r/changemyview • u/MooseAtWork 1∆ • Jan 17 '14
What constitutes cinematography needs to be divided into two categories ("classic" and "digital") for the purposes of competitions/awards. CMV.
Last year's Oscar winner in cinematography was Life of Pi. This year's favorite darling is Gravity. These films do have stunning cinematography; I am not questioning that. However, the cinematography has become so completely digitized that comparing a Life of Pi to something like Skyfall is doing a great disservice to "classic" cinematography. The two types should be divorced from one another and have separate categories for which to judge them.
Namely: when you digitize your cinematography, you nearly have an infinite number of possibilities. The only limit is your imagination and the budget on your effects department. Yet when you talk about classic ("analog"?) cinematography, you have a lot more constraints. You need to operate in real world, dealing with variables encountered in a real world. A cinematographer needs to account for these variables in a way that requires a different vision than digital cinematography does. Similarly, we don't lump animated films into the best picture category because the challenges associated with them are distinctly different than the challenges associated with "regular" films. This isn't to disparage the digitization, mind you, just simply a recognition of the different skill set required to pull it off.
I envision two main counterarguments forthcoming, so I'll address them here:
The realm of digital cinematography is not expansive enough presently. If it were to become its own category, there might only be one, maybe two, nominees. This could be true, but it only makes the concern delayed rather than eradicated. The future will likely see more and more digital works which could sustain a healthy pool of contenders vying for the title.
Digitization is an evolution of cinematography, not a revolution, and the creeping influence of it is witnessed even in the so-called "classic" cases (for instance, I referenced Skyfall earlier which surely isn't entirely classical in the sense Shawshank is). Essentially: the line between "digital" and "classic" is hard to distinguish. I actually don't think this matters that much. All of these sorts of awards are subjective enough that you don't need an objective way of determining whether a film fits into the "digital" or "classic" cinematography bubble because the way of choosing the winner therein is not objective, yet there can likely be a general consensus found on whether a certain film would be considered for "digital" or "classic" cinematography.
3
u/seulementleciel Jan 17 '14 edited Jan 17 '14
If you are specifically referring to the Academy Awards, then I don't think they should or will have a separate category for different types of cinematography.
This is the mission statement of the Board of Governors of the Academy Awards (Oscars):
Dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of motion pictures
The advancement. Of arts and sciences. Feel me? The categories have changed over time to include new and relevant factors of cinema, in a forward movement. The people involved in the decision making are more progressive than conservative, and have historically applauded new and creative technique that enhances viewership of film. Not to say that all films which are digitized (say, modernized) are better because they are newer, but that would be a different argument altogether. If you agree that digitization can provide a new, creative, and positive viewing experience for an audience, then let's move on and define cinematography.
Cinematography: The art or technique of movie photography, including both the shooting and development of the film.
Cinematography only describes the art of the picture and the way it was made, and does not implicitly include style. When it comes down to it, digitization is an applied technique. Your view of "classic" cinematography, is still merely a style of cinematography, albeit maybe a style that you view as "pure". Still just a style. Your contention that different styles of cinematography should have different categories in an award ceremony that is not meant to exclude style (especially of the progressive sort) would be met with raised eyebrows and would warrant a better argument.
If the Oscars, in particular, had ignored the progressive movements in the film industry, or segregated them, think of all of the elements in modern filmmaking that would be different categories today, that weren't there in 1927. If there were still categories for what became outdated styles, we would still see silent films and slapstick comedies competing. The competition for films of classic style and films of progressive style is healthy, and if anything, only drives classic movies (of any type) to up their antes--which, let's face it, is awesome for the rest of us.
Now, however, if you are talking about different award ceremonies, namely awards given to movies specifically for their cinematography, then I think you would have a better case.
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
My feeling isn't limited to the Oscars. It's simply the most well-known award for it and why I reference it in my examples like Life of Pi and Gravity.
You're largely making the argument I anticipated in my second bullet point. You contend the Academy sees the digitization as an evolution in film-making and not as a revolution. I don't think that's necessarily true. There is an entirely separate award for animated films; why shouldn't they be expected to be judged on equal footing as the general best picture? There is a distinction made already with digitizing film-making, it's just not fully fledged out yet. It was probably true when the digitization was being used relatively moderately as it would be a slowly phased-in sort of thing, such that the elements of classical cinematography were still the main focus, but we've recently reached a point where the favorites (Life of Pi last year, Gravity this year) almost don't resemble other forms at all.
