Christopher Doyle calls out The Academy over Oscar for Cinematography

[Sean Cunningham]

Pretty amazing level of frankness here...

 

 

".....Then we asked him about Chilean-born American cinematographer (and wizard lookalike) Claudio Miranda’s best cinematography Oscar for the effects-heavy “Life of Pi”. Doyle’s first response was his idiosyncratic cackle.

“Do you want me to tell the truth? Ai yay yay yay. Okay. I’m trying to work out how to say this most politely, and no offense to – I don’t know him personally – but what a total fucking piece of shit. Let me be blunt. Ah, fuck. I don’t care, I’m sure he’s a wonderful guy and I’m sure he cares so much, but since 97 per cent of the film is not under his control, what the fuck are you talking about cinematography, sorry. I’m sorry. I have to be blunt and I don’t care, you can write it. I think it’s a fucking insult to cinematography."


http://sea.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/874483/christopher-doyle-interview-part-2-life-of-pi-oscar-is-an

 

 

...this guy is obviously a die hard skeptic when it comes to digital technology, but he's right on the money here, about the role of cinematographer on  PI and the 110% political nature of how the Oscars work.  Just his work with Wong Kar Wai is enough to shame most working DPs so it's not like he has to worry about how this might affect his career.  

[Bruno]

I don't think he's skeptic about digital, it might not be his personal preference, but he sides with Anthony Dod Mantle in that article, who has been shooting on digital since the Dogma movement's first days. He's die hard about having artistic control and no studio interference, which is different, and he's awesome!

 

I recommend the documentary/TV documentary "In the mood for Doyle" if you guys haven't seen it.

[Zach]

well that was a fun read! 

[Sean Cunningham]

I want to see the documentary he's done, with himself as an "unreliable narrator".  Sounds like a hoot!

 

I'm trying to find any way of checking out that "pink musical" he shot recently with the Kappa...like, what?  This guy is nuts!  He might just be my new hero.

 

@Bruno, yeah, I was maybe a bit too quick to label him as skeptical towards digital.  It's just the section talking about PI that made it seem that way, beyond the fact that Claudio took home a trophy for shooting like 5% of a movie.  

[Leang]

too bad Lucas wasn't sitting in that interview to say, ''yo B I changed 'filmmaking' son, quit hating B.  This ain't the 50's son!''

[markm]

I understand his frustration but the art is in the eye not the camera lens so if the composites framing colour correction create great cinematography that is no more an illusion than going out with a hollywood lighting kit.

 

A lot of cinematography is a mixture of sets in sound stages and the real world manipulated.

 

Maybe though the Cinemtography award should be split in two now.  One defined for real world and one defined for SFX shots. The two have merged a lot closer in recent times so much so its hard to go out and find an award winning photo that hasn't been touched up in photo shop for example.

[soupkitchen]

I understand his frustration but the art is in the eye not the camera lens so if the composites framing colour correction create great cinematography that is no more an illusion than going out with a hollywood lighting kit.

 

Yeah but he wasn't composing the frames or lighting the final shots or grading the film was he? If anything he came in to R&H and spent a day or two telling the lighting or environment dept how he would light a scene. None of the actual physical lighting is that remarkable. He was getting a good evenly lit bluescreen and an image that would take well to grading. Luckily no-one really takes the Academy awards seriously these days do they?

[Andrew Reid]

The fact that the award was a piece of shit shouldn't deminish the work of Miranda, but let's face it Doyle is speaking from a position of strength, his work rates far above Miranda's to date. Miranda's cinematography on Tron Legacy and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is able (didn't like the films though) - but Doyle on Hero and 2046 - that's masterful and in a completely different league.

 

Christopher Doyle and Anthony Dod Mantle are purists, artists more than craftsmen or career DPs, have lensed some of my favourite cinematography and are inspirational to me personally in their whole approach.

