Sarah Lane, the dancer in the movie Black Swan, is caught in a controversy over credit for her work. I think Christopher John Farley’s interview of her captures it best:

It was all my fault really because I didn’t have a manager…When I was going to sign my contract it said on screen credit is up to the producer’s discretion. So I asked some people and I said I don’t know about this. I feel like I should have it specified in my contract how I want to be credited and everyone was like you know you’re a double so you’re already getting paid more than a principal contract. You’re already getting a good deal. So I signed the contract and I left it. I thought they would kind of take care of me because they were really encouraging and really sweet and always saying how amazing I was. They were kind of rooting me on when I would have to do shots that were really hard and almost impossible even for a professional ballet dancer.

This reminds me of the earlier inventors of the lightbulb who fought with Edison for credit. Edison claimed a patent in 1879 but lost a lawsuit to William Sawyer in 1883 for copying his work. Edison also was embroiled with a lawsuit to Joseph Swan who had a patent in 1878 for the same lightbulb and had demonstrated it publicly as early as 1869.

Never mind the facts, most people still think of Edison as the inventor of the lightbulb because he oversaw some improvements to the design. The truth is that Edison was a master of taking an idea and making it profitable. He was hardly an inventor, but he was a great showman and a producer.

This situation is not about invention but about similar problems of credit and trust. Lane does not really seem to be in a dispute with Natalie Portman, Black Swan’s lead actress. Neither Portman nor Lane actually show much of a fight. Lane suggests the issue is that her trust in FOX was misplaced and it is others in the dance community who want the facts about her efforts to be known. Portman has stepped back politely and said she could not become a professional dancer so easily and believes Lane is very talented.

The only one to show much interest in a fight is the choreographer who accidentally impregnated Portman during the filming, which already puts him in questionable territory. He has come out swinging at Lane and claimed she “honestly” danced only 15% of the scenes.

Maybe the choreographer, Benjamin Millepied, is trying to win points with the movie producer by defending their celebrity marketing plans, or maybe he is trying to win points with Portman. It is impossible to see him as any kind of impartial voice, so it would be interesting to see a true tally of times. The WSJ points out that FOX has taken a more diplomatic route but refuses to admit to any tally of time or percentages and is actively trying to obscure the data.

There is a video circulating on the web that appears to show how filmmakers used “face replacement” special effects to put Portman’s head on Lane’s dancing body. Clicking on the link to one copy of the clip now results in this message: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by FOX.” Another version of the clip, without the face replacement segment, has been issued.

So the issue now moves, from a classic case of professional trust and claims of credit, to a question of authenticity and data integrity.

Millepied’s harsh and unusual criticism of a dance colleague could become a challenge to digital investigators. Can someone prove, through forensic review or even casual observation, the true percentage of dance scenes with Portman’s face digitally imposed over Lane’s? The answer may suggest body doubles in future could be wise to demand a hidden key be used with their work to settle differences of opinion — to prove themselves against a disparaging choreographer. What Lane understands and Millepied perhaps does not is that, regardless of any answer and percentages assigned, Portman will be remembered as the Black Swan.