Lensing Black Faces: Why the Bradford Young Snub Stings
Monday, January 19, 2015 at 10:14AM Manuel here taking the MLK holiday to discuss the cinematography category in terms of its aversion to honor black faces.
Young on the Selma set
Amidst all the outrage surrounding Selma’s near-shutout at the Academy Awards (nabbing only two nominations in Best Picture and Best Original Song), the focus has been on Ava DuVernay’s absence in the unsurprisingly male best director lineup and David Oyelowo’s absence in the unsurprisingly white best actor lineup. I want to focus today on Bradford Young’s absence in the best cinematography lineup. Had Young been nominated, he’d have been only the second African-American black D.P. [Ed. Note: thanks for correcting me on this crucial distinction, Ian & 3rtful] to be nominated for an Oscar (the first and only so far is Remi Adefarasin, nominated for his beautiful work on Elizabeth). Of course, this also reveals the systemic lack of diversity that TFE bestie Jessica Chastain brought up just last week at the Critic’s Choice Awards. Can you really focus on this type of statistic without addressing larger institutional issues? Not really. Or rather, not constructively. And so, rather than focus on this one snub which is already quite disappointing given Young’s rising profile, I wanted to know what it might tell us about the academy’s reticence to celebrate D.P.’s that lens black faces.
I’m never satisfied with the way I see my people photographed in movies. I think it comes from a lack of consciousness – if you grew up in a community where you don’t know black people, I wouldn’t suspect you would photograph them in a concerned way. - Young on the Politics of Lensing Black Films
The Academy, as it turns out, has been rather skittish about nominating directors of photography who have worked with the type of canvas Young so skillfully paints with in Selma. Indeed, several films with predominantly black casts have been on the hunt for a cinematography award before, sometimes coming quite close to landing that coveted distinction...
12 Years a Slave (2013), Sean Bobbit BSC (ASC nominee, BAFTA nominee, BFCA nominee, Indie Spirit Award winner)
The Butler (2013), Andrew Dunn BSC
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012), Ben Richardson (Sundance Film Festival Cinematography Award winner, Indie Spirit Award winner)
The Help (2011), Stephen Goldblatt ASC, BSC
Precious (2009), Andrew Dunn BSC
American Gangster (2007), Harris Savides ASC (BAFTA nominee)
Dreamgirls (2006), Tobias A. Schliessler
Crash (2005), J. Michael Munro (BAFTA nominee)
Hustle & Flow (2005), Amy Vincent ASC (Sundance Film Festival Cinematography winner)
Ray (2004), Paweł Edelman (ASC nominee)
Hotel Rwanda (2004), Robert Fraisse
Ali (2001), Emmanuel Lubezki ASC, AMC
Beloved (1998), Tak Fujimoto ASC (Chicago Film Critics winner)
Malcolm X (1991), Ernest R. Dickerson ASC
Boyz n the Hood (1991), Charles Mills
Do The Right Thing (1989), Ernest R. Dickerson ASC (New York Film Critics Circle winner)
We could continue extending this list (let me know if I missed other high-profile films) should we want to not restrict ourselves to films that to some extent resonated with AMPAS elsewhere, but you get the idea: cinematographers, both famed and upcoming, have been left behind come nomination morning even when their films found success elsewhere, or even sadly, when they themselves had found so much traction in the industry run-up to the nominations.
You’ll also notice how both Sundance and the Indie Spirits seem more open to rewarding these films. Indeed the past five years alone, Sundance has singled out Young himself twice! In 2013 for Mother of George & Ain’t Them Bodies Saints and in 2011 for Pariah (featured in TFE's Hit Me With Your Best Shot series)
Nominations for Robert Richardson (Django Unchained, 2012), César Charlone (City of God, 2002), Janusz Kamiński (Amistad, 1997) and Allen Daviau (The Color Purple, 1985 - featured in TFE’s Hit Me With Your Best Shot series) remain fascinating exceptions to this rule. Even when the Academy has embraced African-American stories elsewhere, the cinematography category has remained elusive. Unless, apparently, you have Steven Spielberg or Harvey Weinstein in your corner. [Ed. Note: thanks to John T. for reminding me that Ed Zwick's Glory, starring Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington, won the Oscar for cinematography in 1989]
Where does this leave us, then?
While some might take this as more fodder with which to cry “racism!” at the Academy (which can be both necessary and exhausting, empowering and disheartening, see for example, #OscarsSoWhite), I think it should lead to a wider conversation about the way aesthetic valuation is necessarily implicated in cultural biases. Young has been quite articulate on this topic (as was, to a different extent, Steve McQueen on the circuit last year) and I’m curious as to whether thinking of “beautiful” images (a misleading, if sometimes disappointingly accurate way of describing what the cinematography award prizes) is anathema to black bodies and black faces for people who vote on this particular roster. Indeed, for a category that is usually so open to world-class films (take Ida and The Grandmaster’s inclusions these past two years), this statistical aberration strikes me as even more damning even if it can (and will probably) be chalked up to seemingly apolitical aesthetic choices: who could deny celebrating Lubezki’s long-takes in Birdman, Robert Yeoman’s diorama-like work in The Grand Budapest Hotel, Łukasz Żal and Ryszard Lenczewski’s black-and-white off-center takes on Ida, Dick Pope’s painterly lighting in Mr. Turner or Roger Deakins’ exacting framing of Unbroken? Yet think of the iconic images left outside of this field just in this past decade: Solomon barely standing while being hung to a tree, Hushpuppy running with sparklers in her hands, Precious looking out of a window on a bus, Effie spotlit while breaking down on stage…
Reader Comments (15)
I think it's important to note in regard to the article that Glory did win the Academy Award in 1989, but you're right -this is a weird and disturbing reaction to films regarding African-Americans. While as you pointed out it's difficult to pick which of this year's contenders should have been cut in favor of Selma, other films (such as 12 Years a Slave) it's much easier to see whom to cut and be curious as to what caused the in getting nominated.
