FCM 2007 Awards: Final voting.

[Capo]

Everyone is allowed one vote for each of the categories below, and can make as many changes as they like. Like last year, final votes are to be private, made via PM to the moderators. The easiest and most simple way to make your vote is to PM me, and in the "To" box, alongside "admin", type "wetdog" and "omar", with a comma between each. In the event of a tie, we will have another round of voting between the appropriate nominees.

Closing date for voting is Saturday 31st March.

Thanks guys.

Best Film
Children of Men
The Departed
The Fountain
The Prestige
La science des rêves
United 93[/color]

Best Directing
Alfonso Cuarón, for Children of Men[/color]
Michel Gondry, for La science des rêves[/color]
Alejandro González Iñárritu, for Babel[/color]
Paul Greengrass, for United 93[/color]
Christopher Nolan, for The Prestige[/color]
Martin Scorsese, for The Departed[/color]

Best Leading Male
Sacha Baron Cohen, for Borat[/color]
Matt Damon, for The Departed[/color]
Leonardo DiCaprio, for The Departed[/color]
Hugh Jackman, for The Fountain[/color]
Clive Owen, for Children of Men[/color]

Best Supporting Male
Alan Arkin, for Little Miss Sunshine[/color]
Steve Carell, for Little Miss Sunshine[/color]
Sergi Lopez, for El laberinto del Fauno[/color]
Jack Nicholson, for The Departed[/color]
Mark Whalberg, for The Departed[/color]

Best Leading Female
Ivana Baquero, for El laberinto del Fauno[/color]
Penelope Cruz, for Volver[/color]
Kirsten Dunst, for Marie Antoinette[/color]
Helen Mirren, for The Queen[/color]
Charlotte Gainsbourg, for La science des rêves[/color]

Best Supporting Female
Cate Blanchett, for Notes on a Scandal[/color]
Abigail Breslin, for Little Miss Sunshine[/color]
Vera Farmiga, for The Departed[/color]
Rinko Kikuchi for Babel[/color]
Mia Kirschner, for The Black Dahlia[/color]
Diane Lane, for Hollywoodland[/color]
Meryl Streep, for A Prairie Home Companion[/color]
Lily Tomlin, for A Prairie Home Companion[/color]

Best Original Screenplay
Guillermo Arriaga, for Babel[/color]
Guillermo del Toro, for El laberinto del Fauno[/color]
Sofia Coppola, for Marie Antoinette[/color]
Michel Gondry, for La science des rêves[/color]
Paul Greengrass, for United 93[/color]
David Lynch, for Inland Empire[/color]

Best Adapted Screenplay
Darren Aronofsky, for The Fountain[/color]
Garrison Keillor, for A Prairie Home Companion[/color]
William Monahan, for The Departed[/color]
Alfonso Cuarón, Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby, for Children of Men[/color]
Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan, for The Prestige[/color]

Best Mise-en-scène
Children of Men
The Departed
The Prestige
La science des rêves[/color]

Best Cinematography
Emmanuel Lubezki, for Children of Men[/color]
Guillermo Navarro, for El laberinto del Fauno[/color]
Wally Pfister, for The Prestige[/color]
Vilmos Zsigmond, for The Black Dahlia[/color]

Best Editing
Jay Rabinowitz, for The Fountain[/color]
Thelma Schoonmaker, for The Departed[/color]
Lee Smith, for The Prestige[/color]
Clare Douglas, Richard Pearson and Christopher Rouse, for United 93[/color]

Best Sound Design
Babel
Casino Royale
Children of Men
Letters from Iwo Jima
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
A Prairie Home Companion
United 93[/color]

Best Production Design
Children of Men
El laberinto del Fauno
The Prestige
La science des rêves[/color]

Best Costume Design
Joan Bergin, for The Prestige[/color]
Milena Canonero, for Marie Antoinette[/color]
Jany Temime, for Children of Men[/color]
Lala Huete and Rocío Redondo, for El laberinto del Fauno[/color]
Catherine Marie Thomas, for A Prairie Home Companion[/color]

Best Makeup Design
El laberinto del Fauno
Marie-Antoinette
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
The Queen[/color]

Best Visual Effects
Children of Men
El laberinto del Fauno
The Prestige
La science des rêves[/color]

Best Original Score
Jean-Michel Bernard, for La science des rêves[/color]
Philip Glass, for The Illusionist[/color]
David Julyan, for The Prestige[/color]
Clint Mansell, for The Fountain[/color]
Gustavo Santaolalla, for Babel[/color]

Worst Film
The Da Vinci Code
The Devil Wears Prada
Snakes on a Plane
The Wicker Man
World Trade Center[/color]

Retrospective: Best Film of 2005
Broken Flowers
Caché
A History of Violence
Last Days
The New World
Sin City[/color]

Best Artistic Achievement
Children of Men
The Fountain
Inland Empire
Marie Antoinette[/color]

[Boz]

Thoughts:

I think it's unfortunate that no one else gave The Illusionist a nod for best cinematography. In my opinion, the only film that did something memorable in that area this past year.

