A24’s $75 million partnership with Google’s DeepMind may make business sense, but critics argue it threatens the studio’s identity and filmmaker-first ethos.
A24’s embrace of AI makes plenty of sense from a financial and business perspective. Capital at what cost, though? A24’s $75 million investment from Google‘s DeepMind is deeply unsettling, at odds with the philosophy and spirit the production company has been cultivating for almost a decade and a half. Fans of the brand are panicking, and it’s easy to see why.
The film group, behind movies like Marty Supreme, Ladybird, Moonlight, Uncut Gems, and the just-released Backrooms, has been a beacon of light in a floundering film industry. On an independent level, they’ve brought the spirit of ’70s innovation and arthouse quality to wide audiences.
A24 has become practically unimpeachable in the film world, situating itself as a home for auteurs who could also create, distribute, and promote films on a large scale. It’s a puzzle few have been able to solve; even some of the richest people in the world have closed up shop while A24 keeps churning out hits. In terms of approval rating, few have blended viability with popularity like the New York-based company.
Subscribe for the biggest stories in the business of sports and entertainment, daily.
When the AI news was reported on June 22, spokespeople for both companies offered statements. “We think there are better uses that preserve creative control and support risk-taking,” Scott Belsky, an A24 partner, said. He added that the production company’s use of AI “won’t look anything like the prompted generation type of AI that people feel uncomfortable with.” Added Eli Collins, a vice president of product for DeepMind: “We believe breakthroughs happen when you get technology into the hands of the best minds in the field.”
This corporate speak is all fine and dandy, but boots-on-the-ground audiences are rightfully pissed off. The A24 Subreddit is aflame, and some of the company’s biggest fans are sharing posts about canceling monthly memberships. This poses an almost impossible question to answer. Namely, how does A24 continue to innovate when the main tool of innovation is one that so many are vehemently opposed to?
Ostensibly, this investment is a way to reduce costs and speed up the production of films. In an evenhanded defense of the deal, IndieWire’s Brian Welk wrote: “If A24 can have a hand in shaping what that looks like in the future for the people they work with and have early access to those tools, all the better for it. The deal hopes to answer the question: How might technology support filmmakers when they’re designed from the start to serve creative vision?”
When compared with other deals in the AI film space, like Lionsgate, which took an equity stake in the generative video company Runway and plans to create AI-driven series, A24’s work with Google looks innocent, a way to help filmmakers do their jobs better. The question remains, at whose expense? The film industry — the actual people who are involved in making films — has already had a reckoning with the technology’s negative impact on jobs.
Two years ago, The Hollywood Reporter shared a study that surveyed 300 people in the industry, noting it “reports that three-fourths of respondents indicated that AI tools supported the elimination, reduction or consolidation of jobs at their companies. Over the next three years, it estimates that nearly 204,000 positions will be adversely affected. At the forefront of the displacement: sound engineers, voice actors, concept artists, and employees in entry-level positions, according to the study. Visual effects and other postproduction work stands particularly vulnerable.”
That was two years ago. AI’s capabilities have grown exponentially over that time, and there’s a strong argument that it’s the responsibility of companies like A24 to safeguard workers from these impacts rather than inviting wolves to the dinner table.
As AI continues to invade every aspect of our lives — even as civilians oppose many aspects of the technology — perhaps a company like A24 felt like a space that could exist despite the pervasiveness. It’s a studio that puts artistry and filmmakers above almost everything else, and for quite some time, the use of AI felt almost antithetical to these priorities. A24 has responded to that tension.
They defended the partnership, saying, “We’d rather have a seat at the table than on the sidelines.” It’s a mistake, though, to conflate a refusal to acquiesce with being “on the sidelines.” By standing against a technology that is tearing through its industry like a parasite, they would have been doing more than standing on the sidelines; they would have been on the field, defending cinema and filmmakers, with a legion of devotees on their side.
Now? The $75 million seems as much like a gamble as an investment.
Read More:
Get Rich Or Die Tryin’ (In ‘GTA’): How Rappers Like Tee Grizzley Have Made Millions Streaming, Hosting
The Case for LeBron Going Home One Final Time
The New Playbook: Inside Pat Connaughton’s $600 Million Real Estate Business
Memphis Bleek Reflects on ‘The Understanding’, Roc-A-Fella’s Golden Era, and Jay-Z’s Lasting Influence
‘Supergirl’ May Be Bad News for the DC Universe
