Talkback: Do Motion-Capture Actors Deserve Oscar Cred?
Andy Serkis brings up an interesting point when he insists that motion-capture acting -- a la Rise of the Planet of the Apes -- is acting, plain and simple. As the performer, you record movement and voice, much like any conventional thespian, except later someone colors over you with computer voodoo. But does that take anything away from the award-worthiness of a role? Should the Oscars key up their appreciation of this artform?
In late '09, I remember Zoe Saldana picking up Oscar buzz for Avatar (at least according to Roger Ebert), and the thought of her competing alongside relatively staid performances from Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air and Maggie Gyllenhaal in Crazy Heart was intriguing. She didn't join their ranks, of course, but the idea itself was revelatory enough: Not only would the nomination of a motion-capture performance spice up the acting categories, but it would force voters to think. In the past ten years, I'd say more than half of the competitive acting Oscars have been easy to predict -- from Russell Crowe to Hilary Swank to Forest Whitaker to Natalie Portman, the gravity of the roles have dictated the vote more than the skills of the performers. Motion-capture is a new arena for actors to exhibit technical prowess as well as good, old-fashioned scene chewing, so I hope we see more computer-animated players at the Kodak in coming years.
Are Oscar-nominated, motion-capture performances an inevitability? Or do a few more brilliant apes have to rise before that's possible? Let 'er rip in the comments below.
· Andy Serkis on Motion-Capture Acting [Guardian]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I find that this field of acting combines talent with technology to produce an outstanding performance. An example of this is The Smurfs, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Cowboys and Aliens, & The Harry Potter movies. All outstanding movies by the way.
This article is timely -- as we were leaving Rise of the Planet of the Apes, we all agreed that it was basically a one-man acting tour de force (with only like 3 other characters in the movie, too). He deserves a nomination.
I predict the live-actor-heavy Academy will never do such a thing, they are scared of being replaced.
At the VERY least, they should award Serkis a "SPECIAL OSCAR" for his contribution, of the type they handed out to Walt Disney and Judy Garland in the golden age
Strepsi,
In the case of APES, Serkis' performance is behind it. And he gives his entire performance knowing that the entirety of it will be a complete collaboration with the software artists who render his expressions. So, it is not his performance.
Brad Pitt on the other hand... for a large part of the film, we saw his real face. The other times, he undertook a similar process to Serkis.
It reminds me of Linda Blair not winning the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for The Exorcist because, (so Friedkin has complained) it leaked out quite late that Mercedes McCambridge provided a lot of Regan's "possessed" voice. Friedkin accepts he tried to keep it a secret because he knew it would scupper Blair's chances. Funnily enough, another kid, Tatum O'Neill won for her completely unadulterated performance in Paper Moon.
As referenced in another comment: what about the special effects artists? Are the animators/compositors/programmers etc. going to share the nomination/award with the actor? They're contributing to the performance by actively building on the foundation of a live-action performer. It's well beyond, say, special makeup worn by an actor. To not award the effects artists for the performance would be a slap in the face.
Maybe it will be more recognized when Serkis has a little company (i.e. more than one person) in the realm of 'good motion capture actors.'
Yah. Actually I reckon the technology is not there yet in any case. It would have to accurately capture each tiny movement - a flicker of the eye, a faintly furrowed brow - then we can start the conversation about how much actors and animators are contributing to the performance. If we're still talking thirty dots on the face then, sorry, but that's clearly the "wax cylinder" of motion-capture. The programmers are still doing the heavy lifting.
At some point the academy will have to create a new category for best digital performance. I suggest they make room by dumping the pointless Best Song.
What about the voice actors in an animated movie? They are a large part of the creative team, but not singled out, and often their performances during the recording sessions, especially facial expressions, are used by the animators. What's the difference?
Yes plain and simple. Serkis should have already gotten a nod for both his Gollum performances and for his King Kong. The reason for this is because mo-cap is the same realm as make-up, just with computers rather than prosthetics and brushes. Brad Pitt got a nom for Button even though it wasn't him for most of the film. His face was the only part of him that was actually there for the whole film. The rest were other actors almost entirely, and even then his face was digitized for most of it. This is similar to the way Charlize Theron was caked with make up in Monster. This debate should not exist, because make-up has already shown that just because it's not your face on screen doesn't mean it's not acting. The more interesting debate is; how do you nominate an actor/actress for an oscar when the oscar voters are so indoctrinated to vote for characters based on historical figures. So far Serkis' Ceaser is one of the best performances of the year bar none, but I doubt the academy is forward thinking enough yet to nominate an actor for playing an animal (maybe for his role in Tintin, but thats still a stretch).
PS, Zoe Saldana was the definition of overhyped mediocrity in Avatar.
*I was referring to nominating an actor for playing an animal.
The idea that a performance where the actor's 'face' is visible can somehow be more pure and award worthy than a mo-capped performance such as Serkis's turn as Caesar is a load of crap. EVERY screen actor's performance is created after the fact, using technological enhancements. Every performance is edited, tweaked, has sound sweetened, ADR added, visual or computer effects added - does this not enhance a performance? It's outmoded and old fashioned to think that using a new technology to record a performance somehow renders that performance redundant and ineligible for award consideration. Mo-cap has been around long enough for AMPAS to give the films created utilizing it, visual effects Oscars. I for one could CLEARLY see Serkis at work in the performance as Caesar, especially in the eyes. The whole reason the film worked for me was down to Serkis and the emotional connection i felt with the plight of his well-crafted character. It was ACTING. Plain and simple. Give the man an Oscar nod for f**k's sake.
I'd say Natalie Portman's award was given more for skill than gravity. Black Swan isn't a historical epic or a gritty, topical shocker. It's a sublimely crafted B-Movie psycho-thriller. Only the insane lengths she went to in that role, and the piercing emotional ruination of her character's journey, explain all the buzz her performance got.
I'm all for Mo-cappers getting nominations, but some credit must be due to the army of back-room techies that translate the performance raw actions into the final images appearing on screen. The level of tweaking and interpreting these people contribute far surpasses anything like what makeup, lighting, camera, and editing teams do.
I am sick of people saying he shouldn't get a nomination because there was digital effects involved. That is HIS face coming through. If he wore old age make up and gave a brilliant performance as an elderly man, should be be denied because make up effects were used? This is digital make up and it is his performance we see.
Really satisfied with your manner of publishing actually,
a little something informs me you may perhaps be a pro!
? !
I really love and amazed in a kind of actor of a motion-capture films. It is hard to act in motion-capture film; it has a lot of experience to do it and some of this people are on this list http://www.exploretalent.com/articles/top-10-best-motion-capture-performances/ and maybe your idol is one of this list.