Team Experience will be discussing each Oscar category as we head into the precursors. Here's Nathaniel and Elisa to discuss Makeup...
Colin Farrell and... Colin Farrell?
NATHANIEL: Elisa, let's start with a question: Do you think this category should be split into two: Best Makeup Effects AND Best Makeup and Hairstyling? As it stands now, the latter never gets a fair shake. If you do incredible things with glamour and character design but don't offer anything in the prosthetic department, chances are slim to none that you'll be nominated!
For example I think it's pretty clear that Elvis, The Batman, and The Whale will be competitive primarily because they each bury one key character in prosthetics until they're almost unrecognizable. But why? It always feels a bit like showing off. Why hire a famous actor to play a role if you don't actually want their famous face? This bugs me most in the case of The Batman but it might be because I relish looking at Colin Farrell's face... and if you're going to deny me that, don't promise me Colin 'Feckin' Farrell...
ELISA: This question is a tricky one for sure. The answer lies in how the Academy wants to celebrate the cinematic achievements of the year. There are two roads: be more specific or continue to count lemons with peaches, claiming they’re both citrus fruits. This is always a dilemma with awards. Do you split every possible category to obtain a near-ideal representation or reduce the number of awards with a degree of flexibility. Also, in scarcity the value of a single prize increases, so multiplying the awards results in diminishing their perceived value. A conundrum.
Considering how technical categories were treated last year, I fear that increasing their number would only accelerate their complete exclusion from Oscar night. Since the sound category is now the result of two previously distinct categories, this is a highly hypothetical question that no one in the Academy is considering.
About prosthetics and their prevalence in this category: the point is how effective they are. It’s like a challenge: Take a famous star and radically change his or her appearance but make it look natural. The actor gets bonus points for their Oscar campaign and gets to escape their own fame for once, while the makeup team gets to shine. It’s a win-win situation unless, of course, the result is awful. I just saw Poker Face starring Liam Hemsworth covered in layers and layers of makeup to achieve the goal of making him, a 32 year-old man, a believable peer of Russell Crowe (who is 58). In other words, I am okay with Colin Farrell covered in prosthetics because it didn't pull me out of the story thinking "How could they think this is good?".
Brendan Fraser in "The Whale"
The Whale situation is different because Brendan Fraser is clearly recognizable by his features. It is also the most discussed, potentially controversial entry in this category. How do you feel about it?
NATHANIEL: I know you loved The Whale but I found it offensive. I normally like "provocateurs" behind the camera and indeed have mostly enjoyed every previous Aronofsky and I really love mother!, his most "happy to offend!" picture. The Whale joins Noah at the bottom of his filmography (for me). I recognize that Brendan Fraser is good in it though I think Hong Chau is even better. But there was something about the way it presented its 600 lb protagonist Charlie (Brendan Fraser) that just didn't sit right with me.
Two hours of simultaneous deification and pity is not exactly humanizing. It's all empathetically well meaning and we're supposed to be see beyond Charlie's body and love his soul. But then why are we looking at him constantly in this specific way? Our first two impressions of him are as a disembodied voice (teaching an online seminar) and alternately as a reduction to just a body with its urges (masturbation). I forget which came first and which came second but neither are embracing a whole man, but essentially separating the humanity (which we're to exalt!) from the corporal (which is supposed to disgust us?).
ELISA: I am reading a lot about The Whale and I am curious to see if the movie's performance during award season will be impacted by the way a significant part of the audience felt: uneasy, angry, and disgusted. Yes, personally I liked The Whale a lot. Aside from the strong reactions of the audience, the prosthetics and makeup here are quite natural and effective, so the natural conclusion should be that they deserve a nomination. In spite of this, these tools are actively used to construct the plot and the story that some viewers find offensive, so...guilty or not guilty? The appearance of Fraser’s face and body here is an essential part of the story and of emotional solicitation or manipulation, depending on your point of view. I would say it’s one of the most impressive uses of prosthetics this year.
NATHANIEL: Despite disliking the movie, I would agree that the makeup is a strong achievement. You can fully see Brendan the actor, it's easy to "buy" as real, and he doesn't seem hindered by it. Except, of course, in the way that Charlie is, by the bulk. Prosthetic effects have evolved so much over the past couple of decades that expressiveness no longer tends to be the problem. As to whether or not fatsuits are offensive... I dont have a strong personal opinion so for me it's about the execution.
Austin Butler as "Elvis"
It's like you said -- does it take you out of the picture? Which is why I'm not fond of the reasons that The Batman or Elvis will both be nominated (rendering Farrell unrecognizable and cartoonizing Tom Hanks, respectively) though I realize those are "achievements".
