Slashdot Mirror
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."
The academy also has a built-in bias against the films that prove popular. After all, if "the mob" likes it, it can't *really* be quality. The oscars have become a way for Hollywood to spruce up films that you couldn't drag your dog to and pretend they are worthy of notice so they'll pick up a few of the bucks left over after the rest of us have gone to see the GOOD stuff.
The Academy Awards long ago ceased to be about who was most deserving to win or be nominated. If indeed they ever were about that at all. They are not much more than a cliquish popularity contest and a way to make political statements.
In a way this mirrors the failure of the recording industry to 'get it' in our rapidly changing times. The entrenched establishment of the music and movie industry is so hidebound that nothing short of dramatic reform (i.e. tear it all down and start over) will probably fix it.
As CGI and other digital effects become more and more commonplace, there will have to be a change in perception by the Academy (aside: Do they teach something? I thought Academies were teaching institutions???) or they will become increasingly irrelelvant. Already, to many movie lovers, the Oscars are more of a joke than anything else.
Just my not so humble opinion. Your milage may vary.
"despite the pressure that Peter Jackson and others placed on the Academy to get the nomination"
I do think he should get a nomination, but aren't these things supposed to be related to actual performance by the actor compared to his contemporaries, and not crooked lobbying?
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
But how often are there these characters? Maybe if it got popular/big enough, they might.
I guess a category isn't a category, a competition isn't a competition, unless you have the people to fill it.
Maybe an honorary mentioning then?
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Tron wasn't nominated for an Oscar in visual effects because it used computers and wasn't animated. Andy Serkis wasn't nominated this time, but people will be nominated one day.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
For me, the very things which made gollum have such a big impact on the movie were provided by the actor. The emotion, the delivery, the facial expressions and the movement were all provided solely by the actor - I think this makes Andy valid for an oscar nomination. It's altogether different to the usual voice-over stuff that Eddie Murphy and Tom Hanks have pulled off so well in the past for truly computer generated characters.
They ought to have a best voice actor category. Acting involves actual expression with the body and face, while voice acting is giving life to a fake character, much like muppeteering. (not in a negative context. Jim Henson and Frank Oz rock)
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Gollum/Serkis will have a second chance at an Oscar nod... Perhaps building momentum in the press and creating a cause is the best the WETA-gang could hope for in this round...?
Next it'll be "Meet The Feebles 2: Feebles Invade America" rallying for Academy recognition... 8^)
ch(j)eers,
Levendis47
--==[ AOL YIM ICQ : Levendis47 : levendis47@yahoo.com ]==--
To be fair to the academy this is new territory, and it would be difficult to distinguish between what Serkis accomplished, and what voice actors do for animated movies. Having said that, James Baskett won a special oscar for his performance in "Song of the South" wherein he interacted with animated characters. Why can't Serkis get the same treatment?
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
The genereral consensus in movie-land is that the "Return Of the King" film will be the one that really wins all the awards. Awarding Part 3 will be seen as rewarding the whole series. So, I think Gollum has a good chance of getting nominated next year.
*Begin Rant*
The last time an actual deserving movie that the movie going public actually enjoyed, got nominated for anything was the orignal "Star Wars"...I'm sorry, but best picture, and best actor, etc should have at least something to do with the films appeal to the masses. If the general public from 9 to 90, Male, Female, White, Black, Yellow, Red, Green whatever isn't interested its not a good film, and doesn't deserve awards. The truth of the matter is all these awards are about self-indulence and self congratulations for the Holloywood in crowd. Its the equivilent of masterbation...if you don't play with the in crowd and join the jerk circle you don't get the big nominations. The "Lord of the Rings" Movies for the most part look and feel exactly like the books always appeared in my head...that should count for something, however it doesn't because of the Masterbation appeal of the other movies that did get nominations(which btw I personally feel most of them cheated with limited releases just before the deadline so slip under the nomination wire)...
*End Rant*
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
I completely agree with what you said but I'd go a step further and state that I think the whole idea of awards for movies and other art seems bizarre and way too subjective. 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? I would argue that they are not. The creative talent in Hollywood (please don't snicker) should find that the chance to make art they think is meaningful and appreciated by others is reward enough. A golden statue and lavous ceremony should not be necessary.
