There’s no doubt that technology has transformed the film industry, making the impossible possible and giving filmmakers the tools to bring their visions to life. But technology use is not without its controversies and limitations. In this article, we take a look at some of these issues in relation to the fact-based film, with an emphasis on Martin Scorsese’s latest release, The Irishman.
The use of technology in The Irishman
Just as technology in film can be used to help create ever more fantastical worlds, mind-blowing action sequences and memorable movie monsters, it can also be used to enhance authenticity in the fact-based film. Consummate filmmaker and film devotee Martin Scorsese harnessed the power of technology to bring the world of The Irishman to life.
Written by Steven Zaillian and based on the non-fiction book, I Heard You Paint Houses, by Charles Brandt, The Irishman tells the story of Frank Sheeran, a mob hitman with a connection to labour union leader Jimmy Hoffa, whose disappearance in 1975 remains a mystery to this day.
Though very different in tone, subject-wise, The Irishman is classic Scorsese territory, a decade-spanning tale of the criminal underworld that follows in the footsteps of Goodfellas (1990) and Casino (1995). The film reunites Scorsese regulars Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel, in a cast that also features Al Pacino (in his first Scorsese collaboration).
Throughout his long career, Scorsese has always been a filmmaker’s filmmaker, with a devotion to and encyclopedic knowledge of the history of cinema. Indeed, his 2011 film Hugo was a celebration of George Melies, a pioneer of early cinema, who was responsible for several technical and narrative developments that paved the way for modern-day special effects.
One of the other things that distinguishes Scorsese is the great lengths to which he has always gone to ensure his films are authentic. This is evidenced in the making of Gangs of New York (2002) which involved the services of a historical consultant, professor of history and an archaeologist to ensure the finished film was historically accurate. When it came to recreating the Five Points area of New York, circa 1860, rather than turning to technology, Scorsese turned to production designer Dante Ferretti, who painstakingly built fully-functioning versions of the streets, houses, saloons and dock, etc., at the legendary Cinecittà Studios in Rome.
However, when it came to The Irishman, Scorsese employed technology that de-aged his lead characters, which allowed him to tell a story that encompasses Sheeran’s life, from a young man serving in the military in WWII through to an old man looking back on his life. De Niro, who plays Sheeran, quipped that “maybe [the technology will] extend my career for another 30 years”. Other cast members, including Pesci and Pacino, also get the ‘youthification’ treatment in the film. In reality, all three actors are in their seventies.
This use of computer generated imagery (CGI) is not new in cinema, but it gave Scorsese another tool to fully tell the story without resorting to lookalike tactics, casting younger actors who look at bit like De Niro, et al. This works in some circumstances, such as when the filmmaker simply wants to flashback to episodes from the protagonist’s childhood (Christopher Serrone and Joseph D’Onofrio as young Henry and Tommy in Goodfellas is a good example). But this approach is less effective when the story spans decades and the filmmaker needs to portray the character/s across different life phases. When it comes to The Irishman, a large part of the film involves the characters in their younger years, so making the film at all with these actors would have been essentially impossible without the use of CGI.
Interestingly, using CGI created authenticity issues for Scorsese, who expressed some anxiety over how effectively the technology de-aged the actors’ faces. He recalled that seeing the footage for the first time, how “certain shots need more work on the eyes” to take into account changes in wrinkles. The technology could also not address the fact that while CGI could make De Niro look 20 or 30 years younger, it couldn’t do anything to mask his older-person gait or movements. (The technology de-aged the characters post-shooting, so the actors had to act their digitized ages).
Indeed, early looks at trailers for The Irishman created some consternation among movie critics and fans, with comments on the restricted movements and fake appearances, with skin that was too smooth and characters that looked more like video game creations. The consensus seems to be, however, that further editing rectified some of these issues, although an element of artificiality remains, highlighting that film technology is very much a work in progress.
Technology-driven filmmaking vs utilizing technology to tell a story
While promoting The Irishman, Scorsese generated some headlines when he told Empire magazine:
“Honestly, the closest I can think of [Marvel movies], as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.”
This comment highlights one of the key issues of technology use in film. Having the ability to create big budget movie spectacles can overwhelm the fundamentals of storytelling, namely characterization, character development and narrative structure. But, for better or worse, these films generate buzz and box office receipts, satisfying an audience that has multiple options for entertainment and, some have argued, an ever-shorter attention span. However, these types of film fit a particular niche. People who go to see these films aren’t looking for depth; they’re looking for entertainment. They want bigger explosions and scarier monsters, not multi-dimensional characters and subtle character arcs. In these types of films, the technology purposely overwhelms proceedings to give the whole thing the ‘wow’ factor; just as theme parks want to generate ever greater thrills to keep visitors coming back.
