I have no comment or opinion to offer here. I probably should watch the other films once again before diving into the new chapter because they’ve blurred together, frankly, at this point. But “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I” hits theaters this weekend and I’m sure many of you will see it, so come on back here and give us your thoughts when you do.
• How did you know you were in love? Enter a “How Do You Know” contest to win a San Francisco trip with your story. [Yahoo!]
• John Lopez talks “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1” with producer David Heyman. [Little Gold Men]
• Ryan Reynolds is crowned 2010’s sexiest man alive. [People]
Last week we discussed how a movie’s soundtrack can be immeasurably improved by music. This week, we turn to the sound technicians. While next week will concentrate on sound mixing (the overall mix of effects, recorded sounds, dialogue and music), this week we look at sound editing, the creation of artificial sound effects to enhance a film’s aural impact.
Despite the difference between the two sound categories, the fact remains that usually no more than one or two of the nominees in the Best Sound Editing field are generally snubbed for mixing. And as always, Best Picture contenders do well, suggesting that the branch isn’t the most novel when seeking out nominees.
However, the category has shown a tendency to reward films that do not necessarily score in the major categories; blockbusters, fantasy films and animated films usually do very well here, likely because of the fact that so many sounds in these movies have to be manifested. So let’s start with animated titles.
• David O. Russell’s “The Fighter” unspooled at the AFI Fest. Kris was impressed and later reported from a Q&A with the film’s stars.
• This week’s Off the Carpet column pondered the presence of money-spinners in this year’s Best Picture race.
• The Long Shot, meanwhile, wondered if that very race is currently looking a little flimsy.
• News of Hugh Jackman turning down the gig prompted the annual speculation over who should host the Oscar ceremony.
A great score can take a film from memorable to unforgettable. Whether it be Vangelis’s synthesizer on the beach in “Chariots of Fire,” Nino Rota’s haunting waltz from “The Godfather” or John Williams’s blaring, adventurous march from “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” scores can elevate amazing images to bring the director’s vision to even greater fruition.
The last time I discussed this category, I noted how it is very hard to predict in advance without having heard the scores. Synopses and stills give clues in other categories to an extent frequently not seen here. That said, most contenders have screened, if not opened, now, so we can make safe assumptions.
But I still think this can be one of the most difficult categories to predict. But in the way of patterns, films that feature noticeable, loud, memorable and often exotic music are usually contenders. And being in a Best Picture frontrunner never hurts matters, as always.
This branch certainly has its favorites, and I expect to see past nominees and winners prominent in the race this year. The composers don’t frequently embrace new nominees. Usually only one newcomer is welcomed per year.
“No need for him to take it so seriously,” replied reader KevinK when I Twitter-linked Guardian critic Xan Brooks’s sharp dismissal of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1” last night, one in a mixed wave of reviews flooding the net following the film’s London premiere.
Kevin is both right and wrong. Right, in that the Harry Potter films, with their mostly unvarying construction and vast built-in audience, are the definition of critic-proof; whether attack or defending the films, by this point in the franchise, any critic will find himself preaching to the choir. Wrong, in that any pop-culture phenomenon on this scale merits serious discussion; the fans certainly take the films seriously, so it behoves a good critic to offer more than a rote “if you liked the others…” response.
No one is going to need a critic to help them decide whether or not to see “Deathly Hallows,” so as this behemoth of a series draws to a close, one may as well use the review space to start debating the films’ legacy.
As I said last week (and have said several times before), no category is year-in and-year-out more perplexing than Best Makeup. Each year, this branch finds ways to turn otherwise dubious awards contenders into bona fide Oscar nominees — dubious because often nominees might be abysmal or relatively obscure. The branch seems to have its favorites – like Greg Cannom and Rick Baker – but nevertheless manages to snub them sometimes when they seem sure bets.
The category remains the sole remnant of the bake-off system, where the field is narrowed to seven and the nominees chosen from that collective. Year after year, shocking omissions occur in both rounds.
As I stated last time, despite the general weirdness of this category, we can put some traits as more likely to be embraced than others – aging, prosthetics and illness likely top the list. Also, while the category technically rewards both hairstyling and makeup, it rarely seems to concentrate on the former (“The Young Victoria” last year is a notable exception). So all that having been established, what do I expect to see in contention this year?
Way back in the mists of 2001, the very first “Harry Potter” screen outing (don’t ask me to distinguish the titles) received an Oscar nomination for Best Costume Design. It even managed to win the Costume Designers’ Guild award — and that was before they created a separate category for fantasy film.
