ASC Nominees. Cinematography With the Soldier-Spy Tattoo
Wednesday, January 11, 2012 at 12:33PM The cinematography guild has spoken and, like the Art Directors, Directors, Producers and Writers they're totally packing off for a vacay in the snowy murderous isles of Sweden with The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. What the hell is going on over there in Hollywood?* There was once a time, believe it or not, when instant remakes of foreign films were looked on suspiciously (from an artistic standpoint, not a financial one). Even The Departed which won rave reviews and eventually the Best Picture had some early doubters due to its remake nature. And Dragon Tattoo doesn't have those "masterpiece!" reviews. That said Jeff Cronenwerth is an amazing DP and like all of Fincher's films this one is beautifully put together. (We just wish he'd chosen material more worthy of his immense gift is all.)
The ASC Nominees
- Jeff Cronenwerth (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo)
- Emmanuel Lubezki (The Tree of Life)
- Robert Richardon (Hugo)
- Guilliaume Schiffman (The Artist)
- Hoyt van Hoytema (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy)
Emmanuel Lubezki, A.S.C., G.E.N.I.U.S.An excellent list all things considered.
I've given up hoping for Emmanuel Lubezki (100% certified genius) to ever win the Oscar and I suspect this year he'll lose again especially because The Tree of Life doesn't seem to have much AMPAS support. I expect the Oscar will go to either Schiffman or Richardson. The whole of the Academy votes on the winners and they often vote on their favorite film as opposed to how it's shot and lit.
But will these five men carry over to the Oscar nominations? Usually one person is dropped for the Oscar list.
* My three theories
a) Everyone is waking up and going "D'oh!" about The Social Network losing last year. Sorry Fincher!
b) Everyone loves violence against women (sadly this is obvious in pop culture) especially when its got the sheep's clothing of a sort of feminist icon wrapped around it.
c) Hollywood just really likes the movie and its freshest in the memory.
Reader Comments (19)
As well made as TGWTDT is, it feels like a cash grab by Fincher. Maybe he is at the point of his career where he becomes that mainstream Hollywood auteur the industry loves to embrace no matter what. Perhaps the late Dec. entry and controversies did helped the film.
But then again, his subpar films are better than most. Maybe not this year though.
They must be catching onto 'The Social Network' now. How else do you explain it? For me, it's pretty funny that in one year, I'm rooting for David Fincher to win it all, and then next, I'm wondering how he got awards attention in the first place. That's the Oscars for you, I suppose.
Andy -- 100% i'm with you there.
Don't give up hope for Lubezki. Oscar loves to correct past mistakes.
Van Hoytema is probably the one most likely to go if someone is dropped for the Oscar list (although Cronenweth seems vulnerable as well). Then again, does the cinematographer's branch really want to make room for War Horse? Oscar certainly loves Kaminski. He was even allowed to present once.
I know it reeks of optimism because AMPAS has a history of picking their favorite film's cinematography rather than the actual best cinematography, but I actually think The Tree of Life will win the Oscar this year. I've never seen a film have such a clear label as "the most beautiful (or beautifully shot) film of the year." I think laypeople might even think that more than cinematography-minded folks. I just don't see how it loses.
Lubezki is still the frontrunner in my mind. Even if The Tree of Life doesn't make it in for Best Picture, 3 of the past 10 winners of this award went to non-Best Picture nominees, so it's not like it's never happened before. A less useful but still interesting statistic is that only one of the past 10 Best Picture winners has also won for Best Cinematography, so if you're a statistics junkie, that doesn't seem encouraging for Schiffman.
There's actually a fair chance that these nominees could match the Academy 5/5, although War Horse could still definitely get in over Tinker Tailor.
I also don't see how Lubezki loses this (again), but then again, he lost for "Children of Men", and that was like the best cinematography of the whole decade or something like that.
As for Fincher. I agree. Last year: Why the hell not?? This year: Why the hell? :)
I think it's between Richardson and Lubezki (leaning Lubezki because of Richardson's Aviator win) in this category as of now. Cronenwerth and Hoytema are a bit young yet and Schiffman's a never nominated unknown.
Volvagia -- yes but in the craft categories the voters are rarely concerned with nomination statistics and age and whether or not someone is due. Those cartegories don't get enough press for people voting to realize who is who. unless they know thme personally.
