Tilly Norwood: She Isn't Art, She Is Data.
Technology's challenge to human creativity advanced another step in recent days through the introduction of Tilly Norwood, the inaugural fully AI-created actor. Unsurprisingly, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering within a humorous short titled AI Commissioner provoked strong reactions. Emily Blunt described the film as “terrifying” and the actors’ union Sag-Aftra condemned it for “endangering actors' incomes and undermining human artistic value”.
There is much that is problematic about Norwood, including the implications of her “girl-next-door” image for young women. But the more serious point is that her face has been made from those of real actors lacking their awareness or approval. Her lighthearted debut masks the fact that she is part of a new model of media production that ignores traditional standards and legal frameworks governing artists and their work.
Hollywood has been anticipating Norwood’s arrival for some time. Movies like the 2002 science fiction film Simone, about a film director who creates the perfect actress on a computer, and the 2013 production The Congress, where an aging celebrity undergoes digital replication by her studio, were remarkably prescient. The recent body horror film The Substance, with Demi Moore as a fading star who generates a youthful duplicate, also ridiculed Hollywood's preoccupation with young age and good looks. Currently, in a Frankenstein-esque turn, the movie industry confronts the “ideal actress”.
Norwood’s creator, the actor and writer Eline Van der Velden defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, but “a piece of art”, portraying AI as a fresh instrument, similar to a brush. Based on proponents' views, 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. An Oscar for visual effects wasn't always available, remember. And AI is already part of film-making, notably in animated and science fiction categories. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – Emilia Perez and The Brutalist – utilized artificial intelligence to refine voices. Late actors like Carrie Fisher have been brought back for roles after their passing.
Yet, even as certain parties accept these prospects, along with the idea of AI performers reducing production expenses drastically, employees in the cinematic field are rightly concerned. The 2023 screenwriters' strike in Hollywood led to a limited win against the use of AI. And while A-listers’ views on Norwood have been widely reported, typically it is the less powerful individuals whose employment is most endangered – supporting and voice artists, beauticians and production staff.
AI thespians are a sure result of a world saturated with online trash, surgical enhancements and falsehood. As yet, Norwood can’t act or interact. She can’t empathise, because, it hardly needs to be said, she is not a person. She isn't “art” as well; she is pure information. The human connection is the true magic of movies, and that cannot be artificially generated. We watch films to see real people in real locations, feeling real emotions. We don't desire flawless atmospheres.
But while warnings that Norwood is a doe-eyed existential threat to the film industry might be exaggerated, for now at least, that does not imply there is no reason for concern. Laws are sluggish and awkward, even as tech evolves rapidly. Additional actions are required to safeguard actors and production teams, and the value of human creativity.
