices, btw).

Thrilled for Maggie Gyllenhaal and Vera Farmiga (and also weirdly relieved that Julianne Moore won't have to lose to Mo'Nique on her fifth try).

Also, isn't it weird how the supporting actor category never changed even once, from the Globes to SAG to here?

Can anyone explain to me who hte lead actress was in UITA?

Thank you.

Who really expected a screenplay nomination for Avatar? Someone? Anyone? Bueller?

It got a Writers' Guild nomination.

I'm also happy that "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" can gets two Oscar nominations.

I'm also glad that Music Box Films gets its first Oscar nomination with "Il Divo".

Like I said elsewhere (sorry for repeating) thrilled for Renner but bummed for Mackie, who IMO gives a slightly better, more affecting performance in Hurt Locker. Surprised Damon and Freeman got nods for a movie no one seemed to like that much. Is Penelope Cruz the new Meryl Streep, nominated just for showing up? Or is she that good? I haven't seen Nine. Miracle and Invincible bummed that they didn't have 10 nominees in the years they were released.

To people asking what "The Secret of Kells" is, it was nominated for best film at the Annies so it's not really outta nowhere. I'd heard it was really good, but its one-week qualifying run didn't elicit much excitement. It does, however, make for a good surprise when they could have easily gone with "Meatballs".

I should've seen that "Paris 36" nomination coming since it's French and a musical (hello "The Chorus"), but I thought that movie was one of the very very worst of 2009 (and i mean actual worst, not just i-don't-like-it-because-it's-popular) and is horrible in every way. I don't know what song it is exactly, but I'm sure it's blah. Totally stoked for "Take It All" though over "Cinema Italiano". I bet Kate Hudson is annoyed she won't be able to get anymore publicity outta that movie. I soooo hope Cotillard performs it on stage.

"The Hurt Locker" for Original Score is a big surprise. Did ANYBODY see that coming? And at the expense of "The Informant!" is disappointing. Loving the Desplat nod for "Fantastic Mr Fox" though!

Funny that "Nine" got Art Direction (decorated stages!) and not Cinematography. The Academy has continued its bizarre affair with Dion Beebe.

Disappointed for "(500) Days of Summer" in Original Screenplay.

Hey, didn't a lot of people want the Oscars to be more relavent and to nominate movies people had actually seen? Say hello to your results: "The Blind Side". I'm glad it got nominated since it might shut some people up now. All the people who said they'd never watch the show again if it got nominated can kindly take their own advice.

"Avatar" nominated in all the right places, some really great costume nomination ("Bright Star", "Coco", "Parnassus" and "Nine"), some surprising art direction slots ("Parnassus") and "The White Ribbon" for cinematography have also made me quite happy.

So disappointed for Samson & Delilah though. The world (ie America) will just never know...

I think we'll be seeing 10 nominees next year. The experiment worked. We didn't get 10 arthouse dramas but rather Up, District 9, and The Blind Side. Exactly what the Academy wanted.

I truly hope that Coraline wins for Best Animated (which it may as the Academy could feel Pixar will win down the line and Mr Fox is just not thick enough on the ground). I've been a fan of Neil Gaiman's ever since my big sister came back from her first year of college and gave me a Sandman graphic novel as a present.

Samson & Delilah is a disappointment - especially given the low profile of Australian film at the moment. Kami, did you see the Inside Film roundup at the end of the year? It was fairly horrific...

Pixar..... again.... i just dont have the words. Every year they get a nomination. They are a brand. A brand that bores me senseless. Theyve been putting out the same basic movie for 15 years.

They should just announce the nominee every year as "the pixar movie"

The individual films are put out with such regularity that they lack an identity.

I don't know anghus. I think Pixar movies are usually pretty great, and Up is easily one of the best movies I saw in 2009. I much prefer it to Avatar or Up in the Air.

anghus, I'm not sure you're looking at them very closely. The themes in Up were explored by...which other Pixar movie? How about WALL*E?

Some fundamentals run throughout the collection, I admit. Parenthood figures big in their work. But that's just a starting point, not the whole point. Up is about a guy figuring out that he's still got something to live for even after everything he loves is gone; The Incredibles, about society's weird and self-destructive way of feeling threatened by the gifted; Toy Story, about how parents feel when their kids grow up enough to not feel like they need you anymore. And WALL*E, a unique hybrid of Tati-esque humor in the first half and environmental parable in the second, is as wildly different from the other Pixar movies, in both theme and tone, as I can imagine.

Any one of those movies has more meat to it than most popular entertainments, and there is more diversity in the collection than many filmmakers have in their own filmographies.

They're also more diverse than the animation of other studios. DreamWorks animated movies, some of which I do like, are pretty much all slapstick comedies about loners discovering themselves and warming up to (surrogate) family. Pretty much without exception.

I agree that it's not very exciting if "the Pixar movie" wins every year. But if those movies are truly the best animated movies of their respective years (and I believe that to be the case for three years in a row now, though Coraline is also great) then they should.

Generally happy for all the noms but I'm just gonna say it: "A Serious Man" is a stupid, boring, throw away movie that sucks. Yes, I get it, it's got biblical overtones and gosh dern it, it's really smart because, dern it, I just don't understand it.

It's not a good movie. People who say it's the best of the year remind me of hipsters who throw a hip-hop album in their year end best albums because they want to seem on top of things.

(Also, Geoff: not picking on you per say, just venting towards everyone who raves about that movie. You're the only one here so far so I'm not attacking *you*. Well, *you* only anyway)

I'm completely happy with these noms...almost. And I'm shocked that I'm happy.

Only sad that A Serious Man beat A Single Man.

