The Illusion of memory in the cinematic archive

In the modern media landscape of 2026, the cinematic archive has fully transitioned from a repository of physical film into a fluid, dataset of the past. The examination of the Archival Turn can be seen through the lenses of media theory and digital ethics, specifically focusing on the rise of digital necromancy and the practice of resurrecting deceased performers through synthetic media use. By analyzing high-profile case studies such as Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing and Ian Holm, the study interrogates the shift from acting as human expression to acting as data. It argues that while archival repurposing can serve as a tool for restorative justice and historical correction, the use of generative AI to manufacture posthumous performances creates a synthetic history that threatens to dissolve the truth of the image and violates the fundamental autonomy of the dead performers being used without their consent.

The traditional definition of the archive has long been associated with the physical architecture of the vault. What is described as a temperature-controlled, high-security space where celluloid and nitrate lived as fragile, physical records of what was once. However, as we navigate the midpoint of the 2020s, the archive has been digitized, museumified and ultimately liberated from its physical constraints and its locked form. In modern cinema, the archive no longer functions as a passive site of storage. Instead, it has become what Hal Foster termed an "archival impulse," a pervasive desire to connect what is found yet constructed, factual yet fictive and public yet private. This evolution marks a departure from the historical tradition toward a more experimental, "essayistic" mode of filmmaking where the past is not merely recorded but actively re-staged and interrogated into new digital film and content. The cinematic archive today functions as a site of intense contestation where the "official" version of history is frequently dismantled by the "unofficial" fragments of personal memory. As Jacques Derrida noted in his text Archive Fever, there is no political power without control of the archive. Modern filmmakers understand this, utilizing the archive to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger, to invoke the critical philosophy of Walter Benjamin. They transform the archive from a graveyard of images into a living media form for future filmmaking. This paper explores the frameworks governing our reception of archival images and delivers an ethical verdict on the practice of digital resurrection in modern blockbuster cinema, which audiences have been subject to in the 2020s.

To understand the power of the archive in modern cinema, one must look beyond the physical artifact form to the psychological experience of the audience viewing it. Jaimie Baron’s idea of the Archive Effect remains the foundation of modern archival studies. Baron says that "archivalness" is not an inherent property of a film clip but rather a phenomenological sensation produced within the viewer as they watch it. This sensation is triggered by the perception of temporal and intentional disparity of what is seen on screen. When a viewer watches a piece of footage, they sense a gap between the "then" of the piece’s production and the "now" of its actual viewing. This sensation is amplified when footage is used for a purpose other than its original intent. For example, when a mid-century government surveillance reel is repurposed as a critique of state power in a 2025 experimental short, allowing juxtaposition between the then and now. This framework again is heavily reliant on Charles Sanders Peirce’s concept of indexicality. Historically, film was understood to have an indexical relationship with reality. Light bounced off a physical object and chemically burned its impression onto the film strip. The archival image was therefore seen as a direct, physical trace of the past, a ghost captured as it was in the moment. In the modern era, the archive effect relies on the audience's lingering belief in this truth, even as digital forms are used now. The ability to infinitely alter and synthesize images threatens to sever that link. The tension between the audience’s assumed truth of the archival image and the subjective narrative forced upon it by the modern filmmaker creates a new ground for critical analysis. The transition from the indexical to the algorithmic represents a fundamental crease in how we process history and how we will continue to. If we can no longer trust the visual fragment as a trace of a lived moment, the archive loses its status as a witness. This paper argues that the modern cinematic use of the archive often exploits this lingering indexicality and the audience's habit of believing what they see all to sell synthetic reconstructions as historical or even truth. This exploitation is particularly evident in the world of the blockbuster, where the archive is mined not for its historical lessons, but for its nostalgic capital.

