OVP: Best Makeup and Hairstyling (2012)
The Nominees Were...
Howard Berger, Peter Montagna, and Martin Samuel, Hitchcock
Peter Swords King, Rick Findlater, and Tami Lane, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Lisa Westcott and Julie Dartnell, Les Miserables
My Thoughts: And so we're back! Yes, just a few weeks after finishing our last round of OVP write-ups, we're in for another twenty, and I couldn't be more excited about investing some time into the many films that thrilled and inspired us in the blockbuster year of 2012.
To start out, we will once again begin in the category of those who create the faces and hairstyles that leave us in awe onscreen. Makeup, unlike most of the categories with the Oscars, only has three nominees, not five, and so it's a bit easier to suss through the contenders.
However, I do want to throw in a bit of a caveat. This is the first year where most of the films that I am discussing I've also reviewed in the past, and I want to point out something about why I call it a "Snap Judgment" for the reviews. With most of the reviews, I wrote them immediately after viewing the film, which is smart if you want to remember every detail of the film, but stupid if you're still cultivating your opinions. In the weeks and months since I've seen these films, some of them have gained a sharper view, and I feel I've gotten enough distance from them to properly decide the best of the year. That's my fancy way of saying that on occasion, I might increase or decrease my love of a picture that last year I ranked slightly differently. We shall see...
The first nominee I want to get to is the one that will be considered the "oh yeah, I forgot about that" movie in years to come, Hitchcock. The movie is probably almost erased from your memory even now, and it's easy to know why-as far as biopics go, it's pretty boilerplate, and doesn't have a lot going for it except the occasional wink at the audience (the Anthony Perkins jokes, for example). That goes for the makeup as well. The centerpiece of the film's makeup is of course Anthony Hopkins transformation into Alfred Hitchcock. The artists come close to getting this right, but the work is always obviously a prosthetic. This is a bit unfair for those of us who are trying to compare him to Hitchcock, but the Makeup artists would have done better with a slightly less well-known actor than Hopkins. The hair department does a better job-I loved the elegant freeness of Johansson's Janet Leigh, and while her costumes were more fun, her movie star effortlessness shines through the hairstyling. But making Scarlett look like a movie star is something even I could do, and so this is decidedly the weakest link of the three.
The Hobbit is teaming with Makeup work, but it's worth noting that this is a case of quality AND quantity, and not just an either or situation, as is oftentimes the case in this category's nominees. One of the biggest tasks amongst the Makeup artists on this film was finding a way to distinguish all of the dwarves, not an easy task since all thirteen are introduced to us in rapid succession. While the script doesn't always do that, this isn't a fault of the Makeup artists, who give us thirteen distinct creations. Additionally, you can tell that amidst the CGI of Gollum and the Goblin King, we're also treated to a series of Orks and hobbits dotted with interesting touches, distinguishing characteristics that add layers to the film. Some have made the argument that this is territory already trodden by the makeup branch, giving two Oscars in previous years for the work in these films, but I say that there's enough newness and originality on display here to warrant high praise.
The final nominee is our lone Best Picture contender, and therefore a film that we are going to be encountering on many occasions to come, so I'll try to keep the window focused solely on the Makeup. Les Miserables is not afraid of making its movie stars ugly, throwing the gorgeous mugs of Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Helena Bonham Carter through the deglam-machine (though in the case of Carter, it seems more out-of-the-ordinary for her to be appearing in her Burton-hair than it is in her porcelain fineness). The film succeeds when it comes to Jackman and his prison teeth and beard early on in the film, as we see him truly transformed into a man who has spent years in jail. The movie's weird prostitute scene, however, seemed a bit cartoonish for me. For a movie that focused so much on realism early on with Jackman, we are treated with the sort of clown-style faces that seems to be too much pancake makeup and not enough nuance in the characters. This we've seen a thousand times before and I believe in a much better way.
To start out, we will once again begin in the category of those who create the faces and hairstyles that leave us in awe onscreen. Makeup, unlike most of the categories with the Oscars, only has three nominees, not five, and so it's a bit easier to suss through the contenders.
However, I do want to throw in a bit of a caveat. This is the first year where most of the films that I am discussing I've also reviewed in the past, and I want to point out something about why I call it a "Snap Judgment" for the reviews. With most of the reviews, I wrote them immediately after viewing the film, which is smart if you want to remember every detail of the film, but stupid if you're still cultivating your opinions. In the weeks and months since I've seen these films, some of them have gained a sharper view, and I feel I've gotten enough distance from them to properly decide the best of the year. That's my fancy way of saying that on occasion, I might increase or decrease my love of a picture that last year I ranked slightly differently. We shall see...
