“The Brutalist,” an A24 film directed by Brady Corbet, tells the story of a Jewish-Hungarian architect who immigrates to the United States after WWII. Considered by many to be among the top 10 films of 2024, “The Brutalist” has received 10 Oscar nominations and won three Golden Globes. Despite these accolades, there has been public backlash regarding the film’s use of Respeecher, a Ukrainian artificial intelligence voice-generating software, to alter the voices of Adrien Brody, who portrays the protagonist László Tóth, and Felicity Jones, who plays his wife Erzsebet, in order to make their Hungarian accents more authentic.
To achieve this, the film’s editor, Dávid Jancsó, a native Hungarian speaker, put his own voice into Respeecher to modify some lines spoken by Brody and Jones. Jancsó assured RedShark News in an interview that the AI software was used with restraint, “mainly just replacing letters here and there” to speed up the post-production process. Corbet insisted that Respeecher was only used in the rare moments throughout the film when the actors spoke Hungarian and not for their Hungarian-accented English, affirming that “no English language was changed.” Nevertheless, the controversy surrounding “The Brutalist” stems from the implications of using AI to modify dialogue, raising concerns about its impact on filmmaking and cultural representation. This has left many wondering if employing AI makes Brody’s and Jones’ performances and the film itself less deserving of Oscars. Does the use of Respeecher detract from the integrity of the film? Does it warp or reinforce the authenticity of Hungarian culture?
In addition to “The Brutalist,” “Emilia Pérez,” the leading film in 2025’s Oscar nominations, also used Resepeecher to extend the vocal singing range of actress Karla Sofía Gascón by blending her voice with the voice of French singer Camille. While controversial itself, autotune and voice dubbing for singing are not as new in the music and film industry as altering spoken dialogue with AI. Films typically use automatic dialogue replacement (ADR) for post-production dialogue recordings, and Jancsó attempted to do so through coaching and voice actor replacements before turning to Respeecher’s AI.
This rapid progress in implementing AI in the film industry was anticipated by Hollywood labor unions. The 2023 Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) and Writers Guild of America (WGA) strikes were partially carried out because of the threat of generative AI use and the importance of establishing protections regarding digital replicas and synthetic performers, such as reviving a deceased actor’s likeness or replicating a singer’s voice—both of which have been done already. For example, in 2022, James Earl Jones, who voiced Darth Vader in the original “Star Wars” films, signed over his rights to Lucasfilm, permitting the studio to posthumously recreate his voice using Respeecher before dying in 2024. Similarly, a Beatles song, “Now and Then,” which was released in 2023, used “stem-separation” AI to reconstruct John Lennon’s voice from his 60-year-old demo.
So, what does the use of voice artificial intelligence in “The Brutalist” mean for Hollywood? According to David Barber, president of the Motion Picture Sound Editors, Respeecher and other AI software are just tools that increase efficiency.
But what I am curious to know is what Respeecher’s success in Oscar-nominated films like “The Brutalist” and “Emilia Pérez” means for future careers in the film industry. It seems now that speaking a language fluently or using vocal skills are not as valued as actors themselves. This could be interpreted as a positive development, as it could emphasize acting ability over secondary skills, such as speaking multiple languages or singing, during the casting process. However, it could also mean that actors who do possess these auxiliary talents are rendered less marketable and overlooked in lieu of household names. For instance, in Tom Hanks’ latest film, “Here,” AI technology was applied to de-age the actor to portray a young version of his character alongside his “Forrest Gump” co-star Robin Wright. In an interview with the New York Times, Hanks commented on how artificial intelligence tools could potentially extend his career. “If it’s possible for me to play a younger person than I am — I read stuff all the time, and I think, Oh, man, I’d kill to play this role, but I’m 68,” he said. As this can increase opportunities for actors who might otherwise “age out” of the industry, it can also hinder aspiring actors in their careers. If it is a choice between casting a de-aged Tom Hanks or a no-name young actor, it is a win-win for prestige actors and studios, but an additional barrier for young actors hoping to gain recognition from a breakout role.
On the other hand, one could argue that the film industry has always cast household names over unknown actors regardless of talent. In “Black Swan” (2010), a film filled with complicated ballet sequences, Natalie Portman’s face was digitally edited onto her dance double and professional ballerina Sarah Lane in post-production. While Portman did have formal training in ballet, Lane claimed each full-body dance shot was her body, and the filmmakers were overstating the amount of dancing attributed to Portman. Post-production audio and visual editing is not a new practice, but as the capability of AI technology continues to progress, the skill set that distinguishes and qualifies actors for roles may begin to shift with it. In the case of “The Brutalist,” Respeecher’s AI was employed to simulate native culture through its altered Hungarian dialogue. Adrien Brody himself is a second-generation Hungarian, and he trained extensively with dialect coach Tanera Marshall, but the potential of AI technology like Respeecher opens the doors to cultural transmutation through speech and visual likeness.
Overall, the discourse on the use of AI in “The Brutalist” may be a current overreaction to the craft of filmmaking due to its limited scope. However, the public backlash against AI tools in recent Hollywood films also raises valid underlying concerns about the responsible use of artificial intelligence in the entertainment industry. As illustrated by the de-aged Tom Hanks in “Here” or James Earl Jones’ immortalized voice of Darth Vader, AI has already demonstrated the ability to surmount the boundaries of time, language, and even death. While powerful, AI tools are only as threatening as the person who wields them, which is why it is imperative to establish legal parameters for regulation. If you are interested in the legal implications of AI in Hollywood, a second part will be published in Issue 15.
The Student Movement is the official student newspaper of Andrews University. Opinions expressed in the Student Movement are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors, Andrews University or the Seventh-day Adventist church.