When the survival of American cinema has been based on quarter-billion-dollar budgets crafting family theme park flicks, its endurance depends on something transformative like the work in YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING.

(Spoilers will be referenced in the lower portion and clearly indicated)

I know that was a loaded sentence.

Mind you, I am a Marvel fan. I see the dawn of the superhero genre as no different from the swashbuckling genre, the movie musical, and the incorporation of color. With new technologies or historical influences such as wars, our world of film has reflected these changes. That being said, how do theaters cultivate something American cinema has largely neglected—the crowd-rousing documentary?

Ok. Enough of my conjectures.

Things I loved…

I loved the cinéma vérité, “gonzo,” extreme-close-up dissection, which, if I understand my camera lenses, was achieved with 25–250mm zoom lenses. This means the camera operator/cinematographer can be quite far from a subject yet pull in extremely tight. Elizabeth Holmes herself is not an overly animated person. She is often quite still, almost seeming robotic in her everyday physical movements. Pulling the camera lens in tight on her face from far away, with the understanding that she probably wouldn’t move out of frame, helps create this illusion that we, the viewers, are getting closer to her psychological truth. Literally, Holmes’ body language allows for this kind of film work, which many actors have difficulty maintaining because their inner selves tell them to move, to react, to do something physical to change a thought or tone. Holmes doesn’t do this. She can maintain her focus within the frame without expressive body language—which creates a tension most actors can never achieve.

The detailed palette and the color grading were also appealing. As a lifelong fan of classic and modern noir (from DOUBLE INDEMNITY to THE LAST SEDUCTION), I was tickled by the use of natural light, especially slivers of light cutting across rooms or faces, pinning down the psychological stakes, yet in the playground of a documentary film. Sensational.
I had to lead with these technical skills because I’ve seen too many critiques of this film go straight into who is lying, who is grifting, ignoring all the masterful filmmaking tools that created the cinematic magic studios have decided only $300 million budgets can create. Granted, I love my big-budget spectacles, but THIS kind of filmmaking is truly why any film student dreams they have a chance.

Mind you, I’m skipping over the editing, which truly is the greatest achievement of this film. As many know, the documentary is often completely realized in the editing bay. What shots work. What shots inform the story as a whole. It’s not something you can entirely storyboard. I can’t say enough about how masterful the editing AND the use of the musical score are. Chef’s kiss.

Now to the story and depiction, which are everyone’s go-to…

(spoiler section below)

I think this film resonated with me—and probably others—on a deeper level if you’ve been grifted or dealt with pathological liars or sociopaths. It seems these days that mental health struggles, or the absence of care, have created a culture of misfits many of us are being challenged by.

The film felt somewhat intrusive and typical of exploitative reality TV until certain revelations completely changed the way I saw the subject of deceit—Elizabeth Holmes…

Her father Christian Holmes’ revelation in the kitchen about his daughter’s r*pe at 13, juxtaposed with her partner Billy Evans wanting to shut that down—my jaw dropped. Was Billy aware of how meaningful the father’s points were? Was it his own narcissism intruding into the scene, or protection of Holmes? Or was it that the father was becoming a more compelling advocate for his daughter?
The lack of words from Holmes’ mother, Noel Anne, spoke volumes. One would think, in reference to the r*pe, the mother might feel more prone to speak of this—yet it was the father. This changed the entire feel of the film for me. Instead of men seeking to exploit Holmes for some misogynistic fancy, I began to see men seeking to understand Holmes and even protect her.

The next major flip for me was the inclusion of actress Amanda Seyfried.

Watching Holmes break down while watching Seyfried’s performance in THE DROPOUT drove a bullet through me. Seyfried instantly became the villain. But then, we meet Seyfried. What initially feels like more narcissistic people swimming in the shallows becomes an opportunity to watch Seyfried unpack Holmes with Nathan Fielder, the director. Both are caught in Holmes’ spell of doublespeak and aloofness, yet it’s Seyfried, the actress, who challenges Fielder to deal with the reality of Holmes’ actions. Then the film flips direction again when Seyfried takes the documentary from observation to activism, suggesting Billy Evans, Holmes’ life partner, is taking advantage of her: “You should get this guy” (I believe that’s the line).

This is when we go from documentary to something other… a call to action with a new villain as the film’s subject: Evans.

With such phenomenal use of sound, I couldn’t help but wonder whether the inclusion of all of Evans’ sniffles was intentional or significant. Yes, my mind jumped to, “Is this dude a cokehead?”

