hot movie previews > The Twilight Saga: E...NineRemember MeLetters to JulietLegionArmoredAvatar
 
Filed under: Reactionary Causes

How Does Jim Carrey Playing Multiple Roles in 'A Christmas Carol' Benefit the Film?

Still looking for the benefits of motion-capture animation

The idea of one actor playing multiple characters in a film isn't a new one even though many people begin and end the conversation with Eddie Murphy for his performances in films such as Nutty Professor and Norbit all while forgetting the comedy he brought us in Coming to America.

Before Murphy we had the likes of Mel Brooks in History of the World and Spaceballs, Alec Guiness in the fantastic Kind Hearts and Coronets and Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove. Outside of Murphy it seems only Mike Myers has endured the same kind of ill treatment, primarily for taking the joke to the point it wasn't funny any longer (debatable) in the Austin Powers films and then dropping the bomb that was The Love Guru.

Looking at the performances listed above I am reminded of some classic films as well as a couple that missed the mark, but we are talking raucous comedies where the laughs were the number one priority. So, why has Robert Zemeckis taken the same tact with his attempts at motion capture animation?

Of course, this isn't the first time Zemeckis has called upon his actors to play multiple roles in his films such as Michael J. Fox playing an older version of himself as well as his two future children in Back to the Future: Part II along with other Back to the Future actors playing aged versions of themselves, both younger and older. But again, those moments were played for laughs, which brings me back around to The Polar Express and the upcoming A Christmas Carol.

In The Polar Express, Tom Hanks played six characters including the lead boy, his father, the train conductor, the hobo on the train, Scrooge and finally Santa Claus. The goal? Who knows? My only guess is to prove it could be done because it brought nothing extra to the film and certainly wasn't played for comedic effect — at least I hope it wasn't considering it wasn't funny.

With A Christmas Carol Zemeckis is taking it up a notch as IMDb has Jim Carrey listed to play eight different characters, which includes five different ages of Ebeneezer Scrooge along with the ghosts of Christmas Past, Christmas Present and Christmases Yet to Come. The goal here? To watch the video to the right Zemeckis says he sees the three ghosts as Scrooge's alter-egos and wanted to see pieces of him inside each one. I thought Jacob Marley was supposed to be viewed as Scrooge's alter-ego, so I'm actually beginning to raise my eyebrows even more if I am supposed to look at the spirits from that perspective.

Beyond that, to watch the trailers it looks like they are trying to insinuate some sort of zany holiday actioner as opposed to the film filled with scary sequences and images as its PG-rating indicates. An MPAA rating, by the way, that sounds even scarier than the similar PG-rating Where the Wild Things Are received for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.

So what's the reason? It's certainly a gimmick, but so is the 3-D presentation, so what is achieved? The Polar Express proved it brings nothing to the production value and the trailers for A Christmas Carol don't insinuate we are going for an all-out laugh riot, and it doesn't end there.

Jim Carrey as Ebeneezer Scrooge and Gary Oldman as Tiny Tim in A Christmas Carol
Photo: Walt Disney Pictures

Gary Oldman also takes on multiple characters, playing Bob Cratchit, Marley and Tiny Tim. Bob Hoskins plays Mr. Fezziwig and Old Joe and several lesser-known actors are also playing multiple roles in what looks like and has been described as a far more serious, moody adaptation of the classic Dickens tale than we have seen in the past. This isn't Mickey's A Christmas Carol or Richard Donner's Scrooged.

I don't really know what we're in for, and this is obviously a conversation brought up before seeing the final product, but I'm hoping Zemeckis' continued attempts to prove motion-capture animation is a viable film technique works out sooner rather than later because The Polar Express and Beowulf didn't do much for me (and have done even less upon second viewings) and Zemeckis is showing no signs of stopping as he will be producing Airmen with Gil Kenan directing (via Variety). Kenan is in the same camp as Zemeckis, though, having already made his own motion-capture animated film in 2006's Monster House.

Of course, the real test for motion-capture animation comes in the form of James Cameron's CGI-driven feature Avatar in December, but enough has been said about that one for the time being. It will be under our watchful eye soon enough.

A Christmas Carol hits theaters on November 6, you can get more info on the film right here including ten new images that were just added to the gallery.


Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

Actors do this all the time for the stage in one-man shows and whatnot. I see it more as an exercise in acting more than anything else.

- David Frank
( October 26th, 2009 | 1:32 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

Well, I guess it saves them money when they use one actor when it would normally take two or three (or four)…

And one of my favorite multiple roles in a movie is in "Angels in America," where most of the main actors do at least one extra role besides their main one. My favorites are Meryl Streep as the rabbi and Emma Thompson as the homeless lady. I had no fucking idea they were in those roles, too, until the end credits!

- JM
( October 26th, 2009 | 5:26 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

You know, I do enjoy watching a good motion capture film, but has there been a great one yet? And polar express cost 165 million. 165 million! I bet if they just cast tom hanks in two roles and filmed it live action it'd have been far less and perhaps made just as much.

- gobeatbox!
( October 26th, 2009 | 6:23 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #4
Gravatar

I'm sure a large part of it is simply a desire to explore what can be done with the technology. Does it *need* to be done? Not really… but it provides proof of concept for future uses where it might actually be necessary. Additionally, as noted, it a bit of an acting exercise for the stars, and might make the project more interesting for them, allowing the producers to sign bigger talent at smaller prices. (Or maybe not, considering the budgets on these films.)

It is interesting that these movies cost as much or more than a Pixar production, which really does leave you wondering what the benefit of motion capture is when compared to hiring actual animators.

- AJ
( October 27th, 2009 | 10:04 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #5
Gravatar

say what you guys want..but i think this will be a great movie.the essence and the magic of this awesome novel will be depicted at its best with motion capture.anything else wont do justice…

- shyamex
( October 27th, 2009 | 12:39 pm )
Reply to this comment
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Follow Us On Twitter!
RSS Email
Latest Posts
Latest Video
Nine ~ TV Spot
New Pictures
Friend RopeofSilicon on Netflix!