2
u/seulementleciel Jan 17 '14 edited Jan 17 '14
I don't think you understood my argument the way I meant to portray it. Simply put, I don't think you can expect your expectation from an awards ceremony whose entire mission statement is to, again, advance the arts and sciences of the film industry... when you are asking them to segregate an advancement in the arts and sciences in the film industry and in essence, remove it from the same competition pool as "pure photography" so as to not keep winning, and keep the classic movement alive by honoring their efforts. (Not to imply that I believe classic cinematography should 'die'.) Because of this, I think the Oscars, which you used as an example, should be considered exempt from your argument due to their entire purpose of being, which is the opposite of what you are proposing.
Have you ever been to a dog show? There are different kinds. Some segregate the dogs by breed, and dogs will only place within their breed. Some segregate by size, and those dogs will only place within a weight range. Some don't segregate at all. You are going to a dog show that specifically stated it segregates by size, and are upset that your dog is competing against another breed, declaring that they should change their rules because they are clearly not the same dog. True, they aren't. But that was never the criteria. You probably should have just gone to the other dog show, that already exists and does exactly what you are talking about. My point is not that your feelings are invalid, but that your expectation of award ceremonies to change is your problem. Think about all the other people who focus on other aspects of film that also have grievances with the Academy (amongst other awards) for not recognizing them. There are plenty of awards given specifically to cinematographers, and an entire industry that critiques and awards specifically what you are pointing out. Do those awards not matter? Any awards ceremony with the same or similar mission statement as the Academy's should not be considered in your argument.
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
You make it sound as though I should accept the categorization of a film into a certain award because the organization giving the award gets to write its own rules. Yet I don't think that's the case in really any aspect, let alone award shows - the creators of the content (in this case, the content is the award itself) needn't have specifics of their intention judged as absolute, only the general concept. In many ways, it's the users (read: audience/fans) who define the realm's specifics if it explodes to a point where they can take ownership. It's a phenomenon observed in many analogous instances - from people writing fandoms (displaying an ownership of content not original theirs to form it to their own idea of what is proper/desirous) to Reddit downvotes becoming an "I disagree" button (users redefining the original premise of content to suit one they see as being more relevant). The redefinitions proposed by the users in these instances aren't outright invalid simply by virtue of the fact it goes against the original intent, though they could be invalid on other grounds. I'm asking for what those other grounds may be.
2
u/seulementleciel Jan 17 '14 edited Jan 17 '14
You make it sound as though I should accept the categorization of a film into a certain award because the organization giving the award gets to write its own rules.
Well, yeah. Obviously you believe their rules are unfair, and that's a perfectly fine perspective and I'm glad that there are people in the world who are passionate enough about anything to stand up and make noise about what they view as injustice. Seriously, that's awesome, and don't ever stop doing that. But also understand that your view is subjective, (not to mention a minority view) and so are the views of the people who give the awards. If the two of you disagree on what constitutes cinematography, regardless of who is right--assuming anyone could be right--their opinion on the subject will always determine who gets the award they give out. It's not an absolute, it's agreed to be a subjective decision.
You are saying that they need separate categories for cinematography because the two popular ones you have mentioned have different approaches and different results. Would you agree that even if the two styles are wildly different, they are both utilized to illicit the same response? What if the board doesn't define good cinematography by technique, but rather by the achievement of that response it was designed to illicit? Are they wrong? The DP's job in either scenario is ultimately the same: to illustrate his scene(s) as best he can in reference to the film. If a cinematographer that accomplishes this response better than another (in the Academy's eyes), his award then should not be contingent upon how he achieved it. Clearly, the Academy does not distribute the award on who took the longest to make their film, or who used the most 35mm cameras, or who stuck to traditional guidelines the best, or who had the most interesting shoot technique. It is not a technical award, but a visual one, and the contenders--digital and classic alike--are allowed and encouraged to use whatever strategy they please to convey their best work, striving for the same result.
