Re: Best Cinematography 1989
Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:40 am
I'd echo all the alternates BJ cited -- Casualties of War in particular -- and also throw in Batman. Yes, it was mostly the set, but the film really created a Gothic look that was very new for comic strip films at the time.
Blaze is almost an exact replica of the previous year's Tequila Sunrise (and Searching for Bobby Fischer, to come): a nominee totally removed from the best film race, that was clearly cited for its cinematographer's name, but that was hardly undeserving. As BJ says, Wexler caught the real atmosphere of Louisiana, which is worthy of our praise, if not our vote.
I guess Robert Richardson is as Academy-honored as any cinematographer of modern times -- 9 nominations and 3 wins -- and I mostly think highly of his work, but there aren't many times I'd particularly want him to win. Here he has a film that touches all the bases of a category win -- the colored-by-memory hometown scenes, the stark and vivid battle scenes, the purposely ugly rehab sequences, and the vibrant protests that close out the film. Had he won here, no one would have especially complained. But I can't bring myself to cast a vote his way.
You've got to admit, MIchael Ballhaus' work showed a lot of range. His three nominations -- for Broadcast News, Gangs of New, and, here, The Fabulous Baker Boys -- couldn't be more different from one another. In Kloves' film, he really captures the depressingly two-bit lifestyle of the brothers, and then gives it a touch of glamour when Pfeffer's Susie Diamond happens upon the scene -- his visuals convey just how much lift her mere presence provide the act. I don't think the film is, overall, visually distinguished enough to merit the prize, but I respect what's on display.
I'm rather astonished so many of you have chosen The Abyss here. I suppose it's good enough looking, and it has its cool underwater shots. But t would never have occurred to me to vote for it.
I guess the rules at the time precluded Freddie Francis being nominated by ASC. I didn't know about those rules, so I thought the exclusion meant he was only a long-shot for the Oscar win. I was delighted to be proven wrong, because I think Glory is easily the most distinguished of the group. Glory is not, in toto, a particularly good film. It swims in Zwickian mediocrity, particularly when the characters open their mouths -- if you listened to the soundtrack without the visuals, you'd think you were watching a gung-ho John Wayne war movie. However, if you watched the visuals without the dialogue -- if it had been a silent movie -- you'd have thought you were watching a masterpiece. This film is gorgeously designed and shot, whether simple scenes of soldiers marching in formation, or the perfectly-lit battle scenes, culminating in that final epic encounter. Simply in terms of cinematography, this is the great achievement of 1989, and my clear choice.
Blaze is almost an exact replica of the previous year's Tequila Sunrise (and Searching for Bobby Fischer, to come): a nominee totally removed from the best film race, that was clearly cited for its cinematographer's name, but that was hardly undeserving. As BJ says, Wexler caught the real atmosphere of Louisiana, which is worthy of our praise, if not our vote.
I guess Robert Richardson is as Academy-honored as any cinematographer of modern times -- 9 nominations and 3 wins -- and I mostly think highly of his work, but there aren't many times I'd particularly want him to win. Here he has a film that touches all the bases of a category win -- the colored-by-memory hometown scenes, the stark and vivid battle scenes, the purposely ugly rehab sequences, and the vibrant protests that close out the film. Had he won here, no one would have especially complained. But I can't bring myself to cast a vote his way.
You've got to admit, MIchael Ballhaus' work showed a lot of range. His three nominations -- for Broadcast News, Gangs of New, and, here, The Fabulous Baker Boys -- couldn't be more different from one another. In Kloves' film, he really captures the depressingly two-bit lifestyle of the brothers, and then gives it a touch of glamour when Pfeffer's Susie Diamond happens upon the scene -- his visuals convey just how much lift her mere presence provide the act. I don't think the film is, overall, visually distinguished enough to merit the prize, but I respect what's on display.
I'm rather astonished so many of you have chosen The Abyss here. I suppose it's good enough looking, and it has its cool underwater shots. But t would never have occurred to me to vote for it.
I guess the rules at the time precluded Freddie Francis being nominated by ASC. I didn't know about those rules, so I thought the exclusion meant he was only a long-shot for the Oscar win. I was delighted to be proven wrong, because I think Glory is easily the most distinguished of the group. Glory is not, in toto, a particularly good film. It swims in Zwickian mediocrity, particularly when the characters open their mouths -- if you listened to the soundtrack without the visuals, you'd think you were watching a gung-ho John Wayne war movie. However, if you watched the visuals without the dialogue -- if it had been a silent movie -- you'd have thought you were watching a masterpiece. This film is gorgeously designed and shot, whether simple scenes of soldiers marching in formation, or the perfectly-lit battle scenes, culminating in that final epic encounter. Simply in terms of cinematography, this is the great achievement of 1989, and my clear choice.