Justine Bateman Wants to “Give a Book of Matches” to the Tech Companies So They Can Burn Down Hollywood

As an ardent admirer of Hollywood’s technological advancements, I can’t help but express my views – sometimes quite passionately – about its artificial intelligence future, and there’s no one more outspoken on the subject than Justine Bateman.

Equipped with a degree in computer science from UCLA, the seasoned actor-director has raised concerns about the risks of substituting human labor with machine manufacturing. She emerged as a key figure, especially during labor disputes, offering guidance to SAG-AFTRA on this matter and frequently representing the AI skeptic faction during protests, often seen on the Writers Guild picket line.

Bateman established Credo 23, a relatively new company, which posits that advancements in Generative AI could potentially dismantle the traditional movie industry framework. Their objective is to create extremely authentic, unpolished, and genuine films or series that honor the craft of filmmaking.

As Hollywood tentatively explores text-to-video technologies such as OpenAI’s Sora and releases images reminiscent of Miyazaki’s work (sparking quite a stir), Bateman is reiterating her plea. The star of “Family Ties” and director of “Violet” contends that there’s a burgeoning movement – one that needs to expand – to counteract the trend towards the artificial. According to her, genuine material that is authentically human in both creation and emotion, is the solution.

She refers to this development as a pursuit of “the novel” – an endeavor aimed at reintroducing human elements into movie-making, which she contends has been diminished since the last decade when algorithms started determining content selections, and which she fears will be exacerbated by the transition to Artificial Intelligence.

Her mission represents a form of populism driven by humans, which is likely to manifest in various sectors, including Hollywood – where she plays a significant role, being associated with Sean O’Brien, the head of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Bateman serves as one of the key figures spearheading this movement in the entertainment industry. Notably, prominent personalities like Matthew Weiner, creator of ‘Mad Men’, and Reed Morano, a renowned cinematographer and director of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, have also joined her cause.

To kick off the event, Bateman established the Credo 23 Film Festival – a “filmmaker-centric, AI-free” gathering where films must be entirely human-made (special effects are permissible since they’re operated by humans). Profits from the festival will be given to the filmmakers to aid them financially and help fund their future projects. This weekend, Credo 23 is taking place at Hollywood American Legion Post 43, south of the Hollywood Bowl. It features around 30 short and full-length films, including Ethan Krahn’s avant-garde piece, Meditation on a Room, Callie Carpinteri’s teen drama, Dirty Towel, both of Bateman’s directed features, Look and Feel, the latter starring David Duchovny and Rae Dawn Chong. Before the festival begins, The Hollywood Reporter interviewed Bateman.

What’s the purpose or goal you envision for your movie festival, as you believe it will help spread your message effectively?

The primary objectives of the event aim to exclude AI and channel all earnings towards the filmmaker for their upcoming human-made film. Here’s the story: While I observed that every studio and streaming platform was embracing AI, I found it puzzling when even the festivals jumped on the AI bandwagon. These are the same places where groundbreaking films like “Pulp Fiction,” “Sorry to Bother You,” “sex, lies and videotape” were showcased. Now, I pondered, ‘How can such original content emerge if these festivals are promoting automated content?’ So, in response, I decided to establish my own festival that champions human-created films.

Do you believe there might be issues with the overall design of festivals, or is your concern more focused on technology dominance in this context?

I am deeply appreciative of film festivals, as they are filled with individuals who invest significant effort in bringing forth talented filmmakers and showcasing exceptional movies. At their core, these events aim to celebrate outstanding artistry. However, it seems that due to financial limitations or other factors, they often concentrate on three primary areas: the debuts of big-budget films, movies with a social message, and groundbreaking, thought-provoking pieces such as “Pulp Fiction,” “sex, lies, and videotape,” or “Crash.” Regrettably, it appears that the latter category has shrunk significantly while the former two have grown substantially. This means that unique films with impact are being overlooked in favor of the others. I’m not casting blame; I don’t know the specifics of their financial dealings. However, I aim to create a different approach.

There’s also a feeling among some filmmakers that there’s less benefit to going to a festival.

Originally, festivals served as a platform for distribution. However, securing deals has become quite challenging nowadays. So we proposed an innovative idea: “What if filmmakers were compensated at festivals similar to how artists are paid at Coachella?” Although our budget isn’t vast, I managed to keep expenses minimal. This allowed us to cover all costs with 20% of the revenue. The remaining 80% is being returned to filmmakers so they can produce their next work.

