Sundance, 'The Brutalist' And The Rollback Of AI Resistance

PARK CITY, UTAH — Like many conspicuously shifted vibes in the wake of the 2024 election and inauguration of President Donald Trump (big companies dissolving their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts; celebrities’ greater support of Republican platforms; etc.), the discourse against artificial intelligence has also seen a remarkable rollback. Prior to that about-face, there was an almost consistent resistance in Hollywood against the increasing use of AI, especially following the 2023 actors and writers strikes, which tirelessly helped protect human creativity and contribution.

But in the last few weeks, amplified by the news that the editor behind the newly Oscar-nominated drama “The Brutalist” used AI to tweak a few lines of Hungarian dialogue, that anti-AI sentiment has softened — or at least loosened. Public sentiment is moving more and more away from a “fight against AI at every cost” vibe and into our “let’s try to hear out this whole AI thing” era.

Nowhere was that more apparent than at this year’s Sundance Film Festival.

Typically, festival organizers aim to drive attendees’ attention toward the buzzy movies, celeb-spotting on the snow-capped mountains of Park City, and the parties. There is still plenty of that. But there is also a heightened effort for festivalgoers to be invested in the “opportunities” that AI can bring to filmmaking and how best to use it “ethically.” Organizers took full advantage of the highly populated first weekend of the festival to offer multiple panels that engaged in those conversations.

Having attended two of those talks, it’s hard to say where any of them land as they mostly centered on the inevitability of AI, how to use it appropriately, and how it isn’t necessarily the threat social media users, journalists and many creatives might have the rest of the world believe.

But there are a whole lot of people — most of whom are vulnerable to potential AI exploits — who were virtually absent from these panel discussions. While many took to social media over the weekend to lament The New York Times’ guest essay headlined “A.I. Will Empower Humanity” and debate about “The Brutalist” AI controversy, Sundance had curated somewhat of a counter-discussion — or a “but, actually” narrative.

Those conversations were led by largely male and white corporate tech figures who often work at the intersection of their industry and video production, along with a few independent producers and filmmakers. The panels likely did leave attendees with more informed opinions about the integration of AI in filmmaking. But they also seemed to not give prominent concerns enough weight.

In the Saturday panel “Generative AI: Unlocking Opportunity in the Film Industry,” the speakers explained how AI can help expedite arduous processes, cut costs, make projects more accessible and get them greenlit. They even tried to entice the audience with, ultimately, rhetorical questions like: How many of you have tasks in your lives that you’d like to get automated? Has anyone here been frustrated that they couldn’t get a project greenlit?

The 2025 Sundance Film Festival waded into the controversial discussion around the use of AI in Hollywood.

Courtesy of the 2025 Sundance Film Festival

You could speculate why no one responded to either question.

Perhaps not all filmmakers know exactly where to begin with cultivating an AI integration, particularly independent filmmakers like the ones hustling on the ground at Sundance and focused on trying to get distribution for or even interest in their projects. Or those who could be AI-savvy might very well prefer hiring humans to do even some of the so-called remedial tasks an assistant is asked to do instead of employing AI for them, as panelist Eric Iverson, chief technology officer at United Talent Agency, suggested.

The latter could be especially true for filmmakers of color who are interested in hiring diverse talent that are often already marginalized.

While many filmmakers like Scott Beck and Bryan Woods (“Heretic”) have condemned the flagrant and potentially exploitative use of AI, Iverson proposed that up-and-coming directors and those in the independent cinema space would likely be more willing to work with it. He also pointed to many who are already shooting video on their cellphones. “We’re going to see a lot of this coming from the bottom up, not as much with legacy filmmakers,” Iverson said.

But even in the panelists’ efforts to come off well-intended and supportive of artists’ integrity, there was still a feeling like they weren’t reading the room.

