Forum Replies Created
February 13, 2020 at 8:51 pm #1203346381
I do feel the cinematography for PARASITE should’ve been in consideration too. Thanks to Bong’s desire of storyboarding his films meticulously, you could just tell how some of his frames were like works of art…even ones that were quite simplistic in their approach.
Exactly, this was a real storyboarding achievement, in the purest sense of the term. Which is a big reason why Parasite stands so strong in both cinematography and editing.
Now, if we want to talk about pure cinematography, the Oscar probably should have gone to Portrait of a Lady on Fire. But they were never going to nominate that.
Out of the actual field of nominees, I’m fine with 1917 winning.February 13, 2020 at 8:43 pm #1203346378
The sources you gave are irrelevant to the argument, because they reflect the reception of the movie at the time it was released. It’s as if you used How Green Was My Valley winning Best Picture as an argument that the Academy considers it a better movie than Citizen Kane. That’s probably not true nowadays.
The Sight & Sound poll and the TSPDT list are considered the most prestigious lists of movies. That’s why I’m basing myself on those. No one uses RT and MC for all-time reception. That’s not even their purpose.
I think it’s fair to look at the rankings for the specific years (although you have to take into account how close the movies are to each other). It gives you an idea of where the movies might stand in the all-time list in the future.
And by the way, Marriage Story is probably a top 3 movie of the year according to cinephiles (along with Parasite and Portrait of a Lady on Fire). That’s what I expect the top 3 will look like when the list gets updated later this month.February 13, 2020 at 8:25 pm #1203346371
Yeah some parts were very “point and shoot”. Some people say the one take aproach enhances the cinematography. That is true. But it also hurts it, because they didn’t put the same care into every moment of the movie.February 13, 2020 at 7:56 pm #1203346345
Then why is La La Land ranked the 3rd best movie of 2016, while Return of the King is ranked the 7th best movie of 2003? Quality doesn’t vary that much from year to year.February 13, 2020 at 6:22 pm #1203346235
Do you think the Directors branch might be automatically biased against actor-directed movies starring the directors because they see them as ego trips, hence why Ben Affleck and Bradley Cooper got snubbed, but Greta Gerwig, Jordan Peele, and Mel Gibson, none of whom starred in their own movies, were able to get nominations?
I think it’s just that Affleck and Cooper are not very good directors compared to the others.
I never understood the reasoning for Cooper being nominated. He made a good movie, but he hasn’t really shown anything as far as directorial talent goes. I feel like people were rooting for him just because he is a well known actor.February 13, 2020 at 6:04 pm #1203346208
That’s why I sourced Metacritc too (even though I think RT is better).
Metacritic has the same issue. It only tells you the reception of the movie at the time of its release. TSPDT gets updated every year.
I think if you asked the large majority of people they would say Ben Hur and Return of the King at least are better than La La Land.
I thought we were talking about critics and cinephiles here. Obviously general audiences prefer LOTR to La La Land.February 13, 2020 at 11:44 am #1203345653
I’m sure movie nerds tend to prefer Return of the King, but La La Land is more critically acclaimed, and is more likely to make the Sight & Sound list in 2022 than the LOTR movies.February 13, 2020 at 11:26 am #1203345644
But don’t you think the cinematography of Parasite is arguably better than the cinematography of 1917? I was certainly more frequently in awe of how Parasite was shot. Although that is a bit of an unfair comparison, since 1917 has less variety to showcase due to the nature of its cinematography.
The sections that stood out to me, in terms of cinematography, were the nighttime sequence, the part in the woods when he approaches the soldiers and then the camera moves around the group, the shot when he runs towards the camera in the battle, and the ending with the tree.
Other than that, I can’t say the cinematography was superior to Parasite. That movie was a masterclass the whole way through.February 12, 2020 at 6:27 pm #1203344953
The average person is more likely to know/care about a Supporting Actress win than a Costume Design win. Whether it’s fair or not, an acting category is seen as a more prestigious win than Costume Design.
I can see that if you want to talk in those terms. But that’s not very interesting, I think. It’s as if you wanted to discuss box office rather than quality.February 12, 2020 at 5:27 pm #1203344892
I think it’s a bit crazy to say that a movie like Ford v Ferrari is more of a technical achievement than masterworks like Parasite, Vertigo and Fanny and Alexander. Bigger scale doesn’t mean more technical. But everyone is entitled to their opinions, I guess.February 12, 2020 at 4:59 pm #1203344868
Rottentomatoes is a poor way of assessing the current reception of a movie.
The TSPDT list for the 21st century has La La Land as the 3rd best movie of 2016, behind Moonlight and Toni Erdmann (which it seems to be catching up to).
The others are not quite as acclaimed. The same list has Lost in Translation, Dogville, Elephant, West of the Tracks, Oldboy, and Goodby, Dragon Inn ranking over Return of the King. The all-time list has The 400 Blows, Some Like It Hot, Rio Bravo, North by Northwest, Pickpocket, Hiroshima mon amour, Imitation of Life, The World of Apu, and Shadows ranking above Ben-Hur.
They are huge movies but they aren’t really considered the best of the best.February 12, 2020 at 4:31 pm #1203344838
Ben-Hur, Titanic and Return of the King are bigger productions, but La La Land is just as acclaimed, if not more. It’s generally considered the 2nd best movie of its year after Moonlight, which I don’t think is the case of those other movies.February 12, 2020 at 3:52 pm #1203344787
I don’t get why you are saying only winning Costume Design is more of a flop than only winning Supporting Actress. You could easily argue that the former is more important to the overall quality of a movie.
The whole “below the line” thing is very misguided I think. Having the best actor is not more important than having the best cinematography or the best editing. It’s just more marketable.February 12, 2020 at 3:43 pm #1203344767
It won 6. And it was never predicted to beat the all-time record of wins. That would mean 12 wins and it was predicted to win 10 I think
Yeah I said 7 because that’s what we all thought it was until the mistake was revealed.
Beating the all-time record was a possiblity, and there was a lot of discussion about that (since the Best Picture race was pretty much a done deal). It was nominated in 13 different categories, so it could afford to lose one. The most vulnerable aspects were Ryan Gosling and the sound categories.February 12, 2020 at 2:59 pm #1203344740
That’s why you never sleep on a ceremony. I skipped 2017 because I thought La La Land would sweep and missed out on a bunch of juicy upsets. Never made that mistake again.
I followed the whole season because I wanted La La Land to beat the all-time record of wins. But in the end it only won 7. Still I was happy that at least it got Actress, Director and Picture. And then Moonlight happened and I was left traumatized for a few days.