Hollywood divided over actors' place in films such as 'Avatar'
LOS ANGELES -- Director James Cameron had many reasons to be happy the morning that this year's Oscar nominations were announced; his blockbuster film "Avatar" tied for the most, with nine, including Best Picture and Best Director. But he was dismayed that his cast, including stars Zoe Saldana, Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver, was shut out.
In fact, unlike the great majority of Best Picture nominees, the "Avatar" actors have not nabbed a single major critics' award or guild prize. The snubs reflect the apparent ambivalence of the film community -- especially actors -- to "Avatar" and its revolutionary use of "performance capture," a new technology that combines human actors with computer-generated animation to create the blue, 10-foot-tall creatures who are the heart of the movie.
To the uninitiated, it raises basic questions: Is this acting, or is it animation? And, does this suggest that actors could become obsolete? It's an issue that provokes a strong response from Hollywood figures, from Best Actor nominees Jeff Bridges and Jeremy Renner, to directors Cameron and Steven Spielberg.
"I'm sure they could do it now if they wanted. Actors will kind of be a thing of the past," Bridges told the Los Angeles Times the day nominations were announced. "We'll be turned into combinations. A director will be able to say, 'I want 60 percent Clooney; give me 10 percent Bridges; and throw some Charles Bronson in there.' They'll come up with a new guy who will look like nobody who has ever lived, and that person or thing will be huge," he said.
Renner, nominated for "The Hurt Locker," put it this way: "Some movies are actors' kind of movies and some movies are more directors' movies. 'Avatar' is a spectacle. It's a beautiful experience, but it's not really an actors' kind of movie. It doesn't really allow for an actor to truly tell a story. The director's telling the story in that one."
Perhaps mindful that actors make up the largest Oscar voting bloc, Cameron fiercely promotes the contributions of his cast to the success of "Avatar." He and other advocates of performance capture (known as "motion capture" in its previous, less sophisticated incarnation), including Spielberg, say not enough actors have experienced the process to appreciate it.
"There's a learning curve for the acting community, and they're not up to speed yet," Cameron said. "We didn't get out and proselytize with the Screen Actors Guild as we probably should have to raise awareness. Not only should they not be afraid of it, they should be excited about it. There is a new set of possibilities, after a century of doing movie acting in the same way."
Cameron describes it as "an actor-driven process."
"I'm not interested in being an animator. . . . That's what Pixar does. What I do is talk to actors. 'Here's a scene. Let's see what you can come up with,' and when I walk away at the end of the day, it's done in my mind. In the actor's mind, it's done. There may be a whole team of animators to make sure what we've done is preserved, but that's their problem. Their job is to use the actor's performance as an absolute template without variance for what comes out the other end."
"I like to think of it as digital makeup, not augmented animation," said Spielberg, who is using Cameron's "Avatar" technology in his new movie, "The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn." "It's basically the actual performance of the actual actor, and what you're simply experiencing is makeup."
In the case of "Avatar," he said, "the digital makeup is so thin you actually see everything that Zoe [Saldana] is doing. Every nuance of that performance comes through digitally."
Spielberg and Cameron say that making a movie in performance capture is, for the actors, very similar to performing a play. "Motion capture brings the director back to a kind of intimacy that actors and directors only know when they're working in live theater," Spielberg said.