BTW how fitting that "Avatar" gets its 9 nominations on the same day it tops "Titanic's" domestic gross record.*

Not a single nomination for "Where the Wild Things Are"? Really??
No adapted screenplay nod for "Fantastic Mr. Fox"? WTF?!?
Moore getting squeezed out of a nomination by Cruz (who must still be riding the fumes of her "VCB" win) and--ick--Gyllenhaal? @&&@&!?!
I know many of you adore Maggie, but she's the single weakest element of "Crazy Heart." I didn't believe a single minute of her performance, and her Southern accent was as cringe-inducing as Gerard Butler's ersatz "American."
I'm also pissed that "Every Little Step" (which was my favorite doc of 2009) got shafted. "The Cove" and "Food, Inc." were middling, PBS-style fare at best for me.
So, is the foreign film race going to be a "Prophet"--"White Ribbon" battle with some mystery movie pulling an upset?
And for the record, I predicted a "Blind Side" picture nod in early December. Can't say that I saw "District 9" making the cut, though. "Star Trek," "500 Days of Summer" and "The Hangover" all seemed to have a better shot.
Will "Hurt Locker" make history by being the lowest-grossing film to ever win the big kahuna?
So many questions; so little (genuine) interest.
That "Secret of Kells" nomination was a doozy, however. How funny/delicious that the Academy did somersaults to appear populist and popcorn-friendly with their picks, and the animation branch went out of their way to be as esoteric as possible to fill out their five slots.

Totally not understanding the "Up" antipathy. It's gorgeous and I'd put the scenes-from-a-marriage montage up against any two or three minutes of any film last year.

Don and I are in complete agreement for a change. A SERIOUS MAN was a self-loathing greatest hits for hipsters. Talk about one note characters. If not for the Coens typical technical genius, I'd have thought ASM was a Todd Solondoz film.

I'd put the marriage opener and the third-act scrapbook moment against any scene in the last decade or so. I would have liked to have seen an Avatar screenplay nod, as its omission once again gives rise to the cliche that screenwriting is only about clever dialogue. I'm actually thrilled with Gyllenhaal's nomination. I'm not a huge fan of the film (it's good, but not great), but I always appreciate when the Academy notices the less flashy, often more challenging supporting work instead of merely rewarding the splashy star turn.

Overall, I'm shocked at how satisfying most of the nominations are. Sure I have quibbles (Cloudy, Transformer 2's lack of FX nod), but the ten nominee thing really worked, giving a broad spectrum of critical and popular favorites from a wide variety of genres and release dates (ie - not everything was from the last two months).

As for A Serious Man, I'm of two minds about it. I'm not quite sure I got it either and I'm not sure how much there was to get, but I must concede that I enjoyed the movie while I was watching it and appreciated the acting and story that was being told.

I liked A Serious Man, in the same way I like most of the lesser Coen brothers movies - I enjoy them for the intellectual puzzle they are. But I don't see it as a best picture. Then again, I'd take that over The Blind Side or UP any day.

UP had maybe the strongest 5-10 minutes in film this year. Unfortunately, it then had 70 minutes that followed that was so derivative of so many other kids/animated movies that I just didn't care. At least Wall-E and Incredibles made me care for the entire course of the movie, not just the first few minutes.

Think I'm out standing in my field alone, but I would have liked to see Public Enemies recognized; hard to imagine Clooney better than Depp. And I know not everyone agrees, but I thought the cinematography was stunning. Mann is a master...thought he deserved a directing nod...geez, was everyone that put off by a little digital grain?

Up = over-rated and Chris, you hit the nail on the head exactly why: because audiences were so moved by that opening montage, they couldn't bring themselves to admit that the rest of the film was a disappointment. Curmudgeonly old man had no deep connection to villain...unlike in Toy Story, where Buzz & Woody had a visceral connection to each other, then Sid.

WALL*e, same thing. Never any understanding why the humans were "enslaved" by their consumption, who really "profited," and Wall*e had no deep connection to that cause. Again, think audiences were so blown away by the first 20 minutes (which were fantastic) they forgave the rest of the movie.

Ethan, gotta respectfully disagree re: Single v. Serious. Okay, didn't see Serious, but Single was so devoid of any serious emotional depth. Really, the best way to grieve a lover of 15 years is to simply hook up with the foxy, bow-lipped dude in an ANGORA SWEATER?! It was just too much of a male fantasy. It did look beautiful--except the first 20 minutes, which were so choppy as to give me a headache.

Okay, that's my rant...and, in all seriousness, CONGRATULATIONS to all the nominees! What a wonderful and glorious day!! Savor it.

Jenab--I so disagree with you about A Single Man. It probably had more emotional depth of any film I can remember. SPOILERS AHEAD.
A gay man stuck in the repressive 60's, DEEPLY mourning the death of his 16 year partner is handled in a tremendously real and moving way. It is based on an infamous Christopher Isherwood novel which gives it lots of lit credibility. The main character does not simply hook up with the guy in the sweater--he avoids him for most of the film. He spends his day planning his suicide--saying what he's finally wanted to say to his class--saying goodbye to an old friend, remembering his life. You call it a male fantasy? To have your long-time partner die, get a phone call from one of his relatives and be told that you are not invited to the funeral. Yes, exactly, that is every man's fantasy. Were you high when you saw the movie?

Colin Firth should win the award instead of giving one of those lazy lifetime achievement things to Jeff Bridges. Bridges is a good and reliable actor who has been better in several other films.

I'm really worried about anyone who didn't find emotional depth in A Single Man.

"Up = over-rated and Chris, you hit the nail on the head exactly why: because audiences were so moved by that opening montage, they couldn't bring themselves to admit that the rest of the film was a disappointment."

That's kind of a presumption isn't it? I love Up unreservedly, and while I do think the first ten minutes (and the follow-up scrapbooking scene) are the best scenes in it, I'd have loved the movie even without them, just because it's so relentlessly creative. Also hilarious. The comic timing was pretty flawless.

I see where you're coming from, though. The openings of both WALL*E and Up are quite different from what follows. With WALL*E, it's a pretty abrupt shift; with Up, a gradual immersion into fantasy. But in both cases, you're not necessarily getting the movie you thought you were going to get. And if you don't like the stuff at the end, I can see how you'd be disappointed.

The key for me, though, is that even though the movies wind up in unexpected places, they do still follow naturally from their beginnings. I said I'd still love Up without the opening, but it's a million times better with it: because not only is that a great ten minutes, but it makes the later scenes play better by having the character and theme established.

Besides that, I'd rather have a movie go to an unexpected place than playing out exactly as the first ten minutes promise.

But I see what you're saying. I just think it's an overreach to presume that everybody who loves these movies secretly shares your opinion of the parts you don't like.

9 each for the ex- husband and wife ? Oh come on now. You can't tell me this wasn't adjusted for maximum oscar press. Nothing sells like love and war

The ten nominee thing worked, you have it all from the ultimate-anti-audience A Serious Man to the uber-pro-audience Blindside. From the biggest movie of all time to the only successful Wars-of-the-Lost-Decade movie. I sort of feel that although Cameron should win Best Director, Bigelow will very deservingly win it instead, and it and original screenplay may be the only awards it takes home.

