VIDEO: What Does Oscar-Winning Cinematography Look Like?

VIDEO: What Does Oscar-Winning Cinematography Look Like?

As a bonus to the “Who Should Win” video essay series that identifies this year’s truly deserving Oscar winners, this video compiles some of the most impressive visuals from the five films nominated for the Academy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography. Of all the Oscar categories, this one may lend itself best to a simple video compilation of clips that lets you decide for yourself which movie deserves to win.  All you have to do is watch and decide. Or is it really that simple?

Of course, one can’t evaluate all the films in their entirety in one sitting. I’ve limited the selections for each film to two standout clips not exceeding a total of 90 seconds. To do this, I enlisted the suggestions of the Twittersphere. Over a dozen people tweeted their standout shots and images from the nominated films, with several moments getting multiple mentions and thus finding their way into this compilation reel. Based on sheer number of enthusiastic tweets on their behalf, it seems that Skyfall and Lincoln are the popular favorites.

I made one additional tweak to the video by removing the audio from the clips. It may be a bit jarring to watch these scenes without a soundtrack, but it’s for the sake of placing sole emphasis on the images and camerawork. I hope you’ll agree with me that, by and large, the visual artistry on display speaks quite well for itself.

Looking at these clips, I have my own opinion on who should win, but I’ll keep mum, as I’d rather see you cast your vote in the comments section. Perhaps a subsequent discussion below might tease out my favorite.

VIDEO ESSAY: LIFE OF PI and the CGI Animal Kingdom of Rhythm & Hues

VIDEO ESSAY: LIFE OF PI and the CGI Animal Kingdom of Rhythm & Hues

I made this video essay last month for Sight & Sound magazine upon the release of Life of Pi in the UK. Going into the making of this video, I wanted to address one criticism that was made upon my previous contribution to Sight & Sound, the video essay on Paul Thomas Anderson's camera movements. The criticism was that the piece was too narrowly focused on exploring Anderson's auteurial vision and did not sufficiently acknowledge the contributions of the cinematographer in devising the shots. That made me think more about focusing on the work of non-directors and in what way they contribute to the overall artistic vision of a film.

I found a perfect case study with the work of Rhythm & Hues, a CGI effects company that has won two Oscars and made a fortune creating computer generated animals for Hollywood movies, specifically those that can talk. They practically enabled a new subgenre of "Talking Animals" children's films that have made billions of dollars and turned the company into an internatonal operation of animators and computer engineers. But they're not nearly as household a name as Pixar, since they mostly don't produce their own fllms and work behind the scenes as technicians enabling the visions of other directors and producers to come to fruition. However, I argue that, in the specific nature of their work, one can trace a highly focused creative throughline, one that has major ramifications for how we are and will experience reality and living beings on screen.  In this context, Life of Pi can be seen as their masterpiece, one that was 20 years in the making. 

Just watch the first two minutes of this video and see where it takes you. 

You can read the full article accompanying the video, as well as some snazzy infographics illustrating the impact of CGI animals in Hollywood movies, at Sight & Sound.