Dear Andy Serkis,
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has reignited the debate about the role of the actor in “motion capture” performances. Your supporters are already pushing for an Oscar nomination (you do, after all, have top billing in Dawn), while others are less enthusiastic about your contributions. I’m sorry to say that I find myself in the latter camp. I don’t want you take this personally, but I don’t think you – or anyone, for that matter – should win an acting award for this type of “mo-cap” performance.
There is certainly no shortage of people telling you that you’re the best at what you do. Since you started working with Peter Jackson, playing Gollum in Lord of the Rings films and later the mighty King Kong himself, you’ve carved out a niche as Hollywood’s go-to mo-cap artist. It made perfect sense, then, for a man with your pedigree (and simian simulation experience) to play Caesar in 2011’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes. And, by all accounts, you didn’t disappoint. Rise was a surprise critical and financial success, paving way for your character’s central role in the praise-worthy Dawn.
But here’s my problem:
Even the most sophisticated audiences can’t tell where your performance ends and the special effects begin. While we know that there’s an actor involved – wearing one of those ping-pong ball bodysuits and guiding the physical movements and facial expressions – we can never be sure how much of your performance is there in the finished product. Maybe the effects team is simply aping your every single move. Or maybe, at some point, the filmmakers decide they want to create menace with a more dramatic eyebrow raise, or need more tears to amp up the emotion. Who’s to stop them? If they want more growl, or need to more intensity, it’s all just a few clicks of a mouse away. We don’t know what they changed, added, or depended on. And we don’t need to know. What we’re really marveling at when we watch your performance is the technology on top of it. And the better the technology, the more we marvel.
Unfortunately, little of that has to do with you.
Let’s take, for example, your role as Captain Haddock in Steven Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tintin. The animation wasn’t meant to be lifelike, and so few people focused on the performances. Sure, we saw a visual similarity between Daniel Craig and his character Red Rackham, but it’s still his vocal performance that we connect back to him, not the lumbering physical presence he brings to, say, the most recent Bond films. Since most audiences don’t already have a long history of staring at your naked face, Andy, it’s much harder to connect you with someone like Caesar.
In other words, you play Caesar, but I don’t think anyone can argue that you are Caesar; at least not in the way that Gregory Peck is Atticus Finch, or Tom Hanks is Forrest Gump.
Look at the countless biopics that always seem to win Best Actor awards: Matthew McConaughey in Dallas Buys Club, Daniel Day Lewis in Lincoln, Colin Firth in The King’s Speech, Sean Penn in Milk, Forrest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland, Philip Seymour Hoffman in Capote, Jamie Foxx in Ray…they aren’t being rewarded for disappearing into their character the way you do (you literally disappear). What we reward is the way an audience is able to magically marry the actor we know with the character they’re portraying. Sometimes make-up effects or weight loss help make that connection easier, but it’s always up to the audience to take that final step and say, “yes, we believe you.” In the case of mo-cap, it’s the animators that bridge that gap for us. Only once the special effects are photorealistic do we truly suspend our disbelief.
A film like Avatar highlights this distinction. Sam Worthington is one of the most generic actors of his generation. Which is probably why James Cameron decided that his face was the perfect canvas to cover in blue “digital paint”. In the end, it didn’t matter because the wild and fantastical effects were believable. That said, no director would minimize the contributions of an actor in a mo-cap performance, but they also wouldn’t pretend like you did all the heavy lifting by yourself. Ideally, you make the animators’ job easier. But your relationship is far too co-dependent to earn individual distinction.
You might argue that actors already have this kind of dependent relationship with the film’s editor; their final performance is always at the mercy of the rhythm, timing, and even take selection that happens in the editing suite. But a great editor can’t invent a great acting performance, they can only minimize our exposure to a bad one.
