Why did people in TV and movies stop wiping their faces?
July 12, 2024 7:00 PM
In recent shows people don't wipe their faces after getting mud, dirt, blood, etc. on them. I'm in my 50s and this feels like a change. I remember watching the commentary on the Evil Dead DVD, in which Bruce Campbell talked about a "continuity wipe" where the actors would intentionally wipe their faces at the end of a scene so that when the movie was cut together, there wouldn't be obvious continuity problems. I noticed that other older shows did that too. What's changed?
I find it so distracting to look at the mess on people's faces -- it totally takes me out of the moment. It upends my suspension of disbelief. It's gross and makes me feel physically uncomfortable, as if I had ick on my own face.
I find it so distracting to look at the mess on people's faces -- it totally takes me out of the moment. It upends my suspension of disbelief. It's gross and makes me feel physically uncomfortable, as if I had ick on my own face.
It upends my suspension of disbelief.
Without an example I don't really understand this bit. IMO wiping stuff off (unless it's done onscreen) undermines suspension of disbelief more?
posted by juv3nal at 10:56 PM on July 12
Without an example I don't really understand this bit. IMO wiping stuff off (unless it's done onscreen) undermines suspension of disbelief more?
posted by juv3nal at 10:56 PM on July 12
I also noticed that people wipe their faces and wash their faces a lot less in newer movies. I just assumed that it was connected with the decline of the importance of manual labor in mainstream culture (or if you want to go further back the prevalence of air conditioning). In short: As people wipe and wash their faces less in life the gesture feels less natural on film. In general I think sweat and dirty faces where a much more common stylistic device in old movies than they are today.
posted by elelmo at 4:26 AM on July 13
posted by elelmo at 4:26 AM on July 13
I think continuity and make up effects became much more important jobs, and in the process, keeping track of this blood spatter or this mud spot was someone's responsibility, so why put it on just to wipe it off? I've noticed this too, but it does not bother me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:38 AM on July 13
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:38 AM on July 13
I'm guessing that they changed the type of make up they put on actor's faces to one that doesn't wipe off. This would prevent unintentional smearing during shooting that would require a repair and reapplication. It's probably more efficient to just leave it in place not risk having to perform several takes while the actor tries to get the wiping off done to the director's satisfaction. If they take a swipe that doesn't work, then everything has to be reapplied and reposed.
I suspect also that somewhere there is an influential movie where the director decided it would up the drama if the actor did several scenes with a face dribbling blood and that has influenced subsequent directors to feel that wiping the face means losing the chance for good visual effects. Movies have steadily become more dramatic, fast paced and action based over the last few decades, to the point where there are successful movies with a plot that can be boiled down into two sentences and the rest of the movie is entirely action scenes. I think this is part of that general trend.
posted by Jane the Brown at 6:17 AM on July 13
I suspect also that somewhere there is an influential movie where the director decided it would up the drama if the actor did several scenes with a face dribbling blood and that has influenced subsequent directors to feel that wiping the face means losing the chance for good visual effects. Movies have steadily become more dramatic, fast paced and action based over the last few decades, to the point where there are successful movies with a plot that can be boiled down into two sentences and the rest of the movie is entirely action scenes. I think this is part of that general trend.
posted by Jane the Brown at 6:17 AM on July 13
Screen dirt used to be applied with actual charcoal powder or a burnt cork. They sometimes still use tubs of dirt dust in different colours (charcoal, ground nut shells, talc, etc). They apply it with a makeup brush or by putting it into a cotton bag and tapping the bag on the actor. But that stuff sucks! It's very messy, and the actor and makeup team breathe it in as they apply it, which is unpleasant and probably a health hazard. Then, because it rubs off on contact, it can smudge onto other people's costumes all day. On set it can get on the actors' holding area chairs which then have the potential to damage other costumes for weeks. It gets on door handles, on the sofa in the trailer, it gets all over the actors' stuff between takes, wrecks the actors' bedsheets at night, etc, plus it wears off over the course of the day so you need to keep applying it. Any dirt that an actor can rub off DURING a take, is also likely making a huge mess behind the scenes BETWEEN takes. And that's like 12 hours of mess "backstage".
So now they often use alcohol-based pigment for dirt (and certainly for bruises, scabs, zombie shadowing, etc). It's like watercolour paint but it's not water-soluble, so they wet it with rubbing alcohol, and apply to the skin with brushes, sponges, or even carefully splatter it on with a toothbrush, paint it into the fingernail beds, etc. And it's magical because the alcohol dries in seconds and it doesn't budge all day, even if you wipe at it or wash your hands, until you add more alcohol! So sometimes, the dirt smudges on an actor's face are made of that, and they actually CAN'T be casually wiped off. (Fun tip, this stuff is GREAT for everyday eyebrow makeup, stays on for swimming and sports!)
Screen blood is usually made of corn syrup plus other stuff to adjust the colour, viscosity and opacity. It's gooey, sticky, and wet and messy. It can be wiped off, but sometimes when you wipe it, it looks more fake, because it doesn't smear or stain the same way real blood smears. It looks good when it's in a thick drip, but when you thin it out by smearing it, it can look too pink or too watery.
All of the above problems would be seen as minor inconveniences, or solved with a different product, if they really needed the wiping to happen, of course. Which means that the real reason is that they like to leave it on for dramatic effect!
posted by nouvelle-personne at 6:50 AM on July 13
So now they often use alcohol-based pigment for dirt (and certainly for bruises, scabs, zombie shadowing, etc). It's like watercolour paint but it's not water-soluble, so they wet it with rubbing alcohol, and apply to the skin with brushes, sponges, or even carefully splatter it on with a toothbrush, paint it into the fingernail beds, etc. And it's magical because the alcohol dries in seconds and it doesn't budge all day, even if you wipe at it or wash your hands, until you add more alcohol! So sometimes, the dirt smudges on an actor's face are made of that, and they actually CAN'T be casually wiped off. (Fun tip, this stuff is GREAT for everyday eyebrow makeup, stays on for swimming and sports!)
Screen blood is usually made of corn syrup plus other stuff to adjust the colour, viscosity and opacity. It's gooey, sticky, and wet and messy. It can be wiped off, but sometimes when you wipe it, it looks more fake, because it doesn't smear or stain the same way real blood smears. It looks good when it's in a thick drip, but when you thin it out by smearing it, it can look too pink or too watery.
All of the above problems would be seen as minor inconveniences, or solved with a different product, if they really needed the wiping to happen, of course. Which means that the real reason is that they like to leave it on for dramatic effect!
posted by nouvelle-personne at 6:50 AM on July 13
I do think you're generally right. Actors spend more of the movie in various states of dirty and hair messed up and clothes torn and etc etc etc. My guesses:
1) It's more "realistic." I mean, if you spend 20 minutes in a running battle with 150 bad guys through the streets of Milan with explosions and shattering car windows and crashing through restaurant kitchens and whatnot, you're gonna get dirty. And bloody. And bruised. You may find it gross and off-putting but I really think most people (and clearly most modern filmmakers) would find it less believable if they showed the actors doing all this stuff and at the end of it all they looked like they just stepped out of the shower. IIRC part of the reaction to Die Hard was , "Whoa! This movie star actually looks like he spent the whole movie crawling through filthy air ducts and elevator shafts!" It was kind of a big deal at the time, a star being willing to look that gross (for Hollywood values of gross.)
Personal anecdata - my job often involves doing physical labor outside with a limited time to get stuff done, and while I might give my face a swipe with a towel if the sweat's running in my eyes, mostly I don't notice or have time to care if I get shmutz on my face or clothes or the rest of me. At least not until I get a break and can get to a bathroom with a mirror. Have I spent 4 hours with a big streak of grease down the side of my face? Absolutely, and I regularly get home and find a big streak of mud on the back of my calf and general parking lot grime embedded in my forearms. And where the hell did this hole in my shirt come from? Physical effort gets you sweaty, the world is often not a clean place, keeping yourself clean might be pretty low on your priority list in some circumstances (I have 4 hours to get this sound system unloaded and set up, international arms dealers are trying to kill me, whichever.)
2) Continuity for this kind of makeup and costuming is much easier and cheaper because technology. If Ben Hur had wanted to take a record of dirt sweat and blood on their faces, they would have needed to take pictures on actual film and get it developed, expensive and time consuming. Evil Dead could've used Polaroid instant film, but the first one had a budget of $375,000, they probably figured they couldn't afford enough film. So in those cases it makes sense to do a swipe and and start with a relatively clean slate (face), because you'd never match the look exactly from day to day or weeks apart.
Now every person in the world has a device in their pocket that can take a zillion pictures down to the pore level. You can take a week off and come back Monday and the makeup department has more reference material than they need to get every streak of mud and patch of soot 110% the same.
3) Stars are more willing to look like this onscreen and our public perception of stars has changed. Their images used to be managed as more of a coherent whole. Cary Grant is sophisticated and debonair, Audrey Hepburn is the fresh-faced ingénue, that's why they sell tickets, that's how they are supposed to appear on screen and off, so you don't put them in roles where they're going to get sweaty and dirty or at least you don't make them look very sweaty and dirty.
But since at least the 90's (or even earlier, see Die Hard above) more and more stars and actors have been doing some of their own stunts and fight scenes and kind of making a big public deal about it - promo material and interviews and behind-the-scenes clips are full of training montages and questions about how they did stunts. You used to just see the back of someone roughly the size and shape of John Wayne take a swing at somebody - now you get a close-up of Jessica Alba's face as she flips some dude in the middle of a filthy abandoned factory. (Although of course her eyelashes are still perfect, which is a whole other discussion about how "dirty" stars are willing or allowed to be, especially men vs women.)
IOW, stars used to have to be glamorous all the time, now they and their management teams are willing to let them get gross on film, because they can sell it as "dedication to the craft" and "willing to do whatever it takes to make the best possible movie". And frankly, we as the audience actually expect that - if modern movies were shot so the stars looked as clean as in many older movies, they'd probably get called out as phony and cheesy.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:09 AM on July 13
1) It's more "realistic." I mean, if you spend 20 minutes in a running battle with 150 bad guys through the streets of Milan with explosions and shattering car windows and crashing through restaurant kitchens and whatnot, you're gonna get dirty. And bloody. And bruised. You may find it gross and off-putting but I really think most people (and clearly most modern filmmakers) would find it less believable if they showed the actors doing all this stuff and at the end of it all they looked like they just stepped out of the shower. IIRC part of the reaction to Die Hard was , "Whoa! This movie star actually looks like he spent the whole movie crawling through filthy air ducts and elevator shafts!" It was kind of a big deal at the time, a star being willing to look that gross (for Hollywood values of gross.)
Personal anecdata - my job often involves doing physical labor outside with a limited time to get stuff done, and while I might give my face a swipe with a towel if the sweat's running in my eyes, mostly I don't notice or have time to care if I get shmutz on my face or clothes or the rest of me. At least not until I get a break and can get to a bathroom with a mirror. Have I spent 4 hours with a big streak of grease down the side of my face? Absolutely, and I regularly get home and find a big streak of mud on the back of my calf and general parking lot grime embedded in my forearms. And where the hell did this hole in my shirt come from? Physical effort gets you sweaty, the world is often not a clean place, keeping yourself clean might be pretty low on your priority list in some circumstances (I have 4 hours to get this sound system unloaded and set up, international arms dealers are trying to kill me, whichever.)
2) Continuity for this kind of makeup and costuming is much easier and cheaper because technology. If Ben Hur had wanted to take a record of dirt sweat and blood on their faces, they would have needed to take pictures on actual film and get it developed, expensive and time consuming. Evil Dead could've used Polaroid instant film, but the first one had a budget of $375,000, they probably figured they couldn't afford enough film. So in those cases it makes sense to do a swipe and and start with a relatively clean slate (face), because you'd never match the look exactly from day to day or weeks apart.
Now every person in the world has a device in their pocket that can take a zillion pictures down to the pore level. You can take a week off and come back Monday and the makeup department has more reference material than they need to get every streak of mud and patch of soot 110% the same.
3) Stars are more willing to look like this onscreen and our public perception of stars has changed. Their images used to be managed as more of a coherent whole. Cary Grant is sophisticated and debonair, Audrey Hepburn is the fresh-faced ingénue, that's why they sell tickets, that's how they are supposed to appear on screen and off, so you don't put them in roles where they're going to get sweaty and dirty or at least you don't make them look very sweaty and dirty.
But since at least the 90's (or even earlier, see Die Hard above) more and more stars and actors have been doing some of their own stunts and fight scenes and kind of making a big public deal about it - promo material and interviews and behind-the-scenes clips are full of training montages and questions about how they did stunts. You used to just see the back of someone roughly the size and shape of John Wayne take a swing at somebody - now you get a close-up of Jessica Alba's face as she flips some dude in the middle of a filthy abandoned factory. (Although of course her eyelashes are still perfect, which is a whole other discussion about how "dirty" stars are willing or allowed to be, especially men vs women.)
IOW, stars used to have to be glamorous all the time, now they and their management teams are willing to let them get gross on film, because they can sell it as "dedication to the craft" and "willing to do whatever it takes to make the best possible movie". And frankly, we as the audience actually expect that - if modern movies were shot so the stars looked as clean as in many older movies, they'd probably get called out as phony and cheesy.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:09 AM on July 13
I think there's also a "people don't carry handkerchiefs anymore" factor. When most people might be expected to have an item on them whose express purpose was to wipe things off one's face it wasn't distracting or odd to see them use it in a movie.
posted by potrzebie at 7:40 AM on July 13
posted by potrzebie at 7:40 AM on July 13
This has been bugging me too - there are scenes where the actor is dabbing at their face with a cloth, but they totally miss the actual dirt it drives me crazy. wiping your face is a natural reaction leaving it there does look weird.
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 1:55 PM on July 13
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 1:55 PM on July 13
Thank you for these incredibly interesting responses! To give an example of what I'm noticing: I was watching a show last night (Vikings) where the characters got into a big fight and several had blood and grime all over their faces. Then then sat down and had a conversation, with the blood still all over their faces. So much blood that I'm sure that if it were a real situation, you would feel it. But they just sat there and talked with layers and layers of blood on their faces. Here's an example. You'll notice in some shots he even has clumps and clods of stuff on his face. Vikings is probably an extreme example, but it's part of a trend. I notice this in all sorts of shows.
In the Evil Dead example I mentioned in my question as an instance of what I remember from older shows, the characters weren't cleaning their faces at the end of a scene, they were just wiping it at -- the way you would wipe off sweat on a hot day, just sort of wiping, but not necessarily cleaning, which seems like a normal thing to do.
posted by OrangeDisk at 3:45 PM on July 13
In the Evil Dead example I mentioned in my question as an instance of what I remember from older shows, the characters weren't cleaning their faces at the end of a scene, they were just wiping it at -- the way you would wipe off sweat on a hot day, just sort of wiping, but not necessarily cleaning, which seems like a normal thing to do.
posted by OrangeDisk at 3:45 PM on July 13
[[btw, this interesting post and thread and nouvelle-personne's answer have been added to the sidebar and Best Of blog!]]
posted by taz at 2:01 AM on July 20
posted by taz at 2:01 AM on July 20
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by NotLost at 10:51 PM on July 12