Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

District 9 nominated for Cinematography BAFTA

Jonathan Smiles

Jonathan Smiles

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
220
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.digitalsafari.net
Congrats to Trent Opaloch and the rest of our fine crew.

District 9 has been nominated for 7 BAFTAs - Director for Neill Blomkamp, Adapted Screenplay, Trent Opaloch for Cinematography, Production Design, Editing, Sound and Special Visual Effects.

http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-awards-nominations,949,BA.html

Jonathan
RED Camera Supervisor on District 9
 
Great List...
 
Why? The cinematography was mediocre at best...
 
Bryce O said:
Why? The cinematography was mediocre at best...
Click to expand...
I disagree.

The art of cinematography, if I may be so bold as to define it, is in helping to tell a story through the appropriate style of imagery that fits the emotional point of view the director is trying to evoke. "District 9" was a movie designed to give a documentary, you-are-there kind of feel whilst portraying the plight of the aliens and Witkus. That immediacy would not be well served, IMHO, by smooth dolly shots and gorgeous cinemascope style vistas. It had to be the kind of footage you would expect to find (especially the flashback videos) and relate to if it had been you working for MNU and documenting the story.

Add to that the need to blend the alien characters into the footage seamlessly and make it all feel real and not contrived, and I think that for the intent of the story the cinematography was indeed both appropriate and visually beautiful for its intended effect.

That's why it is nominated for a BAFTA award. If the only definition of "cinematography" was how the still image looked out of context then you'd be right, but since cinematography isn't about that at all I'm going to disagree with your assessment in this case.

Cheers,

Paul

EDIT: Oh and of course, congrats Trent Opaloch, Jonathan and all the others on this forum who actually worked on the movie!
 
Paul Leeming said:
I disagree.

The art of cinematography, if I may be so bold as to define it, is in helping to tell a story through the appropriate style of imagery that fits the emotional point of view the director is trying to evoke. "District 9" was a movie designed to give a documentary, you-are-there kind of feel whilst portraying the plight of the aliens and Witkus. That immediacy would not be well served, IMHO, by smooth dolly shots and gorgeous cinemascope style vistas. It had to be the kind of footage you would expect to find (especially the flashback videos) and relate to if it had been you working for MNU and documenting the story.

Add to that the need to blend the alien characters into the footage seamlessly and make it all feel real and not contrived, and I think that for the intent of the story the cinematography was indeed both appropriate and visually beautiful for its intended effect.

That's why it is nominated for a BAFTA award. If the only definition of "cinematography" was how the still image looked out of context then you'd be right, but since cinematography isn't about that at all I'm going to disagree with your assessment in this case.

Cheers,

Paul

EDIT: Oh and of course, congrats Trent Opaloch, Jonathan and all the others on this forum who actually worked on the movie!
Click to expand...

I agree with your disagreement. You are right in this case. However, when I hear "great cinematography" I think of movies like LOTR trilogy or The Matrix. I'm not saying the cinematographer wasn't talented, I think the lighting and other aspects were great, but the whole film basically had the feeling of one identical shoulder shot. I understand that that was "the feeling" they were trying to achieve. But, that doesn't make it look any better than shaky shoulder shots. If great cinematography is only relative to each individual film, then The Blair Witch Project had the best cinematography of all time. But, TBWP was horrible in all aspects of cinema. It just happen to work that "one time". I thought the cinematography in District 9 was excellent for the the movie, but not in comparison to every other film ever made, which is what I assume it's compared to when nominated for an award.
 
Bryce O said:
Why? The cinematography was mediocre at best...
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding...this was one of the best uses of an authentic landscape in a major film all year. I'm sure getting this shot in these locations was a huge challenge, and they executed it brilliantly.

I'm not even a fan of alien movies, but I thought examining the topic of xenophobia in this setting elevated this whole movie to, not only entertainment, but added a complex level of social commentary that elevated the entire genre.

Well deserved.
 
Cinematography, for me, has to serve the story. D9 looked and felt "right" with the style of the visuals aiding the story progression of the main character. Now, personally, I'd have liked it even more if the style had been a bit more Peter Watkins, but that's just bias on my part through a love of Peter's pioneering approach to filmmaking.

Graeme
 
Two handheld style cinematography were nominated to BAFTA this year:

- DISTRICT 9 - Trent Opaloch (RED1)

and

- THE HURT LOCKER - Barry Ackroyd (Aaton A-Minima, Aaton XTR Prod, Phantom HD Camera all with Canon Lenses)

both excellent...
 
I have to agree with Meryem and Paul. Great use of locations. My only complaint about the whole movie, or specifically the cinematography, is I thought the shaky-cam effect was a bit too much or too exaggerated at times. It was the right style for the film as it was, but it could have been toned down a notch in a few spots I think.

