One can't be sure, because so many dumb things are written in it (especially on the opinion page), but Ms. Kathryn LaGamba has set a tough bar to match in her rundown of the Top 5 Film Mistakes of 2005. See, that's a damn dumb start right there - making a mistake in the title of a column about film "mistakes" from 2006. But it gets better (or worse, depending on one's point of view). She awards the worst cinematography of the year award to Children of Men.
D'uh - WHAT!?!
Let's see the cinematographer's guild has it listed in their own top 5 of the year (they don't announce their #1 winner until February 18th), and it's won the cinematography prizes from the LA Film Critics, the Chicago Film Critics, the National Society of Film Critics, the Online Film Critics, at the Venice Film Festival ... well, you get the point. Everyone who understands what cinematography is basically worships the cinematography in this film (and with good reason, it's amazing). But Ms. LaGamba thinks it's the worst of the year because ... it feature hand-held cameras, included blood on the lens, and "seemed more like an independent film than a heavily advertised Hollywood blockbuster".
Oy. I seriously hope this is the last bit of film analysis (at least on technical matters) that I see by this author in the DA.
Posted by armand at January 16, 2007 10:54 AM | TrackBack | Posted to MoviesAnd because the cinematography was so bad... it got an Oscar nomination!
Posted by: binky at January 23, 2007 11:18 AM | PERMALINKBtw, speaking of people that I think really don't get this movie, there's also Atrios. He's put up a couple of posts on it last night that seem (to me) to misread it.
Posted by: Armand at February 1, 2007 08:38 AM | PERMALINK