In motion capture aka performance capture, there is a substantial gray area as to whether the technique is closer to acting or animation. The truth is, it’s both, but surely there’s a line or at least a zone between the two art forms. It would be interesting to see how folks here perceive the line and on which side mo-cap falls.
During the past few months, Andy Serkis has generated some controversy while he lobbies for his performance as Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes to be considered an acting performance. Also, he is Captain Haddock in The Adventures of Tintin. Are Caesar and Haddock acted or animated? It could be that Steven Spielberg muddied the waters when he gave more prominent acknowledgement to actors (especially Serkis) than to animators in his acceptance of the best animated feature Golden Globe for The Adventures of Tintin.
Actually, there’s rather a conundrum…if Serkis is right in his claim that his mo-cap performances constitute acting, how can Spielberg be right in asserting that Tintin is an animated film? The AMPAS rules on motion capture in animated films are ambiguous and might have come about to create a loophole for Mr. Spielberg’s satisfaction. Stay tuned on the outcome…
Personal opinion: Like rotoscoping, motion capture is closer to acting than animation, even though it entails both forms. To extend the opinion, Andy Serkis’s mo-cap performances should be considered for acting awards, but the films in which he performs are not animated films and should not be considered as such for awards. Not that any of the award programs make sense in the real world.
Well, I don’t really want to treat the medium as if it’s black or white, but I hardly have huge respect for it as a new technology like other people do. I also don’t even care if the characters are primarily acted through the actors’ physical performances over animators’ work. You know why? Because I have yet to see “acting” in a motion-capture film that has impressed me, and it’s not like anyone deserves to get credit (though I would blame the technology, not actors, for the lack of true expression in the resulting film). It’s all very dead, very false, and yet so very close to life at the same time—which is what makes the medium such a letdown. Animation is about exaggeration, squash and stretch, and I hardly see that in motion-capture films. I understand that the medium can be used to do difficult tasks while displaying believable physics, but really, I see it as a shortcut that’s trying to be spotlighted as a major achievement in film.
Whether it should be considered animation, I don’t know. Because I’m an art major, I’ve had many discussions in classes about what art is, and the answer is a very broad number of things—not just the traditional pieces someone has devoted a great deal of time and skills to. Media like hand-drawn, computer, and stop-motion animation all require that same time and skill, so can cheap shortcut methods of animation such as rotoscope and motion-capture count as animation? Probably, but they’re not necessarily as good. Just because I will consider a simple canvas painted orange as art does not mean I have the same amount of appreciation for it as other paintings, and I apply the same thinking to animation.
All this said, I haven’t seen The Adventures of TinTin yet, and that’s supposed to be a step forward in the medium, so perhaps that will shine a new light on motion-capture.
That’s a fascinating point. It also leads to a question about Andy Serkis and how he feels about his performance as Captain Haddock–is he as proud of it as he clearly is of his turn as Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes? It would be great if any interviews shed light on that…haven’t found any yet, but the following certainly shows his enthusiasm for Tintin:
It could be that there’s some awareness in there of the animation age ghetto, which raises the possibility that, in some viewers’s minds, mo-cap might bear the animation stigma because it looks too cartoony. Yikes!
Agreed, and certainly there is every reason to say that motion capture is a creative pursuit, or art.
So AMPAS didn’t include Tintin as a nominee for Best Animated Feature, perhaps due to their pre-stated criteria about qualifying characteristics for animated features. Fair play to them!
Andy Serkis could be an exception to the “not impressed by acting” statement, but then the characters I’m thinking of are largely non-human. To clarify then, when it comes to standard human characters, I’m not impressed, because I’m so obviously familiar with them and the subtle expressions they make.
You’re right about subtle expresions, q_o_p, and maybe the number of facial muscles it takes to smile or frown provides an answer. Even if the mo-cap technology could capture all the minuscule facial activity that a human instinctively notices (or not, when it’s absent)…the more photoreal it became, the more it would be like plain old live action. I liked Gary Oldman as Bob Cratchit in A Christmas Carol, but at the same time it’s no stretch to get how a viewer would look at the performance as Oldman Lite…especially as he’s been so excellent in so many other movies and is no stranger to twitching facial muscles.
The thumbnail summary is that mo-cap (aka Satan’s Rotoscope) can be an effective animation tool, and it’s just beginning to find usefulness in various applications like pre-visualization and reference. There’s also much technical detail that illustrates how mo-cap is a blend of acting and animation, and there remains plenty of room for opinions as to which side of that line/zone mo-cap favors.
Highlights of the discussion: “Animators aren’t necessarily the best dancers” and “The performer that did the main dance was just a little too sexy…this is a problem for an animator!”
I can understand using mo-cap for complex animation, such as certain styles of dancing. I’m interested in learning just how much of the animators’ work is put into mo-cap scenes, because from what I’ve seen I’d like to see that animation pushed further.
q_o_p: One of the things discussed by the panel was the way animators are needed to rectify rigging/gimbal problems (or some such) introduced by human performances. Factors like alignment of the spine and rotation of joints around it are apparently not “clean” when translated into the mathematical world. It almost seems like mo-cap data is already being pushed into the realm of “regular” CG animation…in at least one case, while remaining “lovingly” true to the captured performance, according to one speaker. Talk about yer gray areas–yikes!
After listening to the audio, I’m still inclined to think mo-cap is more acting than animation, but my opinion shifted more toward animation.
