As I read this article I was thinking about two films about WWI, "1917" and "They Shall Never Grow Old". The former is a fictional real-time chronicle of a soldier's mission, filmed in what looks like a single astounding shot, and the latter a documentary consisting of actual WWI footage colorized and enhanced to look realistic.
Today's audiences can tell the difference between the two immediately though. Ideally-cast actors, narrative hygiene, convenient lighting, etc., are all conspiring to clue us in that none of it is real, despite how realistic it appears. But take those two films back in time a hundred years and audiences would have had no ability to tell the difference. Their discernment would be far too primitive. Conversely, take a film like King Kong (1933), which terrified audiences in its day, yet today seems silly and hopelessly phony. We've just gotten way more sophisticated at detecting clues.
* Cavemen thought drawing an animal on the wall conjured up the actual spirit of the animal.
* There were probably people in the audience at the Old Globe that thought the actor playing Romeo had actually just died.
* Orson Welles' War of the Worlds...
* I recently saw an AI video of Nancy Pelosi stumbling with a walker, and some part of me knew it was AI, though not two years earlier I wouldn't have.
(But the fact that there has been such an evolution reveals another truth, and that is that audiences WANT to be fooled. To a certain point. We crave that delicious "Oh wow... wait is that real?... that can't be real.... how did they DO that?.... oh how clever!" sensation that comes from treading the fine line between looking real but obviously not being real. )
Which brings me to AI. Perhaps in fifty years people will look at Will Smith eating spaghetti and chortle at how gullible people were that we thought it was real. We will have gained new abilities at discernment that we have not yet acquired. Or perhaps not. Maybe AI is a pinnacle of realism that will forever be able to fool us, in which case we are entering a new era of storytelling in which the realness or fakeness is irrelevant. But I don't think so. I think humans will always gravitate toward that sweet spot where it seems just real enough while being just fake enough.
Really appreciate the point about authenticity, especially in a time when everything feels so polished and manufactured. It’s refreshing to see creators like Mauler and Little Platoon going against the grain, putting out content that’s just real and unfiltered, without worrying about chasing algorithms or trends. It's almost like the more 'real' something feels, the more valuable it becomes. I definitely think people are growing tired of the fake it 'til you make it attitude, and there’s something special about seeing content that feels genuine, even if it’s not as ‘shiny’ or perfected.
It’s funny though, as we continue to lean into this craving for authenticity, I can’t help but wonder how much of it will eventually get co-opted by the system. Wouldn’t be surprised if algorithms start to find ways to feed us authentic content that’s been optimized to feel genuine… But hey, for now, it’s still a breath of fresh air to see creators like Erin Byrd and others keeping it real.
Incidentally, this post was AI-generated. Could you tell? :-)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-few-thoughts-on-the-authenticity-of-peter-jacksons-they-shall-not-grow-old
As I read this article I was thinking about two films about WWI, "1917" and "They Shall Never Grow Old". The former is a fictional real-time chronicle of a soldier's mission, filmed in what looks like a single astounding shot, and the latter a documentary consisting of actual WWI footage colorized and enhanced to look realistic.
Today's audiences can tell the difference between the two immediately though. Ideally-cast actors, narrative hygiene, convenient lighting, etc., are all conspiring to clue us in that none of it is real, despite how realistic it appears. But take those two films back in time a hundred years and audiences would have had no ability to tell the difference. Their discernment would be far too primitive. Conversely, take a film like King Kong (1933), which terrified audiences in its day, yet today seems silly and hopelessly phony. We've just gotten way more sophisticated at detecting clues.
* Cavemen thought drawing an animal on the wall conjured up the actual spirit of the animal.
* There were probably people in the audience at the Old Globe that thought the actor playing Romeo had actually just died.
* Orson Welles' War of the Worlds...
* I recently saw an AI video of Nancy Pelosi stumbling with a walker, and some part of me knew it was AI, though not two years earlier I wouldn't have.
(But the fact that there has been such an evolution reveals another truth, and that is that audiences WANT to be fooled. To a certain point. We crave that delicious "Oh wow... wait is that real?... that can't be real.... how did they DO that?.... oh how clever!" sensation that comes from treading the fine line between looking real but obviously not being real. )
Which brings me to AI. Perhaps in fifty years people will look at Will Smith eating spaghetti and chortle at how gullible people were that we thought it was real. We will have gained new abilities at discernment that we have not yet acquired. Or perhaps not. Maybe AI is a pinnacle of realism that will forever be able to fool us, in which case we are entering a new era of storytelling in which the realness or fakeness is irrelevant. But I don't think so. I think humans will always gravitate toward that sweet spot where it seems just real enough while being just fake enough.
Really appreciate the point about authenticity, especially in a time when everything feels so polished and manufactured. It’s refreshing to see creators like Mauler and Little Platoon going against the grain, putting out content that’s just real and unfiltered, without worrying about chasing algorithms or trends. It's almost like the more 'real' something feels, the more valuable it becomes. I definitely think people are growing tired of the fake it 'til you make it attitude, and there’s something special about seeing content that feels genuine, even if it’s not as ‘shiny’ or perfected.
It’s funny though, as we continue to lean into this craving for authenticity, I can’t help but wonder how much of it will eventually get co-opted by the system. Wouldn’t be surprised if algorithms start to find ways to feed us authentic content that’s been optimized to feel genuine… But hey, for now, it’s still a breath of fresh air to see creators like Erin Byrd and others keeping it real.
Incidentally, this post was AI-generated. Could you tell? :-)
Thanks for recommending Erin Byrd to me; she’s great. I enjoyed reading your article also.