In defense of AI in ‘The Brutalist’

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is at the forefront of nearly everything right now. It’s taking jobs, propelling technology forward, increasing efficiency, and allegedly making “art.” Some love it, some hate it. Now, in the throes of award season, the use of this technology by the production team on The Brutalist thrusts an ethical debate to the front of discussions surrounding the film. Its usage could cost the film — including director Brady Corbet and lead actor Adrien Brody — its Academy Award hopes. The question becomes: should it?

That question is difficult to answer. To some extent, the answer relies on one’s own perspective of artistry and the use of tools in creation. Nonetheless, I will attempt to bring reason to the debate that hopefully provides a frame of reference as you watch, judge, and discuss The Brutalist — and any other films that leverage AI in their creation.

First, an admitted oversimplification of the issue at hand. Should we punish an artist for picking up a paintbrush because everyone else is painting with their hands? No. But should someone in a foot-race be disqualified for using a car? Absolutely. So, we can agree there is a spectrum as to which the use of technology is fair in competition, and a point to which it is not. The debate here is whether AI is a paint brush — extending the artist’s limbs and ideas — or an automobile, a completely new entity that unfairly blows human capabilities out of the water and is antithetical to the act itself.

If it were so simple to categorize it, this would all be easy. The snag: not only is the debate a spectrum, but so is AI. But here’s how it should be categorized, framing the way we think about it and evaluate its usage in films. Pure generative AI is the car, doing all the work for the human and essentially accomplishing the feat on its own. There is no artistry in a generative AI creation. It is the same as asking someone to do something for you and claiming you’ve done it yourself. If I ask my friend to cook a pot of chili, even if I describe to them what type of chili they should cook and what ingredients they should use, I did not cook dinner. The food may be good — it may even be worthy of praise — but I cannot enter it in a chili cook-off and claim it as my own.

But what if I’m a chef? Is it not my food if I use a sous chef? Sure, the sous chef chopped my vegetables, added the herbs, and perhaps even cooked the glaze to top my dish, but it’s still mostly my work. It’s my recipe, and I cooked the vast majority of the ingredients. The sous chef just augmented it with their abilities. They are an excellent sous chef, and I credit them for their help. Without them, the dish likely wouldn’t come out quite as good — though it would still be excellent — and it certainly would not have been completed as fast. Should I not use a sous chef (or a team of excellent cooks) simply to ensure every single thing was my own? No. And this is what using AI as a tool, rather than a creator itself, is like.

It can be used the same as a paintbrush or a sous chef, extending the abilities of the primary creator as a tool and companion. When used this way, it should be viewed the same as sound editing, color grading, special effects, or any other post-production treatment.

This is how The Brutalist uses AI. It is used simply to tweak Hungarian dialogue for Brody’s László Tóth and Felicity Jones’ Erzsébet Tóth — of which there are very few lines in the language. In the entire 3-hour-and-35-minute film, there may be a total of 60 seconds in Hungarian, if that.

This was revealed in an interview editor Dávid Jancsó gave to RedShark News. Jancsó reveals that they used Ukrainian software company Respeecher to touch up some words and vowels for Brody and Jones’ Hungarian. They use part of Jancsó’s own pronunciation to insert into and tweak the two actors’ foreign language lines. 

“Most of their Hungarian dialogue has a part of me talking in there,” Jancsó mentioned in the interview. “We were very careful about keeping their performances.”

But why do this at all?

“It’s an extremely unique language,” he told RedShark News. “We coached (Brody and Jones), and they did a fabulous job. But we also wanted to perfect it so that not even locals will spot any difference.”

In reality, this authenticity is something that could easily be created with regular editing software — to which nobody would bat an eye. The reason the team decided to use AI was a clear bottom line: speed. And when making a film, speed equals money. With only a $10MM budget, that monetary savings matters.

In the past, voice-changing techniques have been used and even rewarded. Most recently, Rami Malek won an Academy Award for Best Actor in 2019 for his performance as Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody in 2019, despite (or perhaps because of) the production team blending multiple voices together for his musical sequences. 

I don’t think this should affect Brody’s bid for the same award one modicum. He delivered an excellent performance — one which was 99% in English and 99.9% unaltered — and AI usage to improve Hungarian vowels (which not one Academy voter would have noticed if left untouched) should not change the perception of that. The same goes for Jones’ Best Supporting Actress push.

The film as a whole, and Corbet’s directorial nomination, is perhaps open to more interpretation. In the end, it would be his decision to approve and use this AI. And some voters may see this as a slight scar to the film, and that rewarding or ignoring it could be a dangerous signal to the industry. Most notably, there are conflicting reports of whether generative AI was used to create the drawings and architectural models during the epilogue of the film. RedShark News reports the blueprints were created with AI, meanwhile Corbet had this to say:

“[The Brutalist production designer] Judy Becker and her team did not use AI to create or render any of the buildings. All images were hand-drawn by artists. To clarify, in the memorial video featured in the background of a shot, our editorial team created pictures intentionally designed to look like poor digital renderings circa 1980.”

Making an example of Corbet and The Brutalist for its AI usage is certainly possible — and Brody and Jones may be caught up in that storm. But while there are certainly unethical and unartistic ways to use AI in filmmaking, Corbet and The Brutalist crew did neither. It was credited, disclosed, and used as a mere tool. That type of usage should not be villainized or punished. Whether Corbet, The Brutalist, Brody, Jones, or any other team on the film should win in a category based on their merit is a separate debate — but the fact that AI was used should not be a determining factor.