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."
"Sssssallllonnnnn yessssss... can't pay rent, no!!! Kicked out of officessss ssssoooon! Homelessssss... poor poor homelesssss... Sssssaallllon."
...and now we'll never get to hear Serkis thank "his precious" for helping him win in the acceptance speech.
Dude, where's my packet?
This is a real toss-up because it's the seamless integration of his voice acting WITH the rendering of the character. .. He didn't do all that himself. . One is useless without the other.
Maybe they should nominate "teams" in the case of dig-characters. .or have a seperate award.
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)
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!
Admittedly I didn't realize this, but it's still not clear cut like a classic acting role in a film.
.or have a special award for this . .
I think rather than continuing to just ignore roles like this that "don't fit" into a category, they should do SOMETHING.
As it stated, the way CG characters were handled in the past was that they were thrown in during post-production so that the person responsible for the movement and whatnot wasn't really involved in the scene at the time it was being shot. Jackson took a different approach during the filming and actually had Serkis involved in the process while it was being shot.
The Academy is a little too uppity to throw in new categories until they've already become such an obvious addition that their lack of addition becomes a controversy. The Oscars are really more of a salute to Hollywood's aging stars than rewarding innovative work. [I know that's a generalization and it's not always true - but for the most part it is.]
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
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();
This has been coming on for a couple of years, and I suspect that it's only going to get murkier in the near future.
It's time to ask the question: What IS an actor? Strictly speaking, I'd say that the voice and visual inspiration for a digital character is, in fact, an actor. However, the final onscreen character is the result of many people toiling away in many different jobs. The animator, the designer, the painter, the guy who runs the mocap studio... they all have a hand in it. Perhaps the academy simply needs a new category. Best digital actor, or something similar. Certainly all the work put into something like Gollum deserves more than an fx nomination!
It's remarkable that Serkis did both the (incredible) voice work and (astounding) physical performance. There will be more characters like Gollum over the years, but they're unlikely to match Serkis' incredible range. You'll have a dancer for the body, a rubber-face for the face, a voice actor for the voice, and so on. It's rare to encounter so much talent in one person.
This is a golden moment for the Academy to honor an astounding performance the likes of which we may never see again.
I can't hold it against them too much: for the most part the Academy wouldn't recognize good acting if it walked up and bit them. They too often honor "showy" acting, largely one-dimensional with huge emotional swings and featured parts, that are actually built on a combination of music, camera work, editing, and a host of other factors outside the performance itself.
I'm an actor myself, and IMHO on film you can see only a performance, not an actor. That's good: you're not supposed to be watching the acting. The hard work of acting is accomplished where you can't see it, in rehearsal rooms and in the actor's bathroom, in front of the mirror, and in long talks with fellow actors at the bar worrying about each syllable, on set finding the right tone not just for you but for everybody in a scene. All of which can be lost by different editing, direction, a music choice going the other way, or another actor taking a different choice.
I applaud Serkis' work, and I want to see if he has range as well as talent. I'm sorry the Academy chose not to honor him, and that's always going to hurt no matter how meaningless the award and no matter how thunderous the accolades from the people whose opinions really do matter.
Putting aside for a moment that the Oscars are absolute garbage awards that have no bearing on the artistic worth of the films they award, this topic isn't so tough a question to answer to me. Personally, I think that maybe they need a Best Voice Actor award, and that perhaps that would be the best category for Serkis in this case. Acting is more than speaking, it includes movement and posture as well. The fact that an entire team of people intepreted Serkis' performance and then modified it completely to suit their needs leads me to believe that it would be quite unfair to his competition to nominate him individually as an actor. They, the competition, had to rely on themselves to come up with convincing (or unconvincing as the case may be) physical performances. Maybe they need to have a Best Team Effort at Creating a Digital Actor award.
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.
This does not bode well for the new character being introduced in The Return of the King who is also digitally generated.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
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.
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
Maybe some actors like the idea of "modeling" for a digital character; probably a lot of directors are intrigued by the possibilities. But I bet the majority of the Academy members hate the whole idea.
Shigeru Miyamoto's masterwork Super Mario Brothers is truly a classic work of modern literature; borrowing heavily from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and an obvious inspiration for Trainspotting, SMB shows the initial joy but the eventual mental and moral decline due to drugs.
Like in classic Greek drama, much of the story is implied. Because the setting is not a part of our common mythos, however, it comes with a small supplemental text which fills in the history for the reader: the evil dragon Bowser Koopa (a metaphor for a kingpin) has invaded a once-propserous kingdom, and those residents who did not join him and become goombas (the local slang for dealers) were turned into blocks - that is, they were embedded in concrete, to sleep with the fishes, as it were.
Enter Mario, the fallen hero. At the very outset of his adventure, he is doomed, as almost right away he steals a dealer's mushroom (obviously mixed with peyote) and begins to hallucinate, that he is big, that he is powerful. As though on PCP, he finds it easy to break solid bricks by punching it and does not perceive the pain; however, when dealers, pushers (personified by turtles much like Thompson's literal lounge lizards), and other minions of the kingpin cause him pain (in retaliation for his original drug theft), he immediately loses the empowering effects of the peyote, and in fact, seems very small and vulnerable, and must desparately seek out another hit. When he is not seeking out a hit of peyote, he is seeking out much more powerful stuff indeed - a flower (the opium-giving poppy) or a star (a hit of LSD), both of which further his delusions of being strong and powerful.
Right after he has apparently slid down a flagpole (a strong reference to receiving anal sex), he finds himself in the proverbial sewers, already feeling a deep low from his initial hits wearing off. But after more anal sex, he is high in the mountains, which psychadelically appear as gigantic mushrooms, an obvious result of his hallucinatory state. And then, after even more anal sex, he finds himself in a castle, but it is of his own imagination, built up of his drug-induced isolation, for at the end he thinks he has confronted the kingpin Koopa, but he quickly finds that it is but another hallucination, merely a pusher goomba, though he only discovers this after, in a drug-crazed rage, he kills this apparition of his nemesis.
