The Brutalist AI Controversy

Photo by Jack Barton on Unsplash

Artificial intelligence is fast becoming the hot technology in film and television industry. Tech shows and university campuses are awash with case studies and demos of the power of AI to transform the way we produce visual media. However, the storm of controversy that engulfed Brady Corbet’s latest film, The Brutalist, suggests that not everyone  is ready for mainstreaming AI production. 

At the heart of the concerns – and the wider debate on AI – lies the revelation that AI played a significant role in the movie’s post-production process, specifically in enhancing the Hungarian dialogue and creating architectural drawings. This use of AI has ignited passionate discussions and raised questions about the boundaries of artistic creation and technological intervention. 

AI applications in The Brutalist 

The film, starring Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones, has garnered critical acclaim for its powerful performances and striking aesthetic. However, the disclosure of AI involvement has cast a shadow over its achievements, raising questions about the authenticity of the actors’ performances and the integrity of the film’s artistic vision.  Traditionally, perfecting an accent for a role involves months of intensive dialect coaching and multiple rounds of Automated Dialogue Replacement (ADR). However, The Brutalist took a different approach, employing Respeecher, a voice conversion technology, to make targeted adjustments to the actors’ pronunciations. Rather than re-recording entire performances, the AI system allowed for precise, letter-by-letter modifications to vowel sounds, blending the actors’ performances with authentic Hungarian speech patterns. This method represents a significant departure from conventional post-production techniques. It allowed for rapid, cost-effective adjustments that would have been too expensive or time-consuming using traditional methods, especially given the film’s modest $10 million budget. 

Furthermore, when developing the film’s Brutalist architectural designs, the production team turned to Midjourney, an AI image generation tool, to create concept art. Few AI-generated visuals made it into the film; instead, the images served as a reference for human artists, who refined and expanded these concepts to create the final designs. However, some critics still  oppose the use of AI as a creative starting point. 

The real controversy surrounding The Brutalist is less about AI itself and more about the timing of its disclosure. Unlike other high-profile projects, such as The Mandaloria,which used  Respeecher for Luke Skywalker’s voice, the AI enhancements in The Brutalist were revealed after the film’s release. This lack of transparency has led to the industry and audiences feeling duped rather than excited by what this technology can do.  This echoes similar controversies, such as the 2021 Roadrunner documentary scandal, where AI was used to recreate Anthony Bourdain’s voice without explicit disclosure. 

AI in Film and Television Production 

In response to the backlash, the film’s creative team has defended their use of AI, framing it as an augmentation rather than a replacement of human effort. Director Brady Corbet likened the edits to “removing a microphone boom in Photoshop“, suggesting that such post-production tweaks are commonplace – an idea that may well have concerned audiences further. Producer Stan Brooks drew parallels to long-standing industry practices, stating, “We’ve done tiny voice enhancements since the ’80s“.  

While these rebuttals might defend this single production, the controversy surrounding The Brutalist has broader implications for the film and television industries. AI is fast being presented as a natural evolution of existing post-production techniques rather than a radical departure from established norms. However, this position becomes problematic in light of recent labour disputes and growing concerns about AI’s role in creative fields.  

The integration of AI into Hollywood has already sparked a seismic shift in labour relations, reshaping power dynamics between studios and creatives while raising existential questions about the industry’s future workforce. Recent disputes reveal a sector grappling with technological disruption that threatens to outpace existing safeguards. Whilst 72% of studios state that they actively deploy generative AI tools, creative professionals are voicing mounting concerns. Voice actors fear algorithmic voice cloning could erase speciality work, whilst visual effects (VFX) artists’ unions note that AI threatens compositing roles. Writers, for their part, have won contractual assurances that AI cannot replace human authorship. 

The 2023 Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and The Writers Guild of America (WGA)  strikes established critical AI protections through landmark agreements. These hard-won clauses now face stress tests in emerging conflicts, such as the 2024 video game actors’ strike against Activision and Disney, where performers demand enforceable protections against AI voice cloning. Meanwhile, the Animation Guild battles studios over AI’s encroachment into 3D modelling and character design – fields where 30% of jobs could vanish by 2026, according to CVL Economics

The use of AI in creative processes may also complicate copyright laws and ownership rights across the creative industries. The UK Government is presently consulting on AI and copyright with a view to bringing in legislation that supports the creative industries without stifling the use of AI tools. Questions, though, still abound: Who owns an AI-enhanced performance? How do we credit AI contributions to a film? These unknowns will lead to calls for new transparency standards and potentially mandatory disclosure of AI use in film and television production.  

