How did this not get a Best Cinematography nomination at the Oscars?

They nominated Danny Cohen for "Les Misérables" and completely ignored Robert Richardson for "Django Unchained” in 2012. Please tell me exactly how almost three hours of unbearably cheap looking, handheld claustrophobic emotional torture porn constitutes as groundbreaking or awards deserving cinematography (at least “The Danish Girl” looks like Tom Hooper and Danny Cohen decided to put that shtick in the backseat and try for something different); even the Academy was smart enough not to fall for that crap twice in a row, especially after how they and a number of other awards bodies threw away a nomination on "The King's Speech” that could have gone to something more picturesque like “Shutter Island” or “127 Hours” or the first half of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” or a smaller film such as “Another Year” or “The Killer Inside Me”? And need I dredge back up that they considered “Nine” to have incredible cinematography (but at least they, unlike the Academy, didn’t throw the award away on “Avatar” and instead awarded “The White Ribbon”, so that’s one thing they have in their favor)? Just because a certain awards body recognizes a movie doesn't mean it genuinely is the best. I'd think the Academy's nominating "American Sniper", "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" and "Crash" among other films should be a testament to not putting complete faith in what the certain awards bodies think.

* I can’t testify for “Hamlet”’s cinematography as I never got to see it (being 10 years old at the time of its original release, my knowledge and appreciation of Shakespearean adaptations by Kenneth Branagh was undeveloped at the time. Kids, am I right?), but the image that’s been used to promote it of Hamlet standing in the grand hallway with the flower petals falling around him and what I’ve seen in the previews does look to be a great iconic image and a proper use of the format. That, I’ll wait and see if one of the Cinematheques screens soon.

That’s also kind of cute that you think I’m only defending “The Master”’s cinematography because you assume that’s the only 70mm film I could possibly have seen in my life and that I can’t possibly grasp what other films have accomplished on any celluloid related format, despite the fact that I have seen “Barry Lyndon” in a print several times (including the print the Academy struck two summers ago for their archives), “The Red Shoes”, a rare print of “Star Wars” owned by five people that was seen at the North Carolina School of the Arts a long time ago, “Suspiria”, Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, “To the Wonder”, “The Thing”, “3 Women”, “There Will Be Blood”, etc etc etc. I guess that’s the beauty of living in Los Angeles: a number of revival theaters at your disposal surrounded by studios that still house their 35mm prints and haven’t completely done away with them, although I still have yet to see “Lawrence of Arabia” on the big screen, in 70mm or in general; guess I’m just waiting for the right opportunity.

I also never said anything about “The Master” being one of the best movies of all time in terms of cinematography - that’s your condescension directed at theswimmer0 speaking - but I do hold it to the same level of cinematography that I’ve seen Emmanuel Lubezki do with Terrence Malick’s movies, Robert Richardson with Tarantino’s, even Manuel Claro Alberto with von Trier’s despite the fact that “Nymph()maniac” never received a 35mm release anywhere in the world (to my knowledge). As for the other directors and cinematographers you hold it up to, yes, I would say “The Master” can and will be held in the same regards as Gordon Willis’ iconic “Manhattan” shot or what he accomplished in the “Godfather” trilogy or Owen Roizman’s iconic “Exorcist” shot or even what he accomplished with “Tootsie”.

I can name a list of movies I’ve had the fortune of seeing on the big screen in 70mm both living in Los Angeles and when the Cineplex Odeon back in Houston, TX was still running before they did away with it:

“2001: A Space Odyssey”
“Apocalypse Now”
“Baraka”
“Doctor Zhivago”
“Edward Scissorhands”
“Fantasia”
“It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World”
“The Sound of Music”
“Total Recall”
“Vertigo”
“West Side Story”

and I can confidently say that “The Master” has set a precedence for what can be achieved in modern 70mm cinematography (I didn’t see “Interstellar” in 70mm, only in IMAX 15/70, so I can’t say how the 70mm only release compares to its DCP/35/IMAX counterparts), something that I hope “The Hateful Eight” next month will continue and possibly lead to a resurgence of 70mm operated theaters showing first run films.

I would also have to say you betray your argument by constantly chastising Paul Thomas Anderson and his fans (but I guess that's to be expected from someone who labels themselves as "pretentiousanderson") and saying they’re nothing more than “young, immature and inexperienced”, to use your words. Yes, some people may have only had a single 70mm experience watching “The Master”, but those people are also probably the ones who support film enough - not just Anderson, but film itself - to make sure that future generations are given the opportunity to experience a film on such a format and not be relegated to watching some DCP projection because, between the two, I’ll pay the extra money and watch “The Master” in 70mm for the rest of my life. You can have your dislike of him - Lord knows I get enough funny looks from people because I think Xavier Dolan is a pretentious hipster who only got ahead because people want to sleep with him and mistake his sophomoric first world dilemmas as high art - but seriously, don't insult someone's fanbase just to make your point. It makes you look petty.