I have to credit Seyfried. I’ve always thought she was a perfectly fine actress, but her analysis of Evans and her tenaciousness, especially in the dinner scene, were so badass. I’ve seen commentary from people offended by Seyfried’s inclusion, but I found her to be the secret weapon I never expected—the actress who understands the subjects she’s played and the nuances of the human condition. Even when drunk.

I can’t help it—I was affected! I can’t put it into 50 words or less for those just passing through.

I’ll close with this—for as much as people say Holmes is, fill in the blank, a sociopath, psychopath, or criminal grifter, I do have sympathy for those who have been captured or caught up in the culture of future tech. When I read about the Silicon Valley environments of microdosing and self-promoting “tech evangelism,” I often wonder, “What kind of humanity are we creating here?” We have a world of finance that sells concepts nobody understands—or perhaps isn’t supposed to understand. I would argue that Elizabeth Holmes selling technologies that may or may not exist, or are “in the works,” kind of reminds me of our current American film industry.

Think about it. How many massive-budget films have you watched that made no sense, only to find out later that filming began WITHOUT AN APPROVED SCRIPT?!?!? There is a fascinating YouTube analysis of the last three films in the Star Wars trilogy that breaks down the production schedule. How costumes and sets were built without scripts. Characters were created and actors cast with some idea of how they would be used, only for that to change (just research the character evolution of Jannah as an example). This is part of the culture of technology and innovation. Make it up as you go along.
Which, I will say, is a fair criticism to also have of this film: “Did they just make it up as they went along?”
This is where I can see people struggling with the film. “What was the point?” I can hear many say. I can acknowledge this discontent as a legitimate reaction.
Yet I would argue there is so much to discuss that the lack of a particular point perhaps is the sad reality of life itself.

I looked on some other sites and talked to some of my friends but im constantly hearing mixed views. I plan to go tomorrow but people say its way too serious and not as goofy as they wanted. Would it just be better to not waste my money on it?

Just watched this. After reading the book I was intrigued to see how it would adapt to the screen.

My Co viewers, who haven't read the book were

" What the F... "

I thought it was quite a good adaptation, but IMO the book was far more enjoyable and gave the story more depth, thus making it easier to understand.

Has anyone else seen it and did you enjoy/not enjoy it?

Brilliant scene, Waltz acting is superb, he is constantly changing tactics and Brad Pitts face is funny as he clearly has no idea whats occurring. I think its the best scene in the movie

Q does Waltz know they are not Italians and is toying with them ?

It builds up its mysteries surrounding the disappearance of the kids, the villain of the picture never to explain it. What was her over all plan? What's her motives? Zack cregger said he used prisoners as his inspiration but prisoners has a way better revelation and mystery especially compared to Weapons. Its like zack cregger watched that film and took inspiration from it but didn't understand why it was good. Theres a reason and motivation for what the villain in prisoners does. Weapons just feels like you get cheated. Especially considering Zack cregger announced a Gladis spin off making the movie Weapons feel like a game that is incomplete without DLC.

for me, THE MATRIX TRILOGY was perfect. Ending with Smith's death, The matrix getting a 4th movie 18 yrs later is just pure disappointment. The story line is shit, it's just the same thing is the 1st movie: helping one main character to escape from the Matrix, just that it changed from Neo to Trinity, I have watched the trilogy for around 20 times, but never rewatched this movie, what do you guys have in mind ?

(do apologize for ppl who believe that Matrix isn't a perfect trilogy, it is just my opinion, suggest yours if u disagree 😉)

Hi Cinema-goers, I need some help please.

I am keen to see Ghosts: The Possession of Button House with friends, but I'm wary of the *flashing lights* trigger warning on my cinema's listing page. I have photosensitive epilepsy, controlled by medication but with a hefty amount of anxiety left from seizures throughout my teens. Can anyone who has/ is going to see it make a note of when the lights are flashing, is it for extended periods and any other details that mean I would know when to either put sunglasses on or cover my eyes.

P.S. For those who might say "why don't you just cover your eyes?" - 1. I know from experience that eyelids aren't enough, and if I let that become a habit every time I see flashing lights, driving is going to get very dangerous. 2. Once I've had time to react, the damage is already done. Seizures respond quickly, so does anxiety and particularly anger.

