Tilly Norwood: She’s Not Art, She Is Data.
Technology's challenge to human creativity advanced another step in recent days via the debut of this AI-generated actress, the first 100% AI-generated actor. As expected, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering in a comic sketch called AI Commissioner sparked controversy. Emily Blunt described the film as “terrifying” and the actors’ union Sag-Aftra condemned it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
Many concerns arise with Norwood, including the implications of her “girl-next-door” image for young women. Yet the graver concern is that her face has been made from those of real actors without their knowledge or consent. Her cheerful introduction conceals the reality that she embodies an innovative system for producing media that ignores traditional standards and legal frameworks governing artists and their work.
The film industry has long expected Norwood's emergence. Features including the 2002 sci-fi tale Simone, depicting a director who designs an ideal actress digitally, and 2013’s The Congress, where an aging celebrity undergoes digital replication by her studio, were remarkably prescient. The recent body horror film The Substance, featuring Demi Moore as a declining famous person who creates a younger replica, similarly satirised the industry’s obsession with youth and beauty. Now, Victor Frankenstein-like, the film world is staring the “perfect actress” in the face.
Norwood's originator, the actress and scribe Eline Van der Velden justified her as “not a substitute for a real person”, but “a piece of art”, describing AI as a new tool, like a paintbrush. As per its supporters, AI will democratise film, since everyone will be able to make movies without the resources of a big studio.
Beginning with the printing press to audible movies and TV, every artistic upheaval has faced fear and criticism. There wasn’t always an Oscar for visual effects, after all. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is already involved in movie production, primarily in cartoon and sci-fi types. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – The Brutalist along with Emilia Perez – used AI to enhance voices. Deceased performers such as Carrie Fisher have been revived for after-death appearances.
Yet, even as certain parties accept these prospects, as well as the prospect of AI actors slashing production costs by 90%, workers in the film industry are justifiably alarmed. The 2023 screenwriters' strike in Hollywood led to a limited win resisting the deployment of artificial intelligence. And although top stars' opinions on Norwood have received broad coverage, once again, it's the lesser-known workers whose positions are most threatened – extras and vocal performers, cosmetic experts and crew members.
AI actors are an inevitable product of a culture awash with social media slop, cosmetic surgery and fakery. At present, Norwood is unable to act or communicate. She lacks empathy, since, obviously, she isn't human. She is not “artistic” too; she is merely data. Real cinematic magic comes from human interaction, and that cannot be artificially generated. We view movies to observe actual individuals in authentic settings, experiencing genuine feelings. We don't desire flawless atmospheres.
But while warnings that Norwood is a doe-eyed existential threat to the film industry might be exaggerated, currently, anyway, that doesn’t mean there is nothing to fear. Laws are sluggish and awkward, while technology advances dizzyingly fast. More must be done to protect performers and film crews, and the value of human creativity.
