For the uninitiated, IMATS stands for International Makeup Artist Trade Show and is the gathering for the makeup and makeup effects industries, and Monsterpalooza is a convention devoted to all things collectible that concern monsters – sci-fi and horror – from masks, figurines and maquettes, posters, screen-used props, comics, etc. Well,  IMATS was the gathering for the makeup and makeup effects industries… For makeup effects, is it still? For a time, IMATS happened twice a year – first in London, England at the end of January; and then in Pasadena, CA at the end of June. Now, there’s a show every two months!!

London and Pasadena have been joined by Sydney, Australia; Vancouver, British Columbia; New York, New York; and Toronto, Ontario, and there are  rumors floating around of yet another IMATS to take place in Miami, Florida! C’mon! Okay, Sydney I can understand – it’s way on the other side of the planet.  But the rest… are they really necessary?! IMATS used to be very special, exclusive even; now, with a show every two months it seems like serious over-saturation.  Most artists I know barely have time to make it to one IMATS a year, and if the shows aren’t for artists, then who? (I’ll get to that)  From just a vendor’s standpoint, it has become a colossal expense to exhibit at every show, and if not every show, which one, or ones?  Gaaa!

Don’t get me wrong.  Cudos to creator Michael Key and his staff at Makeup Artist Magazine for establishing such a lucrative brand.  I just think there are now too many IMATS.  Six. Maybe seven.  Really?  Who does this benefit?  My first IMATS was the Pasadena show in 2004.  As I recall, attendance was brisk, but not elbow-to-elbow as it has become.  While I am not a fan of large crowds, I can tolerate it for a 2-day show attended by fellow professionals, students and aspiring artists.  Since it is (was) the one time/place in North America for us to congregate, those not away working almost certainly would be in attendance to catch up with old friends, see new materials and new techniques.  However, in the last few years, IMATS seems to have become overrun by regular retail Janes with strollers and boyfriends in tow looking for great deals on eye shadow and bulk mascara brushes, and who wouldn’ t know an Academy Award-winning makeup artist if given a list of names and photos to choose from.  These folks have no industry connection, they just want to know  who’s giving away free stuff and “where’s the MAC booth at?”

As a result of this (and, yes, rising costs) a number of regular vendor attendees have pulled out of IMATS. Whereas IMATS used to be a pretty evenly represented mix of both fashion/beauty makeup and makeup effects, it has become clear to anyone with open eyes that it is far more about fashion/beauty makeup and what it represents. Many effects materials vendors as well as a number of prominent effects artists are feeling a bit put off. I won’t name names, but I’ve had personal conversations. I understand it from a business POV; nobody is in business just for fun. We’re in business to have fun AND to make money, and not necessarily in that order. Did I go to IMATS this year? Yes I did. And I thoroughly enjoyed myself, seeing old friends, making new friends, and getting some face time with contributors to the 2nd edition of my book.  Did I notice a shift away from makeup effects toward fashion and beauty makeup? Yes I did. And to be honest with you, my decision to go was pretty last minute. Airfare, rental car, hotel, meals, etc. Had the magazine not graciously offered to do a book signing and comp my attendance as a educator/guest (THANK YOU!), I may not have gone. It was expensive (though well worth it to me), and I have lots to do that I am now playing catch up to complete. Did I mention that I’m working on the 2nd edition of my book? It’s not going to write itself.

So what does IMATS have to do with Monsterpalooza. Nothing. But they do have one thing in common, and that is us. The effects artists.  Maybe it’s because so many of us are monster nuts and got into the business of makeup effects largely because of the movie monsters of our youth – The Wolfman, Frankenstein’s Monster, The Creature From the Black Lagoon, Dracula, The Invisible Man, Godzilla, Them, the list could literally go on almost indefinitely… but it seemed as though every 10 feet or so walking through the exhibit hall I’d run into another makeup effects artist – or five – geeking out over some really cool monster display; some collectible – a vinyl mask, a screen-used movie prop, a vintage Aurora model kit, a signed movie poster, Nastassja Kinski, etc, etc, etc.  Oh. My. God!  Sheer awesomeness.

