Moral dilemma: stuntmen vs CGI
David Cairns over at Shadowplay asks a fascinating question:
There’s a moral question here — should Spielberg have stuntmen do dangerous stuff when he could fake it all up? Recently there have been serious accidents on the new Bond and BATMAN films. Personally, I can’t look in real life if somebody does something dangerous, so I’d be rubbish at this kind of cinema. And yet I love Keaton and admire classic Jackie Chan and quite a few older action films. I think doing it for real is aesthetically preferable in every way, but perhaps not morally. We remember what happened on Spielberg’s production of TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE, after all. How common are serious accidents? I don’t know, but when Paul Verhoeven needed amputee stuntmen for STARSHIP TROOPERS, he had no trouble finding them. Lots of them.
When computer graphics can provide the same kind of results, is risking the lives and limbs of stuntmen morally justifiable?
Well, it’s up to the stuntmen isn’t it? They’ll do a benefit/cost analysis and decide if they want to do the job at the given price.
bugrit
June 3, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Some of them might be forced into it due to debts or whatnot. What about that aspect of things?
Elver
June 3, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Well, if they’re so desperate, it’d be cruel to take away their job and give them to CG artists, wouldn’t it?
bugrit
June 4, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Couldn’t the same argument be used to justify the exploitation of cheap labor in 3rd world countries?
Elver
June 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Indeed it could. It works on almost anything! Except the CG artists part. They probably wouldn’t like sewing clothes and peeling peanuts. I guess you could replace the CG artists with machines.
Do note, however, that it’s not really the same to keep a risky but well-paid job as to pay really low wages just because workers don’t have any alternatives, especially when when you actually could pay better.
bugrit
June 5, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Bring on Stuntmen anyday. Least we can all WOW over what a human has achieved (in reality that is!)
Johnathon
June 8, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Panem et circenses, my friends. CGI can never really take its place.
Suzanne Francis
June 9, 2008 at 12:20 am
I welcome CGI, even if stuntmen had an excellent safety record.
Non-documentary movies are all about telling a story that is not real: they use *actors* instead of people with that exact life experience for start!
CGI is just another trick used to deliver the best (good-looking or realistic) impression to the viewer. Artificial lights on the set, audio dubbing after the take, green screen, editing the movie instead of a single 3 hour take, etc are all methods of faking reality as well. They are just acceptable because they are still older and more traditional.
The human achievement of stuntmen is certainly impressive, but from the “these people are crazy” way. It is admirable on its own, but does not improve the movie.
So I think that CGI will improve the movie industry by allowing the directors to show their visions more precisely and clearly, especially when they are impossible for humans to act safely. I can always look at real idiot “stuntmen” setting themselves on fire on youtube.
mattias
June 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm