Life of Pi Oscar 'an insult to cinematography'

Tools    





I get sick of hearing people complain about oscar winning movies. There's more good than there is bad. Is there terrible oscar winners well yes there is? But I'd say most films are enjoyable to people than they are not. I have no gripes about the academy, actually if we want to be realistic I think the past 3 years has been the worst the academy has rewarded (as a 3 year stretch).



Well, for me, The Hurt Locker over Inglourious Basterds was derp city. I wish it didn't make me kinda mad, but it does. I like The Hurt Locker, but my 2009 wasn't even close. Though to be fair, I'm part of that odd crowd that thinks IB is Tarantino's best.

I really don't get sick of complaints about the Oscars because we all have them and it's always an interesting discussion. Terrible as it is, there are some times where I know my opinion is just an opinion, but I believe it to be so true that it might as well be a fact. Dangerous thinking, of course, but the Academy slips up. And when they do, it's fun to argue about it.
__________________
~ I am tired of ze same old faces! Ze same old things!
Xbox Live: Proximiteh



Given that about 3,000 movies are released every year, which means it is impossible for anyone to actually know all the movies released in a year, thus any prize given to best film of the year actually doesn't tend to mean much at all: the voting body cannot know the entire set of films released in the year and thus cannot judge what film is the best of the year. Even if we assume that films aren't subjective.

The Oscars are prizes given to Hollywood films and they always tend to favor films that follow more closely the style of classical Hollywood. They should be taken for what they are: prizes given to Hollywood films which manage to follow the expectations of trying to look like films made in classical Hollywood.

All movies that won the best picture prize in the Oscars were dramas, set in either contemporary or historical settings. Never a science fiction movie, a foreign language movie or either an animation movie won the Oscar for best picture. A fantasy movie won the Oscar in 2003, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, but given that the LotR's trilogy was like 10 times better than anything else made by Hollywood in those years, a single best movie Oscar for the whole trilogy is almost offensive, given they gave the award to Chicago in 2002!

I don't care for these prizes. Either the Oscar, Pal'D Or, Golden Lion or Golden Bear. Annual prizes for best artwork of the year? Great art takes time to be discovered, anyway.

But I also admit am not qualified to judge what is the best movie in each year given that I have watched only about 2% of all the movies made between 1990 and 2012. Nobody really is able to give a knowledgeable opinion, since a year is to short a timeframe for anyone to actually know everything released in a single year.



Not a Tarantino fan, but if the guy was ever going to win an Oscar it would have been for that.
Well, the following directors never won a best picture Oscar:

Orson Welles

Alfred Hitchcock

Stanley Kubrick

These are the three greatest English language directors of all time.

So, who cares about that prize anyway if the best Hollywood directors never won it?



Well, the following directors never won a best picture Oscar:

Orson Welles

Alfred Hitchcock

Stanley Kubrick

These are the three greatest English language directors of all time.

So, who cares about that prize anyway if the best Hollywood directors never won it?
I don't. And quite frankly no one should. I am just saying if Tarantino was to win an Oscar, his time has passed. Hell I am a Scorsese fan and he has been screwed out of so many Oscars for movies like Raging Bull and Taxi Driver I know the Academy is full of it! And your three examples only add to that point.



Most would agree that it has superior cinematography to each of the movies that were nominated.
that doesn't prove anything.

What I'm trying to say is, what point are you trying to make exactly?
just taking out my bad mood on you.

off topic, but the oscars hasn't had a decent best picture since no country for old men.
emm..King's Speech?
Also,I think There Will Be Blood was much much better than No Country for Old Men

I don't care much for Oscars but I love to watch them basically because of the show and that fact that such a nice ceremony is dedicated only to the film industry.^^ As for Oscar winners,I tend to think that best film doesn't win but neither does a bad one.Usually something average or above average takes the Oscar.