We are then stuck with the question: why do we have award ceremonies (and so damn many of them as well)? I submit to you that the reason is purely popularity, politics and marketing as dreamchaser said. I don't give a damn about the Oscars and, quite frankly, I don't understand why anyone else does either.
GMD
watch this
* Best Visual Effects
But I think you're missing the point - giving an award to the producers of the Two Towers for best visual effects or some new category involving animation is not the same as giving Serkis an Oscar for his performance. You're suggesting a general Oscar for the entire crew whereas New Line wants Serkis to get an individual performance actor. The question is whether Serkis deserves an Oscar for his performance alone. Now perhaps the addition of best Digital Performance/Inspiration could give Serkis a category that would fit what he did. Since he did have help from the CG team.
But, on the other hand, actors have their costumes selected for them so, in a way, they have a team behind their performances as well. And wasn't Serkis really just placed in a cool costume?
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Titantic - took the Oscar and was a huge commercial success - maybe you didn't like it but you talked about what the public enjoyed. This was in 1997.
Braveheart - took the Oscar and was also a huge commercial success for the year 1995.
Forrest Gump - another huge commercial success that also won an Oscar - 1994.
I could continue but I think I've made my point. You're claiming that movies which are nominated for best picture haven't been commercial successes. This is incredibly false as I've shown by just showing which huge commercial movies have WON the Best Picture Oscar.
Next time you rant, make a little sense.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Maybe the solution would be to change the "best actor" category to a "best character portrayal" category to solve this kind of issue. That way the award could be given to whatever group of people were involved in the creation of the character much the same way an award is given to a band or cast.
I didn't find his performace as Gollum all that compelling either way. Certainly not enough to merit a nomination.
When an Oscar-deserving performance comes along, computer-augmented or not, it should be recognized. I just didn't think this was one of them.
That being said, the performance wasn't just the actor's alone. There were other artists in front of the keyboard who tweaked and augmented the facial expressions among other things -- the performance was really a collaborative effort to get the final peice on all levels. So would the animators get to share in the Oscar too?
He didn't get nominated because The Two Towers was shitty, and his performance wasn't anything special. I mean, really. Gollum is an EASY character. He's a cliche. Serkis did well, but he didn't do anything special. For that matter, most actors don't do anything special as far as characterization. In summary, screw Academy Awards. They're worthless.
... and the only reason you think it's so awful is because of how popular it was.
Anyway, by your theory, LOTR would have won every award last year, no?
Short answer: Me! I'm an actor! Hire me and pay me a lot of money!
Long answer:
All of those different bits of acting you mention require acting talent, and, usually, training. Voice acting is no exception. Voice acting can be very challenging, since a lot of actors I know (and myself) benefit greatly from having a real set and real costumes to put us where we want to be. Voice actors usually sit in a studio with headphones and a mic, so it's a lot more imginative. There's also a lot of books devoted to dialect study and even 'standard American,' or how American English is supposed to sound even though nobody actually speaks that way; for example, the word 'our' is often pronounced 'are' while it's supposed to sound more like 'hour' and 'what you' (like what you did that time) is supposed to be 'whaT you' and not 'whatchyou,' which is how nearly everybody says it.
There are many other things like those that will contribute to a seamless performance, even though not knowing about them doesn't necessary detract very much -- whatchyou and are/our sound natural to many people. Similarly, learning a Cockney accent or an Irish accent is technically challenging, but even if you master the accent, there are cultural things related to the vernacular in each and how words are used together (especially slang) that no engineer or computer will ever replace.
Personally, I believe that Serkis should've been nominated, but I also can't argue with the author's point (Hi Ivan!) that it gives future quasi-digital characters an unfair advantage. Most digital characters have actors behind them that contribute something, even if its just reacting to other characters in the scene during rehearsal and initial filming -- if the guy they have doing Jar Jar really sucks, for example, then Ewan MacGregor has a harder time doing scenes he has with Jar Jar, because a single character's bad acting can bring a whole scene down even if the actual character is digitally removed and replaced with something else for the film. Every single thing in the composition of a scene will affect an actor somehow.
