The Oscars’ AI Lie: Don’t Ask, Don’t TellLast year’s ‘Brutalist’ controversy gave way to a landscape where the tech is rewarded — as long as it’s cloaked in prestige
I cover the intersection of Hollywood and AI for paid subscribers. I wrote about eight companies doing AI the right way, explored Disney’s deal with OpenAI and dove into what AI performer Tilly Norwood means for actors.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences keeps repeating the same line about artificial intelligence: that its use in filmmaking “neither helps nor harms” a movie’s Oscar chances. It sounds neutral, even judicious. But neutrality, as the Swiss learned a few decades ago, is a choice — and a consequential one. And it marks a new front in the war over what constitutes “human authorship.” Because the Oscars aren’t facing a hypothetical future shaped by AI. They’re already adjudicating films made inside the frameworks of this technology. By refusing to draw clearer lines, the Academy has turned this year’s awards into a referendum on how much machine assistance Hollywood is willing to bless as human achievement. For the record, the Academy’s official guideline on the matter: “With regard to Generative Artificial Intelligence and other digital tools used in the making of the film, the tools neither help nor harm the chances of achieving a nomination. The Academy and each branch will judge the achievement, taking into account the degree to which a human was at the heart of the creative authorship when choosing which movie to award.” This year’s best picture frontrunners are One Battle After Another and Sinners — two very different films that nonetheless share one defining trait: They were made by an industry where AI is already part of the air, even when no one bothers to mention it. None of the producers of these films have been compelled to disclose AI workflows. And that silence may be the most telling data point of all. Take One Battle After Another. The film has been praised for its performances, its exquisite crafts and its classical restraint — precisely the kinds of qualities the Academy frames as proof of “human authorship.” You don’t hear a lot about any AI-assisted post-production tools that were likely used for dialogue cleanup, automated sound balancing, stabilization and editorial efficiencies that compress timelines and costs. And why would you? That’s all pretty standard across cinema, including prestige auteur projects. A representative for One Battle After Another did not respond to request for comment. Sinners is maximalist, technically ambitious and the most aggressively rewarded film of the year, landing a staggering 16 nominations. Publicly, it’s being framed as a triumph of vision and execution. Privately, it’s also understood as a model of contemporary studio filmmaking, where AI-assisted pre-visualization, planning tools and post workflows are simply assumed. Michael B. Jordan’s virtuosic performance as twins — rightly rewarded with a best actor nomination — was refined with cutting-edge VFX work, including a toolset from Rising Sun Pictures called REVIZE that uses machine learning techniques for face replacement. The conversation has shifted. Films can score multiple Oscar nominations without Academy voters being asked to factor in whether machine intelligence helped make them more efficient, more polished or more competitive. The Academy doesn’t interrogate. Campaigns determine how much they volunteer. Don’t ask, don’t tell. And the big question: Does it even matter anymore? Today I dig into what this standoff means for the Oscar race and for the encroachment of AI tech into new arenas of Hollywood, including:
This column is for paid subscribers only. Interested in a group sub for your team or company? Click here. For full access and to continue reading all Ankler content, paid subscribers can click here.
Got a tip or story pitch? Email tips@theankler.com ICYMI from The AnklerThe Wakeup Amazon, AGBO layoffs add to ’26 job woes Pitt Boss John Wells on Netflix’s Endgame — and Whether the WGA Strikes Again The legendary creator tells Lesley Goldberg how the U.S. healthcare mess connects with audiences — and why originality will beat AI Heated Rivalry Casting Directors On Finding Connor Storrie & Hudson Williams: ‘Lightning in a Bottle’ Jenny Lewis and Sara Kay tell Elaine Low the backstory of the stars’ self-tapes and chemistry test The People, the Parties: Inside the Last Sundance in Park City Who Richard Rushfield saw, what he did and what mattered to everyone this year TV in 3: Netflix Licensing Spree, Decoded; WBD Cable Strategy The dominant streamer is bulking up its library with some unexpected shows, writes Lesley. But why? Judgment Day for Indie Film Starts Today at Sundance Plus: Richard’s conversation with the fest’s Eugene Hernandez Netflix, Warner Bros. and the Global Fallout Begins U.S. upheaval is ripping through Europe, writes Manori Ravindran SCOOP: Substack Is Launching a TV App CEO Chris Best tells Like & Subscribe’s Natalie Jarvey about the new platform’s bid to grab some of YouTube’s living-room audience Oscar’s 11th Hour Showdowns, Decoded Several categories remain wide open, writes Katey Rich — and contenders will have to fight tooth and nail Oscar Morning Shockers, Snubs & Screams No trophy yet, but there were 10 big winners of the day, writes Katey 🎬 Amazon MGM’s First Swing of ’26: Hit, Miss or TBD? Plus: Hamnet plays this year’s Anora at the box office 🎧 What Heated Rivalry Reveals About Minting Stars 🎧 Oscar’s Instagram Wars; Sundance’s Last Magical Hurrah More from Ankler Media
New from Natalie Jarvey’s creator economy newsletter: The YouTuber With $7M in Ticket Pre-Sales for His Movie. How He Did It Brent Montgomery: Hollywood ‘Needs a Win.’ Microdramas Are the Answer
Andy Lewis’ latest IP picks: A Wild, Real-Life Spy Thriller & a Rollicking Slackers-in-Space Sci-Fi Adventure
|
