The technology companies behind AI Continue to promise filmmakers the ability to do more with less. Historically, it is a pitch that has been a draw for Indie Filemakers. Dating back to the advent of Sync Sound 16mm film Cameras in the 1960s, digital video In the late 1990s and the cheap DSLR cameras in the 21st century were independent and non-fiction filmmakers at the forefront when it comes to experimenting with new technology to find ways to tell stories, many of whom premiered Sundance. But when it comes to AI, many of them on the 2025 edition of the festival are very skeptical, it can be a tool used to make personal movies, while the ethical questions about it make it a virtual non-starter for many.
This question about “how filmmakers can ethically and artistically use AI” was the subject of a panel in the IndieWire Sundance studio, presented by Dropbox. Filmmakers and Asteria founder brown mooserArchival Producer’s Alliance Co-director Stephanie Jenkinsjournalist/director David France and filmmaker and Promise Co -founder/CCO Dave Clark covered a wide range of substances. They offered some practical advice to filmmakers, which you can watch in the video at the top of the page.
After looking to close the rapid development of Genai over the past two years, along with greed in companies that drive these billions of dollar technicians, the panel participants made a bit calm fear of the dangers that AI made up the art form. However, this danger is the reason why most people thought it was sitting for independent filmmakers to experiment with AI.
“I want the filmmakers to lead this revolution,” Clark said. “Because it is the only way that this will actually benefit the industry. If we let someone who does not even understand stories suddenly start telling stories, you will see any problems. “
For France, a famous journalist Oscar-nominated documentary turned, the ethical dangers of the technology are also what can make it a powerful creative tool for good.
“I’ve really been fascinated by that kind of double ethical morality in technology and how to find ways to make it work for the good,” France said.
As an example, France pointed to its documentary “Welcome to Chechnya”, which used the same deepfake technique as weapons for so much evil – revenge porn, false news, identity theft – to protect the identity of his LGBTQ substances, which were refugees fleeing from Anti-gay cleansing in Russia.
“I call it” Deeptruths “for what it did was by changing people’s faces, it allowed them to tell their stories and it allowed us to embed with them and experience their journey as they drove from this horrible regime,” France said. “It did not affect any aspect of what they said, or how they said it, or what they felt in their micro -expressions to implement, thanks to AI.”
In his new film, “Free Leonard Peltier”, which explores the story of the named domestic activist and his conflict with the FBI, resulting in Peltier’s 50 years in prison, France returned to AI to fill in holes in the archives of his historical film and collaborated with Mooser’s asteria to use Genai to produce resumptions he could not afford to shoot.
For Jenkins, who helped lead the creation of The archive producer’s guidelines From how documentaries should use Genai, the existential threat to the new technology is that there are photo -realistic results mistaken for primary sources and enters the historical post as such. France and his team followed the guidelines by ensuring that the resumptions could not be visually confused for archives, while revealing and openly discussing their use of Genai.
“Confidence is something that is really hard to win, but really easy to lose, and in documentary it plays with truth. It’s great about our genre, ”Jenkins said. “But no one wants to be fooled, so (APA) thinks it’s important, especially in this transition time when AI is new, at any time (AI can really be confused), just notice it, let people know, talk about that press ( Gestures to what France did on the panel), and in this way people will trust you more.
In “Free Leonard Peltier” France also used AI sound tools to get around another limitation – the FBI would not let Peltier sit for any interviews. All they had was the sound from poorly recorded phone calls from within the prison and Peltier’s own writing. But with Peltier’s condition, France (and fully revealed) used AI to generate high quality sounds, which sounded exactly like Peltier’s voice and used the activist’s own words and writing. This discussion about AI sound in “Free Leonard Peltier” led to the panel debating the latest Controversy about the use of AI to fix the Hungarian accent by actors in the Oscar-nominated movie “The brutalist.”
“I think with this question was transparency,” Jenkins said. “Maybe if there had been a line, or if they had talked about it on their press ride, or maybe it was an accent coach who talked about it, I don’t think it would necessarily have been so much problem, but it definitely will come to education. “
The lack of open discussion about the use of AI during this early adaptation phase of the technology was something that every panelist thought was just troublesome problems. Mooser worried controversy such as “The Brutalist” was twice dangerous because it would not only motivate more filmmakers not to reveal the use of AI, but also a less insignificant use of AI enlarged by the Oscar race that only served to distract from the Real dangers that AI puts for creators.
“I think it’s always important to keep in mind when you talk about this, you pay attention to what catches fire that people are upset about,” said Mooser, who then listed examples of large AI development that constituted huge ethical and creative problems but Went to a large extent uninhabited and undisputed. “There are many things that are really dangerous with AI … and there was a problem in (WGA and SAG) strikes too, which was that there was not enough information about the things we should be really angry with.”
Clark agreed with Mooser and adds the “Brutalist” account was a case of “what a dirty word” AI had become.
“From my point of view, as long as the artist makes these decisions (on how to use AI),” Clark said. “Because if you’ve seen ‘The Brutalist’, I obviously mean you can see that Adrien Brody is an artist of world -class, and the fact that it would take away (his) performance even if they admitted it was only a couple Lines with dialogue to fix his Hungarian accent, which to me shows what we need to fix is this conversation. For if there is (any project to do any anti-Ai), it should not be against ‘the brutalist’, which is an incredible movie picture on film. ”
