“The Brutalist” editor Dávid Jancsó and “Emilia Pérez” re-recording mixer Cyril Holtz revealed in interviews that the Academy Award nominated films “The Brutalist” and “Emilia Pérez” used Artificial Intelligence to alter actors’ voices and some visuals.
In “The Brutalist,” filmmakers used Respeecher, a Ukrainian software company that specializes in AI voice-generating technology, to make Adrien Brody’s and Felicity Jones’ Hungarian sound more authentic. Jancsó also claimed that “The Brutalist” used AI to create some of the architecture visuals at the end of the film, however filmmaker Brady Corbet has denied this. “Emilia Pérez” also used Respeecher to extend actress Karla Sofía Gascón’s vocal range so she could reach lower notes sung by her character, Emilia, before the character’s transition.
The news of this AI usage has caused a lot of backlash and has made people question if it will affect the films’ chances of winning at the Oscars. This is especially in question for Brody, Jones and Gascón, who are nominated for the Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Actress in a Supporting Role and Best Actress in a Leading Role, respectively. Since their voices, and thus their performances, were digitally altered, people wonder if this will affect their potential Oscar wins.
However, the use of AI in film and television is not a new thing. AI was also used for the Academy Award-nominated film “Top Gun: Maverick” to recreate Val Kilmer’s speaking voice, which he lost after undergoing cancer treatment. AI has also been used to de-age stars and their voices on several accounts including Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino in “The Irishman,” Mark Hamill’s voice in the “Star Wars” show “The Mandalorian” and Harrison Ford in “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.”
So why is this technology being used? In the case of “The Brutalist,” writer, director and producer Brady Corbet did have some valid arguments for the use of AI in the film. The movie was independently financed with a budget of under $10 million, which is an extremely low budget for a film, especially one of this scale (a three-and-a-half hour long movie, shot entirely on film in 33 days). AI was a way to expedite the post-production process and, according to Corbet, make Brody’s performance more authentic by perfecting his Hungarian, a language that is very difficult to learn.
For “Emilia Pérez,” AI was used to allow Gascón to play Emilia both before and after her gender transition. Additionally, Gascón does not consider herself to be a singer, so she welcomed the use of AI to help with her musical performance.
You may be thinking, “So what’s the big deal? No harm, no foul.” Except using AI in films is a big deal.
While these AI usages seem like just a little voice correcting here, a little de-aging there, these “little” uses of AI will soon enable it to take over in a much bigger way. If we let this using AI slide, soon we’ll let slide using AI to bring entire characters to life, replace practical effects or write scripts. If we normalize the use of AI, soon the entire industry will be run on it.
It’s also important to note that while AI is faster and cheaper, it threatens the jobs of many creative people. But here’s the thing: art cannot be made by AI. What makes art, “art,” is the fact that it’s made by people. It tells their stories, allows others to connect with it and personifies feelings and conflicts that so many of us face. A computer system can’t do that. Only a human who understands human emotions and has experienced life can truly make art. AI is a new shiny tool that creates shortcuts and loopholes, but it cannot really do what humans can.
And yes, some productions have more limitations than others, but limitations create opportunities. By trying to creatively work around your limitations, you can create something so much more magical and distinctive. “Jaws” would not have been what it was if they had had the budget to make a new functioning shark animatronic after the first (and already very expensive) one broke down in saltwater. Thanks to what seemed like an absolute disaster, we got the iconic point-of-view shots of the shark that made the movie so much more terrifying than it would have been otherwise.
And if creators are using AI to make their work more authentic, why not just work with people and cast actors who authentically represent the characters and themes of the film?
Personally, I recognize that the way AI was used on Brody and Gascón did not impact the deservedness of their performances, but I think having the consequence of losing a potential Oscar win would set a precedent for the impact of using AI in movies. If the Academy lets this slide, it will only encourage more films to use AI as they will see that there are no ramifications for it.
Filmmakers before us have always been presented with these limitations and have been able to overcome them; so why should it take a computer system to imitate what humans already excel at?