Here’s what I’m getting at:  Eliot Brodsky has put together a really, really terrific convention for collectors and creators of movie monster memorabilia.  But I think it could be even better than really, really terrific. And there’s evidence to that effect.  While the convention was almost entirely vendors of collectible merchandise, there were a few materials vendors who cater to the artists who create the work, not the collectors themselves.  Premiere Products was one such vendor, and they had artists doing monster makeup demos all weekend, including Oscar winners Steve LaPorte and Ve Neill recreating their classic Michael Keaton Beetlejuice makeup.  The place was packed, elbow-to-elbow all weekend.  Michael Spatola demo’d his zombie bride from his great new ‘How To’ book, The Monster Makeup Manual.

Many of the Monsterpalooza attendees are aspiring artists looking for advice and inspiration as well as playing fanboy to all the cool monster stuff.  The materials and techniques used to sculpt, mold, cast and paint many of the collectibles (many selling for handsome sums) on display at Monsterpalooza are the very same materials and techniques used to sculpt, mold, cast and paint most prosthetic makeup appliances.  Whoa!!  All right… what if… in addition to its panel discussions, contests, and displays for sale – Monsterpalooza had more vendors catering to those interested in creating (not just collecting) and had a variety of seminars and workshops/classes geared to different skill levels, techniques and processes, much the way I remember IMATS doing?  I once attended a hair ventilating class led by Oscar nominee  John Blake.  This year, of the 10 Main Stage presentations, only two had anything to do with makeup effects at all, and of 26 classroom presentations, only 5 were makeup effects specific.

Now I like to look at a good-looking, bare breasted babe painted head-to-toe like a jungle Macaw living next to a nuclear reactor as much as the next guy – and I wouldn’t mind knowing how to do that paint job -  but what I really want is to learn a sculpting technique I’ve never tried before in a material I’m not as proficient with as I could be.   We all want to be better at what we love to do.  But then, that’s why I’m working on the second edition of my book.

Just think about it, Eliot.

In this follow-up to a blog written before the 82nd Academy Awards presentation, I think it’s time for a discussion to take place regarding the obvious and lopsided disparity within AMPAS and the decision to limit the Makeup and Hair, as well as the Visual Effects category to a maximum of three nominated films each. Despite the Best Picture category being given 10 choices (for the first time since 1943), the remaining 21 categories each had 5 nominations.

The 82nd Oscar telecast saw a return to three possible names per nominated film in the Makeup category up from two in recent years. That’s cool. I’m quite certain Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow would have been a bit miffed if one of them had been left off the ballot for Star Trek. There obviously need to be some limits to the number of names associated with each category nomination or things would quickly and easily get out of hand. That point is not in question; what is in question is why are there three films only allowed in the makeup and visual effects categories?

As Barney Burman pointed out to me, it’s a delicate balance, and having just been there – and won – he said it’s kind of hard to complain.  I can dig it.  Yes, The Oscars is an awards show, but it’s also an entertainment program unto itself, and that makes it a business. And saying that, the show has be fun and has to keep moving – within a budget, and within a certain time frame. Agreed. At the same time, Barney acknowledged that keeping the number of films nominated for makeup (and for visual effects) to 3 is not a fair deal. In order to be fair, AMPAS should either extend the number of films for Makeup and Visual Effects to 5, or they should cut other categories, like Costumes, Sound, Sound Editing, etc., down to 3 as well.

It’s all food for thought, and I hope folks will weigh in on the subject.

Well, the 82nd Oscar nominations were announced today – on Groundhog Day.  I’m sure there’s a joke in there somewhere about “If Oscar sees his shadow…”  Congratulations to the nominees in all 24 categories!  The ABC telecast on Sunday, March 7th should be a real doozy!

Has the Best Picture category ever had 10 nominees before? That’s right, TEN!  Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire (is that really the actual title?!), A Serious Man, Up, and Up in the Air.   I think this is a first; for many, many years – going all the way back to the first Academy Awards in 1927, I think – the top number of nominees in any category has been 5.

That is, unless you count Makeup and Visual Effects.  Only three each.  Why is that?  As I wrote in my blog about Oscar nominations back in December, 2009, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) has returned to three possible names on the nomination ticket (for the Makeup category) from two names in recent years past.  And, as I wrote then, Leonard Engleman, governor of the Makeup Artists and Hairstyles Branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is quoted as saying the reason is because “the area of makeup and hairstyling is now so spread out.”  I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

In addition to the three nominated films for makeup – Il Divo, Stark Trek and The Young Victoria – there seems to have been a larger than usual number of impressive makeup contenders that were left out, including Amelia, Avatar, District 9, Inglorious Basterds, Public Enemies, Taking Woodstock, Terminator Salvation, The Vampire’s Assistant, Watchmen,  and Wolverine.  This category could easily have supported five nominees.  None-the-less, my heartfelt congratulations to Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano for their work in Il Divo, to Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow for Star Trek, and to Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore for their beautiful work in The Young Victoria! Their nominations are well deserved.