Avatar v Hurt Locker will be an interesting dynamic to the next month, and you can bet that about 98% of the oscar oriented media will focus on this, about 99.99 percent of entertainment oriented media will focus on this and 100% of the mainstream media will focus on this.

Anyone else notice that every single one of the people nominated for Adapted Screenplay are first time nominees. That's pretty cool.

I'm most disappointed that Christian McKay didn't get his much deserved nomination. :(

"Think I'm out standing in my field alone, but I would have liked to see Public Enemies recognized; . . . Mann is a master...thought he deserved a directing nod..."

Mann is certainly a great director. Unfortunately, he's only made one movie this decade that I liked. I'm kind of scratching my head over what happened.

Do you mind talking a bit about why you love Public Enemies so much? I'm a little bewildered by what there is to like. I also disliked Miami Vice, but I understand why someone might like it. It's has a very clear vibe to it and has a distinct personality that viewers will either like or dislike. Fine.

Public Enemies, on the other hand, feels like a total blank slate to me. I don't understand what there IS to like or dislike. Except for some visual flair (even that being subdued by Mann standards), it feels thoroughly generic. I don't know what makes this movie different from any old bank robber story. I was quite bored, perhaps because it felt so bored with itself. Even the performances underwhelmed me. I think you could swap Depp out with just about any competent actor and gotten the exact same performance -- which is not something you can do with probably any other Depp performance ever.

Part of the problem may be that I had seen the 1973 version of "Dillinger" and had that in the back of my mind. That movie had an edge that Public Enemies lacked: a palpable sense that Dillinger was a dangerous man (but conflicted and complex), and the conviction that what happened actually mattered.

UP is the single most overrated film the past year. The saccharine montage that made people all weepy was like a AT&T commercial. The same snobbery that used to apply to foreign films is now firmly ensconsed in animation.

I think the degree of passion and disagreement means that 10 worked this year.

Amazingly, I disagree with most of the bashing. A Serious Man is weird and brilliant and, for a movie with big silliness, oddly understated. A Single Man is drier than any martini and all about emotion. Up is genius almost all of the way, grabbing audiences 3 or 4 different ways from start to finish.

And I also feel Where The Wild Things Are is one of the missed masterpieces of the decade.

The nomination I really miss never had a chance. Tilda Swinton for Julia. Nobody saw the movie, but man was that a great performance.

Matt Damon gets a nomination for an accent. That must be it right?

I'm disappointed about The Fantastic Mr. Fox not getting a best picture nod. It was so much better than Up. Up did have a great opening...but once they get to where they are going...and the movie degenerates into typical cute animal/cute kid Disney antics, I was bored. I did care about the plight of an elderly man fulfilling his wish...but I didn't care about a talking dog or a wacky bird.

Where the Wild Things Are also has a great opening...in fact, it was very moving--but then we get to the Wild Things who do nothing but process their feelings for an hour...it felt like I had stumbled into a 12 step meeting accidentally.

I think Where The Wild Things Are is one of the missed opportunities of the decade.

Sam, well said.

I realize im in a marked minority. I just find the films to lack imagination. They are all very safe films with simple themes. I dont think pixar does anything to forward the medium from a storytelling perspective.

Wall e came close to winning me over until it turned into slapstick. I realize these are movies designed for families. I just dont find them engaging.

"Think I'm out standing in my field alone, but I would have liked to see Public Enemies recognized; hard to imagine Clooney better than Depp. And I know not everyone agrees, but I thought the cinematography was stunning. Mann is a master...thought he deserved a directing nod...geez, was everyone that put off by a little digital grain?"

I agree 100%. Public Enemies is the new Heat (which didn't get a single nomination either by the way). I've seen the Blu-Ray about four times now, and it really does get better on repeated viewing, once you're able to fully grasp all the connections (Anna Sage appears fleetingly in the first ten minutes, and then of course ends up having a central role in the final act). And as for the scene of Baby Face Nelson going out in a hail of gunfire........ wow. Awesome flick that will stand the test of time.

Odd little beef about the nominations - i think that Angels & Demons deserved recognition for Art Direction. Say what you will about the script, i was staggered to learn that none of the film was made in or around The Vatican. Great production design that deserved a nomination.

Oh, and what's with the Up - bashing here? Frankly, Pixar getting a seat at the Best Picture table is long, LONG overdue, and i'm glad it's happened at last. Those Emeryville dudes are so good that we're at risk of becoming blase about them - churning out a classic on an annual basis is no longer something shocking, but simply The Way Things Are. And, yes, Up IS a classic.

"Phyllis? You call your own mother by her first name?!"

"Phyllis isn't my mom!"

(Pause)

"Oh.".

Folks, that is genius right there. Animation or no, family flick or no, that is a STAGGERING bit of screenwriting. In just a couple of lines, we understand so much about those two characters, their problems, and how values differ from generation to generation. Just one example, too. and they make it look easy time and time again.

Glamourboy & Rothchild, perhaps you read the book and are crediting the movie for more emotional depth than is actually on-screen?

Yes, the premise is fantastically rife with potential to be emotionally devastating...

A closeted gay man learns of his long-time lover's tragic death, is excluded from the funeral service, and comes to believe that suicide is the only way to cope with his crushing grief, which we glimpse, btw, only momentarily, in the beginning of the film.

Still, great set-up: over the course of the movie, Firth's character will either find out what makes life meaningful and abandon his plan, or descend further into despair and go through with it.

Problem #1: What seems to make life meaningful to Firth's character-and, by extension, Ford-is the superficial beauty of objects and people. This is no surprise, Ford makes his living fetishizing superficial beauty, but that is no substitute for deep, emotional connection.

Problem #2: A big MISSED opportunity for deep emotional connection was with Moore's character. Yes, Ford got the way in which dashing gay men have to delicately rebuff the advances of their over-eager female friends, but where was even a MOMENT of realization on Firth's part that his suicide would have a DEVASTATING effect on this fragile female, and, by extension, anyone who has ever loved him? Which, in turn, might cause hime to agonize over his decision? It may have been in the book, and it may have been in the backstory, but it wasn't on screen.

