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 :)

Christopher Doyle on "Life of Pie" and the Oscars ^^

Wow - seems so candid. If you haven't seen some of the work done by the vfx artists check this out:
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/life-of-pi/

Not that I can judge, because it depends how much a DP would work with the vfx houses (but on the web the word I got is that the Lee and Miranda were present on the water tank stage days for shooting, but not to be found when the final shot pieces were being put together in post.)
But I do raise my eyebrow for one person to be awarded an oscar for something that they may have had so little input on (allegedly)

But then again - when so many talented minds are involved in crafting a single frame, who DO you give the award to officially??
 
Last edited:
One of my favourite cinematographers. A true artist. His work with Wong Kar Wai is part of the history of cinema. Only film I "disliked" of him was Lady in The Water, specially with the color tone- to my surprise the blu ray I've got has deleted scenes and it shows a completely different toned film from the raw footage, which makes me believe it was completely butchered in grading/post.

In the case of Life of Pi I agree with Doyle. However a film havinf CGI should not be a handicap for the cinematographer. The lensing, the lighting, the framing, etc should still be judgeable. But Life of Pi was indeed a CGI fest with average cinematography. Skyfall would've gotten my vote this year.
 
Paul Harb said:
I agree with him. Well the part about Life of Pi an odd choice for cinematography.
Click to expand...
I would defend Claudio Miranda only in that he approved every single shot, supervised the placement of light and shadows (especially in the VFX), orchestrated every inch of camera movement (virtual or otherwise), and had very tight control of the look of the film from start to finish. I'm sad that he didn't praise the work of Rhythm & Hues in his Oscar acceptance speech, but Claudio himself is an extraordinarily talented artist.

Note that Roger Deakins has had similar cinematography "consultation" roles on animated films like How to Train Your Dragon, Wall-E, Puss in Boots, and Rango, and he didn't just phone it in for that. This was weeks and weeks and weeks of meticulous work.
 
Sid Idris said:
Doyle is crazy...crazy talented.
Click to expand...



I second that, on both accounts.

I actually really enjoyed his work on Lady in the Water....at first i really didnt like the movie, but after watching it again it sorta grew on me.
 
Doyle has enough street cred to run his mouth all he likes. He has walked the walk, so now he can talk the talk.

I happen to agree with his general distaste for the Academy... they are mainly old people with a narrow view, much of it revolving around films made in the US. Also, because the full Academy (and not just cinematographers) vote for Best Cinematography, many of the Academy members confuse costumes and art direction for "cinematography"... IE, they lump "the look" of the film all together and vote for that film.

BTW, does anyone here happen to know how to get in touch with Doyle? I am passing through Hong Kong in early June and would love to buy him a few rounds.
 
I love Doyle for his true honesty to his passion (even so I dislike his language) I love him for his work and absolute disregard for powers at be, as a true Cinematographer should be, it's all about the story and the image, not what the F^$%#ing (hoops I was pulling a Doyle) Studios think, and this is why I haven't done anything so far and only now at last working on my first movie, were I know no matter what I'll be absolutely in control of my image form beginning to end, if it comes out great my doing if it comes out crap also my doing... ;)
 
I must say that after digesting the Oscar win for Miranda I think it could be a justified win if he spent the time to supervise the CGI lighting with the same meticulous eye for detail as he would have on the set. On set the cinematographer is directing his gaffer and electricians the same way, he's not usually physically setting lights himself but sitting in front of a monitor and radioing his commands to his crew. If you look at this in theory it's no different than the cinematographer sitting in a chair with a CGI artist and directing the virtual lights in Maya, Houdini etc.
I still feel odd about that but although its non-traditional it still should be valid, although I would have liked to see Deakins and or Richardson win.
 
Avatar also won for best cinematography. I think the people watching just like to see pretty stuff.

I think it's a slap in the face to all the great cinematographers out there.
 
Feel weird throwing some love into the hate fest, but how many here agreeing with Doyle have actually WATCHED The Life of Pi?

"I may be wrong, because I haven’t seen the film, because I don’t give a shit.”

"This is not cinema and it’s not cinematography. "

Yeah sure. Not cinema. Put down the whiskey bottle Mr. Crankypants.

I guess having a good chunk of the world's jaw drop with the brilliance and stunning quality of the film disqualifies you from serious consideration. Moving right along...
 
People are complaining about Digital manipulation the same way film diehards are complaining about digital film. As filmmakers, I feel we all should worry about the story. Period. Miranda got the award for his hard work. Get over it and move on.
I think the photography of this movie, digital or not, CGI or not, made a powerful statement of innovation and since Miranda was the DP, he got the award. I dont understand the fuzz?
 
i guess i see his point if you define cinematography as "how close you are to the camera" effects are a tool just like anything else....like a camera support or digital vs film or grading....it is all part of the trade....
i honestly don't care much for anyone using the f word so much....people make fun of teenage girls abusing "like"...this is the same thing, just more offensive....
who deserves an oscar? amour had by far the better theme and script then any other movie presented....amazing acting....perfect camera/set/....does that make it the best movie? it's impossible to decide, way too many criteria....so in a way giving out any price is always dumb....
giving argo the best picture award was the most obvious proof of the age and mentality of the academy....here are a bunch of guys who see themselves as oh, so cleverly saving the world...in secret....and finally being able to be proud of it....i really enjoyed the movie but i honestly hope that that was not the best movie 2012 was able to come up with....
 
A cinematographer can use software like mental ray, brazil or vray just like they use a RED camera. It's all directing the look and light placement, choosing lenses and camera angles just as much virtually as it is physically.

That being said. Life of Pi was defined not by its lighting but by its matte paintings. And in my experience the concept artists and painters themselves generally are pretty self-directed in creating amazing imagery.
 
Jack Cardiff got his academy award for "Black Narcissus"(1947), where all the main money shots had heavy matte paintings and very tricky force perspectives with large backdrop paintings (i believe the entire movie was done on a english lot). I think Jack totally deserved the award, and Jack's working with the painters (today it would be vfx artists) really pulled the whole thing together. I don't see any difference between Jack's award for "Black Narcisus" and the award for cinematography for "life of pi" (only thing that could be debated was how responsible for the look was the cinematographer, but to debate that you would have had to actually been there ... which obviously Doyle wasn't).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top