In the midst of a significant cultural debate surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in film, David Cronenberg’s defense of “The Brutalist” spotlights a deeper issue: the industry’s fear and suspicion of innovation. The response to the film’s use of AI tools is perplexing, particularly when considering the historical context of cinematic practices. Are we really surprised that some traditionalists are banding together to stifle progress? This defensive posture does little other than demonstrate a reluctance to evolve alongside technological advancements, and that is a disservice both to creators and audiences alike.
A Misunderstanding of AI’s Role in Filmmaking
Cronenberg’s commentary sheds light on a misconception that must be addressed: AI is being demonized without truly understanding its potential. During a conversation with Howard Shore, he noted how common it is for directors to manipulate actors’ voices and performances to fit a narrative context. The innovation in “The Brutalist,” aided by the technology from Respeecher, was not an attempt to undermine the artistry of performers like Adrien Brody or Felicity Jones. Rather, it serves as a remarkable tool to enhance storytelling—an element as old as cinema itself.
The focus on Brody’s accent in particular, a minor detail compared to the enormity of the film’s narrative, showcases misplaced priorities. It raises questions about whether the industry is more keen on protecting the status quo than on fostering creativity. If a film utilizes AI to refine performances for authenticity, it should not become a target for backlash. Instead, it should be lauded for pushing the industry forward.
The Unchecked Fear of Technology
What lies at the heart of this controversy seems to be a profound fear of technology replacing human artistry. Critics of AI frequently overlook that these tools simply serve to empower artists, not act as full replacements. An editor’s use of AI to balance linguistic nuances speaks volumes about innovation driving artistry rather than decreasing it. The absurdity of framing technology as inherently dangerous implies that creatives cannot adapt and harness new tools.
The misunderstanding stems from a fear of change itself, echoing historical patterns in every transformative era of art—from the advent of sound in cinema to the rise of CGI. Each instance sparked outrage, but ultimately led to richer storytelling and more authentic representations of our diverse world.
Encouraging Open Discussion for a Creative Future
David Jancso, the film’s editor, correctly pointed out that we need an open dialogue about the capabilities of AI in filmmaking. Rather than viewing it as a contentious subject, those in the industry should embrace it as an opportunity to discover new storytelling avenues. The conversation doesn’t need to be centered around fear, but rather around collaboration. The goal is to create, and the tools available should aid in that mission.
Among critics, the narrative that “The Brutalist” used AI to undermine its performances was dangerously reductive. It is essential to differentiate between misuse and innovation. The film sets a precedent for evolving filmmaking practices; this conversation should be framed as a chance to explore new frontiers instead of resisting them.
The defense of “The Brutalist” against AI critics is not just about one film—it’s about a larger movement toward a future where technology and creativity can coexist harmoniously. So, let’s use this criticism as a stepping stone to redefine the narrative and tilt the conversation towards a more promising horizon.
Leave a Reply