logo
Twins! Rivals! Clones! Hollywood is doubling down on dual roles

Twins! Rivals! Clones! Hollywood is doubling down on dual roles

The Guardian10-03-2025

For years, dual roles have been played largely for laughs. Think of Adam Sandler's Razzie-sweeping twin turn in Jack and Jill, or Lisa Kudrow as both Phoebe and Ursula Buffay on Friends. Eddie Murphy was always particularly prolific, his most multiplicitous performance as a clutch of Klumps for Nutty Professor II.
There are exceptions, of course. But for every Legend or The Prestige there are ten Austin Powers, Bowfingers and – shudder – Norbits. This year, however, is giving us a more dramatic breed of duplicate. Robert De Niro will pull double Don duty in The Alto Knights, Michael B Jordan will play twin leads in the supernatural Sinners and a pair of Robert Pattinson clones is currently headlining Bong Joon-ho's Mickey 17.
And there's more. The Monkey just served up a horror with two bloody scoops of Theo James, Zac Efron recently wrapped A24 thriller Famous, in which he plays both stalker and superstar and, this November, Elle Fanning will play twin sisters in the latest film in the Predator franchise. Recently, at Sundance, Dylan O'Brien played his own twin brother in darkly comic drama Twinless. So, even disregarding the films' genres, it's still a notable spike in audiences seeing double. So why now? And how are these seemingly impossible shots realised?
'For years, film-makers have used various techniques to show actors multiple times in the same scene,' says Daniel Harrington, a London-based VFX artist and compositor. 'In The Parent Trap, split-screen allowed the same actor to occupy both sides of the frame, whereas The Social Network used motion control to portray the Winklevoss twins by repeating precise camera movements.'
Before we tackle the technicalities, however, here's a brief history of dual roles – for the concept is almost as old as cinema itself. In 1898, trailblazing director Georges Méliès was already double-exposing film to twice capture his likeness within the same frame. His method made the jump to feature-length films in 1917 when actor William Farnum played opposite himself in an adaptation of Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities.
The following year, Mary Pickford took dual roles in Stella Maris using a new split-screen technique that would continue to be used for decades, in films such as Dead Ringers, Adaptation and Jean-Claude Van Damme's as-good-as-it-sounds Double Impact. The Alto Knights, over a century later, even uses a similar technique to double up De Niro in select scenes.
But today, split-screening is just one of many tools in the dual role toy box. The most notable advancement in the field came about in 1989, with the release of Back to the Future Part II and director Robert Zemeckis' commissioning of Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) to create the VistaGlide, a robotic, motion-controlled camera dolly system that would allow film-makers to capture multiple split-screen performances while also moving their cameras.
This remains the most popular dual role method, says Harrington. Several mattes (the individual shots that make up a final frame) are filmed with the same actor playing their separate parts. This footage is then delivered to rotoscope and paint artists, who tidy up the edges of the raw mattes before tasking compositors with piecing them together into one seamless whole.
'Ultimately, the success of the illusion depends on the synergy between on-set preparation and post-production artistry,' says Harrington. 'Digital effects may be increasingly sophisticated, but they're still most effective when built on a strong practical foundation. So, on set, consistent lighting, precise framing and stand-ins are crucial for ensuring seamless compositing later. Without these elements, even the most advanced digital tools would struggle to create a convincing result. It's teamwork, exemplified not only by film, but by TV series such as Orphan Black.'
The small screen has indeed reaped the rewards of these technical advancements – 2025 will also see Netflix debut twin Jamie Dornans in The Undertow and twin Anna Camps in the final season of You. Malachi Kirby will double up for Anansi Boys on Prime Video, and Cynthia Erivo will play identical sextuplets when Rian Johnson's Poker Face returns to Peacock. 'And, while no breakthrough is solely responsible [for this increase in dual roles],' says Harrington, 'recent developments in AI-driven deepfakes and performance cloning have significantly lowered costs and sped up production times'.
This deepfake method of replacing faces (Robert Pattinson's visage was digitally transplanted onto a stand-in for Mickey 17) was another ILM contrivance, originally developed for 1993's Jurassic Park. Oscar-nominated VFX supervisor Theo Jones works at Framestore, the studio which worked on much of Joon-ho's latest offering. And, while Jones doesn't believe there's a single catalyst for the current spate of dual role projects – 'it's likely some sort of happy accident,' he says, 'the same way you might get two films about an asteroid hurtling towards Earth landing at the box office at the same time' – he also brings up the rise in deepfake technology.
'It wasn't an option 10, maybe even five years ago,' says Jones. 'But even this isn't perfect for a dual role – you still need to find someone with similar features and proportions, and the baseline performance would be coming from the stand-in rather than your actor. Plus, 'off-the-peg' deepfake technology certainly isn't up to Imax quality at the moment, so you'd still need plenty of VFX work to make it look believable.'
Framestore, Jones reveals, has developed its own 'neural face rendering tech' – called Facade – which he believes will set a new standard in the industry. 'But, for purely dramatic moments,' he adds, 'something like Lupita Nyong'o's incredible performance in Us, you'd be far better placed using practical techniques for the shoot, and post-production fixes to make the finished picture seamless. Sometimes, this will involve rewriting the VFX rulebook – other times, it will mean using techniques that existed before computers were ever a part of film-making.'
It's the perfect way to approach the art of the dual role. For, whether it's actors attracted by the creative challenge or film-makers hoping to advance the technical side of their craft, these twin turns have always been collaborative efforts. By continuing to blend techniques new and old, audiences are not only guaranteed evermore envelope-pushing performances, but the entire concept of the dual role will stay true to its innately patchwork nature.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Tech-bro satire Mountainhead is an insufferable disappointment
Tech-bro satire Mountainhead is an insufferable disappointment