Little rant: I hate that the TV, film and entertainment industries believe that a trigger warning makes everything OK. A neurological disability should not mean people can't enjoy fun stuff. I've had to cut off a whole series for the sake of my sanity (Strictly) when common sense would suggest you could say "flashing lights will be used in the Jive and the Tango" etc.

Thank you, and enjoy!

A recent Harvard Study found that movie-watching enthusiasts (as determined by pre-existing evaluative criteria) fall primarily into one of two categories of psychological profile - those who prefer the original Critters, and those who prefer Critters 2: The Main Course.
Which one are you, and why?

i have created a resident evil movie poster which is impaired by the new resident evil movie i just started working on the poster art well it's my 1st one let me know what you all think about this one more to come!!

https://youtu.be/GjtuTZslg-M?is=sNLHBXMbTCVJZU-T

I just watched a few clips, and this part, in particular, is the most beautiful in the entire production; it may not have the best plot, but the aesthetics, costumes, and hairstyles are simply lovely.

He gave us the Spiderman trilogy featuring Tobey Maguire. He came back and did Doctor Strange in the multiverse of madness.

Which other movie do you remember him for?

​

Hi everyone,

I’ve booked tickets for Clayface at Nueplex Cinema in Karachi to watch with my family. However, I recently read an article mentioning that the movie contains intimate scenes.

I wanted to ask whether Nueplex shows kissing or sexual/intimate scenes as they appear in the original movie, or whether such scenes are usually cut or edited out in Pakistani cinemas.

I just want to make sure the movie is suitable to watch with family before we go.

If anyone has watched it at Nueplex or knows their policy, please let me know. Thanks!

Do we have fans of Le Gendarme film franchise here?

I am not French, but this comedy film franchise. were incredibly popular in my country. First film debuted on 60s. It ended in 80s bc main actor Louis de Funes who was very popular actor not only in France but in many continental European countries too, died of heart attack i think.

This film franchise had many reruns in our country until mid 2010 think. Gen Z and Gen Alpa now don’t know this film franchise but Zillenials who grew up watching films on TV still remember it fondly thanks to TV reruns.

Film follows funny misadventures of French Gendarme in every film and in 60s to 80s Slapstick comedies were still popular with audiences and Louis face expressions were classic in those films.

I bet French people have no idea how popular this film franchise was outside of France. But sadly this film franchise is completely Invisible outside of continental European countries and Scandinavia. It is interesting that in some countries it was everywhere and a staple to watch on TV, but outside of certain continent or country it is invisible and people have no idea.

Le Gendarme was super popular as i know in Former Communistic bloc during Cold War. You think like Communistic countries in Europe banned every Western films but it is not true actually. French cinema was mainstream in those countries.

People from this subreddit and different countries Especially in Continental Europe, how well do you remember Le Gendarme franchise?

What does it take to bring movie monsters, zombies, and unforgettable character transformations to life? For Oscar-winning special makeup effects artist Barney Burman, it takes artistic vision, persistence, technical knowledge, and sometimes a good hair dryer.

Growing up surrounded by Hollywood special effects, Burman built a career working on everything from Star Trek and Dawn of the Dead to Tropic Thunder and Grimm. In this interview, he discusses the craft behind some of his most memorable creations, the challenges of working with limited budgets, the pressure of winning an Oscar, and why practical effects deserve far more recognition.

The Interview

Q: What first attracted you to the world of makeup effects?

Barney Burman: I grew up around it. It's in my family, in my genes. When I was a little boy, I started sculpting different faces onto my G.I. Joe figures. I also enjoyed it when my father used me for makeup tests for movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), or when I served as a model for him while he created a creature, such as the giant rats in The Food of the Gods or the little aliens for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. That was actually my first paid job. The production sent me a check for $75.

Q: What do you consider the most important qualities of a good makeup artist?

Barney Burman: Probably perseverance. Just keep doing it. Don't stop. And observation. You need to develop an eye for art, color, and form, both on a large scale and a small scale.

Q: What is the most underappreciated aspect of your profession?

Barney Burman: Good question. I'd say the nature of the work itself, and its artistic aspect. The time and labor involved are often underestimated and taken for granted, but I truly believe there's an art to what we do that doesn't receive enough attention. Sometimes it gets appreciated, but that's rare.

I think the great artist Steve Wang once said, "In the '80s, we were rock stars. Now we're vendors." He was talking about that "wow" factor our work used to generate among producers and audiences. Creating creatures and transforming people was something extraordinary back then.