But then, if you argue that you don't want to consider actors who get computerized help, shouldn't that disqualify anybody who has FX in their scenes? Doesn't the whole movie affect your attitude towards any actor in it just as anything in the movie affects the actor's performance?
Before it was an ass kissing event it was a way to show the rest of the country/world what was going oon in the Movie Industry.
We all know everything before it even happens (Ashley Judd _is_ Catwoman -- wouldn't Kristen Davis be a better Catwoman?). We (USA) go to movies despite horrendous reviews (DareDevil). Do we really give a crap what Susan Saradon has to say? Or any actor for that matter?
So in short, what difference does it make if the Oscars _don't_ recognize your favortite? I would assume that validates your choice.
This
-- Find the Truth...
First off, I am not an actor or drama student, nor have I ever been.
When Gollum stared, and spoke into the camera, while experiencing the inner conflict, he interrupted my experience of watching the movie. He was looking at me sitting in a theatre watching a movie, this realization ruined the movie for me.
Art-house plays use this all the time, because to drama students it's daring and dangerous. They forget that there's a good reason it isn't done more. It's annoying to someone who really likes to suspend disbelief and get into their entertainment.
This is why he didn't deserve an oscar nomination.
Not to pick nits... (hey, it's Slahdot! I guess I will pick nits! c'mere, nits!)
I'm not trying to be flip.
There is an inherent problem in portraying something like Gollum on the screen. He's not going to ever look really 'real', in a sense, because you've never seen a real one.
I spoke last year with a friend who had worked on some of the CG in Spider-man. It too was criticized quite a bit for looking 'cartoony', not moving right, etc. This friend went to great lengths to explain to me that the problem was physics. You've never seen a guy move 3x faster than a normal human, while doing flips and handstands and generally flinging himself all over the place. Guess what? It looks really weird. He was quite disappointed that none of the hardcore fans had picked up on this, and actually felt slighted: here was the Spider-man CG team, actually sticking to the described physical limits of the character, and of course it looks a little strange.
Now, as far as Gollum goes, I can't buy that he looked cartoony, or that the motion was 'off'. It all looked pretty damn perfect to me. (If anything, they needed to grain him up a bit as sometimes the CG looks a little too clear.) Of course I know its not real, but that's because I know.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
I don't think there is a good example of this once a year yet. The award would end up being given to characters like Jar Jar Binks and Dobbie by default - making the Academy awards even more of a travesty than they already are.
Sure, but you could say that about any actor or actress in any category. They all have hundreds of people behind them, doing makeup, lighting, photography, direction, and the like, all of which contributes to that final performance that you see rendered on the screen. In more recent films, digital effects have even played a significant part in the performances of 'live' actors.
I don't think the question here is as simple as whether or not what you see on-screen is a fabrication or not. It's always a fabrication--the only question is how much is it the expression of the actor's work and how much is someone else's, and I'm not sure even that is a line that can be firmly drawn.
No relation to Happy Monkey
I can't believe that nobody else has wondered why anyone would want to garnish an Oscar. Would it look particularly good with a sprig of parsley? I presume the poster meant garner.
"E pur si muove!" - attributed to Galileo Galilei, 1564-1642
Ah but Jar Jar's repugnance must have been digitally enhanced. Look at the difference in public reception between these two.
Just goes to show you: Content is EVERYTHING.
- Some yearly awards given out by plumbers' unions and industry groups
- Yearly award given out by the American Welding Society
- AFPA Industry Business Award -- "This annual award has been established to formally recognize and honour the efforts of those individuals who have made significant and lasting contributions to the growth of the food processing industry in Alberta [Canada]."
- Developer.com Web Services Industry Product of the Year award
- Awards won by Slashdot
I'd say humans in general are just a very self-aggrandizing, self-congratulatory bunch of meatsacks.Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
That would have been really cool, actually.
Bottom line:
LOTR didn't come from Hollywood's sweethearts. Even if the movies and performances tower above all others, it may not receive much at the Oscars.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.