I keep reading about how you’re infusing “humanity” into your performance as Caesar. Considering you are a human, this isn’t all that impressive. Creating human empathy is not the benchmark of great acting, it’s an entry level requirement. And again, it’s the animators (for lack of a better term) who are enabling your natural humanity to shine through. Your other big contribution, apparently, is your decidedly ape-like physicality; you are able to move like an evolved primate. That’s a talent, to be sure, but it’s also nothing new to film acting. How many awards did 2001: A Space Odyssey or the original Planet of the Apes win for its monkey-acting? About as many as you should. Throw on a rubber suit instead of the helmet cam and see how much praise you get.
Which brings up the larger point: there’s not a large enough sample size for us to accurately judge a good mo-cap performance from a bad one. I would argue that Seth MacFarlane’s performance in Ted was far more essential to the film’s success than yours is to Dawn—and the only Oscar buzz he received was a nomination as worst host of all time. We could go further, too. What about Robin William’s voice work in Aladdin? There’s someone who truly contributed in immeasurable ways to the bringing an animated performance to life.
Which is why I’m sorry to say that Milli Vanilli will win another Grammy before you’ll ever take home an Oscar for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
Doing my “human work”,
Christopher
My Blog 
I loved this write-up; very interesting perspective that I'd have to agree with (particularly the Robin Williams shoutout!)
You're a jerk. Get a life!
If you want to make the case against Oscar nominations for motion capture performances, then make a case against that. Directing it specifically at Andy Serkis is needlessly petty, considering he's far from the only person who has expressed this view.For example, Weta's special effects supervisor Joe Letteri said in an interview that "Andy gives you the heart and soul of the performance," and visual effects supervisor Dan Lemmon said that the performances in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes are driven by the actors. Even the people that you're supposedly defending don't seem to agree with you.There's room for some very interesting discussion surrounding the hybrid artistry involved in motion capture roles. It's a shame you don't seem to have anything to add to that discussion beyond a personal attack.
Hey Hannah,If you're new to the site, we always direct our writing to a specific individual. It's not an attack. Serkis' mo-cap performance in Dawn is the one being talked about for an acting Oscar, so it's the one worth focusing on. As for technical people singing Serkis' praises, I would expect nothing less. He's doing what he's doing for a reason. Unfortunately, the pendulum of praise has swung a little too far. Less and less people are acknowledging how crucial the effects are to making that performance believable – including Serkis, who is simply referring to their work as "digital make-up". The VFX community is not impressed. A few links for you:http://uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2014/07/vfx-artists-are-pissed-at-andy-serkis/http://www.cartoonbrew.com/motion-capture/andy-serkis-does-everything-animators-do-nothing-says-andy-serkis-98868.htmlhttp://io9.com/andy-serkis-reveals-the-new-ape-world-in-dawn-of-the-pl-1553706020Our whole raison d'tre on this site is to talk about more than the headline grabbers that make a film. To bring attention to the undervalued artists in the film community. Ironically, Andy Serkis was among that class a very short while ago. But this early Oscar campaign is actually doing a dis-service to him, and the huge team that made that performance mean anything at all. More importantly, was Serkis' work really any more convincing/impressive/exceptional than Toby Kebbell's as Koba or Karen Konoval's as Maurice, or any of the other apes? If you think so, I would love to hear that argument. For my money, no – the performances served the effects, and not vice versa. I'm not discounting the acting, I'm simply saying there is no way it can be judged only for it's acting, the way a performance should to be considered for an Acting award.
Dear Christopher,Had you researched the matter a little further (or read my article before spamming a link to your own), you might have learned that the term "digital make-up" was actually coined by the Weta Digital team, not by Andy Serkis. He picked it up from them.What's particularly interesting is that of the two sides involved with the creation of motion capture characters, you chose to address this article towards Andy Serkis and not towards the animators at Weta Digital. Do you even know any of their names? It's ironic that you would lambast "headline grabbers" while making sure to use Andy Serkis' name in your own headline.
In all honesty, I feel that your stance – explained as "the performances served the effects, and not vice versa" – makes your stance on this case fairly cemented. That seems to have less to do with Serkis than your view on the entire field, but Serkis is landing in the crosshairs regardless.I also think that the animators at Weta who have actually worked *with* Serkis being some of his loudest supporters should be given more weight than people who aren't actually inside of their particular process.
I fully expect the good people at Weta to sing Serkis' praises. They have to, since his contributions aren't as obvious as theirs. But that's the point.The only argument I'm making is about Serkis winning an Oscar for this performance, or even this "type" (one where the animators need to explain the virtue of the acting). There's a pretty big range between an Oscar performance and dismissing the acting. I'm in no way advocating to dismiss it. That's a lazy misinterpretation.Serkis performance in Dawn is the equivalent to a great pop song where the vocals have been auto-tuned to the point of no recognition. We can praise the song, feel the soul behind it, but to single out the vocal performance as award-worthy is too much of a stretch for me. That singer, for that song, just doesn't qualify for the same solo artist award as a Bob Dylan or Jack White. So again, I'm writing from the perspective of the audience. I don't need to challenge the people at Weta, nor is it necessary for me to quote supporting arguments from someone like Randall William Cook, the director of animation on the LOTR trilogy (easy to find). I have to assume Serkis is great at what he does. The problem is, I have to assume.
I'm familiar with Cook's supporting argument, but the problem is that Cook hasn't worked with Andy Serkis (or, in fact, worked on the visual effects for any movie) in over a decade, and The Lord of the Rings' motion capture technology is light years away from what was used in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It's a pretty weak source when it comes to this particular debate, as is the Cartoon Brew article (which was not even written by an animator. I'm not sure why you think the word of someone who hasn't worked with Serkis in ten years is somehow more reliable than the thoughts of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' director, special effects supervisor and visual effects supervisor, unless you're merely picking and choosing the viewpoints that reinforce your own opinion.I actually do agree that members of the animation team should be present on stage in the event of Serkis winning an Oscar for his performance. What I don't understand is why, rather than praising the animators who contributed to that performance, you instead decided to write a personal attack directed at Andy Serkis, belittling his performance and concluding with the frankly quite vicious remark, "Milli Vanilli will win another Grammy before youll ever take home an Oscar for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes."Other than the fact that it's fun to pick on celebrities, I suppose.
BS. If you think that giving an award to Andy Serkis is to disregard the animators, then you should think that everytime an actor wins an award, they also should give an award to the writer/director/editor/producer/etc of taht movie because the actor alone does NOTHING.It's an ACTING award. Focus only on acting. Does Andy Serkis play Caesar, an intelligent ape who rules a community? Yes, he totally does. Does it deserve an award? That's a matter of opinion. Does he deserve the nomination? Completely. I think you're dead wrong when you imply that the animators can make Caesar show emotions that Serkis didn't actually portray while filming. Quite the opposite. He literally acts as Caesar (and so do the other ape-actors). I wish they would show a rough-cut of the movie without the CGI so you can see for yourself.
I feel the need to clarify a misstatement from Hannah. Speaking with unshakable certitude, she says Cook hasnt worked with Andy Serkis (or, in fact, worked on the visual effects for any movie) in over a decade.Phrases like in fact leave no room for argument. Better maybe to allow yourself a bit of wiggle room with apparently or according to IMDB, in case it turns out you dont know what youre talking about.Because the statements not true.I was Animation Supervisor on THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN for Sony for the better part of two years. Names in the credits.Animation Supervisor on GULLIVERS TRAVELS for 15 months or so. Names NOT in the credits, at my insistence. Long story, and not really anyones business.Two animation supervisor consultancy jobs for Warner Brothers, both of which took me to Australia.And, of course, I worked with Andy on KING KONG (as second unit director). I wasnt wrangling his data, but I directed him in his human incarnation, and was around him when he was in the suit. Thats nine years ago, which doesnt fit my definition of over a decade.Whatever inference you may draw from my recent career activities, I am vitally interested in developments in VFX technology, and Visual Effects are and have been a fascination to me (as a practitioner, not as a theorist) for many years. Were developing a project now, in fact, with both motion capture and animation (not to mention real live actors in their own skins). Point is, Ive been keeping my eyes open.None of this has a damn thing to do with Andy or his performance capture achievements, but I just dont want the careless untruth that I havent worked in the picture business for over a decade to go unanswered.