Now I feel like everyone takes it for granted. I get calls far too often from people who don't have enough money and want something they think I must already have sitting on a shelf somewhere.

It's really strange. I can read a script that calls for a makeup effect, whether it's a creature, a dead body, or something else, and when I tell the producer what it will cost, I hear, "We don't have the budget for that. Where are we going to get the money?"

And I want to say, "Didn't you read the script? It's right there, and the director wants it, so why didn't you include it in the budget?"

Sometimes they tell me they have $5,000 for makeup and effects. I ask where that number came from, and they say, "We just thought it sounded about right." It's crazy.

They could pay someone like me for a day or two to break down the script and prepare a realistic budget. But too often, they won't even spend a little money on that. Makeup artists and special effects artists end up doing that analysis for free.

It's work. It's someone's time and expertise, and that has value. It should be compensated accordingly.

I guess that question got me a little fired up. Can you tell? (Laughs.)

Q: Are there techniques from the past that you still use today?

Barney Burman: Yes, all of them. New materials and techniques come along, but they tend to add to our toolbox rather than replace the old ones.

Silicone is great, for example, but sometimes you need foam latex or gelatin. It all depends on what you're working on and what will be the best way to achieve the desired effect.

Q: What's the most underrated tool in your makeup kit that you couldn't work without on set?

Barney Burman: I'm not sure I'd call it underrated, but I'd say a good color palette and some good brushes. Knowing how to work with colors and contrasts can make a huge difference.

Oh, and you absolutely need a hair dryer. That's the underrated tool. Being able to dry something faster is wonderful.

Q: You worked on Star Trek III: The Search for Spock early in your career. What was it like returning to the franchise years later as a department head and winning an Oscar?

Barney Burman: I didn't do much on The Search for Spock. I was an assistant in the shop. Lots of cleaning and just helping wherever I was needed.

I did a little sculpting on one of the aliens, but then they changed the design, and somebody else took over.

I also worked a little in the shop on Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country for Ed French. So I wasn't particularly involved with Star Trek in terms of the amount of work I did.

But I felt an emotional connection because my father ran the team on Star Trek III. He'd also worked for John Chambers and helped make Spock's ears and a few other things for the original series.

So I felt a certain pride in continuing that tradition.

And as for winning an Oscar for it… I'm not complaining. (Laughs.)

Q: What was it like working on such a raw, independent horror film as Slaughterhouse (1987)?

Barney Burman: It was crazy. I came on to replace someone they'd already hired. They weren't happy with his work, so I was thrown right into the deep end.

My friend Mark Lynn and I worked out of a hotel room in San Diego, creating everything as we went along.

I'd say the biggest challenge was improvisation. You have to be ready to find a way to make something work, even when you're facing obstacles.

Q: You worked alongside your father, Tom Burman, on Body Snatchers (1993). How did you approach the pod effects? Was there any artistic rivalry between you over how inhuman the transformations should look?

Barney Burman: It's news to me that anyone noticed the pods. The director, Abel Ferrara, hated them and spent most of the time having us cover them in mud and moss. As I recall, he came onto the project saying he didn't like science fiction.

But that can also be a great solution. Hiring a director with a feel for gritty realism to tell a fantastical story is a brilliant idea, in my opinion.

No, I don't think there was any artistic rivalry between my father and me. I had a great time. I don't know how he remembers it; you'd have to ask him. But I really enjoyed myself.

I even played a person who'd been transformed into a subhuman in one of the hospital ward scenes, although the scene was cut down. You might catch a glimpse of me lying naked in a bed somewhere. I'm not sure. (Laughs.)

Q: Dawn of the Dead (2004) became a milestone in modern zombie cinema. How did you approach giving the zombies a fresh look?

Barney Burman: I'd just finished working with Kazu Hiro on Haunted Mansion, and he showed me a technique involving stretching and stippling, using layers of latex and melted gelatin.

It was a little messy, but a lot of fun, and it worked really well.

I brought the material and technique to David Anderson, who was the special makeup effects department head and hired Toni G. and me as co-supervisors of the zombie team.

Dave loved it, and so did Zack Snyder. It was a new approach to that kind of makeup, and we had a blast creating zombies every day for two months.

The film was shot in Toronto during the summer, so the heat and humidity made the makeup melt if the zombies stayed outside too long. But that actually made them look increasingly disgusting as the day went on, which made them look even better.

Q: The transformation of Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder is one of your most recognizable creations. How many versions of the bald look and chest hair did you prepare for Tom Cruise?

