Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Biggest Oscar Disappointments: Best Cinematography (2010)
There are definitely times when I am disappointed by the decisions the Academy of Motion Picture Art and Sciences, and I don't think that I'm alone in that lament. So let me start off with one that's been irritating me recently, and that's this year's winner for best cinematography, Mauro Fiore for Avatar. I've seen Avatar enough times to take a look at the cinematography, and I have to say that there is really nothing remarkable about any of the shots in that film. The images are beautiful, but that has a great deal to do with the visual effects. As a matter of fact, there are specific shots in which it very obviously zooms in, so as to make it look like there was an actual camera there. Intentionally using bad cinematography doesn't make it good cinematography.
Then, when you look at the other films nominated, you have to wonder why they didn't win. I never got the chance to see The White Ribbon, so I can't yet comment on that. The Hurt Locker could've won for that shot in the opening scene with the slow motion explosion. Inglourious Basterds had so many amazing angles in it that, at the time of predictions, I was sure it was going to win. The shot where Aldo interrogates Hammersmark while has his finger in her bullet hole was simply brilliant. When I think back, the film that probably should've won that award is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, because it really did have the most deeply textured and astounding shots of any film this year, and the only reason it didn't win was because of "Potter fatigue." Ultimately, I think I'd have been satisfied if any other film won, other than Avatar.
What's your take? Do you think that Avatar was deserving of that award? If not, what film do you think should've won? Comment below, and let me know. And rhyme!