I think it was a bit odd that Life of Pi won cinematography as well as digital effects. I should have thought that cinematography would be for inventive and artistic ways of filming using a camera, for example the gorgeous cinematography you got in every Powell and Pressburger film. It's about how the cinematography adds to the film, which is why I wouldn't give the award to Skyfall either as it doesn't have any reasons to be beautiful.



I am the Watcher in the Night
I'm with Doyle and most of you guys, how can a movie, most of which was constructed post-production using special effects be given an award for cinematography. Doesn't that go against the whole concepts of being a cinematographer?



What did you think of The Artist?
I like it less the more I think about it. The film literally won just because it's a silent black and white film.



I am the Watcher in the Night
I like it less the more I think about it. The film literally won just because it's a silent black and white film.
I think that's unfair. It is actually a lovely movie, beautifully shot with some of that old school Hollywood glamour.



Yeah, The Master, which had the best cinematography of last year, should have won. As already mentioned it wasn't even nominated. But again, the Oscars have always been a joke.



I like it less the more I think about it. The film literally won just because it's a silent black and white film.
Even though I do not think that's why it won the Oscar, I am one of the few that didn't like it at all. I just wasn't interested in it, and thought I'd love it.



I'm with Doyle and most of you guys, how can a movie, most of which was constructed post-production using special effects be given an award for cinematography. Doesn't that go against the whole concepts of being a cinematographer?
Indeed. Modern hollywood movies are mostly animated anyway and there is already an Oscar for best animation and best special effects.



A system of cells interlinked
I guess I get where this cynical ******* is coming from (and he IS a cynical *******), but like someone said, he's a bit late to the party. What about the Coen Brothers' Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? That thing is just drenched in post, and yet I don't see people lining up to bash the cinematography there...

Look, I love classic cinema and classic cinema techniques, but there is room for both in the world of film. Life of Pi was a fantastic experience, and I can't wait to watch it again.

Also, who cares about the Oscars? Don't they disappoint every year?
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



Also, who cares about the Oscars? Don't they disappoint every year?
Only if you expect anything from them. Oscar night just means I'm on here all night in the Oscar chat finding out what won and talking to you lot.



In the Beginning...
I think Christopher Doyle has the makings of a legitimate point, but there are two things I would say in response:

(1) When he says it's not cinematography, he's really saying it's not "traditional cinematography," and on that I have to agree. And while I'm not even going to try to argue that Claudio Miranda is a visionary on the edge of revolutionizing cinematography, I will argue that part of visualizing a film is knowing the fundamentals. It's not like any idiot with a computer can do this. It takes experience and a thoughtful, artistic eye for what makes a film look great. My guess is Miranda has done this a fair number of times before.

(2) Similarly, when Doyle says "97% of the film was not under his control," I doubt that's actually correct. You can't just shoot footage on green screen and then tell a team of visual artists to fill in the blanks. You've got to know what you want that final footage to look like before you even think about shooting. So my guess is Miranda invented that look and helped guide principal photography to that goal in a fundamental and totally indispensable way. In essence, when the cameras were rolling, he could see what everyone else couldn't. He was the only one who could verify that the film was shot exactly how it needed to be. And I'm guessing he worked closely with the visual artists in post-production to get the look right.

Who's to really say he was deserving of the Oscar? I do think traditional cinematography is still far more appealing than simply relying on "whatever you want" visual effects. But it's not like the guy was just sitting around with his feet up drawing a paycheck. So Doyle's rant was probably a bit unfair.



And when I'm all alone I feel I don't wanna hide
I guess I get where this cynical ******* is coming from (and he IS a cynical *******), but like someone said, he's a bit late to the party. What about the Coen Brothers' Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? That thing is just drenched in post, and yet I don't see people lining up to bash the cinematography there...
Many films are. Besides, lighting constitues a small portion of what makes cinematography "great".



I think Skyfall should have won that Oscar, such a beautifully shot film, some sublime sequences.
Life of pi deserved to win that oscar,that's better movie than Skyfall.