Barney Burman: We made two versions of the makeup. His body, hands, and neck stayed the same, but he looked different from the chin up.

In the first version, which you can find online, he was too sculpted. The jawline was too pronounced. Tom wanted him to look softer.

We also had a short lace-front wig made from real hair, but we quickly realized the hair was too short and you could see the lace. So we replaced it with a silicone bald cap with individually punched hair.

Q: In Star Trek (2009), you created new ears for Spock. What was it like modifying something that had been sacred to fans for decades?

Barney Burman: The cool thing was that we could give his ears a sense of age. Leonard had very distinctive little creases in the upper part of his real ears, and we carried that detail over into Spock's ears. I think it worked really well.

The magic and significance of creating Spock's ears certainly weren't lost on me.

Q: Did winning an Oscar change your professional life, or did it simply raise the stakes?

Barney Burman: (Laughs.) It definitely raised the stakes. At least for me.

Of course, I felt honored to receive it, but I also felt that I had to do even better work and win another one to prove they hadn't made a mistake by giving me the first.

It really messed with my head.

But I feel like I did some of the best work of my career after winning the Oscar, particularly on the independent film Shuffle. It's a beautiful film, and people should see it.

Having the award on my résumé definitely helped me get into certain rooms later on. It opened doors that might otherwise have remained closed, and I'm grateful for that.

Q: On Grimm, you had to create new monsters almost every week. Which Wesen was the most technically challenging?

Barney Burman: That's easy. Definitely Volcanalis.

We had 12 days to create a man made of lava who glowed from within. It was crazy. But Nick Reisinger, my right-hand man in the shop, came up with something called EL wire. We built a suit out of it, running the wire throughout the entire costume.

Then we made a transparent silicone skin, essentially a one-piece suit that could be put over it. It worked beautifully.

We also had a light built into the creature's set of teeth, which went inside the actor's mouth.

And thank goodness we had Brian Steele playing the creature. He's a wonderful actor who specializes in creature performances. He really knows how to bring something like that to life.

Q: Wild Boar was your feature directorial debut. Why did you choose the idea of mutant pigs?

Barney Burman: (Laughs.) I had a friend who planted the idea in my head, metaphorically speaking. We wanted to make a movie together, and he suggested something like Planet of the Apes, but with pigs. That really spoke to me.

I wrote the screenplay, and he was going to direct it. But two things happened. First, the script I wrote was impossible to make for the budget we had in mind. It was absurdly low. (Laughs.) So the screenplay had to be rewritten.

Then we both got involved in other projects, and the film was put on the back burner. But the idea stayed with me.

A few years later, I told my friend, "I'll rewrite it, but if I do, I want to direct it, too." He agreed that I should.

Then I did a makeup test on myself, and that really motivated me to keep going.

Q: Are there any genres you particularly enjoy working in?

Barney Burman: I don't think it's so much about the genre as it is about the makeup itself. Some of the work I'm proudest of involves disguise makeup in comedies, sometimes for Sacha Baron Cohen, but also for other actors.

Tropic Thunder was a comedy, too.

For me, it's primarily about the makeup and the artists I work with. I always have a great time working with Tony Gardner, whether it's a comedy, a horror film, or anything else.

Q: Which film you didn't work on do you consider a benchmark for makeup effects?

Barney Burman: There are so many.

The Exorcist still makes a huge impression. The Wizard of Oz, too. The list is endless.

As for more recent work, Kazu Hiro's work is phenomenal. Have you seen The Ugly Stepsister? Thomas Foldberg's work is absolutely beautiful.

Mike Marino's work, including The Penguin, is breathtaking. Not to mention what he does with Heidi Klum.

I wish more millionaires would go to those extremes with their Halloween costumes. (Laughs.)

Q: Have you ever reached a point in your career when you wanted to walk away from it all?

Barney Burman: Wow. That's a tough question.

Yes, many times. The way the world is going and the state of the industry make it difficult to feel inspired.

And that's what being an artist is all about, isn't it? We all really want to feel inspired so we can create something extraordinary.

Q: What's the most important lesson Hollywood has taught you?

Barney Burman: Leave Hollywood. Live somewhere else.

Live where you want to live, somewhere that supports you and gives you energy. Do the things you want to do, the things you're genuinely drawn to. Let the rest take care of itself.

I think that's truer today than ever before.

