Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Costume and make-up design has always been one of my passions. I have also been a huge fan of science fiction. So when I heard The Rise of the Planet of the Apes "prequel"movie was coming out this summer, I was quite excited... until I learned there were no actual animals on set since they were all animated.

Now from a movie-maker's standpoint I completely understand why this decision was made. First of all animals are difficult to work with on a set, so having over 100 apes running free would probably be a huge liability. Second of all, trying to get the proper emotion from an animal that doesn't necessarily speak English can't be the easiest job. Now even if they didn't use apes but instead humans, like in the 1968 and 2011 movies, the production company would have to pay for all of the make-up and costume materials as well as the actors themselves. Plus, rather than just having a make-up or costume designer, you would have to pay for someone on set to manually create the cast of 100 apes. So, CG animation it is.

My issue is, while CG has come quite far in its development, I'm not sure if I would rather have a man in a monkey suit that looks physically stable, than a creature who may have the proper dimensions of an ape, but looks like a computer-generated hologram.

However, after experiencing the character development of Caesar, I realize that the acting done by Andy Serkis and the rest of the cast would not have been nearly as effective if he were physically restricted by an ape-suit. With CG, Andy Serkis was able to fully explore his body movements, since he could move around with greater ease, and show a variety of emotions that wouldn't have been possible if he had latex put on his face. Having a background in make-up, I must say that the spirit gum and mask required would have lowered his ability to move his cheeks, lips, and eyes, resulting in a weaker performance and personification of Caesar.

With the technology used to create the movie, the actors had greater control over their body and faces, which allowed them to further the character development necessary for the plot of this film. So while others who may be aesthetically displeased with CG like me, we need to remember that story telling is the most important element in our industry, and so long as we continue to advance our production quality but follow through with the plot, films should continue to amaze and astound the audience.

Acting with CGI

When we go to the movies to watch a film that’s supposed to be filled with amazing CGI and effects most people leave the theater raving about how “totally cool” the monsters looked or how real the explosions seemed. Well, I might be a minority here, but after an effect packed film, I often find myself thinking about what it must have been like for the actors working with all of that CGI.

They have to get into character and portray convincing emotions and reactions in situations where the person/thing they are acting with is not even really there. Explosions that aren’t really happening, monsters that aren’t actually scratching at your face, and flying through the air or speeding through traffic when you are really in front of a green screen. All of these examples and more have to be dealt with by actors who work on a film that heavily utilizes CGI. I read a few articles about actors who have worked on films/T.V. shows with CGI and many of them expressed their discomfort at trying to act with “a tennis ball on a stick” as many described it instead of a real human or creature. Emily Blunt (discussing Gulliver’s Travels) said: “I find it really tedious and confusing. You’re like begging a tennis ball on a pole for help and crying”. She notes the huge importance of mental imagery and imagination when working with CGI.

Although all of the actors noted how difficult it was at times working with green screens, etc., most expressed excitement at seeing the final product. In a video interview with the cast of Stargate Universal, one of the main characters played by David Blue talk about how amazed he is by the final product of the show when he sees what is really supposed to be there after acting with a green screen. He brings up some interesting ideas about CGI from an actors perspective. You can view the interview here (the first and last answers are the best).

I think it would be interesting to take a directing actors with a green screen or directing in a CGI filled environment class or to observe a class about acting with green screens. These classes must exist somewhere or at least they should seeing as though many film creators seem to be moving towards using CGI and other visual effects, which are added after the acting process occurs, in order to enhance their films. It is my guess that at least some genres of film (more on the action or sci-fi side of things) will continue adding more and more advanced CGI effects to their films putting actors in even stranger or more difficult acting situations.

I just skimmed the surface of this idea but thought I would briefly bring it up because it seems like it is usually an aspect of CGI/visual effects that may often be overlooked.