Digital Movies, Analog Oscars

Kappelmeister writes "The idea of giving Andy Serkis a nomination for The Two Towers is gone, but not forgotten. This New York Times article (FRRBBB) examines the many fine lines that the Academy must draw in the coming years: how physical must the set design, the cinematography, the acting and -- as in the case of Donald Kaufman -- the writer be before a film is shunted into a specialty category like "Best Animated Film?" I think that they will continue to fork with the times; there used to be separate Oscars given out for "one reel" vs. "two reel" shorts, color vs. B/W cinematography, and even director vs. assistant director."

Comments

Andy Serksis was excellent.

[heldlikesound]

His performance as Gollum ranks in my mind as one of the best character studies in the last ten years, to feel so much pity for the poor creature, yet to then see the evil that lurks in his heart, vastly improved the ability of the film to convey the spirit of the book. In fact, I would almost go as far as to say that Andy Serksis' interpretation of Gollum effected me more that reading Tolkiens description. This would probably be the only case of that, the films usually can only try to compete with my imagination, but for whatever reason, this is one case where the opposite occured...

December 2003 can't come soon enough!!!

Non-digital actors get a lot of help, too.

[$$$$$exyGal]

While we are debating whether Andy Serkis was an actor portraying Gollum, I thought I'd throw another question into the mix. What is acting? If an actor does the same scene 34 times, and the movie editor picks a different 2 seconds out of each of those takes to create a 68 second scene, should the actor get the credit, alone?

Back in the old days, there wasn't nearly as much editing done in the movies, so actors really had to "act". Now-a-days, good movie editors can make the worst child actors in the world look like geniuses. Just nip and tuck out all the legitimate bad acting, and you got yourself a "Best Actor" nomination.

The point is, in 2003, even the non-digital actors are getting a lot of help.

Re:Non-digital actors get a lot of help, too.

[LionMage]

Considering that Lucas did a lot of pioneering work in this area when he shot Phantom Menace... In scenes featuring both Liam Neeson as QuiGon and Ewan McGregor as Obi Wan, he would digitally stitch together different takes of the same scene, using part of a take where he liked one actor's delivery of a given line, and part of another take where he liked the other actor's delivery. Nobody can deny that these two men are fine actors, but with the amount of green-screen work in the latest Star Wars movies, there's no doubt that the actors are seriously handicapped. Like other human beings, they rely on visual and auditory cues so they can react intelligently to their surroundings...

And if the surroundings are being "edited in" after filming, that makes their task a lot more difficult.

I don't view these techniques as a replacement for real acting skills. Rather, I think they're an important tool to help augment an actor's innate skill on a highly technical production. But no technological crutch will save you when there's bad script-writing and bad acting afoot. (In my opinion, Hayden Christensen stank on ice in Attack of the Clones -- it's hard to say how much of that was lack of acting skill and how much was having to deal with a crappy script.)

Suggestions Please For New Award Categories

[fraggleyid]

How about an award for Best Character in a movie?

Andy Serkis Doesn't Deserve It

[Anonymous Coward]

The push to have Andy Serkis nominated for Best Actor was pure and simple a media stunt. The simple fact is getting Gollum onto the screen was a HUGE team effort. You may claim, getting any actor onto screen is a huge team effort and each part of the team is recognized in their own category, but the animators at Weta Digital had just as much to do with Gollum's performance as Andy Serkis did. The media hype (and that's what it is hype, hype intended to create publicity and we all know there's not such thing as bad publicitiy) about Gollum's entire performance being that of Andy Serkis is hogwash. There is a huge ratio of animators to Andy Serkis' at Weta Digital who all contributed directly to Gollum's performance. In fact Peter Jackson personally apologized to the animation team for the hype surrounding Gollum, Andy Serkis and the Oscar nomination. It's an embarassment perpetuated by New Line Cinema and it insults the Gollum animation team at Weta Digital. If Gollum was nominated for Best Actor then it should be a team nomination like Best Visual Effects is and include Andy Serkis and at least the Animation Director, Randy Cook but to try and give it to Andy Serkis alone is unconscionable and I for one am glad the Academy didn't fall for this cheap stunt.

Re:Andy Serkis Doesn't Deserve It

[Gyan]

I agree.

But apart from the fact that it's a team effort, there's a more fundamental reason why he doesn't deserve it.

Gollum is a cartoonish creature. Sure, he's 3D with imperfect textures and non-mechanical dynamics, but the expressions potrayed by him are more fleshed out than what an audience would expect out of a real human. Real actors have to be nuanced and subtle to express those same emotions and are limited by their physical faces. That restriction doesn't exist for CG faces. If anyone gets an award for Gollum, it should only be the VFX team. I venture that there any decent actor could take Serkis' place as long as the VFX talent remains intact.

Re:Andy Serkis Doesn't Deserve It

[jdbo]

I have to disagree with you completely; there are facts disputing your assessment.

Andy Serkis's movements + facial expressions were motion captured as a basis for the CGI-generated Gollum (who had to be CGI, or at least animated, in order to accomodate the character's inhuman, unhealthy proportions and features).