My toughest choice was probably best editing. While I clearly think that the Scorsese/Schoonmaker style of editing is head and shoulders above nearly anything else that's ever been done in film, if we had a seperate award for specific editing sequence of the year or something like that, my vote would have to go to Babel for the the sequence with the deaf girl in the club when she sees her friend making out with her romantic interest. If ever the word breathtaking should be used, it should be for this sequence. (This scene is also mostly the reason I gave Babel my vote for best sound design.)

I will continue to maintain that Rufus Sewell's performance in The Illusionist was perhaps the supporting performance of the year. I didn't expect him to get any other nominations, and he didn't. I almost gave him a single nomination in that category just as a form of protest.

I will also continue to maintain that Children of Men was one of the worst films of the year. Yes, it might be a little bit of polarization, but hell, I just didn't like it.

Looking back, I wish I could give a retrospective nomination to United 93 for production design. I'd estimate that Greengrass' filming inside a plane, a plane's cockpit, and small cramped air traffic control offices was probably just as difficult as Scorsese filming inside a boxing ring for Raging Bull.

Lastly, United 93 was the artistic achievment of the year. I can't claim to have seen The Fountain or Inland Empire, which I would guess might hold claim to this title, but in my opinion nothing so drastically different, moving, and subsequently unique and memorable has come out of cinema in the past few years.

Who likes all my italics?

[Boz]

Additional Thoughts:

Wow, just realized Babel didn't even get an official nomination for editing. Weak fellas.

Secondly, I feel like some may find it strange that despite the fact that I feel so strongly about United 93 being the film of the year, I am ultimately not advocating it for any awards besides best picture and best artistic achievment. I think it is perhaps United 93's revolutionary kind of form and style itslef that is in fact the cause of this. I really just wouldn't feel right giving the film an award for best script, as I can't say I remember a single piece of specific dialogue, and I wouldn't feel right giving the film any acting awards obviously, as it features no real central performances. Hell, I couldn't even give it awards for mise-en-scène or editing, as the fairly simple freehand camerawork and the realtime style of editing make neither of those aspects particularly memorable either.

In the case of United 93, it seems to be a more a question of a total aesthetic experience, an emotionally striking experience at that. Difficult to itierate exactly without sounding like a dbag, but you get what I mean. That's why I was glad to see the artistic achievment award here, so I could give the film its rightful due, but unfortunately it looks as though I'm the only one who feels this way about the film specifically. Queers.

[ronnierocketago]

why didn't you like CHILDREN OF MEN?

[Boz]

ronnierocketago said:

why didn't you like CHILDREN OF MEN?

There's a discussion here.

[svsg]

Until I saw Mista's post, I thought that the crown prince role was played by Jude Law. I saw the movie twice! I am really embarrassed now.

[Capo]

mistamista said:

I think it's unfortunate that no one else gave The Illusionist a nod for best cinematography. In my opinion, the only film that did something memorable in that area this past year.

It looked washed-out and sepia in the same way that Saving Private Ryan looked washed-out and war-torn in 1998. In the same way that Flags of Our Fathers looked almost monochrome. Only, unlike those two films, The Illusionist looked rather flat, with no dynamic pictorial texture at all. I found the lighting in The Black Dahlia of much more interest, the complex lighting structure of A Prairie Home Companion much more accomplished, the visual texture of Pan's Labyrinth much more profound and memorable, and Children of Men far more ambitious. Cuarón's Steadicam in that film is roaming from exterior to interior, without any cuts, and the change in light is quite drastic, and yet we still see everything, nothing is interrupted, it's one smooth change from one location to the next and the technical prowess is maintained throughout.

My toughest choice was probably best editing. While I clearly think that the Scorsese/Schoonmaker style of editing is head and shoulders above nearly anything else that's ever been done in film, if we had a seperate award for specific editing sequence of the year or something like that, my vote would have to go to Babel for the the sequence with the deaf girl in the club when she sees her friend making out with her romantic interest.

