Should Andy Serkis get the Best Actor Academy Award?

[Gorn Captain]

There's been quite a bit of debate whether Caesar's stellar performance in Apes is basically Serkis acting like a DeNiro in his prime, or the work of the CG team.
So should he even be nominated for "Best Actor"?

I guess it's a little of both, actor and CG, but I still feel that it's Serkis who shows that even a whole bunch of white dots can't disguise what a brilliant actor he is.
I loved the new Apes movie, but it's the "Ape Acting" that is absolutely fantastic. You never feel you're watching CG.

But is this the actor's achievement?
To be honest, I think they should both be nominated together, Serkis and a representative of the CG crew. And they'd both earn it.

Some critics say, "take away the CG, and there's little left".
I could counter: take away the make-up, wigs, prostethics and such, and Nicole Kidman wouldn't have played Virginia Wolf. She'd been "enhanced" by SPFX as well. The only reason why Charlize Theron got an Oscar, is because she put on 50 pounds for the role. Had any unknown (overweight) actress played this, the movie would have received a lot less attention.

So I firmly believe that Serkis should get the credit he deserves. The way DeNiro is acting lately, he should be fortunate enough to be allowed to co-star with Serkis...

[Nostalgiabuff]

I agree. I took the family to see Apes last Wednesday and said to my wife afterward that Serkis deserves an Oscar for the performance. the depth of emotion he showed in his face alone, through the CGI, is worthy in and of itself. all of the facial movement and eye expression is Serkis. the CGI was only added in over his movement and expression

[Brazoo]

I think it's a weird debate - and a tad silly - for some of the reasons you mentioned. ALL film performances are the combined efforts of a team, the idea the performers create their performance alone has always been a myth. My favorite is when people (and I've done this too) say: "I loved (so and so's) performance in X, my favorite was when he said '_________'" as if the performer had written that line.

Even in a movie with no special effects, no hair, no costume, no makup, no music, no other actors to play off, no director... all the actor can do is try to give an editor something to play with later.

A guy like De Niro has his body of great work and reputation because he can do 5 usable takes of a shot and in each take have different details and nuances to his performance - so that an editor can stitch together and create an interesting performance.

Granted De Niro's last decade or so of movies have stunk - but I thought he was back to form with "Silver Linings Playbook" a couple of years ago.

--

Also - if you're a Serkis fan check out the British HBO movie Longford (2006), he's got smaller but very key roll in it - and no CG. At the time I thought it was one of the best movies I'd seen in years - but be warned - it's a dark and heavy movie. Lots of terrible events, deep questions and tragic outcomes - so, not for everyone.

[Gorn Captain]

They could, of course, give him a gold-plated banana instead...

banana.jpg

[LadyZod]

It's a new and wonderful time to be alive when computer generated fx can be considered nothing more than "make up" and we can actually have a discussion about the actor behind the fx being worthy of an oscar. Yay for advancement!

[Werewolf]

Does he or doesn't he deserve a best actor award for a CGI animated character is probably subjective.

But an actor wearing make up is not a valid comparison to a CGI character, in my opinion. For example, In Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein it was Karloff's actual face and expressions that gave the character life and pathos. He was not digitally erased from the movie and completely covered over and replaced by a CGI cartoon character.

[Nostalgiabuff]

true about Karloff, but it is also true about Serkis. the animators use the movements of his face muscles to animate over, they do not create the facial expression the way it was done for Star Wars characters like Jar jar. it is all Serkis's acting

[Werewolf]

true about Karloff, but it is also true about Serkis.

Karloff's face wasn't digitally removed and covered over with a CGI cartoon copy. It was his actual face and his actual emotions and expressions. Not a computer recreation, facsimile or copy. That's a big difference. It's not the same thing.

[madmarva]

Serkis is super talented. Maybe he should get a special Oscar for excellence in motion capture performance to acknowledge his work in Lord of the Rings films, Kong, Apes and others.

[Gorn Captain]

Karloff's face wasn't digitally removed and covered over with a CGI cartoon copy. It was his actual face and his actual emotions and expressions. Not a computer recreation, facsimile or copy. That's a big difference. It's not the same thing.

There is a difference, yes, but it's still Serkis' exact facial movements and expressions that make up Caesar's face. Like a robot that perfectly mimics the movement of a human body.
Every emotion on the Ape's face is that of Serkis, not the work of some tech who said "let's make that smile a little wider, shall we?"
MoCap is not a cartoon that you shape and reform to your needs. If the actor doesn't do it, MoCap won't do it either.
When you see the actors on set, they are acting for real, and every emotion counts.

[samurainoir]

The way things are heading, there does need to be some form of recognition of this emerging art form. You can understand the can of worms that are opened up if they did allow Serkis to compete within the regular acting categories. I'm sure a category will eventually be created. First and foremost though he does need recognition for his pioneering work... particularly since you can't ignore Serkis at this point given how powerful his performance is in the new Dawn film. Perhaps a special achievement? (hopefully he won't have to wait for a lifetime achievement)

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/awards/specialachievement.html

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/awards/honorary.html

Although you begin to understand the difficulties of placing parameters around the definitions of "performance" when you look at a case like Rocket Raccoon, and the fact that "virtual performances" can be quite diverse. James Gunn's brother's contributions should be noted, but absolutely none of his performance ended up on screen any way shape or form (he was just standing in, no mo-cap suit even), yet the rest of the cast all acknowledge how important he was to their performance. Not that there should be a category of Oscar for that, but given how the guilds work,figuring out the credit for that is tricky.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/mccdoug/news/?a=105313

[Gorn Captain]

The way I see it, the "core acting" is the actor himself, and the SPFX (makeup or CG enhancement) are an extra layer on top of that.
Acting is physically expressing the written word, through the use of movement, expression and voice. Serkis does all that. MoCap just register this and translates it, using the "ape templates" created by CG. He plays those templates like a musician plays his instrument.
If we award a musician a prize for "best piano concerto", he isn't the piano, right? He doesn't make the sound by himself. He uses an instrument to convey what's inside him. We don't give the award to the piano, or to the guy that tuned it. We give it to the musician. Well, that's Serkis, in this case.

[MIB41]

That's a tough consideration, but I can see both sides of the argument. In one instance, you have the actor emoting to a perceived scene that doesn't exist in front of him, but then you also have artists creating and embellishing that scene (along with his peformance) to bring context to the moment. It definitely takes both talents to bring that to life. If they were to offer such an award, it would definitely have to go to both actor and CGI artists.

[Godzilla]

Like the makeup effects in the original film, I think he deserves a special Oscar for his achievements.

[Werewolf]

not the work of some tech who said "let's make that smile a little wider, shall we?"

Tech? I think you mean the animators that spent hundreds and hundreds of hours developing, creating, modeling and animating the CGI characters. It's a bit more complex than some tech doing a few mouse clicks.

Motion cap is not exactly a new technique. Ever hear of Rotoscoping? Animators have drawn over motion performance actors since Out of the Inkwell. Disney studios had actors in full costume act out scenes for the animators to use as reference for movement and facial expressions.

Motion cap is a combined performance and the animators are just as important as the actor if not more. If the animators don't do their job it doesn't matter who got drawn over or digitally erased. A badly drawn/rendered and animated character will make or break the illusion for the audience.