Zemeckis, Christmas, and the Uncanny Valley

Published by Jeff Leins on: November 6th, 2009

This weekend brings Disney’s A Christmas Carol, the third motion capture movie from filmmaker Robert Zemeckis.  Nearly $200 million was spent to re-create multiple performances by Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, and more with the latest technology that captures their expressions and animates their movements using digital, three-dimensional models.

Zemeckis’ first mo-cap movie, The Polar Express, was widely criticized for the “dead eye” effect, which turned a whimsical holiday adaptation into a creepy nightmare for some.  While the techniques have improved since the initial outing, this season’s release rests on the precipice of the uncanny valley, a hypothesis that postulates humans are repulsed by life-like renderings such as robotics and other objects with human qualities.

The phrase was coined in 1970 by Dr. Masahiro Mori, a Japanese roboticist who believed human empathy would exist up until the point where the human-like qualities are between “barely human” and “fully human.”  The robot, or in this case the computerized rendering, will provoke an eerie feeling or a strange quality noticed by a human’s subconscious.

An article in National Geographic chronicled the experiments of Princeton’s Primate Neuroethology Lab, which tested three different macaque faces on monkeys.  One was clearly robotic; then an animated, realistic version; and finally a real macaque.  The primates looked more often and longer at the first and third, but would consistently avert their eyes from the 3D-rendered face, suggesting the uncanny valley not only exists but that it’s a hardwired reaction.

At Comic-Con International in July 2009, Zemeckis was asked directly about his thoughts on the uncanny valley theory.  He responded by saying, “The uncanny valley is a term that was coined for robots, for mechanical people, for animatronic dolls. I don’t think it was ever intended to be used for cinema.” Keep in mind the theory originated at least 30 years ago when Disney animation was still hand-drawn.

He seems defensive, as if he’s frequently challenged with it.  “In the illusion of cinema, the uncanny valley is an artistry thing. It has nothing to do with technique. It has nothing to do with the art form that we’re birthing here, so let’s not strangle the baby in the crib.”

In reality, no matter how many cameras Zemeckis seems to train on the human retina and various innovative effects are developed to light and color the irises, the animated eyes remain hollow renderings of human recognition.  As the focal point of any nuanced performance, eyes that appear lifeless on screen strip away any remaining realism and tamper with the audience’s suspense of belief.

The attention to detail is exceptional, that much is clear.  But, as I mentioned in my review of the film, motion capture isn’t quite where it needs to be in order to create a full-length motion picture with it.  The uncanny valley is evident and while it may not be physically repulsive, it is distracting for audiences paying to be entertained.