top of page

`'The Fly is an enduring reminder of what can be achieved with on-the-set "organic effects", and the convincing look that they have compared with the CGI that seems to have become the all-too-dominant- choice for doing fantastical effects in cinema and television. "

 

" In seven major stages of transformation of man into man-fly, Chris Walas and his collegues' work blends with Jeff Goldblum's performance so seamlessly it should be a model for all fantasy filmmakers. "

 

 

" Does this kind of synthesis happen with computer-generated effects? I don't think it can. In The Fly, makeup and actor merge for the appropriat action at every stage: insect hair growing on his back, strange painting on his face, followed by warts and bumps and then festering sores, the body and hands swollen, seamless finger appliances for the nail-pulling scene, ears falling off, body appliances, several stages of facial and full-head appliances and two different full foam latex body-suits. "

 

"If in the future all of these artistic choices go t ocomputer artists, I can only say they've got a tough act to follow."

I found this interview really insightful, as i'd assumed the content would be just based on the makeup. What I actually read was someone's view on the how effective makeup is over CGI effects, which was interesting to read as it's clearly someone's view from well over 6 years ago. " Does this kind of synthesis happen with computer-generated effects? I don't think it can", arguably, this can now be achieved with the development of MoCap and PerCap. When you watch a CGI image move at the same time as the actor, and the minute expressions it can pic up, I think the fusion is almost as seamless as some prosthetics, as some prosthetics also limit movements. 

 

Makeup Artist Magazine. Issue 66 (August 2008)

The Fly, David Cronenberg (1986)

The Fly tells the story of a scientist who creates a machine that can teleport objects. In his search to make it able to teleport organic tissue, he transports himself, unaware that there is a fly in the machine with him. Their DNA becomes intertwined and so he slowly morphs into a human/fly hybrid. The transformation happens over a series of weeks, and starts small at first; he notices coarse hairs on his back and spotty legions on his face. This slowly develops until his face is lumpy, slimy and distorted, and his body soon follows. This carries on until he looks quite like the elephant man, and then the whole his face, body and entire human form falls apart to reveal a much more fly-like creature, with big, black bulbous eyes. From watching how this creature moves, I assume its an animatronic. I think they wanted to have him burst out of the more human form for a climax in the film, as I think realistically, he would've just carried on developing the way he was. Although the way he was transforming didn't seem very fly-like to me at all. Apart from the coarse hairs (which didn't feature after their initial reveal) and his ability to stick to walls, I didn't see any fly anatomy in his facial or bodily transformation. When the creature breaks through at the end, the eyes definately lend a more fly-like vibe, but he still only has four limbs and there isn't any indication of any wings. I think he looks quite insect-like, but the colour makes me think of crustaceans, though I assume they coloured it that way to keep a more human, skin like feel. I think overall it was a successful, gradual transformation but I wouldn't say from man to fly. I think its more of the 'mad science gone wrong' vibe, and not, ' a man transforming into a fly'.

 

It has made me consider the level of transformation i'd like to try and achieve in my own work. Although there won't be any full makeups, i'll still need to think for the level of hybrid I want to achieve and how its happened. Is it a science experiement? Is it a legendary creature hybrid? Was is born this way or developed? These could all implement the makeups in various ways, whether they be gory, realistic half human or more animal.

 

It also made me consider CGI vs Makeup. I feel that if the sculpting and makeup designing had been different, then there could've been a lot more done to communicate a more obvious fly aesthetic. However, I think the fly animatronic at the end could have been enhanced with CGI. Not just in its movement and realism, but I also think that maybe the reason they didn't add 2 more legs or wings, was because they may have looked too puppet-like, too silly, for a serious film. It could've compromised the overall look, so I think they may have been working within their means and limitations rather than being able to go all out. I think CGI may have been anble to create those effects in a more realistic way, that wouldn't have looked so garish.

Timpone, A. (1996) Men, Makeup and Monsters. USA: St Martins Press

 

Having critiqued the makeup in the film for not actually looking like a fly, I've now read this article. Here Cronenberg explains his creative choices in creating "a real fusion between an insect and a man that would embody elements of both". The film and concept now make a lot more sense to me, as I thought the point of the film was for him to literally become a fly.

© 2023 by Tennis Lessons with Karen. Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page