Tilly Norwood: She Is Not Artistic, She’s Data.
The threat to human creativity from technology took another step closer this week via the debut of the digital performer Tilly Norwood, the inaugural fully AI-created actor. As expected, her launch during the Zurich cinematic gathering via a light-hearted piece named AI Commissioner provoked strong reactions. Emily Blunt described the film as “terrifying” while the performers' union Sag-Aftra denounced it as “jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry”.
There is much that is problematic about Norwood, especially the signal her “approachable” persona sends to female youth. Yet the graver concern is the construction of her face using real actors' likenesses lacking their awareness or approval. Her playful premiere obscures the truth that she represents a fresh approach to media creation that rides roughshod over longstanding norms and laws overseeing artists and their creations.
The film industry has long expected Norwood's emergence. Features including the 2002 sci-fi tale Simone, about a film director who creates the perfect actress on a computer, and 2013’s The Congress, in which an ageing star is digitally scanned by her studio, turned out to be incredibly forward-thinking. The recent body horror film The Substance, with Demi Moore as a fading star who generates a youthful duplicate, similarly satirised the industry’s obsession with youth and beauty. Currently, in a Frankenstein-esque turn, the movie industry confronts the “ideal actress”.
Norwood's originator, the actress and scribe Eline Van der Velden defended her as “not a replacement for a human being”, but “a piece of art”, describing AI as a new tool, like a paintbrush. Based on proponents' views, AI will make filmmaking democratic, because anyone can produce movies absent a large studio's assets.
From the Gutenberg press to talkies and TV, every artistic upheaval has faced fear and criticism. The visual effects Oscar hasn't always existed, of course. And AI is already part of film-making, primarily in cartoon and sci-fi types. Two of last year’s Oscar-winning films – The Brutalist and Emilia Perez – employed AI to improve vocal qualities. Deceased performers such as Carrie Fisher have been revived for after-death appearances.
But while some welcome such possibilities, and the potential for AI thespians to cut filming budgets significantly, workers in the film industry are justifiably alarmed. The writers' strike of 2023 achieved a halfway success resisting the deployment of artificial intelligence. And while A-listers’ views on Norwood have been widely reported, once again, it's the lesser-known workers whose positions are most threatened – supporting and voice artists, beauticians and production staff.
Digital performers are a natural outcome of a society flooded with social media junk, plastic surgery and deceit. As yet, Norwood can’t act or interact. She cannot relate emotionally, for, clearly, she is not a real being. She is not “art” either; she is data. The genuine enchantment of films lies in human connection, and that cannot be artificially generated. We enjoy cinema to witness truthful characters in real places, expressing true sentiments. We are not seeking ideal impressions.
Yet, even if cautions about Norwood being a grave risk to movies are inflated, at least for the moment, that isn't to say there are no threats. Legislation is slow and clunky, whereas technology progresses at a staggering pace. Additional actions are required to safeguard actors and production teams, and the importance of human imaginative power.
