Have you ever wondered why family photos in Movies look so unconvincing? No? Well neither have we, but that's not going to stop us writing about it.
Family photos in movies. You know the ones, images of the leading cast members badly photoshopped together in an attempt to create a fictiontalised quasi-life between two jobbing actors who probably only met at the first read-through. Perhaps it will be placed on a mantle-piece just in shot, or maybe the male-lead will gaze nostalgically at a mocked-up photo of his trophy wife and the twin(You remember the twins? Little Kate and Amy?) Often an attempt has been made to make the actors look younger, by photoshopping their faces on to a body wearing flared trousers, or airbrushing them into a famous historical event like Woodstock. Yet, still they look wholly unconvincing.
Which begs the question, with multi-million pounds budgets, state of the art CGI, Oscar winning prosthetics and world class set design why is it that most film-makers skimp on creating a half-decent looking family photo?
We asked Martin Gimble, Acting Professor of the School of Culture, Understanding and Media at the University of Redbrick:
"It's simple really, Set-Designers are just really crap at photoshop. I call it RCAP syndrome. I haven't actually researched this, and it's just speculation, but my half-baked theory is that set designers are usually women, and as we know most women suck at IT. Whilst they may be geniuses when it comes to choosing a set of curtains to match a designer sofa, ask them to apply a sepia filter to a JPEG and their tiny brains over-heat. Thus we get really shoddy looking photo-based props."
So there you have it, portrait photos in movies are rubbish because girls can't use a computer.