They all acknowledged the understood issues in media at large — it’s “not in a great state,” said panelist Neal Zuckerman, managing director and senior partner of Boston Consulting Group — and how that contributes to the fears that AI could lead to more lost jobs. But even their responses to another pressing question about creative rights and intellectual property came off more platitudinal than productive or promising.

“The innovation and the progress has to catch up with things that are just and right,” said Iverson. “We all want creatives to be recognized for their imagination.”

Drake Springer, creative director and head of production at Delta Air Lines, impressed that having open conversations with their company’s legal team is integral to making sure all creators are properly attributed for their work.

Amid ceaseless debates about the use of AI in "The Brutalist," the prestigious annual film festival offered interesting counterpoints.

Courtesy of the Sundance Film Festival

Zuckerman added of protecting the creators and making sure that everyone is attributed and gets paid: “That’s the most important thing to keep creativity moving forward.”

To borrow what appears to be a persistent tactic throughout these AI conversations, here would be a good place to add a “yes, and…” As in, yes, and being a bit more understanding about why so many people are not interested in AI in the first place, even with all supposed safeguards in place, is important too is important. In addition to the fact that technology cannot duplicate an artist’s flaws and affectations, we’re in an era of misinformation and deep fakes. AI has all the potential to exacerbate that.

“It comes down to education,” speaker Stephanie Jenkins, co-director of Archival Producers Alliance, said on the Saturday panel “How Filmmakers Can Ethically & Artistically Use AI.”

Jenkins, the only woman on the panel, wasn’t necessarily referring to how little people understand about AI’s benefits. She was putting the onus on filmmakers and artists that use AI to inform audiences up front, so it doesn’t feel deceptive or awkward.

“Anytime something can be confused for AI, just label it,” she said.

Jenkins also acknowledged that this is a sensitive time in the understandably heated conversation around AI, and she could understand why, noting that “AI isn’t going to understand the humor and self-deprecation” in human artistry.

The panel, moderated by Chris O’Falt, an executive editor at IndieWire, offered a more engaging and honest conversation around the hot-button topic. On the heels of “The Brutalist” becoming an Oscar nominee just two days earlier, the panelists had all kinds of opinions on why that particular example is, for some of them, a non-issue.

Brody in a scene from "The Brutalist."

Courtesy of A24

“If there’s going to be any anti-AI conversation, it should not be against ‘The Brutalist,’” said Dave Clark, chief creative officer at the film and TV studio Promise.

To be fair, there have been plenty of counterarguments to the outrage that have popped up online in the wake of the film’s recognition by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Much of it, to Jenkins’ point, highlights some nescience around how AI has been used in film long before “The Brutalist,” particularly when it comes to remasters of beloved films like “The Abyss” and “True Lies.” Some of the panelists also pointed out that the use of computer-generated images was once considered an issue before that became a largely sanctioned tool in filmmaking.

Another part of it is the fact that, using AI for the sake of mainly “replacing letters here and there” in “The Brutalist,” as editor Dávid Jancsó has said, and creating architectural renderings that pertain to the film’s story seem far removed from exploitative technology.

But because AI is such a delicate subject to discuss, particularly now, a mere mention of it could excite any naysayer. That’s especially true sans context.

“That’s what’s wrong with the conversation” against AI and some people’s knee-jerk reactions to it, Clark said. He added that “The Brutalist” stars and Oscar nominees Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones both signed off on that particular area of dialogue being tweaked.

Point taken, but it also brings us to a lot of murky questions. Where do you draw the line? Is it OK if it’s just a few words of dialogue and the actors are cool with it? Is it all right unless it’s nominated for an Oscar, at which point it could be seen as cheating or honoring some other insult to the craft? Is it really fine if all artists are credited and compensated and audiences might not know any better than to enjoy it —or might not care either way?

With the lines of leniency steadily moving these days, who’s to say that people’s gravest fears won’t eventually be realized? Perhaps that gradual evolution to full acceptance of AI is the point.

Related