The Brutalist, AI, and Oscar Campaign Skulduggery

by

In 2021, when Peter Jackson’s Beatles documentary, “Get Back,” was released, tech enthusiasts were thrilled to discover that artificial intelligence had been used to enhance previously unusable audio. However, most others showed little reaction. Recently, though, news that Brady Corbet’s film, “The Brutalist,” utilized AI sparked a range of reactions on social media. Some comments ranged from “I don’t want to see The Brutalist” to “Go away” to simply “Wicked.

The disagreement stemmed from an interview given by the film editor, Dávid Jancsó, to RedShark News, where he discussed utilizing AI voice-cloning technology, Respeecher, to adjust Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones’ Hungarian dialogue in the movie. In his words, “If you’re from the Anglo-Saxon world, certain sounds can be challenging to understand. We were meticulous about preserving their performances, as we mostly just altered letters.” Furthermore, RedSharkNews reported that the film employed generative AI to create a sequence of architectural drawings for the movie’s epilogue, set at an achievement ceremony for the main character Brutalist at the Venice Biennale.

Understanding why there’s controversy surrounding AI requires acknowledging that since the release of “Get Back,” many individuals, some of whom align with the core audience for a lengthy movie about architecture, have developed a strong opposition to artificial intelligence in general. At present, AI is a broad term that is as much a marketing label as it is a technology. It encompasses various aspects such as machine learning, where an algorithm learns to identify patterns, and generative AI, which involves programs like ChatGPT and Midjourney trained on previously published words and images. Generative AI has led to the widespread dissemination of AI-generated content that some might call “AI garbage,” and it has also facilitated Google’s new AI Overviews that dispense inaccurate information. To compound matters, the data centers needed to maintain its operation consume environmentally damaging amounts of water and electricity. From the perspective of a forward-thinking individual in 2025, generative AI is not only aesthetically displeasing but also inhumane, a moral corruption that taints everything it influences.

I’ve observed over time how the term ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI) has been associated primarily with generative AI, leading people to mistakenly believe that any instance of AI is solely responsible for a product or outcome. This misconception became particularly noticeable in 2023, when Jackson and the surviving Beatles claimed they employed AI in the creation of their unreleased song “Now and Then.” However, what actually happened was they utilized machine-learning technology from Get Back to separate an old demo recording into its constituent parts—vocals, piano—for remastering purposes.

A comparable incident unfolded near “The Brutalist”. As Jancsó’s interview circulated extensively, certain details were misconstrued or accepted as fact: Some critics assumed that Brody’s entire Hungarian dialogues in the movie were artificially generated by AI, and that AI had been responsible for creating his entire acting portfolio. These claims propagated across the internet, frequently shared by journalists who view generative AI as a potential danger to their own professions. This sparked even more heated reactions on social media, which were then utilized as material for blog posts discussing the controversy. Add the tense pre-inauguration atmosphere among left-wing social media users, and you get an awards season backlash that Harvey Weinstein, a renowned manipulator of Oscars, could appreciate.

The complexity arose from the fact that ‘The Brutalist’ wasn’t the sole production using the Respeecher tool. Films by Emilia Pérez and Maria also utilized it to enhance their actors’ vocal performances, particularly singing. However, despite Respeecher’s use of generative AI and its past applications like resurrecting deceased celebrities’ voices, its usage in ‘The Brutalist’ seems to adhere to similar ethical standards as other post-production digital manipulations. Brody and Jones agreed to the alterations made to their performances; the Hungarian accent merged with their voices was director Jancsó’s personal touch. There doesn’t seem to be a victim in this case.

The situation surrounding the drawings is more complex, as the debate ensued, fans unearthed an interview from 2022 with production designer Judy Becker of Brutalist, published in Filmaker magazine. This interview disclosed that “architecture consultant Griffin Frazen employed Midjourney to swiftly construct three Brutalist buildings, utilizing references to key figures in the movement and other architectural terms.” However, in a response to Deadline, Corbet disputed the claim that AI was involved in the creation of the blueprints: “Judy Becker and her team did not use AI to draw or render any of the buildings. All images were manually sketched by artists.” He further clarified that the editorial team had utilized AI to create visuals intentionally resembling poor digital renderings from the 1980’s for a video displayed during the epilogue.

The distributor of the film, A24, claims that only two images in the video were generated by an AI and are presented as digital renderings. All other blueprints and buildings depicted in the movie were designed and drawn by human beings, according to their statement. To reconcile this with Becker’s assertion, one could say that AI was involved in the process of design, but it did not come up with the designs itself.

Despite the concerns, this application of AI doesn’t seem to directly displace human artists from their jobs. If AI were employed for creating concept sketches, it seems less revolutionary than a filmmaker’s use of a mood board filled with copyrighted images and drawings, which are not necessarily licensed. (It’s worth noting that the environmental impacts of AI still matter significantly, although few films would pass an environmental impact assessment.)

Regardless of your stance on AI ethics, there’s general consensus that “The Brutalist” is susceptible to any connection with AI. Filmed using an uncommon format called VistaVision, the series has consistently portrayed itself as a homage to human creativity throughout its run. Director Corbet has been candid about the sacrifices made to produce such a film for under $10 million, and while his choice of Hungary as a filming location has been tolerated given the country’s leader compared to Donald Trump, using generative AI undermines the film’s core message. Moreover, it raises questions about the work of fictional protagonist László Tóth. As one insightful Vulture commenter observed: “If AI creates images through the combination of a mean average, this implies that Tóth’s life’s work falls right in the middle of a style of Brutalist architecture, not iconic and unique, but rather typical and ordinary.

In this scenario, it seems like some people are speculating whether the AI theme in “The Brutalist” might have been intentionally introduced to boost its chances at the Oscars, perhaps by a rival campaign. Joanna Robinson from The Ringer described it as a clever tactic in Oscar campaigns. However, A24, the studio behind “The Brutalist,” denies any suspicion of underhandedness and attributes such speculation to the unpredictable nature of online news cycles. Incidents like this do occur, for instance, I once received an email from a stranger suggesting potentially controversial passages in a well-known actor’s memoir. Although I found them unworthy of publication, another blogger eventually published the story. The affected actor was not impacted and ultimately was nominated.

It appears that these controversial films – La La Land, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and Green Book – were generally accepted by Oscar voters despite online criticism during a time when Twitter held significant cultural influence. A member of the Academy’s writers branch shared his perspective with me post-nominations. He likened AI to a towering threat (the great monster) that is currently looming over us all. However, he seemed resigned to the fact that the entertainment industry might not be able to resist its advancements, comparing it to trying to halt the tide: “Give up on fighting it.

It may be disheartening, but on the positive note, this dispute has postponed for at least a week the impending “The Brutalist Zionist” debate – a confrontation that could potentially rip us apart.

This version maintains the original’s tone and meaning while making it easier to read and understand.

The nominees for the 2025 Academy Awards were revealed earlier this week. You can find out about all the snubs and shocks in this article. This signals the conclusion of our Oscar Futures feature, but we’ll keep you updated with behind-the-scenes news and monitor industry chatter right here on Gold Rush until the award ceremony on March 2nd.

Other News and Notes

1. Imagine if every Oscar-winning film was a cardinal from “Conclave”.

2. The Best Picture category seemed unusually uncertain this year, like there were many “potential winners” yet to be decided.

3. Unfortunately, we won’t get to hear any live performances of the Original Song nominees in this awards season.

4. Here’s how you can catch all the contenders for this year’s Oscars across various streaming platforms.

Read More

2025-01-25 19:55