There is currently a bit of a buzz in the American movie industry about Andy Serkis being possibly nominated for "Best Supporting Actor" for his role in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". Andy provided the motion-captured acting for lead chimp Ceasar, and while his performance was obviously impressive (he is quite probably the actor with the most experience concerning motion capturing) there are several people who openly doubt whether a motion-captured role ought to be able to get any sort of acting award.
The reasoning behind their view is based on the fact that what appears on the screen is not the actor's acting, but an interpretation of it altered by a team of animation artists. At the very least an Oscar for Ceasar should therefore be given to the whole team as Andy himself had only a limited amount to do with what part of his performance actually remained in the final product, same as in a fully animated film.
Then again, acting in any "live action" film can also be considered to be a team effort as the actor's performance will be enhanced by make-up, directing, cinematography, editing...
So what are your views on this? Is it right to give an actor an acting Oscar for a motion-captured performance? HAVE YOUR SAY!
The reasoning behind their view is based on the fact that what appears on the screen is not the actor's acting, but an interpretation of it altered by a team of animation artists. At the very least an Oscar for Ceasar should therefore be given to the whole team as Andy himself had only a limited amount to do with what part of his performance actually remained in the final product, same as in a fully animated film.
Then again, acting in any "live action" film can also be considered to be a team effort as the actor's performance will be enhanced by make-up, directing, cinematography, editing...
So what are your views on this? Is it right to give an actor an acting Oscar for a motion-captured performance? HAVE YOUR SAY!
To be honest I haven't yet seen a motion-captured performance which was worthy of an acting Oscar, in my opinion, but... what if?
If a mo-cap actor is deemed worthy of an Oscar nod, then why has no actor in a voice acting role (like so many brilliant performances in animated films) ever gotten a nod?
They need to do that before they even think about this qualification for an Oscar worth performance.
Motion capture is a recognizeable performance. I, myself, had to redo the pilot of a series I did motion capture on because the body language of the character was noticeably different despite being with he same director.The actor needs not share the credit anymore than he should with the make-up artist or costumer. Especially now with emotion-capture being part of the mix.
I also agree an award should be given for vocal work as well.
Andy Serkis deserves an oscar ,but best supporting?No! He deserves the lifetime achievement award.He is amazing and deserves ample credit for his performances and contributions to film.
Part of the problem as I see it is that motion capture technology still lacks the ability to register and articulate nuance, which, at least to me are essential components of any performance. Andy Serkis IS a talented actor, but there are some very obvious discrepancies between the performance he delivered and the end results, as you can witness for yourself in a few behind the scenes clips that cut back and forth between the Serkis / Caesar footage. Even if you discount the somewhat questionable chosen direction driving the performance (smart chimps apparently convey emotion in the exact same way humans do), there's no getting around the somewhat unappealing, cartoonish aspect of the finished product (the creepy "uncanny" quality that child psychologists are always referring to). If anything, motion capture is a limitation, rather than an enhancement to any actor performing under those conditions so I definitely agree that Serkis and similar actors deserve kudos for their commitment, but I'd say that the only equivalence to make-up and costume work, lies in these limitations. Make-up and costume have transformative properties but can never transcend an actor's ability to affect the behavioral characteristics of a given character (think of the vast difference between the totally unrecognizable Gary Oldman as Mason Verger in Hannibal and any of the fantastic actors donning suits in Where the Wild Things Are).
Motion capture, by design, functions by reiterating movements and gestures - I'd argue that a truly great performance conveys more than can be expressed by replicating motor functions alone. However, there's no arguing with the fact that the final product in a motion capture performance is largely dependent on the success of an applied technology and those applying it. And despite what's already been said here, I think it's actually pretty much impossible to make a fair evaluation or ascribe credit given that they are inextricable.
ANDY SERKIS DESERVES IT... PERIOD....
If a character played by a human but is digitally replaced with a different look is not entitled to get the actor an oscar, then why was "UP" being nominated for BEST MOVIE?! its a film made by humans but replaced digitally with a different look.
to me thats the same and not giving Serkis (or any other actor) the chance to get nominated is just a farce. its ridicolous.
I think Serkis may have deserved it for Lord Of The Rings but Rise Of The Apes was really bland and his ape was the least of the convincing ones in the film. My op.