Categories One-by-One: Makeup and Hairstyling

[criddic3]

It's too bad the creature effects from The Last Voyage of the Demeter didn't make it past the shortlist phase. The work there was pretty impressive, but I still think the overall work on Poor Things will likely prevail here over Maestro. After all it is "makeup and hairstyling" and I think there was a wider array of makeup work done on the former than the latter.

[Jefforey Smith]

Maestro and Poor Things are both the type of makeup job that wins here a lot--big job on essentially a single character. I know, I know, Carey Mulligan wore makeup and had her hair styled too, and there was other makeup/hairstyling in Poor Things than Willem Dafoe, but without, respectively, the makeup jobs on Bradley Cooper and Willem Dafoe, would either of those films be in contention here?

I do think Maestro will probably win this, and if you want to bring "statistics" into it, here's why: The voters in this category have shown a preference for makeup jobs that highlight a single character (or a few characters), often tied to the lead character played by a nominated actor. See Brendan Fraser in The Whale, Jessica Chastain in The Eyes of Tammy Faye, Charlize Theron in Bombshell, Christian Bale in Vice, Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour. The big makeup job in Poor Things is a supporting character who isn't in the film a ton after the first ~40 minutes. Maestro's makeup is centered on a lead character who is probably in 75% of a two-hour film.

I do think it's close, but I do think recent history favors Maestro over Poor Things.

It's a close call between Maestro and Poor Things. In finalizing predictions, this category is the only one I've a runner-up pick. All commentaries single out makeup work done on Bradley Cooper and Willem Dafoe. It's interesting to read your theory why Maestro will prevail: Cooper's greater screen time.

[dws1982]

I mentioned in the visual effects thread that this branch seems to have gotten their act together, but then it hit me: In not even shortlisting Barbie, did they box out a potential winner? A movie that makes looks and beauty and perceptions of what is an isn't "beautiful" central to its plot seems like a no-brainer for this category. But on the other side, it's not an obvious makeup job in the way that Maestro or Poor Things or Golda is, so maybe it wouldn't have won, but I wonder if the makeup branch just didn't want to risk the chance.

Golda was one of the first movies I watched the new year. For whatever reason, as soon as it made the shortlist, I knew it would get in. The work on Mirren is good, and that type of single-character work does win here a lot, but the work on everyone else is very indifferently done, and the movie basically doesn't exist. No chance. If Society of the Snow had done better with nominations, had managed to break through in Visual Effects and Score, I might rate it as an outside shot, but the fact is that it never quite caught on like it might have, and, for lack of a better term, the whole "men looking haggard in the wilderness" aesthetic doesn't really play here.

I think Oppenheimer has a chance as part of a big sweep, but of its thirteen nominations I think it has a better shot in at least ten other categories--basically everything except Costumes and Supporting Actress. But if it does win here, it's probably winning almost everywhere.

Maestro and Poor Things are both the type of makeup job that wins here a lot--big job on essentially a single character. I know, I know, Carey Mulligan wore makeup and had her hair styled too, and there was other makeup/hairstyling in Poor Things than Willem Dafoe, but without, respectively, the makeup jobs on Bradley Cooper and Willem Dafoe, would either of those films be in contention here?

People on a few podcasts I've listened to are annoying and dumb about some of these categories, for exaple "Kazu Hiro has won twice for similar makeup jobs, so statistics are on his side!", which...no, that's not how statistics work. (If nothing else, a sample size of two is meaningless.) I do think Maestro will probably win this, and if you want to bring "statistics" into it, here's why: The voters in this category, especially over the past decade or so, have shown a preference for makeup jobs that highlight a single character (or a few characters), usually tied to the lead character played by a nominated actor. See Brendan Fraser in The Whale, Jessica Chastain in The Eyes of Tammy Faye, Charlize Theron in Bombshell, Christian Bale in Vice, Gary Oldman in Darkest Hour. The big makeup job in Poor Things is a supporting character who isn't in the film a ton after the first ~40 minutes. Maestro's makeup is centered on a lead character who is probably in 75% of a two-hour film. And whatever people think of the film, the work is damned impressive.

I do think it's close, but I think recent history favors Maestro over Poor Things.

[Reza]

The only question that I have is whether or not voters just hate Bradley Cooper and are truly put off by "Jewface" (hate that phrase). Or if they really thought his nose in the first part of the movie wasn't needed (it wasn't). But I think history strongly favors Maestro taking this one.

Why would you say the nose on Cooper wasn't needed? Have you forgotten the big nose Bernstein had? The makeup team did a superb job on Cooper creating that Bernstein nose.

And this nonsense about taking offence about jews having a big nose. Well most do. They should be proud of it. I'm a pathan from the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan and we pathans are known for having a big nose. I have a big nose too and don't get hysterical if anyone points it out or makes fun of it. People are just too friggin' sensitive nowadays and need to chill.

[Sabin]

This is probably the only Oscar race I can think of where I was both 100% confident in at least a mini-sweep by one film but every other category was a coin flip.

Oppenheimer seems destined to walk away with at least six Oscars: Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, Original Score, Cinematography, and Film Editing, with Actor, Adapted Screenplay, and Sound very much in the mix. In all likelihood, its low showing puts it below only The Return of the King, Slumdog Millionaire, and Everything Everywhere All At Once, and equal to Chicago and The Hurt Locker. If I'm not the biggest fan of the film (I'll rewatch it soon), it's at least heartening to see the Oscars embrace one film that embodies all the aspects of filmmaking without sectioning them all piecemeal year after year.

That said, we're going to see some funky Oscar pools this year when it comes to every other category besides those above and Best Supporting Actress.

This means, we might be in for the rare Oscar night where one film comes out strongly ahead (giving viewers their cherished, long-awaited moments like seeing Christopher Nolan win Best Director) as well as a steady string of real surprises.

[Mister Tee]

So, the same day BAFTA comes down on my side of this debate, the Make-up and Hairstylists Guild strikes a blow for Sabin's position. A real contest.

Film

Best Contemporary Make-up: Saltburn (Siân Miller, Laura Allen)
Best Period and/or Character Make-up: Maestro (Siann Grigg, Jackie Risotto, Elisa Tallerico, Nicky Pattison-Illum)
Best Special Make-up Effects: Maestro (Kazu Hiro, Sian Grigg, Duncan Jarman, Mike Mekash)
Best Contemporary Hair Styling: Saltburn (Siân Miller, Laura Allen)
Best Period Hair Styling and/or Character Hair Styling: Barbie (Ivana Primorac, Marie Larkin, Clare Corsick)

[Sabin]

I'm a little surprised by some of the posts I'm reading. I would assume every post would be a variation of "Obviously, this is Maestro's to lose but the backlash."

Maestro has some of the most incredible old age makeup I've ever seen in a movie. It's truly remarkable stuff and Kazu Hiro has won the last two times he was nominated for Darkest Hour and Bombshell -- the rare Makeup Perf win detached from a corresponding actor win. I personally think the girlbossification of Fox News is more distasteful than anything in Maestro. The only question that I have is whether or not voters just hate Bradley Cooper and are truly put off by "Jewface" (hate that phrase). Or if they really thought his nose in the first part of the movie wasn't needed (it wasn't). But I think history strongly favors Maestro taking this one.

Poor Things' makeup falls more along the lines of a Grand Budapest Hotel type of nomination, sort of the "pomp & circumstance & grotesquerie" nomination. I think it's the clear runner up, but for Maestro to win I think voters would have to have so much distaste for Cooper and his film and I don't think its seven nominations back that up.

[Big Magilla]

This is a category that I thought Barbie would easily win.

Of the actual nominees, Poor Things seems the likeliest with its many and varied creations.

If there is an upset, I would expect it to be Society of the Snow with its realistic look of devastation.

Maestro may also be a possibility as it does a good job of aging of both Bradley Cooper and Carey Mulligan.

Golda and Oppenheimer are both problematic.

Golda gets its main character alright, but not its subordinate characters. Liev Schrieber's Henry Kissinger, for example, looks nothing like him.

Oppenheimer gives us a Harry Truman in Gary Oldman that looks nothing like the Truman we remember or know from newsreels for those too young to have witnessed him in real life even though he does look like he really was in 1946.

Tom Conti looks exactly like he does in a 2022 episode of Midsomer Murders except for the Einstein wig and mustache - so, A for his hair, but F for his makeup.

[Mister Tee]

The nominees:

Golda
Maestro
Oppenheimer
Poor Things
Society of the Snow

They added "and Hairstyling" to this award sometime in the past decade, but there's no particular sign they truly meant it. If they had, it seems like Barbie would have been a solid contender (the Broadcasters expected it, giving the film their award/prediction)...but it couldn't even crack the short-list. Winners in the last half-dozen years have most often involved ostentatious character make-up -- often for just a single character (Darkest Hour, Vice, Eyes of Tammy Faye, The Whale). How do this year's nominees measure to that standard?

Golda's primary achievement is making Helen Mirren --the hottest 78-year-old you've ever known -- into a frump. It's not an especially eye-catching transformation, and the film was barely seen; I think it can be summarily dismissed.

Society of the Snow is an atypical candidate; its makeup effects mostly amount to the amount of frostbite featured on each character (though it also effectively uses hair in crafting this look, so at least it represents the full category title reasonably well). I doubt it has much chance...but, in a category where nothing seems a dominant front-runner, you never know if the votes'll scatter so widely that an unexpected choice might emerge (think Ex Machina in visual effects 2015).

Oppenheimer seems poised to snag a few below-the-line trophies, but this doesn't seem its most likely spot. There wasn't much truly notable character work, apart from Einstein (and, for all I know, that's what Tom Conti looks like, these days), plus Robert Downey's white hair. A win here would mean the film is embarked on a before-times sweep that could approach double digits.

A lot of people spent much of the season pushing Maestro for this prize, based, I guess, on Cooper's transformation into Bernstein (despite the negative headlines it generated pre-opening), and, I suppose, the aging work on all the actors, especially Mulligan on her sick-bed. You can't rule out a win.

But I'm inclined to think Willem Dafoe's gaudy hint-of-Frankenstein look, along with Emma's scars, might carry the day for Poor Things -- especially if hairstyling counts for anything, seeing half the cast is fitted out in elaborate dos.

This and visual effects are, for me, the toughest below-the-line categories this year. Poor Things is my current lean, but I reserve the right to change my mind.