From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@xocolatl.com)
Date: Mon Feb 24 2003 - 10:23:12 MST
Excerpts from the Ed Hooks Newsletter Mid-February '03.
~~
Please forgive this mid-month newsletter. I wanted to get it to you
right away because, in the craft notes, I'm encouraging my readers to
see a movie that is currently playing in the theatres. If I wait
until March, the movie may close. It is best if you see this on the
big screen.
....
CRAFT NOTES
"Gollum: A peek into the Future of Acting..."
Most of my readers know that I am the author of a book entitled
"Acting for Animators" and that I teach acting to animators in
addition to teaching it to actors. I also write a monthly newsletter
for animators that you can subscribe to if you are interested.
(http://www.ActingforAnimators.com) Usually I keep the world of
animators and that of actors separate because animators neither
perceive nor apply acting theory the same way that stage actors do.
Animators, for one thing, do not have a "present moment". They have
only the indication of a present moment in their work.
In this month's newsletter, however, I want to speak to my
actor-readers about animation because something significant is
happening. Playing now in first-run is a movie entitled "The Lord of
the Rings - Two Towers". It features a unique character named Gollum
that is a hybrid of live-action and animation. Gollum was developed
in large part by an actor named Andy Serkis and then brought to the
screen by a blazingly talented team of animators at Weta Digital in
New Zealand. He is not a background character. He is a second lead
in the movie with single-card opening credit billing, playing full
tilt scenes of emotional depth with live actors. His creation rests
on a nexus between two different disciplines, and that is why this is
historic and noteworthy. Gollum is a harbinger of what actors may
expect in the future of movies. Therefore, actors, acting teachers
and executives from SAG and AFTRA should all be paying close
attention.
GOLLUM'S DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS
Director Peter Jackson hired actor Andy Serkis and then gave him a
lot of latitude to develop the character of Gollum. This is
different from the way that animated characters are typically
developed. In a movie like "Shrek" or "Monsters, Incorporated", the
animators develop the character first and then hire the actor to go
into a recording studio and do the voice. They videotape the actor
while he is recording the script, and they use this footage as a
reference to correctly animate and further enhance the character.
Also, in a typical animated film, actors work individually, in
isolation. It is rare for two actors to play a scene in real time in
a recording studio. Romeo is recorded in a studio in Austria, and
Juliet is recorded in LA, and the animation company puts it all
together.
Gollum was different. Andy Serkis himself played all the scenes with
the other actors, and it was shot as live-action. In scenes where
Serkis is making physical contact with the other actors, as in the
opening sequence fight, the animators digitally replaced Serkis's
image with that of the animated Gollum on a frame by frame basis.
Serkis also worked with the motion-capture process, donning a rubber
body suit with sensors on it and slithering around over the rocks in
the mountains. In those scenes, the animators used Serkis's basic
movements, but they animated the face of Gollum by themselves.
There were other digital tricks, a basket full of them in fact. My
point here is that, in the future, actors will find it necessary to
understand animation process as well as acting theory. In interviews
with Andy Serkis, I note that he speaks comfortably about things like
"key frame" and "pose to pose", both being animation terms. He
understands how motion-capture works and what "rotoscope" is. In
other words, as he was creating the character, he had in his head
that the final character would be a collaborative thing, that
whatever he did as an actor had to fit with what the animators would
later do.
Gollum is a hobbit, a little person. And he is a physically withered
and altered hobbit because, in the story, he long ago stole the magic
ring. Gollum is half the size of Andy Serkis, and he moves around
primarily on all fours instead of erect. He is frog like, lizard
like, a hairless quasi-human that possesses a full trunk of human
emotion.
As I sat in a Chicago theatre watching Gollum on screen, I felt I was
gazing into the future. How will SAG deal with this kind of
development? How will the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and
Sciences deal with it? There was a campaign afoot to get a Best
Supporting Oscar nomination for Andy Serkis this year, but it failed.
I have a hunch it failed not because Gollum is not brilliant but
because the Academy members simply didn't know what to do with this.
Is Gollum Animation? Yes, sort of. Is Gollum live-action? Yes,
sort of. He is both, a hybrid. Do we need a new category for such
characters?
Even if you are not a fan of the Lord of the Rings books, I suggest
you check this out. Focus on Gollum. Observe how perfectly he
interfaces with Elija Wood and the other actors. You watch Gollum on
screen, and you accept his reality. He appears to be live-action,
but he is not. It is mind blowing, and it is a historic achievement.
For more reading about Andy Serkis and the creation of Gollum:
http://www.serkis.com/cinlotr.htm
Until next month...be safe!
Ed Hooks
http://www.edhooks.com
http://www.actingforanimators.com
773-929-1667 (Chicago studio)
"Actors are Shamans"
-- "An actor is an adjective." Anomymous http://www.edhooks.com http://www.ActingForAnimators.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 24 2003 - 16:03:42 MST