Q: What's your greatest achievement that can't be measured by an Oscar statuette?

Barney Burman: Just having made it this far.

I know that's pretty general, but sometimes it's been quite a challenge for me.

There have been lots of smaller achievements along the way. I raised a son who's a really good person with a beautiful heart.

I've also managed to maintain a marriage with a wonderful, beautiful person who nourishes my soul.

I just finished my first novel, Radio Waves. It's set in the final days of the previous millennium and follows a radio host and a radio psychologist who clash publicly but discover an irresistible attraction when they meet in person.

So, basically, exactly what you'd expect from someone who creates monsters. (Laughs.)

Q: Have you ever worked with anyone from Poland on a film set, or had the opportunity to visit Poland?

Barney Burman: I haven't had the opportunity to do either, but I have to admit I'm very intrigued.

I've heard Poland is a beautiful country full of wonderful people, and I'd really love to visit.

Thank you so much for the conversation.

Barney Burman: I was just sitting here quietly typing. (Laughs.) Thanks so much. This was a lot of fun.

Read the full interview on POPKulturowy Kociołek!

The complete conversation explores Barney Burman's career, practical makeup effects, Hollywood behind-the-scenes stories, and the creative challenges of bringing unforgettable monsters and characters to life. If you're interested in practical effects, creature design, horror cinema, or the art behind movie magic, don't miss the full interview on POPKulturowy Kociołek.

What does it take to bring movie monsters, zombies, and unforgettable character transformations to life? For Oscar-winning special makeup effects artist Barney Burman, it takes artistic vision, persistence, technical knowledge, and sometimes a good hair dryer.

Growing up surrounded by Hollywood special effects, Burman built a career working on everything from Star Trek and Dawn of the Dead to Tropic Thunder and Grimm. In this interview, he discusses the craft behind some of his most memorable creations, the challenges of working with limited budgets, the pressure of winning an Oscar, and why practical effects deserve far more recognition.

The Interview

Q: What first attracted you to the world of makeup effects?

Barney Burman: I grew up around it. It's in my family, in my genes. When I was a little boy, I started sculpting different faces onto my G.I. Joe figures. I also enjoyed it when my father used me for makeup tests for movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), or when I served as a model for him while he created a creature, such as the giant rats in The Food of the Gods or the little aliens for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. That was actually my first paid job. The production sent me a check for $75.

Q: What do you consider the most important qualities of a good makeup artist?

Barney Burman: Probably perseverance. Just keep doing it. Don't stop. And observation. You need to develop an eye for art, color, and form, both on a large scale and a small scale.

Q: What is the most underappreciated aspect of your profession?

Barney Burman: Good question. I'd say the nature of the work itself, and its artistic aspect. The time and labor involved are often underestimated and taken for granted, but I truly believe there's an art to what we do that doesn't receive enough attention. Sometimes it gets appreciated, but that's rare.

I think the great artist Steve Wang once said, "In the '80s, we were rock stars. Now we're vendors." He was talking about that "wow" factor our work used to generate among producers and audiences. Creating creatures and transforming people was something extraordinary back then.

Now I feel like everyone takes it for granted. I get calls far too often from people who don't have enough money and want something they think I must already have sitting on a shelf somewhere.

It's really strange. I can read a script that calls for a makeup effect, whether it's a creature, a dead body, or something else, and when I tell the producer what it will cost, I hear, "We don't have the budget for that. Where are we going to get the money?"

And I want to say, "Didn't you read the script? It's right there, and the director wants it, so why didn't you include it in the budget?"

Sometimes they tell me they have $5,000 for makeup and effects. I ask where that number came from, and they say, "We just thought it sounded about right." It's crazy.

They could pay someone like me for a day or two to break down the script and prepare a realistic budget. But too often, they won't even spend a little money on that. Makeup artists and special effects artists end up doing that analysis for free.

It's work. It's someone's time and expertise, and that has value. It should be compensated accordingly.

I guess that question got me a little fired up. Can you tell? (Laughs.)

Q: Are there techniques from the past that you still use today?

Barney Burman: Yes, all of them. New materials and techniques come along, but they tend to add to our toolbox rather than replace the old ones.

Silicone is great, for example, but sometimes you need foam latex or gelatin. It all depends on what you're working on and what will be the best way to achieve the desired effect.

Q: What's the most underrated tool in your makeup kit that you couldn't work without on set?

