Salon on Gollum's Failed Oscar Nomination

Masem writes "Salon has an interesting commentary on the failure for Andy Serkis, the actor that used as the model and voice for Gollum in The Two Tower, to garnish an Oscar nomination despite the pressure that Peter Jackson and others placed on the Academy to get the nomination. They had previously pointed to John Hurt's Best Actor nomination in "The Elephant Man", in which the only visible feature of Hurt was his eyes after the elaborate makeup and costuming, but even then, Hurt did not win, he himself believing that it would be hard to connect the real actor to the role that he played. Salon suggests that the Academy needs to seriously consider how digital technology is affecting the way movies are being made and to be more open to non-traditional roles and films as potental Oscar material."

Comments

Re:technology and voice

[sweetooth]

He did more than just voice act. He also made all the necessary movments etc and then the special effects were placed on top of him. More like digital makeup on an actor than a fully digital creation ala Jar Jar.

Best character, period

[Artful Codger]

You're wrong. Read up on how they did Gollum.

The actor was in about all his scenes, and it's essentially his face you see in the movie. Mostly live sound, too. The actor wore a body suit with indexing marks which were later used as guides for the body animation.

So yes, the actor did perform on-camera, including face, and body movements, and deserves most of the credit for the Gollum performance. CGI just changed the body and reanimated some movements.

Definately the Academy has to accomodate this type of performance. Regardless, in this case the actor was superb, CGI or not.

Re:technology and voice

[zephc]

the digital makeup (as mentioned above) is not at all unlike any other kind of costume and makeup. I mean, if women in the 80s can cream their panties over the otherwise homey Ron Perlman as The Beast in 'Beauty and the Beast', and he was covered with a great deal of makeup, then why can't people recognize digital-on-actor is just another form of makeup?

Re:I agree but I'll add more

[kalidasa]

Supposedly, top talent have chosen to make movies because they love the artform. So why would an award be meaningful to them? Awards are useful in athletic competitions but are they truly appropriate for art?

Acting awards go back to the 6th century or at worst early 5th century BC. That's right, BC. The terms "protagonist" and "antagonist" go back to the technical Greek terms for the first and second actors of a tragedy or comedy; there were prizes for the best protagonist (as well as for the best 4-play tragic production or 1-play comic production).

Animators are actors

[Comrade Pikachu]

This sort of thing has been going on for years. Actually it's as old as film itself. Gollum is an animated character, with Serkis serving as the "animator" in realtime. Well, animated feature films have been around since Snow White, so why haven't we seen:

• Norm Ferguson nominated for his performance as the Queen (as a hag) in "Snow White"?
• Marc Davis as Maleficent in "Sleeping Beauty" or Tinkerbell in "Peter Pan"?
• Ollie Johnson's magnificent performance as Baloo in "The Jungle Book"?
• Glen Keane as The Beast in "Beauty and the Beast"?

How many great performances have you seen in classic animated films, perhaps without really realizing that there was actually a talented actor behind that pencil? Strange that only now, when the gloss of a digital render gives a "realism" to the performance, does this become an issue.

Welcome to the club, Andy Serkis. The Best Actor nomination should be about performance, but Hollywood still runs on celebrity face power.

Re:I agree but I'll add more

[sandman935]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Figure skating gets its name from the Compulsory Figures (also known as School Figures) skaters did in competition up until 1990. When a skater competed in Compulsory Figures, he/she would trace a set pattern on the ice, such as the ever-popular Figure 8. To make matters more difficult, the skater had to skate the Figure using a prescribed part of the blade (such as the forward inside edge of the left skate, but more on that later). After the Figure was completed, judges would get off their fat butts and squat down on the ice to check the tracing and see how close it came to perfection. They took points off if the tracings didn't match the set pattern (if the skater went too far before turning, for example) and if there were additional tracings caused by putting the other foot down or wobbling. As you could probably imagine, Compulsory Figures did not exactly make for compelling television, and they were eliminated in 1990.

Source: http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/skating/skatin g.html#para1.1