Theory in Practice: How the Usage of CGI Affects the "Aura of a Movie: The Case of "Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again." - Anthropology of Social Media

With its well-known musical numbers, colourful characters, and ensemble cast, the movie Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again has managed to gross more than 395 million dollars worldwide and became one of the top 25 movies of the year 2018. A sequel to the movie Mamma Mia, the movie focuses on family relationships, past lovers, and friendships. In addition to its feel-good storyline, one of the characteristics that were praised by the audience was the setting in which the movie takes place in. The viewer enjoyed the beautiful sceneries of the Croatian island of Vis, which is a bit deflective as the events in the movie are supposed to take place on a Greek island like the first movie. As a product of the romantic comedy genre, there was no question that the setting was an important aspect of storytelling. It is most probably why it attracted a great amount of reaction from people when it turned out that while the film was mostly shot in Croatia, many scenes were actually shot in front of a green or blue screen at Shepperton Studios in the United Kingdom using computer-generated imagery (CGI). To elaborate, recently a tweet about Mamma Mia! Here we Go Again with a video attachment that has gone viral. The video depicted the before and after shots of some scenes from the movie which showed actors acting in front of a green screen followed by the final version of the scene where the green screen was replaced with beautiful interior and exterior imagery. As it turns out some of the famous scenes from the movie, including Cher’s performance of “Fernando” , were not shot in Croatia.  The now-viral video, which was extracted from the DVD version of the movie shows that the use of CGI mainly focused on the backgrounds and the creation of exterior design inside a studio. While many scenes were shot on location, according to the replies to the viral tweet, many people have expressed how they felt betrayed, shocked, scammed, and even traumatised as a consequence of discovering that some of the scenes were not actually shot on location. Giving a few quotations from the replies, one person compared the movie to superhero fiction movies by saying “Even the Marvel movies are shaking” while another person expressed her surprise by tweeting ”You’re telling me they didn’t film in Greece?? I’m questioning reality”. In general, there were many tweets expressing disappointment and how the video ruined the movie for them.

The reasons behind choosing to use CGI instead of true shooting location is pretty straightforward: It is both easier and cheaper. Continuing to use Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again as an example, it is evident that it would cost a lot to shoot a movie outside of the United Kingdom, where the movie is based.  Additionally, the Croatian island of Vis is a rather touristic place with lots of people visiting during warmer months and the island climate can be more volatile, which makes shooting a movie in such locations more trivial and, therefore, costly.  Considering the additional costs and effort caused by the musical nature of the movie, including choreography, and lipsync, it can be deemed logical that producers of the movie preferred to cut costs on the location aspect of the movie while they could create such imagery digitally. In reality, many non-blockbuster movies use a heavy amount of CGI, a well-known example being the movie The Wolf of Wall Street.

While using CGI seems like an applaudable option, why people were disappointed in finding out that Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again used the advantages technology provides. While there is no exact answer to the question, I believe it can be explained by Benjamin Walter’s concepts of “Authenticity” and “Aura” of an artwork. In his book, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Benjamin discusses how the artwork has lost its authenticity and/or aura with mechanical reproduction and technological development. He defines the term authenticity simply as an artwork’s presence in time and space. He then continues to describe the aura of artwork as what gives a unique touch to it, but in the age of mechanical reproduction, the artwork is detached from its unique context losing its ritual and cult value. The cult value leaves its place to exhibition value, where being viewed becomes the source of the value rather than the rituals. 

One can easily question that if the CGI is not even noticeable, how could it affect the authenticity of a movie, or why people reacted in the way they did? While the connection between arguments of Benjamin and the use of CGI might not be apparent at the surface level,  I think an artwork’s loss of its connection to its presence in time and space, namely the loss of authenticity, is what attracted a great amount of reaction from the viewers of Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again. If we consider the storyline as the artwork, acting out the story in a place other than the original setting can be seen as a loss of authenticity. As Benjamin suggests, the manipulation of artwork is the manipulation of its function, and in this case Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is manipulated in order to decrease the monetary burden of the production. Overall, the conflict of interest between capitalist concerns and the production of the artwork resulted in a shift towards the exhibition value. In the eyes of the owners of the production, it makes sense to use CGI as long as the viewer will not be able to tell while watching. Consequently, in the age of mechanical reproduction, it is almost impossible to realize what is manipulated and what is not and at what cost. It is striking how people failed to realize the use of CGI until the tweet went viral 2 years after the movie came out. Such discoveries would create scepticism in people and, therefore prevent an authentic experience as it puts a layer of uncertainty between the consumer and the artwork.

It is also interesting that Mamma Mia was originally written as a Broadway musical. In his book, Benjamin argues that theatre is somehow more authentic than cinema as there are fewer chances to manipulate and edit theatre as it is performed and consumed live. This might also be a reason why people were disappointed to see that parts of the movie were not what it seemed to be, as in the original version, the reality consisted of what they saw. One could also argue that a musical is written to be performed on a stage, therefore adapting it into a movie where the exterior settings and backgrounds were digitally created might have led to a loss of authenticity, leaving the audience displeased. For instance, there are many reviews on IMDB, comparing the movie to the original and expressing their disappointment and how they were not able to feel the charm of the original.

But why CGI is mainly acceptable in blockbuster superhero or action movies but not in musicals, dramas, or romantic comedies?  In my opinion, it still has to do with the notions of authenticity and aura. While superhero movies create a non-existent, imaginary setting from scratch, the movies that depict daily life events reflect the real emotions of real people who take in places that exist. Therefore, Benjamin’s definition of authenticity holds again, once these emotions are portrayed in a setting that is not real, people start to feel unease. As a romantic comedy musical,  the story of Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is filled with love, friendship, and family bonds. The romantic aura of the movie is perfectly accompanied by the beautiful scenery in the background, making the audience feel a part of the movie. Once one of the elements turns out to be fake, it is not unexpected to get reactions of disappointment. On the other hand, blockbuster movies mainly focus on the visuals and stories that rarely occur in real life, therefore people expect some elements to be digitally created or manipulated in that case.

Walter Benjamin wrote “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” in 1935. It was long before the invention of CGI or ABBA. However, the relationship between technology and the authenticity and the aura of artwork is even more complex nowadays. In a world that gets digitalized more and more every day, people need to hold on to what is real. It becomes, therefore, puzzling to understand what is unique and authentic and what is manipulated while enjoying an artwork. In my opinion, it is inspiring to see people still caring about the authenticity and the reality behind an artwork as it shows that there is still value to intrinsic meanings and feelings and opinions shared by humanity rather than exhibition value only. However, as a relatively new technology, there is still time to see how digitally produced imagery will fit into the relationship between cinema and the audience.

Iraz Küçüker