Prior to the 98th Oscar Ceremony, which is scheduled for March 2026, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has made its first official rule regarding the use of generative AI in film.
This follows a controversial season 2024 that saw best image finalist Brutalist (and to a lesser extent co-nominee Emilia Perez) Come under fire for its use of AI to change acting performance and create architectural drawings.
As recommended by the Academy’s Science and Technology Council, this new rule states:
“As for generative artificial intelligence and other digital tools used to make the film, the tools do not help or harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The academy and each branch will judge the performance taking into account the extent to which a human being was at the heart of creative authorship when choosing which film to be awarded.”
The new guidelines come together with three other remarkable rule changes and additions:
- Academy members must now watch all nominated films in each category to be eligible to vote in the final round of Oscars.
- The new performance in the Casting Award is awarded from 10 nominees.
- Countries will be able to nominate films that were creatively controlled by “citizens, residents or individuals with refugees or asylum status”.
The price of perfection
Faced with the choice to take a stand against generative AI or allow its controlled use, the academy is landed on a rule that is definitely neutral and does little to change the current status quo.
While the Academy, which takes the safe route, is hardly surprising, it undoubtedly ignores Hollywood’s story of always being at the forefront of embracing new technology – and at a time when the use of AI in film creation is becoming increasingly common.
It is not the first occurrence of movie critics and commentators coming out and swinging towards AI. 2023’s Late evening with the devil Was judged by some for his use of AI to generate a handful of still images that only appeared on the screen for a few seconds, but even though it was one of the best horror films of the year, it might be no big surprise that it did not receive any Oscar nominations – horror film rarely do.
Conversely a more serious historical drama based on a true story, such as BrutalistWas sure to receive attention from the academy and put extra eyes on its use of AI.
While it received 10 Oscar nominations, it is hard not to feel that the film’s chances of winning best picture (which it ultimately lost to Anora) was unfairly stained because of its use of AI – though the fact that Adrien Brody continued to win best actor for his role in the film undermines something.
That’s because Brody’s AI-enhanced performance is in the middle of the setback that this film has received. Unlike French, English or Australian accents, all of which have been performed poorly too many times to count, Hungarian vocal sounds are reportedly notorious – even for Brody, whose mother is Hungarian.
So while Brody and Co-Star Felicity Jones tried their best to offer an authentic accent during filming, the actors’ permission editor Dávid Jancsó ultimately chose an AI tool to achieve perfection.
Whether Brody’s victory is related to this improvement is impossible to say, but it is clear that the academy voters were happy with this particular compromise.
Where do we draw the line?
AI will not disappear soon, and in certain ways – as the voice improvement in Brutalist and Emilia Perez – It offers a subtle improvement in the authenticity of an actor’s performance.
However, it does not necessarily make the use right. One could argue that an actor should not be thrown if their song is not on par with a musical.
If authentic Hungarian is a must, maybe hire a Hungarian actor – or, if you need Starpower by an Adrien Brody, maybe the audience would favor the seriousness of an actor’s performance versus technical accuracy.
Hollywood employees have made no secret to their concerns about AI and its potential influence on jobs. The use of AI in the writing process was one of the biggest problems raised during the 2023 author’s strike.
It would undoubtedly have sent a strong message if the academy excluded the use of AI in film directly, but it is honestly an unrealistic expectation in 2025.
But while it is pleasant to see the Academy, taking into account “The extent to which a human being was at the heart of the creative authorship,” it is hardly a clear, measurable rule for how AI can and cannot be used – and leaves the door open to future controversy.
AI does not disappear soon-but as much as you can expect it to emerge more, we will undoubtedly see more films that carry a disclaimer that proudly state that no AI was used in their production as it was found in the final credits of Hugh Grant’s horror excursion Heretics.
The Academy may have pushed the problem under the rug, but with AI’s growing influence, we are unlikely to have seen the last rule change.
