Re: Categories One-by-One: Makeup & Hairstyling
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:06 pm
I've been unable to broach this category because Netflix has been keeping Wonder from me for weeks; I finally ended up doing pay-per-view...
...and quickly abandoned any hope of its upsetting Darkest Hour. Wonder is a kind of movie that's not very good but it's easy to understand why people like it: it works as aggressively as Eddie Redmayne in begging for love. And one way it does this is by making the Auggie character look not all that bad. The Eric Stolz make-up in Mask, for a similar affliction, was massive and grotesque; it WAS a chore to look at the guy, at first. Here, Tremblay of course doesn't look GOOD, but, honestly, I've seen people on the street who don't look appreciably better, and I don't assume they're genetically deformed. (Tremblay actually looks a bit like Mason Reese -- a name Magilla, at least, might recall.) It made no real sense for the kids to react with such outlandish horror to this face. But it had the effect of making the audience feel less uncomfortable -- which helps make the film poplar, but also, as I say, not good.
Which means the ten pounds of make-up ladled onto Gary Oldman every day will be an Oscar winner. I want to fine-tune a little what BJ said about Oldman's candidacy vis a vis Cotillard and Streep, lead acting contenders with make-up support. It is true that Oldman is viewed as much further ahead in his category than either of those two, but, paradoxically, I think each of the other two was viewed more favorably -- winning elite critics' awards (Streep NY, Cotillard LA) and Globes, thought to be running 2nd in their races purely due to quality of competition. Which is to say, I thought it made sense for them to be winning this prize, whereas I think a strong alternative (like, say, Mad Max: Fury Road) would snatch this away from Darkest Hour.
...and quickly abandoned any hope of its upsetting Darkest Hour. Wonder is a kind of movie that's not very good but it's easy to understand why people like it: it works as aggressively as Eddie Redmayne in begging for love. And one way it does this is by making the Auggie character look not all that bad. The Eric Stolz make-up in Mask, for a similar affliction, was massive and grotesque; it WAS a chore to look at the guy, at first. Here, Tremblay of course doesn't look GOOD, but, honestly, I've seen people on the street who don't look appreciably better, and I don't assume they're genetically deformed. (Tremblay actually looks a bit like Mason Reese -- a name Magilla, at least, might recall.) It made no real sense for the kids to react with such outlandish horror to this face. But it had the effect of making the audience feel less uncomfortable -- which helps make the film poplar, but also, as I say, not good.
Which means the ten pounds of make-up ladled onto Gary Oldman every day will be an Oscar winner. I want to fine-tune a little what BJ said about Oldman's candidacy vis a vis Cotillard and Streep, lead acting contenders with make-up support. It is true that Oldman is viewed as much further ahead in his category than either of those two, but, paradoxically, I think each of the other two was viewed more favorably -- winning elite critics' awards (Streep NY, Cotillard LA) and Globes, thought to be running 2nd in their races purely due to quality of competition. Which is to say, I thought it made sense for them to be winning this prize, whereas I think a strong alternative (like, say, Mad Max: Fury Road) would snatch this away from Darkest Hour.