The Brutalist: Oscar Hopeful or AI Controversy? The Shocking Truth Revealed!

by

Quick Links

  • The Initial ‘Brutalist’ Controversy and Filmmakers Respond to Claim
  • Voting for Nominations Is Already Done… But the Award Season Is About to Begin
  • AI: Is There a Conversation to Be Had?

As a passionate movie enthusiast, I’ve been left in a state of surprise and disappointment upon learning that The Brutalist, once hailed as an Academy Awards frontrunner, has found itself embroiled in controversy. The reason? Allegations that the film used AI tools to augment the actors’ voices and potentially incorporated generative AI in its final scenes.

Director Brady Corbet has since refuted these claims, explaining the specific audio tool employed, yet the damage seems to have been done. The Brutalist now joins a growing list of films from 2024 that have found themselves under scrutiny for their use of AI, including Late Night with the Devil, Civil War, and fellow Oscar contender Emilia Pérez. This trend raises questions about the boundaries between human creativity and technological assistance in cinema.

Discussions surrounding AI and ethics in “The Brutalist” could significantly influence its Oscar prospects. Given its acclaimed status as one of the best films of 2024, praised by many critics with terms like “monumental,” the controversy might impact its chances negatively. Despite winning The Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture – Drama and being on numerous Top 10 lists, could this potential Oscar contender’s hopes be compromised as a result?

Read Our Review

The Initial ‘Brutalist’ Controversy and Filmmakers Respond to Claim

In a conversation with tech publication Red Shark News, I, as an editor for The Brutalist, shared insights on how AI technology from Respeecher, a Ukrainian software firm, enhanced the authenticity of Hungarian dialogues in movies featuring Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones. Some Hungarian words were challenging for the actors to pronounce flawlessly, even during Additional Dialogue Recording (ADR) sessions. To address this issue, we opted to input Brody and Jones’ voices into the AI software. I explained that we were meticulous about preserving their performances, primarily making minor changes in letter sequences. Although you could do this manually in ProTools, we chose to expedite the process due to the large volume of Hungarian dialogue we had to handle; otherwise, post-production would have taken much longer.

In response to allegations about the use of AI, Director Brady Corbet explained to Deadline that while a tool was employed, it was utilized sparingly – just for one scene where Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones conversed in Hungarian.

Adrien and Felicity’s acting is uniquely their own. For months, they collaborated with dialect coach Tanera Marshall to master their accents. In editing the Hungarian dialogue, advanced Respeecher technology was utilized to enhance specific vowels and letters for precision, while leaving the English unaltered. This meticulous process, handled by our sound team in conjunction with Respeecher during post-production, aimed to preserve the authenticity of Adrien and Felicity’s performances when translated into another language. The intention was never to replace or alter their original work but rather to pay due respect to their craft.

In post-production, audio tools are frequently employed to enhance actors’ voice recordings. However, using the term “AI” tools might stir up apprehension among critics and viewers, as it should. It is essential to clarify that the use of such technology in the scene involving Brody and Jones was done with their explicit consent. Any speculation about Brody’s Hungarian accent in the movie being manipulated by AI is unfounded.

In an interview with Red Shark, it was disclosed that AI was employed in the final sequence of “The Brutalist” to produce a set of architectural sketches and completed structures mimicking László Tóth’s style, as portrayed by Brody. This news sparked controversy among the film’s fans, as they felt that incorporating generative AI artwork for “The Brutalist” contradicted the movie’s core message and the character.

Corbet further addressed the claim that the movie employed generative AI in its production by explaining, “Judy Becker and her crew did not utilize AI for creating or rendering any structures depicted. Instead, artists manually sketched all images.

To provide more context, our editorial team intentionally crafted images for the memorial video seen in one shot to resemble low-quality digital renderings from the 1980s.

The Brutalist is a film exploring human intricacy, and every element of its production was fueled by human ingenuity, creativity, and cooperation. We take immense pride in our team’s achievements on this project.

It appears that the movie didn’t employ generative AI during its final scenes, and the single instance of AI use seemed to be confined to sound design during post-production. While it’s a new tool, it resembles other audio enhancements often used in films. You might think this is the end of the debate, but given that it’s nominated for awards, discussions about its AI usage will likely persist during the award season, under the title “The Brutalist“.

