Guest Remember November Posted May 1, 2008 Posted May 1, 2008 Bill: not sure if you've covered this or not but what if we are not dealing with a mask? How do you feel about it being makeup applied to the face. Is there a term for that?
Bill Posted May 1, 2008 Author Posted May 1, 2008 RN: "Bill: not sure if you've covered this or not but what if we are not dealing with a mask? How do you feel about it being makeup applied to the face. Is there a term for that?" It's commonly called an appliance makeup, or a prosthetic makeup, meaning molded pieces applied directly to the actor's face, and blended and made up. A mask be comparison is a removable and presumably re-useable object which is generally fully painted and detailed prior to it's being put over the actor's head. Usual application time for a mask is a few minutes (excluding any suit). Usual time for multiple facial appliances applied and blended to the actor's face is two or three hours (can be less for real poor quality applications). The appliance makeup basically needs a full makeup workstation, chair for the actor, etc. An appliance makeup would still not fix the concerns about the perceived shape of Patty's head as lower on the top than the human head. Bill
Guest Remember November Posted May 1, 2008 Posted May 1, 2008 Ok, you would only use appliance makeup for a close up right? Also, If there are any known photos of these suspect masks, particularly in clean profile photos of those masks, the profile photos would be of value to compare with this potential Paty head profile analysis. Is this what you are refering to?
Bill Posted May 1, 2008 Author Posted May 1, 2008 RN: "Ok, you would only use appliance makeup for a close up right?" An appliance makeup looks better in closeups, in general, as compared to a mask, but there are exceptions of masks made with very high quality blends around the eye area. In general, appliance makeups are used to allow the actor's own facial motions to transmit through the appliances, for facial expresion. Masks either have no expresion motion (cheap background character ones) or may have highly sophisticated inner animation mechanics to provide the mask with expression capability. The actor's own facial expresions generally do not cause the mask facial expressions, as they do for appliance makeups. That would be the primary difference. On the photos, ideally one would have a full head clean profile view, so the exact full head shape as seen from the side could be determined. Bill
Guest Remember November Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Bill: So I guess the next thing in my mind would be to determine if Patty conveys any facial expression. If she does, would this rule out a mask from 67?
Bill Posted May 2, 2008 Author Posted May 2, 2008 RN: So I guess the next thing in my mind would be to determine if Patty conveys any facial expression. If she does, would this rule out a mask from 67? " Actually, the 2001 Space Oddessy masks were more expressive than the Planet of the Apes appliances, so back in 1967-68, these two projects actually reversed the basic idea. So it was possible to have a highly expressive mask back then, if you hired Stuart Freeborn in England to do your mask. Bill
Guest Remember November Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 So is it safe to say Patty's face is moving?
Bill Posted May 2, 2008 Author Posted May 2, 2008 RN: "So is it safe to say Patty's face is moving? " Depends on what you mean by "face moving". If you are just talking about a jaw/mouth opening and closing, that wasn't hard for either an appliance makeup or a mask. "Expression", like a snarl, smile, etc. was more challenging for both, especially for the mask. As to whether patty's face is moving (as in making expressions or even mouth opening), I leave that to others to debate. Bill
Guest Remember November Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 RN:"So is it safe to say Patty's face is moving? " Depends on what you mean by "face moving". If you are just talking about a jaw/mouth opening and closing, that wasn't hard for either an appliance makeup or a mask. "Expression", like a snarl, smile, etc. was more challenging for both, especially for the mask. As to whether patty's face is moving (as in making expressions or even mouth opening), I leave that to others to debate. Bill But you are showing us how Patty's profile is not consistent in each frame. Could this be interpreted as a dynamic mask?
Bill Posted May 2, 2008 Author Posted May 2, 2008 RN: "But you are showing us how Patty's profile is not consistent in each frame. Could this be interpreted as a dynamic mask?" What I was showing is more the actual change of the head shape, which no mask does. The head shape change can be best accounted for with film grain distortion, motion blur, film artifacts and minor optics issues (maybe slight bits of dust on the lens that distort certain positional spaces in the image, etc.) So the multiple head outlines is to try and arrive at an average head shape, not as an analysis of any argument for mouth or other facial motion. Bill
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 (edited) Owen Caddy claims to show mouth movement in the PGF. After seeing the frames I'm 99% convinced that Mr. Caddy went grasping at straws. His "mouth movement" looks nothing more than an artifact or image from the backround that momentarilary merges with the mouth to give the illousion of movement. Furthermore he maintains that Patty's mouth is actully set lower on the face than the film indicates, yet try as I may the mouth seems essentially in a human position. Edited May 2, 2008 by Crowlogic
Guest Remember November Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Bill: Ok, that clears a lot up. I was not sure if the shape change was just distortion or if Patty is moving her face. So the 2001 masks, did they have a puppetteer? How did the face move? (if you dont want to clutter up this thread you can IM me an answer)
Bill Posted May 2, 2008 Author Posted May 2, 2008 RN: "So the 2001 masks, did they have a puppetteer? How did the face move?" The masks were unique in being fully self contained, and animation of the lips was by either toggles in the mask the mime would push with his/her tongue, or counter-stringing the lip action to the jaw action, which the mime's chin/mouth motion activated. There's a better discussion of this elsewhere in another of my notes, I believe with questions by "Lyndon" but I couldn't find them with a quick look just now. I do know they are somewhere in the posts following another thread in my series. Bill
Guest Remember November Posted May 2, 2008 Posted May 2, 2008 Bill: That’s amazing. I will look for that discussion. If one could find that Patty's face was moving (eye brows, lips) in a manner more sophisticated than just a hinged jaw, would this ad more credibility to the film being genuine?
Recommended Posts