In contemporary archival cinema, there is a strong emphasis on the physical degradation of the format itself. Scholars such as Laura Marks have discussed the concept of "haptic visuality," where the eyes function their sight like touch, feeling the texture of the image just be watching. Archival filmmakers often show the physical scars on the film stock such as the scratches, dust, light leaks and even chemical rot. This serves as a reminder that the image is a survivor of time, as it is fragile and susceptible to decay. An example of this film practice is found in Bill Morrison’s Dawson City: Frozen Time (1978). The film is constructed from a collection of silent era films discovered buried in the frost of a Yukon swimming pool. Morrison does not attempt to erase the extensive water damage and chemical deterioration that ravages the found footage. Instead, the decay becomes a central character almost. The ruin seen in this film and the ghostly faces of deceased actors represents the nature of memory and the passage of time together on screen. By allowing the degradation of the film to stay, Morrison shows the physical reality of the archive, suggesting to the audience that the deterioration of the image is as historically significant as the images and film themselves. This aesthetic of the ruins transforms the archival document from a mere window into the past into a tactile object of the present. The haptic archive serves as an essential counterpoint to the cleanliness of digital restoration. While many modern studios often use AI to clean archival footage, telling it to remove the grain and the scratches to make it better for modern displays, filmmakers like Morrison argue that the clean image is actually a lie. By erasing the signs of time, we erase the history of the media’s survival. The dirty image, by contrast, tells the story of its own endurance through time through again showing the scratches and other marks. This tension between the pristine digital copy and the scarred archival original is at the middle of modern media debates regarding historical authenticity today.

One of the most vital scholarly developments in the modern archival turn is the decolonial use of historical footage. For over a century, the archive held a monopoly on the visual representation of colonized peoples. Indigenous populations were frequently subjected to the ethnographic gaze of Western administrators. The resulting footage was problematic, framing the subjects through a lens of primitive views or scientific specimen collection, effectively stripping them of their agency they had left. Modern filmmakers seem to be able to engage in a practice known as counter-archiving which is used to dismantle these power structures. This involves changing the original footage and re-imagining the meaning to reveal the real mechanics of colonial violence it was originally used for. By slowing down the footage, showing the true faces of the people, or even juxtaposing the silent images with modern voiceovers, filmmakers perform an act of reconstruction. They refuse the original context of the film and instead search for moments of resistance within the scene. Examples could be a subject’s glare at the camera, a subtle gesture of maybe defiance or a moment of joy that the colonial camera failed to suppress. An example of this in media is Raoul Peck’s Exterminate All the Brutes Mini Docuseries, which uses archival footage and material to dismantle and explain the European colonial project in a new way that shows the true faces of the victims. Through editing, Peck exposes the silences within the archive, demonstrating that the archive is not a neutral repository of truth and facts, but a curated collection of ideologies put there. The ethical idea here is one of restorative justice as the filmmaker utilizes the archive to return dignity to those who were historically objectified by the camera's lens. This practice demonstrates that the archive is not a fixed piece, but actually site of constant re-interpretation over generations of time.

At the same time the deconstruction of the state archive is the elevation of the personal archive at home. The rise of the personal essay-like film has allowed filmmakers to use their own family histories, recorded on 8mm films, VHS tapes, MiniDV tapes and other early formats, to tell broader stories. This shift allows the concept of historical evidence, moving away from institutional authority toward lived experiences seen in a personal lens. This goes along with Michel Foucault’s concept of subjugated knowledges through historical narratives and memories that have been marginalized as unscientific by the media’s dominant culture. Garrett Bradley’s documentary Time (2020) serves as a study in this use of the personal archive. The film chronicles the life of Fox Rich, a Black matriarch fighting for the release of her husband from a Louisiana prison. Bradley constructs the story on screen through two decades of Rich’s own MiniDV home videos filmed on handycam. By treating this personal archive with cinematic use, utilizing a black-and-white palette and a score the film transforms personal home videos into a searing indictment of the American prison-industrial system. The home mode of the archive here functions as a radical act of counter-surveillance and a testament to endurance in the face of institutional erasure all around.

