Categories One-by-One: Make-up

For the films of 2014
nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby nightwingnova » Fri Feb 20, 2015 6:07 pm

The #3 person said he was voting for Guardians (in addition to looking for a place to recognize the movie) because he loved the make-up/hair job on the tree. LOL. :)

Mister Tee wrote:So, as much as we hate those anonymous voters talking to Scott Feinberg (today's is actually relatively reasonable -- or, at least, makes some choices I would), something to note is that ALL of them have voted for Guardians in make-up. So it's not as if we're utterly hallucinating.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6587
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby Mister Tee » Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:56 pm

So, as much as we hate those anonymous voters talking to Scott Feinberg (today's is actually relatively reasonable -- or, at least, makes some choices I would), something to note is that ALL of them have voted for Guardians in make-up. So it's not as if we're utterly hallucinating.

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3461
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:33 am

I mentioned this in my write-up for the website, but in the years predictors keep citing that smaller films won, they triumphed over impressive make-up in films that were generally disliked or hated (or at least appreciated in a non-Oscars way). Dallas Buyers Club beat out Jackass and The Lone Ranger; La Vie En Rose beat out Norbit and one of the Pirates sequels. Was there ever a chance that those films were going to be labelled as "Oscar Winners?" The Iron Lady was a little different, beating out another small, performance-nominated film and Harry Potter (which by then was on its eighth film, so you can understand the voter fatigue of "what is new in this movie than the other seven?"). These films generally won on the default of being the most liked film in the category.

In this year, you have a blockbuster that everyone likes in Guardians of the Galaxy. That is going to siphon off a lot of votes from Grand Budapest Hotel, in that it is a big, loud blockbuster that voters wouldn't be horrified to call an Oscar winner. In fact, this is probably their only chance to vote for it (it has some stiff competition in Visual Effects), so that might be a plus in their direction.

Plus, the make-up is a lot less obvious in Grand Budapest Hotel (besides Tilda Swinton) than in La Vie en Rose, or The Iron Lady, or Frida, or even Dallas Buyers Club, where even a faded memory of those films still recalls how they turned movie stars into other faces.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3461
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby FilmFan720 » Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:21 am

Mister Tee wrote: And, while no other category offers quite so strong a gap between our view and what Eddie Izzard calls R.O.W. (Rest of world), I note that no one else seems to have the slightest doubt about Birdman's cinematography triumph (including Harris, who says the only upset possibility is voter fraud); the fact of Birdman all being darkish interiors, rather than the standard knockout visuals, seems to have made no impression. And, while Grand Budapest may well end up winning the costume category, I think most are far too quick to dismiss the possibility of an Into the Woods or Mr. Turner sneaking in.


While I still think this is Birdman's to lose, my wife reminded me this weekend of the year she beat me in the family Oscar pool by correctly predicting Children of Men's loss in this category. Could this be a repeat? Critically hailed, technically brilliant Emmanuel Lubezki cinematography that wins every award, but is ultimately too gritty and loses to a more traditionally beautiful film?
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6587
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:05 am

The Original BJ wrote:You guys...are we insane? A whole bunch of us here think Guardians of the Galaxy is going to win this prize, but on literally every other prediction site, the money seems to be on The Grand Budapest Hotel. I'm not seeing any other kind of huge disconnect between this board and elsewhere, but for this category.

I had that precise feeling yesterday, especially after reading the estimable Mark Harris, who dismissed Guardians with a quick "there wasn't much make-up, a lot of it was CGI". 1) I don't know that voters make that make-up/CGI distinction and 2) my immediate impression after seeing the film was of make-up everywhere you looked.

Much of this prediction gap seems to go back to selective memory of recent winners, as I mentioned in the initial post. Those predicting Budapest (and the few opting for Foxcatcher) are all citing the Iron Lady/Dallas Buyers/La Vie en Rose wins, and completely overlooking The Chronicles of Narnia, Star Trek and The Wolfman. Like you, I'm surprised at the sheer dominance of the first faction.

