Olson: Think twice before casting deceased legends in new films
 No comments posted.
By MELISSA OLSON
For the Herald
Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:30 PM CDT
Way back in 1994, audiences were charmed by the moving story of Forrest Gump. That movie had a lot of great qualities, but one of the coolest was the way that director Robert Zemekis was able to digitally insert the modern actor Tom Hanks, as Forrest, into actual historical footage of JFK, Dick Clark, John Lennon, and so on. At the time, viewers were astonished by this nifty trick, not realizing that 15 years later it would seem like child’s play.
Last Tuesday in New York, a digital graphics company called Advanced Micro Devices proudly announced that thanks to new technologies in animation, soon filmmakers will be able to make new, full-length movies starring deceased actors. This technology has been coming for awhile — pioneers like Zemekis and George Lucas have been getting closer and closer for years, and their progress has turned up in movies like “Revenge of the Sith” and “The Polar Express.”
But Advanced Micro Devices’ announcement that they can now make a brand-new movie starring deceased legend Marlon Brando is the first definite confirmation that this is the direction of film technology development.
The creative potential with this new tool is undeniably enormous — we could have a new Superman movie starring Christopher Reeve, or cast Audrey Hepburn in a new romantic comedy opposite Hugh Grant, who could be 10 years younger. Steven Spielberg could finally work with favorite actor Spencer Tracy, and maybe throw in Katharine Hepburn, too, just for fun. Or, with the astounding success of “The Dark Knight,” Warner Bros could theoretically release a new Batman sequel with Heath Ledger reprising his role as the Joker.
And there it is: when you start talking about recent tragedies and familiar faces, suddenly this new technology is not so simple, is it? We may have figured out how to digitally insert a dead actor into new movies, but even as this Pandora’s box is opening, we’ve gotten no closer to determining the ethics of this new power.
I am reminded, somewhat ironically, of a line from “Jurassic Park,” another film that was incredibly technologically innovative upon its release. While discussing the science of recreating dinosaurs, Goldblum’s character says, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
That is the moment, the knife edge, where film technology is currently poised. It’s easy to get breathlessly caught up in the unlimited possibilities of such technology, but how would it actually affect film as an art form?
My fear is that there is an enormous oversight being made here by filmmakers: the incredible value of acting. In the U.S., where movies are so often all about spectacle, we tend to make fun of acting quite a bit. We see it as a physical endeavor, running around playing with guns and pacing back and forth in front of a jury, but the truth is that acting is, and always has been, an art form all its own.
All actors, but especially great actors like Marlon Brando, Spencer Tracy, and the other names being thrown about for this new technology, do something that really isn’t that easy: they interpret.
They take a character, a full-fledged person, pluck them off a page, and climb into their skin. It sounds easy, and maybe for some roles it is, but all the truly great parts in the history of cinema are legendary because of the way an actor choose to play them.
What would Marlon Brando’s Don Corleone have been without his cotton-in-the-cheeks enunciation and sad, ruthless eyes? How could anyone but Humphrey Bogart have given Casablanca’s Rick such toughness and vulnerability? These aren’t just cases of great casting, folks, they’re great art performed by an artist.
There’s a reason why people are talking about Heath Ledger getting an Academy Award for playing the Joker, and it isn’t because we’re all sad that he’s gone. It’s because he is absolutely, unforgettably brilliant in that role.
Now, try to imagine for a moment what this new technology would be like. Sure, they can create a fake Marlon Brando, and cast him in a new movie, but who is going to know exactly how the real Marlon Brando would play the part? What team of film technicians could possibly tell the world exactly what a long-dead actor from another time would do — and I mean every nuanced expression, every meaningful gesture, and every method emotion?
Creating a fake Brando — or any other deceased actor — is a mistake: a huge, tragic mistake that could have far-reaching side effects in the world of film. It asks that our greatest artistic heroes from the last century be pulled from their graves to trot and play for us like puppets.
Yes, it would be incredible to see James Dean guest star on the new “90210,” or Lucille Ball try to out-pratfall Sandra Bullock, but it’s not worth the price of the compromise.
It wouldn’t be James Dean, it would be the two-dimensional, physical shell of Dean mechanically going through motions programmed by a technician. And that’s kind of creepy, and definitely not good.
Fifteen years later, I have a lot of nostalgia for “Forrest Gump,” not because they don’t make ’em like they used to, but because suddenly, frighteningly, they can make them so much better.
New technology isn’t necessarily a good idea just because it’s new. How about, instead of resurrecting our deceased film legends, we just focus on finding and nurturing some new ones?
A Chippewa Falls native, Melissa Olson graduated from the University of Southern California with a degree in film. She works in Madison for the television program Discover Wisconsin. Visit her online at www.melissaolson.net.
|
Archives