Key Takeaways:
– Image Nation Abu Dhabi and Spooky Pictures have produced horror film ‘Late Night With the Devil’.
– The film has sparked controversy due to the use of AI art.
– Directors Colin and Cameron Cairnes have given an explanation for the inclusion of AI art.
– The film is accumulating several awards and has received positive reviews from critics.
Controversy Stirred by AI Art in ‘Late Night With the Devil’
Horror film ‘Late Night With the Devil’, jointly produced by Image Nation Abu Dhabi and Spooky Pictures, is currently making waves for more reasons than one. The highly-anticipated film, which is now playing in theatres, has been generating quite the chatter on social media due to the unusual inclusion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) art.
Explaining the Use of AI Art
In response to the growing controversy, Australian directors, Colin and Cameron Cairnes, decided to issue a statement. They revealed to Variety that a combination of an excellent graphics team and an inclination towards experimentation led to the incorporation of AI art in the project. The directors further explained that three still images were edited and briefly used as interstitials in the film. They expressed gratitude for their talented cast, crew, and producing team who have made the film a reality.
Appeal of Late-Night TV Inspired the Film
‘Late Night With the Devil’ is a supernatural thriller set in 1977, encapsulating the atmosphere of live late-night TV shows. David Dastmalchian, known for his roles in ‘The Boogeyman’ and ‘The Suicide Squad’, portrays Jack Delroy, the main character hosting the late-night show Night Owls. The Cairnes brothers had earlier stated their fascination with the slightly unsettling undertones of late-night TV in the ’70s and ’80s and have attempted to blend this unique premise with elements of the supernatural in the film.
The Film’s Festival Journey and Future Release
‘Late Night With the Devil’ has earned notable recognition in film festivals, winning multiple awards. The film had its premiere at South by Southwest, clinched the best screenplay award at the Sitges Film Festival, and bagged best feature film and best lead performance for Dastmalchian at Toronto After Dark.
The film was produced by Roy Lee of Spooky Pictures, John Molloy, Derek Dauchy, and Future Pictures’ Mat Govoni and Adam White, with Dastmalchian, Rami Yasin, and Joel Anderson serving as executive producers.
Mixed Reactions from Horror Fans
While the film’s anticipation is high among horror fans, some have expressed reservations about watching it due to the incorporation of AI art. However, the Cairnes brothers insist that the AI art was professionally edited by their graphics team, and its inclusion should not be seen as detrimental to the overall film experience.
When the film completes its theatrical run, it’s set to hit the Shudder streaming service on April 19th.
Share your thoughts by dropping a comment below about the use of AI in art. Would it influence your decision to watch a film? We look forward to hearing your perspectives.
I’ve got to say, there’s a few ways this could have gone.
I think the original statement they made doesn’t clarify much – it’s possible to use AI without it being an unethical option, and what I SUSPECT is that it was used as part of a suite of tools, trained on the art of their graphics team (and possibly some public domain art.) It may also have been just a tweaking tool, as I have vague inklings that the images distorted over the course of the movie.
Where people’s concerns usually come in is the more pressing issue of art scraping – using art without the artists’ consent to ‘train’ a generative algorithm.
However, the perfect storm of low technology literacy and passionate defence of the arts means that sometimes even the most good-faith agents will end up defending bad-faith arguments.
It’s fine to use AI generation in restricted, specific settings. It’s just not how it’s being used by large corporations like Marvel; what they’re doing is scraping from previous artists they’ve used despite not offering recompense, generating new “art” that can be produced quickly but is ultimately shoddier and, in a very literal sense, mechanical.
The use of this large scale generation damages the artists in the industry, undermines real content creation, and ultimately cheapens creative endeavours into something to be consumed with no critical engagement, as nothing truly “new” is made. (Think of the old adage of monkeys on typewriters eventually producing Shakespeare, THEN remember that AI tends to “weed out” any options that have unique features, because it’s an algorithm based off averages.)
I still watched and enjoyed, but I have to hope that the graphics team was well compensated for anything they put into the algorithmic generative works, not just for touching up the end results.
As an artist, I actively have to protect my work by using both the Glaze and Nightshade projects to avoid my work being fed into scraping algorithms against my will. It’s a touchy subject for me, but I’m definitely not going to condemn such an intensely nuanced work for using AI as part of a larger set of tools for final images, provided everyone was compensated properly.