And, while no other category offers quite so strong a gap between our view and what Eddie Izzard calls R.O.W. (Rest of world), I note that no one else seems to have the slightest doubt about Birdman's cinematography triumph (including Harris, who says the only upset possibility is voter fraud); the fact of Birdman all being darkish interiors, rather than the standard knockout visuals, seems to have made no impression. And, while Grand Budapest may well end up winning the costume category, I think most are far too quick to dismiss the possibility of an Into the Woods or Mr. Turner sneaking in.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4252
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:49 am

You guys...are we insane? A whole bunch of us here think Guardians of the Galaxy is going to win this prize, but on literally every other prediction site, the money seems to be on The Grand Budapest Hotel. I'm not seeing any other kind of huge disconnect between this board and elsewhere, but for this category.

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby nightwingnova » Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:30 am

I'm slightly conflicted on this one.

Does anyone think that it would matter that the Guardians characters with memorable screen time and substantive make-up tend to have face paint slapped on to change their skin color and not much else? I did see characters in crowd scenes with non-human facial features, etc. Do we think that this is enough to beat what I thought was a very persuasive transformation of Steve Carell's looks? (I agree that Hotel is out of this one.)

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby rolotomasi99 » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:39 am

I agree THE GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY is going to win. I was no fan of the movie, but the make-up work was impressive, with several different character designs.

However, I would like to defend the make-up work in FOXCATCHER. While Carell's nose is certainly the most attention grabbing work of the make-up crew, they also gave him bad skin, horrible teeth, and a receding hairline. They also changed Ruffalo's hairline, and in a great attention to detail they gave both of the Schultz brothers cauliflower ear, which is something many wrestlers have to deal with. Much like the movie itself, I appreciated these subtle touches Bennett Miller made sure to include.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7495
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby Sabin » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:10 pm

I botched this category by predicting Maleficent and Noah thinking to myself "Well, when does anybody ever predict this category correctly?" But Foxcatcher, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and Guardians of the Galaxy are theoretically the three films that are nominated or at least massively predicted every year. The Prosthetically-Enhanced Character Film. The Capital-H Haircut Film. And The Space Epic That Is Often Given Makeup as Consolation Prize.

It's going to be Guardians of the Galaxy. There's just too much makeup in it for it to be denied. And like Foxcatcher, the makeup contributes so much to individual characters.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4252
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby The Original BJ » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:04 am

All three of the nominees are worthy, but I find it hard to imagine Guardians of the Galaxy NOT winning. There are all kinds of colorful characters and creatures that populate the movie, and the makeup renders even well-known actors (Lee Pace especially) almost unrecognizable. I don't even like the movie, and I'd still vote for it just because there's so much obviously attention-grabbing makeup on display all over the place.

Old Tilda Swinton did look terrific in The Grand Budapest Hotel, and there are some other notable makeup designs, from Saoirse Ronan's birthmark to Harvey Keitel's tattoos. But by and large, I think the movie will fall into the group of films that get nominated for solid period hair and makeup throughout, but just don't draw enough attention to the makeup to pull off a win. Even with a Best Picture nod and big nomination haul, I just think it falls well short of being Most Makeup, which as we all know is usually what this prize amounts to.

As for Foxcatcher, Carell's transformation was certainly effective -- it didn't LOOK like an obvious makeup job -- but when you look at the movies that have won this prize for essentially one character, Foxcatcher just doesn't measure up. For instance, La Vie en Rose showed Marion Cotillard in numerous stages of Edith Piaf's life, and by the end she didn't look remotely like the actress as we know her. And during the opening scenes of The Iron Lady, all I could think was "THAT's Meryl?" as her age makeup looked so uncannily real. In contrast, Carell has one look, and he doesn't appear all that unrecognizable either. I find it hard to believe this will amount to enough of a wow to win.

