A Quote by Andy Serkis

I've done a lot of films that are purely live-action roles, and even if I hadn't come across performance capture as a technology, I think I'd always consider myself a sort of mercurial actor.
My belief about performance capture is that it's a technology which allows actors to play extraordinary characters. But from an acting perspective, I've never drawn a distinction between playing a conventional, live action character and playing a role in a performance capture suit. And from a purely acting point-of-view, I don't believe there should be a special Oscar category because I think it sort of muddies the waters in a way.
For me, I've never drawn a distinction between live-action acting and performance-capture acting. It is purely a technology.
I have a company in the U.K., a performance-capture studio. We're looking to push the boundaries of performance-capture technology in film and video games, but also in live theater, using real-time performance capture with actors onstage, and combining that with holographic imagery.
Performance capture is a technology, not a genre; it's just another way of recording an actor's performance.
In performance capture roles, it's not a committee of animators that author the role, it's the actor. I think that's a significant thing for people to understand.
Live-action has always been my focus and my passion. I love voice-over, and I definitely could see myself doing some voice-over, as much as I could, and even if I ended up doing only that for the rest of my life, and I could be successful at it, that would be great. But I think my real dream is to do films and live-action films.
Motion capture is exactly what it says: it's physical moves, whereas performance capture is the entire performance - including your facial performance. If you're doing, say, martial arts for a video game, that is motion capture. This is basically another way of recording an actor's performance: audio, facial and physical.
In feature films, I used to be the hero's friend, a regular character. In short films, I played the hero; I got roles where I could work on my character and performance. They made me aware of myself as an actor.
For me, some of the happiest moments on a live-action film are the awkward moments. One actor says something to another actor. They didn't expect that performance from that actor; that affects their return performance.
No artiste wants to be boxed. We thrive on challenging roles, and they can come from anywhere. I consider myself blessed to be recognised as a pan-Indian actor. Yes, it means more hard work, prepping more for the roles, but I'm all for it.
The fact of the matter is that an actor, if I'm playing a performance capture role and you're playing a live action role and we're having a scene together, there's no difference in our acting processes.
Even though I've done a lot it also feels like I haven't done a lot. I've sort of popped in for supporting roles in things, and that's been really delightful.
I consider myself as a director's actor, so I'm open to work with filmmakers from across the country and even abroad.
It's really up to the acting community to be willing to be educated about what performance capture is in order to fully appreciate it as acting. It's not a type of acting, but rather the use of technology to harness an actor's performance and translate it into an ape, another animal, or an avatar of some kind.
I'm an actor, and I don't look at myself as providing comic relief. I have done diverse and dark roles such as a psycho, murderer, and others in films such as 'Don', 'Eklavya' and '3 Idiots.'
My philosophy has always been to try to put myself into roles and films that are different. That intensified after 'Lord of the Rings' because it was so massive, but it's something I've always believed in - wanting to change people's perceptions and challenge myself as an actor.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!