Steven Soderbergh On AI In Films: If There’s a Filmmaking Tool, I’m Going To Explore It

from the creatives-using-tools-as-tools dept

While we’ve taken some issues with his approach to copyright laws and enforcement in the past, there is no doubting that Steven Soderbergh is a filmmaking legend. This is a man who directed films like Traffic and Ocean’s 11. He talks about, and cares about, the art of filmmaking. And he’s apparently beginning to use AI in some limited ways.

You really have to pay attention to Soderbergh’s specific comments on how he’s using it, because I would argue that it’s exactly the right artistic approach to the conversation: limited, targeted uses that help achieve the artist’s vision rather than replace everything in a film with garbage slop. Interestingly, articles like this one from Salon still frame all of this as some betrayal of art on Soderbergh’s part. Here’s how Soderbergh describes how he’s using AI as part of an upcoming film about John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

“AI has been helpful in creating thematically surreal images that occupy a dream space rather than a literal space,” Soderbergh said. “And it’s been really fun because you need a Ph.D. in literature to tell it what to do.” Soderbergh relented that generative programs require “very close human supervision,” before going on to admit that he’s also using “a lot of AI” for an upcoming film about the Spanish-American War, to generate images of archaic warships and God knows what else.

I very much understand Soderbergh’s description of how he’s using this tool for his films, but I have no idea what the hell the commentary from Salon around the quote is on about. “And God knows what else” is perhaps the silliest comment in the post, because that statement only works if Soderbergh himself happens to be God.

I don’t believe he is, to be clear. And I think an artist like this one who finds the tool useful in achieving his overall artistic vision is something we should be paying attention to, not dismissing out of hand. The Salon piece notes that Soderbergh has routinely been a director who has embraced the use of new technology before launching into this diatribe.

But just because Soderbergh jumping at AI could be seen from a mile away doesn’t make it any less disappointing, nor does it excuse his reluctance to thoughtfully engage with others’ criticisms about the technology. If “The Christophers” is to be believed, art that tries to imitate a certain style is little more than hollow, emotionless posturing. Generative AI is the same: mere mimicry, devoid of the humanity that makes art . . . well, art. And by being so willfully averse to acknowledging the ways AI and art conflict — not to mention its ramifications for others in his industry — Soderbergh’s take on an artist losing his touch in “The Christophers” is disappointingly apt.

Of course the art that AI “creates” is mimicry and devoid of humanity. That’s definitionally how the tool works. And anyone who thinks they’re going to rely on an AI tool to “create art” is on a fool’s mission. It simply won’t work because it’s not designed to work that way. Instead, it’s a tool to get you some components of what you need to create an overall artistic vision, which is still led by a very human artist. Will there be work done by an AI on the margins in filmmaking that would normally have been done via paid workers in the industry. Perhaps. Likely, even. But will the limited use of these tools also lower the barrier of entry in terms of skill set needed and budget to produce films, thereby creating even more output of films overall? I’m struggling to see how that would not be the case.

And at the end of the day, there’s still an artist calling the shots. Perhaps fewer overall total artists involved in a single movie, but the limited use of AI tools doesn’t somehow suck the entire soul from a film anymore than the ease of digital footage editing over the use of film does. And just like a movie that is almost nothing other than pretty CGI graphics, but which otherwise sucks, lazy people trying to create entire films with AI are going to fail. And fail hard.

Say it with me now: there is more nuance to this conversation than the hardliners and evangelists are bothering to acknowledge.

In a follow-up chat with Variety, Soderbergh expanded on his initial comments about using AI in future films. “I’m just not threatened by it . . . Ten years ago, I would have needed to engage a visual effects house at an unbelievable cost to come up with this stuff,” he said. “No longer. My job is to deliver a good movie, period. And this tool showed up at a moment when I needed it. I don’t think it’s the solution to everything, and I don’t think it’s the death of everything . . . There are some people that I have absolute love and respect for that refuse to engage with it. That’s their privilege. But I’m not built that way. You show me a new tool, I want to get my hands on it and see what’s going on.”

That’s an artist saying that, folks, not some Silicone Valley tech bro. And, to be clear, he might get it wrong. He may use the tool and his product might suck out loud. But to try to abort the use of a tool before it’s even been explored seems silly.

Filed Under: ai, filmmaking, generative ai, steven soderbergh