Can someone explain to me why with so many people outraged by the lack of Selma nominations and the whole #OscarsSoWhite thing it's not having strong box office numbers? Where are the people supporting it with movie tickets? Yet the horrible American Sniper made $90 million.
It's also worth noting, in reference to this article that films starring Asian actors do extremely well in this category (Ran, The Last Emperor, Farewell My Concubine, Shanghai Triad, Memoirs of a Geisha, amongst others), far outpacing almost any other category in regard to honoring such films.
This reminds me of when in the podcast, Nick contrasted Young's attention to lighting black faces in Pariah and Middle of Nowhere directly with Django Unchained's comparative ineptitude in doing the same. Yet who drew the Oscar nod?
Here's the thing: There are so many beautifully shot films this past year. Of the nominees, who leaves? Ida. It's rare for a foreign language film to make the final five. The Grand Budapest Hotel? Robert Yeoman had never been previously nominated despite being one of the best in the business. Mr. Turner? That film was a moving painting. So we are left with 2 institutions in Lubezki and Deakins. The former is the previous winner and whose work has inspired several filmmakers. Even if Birdman ranks low on the best looking Lubezki, it is still an achievement. Now with Deakins, I can give you that.
The Academy is strange and really loves veterans to wait, as Dick Pope and Robert Yeoman show as first time nominees despite lensing some of the best films for years. Greig Fraser is another DP who is weirdly getting no traction despite doing work for Oscar nominated films. The 'youth' among DPs have to get old and have an amazing track record before they get nominated, let alone win.
It is a good reminder that Sean Bobbitt was such a shameful snub last year. Especially when Nebraska, a nice, sweet film but hardly interesting as far as composition is concerned, got in ahead of it.
Remi Adefarasin is British, so that makes him the first black male to be nominated for the Cinematography Oscar. Bradford Young would have been the second black male but first African-American male to receive the honor.
I love that you're highlighting what is an interesting cinematographic challenge and something that Young has been doing well for quite a while now. I also love his work in Selma, particularly the scene in the alleyway where police lights come on, which makes everyone appear in silhouette and thus makes the scene seem like it's occurring where nobody can see what's happening and where there'll be no ramifications.
That said, I'm totally with CMG. This is an example where when discussing a "snub," one needs to pony up and suggest who should've been booted in favor of the snubee. Ida, Mr. Turner, and Birdman are phenomenal and Budapest is extremely good as well. I could have done without Unbroken, but then there's The Immigrant, Under the Skin, and Interstellar which also might have been good picks for that last slot. So I'm not sure Young's absence stings too much for me.
Remi Adefarasin is not African-American. He's black British. Missing from your list of black ensemble movies that should be recognized for their photography. Everything Spike Lee did outside of Earnest Dickerson. And the Hype Williams directed cult classic Belly (1998).
Ian, 3rtful & John T. thanks for the corrections. They've been dutifully amended to the post.
I do think it's a hard thing to discuss without seeming to champion a type of affirmative action and/or diminishing the strong work the actually nominated D.P.s did this year and the years before, but it seemed like a weird curiosity I noticed when looking into this yea's cinematography race.
CMG: A small point, but note that this is Dick Pope's second nomination - he was previously nominated for The Illusionist in 2006.
This article is really eye-opening. Thank you for the meticulous research. I just saw A Most Violent Year, and Young used the camera with such beautiful fluidity, he should have been considered nomination-worthy for this film as well.
I still think that Selma would have done better if it had gotten out earlier. Looking at the list of screeners AMPAS got, Selma was sent on the 19th of Dec. This was the first time anyone had a chance to see a final cut. And while there were screeners sent after that, they were all for films (at least those who got nominations) that had opened far earlier in the year and voters had had a chance to see and talk about them and the late screeners were sent more as reminders. And everyone knows that films are screened privately whenever the producers wish but Selma didn't have a final cut to show.
I could understand the cries of snub better if the film had enjoyed a proper launch. I also doubt any film launched/finished that late would have done better than Selma in nominations. Selma was the last film with serious AMPAS talk to have a finished cut and that hurt it.
It's a shame because the film deserves the notice and acclaim.
Sad Man makes a good point. There isn't much support when a mediocre Kevin Hart comedy can do twice the business. Especially on a weekend honoring the subject of the film.
I haven't seen A Most Violent Year yet, but I've got to say, I kind of hated the cinematography in Selma. I don't know if it was just my screening, but the movie looked like its otherwise good cinematography was drowned in some kind of weird filter that washed out all the darkness. It felt like I was watching it on a TV that had the brightness jacked up and it was a pretty big distraction. I've heard other people report something similar so I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been more of a talking point. Not sure what they were thinking.
I do wish that articles like this one weren't immediately met with the challenge of "oh yeah? prove it - tell me who you'd throw out to make room!" which totally miss the point being made. Black artists are so rarely allowed into the initial conversation (both industry-wide when developing projects and on the micro awards level); they nearly always have to "push out" others who start out ahead of them already in the conversation. It is fully possible to bemoan Bradford Young's comparative lack of recognition without needing to simultaneously denigrate any of the Academy's choices. Similarly, we can agitate against the whitewashed actor lineup without needing to single out "less worthy" achievements as proof for why a given "snubee" merits applause. The focus belongs on the work itself; too often the competition aspect of awards season overshadows that for people.
RJ, that kind of mutual exclusivity frames most of the debates about racial inequality and injustice on every front in this country today, so your astute comment is applicable in more ways than one. Thank you for pointing that out. I couldn't have said it better myself.