Before the 98th Oscar ceremony, scheduled for March 2026, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences established its first official rule concerning the use of generative AI in films.
This follows a controversial 2024 season that saw the best finalist film The brutalist (and, to a lesser extent, co-nominated Emilia Perez) is criticized for its use of AI to modify the performances of the actors and create architectural drawings.
As recommended by the Academy’s Science and Technology Council, this new rule indicates:
“With regard to generative artificial intelligence and other digital tools used in the production of the film, the tools contribute or the chances of reaching an appointment. The academy and each branch will judge success, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creation of creation when choosing the film to be assigned.”
The new guidelines arise three other modifications and additions of notable rules:
- The members of the Academy must now watch all the nominated films in each category to be eligible to vote during the final round for the Oscars.
- The new Achievement in casting prize will be awarded to 10 nominated.
- Countries will be able to appoint films that have been creatively checked by “citizens, residents or individuals with refugee or asylum status”.
The price of perfection
Faced with the choice to take a position against the generative AI or to allow its controlled use, the Academy landed on a rule which is decidedly neutral and does not do much to change the current status quo.
Although the academy takes the safe road is barely surprising, it probably ignores the story of Hollywood to be always at the forefront of the adoption of new technologies – and at a time when the use of AI in cinema becomes more and more common.
It is not the first body of film critics and commentators who came out against AI. 2023 Late at night with the devil was condemned by some for its use of AI to generate a handful of fixed images which only appeared on the screen for a few seconds, but although it was one of the best horror films of the year, he may not have surprised to receive nominations to the Oscars – horror films rarely.
Conversely, a more serious historical drama based on a true story, as The brutalistwas sure to receive the attention of the academy, putting additional eyes on its use of AI.
Although he received 10 Oscar nominations, it is difficult not to feel that the chances of the film win the best film (which he finally lost Anora) were unjustly tarnished because of its use of AI – although the fact that Adrien Brody wins the best actor for his role in the film somewhat undermines this notion.
Indeed, the performance improved by Brody is at the center of the counterpoup that this film has received. Unlike French, English or Australian accents, which have all been poorly executed too many times to count, the Hungarian vowel sounds would be notoriously difficult – even for Brody, whose mother is Hungarian.
Thus, while Brody and the Co-Star Felicity Jones did their best to offer an authentic accent during the shooting, with the editor-in-chief of the actors, Dávid Jancsó, finally opted for an AI tool to reach perfection.
It is impossible to say that Brody’s victory funded this improvement, but it is clear that the voters of the academy were satisfied with this particular compromise.
Where to trace the line?
AI does not disappear anytime soon, and in certain ways – such as improving the voice in The brutalist And Emilia Perez – It offers a subtle improvement to the authenticity of the performance of an actor.
However, this does not necessarily make its use. You could say that an actor should not be thrown if his song is not up to a musical.
If the authentic Hungarian is a must, perhaps hiring a Hungarian actor-or, if you need the power of an Adrien Brody, perhaps the public would promote the seriousness of the performance of an actor in relation to technical precision.
Hollywood workers did not hide their concerns about AI and its potential impact on jobs. The use of AI in the writing process was one of the biggest problems raised during the writers strike 2023.
He would undoubtedly have sent a powerful message if the academy prohibited the use of AI in the films, but it is honestly an unrealistic expectation in 2025.
But, although it is pleasant to see the academy take into account “the extent in which a human was at the heart of creative paternity”, it is hardly a clear and measurable rule on the way in which the AI can and cannot be used – and leaves the door open to future controversies.
The AI will not disappear so soon – but as much as you can expect it to appear more, we will undoubtedly see more films with warnings which proudly declare that no one has been used in their production, as shown by the final credits of Hugh Grant’s horror exit Heretic.
The academy may have pushed the problem under the carpet, but with the growing influence of AI, it is unlikely that we saw the last change of rule.
