while appearing in all three of the lord of the rings movies, andy serkis has only really come to audience’s attention this year in the two towers, as gollum’s role in the story switched from shadow-lurker barely seen in part 1 to a huge character in parts 2 and 3. new line cinemas is rumored to be campaigning andy for an oscar nomination for playing gollum.
the problem is, should he qualify? he provided the voice for gollum as well as all of the movement through the marvels of computer technology, but what is in the movie is a cgi (computer-generated image). we never see serkis, while we see his motions and hear his voice. is that enough? plenty of actors’ skin is never seen in an entire film because of prosthetics (think of the uruk-hai and other creatures in the films), but they are still considered to have acted in them because they are there underneath all that latex and gelatin. andy serkis is there, in a matter of sorts.
keep in mind that the movie ‘adaptation’ is being campaigned as an adaptation this year, even though no one seems to know what it was adapted from, and that there is an imaginary person being credited with co-authorship. in a year where there is already so much rule-bending, should andy serkis be considered?
As a question of fact, this is simple: voice actors are eligible to win acting Oscars. Serkis provided the voice of Gollum (and more), so he’s eligible to be nominated, period.
Whether he’d win if nominated is a different question, of course.
Also, anyone interested in learning more about how Gollum was animated should pick up the latest issue of Cinefex magazine with Gollum on the cover. It has a lengthy article on the subject. While Serkis’s physical performance was used heavily in animating Gollum, the animators added their own talents as well, particularly in the area of facial expressions. Which is why I feel the Academy ought to create a separate category of Best Animated Performance, which would be jointly awarded to the actor and the animators.