Traditionally (or, perhaps a better word is "statistically"), in order for film to win the Best Picture, it has to also receive director, screenplay, editing and acting nominations. Of the ten BP nominees this year, only "The Hurt Locker," "Inglourious Basterds" and "Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire" were nominated in all the winning categories.
Sure, there have been exceptions. James Cameron's "Titanic" screenplay didn't get nominated, either. And remember the stink when "Driving Miss Daisy" won Best Picture without even a nomination for its director, Bruce Beresford?
The director and screenplay nominations seem like obvious prerequisites for Best Picture. As does at least one acting nomination, because the actors' branch of the Academy is its largest. Some believe "Crash" won Best Picture in 2005 because the cast was so big that just about everybody knew somebody who was in it.
As for editing... who knows? It's common knowledge that most movies are made or destroyed in the editing room. If you don't use the right takes, or know how to put them together, the movie is lost. Actors, in particular, are completely at the mercy of editors to make sense of any given performance from cut to cut. And yet, Academy voters usually honor pictures for Most Editing -- action movies with lots of cuts. "Hurt Locker," "Avatar" and "District 9" certainly fit the bill (you notice how much cutting is in those films)... but "Inglourious Basterds" (while featuring some tightly edited set pieces) also contains some long takes. The Average Shot Length, according to David Bordwell, is 5.6 seconds -- probably the longest of the Best Picture nominees. (For contrast: DB has "The Hurt Locker"'s ASL at 2.7, "Funny People" at 4.0 and "Goodbye Solo" at 12.4!)
One of the most surprising of this year's nominations for me was the editing nod for "Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire." Small-scale character movies aren't usually the kinds of things that capture the editors' attention. Maybe it was those insert shots of sizzling bacon & eggs and hairy pigs' feet, I don't know. Or maybe it was the compressed/stylized cutting of action (watch how Mo'Nique gets the TV from the apartment, down the hallway and to the stairs, where she tries to drop it on Precious and her baby). Or maybe it was just that everybody noticed "the editing" when the film cut in and out of fantasy sequences.
I would have chosen to acknowledge the flawless timing of the cutting in the Coens' "A Serious Man" (every shot is just where it should be, for just as long as it should be). It, however, lacks directing, editing and acting nominations, while "Up in the Air" (with three acting noms for Clooney, Farmiga and Kendrick) is missing only the key editing nomination, and "District 9" came up short in the direction and acting categories.
As for "Avatar" -- it, too, received no nominations for acting (although Richard Brody of The New Yorker's "The Front Row" blog tweeted that Sam Worthington in "Avatar" and Jeremy Renner in "The Hurt Locker" gave "more or less [the] same performance.). Actors are suspicious of the whole CGI/motion capture thing. In Newsweek, Morgan Freeman said, "I think it's a bit faddish, because it's really cartoons." Fellow acting nominee Jeff Bridges said, "I think what we [actors] do is the ultimate special effect," while Sandra Bullock (nominated for "The Blind Side") chimed in, "You can't get that with dots and green screen..."
62 Comments
I'd just like to register my disappointment and mild surprise that "Where The Wild Things Are" received zero Oscar love. I certainly didn't expect anything in the Big Categories - but certainly it deserved a nomination or two for design and/or effects?
Your observation on films winning best editing simply having the "most editing" is something I've noticed and something that greatly bothers me. Fast cutting isn't a bad thing, but it needs to be coherent and precise. For example, I did rather like The Hurt Locker overall, especially in regards to its narrative, but I was very disappointed in its mixture of of super-fast editing and ridiculously shaky camera work, not to mention all the zooming.
I can't really think of a good reason for The Hurt Locker's visual/editing aesthetic. I think the general consensus is that the shaky cam is supposed to make the viewer feel like they're in the scene of the action, yet this is simply untrue unless one is having a seizure while they're walking around. Another possibility could be that they're trying to go for a documentary feel, which would justify the shakiness and zooms, but all the fast cutting during continuous sequences ruins that illusion. If the intent was to make it feel "raw and gritty," they should have just stuck to one device instead of creating a nauseating mixture of three "extreme" styles.
My hopes are for Inglourious Basterds to win. I know it's a long shot given all the attention to The Hurt Locker and Avatar, but I'd argue that it's better stylistically than the former and has a much, much better narrative structure than the latter.
Thank you for bringing up the shaky cam problem with "Hurt Locker". I actually thought that movie kicked ass (and it's been a while since I labeled a movie with that phrase) but it absolutely got marked down points for the shaky camera moves. It was just too much. And I am surprised no one, critics I mean, mentioned it! What's going on! I look to critics to at least tell me "Hey this is a great movie and you should see it, but you might walk out of the theater crossing your eyes and struggling to regain focus". But nothing.
It is a little rough around the edges. But it's one of those cases where, as Scorsese said of "Mean Streets", the passion came through.
