OVP: Best Makeup & Hairstyling (2017)
The Nominees Were...
Kazuhiro Tsuji, & David Malinowski, & Lucy Sibbick, Darkest Hour
Daniel Phillips & Lou Sheppard, Victoria & Abdul
Arjen Tuiten, Wonder
My Thoughts: We are, as always, kicking off our 17th Oscar Viewing Project with the Best Makeup category, which at this point in its run was officially Makeup & Hairstyling (I oftentimes think this was solely a way to honor Meryl Streep's hairstylist J. Roy Helland, mostly because he was the first person to profit from the change). This category varies from year-to-year in what they appreciate, and honestly it feels a little bit sporadic in what Oscar tends to like.
Take, for example, a movie like Victoria & Abdul, which has relatively minimalist makeup work compared to what you'd normally see in a lineup like this. While there are enhancements to Judi Dench's skin, most of them are cosmetic (Dench being roughly the same age as the real-life Victoria at this time), and so it's more about smaller changes (the way that Victoria's interactions with Abdul make her feel more alive, and her makeup starts to take the drab out of the widow's hair & face) than anything else. This isn't a bad job, the makeup team does what it's supposed to do & isn't super showy about it. But it's not that much different from what you'd expect from virtually any other movie of this nature (all movies have makeup, which is why the three-wide field here never made any logical sense), so I don't have a lot to go on here. It's not a case where "more = best," it's more a case where there's very little to judge.
The Academy's belief that "More = Best" might be a potential red flag for Darkest Hour, which uses a variety of makeup techniques to transform Gary Oldman into Winston Churchill, and there are times when this doesn't work for me. I think if you're going to physically transform an actor, you need to do so in a truly believable way, one that doesn't feel like they've turned into a bobblehead or where the makeup hides the expressiveness of the actor's face. That's not the case for Darkest Hour, though, which I think does an admirable job with Oldman's face, making him look both believable and still able to convey through his eyes and movements the consternation & weight of Winston Churchill during this time of crisis. Add in perfectly-constructed period makeup for the remainder of the cast, and you've got a victor.
Wonder also achieves makeup that feels both believable without feeling like they are inhibiting their actors. Unlike Darkest Hour, there's no supporting makeup effects or hairstyling work that stands out here-the entire show with this nomination is the way that Jacob Tremblay is transformed into Auggie, totally believably becoming this young man with a facial deformity that has kept him out of school. I will say that while Wonder is a fascinating (and good film), it does occasionally feel like a "one-trick pony" nomination here in the sense that there's pretty much nothing to the film beyond Auggie to comment on...but at least the makeup artists do their jobs.
Other Precursor Contenders: BAFTA went five-wide well before Oscar did, and gave its trophy to Darkest Hour against Blade Runner 2049, I, Tonya, Victoria & Abdul, and Wonder, while the Saturn Awards (focusing specifically on Horror, SciFi, & Fantasy) went with Black Panther (the Saturns have a different eligibility window which is why occasionally 2018 films sneak in) over Blade Runner 2049, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, It, The Shape of Water, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, and Wonder. Oscar had a bakeoff in 2017 for makeup, so we know fourth place was either Bright, Ghost in the Shell, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, or I, Tonya, and given its overall strength in other categories, my gut says that it was I, Tonya.
Films I Would Have Nominated: For sure I'd have included I, Tonya, and I'm a bit flummoxed why it wasn't included. The film is the only one of those that I listed that has multiple main characters that are reliant solely on traditional or practical makeup effects (all of the main characters are transformed to look like real-life figures), and it all feels realistic, as well as changes over-time. It's a movie that is heavily reliant on the makeup working, and it does, consistently.
Oscar’s Choice: Our first win was for Darkest Hour, and honestly I think it was a pretty lopsided victory...if Tonya had gotten in it might've been a bit more of a challenge, but I can't see the larger Academy getting behind either Wonder or Victoria & Abdul.
My Choice: I am also going with Darkest Hour, which had the best overall makeup throughout the film, with Wonder in second and Victoria & Abdul in third. This isn't a great lineup, but also not a bad one, which might be a recurring theme for 2017 (which was a fine year for film, but where Oscar kind of ran the gamut on the quality of his nominees).
And those are my thoughts-what are yours? Is everyone aligned to Darkest Hour here, or does someone want to vouch for one of the other two nominees? How do you handle a movie like Victoria & Abdul where the makeup serves the film (but there's not much to it)? And why did Oscar skip the chance to honor I, Tonya for the category it most deserved a nomination for? Share your theories below!
No comments:
Post a Comment