Do you want to see a film that changes every time you watch it? No, you will not have to take psychotropic substances to get the effect. I’m talking about a decidedly more “material” and potentially revolutionary technology: generative artificial intelligence applied to cinema. Crazy idea? Brilliant? An experiment? An inevitable thing? It’s difficult to say, but the first step towards this science fiction (or dystopian, depending on your point of view) future has already been taken. To be precise, the director did it Gary Hustwit with his documentary “Eno” dedicated to the musical icon Brian Eno (talk about it here). A film which, thanks to AI, will have 52 quintillion different versions. Practically an infinity, a different one for every present and future spectator.
Are you ready to dive into this world of infinite narrative possibilities? Or do you prefer the old, reassuring certainty of a film that, for better or for worse, always remains the same? Read on and then tell us your opinion.
52 quintillion versions of a documentary. And who counts them?
Let’s start with the facts: “Eno” is a “generative” documentary that promises to offer an ever-changing portrait of the legendary figure of Brian Eno, musical genius and visionary experimenter. Director Gary Hustwit’s idea is to use AI to reshuffle scenes, interviews and archive materials in a new flow each time, thus creating a myriad of unique versions of the film.
How many exactly? Well, according to Hustwit, a whopping 52 quintillion. You read that right: quintillions, not millions or billions. A number so large that it defies human understanding. A quintillion is a billion trillion. Only one.
In short, such a vast amount of variations as to guarantee that no viewer will ever see the same documentary, unless they are in the same room with someone else. A prospect that makes you dizzy, no doubt about it. And that raises more than one question about the technical and conceptual feasibility of the operation.
And no. A half-cool, half-disturbing documentary
Let’s face it: beyond the perplexities, there is something fascinating in the idea of a film that constantly renews itself, that offers an ever new and surprising experience. A bit like those game books (remember them?) in which you choose the narrative path, but multiplied to the nth degree.
There is also something democratic and participatory, if we want: each spectator will have “his” film, different from everyone else’s. A unique and unrepeatable work, tailor-made for him by artificial intelligence. A kind of technological miracle that seems to materialize the dream of every cinephile: that of having a personal and privileged relationship with cinema.
All good, then? No. There is also something disturbing about all this. The idea that an algorithm can manipulate a work of art at will, distorting its structure and original meaning. The suspicion that behind the apparent uniqueness of the experience there is actually an underlying homologation, dictated by the inscrutable logic of a machine.
And then, let’s face it: what happens to the author’s role in all this? If a documentary or film can be dismantled and reassembled endlessly, does it still make sense to talk about “director’s vision”? Or does the director become a kind of programmer, who simply enters the right data and leaves it to the AI?
Not easy to apply anywhere
Let’s be clear: these questions are not intended to be a preventive criticism of Hustwit’s project. Indeed, experimentation and innovation are welcome in a field like cinema, which has always known how to reinvent itself through technologies.
And then, it must be admitted that a documentary like “Eno”, dedicated to a multifaceted and experimental artist like Brian Eno, seems the ideal subject for an experiment of this kind. Who knows, maybe the fluid and ever-changing nature of the film will end up perfectly reflecting the changing and innovative spirit of its protagonist.
It is much more difficult to imagine an application of this technique to other film genres. I mean, can you imagine an “Avengers” where the action scenes and dialogue are randomly reshuffled by an AI? (Someone predicted this. Like the Avengers directors themselves). Or an old Hitchcockian thriller in a generative version in which the suspense is constantly re-dosed by a mischievous algorithm? Here you are.
In conclusion: ok, the idea of the “generative” film is intriguing and stimulating. But perhaps it is destined to remain an experimental niche, rather than a revolution destined to overwhelm the entire world of cinema. Or at least, that’s what common sense would say.
Common sense, however, is sometimes wrong
How many times has common sense proved to be a terrible advisor when it comes to predicting the future? How many innovations that seemed absurd or inapplicable turned out to be disruptive and unstoppable?
Think of cinema itself: when the Lumières projected their first moving images, there were those who dismissed them as a toy with no future. If there had been Facebook, it would have been full of phenomena criticizing the famous brothers. And instead, within a few years, that “toy” conquered the world, giving life to an unprecedented art and industry.
The idea of the generative documentary may seem like a joke, a provocation as an end in itself. Or maybe it’s just ahead of its time, as visionary intuitions often happen.
Perhaps in a few years we will find ourselves commenting on ever-changing films, tailor-made for us by artificial intelligence. We will tell them to each other as we do when exchanging the emotion of a gift: “what story happened to you?”. And maybe it will seem like the most normal thing in the world, just as today it seems normal to watch a film on a smartphone or choose from thousands of titles on a streaming platform.
Or maybe not.
Perhaps “traditional” cinema will resist this latest technological assault, thanks to its ability to create immortal stories and characters, capable of remaining imprinted in the collective memory beyond fashions and innovations.
Who can say? The only thing that is certain is that Hustwit’s documentary on Brian Eno represents a courageous and stimulating experiment, which is worth following carefully. Even just to find out how many of its 52 quintillion versions we will be able to see before our analog brain goes haywire. (Spoiler: me no more than two).
I’m curious to see “Eno” and to understand if it will be the beginning of a new cinematic era or just an intelligent provocation. And you, what do you think? Are you ready to immerse yourself in a film that will never be the same?
Tell us in the comments on our social channels and prepare the popcorn: whatever happens, the show is guaranteed.