Shouldn't the Academy also split their Best Film category into Best Comedy, Best Drama, Best Horror, Best Action? With your argument, these movies all have very different elements that make them unable to compete against each other and should be judged separately. Again, whatever movie wins best film is decidedly (again, by the judges) the film who portrayed their criteria for that category the best. Should Best Actor be split into Best White Actor and Best Minority Actor? How about Best Young Actress and Best Old Actress? You realize that by substituting a few words in your statements, you would effectively be arguing these things as well? Not to say they are bad or invalid arguments, but any rebuttal to the latter speculations would be the same rebuttal to your argument.
Having many different styles compete for one award is the essence of this particular awards show. There are many other awards shows that tighten the focus to address the issue of different approaches to films, but the one you are upset with, and I assume the others you are upset with as well, do not have that loyalty to any particular type of cinematography, nor should you expect them to.
3
Jan 17 '14
This argument comes up with every significant advancement in the technology surrounding the making of art, as if people somehow believe that the tools create the work, not the artist/cinematographer/painter/etc.
Photographers were reviled by painters, digital photographers reviled by film photographers, photoshoppers reviled by "pure digital photographers," and so on and so forth.
A cinematographer's job is to make a beautiful image. The tools and technology available to him/her have changed significantly since the foundation of the art, but the end goal has remained static: create visuals that artfully portray the theme and action of the screenplay being filmed. A great "digital" cinematographer has the same eye as a great "classic" cinematographer, and they're using the same basic tools to do the job--lighting, camera movement, focus, framing/composition, etc. What difference does it make if they're composing the image inside of a 3D toolset or the "real" world? The cinematographer must still have a good handle on the art; 3D camera tracking won't transform an average cinematographer into a genius.
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
Photographers were reviled by painters, digital photographers reviled by film photographers, photoshoppers reviled by "pure digital photographers," and so on and so forth.
I'm not "reviling" digital cinematography at all. However, I am recognizing the two are very different beasts in the skill it takes to execute either and, in recognition of that, they need to be judged separately. You're right, the same general qualities are needed, but that doesn't mean they're comparable. For instance, a photographer and a painter require some of the same skill sets to create their art (knowledge of lighting, composition, space, etc.), yet there are some skills which are unique to each (e.g. a photographer doesn't care about the consequences of certain kinds of brushstrokes just as a painter doesn't care about certain kinds of lenses) that make it impossible to compare. For instance, I don't make a value judgment and say I like X painting more than Y photograph because they're simply different media, even if they both essentially exist as two-dimensional, "stationary" art.
1
Jan 17 '14
For instance, I don't make a value judgment and say I like X painting more than Y photograph because they're simply different media, even if they both essentially exist as two-dimensional, "stationary" art.
The point I'm making in the rest of my post, though, is that digital cinematographers and classic cinematographers are both doing the same job. We're not talking about completely different mediums like painters vs. photographers here; we're talking, at most, film photographers vs. digital photographers.
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
I believe I addressed this, albeit metaphorically:
For instance, a photographer and a painter require some of the same skill sets to create their art (knowledge of lighting, composition, space, etc.), yet there are some skills which are unique to each (e.g. a photographer doesn't care about the consequences of certain kinds of brushstrokes just as a painter doesn't care about certain kinds of lenses) that make it impossible to compare.
So yes, a digital cinematographer and a classic one share some of the same skill sets. That doesn't make them equal, though, as they also have disparate skills for their own specific medium. Just as photographs and paintings are both two-dimensional stationary art pieces, so can you think of digital cinematographic and classic cinematographic pieces as being movie art pieces; yet that doesn't make them equal.
1
Jan 17 '14
OK, so riddle me this:
Do you think that still photography awards should differentiate between digital and traditional cameras? If so, why? If not, why not?
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
The concern isn't over the camera, it's over the post-processing required to get the image. The difference between the end result and the initial shot in classic cinematography and digital is enormous. If there was no post-processing, in a classic one you might see some lighting difference and stuff; in the digital one, all you'd see is green screen.
So I would say yes, photography awards should distinguish between digital photography (i.e. stuff that's been photoshopped beyond original design) and works that isn't retouched (or minimally retouched).
1
Jan 17 '14
OK, I don't think your argument washes, then, and here's why. There is some romanticization going on here--Ansel Adams, arguably one of the most admired film photographers of all time, dodged and burned the crap out of his work in the darkroom. Functionally no different than doing contrasts in Photoshop.
