Yeah the definition of animation is certainly an interesting one. The film to me has an animated feel to it. I think in the future perhaps the definition of animation may have to change and it is likely to become more subjective than technical. And likely there’d have to be a third category of film, a digital film, which could not be recognized - subjectively - as animation but also would not be technically live action, but if you did not know, you would think it was. We are not there yet. But at some point in the future that may come about. So I see it evolving in that way, where the techniques merge and become less the point and the intent or style - which could be largely subjective and difficult to pin down - would be then the determining factor.
As it is now, animation in the traditional sense, is a guy pulling the strings and making it work. But I see this definition as having to change, and it will over time. After all it was not too long ago that digital 3D animation was not really considered animation in the traditional sense because you were not drawing the tweens, rather letting the computer do so. In time of course it became clear that there was still a great skill, the same as in traditional animation, to bring this off. It is just a symptom of unfamiliarity with the technology. Mocap is of course a stretch from traditional animation and is more like rotoscoping. But I think it is in the intent of the final product. The actor after all would become the animator in this case, acting for an animation rather than for realistic live action. And still even with mocap you have to animate much of various action sequences that are not practical to do in a studio.
So in my opinion it should eventually be the final outcome that determines the category not the technology. Because technology will always be changing.