Raised From The Dead: The Ethics of Using CGI on Deceased Actors in Film
Introduction
Over the span of a few decades, technology has seen advancements that have had profound impacts on the world. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the film industry with the rise of computer-generated imagery (CGI). Movies that once relied on practical effects to create complex visuals now utilize CGI to create new avenues of storytelling that have garnered wonder and amazement from audiences worldwide. This new avenue of storytelling gained prominence with the release of science-fiction flicks like, “Tron (Steven Lisberger, 1982), The Last Starfighter (Nick Castle, 1984), The Abyss, and Terminator 2” (Pierson, 1999, p. 166). Later years continued to push the bounds of what computer-generated imagery was capable of, and many films have been successful in reaping the benefits of using this new visual imagery, such as Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park in 1993.
The use of special effects today has increasingly become more nuanced that even the smallest details of movies may have been added in post-production (like the addition of trees or clouds in the backdrop of a frame). The utilization of CGI has also become more controversial when it involves using visual effects on actors. Practices of de-ageing—which has been recently done by Marvel Studios such as Michael Douglas in Ant-Man—are not as controversial because they de-age actors that are currently alive and the actors give their consent for their performance to be manipulated. However, technological advancements in CGI have led to the ethical issue of digitally resurrecting dead actors to reprise their role in future movies. One of the most recent examples of this occurred in 2016 with Gareth Edwards’ Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, when they brought back Peter Cushing (who died in 1994) to reprise his role of Grand Moff Tarkin. This raises the bar for what film studios are capable of accomplishing through CGI, but the issues of maintaining privacy and respect for using deceased actors remains to be critical topic to be examined. While film producers can obtain authorization to use late actors in their films by gaining the permission of the respective actors’ estate, the use of CGI to digitally resurrect deceased actors is unethical because these actors do not have the ability to consent to being placed into future films.
The Implications of Using CGI to Digitally Resurrect Actors
There are several issues that can arise from using computer-generated imagery to create the visual representation of an actor that is not physically there. One of the biggest hurdles to cross when taking on the challenge of producing something that resembles the features of a human is the uncanny valley. The term credits its origins to Masahiro Mori’s (1970) graph depicting that as something increases in human likeness, individuals increasingly become more familiar with it, however, there comes a point when something can become too human to the point where our familiarity with the object drops significantly and we feel a sense of eeriness from it.
The complexity that comes with recreating human actors in film undoubtedly has its risks of falling into this territory. In the instances where the technology and techniques fall short in convincing audiences of its realism, “the uncanny valley now provides a problem for animators of virtual actors that are designed to replace the deceased” (Sherlock, 2013, p. 171). This problem will only become more pronounced as increasingly better technologies become available to digital effects artists, but it will still require an immense amount of skill to accomplish as CGI human replacement becomes more viable. Various research on the uncanny valley point to what could cause such discomfort among audience members. In a study conducted by researchers showcasing different CGI human models, they found that “distorting facial proportions causes more detailed faces to be rated eeriest” (MacDorman, Green, Ho & Koch, 2014). These findings underscore the importance for digital effects artists to place significant attention to find the right proportions for computer-generated humans. Small deviations in the facial proportions of digital actors may find themselves trying to climb out the valley of other failed digital effect attempts.
The danger of falling into uncanny valley also presents an additional issue for filmmakers to consider when taking on the challenge of bringing back an actor from the dead. Because of the fine line that digital effects artists must walk on in order to convince audiences that the actor is physically there and performing, perfecting the slight nuances that accompany the actor’s performance becomes a crucial part in creating a realistic embodiment of the person. In order to do this, major film studios will try to search for the actor that matches the build of the role that was once played by the original actor. For Peter Cushing’s performance in Rogue One, the filmmakers chose Guy Henry, “whose long, lean frame and physiognomy bear a resemblance to Cushing’s” (Giardina, 2016, pg. 6). And while the build of the original actor provides the foundation on which to do CGI magic on, the challenge of looking back and referencing previous performances to gather as much information as possible to create a credible and realistic performance can be extremely difficult to overcome. This places immense pressure on the digital effects artists to bring justice to the original actor’s performance, and a failure to do so may lead audience members to question whether it was necessary for the film to include the deceased actor in the first place.