Voting for Nominations Is Already Done… But the Award Season Is About to Begin

Voting for the 97th Academy Awards ended on January 17, 2025, six days after an article about The Brutalist‘s use of generative AI in its production was published by Red Shark News. However, the news didn’t spread until the day after voting had concluded. On the final day of Oscar voting, Variety reported that some voters hadn’t managed to watch or finish The Brutalist, due to its lengthy 3.5-hour runtime. Despite this potential setback, the movie’s win at the Golden Globes may have prompted many voters to consider nominating it for the Oscars. This could result in The Brutalist receiving nominations in several major Academy Awards categories. However, the recent scandal surrounding the film might negatively impact its chances in the long run.

In this context, “The Brutalist” is currently a strong contender for awards consideration, although official nominations have yet to be announced at the time of writing. If it does receive numerous nominations, the AI-generated headlines surrounding the movie are likely to impact its chances during the award season. It’s unlikely that the Academy would rescind any nominations given to “The Brutalist,” as the film has garnered significant popularity and the AI involved is a minimal sound tool.

Despite the fact that the headlines are already circulating, it remains uncertain whether a movie that employs artificial intelligence would receive recognition such as an Academy Award. This question arises because some people believe that doing so would validate the technology’s use in filmmaking, but others, including director Paul Schrader, have expressed skepticism. Notably, both the 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes were instigated by concerns about AI in the movie industry, suggesting that studios may be rushing to adopt this technology without fully considering its implications. So, is it appropriate for a film using AI to receive an award like the Academy Award, potentially legitimizing the technology and its application in cinema?

In a nutshell, the movie “The Brutalist” is highly acclaimed, yet the application of AI within it leaves many viewers unsatisfied. Even though Corbet claims only a modest amount of AI was employed, this might not alleviate the sense of deception that has arisen since the announcement. It seems these minor instances could taint the opinion of viewers who were recently praising the film. As we move through awards season, it remains to be seen if this AI controversy will continue to shadow “The Brutalist”. Despite Corbet’s efforts to dispel these allegations, it appears they may linger over the movie.

AI: Is There a Conversation to Be Had?

In the Red Shark News article, David Jancsó expressed his viewpoint that AI, once considered controversial in Hollywood, should instead be a subject of open dialogue. He stated, “Discussions about AI are contentious within the industry, but they shouldn’t be. We need to have a frank conversation about the tools AI can offer us.” Before addressing criticisms of AI in his film, The Brutalist, he clarified, “There’s nothing in the movie that uses AI that hasn’t been done before.” He also explained that one common justification for using AI is its affordability, saying, “AI simply makes the process more efficient. We use it to create fine details that we didn’t have the budget or time to capture on camera.

Jancsó’s observation that the discussion about his point is worth considering is valid. In movie production, sound designers and editors frequently blend together different takes to enhance an actor’s performance, which can give it a somewhat artificial feel. However, this process still necessitates skilled editors and sound designers. The question then arises, does the audio technology used in such processes resemble other editing software systems?

Discussing whether a minor adjustment to AI results should exclude Adrien Brody from Best Actor contention raises questions about performances captured by motion-capture technology, such as Andy Serkis’ Caesar in the Planet of the Apes films. These performances are created on set but require significant visual effects manipulation to become fully realized. Tools like sound design for a line in The Brutalist aid this process. Therefore, it’s important to note that the debate around motion capture performances is complex and depends on individual perspectives.

From another perspective, the application of generative AI presents a challenging issue that underscores Jancsó’s quote in a significant way. AI is frequently marketed as a means for low-budget films to rival high-budget productions, emphasizing its cost-effectiveness and suggesting that it might be possible if filmmakers didn’t have to compensate artists. However, this portrayal of AI as a tool feels more like a threat to coerce artists into working for lower wages or risk being replaced by machines. This tactic is often employed to reduce production costs and save money on a film or television project rather than paying an artist fairly for their work.

Although marketed as an opportunity for low-budget films to rival the resources of major studios, it can still be seen as a form of exploitation towards numerous talented individuals whose work may be overlooked due to being a cost-effective option. Ultimately, what is valued in the end is “the director’s vision,” which has historically been utilized to exploit others and place them at risk for the benefit of a film’s success.

Read More

2025-01-22 02:32