Avatar has inspired much debate along multiple fronts. One of them is the issue of the performance-capture technology employed by director James Cameron in bringing the alien Na’vi to life. Is it really the future of filmmaking, as Cameron would have you believe? The following are two arguments that use Zoe Saldana and her character Neytiri as centerpieces.

On one side, here’s noted film historian Mark Harris, in a piece he wrote for Entertainment Weekly:

…a computer can’t pick up every nuance of an actor’s work, because great performances have nuances that are ineffable and unquantifiable, not to mention vulnerable to eradication with one thoughtless flick of a digital paintbrush. 100 percent? Not even close. Zoe Saldana may be a fine actress, but I don’t feel that her work in Avatar can fairly be labeled an onscreen performance. What I saw was a CG character created in very large part by an army of technicians; to me (and I know many disagree), Neytiri is a superb visual effect enhanced by an actor, not a performance enhanced by F/X.

And who better to argue the opposite side than Cameron himself? Here’s a video he screened for a bunch of actors that specifically addresses the issue, showing lots of behind-the-scenes footage.

While I was less than impressed with Avatar as a movie overall, I did enjoy the astounding special effects in general and the creation of the Na’vi in particular. I can understand why some people want Saldana nominated for Best Actress; once I got used to the sight of the Na’vi, I believed her character and I thought she did a very good job at selling it. That said, I think Harris’ argument comes from a different place than Cameron is coming from.

Harris states that performance-capture is a poor substitute for genuine human nuance, subtlety and spontaneity, citing recent films like Precious, Julie & Julia and Crazy Heart as examples. Thing is, though, Cameron has never made movies like those before and likely never will. I believe (I hope) that when he talks about performance-capture as the future of film, he’s probably thinking about films like his – big action/adventure movies with a heavy reliance on special effects (even Titanic, a three-hour drama, required massive amounts of CGI to recreate the sinking of the titular ship). Cameron, according to Harris, sites Will Smith as an example of  an actor who could benefit from the technology even when he’s old and gray, but Smith is someone who made his reputation on action movies (though, of course, that’s not all he does).

Flesh and blood characters should not be replaced with computer-generated ones. (And for that matter, “real-world” films like Up in the Air or The Hangover or An Education would not be greatly improved with the addition of 3D technology.) However, what I saw in Avatar, in terms of acting with the performance-capture tech, was convincing enough for me. Yes, it’s possible, even likely, that Cameron made changes that didn’t jibe with the actors’ actual performances 100%, but he may be the only one who knows for sure.

Given the kinds of movies Cameron makes, I doubt he had anything other than popcorn blockbuster action and high-concept sci-fi films in mind with this technology. However, given Hollywood’s tendency to copy what succeeds ad nauseum, it’s entirely possible that performance-capture could spread beyond action films someday. Avatar is indisputably a film in which the technology served the story, not the other way around. I would hate to see performance-capture turned into a gimmick used to artificially enhance mediocre stories, and I suspect that’s Harris’ fear as well. Hopefully, future filmmakers eager to use this technology will learn from Cameron and Robert Zemeckis and Peter Jackson how to be judicious with it.