The Visual Effects category also has only 3 nominated films:  Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones for Avatar; Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken for District 9; and Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton for Star Trek.   These were not the only three movies with great VFX, and you can’t convince me that there could only be three nominated films for Makeup or for Visual Effects because there were so many people responsible for the work.  Just not enough statues to go around…  Not to single any one category out, but that didn’t prevent  the categories of Sound Editing or Sound Mixing from receiving five nominated films each.

The Academy claims to have made strides to improve the selection process, but I don’t think they’ve gone far enough.  If the Best Picture category can double the number of nominees to select from, a 40% increase in the number of nominees for Makeup and for Visual Effects isn’t asking for too much.

In today’s Denver Post is an article with the headline:  Cash for creativity, with the subhead New bills would boost incentives for arts, film, video projects. Puhleeeez!

According to the article, there were 122,287 people employed by nearly 8,000 creative firms in Colorado at the end of 2007, with 63,964 creative workers employed in other sectors. That’s about 4% of the state’s population of 4,939,456 (July, 2008). $300,000 is the amount of money allocated last year for Colorado’s film incentive fund, which provides a 10% refund on non-payroll costs to producers who spend 75% of a projects non-payroll budget in the state. Here’s how much that’s been awarded to producers since then:  None.

Am I the only one paying attention to this? I wrote a blog here in October, 2009 about shooting film and television in Colorado that details how far off the trail we have wandered. Sure the economy is in the tank, but that hasn’t stopped New Mexico or Michigan –  two states whose state legislators are apparently sharper than Colorado’s – from recognizing the fundamental business principle of “it takes money to make money.”

In an address to Denver’s River North Art District, Colorado’s Lt. Governor Barbara O’Brien said, “Colorado has a very strong creative economy.” I think she meant to say community, not economy. Either way, that doesn’t mean we can bring out-of -state production here without substantially bigger, smarter changes made by our state legislators to the incentives that are already in place, or are planned to be put in place. This same Post article said there’s a proposed bill that would make it easier for commercial and video-game producers (both already active in Colorado) to have access to incentive funds. I don’t know what that means because there was no further explanation by the article’s author, Aldo Svaldi; however, commercial producers have always had an incentive to shoot in Colorado. It’s called The Rocky Mountains. Another proposal is said to broaden the Art in Public Places statute which sets aside 1% of state-funded construction projects for public arts projects. That oughta goose the economy!

Yet another bill would merge the Colorado Council on the Arts, Art in Public Places and the Office of Film into the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade. The article goes on to say that although budgets or head counts won’t change for those programs, they should be more effective acting together than apart. Really? Three times zero is still zero.

State officials say they can’t estimate how many new jobs these new measures might provide, but I can:  None.

While the cutoff date for Oscar nomination submissions has come and gone – it was August, 31, 2009 – there is still great speculation and anticipation as to which films will make the cut when the nominations for the 82nd Academy Awards for Best Achievement in Makeup are announced on February 2, 2010; the  awards will be telecast on Sunday, March 7, 2010.  And there seems to be a larger than usual number of impressive contenders too, including Amelia, Avatar, District 9, Inglorious Basterds, Public Enemies, Star Trek, Taking Woodstock, Terminator Salvation, The Vampire’s Assistant, Watchmen, Wolverine, and The Young Victoria.  Perhaps this time around, the Academy will allow voters 5 choices instead of the three nominations that have become standard in years past.  With at least 12 potential films to choose from, it would seem a shame to have only three choices when almost every other category has a choice of 5 nominees to select from.

But perhaps even more interesting than the wealth of films to nominate from is the fact that the rules for selecting a makeup Oscar have changed.  The Academy has returned to three possible names on the nomination ticket from two names in recent years past.  This doesn’t mean that there will be three names, only the possibility; there will be three names when it becomes necessary, because – according to Leonard Engleman, governor of the Makeup Artists and Hairstyles Branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences – “the area of makeup and hairstyling is now so spread out.”  Joe Nazzaro has written a fine article describing the rules change and the selection process in Makeup Artist Magazine (Gold Standard, Number 81) if you’re interested in learning more.

