Los Angeles Times: Every awards season, much oohing and aahing is done over meticulously rendered sets and gloriously tailored costumes in movies. But many contenders go one step beyond and present something unique and special — an object or gizmo that without it the whole film could flop over.
6 comments:
There is specific dynamic or art and craftsmanship that goes into creating the exposition for a visual work. The piece has to perfectly support and collaborate with the storyline with cohesion and fluidity. These objects are pieces of art on their own, they have just been placed within the context of something else and now have more of a determined function. It may seem to have somewhat of a limiting function upon the work, but to me it in many cases I consider it an amplification of inspiration, that can sometimes create an extraordinary effect. It also creates material challenges because of a difference in budget, circumstances or whatever boundaries are created by contextualization. For example, oil frescos require time, money, and a lot of labor to install on a wall, so Kopp’s use of acrylic, glue, and plaster as a substitute is clever and essential to the success of the visual aesthetic.
After reading this article, I realized how little I actually pay attention to the work put into each facet of production, specifically cinema. I think this is a result of the craftsmanship put into everything and how extensively thought out it is. After all I’m not going to think too much of something that seems to fit perfectly. In my opinion, each example given is an impressive demonstration of collaboration between departments and being able to come to an agreement on the official design. The main thing that caught my eye from this article was the Stillsuits for “Dune”. It definitely highlights the high level of skill from all persons involved to make a piece that is both practical (in the sense that they had to be able to keep the actors cool) and thematically fitting. In all of the examples given, there are plenty of challenges when it comes to achieving the design and meeting the expectation of the directors, and I think the teams effectively overcame these challenges.
I do enjoy the special projects in shows that kinda take over the whole show, grabbing people from different departments and sort of becoming their own for the time that they are in play. I found the second piece to be the most visually stunning, but I think I’m removed enough from the context of the show to not understand the impact that it had on it when in Dune I understand that those stillsuits were life for the characters and were basically omnipresent, and the dolls was also omnipresent as a main actor in the show, I’m curious what would happen to it if the paintings were different, is the show simply mostly set in front of them? It can be terrifying how much of show ends up relying on a specific piece of tech or design, the stillsuits as an example bringing costumes to this incredible standard that carries the environment of the show in the sense that you can have a show where the set is the focus or where costumes or lighting tends to be the most important and revolved around.
Out of the three movies I’ve only been able to see the French Dispatch but after taking a look at these creations I’m so curious to see how they performed on film. The article only included pictures which made me interested in how the suits and even more so the puppets are able to move. I appreciate this article because before I read it I never stopped to think about how those paintings came to be in the French Dispatch. I guess that’s also to the credit of Wes Anderson and the painter Sandro Kopp since they were able to work together to create something that seamlessly fit in the world. It was particularly interesting to hear about their process and the freedom Sandro received with only a little bit of guidance. Now I’m really tempted to go back and admire the work that was put into creating them.
When a piece of art is so integral to a larger production, the pressure to perform is especially heightened. On the other hand, however, it’s also an opportunity to pour resources into beautiful artistic projects that would never be possible off of a set. Of the three items on this list, the paintings are the most intriguing to me. The scale of such a project is so expensive that many artists will not get the chance in their lives to be funded in creating something similar. Moses Rosenthaler’s talent is so evident in this single screenshot, which in itself is breathtaking. The other two items on this list are by no means forgettable, though. Creating a puppet of a child that isn’t creepy is a hard standard to meet in itself, even before needing to make that puppet like able enough to drive the plot of a whole film. Finally, the still suit, such an integral piece of the world building in dune, is admirable in it’s ability to be futuristic without being a stereotype, even in such an iconic sci fi piece.
The article mentions the stillsuit from “Dune”, Moses Rosenthaler’s artworks from “The French Dispatch” and the Annette Puppet from “Annette”. “Annette” is not a film I’ve heard of, but I searched up its trailer after reading and I must say I’m very confused. Disregarding the film itself, I think Annette puppet draws my attention the most because as the article says, it’s hard to make a puppet not look creepy (I still think the image used in the article is fairly creepy). But more than anything, I think I’m most amazed by the fact that the directors decided to use a puppet in the film. I can totally understand why it would be difficult to use an actual toddler, but I was expecting the directors to just use CGI or greenscreen or even fast forward the timeline. And to think that there’s a combination of real actors and puppet in a movie that’s not for scary or comedy effect is very new and challenging to me.
Post a Comment