In its rawness, the scanning, not quite sure where it should be looking but has a general idea, shaky cam might be (or at least I think it is) more honest than a more controlled approach would have been, considering it's a film about defusers, in limited time and under somewhat chaotic circumstances, searching through a bunch of mess to try to pick out a bomb. It's, in a way, even with all the strategy involved, a messy job. (Though the movie somehow, miraculously I'd say, makes very clear... although I'm not sure how "realistic" it is, I've read soldier complaints that I think miss the point, but moving on....)
The soldiers in the film are looking here, looking there, looking everywhere. Because the threat could be just about anywhere and it's understanding how the characters themselves would feel dizzied. Thus, Bigelow, being a visceral filmmaker, probably isn't worried if the audience gets a little sea sick themselves.
I'm not suggesting she should have locked the camera to a tripod to film the movie. Handheld camera work is fine and your right, in this case necessary, but I found it excessive at times. You can achieve the same effect using a steady camera, even if your filming soldiers in a state of panic and unknowing. And people who make documentaries are using hand-held but they keep the camera as still as possible so we can see what's going on.
I did like the opening scene where the bomb goes off and everything slows down each second in contrast to the fast pace. It's moments like that that make it worth while. But apart from that it was frustrating.
Maybe I'm just not wired that way. Some people can follow that kind of film making especially if you play video games, and especially war games where that kind of shakiness is constant. I gave up video games at Nintendo 64 so I get a headache watching that stuff.
Or maybe I watch Kubrick's films too much. Hmmm, imagine Barry Lyndon with shaky cam.
The shaky cam effect was used to make it feel like a documentary and more realistic. It may have turned some people off, but I personally enjoyed it.
I can understand actors' skepticism regarding performance capture (I have plenty myself, coming from a hand-animated background), but it's kind of funny that a bunch of live-action people are saying "it's a cartoon! it's not acting!" and on the other side you have Cameron emphatically stating that it's not an animated film... when by the Academy's definition, it could easily fit in the Animated Feature category (motion capture fits, as Happy Feet proved). My test is simple: take out all the CG and all the animation, and see what you have left.
Everyone wants the animators but no one wants to give them any respect. I love Morgan Freeman, but animation and cartoons aren't the same thing, not by a long shot.
//In Newsweek, Morgan Freeman said, "I think it's a bit faddish, because it's really cartoons."//
I'd respond with:
//Fellow acting nominee Jeff Bridges said, "I think what we [actors] do is the ultimate special effect."//
Watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and tell me which characters are more "realistic".
I don't know who Richard Brody is, but I suspect he was texting through most of "Avatar" and/or "The Hurt Locker."
No kidding! Jeremy Renner was pitch-perfect as Sgt. William James, while Sam Worthington is simply the latest disposable handsome lunk who couldn't even construct a solid accent.
All I know is that we are going to be in for a looooooong "In Memorium" this year.
Test yourself: Name all the celebrities you remember who died last year and see what you come up with.
Your brain's hurting isn't it?
Perceptive acknowledgements Jim. Your points on editing especially. Though a movie that makes noticeable use of editing can have a substantial cinematic reason for doing so, the best editing tends to be that which one does notice. It's a tricky thing for voters to pick up on.
And as for your comment: "My test is simple: take out all the CG and all the animation, and see what you have left."
True! See, I'm not a "LOTR" trilogy fan but I'll acknowledge that Andy Serkis did some uncanny work as Golum, even minus all the CG and animation. I'm not sure what other CG-coated performances really deserved a nod...
I really like Bridges comment that actors are the ultimate special effect. Just recently, Robert Downey Jr. proved that with "Iron Man" (and "Tropic Thunder" for that matter, his blackfaced pretentious Russel Crowe was more exciting than any action in it).
And Jim, other Jim, Jim N who said:
"I'd just like to register my disappointment and mild surprise that "Where The Wild Things Are" received zero Oscar love. I certainly didn't expect anything in the Big Categories - but certainly it deserved a nomination or two for design and/or effects?"
In my mind it's the year's visual effects winner. It's not even close when you consider "Avatar" and "Star Trek", some of the blandest, least visceral/convincing CGI I've seen in movies raved about for their visuals, got noms. The "Wild Things" monsters had a tangibleness to them that I've seen in very little CGI and they were spectacular to behold as well.
The rest of the movie I didn't care for so much but, when it comes to awards voting, I only ever look at a film overall to decide a tie-breaker. I vgive my approval based on the individual parts (unless, it's say, editing, then the part is the whole). I also wasn't crazy about "Limits of Control" but I'd give its hypnotic cinematography a nod over "Avatar" or "Harry Potter And His Sixth Movie Out of A Total Eight We'll Be Making"...
