Skip to main content

It's Time, Academy



Apparently I should have saved this post for a year later or so. Andy Serkis's lauded performance in Rise of the Planet of the Apes is garnering some traction for a Best Supporting Actor bid - who is he supporting exactly? - but I think it's time we either acknowledge his motion capture performance as an a Special Achievement Award or just give it its own category.

We all know that the Academy is slow to acknowledge innovation and when they do traditionally it's too late for it to matter, but here's hoping that a burgeoning field will be rewarded soon.

In 2001 the Academy created the Best Animated Feature category, presumably, to garner attention to animated masterworks that were languishing come award season. Prior to last year's Best Picture nomination for UP only Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Film. Since the addition of that category animation has seen a renaissance of sorts. One might have hoped that films featuring motion capture could be nominated for Best Animated Feature, but, according to the Academy:

"An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of greater than 40 minutes, in which movement and characters’ performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. Motion capture by itself is not an animation technique. In addition, a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture’s running time.”

So no luck for films like A Scanner Darkly, and A Christmas Carol, but will performances in these films be featured come award time? They haven't yet so far.


Performances such as Andy Serkis's work in the Lord of the Rings trilogy King Kong, Jim Carrey in A Christmas Carol and Zoe Saldana in Avatar have gone unrecognized. Brad Pitt's portrayal in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, predominantly provided by motion capture or heavy makeup, was rewarded with a nomination for Best Actor in 2008. When I saw Button in theatres two Christmases ago I never stopped and thought about the CGI it ebbed and flowed with the film. During Avatar I completely bought the concept of Neytiri as a real, feeling, being. Her voice, mannerisms, etc. sold the performance. There was no distinction between the two presentations except the Academy deemed one more viable.

Serkis never really acts so much as completely embodies Kong. The wistful look in his eye he gives Ann (Naomi Watts) as he collapses from the top of the tower could only be delivered by an actor, the dead eye effect that plagued early mo-cap could not have created that haunting ending. Carrey, always known for giving it his all in his roles was Chaplin-esque in A Christmas Carol, sacrificing his body for the end result. The Academy has been willing to correct its wrongs as of late (the ten Best Picture nods), but will they create a category for Best Motion-Capture Peformance or Best Motion Capture Film? We will have to wait and see.

Popular posts from this blog

Hulk vs. The Incredible Hulk vs. The Avengers

There are two movies about the Hulk and one that features the green monster as a major player. One was made in 2003 by an auteur, starring a little-known Aussie. Five years later The Incredible Hulk came out to the same tepid reaction as Ang Lee's Hulk did. This weekend, The Avengers made the Hulk as popular as he has been in a long time. So it comes down to this: Hulk vs. Hulk vs. Hulk. Who will smash whom?

Round One: Acting
Edward Norton outshines Eric Bana as the dual persona of the meek Bruce Banner and the rage-induced Hulk. Eric Bana was given little to do but run and fight and often the audience was just waiting for him to transform. With the Incredible Hulk, Norton's Banner is fully fleshed-out and we are given a reason to care about him. Being allowed to go a little dark with Banner's scenes questioning what is left of his life provided emotional resonance to the character that Hulk lacked. Yet even with the capable performance that Norton gives there was something …

Review: The Salvation

Westerns have never recovered from the oversaturation that killed off viewer interest decades ago, but every now and then a gem pops up. Recent successes like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, 2007’s 3:10 to Yuma and the Coen brothers adaptation of True Grit all did well because they tweaked the genre slightly, but director Kristian Levring goes with an old school approach. A faithful recreation of those revenge Westerns made so popular in the 1970s, The Salvation envelopes many elements of previous Clint Eastwood classics and wraps it into a tidy package.

The Salvation starts in on the central dilemma, joining Jon (Hannibal‘s Mad Mikkelsen) at the train station where he awaits the arrival of his wife and son. Jon and his brother, Peter (Mikael Persbrandt), have lived in the United States long enough to build a hospitable life for their family back in Denmark. This homecoming should be a sweet moment to establish the family important to Jon, but fate plays out…

Review: The Voices

Jerry (Ryan Reynolds) spends his days working the nine-to-five shift at his new job at the Milton Bathtub Factory. Jerry is chipper to the point that he may turn some people off, but he never stops trying to make friends. Friends are something that Jerry could use because the only other conversation he has is with his dog Bosco and his cat Mr. Whiskers. Things are looking up though, Jerry has been tasked with planning the company picnic and he’s asked a girl (Gemma Arterton) out on a date. Jerry is so excited to share the news he rushes home to tell his pets about Fiona. Oddly enough, both Bosco and Mr. Whiskers start talking back.

No need to go back and re-read that last sentence, yes, Ryan Reynolds has pets who talk back to him. His dog, Bosco, is quite affable, however, his cat, Mr. Whiskers, would feel right at home curled in the lap of Blofeld. Unfortunately for everyone around him, it’s the advice of the evil cat that Jerry heeds more often than not. For all of Jerry’s pleasant…