I’ve been on the road most of the day, but happy news for Wally Pfister, who won the ASC award for “Inception.” I wouldn’t look to the Society for much in the way of prognostication. They’ve already seized the opportunity to award Roger Deakins, after all — twice. And had I thought about it, I likely would have predicted Pfister here, given the group’s history. But I don’t want to take anything away from this win, which is well-deserved when considering the work this guy has been knocking out of the park for a decade now.
I still say “True Grit” takes the Oscar, with “The King’s Speech” still as the spoiler.
Which reminds me: Don’t forget.
Comments
12 responses to “Pfister takes the ASC award for ‘Inception’”
I would put Inception in 4th place after True Grit, Black Swan & The King’s Speech. But yeah I think their already having awarded Deakins factored in.
This is a decent win but a bit bland compared to his superb work on The Dark Knight. I agree that the Academy likely won’t go for it and will likely pick True Grit.
This is one category where The Social Network has no chance winning (and no business being present). But the other 4 might squeeze out a win.
What’s wrong with the cinematography in The Social Network, red? I can see how the look of the film can be polarizing just like look of The King’s Speech is, but not to such an extent where I’d say it doesn’t belong there.
There’s nothing “wrong” with the cinematography of The Social Network so much as there’s not really anything wildly special about it either (which is unusual for a Fincher film). Unless you’re a huge fan of the fake tilt-shift sequence (which I personally loathe). But I can live with it being nominated, it’s not the end of the world.
Anyway, Inception is a good choice, and it makes sense since it was Pfister’s third nomination without a win. I still think Deakins is a go for the Oscars, especially after taking home the film’s sole BAFTA. So as long as Deakins ultimately prevails, we’re all good.
Yeah, I still think True Grit is ahead and King’s Speech in second, with Inception third, and then Social Network and Black swan as also-rans.
Inception doesn’t seem to me to have the postcard beauty usually needed for an academy cinematography winner.
I guess it all depends on how you look at it. If you see The Social Network as a Fincher film, it’s cinematography may not necessarily appear very special, at least in the sense that there’s not much new in it. Otherwise, the film has a very particular digital look. In some ways, it looks almost like a digital version of a Kaminski film.
I would prefer to see True Grit take the Oscar this year but I would be fine with Inception too.
Very happy for Pfister. Well-deserved.
I also feel like this should still be True Grit’s Oscar: overdue Deakins/10 TG noms.
I think The King’s Speech is the upset film. Black Swan has dropped off, a bit. TSN, nah.
Nothing wrong with it. Every film has cinematography. Nothing wrong but nothing worth nominating either.
I really felt this was a waste of a slot which something like Shutter Island (and I don’t even like that movie) or any number of other movies with great lensing could have taken.
I think that the Social Network owes much of it’s impact to the way it looks personally. It may not have the fanciest camera work around but the look of the film is pretty underrated, imo.
I think not every aspect of a good movie is award worthy by default.
Social Network is a much better movie than Shutter Island and The American. But those two movies are much better showcases of cinematography.
It is a passable nomination but it is rare. Very few talking head movies get nominated for cinematography. Social Network was obviously favored because of its immense prestige and wish of the lensers to honor it.
I understand your position. I guess I’m not really approaching this from the awards angle at all (I’m not sure I would have put it in my top 5 of the year in terms of the overall work). I guess, I’m mostly advocating that the look of the film is rather deliberate and it really sets the tone for the movie in ways that few other movies, including Inception to a certain extent, had. And that’s one thing that I think should not be overlooked in conversations regarding cinematogrpahy. Prettiness and camerawork are very important but it’s when all three factors come together is when a film’s cinematorgraphy becomes truly memorable. Films like Lost In Translation and Munich come to mind.
Portions of the film made it seem like it’s not just a talking heads film but a talking heads film… set underwater. I know that this is achieved with filters and I am against digital work and find it inferior every single time out… but this film at least did well.
I’m probably hugely overpraising it, all things considered but I was trying to make a point. I’m sure you understand what I mean.
For what’s its worth, I wasn’t a huge fan of steadicam work in “Panic Room”. A lot of shots the more complicated shots looked really computerized to me.
“I think not every aspect of a good movie is award worthy by default.
I totally agree with that, by the way.
Yay for Pfister–glad to see him win. :) I think Inception’s lensing is beautiful, but Dark Knight was better.
Deakins should and will win the Oscar, though.
I’m on the negative side of the King’s Speech cinematography.
red_ wine is so predictable when it comes to anything Nolan related.