 

Mantle is himself an Oscar winner for Slumdog - amazing - he's also a digital innovator, one of the first to embrace the format the late 90's with DV. Total respect to him. He's worked with two of my favourite directors - Lars Von Trier, Danny Boyle. Dogville took a paired down approach to staging (to say the least) and cinematography, the complete opposite of Life of Pi but still has bags of atmosphere and menace.

 

When Life of Pi got the award for cinematography - I felt it was for the technical achievement more than anything else, and that the DP was one of a large team who made that happen. Maybe it's possible the academy members overlooked that and just felt the finished film overall looked great and decided to pin that on a figurehead. I can completely understand the VFX award. The cinematography one was a mis-step as I think there were other guys nominated who deserved it more.

[markm]

Yeah but he wasn't composing the frames or lighting the final shots or grading the film was he? If anything he came in to R&H and spent a day or two telling the lighting or environment dept how he would light a scene. None of the actual physical lighting is that remarkable. He was getting a good evenly lit bluescreen and an image that would take well to grading. Luckily no-one really takes the Academy awards seriously these days do they?

 

Oh I see So the award went to the DP for best cinematography  did it. Well if thats the case it is a joke.

[andy lee]

I said this straight after the Oscars on this forum - how on earth did 'Life of Pi' win best Cinematography

and Roger Deakins get overlooked for Skyfall - 'No contest in my opinion - Your Honor'

[Andrew Reid]

I'd have given it to Robert Richardson.

 

Anyway, there's VFX, and there's cinematography... Both important but they are separate awards for a reason.

 

This is a little bit like the award for best screenplay being given to the guy who edited the film.

 

I also think that the way the voting works is a little flawed, in that academy members tend to appreciate a film overall, and if it is not nominated for many categories, their votes overall for that film are pooled heavily into one award and so it wins, whereas films which are nominated for a broader range of categories have their votes more thinly spread. I know that is not how it is meant to work, and that the votes are for a particular aspect of the film, but that's the psychology of it.

[Sean Cunningham]

Miranda was not involved in the crafting of the digital image, not in the way Deakins has been involved in the digital projects he's been a part of.  

 

Miranda is guilty of plagiarism  here and the only honorable thing for him to do would be to give the award back.  Maybe 5% of the film is a result of him as a cinematographer in any true sense.  I'm willing to bet he wasn't even most responsible for the plate photography, which makes up most of the film, which is generally the case.  I've yet to see a behind-the-scenes picture or video where I can detect Lord Raiden.  And he did not set up shop at R+H, living and breathing the work, crafting the film as the visual General for the army of artists that made that film work.

 

Oh, and balls to George Lucas, Leang.

[Bruno]

I find it funny when people defend Claudio Miranda saying that it's hard to light a green screen evenly :D

 

I haven't seen any DP lighting a green screen actually, it's usually set up by the technicians who put it up or lighting assistants, maybe 2nd or 3rd unit DPs in some cases. And I also have seen very few evenly lit green screens, if lighting a green screen deserves an oscar then maybe they should add an oscar category for roto artists too, who get all the crappy work because they couldn't be bothered to light the green screens properly.

 

And yes, most DPs are barely involved during post, maybe they're called at the end for the DI process, but that's it. Most of the shot composition, lighting and look of full CG shots/sequences has no involvement from the DP whatsoever.

 

I don't blame Claudio Miranda though, it wasn't his decision after all, if they had given it to me I probably would have taken it too! :)

[Sean Cunningham]

Roger Deakins is different from the norm.  He's involved.  The Coen Bros. were smart enough to realize there was no reason to have studio or "client side" VFX supervisor on Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?  (there almost never is a good reason to have one, but this is the golden parachute for lots of has-been VFX guys who don't like to work so hard at the facility level).  The Coens came for some dailies screenings but it was Roger Deakins who kept the look of everything on track. 

