The Oscars open its doors to Generative AI

While the move feels modern, in many ways it is consistent with cinema’s past. The film industry has a long-standing tradition of technological experimentation and always pushed technological boundaries, from the introduction of sound and colour to the birth of CGI, and the Academy itself recognises these innovations through its Scientific and Technical Awards, which are honours given for the technological innovations that enable on-screen performances to flourish.

But what makes this decision different is the focus, by considering films that have been created using Generative AI for awards, the lens moves from how films are made to who, or what, is involved in their creation.

A new chapter for digital storytelling

The new AMPAS guidelines clarify that AI use will “neither help nor harm the chances" of a film receiving a nomination. However, the Academy will “consider” the extent of human involvement when determining winners. This dual evaluation (being open to the tools used, whilst being cautious of their implications) was informed by the Science and Technology Council, an advisory body established to navigate these technological junctures.

Some films that are already in circulation have begun to test the boundaries. According to a BBC report, Adrian Brody’s performance in The Brutalist came under scrutiny when it was revealed that Generative AI had been used to fine-tune his Hungarian accent. Similarly, Emilia Perez, the Oscar-winning musical, made use of voice-cloning AI to enhance the vocal range of its lead actors.

The Academy’s response is not necessarily a blanket approval, but it is an acknowledgement that AI is already part of filmmaking, and its use will likely only increase. So, it seems that the challenge now is to define the line between talent and tools.

The question of authorship

Generative AI can assist in script development, replicate an actor’s voice, or mimic a composer’s style. It can even edit footage or recreate visual performances long after filming has ended. These capabilities have raised ethical concerns, with questions surrounding creative credit for dialogue that is written by an algorithm trained on decades of cinema history, or when an actor’s likeness is reanimated years after their final role.

The Writers Guild of America and SAG-AFTRA have both raised serious concerns over AI’s potential to erode job security, dilute artistic credit, and compromise consent. The recent strikes in Hollywood centred, in part, on these very issues, and for many, the fear is not that AI will be used as a tool, but that it will be used as a replacement.

However, film, as much as it is at the helm of innovation, is, at its heart, a human endeavour. Viewers want connection and escapism, and film translates that lived experience into shared emotion. So, while AI may be able to mimic tone and form, it lacks the vulnerability that defines the best performances and stories. It can’t draw from heartbreak or joy, and it can’t, as yet, convey the ineffable.

Innovation versus identity

The Academy’s decision to include Generative AI in its award nominations reflects the complexity of this moment. On one hand, it honours the legacy of innovation that has always defined cinema. On the other, it has to now safeguard the human stories at the centre of the art form.

The move to include films that use Generative AI is not necessarily a signal that creativity is being outsourced, but it is a recognition that tools are changing. The challenge now is ensuring that, even as the medium evolves, the human element remains essential.

This new chapter is not just about eligibility. It is about what kind of stories we want to tell – and who we want telling them. As AI takes its place in the industry it must consciously consider that in the pursuit of technical mastery, is it leaving behind the soul of the storyteller?