Selasa, 05 November 2019

The Pros and Cons of the De-aging Effects in ‘The Irishman’ - The Ringer

When it comes to the discourse around The Irishman, the exhausting and seemingly never-ending debate surrounding Martin Scorsese and Marvel has distracted us from the things that really matter about this film: Al Pacino’s working with Scorsese for (somehow) the first time in his career; the great Joe Pesci’s coming out of retirement; and, of course, the movie’s highly publicized, highly expensive foray into de-aging VFX. Because The Irishman spans decades, following hitman Frank Sheeran from his service in World War II to his time with the mob and Jimmy Hoffa in the subsequent decades—the film’s framing device is an older Sheeran reminiscing about his life from a retirement home—and because the film’s leading actors are in their 70s, having capable de-aging tech was an essential component of the project. (Sure, Scorsese could’ve used young actors or something, but seeing living legends like Robert De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci share the screen again is a huge part of the movie’s appeal.)

But The Irishman’s de-aging VFX also ran the risk of being the film’s biggest problem. Since so much of the movie takes place in the past with “younger” versions of the characters, unconvincing de-aging technology could be a huge distraction from the actual storytelling. The film’s trailers and production stills didn’t inspire much confidence; World War II–era De Niro looked like he came straight from a mid-2000s video game and was gloriously memed into oblivion.

Where The Irishman’s de-aging landed on the spectrum from Samuel L. Jackson’s surprisingly convincing Young Nick Fury in Captain Marvel to the hauntingly soulless expressions of Evil Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy was always going to be important for the film. With de-aging effects already being used to varying degrees in Gemini Man, Terminator: Dark Fate, Captain Marvel, and It: Chapter 2, 2019 has been a watershed year for using the technology onscreen. (Most of the effects have been surprisingly fine—or at the very least, doesn’t distract from the viewing experience.)

On the whole, The Irishman’s de-aging isn’t exactly flawless, but it manages not to ruin an otherwise-great Martin Scorsese film. Though, having seen the movie in a theater, I’m curious whether audiences will find the effects better or worse watching it at home—this is how most people will see the film—where it’ll be available on Netflix beginning November 27. Having spent more than three hours with my De-aged Italian/Irish Sons, these are the biggest pros and cons you should take into consideration before seeing The Irishman for yourself.

Pro: It’s Way Better Than Most De-Aging Efforts

While The Irishman was something Scorsese had hoped to make for years, the director wanted to be sure the de-aging tech was up to the task first. In 2015, he tested the aptitude of de-aging visual effects by having De Niro re-create a scene from Goodfellas; it was good enough that The Irishman went into production two years later. Four years isn’t a long time, but when it comes to using visual effects to de-age and/or re-create someone’s likeness—remember the bizarre and ethically dubious use of CGI Peter Cushing from Rogue One in 2016?—it might as well be a lifetime.

Pacino and Pesci’s de-aging stand out as the most effective in the film—for the former, it especially helps that Jimmy Hoffa was in his 60s by the time he mysteriously disappeared. As for Pesci, if we were all willing to accept that he was playing someone in his late 20s in Goodfellas—Pesci was 46 at the time and won a much-deserved Oscar for the performance—I think we can handle 76-year-old Pesci playing someone decades younger yet again.

Con: The De-Aging Effect Is Still Uncanny and Takes Time to Get Used To

Where The Irishman’s de-aging occasionally stumbles is, unfortunately, with its lead. De Niro, as Sheeran, looks nowhere near as bad as the trailers and production stills would make him out to be, but there’s a certain sheen to De Niro’s de-aged face. (The brief World War II moments were, predictably, the worst of the bunch; de-aged De Niro did not look anything like a person in his 20s.) Not helping matters is the fact that De Niro gives a rather subdued performance. Sheeran spends good portions of the film being a quiet observer to mob/union chaos, and De Niro’s de-aged face looks weirder when it isn’t moving as much.

But perhaps worst of all, Pesci’s mob boss Russell Bufalino repeatedly refers to Sheeran as “kid,” a statement so off-putting it’s genuinely distracting the first couple of times it happened. Pesci and De Niro are the same age in real life, and that extended to the de-aging effects for both of their characters. There’s never a point when you’re convinced that Pesci is playing someone who’s Sheeran’s senior, or that anyone who isn’t an old man in a wheelchair should be calling De Niro “kid.”