I liked the transitions from one setting to the other, like when the Moroccan kids run from the bus incident then we cut to Pitt's kids running away from the maid, the first incident rather serious and the second a bit of fun; and later in the film when Blanchett's screaming about her arm and we cut to a silent shot from the Japanese girl's POV. But I thought Babel was overlong as a whole, and the segments in the latter stages of the film were really excessive and draining, in a bad way.

I found The Prestige, The Fountain, The Science of Sleep and The Departed maintained their energy throughout, with a much more consistent and cumulative rhythm. And Pan's Labyrinth was again quite gorgeous, in how its shot-to-shot and scene-to-scene transitions (intra- and inter-narrative devices) worked in tandem with the cinematography; invisible, flawless edits, moving from a wide-shot to a medium-shot to a close-up with seemingly effortless precision.

And I actually had United 93 as my sixth nomination for editing. Succinct, sharp and very effective stuff - it cut from the plane to the control room at motivated and necessary intervals, and sustained a high energy and growing panic and tragedy in real-time. Very difficult to do.

I will also continue to maintain that Children of Men was one of the worst films of the year.

To be fair, you didn't really see all that many "bad" films last year. It's not as if you voted for it alongside four other films you thought were bad. And you said as much yourself that you went into with high expectations (implied, not actually said).

Looking back, I wish I could give a retrospective nomination to United 93 for production design. I'd estimate that Greengrass' filming inside a plane, a plane's cockpit, and small cramped air traffic control offices was probably just as difficult as Scorsese filming inside a boxing ring for Raging Bull.

Then that's mise-en-scène or cinematography, because it's how the location has been exploited in order to be captured within the frame. I'm not sure how Greengrass did it, whether he made the plane to fit his vision, or whether he chose the plane and then decided how he could shoot inside it. You didn't find the exhaustive, futuristic sets of Children of Men good examples of production design? How it is clearly London, signified by the stereotypical red buses,(seen in any Hollywood film) but with blacked out windows and no wheel trims? And the war-torn streets, which weren't made to look life-size by means of clever editing, but actually big enough to be filmed on with a continuous, moving camera. And the meticulous designing of Pan's Labyrinth was gorgeous, too; very detailed, merging both historical "realism" and fantastical worlds under one credible fiction.

Lastly, United 93 was the artistic achievment of the year [...] nothing so drastically different, moving, and subsequently unique and memorable has come out of cinema in the past few years.

Though it wouldn't have been made but for September 11, a real event which impacted the entire world.

In the case of United 93, it seems to be a more a question of a total aesthetic experience.

So is Children of Men. But for that film you criticised Cuarón for "relying too heavily on cool special effects", even though that's clearly what he wanted, how he wanted to do it, to make the "aesthetic" the primary means of meaning in the film. So how come United 93 gets away with it but Children of Men doesn't? Because the latter is deemed as allegorical, and thus has meaning deep within, and, if that "meaning" comes up trumps, it's a rubbish film?

Children of Men is primarily exciting for me because of its foregrounding of cinematic language. In criticising its vague ("pretentious", you said) dialogue, you seem to have overlooked its visual innovation. I think Wet Dog said that the "long takes are ground-breaking in themselves" - very ambitious, and pulled off successfully, too. The dialogue is probably taken from the novel, and is secondary to the cinematic shape given to the original story anyway. I wouldn't have enjoyed it half as much had it been void of its long-takes, gritty location and authentic mise-en-scène.

[The Ghost of LLC]

If I didn't get caught up in personal affairs and my studies this weekend, and had time to finish up the final 1/3 or so of my nominations, surely United 93 would have been nominated for worst picture. I don't see what the big deal about it was. It just didn't work for me. Children of Men on the other hand... Pure gold.

I'm pulling for The Fountain, though.

Oh, and it's funny how Snakes on a Plane is the only time I've ever seen a standing ovation in a cinema (in the middle of the film, none the less) and yet we all have come to the consensus that it's a pile of shit, piss, bile, the scabs of a pirate with herpes and virgin's blood.

[RNL]

I thought it was a bit of fun.

[Pherdy]

I don't think the style of United 93 was unique at all. never seen a made-for-tv-docu-drama before?

all in all I like these nominations, even better than the final Oscars which I could live with for once. the taste of this board is pretty nice, one I can live with, and nearly all of my personal favorites in each category were nominated, so they all get my votes.

a bit belated, but these were very good Awards, as opposed to last year's mess.

