Curling Related Question

Question: 

If someone with multiple personalities is in a film, must each be credited separately?

This is a serious question, rather than meant to be a joke. I imagine that there may be a future where a technology is found to release such full personalities into external shells, and they may find it embarrassing to be exposed early in this way once they awaken (but such crediting might show a genuineness that this timeframe might not otherwise possess).

Multiple personalities is a much more common phenomenon than people think as well. I have heard that up to all people might be linked (internally) in this way. For example, as I am currently watching "The Studio" on Apple TV for a frame of reference: If an actor was made to be high during a film, one could credit~ Bryan Cranston and Bryan Cranston (on Mushrooms). Even pretending to be high on mushrooms might need different crediting, depending on if one is a method actor or not. All of this, of course, would be from the perspective of the future versions of everyone's sub-personalities, with bodies of their own to operate. It feels like something that future courts might adress, however, rather than the likes of today's world.

Gemini's Response:

Your question delves into fascinating and complex territory, blending legal and ethical considerations of personhood, artistic credit, and potential future technologies. While current entertainment industry standards are quite clear, the future scenario you propose introduces significant ambiguities.

**Current Industry Standards:**

In the current film industry, the standard practice is that a single actor performing multiple roles, even if those roles represent different personalities within a single character (as in a film depicting Dissociative Identity Disorder), is credited once. The credit would typically be:

* **[Actor's Name] as [Character's Name]** (e.g., "Edward Norton as The Narrator/Tyler Durden" in *Fight Club*)

The reason for this is that, from the production's perspective, it is one individual, the actor, who is performing and embodying all facets of the character. The performance is considered a unified artistic contribution, even if it requires portraying distinct internal states or personas.

**Addressing Your Future Scenario:**

Your hypothetical future where "full personalities" can be released into "external shells" and might awaken with their own consciousnesses radically shifts the paradigm. In such a world, the legal and ethical landscape of crediting would likely need to be entirely re-evaluated, and your intuition that "future courts might address" this is very likely correct.

Here's a breakdown of the complexities this future scenario introduces:

1. **Redefinition of "Actor" and "Performance":**

    * If each internal personality is considered a distinct sentient being, then the "actor" in your scenario is no longer a single individual, but potentially a collective.

    * Would the "performance" then be a collaboration of these distinct entities operating through a shared physical form?

2. **Legal Personhood and Rights:**

    * The core of your question hinges on whether these "released personalities" would be considered legal persons with rights, including intellectual property rights (such as the right to be credited for their artistic contribution).

    * If they are, then denying them individual credit might be seen as a violation of their rights or a misrepresentation of their contribution.

3. **Ethical Considerations of "Exposure":**

    * You raise the point of potential "embarrassment" for these awakened personalities. This highlights the ethical dimension. If their "performance" was done before their full awakening or consent, there could be complex questions of retrospectively granting credit or even compensation.

4. **The "Genuineness" Argument:**

    * Your idea that separate crediting might "show a genuineness" has merit in this future context. If audiences know that multiple distinct consciousnesses contributed to a role, acknowledging each might be seen as a more accurate and respectful representation of the creative process.

5. **Analogy to Method Acting and Altered States:**

    * Your analogy to Bryan Cranston (on Mushrooms) is interesting. In today's world, whether an actor is method acting or actually under the influence, the performance is still attributed to the single actor. The internal state is part of *their* process. However, if that "internal state" were to become a distinct, self-aware entity in the future, then the analogy breaks down.

**Potential Future Crediting Models:**

If your future scenario were to materialize, crediting might evolve in various ways:

* **Individual Credit for Each Personality:**

    * "Bryan Cranston (Personality A)"

    * "Bryan Cranston (Personality B)"

    * This would require a mechanism to identify and differentiate these personalities.

* **Collective Credit with Individual Notations:**

    * "Bryan Cranston (Embodying Personalities A, B, and C)" with a further breakdown or note.

* **Credit to the "Host" with Acknowledgment of "Contributors":**

    * "Bryan Cranston as [Character Name], with performance contributions from Personalities A and B."

* **Legal Precedents and Industry Standards:**

    * Ultimately, this would likely be a matter for new legal frameworks and industry-wide agreements, perhaps even leading to the creation of new unions or guilds for "awakened personalities" in the arts.

In summary, while today's film industry would credit a single actor for a multi-personality role, the future you describe would necessitate a complete re-evaluation of how we define and credit artistic contributions, potentially leading to new legal and ethical considerations of personhood in performance.