and why did none of it get oscar nods??????????????????????????????????????
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Klute
artmania90 — 15 years ago(May 13, 2010 10:56 PM)
and why did none of it get oscar nods??????????????????????????????????????
the cinematography in 'klute' literally made my jaw drop. its better than any photography done now - yet it received no recognition. same with films like annie hall. wtf!!!!
Ughhh. Meryl has to wait AT LEAST another year now. FML -
kathryn49 — 15 years ago(May 14, 2010 08:45 AM)
Many people (myself included) believe the same. In fact, Gordon Willis (DP for Klute AND Annie Hall) finally got an honorary Oscar this year.
"I never dreamed that any mere physical experience could be so stimulating!" -The African Queen -
artmania90 — 15 years ago(May 14, 2010 10:15 AM)
that's literally insane - one of the greatest cinematographers who ever lived - he photographed THE GODFATHER!!!!!! and not to receive a single nomination. its baffling
Ughhh. Meryl has to wait AT LEAST another year now. FML -
L0GAN5 — 15 years ago(May 16, 2010 04:19 PM)
My theory is that the directors born in the 20s and 30s were hitting the peak of their profession in the 60s and 70s, and will have cut their teeth on B movies in the 40s and 50s, which were mostly black and white. Black and white cinematography was more of an art form I think, because you had to really understand how to light a film. The guys who cut their teeth on b&w films really learnt their trade, and their expertise of lighting and how it interacts with film carried through to their work on color films. There is probably not as much emphasis on lighting now in color cinematography, and as such the profession has some of its artistry.
-
burthelukyman — 14 years ago(March 26, 2012 07:44 AM)
Your point might be proven by the fact that in the fantastic documentary on Hollywood cinematography VISIONS OF LIGHT contains mostly interviews with the visual ARTISTS who were at the top of their game in the 70s (Gordon Willis, Conrad Hall, William Fraker, Vilmosz Zigmond, etc).
Contemporary independent filmmakers are taking notes though : the Director of photography for this year's MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE said he tried to pay homage to the camera style used in KLUTE and it shows !! LOTS of great long lens shots in that beautifully filmed indie pic ! -
asktheages — 13 years ago(July 07, 2012 01:07 PM)
Excellent post, L0GAN, and I think that's very true. A lot of films nowadays may be thoughtfully framed, but that's only one half of visual brilliance. Gordon Willis, on the other hand (who I think does his best work in Klute, which is saying a lot!) was a genius with framing and lighting. Maybe more strikingly so the latter than the former ("prince of darkness" as his nickname goes).
This movie is aesthetic pornography for me. Some people may prefer the glossy, de-saturated, super-clean digital look of most films these days, but what pleases me is the gritty, shadowy, abstracted, long-take aesthetic of a film like Klute. Every scene, every shot, has clearly been labored over to some extent; something one can't say about most new films.
Klute is simply jaw-dropping, visually, stunning the viewer while still serving the story and not drawing attention to itself with ostentatious camera movements a la De Palma, Argento etc. Just look at that opening at the Grunneman residence, how it conveys Tom's disappearance in 4 or 5 shots, wordlessly. And then the similar long shot coming after the credits, of the chillingly impersonal fashion audition. Scenes like these evince a level of artistry and thoughtfulness, of form working in tandem with content, that was pretty common in the 70s but extraordinarily rare today, and dare I say not just in American film, but anywhere.
What a brilliant film, one that can be watched endlessly. I can't say enough good things about it. -
rrb — 13 years ago(July 29, 2012 08:51 PM)
asktheages - have to say how much I love your post; its attention to detail about a film I adore. I was lucky to be a teenager in the late 60s/early 70s, so films like Klute and The Godfather occupy a special place in my heart. The artisty of Hollywood films - popular entertainment - back then has been sadly unmatched since.
-
asktheages — 13 years ago(August 04, 2012 10:31 PM)
Thanks, rrb. I was not yet born when these films were made sometimes I think that I was "meant" to come of age in such a wonderful period for cinema. What's around today indeed simply doesn't compare, and I don't think that's a view clouded by nostalgia, as is often claimed.
-
gnolti — 15 years ago(July 05, 2010 06:15 AM)
The 70s did have great cinematography. But I'm not sure it was appreciated as deeply by audiences then as it is today, because now we look at what passes for cinematography pseudo-documentary handheld amateurism and just about ANYTHING looks better.
There, daddy, do I get a gold star? -
felstein — 14 years ago(April 18, 2011 06:40 PM)
How right you are, artmania90!!
It's because the film industry had ARTISTS back in the 1970s. Now the entire industry is controlled by the corporate conglomerates, and most of the product they churn out isn't worth squat.
Makes me long for a return to better times. Hell, I'd even settle for the big studio system days, pre-1970s. At least Messrs. Mayer, Warner, Zanuck, Cohn, Zukor, Thalberg, et al, actually cared about providing a quality product. -
franzkabuki — 14 years ago(July 05, 2011 05:23 PM)
Lets just say that for a short period of time in late 60s/70s, serious, mature films were not automatically associated with box office disaster; its not like Hollywood was engaged in charity or altruism during that period. And when folks reverted back to demanding easy distraction & escapism, they got just that. Big time.
I dont think, however, that the prowess of American mainstream film in the 70s has that much to do with cinematography, strictly speaking. In terms of pure visual splendor I believe the 50s or 60s might just win out.
Generally though, there will likely never be a period as great as, particularly, the stretch between 1971-1976 in commercial, high powered studio film-making.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
Zuider_Zee — 11 years ago(August 21, 2014 04:51 AM)
I didn't know it did. Much of the cinematography of the pre-sound era was astonishingly beautiful. It seems the camera was much more flexible when the issue of sound wasn't a hindrance. They have learned to work around that but try to watch some German expressionism from the twenties. You eyes will be amazed.
-
simon.conder — 11 years ago(August 24, 2014 05:06 AM)
I think I have an idea as to why that is the case.
Apart from shooting digitally there is such a focus on HD which I can find rather boring at times. As film stock and cameras developed they reached a plateau for me that took a long time to surpass but that took styles in a different direction.
I agree with you that the look at feel of '70's films are very distinctive and special.
KBN -
MrDeltoid77 — 11 years ago(February 23, 2015 07:48 PM)
May I just say how pleasantly surprised and thrilled I am to find a thread that has been going on for over 4 years a thread that is intelligent and civil a thread that hasn't devolved into name calling, racial slurs, ad hominem attacks or juvenile vulgarity.
I recently posted on another thread some interesting info I read about B&W cinematography some years back.
As most of you probably know, in the early days of B&W film, movies were printed on Nitrate stock. Nitrate was incredibly flammable and dangerous so they switched to acetate. I have read from film historians and critics who lived through that transitional period that the Nitrate prints had deeper blacks and richer depths in the grays than acetate. They said the look of the Nitrate Prints were stunningly beautiful and were never matched by acetate.
Of course, the transition was due to health and safety concerns rather than financial concerns.
I think we are going through a similar transition these days. The speed and cost effectiveness of shooting Digital has trumped Artistic expression to a point where in a short time there will be generations who have never experienced the beauty of film stock shot by true masters.
Spielberg talked about film running through the gate of a projector having "life" by the very nature of silver particles dancing about the substrate (not entirely accurate but you get the idea)
Even in locked down shot with nothing moving in the frame, film still had a sense of "life" that digital has yet to match.
Perhaps as advances in technology progress, new artists will find ways to create the depth and beauty of film that so many of us grew up with,