Nominated for 10 Oscars, The Brutalist (directed and produced by Brady Corbet) has an “intriguing and controversial technical feature,” according to the Baffler, that threatens to turn movie-viewing into “a drab appreciation of machine-managed flawlessness, and acting less interesting…”
In January, the film’s editor Dávid Jancsó revealed that he and Corbet used tools from AI speech software company Respeecher to make the Hungarian-language dialogue spoken by Adrien Brody (who plays the protagonist, Hungarian émigré architect László Tóth) and Felicity Jones (who plays Tóth’s wife Erzsébet) sound more Hungarian. In response to the ensuing backlash, Corbet clarified that the actors worked “for months” with a dialect coach to perfect their accents; AI was used “in Hungarian language dialogue editing only, specifically to refine certain vowels and letters for accuracy….” Defenders of this slimy deception claim the use of AI in film is no different than CGI or automated dialogue replacement, tools commonly deployed in the editing suite for picture and audio enhancement. But CGI and ADR don’t tamper with the substance of a performance, which is what’s at issue here….
AI seems poised to decimate the voice acting industry; how long will it be before filmmakers give up on the whole time-wasting business of dialect coaching and language research and toss their performers’ untrained vocalizations directly into the linguistic Instant Pot…? “Adrien and Felicity’s performances are completely their own,” Corbet has argued. Only, they’re not. Brody and Jones’s performances may now be authentic to spoken Hungarian, but they’re no longer authentic to themselves: at least in the parts of the film with Hungarian dialogue, the acting stands more as a monument to the prowess of the voice-matching software than that of the actors…
AI is a different beast from color film, or the Louma crane, or the hand-held camera: it’s steroidal, aesthetically corrupting, and unlike these earlier advances it confronts the filmmaker with real ethical questions… Use implies complicity. To incorporate AI into the production of art today, no matter how sparingly or subtly, is to endorse Silicon Valley’s politics and worldview: its exploitation of both producers and “users,” its blithe indifference to the social impact of post-automation layoffs and the environmental assault of industrial data processing, its cramped and uninteresting idea of imagination, its petrification of creation. It’s a vote for the assholes…
In short, the essays calls this “recourse to corrective AI” a “filmmaking prosthesis that cheats the viewer and cheapens the performances.” And ironically this clashes with the film’s depiction of a “principled artist,” according to the article. (“Some of the ‘retro’ digital renderings in the memorial video included in this scene were also, Corbet has admitted, produced with the help of AI.”)
The essay notes that several of 2024’s other Oscar-nominated films also employed Respeecher, including Dune: Part Two and Emilia Pérez. “What matters here is not this particular infraction but the precedent it sets, the course it establishes for culture.”