The use of artificial intelligence has breached the world of filmmaking, devaluing the role of artistic expression and creativity within film.

As films increasingly incorporate forms of generative AI into their filmmaking processes, controversy and debates on the value of AI in film continue to surface. Is it a useful tool conducive to cost and time efficiency, or is it an affront to the integrity of filmmaking? Oscar-nominated films “Emilia Pérez” and “The Brutalist,” specifically, have come under intense public backlash for their usage of AI. While both films only used AI for small aspects of their production through the voice-generating software Respeecher, the principle raises questions over whether or not these films should still be nominated for prestigious industry awards or be worthy of the acclaim they have received.

[Related: Second Take: History of ‘Saturday Night Live’ proves its importance in entertainment, society]

Artificially altering actor performances, even to enhance vocals as “Emilia Pérez” did or edit language dialogue as “The Brutalist” did, diminishes the authenticity of a film and opens the door to the unregulated and unrestricted use of AI. With 124 awards for “The Brutalist” and 106 for “Emilia Pérez,” these movies are in supremely public positions to undergo scrutiny.

The period drama “The Brutalist,” set in 1947, follows a Hungarian Jew emigrating to the United States in the wake of World War II. This Brady Corbet-directed film, which has been nominated for 10 Oscars including Best Director and Best Actor, utilized AI to make lead performers Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones’s Hungarian accents sound more authentic. Similarly, musical thriller “Emilia Pérez” has garnered 13 Oscar nominations and explores cartel leader Emilia’s quest to fake her own death, using AI to raise the vocal range of Karla Sofía Gascón and blend her voice with French pop star Camille. Representing a larger, technical shift in filmmaking, the criticism surrounding these two films exemplifies how even the surfacing of subtle AI usage can greatly alter the public’s perception of a film and its originality.

While these films minimally incorporate AI, the danger of normalizing its usage leads to the possibility of it emerging in more integral parts of filmmaking. The generative nature of AI software such as Respeecher distinguishes this technology from earlier tech advancements. Not only discouraging creative thinking and reducing actors’ performances through inauthentic enhancement, AI also threatens the jobs of many members of a production team. From visual effects to screenwriting, AI holds the capability to fulfill specific roles in a film as it can technically produce script ideas or flesh them out, removing the longer and more virtuous execution process historically required for visionary filmmaking.

Movie fans and critics are not the only ones wary of AI’s rise, as the 2023 Writer’s Guild of America strike advocated for protections against AI for screenwriters. Negotiating with major Hollywood studios – such as the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents over 350 film and television producers – WGA pushed for securities against the use of generative AI in screenwriting and fair pay. Emerging in May 2023 in Hollywood, this strike advocated for the retention of screenwriters in the face of AI’s increasing ability to step into more roles in the film industry. To safeguard against production agencies using AI to cut costs of paying writers and editors and save time, this strike implemented contractual protections for writers regarding credit, job security and payment.

By allowing writers the discretion to partially use AI in ways that would not threaten their jobs, this strike was also critical regarding writers’ ability to retain credit for their work. Due to rapidly advancing technology, the 2023 strike helped pave the way for more transparency regarding the use of AI.

In addition to the controversy over the ethical and transparent use of AI, its transparency to the public is also a cause for concern. “Emilia Pérez” and “The Brutalist” serve as examples of this disclosure issue: The extent of their AI use misled fans and resulted in many questioning who deserves credit for the film’s content and success – humans or AI. The strike’s push for retention of authorship for screenwriters despite potential AI usage – leaving it up to the writers to decide to use AI – simultaneously supports writers yet potentially deceives the public regarding the authenticity and content of the film.

[Related: Second Take: The Grammys’ prioritization of entertainment over awards is a snub to music]

Even if the use of AI is minimal and simply semantic, as is the case for these two Oscar-nominated films, it still fundamentally changes the nature of the film and reduces its integrity. Films applying AI to their processes intrinsically alter their level of authenticity, which is integral to filmmaking as a whole. Deserving of a level of criticism for a lack of transparency, awards ceremonies such as the Oscars should be reserved for films that do not cut corners when it comes to idea generation and screenwriting. Allowing for generative AI in some facets of the film industry leads to the possibility of films taking further liberties with AI that would drastically change the nature of the art itself.

Creativity and authenticity when it comes to film deserves to be rewarded, both commercially and in terms of awards, something AI takes away from.