 

We had several similar types of shots to what was in PI, in terms of foreground water plates extended to the horizon, often with more than 50% of the frame being digital.  The difference between that film and PI is that Deakins took responsibility for everything going into the image (and can, unlike Claudio, actually claim ownership in the final result).  He wasn't just a pair of initials on some notes filtered back to artists with comments like, "make it 20% less mysterious."  

 

On his all-CGI work he lights like a DP, within the digital space.  The tools have evolved enough that this can be done, in no small part because of hands-on participation and ownership of the process by Roger Deakins.

[andy lee]

well its now made it onto 'Yahoo News' have a read here

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/life-of-pi-oscar--an-insult-to-cinematography--073601893.html

 

 

“That's not cinematography. That's control of the image by the powers that be, by the people that want to control the whole system because they're all accounts. You've lost cinema. This is not cinema and it's not cinematography. It's not cinematography.”

Doyle also claimed that among the American Society of Cinematographers, there was similar feeling towards the film being awarded the statue, and added that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences which awards the Oscars hs 'no f**king idea what cinematography is, the lunatics have taken over the asylum'.

[Leang]

who cares man.  all of you bitching about this... just make your own shit and prove it wrong. gossip girls.

[markm]

You know what Leang That's exactly what I intend to do! If Miranda can get an oscar for lighting greenscreens then I too am in with a chance as I too can light them.

[Leang]

You know what Leang That's exactly what I intend to do! If Miranda can get an oscar for lighting greenscreens then I too am in with a chance as I too can light them.

 

I'm glad most of you think it's all about lighting green screen.  I think most of you should watch the film about 10 times and then revise every shot if you can...  from story boarding to shot sequence to match exposure to framing and then composition and then lastly ''green screen.''  all that aside from match moving and post.  it's cute to think it's all easy but at the end of the day it's the same reason why I thought ''Hugo'' should've won best picture, to see what experienced crews are doing with 3D to home screening.  it's all marketing and 2012 has passed.  non of that is taking account of...so many of you can wonder off to the times of ''Lawrence of Arabia,'' blah blah, but in the real world of filmmaking and the next years to come it is what it is.  the worst thing is to theorize about technique from a non cinema scale when you're not doing it at that scale of production.  let the big dogs complain about it in their field, and in the mean time worry about how you can be successful for yourself.  most of you talk about cinematography as if you're ASC but let's be real...c'mon...let's be real...

 

if you guys are curious about political comedic cinematography watch Coppola's ''Twixt'' by DP Mihai Malaimare Jr., and then you'll rethink about ''Life of Pi.''  it's blatant cinematography improvised at an amateur level.  don't let purist cinematographers fuel you young generation kats...nor follow the ''Oscars''...

 

leave Miranda alone.  all this ''chilean born'' propaganda or ''wizard'' look is just a blatant example of American hate or sub textual racism in media as always...

[Dr. John R. Brinkley]

Doyle is like a crazy drunk who also happens to tell the truth.

[Sean Cunningham]

leave Miranda alone.  all this ''chilean born'' propaganda or ''wizard'' look is just a blatant example of American hate or sub textual racism in media as always...

 

Goddamn, Leang, we can always count on the academic propagandist to say something dumb...

 

A)  Miranda is a fraud in this instance.  Period.  That's a fact.  Even the smart JAFOs can recognize this if they look at the readily available, public information.  I'm sure he's a swell guy but the longer he keeps the award, the longer he perpetrates and perpetuates a fraud.

 

B )  An article in an art magazine curated by a French Canadian philanthropist is hardly an example of your bullshit accusation.  Is it questionable writing?  Maybe, but good journalism kinda died a long time ago.  

 

Do you even think before you type between hookah hits?  (you'd be correct if your hyper-vigilant spider-senses told you that was some American sub-text...not racial, even though most ignorant people conflate cultural criticism with racism, but take it however you like).

 

PS> that's really, really funny, you talking about the "real world" of filmmaking.