OVP: Best Makeup & Hairstyling (2019)
The Nominees Were...
Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan, & Vivian Baker, Bombshell
Nicki Ledermann, & Kay Georgiou, Joker
Jeremy Woodhead, Judy
Paul Gooch, Arjen Tuiten, & David White, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis, & Rebecca Cole, 1917
Nicki Ledermann, & Kay Georgiou, Joker
Jeremy Woodhead, Judy
Paul Gooch, Arjen Tuiten, & David White, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis, & Rebecca Cole, 1917
My Thoughts: Every one of our OVP articles we start out with the Best Makeup category, but today we are having an historic little moment for it, because Best Makeup & Hairstyling in 2019 was the first time that the category had expanded to five-wide. This makes sense-Makeup was a weird category to underrepresent, because unlike Visual Effects or Original Song, every film has makeup and hairstyling (even if it isn't always flashy), but I'm curious to take a peak at what Oscar did with the expanded category, and whether he filled it with genuinely under-sung pictures, or if he simply leaned harder into the Best Picture nominees.
One of those Best Picture nominees is Joker, a film with the most obvious use of makeup of this bunch, as it's a distinct character trait of our main character Arthur, who becomes the Joker. I will try not to compare this film to other Batman franchise installments, but here I'm going to break that rule as it's impossible to have Joker's imperfect makeup without the Heath Ledger creation. This look is iconic (you saw it on Halloween last year for a reason), but it's just a slight twist on a formula we know well, and while I can applaud that, it's not enough to warrant a nomination, in my opinion-the movie's other makeup work is just variations on the same, and the hairstyling isn't creative enough to compare to one recognizable look.
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil outdoes Joker slightly in the "finding more to say on iconography." I still think it's weird to put false cheekbones on Angelina Jolie, who has seismic cheekbones as it is, but at least Maleficent is expanding upon that one look (which we've already seen verbatim in the original) with additional creations. Pfeiffer's Queen Ingrith, for example, is a specific kind of ageless beauty with her double-crowned coif (showing someone who always knew she'd be queen) that I can get behind, and her henchmen, as well as the variations on Jolie's winged figure Maleficent as she goes to her homeland, are diverse & interesting so that you don't come away thinking "more of the same," even if there are moments where that is true about the film.
Bombshell spends time recreating a different kind of villainy, and here while there are originals the film is based upon, the facsimile is so exact as to be unnerving. I don't think that an actor has to look exactly like a real-life figure in order to capture their spirit, but man did the Makeup artists have me rethinking that philosophy when Charlize Theron came out in flawless Megyn Kelly drag. Theron's Kelly is the ticket-to-buy in this category, but honestly everyone is looking perfect to their real-life counterparts in a moment of hair & makeup wizardry, and even the fictional figures like Margot Robbie's Kayla fit into the blonde, corporate FOX motif seamlessly.
The last two movies are historical in nature, so we shift a bit to period realism. Of the two, 1917 is the more successful. Wartime makeup continually improves, with realistic depictions of wounds & injuries, but 1917 needed gargantuan makeup effects to combine with the visual effects team to make dead bodies and sweaty soldiers feel authentic in the trench. 1917's approach to 360-degree shooting (the long tracking shot, and the camera feeling like a lead character), also requires realism in every corner of the screen-since you don't always feel like you know where the camera or the viewer's eye may land with a roving cinematographer, everything needs to remain realistic & authentic. This is critical to 1917's success in this department, even if at times it blurs the line between practical and computer-generated makeup effects.
Judy doesn't do that. The film is also as devoted to authenticity (the film alters Renee Zellweger's teeth & nose in order to have her look more like Garland), and it's nice to see a nomination like this when in past cases (Charlize Theron, Felicity Huffman, etc) the actress's hair & makeup team gets tossed aside even though they're crucial to giving us a performance. But while Zellweger looks more like Garland, it's not transformational enough (we'll get to it eventually, but that's partially due to the actress herself), and nothing else in the film feels like anything other than Mad Men looks being re-appropriated. There's not the same level-of-detail with other historical figures in the film, and none of the remainder of the makeup work feels character-driven.
One of those Best Picture nominees is Joker, a film with the most obvious use of makeup of this bunch, as it's a distinct character trait of our main character Arthur, who becomes the Joker. I will try not to compare this film to other Batman franchise installments, but here I'm going to break that rule as it's impossible to have Joker's imperfect makeup without the Heath Ledger creation. This look is iconic (you saw it on Halloween last year for a reason), but it's just a slight twist on a formula we know well, and while I can applaud that, it's not enough to warrant a nomination, in my opinion-the movie's other makeup work is just variations on the same, and the hairstyling isn't creative enough to compare to one recognizable look.
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil outdoes Joker slightly in the "finding more to say on iconography." I still think it's weird to put false cheekbones on Angelina Jolie, who has seismic cheekbones as it is, but at least Maleficent is expanding upon that one look (which we've already seen verbatim in the original) with additional creations. Pfeiffer's Queen Ingrith, for example, is a specific kind of ageless beauty with her double-crowned coif (showing someone who always knew she'd be queen) that I can get behind, and her henchmen, as well as the variations on Jolie's winged figure Maleficent as she goes to her homeland, are diverse & interesting so that you don't come away thinking "more of the same," even if there are moments where that is true about the film.
Bombshell spends time recreating a different kind of villainy, and here while there are originals the film is based upon, the facsimile is so exact as to be unnerving. I don't think that an actor has to look exactly like a real-life figure in order to capture their spirit, but man did the Makeup artists have me rethinking that philosophy when Charlize Theron came out in flawless Megyn Kelly drag. Theron's Kelly is the ticket-to-buy in this category, but honestly everyone is looking perfect to their real-life counterparts in a moment of hair & makeup wizardry, and even the fictional figures like Margot Robbie's Kayla fit into the blonde, corporate FOX motif seamlessly.
The last two movies are historical in nature, so we shift a bit to period realism. Of the two, 1917 is the more successful. Wartime makeup continually improves, with realistic depictions of wounds & injuries, but 1917 needed gargantuan makeup effects to combine with the visual effects team to make dead bodies and sweaty soldiers feel authentic in the trench. 1917's approach to 360-degree shooting (the long tracking shot, and the camera feeling like a lead character), also requires realism in every corner of the screen-since you don't always feel like you know where the camera or the viewer's eye may land with a roving cinematographer, everything needs to remain realistic & authentic. This is critical to 1917's success in this department, even if at times it blurs the line between practical and computer-generated makeup effects.
Judy doesn't do that. The film is also as devoted to authenticity (the film alters Renee Zellweger's teeth & nose in order to have her look more like Garland), and it's nice to see a nomination like this when in past cases (Charlize Theron, Felicity Huffman, etc) the actress's hair & makeup team gets tossed aside even though they're crucial to giving us a performance. But while Zellweger looks more like Garland, it's not transformational enough (we'll get to it eventually, but that's partially due to the actress herself), and nothing else in the film feels like anything other than Mad Men looks being re-appropriated. There's not the same level-of-detail with other historical figures in the film, and none of the remainder of the makeup work feels character-driven.
Other Precursor Contenders: The BAFTA Awards have long done five-wide & included hairstyling, so this is just Oscar catching up and finally making this properly apples-to-apples. Here Bombshell won while the only Oscar replacement was Rocketman ousting Maleficent. The Saturn Awards we're actually too early for as of this writeup; they would normally at least have nominees by now, but with Covid I can't include them as the voting is still ongoing. The Makeup branch did have a bakeoff, though, which meant that Dolemite is My Name, Downton Abbey, Little Women, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (my guess for sixth), and Rocketman were all within reach of an Oscar nomination (this is a pretty staid list-there's usually at least one movie that was either critically-reviled or was super under-seen at least on the shortlist).
Films I Would Have Nominated: I would've definitely gone with the crazy makeup cues of Us, even though it's occasionally difficult to realize what is makeup and what is the actors just being able to morph their face depending on which version of their character they're playing. I also would've put Once Upon a Time in Hollywood in here for its period authenticity (especially with the Spahn Ranch scene), the rare time I'm going to be on the opposite end of over-nominating one of Oscar's favorite films (they got ridiculous with citing the Best Picture nominees too much in 2019, a complaint you'll hear from me often).
Oscar’s Choice: I would assume that this was pretty close even if the precursors disagree, as Joker or 1917 both make sense, but Bombshell's stunt was glorious and could not be denied.
My Choice: 1917 is arguably more impressive, but the single recreations of iconic figures in SUCH an exact way...I'm voting for Bombshell here. In bronze is Maleficent, followed by Joker and Judy.
And those are my thoughts-what are yours? Are we all sort of in agreement that, regardless of your opinions on the film, Bombshell earned this trophy, or do you want to make the case for someone else? Do you agree with me that Joker or 1917 was probably not far behind here? And why do you think Oscar skipped Once Upon a Time in Hollywood when it was cited virtually in every other tech category? Share your theories below!
No comments:
Post a Comment