Is It Real . . . or Is It Motion Capture?: The Battle to Redefine Animation in the Age of Digital Performance

The most intriguing scene in Ratatouille (Brad Bird, 2007) occurs after the movie is over. At the very bottom of the end credits, following the usual Pixar-perfect lists of loop groups and Production Babies, comes an unexpected disclaimer. "Our Quality Assurance Guarantee," it reads, "100% Genuine Animation! No motion capture or any other performance shortcuts were used in the production of this film." Next to the statement stands a winking caricature of a 1950s businessman giving the audience a thumbs-up for supporting such an apparently worthy endeavor.

It is, without a doubt, an odd way to postscript a film, but Ratatouille's swipe at motion capture is also indicative of a larger dispute over the use of modern technology within the pantheon of animation techniques. The debate has been quietly raging for over a decade, even as the technology itself becomes more powerful, more convincing, and more widespread. The past two years, however, have seen several moves to end the debate, with various disciplines attempting to categorize motion capture—often to contradictory extremes. Rules have been written and opinions have been proffered from film practitioners, corporations, unions, and even award shows reflecting numerous agendas and points of view. Clearly, the question of how to view motion capture is an important one, as it illustrates the difficulties of defining different forms of film in the digital age.

Motion capture occupies a unique and disputed place among film technologies. By capturing live movement as raw computer data, it exists as an unprecedented amalgam of both recorded and synthetic cinema. As such, motion capture is at the center of an ongoing debate about what constitutes animation in the digital age. Whereas it was once compared almost exclusively to animation and to techniques such as rotoscoping in particular, the medium has evolved into its own particular mode of expression. This has spurred an industry-wide race to redefine motion capture in which different factions of filmmakers—everyone from actors to visual effects artists, studios to labor unions—have attempted to claim the technology as their own. This essay examines how various groups within Hollywood have sought to control the conversation about motion capture as well as efforts by a prominent umbrella organization—the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences—to end the debate by scrutinizing its own definitions of animation.

Previous essays on motion capture have largely dealt with the theoretical problems it presents: issues of reality versus representation, media confluence, and the "uncanny valley" of photorealism.¹ Many of these same topics are being discussed within the film industry, only with the much more concrete goal of assigning creative and financial credit (or blame) for motion capture's successes (or failures). The major players involved—institutions including the Screen Actors Guild and the Walt Disney Company— recognize that the current debates over motion capture will have long-range professional ramifications. Furthermore, motion capture is an expensive technology, one that requires sizable investments of both funds and physical space. Hollywood's internal debate, therefore, is perhaps even more important than its academic counterpart, since industrial forces may ultimately decide whether motion capture will be canonized as animation, live action, or visual effect. Yet all these debates distract from another possibility, one advanced primarily by director/producer Robert Zemeckis: that motion capture represents a wholly new form of filmmaking, one that cannot and should not be limited by our previously held definitions of synthetic versus recorded cinema.² For Zemeckis, categorizing motion capture is by itself problematic and would potentially stifle a new art form in its infancy.

Figure 1.

Ratatouille takes a stand against motion capture during its end credits (Disney/Pixar, 2007).

Part 1: Animated Origins and Academy Rules

In addition to its end-credit caveat, the entirety of Ratatouille can be read as an extended critique of motion capture.³ The plot focuses on Remy, a rat who realizes his lifelong dream of becoming a French chef by using a surrogate human to cook meals for him...