« IN MY CADDY | Main | The Dead Dawn Again »
October 16, 2024
Top 10 Cinematographers, Ever
The International Cinematographers Guild has picked its choices for the top 10 most influential cinematographers of all time. (Well, actually, they list 11. Wonder what's up with that?)
Here they are, in alphabetical order.
Billy Bitzer
Jordan Cronenweth
Conrad L. Hall
James Wong Howe
Sven Nykvist
Vittorio Storaro
Gregg Toland
Haskell Wexler
Gordon Willis
Freddie Young
Vilmos Zsigmond
My thoughts? Hard to complain much. Even more interesting is the rest of the top 30: Nestor Almendros, Stanley Cortez, Allen Daviau, Roger Deakins, Caleb Deschanel, George Spiro Dibie, William Fraker, Karl Freund, Janusz Kaminski, Darius Khondji, Laszlo Kovacs, Arthur Miller, Robert Richardson, Owen Roizman, Leon Shamroy, Dante Spinotti, Harry Stradling, Robert Surtees, and John Toll.
I think Gabriel Figueroa (Los Olvidados, for starters) wuz robbed and would put Christopher Doyle in my own personal top 10 just for his lyrical work with Wong Kar-wai, but this is interesting stuff suggests a whole new methodology for attacking the canon at your local well-stocked video emporium.
I don't see anything about this at the official ICG site, but I did find documentation of the guild's entertaining dust-up with The Los Angeles Times over some comments Robert Rodriguez recently made about the difference between photographic and digital cinematography ...
Posted by Bryant at October 16, 2024 04:03 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.deep-focus.com/pcgi-bin/MT-2.21/mt-tb.cgi/28
Comments
Three of the great cinematographers of all-time, Coutard, Doyle, and Miyagawa, are nowhere to be found. No one worked with natural light and lightweight cameras better than Coutard, and not naming any cinematographers from the photography-rich Asian cinemas is a disgrace. Is there any other cinema more oriented around lighting and framing as the Japanese?
Posted by: Ryan at October 17, 2024 09:22 PM
Real good call on Coutard, although I'm ashamed to say I don't recognize Miyagawa's name right off the bat. As influential as Asian cinema has been, I'm not sure how conscious U.S. filmmakers are of that influence. People think of Kurosawa, of course, but they're rarely aware of his collaborators. OK, IMDb tells me that Miyagawa is the guy who shot Yojimbo and Drifting Weeds, among many others. Yes, definitely, he's The Man, and would be even if those were the only two films he ever shot.
In partial defense of the ICG, they did cast this as "most influential cinematographers" rather than "best." Although Chris Doyle is arguably the most influential cinematographer of the last 10 years, I suppose his rep with the aging Guild members isn't so high. Then again, by that criterion, why did Khondji make the list and not Doyle, his rough contemporary?
-bf-
Posted by: Bryant at October 18, 2024 10:49 AM
I'm amazed that Jack Cardiff went unmentioned (B.'s "influential" comment probably comes into play here). What I've seen of the man's work (thinking esp. of THE RED SHOES and the wholly eccentric coloring in the BAREFOOT CONTESSA) is astounding. If there is a heaven I want it to be photographed like A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH.
Posted by: Richard at October 18, 2024 01:04 PM
Hard to complain much?! Where's Claude Renoir? Russell Metty? Raoul Coutard? Michael Ballhaus? John Alton? Gianni Di Venanzo? Christopher Doyle? Sacha Vierny? Kazuo Miyagawa? Slawomir Idziak? Boris Kaufman? Robert Burks? Henri Decae? Robby Muller? Ghislain Cloquet? Eugen Schufftan? Lee Garmes? Tonino Delli Colli? Freddie Francis? Setsuo Kobayashi? Jack Cardiff? Ray Rennahan? Lucien Ballard? Bert Glennon? Leonce-Henri Burel?
Posted by: Eddie at October 18, 2024 03:37 PM
OK, clearly there's a Hollywood-centrism to the list. I concur in a big way on the greatness of Cardiff and Vierny, just for starters. And on reflection I'd say it is pretty conservative. But for what it is -- contemporary cinematographers, guild members actually, citing the influences on their own work -- I think it's interesting and embarrassing only in its failure to head overseas.
