You will not believe (more) to your ears
It doesn’t matter who will win the statuette for best movie: The Oscars 2025 they will be remembered to have been The first edition in which artificial intelligence entered the debate relating to the best titles of the year. With highly negative meaning, so much so that, perhaps, the victory of some prizes for the favorites of the eve.
Overwhelmed by a series of unimaginable scandals, a few weeks ago that have frustrated a 50 million dollar promotional campaign, the French film “Emilia Pérez” is among the films criticized for the use of artificial intelligence. The question deserves to be treated, but went into the background in the face of the very unhappy statements of the protagonist Karla Sofía Gascón, the first trans woman nominated for the statuette. Very questionable releases, accompanied by equally controversial statements by the French director of the film, Jacques Audiard.
The first interesting data to be detected regarding controversies on the use of generative AI in the films in the running at the Oscars It is how it has not been a secret for months, nor in the case of “Emilia Pérez” nor in that of “The Brutalist”. On the Audiard film, the statements that inflame today’s debate were released last May during the Cannes Film Festival. As for “The Brutalist”, it has been talked about on various occasions, even during pre-production, starting from a few years ago. Only in the Oscar campaign started Someone made this news re -emerge, in the hope of damaging the possibilities of victory of two uncomfortable competing films.
On the other candidates it is not known if and how they have used any similar technologies.
In both known cases it was used A software developed by a Ukrainian company called Respeecher. This technology allows you to modify an audio track, with results often similar to traditional software such as procreate, but with the advantage of making it The fastest, cheap and in some cases precise processing.
The case of “Emilia Pérez” is particularly interesting, even if not very discussed, because it concerns not the speech of the film, but The sang parts. The French film distributed by Netflix is in fact a musical that features a boss of the Mexican drug signs that decides to change sex, altering his appearance to leave his criminal life behind. The film includes numerous original songs played by the cast in the film, including the nominations for Oscar “El Mal” and “Mi Camino”. The soundtrackthis candidate for Oscar too, It was composed of the Duco Ducol and Camille duo.
With the exception of Selena Gomez, The cast of “Emilia Pérez” does not have a distinctly singing vocation, Unlike that of another Oscar contender such as “Wicked”, sung and led by Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo. In all frankness, the musical part of “Emilia Pérez” is the weakest of the operation and the songs are rarely captivating, practically never memorable as writing and interpretation.
In this interview created during the Cannes Film Festival, The misstere of the film Cyril Holtz explained how respeecher was used, the software that implements a generativei. Respeecher has made it possible to mix the interpretation of Camille, composer of the songs, with that of the actress Karla Sofía Gascón, who He struggled to reaches the highest notes in a clear and appreciable way of the songs of the film. In other words, Camille’s voice was merged to that of Gascón in the most complex passages of the songs, until it seems that it was the voice of the Spanish actress who achieved certain notes.
This declaration has become a problem only months and months after the publication of this video interview on YouTube. Beyond the infinite argument of actors vs singers when it comes to musical films (better compromising the musical part or actor yield?), In fact This alteration sounds a bit like cheating on film and musical game. The interpretation comes out as altered, fake, fake. If you need AI to reach the highest notes of the songs of the musical you are the protagonist, perhaps you are not the ideal protagonist, right?
Yet another film did exactly the same operation, one of those who tried to bring his protagonist to the candidacy: “Maria” by Pablo Larraín, in which Angelina Jolie gives a heartfelt and suffered interpretation of Maria Callasinterpreting some songs of famous lyrical works. Equiliously equal Maria Callas is not exactly an affordable challenge, so it was decided to Mix Jolie’s song to that of Callaswith a sound mixing described in the same terms as that of “Emilia Pérez”.
One wonders: there was really need to let Jolie sing, teach her the work and then mix her voice to that of Callas for a result in which, in all honesty, do you feel only the soprano? The answer is that probably the story of how he learned to sing the work by studying for months is a good tow for the promotional campaign on the hunt for an Oscar nomination. It was not enough to hit the result. Above all .We have no way of knowing what software was used for this mixing of voices: If the Ukrainian Respeecher or a competitor, if a “traditional” or one who uses AI.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have “wicked”, a musical that has been quite ignored with us but in the United States has struggled. So much to collect a lot to the 2025 Oscars: Ten nominations (as many as “The brutalist”), including two for the protagonists Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, who have passed an intense and traits tragicomic promotional campaign of the film to reiterate that he sang in every scene, phenomenal acute included. Having sang the songs on the set live, without using playbacks of the versions recorded in the studio, it was one of the main horses of this promotional campaign. The careers of the two singers leave no doubt that they can face technically demanding songs such as “Popular” and “Defying Gravity” without retouching in post production. The doubt, however, is that It was decided to insist so much on this aspect precisely to emerge as an “authentic” film.
Probably a future of films awaits us where The interpreters ensure that they have sung everything on the set, A bit like it happens for stunt and special effects. The more a technology spreads, the more perceived as “artificial”, the more the promotional campaigns of the films insist on the authenticity key. With often ridiculous results, such as when the behind the scenes of “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning” and that of “Barbie” saw the digital cancellation – via visual effects, of course – of the cables that helped Tom Cruise to do the stunt and the screens Blue on which the Barbieland landscapes were then added to post production.
The fault lies with us spectators, who in the face of over a century of manipulations, optical and expedient tricks of all kinds in the cinema field we react negatively when the same artifices once made analogically become first digital and then created with artificial intelligence. Given that generative artificial intelligence places an not a small ethical theme, This climate of profound rejection with respect to the use of the same a priori (often crippling or completely misrepresenting the scope and way of employment) it will disincentive even not so much the use of the same, but the debate and the punctual and transparent comparison in this regard. No film is required to declare to use the AI in its processing and, given the current climate, who will have the courage to do it?
You feel a little around compared to A protagonist of a musical that is given a help in order not to leave on the highest notes. Of course then we think back to the Italian interpreters themselves in the era of local golden cinema that was rewarded with great benefit for their recitative surrender, or even to films such as “singing in the rain”, in which a study tries to ferry a diva of the silent with a screeching voice and unpleasant in the era of the sound making it “dubbing” live by the young protagonist of the film.
In the cases that emerged relating to the 2025 Oscars, artificial intelligence has not really done anything new. It has made an existing process more efficient, fast and cheap. It would be interesting to understand among the main candidates of this year How many others have used the AI and in what context. Are we really sure that the same “Wicked” has not used it elsewhere? It is not even a question of budget: “The brutalist” has appealed to the scarcity of production means, but one of the other nominated films that declared its job is “dunes: part two”, cost 190 million dollars .
To each the considerations of the case with respect to this discussion. It would benefit the question now and in the future to avoid positions – in favor and opposite – a priori, giving way to those who resort to these tools of explain how it uses them, with what ends and results. Without forgetting that cinema, by its very nature, is a magical makeup translated into entertainment. With such powerful tools available to those who do cinema, it will be appropriate to learn not to trust our ears and eyes anymore.