Creativity with AI? 

Those in favour of AI as a legitimate production tool argue that it expands creative possibilities, allowing film and television makers to achieve effects and results that were previously impossible or prohibitively expensive. They also point to the potential for AI to democratise filmmaking by giving independent creators access to high-quality effects. 

On the other hand, critics worry about the loss of the human touch. There are concerns that AI might dilute the uniquely human elements of the craft and raise questions about the authenticity of AI-enhanced performances. Some critics fear that increasing reliance on AI could lead to a reduction in human creativity and skill development in general. 

Traditionally, cinema has been a collaborative art form involving actors, directors, cinematographers, and craftspeople. AI introduces a new ‘collaborator’ whose contributions are less tangible and more difficult to define. This technological intervention challenges traditional roles within the process. For actors, the question is whether AI enhancement diminishes the value of their performance or if it is simply an extension of post-production techniques. For The Brutalist, the use of AI in generating architectural concepts challenges the role of production designers, while its involvement in dialogue refinement blurs the line between editing and performance alteration. 

 In other areas, AI is used to the joy of audiences. The Mandalorian has been widely praised for its work with Respeecher.  Audiences marvel at expansive alien landscapes and endless skies that are only possible through AI-enhanced production processes; and the complex, real-time overlays in sports coverage, made possible by AI, allow graphics to keep up with live action. Virtual Production, a longstanding but increasingly important aspect of film and television can only reach its potential by using AI to support it. 

 As AI continues to advance, the film and television industry must grapple with fundamental questions about the nature of creativity and artistic expression. The Brutalist may be a turning point, forcing the industry to establish new guidelines. We may see the emergence of categories that recognise AI-enhanced creativity as a distinct art form. Viewers might develop a more nuanced understanding of AI’s role in production and industry bodies may need to establish clear guidelines for AI disclosure. 

What does the Future Hold? 

 The capabilities of AI are opening creative avenues but also raising significant ethical concerns. We may see the rise of fully AI-generated performers, raising questions about the nature of stardom and the value of human performance. Films could potentially adjust their storylines based on audience reactions or preferences, creating a more interactive but no longer shared cinematic experience. In the pre-production phase, AI tools could evaluate screenplays for marketability, pacing, and narrative structure, potentially streamlining the often-arduous process of script development, but this could lead to a flattening of the creative landscape with few ‘new’ ideas being brought to market. During production, we might see the emergence of real-time visual effects systems, allowing directors to visualise complex effects instantly on set. This could significantly reduce post-production time and costs while enabling more creative decision-making during filming. However, these methods and uses raise concerns about the integrity of artistic vision and the potential for manipulative storytelling techniques. 

From universities to Hollywood, AI is changing the production process. Image: University of Westminster

The essence of cinema and television is human storytelling, and the challenge is to maintain the emotional authenticity that connects audiences to films. Yuval Noah Harari has suggested that AI could write better songs by mapping individual minds and creating tailored experiences. However, musician Nick Cave argues that great songs evoke a sense of awe, which stems from human limitations and the audacity to transcend them. AI might generate technically ‘perfect’ songs, but it lacks the nerve to create truly great ones! The same may be true of stories for film and television.  

Whichever side of the debate we take, directors and writers will need to adapt their skills to ‘direct’ AI tools, leading to new roles in human-AI creative partnerships. The Brutalist may well be remembered as an early harbinger of this new era, where the boundaries between human and artificial creativity become increasingly blurred. 

As the film and television industries embrace these technologies, we must remain vigilant about the ethical implications of AI while   exploring their potential to expand the boundaries of cinematic storytelling. The future of the screen industries may become a collaborative dance between human imagination and artificial intelligence, creating experiences that we can scarcely imagine today.

This article is one of a series commissioned as part of MyWorld, a UKRI-funded project that explores the future of creative technology innovation by pioneering new ideas, products and processes in the West of England.