The first nominee I want to get to is the one that will be considered the "oh yeah, I forgot about that" movie in years to come, Hitchcock. The movie is probably almost erased from your memory even now, and it's easy to know why-as far as biopics go, it's pretty boilerplate, and doesn't have a lot going for it except the occasional wink at the audience (the Anthony Perkins jokes, for example). That goes for the makeup as well. The centerpiece of the film's makeup is of course Anthony Hopkins transformation into Alfred Hitchcock. The artists come close to getting this right, but the work is always obviously a prosthetic. This is a bit unfair for those of us who are trying to compare him to Hitchcock, but the Makeup artists would have done better with a slightly less well-known actor than Hopkins. The hair department does a better job-I loved the elegant freeness of Johansson's Janet Leigh, and while her costumes were more fun, her movie star effortlessness shines through the hairstyling. But making Scarlett look like a movie star is something even I could do, and so this is decidedly the weakest link of the three.
The Hobbit is teaming with Makeup work, but it's worth noting that this is a case of quality AND quantity, and not just an either or situation, as is oftentimes the case in this category's nominees. One of the biggest tasks amongst the Makeup artists on this film was finding a way to distinguish all of the dwarves, not an easy task since all thirteen are introduced to us in rapid succession. While the script doesn't always do that, this isn't a fault of the Makeup artists, who give us thirteen distinct creations. Additionally, you can tell that amidst the CGI of Gollum and the Goblin King, we're also treated to a series of Orks and hobbits dotted with interesting touches, distinguishing characteristics that add layers to the film. Some have made the argument that this is territory already trodden by the makeup branch, giving two Oscars in previous years for the work in these films, but I say that there's enough newness and originality on display here to warrant high praise.
The final nominee is our lone Best Picture contender, and therefore a film that we are going to be encountering on many occasions to come, so I'll try to keep the window focused solely on the Makeup. Les Miserables is not afraid of making its movie stars ugly, throwing the gorgeous mugs of Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Helena Bonham Carter through the deglam-machine (though in the case of Carter, it seems more out-of-the-ordinary for her to be appearing in her Burton-hair than it is in her porcelain fineness). The film succeeds when it comes to Jackman and his prison teeth and beard early on in the film, as we see him truly transformed into a man who has spent years in jail. The movie's weird prostitute scene, however, seemed a bit cartoonish for me. For a movie that focused so much on realism early on with Jackman, we are treated with the sort of clown-style faces that seems to be too much pancake makeup and not enough nuance in the characters. This we've seen a thousand times before and I believe in a much better way.
Other Precursor Contenders: In a weird situation we haven't run-across yet, we don't have all of the precursors done yet, as the Saturn Awards, a favorite of mine for precursors here, have not announced their winner yet, though they do have Hitchcock and The Hobbit amongst their nominees, as well as Cloud Atlas, The Impossible, Skyfall, and Breaking Dawn, Part 2 (my money's on The Hobbit taking the trophy). For the BAFTA Awards, which are finished, Les Miserables took top honors, with Anna Karenina and Lincoln joining our other Oscar nominees as fellow contenders. Finally, since this is one of the few categories to have a finalist list, it's worth noting that Lincoln, Looper, Men in Black 3, and Snow White and the Huntsman were amongst those that almost made the cut. Conventional wisdom would suggest that Lincoln was in fourth place, though part of me wonders if the constant love for Rick Baker made Men in Black 3 the unluckiest runner-up.
Films I Would Have Nominated: As I've said before, the focus of this project isn't about the films I would have nominated. For starters, while I can watch (or at least attempt to watch, film preservation-willing) all of the nominees of a given year, seeing all of the films of a year is an impossible feat, as I regret I have only one lifetime to give for my cinema, and therefore I can never give a perfect picture of what I would have done. Secondly, the ultimate goal of this project is to see if I make the same sorts of mistakes as the Oscars (snubbing major stars, over-rewarding certain people, etc) so I have to work within the confines of the nominations. However, I am only human and can't help but poke a bit, especially since at least one of the nominee's I think has no business being here. There is no part of me that enjoyed the convoluted mess that Looper was, but the hyper-realistic work done on Joseph Gordon-Levitt in that film makes me think they should have found room for it.
Oscar's Choice: I honestly think this was a relatively close race between Les Miz and The Hobbit (the Makeup branch being relatively impervious to critical reviews of the movies), but that Best Picture nomination had some sway, and Westcott and Dartnell took the trophy.
My Choice: We're going to start with me being relatively contrarian, and going with The Hobbit, a film that I feel tackles more subject matter for this category and in a higher way than my second place Les Miz.
And now, of course, I welcome you to discuss in the comments-of the three films, what movie deserved the trophy? Are you excited that Lisa Westcott finally got her Oscar, or were you hoping for the equally as snubbed Martin Samuel? And of all of the movies of 2012, who had the Best Makeup?
Also in 2012: Animated Short, Live Action Short, Previously in 2012
Past Best Makeup Contests: 2010, 2011
Past Best Makeup Contests: 2010, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment