Originally published on my personal blog, Sammyray.
Do you remember the discussion back in 2002 about Andy Serkis receiving an Oscar nomination for his startling work as Gollum in The Lord Of The Rings? Many people felt that, although the character viewed onscreen was computer generated, Serkis’ physicality and voice work in creating this memorable character should earn him an Oscar nomination.
Of course, it was not to be.

The battle over the merits of computer generated characters began in 1999 when George Lucas placed his faith in the entirely CGI Jar Jar Binks experiment in The Phantom Menace. While largely considered a failure in the minds of sane people, Binks inadvertently became the granddaddy of all CGI characters to come out of the pixellated ghetto of special effects.
Since then, we have marvelled not only at the textural realism possible in creating characters like Gollum or King Kong, but also at the level of performance and emotion displayed by these digital illusions. Watch Serkis perform against himself behind digital makeup during the argument scene in Two Towers, and you’re seeing a remarkable performance overlaid with digital glitter. Creations like Gollum no longer fit into the simple category of special effects, because they have a human performance as their heart and soul. It is acting in the finest and purest sense of the term.
Which brings us to today’s Oscar nominations, and the choice of Brad Pitt as Best Actor for his work in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Did you know that Brad Pitt does not appear onscreen for the first 52 minutes of his “performance”? Even after that, it is enhanced with extensive makeup and special effects. The question could be asked – is this the very first digital performance nominated for an Oscar? How much of this is Pitt himself, and how much of the performance comes from computer artists and their modelling programs?
You could take the argument farther and suggest that, had someone of Pitt’s caliber taken the role of Gollum in the Rings films, CGI characters may have received their due a long time ago. The terrific performances behind creations like Gollum went overlooked primarily because Hollywood nobodies like Serkis pioneered them, accepting anonymity in a role rather than glorify himself.
In 2009, James Cameron intends to blur the line even more with the digital performance capture techniques behind Avatar. It should be interesting if Hollywood continues to warm up to the idea of awarding acting nominations to digitally-rendered performances as they have today to Pitt. I have a sneaking suspicion that they will. Like the civil rights movement shows us, once the CGI characters manage to get out of the special effects ghetto, there’s no stopping them until they run the place.







8 Comments
Are you saying that there will be a time that the Academy will look at mocap/CGI acting equally to live-action acting? I’m not so sure, but I guess people like Pitt and Cameron will help.
@ Lencho – I think it’s a definite possibility. I wasn’t really a fan of Pitt’s performance in BENJAMIN BUTTON, but the fact that his role was nominated for an award despite the extensive CGI seems to point in that direction.
@ Ray – I haven’t seen Benjamin Button because it comes off as boring to me. Or at least Pitt’s performance. Does his character age mentally? Everything I’ve seen gives me the impression that he just ages physically and mentally he’s a mature man throughout. I have this feeling had it been a no-name actor doing the same thing, the Academy wouldn’t pay much attention to it except for the technical things. I guess time will tell how much they’ll embrace performances such as these.
@ Lencho – No, the character of Benjamin Button begins life as a very wrinkled, physically aged baby. Mentally, he grows just like a regular child, except that his body ages in reverse and grows younger.
It’s a gimmick, pure and simple. It’s also a gimmick performance by Pitt. You’re exactly right; had someone else played the role – Serkis, for instance – it wouldn’t even have been considered. Only because a star of Pitt’s caliber underwent this CGI makeover was the performance itself suddenly praised.
@ Ray – Thanks for clearing that up. I just got that impression since they barely advertised him when he was kid mentally except for the scene where he tells the man that he’s seven years old.
That’s why I generally don’t care for this awards. It’s pretty much the most powerful people in Hollywood patting each other’s backs. And they’re generally boring to watch anyway.
i think that the academy will overlook any CGI enhanced role that they cannot clearly decipher. i’m all for the industry embracing new technology, what cameron is doing is wonderful in my opinion, but i don’t think that the academy will be keen to stray away from ‘traditional’ acting any time soon.
i do think that pitt was nominated to fill a spot, but the academy does that most year’s does it not? the fact that he doesn’t appear on screen for 50 or so minutes isn’t as big a deal as it first seems because the film is 3 hours long – he has as much time in the last 2 hours to establish himself as an actor.
@ I – Yeah, but the performance still wasn’t up to par in those two hours, either.
@ Lencho: How do you judge a performance by the trailers. First watch the movie, then comment.