The best picture winner: it's gonna be "Hurt Locker" or "Precious" and I say "Precious". Performances, discriminated against minority struggle, encouraging messages, education promotion, social workers and struggle with poverty all wrapped up in glittery packaging... The movie having above average understanding of the subject or not, this is a classic Oscar bait statement movie and I don't see them not putting it on stage.
I also don't see them choosing a movie that ends with a guy marching back into war. And some of them may like "Avatar" but my guess is others hate it. And "Inglorious Basterds." Does anybody really see The Academy standing by a movie by Tarantino titled "Inglorious Basterds" as best pic?
Am I a confirmed film geek when I say I think Barry Salt kicks butt? OK, I just answered my own question. I like the Cinemetrics site (ah good ol "201:ASO with an ASl of 13 sec) - also has work by my good friend Warren Buckland.
You're right about this, of course. One of my biggest pet peeves about the Oscars, which I just tend to dismiss, is the "Most Editing" = "Best Editing" nonsense. Because it's voted on by editors who really ought to know better. Granted, they're usually choosing from a group of loud, rapid-fire movies to begin with but it's still depressing when something Cuisinarted like Slumdog or Bourne Ultimatum wins.
I'm not saying rapid editing = bad by any means, though I have my preferences. I love the pepper-spray editing of Guy Maddin/John Gurdebeke. But I wasn't joking years ago when I said the Academy could do themselves proud by nominating "Russian Ark" for best editing. In-camera editing anybody? That doesn't count?
I think it's the editing that keeps me from embracing Hurt Locker. I flat-out hated the movie for the first 15 minutes, but then I settled into the rhythm. Memory also tells me that the remarkable siege sequence in the middle of the film isn't cut nearly as quickly and doesn't feature as much camera movement, but I could be wrong about that. Too much swish/cut swish/cut a la Dark Knight. For me, it does nothing to increase the intensity nor does it, as many people seem to think, provide it a documentary feel. Can someone explain to me how that's supposed to be a documentary feel, by the way? I'm serious. I'd like to know. I'm guessing there aren't a lot of documentaries with an ASL of 2.7.
As for the BP winner, I usually root for the most wretched film to win because, for me, the Oscars are much more about humiliating the Academy than they are about rewarding the best films. This year, I just don't think anybody can call it because of the change in the voting system. No film out of the 10 would be a shock winner to me except District 9.
How is it humiliating for the Academy to vote the way they want to? I mean, clearly you and the Academy have very different tastes in movies, but to call their choices "humiliating" is pretty arrogant.
"(Although Richard Brody of "The Front Row" tweeted that Sam Worthington in "Avatar" and Jeremy Renner in "The Hurt Locker" gave "more or less [the] same performance.)"
Really? That sounds dangerously close to an Armond White comparison. I can think of no similarity between Worthington and Renner's performances other than the fact that they are both portraying soldiers. Anyone who has seen both "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker" should realize how obviously different they are. (By the way, Renner actually GAVE a performance. Worthington just said his lines.)
Doesn't a movie need to have had some emotional investment put into it by it's creators to be nominated for best picture? I don't think Cameron put any into is special effects extravaganza. Every other nominee is at a great disadvantage when it comes to running against Avatar. The disadvantage? Cameron was given $300 Million dollars to make his "dream project" and yet he made a movie that was practically heartless. I liked Avatar just fine when I saw it but now it's starting to get on my nerves. I never expected the academy to praise it like they have. It's like when Lord of the Rings swept the oscars for 2 or 3 years. It was boring. You could basically call out the winner before they said anything. I hope "Basterds" wins. Just to spice things up.
The last time a movie won Best Picture with neither a single acting nomination NOR a screenplay nomination was Grand Hotel in 1932. Frankly, I don't think things look too great for Avatar given that statistic.
I was extremely surprised to see Up in the Air not get an editing nomination, especially compared to Precious. Precious' editing felt sloppy to me, one of the things I felt was obviously flawed in the film. I think Up in the Air was one of the best editing films I saw all 2009. The observance of most of those scenes would have been lost without the right takes. The Academy has been known to nominate flashy editing rather than truly great editing, however, so I perhaps shouldn't have expected anything different. The Hurt Locker definitely deserves its editing nomination, and of the nominees I think deserves to win.
I don't know where anyone would get the idea that Jeremy Renner and Sam Worthington gave pretty much the same performance. It seems as if anyone actually believes that truly misunderstood both performances, but I assume mostly misunderstood Renner's. On the very surface, Worthington's performance draws heavily on the theme of transformation, while Renner's draws on...well... the opposite. That in and of itself just makes the assertion false in my opinion.
I do believe "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" won best picture without having any acting nominations, too (although it was nominated for director, editing, and screenplay). Which probably bodes well for "Avatar," as there's at least a precedence that a big, high tech action fantasy phenomenon can win without every pre-requisite nomination.
Also: I second Jim N's disappointment over the complete WTWTA snub. But then, to quote Manohla Dargis, "Let's acknowledge that the Oscars are bulls*** and we hate them."
Sean Astin was nominated for Sam.
Not for the Oscar he didn't - Return of the King got no acting nominations. (The only acting nomination for any of the trilogy was Ian McKellen for Fellowship of the Ring).
I think Basterds has a pretty awesome style, and some really good scenes and some excellent acting in it but it just never came together completely as a story worth telling for me. So basically I'd like to see it win in anything except for screenplay. Unfortunately the academy loves Taratino's admittedly good dialogue even if it comes at the expense of good storytelling.(Nowhere is this more evident than Death Proof. That movie was a chore to watch despite some excellently written conversations.)
How can a movie be one of the best of the year without a good screenplay? I've seen movies get by without any standout performances, flashy editing, or even all that creative costuming or art design, but never have I seen a good movie without a good script. I've never seen a great without a great script. Of course the best movies have great scripts and great "everything else" too. But I for one can't accept a movie being a legitimate Best Overall unless it receives one of 10 writing nominations. The years best movie surely isn't the years 11th(or worse!) best written story for the screen.
Of course actors have more voting power than writers or even directors(despite having much less influence over the quality of a film then either of those parties) so when Blind Side or Avatar wins best picture you know who to blame.
I also have no idea who Richard Brody is, but I haven't seen Avatar so I can't comment on whether or not Mr. Worthington's performance was the same or similar to Jeremy Renner's.
Could anybody elaborate?
So, "District 9" is nominated, but Sharlto Copley is not? One of the best performances I've seen in years. Don't worry S.C. You'll get your Oscar. Clint Eastwood will make another "important" movie. Something about the Berlin Wall coming down. You'll be cast as the ambassador to the Soviet Union, trying to get Gorbachev (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Ronald Reagan (George Clooney) to come to an agreement "THAT WILL SHAPE THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD WE KNOW". Laura Linney will play your loving, concerned wife. Morgan Freeman will play your wise, experienced advisor.
*Of course the best movies have great scripts*
Maybe the best movies. But we're talking about the Oscars here. The two are unrelated.
*Precious' editing felt sloppy to me, one of the things I felt was obviously flawed in the film.*
Absolutely. When I reviewed it I wrote something to the effect: "Worst... montages... ever." I was referring both to Shadowboxer and Precious. It's hard to imagine how even the Academy voters could think this film deserved an editing nod but as we've seen before, editing nominations tend simply to go the Best Picture nominations. There really shouldn't be any inherent connection between the two. Yes, great editing makes for a better movie, but there could be a mediocre film with phenomenal editing just as there can be mediocre or lousy films with great costume design or visual effects. But the editing noms almost never stray from the Best Picture path.
"...there could be a mediocre film with phenomenal editing just as there can be mediocre or lousy films with great costume design or visual effects..."
True, but would we necessarily be able to tell? Think of it this way: Verna Fields has often been credited with making "Jaws" work -- not just for setting up and delivering the scares most effectively, but also for creating a "personality" for a rubber/mechanical shark out of the raw footage. Ralph Rosenblum took credit for transforming "Annie Hall" from an unfunny mess into an Oscar-winner in his book "When the Shooting Stops..." There are countless stories of films being "saved in the editing" ("High Noon" being one of the most disputed). On the one hand, editors can only work with the footage they've got, the takes that were actually printed and made available to them. (If somebody does 4 or 40 takes of a particular shot, somebody still has to make decisions about which frames to use, in which combinations with other shots, and in what order; an assembly that roughly reflects the continuity of the screenplay may or may not bear much resemblance to a finished film.) Some editors are on the set and attend dailies; some work during shooting and have an assembly done almost as soon as production is finished; and some don't even get hired until after the picture is shot. (And some, like the Coens' Roderick Jaynes, don't even exist as autonomous beings.) We who see the final version of a picture may never know what it could have been. We can tell what works on the screen -- or what doesn't -- but we can't see what's been cut out, why certain decisions may have been made to fix problems or mistakes, or why a certain injudicious cut may have ruined an entire scene (or an entire film) by misjudging a key moment. That said, the Oscar voters don't know those things, either! All any of us have to go by is what actually makes it into the film...
I think the idea here is that for a handful of categories it's impossible to make judgments on who is the best. Maybe the editor for Transformers 2 is better than the editor for the Hurt Locker,(unlikely but bare with me, I'm trying to make a point), but since the raw footage for Hurt Locker was so much better, we would never know. The only way to evaluate the quality of the editing is to evaluate the final film. Obviously the same holds true for directing. But the same is true for acting too. Remember that an actor is reading lines written for him, for a director telling him how to say it, and after all that the editor could decide to leave his best takes on the cutting room floor. Of course Renner's performance had more depth and nuance than Worthington's. It had more depth and nuance on the written page. Worthington could still be the better actor. Do you really think Up In The Air got three acting nods because it employed three of most talented actors in Hollywood? Seems more likely to me that the script and directing is doing a lot of that heavy lifting. Sound editing and mixing, like editing are too at the mercy of the raw material given to them in post production. Even visual effects need good performances(mo cap) and/or cinematography to be effective.
