Resurrecting Actors Digitally: The Risks and Controversies
In the long-running Alien movie franchise, the Weyland-Yutani Corporation can’t seem to let go of a terrible idea: It keeps trying to make a profit from the deadly xenomorph. No matter how many times they fail, and how many people die in the process, whenever the company stumbles on the familiar chest-bursting, acid-blooded alien, corporate executives can’t help themselves. They keep saying, “This time, we’re going to make it work.”
Sadly, as much as I liked “Alien: Romulus” (and I liked it a lot!), the new sequel (or “interquel”) can’t escape a terrible idea of its own: Hollywood’s fixation on using CGI to de-age or resurrect beloved actors. De-aging has been more common, as filmmakers try to simulate a younger Harrison Ford in “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny,” a younger Will Smith in “Gemini Man,” or a younger Robert De Niro and Al Pacino in “The Irishman.”
But effects have also been used to bring actors and characters back from the dead, like Peter Cushing’s Grand Moff Tarkin in “Rogue One.” “Alien: Romulus” tries to pull off a similar trick — while it doesn’t resurrect the exact same murderous android from the original “Alien,” it features an identical model, seemingly played by the same actor, Ian Holm, who died in 2020.
The filmmakers said they brought Holm’s likeness to the screen using animatronics and a performance from actor Daniel Betts, but there’s obvious CGI. Since replacing actors with digital simulacra was one of the hot-button issues in last year’s actors’ strike it’s no surprise that “Romulus” director Fede Álvarez recalled hearing similar comments during filming: “I remember someone saying, ‘This is it, they’re going to replace us as actors.’”
But to Álvarez, such fears are overblown. “‘Dude, if I hire you, it costs me the money of one person,’” he said “‘To make it this way, you have to hire literally 45 people. And you still have to hire an actor who does the performance!’” So from a bottom line perspective, working actors may not have much to worry about … yet. And there’s also this: Every example I’ve seen, including “Romulus,” looks awful.
I’m sure there are many talented visual effects artists trying to make this work, and I’m sure they’ve made some progress over the years. But no matter how close they’ve gotten to the real thing, I’ve never seen a de-aged actor or digital ghost that hasn’t been immediately obvious. Every single one of them makes me aware of their artificiality for every second they’re on screen.
“Romulus” provided a particularly stark demonstration. When the audience first glimpsed Holm’s new/old character Rook, his face was obscured — we only saw him from the back and the side, we heard a familiar, distorted voice, and it was creepy. Suggestion did all the work, no digital resurrection required (at least not visually). Then, unfortunately, the movie cut to his face — or rather, an uncanny valley recreation of same — and I immediately groaned in recognition. Rather than focusing on what was on the screen, my mind wandered, imagining some studio executive saying, “This time, we’re going to make it work.”
The Ethics of Digital Resurrection
One of the main controversies surrounding the use of CGI to resurrect actors is the ethical implications it raises. While some argue that it allows filmmakers to pay tribute to deceased actors and bring iconic characters back to life, others believe it crosses a line by manipulating the likeness of individuals who can no longer give their consent.
In the case of “Alien: Romulus,” the decision to digitally recreate Ian Holm’s likeness without his explicit permission has sparked debate among fans and industry professionals alike. Some view it as a fitting tribute to the late actor, while others question the morality of using someone’s image posthumously for commercial gain.
As technology continues to advance and the line between reality and simulation blurs, it becomes increasingly important to consider the ethical implications of digital resurrection. Should actors be able to control how their likeness is used after their passing? Is it fair to audiences to present a fabricated version of a beloved performer? These are questions that filmmakers and studios must grapple with as they navigate the complex landscape of digital effects.
The Future of CGI in Filmmaking
Despite the controversies and criticisms surrounding the use of CGI to resurrect actors, it’s clear that the technology is here to stay. As Hollywood continues to push the boundaries of visual effects, we can expect to see more instances of digital manipulation in the years to come.
While some may argue that CGI detracts from the authenticity of a film and can be distracting to audiences, others see it as a powerful tool for storytelling and creativity. By leveraging digital effects, filmmakers are able to bring fantastical worlds to life, create larger-than-life characters, and push the boundaries of what is possible on screen.
As technology evolves and visual effects become more sophisticated, the possibilities for CGI in filmmaking are endless. From de-aging actors to resurrecting the dead, the future of digital effects is full of exciting potential. It remains to be seen how filmmakers will continue to innovate and push the boundaries of what is possible with CGI in the years to come.
The Impact on the Film Industry
The use of CGI to resurrect actors has far-reaching implications for the film industry as a whole. While some may argue that it allows filmmakers to create new stories and pay homage to iconic characters, others worry about the impact it may have on the art of acting and the livelihood of working performers.
As technology continues to advance, the line between reality and simulation becomes increasingly blurred. With the ability to recreate actors’ likenesses and performances digitally, there is a concern that traditional acting roles may be diminished or replaced by computer-generated alternatives.
Furthermore, the use of CGI to resurrect actors raises questions about the value of authenticity and the ethics of manipulating someone’s likeness without their consent. As the film industry grapples with these complex issues, it will be important for filmmakers, actors, and audiences to engage in open dialogue about the implications of digital resurrection and its impact on the future of storytelling.
