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.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I don't see a difference between playing a performance capture role and a live action role, they're just characters to me at the end of the day and I'm an actor who wants to explore those characters in fantastically written scripts. The only caveat is a good story is a good character.
What's fantastic is that there's a real growing appreciation for performance-capture technology as a tool for acting.
Performance capture is a technology, not a genre; it's just another way of recording an actor's performance.
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.
I'd like to act in a film without special effects.
As soon as you do it, actors realize there is no difference playing a performance-captured role or a live-action role.
You never really know as an actor; it's completely out of your control, in terms of editing, and music, and film stock, shot selection, and what takes they use.
I can do a film only if it excites me as an actor.
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.
For me, I've never drawn a distinction between live-action acting and performance-capture acting. It is purely a technology.