You never know what you're going to get when the Oscars narrow down the field for Best Makeup. I broke down a lot of the specifics over at The Film Experience a few months ago. I also bet heavy on whimsy and nostalgia in my predictions and was dead wrong. The final nominees are Albert Nobbs, The Iron Lady, and Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2. It seems 2011 was a year that the Academy valued three elements above all else: transformation, realistic injuries, and hair.
With the exception of The Iron Lady, the three nominees really did put a lot of narrative emphasis on a good and realistic trickle of blood from an injury. In order to preserve the surprise of those superb effects, I will leave that aspect of the nomination like this: horror directors could learn a lot from watching a high-button period fantasy and a modern epic fantasy film. Less is more when it comes to gore and the goo should never overpower the rest of the narrative.
More important was the creation of realistic full body transformations through practical makeup effects. Albert Nobbs uses a lot of interesting practical makeup effects to transform the two women disguised as men. Prosthetics were formed of the ears to cover the piercings of Glenn Close and Janet McTeer. They each received nose and chin prosthetics to angle out their faces more. The rest was a deft hand with painting to show the damage of years of hard work on the two women's faces.
The Iron Lady did three sets of full prosthetic transformations for the Thatchers in three different time periods. Each time, the actors portraying the married couple really did look just like Margaret and Denis Thatcher. The nose and teeth appliances for the pair didn't change much throughout the film. The final transformation, however, of Meryl Streep into the elderly Margaret is breathtaking (until you realize her face can't move). The old age makeup looked real. Aging an actor that much is an extraordinary challenge. Visually, there were no flaws in that design.
With Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, the key is that big transformation scene. Ron Weasley is done up with a strong beard and a bit of painting to look like one of Bellatrix's assistants. When the characters all return to their original forms, their faces are disheveled from the rapid transformation. Add in all the new werewolves, warlocks, ghosts, and mythical creatures fighting on both sides and you see where transforming characters and actors alike would be recognized.
Hair design was key to the makeup transformations in all three films. In Albert Nobbs, Glenn Close and Janet McTeer done superb short wigs to define their character. Albert's perfectly set coiffe is immediately put at odds with the wild stringy hair of Hubert. That's not even getting into the elaborate hair designs of the Mrs Baker and the illustrious guests of the hotel.
In The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher is defined by her hair. The early curls of the former Miss Roberts give way to the shorter, more encased designed of Prime Minister Thatcher. In her modern state, the hair is grayed, unkempt, and thinning. The hair is battered and bruised as her life goes one, telling her story better than anyone else in the film even dares to try.
The challenge with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is figuring out what, exactly, the Academy considered new. Surely Hermoine's surprisingly thick curls after transforming back from her impersonation of Bellatrix LaStrange count for something. Same as the calm and relaxed--perfectly white--hair and beard of Dumbledore from beyond the grave. A new ghost emerges with a unique hairstyle and all the major characters are shown with their hair disheveled from an unending night of battles. Most of the new elements come not from character creation but character reinvention in the face of war.
Collectively, the three films really did focus on practical effects. Harry Potter, of course, used its digital wizardry to finish off Voldemort and processing to turn the new ghost transparent, but the rest was laid by hand. It's refreshing to see a field of nominees that are driven by practical, not digital, makeup.
My prediction is The Iron Lady winning because more is sometimes mistaken for better. My personal preference is Albert Nobbs because the work is so subtle and believable.
Thoughts? Love to hear them.