I feel the need to clarify a misstatement from Hannah. Speaking with unshakable certitude, she says Cook hasnt worked with Andy Serkis (or, in fact, worked on the visual effects for any movie) in over a decade.Phrases like in fact leave no room for argument. Better maybe to allow yourself a bit of wiggle room with apparently or according to IMDB, in case it turns out you dont know what youre talking about.Because the statements not true.I was Animation Supervisor on THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN for Sony for the better part of two years. Names in the credits.Animation Supervisor on GULLIVERS TRAVELS for 15 months or so. Names NOT in the credits, at my insistence. Long story, and not really anyones business.Two animation supervisor consultancy jobs for Warner Brothers, both of which took me to Australia.And, of course, I worked with Andy on KING KONG (as second unit director). I wasnt wrangling his data, but I directed him in his human incarnation, and was around him when he was in the suit. Thats nine years ago, which doesnt fit my definition of over a decade.Whatever inference you may draw from my recent career activities, I am vitally interested in developments in VFX technology, and Visual Effects are and have been a fascination to me (as a practitioner, not as a theorist) for many years. Were developing a project now, in fact, with both motion capture and animation (not to mention real live actors in their own skins). Point is, Ive been keeping my eyes open.None of this has a damn thing to do with Andy or his performance capture achievements, but I just dont want the careless untruth that I havent worked in the picture business for over a decade to go unanswered.
Sorry for the double post. I will admit that I am not up-to-date on "posting to blogs" technology.
Dear Randall -Your work is nothing short of amazing.There is no question that this is a collaborate medium and that there is an inherent inter-dependancy that occurs. What I don't understand is why people are piling up on Andy. I read your "post" on CB. I'm also assuming you saw in the comments section where the author admits that Andy Serkis did not "say those exact words" – it was his opinion. That is why his site has zero creditably. What everyone seems to missing out in this debate of that the animation teams are recognized in this process. You yourself have three Oscar for your work on LOTR / Gollum – and all are very deserved. As do other animate supervisors and animation directors are part of the four-person team who walks away with the VFX Oscar. Not to mention a slew of VES Awards. And your comment above: "None of this has a damn thing to do with Andy Serkis…" – so in other words, you're Saying "Animators do everything, Andy Serkis does Nothing, Says Randall Cook"Got it. Thanks-E
A film like Life Of Pi won best directing and best cinematography. At least 50% of that film was done in post by digital effects artists. If that film can win oscars for those categories, then performance capture actors should be considered.
Hey Elias,The director's role/responsibilities don't really change with a lot of VFX – and more importantly for Oscar consideration, the audience's understanding of their role doesn't change. The director is always in charge of major creative decisions. Likewise, cinematographers are in charge of camera angles and lighting decisions, even if they take place in post-production. Whether they tell a grip or a graphic designer where to add shadows, for example, doesn't really matter. The audience can still feel the way a camera moves and the way lighting affects a story, even if they don't understand the technical process. The reason I'm arguing Serkis' performance in Dawn is different is because what we reward with an Acting Oscar is the direct impact we know the actor had on the film and the role. We end up not being able to imagine the film without them. Unfortunately (for Oscar purposes), it's all too easy to imagine Dawn without Serkis because his contributions aren't always as obvious. Doesn't mean they aren't important, but I can't be convinced that 100 other great actors couldn't have created essentially the exact same character (and the audience wouldn't have noticed). You know, just like they did with all the other apes…
Eric, I think Randall was referring to his own post having nothing to do with Andy Serkis. He was just posting to correct an inaccuracy and seemed to have not wanted to weigh in on the subject of discussion 🙂 (hope I'm not putting words in someone's mouth now tho!)