Question worth considering: at what point does this category get five nominees? Now that both Sound Editing and Visual Effects have been bumped up to five, it seems puzzling this is the only one left at three, especially given the fact that way more films have notable makeup and hair than say, original songs.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6587
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Categories One-by-One: Make-up

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:52 pm

Mr. Turner and American Sniper prevent my commenting yet on most tech categories, but make-up is one I can handle. (I know, it’s been “make-up and hair” for a few years now; but look at the nominees: it’s make-up)

The nominees:

Foxcatcher
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy

Someone at one of the other sites declared a few days ago that no best picture nominee had lost this category to a non-best picture nominee since 1997’s Titanic/Men in Black face-off. And I thought…hmm…is this like visual effects of late: have they started voting for the film, not the achievement?

It turns out it’s a stat that sounds more impressive than it is. There are only six years in that 16-year span where a best picture candidate was even nominated for make-up. And in two of them, all three nominees were best picture-contending, so moot point. The argument, such as it is, rests on the past two years (Dallas Buyers over, presumably, Bad Grandpa, and Les Miz over the first Hobbit), 2008 (Benjamin Button over, I guess, Hellboy 2), and 2003 (the third Lord of the Rings over another best picture, Master & Commander, plus the first Pirates of the Caribbean).

Of that group, you can say we maybe under-estimated how Les Miz’ s best picture strength played in the category – or possibly more under-estimated how mortally sick of Middle Earth voters had become. (Plus, it’s not as if Les Miz was totally lacking in the make-up – and, OK, hair – department.) The way Benjamin Button’s plot went, make-up was a virtual character in that film. Return of the King (1) was staging an old-fashioned landslide and (2) deserved the prize at least as much as the other two nominees. As for Dallas Buyers…how devoted an Oscar-watcher do you have to be to understand Academy voters won’t honor a movie with a title containing the words “Jackass Presents”?

It’s a bit stronger argument to suggest voters have of late favored the somewhat prestigious in the category – opting for films that also had acting or writing nominations: The Iron Lady, La Vie en Rose, Pan’s Labyrinth, Frida and Topsy Turvy. (You’d have to weasel through explaining Chronicles of Narnia over Cinderella Man) However, it’s worth noting the less-than-world-class competition these films faced: La Vie en Rose bested Norbit and the third/”we’re sick of it by now” Pirates movie; Pan’s Labyrinth triumphed over Adam Sandler’s Click; Frida faced off with The no-one-I-know-saw-it Time Machine; and Topsy Turvy faced a whole field of crud no one remembers. The Iron Lady over the (I believe) last Harry Potter was the closest to a test case…but I’d say one thing this research has taught me: the further along in a film series, the less inclined voters are going to be to honor it.

And this is not even to mention several other winners along the way: The Wolfman, Star Trek, Lemony Snicket, The Grinch – films light years away from prestigious, featuring good-old/ever-popular gobs and gobs of make-up, hideous-looking creatures preferred.

Which is my long-winded lead-in to this: people on these other sites are touting The Grand Budapest Hotel for the win (though, outside of Tilda Swinton, I can’t think of much notable make-up in the film); maybe a few think Steve Carell’s fake nose will squeak past; none of them think Guardians of the Galaxy has a chance. And I think, au contraire, Guardians is a classic choice for this category. It’s got a metric ton of make-up; it’s a huge money-maker; and it’s a hit most people (BJ & Kenneth Turan excepted) feel deserved its success because they ENJOYED it. (Which puts it a whole lot closer to Men in Black than to Norbit) I’m not saying the category’s a slam dunk; refreshingly, I think most below the line categories this year are at least competitive. But, perhaps because I have a memory that goes back further than the last five years, I see Guardians as precisely the sort of make-up-alooza that’s frequently won -- in the 80s (Beetlejuice), 90s (Dick Tracy), 00s (The Grinch) and 10s (The Wolfman). I’d be surprised to see Academy voters pass it by.


Return to “87th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest