Categories One-By-One: Make-Up

[Akash]

I'm with BJ on Norbit's reprehensible morals.

I think La Vie en Rose has this one, if only because it will seem like the best movie in the bunch to carry the title "Oscar winner."

[Big Magilla]

La Vie en Rose. Cotillard's whole performance was the make-up and hair.

[The Original BJ]

That being said, I had no idea how many characters Eddie Murphy played in the film until I saw the end credits, which I guess says that the makeup accomplished something...perhaps. But it's in service of a film that's so incredibly sexist and racist that this nomination is indeed as embarrassing and unforgivable as everyone who hasn't seen the film thinks it is. It may be worse...

I haven't seen Norbit; however, I assume the makeup had nothing to do with the racism and sexism. Are you saying the makeup artists work should be discounted solely for agreeing to work on a film with reprehensible morals?

Oh, it has EVERYTHING to do with racism and sexism, because the makeup is used to create visual looks which are incredibly offensive. I'm not saying it's ONLY the makeup artists' fault. In fact, it's more likely not their fault. But I think a film that uses makeup to such disgusting ends should absolutely not be given awards in that category.

[Greg]

That being said, I had no idea how many characters Eddie Murphy played in the film until I saw the end credits, which I guess says that the makeup accomplished something...perhaps. But it's in service of a film that's so incredibly sexist and racist that this nomination is indeed as embarrassing and unforgivable as everyone who hasn't seen the film thinks it is. It may be worse...

I haven't seen Norbit; however, I assume the makeup had nothing to do with the racism and sexism. Are you saying the makeup artists work should be discounted solely for agreeing to work on a film with reprehensible morals?

[The Original BJ]

While fantasy effects typically prevail in this category, voters have shown that they can go for realistic character work when fantasy options are unavailable (Elizabeth) or just plain ridiculous (Frida). The makeup in La Vie en Rose is amazing, and, given that Cotillard is a must-view for Best Actress, I think it's reasonable to assume that most voters will have seen the film. I think it's the heavy front-runner.

I was surprised Pirates was nominated this year. It's not that the makeup isn't worthy -- the Pirates films have always featured impressive makeup creations -- but most of the new creatures showed up in the second film, which wasn't nominated here. I think there's a CHANCE it can win, as recognition for one of the trilogy's top technical elements, but, as Damien says, the been-there-done-that feel will probably prevent such an outcome.

I, too, was surprised, as well as disappointed, that Sweeney Todd missed the lineup. The clever visualizing of iconic characters is one of the film's great strengths, and I thought the makeup and hair effects were among the year's best.

One last thing: in my young life I have seen many Oscar-nominated films. Not most Oscar-nominated films, or even a ton (in the grand scheme of things), but many. And I will say that Norbit is, without a doubt, the single worst Oscar-nominated film I have ever seen. That being said, I had no idea how many characters Eddie Murphy played in the film until I saw the end credits, which I guess says that the makeup accomplished something...perhaps. But it's in service of a film that's so incredibly sexist and racist that this nomination is indeed as embarrassing and unforgivable as everyone who hasn't seen the film thinks it is. It may be worse...

[Damien]

Tee, I think you can safely continue to avoid Pirates. I think people will feel it's the same make-up as the last two, so why reward it now? Plus everyone will have seen La vie en Rose ( a lot of voters probably just quite recently) and as mediocre as the film is, the male-up is tremendous. I hate to keep beating a dead lip-syncher, but as far as I'm concerned, the make-up IS the performance.



Edited By Damien on 1203029696

[Mister Tee]

This is my last one for today, I swear.

Your nominees:

"La Vie en Rose" (Didier Lavergne and Jan Archibald)
"Norbit" (Rick Baker and Kazuhiro Tsuji)
"Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End" (Ve Neill and Martin Samuel)

Someone tell me: is there a non-trivial chance Pirates could win this award? I so don't care how that story turns out, and was hoping to avoid it entirely, but if it's got a shot at winning, I might give a look over trhe next week-plus.

Seems to me this branch did a little rigging. Sweeney Todd is a sort of movie, with lots of make-up, facial hair and wigs, that's almost always nominated here. My suspicion is they purposely boxed it out because they were afraid it might win with the general electorate. A similar thing happened in '94: the category not only left out the popular-but-despised-in-some-circles Interview With the Vampire (which would have been a strong candidate); they also included the far more excoriated (and financially disastrous) Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. This maneuver opened the door to a Rick Baker Ed Wood win -- surely a favorable result, but I can't say I approved of the tactics.

Here, it seems to me they've paved the way for a La Vie En Rose win. I mean, Norbit might as well have a Don't Vote Here sign attached to it, Pirates seems older than old, and La Vie does the old aging-heroine thing reasonably well. Am I right in this? Or do I need to see that damn Captain Jack to really be sure?