Making Cast Look Older

[Ki-Ki]

Assuming you havn't got an older cast..

I got a 22 year old & an 18 year old for a film shoot, but I need to make them look older. Not talking like 40 years older. But realistically about 5-10 years more.

Was speaking to a mate and we thoguht maybe stibbling there skin, bringing out the textures. We can't find a make-up artist. We're in quite a bad area for Independant filmmaking. Also we don't think fake beards and mustache's would do it.

Some other actors would be using like suits, or helmets to cover there faces. Though our main character's preferably visible. Been Googling;

'How to make your actors look older, lol'

But gotten nothing yet, so thought I'd post on faithfull DVXUser.


-ki-ki

 

[filmguy123]

Been Googling;

'How to make your actors look older, lol'

-ki-ki

Why did you google "lol" with that?

jk.

When I was 15 and we did our first shoot, we drew beards onto people with magic markers. They didn't look any older, but they looked much more ridiculous. Not the effect we were going for.

Sorry I didn't help you at all, but I'm waiting for a file to render and had nothing better to do. But I'd be interested to hear responses on this as well

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Not to beg the obvious ... but why not try to find people who are age appropriate for your roles or come up with an idea that is age appropriate for the actors you actually have access to.

Right now this will go one of two ways:

1. ... They didn't look any older, but they looked much more ridiculous. Not the effect we were going for...

2. It will look like a bunch of other amateur shorts where 18 year olds are trying to play 30 year olds and all the time and effort you will have put into it will be for something "cute" that doesn't really impress anyone but your parents.

"Film is truth 24 times a second" [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Jean-Luc Godard[/FONT].
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]If you were doing a stage play I'd say go for it. The audience is willing to suspend it's disbelief, that's part of the fun. But you cannot play "pretend" in cinema. If you do you will wind up with a "pretend movie".

So my advice, either slay the sacred cow and come up with a new idea appropriate for these actors ... or ... find actors appropriate for these roles.

Being 30 is not just about stipled sking. There's a different posture, voice, mannerisms, outlook on life that the actor can bring to the role and the camera will pick ALL of that up.

If your friends can pull of playing 30 in person, face to face, right next to someone sitting on couch, or a bench or standing on a crowded bus. Then maybe go for it. But I doubt that's the case.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[brianluce]

I think if you can get your actors to dress 30 and behave 30 you might be able to sell it. That's why they call it acting. Mel Brooks was once able to portray a two thousand yearold man. It was a genius performance and I never heard anyone say he didn't look two thousand years old.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Come on dude. That's farce. If he's doing farce go for it.

I'm assuming this isn't farce because he's not trying to pull off 2000 years old, or even 80 but just stretch something he thinks he can reasonably pull off.

EDIT: And did you actually BELIEVE Mel Brooks was a 2000 year old man. Again for farce, go for it. but ...

Find one drama, thriller, romcom, horror short, anywhere with 18 year olds playing credible 30 year olds and I will send you $50.

Look man I have a Masters in Directing theater and I teach camera acting so I have respect for actors. But film is film and theater is theater. And sure for BROAD COMEDY that's almost VAUDEVILLE the line is blurred, and that's part of the fun. Same when Mike Meyers or Peter Sellers plays fifty characters in one movie. But whoa is he who casts an 18 year old in a 30 year old role in pretty much anything else.

And are his actors REAL actors, or friends. Or people that want to try acting. If they are just friends etc. and he casts them to play 30 somethings ... no way.

 

[filmguy123]

Yup Jack is right. On a more serious note than my first post, I've tried to do that before. Just doesn't work. Certain 22-year olds, *MAYBE* - 18 year old as 30? not a chance.

Can it still be fun? It will impress more than your parents, it could impress your social circle. But it won't impress the internet or any audience beyond those who already know you.

Really depends on what your goals are if you go for it or not.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Very true and a good perspective.

Me, I always want to make the best movie I can. I try not to put any distinction between what I am trying to achieve in terms of artistic merit and credibility and the achievements of those who are working with much more resources, experience, and talent, in short, anyone at any level. I may seldom, if ever, hit that mark, but to me there is one mark. But again that's just me.

I forget some people do it for fun

 

[brianluce]

EDIT: And did you actually BELIEVE Mel Brooks was a 2000 year old man. Again for farce, go for it. but ...

