| Ask a Stupid Question posted 1/29/03--updated 1/31/03 with write-in contenders VOTE IN THE DAILY DIGEST BEST MAKEUP POLL |
 |
 |
 |
|
| More news than you can shake a stick at since September 8, 2001 |
| No, really. Not that your questions are stupid; we're just saying that we'll take all comers, as long as it's movie-related. And it's not that we know it all, by any means--rather, if we don't know the answer, we'll try to find someone who does. Q: Okay, this time it's a question from... well, me: I'm still trying to figure out why there are only two films (Frida and The Time Machine) eligible for makeup this year. A Zap2It article notes that “[c]riticism of Chicago and Gangs of New York being out-of-period with hair styles and Nicole [Kidman]'s nose [in The Hours] being too noticed cost some of the nominees,” but that “[i]ronically, the announcement comes the weekend after the Hollywood Makeup Artist and Hairstylist Guild Awards announced nominees, which included 8 Mile, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Road to Perdition, Master of Disguise, Red Dragon and the two nominees. Other surprise snubs this year include Men in Black II, Star Trek: Nemesis and Santa Clause 2,” not to mention Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. In other words: The hell? A: The long answer (hang on for the link Sasha Stone sent us a few paragraphs down): Okay, so first I went and pulled up the makeup rules and regulations at Oscar.org--and didn't see anything that said no soup for you!, if you see what I mean. For example: 6. Eligibility of the contributor(s) to the makeup achievement, for nomination purposes, shall be determined by the Makeup Award Rules Committee no later than one week prior to the Makeup Artist and Hairstylist members' voting screening... 7(a) A ballot, listing the productions in their running order (which shall have been determined by lot) shall be distributed to the committee. All members must mark a score of 10, 9, 8, 7 or 6 opposite each of the achievements. 7(b) A maximum of three productions achieving the highest average point score of 8.0 or more may be nominated for the Makeup Award. The problem is that there are no actual guidelines regarding what should be eligible--just a description of a process that allows the committee to be as whimsical as it chooses to be. There's nothing in there that says, puppetry or digital touchups aren't allowed, or that, oh, let's say, 80% of the makeup must be original and not used in a previous film (as might have been the case with Two Towers and Fellowship of the Ring). I use that figure because there was a last-minute ruling for the Best Score category that's currently been put off until next year that could render, let's say, Howard Shore's Two Towers score inadmissible because it uses "unoriginal" themes--i.e., music from Fellowship. As is, a "furious" New Line claims that the TTT score is "88%" original (how do you compute that, exactly?), and so the controversy has been put off until next year. (See the LA Times article.) Anyhoo: "originality" is not an issue in the makeup category... or is it? I emailed Oscar Watch, one of our affiliates, to see if editor Sasha Stone had any ideas. Well, she sent us a Hollywood Reporter article that clears up... some of it. Let's break it down: << Frida: Ruled eligible. << The Time Machine: Ruled eligible. Curiously, it was "an early entrant on the makeup branch's list of 'movies to watch,' a list informally circulated throughout the year by the guild to alert its branch members of work worthy of Oscar consideration." << Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: "The prevailing opinion was that "Two Towers," part of a trilogy filmed in sequence, shouldn't be given another Oscar for the very same character work that won the award last year." Curiously, this disregards "character work" like Wormtongue and the aged Theoden that was new to the second film. << Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Barely mentioned in the HR article, but, as a sequel, most likely fell victim to the "originality" problem; you might see COS get a nod for new character Kenneth Branagh's costumes, for example, but his makeup was pretty straightforward stuff. << The Hours: The nose is a shoo-in, right? "Disqualified on a technicality -- some digital work had been done on [Nicole] Kidman's prosthetic nose." Update: However, I had totally forgotten the old-age Julianne Moore makeup at the end of the film. What about that? << Chicago: "In the view of some of the voters, its hair and makeup did not accurately reflect its period." In particular, we might note Renee Zellweger's Marilyn Monroesque "Roxie" song. However, Chicago's not a history lesson--it's a musical. Update: As CHUD astutely points out, by that logic, last year's nominee Moulin Rouge was obviously an exercise in historical realism. << Gangs of New York: Okay, GONY was a history lesson. And Zap2It cites the same problem as for Chicago. Granted, some of the Cameron Diaz hair/makeup was a little wacky, but what about Bill the Butcher and his glass eye? << Men in Black 2: "Sources said the majority of work was puppetry as opposed to actual prosthetic makeup or hair styling." This is a little strange, given that the first MIB actually won Best Makeup in 1997. << Santa Clause 2: "According to one source, members were impressed by the explanatory printed presentations provided by the studios, but because the studios do not provide screeners for all the branch members, and many of them failed to see the films in question, they failed to garner support" (our italics). <<Star Trek: Nemesis: Same explanation as above. Although you would think a movie with a Klingon would be a shoo-in. << The Ring: A personal favorite of mine, this one doesn't even appear to have crossed the voters' minds, and the makeup was even done by Oscar perennial Rick Baker. (Let's just put it this way: the face on that dead girl in the beginning gave my sister the wig so bad that she had to sleep with the closet door open and the light on. FOR TWO WEEKS.) << Red Dragon: Also mysteriously ineligible, despite the excellent (read: completely icky) mouth they put on Ralph Fiennes. Addendum: Movies that our poll voters wrote in: << Adaptation: Ah, yes, Chris Cooper and the Nicolas Cage twins. << Austin Powers 3: Again, it falls into the sequel/originality trap... except for new characters like Goldmember and Foxy Cleopatra. << Minority Report: Why is the pre-cog makeup, which was quite good, not eligible? << Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones: I'm surprised I didn't think of this one myself. How are Natalie Portman's freaktastic hairstyles not eligible here? (Did George Lucas perhaps fall into the same trap as The Hours and use digital touchups?) Other films that were recently nominated in various categories for the Hollywood Makeup Artist and Hair Stylist Guild Awards (8 Mile, Spider-Man, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Road to Perdition, Master of Disguise): We have no idea. Oh, except for the fact that Master of Disguise kinda sucked. There's always that. So, what's the bottom line? Well, here (at last) is the short answer: 1) Not enough people are seeing the contenders and 2) the guidelines are not sufficiently clear as to what should and should not be eligible. Not to mention the fact that there are now three possible outcomes for the category this year: "Two nominations, a single special achievement award, or no nominations at all." Ouch. |
<< back to Ask a Stupid Question main |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| UPDATED: Before you vote in our Best Makeup That Should Have Been poll, take a close look at our contenders: Special Achievement in Makeup: This Guy |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |