After all it's
called cinema.
A visual medium bar
none, cinema demands visuals that not only stun, excite and attract but at
times make meaning of things that are neither said nor easily seen.
From lighting to
angles, every part of the work revolved around engaging our visual tastebuds
must not only look good and real but also make a wider sense in terms of
content.
To some it may seem
with the advent of minimal skill and technology that cinematography is becoming
an easier or lazier job, but that couldn't be anymore wrong.
Yes some films this
year looked absolutely stunning and nothing else.
Yes it has
increasingly become obvious that there aren't many innovative ways to show
things on screen as there aren't innovative plots on the horizon, to be frank
originality in cinema is a myth.
But that doesn't
excuse the fact that shooting and visually creating a film is a hell of a
difficult job when the actual vision is never even yours to begin with.
So to these
cinematographers and more...
Honourable Mentions:
Manu Anand for
Fan-Playing between cool and warm lighting, fan makes a case for the inherent
duality between its two protagonists and how their merger creates for an
identity clash that is wary of the meta commentary at the centre of the film.
Barring the overtly silly thriller elements, it is the camera work that probes
deeper into the psychological message of the film as well as the persona that
is Shah Rukh Khan.
Setu for Dangal-It
takes finesse to present a sports film with an absolute rustic appeal as well
as slick professionalism and create a subtle scope of change between both
worlds. Dangal's cinematography is equally earthy in its earlier portions and a
dazzle when the fight scenes hit, allowing for edge of the seat thrills.
Rajeev Ravi for Udta
Punjab-Rajeev Ravi being in the honourable mentions section says a lot about
our five contenders, yet Punjab's exotic beauty is not only captured with utter
pride but the grim and grit behind it is equally played up with ease. More importantly
is how like the sound and edit, the visuals create a nice tenuous link between
its lead protagonists, bringing their story to their grungy looking violent
end.
And now for the
nominees...
Satya Rai Nagpaul for Aligarh
There's a quaint yet
moody textured feel to how Aligarh is captured, a sense of constant isolation
represented within the most wonderful of singular shots of characters
specifically of Bajpayee's Professor Siras, even aptly framed at a distance in
two/three shots with other actors; like he doesn't belong.
Then at the
juxtapose to that is the compact and concrete structure of Aligarh itself, a
place and a character of great depth where peering eyes are not far behind and
the freedom to do so as one wishes isn't there.
One of the finest
moments of the film is when two love making scenes play parallel to one
another; the first is a flashback to Siras and his lover, a young rickshaw
puller. The other scene is of Deepu and his attractive female boss. Both scenes
are well structured and framed, while the former takes place in low lit
interiors, the other is framed wide in open exteriors with the bright night sky
above. A clear indication of the difference in expression of freedom of both
forms of love.
The loneliness, the
judgment and the openness all reflect well in the sober and moody hues,
creating narrative magic.
Jay Oza for Raman
Raghav 2.0
Instead of picking
the far grandeous Rajeev Ravi [who was probably also busy with his feature
Malyalam directorial debut], with his latest small gritty thriller; Kashyap
turns to a young hungry Jay Oza.
And what a choice it
is.
Oza imbibes the very
ruptured psychology of the characters into a film that on the surface may seem
typically dark and brooding, but unravels a myriad of complexities. The camera
lingers on Ramanna and Raghavan, building what is essentially a myth of its
characters.
There's no
extravagance to play on the mind, rather the shades are subtle providing for an
absolute sense of realism that just transcends the horror of the sequences and
creates for the dour mood, that most complained about but is very much in line
with the films harsh realities of evil lurking everywhere.
Mitesh Mirchandani for Neerja
How many
times can I speak of Neerja's unrelenting method of creating confinement when
it comes to the films cinematic appeal.
Well I
shall try again, much of the film as is known takes place within the Pan Am
flight that was hijacked and in that sense the cinematography more than all
else is about movement, about building tension through action.
This is
done so with rhythmic beauty as we chase the characters across the narrow
spaces and the camera often finds itself sticking close to the faces of its
victims and villains and more importantly its central hero.
One of
the nice games pulled off, is in the soft focus the film presents much of
Neerja's early escapades as well as the final speech/heroic salute scenes and
the tense closes of Neerja struggling with the situation in hand. It's in
contrast to the hard darkness reflected in scenes with the terrorists and their
actions through the stopped flight.
The
cinematography at a level speaks both of the difference in violence and
heroics, pulling off a cathartic film about hope and right.
Russell Carpenter for Parched
While
Rajasthan is typically presented in all its blazing glory, with the authentic
India matching a land of exotica; it is in the interiority of characters where
a veteran like Carpenter shines.
It isn't
at all surprising that the man who shot probably shot one of the most tender
yet erotic scenes in cinema from Titanic, captures that very intensity and
humanity ten fold with the characters of Parched. There is a genuine feel that
visuals evoke of the pains of their protagonists.
The
pronounced pathos of Rani, Lajjo and Bijlee is aptly captured in each
characters setting through smartly lit and framed shots. For Rani, this means
the wonderful echo of emptiness in love with frames of her stark alone, for
Lajjo these are the scenes Parched by a barren womb as lighting brings color of
browns and Bijlee's scenes sparkle as the emptiness of her eyes are painted
with affection.
The
fondness of larger spaces that allow the women to be and the crowded village,
designed with a touch of compression illiciting judgement. To the empty nights
and warm togetherness of character, framed close with a sense of intimacy.
Carpenter
doesn't just make you see Rajasthan like most have done, he makes you feel it;
feel the village; feel the characters and their situation. He makes you feel.
Is that not what cinema is meant to be after all?
Jayakrishna Gummadi for Phobia
The
haunting specter catching Mehek by the throat in Phobia is not her actual fears
but the camera itself.
As is
typical with most horror films regardless of narrative, the cliche is for the
camera to stick close; illicit fear through the claustrophobia of the framing.
However in Phobia, Gummadi takes special care of what the character is about
and what the film is saying.
So we go
wide, we open up despite being confined to one setting. We see how the open
spaces are affecting our protagonists. How the fish eye lens crams the outside
world into one door hole and how that ironically creates the scariness of a
wider world.
How
everything goes batshit crazy with alluring lighting playing up the haunting
aspects of normal life.
Fear is
in our day to day rather than the ethereal and Phobia does well to visualize
this and stimulate.
And the
Winner is...
Russell Carpenter for Parched!!!
The Big Hollywood man scores the win and Parched gets a second, so that's that for the technical awards!
Up Next: The HIndie Indian film awards, don't call them regional and surprise surprise, we start with the technical section :D
'Nuff Said,
Aneesh Raikundalia
