From time to time we run across a gem that has nothing much to do with current cinema but worth sharing all the same. Someone called LadyPhantomThe has collected dozens of fantastic cinematography clips and posted them on youtube. This sequence from Peter Fonda’s film The Hired Hand shot by Vilmos Zsigmond caught my attention this morning.
Vilmos Zsigmond only won one Oscar — for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But he’s responsible for an enormous number of my favorite films from the 1970s and early ’80s.
A list of 20 favorite films lensed by Vilmos Zsigmond, in chronogical order, after the cut.
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)
The Hired Hand (1971)
Red Sky at Morning (1971)
Deliverance (1972)
Images (1972)
Scarecrow (1973)
Cinderella Liberty (1973)
The Long Goodbye (1973)
The Sugarland Express (1974)
Obsession (1976)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
The Deer Hunter (1978)
The Rose (1979)
Winter Kills (1979)
Heaven’s Gate (1980)
Blow Out (1981)
The Witches of Eastwick (1987)
The Crossing Guard (1995)
The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)
Playing by Heart (1998)
OT
Douglas Slocombe had his 100th birthday this year.
so….cinematography=calendar art?
As always ryan, wow. just wow.
“cinematography=calendar art?”
deliberately thickheaded comments like this = dipshit trollery
Cimino said about Zsigmond (“who remember who made the cinematography of the films”?), in a interview on 2002 and 2004. But in the recent Criterion edition of “Heaven’s Gate” (didn’t seee yet), seems to pay tribute to the artist.
A genius, no doubt.
Michael Cimino badmouthed the dude, guess, because Vilmos made the audio commentary for the american DVD edition of “The Deer Hunter” (Cimino did for the english one). Not surprising for someone that claims that Peter Zinner never understands editing at all, and that he was the one who edited “Hunter”.
Post “Playing by Heart”, Vilmos opulent work on the very underrated Brian De Palma’s “Black Dahlia” (how I love this film), and discret one on Woody Allen’s “You Will Meet a Dark Tall Stranger”, are awesome.
Gotta agree with Bryce – fave post so far this week.
Coming out of the CinemaScope/Panavision Hollywood-style of the 50’s and 60’s, to see the work of Zsigmond (and Sven Nykvist) on the big screen was stunning and made for a whole different experience.
Zsigmond’s visuals defined Altman’s classics like McCabe, Images and The Long Goodbye, but he really surpassed everyone with his lighting in Deliverance. Anybody who has been in the deep woods at dawn can attest that he captured the impossible-to-describe tourquoise “bath” that permeates everything for a briefly at sunrise.
His work is made to be seen big, not small, and I’m thankful I got to do that.
Officially my favorite post of this infant week!
And he wasn’t even nominated for BLOW OUT? Travesty. Storaro is a legend, but he wins for that forgettable borefest? Ugh. BLOW OUT should have won this shit! Ah Academy; at least they nominated EXCALIBUR so they get a pass for that. GOLDEN POND nominated? Subtract points.
Bryce,
Gently I say that if you think Storaro’s work on REDS was unworthy of awards, my friend you don’t know from cinematography. You may prefer BLOW OUT as a film, and think that REDS is a borefest, but that is not cinematography. That is plot and story telling.
Storaro’s work on REDS was stunning, one of his best in an incredible career. BLOW OUT is a worthy inclusion on Zsigmond’s CV but lags behind McCABE, DELIVERANCE, LONG GOODBYE, CE3K and (dislike the film as I do), HEAVEN’S GATE.
I advice you to re-read my comment. I never judged RED’s cinematography. I just said it was a borefest, and it is. There are many borefests with accomplished cinematography. I don’t care to award worthy elements in otherwise bad films. Just like I didn’t give a shit about Meryl Streep’s noble effort in a mediocre film like THE IRON LADY.
The rest of your comments are just opinions and do not demonstrate expertise in cinematography. Opinions are just opinions.
A a side note, if you subtract all the Isabelle Huppert parts HEAVEN’S GATE is much better and far more enjoyable film than REDS. A much more important film too.
Bryce,
I think we are at cross purposes. More, you contradict your own position; “opinions are just opinions.” You go ahead and dismiss a film’s cinematography as redundant because the film is bad (opinion). My point was that irrespective of whether you think Reds is a borefest or not is irrelevant because Storaro’s work was exemplary. Read up any back-issue of American Cinematographer where Storaro’s work is mentioned and you will see it is always praised. Opinion? Or perhaps a demonstration of “expertise in cinematography.”
By your reasoning, we may as well dismiss the achievements of Miami Heat because someone doesn’t like don’t Lebron James’s hairstyle.
No I don’t contradict myself. I love BLOW OUT. It’s a great movie with awesome cinematography. Given the films nominated in 1981 I would have preferred BLOW OUT to be nominated and have won Best Cinematography. That’s just my opinion, my taste. I can’t even brag to have better taste than others because even that is relative. REDS is a boring movie I don’t like it at all. It has good elements like excellent and abundant production design, and accomplished cinematography; I don’t know how dismissive that sounds I think not at all. And I never said it was redundant –whatever you mean by that.
Just to further illustrate my position, and let me use another Brian de Palma film. Vilmos Zsigmond’s work in THE BLACK DAHLIA was tremendous and certainly noteworthy, but I’d have never nominated it for anything, no awards whatsoever. Why? Because the movie sucks ass. Now, probably, your issue is that you happen to love the movie REDS, which is perfectly alright, but you should probably state that in your comment. One just doesn’t go about citing and defending the great lensing in movies that one considers meh at best. At least I don’t and that’s all I’m saying. It’s just a position I would have if I were a voter in any organization.
By your reasoning, we may as well dismiss the achievements of Miami Heat because someone doesn’t like don’t Lebron James’s hairstyle.
Now this doesn’t make any sense and it doesn’t reflect my logic at all. Movie awards are just opinions, or the collective opinion of a majority, and yes you can dismiss a Best Cinematography award if the movie is complete garbage. Hell you can even do it if the movie is great. It’s just an opinion. So you are just dismissing something that happens to be a group of people’s favorite. NO BIG DEAL about that.
And no, you cannot dismiss the Heat’s championship just because you absolutely despise the hoards of new bandwagoners who claim to be “fans of the HEAT”. Why? Because they won a competition and objectively demonstrated to be the best by a measurably scoring more points.
Anyways he explains this very point it much better than I ever could:
http://youtu.be/SAVxp9GtuvM?t=1m17s
excuse my html mess lol
im sure you can make sense of that.
He is certainly one of the best in the American film industry.