Will AI Influence the Oscar Race Amid ‘The Brutalist’ Backlash?
The use of AI in 'The Brutalist' sparked controversy, but the reality is that CG and digital effects have long been changing actors' performances.
Brady Corbet’s “The Brutalist” sparked controversy over the weekend after it became more widely known that AI was used during postproduction for enhancing stars Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones’ Hungarian language dialogue. The subject of AI already puts many in Hollywood on edge, but it’s also being increasingly used in filmmaking. In this case, its use comes in a film that is considered among the Oscar frontrunners. But how was it actually used, and did the use of AI influence the performances in any way?
Writer-director Corbet was quick to release a statement, saying that it did not. “Adrien and Felicity’s performances are completely their own,” asserted Corbet as part of a statement to Variety. “They worked for months with dialect coach Tanera Marshall to perfect their accents. Innovative Respeecher technology was used in Hungarian language dialogue editing only, specifically to refine certain vowels and letters for accuracy. No English language was changed. This was a manual process, done by our sound team and Respeecher in postproduction. The aim was to preserve the authenticity of Adrien and Felicity’s performances in another language, not to replace or alter them and done with the utmost respect for the craft.” In the statement, he also asserted that production designer Judy Becker and her team “did not use AI to create or render any of the buildings.”
Coming out of the Golden Globes, for which the film won best dramatic motion picture, best director for Corbet and best lead actor for Brody, “The Brutalist” scored nine BAFTA noms. The Oscar nominations will be revealed on Thursday.
Popular on Variety
AI has already been making its way into motion picture and TV production. In fact, “The Brutalist” wasn’t even the only Oscar contender to involve Respeecher, which also appears in the credits of films including another Oscar frontrunner, “Emilia Pérez” (translated to “vocal conversion carried out by” in the credits ).
AI is getting the headlines because many are worried that the more it’s used, the more it could lead to job loss in Hollywood. For SAG-AFTRA, protection of an actor’s voice, likeness and performance is paramount. But the reality is that CG and digital effects have been changing aspects of actors’ performances for years. If conversation around “The Brutalist” may seem overblown, it reflects the larger anxiety about turning creative work over to automated processes.
The big picture is that technology has increasingly influenced performances in large or small ways for years. The more high-profile examples include Natalie Portman’s Oscar-winning performance in 2010’s “Black Swan,” which became the subject of scrutiny after professional ballerina and dance double Sarah Lane admitted that the production digitally imposed Portman’s face on Lane while she was dancing. (The degree to which this visual effects technique was used in wide shots was debated.) In an interview at the time with ABC News, Lane revealed that after the story broke, a producer on the film “asked if I would please not do any more interviews until after the Oscars because it was bad for Natalie’s image.”
En route to winning an Emmy for his portrayal of Liberace in 2013’s “Behind the Candelabra,” Michael Douglas similarly got a digital assist with his piano playing, as the VFX team placed his head on a professional musician.
Performance capture is another digital advancement that has sparked discussion amid awards races. Notably, Andy Serkis was lauded for his portrayals of Gollum in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and Caesar in the “Planet of the Apes” trilogy, but was overlooked in the Oscar races.
In a recent Variety cover story on Zoe Saldana, who plays Netryri in James Cameron’s “Avatar” movies, the director himself weighed in on the subject. “I’ve worked with Academy Award-winning actors, and there’s nothing that Zoe’s doing that’s of a caliber less than that,” Cameron said. “But because in my film she’s playing a ‘CG character,’ it kind of doesn’t count in some way, which makes no sense to me whatsoever.”
AI is already being used as part of the VFX process on actors — for instance, machine learning was a part of the method to de-age Harrison Ford in 2023’s “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.” For de-aging or related requirements, AI tech was used on at least three of this year’s VFX contenders, notably Robert Zemeckis’ “Here,” in addition to “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga” and VFX shortlisted “Alien: Romulus” (to create the digital likeness of the late Ian Holm).
AI is also finding increased use in localization as a tool used for dubbing, as well as in ADR (automated dialog replacement), a postproduction process through which actors re-record lines.
Ukrainian AI developer Respeecher’s tool effectively allows one person to speak in the voice of another person — or that person’s younger self. It’s been used in Hollywood, for instance, to de-age Mark Hamill’s voice for young Luke Skywalker in “The Mandalorian” and “The Book of Boba Fett.”
Flawless is another example of the AI startups focused on this sort of work. It has developed True Sync, a tool aimed at dubbing by synchronizing lip movements across languages; and Deep Editor, a postproduction tool for changing lines of dialogue. Deep Editor has “been used for thousands of shots now,” said CEO Scott Mann in a recent interview with Variety. “Common uses are, you’ll get to the edit of a movie, and you’ll want to change key lines, and they’ll bring the actor back in to record the audio of the line, and then they’ll use Deep Editor to make it that the face basically says the line in sync.”
Deep Editor has been used on productions including Sony’s “Kraven the Hunter” and “Venom: The Last Dance,” Variety has learned.
Respeecher and Flawless are among the companies also focusing their message on ethical use. “We’ve worked very closely with the Editors Guild and Screen Actors Guild to make sure that it’s all done ethically and correctly, with consent,” said Mann in the recent interview.
That’s something that producers will need to grapple with as use of AI tools increases — the need to clearly message whether the technology is being used in an ethical way.