SPOILER
Problem #3: Aforementioned Angora Sweater, whose presence seems to support the notion that, in order to get over the crushing loss of a lover, simply find another.

If you want to see a scene of absolute heartbreak in which a muted, closeted gay man mourns the tragic loss of his lover, see Brokeback Mountain and Ledger's scene with the shirt...just absolutely wrecks me.

Now that I think of it, that would have made this a much better movie: for Firth's closeted, muted character to have learned, over the course of the film (not in the first two minutes) to FEEL deeply and mourn openly--maybe even confront his lover's family (I don't care that it wasn't in the book!)!

END SPOILER

Glamourboy, I do agree with you that Wild Things was one of the missed opportunities of the decade.

:)

I guess the way some here feel about Up is the way I feel about Up In The Air: most overrated film of the year (I haven't seen A Serious Man or A Single Man). Obvious, predictable, not nearly as profound as it thinks it is, unable to successfully balance the serious and the funny. I walked in convinced I would love it and walked out wanting a refund.

Deserved or not, props to Lee Daniels for being the second African-American to recieve a nomination for directing.

Hey Jenab, pleased to have the discussion with you. In terms of your issues...

Oh, and more SPOILERS

1. Yes, Ford does make his living photography beauty, and I do agree that the film sometimes looked like a perfume ad. That is my only real problem with the film. But beauty is not what make's Firth's character's life worth living...he has the great scene in his classroom where he talks about what is important to him...which is honesty. He talks passionately about how Americans are being brought up to be coke-drinking, mindless people, their souls sold to Madison Avenue. He doesn't buy into the Red Scare. One of the best scenes in the movie is where he sits on a couch with his boyfriend, reading books. It isn't a sexual moment....or even an overly glamourized one...it is one of those simple moments that we take for granted when we are with someone we love. Again, he doesn't seek out the Nicholas Hoult character...the character searches him out, after Firth rejects him time and time again. As he rejects the Spanish guy outside the liquor store. There is beauty all around him..yet he is killing himself because he misses his partner.

2. I thought that his gesture in spending time with the Moore character was a gift to her. he wanted to give her one last good time and memory to hold onto. It was so evident, through Firth's performance, that he knew this was going to devastate her..and that he had weighted the options...but his pain was too great.

3. Again, Firth's character, NEVER sought this character out. I really don't get where you are coming from. If there was a film about a straight character who's wife had died...and he finally allows himself to go on a date again...would you have a problem with that? In fact, isn't that the plot of a lot of films? Men and women returning to the living after a period of mourning? I'm not going to fully call out the homophobic card (after all, you did see the movie)...but I think there is certainly a double standard here. Did you hate the William Hurt character in Accidental Tourist because after grieving for his son...a woman appears into his life...and time after time he rejects her...yet when he accepts her, he is finally able to heal.

All I can say, is that as a gay man, this movie meant everything to me. My partner and I were very moved by it and felt it expressed things that hardly ever get expressed in films. It moved me in ways that Avatar, District 9, The Blind Side, Up and most of the other best picture nominees never could.

jennab, just to address your problems with the film briefly.

#1: I think many people mistook the way Ford shot the film as overly fashionable and emotionally distant because he is a designer. I'm surprised to hear that because many of Ford's closeups linger on emotional themes; several closeups of characters' eyes and faces and particular shots of characters to convey a particular feeling. The pan-up shot of the little girl in the bank to contrast the pain Firth's character is feeling at that moment with unadulterated innocence that snaps him back into the present.

Several times during the film when Firth's character falls into wistfulness and seems ready to let go of his surroundings, he is brought into an EMOTIONAL CONNECTION with those around him, whether it's Julianne Moore's character, the Spanish callboy, an old picture, the little girl next door, the scent of a flower or his student. It's EMOTIONAL CONNECTION that each time brings Firth's character back from the brink.

Problem #2: I almost agree with you here, but Ford was being faithful to his source material and also to the time period. This isn't the 1990's with Debra Messing fag-hagging it up for Will. It's also used to show that compared to his relationship with Jim, the one with Charley (Moore) has less depth.

Problem #3: I disagree. I think the student was used to remind George of what caused him to fall in love in the first place, pull him back from the brink and set him at peace. George didn't have the family Heath Ledger had in "Brokeback." He was left utterly heartbroken without any direction or reason to carry on. He never has any sexual encounter in the movie...his last encounter shows him that there is still hope and kinship in what seems like a cruel world.

All that being said...the one problem I have with the film is that it bears major similarities to "The Fountain" not just in the broad theme, but in a nearly identical score and lensing, i.e. sudden bursts of color to characterize life and a draining of the palette to accentuate George's grief. Nitpicking I know, but I'm a huge fan of Fountain and every time that damn score started I became annoyed.

glamourboy great points....also wow Nicholas Hoult ain't the little kid from "About a Boy" anymore...haha.

yay 'in the loop'!

Glamourboy, I found Angora Boy too easy and the fact that he pursued Firth's character part of the problem: it made Firth PASSIVE in his journey. And, if his purpose was to show Firth's character that he could, indeed, find love again, I did not find Angora Boy worthy of a man like Firth and did not see any deep emotional/ spiritual connection between the two.

Did LOVE the books 'n socks scene. The beach scenes, which looked like something Bruce Webber would have shot for Calvin Klein, not as much. Aside to Dave: "dry" is not emotionally engaging.

Ethan, you say Firth's character was left utterly heartbroken...maybe in the back story. In the present, he appears very muted and detached. Couldn't his grief have bubbled up once or twice? Because that's what grief is like in real life.

GB, you mention that you and your partner loved the movie. I'm Persian and I LOVED House of Sand & Fog, whereas many of my friends thought it overwrought and melodramatic. But I loved it for the same reason you stated: I had never seen an Iranian family depicted so accurately on screen before.

Anyhow, I am glad it moved you, and I really should only be applauding Ford for taking a risk and self-financing his film!

Sam, re: Public Enemies, you know, I didn't even see Miami Vice and was only "m'eh" on Collateral, but I thought, first and foremost, that Johnny Depp was brilliant in PE. At turns swaggering, menacing, charming, and vulnerable, so much flickering across that amazing face.

I thought it looked great, that the action scenes crackled but, more importantly, there always seemed to be something at stake emotionally for the characters. For instance, a moment of heartbreak for Depp during the fantastic opening sequence when he lets go of the older prisoner during their escape. (Sorry, only saw it once in the theater and don't remember everything exactly.)

