I’m an asshole for making three posts in a row, but this is the Pit, so fuck it.
I have to take issue with this, given that perhaps a third of Gladiator doesn’t exist other than in cyberspace. I think it doesn’t count as true cinematography when you can control every aspect of a virtual environment, manipulating the light to a hundredth of a degree and to a thousandth of a lumen. Just MHO.
Yeah, its a crime that so many good movies this year were passed up in favor of Gladiator. I mean, what about…
Hmm…
Something will come to me…
Christ, Gladiator just might have been the best movie released this year. Let’s face it, this was a monumentally shitty year for cinema. Anyway, I promised myself not to care about the Oscars after Three Kings AND Being John Malkovich both got shafted in the same year.
One thing I wonder: is there any chance that O Brother, Where Art Thou didn’t get nominated this year because its release date pushes it into NEXT year’s Oscars?
I was thinking of starting a thread about this, but then I saw yours. So here goes:
I haven’t seen Gladiator, Traffic, or Chocolat. I didn’t personally like Crouching Tiger, but I can say that it was something original, with good ideas, and its style was like nothing I’ve seen before.
But Erin fucking Brockovich??!!! Holy fuck! I cannot believe that that movie is nominated for anything at all! I mean, I liked it, it was a decent rental, but BEST PICTURE??? Have they lost their fucking minds? And I like Julia Roberts just fine, but that performance was something that any halfway decent actress could have pulled off with minimal training. And I didn’t even remember that Albert fucking Finney was in the motherfucking movie until they announced his name this morning! I mean, they could have gotten anyone to do that part and it would have been just as good! Hell, I am so pissed off right now!
I realize it was a poor year for movies, and I’m sure I haven’t seen the best ones, but I could easily think of five movies that topped that one, five actresses that were better than Julia, and five actors who stood out more so than Mr. Finney.
When I think of Oscar nominated films, I think of movies that made me sit up and take notice. Movies that I thought about for days, even weeks afterward. Films that moved me, and took me to a place I’d never been before. These should be movies that, as soon as you see them, you need to tell everyone you know to rush to see it themselves, because it cannot be described in mere words.
I’m talking about films like American Beauty or Braveheart, or Schindler’s List. Not Erin fucking Brockovich.
Oh, and one more thing–[small hijack] They should not even allow morning DJs to discuss the Oscars. Just because you think Russell Crowe is cute, that does not mean that he deserves to win an award. And don’t sound all upset because you don’t know who all the nominees are. I realize that this confuses you, the fact that someone can be an actor and not be included in every third issue of “People Magazine.” For the record, dumbfucks, Ed Harris happens to be an amazing actor. In answer to your question about why he was nominated, the answer is: Because he’s fucking brilliant! Considering that this is his third nomination (off the top of my head) within the last 6 or 7 years, I’d say he’s damn good at his job. (Note: I haven’t seen Pollock yet, but I take it for granted that Ed Harris is always good in whatever he does).
[/small hijack]
Thank you for allowing me to vent.
One would hope, but no. It’s up for best adapted (IIRC) screenplay, so that probably means that the rest of the movie has gained all the recognition it’s going to. Don’t worry, I’m sure somebody will start the SDMB Oscars, and we can nominate it to our heart’s content. 
My Oscar poll thread died for some reason, but it’s up for two Oscars. The Coen brothers movie, that is, not my thread.
You know, I thought it was a pretty good year for cinema. “Gladiator” (Which absolutely WILL win Best Picture) didn’t deserve twelve nominations, but it sure beats “The Green Mile.” “Traffic” was great, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” was great, “Erin Brockovich” was great too, although it sadly gives the Academy an excuse to give Julia Roberts an Oscar (You can place your bets on her now; she is an absolute slam-dunk to win.) “Almost Famous” was great and got some nominations. Ed Harris was rightly nominated for “Pollock” and boy, I hope he wins. “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” got scammed but it was great, too. But then I’m the only movie buff on Earth who thought “L.A. Confidential” was overrated.
I couldn’t disagree more. While the summer was ypically devoid of substance, I think a large number of good films were released this year. I can easily name a dozen, off the top of my head, that were better than either Gladiator or Erin Brokovich
Wonder Boys
Almost Famous
Quilss
State & Main
Thirteen Days
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
You Can Count on Me
Pollock [sub](okay – haven’t been able to catch this one yet, but I have faith in Ed Harris.)[/sub]
Cast Away
Shadow of the Vampire
Requiem for a Dream
Traffic
*
Heck, and there are easily a dozen more on a par with Gladiocovich:
The Gift
The Pledge
House of Mirth
Oh Brother Where Art Thou*[sub](on faith/word of mouth: might move up to category one this weekend when I actually see it)[/sub]*
The Contender
Chicken Run
High Fidelity
Nurse Betty (Actually, this was better, but it just poppoed into my head.)[/sub]
The Tao of Steve
Love and Basketball
Boiler Room
Smiling Fish and goat on Fire*
Hell – and that wasn’t even really trying. I’m sure I have forgotten some. Once again the Academy has embraced pleasant mediocrity when it could be rewarding acctual excellence, or at least daring.
