Essays on Digital Actors 4. The Problem of Balance Between Icons and Roles

Actors themselves are major icons, but they also have an aspect of being merely one member of the cast. When you want to use a certain actor in a role, the problem of balancing the icon with the character arises.

With a living actor, exquisite tuning is achieved between the 'icon (the person's public image)' and the 'role (the character in the drama)' through the actor's own acting ability and the direction. However, when one tries to systematize this in the form of 'CG portrait rights licensing,' this balance emerges as a terrifyingly extreme problem.


One is the problem where the 'symbol' is too strong, preventing the audience from immersing themselves in the drama.

For example, suppose you cast a digital version of Bruce Lee in the role of 'Mr. A, a mediocre, cunning petty villain' in a suspense film, due to a stroke of casting genius (or budget constraints). The moment the audience sees him on screen, no matter how shabby he is dressed, their brains are dominated by the noise (the gravitational pull of the icon) of 'Oh, it's Bruce Lee. When is he going to make that bird-like screech?'

With a living actor, the context of 'a new frontier where he has sealed away his action moves' can be accepted, but in the case of a digital actor consumed as a symbol, forcing them to play a plain role that betrays the audience's stereotypes could cause the reality of the work to collapse.

As a result, a counterproductive situation easily arises where 'if you cast Bruce Lee, you can only have him play Bruce Lee-like roles (= he does not function as just one member of the cast).'


The other is the wall of 'image management' by the rights holders (bereaved families or agents).

Even if a film director thinks, 'I want the "sorrow" or "madness" that star possesses as one piece in this scene,' the side holding the license must protect their 'icon.'

'Do not make him, a hero to children around the world, play such a despicable traitor,' or 'Because it will lower the value (brand) of her icon, a role where she is brutally murdered in the story is a no-go.' While a living actor can take a gamble by choosing to 'challenge a villainous role to break away from their image' based on their own will, a digital icon that has become a management business risks being rented out only as a 'safe, greatest-common-denominator character that will never lose its value.'

This completely loses the fluidity and appeal of being 'one member of the cast' in a film.


If this balance problem were to be cleared and a director could purely make the desire to 'use that actor here' function, two approaches can be considered.

One is 'extraction and blending of essence (DNA)'—a method of generating and placing a non-existent 'new cast member' by blending, for example, 'Bruce Lee's gaze' and 'the presence of another young actor' by a certain percentage, rather than presenting Bruce Lee himself.

The other is 'resigning oneself to the nominality of a cameo/symbol'—a method like in 'Ready Player One,' where they are placed solely as a context (fan service or symbol) that 'that icon is here' with full intent, while assigning a different, nameless digital actor to play the gritty inner workings of the drama.


For creators, actors are 'the best paints (parts) to compose a work,' but digital actors in the portrait rights business are 'finished, first-class brand products.' The quality of future films will likely change significantly depending on where the compromise settles between the 'director who wants to take them apart and use them as parts' and the 'rights holder who wants to protect the brand as a packaged product.'

Previous Chapter 3. The Most Promising Candidate: Bruce Lee
Next Chapter 5. A Star System Using Completely Original CG Characters