Was that fake baby in 'American Sniper' really that bad?

And, in the absence of a real baby, could better special effects have made it better?

While some complain about the use of a fake baby in the film “American Sniper” may have cost the blockbuster the Best Picture Oscar, others say it could have been worse.

“There are some creepy looking CG babies out there in film,” says Michael Keith, a faculty member and visual effects specialist at The Dave (Digital Animation & Visual Effects) School in Orlando, Florida who spoke in an interview. “It definitely could have been worse. I think Clint Eastwood made the right call.”

Keith explains that effects in film are either termed special (computer/animated) or practical (such as robotics). While he personally made the leap of faith across that Uncanny Valley, where directors and effects people hope a practical effect like a prop doll, or robot, will pass muster as a person, there were measures that could have been taken in post- production to lessen the negative effects. Props and robotics can be further enhanced to achieve a more realistic effect using special effects like CGI (Computer Generated Images).

Those measures, however, can go also badly wrong in the eyes of audiences.

Case in the Twilight film franchise’s “Breaking Dawn Part Two” wherein Bella (Kristen Stewart) sees her unintentionally creepy CGI/robotic hybrid offspring Renesmee.

In “American Sniper,” the original plan was for Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller to coo over a real baby. But the baby took ill and was replaced by a plastic doll, according Mr. Keith, who did not work on the film, but is familiar with the film’s very public history.

“It’s time consuming and because we know that the original production plan called for the use of real twin babies – one got sick and the other was a no-show –there might not have been time in the schedule to pull something like this off in production,” Keith postulates.

According to The New York Times the film’s screenwriter, Jason Hall, in a tweet (now removed), "Hate to ruin the fun but real baby #1 showed up with a fever. Real baby #2 was no show. (Clint voice) Gimme the doll, kid.”

Keith says, “I had heard of the fake baby debacle, so I was on the lookout for it when I finally went to see the film. Frankly, the supposition that that’s what would cost the film an Oscar is ludicrous. Could they have done it better? Yes. Was it as bad as everyone said? Absolutely not.”

But, Keith adds that in retrospect Mr. Eastwood could have used CGI to boost the credibility of the scene, but that is a decision that would have been based on how much time the director had to punt.

“There’s a lot of heavy special effects work that they could have done to make that doll appear more human,” Keith says. “They could have used a CG replacement to show movement by masking out the doll and using a real baby animated a bit.”

But that kind of CGI replacement would also entail the partial animation of Mr. Cooper’s body wherever it intersects with the doll.

“People think that film makers can just do this kind of intricate work so easily but in reality we’re talking about weeks to alter just two minutes of that doll on screen” Keith says.

Could a robot baby have saved the scene?

“CGI as a solution would have been time consuming, but I don’t think there’s a scenario in which a director can just say “Call so-and-so and get me a robot baby,” Keith says. “Also, with robotics it could be even harder to get the necessary realism CGI can accomplish.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.