Academy Awards Favoring VFX over Traditional Cinematography?

[Nick Morrison]

It occurs to me since 2012 the Oscars has given "Best Cinematography" honors to very VFX/Post-Heavy movies.

Why is this happening, and what does this mean?

See list below:


2012: LIFE OF PI, Claudio Miranda
Completely shot on green screen (presumably flat), with lighting and VFX all done in post.

Beat: Anna Karenina, Django Unchained, Lincoln, Skyfall - all comparatively "traditional" movies that rely much less on Post/VFX.


2013: GRAVITY, Chivo
Shot with tremendous amounts of green screen, with a lot VFX/lighting done in post.

Beat: The Grandmaster, Inside Llewyn Davis, Nebraska, Prisoners - again comparatively "traditional" movies that rely much less on Post/VFX.


2014: BIRDMAN, Chivo
Little known fact is how much grading was done on this movie, as the film's tight quarters made placing lights hard to do. A lot of the "lighting" was done in post.

Beat: Mr.Turner, Grand Budapest Hotel, Ida, Unbroken - yet again, more "traditional" movies that rely less on Post/VFX.


2015: THE REVENANT, Chivo?
Like Birdman, The Revenant has had a TREMENDOUS amount of work done in post. Yes it was shot "in natural light", but word on the street is the grade is immensely ambitious and complicated (ie it also has been "lit in post").

Competing against: Carol, Hateful Eight, Sicaro, and Mad Max Fury Road - the first three are quite traditional, whereas Mad Max appears to have also had a lot of work done in post.


To be clear, I have no problems with this trend, but I think it's worth observing these VFX/Post-Heavy movies are winning and being celebrated by the Academy....which begs some questions:

Is this a trend?

What does this say about the future of cinematography?

Are traditional in-camera styles becoming less valued?


It's also worth nothing that WORLD CLASS "traditional" movies (that don't rely so much on VFX/Post) were also nominated each year (see lists above). They just didn't win.


Makes me wonder if we're at the beginning of a new VFX age? And like in the past where Color and Black and White movies shared the stage, fighting for Oscars....today VFX heavy and Classical movies seem similarly poised to duke it out for the Academy and audience's approval.

But...we all know what happened after Color and B/W shared the stage for two decades...eventually Color won out.

Will VFX heavy movies...do the same?


Thoughts? Questions?

I'd love to hear what people think - as I believe these are important questions worth asking, especially on a forum such as ours...for future orientated filmmakers.


REFERENCE:
Also, for reference here's list of ALL OSCAR NOMINEES for Cinematography since 1927

OSCAR NOMINEES - Cinematogaphy - 1927 to 2015

 

[James Falco]

Its time TD's get the same respect as DP's.

The thing most people don't realize is cinematography is a walk in the park compared to hight-end VFX work.

///

 

[Nick Morrison]

Also begs the question of whether colorists need to start getting nominated for Academy Awards?

And yes...TDs as well?

 

[Bob Gundu]

Its all a craft no matter how it ends up on screen. I would hope the cinematographer is involved in all aspects along the way.

 

[Phil Holland]

Having worked on one of those, I'd say the clear indicator is that the films used quality Visual Effects to enhance the story. For the most part the VFX in the film's sited don't take you away from the story unfolding on screen, but bring you closer to the world's they exist in.

I've been rather disgusted by the "war on CGI" these past few years. The truth of the matter is that there's quality work and then there's everything else. In my mind bad anything shouldn't end up on screen if it can be avoided. Budgets and deadlines of course influence this greatly unfortunately. However, good Directors, Cinematographers, Colorists, Visual Effects Supervisors, Technical Directors, and honestly nearly every department have an eye for quality control and it's of the upmost importance when it comes to top tier productions.

 

[Nick Gardner]

The thing most people don't realize is cinematography is a walk in the park compared to hight-end VFX work.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what a DPs job is. It doesn't have to be a contest. It's OK to have two complicated difficult jobs ;-)

Nick

 

[Jon D Kline]

Good cinematography can quietly reinforce the story or shout it loudly. Both have their place, but one of them has a tendency to win more awards.
With every new camera technology, the only gap that persists between the highest levels of production and the indies is spectacle.