That's why the only awards I ever give any attention to are the writing awards, cinematography, art direction, costuming and makeup, and score.
I don't agree that Worthington is pretty much the same as Renner's in the Hurt Locker..
Renner's way much better performance and his nomination proved that.. but the way things going, Bridges getting all the awards, i think he'll get the Oscar as well...
I am rooting for Merryl Streep.. Bullock can get that later... give Merryl her third please...
If Streep's nomination were for Doubt, she'd stand a chance, but Julie & Julia is too lightweight for them to get behind and Bullock (while not deserving) was the only one they could talk themselves into as a reasonable alternative. First, she got the EW entertainer of the year, then she started getting all the awards and it's part of the zeitgeist. Bigelow is getting director as the first woman ever and Bullock is getting actress for making a comeback in two hits which she also produced herself, not just a role she got as an actress for hire.
well some of the winners got their award definitely not because its the "best" performance in the year they were awarded but because of their body of work... Merryl losing to Sandra? i'm really hoping it will not happen...
Aw, Sandra Bullock. Finally found her Erin Brockovich. If she wins the Academy Award, she'll be debated as a "should give back her Oscar" contender for years to come. She's pleasant enough, alright, and certainly popular according to box-office receipts, but serious actress? No, I don't think so.
And whoever compared Jeremy Renner's performance to Sam Worthington's needs to surrender his critic card immediately. Renner is one of his generation's finest actors, while Sam Worthington looks absolutely stunning in a skirt in the trailer for Clash of the Titans. Gladiator, anyone?
Have nothing to say re motion capture on Avatar, but the work of the actors behind Gollum and the creatures in "Wild Things" are pretty unique and powerful given the collusion of emphatic voice/physical work and technology. It's not superior or inferior to traditional acting, just different.
Kinda disapprove of Freeman and Bullock's quotes, though I suppose they're not authorities in movies w/ heavy CGI.
The tricky thing would be figuring out who to nominate. It's easier w/ Gollum because Serkis did both the voice-over and the motion capture. But with "Wild Things", you've got, say, Catherine O'Hara, the actor in the suit, and whoever did the CGI of the face. While O'Hara registers the most, the other elements are no small potatoes.
On a bitter, note, Transformers 2 gets to say it has at least 1 tech/design nom where WTWTA has none. A sign that these people don't actually watch movies.
In various critics' polls this year, I've occasionally singled out Catherine O'Hara and James Gandolfini as favorites in supporting acting categories for "Where the Wild Things Are."
O'Hara's shockingly good, no? She's obv one of the most dependable character actresses in American movies, but I have to admit I take her for granted she's been around so long ...
In any case, with a few short lines she was able to communicate Judith with equal parts bile and tenderness. So, so good.
Ever since I was first exposed to "SCTV" in the late '70s I've thought Catherine O'Hara was one of the greatest comedic actors in the world. Now, after her roles in Christopher Guest movies and a few other parts, we have some big-screen samples of her genius, too.
Although you have to give the sound editors for "Transformers" some credit. They may have deserved the nomination just for the sheer task of having to work with that sloppy material, yea?
I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "documentary." I don't think Errol Morris ever used shaky-cam, though you do see it in Michael Moore's movies from time to time. I may be wrong about this, but I'll bet that the rise of shaky-cam can be traced back to "The Blair Witch Project." What made that movie such a success wasn't the story so much as the way it was told. By presenting the film as raw footage of a documentary shoot gone wrong, the filmmakers managed to sidestep much of the obvious artificiality inherent in fiction films.
All movies are inherently artificial, of course, documentaries included. But I can't deny that the first time I saw "The Blair Witch Project", the fear felt more immediate, the story more "real," because of the documentary conceit. And I think that shaky-cam was instrumental in creating that effect.
But how rapidly cut was Blair Witch? Answer from Cinemetrics: ASL of 15 seconds.
To be the combination of swish-cam and rapid editing doesn't give a film any kind of "realistic" feel. Quite the opposite. It denies the opportunity to see and experience the "real" in many cases. I'm not saying that's a bad thing and I do understand that sometimes this technique can be used to capture a sense of the chaos of a battle situation and the inability of a character to see more than bits and pieces of it as the s**t hits the fan.
But the whole "documentary" thing, I don't get. Not with the hyper-cutting.
I disagree about the negativity toward Precious' editing. I found it to be so unique and eye-catching that many would mistake it as being sloppy.
Who is to say that the editing in Precious needed to be seamless? It obviously wasn't but that doesn't make it bad-it was even supposed to be noticeable on certain scenes.
