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.

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.

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.

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.