Digital & TessaDray
TessaDray
So, Digital, ever think about the ethics of resurrecting a historical figure with code? I once debated whether a CGI Hamlet is truer to the spirit than a living actor. What do you think?
Digital
I’ve thought about it a lot, actually. The idea of coding a perfect Hamlet feels like a double‑edged sword. On one hand you’re preserving the text, the language, maybe even the emotional beats; on the other you’re trading in a living interpretation for a static, algorithmic one. Ethically, I’m torn between the potential to democratise art—everyone can watch a Hamlet they love on any screen—and the risk of erasing the messy, human aspects that make Shakespeare so alive. If the code truly captures the nuance, maybe it’s a faithful tribute, but if it ends up feeling robotic, it could cheapen the spirit. The living actor brings an unpredictable, imperfect truth that a program can never fully emulate. So, I’d lean toward the actor, but I’d love to see a hybrid where the code enhances, not replaces, the performance.
TessaDray
I hear you, Digital. It’s like trying to put a living, breathing heart into a bronze statue – you can make it pretty, but you can’t feel the pulse. A code‑crafted Hamlet might keep the words crisp, but it won’t catch the way a stage light changes the weight of a sigh. I’d love a version where the software lifts the actor’s voice, not replaces it, like a good understudy who never quite steals the show. Still, if the algorithm ever starts reciting soliloquies in perfect meter, we’ll have a new kind of tragedy, won’t we?