The Guardian

timea day ago

  • The Guardian

Tech-bro satire Mountainhead is an insufferable disappointment

Picture this: a group of very rich people gather at an ostentatiously large, secluded retreat. The SUVs are black, tinted, sleek. The jets are private. The egos are large, the staff sprawling and mostly unseen, the decor both sterile and unimaginably expensive. This is the distinctive milieu of Succession, the HBO juggernaut which turned the pitiful exploits of a bunch of media mogul failsons into Shakespearean drama for four critically acclaimed seasons. It is also the now familiar aesthetic of a range of eat-the-rich satires plumbing our oligarchic times for heady ridicule, if increasingly futile insight – The Menu, Triangle of Sadness, Knives Out: Glass Onion, Parasite, The White Lotus and the recent A24 disappointment Death of a Unicorn to name a few. (That's not to mention countless mediocre shows on the foibles of the wealthy, such as this month's The Better Sister and Sirens.) So suffice to say, I approached Mountainhead, Succession creator Jesse Armstrong's first post-series project about four tech billionaire friends gathering for poker as one's AI innovation wreaks havoc on the globe, with a sense of pre-existing fatigue. The market of ultra-rich satire is, to use the logic of Armstrong's characters, saturated. (Or, to use their language: 'I would seriously rather fix sub-Saharan Africa than launch a Sweetgreen challenger in the current market.') There's more than a whiff of Argestes, the second-season Succession episode at a billionaire mountain retreat, to these shots of private cars pulling up to a huge chalet hugged by snowcapped peaks. And though Armstrong, who solely wrote and directed the film, continues his avoidance of easy one-to-ones, there's more than a whiff of Elon Musk to Venis (Cory Michael Smith), an AI company CEO and the richest person in the world with a tenuous grasp on reality, a stupendous sense of nihilism and unrepentant need to assert his own virility (the landscape, he notes, is 'so beautiful you can fuck it'). In some ways, it's a relief to see tech bros, especially AI entrepreneurs, reach full, unambiguous movie-villain status. Already, there is a competently made movie for the Doge era, and Armstrong, as ever, can nail hairpin turns of phrase on the sentence level. But as much as I hate to contribute to the 'anti anti-rich content' discourse, on which much ink has already been spilled, I can't say Mountainhead refuted any expectations of reality fatigue; watching Venis, host Soup (Jason Schwartzman, playing the least rich of the group, and thus nicknamed after a soup kitchen), Marc Andreessen-esque venture capitalist Randall (a miscast Steve Carell), and fellow AI wunderkind Jeff (Ramy Youssef) brainstorm plans for the post-human future as more of a slog than if I were high-altitude hiking with them. To be honest, I'm not sure any classic satire – as in, using irony or exaggeration to highlight hypocrisies, vices and stupidity – could work for the second Trump administration, at once dumber and more destructive than the first, nor the release of generative AI on the public. Both require a level of hypernormalization and devaluing of reality that make the idea of enlightening ridiculousness feel, well, ridiculous. Even the most inventive writers and performers will struggle to craft humor out of beyond farcical political figures and norms degraded beyond recognition (see: Mark Ruffalo's effete and grating parody of Trump in Bong Joon-Ho's Mickey 17). Succession, which ran from 2018 to 2023, soared on its 'ludicrosity', to borrow a made-up term from its billionaire patriarch Logan Roy, with a precise critical distance