Infectious Halloween - Starz On Demand

The Colorado Production Resource Guide, or CPRG – as it is locally known – is changing its MO for 2010 and becoming paperless.  While I personally like to have the book in hand and flip through it, I think it’s a great move by the CFVA (Colorado Film & Video Association).

According to Jayme Sitzman of Elevation Communications (publisher of the CPRG), the move to a digital version of the book is the result of rising printing and paper costs, as well as the desire to be more environmentally friendly.  What they’re going to do is offer up a POD (Print-On-Demand) feature that will give users the option to save the info they want as a PDF file – say… my contact information, for example – and then print it.  Or, they can upload the entire document file to a company that will print and bind the book for them.  Jayme says the 2010 POD feature will be ready in January.

If you want to renew your listings in the CPRG, or list for the first time go to www.cprgonline.com, or call Jayme at 303/389-9854, ext. 501.

One of the coolest aspects of the new Print-On-Demand feature is the listings will be generated in real time, so all the information will be current and not six or more months out of date.  New advertising options for 2010 will be available, too, including Featured Banner Ads, Sidebar Banner Ads and Video Reel Links.  I’m going to renew now, are you?

Former Film Commissioner Michael Klein, and former Mayor Wellington Webb couldn’t have cared less about our proposal, and former deputy director of the Denver Mayor’s Office of Art, Culture and Film – Ron Pinkard – actually discouraged out-of-state production from coming to Colorado by creating ludicrous hoops for producers to jump through (I know some of those producers personally, so I believe it). Rumor has it that Steven Spielberg or his representatives approached the state ‘Powers That Be’ with a similar proposal and were shown the door. I don’t know Steven Spielberg, so I can’t ask him. The scuttlebutt I heard was that Mr. Webb was really concerned about overpopulation in Denver from an influx of people relocating to Colorado from elsewhere as a partial result of increased production awareness. Folks, that ship had long since sailed. Been to Highlands Ranch lately? But all that is for another time and another blog.

What I want to talk about is the Colorado Film Incentive that is currently on the books. Talk about a sail with no wind in it! From the Colorado Office of Film Television and Media’s website, “The Colorado Film Incentive program rebates 10% of the below the line cost of producing a film, documentary or television program when that project is produced of filmed in Colorado; the production company spends 75% of its below-the-line budget with Colorado businesses; and hires 75% of their crew locally.”  Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

Consider this: The State of New Mexico offers a 25% tax rebate on all production expenditures (not just below-the-line), including New Mexico labor, that are subject to taxation by the State of New Mexico. This is a 25% refund, not a credit! Plus, there is no minimum spending requirement, and no cap. A 50% wage reimbursement for on-the-job training of New Mexico residents in advanced below-the-line crew positions, and no state sales tax (but can’t be used in conjunction with the 25% tax rebate.) Hmm… shoot in Colorado, or shoot in  New Mexico…

Or this: In Arizona, a 20% tax credit based on expenses in Arizona can be qualified for if the production costs are between $250,000 and $1 million annually; in cases where production costs exceed $1 million, the tax credit goes up to 30%.

Or this: Michigan offers a 40% refundable tax credit incentive that requires a minimum expenditure of only $50, 000. Across-the-board state spending qualifies, but does not apply to commercials. Michigan crews are reimbursed at 40%, and non-resident below-the-line crew at 30%.  An additional 2% if one of Michigan’s 103 designated Core Communities is used.

I could go on – Hawaii, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Illinois, Georgia, Connecticut, New York – all have better deals on the table than we do. The list is long. Colorado’s film incentive ain’t much of an incentive.

But even beyond the weakness of the incentive bill that was passed here in Colorado (House Bill 06-1362, if you ‘re interested) is the apparent love affair with attracting motion picture production at the expense of enticing dramatic television to shoot in the state. Am I the only one who remembers Perry Mason and Father Dowling? When you take into account that as much as 10% of a production’s budget can remain in the local economy when a project has wrapped, landing an on-going, one-hour series like Criminal Minds, Friday Night Lights, Breaking Bad or Lost is far more attractive in the long run than a movie that comes here to shoot, let’s say, 5 pages of a 113 page script. 5 pages is 4% of that 113 page script; if the budget is evenly distributed among the pages, then 10% of 4% is a very small amount of leave-behind money. However, if a TV show is shot entirely here (I do not include reality TV or the like – no offense), 10% of 100% is still 10%; the per-episode budget for a show like Friday Night Lights, for example, is about $2 million and change.  Hour-long programs are in typically production 6 days a week, for 9 months a year.  For years.  Do the math.

