In the evolving landscape of Hollywood’s relationship with artificial intelligence, few voices have been as prominent and critical as that of Justine Bateman. With a solid foundation in technology, having earned her computer science degree from UCLA, the seasoned actor and filmmaker has actively raised concerns regarding the ramifications of replacing human creativity with machine-generated content. Throughout the recent strikes in Hollywood, she emerged as a leading figure, providing counsel to SAG-AFTRA and publicly advocating for skepticism towards AI on the WGA picket lines.
Bateman is the driving force behind Credo 23, a relatively new organization that cautions against the perils of generative AI, claiming it threatens the very framework of the film industry. Bateman’s vision for Credo 23 is to champion the creation of authentically human narratives—films and series that exhibit raw authenticity and respect the artistry of filmmaking.
As Hollywood tentatively engages with advanced technologies like OpenAI’s Sora and explores new image generation capabilities, Bateman continues her advocacy. She argues for a grassroots movement aimed at rejuvenating the human essence in filmmaking, a crucial component she perceives as increasingly endangered by algorithm-driven content. This initiative is positioned as a response to the encroaching trend of synthetic storytelling that has infiltrated the industry.
Describing this initiative as “the new,” Bateman emphasizes the need to reclaim the humanity that, in her view, has been overshadowed by the ascendance of AI in content creation. Her vision aligns with a broader human-centered approach that is emerging across various sectors. Notably, prominent creators like Matthew Weiner, known for his work on Mad Men, and esteemed cinematographer Reed Morano, director of The Handmaid’s Tale, have joined her effort.
To further amplify her mission, Bateman has launched the Credo 23 Film Festival—a dedicated platform promoting “filmmaker-first, no-AI content.” At this festival, no machine-generated components are allowed, although human-driven visual effects may be utilized. With the festival taking place this weekend at Hollywood American Legion Post 43, just south of the Hollywood Bowl, it will feature approximately 30 films, ranging from Ethan Krahn’s experimental piece Meditation on a Room to the teen drama Dirty Towel, a hit at Tribeca, along with two of Bateman’s own works, Look and Feel, featuring actors David Duchovny and Rae Dawn Chong. The Hollywood Reporter had the opportunity to chat with Bateman just prior to the festival.
Festival Goals and Challenges
You’ve decided that hosting a film festival is a potent way to convey your message. What do you aim to achieve?
The festival has two primary objectives: firstly, to prohibit any AI involvement, and secondly, to ensure that all revenues support filmmakers allowing them to create their next human-driven project. This initiative arose from my observations of the studios and streaming services embracing AI technologies. However, as festivals started following suit, I wondered how original artistry could thrive if many festivals leaned toward automated content. Hence, I decided to establish my own festival to counter this trend.
Reassessing the Festival Model
Do you believe there are fundamental issues within the current festival model, or is it primarily a case of technology overpowering creativity?
I deeply appreciate film festivals and the dedicated individuals behind them who strive hard to promote exceptional talent. Their core mission has traditionally been to celebrate artistic expression. However, I’ve observed shifts where three categories emerged: big film premieres, cause-driven films, and groundbreaking works like Pulp Fiction. Unfortunately, the latter category has shrunk significantly, overshadowed by the first two. I’m not here to assign blame; I simply want to offer a new approach.
The Diminishing Value of Festivals
Some filmmakers feel festivals provide diminishing returns. Do you agree?
In the past, film festivals were a gateway to distribution opportunities. Nowadays, obtaining a deal is a complex and difficult task. We considered, “What if we compensated filmmakers at festivals similarly to how artists are paid at events like Coachella?” Although resources are limited, we’ve streamlined costs and aligned with sponsors—such as Kodak, The Teamsters, and the AI-safety nonprofit Fathom—enabling us to allocate 80 percent of the revenue back to the filmmakers.
The Business Landscape and AI’s Role
How does this connect to your stance against AI?
This conversation extends beyond AI; it reflects the evolution of the entertainment industry influenced by technology companies. These organizations are not rooted in the arts—they operate within a technological framework. Previously, filmmakers received direct compensation for viewership; now a single subscription allows audiences access to thousands of films, disconnecting creators from their earnings. This setup disrupts traditional financial ecosystems and ultimately provides minimal benefit to filmmakers.
Do you believe this shift impacts content quality, focusing more on quantity?
Once, excellence was the guiding principle. While there were always mediocrities, filmmakers aspired to connect with admirable projects. Today’s landscape presents a conveyor belt mentality where entertainment is produced at an alarming rate. While some exceptions remain, the emphasis has shifted away from quality.