In the cases where the attempt to recreate the actor’s performance falls short of suspending the disbelief in audiences—landing itself in uncanny valley—raises concerns on if the CGI attempt honors and respects the legacy of the performer’s acting career. This raises the question if filmmakers are willing to take on the responsibility and risk of trying to maintain the legacy of the actor’s acting career. Given the chance that the film is released to bad reviews from both critics and audiences, it would be unlikely that the actor, if they were still alive, would want to have the film on their portfolio. What’s even more important for filmmakers to consider, however, is if the actor would even agree to be involved in the film in the first place which is difficult to assume. For film productions that have had their main actors die during the middle shooting the film, this reasoning of the actor consenting to letting filmmakers use their likeness becomes clearer. When Paul Walker passed away during the middle of shooting Fast and Furious 7, the filmmakers made the decision to finish off the rest of his performance using CGI because he had completed such a substantial portion of the movie, and it wouldn’t make sense to shelf the movie entirely or burden the screen writers to rewrite a substantial portion of the script. This choice made by the filmmakers resulted in a touching tribute that sent Paul Walker’s character off meaningfully for fans of the franchise, while also managing to avoid falling into uncanny valley.
Kant’s Formula of Humanity
In order to examine the ethicality of using visual effects to resurrect actors, it’s important to first understand Kant’s moral theory. Kant’s work in the field of ethics looks at two notions that are pointed out by Manning and Stroud (2008) as having respect for other people, and the intentions behind our actions should be right (p. 49). These two notions lay the groundwork for what Kant argues to be moral. In Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he describes that there are moral laws that are both universal and necessary, and what guides the actions of individuals should be based on categorical imperatives (1785, p. 88). Kant further elaborates on the categorical imperative by providing formulas that individuals should abide by. Within these formulas, Kant examines the intention behind the actions of people when the make choices. If someone’s intention behind an action fails to be universal and necessary, then the maxim that the person is abiding by would contradict moral law, and would be deemed unethical under Kant’s moral theory.
For the purposes of this paper, the ethical issue will be examined under Kant’s Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself (FHE). Kant’s Formula of Humanity states, “So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only.” (p. 94). The basis for FHE relies on the notion that humanity is an end in itself. This moral groundwork also posits that humanity in itself is valuable (Kant, 1785, p. 93-94). FHE also considers two conditions that must be met in order to uphold the formula. The first condition requires that individuals must be autonomous to choose, meaning that we should have free will to make decisions without any person imposing control over us. The next condition that must be satisfied is that individuals must be well informed. Failure to satisfy one or both of the conditions would result in the intentions of the person taking advantage of others to be immoral. Kant offers support to his notion of FHE using the example of a “false promise”, which happens when an individual lies to someone else and they rob the other person of the opportunity to be well informed. (1785, p. 94) The person that is taken advantage of is ultimately treated as a mere mean and is stripped of their value. Therefore, false promises cannot become moral law because people would be treated as mere means, which contradicts Kant’s Formula for Humanity.
Application of FHE to Digital Resurrection
The use of CGI on actors through various methods has increasingly become more commonplace in many mainstream movies today and will continue to do so in the future as computer’s become more powerful. Due to this increasing trend that is taking place in the film industry, examining the ethical issue pertaining to using such technology on actors that have already died is an important topic to discuss. For filmmaker’s producing films today and given the choice to digitally place deceased actors in their films, I’d argue that one should assess their intention behind why they should place the actor in the film. Are these actors absolutely needed to drive the story forward? Will their absence hinder the film or their characters? Are there financial motivations behind placing these actors in the film? These are some of the questions that filmmakers should ask themselves before committing to their choices.
Kant primarily looks at the intention behind an individual’s actions, and this internal motivation is the compass that guides human’s from doing right and wrong. For filmmakers that are wanting to utilize CGI to place a long-time deceased actor back into their future films, the intention behind pursuing this decision is what Kant’s moral theory examines. Nelson points out that intentions could be thought of as, “setting an end as adopting an intention, and, for Kant, forming an intention involves adopting a maxim” (2008, p. 94). The maxim that is adopted by filmmakers therefore, is subject to examination. These maxims can vary depending on the motivations behind why filmmakers choose to include deceased actors in their films. Some filmmakers may choose to do this because they want to pay homage to the actor, and the motivation behind this action is well intentioned. If filmmakers adopted this as their maxim, it’d be more justifiable if filmmakers wanted to bring back a late actor. On the other hand, some motivations could be ill-intentioned. For instance, if a filmmaker lived by the maxim that stated, “Digitally resurrecting deceased actors is okay if there is going to be financial gain from it”, then this could be problematic because the maxim cannot be carried out as either necessary or universal. Not everyone would want their likeness to be shown onscreen for the benefit of filling up somebody else’s wallet while they are kicking it in the casket. Filmmakers may also use dead actors in their film to create a sense of nostalgia among the viewers, or to create media buzz around the reintroduction of a dead actor—which could again tie back into the filmmaker potentially looking to financially profit from including the individual in the movie. The challenge remains, however, in trying to identify what the intentions were behind the filmmaker’s decision to bring actors back from the grave.
