Feeding off a non-existent sub-genre, Beautiful Creatures aims to be The Twilight Saga 6, and pretty much succeeds. And just as Twilight endlessly milks its bland, stinky sullenness, so too does Beautiful Creatures milk its florid exuberance, which produces some eye-catching moments but a rather wayward film. Its dedication keeps it on track, but boisterous Gothic drama and timid teen romance make for awkward bedfellows. The more it succumbs to one or the other, the easier it settles. Emma Thompson and Emmy Rossum feverishly ravage their roles like they're on meth, and Jeremy Irons spits his South Carolina drawl out with a tremendous fervour; and what a treat to see Margo Martindale and Eileen Atkins in plum supporting parts. Leads Alice Englert and Alden Ehrenreich are bound by the constraints of what the target demographic demands, and attempts to imbue their characters with more singular attributes only chafe. Englert and Ehrenreich have an unforced chemistry, though, and are perpetually easy on the eye! Alas, in the end, the blatancy of this (financially failed) cash-in and the jumbled narrative and tone obliterate much of the quality to be found in this film, such as occasionally caustic humour and cool imagery. Plot holes don't help, nor does the obligatory religious undercurrent - what appears, initially, to be comic castigation of religion eventually turns out to be just a measured but irksome and condescending sponsor of it.
Yep, I have avoided this so far, in large measure because of the aspects you have brought out here with superb observational heft. Won't be seeing this until well down the line.
ReplyDeleteGoodness! 'Superb'! You're needlessly inflating my ego, or you would be if I had one.
DeleteI only saw this because I think Alice Englert and Alden Ehrenreich are fit.
You must have come across the article where veteran DP Christopher Doyle dinging on Life of Pi's Cinematography Oscar win during an interview. http://sea.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/874483/christopher-doyle-interview-part-2-life-of-pi-oscar-is-an#.
ReplyDeleteAn excerpt from the interview -
"Since 97 per cent of the film is not under his control, what the f--k are you talking about cinematography ... What it says to the real world is it’s all about us, we have the money, we put the money in, and we control the image ... Are you f--king kidding? That’s not cinematography. That’s control of the image by the powers that be, by the people that want to control the whole system because they’re all accounts. You’ve lost cinema.
Of course [AMPAS] have no f--king idea what cinematography is. The lunatics have taken over the asylum ... The award is given to the technicians, to the producers, it’s not to the cinematographer ... If somebody manipulated my image that much, I wouldn’t even turn up. Because sorry, cinematography? Really?"
And he hasn't seen the full movie.
What are your impressions on his thoughts?
Is their any credibility on his stance?
It's worth noting, after all, as you know that while the Academy has opted for such FX-integrating 3D achievements as "Avatar," "Hugo" and "Pi" in recent years, the American Society of Cinematographers has chosen differently -- and somewhat more traditionally -- in each case, preferring "The White Ribbon," "The Tree of Life" and "Skyfall," respectively.
Thank you.
I think the differences between the ASC's choices and the Academy's choices is easy to understand. The ASC is comprised of just cinematographers, who can appreciate subtler work than the assortment of industry professionals in AMPAS. I bet more people in the Academy voted for Avatar to win Best Cinematography than even saw The White Ribbon. Also worth noting is that the Cinematography winner has also won Visual Effects at the Oscars for the last four years.
DeleteI loved Claudio Miranda's work on Life of Pi. And cinematography is not only about lighting. The digital manipulation to which Christopher Doyle is so opposed is a part of the cinematography process. Roger Deakins does it all the time, and who complains? He's a pioneer of colour grading, and uses it in all his films!
I think Christopher Doyle is one of the finest DPs in the business, but I think he's dead wrong here. To claim that we've lost cinema is ridiculous. The boundaries of cinema are expanding, but the old techniques are not being killed off in the process. He can continue to do what he does, and let Claudio Miranda do what he does too. Also to claim that the award is being given to the technicians or the producers is silly. I trust that Miranda was responsible for much of the post-production effects which affected the images he had created, and probably took them into regard when creating those images in the first place.
Thanks a lot for such a great response. Truly honored for such a great reply.
ReplyDeleteAgreed with almost everything.
Christopher Doyle did indeed cross the line.
But one thing still bothers me about the issue brought upon by Doyle.
Have got nothing against Life of Pi. Cinematography was apparently incredible.
The Digital manipulation in the post-production is heavily done by visual effects team with incorporating the DP's original intended ideas. So, shouldn't it be visual effects driven cinematography? As the digital manipulation is so tremendous in this case, that DP's involvement is indefinite and out of reach. There's a difference between a person who conceives a story and person who adapts it to a screen, if they're different. And the person adapting to the screen gets all the credit.
Hence, in one way, Academy is playing safe with rewarding the same movie for both the honors. But in another way, unfairly questioning the quantifying authority of other movie's reliability on DP distinguishing with the equally credible qualifying visual effects.
Emmanuel Lubezki's Oscar loss on Children of Men(reasons you pointed long back) and Tree of Life still hurts.
Cinematography is essentially the art of photography.
What Claudio Miranda was shooting Life of Pi in huge water tanks, was immensely enhanced by the visual effects team. We can't possibly adjust the color grading and all of lighting to such aesthetically appealing effect just by photography without the involvement of third party, right?
We cannot seclude Cinematography from Visual Effects, especially in this Digital era.
Is there a need of aggregation of visual effects and cinematography? As one whole category, to rightfully reward the look of the film.
My writing is obnoxious and its crappy as always.
Try not be embarrassed. And my issues might be foolish and impertinent.
Hope you aren't disheartened with my views, brother.
Extremely sorry.
Thank you.
Lol I'm neither embarrassed nor disheartened as your writing is neither obnoxious nor crappy and your issues neither foolish nor impertinent. I concur with most every point you raise otherwise, and they'll give me a lot to think about! The idea of combining the Cinematography and Visual Effects categories is particularly interesting. After all, it wouldn't have made a difference these past four years. Perhaps having two separate categories for different methods of photography might work too, like the separation of Sound Mixing and Sound Editing, although it's often raised how uneducated Academy members are regarding the difference between those two, so complicating another category might confuse them even more!
DeleteIt would definitely confuse 'em if they ever consider that idea. Agreed.
DeleteThank you, brother.
Hey Paddy,
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your site and the completeness of your awards coverage. I think these are the last awards of the season if you'd like to publish.
http://www.chlotrudis.org/content/%E2%80%98moonrise-kingdom-perks-being-wallflower-big-winners-19th-chlotrudis-awards
Keep up the great work.
Matt
Thanks!
Delete