Danny Boyle used AI in his new movie Ink
When filmmaker Danny Boyle steps behind the camera, he’s delving into the complex world of media history and the startling potential of artificial intelligence. But the promotion for his new film, Ink, has brought a fresh dose of controversy, sparking debate over whether using AI to resurrect historical imagery is an artistic stroke or an ethical misstep.
The sparks flew when Boyle confirmed that a portion of the film utilizes generative AI. In an interview with Vanity Fair, he revealed that approximately 30 seconds of the movie involved animating old photographs, alongside some attention to wildlife. He specifically noted that the AI was used to bring images to life, including animating some mice that scurried through the The Sun newsroom.
While thirty seconds might seem negligible, the implications of using AI to reanimate figures from history—such as the Kray brothers or former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—have sent ripples across social media. Keyboard warriors have quickly flocking to the internet to critique the use of generative technology in filmmaking, raising questions about authenticity and appropriation.
Ink itself is set in the vibrant, tumultuous year of 1969. The story follows the rise of media tycoon Rupert Murdoch (played by Guy Pearce) as he acquires the daily newspaper The Sun, transforming it into Britain’s most influential tabloid. Claire Foy also contributes to the cast, adding depth to this era of media upheaval.
Beyond the specific controversy of the visuals, Boyle also offered a broader perspective on AI. When asked about the technology itself, he suggested that the importance of AI lies not in the technology, but in public perception. He posited that what truly matters is what younger generations think about it, emphasizing that AI is a powerful tool, provided it is used respectfully and actors are fairly compensated.
Boyle drew a clear line between his use of AI and other ethical concerns in filmmaking. He admitted that he remains wary of involving real animals in his work, recalling his experience with the PETA, which gave him a sharp lesson after using real chimpanzees in his previous film, 28 Days Later. He has since made a concerted effort to avoid using real animals in his projects.
The question now remains: is the use of AI in art a slippery slope, or is it simply a new tool in the creative toolkit? As technology continues to evolve, the conversation about the ethics of using artificial creations in entertainment is only just beginning, leaving audiences to ponder whether this digital revolution is adding creativity or merely generating noise.
Buy on Amazon
Credit