Find one drama, thriller, romcom, horror short, anywhere with 18 year olds playing credible 30 year olds and I will send you $50.

.

I was totally immersed in Brooks's performance and it never crossed my mind that he wasn't 2,000 years old. You shouldn't be so skeptical, sometimes you just have to let great performances flow over you.

Regarding your bet, Would you settle for 30 year olds playing 18 year olds? If so, I submit the entire PORKY'S franchise.

 

[Kegan]

It's fine when an older actor plays a younger one, because they've already been through that stage in their life and they know how to act. An actor who has never been through that part of life, will as Jack said talk differently, carry themselves differently and behave in a different manner altogether. Maturity is part of it, but experience is what separates it.

Young can't accurately play much older unless very talented, but old can play young because they've already been there, done that and can recreate those feelings because they're an actor - that's what they do.

My thoughts,

Kegan

 

[brianluce]

Young can't accurately play much older unless very talented, but old can play young because they've already been there, done that and can recreate those feelings because they're an actor - that's what they do.

My thoughts,

Kegan

Okay so does that mean you can't play a role unless you can relate to it from personal life experience? If so, that blows my plan to play a 15th century Samurai in an upcoming indie project I got hired for...

 

[Kegan]

Not necessarily, maybe I worded my post wrong. Life experience plays a large factor in playing a certain AGE, not character. Are you going to be a 70 year old Samurai in the film? (assuming you're considerably younger than that)

-Kegan

 

[12quidkidinnit]

Apologies in advance, but the arguments about films having to be believable don't wash with me. For as start, if that was the case, then films like Terminator wouldn't work because most people know time travel is only fantasy, and for another, most people also know that humans don't live to be 2000 years old either. If it works, all well and good. If it doesn't, that's not so good.

As far as I'm concerned, film making is whatever you want it to be. It can be the art of reality, or the art of illusion. It is the portrayal of reality, or how well the illusion is created / how effectively it is done which either makes a film, or not.

I think something like this can be achieved, as long as careful thought and attention are paid to factors regarding ageing. In addition to the clothes and posture, which has already been quite rightly mentioned, there is also the shape of people's faces, which changes as the years advance. Lines below and to the side of the eyes can be achieved with make up, as long as this isn't done to excess. In men, hairlines recede, and again, this is also a look which can be achieved. Obviously, pouring talcum powder over someones hair is just going to look silly, but you get the idea.
Another thing which can give viewers a clue as to someones age is their voice. These change as people get older. I'm not sure how I'd address this, but it's another point to consider.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

I was totally immersed in Brooks's performance and it never crossed my mind that he wasn't 2,000 years old. You shouldn't be so skeptical, sometimes you just have to let great performances flow over you.

....

Do you mean cynical? I'm one of the least cynical moviegoers I know. I enjoy most things I see on some level at least. I enjoyed Brooks performance and I bought it within the logic of the film. As for skeptical, I know what I know based on personal experience and tomes of supporting opinion from acting teachers / directors etc. I don't doubt this is a recipe for amateurism. I know it.

Now. We're talking about virtually every other kind of movie besides farce or parody. And if you look at those types of Brook's films you will find the non star turn roles are cast according to type and as close to the character as possible. And there's no such thing as 2000 year old man to begin with so who's gonna play it anyway.

Show me a Scorsese movie where 18 year olds play 30 year olds. Show me a James Cameron movie where kids play adults or people are cast wildly out of their age range.

As for Porky's...do you really want to use that as an example for how you should cast and make your movie? Also it's always better when you find people as close to the age of child or teen characters as possible. So while there is a somewhat accepted convention of older actors playing teens, no it's not the best way and when it's done well the 25 year olds or 30 year olds are usually some kind of freaks that look almost, if not 18. There's a reason 45 year olds are not playing these roles.

Okay so does that mean you can't play a role unless you can relate to it from personal life experience? If so, that blows my plan to play a 15th century Samurai in an upcoming indie project I got hired for...

Well it would be better if you had some sort of relevant experience. Hence actors going out on patrol with cops, taking months of weapons training before shooting a movie, etc.

If you knew a real Samauri and you could cast him. He would probably be better than you unless you consider yourself flat out brilliant.

