Since, as near as I know, I've never had an original thought I looked this up. Yeah, that's still right. I was thinking about computer generated images and movies. I love old movies and old television shows and sometimes I'm struck by the fact that everyone involved with whatever movie or episode I'm watching has been dead for years. I'm also struck sometimes by the crispness and wit and apt commentary of something from 70 years ago. Watch "Bringing Up Baby". It's as funny now as it was 79 years ago when it was made. Grant is engaging and Hepburn is beautiful. The "willful suspension of disbelief" is easily realized. ( Oh, look it up. I can't do everything for you. There'll be a quiz later.)
About the time "Toy Story" came out there was also a commercial that featured a superimposition of Louis Armstrong in a modern setting. Coca Cola, I think. It was cool. That got me to thinking that eventually it would be possible to create completely realistic appearing movies starring any personality from the past. Just imagine. There could be new Bogart movies or Cagney or Becall and so on. Shortly after that there was a movie I can't find the name of that was about a VR/CGI creation of a movie starlet/ sex symbol which made me think, 'Oh, someone had that idea.' That kind of thing never discourages me. It means I'm on the right track, just a later train. It could also mean; a day late and a dollar short but my glass is always half full. How's that for stringing together metaphors? But I digress.
Now, Lucasfilm has taken the first step in that direction. In the "Rogue One" entry in the Star Wars franchise they have Peter Cushing in his original role as Grand Moff Tarkin and Carrie Fisher makes a brief appearance. Cushing has been dead since 1994 and, of course, Carrie Fisher passed away last year.
That kicked off a critical debate centering on morality, the ghoulish nature of the appearances and the preservation of the performer's integrity to craft. I take that to mean the thousands of choices an actor makes in bringing a character to life from the written page: facial expression, intonation and body language. I don't know how germaine this is but when I read Dashiell Hammett. I was impressed the mannerism and speech patterns that are quintessentially Bogart are actually Bogart's faithful rendition of Hammett's description of Sam Spade. The same is true of W C Fields. He spent his entire career portraying Mr Micawber from David Copperfield.
Now, what of morality? In this case the estates of Cushing and Fisher were brought on board and compensated. A: You'd never get away with just highjacking a person's likeness. There are a lot of performers who make far more dead they they ever did alive and management of their estates is a legitimate business enterprise. The sale of a portion of Elvis Presley's estate certainly comes to mind. In other words, it's been addressed and settled. There doesn't seem to be a "B:".
What about the ghoulish nature? It isn't any different than watching first "Charade" made in 1963 and then watching "Bringing Up Baby" made in 1938. Grant is obviously 25 years older, just as entertaining and the guy has been dead, at present, for over 30 years. What, exactly is the difference between the two Grant characters and a Grand Moff ( whatever the hell that is) in a galaxy long ago and far away? The key similarity all these examples share is the "wilful suspension of disbelief. ( Told ya to look it up.) They are all works of art and totally dependent on the emotional response of the viewer. All entertainment is just the manipulation and juxtaposition of symbols. The performing arts are all dependent on the collaboration of several artists and craft people working together. The success or failure of an artist's performance is totally dependent on every one of those collaborators doing a good job. How the CGI performance of a well known person comes off will still be dependent on the performance of the collaborators. The artificial creation has no control but exactly how much control does a film performer have any way?
So, what does this mean? It means: I think because a thing can be done it usually is done and I'm looking forward to it being done and the continuation of the debate it will create. And a new Bogart movie could be pretty cool.
No comments:
Post a Comment