Cinematography is cinema. It separates the artform from music, photography and theater. It puts imagery to sound. It portrays the world as a moving, dynamic place. It’s art we can basically return to whenever we want. When a film is literally lost, meaning that no copy of it exists, it means the treasured work of a cinematographer has died, and there is no more upsetting fate for a film. But the Oscars in the year 2023 do a decent job of hyping up their own nominated movies, meaning that the cinematographers nominated this year have likely reached a place of immortality.
Woah, who invited “El Conde” to the party? It’s a great nomination, no doubt, but it came a little out of left field. One of the legends of the game, Edward Lachman, was behind the camera for this one, so it definitely has some clout. The cinematographers branch of the Academy can’t resist a little black-and-white action, and when the shots and lighting happen to be excellent on top of that, it’s a slam dunk. Maybe I should’ve seen this coming.
Speaking of legends, Rodrigo Prieto is back in the race this year for “Killers of the Flower Moon.” Isn’t it cool that the same guy who shot “Killers” also did so for “Barbie”? This nomination definitely represents the stronger work from Prieto in 2023, but many awards bodies nominated him for both at once, a clear violation of the Academy’s barriers. Regardless, fans of both films may unite and push Prieto to a somewhat surprising victory.
“Maestro” is in the lineup, and I like this nomination. It’s not my favorite film of the batch (in fact, it’s my least favorite), but I think Matthew Libatique sprinkled plenty of pretty images throughout. Some may say it’s a little style over substance, and it very well might be, but I still think the cinematography is the strongest element of the film. If anything, it elevates what is a disjointed experience into something the Academy can respect.
The cinematography in “Poor Things” is a lot like Robbie Ryan and Yorgos Lanthimos’ previous collaboration, another Oscar-nominated effort in “The Favourite.” It probably is even more liberal with its use of fisheye lenses than “The Favourite,” something that must have been tough to pull off. I think this is mostly an aesthetic choice because I’m not sure why Bella’s wide-eyed view of things would be so trapped. I know I sound negative, but I actually think this is my second favorite nominee in the category. Everything besides the aquatic-sounding camerawork works splendidly.
My actual favorite in the category is “Oppenheimer.” It’s hard for me to think of a film that used close-ups more effectively than this one. We’re able to see the most uneasy sections of Cillian Murphy’s exceptional lead performance up close and personal and, when the film is watched on the biggest screen possible, that winds up being very powerful. Otherwise, Hoyte van Hoytema’s work is stunning, and maybe the best work ever done for a Nolan film. The quiet horror of “Oppenheimer” couldn’t have been pulled off without the invasive camerawork.
The cinematographers in the Academy are a strange mix of conventional and artsy. They’ll go for something pretty toothless like “Elvis” last year, but also pull something like “El Conde” back
from the depths of awards season. Since the entire Academy chooses the winners, this becomes secondary, but it’s still interesting to note where the branch stands.