from reality. The deeply cynical, psychically fragile, acid-tongued media conglomerate family loosely based on the Murdochs were just far enough removed from the real Fox News timeline. Its inverted morals, barren decadence and high irony the right angle of fun-house mirror to become, in my view, the defining show of the Trump era, without ever mentioning his name. But we are in a different era now, and the same tools feel too blunt to meet it. Mountainhead shares much of the same DNA as Succession, from Armstrong to producers to crew, to trademark euphemisms (why say 'murdered' when you can say 'placeholdered'?) It was completed on an extraordinarily fast timeline – pitched in December 2024, written (partly in the back of cars while scouting locations) this winter, filmed in Park City in March and released by end of May – giving it the feel of a streaming experiment for the second, more transparently oligarchic Trump term. How fast can you make an HBO movie? How can you satirize current events moving at a speed too fast for any ordinary citizen to keep up, let alone be reasonably informed? 'The way it was shot naturally simulated Adderall,' Youssef told the Atlantic, and it shows. Mountainhead plays out less like a drama between four tenuously connected, very rich friends, and more like a random word generator of tech and finance bro jargon – decel (deceleration, as in AI), p(doom) (the probability of an AI apocalypse), first principles. (Armstrong, by his own admission, binged episodes of the All-In podcast, which features prominent investors and Trump's AI/crypto czar David Sacks.) The backgroup of this billionaire conclave are series of escalating crises from Venis's guardrail-less AI that feel themselves AI generated – women and children burned alive in a mosque, a deluge of deepfakes that imperils governments in Armenia, Uzbekistan, Japan, Ohio. Italy defaults on its debt. Should they take over Argentina? Buy Haiti? 'Are we the bolsheviks of a new techno world order that starts tonight?' The deluge of contextless, characterless chaos – Succession's Kendall would call this dialogue 'complicated airflow' – succeeds in highlighting the depersonalizing effect of Silicon Valley's many innovations. None of this feels real, because none of this is real to these characters. Millions of No Real Persons Involved. But that is undercut by a pervasive sense of self-importance. Like the irksome climate-change satire Don't Look Up, directed by Succession executive producer Adam McKay, the exaggerated hijinks of Mountainhead reveal a deep self-assurance of its politics that border on smug. It's not that it doesn't, like Succession, attempt to humanize these figures – each billionaire has an Achilles heel of morality or mortality, though by now the fallibility of Musk-like figures is far from a revelation. It's that the drama between these billionaires felt frictionless – mostly unchallenged by secondary figures and impervious to other perspectives, at once predictable and insufferable to watch. Every human has their unique foibles and contradictions, but Mountainhead found itself too enthralled by figures who are no longer interesting, if they ever were. I found myself longing for more than two minutes with the girlfriend, the ex-wife, the assistant, the board member, let alone one of the many staff at the house – anyone to de-center a perspective that has already claimed far too much oxygen in the public sphere. For a Real Person to get involved. But that may be beyond this flavor of satire, now in an era of diminishing returns.

I was ghosted at 54. Here's why I choose to think of it as empowering
I was ghosted at 54. Here's why I choose to think of it as empowering

