Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Robert Zemeckis directed hit after hit with modern classics like Romancing The Stone (1984), Back to the Future (1985) and their sequels, Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), Forrest Gump (1994), and Cast Away (2000). The first half of the Hollywood filmmaker’s work is so iconic that it could fill an entire chapter of pop culture history of the 80s and 90s. And in that chapter, Wilson could have his own page. Yes, the anthropomorphic volleyball from Cast Away.
The success of each of his films provided Zemeckis the opportunity to continually push visual effects into exciting new territory. But to be fair, much of Zemeckis’ credit on this front should be shared with contemporary filmmaker George Lucas and Industrial Light & Magic (or ILM) the visual effects company which Lucas founded for the original Star Wars (1977). ILM was the subject of a Disney+ docuseries featuring Zemeckis, Light & Magic (2022).
MOVIEWEB VIDEO OF THE DAY
After Cast Away, Zemeckis leaned even harder into visual effects. Flight (2012) is a notable exception, as Zemeckis shows far more interest in character-building than showing off the visual effects of the plane crash which kicks off the events of that film. But with films like The Walk (2015), Allied (2016), Welcome to Marwen (2018), The Witches (2020), and Pinnocchio (2022), many critics felt that Zemeckis had allowed technology to get in the way of the story, rather than letting technology help tell the story as he’d done with classics like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump, and Back to the Future.
Zemeckis’ career over the past decade isn’t even the half of it. With three pivotal films in the 2000s, Zemeckis had all but jumped into a visual effects black hole.
Zemeckis Directed a Non-Sequential Trilogy in the 2000s
20th Century Fox
Though he became famous for the Back to the Future trilogy, Zemeckis spent the better part of the 2000s filming another kind of trilogy. It was a non-sequential trilogy of the sort that foreign and arthouse directors used to make. Trilogies like Sergio Leone’s Dollars Trilogy (1964-1966), Roman Polanski’s Apartment Trilogy (1965, 1968, 1976), Kieslowski’s Three Colors Trilogy (1993-1994), and the most contemporary of these, Edgar Wright’s Three Flavours Cornetto, which includes Shaun of the Dead (2004), Hot Fuzz (2007), and The World’s End (2013).
These non-sequential trilogies might feature some of the same actors from film to film. They typically allowed their directors to explore similar themes across different stories. But these trilogies were not narratively connected from film to film. Which three films make up Zemeckis’ non-sequential trilogy? The Polar Express (2004), Beowulf (2007), and A Christmas Carol (2009).
Zemeckis’ Polar Express Left Some Viewers Feeling Uneasy
Warner Bros. Pictures
Zemeckis’ The Polar Express is based on a 1985 children’s book of the same name by Chris Van Allsburg. At 32 pages long, Van Allsburg’s original story is roughly the standard length for a children’s book. To be fair, short stories have been adapted into films like Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982). However, the 32 pages of Van Allsburg’s source material left Zemeckis’ film adaptation light on story and heavy on visuals. In the end, this made The Polar Express the perfect vehicle for Zemeckis to take audiences on a ride with an innovative blend of 3D animation and motion capture, or mo-cap.
With Tom Hanks as the conductor (as well as Santa Claus, the father, the hobo, and the puppet of Ebenezer Scrooge) beckoning audiences to climb aboard, Zemeckis’ Polar Express made just enough at the box office to give Zemeckis another stab at 3D animated mo-cap technology. But in her 2015 study in Review of General Psychology, Emory University psychologist Sheeshang Wang admitted that not even the combined charm of Tom Hanks and Santa Claus in The Polar Express could mask the “elicited unease in some" viewers.
Zemeckis’ Beowulf Was Another Creepy Voyage Into Visual Effects
Paramount Pictures
For his next voyage into 3D mo-cap visual effects, Zemeckis took on Beowulf, the epic poem written around the start of the first century. As one of the most significant narrative works in history, Beowulf is taught in English classes to this day. Though, what children typically read in class has been adapted from its original Old English text.
For his screen adaptation, Zemeckis recruited screenwriters Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary. Gaiman is a true renaissance man of a writer whose interests in mythology also led him to pen the short comic book Chivalry (2022) and, more substantially, a retelling of Norse Mythology (2017). Roger Avary is most known for being the co-writer of Pulp Fiction (1994) along with Quentin Tarantino, and the writer-director of Killing Zoe (1993).