Pro: It Lets the Best Actors on the Planet Cook

The effectiveness of The Irishman’s VFX could set a strange precedent, where older, popular actors become de-aged for younger roles. (Upon getting a de-aged makeover, De Niro reportedly told effects supervisor Pablo Helman: “You just gave me 30 more years of my career.”) On the one hand, the development of de-aging VFX would allow a veteran actor to expand their range—Will Smith did a great job tweaking his affects to play a “younger” him in Gemini Man—but it might come at the expense of opportunities for younger actors who could play the part themselves. Like, imagine if this technology existed when The Godfather: Part II came out—it would be dope to see what a de-aged Marlon Brando would have been able to do, but playing a younger Vito Corleone remains one of the most iconic and celebrated performances of De Niro’s superlative career.

And yet The Irishman feels like a special exception—if only because of what the project signifies. De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci are practically synonymous with gangster epics; Scorsese’s getting the gang back together for [Dominic Torretto voice] one last ride is a thrilling, momentous event. When the de-aging technology allows you to let some of the best actors on the planet cook, you might as well let them while we can still appreciate their talents.

Con: The Actors’ Performances Are Occasionally Hindered

It’s one thing to have an actor’s face and body convincingly de-aged; it’s another to feel convinced someone is moving around like a younger person. That’s an occasional issue in The Irishman that Scorsese had to deal with (and that you will probably notice it a little for yourself). The filmmaker told Sight & Sound magazine that they had to digitally alter De Niro’s mouth so that he could “convey a kind of vulnerability and a haplessness.” According to Scorsese, the actor couldn’t pull the look off without seeming “threatening.” (Although, LOL, when, at any age, has Robert De Niro not looked intimidating?)

They also needed to reshoot a scene of Pacino-as-Hoffa getting out of his chair because, essentially, it didn’t look like he was getting up “like a 49-year-old.” (Scorsese joked they got Pacino down to a “62” on the second take, which is the biggest burn the actor’s suffered since the release of Jack and Jill.) No amount of technological advancements in de-aging can replace someone moving and feeling like they’re younger; extended de-aged performances that require some level of physicality will always look slightly off. When Sheeran assaults a grocery store clerk who hit his young daughter, I never got the impression he was throwing around his weight like a young man—but at the same time, I didn’t really mind since it’s still really compelling to watch an angry Robert De Niro curb-stomp someone’s hand. (If Rotten Tomatoes tries to label this as an Irishman review, please use the above sentence as a pull quote.)

The good of The Irishman’s de-aging VFX more than outweighs the bad, and while Hollywood probably won’t rush to incorporate the tech in every movie starting tomorrow, it still represents a major turning point. Ang Lee used high-frame-rate filmmaking in Gemini Man, and believes that the innovation will be the future of cinema. The future of filmmaking may indeed lie in a creative decision from Gemini Man, but not in the way Lee thought.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.theringer.com/movies/2019/11/5/20948617/the-irishman-aging-tech-martin-scorcese-robert-de-niro

2019-11-05 10:40:00Z
CBMiamh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnRoZXJpbmdlci5jb20vbW92aWVzLzIwMTkvMTEvNS8yMDk0ODYxNy90aGUtaXJpc2htYW4tYWdpbmctdGVjaC1tYXJ0aW4tc2NvcmNlc2Utcm9iZXJ0LWRlLW5pcm_SAXdodHRwczovL3d3dy50aGVyaW5nZXIuY29tL3BsYXRmb3JtL2FtcC9tb3ZpZXMvMjAxOS8xMS81LzIwOTQ4NjE3L3RoZS1pcmlzaG1hbi1hZ2luZy10ZWNoLW1hcnRpbi1zY29yY2VzZS1yb2JlcnQtZGUtbmlybw

Emma Watson says she's 'self-partnered' not single - CNN

Watson, 29, who rose to fame as Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, coined the phrase in an interview with British Vogue in which she discussed the pressures of turning 30.
The actor and activist, whose birthday is in April, said she initially did not understand the "fuss" that surrounded the milestone.
Emma Watson honors woman whose death changed Ireland's abortion laws
More recently, however, she admitted feeling "stressed and anxious" about her upcoming birthday.
She told British Vogue: "If you have not built a home, if you do not have a husband, if you do not have a baby, and you are turning 30, and you're not in some incredibly secure, stable place in your career, or you're still figuring things out... There's just this incredible amount of anxiety."
Speaking of how she had never believed the "'I'm happy single' spiel," she added: "It took me a long time, but I'm very happy [being single]. I call it being self-partnered."
The new phrase is reminiscent of actor Gwyneth Paltrow's use of the term "conscious uncoupling" to describe her divorce proceedings from the Coldplay singer Chris Martin in 2014.
Gwyneth Paltrow wanted to reinvent divorce with her 'conscious uncoupling'
Later this year, Watson will return to the screen playing Margaret "Meg" March in "Little Women" alongside Laura Dern and Meryl Streep -- both of whom she knew previously through their activism.
The full interview will appear in the December issue of British Vogue and will be available from November 8.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/entertainment/emma-watson-self-partnered-scli-intl/index.html

2019-11-05 11:40:00Z
52780427418469

Martin Scorsese Explains What He Was Trying to Say About Marvel Movies - Slate

Martin Scorsese makes a "calm down" gesture behind a podium at an awards show.

Hold on, let me explain!

David Livingston/Getty Images

Since early October, the film world has been arguing about Martin Scorsese’s thoughts on Marvel movies, based on a brief answer he gave in an Empire magazine interview in which he compared the films to theme parks said he did not consider them cinema. The discussion had a certain amount of Kremlinology to it: Scorsese only said a few words on the matter, leaving more room for projection than a movie palace, and so a lot of different issues were being conflated in the responses from both Scorsese’s New Hollywood peers and Marvel fans and filmmakers. On Monday, Scorsese published an op-ed in the New York Times hashing out exactly what he was trying to say. It’s a beautifully written, melancholy look at the state of the industry, and although it’s unlikely to change many minds, it should reduce the number of people talking past each other. Read it, read it, read it.

Advertisement

It’s a generous essay in one sense: Scorsese goes out of his way to acknowledge that taste isn’t subject to dispute, going so far as to say that if he had been born later, he could imagine enjoying Marvel movies. He also interrogates his own taste as a young man, acknowledging that some of his favorite films—Alfred Hitchcock’s in particular—promised and delivered some of the same theme park thrills Marvel traffics in. But he thinks Marvel is different, and he shows his work, proceeding backwards from “I do not enjoy watching these movies” to the industrial processes that produced them.

Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Revelation, mystery, and genuine emotional danger are where you find them, but it’s hard to argue with the way Scorsese characterizes Marvel movies as business ventures built-to-order for a specific purpose. You could say the same thing about the overwhelming majority of Hollywood product, but Scorsese also explains why he isn’t just letting people like things: The scale and cost of a Marvel film requires it to play on as many screens as possible, there are a finite number of movie theaters, and the resulting crush is relegating other types of movies—the ones Scorsese likes to watch and make, for instance—to streaming and home video. That is a real thing that is happening, it is distinct from “I don’t like watching superhero movies,” and it’s something we should be able to talk about without getting into an argument about whether there’s a line between “worldwide audiovisual entertainment” and “cinema,” and if so, where to draw it. (It’s also distinct from “I wanted The Irishman to play in more theaters,” as he explains.) To be clear, Scorsese isn’t backing down from the argument part of this, and this gets Disney dead to rights, given the way they’re locking down the Fox library:

… there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary—a lethal combination. 

Advertisement

The debate over whether or not Hollywood studios are making good movies at the moment has been raging since 1911, and it’s not going to end any time soon. But going forward, at least we have some clarity about what Scorsese thinks about Marvel movies.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/martin-scorsese-on-marvel-mcu-new-york-times-op-ed-not-cinema.amp

2019-11-05 06:49:00Z
CAIiEI-Qp01xgSpelCgYGvYXAuwqFggEKg0IACoGCAowuLUIMNFnMMyu7QU

Martin Scorsese clarifies criticism of Marvel movies but refuses to back down - The A.V. Club

Photo: Vittorio Zunino Celotto (Getty Images)

It may feel like we’ve been hearing about this for years, but it was only a month ago that Martin Scorsese shocked the world by declaring that he wasn’t especially interested in Marvel movies, saying they were more like theme park rides than proper cinema. Based on the sheer volume of the backlash, though, you would’ve thought his totally fine opinion—which has absolutely no impact on anyone’s life whatsoever—had somehow killed the beloved childhood dog of literally everyone on the planet. Everyone got mad (because whether or not people like Marvel movies is the most important issue of our time) and then, mercifully, it all seemed to die down.

