American Society of Cinematographers Awards Nominees
by Alex Billington
January 7, 2009
Cinematography is one of the many aspects of filmmaking that I hold in very high regard. For me especially, I'm affected more by extraordinary cinematography than anything else. So I'm excited to announced the nominees for the 23rd Annual American Society of Cinematographers Awards. Like every other society or guild in Hollywood, the ASC hosts its own awards to honor the very best cinematographers from this year. If you've been arguing with your friends over who did the best work, then look no further, because these 5 individuals deserve this distinction. Without further a do, let's take a look at the nominees.
The 2008 nominees are: Roger Deakins for Revolutionary Road and The Reader, Chris Menges also for The Reader, Claudio Miranda for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Wally Pfister for The Dark Knight, and Anthony Dod Mantle for Slumdog Millionaire. These are the eighth and ninth nominations for Deakins (the most out of any ASC member in history) who earned top honors in 1995 for The Shawshank Redemption and in 2002 for The Man Who Wasn't There. It's the fourth nomination for Menges, the second for Pfister, and the first for Dod Mantle and Miranda.
"This annual celebration is our way of letting our colleagues from around the world know that their peers in the ASC recognize their inherent visual talent and spirited ability to get compelling stories on the screen in this collaborative art form," says ASC President Daryn Okada. "We also hope this celebration inspires generations of filmmakers to follow their dreams." The winner will be announced at the awards celebration at the Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Hotel on February 15th. A great list of names this year, although I'm a bit amazed to see that Emmanuel Lubezki, who worked on Burn After Reading, wasn't nominated.
Reader Feedback - 22 Comments
Alex...Jesus Christ...does your website have an editor? Because you have more grammatical errors in your articles than one of my fourth grade book reports. Also, if cinematography is one of the FEW aspects of filmmaking that you hold in high regard, then why do you run a film website? Cinematography, while extremely important, is only a fraction of what comprises filmmaking. Are you implying that you don't respect any other elements of the craft? You need to RE-READ your own articles so that they say what you want them to say, and not just bang out something that is easy to misread or misinterpret. Lastly, while Burn After Reading was an enjoyable film, there is no way that Lubezki deserves a nomination for shooting it. I was very underwhelmed by the photography in Burn After Reading, and in my opinion, the Coens should have stuck with Roger Deakins (although he probably wasn't available since he was flawlessly shooting two other major films this year). But stylistically, he and the Coens were made for each other.
Zinglebert Bemzidak on Jan 7, 2009
children please. More watchmen videos That is all.
Red Buttons on Jan 7, 2009
"Cinematography, while extremely important, is only a fraction of what comprises filmmaking." Are you even serious Zingle? A fraction? A FRACTION!?????? This is a joke right?
D-9 on Jan 7, 2009
Well, a fraction is a piece of the whole and cinematography isn't the whole of film making. So, he's technically right. ; )
Will S. on Jan 7, 2009
#1- You are correct in assuming that Deakins wasn't available. He plans to resume working with the Coens on their next film, A Serious Man.
BahHumbug on Jan 7, 2009
I think what Alex is trying to say, correct me if I'm wrong, is that cinematography is an area of film where creativity is more apparent than others. Art, symbolism, and emotional effect can be conveyed through excellent cinematography more vividly than other mediums. I think a film's cinematography is what really separates movies from films. If you don't follow that, I feel that films utilize elements in mise-en-scene such as lighting, sound, and camera techniques more effectively and for more direct effect than a run of the mill movie.
Will S. on Jan 7, 2009
As a lighting designer, the fraction comment is just plain crazy talk, and technically just wrong.
Tim "Cloverfield" on Jan 7, 2009
Nicely put Will S. Also, while Zingle was harsh Alex, I agree with him that Lubezki does not deserve a nomination. The cinematography was good, but nothing special. Also, as much as I love Deakins, my vote is for Pfister. I know it's becoming less and less popular to be a DK fanboy but the cinematography was simply astounding and filled with shots of jaw-dropping awe. Much more awe than any shot I saw in TCCOBB. My two cents.
