-T.C.

[Link]

Ps> The remake about TOO muck make up, I agree there as well, I seen Deja Chan in Me Luv U Long Time #4 and the girl looked ORANGE!

[Link]

When fantasizing about someone we see in our real/everyday lives, I doubt many of us "see" them as professionally made-up, so I try to duplicate what a girl at the bank, supermarket, gum, etc might look like--I think it helps the viewer fantasize that she's real and that he might indeed somehow have a shot at someday having sex with him. Again, it seems to assist in the "whackability" visuals that I try to provide for the viewers.

Dave
www.davecummings.com

[Link]

Ive seen some movies where the makeup is just turning the girls face colors, from sweat and cum, when you need that much eye shadow, and others, its a little much to me.

I think Dave's approach is good. I will say though in a big budget feature, makeup can be great.

[Link]

Professional screen make-up isn't someone from the Clinique counter at Macy's gobbing on foundation and eye make-up. A profesional can creating the natural look, or any other look in a way that read well for the camera. It's not about making the talent look "made-up", it's about making them look right.

-T.C.

[Link]

Quaze

P.S. The following girls barely need makeup ( in other words, you could wake up beside them in the morning and not be horrified... not that I ever have)
Taylor Rain, Monica Sweetheart, Bobbi Eden, Arianna Jolee, Inari Vachs, Lea Demae, Brianna Blaze, Gauge, Dani Woodward, Bella Marie-Wolfe, Jennifer Luv.

There are many others of course but my attention span is depleted. Maybe I need Ritalin :)

Edited by - Mike Quasar on 12/1/2003 12:11:57 AM

[Link]

I suppose people have their tastes, but I think that the actresses should at least be allowed to wear mascara, eye shadow, blusher, lipstick, and some light foundation, at the very least. By the time their image ends up on videotape, then on the master DVD, then replicated, then fed through a DVD player onto a TV screen, how much "natural look" is their going to be left anyhow? There is nothing natural about this entire electronic process.

Even men on TV wear makeup, like TV news journalists. Even he-man Donald Rumsfeld sports some foundation when he's on "Meet the Press"; you can see they've covered up his age spots, which anyone can clearly see at his C-Span Pentagon briefings. Not that it makes him look more handsome, but he just appears healthier with the makeup. (No, I am not a Rummy fan and I don't want to see him in a porn film)

[Link]

I like the beauty that can be found in "unvarnished" reality. Craggy coastlines, craggy faces, a young woman sans shaving, make-up, or pretense. But capturing this sort of "reality" requires a medium capable of gathering more detail than a Sony PD100 (my DV camera of choice.)

T.C.

[Link]

There's nothing wrong with Mr.Cummmings "as I find them" approach. That has a look and an "emotional signature" for the viewer, one that can be quite powerful.

But it's no more "real" than any other technique, and requireness no less sensitivity from the director to produce the desired effect. The ultimate aim is authenticity; be it "authentic fantasy" or "authentic reality". But whatever varity of authenticity the director strives for, authenticity is always a confection.

-T.C.

[Link]

Ric Williams
President/COO
Private USA

[Link]

Paradoxically, film, which has much higher resolution than HD seems more forgiving for make-up, especially minimal or no make-up. My feeling is this has something to do with HD's limited exposure range (compared to film) rather than resolution. I also think that's why film transfered to SD still looks better than HD transfered to SD.

-T.C.

[Link]

Regarding Hi-Def and capturing every little flaw on the talent (pimples, in-grown hairs, razor burns) isn't there a way of "softening" the filming by using some sort of soft lens? Although not quite the same, it looks somewhat similar to the view you get when watching a soap opera.

[Link]

Samurai Dai

Edited by - samurai dai on 12/1/2003 8:02:02 PM

[Link]