AI in Film isn’t Just Insulting to Me as a Filmmaker, but as a Computer Scientist

The 2025 Oscars had a lot of controversies, to say the least. The most striking being the inclusion of work assisted by AI, specifically The Brutalist and Emilia Pérez. Now, the Academy has made its stance official: films that use AI are eligible for Oscar nominations and wins. While the Academy may not find AI concerning, many people think otherwise, myself included. 

A photo from the Snatch’D set.

How Did They Use AI?

The Brutalist used AI to generate drawings of brutalist building drafts and to correct the accents of Felicity Jones, who was nominated for “Best Supporting Actress” for this film, and Adrien Brody, who won “Best Actor.”

Emilia Pérez used AI for sound mixing for their titular character, played by Karla Sofía Gascón, in an effort to expand her vocal range. She was nominated for “Best Actress” for this role. In addition, Emilia Pérez won “Best Original Song,” with a song featuring Gascón. Its AI usage might be one of this film's smaller controversies, but it still left a stain.

The Beauty in Being Human

Inspired by these controversies, I spoke with actor Marcel Patterson and Furman Computer Science Professor, film fan, and writer, Dr. Rebecca Drucker. 

Both Patterson and Drucker have negative feelings in response to the recent AI Oscar controversies and argue that they would rather see a flawed performance, such as imperfect singing or an imperfect accent, than see them artificially portrayed. Another option is allowing more time to properly train the actors, or finding the right actors to perform those tasks.

Patterson states that AI in performance is, “...kind of like a bastardization of…the tools that were given naturally, just being able to perform with your body, voice…I feel like that does detract from the nomination of it because, you know, it's not you. It's not your natural performance.” Concerning the idea of AI replacing human actors, “It's this weird aura of connection, this ability to convey the human condition that I just don't think AI is capable of right now or maybe even ever.”  Although both Drucker and Patterson can see AI being viewed similarly to autotune in the future, Patterson emphasizes that it still does not have people behind its creation—loosing its human quality.

Drucker explains that, “I get that acting is necessarily an act of deception, but, you know, a friendly one, but then if you're judging someone's performance and their performance has been altered by a computer, that to me triggers my feelings of unfairness.”

Patterson emphasizes the act of storytelling when acting, “The pursuit of creating the truth on screen is far more compelling and audiences will notice that more and they will appreciate the imperfections of pursuing the truth between two actors in a scene versus, again, plugging in a prompt for an AI to create a scene and just does everything kind of perfectly, but it still has that like uncanny valley effect.” He later expands that while it may seem like artists of all kinds are the only ones expressing concern, people and, especially artists, aren’t going anywhere.

As a computer scientist, Drucker explains she has reservations about AI as a whole, "I don't necessarily like how quickly it's being rolled out into everything. I wish I had more choice in the matter…” She describes that it feels like a violation, “When I go into watch a movie, I go in with certain expectation…that's that actor's performance and nothing else. And so it feels like a deception or a betrayal to find out later, oh, that wasn't fully his singing.”

Both Actors and Computer Scientists are apprehensive about the application of AI in film, as it feels like a breach of the audience’s trust. Storytelling is being cast aside for the idea of perfection, but that is not what people want to see when they engage in the art world; they want to feel, and the feelings that AI in art currently generates are bad.

Thoughts on AI as an IT Major

Given the overlap I have as a filmmaker, my major, and the fact I am a student—my feelings regarding AI are complicated. I see peers interact and use it every day, much to my chagrin, but in some ways it's unavoidable.

AI is a cheap, quick way to get things done. I used it to study for exams and explain terminology I didn’t understand, but only as a last resort. AI for me is to be used purely out of desperation, one that I only reach for when I am buried alive in the sand (coursework) as a rusty shovel to get myself out. I always feel a sense of guilt even when I use it. The huge privacy and environmental issues weigh heavy, but you can’t escape AI in Computer Science right now. 

I also used AI as a student to critique AI. I would use it for research projects by generating work and dissecting its flaws. I adore using it for analysis. So many people just use it without social context, and it's important to fill that gap. For example, I had a project on issues in the medical industry, and I looked into the racial and gender bias in the AI image generation of Doctors and Nurses. But research on AI’s harms wouldn’t be as necessary if we just didn’t use it. 

Me and my fellow Furman University chapter of GirlsWhoCode's leaders for the 2024-2025 school year.

Thoughts on AI as a Filmmaker

AI usage in is distasteful at best and theft at its worst. It removes any uniqueness, which kills the entire point of film. As an example, two films with very similar plots of animated Lions escaping zoos were released around the same time, The Wild and Madagascar. People remember Madagascar because it was unique. It had a comedically talented cast and fast-paced jokes. Disney was the studio that flopped because it didn’t stand out; it wasn’t unique. AI creations are generated from previously created content; it’s impossible to be unique.

With AI in the arts, it just feels like people are admiring its capability without looking at its ability. Yes, it can generate a screenplay in seconds, but it isn’t good. With AI work, it feels like the “Infinite Monkey Theorem” (if you have an infinite amount of monkeys writing, one will eventually get Shakespeare), but it feels like people are claiming every monkey (AI) wrote Shakespeare.

Connecting back to the Oscars, although it is not the end-all be-all in determining what is a good film, for the general American public, it’s an introduction to more indie films and prestige in Hollywood, such as Anora from the same Oscars year. Most regular people don’t know Cannes. They just know the Oscars, and it represents America as a nation. Pushing for AI in Film, especially after the 2023 Writers' Strike where one of the points was to ensure job security against AI, is a slap in the face. The message the Oscars are currently delivering about our country is that perceived innovation outweighs the importance of being human, and that just is not what art is about.