I know its not exactly related but I wonder if Rooney Mara might sneak into Best Actress over someone like Swinton or Close as she's fresh in the memory, the industry clearly loves the film.
Not that GWTDT is my favorite film of the year or anything (though I liked it), but I'm getting a bit tired of this "pointless remake" and "cash grab" business. The Swedish movie itself was as much of a cash grab, coming out almost immediately after the books international success came about. The result is serviceable, but largely mediocre and easily improvable (not to even bring the terrible sequels into this). Fincher and Co. were obviously inspired more by the books (and their popularity) than anything to do with the Swedish movie. Most agree that the end result is superior (the degree differs). Is this a "First"! thing? Will there still be this attitude if sequels materialize? I'm just a bit confused and tired of reading the same thing over and over with little justification.
I loved "The Artist", but am I the only person who thinks there was nothing special about its cinematography?
Agree with Nicolas, I don't see anything special about the artist's cinematography.
Indeed, Drew. The original is nothing special. And Fincher's version is one of the best films of the year. The internet world (i.e. bloggers) loves to pounce on a filmmaker when he's coming off a career highlight (The Social Network). Same thing happened to Jackson after LOTR ended.
And the material IS feminist. That was the whole point of the books. But little ole Nathaniel can't handle extreme violence, therefore that makes the film a celebration of violence against women. It's funny that people are trying to peg it as a "cash grab" considering the material at hand. A dark, violent, feminist detective thriller is a cash grab? Okay, live in your bubble.
All I have to say is...name one legitimate flaw in the film. The not-so-mysterious mystery plot? That's not a flaw, that's your absurd expectations. Besides, if you've seen the original, then you're biased...because you already know the outcome. You can't unsee what you saw. Maybe the majority of the guilds/AMPAS havn't seen the original. Afterall, people who havn't seem to like it a lot more than those that have.
Tony -- maybe i shouldn't have said something so flame throwing because talking about this movie exhausts me but i think the sexuality is CLEARLY fucked up. It's all little girl and daddies lurid fantasy. and the book might be called "men who hate women" originally but titling a book in an anti misogyny way does not immediately absolve it of responsibility in the way it portrays the fantasies of misogynists.
As Slant magazine said in their review -- which is a better review than I managed --- she's just running from one daddy to another, even when she's "empowered" . Plus I've never thought that rape revenge fantasies were all that feminist. they're just revenge fantasies. violence for violence. how is this feminist? It seems less feminist and more base human nature eye for an eye to me. And that has nothing to do with genitalia.
legitimate flaws? we're talking about a subjective art form. I think the plot has abundant trouble getting started. Abundant trouble bringing its characters together. Abundant troubles in wrapping up in climactic way (the climax is totally an anti-climax. the heroes do nothing other than survive and the villain accidentally dies.) and then abundant trouble closing after the story is over. To me there are a LOT of flaws in this telling.
But yes, it's way better than the swedish film. Because Fincher is a great stylist if he's anything.
Nat, I agree with every word. It's disturbing how this book/movie has become the standard-bearer for feminism. It claims to be against violence against women when really it just wallows in it.
I find it strange that people are surprised that TGWTDT is gathering all these nominations. I might be mistaken, but early in the race, weren't pundits/bloggers predicting that this film would be part of the race?
To back up Nathaniel, calling the plot "not-so-mysterious" or, to be more blunt, predictable, has nothing to do with having absurd expectations. It's not just about having seen the original film or having read the book that could give someone that impression. I, for instance, had not read the book or seen the Swedish film, and I had much of the mystery figured out within the first half hour. And don't think I'm making myself out to be a genius detective here; I just thought it was quite obvious who the villain was based on the way the character was portrayed. I don't necessarily fault Fincher for that since it obviously wasn't his idea to have that outcome, but I'm just saying that there's a perfectly valid argument to be made that the movie was more predictable and formulaic than it seemed to think it was given its ultra-serious, dark tone.
I think most people agree that the character of Lisbeth is fascinating, but after that, it really comes down to how much a fan of mystery thrillers the viewer is, because in my humblest of opinions, that's really all it is: a well shot but unremarkable mystery thriller with a compelling female lead.
"and the villain accidentally dies." I had forgotten that :(