Until tonight. For some inexplicable reason, Scorsese has decided to resurrect this certified Dumb Controversy in the New York Times op-ed section (also home to the most highly regarded pieces about the benefits of coddling fascists) with an essay featuring the catchy title “I Said Marvel Movies Aren’t Cinema. Let Me Explain.” And explain he does! The crux of the piece is that Scorsese wants to clarify that he doesn’t hate Marvel movies and that he doesn’t intend to insult them or the people who like them, he just doesn’t like them because he doesn’t think they live up to the high standards of the art form that he loves so much.

Scorsese admits that he probably would’ve liked Marvel movies just fine if he were younger, but he grew up in the age when movies fought to be treated with the same legitimacy as books and music, and so he remembers when movies were about “confronting the unexpected on the screen” and “enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.” He concedes that Alfred Hitchcock movies were sort of the MCU equivalent of his day, and though he loved them and still loves them, they “were also like theme parks in a way.” That being said, he believes that it’s not the “thrills and the shocks” that made those movies so good, but the art that went into making them—for example, he highlights the “painful emotions” that drive North By Northwest and the “absolute lostness” of Cary Grant’s character over the “stunning” set pieces.

Advertisement

Marvel movies, as he sees it, don’t meet that level of art because there’s no risk to them. There’s no “revelation, mystery, or genuine emotional danger” because they’re all meticulously designed to meet “a specific set of demands.” This wouldn’t really be a problem, though, if not for the fact that Marvel movies are now unavoidable. “In many places around this country and around the world,” he says, “franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen,” but he doesn’t think it’s a “matter of supply and demand.” Instead, he thinks of it as a “chicken-and-egg issue,” which is to say that people only want to see Marvel movies because that’s all there is, but that’s all there is because it’s all people want to see.

Scorsese goes into the history of Hollywood and the competing motivations between the artistic side and the business side, and he also makes a point to repeatedly note that the people making these franchise movies are often very talented and creative, it’s just that the things they’re making are part of a soulless machine that can only create the same things over and over again.

He makes a strong case that’s hard to argue with, even for people who like Marvel movies and believe that the efforts required to make The Avengers and Endgame happen were masterful in their own right, but let’s all be honest here: Nothing he could ever possibly say will sway anyone from one side of this “argument” to the other. So maybe we could all just agree to cut this shit out and accept that it’s totally fine to like Marvel movies and it’s equally fine to think they’re bad. (Just kidding, we should keep arguing about this until we all die.)

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.avclub.com/martin-scorsese-clarifies-criticism-of-marvel-movies-bu-1839625004

2019-11-05 04:32:00Z
52780426591049

Alexandra Grant: 5 Things To Know About Keanu Reeves’ Girlfriend After Their Red Carpet Debut - Hollybaby

Alexandra Grant was Keanu Reeves’ first ever (romantic) date on a red carpet, 35 years after launching his career! Here’s what you should know about the renown artist whose work relationship with Keanu blossomed into something more.

Alexandra Grant’s love story with Keanu Reeves, 55, is a beautiful one. The 46-year-old artist’s fateful meeting with the John Wick star at a dinner party in 2009 led to nearly a decade of work collaborations, a love for art and books, and a friendship that all culminated into their red carpet debut as a couple at the LACMA Art + Film Gala in Los Angeles on Nov. 2, 2019. Keanu’s decision to bring a plus-one (that wasn’t a relative or friend) was a big one. To the public’s knowledge, the actor hasn’t been joined by a sweetheart on the red carpet since appearing in his first movie in 1985! However, the blossoming romance between Alexandra and Keanu was already apparent after they were seen holding hands at the Saint Laurent Mens Spring Summer 20 Show in Malibu on June 6 — it’s just extra official now!

Keanu (publicly) remained a bachelor for a long time after the tragic death of his stillborn daughter Ava Archer Syme-Reeves in 1999, which was shortly followed by a car accident that cost the life of the child’s mother and Keanu’s former girlfriend, actress Jennifer Syme, in 2001. Here’s what you should know about Alexandra, the woman who has captured The Internet Boyfriend’s heart after all this time — a feat most could only dream of!

1. Text and language inspires Alexandra’s art. She is described as “a text-based artist who uses language and networks of words as the basis for her work in painting, drawing and sculpture,” according to the Ochi Gallery’s introduction for Alexandra. The talented artist fostered her love for the spoken word as a child, since she grew up in a variety of countries: Mexico, Spain and France.