However, when it comes to adding authenticity to film, particularly fact-based film, technology can indeed be employed to enhance traditional filmmaking and storytelling. While the makers of the Marvel films and their ilk want you to look at the technology, makers of films like The Irishman want you to ignore it.
Once you get over the novelty of the concept of seeing a young De Niro, the point is that this becomes irrelevant. The technology is there to merely assist in telling the story; it should not be the focus. If you spend the 209-minute running time of The Irishman pondering the CGI and judging its success, then the film has arguably failed in its endeavor. The idea is that you get absorbed into the story and the characters’ lives. That’s what Scorsese has been doing for over 50 years and technology gives him a wider range of options to continue telling compelling stories.
Taking film technology too far
One of the more interesting film-related stories recently covered by the media concerned the forthcoming film adaptation of Gareth Crocker’s novel, Finding Jack, a Vietnam War-set film about rescuing one of the many thousands of abandoned military animals. After searching high and low, the makers of the film found the perfect actor to cast: James Dean. The only problem is that Dean died in 1955. In times past, this would have meant a call to every casting agency in town to put the word out for a ‘James Dean type’, resulting in audition rooms filled with mean and moody-looking young men wearing leather jackets, cigarettes dangling from their lips. However, in 2019, it apparently means getting some technology bods to digitally resurrect Dean himself. Anton Ernst and Tati Golykh, the film’s directors, have reportedly secured the right to use Dean’s image and plan to use a “full body” CGI version of the iconic actor (with the voice supplied by another actor), in what the family has supposedly called “a movie he never got to make”.
Ethically questionable move to generate interest in a film that may otherwise have a limited audience, or a bold and creative effort by filmmakers to harness CGI to keep alive the spirit and persona of a young actor who died long before his time? That’s a debate that will undoubtedly continue. (It is interesting to note that at the time of writing, the scant IMDB entry for Finding Jack had Dean listed as the sole ‘star’ – surely not to simply create early buzz?)
However, it does raise questions about how far technology should be employed. After all, who knows whether Dean, had he lived, would have wanted to make the film (especially about a subject as polarizing as the Vietnam War)?
Subverting reality is something that filmmakers do all the time, creating worlds and scenarios that either don’t exist in reality or that are impossible for the majority of people to experience first-hand (floating in outer-space or walking with dinosaurs, for example). But, at what point does it go too far? Some would suggest bringing an actor ‘back to life’ and inserting him into a film that he’s had no say in choosing or making and forcing him to ‘speak’ lines voiced by another actor represents that point.
Technology and the fact-based film: final thoughts
Many times, technology is crucial in presenting the fact-based film in all its glory. From epic fight scenes to crowd shots to historical recreations, CGI can offer a cost-effective way to bring an episode from history to life. Technology can also allow for modern-day actors to walk through latter-day scenarios and interact with icons of the past, seamlessly enhancing the authenticity. Just a few examples of CGI use in fact-based film include:
– Recreating the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack: Pearl Harbor (2001)
– Whipping up an epic 100-ft wave that capsizes a fishing boat: The Perfect Storm (2000)
– Bringing to life a doomed ocean liner and its sinking: Titanic (1997)
– Setting the scene for bringing stranded astronauts back to Earth: Apollo 13 (1995)
– Putting us vividly in the shoes of high-wire artist Philippe Petit: The Walk (2015)
While the overall merits of these films can be called into question (looking at you, Pearl Harbor), in all these cases, the CGI is used simply to bring the characters’ experiences vividly to life in ways that traditional filmmaking either could not achieve or which were logistically unviable. In some cases, CGI was blended with other techniques to achieve an overall effect that amplifies reality and recreates real-life in cinemascope.
So overall, whether filmmakers use CGI to distort reality or enhance it defines whether the technology becomes the star of the show or just plays a supporting role. After all, if all audiences can talk about after watching a film is the special effects, than that has obviously resonated more than the characters or the story. We would argue that master storyteller and filmmaker Martin Scorsese won’t have to worry about that when it comes to The Irishman.
We’ll post our review of The Irishman on 1 December.