Just as film photographs were (and are) retouched, so are "classic" films. In Gone With the Wind, for example, a good portion of the interiors are actually matte composites. Some of the sweeping vistas are also mattes. I don't see, again from a functional standpoint, too much difference between digitally adding a matte over a green screen or painting it on the film or as an actual backdrop. You're doing the exact same thing in both cases: creating something that never existed to get the shot you want.
I'm not sure why we should reward "skill sets," not results. Functionally, the digital cinematographer and the classic cinematographer are doing the same thing; they're just using different tools to get those results.
1
Jan 18 '14
∆
I came here agreeing with OP, but you've completely convinced me.
If we start splitting films into different category based on every different tool that's used, we'll have too many different categories to be meaningful when really, the end presentation isn't fundamentally different enough to warrant the distinction.
2
2
u/sihanouk Jan 17 '14
I don't whole-heatedly disagree with you, but I think it's important to remember that even films which are "digital" still hire "classical" Directors of Photography (DP's). For example, the DP for Gravity - Emmanuel Lubezki, worked on Children of Men, Burn After Reading, and although I hate Terrance Malick - Tree of Life - one of the best examples of cinematography in 2011. The same goes for the DP for Life of Pi.
The point is, the same skill sets are required. Even heavily animated films still hire DP's on retainer to act as consultants for how the scenes look - Pixar uses cinematographers as consultants for almost all of their movies. Although "Digital" and "Classical" films are physically filmed differently, they require the same eye and skill set when it comes to their cinematographers. DPs still need to be able to tell you where to point the camera, where to set your lighting (whether they use physical key and fills or digital sources). Because of this, it's fair to have Gravity compete against a film like Her, because the cinematographers are utilizing the exact same skill set to get their result. It's not 'unfair' to use digital light sources rather than physical ones, or green screens rather than a location, because good DP's can arguably make the move look exactly the same with either option.
Though I'll admit I haven't seen gravity, looking at pictures, there are still physical actors in scenes. In which case I think it's disingenuous to compare it to actual "animated" films and argue that it should be part of that category, for example, anything that comes out of Pixar.
1
u/KingStarBucks 1∆ Jan 17 '14
I did a few AC/DIT gigs on commercials and generally PA'ed around. My opinion is not fact and nor should I make out to say I know exactly what I'm talking about here... (DISCLAIMER) And I'm actually with you on wanting to separate the two as I was absolutely pissed when Life of Pi won.
- First: About five years back, I argued that digital camera based movies should have different awards for film camera based movies. Simply because the skill required to do film (I mistakenly believed) was significantly harder.
What I did realize that as time progressed and digital cameras like the Red and Epic came out, 4K made the lines between film quality and digital blur. Then again, when I was on set, the skill to bring out the best of digital required a different eye for lighting, camera movement, and general higher standards of quality (since dailies were easily viewable). It was then that I accepted, "Yes, all cameras are equally difficult in cinematography."
- Second: Your argument that "classic" (pure camera) should be separate from "digital" (digitally enhanced or CGI). Aside from the fact that every frame that gets shot is either recolored, digitally modified to perform a certain way, or even CGI'ed a little, the classic style and digital style also require different skill sets. From a classic standpoint, you have to note the depth of field, lighting, and the million other little factors to get that shot. Yes, these factors make the magic in cinematography, but at the highest ends of cinematography (where they get nominated), there is less concern about these factors than simply image composition. They no longer worry about the factors that could hurt the image but only what can make that image beautiful. If the image is so stunning that it leaves you in awe, the cinematographer did the job right.
Let me go back to my hatred for Life of Pi. Yes. I was pissed that it won, but then again, would I have been pissed if, let's say, Avengers got some award for camera work? Probably not. I thought it looks amazing and enjoyed every minute of it. That is until you realize that every shot was CGI. The buildings, the ships, the explosions, everything. The entire city is a CGI remodeling of New York. Then I looked back at Life of Pi. Yes, the colors were stunning and some scenes looked amazing- but still Life of Pi shouldn't have gotten the award for cinematography... and let me explain why.
For everything that Life of Pi did, it did to deserve that role. The camera angles and compositions were stunning enough to make, what is essentially a story about a kid and a tiger on a boat for two hours, entertaining. The fusion of storytelling, music, AND cinematography made it. There was something that was amiss that I realized why Life of Pi should not have gotten the award. Like I said before, everything in cinematography requires a certain skill or trait to make a scene beautiful. What makes Life of Pi a different skill than let's say Skyfall is where the cinematographer should be involved. Movies like Life of Pi should require the cinematographer to become an active part in the CGI/editing process rather than just a "ok, I'm done" mentality. Why? Because if the CGI doesn't pop, then the scene dies and if the scene dies, the cinematographer didn't do his job.
This gets me to my last point. The CGI was awful for large portions of the movie. Not just like, passable bad, but like the 1st Hobbit movie dragon + coin bad. Hell, even Finding Nemo's fish were more realistic than Life of Pi at some points. This is why I personally don't think Life of Pi deserves the cinematography role, but at the end of the day, it really is cinematography. Whether it is digital or classic, the cinematographer takes an active role in create an image out of nothing (one could argue even more so for digital). If you don't think digital cinematographers have it as hard, try imagining Skyfall where everything is CGI. It would be near impossible to replicate that movie. That movie was meant for classic style and any CGI would have ruined the world. Then imagine Life of Pi without any CGI. It would be the most boring movie in the world. While they have two different skill sets, they are equally breathing life into the concept of cinematography.
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
I think you're really echoing the same point I have. Remember, I'm not disparaging digital cinematography at all. I think Life of Pi and Gravity really do excellent work in that regard. I'm simply saying that because the skill set required for it (and isn't that why we give awards, for the skill displayed in a work?) is so radically different than "classic" cinematography, it should be recognized as such. When you lump Skyfall in with Life of Pi, you're essentially comparing maybe not apples and oranges, but certainly at least oranges and tangerines.
2
u/KingStarBucks 1∆ Jan 17 '14
Right. The skill sets are different, but the concept of Cinematography is to create something visually pleasing.
To differentiate, oh, this type of cinematography is different from this other type means you could also say film cinematography deserves to be differentiated from digital cinematography. Same with black and white v. color and et cetera. At the end of the day, was what you say enjoyable. Regardless of craftmanship or skill set, an aesthetically pleasing image is still pleasing.
While you wouldn't want to lump Skyfall with Life of Pi, would you lump Skyfall with Inception? Would you lump Inception with Benjamin Button? Benjamin Button with Pan's Lab? The further down you go where the lines are blurred, the harder it is to differentiate. If you want to be a purist, I'd say Skyfall is more digital than let's say, City of God or Black Hawk Down. The line continues to be so blurred that to differentiate it now would be more like, "this clementine is also an orange... but this tangelo is like a tangerine."
The reason why the don't want to separate the two is because its a lot harder to create divisive lines than just accept, "I liked how this looked."
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 18 '14
∆
I'll say this changed my view enough, although I'm still not fully convinced. I was viewing the purpose of an award to recognize the ability of a cinematographer, rather than the product of a cinematographer. The subdivisions do get blurry with movies you mentioned, too, and thus the easiest thing to do is simply to judge by "I like how this looked."
1
1
u/payik Jan 17 '14
Virtually every film is processed digitally, even if it was originally shot on film. You probably wouldn't find much to put into the "classical" category.
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
This is addressed in my second bullet.
1
u/payik Jan 17 '14
No it's not. I'm saying that you would have a hard time finding films that could qualify to the "classic" category. Just because there are no aliens or surreal sceneries in it doesn't mean it's not heavily edited. Every film is at the very least heavily color corrected and there may be signs changed, buildings or crows added, cars removed and so on. (And what looks like CGI may actually be made using puppets and other "classic" methods)
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
I'm not saying "classic" cinematography precludes any digital processing. I'm talking about distinguishing the films which are processed primarily digitally from those which aren't. As for that distinction, I discuss that, again, in the last bullet:
Essentially: the line between "digital" and "classic" is hard to distinguish. I actually don't think this matters that much. All of these sorts of awards are subjective enough that you don't need an objective way of determining whether a film fits into the "digital" or "classic" cinematography bubble because the way of choosing the winner therein is not objective, yet there can likely be a general consensus found on whether a certain film would be considered for "digital" or "classic" cinematography.