The editing was one of the best parts of that film and it's also one of the key reasons why it's getting so much acclaim.
I think it ends where it has to end, if the filmmakers wanted to conclude the story on an upbeat note.
What surprised me was the nomination for Best Cinematography for Avatar. How do you judge the cinematography in a movie where all but a few scenes and shots are completely covered with CGI. Indeed, looking at past winners and nominees, it is by far the most computer generated film to be nominated for Best Cinematography. Even LOTR (and only the first was nominated) had many sequences filmed on location, with actual sets and lighting prepared to be captured on film in an actual camera. Is the nomination for the innovative technology?
Basterds deserves the Oscar for cinematography, editing, and best director. Love or hate Tarantino, his movies are a master class in what to do with your camera and actors. Pitt was an exception in this one, I didn't like his performance at all, but every other role was full of the same genius performances that he somehow draws out of his actors.
The Hurt Locker was pure shakeycam hackery. The fact that it's getting so much attention is, I think and I'm sorry to say, because the director is a woman. I think it will win both Best Director and Best Picture, and it will deserve neither.
Shakeycam adds nothing to a movie but nausea. It's a cheap trick and doesn't belong anywhere but MTV music videos (if they still make those).
Movies like "Cloverfield" and "The Blair Witch Project" are "pure shakeycam hackery." The filmmakers LITERALLY shake the camera to make the movie seem more "real" or "in the moment."
With movies like "The Hurt Locker," the camerawork is incredibly specific. The camera MOVES, yes, but the framing is very intentional. Just because you don't like a style doesn't mean that it's worthless. (I'll never understand why people think that if a camera doesn't move completely smoothly ALL the time, it's bad.)
I think you're wrong, at least about "The Hurt Locker," although I haven't ever had much of a problem with shakeycam (unless it's Peter Berg we're talking about). I don't think it's meant to be realistic, I think it's meant to be jittery, off-kilter and nauseating. "The Hurt Locker" is supposed to be a nervous viewing experience (which is why I don't understand complaints about the editing, either). It's not like "Inglourious Basterds" where you're supposed to sit back and admire "the shot" (not a complaint - I loved that movie).
Almost everything in "The Hurt Locker," from the shakeycam, to the editing, to Renner's laconic performance, to the brightness of the desert sun*, is meant to make you feel uneasy. That's Bigelow's technique. If someone can't go along with that because they see the camera shake, and it violates their Movie Rules, I see that more as a decision on their part.
* - notice how the night time scenes carry no threat, only what is imagined by the Renner character? Something I found interesting.
"The fact that it's getting so much attention is, I think and I'm sorry to say, because the director is a woman."
Hence the numerous rave reviews and nine Oscar nominations for Nancy Myers' "It's Complicated".
I loved Basterds, Up and The Hurt Locker, haven't seen Avatar yet. District 9 was decent but I'm surprised it picked up a Best Picture nod. (Since it and four other movies weren't nominated also for Best Director, I doubt it will win.) Isn't it pretty much obvious that only five of these Best Picture nominees stand a real shot at winning the Oscar - the ones with directing nods? Doesn't that make The Blind Side and District 9 ornamental nominees, designed only to get the broadcast some extra ratings? I would have thought the Academy would expand all of the top categories to 10, but it seems ridiculous to have one category overloaded with titles that don't stand much of a chance.
I would be really happy to see Tarantino win big this year. Basterds was an act of sheer genius; every performance was a gem (even Pitt's, which comes out of left field but is in every respect as good and quirky and memorable as Waltz's), the cinematography is masterful, and so on and so forth - just a great film on every level.
On the other hand, I loved The Hurt Locker — fantastic in every way. Avatar? Meh. Up in the Air? Haven't seen it, looks like a rental — meh.
I've seen a few people complain that JJ Abrams's Star Trek didn't get a Best Picture nomination. Are you kidding me? The film was chopped up so badly in the editing room that I couldn't follow the story at all, not even on third or fourth viewing. Aside from the acting, it was just a disaster, no grandeur or poetry or thoughtfulness at all, just CUT TO THE NEXT EXPLOSION filmmaking. Star Trek made me appreciate the stateliness and intelligence of Inglourious Basterds all the more.
I'm really astounded by the amount of vitriol some people are showing for the Hurt Locker's shaky-cam. This wasn't exactly Cloverfield here. And whoever claimed shaky-cam should be restricted to music videos is just missing the point. Shaky-cam isn't some trendy, flashy thing (like, say, quick-cutting) that people use to add some energy and pizazz to a film to keep ADD youth entertained--this is obviously a film that draws on long, tense moments, not constant, furious motion. Shaky-cam is generally used to give a sense of immersion and immediacy, to strip away some of the artifice of the film and make it look as though you are really seeing through the eyes of someone involved in the action and subject to the physical jolts of being there. And clearly, to one degree or another, it is effective, because the shaking apparently produces nausea in some people--clearly it succeeds in tricking your mind, on some level, into feeling as though you're moving. If this is enough to distract you from the film, that's unfortunate for you, but that doesn't mean shaky-cam is less effective for the rest of us.