 

[Jeff McCoy]

I wouldn't devalue the DP simply because good VFX/Color work is done. However I do agree that there should be awards for Colorists and others who help make the work look its best.

 

[Phil Holland]

Back to the motion picture aspect of this and since votes have already been made, I was all for Gravity winning for Best Cinematography as that reflected a great deal of effort, creativity, and collaboration to make that film come to life and was an exceptional theater going treat. I personally love Chivo's work.

However, while I think there's enough momentum for Revenant to take it, there's other films to me that reflected what I consider Best Cinematography this year. Kudos if he and they can pull off the trio.

I do hope Leo grabs Best Actor. He deserves it for what he brought to the role and performance.

 

[Sergio Perez]

A big YES to a new colorist award. Its an art in itself and definitely much more relevant in film and storytelling.

 

[M.Halsell]

The science technical awards could definitely be expanded to recognize the outstanding film trade crafts.

 

[PatrickFaith]

.... Makes me wonder if we're at the beginning of a new VFX age? And like in the past where Color and Black and White movies shared the stage, fighting for Oscars....today VFX heavy and Classical movies seem similarly poised to duke it out for the Academy and audience's approval.

But...we all know what happened after Color and B/W shared the stage for two decades...eventually Color won out.

Will VFX heavy movies...do the same?

I like that split between black and white you mentioned. It kinds of reminds me of the 1947 Jack Cardiff film "Black Narcissus" ... where he is doing all these complex practical shots in color (probably on some complicated slide rule), while the other film "great expectations" is old school drama black&white. I see Jack as a "modern" cinematographer, in that he was fully invloved with the look and vision of the film no matter where the technology was. I hope in the future, cinematographer won't be linked to "cameraman", but the person that does the framing, blocking, previs, vfx approach, and oversees grading ... as wall as the production camera work. I think the problem is more the industry is in transition as far as job roles (i.e. sometimes the cinematographer job is only funded during principle photography and feels to me more like a cameraman even though he "takes" credit for the other phases). I do see some of the current great cinematographers involved with all aspects of the visual look of the film though (i.e. people like Roger Deakins is often involved with all aspects of the film, both pre and post production). I've even learning a lot in behind the scenes stuff from watching Roger explain things to the animation and vfx staff (i.e. even simple things like how to get realistic vfx dolly moves that match up with the real dolly moves).

 

[Nick Morrison]

I like that split between black and white you mentioned. It kinds of reminds me of the 1947 Jack Cardiff film "Black Narcissus" ... where he is doing all these complex practical shots in color (probably on some complicated slide rule), while the other film "great expectations" is old school drama black&white. I see Jack as a "modern" cinematographer, in that he was fully invloved with the look and vision of the film no matter where the technology was. I hope in the future, cinematographer won't be linked to "cameraman", but the person that does the framing, blocking, previs, vfx approach, and oversees grading ... as wall as the production camera work. I think the problem is more the industry is in transition as far as job roles (i.e. sometimes the cinematographer job is only funded during principle photography and feels to me more like a cameraman even though he "takes" credit for the other phases). I do see some of the current great cinematographers involved with all aspects of the visual look of the film though (i.e. people like Roger Deakins is often involved with all aspects of the film, both pre and post production). I've even learning a lot in behind the scenes stuff from watching Roger explain things to the animation and vfx staff (i.e. even simple things like how to get realistic vfx dolly moves that match up with the real dolly moves).

Patrick, I totally agree. I think what we're seeing is (ideally) a vast expanse of the DP's job, role and scope - both before, during, and after the shoot.

With every new camera technology, the only gap that persists between the highest levels of production and the indies is spectacle.

However, to Jon's point...I do fear the VFX revolution may start to further seperate the Big Budget films from their Indie bretheren...undoing some of the democratizarion in production we've seen (until VFX gets more accesible I guess?).

 

[David Battistella]

You know,

I have been watching bunch of older films lately, ones that predate digital DI and it is incredible how many times i'm seeing shots in those films and just saying, "wow, that just would not pass today". We are obviously in the photoshop per frame era now.

It's not that there was more or less care then or now. I think the care was required with a different kind of attention. As an example, sets had to be cleaner and you weren't just going to paint out errors. Actors had to possibly require more make up. More had to be don "in camera".

My photography mentor who was a very good print maker had a great saying.

