Quote:
Originally Posted by 22803
Phew! I thought I'd made a horrible mistake
I agree that the Artist looked great, but I attribute a lot of that to production design rather than cinematography.
They're certainly a combo, and I think it will win for Production Design. The two categories I really want to see it win are Cinematography (probably won't win) and Editing (might win). I would also love for it to win for Original Screenplay, as it was an extreme challenge to tell that story to a modern audience, yet it completely grips the audience, once it gets them. When I saw it, I didn't think it had any chance to win Directing (though I thought it was amazingly directed), but once it won the DGA, that makes it academic that it will win for it.
Have you seen many late 20s to early 30s movies? My only "gripes" with the movie were the makeup (it was not accurate to the era, and it was not nominated obviously), and that I felt it was shot too "tall", if that makes any sense. One of the hallmarks of that era was that it made really small people look huge on screen (think Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney). I think that was more of a product of most Directors or Cinematographers being pretty short in that era. Some of the greatest film directors have been pretty short, which I think helps give that larger than life quality to their movies, as their world perspective is different than that of an average to tall person. However, just as a reflection of accuracy to the era, I would really love The Artist to win for Cinematography, as I think it was truly outstanding what they did. Probably my favorite shot in the movie was the giant staircase shot. My second favorite was the Uggie running shots that were like a John Ford western, at least to me.