Best Cinematography Oscar 2014

Tools    


Which will be named Best Cinematography by Teh Academy?
3.23%
1 votes
THE GRANDMASTER, Philippe Le Sourd
70.97%
22 votes
GRAVITY, Emmanuel Lubezki
9.68%
3 votes
INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, Bruno Delbonnel
3.23%
1 votes
NEBRASKA, Phedon Papmichael
12.90%
4 votes
PRISONERS, Roger Deakins
31 votes. You may not vote on this poll




The five nominees are...



The Grandmaster, Philippe Le Sourd


Gravity, Emmanuel Lubezki


Inside Llewyn Davis, Bruno Delbonnel


Nebraska, Phedon Papamichael


Prisoners, Roger Deakins

.
.
.
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Gravity debris.jpg
Views:	2823
Size:	173.0 KB
ID:	12538   Click image for larger version

Name:	Nebraska outside.jpg
Views:	2485
Size:	66.8 KB
ID:	12539  
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



Gravity obviously. Really glad to see Prisoners nominated, though. Roger Deakins did a wonderful job in that film.



Gravity looks amazing, hard to say whether a CGI heavy film should win cinematography though. Prisoners looks amazing and would probably be my pick. Can't wait to see Llewyn Davis.
__________________
Letterboxd



Prisoners blew me away on Blu-ray. One of the best movies I've seen in high definition. I'm voting for that because, well, I loved the way it looked and I haven't seen the others and it has Jake Gyllenhaal in it.



Can somebody explain to me how best cinematography is chosen? What distinguishes these films from any other film? What is it that makes them better than others? I really don't understand :/



Prisoners blew me away on Blu-ray. One of the best movies I've seen in high definition. I'm voting for that because, well, I loved the way it looked and I haven't seen the others and it has Jake Gyllenhaal in it.
Same here. As I was watching it I was thinking, "wow, the cinematographer of this film is really good".

Then I realized why it looked so great as soon as the credits rolled.



Prisoners blew me away on Blu-ray. One of the best movies I've seen in high definition. I'm voting for that because, well, I loved the way it looked and I haven't seen the others and it has Jake Gyllenhaal in it.
Agreed. The aesthetic was one of the best things about the movie. Seems like there is a Deakins movie that blows everyone away every year.



Finished here. It's been fun.
I loved the look of Inside Llewyn Davis, I thought the film looks stunning as did Prisoners. But I picked Gravity. The film looked absolutely mesmerizing when I was in the movie theater.Visuals were(pardon the pun) literally out of this world.



Can somebody explain to me how best cinematography is chosen? What distinguishes these films from any other film? What is it that makes them better than others? I really don't understand :/
In this category, like most of the categories, it is the people who work in that trade and are Academy members who do the nominating. The other cinematographers who had nominating ballots are the ones who did the choosing, here, so you have to ask them or guess why they, as group, picked these five. You can assume that somebody who does it for a living has their own set of criteria, and that a layperson or even an Academy member from one of the other branches (actors, directors, sound mixers, executives, etc.) may well have different criteria. And while they may have a different level of appreciation for the art of cinematography, I'm sure that, as individuals, they are just as prone as every other one of the branches to count the film's overall quality versus "just" the cinematography, and to vote for their friends and mentors, or to not vote for cinematographers that they don't like for one reason or another, be it personal or professional. They are human, and I don't doubt that if they have had bad experiences working with one director or producer or whoever may be involved in a project, they may sometimes not vote for a film of theirs, even if it is very well shot.

However, once the nominees have been announced, every Academy member with a ballot gets to decide from among those five which is the "best". Whether they have an intimate, intricate understanding of what goes into the craft or not.


.
.
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	In Cold Blood.jpg
Views:	2230
Size:	156.2 KB
ID:	12613  





This past weekend, the American Society of Cinematographers bestowed their annual award for the best work in a feature film. Emmanuel Lubezki won for Gravity. As for how accurate a predictor for Oscar: well, not very. The ASC has been giving this award since 1986. In the twenty-seven years since, their award has only paired with Oscar ten times. That is a measly 37%.

Even with that negative history, Gravity should still be considered the favorite.

.
.
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	oscarprospectsgravity.jpeg
Views:	2017
Size:	98.2 KB
ID:	12903  



Ten days until the Academy Awards and we find out if Gravity's visual brilliance lands it this trophy.

How about snubs here? Anybody think there was a wonderfully shot movie from last year that didn't make the Oscar's list of five but should have?

Not surprisingly, Terrence Malick's To the Wonder is magnificently shot, by Emmanuel Lubezki, who is the favorite for Gravity, anyway. It didn't generate the kinds of awards attention that The Tree of Life did, nor is it as intricately designed as far as motion the way that Cuarón's film is, but it's beautiful to look at, for sure.

I also liked Adam Stone's work in Jeff Nichols' Mud and I hope they continue to collaborate, Sean Bobbitt captured some terrific stuff in Derek Cianfrance's The Place Beyond the Pines, and I thought Hoyte Van Hoytema and Spike Jonze very deftly combined L.A. and Shanghai for a subtle but extremely effective and evocative near-future Los Angeles in Her. I kind of can't believe that, even with a fairly limited filmography, that Van Hoytema hasn't been Oscar nominated yet. Let the Right One In, The Fighter, Her and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy are all top-notch. He's the D.P. for Christopher Nolan's Interstellar, releasing late in 2014, so he may very well be on the Oscar rolls next time.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Malick wonder.jpg
Views:	1790
Size:	82.0 KB
ID:	13054  



How about snubs here? Anybody think there was a wonderfully shot movie from last year that didn't make the Oscar's list of five but should have?
Luca Bigazzi for La grande bellezza comes to mind, but it's "foreign" so you know...
__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."





Again, completely unsurprising, but well deserved, and a bit of a belated Oscar for Emmanuel Lubezki, who definitely should have won before this (in his five previous nominations), certainly for The Tree of Life. Anyway, he's got one, now.

Maybe next year will finally be Roger Deakins' turn with Unbroken? Tune in next March.

.
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Award cinemat.jpg
Views:	1970
Size:	176.1 KB
ID:	13238