His trials and travails continue along his slide into dementia, with such powerful imagery as being underwater (drowning in desparation) and along a long suspension bridge with flying fish (skirting death at every corner). After chapter 3, which describes a night of terrors, and chapter 4, another full day, he finds himself in another castle delusion, but this time he is so hopelessly lost in his mind that it appears to him as a maze, where if he does not climb the correct stairs in the right order, he is trapped and seems to endlessly repeat the pathway.
Much more of the same continues, showing the repetition and mental deadness of a drug-induced haze, with some intermediate powerful imagery as a landscape so bleak and gray that it appears to be frozen, causing our fallen hero to psychosomatically slip on what seems to be ice. At many points, he is also unwittingly caught up in drug-related urban warfare, bullets careening across the landscape, although in Mario's stupor, the inanimate metal slugs appear to be living, almost sentient things.
Finally, he enters a final castle which appears to be real, but it is quickly apparent that it is not, for it is filled with all of his prior hallucinations, but twisted into much more nightmarish images, again arranged in a maze as some of the castle-hallucination-nightmares before (although this time with the strong symbolism of the magic number 3), and at the end, when he finally destroys what he believes to be the kingpin Koopa and rescues who he believes to be the princess, it becomes obvious to the reader (though not to Mario, still in a state of dementia) that he was only a hapless pimp and the "princses" his whore, who (at our hero's expense) direct him to start his hapless Quixotic quest from the beginning, only this time, all the drug dealers are wearing bullet-proof jackets (who have appeared as gigantic beetles to our hallucinogenic hero all along).
And so, the cycle of depravity begins anew, but much more difficultly for our pathetically-pathos-pumped plumber.
Of course, this plot summary only begins to scratch the surface of this epic novel. One really must complete it on their own in order to truly appreciate its depth and challenge, trying to sort out what is real and what isn't.
There is, of course, a like-minded series following this book (although the immediate sequel is a blatant last-minute search and replace job on the cancelled Doki Doki Panic); there are also several TV adaptations, a movie (which completely missed the point and took major liberties with the plot), several spin-off series, and, at one time, there was even a breakfast cereal, in a monstrous twist of consumer-driven poetic irony. Regardless of this sensational consumerism, however, the original story has withstood the test of time, and will forever be a literary classic.
Why bother.
* 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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think rather than continuing to just ignore roles like this that "don't fit" into a category, they should do SOMETHING. .or have a special award for this . .
Best Voice / Digitally Enhanced Acting Performance. That would also let actors from animated films get a chance.
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.
I can't find the article right now, but if I remember correctly the academy refused to give TRON a special effects nomination because they "cheated" by using computers :)
Sounds like they're often a bit behind the times to me.
Cheers.
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.
...to see Serkis rush the stage and yank the Oscar out of whoever's hands wins it this year while screaming "my precious!". Would be a great way to generate hype for the next movie, as well as make a mockery of the snide-old-men's club that rejected him.
... 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?
Gollum won't get nominated for the same reasons that Peter Lorre never got any significant award. No matter how good the actor is at playing the part, and no matter how important the role is to the movie, it's just not the type of role that gets nominations. It's not anti-CGI bigotry, it's anti-creepy-guy bigotry.
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...
Best Voice / Digitally Enhanced Acting Performance. That would also let actors from animated films get a chance.
And Keanu Reeves!
I certainly don't think the academy is anything but a manifestation of the peculiar and bizarre politics of Hollywood, but frankly I don't see any reason to assume the nomination was deserved, from the voice acting or the CGI character point of view. Of the supporting actor nominees I've only seen Chris Cooper (Adaptation) and John C. Reilly (Chicago), but there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these performances were far and above superior to the hammy charicature of Gollum. And I found the CGI character to be distractingly unreal as usual. As far as I'm concerned these CGI characters still aren't there. Yes, they are agonizingly detailed, writhingly articulated, mapped and textured and fractalled up one side and down the other, you can see every strand of "hair" and the reflections in the tiny beads of sweat on their noses... and they DON'T LOOK REAL. I look and what my brain says is, wow, that is an amazingly detailed cartoon. Every time Gollum came on screen it knocked me out of the illusion.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
For any of you who still doubt just how much of Andy Serkis is in the Golum performance, particularly in his face, download this little MPEG file I just whipped up. It's a 15 second clip showing the some refernce work Serkis did compaired to the actual Golumn CGI character. They're practically identical. (Note: there's no sound)
k is _reference.mpg
http://members.evansville.net/ckohler/video/ser
I got the video snippits for this clip from the official Lord of the Rings website.
http://www.lordoftherings.net/
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.
but anyone who saw the movie knows that Gollum was probably the most likeable film character of 2002, and proof that all-digital characters can be taken seriously (unlike the infamous Jar-Jar)
The dirty judges steals it from us they do. No awardses for Smeagol. Crooked judges, we throttle them in their sleep we will. No, wait, we will lead them to her, and then she will eats them and their bones and their clothes and then maybe she will give the award to us. Yes! Smeagol will lead them to her law firm...
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
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.
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
- 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
- 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.
For that matter, they also ought to have a category for 'best digital character' for a completely CGI created character with no motion control or anything else. Of course the character could be voice acted but the award would only consider the visual aspects.
Given some of the other obscure (and often-times seemingly redundant) categories that the Academy has (including many which are, apparently, not even worthy of inclusion on the prime time awards broadcast) I don't think this is too much of a stretch.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5