Apologies in advance, but the arguments about films having to be believable don't wash with me. For as start, if that was the case, then films like Terminator wouldn't work because most people know time travel is only fantasy, and for another, most people also know that humans don't live to be 2000 years old either. If it works, all well and good. If it doesn't, that's not so good.

....

You're talking about something 180º different. No one is saying you can't have the Terminator or Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. The saying
"film is truth at 24 frames per second" does not mean that your movies have to be realistic. It means if your movie isn't as authentic as possible, the camera will pick it up/. The Camera is a lie detector.

Would you cast an 18 year old to play Gimli the crusty weathered abrasive dwarf in LOTR? No such thing as Dwarfs but you are gonna try and cast the role as close to type as possible.

The full quote is "Film is truth 24 frames a second and every cut a lie". No one is saying it isn't illusion that it isn't make believe at it's very heart. But while film may hide some of the other artifices of the craft such as CGI that we buy anyway because the story or performance is so good, film ACCENTUATES, HIGHLIGHTS and EXPOSES flaws, and lack of authenticity in human behaviour.

These aren't ideas about how your movie should be. This is the widely accepted idea about what the camera reveals.

 

[Kegan]

Thanks Jack, said with much more eloquence than I could muster. I second the above statement and I really like that quote! (the full one more so than the abbreviated version)

-Kegan

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

The biggest thing I'm always trying to do on my sets, usually with very good theatre actors, is to get them to stop acting.

Casting someone way outside of type inherently requires more acting.

 

[brianluce]

If you knew a real Samauri and you could cast him. He would probably be better than you unless you consider yourself flat out brilliant.



.

Ummm it's actually been about 500 years since we've had a 15th century Samurai so that presents a small casting problem. Even if there was a 500 year old Samurai walking around Santa Monica Beach, what if he wasn't a good actor? There a high probability that a 500 year old Samurai would in fact be a lousy actor, so I'd argue that you're better off with a good actor as raw material for a role than an individual who by luck meets the physcial parameters of the role.

 

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Ummm it's actually been about 500 years since we've had a 15th century Samurai so that presents a small casting problem. ...

Really? No ... REALLY? I mean REALLY?

...There a high probability that a 500 year old Samurai would in fact be a lousy actor, so I'd argue that you're better off with a good actor as raw material for a role than an individual who by luck meets the physcial parameters of the role

We're not talking about strictly physical parameters and I was being a bit tongue in cheek suggesting you cast a real samurai. But someone who is Japanese or who had weapon or martial arts experience would be a nice start.

 

[filmguy123]

Ok this is getting out of hand. No movies don't always have to be believable, yes younger actors can play older characters well if they're a good actor.

I think the point is, a 18 year old looks young. There is a big difference between an 18-year old playing a 30 year-old and a 30-year old playing a 50 year old. It's like a 10 year-old trying to play an 18-year old in someways.

At a certain point it gets easier.

But as far as, earlier in thread, Jack mentioning how he forgot some people do it just for fun... even if not "just for fun" it could still be OK for a person's goals. Different filmmakers focus on different things. Maybe the goal is to learn lighting, sound, and excellent production values and impress your social circle, and the "best movie you can" revolves around those goals, and has nothing to do with sundance or distribution or impressing strangers.

And in fact, that is much more than "just for fun" - that is "just for passion" - and those are the people who will succeed when it turns into "for real."

But yes, when if this is "for real" an 18-year-old won't slice it as a 30-year old, sorry It will look silly. But if you want to make a movie for the sake of the editing, lighting, camera work, fun/passion, whatever, WHO CARES!

 

[filmguy123]

ANd on that note, lets get back OT and give the OP some actual constructive ideas for what he COULD do, even though it will be far from ideal.

Makeup, wigs/facial hair, lighting, etc. that could at least help.

 

[brianluce]

But yes, when if this is "for real" an 18-year-old won't slice it as a 30-year old, sorry It will look silly. But if you want to make a movie for the sake of the editing, lighting, camera work, fun/passion, whatever, WHO CARES!

Not necessarily, what if an 18 year old actor is playing a 30 year old who looks young for his age? For example, if the character was a 30 year old who looked 18. In that case, an 18 year old actor should do just fine.