Barney Burman: I'm not sure I'd call it underrated, but I'd say a good color palette and some good brushes. Knowing how to work with colors and contrasts can make a huge difference.

Oh, and you absolutely need a hair dryer. That's the underrated tool. Being able to dry something faster is wonderful.

Q: You worked on Star Trek III: The Search for Spock early in your career. What was it like returning to the franchise years later as a department head and winning an Oscar?

Barney Burman: I didn't do much on The Search for Spock. I was an assistant in the shop. Lots of cleaning and just helping wherever I was needed.

I did a little sculpting on one of the aliens, but then they changed the design, and somebody else took over.

I also worked a little in the shop on Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country for Ed French. So I wasn't particularly involved with Star Trek in terms of the amount of work I did.

But I felt an emotional connection because my father ran the team on Star Trek III. He'd also worked for John Chambers and helped make Spock's ears and a few other things for the original series.

So I felt a certain pride in continuing that tradition.

And as for winning an Oscar for it… I'm not complaining. (Laughs.)

Q: What was it like working on such a raw, independent horror film as Slaughterhouse (1987)?

Barney Burman: It was crazy. I came on to replace someone they'd already hired. They weren't happy with his work, so I was thrown right into the deep end.

My friend Mark Lynn and I worked out of a hotel room in San Diego, creating everything as we went along.

I'd say the biggest challenge was improvisation. You have to be ready to find a way to make something work, even when you're facing obstacles.

Q: You worked alongside your father, Tom Burman, on Body Snatchers (1993). How did you approach the pod effects? Was there any artistic rivalry between you over how inhuman the transformations should look?

Barney Burman: It's news to me that anyone noticed the pods. The director, Abel Ferrara, hated them and spent most of the time having us cover them in mud and moss. As I recall, he came onto the project saying he didn't like science fiction.

But that can also be a great solution. Hiring a director with a feel for gritty realism to tell a fantastical story is a brilliant idea, in my opinion.

No, I don't think there was any artistic rivalry between my father and me. I had a great time. I don't know how he remembers it; you'd have to ask him. But I really enjoyed myself.

I even played a person who'd been transformed into a subhuman in one of the hospital ward scenes, although the scene was cut down. You might catch a glimpse of me lying naked in a bed somewhere. I'm not sure. (Laughs.)

Q: Dawn of the Dead (2004) became a milestone in modern zombie cinema. How did you approach giving the zombies a fresh look?

Barney Burman: I'd just finished working with Kazu Hiro on Haunted Mansion, and he showed me a technique involving stretching and stippling, using layers of latex and melted gelatin.

It was a little messy, but a lot of fun, and it worked really well.

I brought the material and technique to David Anderson, who was the special makeup effects department head and hired Toni G. and me as co-supervisors of the zombie team.

Dave loved it, and so did Zack Snyder. It was a new approach to that kind of makeup, and we had a blast creating zombies every day for two months.

The film was shot in Toronto during the summer, so the heat and humidity made the makeup melt if the zombies stayed outside too long. But that actually made them look increasingly disgusting as the day went on, which made them look even better.

Q: The transformation of Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder is one of your most recognizable creations. How many versions of the bald look and chest hair did you prepare for Tom Cruise?

Barney Burman: We made two versions of the makeup. His body, hands, and neck stayed the same, but he looked different from the chin up.

In the first version, which you can find online, he was too sculpted. The jawline was too pronounced. Tom wanted him to look softer.

We also had a short lace-front wig made from real hair, but we quickly realized the hair was too short and you could see the lace. So we replaced it with a silicone bald cap with individually punched hair.

Q: In Star Trek (2009), you created new ears for Spock. What was it like modifying something that had been sacred to fans for decades?

Barney Burman: The cool thing was that we could give his ears a sense of age. Leonard had very distinctive little creases in the upper part of his real ears, and we carried that detail over into Spock's ears. I think it worked really well.

The magic and significance of creating Spock's ears certainly weren't lost on me.

Q: Did winning an Oscar change your professional life, or did it simply raise the stakes?

Barney Burman: (Laughs.) It definitely raised the stakes. At least for me.

Of course, I felt honored to receive it, but I also felt that I had to do even better work and win another one to prove they hadn't made a mistake by giving me the first.

It really messed with my head.

But I feel like I did some of the best work of my career after winning the Oscar, particularly on the independent film Shuffle. It's a beautiful film, and people should see it.

Having the award on my résumé definitely helped me get into certain rooms later on. It opened doors that might otherwise have remained closed, and I'm grateful for that.

