I Don't Think A.I. Belongs in Film

And neither do UoA professors

It feels to me that generative A.I. is being shoved down our throats lately, most notably in places it isn’t wanted. Following last month's news that popular indie film studio A24 had accepted a $75 million dollar investment from Google’s ‘DeepMind’ to develop A.I. tools and technologies for filmmakers, further questions are being raised about both the benefits and the dangers of its infiltration of the film industry. The partnership has, unsurprisingly, sparked outrage amongst A24 fans, and understandably so, as it goes against everything that people originally loved A24 for: a forefronting of independent artists and an escape from dominant culture.

It may not be obvious to some how generative A.I. use in film goes against these ideas, but to put it simply, generative A.I. is a tool of plagiarism first and foremost. You’re asking ChatGPT to generate a screenplay for you? Where did it get those plot ideas, structures, character tropes, etc. from? Other people’s work that already exists, babe. No matter how much like a ‘brain’ A.I. seems to operate, it is incapable of ‘thinking’ for itself, and can only reproduce and repackage what it has learnt elsewhere. And when there is no more human information to learn from, it regurgitates from itself and devolves into nonsensical slop, but that’s a discussion for another day. 

Media and film lecturers Emily Holland and Timothy Signal gave their thoughts on generative A.I. in this space, and it’s certainly less than optimistic. When I asked them what possible risks the film industry would be taking by embracing this technology, Signal leaned heavily into the idea of plagiarism, adding that, “generative A.I. is, by definition, simply remixing existing work to produce an averaged out result. It lacks the spark of human creativity, the ability to innovate or build on prior knowledge to develop, change and evolve as an artist. One of the key risks of the use of generative A.I. is that we come to accept a surface-level recreation of existing art as ‘good enough’, rather than being challenged, confronted or exposed to new ideas.” 

In the arguments for generative A.I., a term being bandied around often is the ‘democratisation of filmmaking’. People see this technology as leveling the playing field and increasing access to creative industries for those who don’t have the resources to succeed otherwise. When asked about this, both professors were skeptical, with Holland saying “while sounding beneficial, (generative A.I.) is ultimately detrimental to film and media production. The ongoing narrative of technological advancement working to ‘make life easier,’ doesn’t really have a place in this creative sphere. Film is at its best when it has been thoughtfully crafted over time, through a range of production processes, with challenges and limitations along the way. Inspiring, thoughtful work isn’t usually produced through ease and efficiency.” 

Kane Parsons, director of A24s highest grossing film, stated that “art is a way of processing life” when asked about A.I. in film.  People don’t make films because they need a job. If all people wanted was a steady paycheck, no one would dare try and get into this industry. It’s unreliable, cutthroat and often comes at great personal cost. People make art out of an absolute labour of love and belief in their own vision. If you find yourself turning to A.I. to make art for you, chances are, you don’t want to make art that badly.

So, the question that remains is what does the future of filmmaking look like? Will the industry embrace or reject this new direction? Emily Holland is hopeful, stating “ I’d like to think that we’ll continue to see this divide rather than having the use of generative A.I. become the dominant practice. It’s more important than ever, with these bigger names adopting A.I., to be selective and critical about what media we choose to consume and to support the more diverse, niche areas of the film industry. We already saw shifts away from the idolization of white, male heteronormative filmmakers in the most recent Sight and Sound Top 100 list and I think film fandom and communities can collectively instigate a similar move away from endorsing tech bro takeover in film.” 

Unfortunately, film is the same as all other industries, and is operated with one goal in mind: profit. Those at the top, bankrolling films, do not often see the reward in the work, only where they can cut corners. Signal is hopeful, telling me “a more optimistic perspective is that Generative A.I will end up as just another instrument in the toolbox of the filmmaker. It’s current dominance in the industry as the exciting new thing will fade, and artists will figure out where and how it aids or benefits their workflows and adapt it in with other tools to continue to produce work.

There is a long history of this in film, from the development of sound technology, visual effects work, digital filmmaking, CGI etc. All of these things initially impacted on an existing film community, challenged existing ways of producing art, were pushed heavily by those looking to serve the commercial imperative, and eventually just became part and parcel of what it means to be involved in making films.”

With all this in mind, it can be hard to remain hopeful for this incredible medium of art, but I implore you to keep watching movies! Go to the cinema! Support small and independent! And most importantly, vote for parties who care about the regulation of generative A.I., and aren’t trying to crush us underneath their gigantic, bloodthirsty data centers. 

Written by Emily Gunston 

Special thanks to Timothy Signal and Emily Holland from Waipapa Taumata Rau’s Media and Film studies department