How does all this tie into your anti-AI stance?

Essentially, the discussion revolves around the transformation of businesses prior to AI, particularly when tech firms invaded Hollywood. These companies weren’t initially in the entertainment industry; they were tech-focused, operating within distinct financial structures.

Previously, for each viewer watching a movie once, it would cost $15, and some of that money would go to the filmmaker. However, this changed, and now a single payment of $15 allows an entire household and anyone they share their password with to watch thousands of films. The focus shifted from individual purchases to subscribers, leading to a fundamentally different system. Unfortunately, this new model doesn’t favor filmmakers positively.

And you think this affected the quality too, the drive towards quantity.

The North Star was consistently associated with top-notch productions. While it had its fair share of less successful movies and shows, everyone aspired to be a part of something truly outstanding. However, with the new system in place, what you receive is an endless stream of content. Of course, there are exceptions, but the North Star isn’t about exceptional work – it’s all about this constant flow of content.

How do you define that term?

These days, some films or TV shows are made to play as background entertainment while you’re busy with other things, like scrolling through social media. They don’t want you to miss much if you glance away for a few minutes. I once had a filmmaker friend who received feedback from a streaming platform that their movie wasn’t “second-screen friendly” enough. In essence, they aim for cinematic background music – something that doesn’t demand your full attention. This is one reason why many people don’t enjoy going to the cinema anymore. A good theatrical film is intended to keep you engaged every minute. However, audiences today aren’t accustomed to this level of focus. Add to that the fear of being boycotted for not meeting certain criteria or checking specific boxes, and it becomes clear why the system feels broken and beyond repair.

Which leads you to AI.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the ability to generate content autonomously. This is the future I anticipate, as AI is poised to take over the entertainment industry by streamlining its operations. By utilizing vast amounts of data accumulated over years about individual users, it can tailor content to specific preferences. For an additional fee, they could even swap your head onto Luke Skywalker’s body for tonight’s screening of Star Wars, or they may create a movie combining your favorite genres like panda documentaries and Hong Kong fight films based on your interests.

For quite some time, we’ve seen numerous remakes, yet up until now, film studios have had to manually create these remakes – this involved shooting an entirely new film from scratch.

Indeed, automation is the future. However, when people question the matter of copyright, it’s not about copyright per se; it’s more like Kleenex, where a new movie is produced and replaced with another the next day, as some tech companies view films today. They consider movies as content to be posted on their websites. Wouldn’t it be advantageous — more economical, even? Automation truly is the main appeal here. The cost reduction is what they prioritize. In fact, they would prefer not having actors on set because sets are costly.

In your opinion, could this concept gain traction among the public? Some professionals predict that personalization might only be a unique feature or perhaps limited to specific markets. However, you believe it could take over the entire industry instead?

Indeed, the audience we’re referring to is not from the 1970s film era. Instead, they’ve been shaped by the continuous stream of mainstream content – often referred to as a conveyor belt of slop. They’ve also been influenced by social media and self-centeredness. I believe many will find it intriguing. This isn’t for cinephiles, but rather something fresh for a lot of people. It’s just one step beyond what they’re accustomed to, as they’re already familiar with platforms like TikTok and Instagram filters. So, an AI face might not be too far-fetched for them.

Is there any validity in the perspective that AI functions as a useful tool for filmmakers with limited budgets, enabling them to achieve more complex shots in their films? I’m curious if you find this notion credible.

It’s hard to accept this, as if it’s true, countless films might not have been created yet. Humanity has always found ways to innovate. The creative shot at the beginning of Sunset Boulevard, where we see through the water from below the body to the photographers – that’s an incredibly imaginative shot. They achieved this using a mirror, not AI. If they had relied on artificial intelligence, we might have missed out on one of cinema’s most memorable shots. It seems that limitations often inspire great art.

But asking directors to voluntarily impose constraints feels like a big lift, doesn’t it?

As a passionate enthusiast, I’m merely expressing my personal viewpoint. It seems to me that those who rely on AI for their creative work are potentially undermining their own abilities. Instead, I prefer the challenge of discovering my unique capabilities. To me, relying on AI for a shot feels like a repetition of the past, an unwanted regurgitation of everything consumed. It’s not original; it’s a recycled product. And to me, it’s more than that – it’s plagiarism. People call it a tool, but what kind of tool must ingest a century’s worth of films and series just to operate? That’s not a tool; it’s a library.

You’re not considering the possibility of coexisting harmoniously with it. Films featuring AI and human actors, as well as an industry that accommodates both.