The choice given to filmmakers to include digitally resurrected actors into future films also conflicts with Kant’s two conditions that are needed to uphold FHE. There are ways to get past this issue, but only under certain circumstances. As previously mentioned, the death of Paul Walker in the Fast and Furious franchise occurred halfway throughout the film’s production. In this circumstance, Paul Walker was fully informed of his role in the film, and he was fully autonomous in having the choice to reprise his role in the seventh film. However, upon his death, the use of CGI to bring him back could be justified because he was working on the project while he was alive, and the two conditions that are set forth in FHE were upheld, even if this moral theory extended past his untimely death. The capabilities of CGI are evident now, so solutions to the ethics of using an actor’s likeness in future films could be determined through contracts that give film studios and actors the ability to negotiate terms in the event of their death. As morbid as that sounds, this seems to be the growing trend as the techniques to digitally replace deceased actors continually improves. If actors are interested in preserving their image for use in future films, contracts can be drafted in order to let the actor control how their image could be used and how the proceeds will be distributed as the film earns revenue. This upholds FHE since the individual is able to freely choose to accept the conditions set forth in the contract, and they will undoubtedly be well-informed by reading and signing off on the contract.
In scenarios where the actor has been dead for a long time—which may very well be the case in the future as CGI continues to improve—how are they supposed to be well-informed and autonomous to make the choice if there is no possible way to do so? Actors that are unable to personally sign off on giving the right for film studios to use their image in future films, due in part because the technology wasn’t realized at the time, becomes problematic from a Kantian standpoint since these actors have no way to consent for their image to be used. Instead, this approval for giving the right to use the actor’s likeness are left in the hands of the actor’s family, and additional problems could arise from this shift in the actor’s rights. The family of the deceased actor could easily abuse this power and give film studios the right to use the actor’s likeness if it means they will make a quick buck. From a Kantian perspective, this is not able to uphold FHE since the deceased actor has no way of autonomously choosing, and they do not have the information available to consent to giving the right of their image away to filmmakers looking to place them in their movie.
Some might object that the death of an individual means that they no longer have the value or rationality that Kant describes humanity to hold in his moral theory, and as a result, the formula would not apply to these deceased individuals, but film studios now explicitly bring the individual back using CGI effects, giving the impression to viewers that the actor is still alive. The notion that they are keeping the idea of the person alive should at least merit the individual to maintain their value because they are still being used, albeit digitally. It also might seem that the action filmmakers take to bring back a deceased actor could be justified when taking a utilitarian approach because the vast majority of people wouldn’t mind, and to an extent, enjoy seeing technology being used to bring back dead actors. This argument assumes that viewers will amass a large amount of pleasure from seeing late actors, but this might not always be the case. Many viewers may not realize or have a trained enough eye to appreciate the technology in action, and some may not even realize that the actor had passed away. For those that recognize the entire performance of the actor was created using CGI, while it’s true that many would appreciate the effort put into recreating the actor, others may feel that the performance was too uncanny, which may cause pain amongst disgruntled audience members.
Conclusion
With the rise of CGI techniques continuing to be refined through the growing power embedded within technology, the ethical issue of using this power to digitally resurrect long-time deceased actors currently continues to be a hotly debated topic as filmmakers take daring risks to utilize this new vehicle to tell stories through film. Whether this is received well among audiences and critics depends on if visual effects artists are able to convincingly capture the essence of the actor. Failing to do so could land these CGI attempts in uncanny valley and inadvertently harm the deceased individual’s acting career. By using Kant’s Formula for Humanity as an End in Itself (FHE), the intentions behind why filmmakers may choose to include actors in their movies becomes a key examination point. If the filmmaker has ill-intentions towards using the actor’s image, such as for financial reasons, this is problematic under Kant’s moral theory because the deceased individual is being used as a mean, rather as an end. As the ethical issue of digital resurrection in film continues to evolve, many future actors may expect to be signing contracts that sign away their image in the event of their death. With the rise of CGI on humans becoming more commonplace within the film industry, the introduction of deceased actors from the past could bring about a new era to cinema—an era where actors can truly live forever and tell stories, while filling the pockets of the living.