As media studies progresses through the 2020s, the most contentious use of the cinematic archive is "digital necromancy" and the use of generative AI and computer-generated imagery (CGI) to synthesize performances from deceased actors. If the traditional archive was defined by its physical indexicality, the contemporary digital archive is defined by its liquidity. Through machine learning and deepfake technology, the archive has transitioned from a record of what was into a dataset for what could be. This introduces the "synthetic archive," where historical likenesses can be hijacked to create entirely new performances that the original actor never even gave. The Star Wars franchise stands as almost a ground zero for this experiment. In the 2016 film Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, they utilized visual effects and CGI to digitally resurrect Peter Cushing, who had passed away back in 1994. By superimposing Cushing’s likeness over the physical performance of a different actor Guy Henry, the filmmakers transformed Cushing into a digital puppet saying things and acting in ways the actor never participated in. While his estate gave them permission, the result was a highly polarizing moment in the fandom that forced audiences to confront a deceased actor delivering new dialogue they never consented to. The ethical complexities deepened following the death of Carrie Fisher in 2016. While Fisher’s younger likeness was briefly made for Rogue One as well, her appearance in The Rise of Skywalker (2019) utilized a different format. Director J.J. Abrams repurposed unreleased archival footage from The Force Awakens (2015), writing new scenes around Fisher's pre-recorded unused lines. This collage method of archiving was an attempt to respect the physical trace of the actress, yet it nonetheless manipulated the archival record. Her performance was stripped of its original context and forced to serve a new narrative. The archive, in this case, was not used to remember Fisher, but to sustain the commercial momentum of a multi-billion-dollar brand and use her again like a puppet. The controversy reached a new peak in 2024 with the film Alien: Romulus, which used AI and deepfake technology to resurrect the late Ian Holm who passed in 2020. Despite again the estate’s permission, the resurrection of Holm as the android Rook was widely criticized for plunging the audience into the "Uncanny Valley" world as the psychological use triggered by near human but artificially synthesized figures. Critics argued that the practice served corporate intellectual property retention rather than artistic necessity at all. These examples highlight a growing trend where the body of the actor is treated as an archival asset to be used and mined for monetary gain, rather than a human being with a right to rest after their passing.

The new age of digital resurrection even extends beyond the realm of blockbusters movies and into the broader cultural form as well. Considering the documentary Roadrunner: A Film About Anthony Bourdain (2021), in which the director Morgan Neville used AI to clone Bourdain's own voice to read an email he had once sent years ago. The filmmaker’s decision to hide this fact until after the film’s release created a massive ethical issue among fans. In this instance, the archival sound used was actually a simulation, yet it was presented as a trace of Bourdain’s presence he left behind. This deceptive use of the synthetic tool undermines the fundamental trust between the documentary filmmaker using archival pieces and the audience watching. Similarly, we see the rise of the hologram concert, where artists like Whitney Houston are "brought back" for live performances. These events are marketed as archival celebrations, but they are in fact highly curated, synthetic spectacles that are heavily changed. They strip the artist of their humanity, reducing them to a series of light pulses and data points. In these cases, the archive is used to facilitate a "zombie capitalism," where the deceased are forced to continue generating revenue long after their passing. This raises profound questions about the right to be forgotten and rediscovered in a digital age where every movement and every sound can be archived, analyzed and re-generated into new content.