You don’t see a path to living in harmony with it. Movies showcasing AI and human performers, along with an industry that can accommodate them both.

As a gamer, let me tell you, anyone doubting my instincts hasn’t grasped the essence of greed and human nature. Wouldn’t you, yourself, dash for that treasure chest overflowing with gold if given the chance? It’s common sense, not rocket science!

Just to clarify, it seems your stance is that AI cannot create original or groundbreaking artwork. In other words, any images or videos generated by AI are not truly novel or visionary.

To me, artists serve as conduits allowing the universe, divine power, or magic (whichever term resonates with you) to flow into our world. Throughout history, they have birthed new forms of art, stories, and music through this conduit, shaping society in profound ways. However, artificial intelligence does not possess such a connection; it’s not tapped into that source. The individuals utilizing AI are not artists. Consider the work of Tom Cruise, for instance. Who doesn’t admire him? Observe the passion he brings to films like Mission: Impossible. He delivers those performances for us.

Then you have Deepfake Tom Cruise.

Indeed, Deepfake Tom Cruise wasn’t created by someone operating a motorcycle off a cliff. Instead, it was a product that didn’t involve an artist’s hands-on craftsmanship, which is what we value and respect. To put it bluntly, the tech companies aren’t targeting artists; they’re focusing on the more accessible targets—those who aspire to be artists. It’s akin to Boston Dynamics creating an exoskeleton resembling Kobe Bryant, allowing you to mimic his moves on the court and claim that you’re making jump shots like him. However, just because you’re wearing it doesn’t make you Kobe Bryant, and they aren’t filmmakers.

What a bleak picture, if accurate.

It’s becoming clear that a novel kind of film industry is taking shape, though its form isn’t entirely clear at this point. Regardless, we’ll find our way through it. The films showcased in our festival are distinctive; they’re authentic and unprocessed, devoid of AI manipulation. They’re not part of the mass-produced film mill. Instead, they’re individually crafted.

So you want to slow down AI adoption in Hollywood while also building this idea of the new.

I’m utterly against hindering progress in any way. There’s no one capable of putting the brakes on this. I wish to hand out matches – to studios, streamers, OpenAI, Runway, and everyone else – as a symbolic gesture, urging them to speed things up even more. The quicker AI integrates into businesses, the sooner we’ll reach a new era, which hasn’t been experienced since the ’90s. So let’s hasten the pace. This way, we can usher in the novelty that much faster.

If it’s that terrible, wouldn’t there be an effort to challenge it? Isn’t that essentially what the protests were all about?

It’s possible for two statements to hold true: I believe Generative AI is one of the most detrimental concepts our society has ever conceived, yet I can’t wait for it to pass so we can move forward and discover something extraordinary. In the interim, I intend to construct a tunnel towards that new discovery. We aim to ensure that when this AI phase concludes, a breathtaking innovation will be on the other side, crafted by human artists such as filmmakers. To me, preserving the dying tree is futile; instead, our focus should be on planting a new one.

While I strongly believe that Generative AI represents one of the most questionable innovations our society has ever pursued, I am eager for its resolution so we can progress and unveil something marvelous. In the meantime, I plan on constructing a tunnel as a means to reach this upcoming discovery. Our objective is to create an incredible innovation when this AI era ends, with human artists like filmmakers leading the charge. To me, saving the dying tree seems pointless; instead, we should concentrate our efforts on planting a new one.

Some optimism! So how do you see this playing out?

Over time, I believe people may grow tired of the repetitive responses from AI systems. It might take some time, but eventually, they will. People will tire of an AI denying their medical coverage, restricting their school choices, or making decisions about various aspects of their lives that were once handled by humans. They’ll also tire of automated content. Instead, what they’ll crave is authenticity, rawness, and a touch of humanity – something genuinely human, not AI-generated.

And that’s what the festival is, kind of a glimpse at what can be waiting?

Absolutely! We’re constructing the tunnel, pushing forward with our efforts so we can emerge on the other side, illuminated. Our films, at the very least, exhibit a compassionate bent, avoiding tired tropes. Yet, they also hint at something authentic, beyond the realm of artificial creation. Our goal is to foster a future that retains human touch rather than becoming overly automated. I find this endeavor invigorating and believe many others will share our enthusiasm.

There are two pathways ahead. One leads straight up the mountain, but thankfully, there’s an alternate route available. I believe this second pathway would be a better choice for us.

2025-03-30 05:25

Read More