The Guardian

timea day ago

  • The Guardian

I was ghosted at 54. Here's why I choose to think of it as empowering

I'm a 21st-century spinster: last year, I turned 54 and hadn't had a relationship (or a good date!) for almost five years. Before that, I'd taken dating for granted. Marriage was never my goal, and I don't have children. Since college, there'd been a steady pattern of long-term, wonderful relationships. I'm lucky; I'm a woman who's been loved. Then came my early 50s – during Covid – and everything stopped. So, I quit online dating, stopped doing awkward blind dates and declined virtual networking events. Instead, I focused on doing things I enjoy, like seeing live music, going to sporting events and traveling, with people I care about. But on a trip to my hometown last year to watch a football game with friends, I ran into a college classmate in the airport. I hadn't seen him in more than 30 years. We talked for a few minutes and politely agreed to keep in touch. After one short meet-up in New York City, we started spending a lot of time together. We lived in different cities but both traveled for work, so coordinating locations was fun. Whether it was walking around different cities together, going to restaurants, making dinner at his house – he did all the cooking – or just texting and talking on the phone at all hours, every day, I was surprised at how effortless it was. I was attracted to his intense ambition and grit – but mostly his compassion. Despite his punishing work schedule, he took time to meet with my best friend's daughter, who was in her early 20s, struggling to find a job. What was supposed to be a quick coffee ended up being a full pancake breakfast on a weekday morning where he listened, gave advice and boosted her confidence. He had experienced a tremendous amount of loss in the previous few years. Once, he told me he was 'completely alone in the world' – not lonely, but alone – which was sad. At times, he was arrogant and insecure: he had worked very hard to be financially successful, but needed people to know it. He was such a good man but, in retrospect, a hard person to really know. He pushed things faster than expected, saying 'I love you' after just a few weeks. It was a lot for me, but he seemed like a great guy, and it felt like we already had some shared history. After three months, I assumed we were already beginning a longer-term, more serious thing, so I was in no way prepared for our story to end so abruptly. He ghosted me. It happened fast. For about a week, I noticed he wasn't texting or calling like he normally did. We both have intense jobs, so I figured he was having a stressful time at work. When I called him after about a week to check in, he didn't seem like himself, and I sensed something had shifted. I couldn't think of anything that had happened between us to cause this, but after that call, I decided to give him space and wait to hear from him. When another week went by without any contact from him, it felt like he was just gone, as suddenly and unexpectedly as he had shown up that day at the airport. I had two theories about what happened. Applying Occam's razor, the simplest was that he just didn't like me. I'm a confident person, but self-aware enough to accept that this just happens sometimes. But my second theory was about bad timing: you meet people where they are in life, and that can make all the difference. Either way, my instinct was to leave him alone since he was barely responding to me. But I remembered researcher and author Brené Brown's Ted Talk on vulnerability, where she described it in the context of shame, and the idea that human connection and empathy require us to be vulnerable. I was also thinking about one of my favorite columnists, and author of The Road to Character, David Brooks, who has made a case for prioritizing 'eulogy virtues' (like kindness and compassion) instead of 'résumé virtues' (ambition and achievement). Vulnerability and kindness had never been my strengths, but as I got older, I'd tried to be better at both. After my sister died in the opioid crisis, my biggest regret was that I wished I'd been kinder to her. Sign up to Well Actually Practical advice, expert insights and answers to your questions about how to live a good life after newsletter promotion If he was having a hard time, I wanted to be kind, and that would require putting aside my pride and being vulnerable. So, after about a month of no communication, I sent him one last text: I hoped he was OK, and if he ever needed a friend, I was here. (I didn't want him to feel alone in the world.) It was a short message: no digs; no question that required a response. I just put it out there sincerely. Two days later, I received an antiseptic response about how busy he was, and he 'hoped I was well', like we had just met at a corporate retreat in the Catskills. Vulnerability sounded much more empowering when Brown talked about it. After that, I deleted all his texts, except one saying: 'I love you' – to prove to myself I didn't imagine the entire thing. I can accept being ghosted, but I refuse to be gaslighted. One of my first jobs after college was teaching English at an elite prep school in New York City, a world unknown to me, the daughter of a waitress and a Vietnam combat veteran from western New York. While I was not prepared for these precocious, worldly students , I loved teaching short stories, because it's how we live our lives: one story stacked on another, then another, some running in parallel. Everything all at once. In some stories, you might be the protagonist – in others, just a supporting role. But in all of them, we intertwine with people living in stories of their own. I'll never know what happened with him, but I've decided my ghost story is a comedy, which feels empowering. I tell it with humor, and people always respond with laughter and empathy. No matter how old we get, one of the best parts of dating is telling friends your stories. I have an amazing group of women from home, whom I consider 'million-dollar therapy'. We support each other, deal with life's absurdities together and laugh about how we are now the same age as The Golden Girls, but with better hair. Looking back after almost a year, I don't regret what happened – even though I felt so humiliated at the time. I took a risk trying to connect with someone I cared about, and it didn't work out. But in the end, I tried to be kind – and there's power in that, not shame. Most importantly though, I'm hopeful again and looking forward to my next story. Kelly O'Connor is a Partner at Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in Washington DC and a patient advocate and a TEDx speaker about the opioid crisis.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store