Rethinking Content Creation
Could you clarify what you mean by ‘conveyor-belt content’?
Conveyor-belt content refers to films and series designed for passive viewing, allowing audiences to disengage while multitasking on platforms like Instagram. If someone can step away for a brief period and return without comprehending the plot, then it lacks substance. I even know a filmmaker who received feedback stating their movie wasn’t “second-screen enough.” The aim has shifted towards producing background noise rather than engaging cinema—dissuading audiences from experiencing true theatrical movies.
Impact of AI on the Industry
What implications does AI hold for this issue?
AI facilitates the automation of this repetitive content creation. I foresee AI taking a central role within the entertainment sector, tailoring offerings based on viewer preferences amassed over years. For an additional fee, we could see customized experiences that amalgamate personal interests like panda documentaries and martial arts into singular films.
Automation and Artistry
While reboots have long been popular, studios have traditionally needed to craft these projects by hand. Will automation change that?
Indeed. Automation will allow rapid production of reboots, sidestepping traditional filmmaking efforts. The discourse around copyright becomes irrelevant in this context; many tech firms view movies merely as outputs for their platforms, aiming primarily for cost-cutting benefits by minimizing on-set expenses.
Do you genuinely believe audiences will embrace this approach? Many experts suggest customization could remain limited.
If we analyze the audience today, it’s clear they’ve grown accustomed to easily digestible content. They’ll likely respond positively to automation, but a significant divide will emerge between casual viewers and cinephiles. Many have already integrated curated experiences into their daily lives through platforms like TikTok and Instagram, making AI-generated content appear familiar.
The Role of AI as a Tool
Some argue AI can serve as a valuable tool for filmmakers lacking resources. What’s your perspective on this?
I would challenge this notion. If that were true, countless films would have never been produced previously. Filmmakers have always navigated limitations creatively. For instance, consider the iconic shot from Sunset Boulevard achieved through innovative techniques. Relying on AI would rob us of such ingenuity; constraints often give birth to brilliance.
Nonetheless, expecting filmmakers to willingly impose these constraints seems challenging, doesn’t it?
I’m not advocating against the use of technology. However, filmmakers using AI risk sacrificing their creative potential. Utilizing AI generates a regurgitation of existing styles, consuming past works rather than fostering original expression. The reliance on extensive data from decades of cinema raises questions about whether it truly qualifies as a tool.
The Future of Art and AI
Is there a possibility of coexistence between AI and traditional filmmaking?
Anyone who perceives this as plausible underestimates the influence of greed. Companies will invariably pursue profits and market shares, especially when they believe substantial gains lie within reach.
Do you assert that AI fundamentally lacks the capacity to create genuine art?
To me, artists act as conduits for creativity drawn from universal sources. Significant cultural developments in storytelling and music stem from unique human experiences. AI lacks this capacity, as it cannot serve as a true vessel for artistic expression, leaving its outputs devoid of genuine artistry—unlike what we observe with dedicated artists like Tom Cruise, who invest their essence into their work.
Painting a Complex Picture
You present a sobering view of the future. Is there any silver lining?
Notably, a new wave of filmmaking is on the horizon. Though its full form is yet unclear, initiatives like our festival indicate there’s an appetite for authentic, human-centered narratives devoid of AI’s influence. These compositions diverge from the automated conveyor belt approach, paving the way for future creativity.
Are you advocating for the acceleration of AI’s integration into Hollywood to expedite this shift?
Indeed, I’m not interested in hindering progress. Stalling AI’s adoption is futile. I encourage studios and tech firms to proceed swiftly. The quicker we embrace AI, the sooner we’ll reach a point where the industry undergoes transformative change. I’m optimistic about what lies ahead.
Aren’t the recent strikes evidence of resistance against AI?
Both perspectives can coexist. While I recognize the potential dangers associated with generative AI, I’m also urging for progress. My hope is to build a foundation so that when the current wave of automation passes, a rejuvenated landscape awaits filmmakers eager to create meaningful works. It no longer makes sense to cling to a tree that has already fallen; instead, let’s plant new seeds for the future.
Could the festival be a glimpse into this future?
Absolutely. By curating films that embrace genuine human narratives and resist cliché tropes, we are lighting the way toward a future detached from automation. We are committed to fostering a cinematic environment that celebrates authentic creativity. While the journey may be intricate, it is also exhilarating—and I anticipate a growing movement in this direction.
Ultimately, there are two paths: one leading directly into a metaphorical mountain, and one that veers toward a more promising horizon. I firmly believe in choosing the latter.