Oh, and I couldn’t agree with Cervaise more regarding the documentary awards (and Errol Morris in particular). Repeated attempts to “correct” the process still haven’t managed to break through the wall of inbred circle-jerking.
Had the fine experience to see “Pollock” at the Palm Springs
International Film Festival last month. Fantastic movie, wonderful acting by Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden. Ed Harris was present for Q and A after the movie, what a great
and talented guy. That movie was a true labor of love.
If Tom Hanks wins (again) over Harris or Javier Bardem, who was spectacular in “Before Night Falls”, I am afraid I will lose all faith in the intelligence of mankind. And if Julia
Roberts beats out Ellen Burstyn (unbelievable in “Requiem for A Dream”) I will be physically ill.
Haven’t seen Gladiator (or Titanic, for that matter), must be the only being on the face of the earth to miss those two.
What happened to “Best of Show”? Great reviews, hilarious movie, any nominations???
No Oscar nominations, but it is up for a WGA writing award. Just goes to show, the writers recognize a good script before the main body of the Academy does.
But wait, some of you ask. Wasn’t Best of Show improvised? Then why do Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy get nominated for writing it?
It’s a common misconception, as I’ve explained a few times on my site: A screenplay is far more than the dialogue. A screenplay represents the overall structure of the story, the ebb and flow of conflict, the sequence of scenes that build and release tension while escalating to the climax. The dialogue is like the icing on the cake; it isn’t the cake itself.
So Guest and Levy constructed the whole movie, scene by scene, character by character, and established a framework within which the actors could make up dialogue on the spot. They would shoot a given scene, fiddling with words, over and over again until they really got it humming, and then use that take. So they shot something like 60 hours of footage, most of which represents twenty versions of each scene (as predetermined in Guest/Levy’s “script”), and then use the funniest one. The movie wouldn’t have worked without all the preparatory work by the writers, even though they weren’t writing dialogue, per se.
But that’s far, far too complicated for the Academy to understand, so they nominated Gladiator instead. Sigh…
I liked Gladiator and thought Russell Crowe did a fine job acting,but he whispered way too much in the flick, although it was Joaquin Phoenix who stole the movie and the woman who played his sister, Connie Something, was equally excellent.
Those of you who hated Russell Crowe in it, who do you think could have done a better job? I’m curious.
Gibson is too charming and smart assy ( and probably too old) Too meaty of a role for Schwartzenegger. Too physical for Kevin Spacey. Too young and way out of his league for Harrison Ford, Connery ( who in his prime would have kicked ass as Maxim) I can’t really think of anyone off hand that might have been able to take on this role.
I am very surprised that the boy from Billy Elliott did not get nominated. He was absolutely brilliant. I have decided that the academy loves middle aged british actresses ( as I do) and was pleased to see Julie Walters get nominated for her wonderful performance in Billy Elliot. ( I was suprised not to see in , say Golden Globes, the father of Billy Elliott get nominated for something. I thought he did an outstanding job.) Oy! Dancin’ Boy!
I am getting a little tired of Tom Hanks being nominated for everything he ever does. I’m sure if he submitted a home video of himself going to the toilet, he’d be nominated.
I haven’t seen half of the movies, but I just cannot picture Julia Roberts actually doing any acting in Erin Brocovich. She’s just so pedestrian.
Speaking of where the hell is the talent they are suppose to have: Mira Sorivino.
I also just loved Almost Famous.
Cervaise, I have such total respect for your work. I’m going to disagree here however. * Placing Artsy Fartsy Chapeau On *. I would pose the following theory: It is of little or no consequent whether 1/3 of Gladiator exists only cyberspace, or more accurately on a Terrabyte disk in a Sun Workstation Jukebox.
We enter the theatre with a clean slate. Or, we try to. Reviews, trailers, word of mouth, etc.- all supply us with preconceptions. A few examples ( now that I’ve rambled fucking long enough) to prove that knowing that fake is up on the screen is wholly irrelevant.
Rome wasn’t built in a day. You wanted Ridley Scott to rebuild a 5 square mile area of Ancient Rome? To what end? What they came up with was beautiful, and added to the film.
In the opening shot of the original Star Wars film, does it matter that we all know that the large spaceship is really just a few feet long, and was filmed with an extremely wide angle lens for effect? It’s impressive, it sets the tone.
Bruce the shark from Jaws was a series of mechanical devices. Yes, Yes, I know all about the Australian footage shot by Ron and Valerie Taylor that was intercut with Bruce’s shots. Who cares? Anyone out there so cynical that when you saw it in 1975/76, you weren’t completely scared shitless- mechanical shark or not?