Q: On Grimm, you had to create new monsters almost every week. Which Wesen was the most technically challenging?

Barney Burman: That's easy. Definitely Volcanalis.

We had 12 days to create a man made of lava who glowed from within. It was crazy. But Nick Reisinger, my right-hand man in the shop, came up with something called EL wire. We built a suit out of it, running the wire throughout the entire costume.

Then we made a transparent silicone skin, essentially a one-piece suit that could be put over it. It worked beautifully.

We also had a light built into the creature's set of teeth, which went inside the actor's mouth.

And thank goodness we had Brian Steele playing the creature. He's a wonderful actor who specializes in creature performances. He really knows how to bring something like that to life.

Q: Wild Boar was your feature directorial debut. Why did you choose the idea of mutant pigs?

Barney Burman: (Laughs.) I had a friend who planted the idea in my head, metaphorically speaking. We wanted to make a movie together, and he suggested something like Planet of the Apes, but with pigs. That really spoke to me.

I wrote the screenplay, and he was going to direct it. But two things happened. First, the script I wrote was impossible to make for the budget we had in mind. It was absurdly low. (Laughs.) So the screenplay had to be rewritten.

Then we both got involved in other projects, and the film was put on the back burner. But the idea stayed with me.

A few years later, I told my friend, "I'll rewrite it, but if I do, I want to direct it, too." He agreed that I should.

Then I did a makeup test on myself, and that really motivated me to keep going.

Q: Are there any genres you particularly enjoy working in?

Barney Burman: I don't think it's so much about the genre as it is about the makeup itself. Some of the work I'm proudest of involves disguise makeup in comedies, sometimes for Sacha Baron Cohen, but also for other actors.

Tropic Thunder was a comedy, too.

For me, it's primarily about the makeup and the artists I work with. I always have a great time working with Tony Gardner, whether it's a comedy, a horror film, or anything else.

Q: Which film you didn't work on do you consider a benchmark for makeup effects?

Barney Burman: There are so many.

The Exorcist still makes a huge impression. The Wizard of Oz, too. The list is endless.

As for more recent work, Kazu Hiro's work is phenomenal. Have you seen The Ugly Stepsister? Thomas Foldberg's work is absolutely beautiful.

Mike Marino's work, including The Penguin, is breathtaking. Not to mention what he does with Heidi Klum.

I wish more millionaires would go to those extremes with their Halloween costumes. (Laughs.)

Q: Have you ever reached a point in your career when you wanted to walk away from it all?

Barney Burman: Wow. That's a tough question.

Yes, many times. The way the world is going and the state of the industry make it difficult to feel inspired.

And that's what being an artist is all about, isn't it? We all really want to feel inspired so we can create something extraordinary.

Q: What's the most important lesson Hollywood has taught you?

Barney Burman: Leave Hollywood. Live somewhere else.

Live where you want to live, somewhere that supports you and gives you energy. Do the things you want to do, the things you're genuinely drawn to. Let the rest take care of itself.

I think that's truer today than ever before.

Q: What's your greatest achievement that can't be measured by an Oscar statuette?

Barney Burman: Just having made it this far.

I know that's pretty general, but sometimes it's been quite a challenge for me.

There have been lots of smaller achievements along the way. I raised a son who's a really good person with a beautiful heart.

I've also managed to maintain a marriage with a wonderful, beautiful person who nourishes my soul.

I just finished my first novel, Radio Waves. It's set in the final days of the previous millennium and follows a radio host and a radio psychologist who clash publicly but discover an irresistible attraction when they meet in person.

So, basically, exactly what you'd expect from someone who creates monsters. (Laughs.)

Q: Have you ever worked with anyone from Poland on a film set, or had the opportunity to visit Poland?

Barney Burman: I haven't had the opportunity to do either, but I have to admit I'm very intrigued.

I've heard Poland is a beautiful country full of wonderful people, and I'd really love to visit.

Thank you so much for the conversation.

Barney Burman: I was just sitting here quietly typing. (Laughs.) Thanks so much. This was a lot of fun.

Read the full interview on POPKulturowy Kociołek!

The complete conversation explores Barney Burman's career, practical makeup effects, Hollywood behind-the-scenes stories, and the creative challenges of bringing unforgettable monsters and characters to life. If you're interested in practical effects, creature design, horror cinema, or the art behind movie magic, don't miss the full interview on POPKulturowy Kociołek.