I didn't think there was really a mis-step in it, except for the casting of Cotillard, whose accent was VERY distracting. Other than that, I found the whole thing very assured and downright riveting.

Dr Wally, I hope it takes its place aside Heat as an overlooked masterpiece!

Kinda bummed that PARNASSUS was largely ignored, but at least two craft noms are better than zip, which is what ME AND ORSON WELLES and DAMNED UNITED got (though the latter was never really in the running). And I'm so glad HANGOVER got the big fat goose egg it so richly merited.

Surpised Baldwin was overlooked for Sup. Actor for COMPLICATED. Wonder if his hosting the show was a factor. (And yes, I know he's a bit of a dick, but so is Cameron.)

And I finally went to see BLIND SIDE yesterday. Much as I dislike true-story, race-based, inspirational sports dramas, I gotta say this one hit it outta the park (mixed metaphor intended)and really moved me. So I can't kick on this one (pun also intended).

Is 'Feed Molina' some kind of inside joke that I'm not getting?

Movieman wrote: Not a single nomination for "Where the Wild Things Are"? Really??
No adapted screenplay nod for "Fantastic Mr. Fox"? WTF?!?”

Yeah, there are a few films I have to see because despite the limited range of movement those sterioded muppets were quite convincing.

I actually thought both films would be worthy of Best Adapted nods but wondered if their being kids’ books would hurt them. Wild Things was my favorite book when I was young. I had been meaning to re-read it to see if I could see what they saw to pull that genesis of a story out. And then when Mr Fox opened DOA I kinda thought it’d be forgotten. Glad it got Best Score. That totally made the film.

I have not seen An Education. Not sure which of those other films I’d knock out. At first I was thinking District 9 was written originally for the film but then I vaguely remember some kind of short in So Africa, right?

Last year I got like 17 right. My best year ever. I think I’m gonna be back down to 12. I kinda expect some surprises.

The biggest miscarriage of creativity is Avatar being nominated for best cinematography.

Really? Aiming a camera at an actor in front of a bluescreen?

How does this happen?

Cinematography (from Greek: kinema - κίνημα "movement" and graphein - γράφειν "to record"), is the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for the cinema. It is closely related to the art of still photography.

I'm trying to figure out how a film that was created on a computer can be nominated for best cinematogrpahy. Was it beautiful, yes. But the beauty and scope of the movie wasn't captured by the cinematographer. It was framed and set up in post.

I can't figure out how something like this happens. If there's nothing real in the shot, or its a mo-cap performance, which much of the film is, how do you nominate them for an award?

SPOILERS

jennab...the man has a nervous emotional breakdown right after Jim's death. The majority of the film occurs sometime after the death...George's character is not the type of person to remain in hystrionics indefinitely. He has reached resignation.

jeff: It's a typo for "Fred" Molina.

You're right, Movielocke.
Christian MacKay definitely merited a nomination for his remarkable performance in "Me and Orson Welles."
If "M&OW" had been released by Sony Classics or the Weinstein-era Miramax, it might have racked up as may nods as "Shakespeare in Love" back in the day. And deservedly so.
Sam is right about Tilda Swinton's great work in "Julia" on both counts. Yes, it's a fantastic perf; and no, I never thought she had a snowball's chance in hell of being nominated.

I haven't seen any nomination list until now. It was a blessing.

10 nominees for Best Picture? What a joke. The reactionaries who dominate the vote hand-pick one title from each major studio and add on four additional titles to fill the quota.

Of course "Avatar" was going to get lots of nominations -- the Oscar hacks are easily impressed. Just don't bring up the non-stop hype, the hard sell, the corporate synergy, the worldwide day/date release.

WTF is with all those nominations for "The Blind Side"? The theocrats at the Parents Television Council are cheering. Next story CNN does about the PTC and its pro-censorship agenda will be the first.

Harvey Weinstein gets one last chance to buy Oscars though this year it'll be mainly with Universal's money.

Sony Pictures Classics is the new Miramax -- they know how to buy awards yet don't know s#!t about getting pix to a wide audience. Not only that, SPC's newspaper ads in the New York area get theater names and phone numbers wrong all the time. I'm surprised AMC, Clearview and Regal haven't come down hard.

Actor? Play a drunk, win an Oscar. Play a homo, win an Oscar. There's a token African American and obviously he's an upscale one.

Actress? Sandra Bullock has a double nomination -- an Oscar and a Razzie.

Foreign-language feature? Fixed for SPC. "The White Ribbon" goes national on 2/12; "A Prophet" opens 2 weeks later.

Anghus, the images in AVATAR still require composition. And the shots have all the earmarks of Cameron's gifted eye. Who chose a close-up of Sully's new Na'vi feet basking in dirt? Or the framing of the opening shot of Sully in that vast sleep chamber -- truly one of the most spectacular screen images in memory and worthy of Kubrick.

doesn't cinematorgraphy require a camera? did the shot of navi feet include a physically shot component?

I loved A Serious Man, but I can certainly see the dislike for it - the Coen Brothers have a style that can certainly seem like they are above the characters and the audience. They are so idiosyncratic that you're either on board or you're not....I was not on board with the third act of 'No Country or The Man Who Wasn't There or really O Brother Where Art Though. I quite dug Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Big Lebowski, and even Burn After Reading.

But for some reason, this movie just really WORKED for me - I was in a crappy mood when it started and in a much better mood, afterwards. Honestly, what worked best is that I just found the movie damn funny and Michael Stuhlberg quite engaging. I can see how the movie might bug people, but to compare them to Solondz....sorry, too rough.

As for The Blind Side, I can honestly see the film getting into the Big five, easily, in a past year - it certainly stacks up well against films like Million Dollar Baby and A Beautiful Mind. And The Sixth Sense and Ghost also got Best Picture nominations, it's really not unheard for a major sleeper hit to get in the big five.

If I had to pick the five that would have gotten nominated regardless, it would be The Blind Side, Up in the Air, Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and An Education - maybe Inglorious Basterds.

