Did he deserve the win over Timothée Chalamet and Sebastian Stan who played Bob Dylan and Donald Trump, respectively?

Does the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in a film, no matter how miniscule, take away from its humanity and authenticity? Many seem to think so following Adrien Brody’s recent Oscars win for “The Brutalist.”

Brody, who last won an Oscars for 2003’s “The Pianist,” took home the award for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role—beating out Timothée Chalamet, Sebastian Stan, Colman Domingo, and Ralph Fiennes.

Barring every headline-worthy act by Brody at the Academy Awards—from the longest acceptance speech in history to a passionate kiss with Halle Berry in front of his wife—there is existing sentiment that “The Brutalist” lead actor did not deserve the win over his contemporaries for his use of AI.

READ: This 2025, the Oscars fashion plays it classy and safe

Over Trump and Bob Dylan?

In an interview with RedShark News, the film’s editor Dávid Jancsó revealed that they used Respeecher to enhance Brody and co-star Felicity Jones’ Hungarian dialogue. He explained that both stars were coached to speak the language but felt that it could’ve been perfected “so that not even locals will spot any difference.”

“We were very careful about keeping their performances. It’s mainly just replacing letters here and there. You can do this in ProTools yourself, but we had so much dialogue in Hungarian that we really needed to speed up the process otherwise, we’d still be in post,” added Jancsó.

Additionally, it was also revealed that they used AI to generate several architectural sketches at the end of the film.

In light of these revelations, fans took to social media to voice their dismay over Brody’s Oscars win—especially, since it came at the expense of Chalamet and Stan’s performances, who took on the persona and likeliness of Bob Dylan and Donald Trump, respectively.

i just think it’s comical that adrien brody, who used AI to enhance his performance (accent) is in the same category of the man who managed to turn into the most filthy human being and simply NAILED it pic.twitter.com/iOdT8ffFip https://t.co/MolRpuOvzr

— sophs! ☆ (@rckbucky) January 23, 2025

“Timothee Chalamet [lost] the #Oscars after taking singing lessons for five years, after gaining weight, he did everything he could to deliver the best character possible, only to lose to Adrien Brody, who used AI,” writes a user on X.

“I just think it’s comical that Adrien Brody, who used AI to enhance his performance (accent) is in the same category of the man who managed to turn into the most filthy human being and simply nailed it,” said another user on the platform. 

READ: Watch Oscar best actress Mikey Madison in these films

Give AI an inch, and it’ll take a mile

Nonetheless, surrounding dialogue over Brody’s AI controversy seems to come from two distinct yet ill-informed positions: Either those who haven’t watched the film and assume everything in it is AI-generated or supplemented, or doomsayers who believe the mere use of the technology leads to a slippery slope causing the certain death of human creativity.

“When anyone mentions artificial intelligence right now, there is a knee-jerk reaction to condemn it because of its destructive power,” says YouTuber and film critic Dan Murrell.

In his video breaking down the AI controversy, Murrell explained that Respeecher only enhanced the Hungarian-spoken sections of the film. He estimated that this accounted for a mere seven minutes out of the film’s over three-hour runtime. The greater majority of the film—Brody’s self-engineered Hungarian accent over the English script—was his alone and left untouched. 

Jane Guyer Fujita, a dialect coach and an associate arts professor at NYU’s Tisch School, also added that Brody’s Hungarian lines were supplemented with samples from voiceover artists. So, in the same way 2018’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” used Freddie Mercury’s real singing voice to elevate Rami Malek’s performance, “The Brutalist” not only gave jobs to a few voice actors but also used a technique done years prior. Take note that Malek also won an Oscars for it.

“The use of AI to help generate some architectural drawings appears on screen for maybe 4 seconds at end of the film, not—as some on social media are claiming—that every image of a building they see in the film is AI-generated,” also says Adrian Pennington, the original author of the RedShark News piece.

READ: Love or ambition? Janella Salvador, RK Bagatsing questions what should go first in new film

A conversation with no clear winners

“The Brutalist” only used AI to supplement a few minor scenes. Its utilization pales in comparison to the totality of the film. Its presence almost seems miniscule, nonexistent, and merely serves as an added touch by the film’s creators. 

Yet, is the use of AI under these circumstances warranted? Should it only be permitted under a strict set of guidelines set by the Academy? 

On one end, it diminishes the artist’s pursuit of perfection. We praise the likes of Christian Bale, Joaquin Phoenix, Tom Hardy, and many more for how much they transformed for a role. The physical toll it took to get into specific shape. The grit and dedication to learn the necessary nuances and mannerisms. The obsession to get inside the mind of a character. These are the things we applaud as fans of film.

But with AI, it seems as though we’re encouraging imperfection. A butchered accent can be enhanced with Respeecher when an actor could’ve practiced the language better to begin with. Set props can be generated to fill a shot when digital illustrators and set designers could’ve done the job.

And here lies the problem: For everything positive that can be said about AI—how it can cut costs or speed up production—the bottom line remains that it does what a person could do. 

But, on the other end of the spectrum, if we were to truly limit the use of AI as it was done in “The Brutalist,” then aren’t we only wasting the technology?

AI, whether we like it or not, is a tool that is here to stay. But we shouldn’t only concern ourselves with how it’s used but also with how it affects the overall field of play. If left to further develop and increase in usage, AI could one day be used by studio executives to question the enormous budgets some films have justified themselves into needing. If restricted too much, as previously mentioned, then it would’ve been better not to use it at all.

This is a discussion that will continue to go ‘round and ‘round. But for now, it may serve to benefit to learn from how photography treats editing software and how it can apply to the relationship between film and AI. 

Photography competitions—from the National Geographic Photo Contest to the Sony World Photography Awards—each has its own set of rules. These include the image format they’ll only accept as valid entries and the specific theme each photo should follow. The Natural Landscape Photography Awards separates itself from these competitions by having a hardline stance on the amount and kind of digital adjustments they permit in the contest.

The Academy Awards should treat AI the same way. Not as a threat to creativity, but as an existing tool to be limited or even prohibited in a prestigious awarding ceremony—all to ensure that each film remains on equal footing with the rest of the competition.

Any topic surrounding AI will continue to be contentious and never-ending, but at least the Academy is reportedly considering making AI use disclosure mandatory for 2026.