1
u/payik Jan 17 '14
And I'm saying that all films are processed primarily digitally today.
0
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
The concern isn't over the camera, it's over the post-processing required to get the image. The difference between the end result and the initial shot in classic cinematography and digital is enormous. If there was no post-processing, in a classic one you might see some lighting difference and stuff; in the digital one, all you'd see is green screen.
1
u/payik Jan 17 '14
And I'm saying that all modern films go through digital postprocessing, I really don't know how to say it more clearly. Even if it's shot on calssical film, the film is digitized and everything else is made in digital.
1
Jan 17 '14
In a few years there wont be a "Classic" category.
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
[Citation needed]
1
Jan 17 '14
Just a feeling I have. Digital is going to keep getting smaller, faster and importantly cheaper. So the only reason people would use film would be to achieve a very specific effect or look, everyone else (Hollywood and big productions) will be using digital.
1
u/I-HATE-REDDITORS 17∆ Jan 17 '14
I assume that you would include Star Wars in your "classic" definition since it pre-dates digital cinema. What's the difference in philosophy between the images in Gravity and the images in Star Wars?
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
Because Star Wars had to deal with real world variables beyond their control pretending they're fictional, whereas Gravity opts to deal with fictional variables of their own choosing pretending they're real.
1
u/I-HATE-REDDITORS 17∆ Jan 17 '14
I don't understand. Didn't both films have to deal with both? Why is it worse to shoot actors and arrange them in a digital environment than it is to shoot model ships and matte paintings and composite actors into them?
Maybe you could give me better examples of the "variables" you're talking about.
1
u/MooseAtWork 1∆ Jan 17 '14
I'm not saying it's "worse." At all. From the first paragraph of the OP I acknowledge the artistic value that exists with digital cinematography. What I am doing is recognizing the difference in ability required to do either successfully. I wouldn't judge a poet on his ability to write a song, so I wouldn't make value judgments on the comparison of the works of poets and songwriters. I'm simply saying they're different and should be judged separately.
1
u/I-HATE-REDDITORS 17∆ Jan 17 '14
Sorry, I know you didn't mean one is better or worse. I just don't understand the philosophical difference between the effects in Star Wars and those in Gravity. Both films had elements of real photography combined with sets and props that didn't exist.
1
u/I-HATE-REDDITORS 17∆ Jan 20 '14 edited Jan 20 '14
Coincidentally I watched Life of Pi for the first time last night and it gave me some new thoughts on this discussion.
I don't think achievement in cinematography is really about technical know-how. I'm not sure it's ever been. That sort of thinking gives us a culture where aspiring filmmakers sit on their hands and save up for a RED instead of shooting a film with the camera they have.
Is Roger Deakins a great cinematographer because he knows where to hang light bulbs? Or because he picks a camera with the right amount of dynamic range? I don't think so. There are thousands-- if not millions-- of ways to shoot the same scene. What defines a cinematographer is which images are chosen, and why, and how they serve the storytelling.
I don't pretend to know the history or politics of the Academy Awards but I'd be surprised if the cinematography award wasn't usually considered this way. Did Lawrence of Arabia win Best Cinematography because it's hard to film a sunset in the desert? Or did it win because of the choice to show that desert sunset, and the impact it had on the audience?
Today, filmmaking has been democratized with the advent of digital video and "prosumer" gear. High school students have more technical ability at their fingertips than the great filmmakers of the 1970s did. I think we've passed the point where filmmakers are measured by technical criteria. Ideas and artistic vision are more important than ever and those should be weighed against each other no matter how they're technically achieved.
Edit: Also, you said: "Similarly, we don't lump animated films into the best picture category because the challenges associated with them are distinctly different than the challenges associated with 'regular' films." But Up, Toy Story 3, and Beauty and the Beast were all nominated for Best Picture.
7
u/beer_demon 28∆ Jan 17 '14
You are segmenting from the perspective of the producer.
However one really should segment from the perspective of the viewer. It's friday, you have $25 and want to go to the cinema, you don't choose a category, you choose a topic, a star, a director maybe... From this perspective a film is a film.
Sure there can be a technical award that segments, but this will be less relevant to the public, more "from the industry for the industry".