The biggest surprise for me is still District 9 - pure genre film in the vein of Children of Men, The Dark Knight, etc. - without 10, it would not have made it and that makes this work for me. And it hasn't been said in this blog, but if Sony was pulling out all the stops for this one, why couldn't they get Sharlto Colpley a nod? I'm probably in the extreme minority here, but his was the performance of the year, no matter the genre - think of how his character acts in the beginning, the ups and downs of his arc, and how much you care about him in the end, despite.....

SPOILER ALERT

the fact that all that's left is a special effect. It's truly amazing stuff and much of the credit has to go to the actor. I haven't seen Invictus or A Single Man, but I doubt their respective performancs are nearly as effective.

As for the Up-backlash, it is a tad overrated, I agree. But does the film accomplish what it sets out to do? Undoubtedly. I wouldn't even put it among the top five Pixar films, but that's still tough company.

And yeah, the cinematography in Avatar was amazing - people forget that Cameron was fully operating the camera and planning out every shot meticulously. This was not a case of just running software program called "Massive" on a computer screen and editing it, later. People are truly making the mistake of lumping in this guy in with Lucas a la the Star Wars prequels - if you listen to the actors like Saldana or Lang in interviews for this movie, they do not sound at all like Portman or McGregor did back then. These were actors fully engaged in the process.

It was a movie created in the most classical sense, just using groundbreaking technology.

I loved A Serious Man, but I can certainly see the dislike for it - the Coen Brothers have a style that can certainly seem like they are above the characters and the audience. They are so idiosyncratic that you're either on board or you're not....I was not on board with the third act of 'No Country or The Man Who Wasn't There or really O Brother Where Art Though. I quite dug Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Big Lebowski, and even Burn After Reading.

But for some reason, this movie just really WORKED for me - I was in a crappy mood when it started and in a much better mood, afterwards. Honestly, what worked best is that I just found the movie damn funny and Michael Stuhlberg quite engaging. I can see how the movie might bug people, but to compare them to Solondz....sorry, too rough.

As for The Blind Side, I can honestly see the film getting into the Big five, easily, in a past year - it certainly stacks up well against films like Million Dollar Baby and A Beautiful Mind. And The Sixth Sense and Ghost also got Best Picture nominations, it's really not unheard for a major sleeper hit to get in the big five.

If I had to pick the five that would have gotten nominated regardless, it would be The Blind Side, Up in the Air, Avatar, The Hurt Locker, and An Education - maybe Inglorious Basterds.

The biggest surprise for me is still District 9 - pure genre film in the vein of Children of Men, The Dark Knight, etc. - without 10, it would not have made it and that makes this work for me. And it hasn't been said in this blog, but if Sony was pulling out all the stops for this one, why couldn't they get Sharlto Colpley a nod? I'm probably in the extreme minority here, but his was the performance of the year, no matter the genre - think of how his character acts in the beginning, the ups and downs of his arc, and how much you care about him in the end, despite.....

SPOILER ALERT

the fact that all that's left is a special effect. It's truly amazing stuff and much of the credit has to go to the actor. I haven't seen Invictus or A Single Man, but I doubt their respective performancs are nearly as effective.

As for the Up-backlash, it is a tad overrated, I agree. But does the film accomplish what it sets out to do? Undoubtedly. I wouldn't even put it among the top five Pixar films, but that's still tough company.

And yeah, the cinematography in Avatar was amazing - people forget that Cameron was fully operating the camera and planning out every shot meticulously. This was not a case of just running software program called "Massive" on a computer screen and editing it, later. People are truly making the mistake of lumping in this guy in with Lucas a la the Star Wars prequels - if you listen to the actors like Saldana or Lang in interviews for this movie, they do not sound at all like Portman or McGregor did back then. These were actors fully engaged in the process.

It was a movie created in the most classical sense, just using groundbreaking technology.

Sorry about the double post. But one thing I forgot to mention about A Serious Man - one thing that the movie apart from me, especially from the snarkier Coen Brothers films is the main character.

Say what you want about how mean the movie comes off, but Larry Gopnick is a truly decent and honorable character, I found him quite likeable. This is not Barton Fink. Probably their most symphathetic and decent character since Marge Gunderson.

True, except Gopnick is the biggest schlemiel in recent movie history and...and that was it. Stuhlberg was funny, but the same note over and over...like the wife. It's as cynically predetermined as a Solondoz film, let's say.

How do they manage to give "In The Loop" a Best Screenplay nod but not sneak Peter Capaldi into the Best Supporting Actor category? Damn. Could've dropped Damon out of that category.

i heard that, hallick (is there a tally anywhere of which oscar nominated screenplay has the record for the most profanity? 'in the loop' has got to be right up there, just epic)

sharlto should be in freeman's slot

We can all get hot n bothered about those INVICTUS nods but it was a shoe-in because the Academy LOVES:

Impressions
Fake Accents
Fake Noses
Weight loss or gain

Invictus has 3 of those 4

C'mon people, get with the program.

Cadavra, Terry Gilliam’s films never had major Oscar shots, even though his better-liked films could always get few Oscar nominations.

2 Oscar nominations for “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” is definitely a respectful result for Terry Gilliam's standard.

"We can all get hot n bothered about those INVICTUS nods but it was a shoe-in because the Academy LOVES:

Impressions
Fake Accents
Fake Noses
Weight loss or gain

Invictus has 3 of those 4

C'mon people, get with the program."

Somewhere, Mike "Fat Bastard" Meyers and Dana "Pistachio Disguisey" Carvey are shaking their heads wistfully at that remark...

But seriously, you left out the real Academy clincher for "Invictus": Eastwood.

Mike Myers, duh...

"sharlto should be in freeman's slot"

Sharlto love! Remind me that I owe you a fist tap (the high five of the 21st century) if I'm ever in NZ, leah. Copley's performance was sublime.

Sharlto wasn't pushed enough - I suspect nobody who made DISTRICT 9 really remotely thought it would actually be a Best Picture nominee, so they didn't work the room as such.

Only interview piece I ever saw with Sharlto was in EW.

Not saying he would have been a shoo-in if he had been pushed...I voted for him at the LAFCA awards and was pretty much alone.

Christian, I agree with you re: Gopnick being a one-note character. I disagree with you re: Avatar's cinematography (the examples you're bringing up - shot framing - are direction, not cinematography).

And Yancy, I figured it was 'Fred' Molina. I was just hoping against hope that it wasn't Lazy David Poland Typo #57023960.