Zemeckis’ Christmas Carol Is a Faithful Adaptation of Dickens’ Classic Novella
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
As significant as the epic poem Beowful is, Charles Dickens’ famous tale of the Christmas-hating miser Ebenezer Scrooge being visited by three spirits in the night has become a timeless classic in its own right. The stories of Zemeckis’ Polar Express and Beowulf are entertaining enough. But they can’t compete with Dickens. A Christmas Carol doesn’t put a foot wrong.
With his fresh take on Dickens’ holiday classic, Zemeckis actually managed to craft one of the most faithful adaptations of the 1843 novella of the same name. That’s an impressive feat considering that there have been over 100 screen adaptations of Dickens’ Christmas Carol, from Richard Donner’s Scrooged (1988) starring Bill Murray, to The Muppets Christmas Carol (1992). Though he could never have known it back in the 1840s, Dickens would one day give Hollywood the gift that keeps on giving. Yet, in spite of an impressive loyalty to its source material, Zemeckis’ Christmas Carol remains one of the creepiest movies Hollywood has ever released.
Zemeckis’ Non-Sequential Trilogy Took Audiences on a Trip to the Uncanny Valley
Polar Express, Beowulf, and Christmas Carol represent a significant moment in the history of film, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the three films make up Hollywood’s largest investment so far into 3D animation mo-cap effects. Polar Express cost around $170 million, Beowulf around $150 million, and Christmas Carol $200 million. Each movie turned a profit, but they didn’t make much money after factoring in advertising costs. This might have something to do with the second reason that the films are so significant.
Zemeckis’ non-sequential trilogy also represents Hollywood’s greatest trek into what is known scientifically as the “uncanny valley,” as each film suffers from the same fatal flaw. They’re creepy as hell. Why are they so creepy? The blame can be laid on the technology that Zemeckis utilized for each film. Innovative as his blend of 3D animation and mo-cap may be, the effect that they have can only be described as uncanny.
With Dickens’ rock solid story foundation and Zemeckis’ faithful adaptation, the 2009 A Christmas Carol is the ultimate litmus test for the uncanny valley in visual effects filmmaking. Because if there’s nothing wrong with Dickens’ story and there’s nothing wrong with Zemeckis’ interpretation of it, then why is the movie so unsettling?
It’s even unsettling in the end when Scrooge (played by Jim Carrey) spreads cheer to London’s poor after being changed by his ghostly encounters. That ending is supposed to be heartwarming. Instead, it’s as horrifying as when Scrooge gets visited by the Ghost of Christmas Present, the bearded giant with a booming Yorkshire accent (also Jim Carrey). Obviously, it’s the 3D animation mo-cap visual effects that are to blame. But what exactly is it that makes these visual effects so creepy?
The Uncanny Valley Was First Discovered in the Field of Robotics
Paramount Pictures
In 1970, Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori coined the term, “uncanny valley.” This described a phenomenon in robotics which is typically associated with the discomfort humans feel toward androids. In his essay, Bukimi No Tani, Mori says:
Mori, as a roboticist, may literally be talking about androids. But since he coined the term in 1970, “uncanny valley” has been noticed increasingly in scientific fields beyond robotics. Its definition has been expanded to describe the emotional discomfort humans feel toward any object or non-human creature according to their near-resemblance to humans. Unsurprisingly, one of these fields is film.
Hollywood Films Are No Stranger to the Uncanny Valley
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) cast new light on Mori’s phenomenon and its effects on film. Thanks to technological breakthroughs by ILM, the late actor Peter Cushing had seemingly risen from the grave through CGI some 22 years after his death to reprise his role as Grand Moff Tarkin from the original Star Wars. Cushing’s likeness was digitally superimposed via CGI onto the face of the living English actor, Guy Henry.
However groundbreaking the Cushing effect may be, there are tiny errors in the CGI Cushing’s facial movement which subconsciously flag in the viewer’s mind that the face they are looking at does not belong to a real human.
Why, then, were audiences able to actually empathize with a volleyball in Zemeckis’ Cast Away? Wilson has a face. Sort of. And that face doesn’t belong to a real human. Why weren’t audiences creeped out by Wilson like they were with CGI Peter Cushing? Or Jim Carrey’s 3D mo-cap Scrooge in A Christmas Carol? The reason audiences weren’t creeped out by Wilson is that he’s an inanimate object. Aside from Tom Hanks’ red handprint, Wilson’s resemblance to a human face was not nearly close enough to have “elicited unease in some" viewers like the face of Tom Hanks’ Uncanny Santa in Polar Express. Sometimes, effects are too good.
