Trailer: Mockingjay 2, the Last Chapter of The Hunger Games
Posted on July 26, 2015 at 11:33 pm
Posted on July 26, 2015 at 11:33 pm
Posted on July 26, 2015 at 8:00 am
“Ant-Man” begins with a flashback to 1989, with Michael Douglas appearing not as he looks to day but as he looked 25 years ago. How did they do that? Special effects that are called “digital make-up.” New York Magazine’s Vulture has the story. They spoke to Trent Claus of Lola VFX, who had both the advantage and disadvantage of a ton of reference material.
Unlike on previous transformations, they had a plenty of reference material — multiple feature films’ worth — of exactly what a 45-year-old Michael Douglas would look like. To hear Claus tell it, this was both a blessing and a curse. “It helped us a lot to have that reference,” he said, “but it made us work harder, because the audience already knew what he looked like at that age. There wasn’t a whole lot of leeway.”
…
De-aging an actor is essentially giving them a digital face-lift, and Lola’s team do the same work with digital composites a skilled plastic surgeon would do with a scalpel. The two professions turn out to have similar ways of talking. “The most obvious thing is that the skin along the jaw in most people tends to get lower and lower and sag a little bit as you get older. Particularly around the throat and the Adam’s Apple area, you’ll get a build-up of extra skin down there,” Claus told me. “One thing we’ll have to do to de-age someone is restore that elasticity and try to not only to remove the excess skin, but pull it back up to where it once was.”
Our cheeks thin out and sink as we get older, so Lola also added a little more fat to the middle of Douglas’s cheeks. And since human ears and noses never stop growing, they also had to shrink Douglas’s back to their 1980s’ sizes, as well as remove some of his ear wrinkles. Then it came time to restore what Claus called Douglas’s “youthful glow,” adding shine to his skin and hiding the blood vessels in his nose.
Equally transformative are the “practical” (real-life) effects created by the magnificent wig and makeup team for “Key and Peele.” It is almost impossible to imagine that all of these characters are played by just two actors.
Slate has a great story about Amanda Mofield, the show’s hair stylist, and Scott Wheeler, their makeup artist. Describing the college bowl sketch, Wheeler said, “We shot the first one—we did 32 characters, made them up, wigged them and shot them—in two hours, total. The way we made that work was … we were doing very small tweaks on each character, and slowly building up the facial hair. And then when they showed the characters, they showed them out of the order from how we made them up, so they looked like bigger jumps. And that was our master plan that worked perfectly.”
Posted on July 25, 2015 at 10:54 pm
New from PBS: Tales From the Royal Wardrobe. Historian Dr. Lucy Worsley, Chief Curator at Historic Royal Palaces, explains that the fascination with the clothes worn by the royals is not a recent development. And the monarchs have used and encouraged this fascination as a carefully orchestrated piece of theater managed by the royals themselves to control the right image and project the right message to their subjects. Royal fashion is, and always has been, as much about politics as it is about the cut. This documentary explores the history and style of the royal wardrobe and how the clothes each of the royals chooses reflects and affects — for better or worse — not just their personalities but their relationship to their subjects. From the formal gowns and robes and jewels to the iconic wedding dresses and the clothes worn by the royal children, Dr. Worsley shows us how they shape history.
Posted on July 25, 2015 at 3:37 pm
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
I had a few more thoughts about Amy Schumer’s “Trainwreck” that didn’t fit into my review because they are too spoilery.
First, our concerns over Schumer’s party girl character, also called Amy, are supposed to be about her drinking, pot-smoking, and one-night-stands. But can we take a moment to talk about how completely irresponsible she is at her job? It is a massive violation of journalistic ethics and instant firing offense, even for a skanky rag like the magazine she works for in this film, to sleep with the subject of your story. We are supposed to respect Amy’s professional accomplishments, especially at the end when her story, rejected as “too boring” by her employer, then somehow appears in Vanity Fair.
This is just one element that makes it difficult to make the leap of faith necessary to believe that Mr. Wonderful — or, I should say, Dr. Wonderful — played by Bill Hader, would actually fall for her. Yes, she’s pretty and funny and she sleeps with him right away, but can he have any respect for her whatsoever? No gauzey montage, even with air quotes around it, even with the genuine chemistry between the actors, is enough to prevent us from wondering whether the doctor can’t do better.
There are too many distractions. That dog walker movie? We could have one without it entirely, and there was certainly no reason for a reprise. And what was that “intervention” all about?
What I did like a lot: Amy’s affecting eulogy for her father gives some emotional heft to her character. And the scene after she takes a phone call during his speech is really well done, as Amy learns for the first time that people in relationships resolve conflict; they don’t run away from it.
Posted on July 25, 2015 at 8:00 am
Thanks to my friend and fellow film critic Eddie Pasa for sharing this short film by Patrick Jean, the inspiration for this week's "Pixels."