There’s something about the use of Hollywood celebrity, and in particular celebrities’ voices, in animated features that bugs me. A recent Detroit News article by film critic Tom Long started me thinking about how much the star power of voice talent is relied upon to sell tickets these days.
The poster for the original Shrek comes to mind, with its shameless push to attract moviegoers by namedropping, in massive all-caps, the big stars behind the voices. MYERS! MURPHY! DIAZ! LITHGOW! ENOUGH! I understand that studios want to sell their films and push as hard as possible, and stars might not commit to a picture if they don’t get prominent billing. And sure, talented actors who turn out a great voice performance bring a lot to a character and deserve recognition. But there seems to be some confusion (or perhaps just blatant commercialism) about the intersection between the animated character and the star performer.
In live action films I sometimes find it hard to watch a big star play a dramatic role because of their tabloid notoriety and celebrity status, or sometimes because the movie has been sold, primarily, as a showcase for a star. Ultimately, it’s the star who delivers the performance you see on screen, and they deserve their name on the poster. But in animation, somehow I feel like it’s less necessary, or maybe even damaging. I don’t mean to deprive voice actors of the credit they deserve - Robin Williams made the Genie, and Tom Hanks and Tim Allen brought their respective animated alter egos to life - but it seems to me that the animation medium represents an exciting opportunity to create characters that have never been seen or heard before.
Be it a bug, an ogre, a toy or a genie, there’s something exciting about the magic of seeing life breathed into a previously unimagined character. I think it’s the unique power of animation to make us believe things that in any other medium of art or filmmaking we would not find convincing. And I think that’s why animation pitched and promoted on the basis of human celebrity involvement seems so counterproductive. I watch Shrek and I want to laugh along and feel involved in the story. I take a bite from my choc-top and settle into my seat, but no sooner have the animated characters opened their mouths and started to talk, I hear voices! And they’re not of an ogre, or a princess, or even a donkey. It’s MYERS! And DIAZ! And MURPHY! And suddenly the characters become actors, and I just don’t care as much about the story being told.
You should be a NY cinema-journalist Neal.. I think my favourite moment was when Leonardo DiCaprio copyrighted his name.. or Tom Hanks refusing a Toy Story 2 doll be made in his image (why would they want to do that anyway??)… it seems the worse the animation gets the more you realise who’s doing the voice acting… the more famous they have to make those noticable voices.. or else?
Personally I wish I could erase ‘hoodwinked’ from history… and don’t understand why any actor/actress worth 2 cents would put their name on that piece of filthy **** 
Writing about film is fun, but I think it comes mainly from my pent up desire to make films!
They wanted to make a Toy Story doll that looked like Tom Hanks? That’s the most insane thing I’ve ever heard! Yeah, I think you’re right though, especially with films like Hoodwinked - they use big name actors to gloss over the crappiness of the animation, story etc… and the cheaper and more commercial the films get, the more they rely on that kind of gimmick. Sad!
Discussion