"Shaky-cam isn't some trendy, flashy thing (like, say, quick-cutting) that people use to add some energy and pizazz to a film to keep ADD youth entertained"
Yes it is. That's exactly what it is.
No, it simply isn't. If that's how you interpret it, it's nothing more than a bias on your part. Anyone who could take *that* from a film like The Hut Locker wasn't paying a lick of attention.
I'm not getting the shaky cam attacks (okay, many are criticisms) against The Hurt Locker.
It's no where near as shaky as The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum. And it's not even close to the queasy-cam featured in The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield. Those two movies being told in a first person perspective giving them that home video, running around shakyness.
The Hurt Locker's camera work felt closest to Saving Private Ryan's crossed with a bit of The Office's (the whole zooming in on certain details mid shot).
The shakyness didn't get in the way of seeing what's going on (unlike the Bourne flicks, where Paul Greengrass seems to hire cameramen with severe Parkinson's).
And even though it did have fairly quick cutting, it didn't get in the way of making sense of who was where doing what. Unlike a movie like Transformers 2.
It's commendable that Bigelow and her editor managed to piece together footage from 5 or 6 simultaneous cameras and still keep that action coherent, despite her crossing the 180 degree line constantly (she mentions that in the commentary).
"The Hurt Locker was pure shakeycam hackery. The fact that it's getting so much attention is, I think and I'm sorry to say, because the director is a woman. "
I believe four female directors in history have won Oscars, and only two were American. But now we're supposed to believe that being an American woman -- directing a war movie, at that -- is an advantage? Given how many films dealing with the Iraq War in some way have opened and sunk without much of a trace in the last few years, that Bigelow's film broke through to some degree says something about it. Therefore, my guess is that far from being "sorry to say" that the film got attention because it was by a woman, you were eager to say that, and in fact it's probably a well-used tool in your argument kit.
Now if you just want to be cynical about it, you might propose that people nominated Bigelow because they personally can't stand Cameron, and the image of Mr. $2 billion box office "King of the World" stewing and having to applaud while his ex-wife (what was she, #2 of 5 or something?) accepts the Oscar is just too tempting. But given its Rotten Tomatoes score (97%), you might consider that most people just think it's an excellent film.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the quick-cut, hand-held camera style. My Canon HD camcorder (under $1000 last year) has quite effective image stabilization, so the idea that a shaky image is somehow more realistic is a bit weird to me. But just because The Hurt Locker. was shot in that style does not negate the quality of the performances or the effectiveness of the story-telling.
Shaking the camera around is supposed to be one tool in a director's toolbox, to convey a certain point or achieve a certain effect.
But when you do it for literally the entire movie not only does it become a gimmick, it shows an appalling lack of creativity. That's how Bigelow uses it. Nonstop, no matter what the scene is, it's shake, zoom, shake, zoom. Even when the scene is just two characters talking.
Does she know any other tricks? Any other way of conveying excitement? Apparently not. Shake, zoom... it's like if Tarantino had taken one of his famous shots (like the Uma Thurman foot-cam, or maybe the back-of-Ving-Rhames-head cam) and used nothing but those tricks for the entire movie.
That's my problem with it artistically. My stomach has an entirely different problem with it, which is that it gives me motion sickness. I'm not being metaphorical. I mean actual nausea. It doesn't matter if 90% of the population is unaffected-- that still means that 10% are.
Utterly ridiculous. Did you even see the film? To suggest that every shot in the film was shaking and zooms shows is absolutely appalling.
And if 10% of the audience are affected with motion sickness, that's unfortunate for them, but why shouldn't the other 90% enjoy it?
I think there's a real big distinction between a shaky-cam style (think Greengrass' Bourne films) and a handheld style (Think Scorcese's Mean Streets). I'd put Hurt Locker into the later category myself.
Bigelow's camera often takes on the aesthetic of looking through binoculars (and not just for long shots). It's a purposeful aestheic. She employs it as an immersive effect used to make you feel as though the film is being documented by somebody (the audience) who is embedded. This is much different than the using shaky-cam to try to create chaotic "action." Filmmakers who use it in that fashion often seem to be trying to make up for a lack of skill in directing action, much like those who utilize quick-cuts for the same purpose. For instance, the only thing I found appealing about Greengrass' employment of the handheld (shaky) camera was how it allowed him to follow very close to Bourne in some of the action sequences such as the car chase at the beginning of the second film and the rooftop chase in the third. Otherwise, the shaky-cam effect he used did show that lack of creativity that you state. However, I just don't see that lack with Bigelow's camerawork in Hurt Locker.
Why all the animosity towards Sam Worthington?
