Loading...
> >

"The Human Face" - BBC Mini Series

Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,235
edited December 1969 in Art Studio

This four part series featuring John Cleese is now on YouTube in its entirety. Given all the collections of expressions available here at DAZ and other 3D sites, its apparently a big part of 3D ... :ohh:

Plus, you can learn why there are so few crocodiles featured in soap operas. Part 1 is here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280262/

For a more scholarly discussion, here is a free excerpt from a course by The Teaching Co., titled "The Complexities of Facial Expressions" on an international level:

http://tinyurl.com/knoyed9

One lesson is don't be concerned if your Japanese audience doesn't seem to respond to your presentation.

Comments

  • remcovanembdenremcovanembden Posts: 106
    edited December 1969

    this is very interesting. Especially the part of the micro emotions.

  • WAVEDELSHWAVEDELSH Posts: 100
    edited December 1969

    This is very interesting subject Steve.. i never seem to get my facial expression right

  • Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,235
    edited December 1969

    I find the topic interesting, also. In the 48 Hour Film contest, the script has to be written quickly, usually on Friday night so shooting can take place Saturday and editing/dropoff Sunday (these are full 24 hour days, BTW). We used to have everybody write a short script, then vote to get one to flesh out. Almost all would write line after line of dialogue, which for an animation is a hassle - voice acting, lip syncing, etc. So I end up being the Grinch who takes out most (all?) of the dialogue, telling the story visually. So the expressions SHOULD be important, but I typically run out of time and rely mostly on settings and props. Which do not talk.

    The director Stanley Kubrick was famous for removing dialogue from screenplays. "The actor can convey this line with an expression."

    "At some point about halfway through 2001: A Space Odyssey here's what everyone should be thinking: 'WTF Stanley Kubrick? There's no more dialogue in this movie? I hate you.' No one thinks that because the film is a complete transfixing masterpiece."

    http://gizmodo.com/5864704/film-nerds-are-drooling-over-stanley-kubricks-incredible-early-photography/

    :gulp: :ahhh: :roll:

  • remcovanembdenremcovanembden Posts: 106
    edited December 1969

    facial expressions are very hard, due to we see all those different expressions when we talk to people. We register all those small expressions, without knowing. So when you morph a 3D human, and then add an expression, you feel when there is something off, but you cant put your finger on it. That is where the micro expressions come to play. We register them when we see actual humans but dont really pay attention to them. Noone is going to observe the face of the cashier at a gas station, anyone? lol. But even the cashier uses micro expressions and we register them without even thinking about it. That is why 3D facial expressions(and in some form, body poses too) are so hard.

  • DPWDPW Posts: 267
    edited December 1969

    Must admit, facial expressions are really important and I know that I for one should spend more time on them. I absolutely loved the part in, The Woman In Black, when there was no dialogue for about 30-40 minutes, just Daniel Radcliff (who I'm not a fan of) trapped in the house being haunted by the ghost. Loved that spell of the film.
    The producers said they took a huge risk with that - as having a lengthy time spell in a film without dialogue was unheard of these days... Then came, The Artist :)

  • Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,235
    edited December 1969

    Deanpw said:
    Must admit, facial expressions are really important and I know that I for one should spend more time on them. I absolutely loved the part in, The Woman In Black, when there was no dialogue for about 30-40 minutes, just Daniel Radcliff (who I'm not a fan of) trapped in the house being haunted by the ghost. Loved that spell of the film.
    The producers said they took a huge risk with that - as having a lengthy time spell in a film without dialogue was unheard of these days... Then came, The Artist :)

    Apparently Roger Ebert agreed with you on "The Woman In Black": "The film might have had more effect if (Radcliffe's) character had possessed more screen presence ... The movie nevertheless is effective, because director James Watkins knows it isn't a character study. His haunted house is the star."

    "The Artist" is a great movie, way better than I was expecting when I first saw it. Apparently I'm not alone, Roger Ebert gives it 4 stars out of 4, and says: "I've seen 'The Artist' three times, and each time it was applauded, perhaps because the audience was surprised at itself for liking it so much." (Black & white, silent, who woulds thunk it was good?)

    A great episode of "The Twilight Zone" had almost no dialogue:

    http://entertainment.time.com/2009/10/02/top-10-twilight-zone-episodes/slide/the-invaders-1961/

    A one minute version is here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n99iNW9595o

  • Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,235
    edited December 1969

    Here's an article on the meaning of various eye expressions (you have to watch a ten slide show, sorry):

    http://healthyliving.msn.com/diseases/vision/10-ways-your-eyes-give-you-away

    I'm not sure this will help with animation, but maybe something in there works. I did find this interesting: “When people are lying they actually engage in more eye contact. They look into your eyes to see if you’re buying their story.” In the HBO series "Rome", one of the lead characters is Atia (played by Polly Walker), the niece of Julius Caesar and the mother of Octavian/Augustus. She is a vicious schemer and lies a LOT. I recall she does look straight into people's eyes when she lies, and is pretty convincing (at least up to the point where she gives a sideways glance at the camera, implying to us "See how easy it is with such simpletons?") Ian MacKellen did some similar moves in the movie "Richard III". Good acting.

  • Steve KSteve K Posts: 3,235
    edited December 1969

    Here is a review of the new movie "Captain Phillips" with Tom Hanks:

    http://www.houstonpress.com/2013-10-10/film/captain-phillips?utm_source=Newsletters&utm_medium=email

    A couple of interesting observations from the reviewer:

    "When Phillips, in an effort to defend his ship, removes a particular something from a box, you might at first wonder, 'Shouldn't there be a line of dialogue telling me what it is he's fetching?' Then you realize — duh! — you'll find out what it is by watching. We've become conditioned to having everything in popular movies explained by dialogue; [Director] Greengrass returns audiences to a kind of innocence, reminding us that it's okay to trust our eyes." (I love it, don't tell me, show me ... its a movie, not an audio book)

    "Instead of writing all of Phillips's anguish, fear, and frustration in big loops, he parcels them out discreetly, with a glance here and a half-hidden frown there." (Sounds like micro expressions, maybe? Hanks is a very good actor ... the subtitle of the review is "Hanks proves why moviegoers and directors love him.")

Sign In or Register to comment.