Morgan Freeman: 'Avatar' is Really Cartoons
Oscar hopefuls speak out on performance capture animation
Newsweek's David Ansen sat down with Oscar hopefuls Morgan Freeman (Invictus), Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart), Woody Harrelson (The Messenger), Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), Carey Mulligan (An Education) and Gabourey Sidibe (Precious) and the conversation turned to Avatar and whether or not it's "threatening" to them as an actor.
It's a fascinating five minutes with Morgan Freeman and Sandra Bullock seeming to be the most negative of the group in terms of not being in favor of performance capture. For the most part the group isn't necessarily against performance capture animation, but they obviously feel it doesn't hold up against an actual flesh-and-blood performance.
Morgan Freeman first begins by mentioning how performance capture means an absence of costume as actors where leotards fashioned with motion capture bulbs and then saying, "I think it's a bit faddish, because it's really cartoons," referring to the whole process. He adds, "If I can look in your eyes and see a completely different person, that's what I want."
Bullock looks at the whole trend and says, "The same people that would rush to Avatar may not be the same people that rush to see [Crazy Heart], but as long as there's a balance and creativity keeps flowing [I think it's a good thing]."
Jeff Bridges, who was pretty much the most balanced of the bunch, spoke for both sides, but then added, "I think what we do is the ultimate special effect."
Bullock expanded on that and ends the video saying, "You can't get that with dots and green screen, that's why I don't think dots and green screen will override [what we do as actors]."
Watch the video for yourself. Personally I think it's interesting to hear their thoughts and wonder what they would say if the cameras weren't rolling. I also wonder what they would say if James Cameron or Zoe Saldana were in the room.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 25 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
This is Good Stuff.
It seemed like Jeff Bridges was more vocal than Morgan Freeman, to me. Honestly, I think Zoe Saldana worked the hardest for her role and it shows through her character in Avatar. If that doesn't classify as 'Best Actress' material, I don't know what does.
Wait a min! why is Bridges even involved in the convo when he has a certain movie by the name of TRON that's coming out soon, and TRON can be seen as the basis for a film like AVATAR.
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Bullock was the only one that made a movie people actually want to see. Other than that, the other films were spectacular failures with global audiences, and they feel threatened that a movie that did connect with people emotionally or spiritually etc. is going to take away their livelihood.
I think that performance capture should only be used every now and again.
There was an essay by Mark Harris that I think hits the nail on the head–I'll include the link in case you haven't read it.
Could you imagine if they did Marion Cotillard's Edith Piaf in performance capture? I don't think so. Sure she can be made to look like the older Piaf with a few clicks, but the soul of the performance wouldn't come through with as much clarity as a flesh and blood performance, make-up, sets, and costumes. I think same goes for almost any performance worth it's salt.
http://moosebaumer.tumblr.com/post/349533383/an-avatar-for-best-actress-by-mark-harris
Motion capture will be limited to SF, Fantasy and Horror films, for the most part. It is not economically viable for normal human characters, as it is much more expensive than direct filming.
I don't think they were failures at all… they were smaller pictures that weren't seen because the studio chose to give them limited releases.
No actors from Avatar will win. Any actor can tell you that they'd rather work with real people on location, with tangibles then a green screen. It ruins your sense of truth, because your not reacting to what you see… your reaction has to coincide with something that isn't there yet. CGI as used in AVATAR will not work with dramatic films. Avatar on an effects level but acting wise, it doesn't hold a candle to a majority of the films. Avatar was easy to digest which is great for mass audiences… buts it's no Patton, which had completely tangible battle sequences with hundreds of real people in costume rushing, and tanks.
Moon was another great film with a limited release. It's foolish to assume a films value based on its theatrical release. Bonnie and Clyde, A Clockwork Orange, Bladerunner… all bombed and were pulled. They are three of the most revered and studied films in the history of cinema…
I enjoyed Avatar, but I wouldn't put it up there under the best acted films of any decade. Especially not when Worthington's Australian accent poked through in so many scenes pulling me out of the illusion more then a few times. Fun flick though.
Good stuff Ryan.
Jeff Bridges was a lot more vocal than Morgan Freeman. Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe hardly said anything.
@ryan: I agree, but James Cameron has a vision that almost impossible to be made without the motion capture. It will be more cartoonish if zoe or sam wore some make up (they are half human and animal).
It was also apply for pandora landscape and everything (any creatures based on cameron's imagination)…
The question is, zoe, sam, sigourney were also do an actual acting for their character there (you can see from their expression), and from my point of view, since having good acting and interact with nothing (motion capture) is way harder than normal acting, they at least should get some recognition there…. Anyone agree?
Regards from Indonesia
@buddy:
Absolutely ! When I was watching the film on the making of Avatar, I was so impressed by these actors ability to respond so believeably to something that's NOT there.
I thought Zoe was terrific. Worthington felt a little flat sometimes. Like in the battle cry "Braveheart" sequences, it seemed like on the day, they still hadn't figured out how many people or how big the space would be after it was generated.
I thought motion capture worked great for the film, but it won't work for everything. I saw the film three times, some motion capture work was great, some not so much. When Weaver tosses the fruit to Jake's Avatar and says "Think fast," that was extremely forced and the motion was really quite slow… it just seemed odd.
What these actors are talking about is not so much the use of motion capture to generate new species or larger then life creations, but more of the idea that one day, they won't need to make armor for crusader films… they'll just animate it. That's a huge let down for the actor. For them, that's like being a kid on Halloween and being told your going as Batman, but you won't see it until we watch the home video… Part of the reason these people do what they do is because it's fun. Many actors work off of sense memory technique and use their costumes not only to develop, but also inform movement.
If you watch the Sin City behind the scenes you'll see many frustrated actors feeling very restrained by the blocked out green screen. Props, settings… actors work off of these, sometimes the mistakes of a fallen prop or tripped up flat adds a spark of life that over rehearsed scenes would lose.
If you remove the elements on the day, you are asking the actor to indicate everything which can lead to forced, one note performances or scenes if your not careful.
James Cameron deserves acclaim, but he also deserves to be commended because he didn't alter the performance to try to create something that wasn't there. That takes a lot of restraint, especially when he could have pretty much done anything with the dailies.
Unfortunately, not everyone will trust the actor. It would truly be a shame if actors were robbed of honest performances just because the director decided in an editing room he didn't want tears so "edit those out."
I still feel, although not a fan of the film really, that Andy Serkis as Kong was the most moving motion capture performance. It was raw emotion and all Watts had to go off of was the extremely talented actor… who had no lines.
The problem with CGI in general is that the films which use it in excess don't seem to hold up well. I recently watch Titanic and hands down, the models look better then the rendering. Sometimes the overheads looked like sims were walking around. The Matrix (blu-ray) also has major dating going one. Sin City looks great… but it's high contrast black and white… anything looks great in black and white.
Jurassic Park had the right idea. A mixture. The biggest problem with CGI is that often times the characters or objects are far too detailed compared to the real elements. Lighting and shadows always appear unnaturally perfect and distracting. Good CGI is when you can't tell. There were a few moments in Avatar where the faces were so expressive it could have been make up. District 9 had a nice blend, until it got excessive, but all in all, it was the first film I saw that had consistent lighting between the real and the rendered.
But to me thats the whole point of the new technology that was utlized in Avatar, its no longer just motion capture its emotion capture, you can capture the small nuances that make up the soul of a performance, that was the case with Saldana, and I would imagine that if A list talent actors (not Worthington) were in an emotion capture movie people would really see how far the technology has come along. All it takes is someone who is a serious oscar actor to do one of these movies and people will realize that the tech is real, and its not just fluff but it brings more substance to formerly cartoony movies.
Pandora looked beautiful, but Jake Sulley and Zoe Saldana looked like cartoon blue aliens from a computer game. Motion capture has a little way to go before I'm wholly convinced.
Simon Pegg once wrote something on twitter like: "it's not the brush that matters, but the hand". Something like that, I don't remember the exact quote…
Anyway, it's bullshit.
Andy Serkis proved them wrong (twice!)
