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]