In Memoriam 1942 – 2013 “Roger Ebert loved movies.”

RogerEbert.com

Thumb_large_kfsd6ah9xdkz43jhnddlvw3incw

Fist Fight

A consistently intelligent (or at least bright), coherently constructed comedy that is on occasion a rather pointed critique of the American education system in the…

Thumb_cure_for_wellness

A Cure for Wellness

As a fetish object, it’s impressive. But as a fully satisfying feature-length drama, it’s a bust.

Other Reviews
Review Archives
Thumb_xbepftvyieurxopaxyzgtgtkwgw

Ballad of Narayama

"The Ballad of Narayama" is a Japanese film of great beauty and elegant artifice, telling a story of startling cruelty. What a space it opens…

Other Reviews
Great Movie Archives
Other Articles
Sundance Archives

Avatar and Oscar again raise thequestion: What is cinematography? (Part 1)

Imagine the headline: "Up" Wins Oscar for Best Cinematography. That's essentially what happened Sunday night, but the movie was "Avatar." "Up" won an Oscar for Best Animated Feature. "Avatar" won for Best Visual Effects and Best Cinematography. Realistically, "Up" and "Avatar" should have also have competed in a new category -- something like Best Computer-Assisted Animation. It's past time to acknowledge the difference between cinematography -- the photographic process that involves capturing light through a lens -- and animation or green screen work that involves compositing digital images in a computer. Both can be extraordinarily impressive. Let's just agree to call them by their right names.

A quarter century ago, the great British cinematographer David Watkin, accepting his Oscar for "Out of Africa," offered the Academy a little education in his art and craft when he acknowledged that the pretty helicopter shots of African scenery for which he knew he had won the award were shot by the second unit. Today, Academy voters still don't quite seem to understand what cinematographers -- once known as "lighting cameramen" -- actually do. But what they do has radically changed over the years, too.

Aboard Dusty Cohl's Floating Film Festival in the early '00s, I remember the great Director of Photography Haskell Wexler lamenting that he was no longer assured of control over his own work, which could be digitally altered in post-production so that it no longer resembled what he had actually shot in the camera during production.

This isn't really a recent development. Even 15 years ago, in the awkwardly titled four-hour BFI documentary "A Personal Journey With Martin Scorsese Through American Film" (see clip above), Scorsese, George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola and Brian de Palma spoke of a new kind of filmmaking that no longer resembled photography so much as computer-aided painting. It's still an art form, but it's no longer quite photography, any more than theater is cinema....

So, when a movie like Avatar is 80 percent CGI or more, how do we (re-)define what the term "cinematography" means?

(to be continued...)

Popular Blog Posts

Who do you read? Good Roger, or Bad Roger?

This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...

How to Live in This World: On “The Brother From Another Planet”

A look at John Sayles' brilliant "The Brother From Another Planet."

Oscar's History of Pickiness

At the ripe age of 89, Oscar can still be a notoriously picky fellow when it comes to what constitutes a contender fo...

Reveal Comments
comments powered by Disqus