What makes 'Social Network' Cinematography award winning?

[Joe D'Arcy]

To sum up what has been said so far, A film can only be nominated for a Cinematography Academy Award by other DPs (peers). Therefore many DPs believe The Social Network is worthy of nomination for an Academy Award.


It seems that The Social Network was nominated in some degree for the restraint in the cinematography where the low key lighting and basic camera moves reflect the relationship dynamics of the characters as opposed to flashy camera moves that would be out of context.


Im curious about your comment David, that (paraphrased) The low key lighting draws you into the characters and hints/suggests at deep running emotions that are not explicit.

When I watch this film I am not aware of the subtlety.

However, I am interested to study this use of lighting (and I imagine camera moves) to enhance characterisation and emotion (that comes with decent acting and directing).

I have been observing light for many years. Initially how to create a sense of place and mood in the the theatre, how it is utilised to create great art and then in more recent years how it is used in film. I have read some of the basic texts suggested including: Film Lighting by Kris Malkiewicz, Cinematography for Directors by Jacqueline Frost and Cinematography (third Edition).

I am very interested in some specific comments about the subtlety used in this film and how this enhanced characterisation in particular scenes. I am hoping to learn something I cant see at the moment. All comments are welcome.

 

[Jose Alvarez]

Great film, YES! Academy Awards worthy for cinematography, not really.

 

[Kip Kubin]

Clearly you are all forgetting last years winner.

I was rooting for Martin Ruhe...I loved the work he did on The American.

Social Network's cinematography was top notch, composition, elegant command of camera and it's movement and a unique style.

A bit off topic but what a great year for cinematography...nods to Red, 35mm and 16mm.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

When I watch this film I am not aware of the subtlety.

Isn't that the definition of "subtlety"? What do you think the movie should have looked like??? I don't get your criticisms, the cinematography does exactly what it needs to do, support the narrative and the performances, evoke a time and place, create a mood, direct the eye. If you can't SEE that with your own eyes, then what's the point of someone pointing out things that you can't see? Just so you can say back to them "I can't see it"? I don't get the kind of posts where someone says "tell me why everyone thinks this is good because I don't see it." They go nowhere.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I can see why The film was nominated I'm just not convinced that it's the best of the films that were nominated, I don't think it will win my gut tells me that either True Grit or Black Swan will take the oscar.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

To sum up what has been said so far, A film can only be nominated for a Cinematography Academy Award by other DPs (peers). Therefore many DPs believe The Social Network is worthy of nomination for an Academy Award.


It seems that The Social Network was nominated in some degree for the restraint in the cinematography where the low key lighting and basic camera moves reflect the relationship dynamics of the characters as opposed to flashy camera moves that would be out of context.


Im curious about your comment David, that (paraphrased) The low key lighting draws you into the characters and hints/suggests at deep running emotions that are not explicit.

When I watch this film I am not aware of the subtlety.

However, I am interested to study this use of lighting (and I imagine camera moves) to enhance characterisation and emotion (that comes with decent acting and directing).

I have been observing light for many years. Initially how to create a sense of place and mood in the the theatre, how it is utilised to create great art and then in more recent years how it is used in film. I have read some of the basic texts suggested including: Film Lighting by Kris Malkiewicz, Cinematography for Directors by Jacqueline Frost and Cinematography (third Edition).

I am very interested in some specific comments about the subtlety used in this film and how this enhanced characterisation in particular scenes. I am hoping to learn something I cant see at the moment. All comments are welcome.

I think it depends on what you look for in films. For me (in others and my own work) it is finding a world that could never quite exist in reality - that is more vivid and spectacular, from all points of view, the drama, the pacing, the cleverness and content density of the lines. That's why for me
"spectacular" cinematography DOES bring the story to life. A good example is David's work on "Jennifer's Body" and "Manure" - these are visual fantasy worlds, but the visual fantasies are tied to the story its characters and the underlying comedy. These stories, to me, don't quite take place in our world, but a special world created especially for the films, created in great part by David. But you can't say you don't notice the cinematography - you do, in a good way.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I think David summed it up beautifully - with "precision" being the word that spoke most to me.

There is a certain economy to the cinematography - or "precision" if you like. The cinematography has a certain haiku-like quality. Nothing is wasted or extraneous. The cinematographer's choices built a great canvas for the actors to play their parts upon - and they did! The acting, in the primary roles, was superb. And the cinematography supports, rather than eclipses, the talent.

It doesn't always have to be lavish to do the best job. It has to be right.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

He captured the best night exteriors in film history as far as I'm concerned. That's worth a little gold man in my book. It helps that the Red really excels at night exteriors. Unbelievable on MX sensor.

 

[Andrew Rieger]

The one thing that annoys me about the best cinematography nomination is that it seems to be only made up of oscar contenders. There were a couple of beautiful films that may not have been as critically acclaimed as the best picture nominees but were visually stunning. My favorite film visually was Let Me In. I know, vampire flick that got ok reviews and lost money at the box office but it was visually perfect in my book. Anyone else here who saw it knows what I am talking about. The DP, Greig Fraser, is not well known but he has shot some beautiful movies and I predict that in a decade, he will be one of the top DP's working.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

The one thing that annoys me about the best cinematography nomination is that it seems to be only made up of oscar contenders. There were a couple of beautiful films that may not have been as critically acclaimed as the best picture nominees but were visually stunning. My favorite film visually was Let Me In. I know, vampire flick that got ok reviews and lost money at the box office but it was visually perfect in my book. Anyone else here who saw it knows what I am talking about. The DP, Greig Fraser, is not well known but he has shot some beautiful movies and I predict that in a decade, he will be one of the top DP's working.

This is true - just because a D.P. got saddled with a bad script or bad actors doesn't mean he or she didn't do an awesome feat with their job.

I was in school when Brokeback Mountain won best Cine. It bugs me to this day - I found the cinematography on that film to be quite bland to the point where I drifted out of the story.

 

[Joe D'Arcy]

Thanks for your responses. Your comments have been helpful in gaining further clarity around the choices that are made in cinematography.

Rob, I like what you mentioned about cinematography being 'spectacular'. You put into words, what has struck me about great cinematography. i.e. more vivid/more beautiful, or more washed out than life itself (as long as the style remained consistent throughout the film)

I suppose as Meryem and David were pointing out, the cinematography stands out or is spectacular in Social Network because it doesnt stand out. It reflects the ordinary world from which the characters emerge. (At least until they end up in the new facebook headquarters).

These choices along with the technical efficiency (as Jeff pointed out) and precision makes for great cinematography in this film.

 

[Jim McKinney]

Random thoughts:

Well at least we're not editors. How does one really know the full excellence of a particular editing job without being directly involved with the production? Knowing the coverage, the acting performances, the continuity hurdles (or lack thereof), the amount of time allotted for post - all these things play into it, yet there is a "Best Editing" award (as there should be).

More food for thought: great editing usually doesn't draw attention to itself either. It's all about servicing the story.

Just saw "Ryan's Daughter" last night. What an incredible film (not to oversell it; not everyone is going to like it). Freddie Young was the d.p. There's some cinematography that leaps out at you. The film goes from the meditative and poetic, to the sublime. Yes, it uses some conventions that are out of style or might be considered archaic today, but it is powerful. The camera work comes to the fore when necessary, and recedes to a less commanding position for the other parts of the story.