"if you listen to the actors like Saldana or Lang in interviews for this movie, they do not sound at all like Portman or McGregor did back then"

McGregor in particular came across as pretty bemused by the whole thing.

It seems we've moved on from Up, but I wanted to mention that part of my problem with it was indeed that opening montage. It's the first five minutes and yet I'm meant to be weeping and bawling for people I don't even know. I am incredibly suspicious of anyone who says they were crying during that scene. It's like, do you cry every single time you see some bad news on the tele? And then the movie suddenly makes these characters friends once the story demands it and the villain was weak (i mean, really, shouldn't he be 150 years old or something?)

Still, I liked the movie, just not as much as any other Pixar. I'm on team Fox and Coraline! And maybe even team Kells if it can get a release of some kind.

I saw March 6 for Kells apparently - I'm assuming that's this year for wide release and not last year. Might get an improved international release if they scramble to take advantage of the (fairly unexpected) Oscar bump.

I probably would have pushed Princess out for Ponyo (you know, if I RULED THE WORLD), but I'm happy to go Team Coraline.

i understand that Cameron is a hands on director.

i understand that groundbreaking technology was used to create most of the visuals.

the question, still unanswered is, how can a movie be nominated for cinematography when a vast majority of the shots used little to no camera shots.

there are vast pieces of the film where mo-cap was the only filmed segment as well as shots that used no physical camera shots.

Pixar films have beautiful visuals, but beautiful visuals is not the definition of cinematography.

I think the technological changes have to be taken into consideration when using the term now. If Spielberg directs a shot in A.I. of Osmet sitting on the edge of an underwater skyscraper, what part did the actual cinematographer shoot since so much of the shot is already a digital image and then you see how it all breaks down.

I get what anghus is getting at (I think) in that the cinematography category seems to have evolved (or, devolved) into some kind of catch-all for "cool shit onscreen." I guess the AVATAR stuff should *only* be special effects but like someone else said, there was shooting and framing and Cameron created amazing imagery. Plus what Cameron did with 3D isn't a special effect, he shot scenes that worked brilliantly with 3D. That's gotta be considered cinematography, right?

Maybe a new category needs to be created as we move more and more into a CGI cinematic landscape.

"WTF is with all those nominations for "The Blind Side"? The theocrats at the Parents Television Council are cheering. Next story CNN does about the PTC and its pro-censorship agenda will be the first."

Actually, one of the things that most impressed me was that it depicts Christians actually behaving in a Christian manner--y'know, helping the poor and needy and downtrodden, instead of threatening hell and damnation to anyone who doesn't look like them and think like them. I can't imagine the Dobsons and Bozells of the world getting too excited about a movie in which rich white people selflessly help a "colored boy."

re: the avatar photography, roughly 40% is live-action/live-action compositing shot traditionally, the remainder by virtual camera.

the virtual camera is a huge conceptual shift for cinema, completely changing the terms of image capture and cinematic 'space', what the viewer sees and how they see it.

in traditional film photography the camera is an apparatus long associated with the 'eye', a simulation of the eye that obeys the laws of physics. with the advent of the virtual camera, the aesthetic is changing from traditional composition IN the frame and staging of subjects/action FOR the camera - the position of the camera dictating the arrangement of the subjects for the shot or vice versa - to the composition of SPACE and staging OF the camera in the virtual world. the camera itself is an element of the composition rather than a tool used to capture it.

because the virtual camera is unmediated and therefore not limited to the constraints of physical space - or the viewer's realistic expectations/perceptions of space dictated by the limited intermediary nature of the traditional camera - the VC is omnipotent and transcendent as 'the vanishing point' of the viewer's perception, able to transcend the boundaries and confines of traditional cinematic 'space' and composition, allowing for unlimited production possibilities.

anghus, your assumption that the virtual photography for avatar was achieved in post as a vis effect is quite off base; the motion capture navi portion of the shoot was performed on a virtual stage, which is a live-action set with actors, camera operators and direction very similar to traditional live action film-making, not the same as performing against a green screen.

what was once a product of post production has moved a great deal into real time, with mobile hand-held virtual cameras (screens) used to view the actual actors as they perform, seen in the VC in a fully constructed virtual world of pandora complete with rudimentary rendering of their navi characters, thus enabling real-time direction and critique of perfs. composition of shots is performed in real time incorporating the actor's perfs, shot by the virtual camera by camera operators just the same as traditional photography.

however, the transcendent nature of the VC allows for far more than simulation of traditional camera movements such as crane/aerial shots, with unlimited ability to fly through the virtual world completely flexible and 'gymnastic' - limited only by the imagination of the film-makers, which is pretty damn amazing.

there are so many examples of brilliant photography in avatar, but just for a quick example, during the thanator chase in the first act, as avatar jake evades the beast the camera follows him through gaps and nooks and holes the in tree roots and such, shots that would never be possible with traditional photography. avatar was only the first step, the possibilities and potential are mind-bobbling.

crap, i forgot:

"Sharlto love! Remind me that I owe you a fist tap (the high five of the 21st century) if I'm ever in NZ, leah. Copley's performance was sublime."

amen to that, hallick. 'wikus' could have so easily been an one-dimensional self-absorbed rather unlikable bureaucratic twat but sharlto played him with such palpable emotion, despair, love-sickness and horror, that even tho he is a bit of a weenie and dick at times (much of the time really) we still feel for the guy and root for him like crazy. sharlto makes wikus utterly convincing imho, and that's a shitload more than i can say for freeman in 'invictus' (and i say that as a long-time fan of freeman)

(reading that i had a feeling LYT would chime in there for sharlto, good on you for being his one-man champ)

lol, cringe. i just had a chance to read thru my babble on the virtual camera and see i ended it with 'mind-bobbling' - 'boggling' would be the word i was trying for, i'm so dyslexic

These days, digital cinematography is quite serious: remember that Pixar brought on Roger Deakins as a consultant so they could create a realistic cinemascope look and feel to WALL-E. Understanding optics -- and lighting -- at a fundamental level so you can create them digitally doesn't seem (to me) to be just "pointing a camera at a bluescreen". I can't recall where I read this, but Cameron talked in some interview about how his DP (and he) were able to parlay their decades of camera operating and technical knowledge into creating photorealistic images: chromatic aberrations from imperfect lenses, how light refracts and reflects off jungle canopies, etc. Since they were (for the first time) creating full 3-D digital environments, they needed to essentially re-create real-world situations. I don't have an issue with them getting a nomination out of this.

virtual optics is another component of virtual photography, and the optics in avatar are stunning

speaking of that, one of the more interesting aspects of the virtual photography in avatar is the subtle and sublime use of focus. i was amazed at how 'traditional camera'-like the change of focus was, particularly during motion sequences from foreground to background and change of subject, as close to the look of traditional camera photography achieved by the virtual camera as i've seen produced to date.

virtual camerawork is still just that:

virtual.

it's animation.

until you remove "graphy" from "cinematography", it's still the art of capturing. not the art of staging.

to see Avatar next to White Ribbon in the category frames my argument fairly well.