There are no ghosts living in that buidling on the Upper West Side from Ghostbusters :D. (And, Harold Ramis is the funniest fucker alive.)
In Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou (sp?), the person’s eyeball was not really slit with a razor blade. It was a cow’s eyeball, and a cleverly done edit.
Since Citizen Kane has been mentionedd, the opening shot is a cleverly designed montage, using miniatures, forced perspective mattes, and a real set. It’s a tour de force for Gregg Toland, and Welles. So it’s three elements. So what?
And so on. Our desire to suspend belief in a safe environment is one of the greatest charms of going to a movie, isn’t it? Does it truly matter if it’s digital artifice or not? The set Cameron built for Titanic was something like a 7/8 scale size ship. Fucking huge. They did the large sweeping overhead shots with a construction crane WITH a movie crane arm attached !. Does it matter? I used to decry the use of digital over traditional set-building, images, etc. Now, it’s simply a part of the landscape. I could get all angry and insist that if they don’t do it like DeMille did, then it’s bullshit. But, to what end? Do you want to risk killing a half dozen actors to shoot A Perfect Storm, rather than create dangerous waves digitally? ( Well, IMHO, the world would turn just fine without George Clooney on it, but hey…).
I respect your opinion, Cervaise, but I do disagree. Gladiator wasn’t a documentary, purporting to deliver truth. It was just a flick. And, as for the Cinematography nomination overally, I agree that one can’t credit the D.P. with the digital scenes, aside from having input as to flow and continuity. IMHO as a D.P. myself, I thought that the live scenes were shot with enormous style and power. The use of color, and deep shadows was a lovely thing to behold. Heavy filtration rarely gets used to such good end. A lot of it was reminiscent of Jordan Cronenweth’s work on Bladerunner. The opening Steadicam (r) shot was bitchin’ 
Cartooniverse
Cartooniverse, you make good points, as expected from a professional cameraperson. I still hold to my original assertion, and here’s why: I say it’s about craft.
Digital/virtual cinematography is a totally different animal than photographing live action. In the real world, in location shooting, the clouds are constantly shifting, the sun changes its angle, and thousands of other little things change from moment-to-moment. You know this, of course. In the studio, you have to make sure the artificial lighting looks natural, and if you’re mixing studio-shot material with location material, the look of the two has to match. (See the beginning of Conan the Barbarian, with young Conan talking to his father on the mountaintop about the riddle of steel, for a good example of a studio-shot scene that doesn’t work with the surrounding location-shot footage.) Further, I think cinematographically it’s much more impressive to work inside a tiny little room, and hide all the lighting from angle to angle, than it is to go out on the open plain and point the camera at a mountain range. But that’s just me.
I don’t deny that Gladiator and Titanic and Phantom Menace and the other virtual-world movies represent significant achievements. I can’t disagree that movies are, by their very nature, made up primarily of artifice. (What do you mean, they didn’t really knock off the top of the Chrysler Building for Armageddon?) The movie audience doesn’t really care how something was achieved, as long as it appears seamless and doesn’t distract them from watching the movie.
However: The award category is Cinematography. It is not “Most impressive visuals.” Photography is a specific craft, as I described above and as you well know. For that reason, I can’t accept that the phenomenal work Roger Deakins did in O Brother, Where Art Thou, which used a minimum of digital trickery, should be judged by the same yardstick as what the computer animators did in Gladiator.
But let me propose a compromise. There were two cinematographic Oscars awarded for a few decades in the middle of the Academy’s history, differentiating between black-and-white and color photography. Perhaps it’s time for the cinematographic award to again be split into two categories, to distinguish virtual work from “real” photography. The skillsets and expertise are totally different for the two achievements. Why set them against one another?
Well, Gibson did do it better in Braeheart. I might also suggest:
I could come up with a list of alternative casting choices (Liam Neeson, Daniel Day lewis, etc.), but that really isn’t the point.
I’m not saying that Crowe is a bad actor. He is a very good actor, but even good actors sometimes give bad performances. For Crowe, Gladiator was one of them. He lacked the physical skill sto make the combat believable and failed utterly to evoke the emotional turmoil of his character’s repeated reversals of fortune. Hell, when Joaquin Phoenix is acting rings around you, you know you’re having a bad day.
What a wonderful idea!!! God. I love it. Perhaps a straight percentage of screen time would divide the two categories. I mean, TONS of “normal” films use opticals to fix problems, get rid of reflections, wires, etc. They should be excluded from the Gladiatorcategory.
I’d suggest you find out where to send this suggestion. This is GREAT !!! Your analogy is poifect.
And yes, there is NOTHING more interesting than a scene in a small room. I remember the interviews in American Cinematographer about “Kiss Of The Spider Woman”. I mean, my god. Talk about small spaces.
Cartooniverse
I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much joyful enthusiasm in the Pit. Ever. You keep this up, cartooniverse and you’ll be banned from posting in this forum ever again.