2. Her work has been showcased in prestigious museums. Alexandra’s art has been put on display in the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) in Los Angeles, the Contemporary Museum in Baltimore, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), the Galerie Gradiva in Paris, the The Broad Museum at Michigan State University, and the Harris Lieberman Gallery in New York City, just to name a few!

Alexandra Grant, Keanu Reeves
Holding hands, Keanu Reeves and Alexandra Grant make their red carpet debut as a couple at the LACMA Art + Film Gala in Los Angeles on Nov. 2, 2019.

3. Keanu is one of Alexandra’s longtime collaborators. Their relationship, professional at first, began with books! Alexandra contributed the illustrations for Keanu’s first book, a grown-up picture book called Ode To Happiness, that was published in 2011. She also lent a hand to illustrate Keanu’s poetry book, Shadows, released in 2015.

4. Alexandra and Keanu run a publishing company together. The publishing company, called X Artists’ Books, launched in the summer of 2017. A deviation from mainstream imprints, the company focuses on “unusual collaborations” and books that “don’t really have a place because they’re between genres,” which the business partners explained in an interview with Los Angeles Magazine in Feb. 2018. The interviewer noted that they shared an “easy rapport” and spoke “in a comfortable shorthand fueled by inside jokes and knowing smiles” — foreshadowing, is it not?

5. Alexandra is active in artist philanthropy. She founded the grantLOVE project in 2008, which sells a variety of products from hoodies, screen prints to neon signs to raise funds for other artists’ projects and non-profits!

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://hollywoodlife.com/feature/who-is-alexandra-grant-artist-3782701/

2019-11-05 06:18:00Z
52780427191346

Senin, 04 November 2019

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West’s whole family kept Halloween going with two more group costumes - Yahoo Lifestyle

As if it wasn’t already clear, Halloween is an event for the Kardashian family. After donning her Elle Woods costume on October 31st, Kim Kardashian West pulled her family together to pull off three—yes, three—group Halloween costumes, all of which were debuted during the following weekend. And we thought we loved Halloween. But we just can’t compete with the Kardashian-West clan.

The last group costume Kim shared on her Instagram was Kanye and the kids dressed as the characters from the 2016 animated movie Sing. Saint played Johnny, Psalm played Johnny’s brother, Chicago went as Ash, and Kanye as Johnny’s dad (in a giant gorilla suit).

undefined

Neither Kim nor North took part in the Sing costume. But don’t worry. They were present for the other two family costumes earlier in the weekend.

Before the Sing costume, Kanye, Kim, and the kids dressed as “West Worms.”

Again, Kanye looked mildly terrifying in his faceless costume. And yeah, those tentacles coming out of his “mouth” (??) moved. We’re not sure how the kids weren’t crying.

It turns out, the kids actually did cry during the family’s first Halloween photo session. Well, at least Chicago was crying. She couldn’t quite handle the fact that her father was in that inflatable Dino suit. And TBH, we don’t blame her.

undefined

Thankfully, Chicago recovered in time to get a couple of cute shots with her mom and sister.

How are we supposed to compete with Halloween enthusiasts like the Kardashian-Wests? We better start planning our three+ group costumes now if we want to run with big dogs come next year.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-whole-144852476.html

2019-11-04 14:48:00Z
52780425513104

Olivia Newton-John's famous 'Grease' outfit sells for over $400,000 - CNBC

Jeff Conaway, Olivia Newton-John, John Travolta and Stockard Channing in a still from 'Grease'

Fotos International | Moviepix | Getty Images

Olivia Newton-John's iconic outfit from the final scene of the movie "Grease" has sold at auction for more than $400,000.

The all-black ensemble, which the actress was famously sewn into to shoot the scenes, fetched a combined $405,700 at the sale in Beverly Hills on Saturday. Its estimated sale price was between $140,000 and $260,000.

Newton-John, who played Sandy in the 1978 hit musical, auctioned off more than 500 personal items and memorabilia on Friday and Saturday, according to auctioneers Julien's Auctions.

Other items in the sale included Newton-John's custom "Pink Ladies" jacket, which sold for $50,000, and the pink gown she wore to the "Grease" premiere, which went for $18,750.

The auction raised a total of $2.4 million, according to The Guardian newspaper, with a portion of the profits set to be donated to the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness & Research Centre in Australia.

Newton-John is currently undergoing treatment for stage four breast cancer, after being diagnosed with the disease twice previously in 1992 and 2013.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/olivia-newton-johns-famous-grease-outfit-sells-for-over-400000.html

2019-11-04 15:12:04Z
52780425783959