Movies are – can be – high profile.  I won’t deny there’s a definite appeal to having a blockbuster shot where you live. And television is so, well, television (note of sarcasm). Actor Brian Cranston (Malcolm in the Middle, Breaking Bad) has won the Prime Time Emmy Award as Best Actor for Breaking Bad (a terrific show, by the way) two years in a row – and it’s shot entirely on location in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  The producers looked here.  Briefly.

I can work anywhere, and often do; but I love being in Colorado! Things have gotta change.

In the realm of film and television, there are generally regarded two types of effects:  Special Effects (a.k.a. SFX, SPFX, FX), and Visual Effects (VFX, Visual FX).  Put another way, there are practical (physical) effects, and digital (computer-generated) effects.   In the beginning there were no visual effects, only special effects, and special effects have been traditionally divided into two categories:  Optical effects, and Mechanical effects.

However, since the introduction of the digital tools that have become commonplace in our profession, a distinction between special effects and visual effects has emerged, with the distinction being that now visual effects generally refer to digital post production, and special effects refers to live, on-set mechanical effects, and in-camera optical effects.  But wait, there’s more. Not only does visual effects employ digital work, VFX almost always includes the integration of live-action footage with CGI (computer generated imagery); doing this allows filmmakers to create realistic environments by combining images (compositing) that would otherwise be very expensive, unsafe, or otherwise impossible to get on film or (now) HD.

Readying a practical effects shot for my VFX Field Production class

What, specifically, qualifies as a special effect – wait, let’s be even more specific – a practical effect?  The use of mechanized props (pneumatic, hydraulic, CO2), scenery, scale models (miniatures), pyrotechnics (fire, explosions, sparks, etc.), atmospheric effects (wind, rain, fog, snow, etc.) and prosthetic makeup are all considered practical effects.  Motion-control camera rigs fall into this category as well.

Early matte painting was the realm of special effects because it involved using an in-camera optical process of shooting multiple passes of an environment painted on a piece of glass placed in front of the camera and then live-action that was to be part of the same shot.  It’s much more complicated than my explanation, but there is a fabulous book called The Invisible Art that goes into great detail and history, so I won’t do it here.  Suffice it to say the matte painting all but become solely the domain of visual effects artists.

Special Effects has two categories:  Optical Effects; Mechanical Effects

And, Visual Effects has at least four categories (or more): Models (props, miniatures, animatronics); Matte painting (digital and traditional, or tradigital); Live-action (includes bluescreen and greenscreen keying, makeup effects and practical effects); and CGI (3D modeling, lighting, texturing, rigging and animating, motion tracking, camera matching, particle effects, etc.)

All of these things are important to a good visual effects education, in varying degrees, of course.  Many of the practical effects associated with visual effects can be prohibitive in nature for the classroom or the lab – pyrotechnics being a prime example because of the danger inherent with fire and explosives, not to mention the requisite Federal operators license to handle and use the materials…  Cost and space become factors for other aspects such as a machine shop or wood shop to fabricate miniatures and props; the scale of a miniature structure needed for a practical water or fire effect, for example, must be at least 1/8 or 1/6 scale to read as real for the simple fact that fire and water do not scale well. Anything smaller than 1/8 scale will begin to look fake because water drops, flames and sparks  occur naturally only so small.  Cheesy examples on film abound.  Check it out for yourself.

However, highly detailed and hyper-realistic miniatures can be built in very small scale and look absolutely indistinguishable from the real thing, provided it’s lit well and you don’t intend to flood it or set it on fire.  HO scale, the most widely modeled scale in use by model railroaders worldwide is 1/87 scale.  That’s pretty small; a two-story house is about 5″ tall.  But because of its popularity, there is an enormous amount of choice commercially available for fabricating miniature structures and environments.  And this is where practical and digital become synergystic – used in tandem, practical and digital elements can be melded flawlessly into imagery worthy of the big screen.

The bottom line:  A visual effects curriculum is incomplete without at least some practical effects included.

This image is from the film, ‘Ink,’ written and directed by Jamin Winans.  This is my makeup design.