Every year, as awards season approaches, creatives clamour for prestige and recognition. With discourse galore and controversies flying left and right, it has become clear that this is when year-round cinematic discourse reaches its peak.
The use of generative AI has only grown as a key source of divisiveness in the creative industry over the last few years. Many believe it to be cost-effective, reliable, and pragmatic. Whereas others, including myself – in my ever-humble opinion – believe it undermines the work and humanity of creatives and threatens the sanctity of film-making as an art and not just a commodity.
Whilst the discussion around generative AI has certainly sped up in the last few years, production companies have been using AI since the early 2000s, particularly in CGI and other special effects. It has also been frequently used to predict the success of scripts and determine an actor’s market value. Cinelytic, for example, has been used by major film production companies (such as Warner Bros., Lionsgate and Sony Pictures) to increase efficiency and save time and money by anticipating a film’s success at the box office.
Whilst this can be interpreted as overly capitalistic in itself, the newer use of generative AI is somewhat more concerning. This was a huge issue in the 148-day WGA (Writer’s Guild of America) strike in 2023, which only ended with a deal struck between unions and entertainment companies which prohibits the use of generative AI to write or edit scripts already written and affirms that AI-generated content cannot be used as source material.
It is, therefore, hugely concerning that generative AI is still in use to create promotional posters for movies such as Civil War (2024), voice effects in Alien: Romulus (2024), and writing in The Last Screenwriter (2024), which ironically centres a screenwriter worried about the infiltration of AI in the entertainment industry.
It seems these worries only grow when the films using AI are critically acclaimed and up to sweep awards season. A key film in contention? The Brutalist (2024).
Despite receiving 9 BAFTA and 10 Oscar nominations, Dávid Janscó, editor of The Brutalist, revealed they used Respeecher generative AI to edit Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones’ Hungarian dialogue. This was to “preserve the authenticity”, according to the film’s writer-director Brady Corbet. But this begs the question, how strong is Corbet’s dedication to authenticity when his main actors’ performances depended on AI? Janscó also commented that the Hungarian dialogue was so dense that they “needed to speed up the process otherwise, we’d still be in post”. You can see how many have seen this as problematic in terms of prioritising efficiency and speed over authenticity. Especially for a film about artistic integrity in post-war America.
Whilst it has been repeatedly reiterated that Hungarian accents are extremely hard to perfect, there is a question about whether or not the use of AI was completely avoidable or not. It is commonplace for actors to take on vocal and dialect coaches to train their voices for demanding roles; Timothée Chalamet – another actor up for Best Actor – spent five years perfecting his harmonica playing to be Bob Dylan-esque.
Even with all this in mind, generative AI’s harm extends past creative authenticity and humanity in the entertainment industry, we also know now its effect on the environment, straining water supplies and using copious amounts of electricity.
This not only begs the question of whether or not the use of AI should affect a film’s performance during awards season but at what point do ethical considerations become afterthoughts?
Photo by Cash Macanaya on Unsplash