Paradoxically I think the rest of the makeup and hair work on both of those movies (especially Elvis) is outstanding in terms of the way it conjures specific characters, eras, and vibes, and how it glamourizes them. But, again, Oscar isn't generally nominating movies in this category for acing character design, period, hair or beauty elements. Until suddenly they are (on occassion). I find this branch wildly hard to read, annually, beyond their obvious love of prosthetics that is. And even then. Why, for instance does this branch (of all branches) hate horror films which rely so much on their craft?!
ELISA: On Elvis, we are on the exact same page. I liked it much less than you but it's a legitimate contender (here and elsewhere).
I am hesitant to recommend The Batman and Amsterdam because I would not describe their prosthetics/makeup choices as naturalistic, but as blunt instead. Unmemorable? Unimpactful? Speaking of Amsterdam, the way scars were created on Christian Bale’s face and body was realistic for sure. However, in my opinion remove the makeup work and it doesn't change the movie. The narrative and rhythm of the movie are so off that makeup cannot help. My gut feeling is that Amsterdam won’t receive any nominations.
Christian Bale in "Amsterdam"
NATHANIEL: Well, it's certainly not *favored* to take any nominations, sinking as it did without a trace. But on the other hand, as I've tried to impart often (usually to scoffing because people believe what they like to believe) the Academy tends to have different preferences than the internet. On the other hand Disney isn't as Oscar-chasing as a lot of the other distributors are so the question of Oscar's natural preferences might not even come up. If any film doesn't get a substantial campaign, voters tend to forget it exists (if they were even aware of it in the first place). From my anecdotal experience talking with Academy members at various luncheons and functions, they are just not as aware of the eligible movies in the same way that civilian awards-nerds and cinephiles tend to be.
This is why campaigns are such big business, in politics and in entertainment. The majority of voters only pay attention when they pay attention, and you don't know exactly when that's going to be so you just have to spend the money and work to generate enthusiasm!
I'm guessing you haven't seen Babylon yet but I'm so curious how the Academy will react to its strange relationship to its time period. In some ways it's trying to capture the late 1920s and in other ways it doesn't even bother. I wonder if that will matter to voters or if they'll just get caught up in its expensive coke-fueled inside-showbiz antics. Isn't it funny how sometimes anachronisms are so much fun and other times they're straight-up annoying? For instance I'm obsessed with the willful anachronisms of Austria's Oscar submission Corsage (which would be an interesting contender in this category given the wig work... not that it has a shot) but the anachronisms of Babylon made me crazy. Why does Margot Robbie look like she's auditioning for Showgirls?
and Vicky Krieps in "Corsage"
ELISA: Being clearly and boldly anachronistic is always a gamble. You never know how the audience will react. On this topic and Corsage, I could not agree more. The fact that this type of royalty porn (a subgenre they love) is almost certainly excluded from the run, only because of its passport, is a shame!
Speaking of predictions and campaigns. Do you think Disney is campaigning enough to put Black Panther Wakanda Forever in this category? My speculation here is that, unlike costumes, this time the makeup lacks that flavor of novelty needed to win but will still end up nominated. Meanwhile I'm rooting for Everything Everywhere All at Once. Not only for hot dog fingers but also for how makeup and hairstyles make ostensibly evident the fracture between different worlds and multiple timelines. It is a subtler, less evident achievement compared to the others we've discussed, but I hope the buzz the movie has collected in the last months will work its magic in craft categories.
Does it make your predictions?
NATHANIEL: It does not. I just don't think voters think in that much depth about their ballots, which is why "Most" and "Quite Visible" are such surefire ways to gain buzz. Okay, current predictions:
Tenoch Huerta in "Black Panther Wakanda Forever"
- The Whale
- Elvis
- Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
- The Batman
- Babylon (unless they reject the anachronisms)
Several other films as possibilities if any of those stumble. One interesting conceivable player I think is All Quiet on the Western Front but I'm not sure they'll notice how quietly effective those ravages of war makeup effects are. Totally curious to see what the finalist list looks like later this month but I hope that film is on it. I always wish that weirder more genre-oriented stuff (The Northman? Nope? Crimes of the Future?) would have a shot in this category but that's not really how they vote.
ELISA: My predictions are the same as yours except for Babylon.
- The Batman
- Black Panther Wakanda Forever
- Elvis
- Everything Everywhere All At Once
- The Whale
The lack of horror and sci-fi genres is a real shame. As you said, Cronenberg’s Crime of the Future would be a fine candidate, with a ton of bizarre prosthetics for fulfilling that kind of Academy fetishism. Unfortunately, neither Crimes of the Future nor gory titles with high-brow pedigree such as Bones and All or The Northman feel like strong candidates at the moment, but I would be more than delighted to see at least one of them show up in the nominations.
Tassos Karahalios in "Crimes of the Future"
RELATED
Best Film Editing - with Ben Miller & Nick Taylor
Nathaniel's Oscar Charts
Team Punditry - Best Picture and more. Where we stand right now.