The character IS the performance

Earlier this summer I complained about creature design in which the creature plays a type [link]. To elaborate on this thought, I think we need to distinguish between 'animation' and 'effects.' In animation, the creature design IS part of the performance. The look, the features, the outfit, the postures, are all a part of the character's performance. The problem with effects, then, is when animation performance paradigms are misapplied to "realistic" scenes and shots. This is what gives so many blockbuster films that cartoony look. A realistic scene might call for a realistic character—one that does not depend on its design for its performance. And yet, it frequently gets a cartoon.

Speech/action incongruity

Last December I wrote about a problematic scene in The Spirit--the part where a young Denny Colt and Sand Seref are accosted by reporters. The problem is that even though Denny tells the reporters to get away he stands there waiting to be accosted. There is no emotional reality to the scene because the speech and action are incongruous.

This past year I saw two student projects that had the exact same problem. There was dramatic dialogue--people arguing and being accosted, yet the actors just sat there like puppets. I think this is another aspect of the performer-objectification problem. The performer becomes an object whose purpose exists to serve up dialogue, a puppet to be manipulated by the artist-director. The character works outside-in vs inside out and has no life of its own.