Although future behavioral taboos are notoriously hard to predict, it’s clear that within this decade America will end the use of chimpanzees in entertainment. I’ll go much further out on a limb and also predict that within a generation, and for much the same reasons, we will seriously consider banning child stars.
The year 2011 marked a watershed in American attitudes toward employing chimpanzees. When I was a kid in the 1960s, chimps were fashionable, associated in the popular mind with the space program and the promise of the new Africa. Plus, young ones are extremely entertaining.
With chimps, though, the older they get, the cuter they ain’t. And they get really old, often outliving their adorable childhoods by 40 or 50 years, with lots of psychological and physical pain for both the ex-actors and the humans who try to care for them.
Last month the National Institutes of Health announced that only in the rarest circumstances would it continue making grants for biomedical research involving chimps. The technology now exists to simulate much of what could be learned from experimenting on apes, so why bother? This decision increases the likelihood that the US Fish and Wildlife Service will someday extend endangered-species protection to captive chimps, in effect outlawing them as pets and entertainers.
The NIH’s move followed 2011’s hit sci-fi movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes. This ape-liberation saga marked an important development in movie history, more for its medium than its message (although the storytelling was more astringent than expected). Rise showed that you can make a monkey movie without the monkey: Put Andy Serkis in a performance capture suit, then digitally make him up as a chimp in post-production.
At present, that’s still quite expensive. (Rise had a $93-million budget.) But if Moore’s Law, which predicts that computing power doubles every year or two, stays in effect for another decade and a half, digital chimps will only cost 1/1024th of what they did in Rise.
At that price, who needs a real ape? Granted, Serkis, who played Gollum in the Lord of the Rings movies, has been far ahead of anybody else in his nascent field of acting. (He has yet to receive an Academy Award nomination, perhaps because actors who fear they’ll be replaced by computers don’t want to vote for a partially animated character. Yet as his co-star James Franco argues in an essay calling for the Academy to recognize him now—rather than with the inevitable lifetime-achievement Oscar later—performance capture allows actors to stay competitive with animators.) Eventually, though, the supply of actors who can ape apes will expand to meet demand.
As it becomes clear that having men play monkeys is better for all concerned, a similar question will suggest itself: Is it humane to use human children as professional entertainers?
The digital technology enabling adults to portray kid characters is rapidly arriving. Should audiences encourage that switch?
We should definitely consider it. We can all think of child stars who grew up to be sane adults, but the casualty list is long and lurid. A recent study found that 58 percent of retired laboratory chimpanzees show symptoms of depression. What would a study of former child actors find? A consuming hunger to get back into the spotlight and a permanent aversion to a normal job?
One obvious problem is sexual exploitation of ambitious minors. A January 8, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Dawn C. Chmielewski reports, “At least a dozen child-molestation and child-pornography prosecutions since 2000 have involved actors, managers, production assistants and others in the entertainment industry.” That’s not a huge number—one known case per year—but who can begin to guesstimate the number of unknown cases?
Much of what’s considered big news is driven by plaintiff attorneys who package scandals for the press. The Catholic Church was a particularly juicy target for sex-abuse lawsuits due to its two-thousand-year history as a centralized, deep-pocketed organization. In contrast, the entertainment industry is dispersed and amorphous.
Moreover, man-bites-dog stories make better headlines. For several months, millions of words have been printed about one homosexual pedophile football coach, Jerry Sandusky, in part because of the rarity factor. Scandals involving sleazeball showbiz managers, on the other hand, attract less attention because they are a depressing cliché.
The virtues of virtualizing child characters can be seen in one fiasco averted. In 1990, the first year of The Simpsons, “Bartmania” swept the world. Imagine if The Simpsons had been a filmed show. The little boy who played Bart would now be in his 30s. What would he be like today? Fortunately, Bart Simpson is a cartoon character voiced by a grown woman, Nancy Cartwright.
SIGN UP
Daily updates with TM’s latest
Copyright 2017 TakiMag.com and the author. This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order reprints for distribution by contacting us at editors@takimag.com.