And yes don, you hit the nail on the head.

create a new category. let's end this joke. 100 different people were responsible for the composition of Avatar. For it to be nominated as cinematography is just completely ludicrous.

be impressed by the visuals. but lets call it what it is: CGI

gee, anghus, did you read ANY of what i, or telemachos for that matter, wrote? never mind, you know best. even tho you've pretty much shown that you don't have the first clue about the virtual camera or virtual photography, you persist as if you do, unwilling to listen to anyone who might speak to the contrary of your preordained opinion firmly rooted in ignorance. kudos!

"virtual camerawork is still just that:

virtual.

it's animation."

no, it's not. the virtual camera is NOT 'animation', that's just incorrect. should virtual photography have a separate category from traditional film photography? well, that's debatable; 'photo-real' virtual photography requires the exact same visual skill-set as traditional photography, tho the skills required to bring it to fruition in the virtual world are different, but either way perhaps the debate should be had by people who are actually aware of how virtual photography is achieved.

"until you remove "graphy" from "cinematography", it's still the art of capturing. not the art of staging"

huh? are you saying the photography of avatar didn't require staging in both the live-action and virtual world? that statement alone shows that you don't have an understanding of how avatar was made, or how films requiring compositing are photographed, or how elements in the 3D virtual world must be staged, and who makes those decisions re: staging, in order for virtual photography to be achieved.

"100 different people were responsible for the composition of Avatar"

i thought the subject at hand was virtual photography? perhaps you are mistaking the handful of people responsible for the vision, decision-making process and complexity behind the photography of avatar, both traditional and virtual, for the hundreds of people responsible for rendering the computer imagery of avatar. two completely separate things.

Nobody is bringing up Harry Potter in this decade since a large portion of that movie was merely visual effects and computer-altered lighting effects.

And THE WHITE RIBBON was shot in color, then manipulated and printed as B&W.

I haven't even seen AVATAR yet, but I think I'm with leah on this (great post at 4:19 pm!). It is tricky though. Cinematography encompasses lighting, composition and movement, and all are affected by this new technology. The term may yet become completely outdated, but those principles will remain. Are awards to be given for the effects achieved, or the methods used to achieve them? I wouldn't be surprised if some categories get modified eventually. Best Visual Design, perhaps, to honor the principles of cinematography regardless of the technology used?

cheers, yancy. yes, it's a prickly one.

and harry potter raises the spectre (again) of compositing; so much of the finished product we see in the cinema now is composited imagery - live action photography enhanced and manipulated with cg imagery in post - and when it's done well it can be difficult to discern where in-camera live-action/traditional photography and sets end and virtual photography/CG imagery and the virtual word begins. i consider myself fairly astute at spotting compositing but i'm sometimes amazed to discover when studying an unfamiliar production that having presumed something was entirely CG, it is for example miniatures or an in-camera effect, or vice versa.

avatar is true a hybrid and i would think a bit of a litmus test; the roughly 40%-60% split is fairly easy to peg by virtue of the navi segments, but in the case of 'half blood prince' for example, what % of the photography is composited/CG, 30%? 12% 22%? (i have no idea, just speculating) so if there was to be a separate distinction for virtual photography, how would the wide-spread and liberal use of compositing in today's photography fit in? where would the line be? 50-50? none? i guess time will tell

leah, i get everything you said. you're obviously far more knowledgable in this area, but i stand by my assertion.

vir·tu·al

4 : being on or simulated on a computer or computer network

By your definition, could A Christmas Carol be nominated for best cinematography?

virtual is virtual.

the white ribbon comment is not apt, since processing is only altering what was shot in real time with a physical component.

My WHITE RIBBON comment wasn't intended to draw a direct parallel between that and AVATAR, photography-wise. I just meant to point out that even an otherwise traditionally shot film made use of technology in a way that muddies the waters when it comes to fully judging the cinematographer's achievement.

Aren't a lot of digital films these days shot "flat," with all the great lighting and color effects added after the fact. Theoretically, a color blind DP who can't light for shit will one day win an Oscar on the backs of his post-production team. :)

re: 'a christmas carol'

but anghus, isn't that an entirely animated film? (i never got around to seeing it so i'm assuming it is)

i'm guessing you realise that avatar is by no means entirely CG, the (nearly half) live-action is extremely important to the story and the photography, which is composited seamlessly with the virtual camera and virtual world.

further, the revolutionary way the performances were captured on the virtual stage with real-time staging and photography in avatar is quite an achievement, with an undeniable live-action component. this can not just being waved off as 'animation', which would seem to be your desire.

but what is it about the virtual camera and the direction required for it in the virtual world that so annoys you? every single shot has to be staged, composed, lit, and rendered with the required optics. this can be done averagely, or in the case of avatar this can be done brilliantly.

do you think the graphics artists just sit down at the computer and render a shot from scratch? i honestly don't get what your dealio is here. is it that the DoP doesn't have to physically walk on the set to do the job, or check the camera on the crane or lenses, etc,. is it this physically fiddling with bits that makes it real for you?

i'm not sure you understand that the same visual and decision-making skills are required, the same collaboration with the director - but yes, done virtually without the physical fiddling

anyway, my question to you then is, in regards to the point i was trying to make re: compositing and harry potter, and which also sort of speaks to yancy's point about how a blind DoP could now light in film in post (and they often do), do you think you can even tell how much of modern film photography is achieved in post production, with CGI enhancement and manipulation of shots, lighting, etc?

if you pooh-pooh CGI and the virtual camera/virtual world, to your way of thinking should ANY photography that involves post production enhancement CGI be made exempt or have a separate category for any type of merit award? where is the line?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)