ALIEN: ROMULUS Resurrects the Discussion of Ethics in Using Actors’ Likenesses

by

As a film critic with over two decades of experience under my belt, I must say that I find myself deeply troubled by the decision to digitally recreate deceased actors for new roles in movies. It’s not just a question of morality; it’s a question of respect for the art and the artists involved.

Regrettably, we find ourselves in an era dominated by “legacy” sequels/prequels – essentially modern adaptations of classic film franchises that are no longer new. These productions aim to cash in on nostalgia among certain age groups by replicating familiar visuals and even entire narratives. The movie Alien: Romulus, for instance, encapsulates both the strengths and weaknesses of this style of filmmaking. It employs traditional effects and a 1979-inspired ambiance, yet it also uses problematic digital recreations of deceased actors.

In recent years, I’ve noticed that new chapters in my favorite franchises often unfold within the timeline of previous ones. This means that characters who were once integral to the story, but are now deceased, are still needed. For instance, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story from 2016 was set just before A New Hope (1977), and Grand Moff Tarkin should have been around. Unfortunately, Peter Cushing, the remarkable actor who brought Tarkin to life in A New Hope, passed away in 1994. To fill these shoes, Guy Henry, an actor who bears a striking resemblance to Cushing, portrayed Tarkin in Rogue One. Instead of heavy makeup or purely mimicking his performance, the production team opted for a digitally recreated likeness of Cushing’s face.

Reflecting on the situation, it stirred quite a buzz, with many questioning the ethics given that the actor had passed away more than two decades ago, making it impossible for him to grant consent for his image to be used in such a manner. Lucasfilm secured approval from the Cushing estate and compensated them for his likeness, but the project faced criticism for seemingly resurrecting a digital version of the deceased.

After that point, Lucasfilm has frequently employed such techniques, primarily digital de-aging instead of complete digital undead creations. Notably, Luke Skywalker in “The Mandalorian” and Indiana Jones in “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” are more recent examples. However, due to the unfortunate death of Carrie Fisher, J.J. Abrams had to incorporate some creative methods for “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker”, utilizing genuine footage from the actress.

In these cases, the ethical concerns often didn’t arise since the actors either agreed, were already involved, or had scenes previously recorded for adaptation. However, a significant point of contention during the 2023 Screen Actors Guild strike was the use of artists’ likenesses indefinitely by studios through AI or similar technologies. This debate will remain pertinent as technology advances further. While some speculate that generative A.I. may decline, digital face replication continues to progress significantly.

Indeed, this leads us to the main tale: Ian Holm, in his role, played the enigmatic android named Ash in Ridley Scott’s initial Alien. As the plot unfolds, we discover that Ash is a creation of the money-hungry Weyland-Yutani corporation. Among the many impressive characters in the film, Ash stands out. Holm delivered a captivating portrayal, blending elements of eerie, intellectual, and manipulative qualities.

As a gamer, I’ve found myself immersed in the evolving saga where creators like Weyland Yutani crafted various synthetic humans. These “models” were designed to resemble ordinary people. Lance Henriksen played Bishop, a character I encountered in Aliens, and a more sinister version of him in Alien 3. Fast forward, in Ridley Scott’s prequels, Michael Fassbender stepped into the roles of both the malicious android David and the benign android Walter – two distinct versions of the same android model.

In this scenario, director and co-writer Fede Alvarez of the film “Alien: Romulus” found it appropriate to incorporate an Ash-model android character due to the movie being set 20 years after the original “Alien,” despite the fact that actor Yul Brynner (Holm), who played Ash, passed away in 2020. However, Holm’s estate granted permission and was compensated, yet the issue arises concerning ethical considerations.

Alvarez, speaking to Variety, said the following:

Álvarez emphasizes that he and Ridley conceived a concept where the character resembles Ian Holm, not being identical to him or even his iconic role as Ash. They wouldn’t dare try to recreate such a performance using technology, as it cannot mimic an actor’s talent and the subtle choices they make during their performance. Instead, they created a new character who bears a similar appearance to Ian Holm’s likeness.

In the film, the protagonists come across the damaged android Rook after a xenomorph invasion overtakes the space station. Once the humans connect his upper body, Rook provides them with essential backstory and serves as an unofficial adversary during the midpoint of the movie.

Respectfully speaking, I have to disagree with your argument, Fede Alvarez and Ridley Scott. The reasoning seems illogical. Ash is portrayed by Ian Holm because he played the character, not vice versa. If you’re trying to capitalize on Ash’s reputation for this new android, it inherently ties to Ian Holm’s fame. Daniel Betts performed as Rook, but his actions and voice were heavily influenced by Ian Holm, creating a realistic yet unsettling resemblance. It’s a fine line between detailing differences and splitting hairs, which can be risky.

As a gaming enthusiast, I totally understand the desire to pay tribute, but it’s clear that the android’s likeness to Ian Holm was primarily due to nostalgia baiting. It was all about triggering a response from fans familiar with the franchise, who would react with the iconic Leonardo DiCaprio pointing GIF meme. However, the artistic merits of the movie are significantly overshadowed by the disconcerting repetition of this tactic, which has disturbing implications for the future of creative freedom.

The concept of digitally resurrecting actors for film roles has roots as deep as the 2004 movie “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow,” where Sir Laurence Olivier’s face was digitally recreated to portray the villain. Hom, in this context, is just the most recent actor whose career extends beyond their physical life. This practice not only diminishes the value of an actor’s work by reducing them to a digital marionette, but also disrespects the artist who brings the character to life beneath the visual effects.

In terms of recapturing the filmmaking style from 1979, the movie “Alien: Romulus” fanned the flames of a contemporary debate in 2024.

Kyle Anderson, a seasoned editor at TopMob, manages the weekly exploration of pop culture through the Laser Focus podcast. His insights into films and television are available for reading here. Keep up with him on Instagram and Letterboxd.

Read More

2024-08-20 17:33