Soderbergh incorporated Meta's AI in his documentary about Lennon. Critics were not fond of it. He claims that was the intended effect.

      TL;DR: Steven Soderbergh utilized Meta’s AI for 10% of his Cannes documentary on Lennon, facing criticism for it. He argues the main issue is a lack of transparency from others using AI without disclosure.

      Steven Soderbergh's documentary "John Lennon: The Last Interview" debuted on Saturday during the 79th Cannes Film Festival. Centered on a newly released two-hour-and-45-minute radio interview conducted by Lennon and Yoko Ono with a San Francisco KFRC radio team from their Dakota Apartments in New York on December 8, 1980—just hours before Lennon's assassination—the 97-minute film is garnering more attention at Cannes for the artistic choices Soderbergh made than for Lennon's statements.

      Around 10% of the film's visuals were crafted using Meta’s AI technology. Soderbergh revealed this collaboration earlier in the year and has been straightforward about the ensuing criticism. “I anticipated this reaction,” he told the Associated Press at Cannes. “You don’t accept Meta's tools and assistance in completing your film without expecting some backlash. That was part of the arrangement.”

      Critics at Cannes largely condemned the AI-generated segments, which are described as abstract and surreal—featuring elements like circles of light and merging colors, along with images of lovers. There are no deepfake representations of Lennon; these sections were designed for philosophical discussions where no archival footage was available. Soderbergh used over 1,000 archival photos and video clips for the remainder of the film, edited in sync with the dialogue, generating what reviewers have referred to as a hyperkinetic photo album.

      Soderbergh's criteria for justifying AI in filmmaking is straightforward: “It has to be necessary. Is it the only way to achieve my vision? Is it truly the best method?” He noted that producing the surreal visuals through traditional effects would have been prohibitively costly, and the AI technology enabled him to quickly produce visuals he found difficult to express verbally. “I struggled to articulate my vision to the team,” he admitted. “The advantage of this technology was its ability to provide me with something to react to quickly.”

      Soderbergh's broader point is centered around transparency, not permission. “In the world outside the creative realm, we remain unaware of how extensively this technology is used to influence us,” he remarked. “We discover the truth only later, often through some whistleblower. I consider myself a whistleblower.” He provocatively contends that the real issue is not his use of AI, but his honesty about it, in contrast to others who utilize it discreetly.

      This discussion aligns with a recent report from Canva, which revealed that 97% of marketing leaders incorporate AI daily, while 78% of consumers still prefer human-created content, and 87% believe effective advertising necessitates human involvement. The term “AI slop” has seen a ninefold increase in mentions, highlighting the disparity between AI’s prevalent use and creators' reticence to acknowledge it—this dishonesty is what Soderbergh criticizes.

      Soderbergh's views on AI's potential threat to filmmaking jobs are more tempered than those commonly expressed in the industry. “I believe the essential jobs in filmmaking cannot be performed by this technology and won't be in the future,” he stated. “As more individuals gain the capacity to create technically perfect content, human imperfection will become more valuable and intriguing.” This perspective flips the traditional concern: instead of AI reducing the need for human labor, Soderbergh proposes it will elevate the rarity and worth of uniquely human imperfections.

      The film industry has been gradually embracing AI tools for several years. Flawless AI's DeepEditor, which digitally modifies video to align actors’ lip movements with dubbed audio tracks, has been used in mainstream projects since 2022, with performer consent through its Artistic Rights Treasury platform. However, Soderbergh's approach differs: he isn’t altering existing performances but creating entirely new visuals to accompany audio without corresponding video. The ethical implications of this remain largely unexplored.

      Despite the AI debate, critics have found the documentary itself impactful. The Wrap described it as a film that “demystifies Lennon and Ono as much as ‘Get Back’ did for the Beatles.” Variety noted that while the AI sections were the weakest element, the rest of the experience was immersive. Edited by Soderbergh and Nancy Main from 165 minutes to 97, the film captures Lennon at 40 in striking clarity, discussing love, parenthood, creativity, and his desire to dismantle the “male rock star myth” when few others in rock dared to.

      “What I hope is that young viewers take away from this is: This guy spoke honestly about everything, from the beginning to the end of his life,” Soderbergh expressed. “He was opinionated but also thoughtful and aimed at: Can we improve? Can we enhance our ways as human