Don't Believe What You See at the Movies

MattSparkes writes "Many images you see in a magazine are Photoshopped, and it's getting less and less likely that what you see at the cinema is any more genuine. In the film 'Blood Diamond', tears were added to Jennifer Connolly's face after a scene was shot. According to The Times, digital effects artists can even change actors' expressions. 'Opening or closing eyes; making a limp more convincing; removing breathing signs; eradicating blinking eyelids from a lingering gaze; or splicing together different takes of an unsuccessful love scene to produce one in which both parties look like they are enjoying themselves.' The article mentions the moral qualms digital effects people have over performing these manipulations, and the steps actors are taking to protect their digital assets."

Comments

not sure I get the controversy

[yagu]

Isn't a director's responsibility to convey exactly what he (she) wants to say? Isn't movie-making mostly about suspending belief? Isn't this all make believe (not including documentaries, etc.)?

It seems to me (and IANAD) directors have the ulimate creative say so in movie creation. I find the manipulation in magazines offensive, because ostensibly a picture of a model represents reasonable facsimiles of that model, often in some context of cause and effect of some beauty products. Distortions and manipulations there are dishonest, and brush up against fraud.

But movies are supposed to be about make believe. Heck, most movies these days are rife with computer graphics and openly so. What is the nuance and difference with doctoring an actors performance?

Most actors are what (famous, popular) they are because they were at the right place at the right time. Directors have a tougher case to prove... they are ultimately responsible for the entire package and the effects, emotions, stories, etc., their movies bring. Their palette is more complex. I don't begrudge them their creative license.

Actors who think otherwise, as stated in the article, can stipulate contractually their work be preserved, but there are few actors who warrant that honor. (I have to laugh that Tom Cruise would stipulate that "manipulation" to make him look better is okay, but else it's not... especially ironic from coming from a Scientologist who interprets a world of "datagrams".)

Do I feel deceived Jennifer C.'s tears were fake? Hmmmmm.... had she "acted" them, what would have made them any more real?

Re:not sure I get the controversy

[AKAImBatman]

There's no difference between marketing print ads and movies. They're both fake, and as long as we know this there is no harm, or "fraud" as you put it.

His point is that using an air-brushed girl to advertise Avon skin care products is borderline fraudulent. No woman is ever going to look that good using those products. Heck, the woman in the magazine doesn't even look that good!

Using fake tears to make J-Lo (or whoever it was) cry is fine tuning a dramatic scene of a movie. The director isn't trying to get you to purchase any products with his changes. He's only attempting to bring the performances closer to his vision for the entertainment product. In many respects, it's like adding a coat of paint or polish before declaring the product ready for market.

There is a difference.

Re:not sure I get the controversy

[Achromatic1978]

Using fake tears to make J-Lo (or whoever it was) cry

Holy fuck. I can't believe you just confused J-Ho - one half of the Bennifer travesty, not to mention Gigli - with Jennifer Connelly, who plenty of us have had a thing for ever since Labyrinth (and don't even start me on Requiem For A Dream's "ASS TO ASS!" scene).

Gah, it burns!

Re:not sure I get the controversy

[AKAImBatman]

Your response confirms what I've suspected for a long while now: There's not much hope remaining for the human race. :-/

Re:not sure I get the controversy

[mobby_6kl]

I would bet Angelina Jolie looks 1000% better than 99.99999% /. readers significant others before makeup.

I'm not gonna argue against your main point, but I don't think it's fair to make a percentile estimations based on a population of five.

Entertainment Anyone?

[Gates82]

It was no big deal the dinosaurs were added to several scenes in Jurassic Park, or that that a liquid metal man can walk through steel bars in terminator, but now the CGI has gotten so good at blending with live action it is no a moral problem. I don't know about you but I go to the movies (rarely) for entertainment. I expect to see the best possible image and scene. I really have no concern about how the images were created as long as the blend and I can't tell were the CG is. Now if I am watching the news or a documentary I might want to know about these changes. This seems more like the actors complaining that their performance was good enough as is. They have a makeup artist for their face why not a graphics person in post production. This is lame and BS.

--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

Re:Go rent LOOKER

[Quiet_Desperation]

Looker is an old movie about digitizing actors and then killing them. It is finally becoming technically possible.

Nonsense. It's been possible to kill actors for years.

What a coincidence!

[L. VeGas]

I, too, photoshopped liquid onto Jennifer Connely's face.

No Post-Edit Clause

[ashitaka]

I have more respect for an actors that insists on a "No-post editing" clause and can proudly let everyone know that is the case.

I re-watched Castaway the other day.

Yes, Tom Hanks wasn't on an island when he goes to the top of the hill and looks around at an endless expanse of ocean (he was in a hollywood backlot) but the expression on his face made you believe he was.

Nice Tag...

[DaedalusLogic]

<!JOKETYPE humor PUBIC "-//W3C//DTD YOURMOTHERML 1.0 Sarcastic//EN" "http://www.wtf.org/TR/yourmotherml1/DTD/yourmothe rml1-sarcastic.dtd">
<attitude>
  <zinger>Learn to terminate a tag, jackass!</zinger>
  <ps>j/k</ps>
</attitude>

Re:Do you mean....

[CHacker]

She hasn't got to D yet.