No subsequent entry in the series has managed to repeat either feat, and if the current accusations of sartorial stealing being levelled at Jany Temime, costume designer for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1,” are anything to go by, we shouldn’t hold our breath for a change in that pattern. It seems Temime has aggravated many in the fashion industry by claiming as her own concept a wedding dress, crucial to a climactic scene in the film, that looks irrefutably similar to a revered 2008 design by the late Alexander McQueen:
Today we take a look a second look at, well, certainly the most “cinematic” of categories: Best Cinematography. As I like to say, cinema is born out of the camera and those who wield these devices enrich our films more than a few words written here could possibly say. From capturing mood, lighting and atmosphere to telling the story visually and creatively, our cinematographers truly are artists in every sense of the word.
Naturally, “pretty” films, war films and Best Picture nominees all have a knack for doing particularly well in this category.
Now that the trailer for “True Grit” has reached the internet, I surely cannot be the only person asking…is this the film that will finally bring Roger Deakins his Oscar? He has eight nominations (four for Coen brothers films), tragically winning zero times. The photography looks amazing, and the film is exactly the sort that would seem to excel in this category. That the film also looks like a bigger Oscar player across the board (more than I was originally expecting) is merely icing on the cake.
Oh how things have changed since I last wrote in this space. In the past four weeks, Tech Support has taken a break, allowing the dust from the festival circuit to settle, and other titles to open. Over the next 10 weeks, we’ll take a second look at each of the crafts categories, finishing in mid-December – just as awards circuit takes hold.
Today, we take a second glance at Best Art Direction. As stated last time, this category tends to reward period and fantasy films.The branch has some favorites, but it’s not overly incestuous. And while being a Best Picture contender certainly helps, nominees can often come from the surrounding fray.
Perhaps I’ll start with a film that I thought would score here, but came out of Toronto in even greater shape than I expected: Tom Hooper’s “The King’s Speech.” With prestige and period attached, I am virtually certain Eve Stewart, who was nominated in this category 11 years ago for Mike Leigh’s “Topsy-Turvy,” will be heading to the Kodak. Not only am I confident she’ll be nominated again, I think she has excellent potential to win.
I’ve said before that the “Harry Potter” films are frankly just collapsing in on one another in my head as of late. I can’t tell them apart. But then, I’m not overly interested in the series and I recognize there are tons of people out there who are. With that in mind, the anticipation around “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” (which has been divided into two parts) is at a fever pitch. I may just sit down and rock out a marathon and square it all away in my mind before diving into the final two installments. We got a teaser for the whole shebang back in June. Now a new trailer specifically for Part 1 has been released via Yahoo! Movies. Check it out by clicking the image below or watch an embed after the jump.
How often do you go to the movies to escape? To be immersed into a different world, whether it be fantastical, thrilling or action-packed? For many movie-goers, if not most, the answer is “frequently.”
Visual effects often play a massive role in this experience. Studios invest heavily in them and frequently try to sell films on the strength of their effects as much as their directors or their stars. Given this, it is unsurprising that the films that are nominated for the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects are almost always big titles, often with huge budgets and almost invariably with massive revenue.
Dozens if not hundreds of individuals collaborate on the effects work of any given film. Only four supervising members of the crew can share the award, however. While there are certainly many dazzling crafts artists who are embraced in this category year after year, the branch has opened up to newcomers considerably in recent years.
The visual effects category will be changing its dynamic this year as it will be expanding to five nominees after years of using the traditional bake-off method of determining three nominees. How this will impact trends is a matter that will play out in this year and years to come. But from this vantage point, we can only look to the past.
Oddly enough, however, if there was one category where I’d put down money on the final nominees from this perch, this would be it. Not that I’m in any way guaranteed to be right. In fact, I doubt I will be. Too much can change. But five titles make the most sense right now.
Now matter how many times I watch the Oscars, someone will always ask, “So what is the difference between the two sound categories?”
The difference is quite significant. It is so important that the sound branch is only one of two “tech” branches in the Academy (the other being music) that gives out two separate awards. Best Sound Mixing awards the individuals who bring the entire soundscape – music, dialogue, effects – together into a balanced mix.
Best Sound Editing, on the other hand (perhaps better described by its previous name, Best Sound Effects Editing), rewards the artificial creation of sounds to be inserted into the film, but were not captured during the shoot.
The category, despite its very specific nature, is nevertheless like many other “tech” categories. Both “loud” films (often war films) and blockbusters are among this category’s favorite fetishes. And like virtually all categories, being a Best Picture contender can be a big help.