And so did Zoe Saldana, her performance is outstanding and never felt like cartoon or anything. It was very moving, you could see a human performance behind all those bits, bytes or whatever… Her performance was much more natural and organic than any acting from New Moon, for instance.
And I mean, what if we all realize that motion capture is indeed animation, so what?
Sorry you old-school actors, you're all great and talented, but not always good actors. Sorry Morgan, but your performance in Wanted was not more 'human' than the animated performance of Carl Fredericksen from Up or Remy from Ratatouille.
It's what Bridges said: "What we do is the ultimate special effect".
And there is always a human behind motion capture or animation and that's why they can be great performances too!!
Maybe Avatar has its necessity to use performance capture. However, that's really the rare case. I think performance capture will only work well on plot driven or special effects driven cinema, in which performance is usually melodramatic. The detail of performance is still lacking in the capture technology now. Comparing to the real performance, performance capture is like 15fps cellphone video VS. film footage. It is really not comparable now. In order to make the performance visible on their "Avatars", the actors/actresses have to exaggerate their performances with dots on their faces. In that scenario, they have to compromise some genuine subtile performance that they could do on live camera. On the other hand, maybe they don't need such kind of performance in such kind of cinema anyway. So in this sense, Mr. Freeman is kind of right. That's why I like District 9 better than Avatar.
Sorry Sandy, but I'm a bit insulted in that you think someone like me couldn't possibly enjoy Crazy Heart "and" Avatar. Guess what? You couldn't be more wrong. Personally, I found Zoe Zaldana's performance in Avatar to be light years ahead of Sandra Bullock's in the "just-okay" Blind Side.
Listening to Sandra Bullock and Morgan Freeman's strong responses I feel certain that they are in-fact threatened by James Cameron's latest epic.
I really don't understand all the Zoe Saldana in Avatar love. It was nothing special about her performance. I found her annoying. All the hissing and screaming. I agree with Morgan Freeman, it's cartoons. Sure it works in films like Avatar and other "event" films, but can you imagine a capture tech created Edward Scissorhands? Or a capture tech Joker in The Dark Knight? As Freeman said, "If I can see in your eyes and see a different person…." That is what it is all about. When Johnny Depp as Dillinger was sitting in the movie theatre and looking at the wanted commercials, you could see the glee, the arrogance, the excitement in his eyes. No capture can ever do that. Look at your favorite part ever, can any of those be replaces by capture tech? Never. But in films like Avatar, sure. In horror films, sure. But again. Jack Nicholson in The Shining. Replacing that with capture tech? Daniel Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview? No. When an actor transforms himself for the sake of the part that is art. When a bunch of people dress up in leotards and a supporting pieces in a big effect orgy, no. That's entertainment. And there is nothing wring with that. It's just not art.
You know here is something I never considered before. If Saldana's performance had not been motion capture would people have really considered her performance that great? In other words if it had been just a regular dramatic performance would people have considered it over acting or cheesey, or is it the CGI design of the Navi that holds up her performance? And can the the same thing can be said of Gollum in LOTR?
@Gene:
I think no one would have even given her a secend thought. It was as you said, over acting and cheesy But Andy Serkis did do a good job with Gollum. The voice acting, the physicality in bringing out Gollum. But that is the only good motion capture performance I can think of.
After watching this clip, for me it seemed like they feel concerned(or I would say even threatned) with this new fast developing Motion Capture technologies. Its very human and natural reaction to something new and something what you don't completely understand how it works.
But in my opinion after watching Avatar, (especially Zoe's perfomance) and behind scenes clips, I strongly believe, that They don't have to be worry.
I think that what is wrong with Avatar is not that it is a cartoon, but rather that it was a bad movie. Cartoons and other seeming childish media's can have great artistic merit if done well, and I personally believe they can be better than traditional dramatic pieces because they don't try to hit you over the head with the subtext of the piece. Avatar was bad because it manipulated the viewers with two dimensional characters, and and overly simplistic world view.
I think they need to realize the level of acting that was involved in the creation of avatar. One could argue that avatar shows the true heart of acting, when one is on a room with nothing to work off of except their imagination, heart, and acting skill. Closer to the original theater than any other from of acting, besides the whole mokap suit that is