Stryker on Jan 7, 2009
Darunia on Jan 7, 2009
Sorry if I came off as an asshole Alex (and I know I did). I enjoy your site immensely, and think that, for the most part, you put out very good information. It just sticks in my craw when professionals don't put forth their best product. The corrections you made definitely improve your article. I don't understand how I am wrong in saying that cinematography is only a fraction of filmmaking. Remember, 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 3/4 are fractions too. Don't take what I said to mean that cinematography is a negligible element of filmmaking. Anyone who has ever made a film would agree with my original point. As I said, cinematography is extremely important, and can often separate good films from great ones. But anyone who thinks that the prettiest image makes the best film doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. And, yes D-9, I am serious. Look. This is my serious face. Tim "Cloverfield" are you referring to my original "fraction" comment, or one of the follow-ups? Lastly, I agree with you Stryker, The Dark Knight had the best cinematography of any film I've seen this year.
Zinglebert Bemzidak on Jan 7, 2009
Seems to me people in the business disagree with Zingle. Maybe if he or she reworked the orginal comment, the offense would have not been taken. A fraction of film making is wrong. Honestly.
scrooge on Jan 8, 2009
Alex said " many aspects of filmmaking" which is correct. #1 said " only a fraction" which is absolutely, well, insane. Have to agree with 4,8,12. And despite my grammatcial errors, I wish I could curse or use a more clever way of making a point. This makes me angry. A fraction? Just plain nuts. And scrooge, yes I take offense to 1's comment.
ZEROHOUR on Jan 8, 2009
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.” Benjamin Franklin I absolutely love this website… it's my first stop when I get to work each day. I really think you do a great job Alex. You report the latest up to date news/ trailers/ etc, and then also provide your own commentary and views on the topic at hand. Whilst I don’t always agree with said views, I relish the opportunity to read another film-aficionado’s passionate thoughts. I scroll down and read plenty of the user comments, unfortunately not often providing my own. However, I have noticed that very often people protest and/ or nitpick your attitude and estimation towards certain news or updates. I find it extremely petty and unappreciative of all the hard work and effort you put into this wonderful site. If people like Zinglebert Bemzidak take umbrage with MINOR “grammatical errors in your articles” – then perhaps they should start their OWN website and dedicate themselves to that, rather than attacking you for negligible mistakes whilst hurrying to update the website for US. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” Theodore Roosevelt
Bogart on Jan 8, 2009
Bravo Bogart! And I think Number one's comments are off base. Way off base in regards to cinematography being a fraction. I mean my God! Bad scripts and producers, actors, locations, lighting, audio, costuming, catering, directing, editing, promoting can be ALL bad....yet a Great Cinemaphotographer can save the bloody film. And picking on Alex is bad form. Fraction my A**!
peloquinfan on Jan 8, 2009
Nut-Meg on Jan 8, 2009
Quote "Anyone who has ever made a film would agree with my original point." un-quote Zingle And I say BULLSHIT! Yes, and I was referring to your orginal comment, and the jibberish in your second comment is, well just that. Freak'n Jibberish! You could not be more wrong. With both quotes, wrong, wrong, LORD help him fore he is WRONG!
Tim "Cloverfield" on Jan 8, 2009
Zinglebutt is wrong?!?!?!?!? I would say that is being kind. Mental help if he believes what he says. At least take a film class ZB before you make a fool out of yourself. oh yea, TOO LATE!
Red's Green Buttons on Jan 8, 2009
Mantle and Pfister get my vote to be sure, alas "Burn" was a so so film but Lubezki at least had an eye for what they were trying to do. My 2 cents on the Bemzidek comment: Is stupid so strong? Maybe mis-informed to be kinder. And I agree with Mr. Billington .Thank you!
filmfantwo on Jan 8, 2009
#1 who gives a shit about grammar this is a movie site if you want gud spwelling goto some gay teachers sight or forum where you can be ike oh lets spell n stuff yes im so borred i want to spell words and put together sentences pffffffffffffffffffffffffft i fucking hate teachers huh correct that bitch like i care.... fucker.
werdnafaz on Jan 9, 2009
NO Lens, No Operator, No Tech. NO FILM! No FRACTION!
SAMHAIN on Jan 9, 2009
That silence you hear is #1 knowing he made a mistake, and will not own up to it.
gwhizz on Jan 13, 2009
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.