I am marveled by the accomplishments of all the crafts artists who elevate our films, but this is particularly the case with respect to music composers. Composing equals genius as far as I am concerned.These musicians join the film at the end, when usually only the director, editor and perhaps the sound mixers are still working. But capturing the mood and feel of a film that has been created in your absence must be extraordinarily difficult.And I do not need to count the ways in which a brilliant score can make a good film truly unforgettable.
The category of Best Original Score is one of the hardest to predict in my opinion, even shortly before the nominations are announced. So what sort of music is rewarded by this branch? Certainly being noticeable in the film helps. Loud music and/or music which plays for lengthy parts of the film with minimal dialogue can do well, too. Being an animated film or a Best Picture contender hardly hurts either.
For years, we could count on John Williams to take a spot among the nominees. But given that Williams is only composing for Steven Spielberg these days, his name has been absent from the nominees for five straight years now. (I suspect we’ll see him finally move past Alfred Newman on the all-time list next year.)
Nevertheless, while the branch is not quite as insular as it was in the earlier part of last decade, it remains a fairly exclusive club. Seldom do composers get first trips to the Kodak – usually only one a year. In fact, of the past 11 years, only three have seen two new nominees, and only one has seen three.
Makeup and hairstyling builds characters by transforming actors with realism or imagination that would otherwise be lacking on the screen. With the announcement that the Best Visual Effects is expanding to include five nominees this year, Best Makeup now remains the sole category to have three nominees, chosen from a “bake-off” of seven finalists which are revealed in advance of the January nominations announcement.
This award tends to cite so many different aspects that it is difficult to pin down exactly what the branch looks for. However, aging and illness are certainly well regarded, as are the creation of blood and injuries, disfigurement and turning actors into monsters and other fantastical beings.
It should be remembered that this category awards both makeup and hairstyling. However, last year’s nomination for “The Young Victoria” is a rare example of where the hairstyling portion of the category apparently played a significant role. Traditionally, facial and body makeup is far more important.
One of the most anticipated events at this year’s convention was Warner Bros. Pictures’ presentation of footage from Martin Campbell’s upcoming “Green Lantern” adaptation. Starring Ryan Reynolds as test-pilot-turned-intergalactic-enforcer Hal Jordan, the film is the first big screen adaptation of the superhero to date.
Comics writer and head of DC Entertainment Geoff Johns said during the panel discussion, moderated by Hero Complex‘s Geoff Boucher, that there was a time he thought an adaptation would never see the light of day. Working as an intern with Richard Donner over a decade ago, the project had begun to pick up some momentum. When he heard a studio exec ask if the film could be done without the ring, his heart sank and he figured it was a doomed property.
Today Johns is one of the key architects of the new DC universe on the page, having spent five years re-inventing and streamlining the world of Green Lantern as well, and for him, the film is a dream come true.
Of the so-called “tech” categories, Best Cinematography is one of the most popular, certainly for me. The invention of the camera took us beyond radio and literature and set modern art on a path aimed toward the moving picture, and this field recognizes those behind the lens.
Cinematography obviously has a massive impact on a film, everything unfolding within a frame and any nuance specific to the tone, atmosphere and theme of the piece. It is unimaginable to think of a good movie not having a good Director of Photography (DP).
“Pretty” films with beautiful landscapes and memorable, postcard-like shots shots are a regularity (and tend to win). But war films also show up regularly. And being a Best Picture contender never hurts. Innovative lighting that creates unique mood is frequently rewarded, at least with nominations, as well.
While this branch does at times play favorites (Robert Richardson and Roger Deakins being the most notable), it always tends to find room for one, two or three first-time nominees every year. From this vantage point, I’m curious who they will be because, the way I see it, most of the obvious contenders have been nominated before.
As we like to point out in this space each year, the Academy Award for Best Art Direction is presented to two individuals who have different but key roles in designing a film’s sets and props.
The first of these, the production designer, is the director of the film’s art department, responsible for the supervision of those in it and the overall architecture of the film’s design. The set decorator, on the other hand, is responsible for filling up those sets with proper scenery to fully bring them to life. When these individuals, and those who work alongside them in the art department, do their jobs well, we can be fully immersed into the story.
Historically, the nominees in this field fit into one of two categories: historical or fantastical. At least two – usually three or four – of the nominees every year are set in the past. This is not surprising. Being set outside of day-to-day life, such films require a different sort of research and, moreover, draw attention to themselves by not appearing to be what we encounter every day.
At the same time, fantasy titles show up at least once, often more, every year as well. Last year’s winner, “Avatar,” is a good example of this. Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg created a completely different world strictly from imagination.