Posted by: Bryant at October 18, 2024 04:58 PM
Here's the link to the ICG list on their own site:
http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?news/guild/guild_selects.htm~top.main_hp
Keep in mind that this is just an American organization, which would explain the amount of back-patting you see in the rest of the top 30 list. I don't think this list was ever intended to be international. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, everyone on the damn list was an ASC member (which Christopher Doyle is not).
The top 11 list isn't embarrassing, they are all great cinematographers, but the rest of the list just seems to be the most popular working cinematographers. Outside of the top 11, they seem to have forgotten everything except for the last 30-40 years of Hollywood filmmaking, which is a pretty limited scope.
Posted by: Jun-Dai at October 20, 2024 02:16 PM
Another addition: Mark Lee Ping-Bin is one of the best cinematographers working today (for my money, he and Chris Doyle are pretty much tied for the top spot), although I suppose I couldn't justify calling him influential, as few have seen a film by Hou Hsiao-hsien. That said, his work on Millennium Mambo, In the Mood for Love, Vertical Ray of the Sun, Flowers of Shanghai, Goodbye South Goodbye and Puppetmaster certainly deserves recognition.
Posted by: Jason at November 10, 2023 12:16 PM
As a 25 year member of the International Cinematographers Guild, I had to pick myself off the floor from uncontrolled laughter when I saw Director of Photography George Spiro Dibie in the Top 30 Cinematographers! Are you kidding? This guy was for years a hack videotape lighting director from the "flood the set with light" school of lighting. He was more of, if he was compared to a famous painter, a Jackson Pollock type in that he didn't "paint with light," but rather tossed a gallon of paint at a time on the "canvas." Listing Dibie, who hasn't even one single major motion picture credit, on the list, is a grievous insult to the true artists that are! He has been president of the International Cinematographer's Guild for a long time, caused enormous division within its ranks, and could only have gotten on this list by a letter writing campaign instigated by his bootlicks. So, they're saying a television (videotape/film) director of photography (which is what he is; a cinematographer is someone who works in the cinema, as in cinematographer, as in theatrical release motion pictures!) that shot such high "lighting art" as "Sister, Sister," "Growing Pains," "Night Court," "Mr. Belvedere," is an influential cinematographer!!!??
What a joke. Who packed the ballot box? The guys got several videotape show Emmy's for the sitcoms he does, but sitcom cameramen have never, ever been "cinematographers." Not only that, for years we didn't even let them in the camera guild because we did consider their work "creative!" I worked 30 years in feature film camera, with some of Hollywood's greatest cinematographers doing feature films, and a cinematographer was, without exception, a cameraman that did feature films, period! The American Society of Cinematographers has, in recent years, allowed in cameramen from television, and they can add A.S.C. to the end of their name. But, are they actually cinematographers? Absolutely not. I've seen Dibie's name listed as "Cinematographer George Dibie." He is not a cinematographer, and he cheapens the prestige of the A.S.C. by insisting on using that as his title. For all of us who work or have worked in feature films, his use of this title of "cinematographer" is so laughable as to be pathetic. If he's a cinematographer, how come he's not lighting feature films like John Toll, Allen Daviau, or even the dozens of lesser cinematographers not even listed. How the heck did he even get on this list? His creative influence factor in film is non-existent! His membership can only be in lieu of his contributions to the camera union as president under which his tenure the unemployment rate of its members has plummented to historical lows. He is not a feature film "cinematographer," and he never will be, and thus not a "cinematographer." "Growing Pains?," "Night Court?" are you kidding!
Posted by: Dr. Stephen Tate at March 23, 2024 01:42 PM
My 12 year old son posted my response from a copy I originally wrote that he found on my desk, but did not plan on sending (unedited) it with e-mail address or my full name. The opinion, and information speak for themselves. Thanks, son. But, it is accurate except for the line, "For years we didn't even let them in the camera guild because we "didn't" consider their work "creative." That's true. It says "did" in the unedited version my nucklehead son sent. And, what about 12 time Academy Award nominee George Folsey, Sr., and 4 time Academy Award Winner (and 10 nominations) Cinematographer Joseph Ruttenberg? And Dibie was listed above these guys? And in television sitcoms, George La Fountaine, and Gerald Finnerman were far better creative directors of photography, and Finnerman started in feature films as Harry Stradling, Srs. camera operator, and Star Trek's first cameraman.
Posted by: Steve at March 23, 2024 02:06 PM