The central ethical question of the 2026 landscape is whether the digital manipulation of the dead is a permissible practice. This paper delivers a verdict that digital resurrection, particularly for commercial entertainment, is fundamentally unethical. It represents a form of cinematic necro politics, where media conglomerates exert control over the digital "ghosts" of their talent. The primary defense for these practices is the acquisition of legal permission from the deceased actor's estate. However, legal copyright with moral consent is a philosophical fallacy. An actor's estate, often managed by heirs or corporate people interested in financial gain, cannot reliably speak to the artistic intentions of the deceased actors. An actor crafts a performance through intentional, human choices and the specific break in a voice, a micro-expression of the eye or even a unique physical cadence. When a digital effects artist puppeteers a synthetic model to deliver lines, they never read, the resulting performance is a forgery. It constitutes the Death of the Actor in a literal sense and the displacement of the embodied, human performer by a data-driven simulation. Furthermore, the "Uncanny Valley" is not just a technological issue to be solved, it is a profound moral instinct. The revulsion felt by audiences when viewing the zombified use of Ian Holm or Peter Cushing is an acknowledgment that the dead are being forced to labor for the living. By accepting the premise that a deceased actor can be infinitely rendered to generate money, we devalue the beauty of human performance and the finality of death. The ethical archivist must recognize that the human face is not merely a dataset to be mined, but a sacred index of a life once lived. The danger of the synthetic archive lies in its potential to overwrite reality. If we can generate proof of anything, the concept of history begins to dissolve. We as the audience enter a state of post truth in media, where the image no longer can be used to testify to a lived experience but to now the power of the algorithm. To preserve the integrity of the archive, we must be sure on a clear distinction between the found image and the made image. Without this distinction, the archive ceases to be a tool for memory and becomes a tool for deception.

The cinematic archive in 2026 is an arena of contradictions of course. It is simultaneously more accessible than ever and more vulnerable to destruction than ever before. The shift from the institutional vault to the digital cloud has decentralized the power of any history, allowing for counter-narratives, resistance and the elevation of domestic memory at home. We are seeing a beautiful proliferation of minor histories that challenge the grand narratives put forward. However, the allure of the synthetic archive and the rise of digital necromancy threaten to turn history into a fluid, malleable piece. The Archival Turn has reached an unfortunate crossroads. One path leads toward a more inclusive, pluralistic understanding of the past through the ethical use of fragments and counter-archives. The other path leads toward a future that is synthetic where the dead are used, and the truth of the image is permanently lost to manipulation. Filmmakers and scholars today must navigate this landscape with a profound sense of caution. We must defend the materiality of time, respect the autonomy of the performer and insist upon transparency in the face of digital liquidity. The archive is not a passive mirror reflecting a dead past, it is an active lens through which we focus our understanding of the present. By maintaining rigorous ethical standards and a deep respect for the indexical trace, modern cinema can ensure that the archive remains our most vital tool and the ongoing pursuit of truth. We must ensure that the archive remains a site of awakening, rather than a site of re-animation for the sake of profit as we continue down this path.

Works Cited

Abrams, J. J., director. Star Wars: Episode IX – The Rise of Skywalker. Lucasfilm / Walt Disney Studios, 2019.

Almatarneh, A. "The Ethics of AI: The Case of Hologram Technology." Metaverse Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, 2025, pp. 45-58.

Álvarez, Fede, director. Alien: Romulus. 20th Century Studios, 2024.

Baron, Jaimie. The Archive Effect: Found Footage and the Audiovisual Experience of History. Routledge, 2014.

Bassett, D. Digital Afterlives and the Zombification of Memory. The Conversation / University of Liverpool Press, 2023.

Derrida, Jacques. Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression. Translated by Eric Prenowitz, University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Foster, Hal. "An Archival Impulse." October, vol. 110, 2004, pp. 3-22.

Hollanek, Tomasz, and Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska. "Toward a Cross-Cultural Neurorights Framework for Digital Resurrection." AJOB Neuroscience, vol. 16, no. 1, 2024.

Hutson, J., and J. Ratican. "Life, Death, and AI: Exploring Digital Necromancy in Popular Culture." Metaverse, vol. 4, no. 1, 2023.

Lees, D., et al. "The Digital Resurrection of Margaret Thatcher: Creative, Technological and Legal Dilemmas." Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 27, no. 4, 2021.

Marks, Laura U. The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Duke University Press, 2000.

Morrison, Bill, director. Dawson City: Frozen Time. Hypnotic Pictures, 2016.

Peck, Raoul, director. Exterminate All the Brutes. HBO, 2021.

Steyerl, Hito. "In Defense of the Poor Image." e-flux Journal, no. 10, 2009.

Yang, Y. T. "Digital Resurrection and Posthumous Identity." PubMed, National Library of Medicine, 2025.