[Capo]

papagiorgio said:

If I didn't get caught up in personal affairs and my studies this weekend...

You're still encouraged to vote for the winner, though. ;D

[Omar]

I'm glad to see you've returned for this Pherdy!

[The Ghost of LLC]

admin said:

papagiorgio said:

If I didn't get caught up in personal affairs and my studies this weekend...

You're still encouraged to vote for the winner, though. ;D

Naturally, I plan to do so. I'm not too bummed out about nominations, I managed to get in almost all of the main nominations of interest.

[kino]

I think it's worth noting Lubezki's work for Children of Men isn't easy.

Like the New World (Malick), Lubezki used available light and barley any supplemental electric lights (if at all). Cuaron said none at all, but he's also lied about the baby, so who knows.

Anyway, Lubezki's work is much like Coutard's work with minimal supplemental lighting and largely available natural light.

Don't think this is anything special?

Go rent a little 16 mm camera and shoot with only available light and see if you can make something as remarkable as Children of Men in terms of light/shadow and color palette.

The thing is with celluloid, not unless one actually has shot a film on celluloid or read basic cinematography/photography, usually one doesn't know how much light you even need for exposure.

If anyone can gather up a link to a video interview or quote from Lubezki saying he used alot of supplemental electric lighting, then I'll glady admit I was dead wrong.

Until then, Lubezki's achievement is the greatest out of the nominees.

And in my opinion, if someone feels a story or dialogue sucks and characters are caricatures, a movie that is that well done still can't be called one of the worst films of the year.

I don't think anyone can deny that a film that includes some of the most exhilarating action pieces in years, difficult staging, difficult cinematography, and detailed mise-en-scene is not an average film at least...even if the story, dialogue, and characters are lacking.

In my mind, to be called one of the worst movies, said movie's images and sounds have to be abysmal, too, to earn that distinction.

Children of Men is average at worst, as a whole. In terms of filmmaking, the movie is excellent at worst.

That's my opinion.

[jrod]

What was so good about United 93?

[svsg]

kino said:

Anyway, Lubezki's work is much like Coutard's work with minimal supplemental lighting and largely available natural light.

Don't think this is anything special?

Go rent a little 16 mm camera and shoot with only available light and see if you can make something as remarkable as Children of Men in terms of light/shadow and color palette.

I haven't watched Children of Men. So my comment is generic and not specific to this film. I agree that it is remarkable to create great effect with just the natural light. But my opinion is that if any artificial lighting would have enhanced the visual experience, it should be used. Why should a viewer care how difficult a task the director performed? All I care about is the final viewing experience. If it needs artificial light, then so be it. If it needs CGI, then so be it. That is the reason I don't attach any importance to the fact that Aronofsky used chemical reactions instead of CGI for Fountain. It is a different matter that I found the visual experience of Fountain to be more than excellent. But no credit should be given to him because he did something innovative. It matters only if the final product is better than if some conventional technique was used. So for those of you who have seen Children of men, was the effect better than what it would have been with artificial lighting.If so, then it is noteworthy, else it is immaterial.

[kino]

svsg said:

I haven't watched Children of Men. So my comment is generic and not specific to this film. I agree that it is remarkable to create great effect with just the natural light. But my opinion is that if any artificial lighting would have enhanced the visual experience, it should be used.

If you saw the film then you'd most likely agree that the movie didn't need artifical lighting (if indeed what Cuaron says of Lubezki is true).

Why should a viewer care how difficult a task the director performed? All I care about is the final viewing experience. If it needs artificial light, then so be it. If it needs CGI, then so be it. That is the reason I don't attach any importance to the fact that Aronofsky used chemical reactions instead of CGI for Fountain.

Well, part of my criteria for awarding/nominating best cinematography is to take into account their artistic/technical achievement. And, my criteria for such achievement takes into account the process as well as the final result.

It is a different matter that I found the visual experience of Fountain to be more than excellent. But no credit should be given to him because he did something innovative.

I disagree.

It matters only if the final product is better than if some conventional technique was used. So for those of you who have seen Children of men, was the effect better than what it would have been with artificial lighting.If so, then it is noteworthy, else it is immaterial.

In my opinion yes, because using source lighting has a significant and certain feel/look and texture to it. Changing the lighting is no less as important as changing a location or an actor choosing a totally opposite objective.

Changing the look of a film changes one's experience.

Lastly, in no way was I suggesting natural light be the only reason why Lubezki should be considered. However, I thnk it's a factor to be considered.

[Capo]

Tomorrow is the final day for voting, guys!