Avatar is not particularly wonderful, and I know it's chic to hate it on film blogs, but if there was anything watchable behind the effects it might have been Worthington's performance, given what he was asked to do. He did a far better job than Sigourney Weaver or that terrible (TERRIBLE!) army/contractor bozo.
I'd hate to see Mr. Worthington get dumped on unnecessarily because Jeremy Renner gave a similar performance better. Although, as much as I liked Hurt Locker, it too seems to be getting more praise than it deserves.
The Hurt Locker definitely has some carefully composed shots: most noticeably the last one. But I think the shaky cam, quick cut, tight closeup, rock soundtrack style has become a tired cliche of modern war pictures. I'd like to see one done in Panavision, with wide shots and depth of field for a change. Sort of like No Man's Land.
Miscellaneous thoughts:
Shaky-cam goes back to the unstabilized, hand held combat footage shot by military front line cameramen in World War II. What it's supposed to project, and does in Hurt Locker, is that the cameraman (and therefore the viewer) is physically present in the scene and is in the same danger of death as the men being photographed.
Because of her place in the food chain, Bullock hasn't had so much an Erin Brokovich moment as a Norma Rae moment.
Avatar isn't winning best picture. Too many actors see it as a threat to their livelihood.
Its an exaggeration to say that Rosenblum took the credit for transforming Annie Hall. What he claimed is that he and Allen had developed a technique over several pictures starting with Take The Money And Run where they worked as collaborators in the cutting room to allow the movie to find its shape from the mass of footage, and where the shooting script didn't control the final form. Annie Hall was the culmination of that partnership. As to the primacy of the footage over what the best editor can do with it, Rosenblum quoted one of his mentors that "from crap you get crap."
How effective was the camerawork in The Hurt Locker? So effective that I didn't notice it. I went with the story and the performances. It was beautifully directed, in a style I thought very appropriate to the material and setting. It was very much indeed like an embedded photographer on the scene, unlike the camerawork in Bourne, which was VERY show-offy and distracting. Hurt Locker evoked war footage, put me in the moment, and convinced me that the action was real. Someone else mentioned the need to return to war movies with long, stabilized shots. I would love to see that. I think it would be refreshing. But that doesn't negate what was accomplished with The Hurt Locker.
Really? Wow. To me that's like not noticing the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi.
I liked Hurt Locker and it's my favorite of the BP nominees but I spent much of the movie thinking in play-by-play terms: "Swish pan, cut, jiggle cam, cut, whip pan,cut,cut. Tilt, pan, slash, cut." I can't say I ever felt involved in the story at any point. Which is OK by me. I don't worry too much about getting involved in the narrative that way. But the camera work is about as showy and obtrusive as it gets. Which, again, is OK by me even if I'm not a particular fan of this particular brand of showy, obtrusive camera work.
Christopher, so you weren't involved in the narrative in any way, and you were thinking more about the camera movements than you were about the story, but the Hurt Locker is your favorite BP nominee. Okay, fine, but I hate to hear what you thought of a more leisurely paced, classically filmed movie like Inglorious Basterds. When Jeremy Renner, Ralph Fiennes, et al, are pinned down in the middle of the desert by sniper fire, involving huge distances and pinpricks basically shooting at pinpricks, and men getting killed instantaneously by gunshots we don't even necessarily see or hear, and our protagonists are battling heat and fatigue and exhaustion and fear just to try and stay alive, and that herd of goats appears on the train tracks, and a third (or was it a fourth) sniper appears in the midst of those goats ... were you still thinking in terms of whip pans and cuts, or were you caught up in the suspense of the scene? I was caught up in the suspense of the scene. Bigelow's camerawork was the last thing on my mind. That is a masterful action sequence; her techniques, whatever brand you want to call them, worked. And at least she wasn't firing off lens flares into my eyeballs every 2.3 seconds.
I agree that scene in Hurt Locker was extraordinary. As I said above, memory tells me that scene wasn't filmed with as much rapid cutting and whip panning but my memory may well serve me wrong. I thought that was a completely involving sequence and that was the moment the movie won me over.
But I hated the first 15 minutes with a passion and found the whole swish-cut technique more than distracting - it was a major impediment to whatever she was trying to accomplish. And topped up with that ridiculous freeze frame explosion. Fortunately it had a lot of good to offer after that.
Hey Jim, can you weigh in on this shaky-cam debate business? I would love to hear your thoughts.
A low ASL needn't mean the film has ADD. Dark City for instance has an ASL of 1.9s. Compare that to the manic Crank which has an ASL of 2.7s. Dark City is spooky and atmospheric, the exact opposite of Crank and the exact opposite of what you'd expect purely going on ASL. It's all in the style at the end of the day - shot length is of course a part of that style but it's only one part of many. A film can be beautifully shot and cut every two seconds, or it can be G.I. Joe. It all depends on the director.
Leave a comment