"i try to make custom negatives, rather that custom prints." So he was striving to get all of his final image on the emulsion rather than do a lot of dodging and burning (which he still did) at the print stage.

I'd say the business might call for more or less the "digital negative" being 80% there in camera and that is generally accepted that everything will be "enhanced" and needs to be.

I think that "digital relighting" is a skill and that colorists can tend to receive less of the glory of the cinematographer, but the person in charge (generally) of the look of the film is the cinematographer, but it seems that the post roll of the cinematographer (depending on who that is) is diminishing.

The truth is one needs the other and both should be acknowledged. It's like now there is an "on-set" cinematographer and a "post production" cinematographer both overseeing the creating of a gorgeous, intended final image.

But I firmly believe you can not discount traditional lighting with digital relighting because the very best cinematographers probably require less post work, while when you are digital relighting it tends to be for correcting mistakes or enhancing work.

Interesting thread.

David

 

[Björn Benckert]

To me its quite simple. Its ome thing to dp a film with straight cuts and desolves. Its a completly different ball game to dp a film with a lot of VFX work. The straight shots can offcourse be made super beautifull etc. But the difficult part is to deliver for those complex shots. Shots that is messed up in all thinkable ways and include, bluescreen, CG, poor lighting conditions, prop rigs, explorions etc. Those kind of shots usually determain if its a good dp or not. My experience tells me that DPs that spend a lot of time at post houses usually moves to hollywood, those that think their work is done when they wrap the shoot... well they are all still here struggling in stockholm.

awarding grading is also adifficult thing as many DPs and even directors would say they did the grade even if there is a colorist that done all the work. Same with editing and a lot of times same with the vfx.

So to me there is not really a need for more awards. Every one kind of allready know who did the tiger in pi and who graded it and who shot it and who edited it. They will all benefit from the film winning as best dp etc.

 

[Eric Santiago]

Spoken like someone who has no idea what a DPs job is. It doesn't have to be a contest. It's OK to have two complicated difficult jobs ;-)

Nick

Have experience on both ends but very green as DoP so I can relate a little.

They are both heavy tasks depending on the project.

As a musician, I see it in a different take.

Writing and recording a song in a controlled environment as oppose to performing it in a venue you just walked in for the first time.

I think its two different worlds IMHO.

 

[David Battistella]

I think in the heavy VFX shoots there still is room for the DP to really inform the look of the film in the straight shots, which of course will also be enhanced.

 

[Marc Wielage]

You'd be surprised the number of non-VFX features these days that have heavy, heavy digital color correction going on. And that includes almost relighting the entire film.

The problem for those of us in the indie world is that inexperienced producers and directors seem to think this degree of technical perfection is possible at this time and budget range, which is rarely the case. A feature film that has the benefit of a 4-6 month post schedule is not the same thing as an indie that's struggling to get everything done in 1 month.

 

[Nick Morrison]

You'd be surprised the number of non-VFX features these days that have heavy, heavy digital color correction going on. And that includes almost relighting the entire film.

The problem for those of us in the indie world is that inexperienced producers and directors seem to think this degree of technical perfection is possible at this time and budget range, which is rarely the case. A feature film that has the benefit of a 4-6 month post schedule is not the same thing as an indie that's struggling to get everything done in 1 month.

Love this - totally agree. Making indie movies look hight budget is surely one of the greatest talents/skills today.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Quote Originally Posted by Nick Gardner View Post
Spoken like someone who has no idea what a DPs job is. It doesn't have to be a contest. It's OK to have two complicated difficult jobs ;-)

Nick

Have experience on both ends but very green as DoP so I can relate a little.

They are both heavy tasks depending on the project.

As a musician, I see it in a different take.

Writing and recording a song in a controlled environment as oppose to performing it in a venue you just walked in for the first time.

I think its two different worlds IMHO.

Cinematography is maybe 55-60% of a DPs job. You are in charge of three departments. You are largely responsible for making your days (in as much as you can make them. If the ADs or Art fucks you, that's on them). You are often more experienced than your director and have to help him or her feel comfortable, and make sure that he or she is not worrying about anything but getting the performances and telling the story. Making pretty pictures is easy. Doing it on a schedule with a thousand variables that you only control a few of and dancing on the head of a pin to make it all work out is hard ;-)