Furthermore, the director and VFX staff are on record as saying that while the original plan was to only use Serkis's voice, they made the model _more_ like Serkis in order to better accomodate his facial expressions, and overhauled the production process to accomodate "mo-cap". This involved Serkis shooting each scene multiple times; once on set (w/ other actors), once in the mo-cap studio (to capture his bodily movements), and once in mo-cap "close-up" (to capture the nuances of his facial expressions/movements).

Oh yes, and he created multiple sets of motions/expressions (and voices!), each with a particular range, to provide for the Gollum/Smeagol character's multiple personalities.

It sounds to me like his performance made an complex, inhuman character compelling - in other words, he really brought this thing convincingly to life (which, one should note, has not been effectively done before), while pushing the production far beyond the original limits of where they thought that they could go.

I will not dispute that the animators were able to enhance his performance (especially in regards to inhuman movements, such as some of the climbing and jumping performed by the character). However, all of the evidence points to Serkis providing a true vision for the character, as well as the vast majority of the "raw material" for achieving that vision. Also, many animators are on record talking about how Serkis provided feedback throughout the post-production animation process.

You say:

Real actors have to be nuanced and subtle to express those same emotions and are limited by their physical faces. That restriction doesn't exist for CG faces.

This reflects a naive view of what consitutes a performance; a performance is defined by an actor's choices to create a convincing character in the context of the film the character appears in - an actor who simply uses every expression they have available is not creating a performance; practicing, maybe, but not performing.

While VFX tools and processes have advanced very far (and create more choices for the animators), most professional animators (especially those on the 3D end of the industry) do _not_ have the acting training to pull off such a character (i.e. be able to consistently make the right choices as to how to use their animation tools to create a performance); now imagine spreading the challenge of maintaining the vision for such a character across (even a well-led) team.

I agree that the Gollum character has his cartoonish aspects; this does not reflect poorly on the performance, however - the character was drawn this way in the original book. Again, the fact that the character comes across as compelling and complex despite the sheer number of handicaps (repulsive appearance, unsympathetic actions, irritating behaviors) is additional proof of the value of Serkis's performance.

In any case, Serkis's work added to the final product _and_ demonstrated the importance of the actor to the process. While I'm not an academy member, this sounds to me like the sort of thing that the Academy should be rewarding.

For reference, check out http://www.lordoftherings.net for some nehind-the-scenes info (incl. QT movies) of the motion capture process. The 4-DVD special edition (yes, its rentable) also includes a long feature describing this process, as well.

More to this than meets the eye

[inkswamp]

Recall the recent (and pathetic, IMO) outcry from actors against the film S1m0ne which dealt with the concept of using CG actors in films. There may be a willful attempt to muddy the waters, or at the very least an unconscious desire to leave things unclear in an attempt to shun digitally produced work in film. I find the idea of classifying films based on what percentage contains "animation" to be asinine. Obviously, the solution is to introduce digital categories instead of stomping all over the definitions of live-action and animation, but it seems that there is little desire to recognize digitally produced performance as its own unique endeavor.

I bet artists who labor over traditional animation probably take offense at the notion of competing with CG and the same probably goes for live-action. Rightfully so. These are three different activities, all perfectly valid in their own way, and they should not be competing against each other. Hollywood apparently wants to treat CG work as the unloved stepchild, constantly pushing it away. No surprise.

Re:the more awards the better

[Backward Z]

Hey! That sounds like a great idea!

Speaking of, have you ever seen that show, Filter, on G4? The one where the viewers vote on top 10 lists?

Yeah, they're always exactly spot on right.

What you're saying, here, is that you think Titanic should have won every award on Oscar night, including Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary Short Subject.

People are stupid. People won't go out and see all the movies on the list.

google news link

[epicstruggle]

Here is the link provided by google news to the NY times article:

In a Digitally Animated World, Oscar Stands Rigid

later,

misconception

[n3k5]

Not really. Gollum is not an entirely virtual/artificial actor, it is only a virtual/artificial puppet, played by a real, human actor (which is remarkable, because often three actors 'play' the body, the face and the voice respectively). The visuals are nothing but costume design and make-up. There already are Oskar categories for that, and there also are categories for the actors.

Maybe there is a yet non-existant category that would be justified by new animation techniques, but its certainly not 'best Character', since in this field there's no substancial difference to traditionally shot pictures, in which you could also give per-character awards. For example, you might find that Renée Zellweger's acting wasn't the best overall last year and that she doesn't deserve an award as best actress. You might furthermore find that Colleen Atwoods costume design wasn't the best of all and Jordan Samuel's makeup wasn't the best of all, but that the combination of that all was just perfect and therefore the character of Roxie Hart deserves an Oskar as 'best character'.

That was your suggestion, right? It just hasn't anything to do with digital production, nothing at all.

Another category?

[90XDoubleSide]

I think you will eventually have to ask whether motion capture should be in a category with animation either; comparing the two techniques is rather like comparing photography to painting. And I certainly don't think we should be looking to the Oscars for leadership; the award has lost what little credibility it ever had as an artistic recognition, and is now just a pat on the back for the latest American box office blockbuster (Gladiator and Shrek, anyone?). If your really wanted to know what the best animated films were, you would go look at the Annie winners; I'm sure as digital performances get more common, we'll see some proper awards be given out for them too.