>12 times nominated
Forget about Leo, Deakins must be #1 on the Academy's shitlist.
And now he's past his peak, doomed to doing self-parodic sunset and silhouette shots for mediocre hacks like Villeneuve.
Lubezki will stomp him again next year, even though it's gonna be for his gimmicky work on Revenant, from the most inauthentic director alive, rather for his lovely collaboration with Malick.
Deakins makes for boring and safe choices in cinematography and whatever digital he thinks he mastered, an actual director and auteur - David Fincher 'mastered' it far better.
He is just a director of photography which bad directors use to mask their terrible directing.
When he is pushed he is pretty good like in No Country for Old Men.
I am a total pleb with this stuff. What is wrong with his digital cinematography as opposed to what Fincher (or his DP rather) does?
All the films Deakins films I've seen have always been top notch. The cinematography is just ''flashy'' enough where you can notice certain things and appreciate them, but also subdued enough where it doesn't get in the way of the story.
Cinematography and directing in late-Fincher films is tied to the movie and it's themes where as Deakins can just try to make pretty safe images to mask the movie of its directors incompetence.
Fincher can actually say something with his cinematography as he is director and auteur.
cinematography seems to be a category where the same guys get nominated a lot
i guess there are only a handful of really good photographers in cinema
There are plenty of good photographers in cinema, since there are ton of beautiful looking movies, but only few get a reputation and the ones that get are the ones that push out the same fucking style all over every movie (Lubezki, Deakins)
Because one has to do a band-aid on a terrible movie where as the other one is making movie complete.
It's directors job to do something with what he is shooting and say, Villeneuve, is completely incapapable of this.
Movie supposed to show how ugly and raw drug war is? Goes to frame soldiers in a majestic sunset and pretty images while quickly showing hanged bodies and trying to frame the dead bodies in killhouse in an artsy fartsy way.
Granted when Deakins isn't working with shit director like Andrew Dominik he can do good. The dreamlike cinematography of TAOJJBTCRF was wonderful, too bad that movie got butchered at cutting table
There are shitload of genius cinematogratophers, they just don't work in the jewwood thus don't get their awards
Christopher Doyle, for example
A DP can only carry a visionless filmmaker so far. With people like Mendes or Villeneuve, the best he can do is to give them elegant framing and being playful with the lighting while always keeping a sophisticated color palette. You sometimes get virtuoso set pieces like the silhouette fight in Skyfall or the train robbery in Jesse James. But what more can he do? He just follows orders.
Meanwhile his work with the Coens is always on point, because they know what they want to express visually and how it ties to the film's themes, the references to paintings or classic films, the set design, the sense of humor, the blocking, etc. which also gives him more room to be creative. His style really compliments what their films are about.
Indeed he can only do so much to cover up a shit director.
but with Andrew Dominik his dreamlike cinematography (inspired by Malick/Lubezki works) worked really well as the movie was about Jesse James and his fame. The train robbery's spectacle cinematography thus felt apt for the context and narrative of the movie and that particular scene, since, it's the myth.
The pics. you posted are fairly vanilla and boring and I don't recall any of their context. I didn't even like True Grit at all, hell I don't like westerners in general.
Him and his signature lighting is getting pretty annoying.
He did wonders with Skyfall but good god that movie had a mess of a fucking script, stupid fucking crew working on the movie outside Deakins.
>Implying it won't be John Seale for Mad Max: Fury Road
Ugh that Deakins coloring? The top one could be a shot from Sicario. God that's ugly as shit.
The river crossing and skyline shots in The Wild Bunch are far above that.
Contracting your movie out to korean CGI slaves isn't cinematography. I didn't see one shot in that entire movie that wasn't a meme shot.
>dude put everything in centre frame so the audience doesn't vomit when we quickly meme between shots
Embarrassing that this was given actual critical acclaim.
Cinematography in Fury Road was easily above average and good. Stop being so mad. The beginning of the movie is already better than most movies for fuck sake, cinematography, directing and script telling all working together wonderfully.
The choreography and directing, also the cinematography in the faster and more complex scenes was very well done. Never lost focus on what was happening and where it was happening. Felt really well done.
Mean while take out just about anything, say the Winter Soldier and I can't say which way people are facing in a fucking fight scene etc - of course it does not hlep that it was butchered in editing table.
True Grit was their attempt at making a vanilla western, almost like a fairy tale, trying to get back to a Fordian purity, which Peckinpah is the antithesis of. Mythic but lighthearted.
It shows, doesn't it? I love ILD but it's very stripped down, cinematography-wise, warmer because it's so close to the characters. Like a... folk song. Deakins wouldn't have been right for it.
I don't have autism so I don't know what that is. Mad Max on the otherhand got praise from real critics. Only goes to show the damage capeshit has done to society when you've got the "experts" reduced to the level of fedora wearing autists screaming in wall mart for their mom to buy them a new nintendo.
No, you don't understand: Spirits Within was a literal 2 hr cutscene, made by the guys who did the Final Fantasy games. It was fucking horrible and tanked the studio that made it.
>I mean, look at me. I have certain preferences for colors, for the way I dress, for tall women with no tits, the usual stuff, and then somebody says "why don't we have a short fat woman who's myopic?"
>Really, a cinematographer’s work is only as good as the director, really. That’s why I love working with the Coens and with Norman Jewison. They really push you to do something and you feel like you can work from a position of strength and take chances and risks. It’s hard when you’re on a film if a director doesn’t have the experience to understand the visual language involved, and there is a whole language involved. And if the director doesn’t understand that or isn’t confident enough with himself to let you, the cameraman, to take what the script requires and create the visuals it can be frustrating.