I really like a good Sci-Fi story and I'm highly critical of most major films that pretend to be Sci-Fi. But D9 was pretty good and definitely one of the best major release Sci-Fi films in the past several years. Strong character development in a character-driven story with a larger message or social comment is what good Sci-Fi is about. All these Hollywood Sci-Action flicks that are device-driven just suck. D9 elevated itself above all those.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I have to agree with Meryem and Paul. Great use of locations. My only complaint about the whole movie, or specifically the cinematography, is I thought the shaky-cam effect was a bit too much or too exaggerated at times. It was the right style for the film as it was, but it could have been toned down a notch in a few spots I think.

I really like a good Sci-Fi story and I'm highly critical of most major films that pretend to be Sci-Fi. But D9 was pretty good and definitely one of the best major release Sci-Fi films in the past several years. Strong character development in a character-driven story with a larger message or social comment is what good Sci-Fi is about. All these Hollywood Sci-Action flicks that are device-driven just suck. D9 elevated itself above all those.
Click to expand...

The shaky-cam at D9 and Hurt Locket was most of the time because it's a simulation of ENG (Electronic News Gathering) or TV reporter style of shooting...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I really like a good Sci-Fi story and I'm highly critical of most major films that pretend to be Sci-Fi. But D9 was pretty good and definitely one of the best major release Sci-Fi films in the past several years. Strong character development in a character-driven story with a larger message or social comment is what good Sci-Fi is about. All these Hollywood Sci-Action flicks that are device-driven just suck. D9 elevated itself above all those.
Click to expand...

I second this opinion. To paraphrase G. B. Shaw, social commentary is often better presented as entertainment to those who would otherwise hang us.
 
Thanks everyone! It sounds like it's going to be a bit of a D9 reunion in London! It's a massive honor to be on the same list as Richardson, Fiore et al...
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I have to agree with Meryem and Paul. Great use of locations. My only complaint about the whole movie, or specifically the cinematography, is I thought the shaky-cam effect was a bit too much or too exaggerated at times. It was the right style for the film as it was, but it could have been toned down a notch in a few spots I think.
Click to expand...

I agree. My wife even had to leave the theater because she was getting sick. It seemed less over the top to me on DVD, and my wife made it through it at home.
 
For me, the amazing aspect of the District 9 cinematography was how seamless the computer generated images were integrated into the footage. Thus, I would consider it to be the most realistic use of cg I have ever seen. The award is not simply about the camera work. Cinematography encompasses so much more and it is impossible to ignore District 9 due to its innovation. Was it Avatar innovative? No, but it cost like 30 million compared to Avatar's 400 million and it featured a superior story and the effects themselves are vastly superior to films in the +200 million range so that is why it is was nominated. They did so much with so little which is why I liked it more than Avatar.
 
Funny how subjective film really is.

First off congrats to all on the nominations.

Back to subjectivity, you must all realize that people experience films differently. So to some folks the hand-held style was great to others it ruined the experience. It ruined it for me. The same goes for the film and the story. To me it was really just a mediocre story and the SFX were okay, nothing major. Others were blown away by the CGI. I wasn't. What now that something is hand-held and a continuous take it makes the CGI more impressive?? I do not buy into that notion at all.

There was nothing about the story I liked at all really. I did not care for the main character, so the story fell flat. People will disagree which is fine. As for the awards I must say that when I think of great filmmaking I do not think of D9. The cinematography was decent enough and the camera-work was just all over the place. It feels like they were scarping to find movies to nominate for awards this year. Star Trek?? It was decent but not the best. I feel like the standard is being lowered under our feet for spectacle.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
I have to agree with Meryem and Paul. Great use of locations. My only complaint about the whole movie, or specifically the cinematography, is I thought the shaky-cam effect was a bit too much or too exaggerated at times. It was the right style for the film as it was, but it could have been toned down a notch in a few spots I think.

I really like a good Sci-Fi story and I'm highly critical of most major films that pretend to be Sci-Fi. But D9 was pretty good and definitely one of the best major release Sci-Fi films in the past several years. Strong character development in a character-driven story with a larger message or social comment is what good Sci-Fi is about. All these Hollywood Sci-Action flicks that are device-driven just suck. D9 elevated itself above all those.
Click to expand...

I thought the shaky-cam was well done. Now Cloverfield was a bit exaggerated, but D9 didn't seem as bad.

Either way congrats Trent and everyone else with District 9. You guys definitely deserved it.
 
Congrats all. Well deserved notoriety.

Sean Ruggeri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top