To be fair, there was blood on the lens in Saving Private Ryan too.

...and Braveheart. Maybe its the common denominator for who wins Oscars in cinematography

Nice, Jeff. Having yourself immortalized by a great cinematographer with your own camera. His idea or yours? (not knocking ya, I'd have done the same thing. Get an interview with Matthew Libatique next.)

The blood on the lens is nothing new, it's pretty much a horror staple. But I believe this guy has got to win the award.

There wasn't a film that I got more into all year than Children of Men. Usually I pick apart films while I'm watching them, shot selection, editing, etc. But I looked over all that for two hours, because of the realistic cinematography. The long unbroken shots were jawdropping in the complexity of what must have been going on behind the scenes, but I really didn't think about it till it was over, because I was so drawn into the story.

An amazing film all around, really can't believe that Little Miss Sunshine got nominated for Best Picture over this.

Will anyone work with Michael Mann anymore?

Children of Men is going to be one those DVDs that I'll pop in as a refresher as to how great movies can be when I get sick and tired of seeing crappy movies.

Thanks Jeff. I'm lovin' it. Felt like I was there at the table. Wish I were.

"The sheer brilliance of those three (or is it four or five?) long uncut action sequences are not just exciting or breathtaking -- they signify a turning of the page. No serious action film will be shot in quite the same way hence; Children of Men has heightened the bar."

More-or-less agreed... but is it REALLY fair to hand this fellow (nice though he seems) and this film the "you started it" honor for a cinematography gag that neither can claim even a modicum of credit for inventing or even perfecting?

I mean... we've been seeing Hong Kong and Japan going to town on the prolonged-uncut-action-scene kick for years now. Chinese action films especially have generally favored minimally-edited longform takes, going back to it's early days when doing so evolved out of ecomonic reasons to avoid superfluous cutting.

And as much as I did appreciate what was done in CoM's scenes of this style, none of them impressed me the way this bit from "Tom Yum Goong" ("The Protector" here):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ89DmF5Mh0

There's a BIG difference in terms of artistic quality between that clip on youtube and Children of Men. In that clip i give alot of credit to the stuntmen and action choreographer for making a video game like simulation of a guy running around and kicking ass. Children of Men's scenes were thought up and lensed by some truly artistic individuals. They actually had to rig a car just so they could get some very demanding and eye popping shots, not to mention sustain a thrilling action sequence. It's 100% imagination with Cuaron and Lubezki, and they created a very unique film because of it. The long take sequences are done in such a way that they don't really call as much attention to themselves like the clip above does.

thanks jeff, great interview, really enjoyed it.

Children of Men was astonishing and powerful on so many levels. One of the most astonishing things is that Clive Owen's subtle performance was never mentioned as worthy of an award. He anchored the entire film. Without him, all of the effort to create that world and reality would have gone to waste.

Does anybody, including the writer of HE, actually understand that cinematography is first and foremost LIGHTING and not simply camerawork? You can certainly credit Lubezki and Cuaron for pulling off the long takes, but that in itself is not "cinematography"; cinematography would be primarily considered Lubezski's LIGHTING during the unbroken takes and choice of lenses and film stock to capture the images. (Which, compared to other work in 2006 and much of his past work, is only mediocre.)

Jeffrey -- why don't you watch some films by Theo Angelopoulos and Bela Tarr and Miklos Jansco and shitcan this "legendary" nonsense?

"Children of Men's scenes were thought up and lensed by some truly artistic individuals. They actually had to rig a car just so they could get some very demanding and eye popping shots, not to mention sustain a thrilling action sequence. It's 100% imagination with Cuaron and Lubezki, and they created a very unique film because of it."

So, the Tom Yun Goong clip showed no art or imagination? Ah, sweet sweet elitism . . .

Tom Yun Goong doesn't have *any* of the immersiveness or vision that Children of Men has. Looking simply at amount of minutes of rolling footage isn't what admiring Children of Men is about; it's about how the film takes you 'there' so effectively. Sure Tony Jaa is an incredible physical talent who can execute great fight sequences, but the elephant movie sucks.

Fantastic interview. Really great stuff, Jeff. But does anyone think it's peculiar that Lubezki is expressing concern about the fish population, while eating fish. Dude, if you really want to make a difference, stop eating fish.

Yeah, definitely an awesome interview. Great discussion about film versus digital media. His critique of Miami Vice's look is dead-on. I was both intrigued and saddened a bit by his take on Michael Mann, but not surprised. Michael Mann is perhaps my favorite director, but is anyone surprised to learn he may be "difficult" (i.e. an arrogant my-way-or-the-highway asshole)?

We own the same camera, Jeffrey.

It's nice to know that Lubezki at least agrees with me that the ending of Children Of Men was lacking. Otherwise, I thought the film was very solid, and - I'm no expert on cinematography - but the two favorite shots of mine certainly left my jaw on the floor.

I remember seeing Owen in the rowboat, and knowing I'd be completely devastated if the film ended before the boat showed up. So yeah, I agree wtih Lubezki - the film should have ended on that powerful emotion.

This is the best piece I've read on this site, Wells. Good on ya.

I'm so glad that you chose to focus on Lubezki. I don't see how someone couldn't see his cinematography as striking - very interesting to see he's a Kevin Sites fan, too. There's something he aims for that's so sublime but grounded in the real. And he is a magician with light - one need look only at Lemony Snicket's and Sleepy Hollow to see that he can do stylized lighting.

My favorite thing however are the things that are so ephemeral in his work - the flash of real lightning in The New World, the shot in Children of Men that tilts up to catch the breeze through the trees, the completely unlit look of that shot of Clive Owen sitting in the car outside the classroom. Cinematography has for too long been grounded in overkill. As far as coverage goes, I think it comes from too many directors and cinematographers being divorced from editorial - especially when producers require them to shoot coverage knowing that they will take advantage of it in the edit. Which is how advertising and music videos function.

I've told this story before but it's more fitting here... I was a student at the London Film School back in 1999 or so and Piotr Sobocinski came to lecture us on his work. Lubezki was sitting in our crappy screening room like any other student. He came from Pinewood working on Sleepy Hollow to come and learn from another master.

Great Jeff, quite possibly the best thing youve done since Ive started reading here on and off. Film will never die, it will be like vinyl. Especially when you can get a great medium format Rollie for half the cost of a decent Digital SLR.

Interesting anecdote, otakuhouse. If you ask me, Lubezki's work on Children of Men is clearly influenced by Sobocinski's work on The Decalogue. And he took over on Hearts of Atlantis -- a mediocre movie with beautifully photography -- when Sobocinski got ill/died.

Jesse:
"So, the Tom Yun Goong clip showed no art or imagination? Ah, sweet sweet elitism . . ."

Ah, don't be so hard on `em. You spend enough time around "serious" film guys, you learn the language: i.e. "Tom Yum Goong" doesn't count because A.) It's in a genre other than drama, B.) it's not making a political or philosophical statement and C.) it was actually made to be *gasp!* ENJOYED.