The Muse Films

The Muse Films Full service in China: features, cross platform, web series, documentaries, events, corporate & indu We're a large, global community of artists and friends.

Everyone involved with The Muse Films are professionals with many years of international experience. Bringing the right people to a project is our stock and trade. We also pride ourselves at making the process of film making engaging and enjoyable. We keep the drama in the data and the laughter on the set.

Lou Ye is so good, from when Shanghai was my stomping grounds.
25/04/2025

Lou Ye is so good, from when Shanghai was my stomping grounds.

Hidden Gem Review: Lou Ye's very meta first-person noir is a powerful exploration of how romantic stories condition our expectations and desires in love.

It seems incredible to still have to say it, but vaccines save lives. The data could not possibly be any more stark, but...
26/03/2025

It seems incredible to still have to say it, but vaccines save lives. The data could not possibly be any more stark, but nevertheless, the US (and the rest of the world in general) is seeing an ever-increasing level of vaccine denial. Claims that vaccines cause more harm than good are shouted through megaphones. US states are enacting anti-vaccine legislation with reckless abandon. So today we're going to take a stroll through the garden of vaccine success stories, and try to counter all that disinformation with a gala of the very best things vaccines have done for us.

2024 marked the 50th anniversary of the World Health Organization's Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI), launched in 1974 to try and bring the benefits of vaccinations to populations all over the globe. A group of authors published an assessment of the program's success in The Lancet in May 2024. They found that during just those 50 years, vaccines saved an estimated 154 million lives.

Here's a stat from that study. Because most vaccine-preventable deaths are of young children, cutting their lives short by an average of 66 years, those 154 million lives saved equate to 10.2 billion years of full health gained. If you are one who prefers to look at these things not in terms of the human cost but in the monetary cost, that's one full year of the entire planet's economic productivity.

But however you prefer to view it, let's now celebrate the top ten vaccine success stories.

10. Yellow Fever: 557,000 lives saved (1974-2024)
Yellow fever came and went in waves of epidemics, and it averaged about 80,000 people killed each year around the world. In the United States, as many as 135 outbreaks in the 18th and 19th centuries killed up to 20,000 Americans each. It's a horrible disease; depending on various factors it can be fatal in as many as 50% of cases.

Work in the 1930s finally resulted in an effective vaccine — in fact it's the same as we still use today; it's one of the oldest vaccines. Today nobody dies of yellow fever in the US, due to the vaccine and to mosquito control, so the vaccine is no longer given; unless you're traveling someplace where it's still endemic, like Africa or South America. Those other regions still suffer some 60 to 75 thousand deaths a year.

9. Polio: 1,570,000 lives saved (1974-2024)
Before Jonas Salk famously invented the vaccine, there were approximately half a million polio cases around the world annually, which killed an average of about 35,000 children every year. And it left far more permanently crippled, or worse, living out their lives in iron lungs.

But then Jonas Salk saved the day in 1955, and a few years later an oral vaccine came out. These terminated polio by 1979 in the United States, when the last known case was reported. Except there was a complication. That oral vaccine used various strains of live but weakened virus, and it's safe and effective; except in cases where not enough other people have been vaccinated, and that weakened strain can then spread in what's called VDPV, or vaccine-derived poliovirus. So we don't use that version anymore since 2000, just the inactivated poliovirus vaccine. Worldwide there were 689 cases of VDPD — a far cry from half a million.

8. Pneumococcus: 1,623,000 lives saved (1974-2024)
The bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae causes pneumococcal disease, which can result in pneumonia, meningitis, and sepsis. These in turn can result in brain damage, deafness, loss of a limb, or death. So you don't want it.

The vaccine was first licensed in 1977, and improved in 1983. Throughout the 2000s, new versions were introduced for young children, adults, and adults over 65. Prior to that, pneumococcus caused 14.5 million cases a year in children under 5, some 18% of which resulted in severe pneumonia, and killed 541,000 children under 5 each year. Before those age-specific vaccines were introduced in the US, we lost 6,000 children under 5 each year, and 22,000 people across all age groups. Since then, there are now only about 3,700 deaths in the US each year, mostly in adults over 65; and an 89% reduction in pediatric pneumococcal meningitis deaths.

One interesting little factoid is that every $1 invested in this vaccine yields $7.7 in economic benefits, through reduced healthcare costs and productivity gains.

7. Haemophilus Influenzae type B: 2,858,000 lives saved (1974-2024)
A lot of Americans might not have even heard of this, because the vaccine has virtually wiped it out in this country. This is one of the regularly scheduled vaccines for young children in the United States, given in three or four doses beginning at about six weeks of age. Haemophilus influenzae type B, or Hib, is a bacterium that causes Hib disease, usually resulting in either meningitis or pneumonia. It could cause blindness, deafness, learning disabilities, or death.

Prior to the vaccine, about 20,000 American children developed a serious illness each year, and 5% of them died; 20% were permanently debilitated. Nearly all cases were in children under the age of five. The first vaccine was developed in 1985, with an improved version introduced in 1987. Cases in the United States have dropped by more than 99.9%.

But globally, that number only went down by 80%, from over 8 million serious cases and 370,000 deaths every year, to about one million cases and about 30,000 deaths. The reason? Very slow uptake of the vaccine, especially among low income countries. Full vaccine coverage is currently reaching only about three quarters of children worldwide.

6. Tuberculosis: 10,902,000 lives saved (1974-2024)
Famously and historically known as The Consumption, tuberculosis remains today as the world's top infectious killer. 10 million people worldwide are infected every year, and 1.5 million of them die. Every year. Half of them are in just eight low-income countries. In the 1800s it was responsible for one quarter of all deaths.

But if it seems odd that this many people are still dying from it every year, yet we're citing it as a vaccine superstar, the reason is twofold: First, a huge number of people get TB every year; and second, the vaccine (called BCG) is among the least effective. It's only from 0% to 80% effective on individuals at preventing an infection; but if you do get the infection, it reduces the likelihood you will become seriously ill by 60%. So it's not magical, but it's certainly a lot better than nothing.

Needless to say, at least five new vaccines are under development that we hope will be far more effective.

5. Pertussis: 13,155,000 lives saved (1974-2024)
AKA whooping cough, pertussis is endemic worldwide. Epidemics of it cycle every two to five years in every country, so numbers change a lot year to year. Before the vaccine, the United States averaged 178,000 cases per year, 93% of them in children under 10. But since the vaccine's introduction in 1938 and several improvements over subsequent decades, cases in the US are way down, averaging 1,000 to 30,000 a year as those cyclical epidemics ebb and flow.

Today there are an estimated 160,000 deaths annually worldwide, almost all of them in developing nations, especially Africa, where uptake of the vaccine is extremely low. The United States is one of the very few nations with an increasing rate of incidence, due entirely to fewer vaccines being administered by vaccine-hesitant parents.

4. COVID-19: 2,500,000 - 20,000,000 lives saved (all time)
Why such an enormous range of nearly a full order of magnitude? The short reason is that it's been too soon. I read estimates ranging from 1 million to 25 million, and one reason for that is that different studies considered different populations, different date ranges, even different strains of the virus.

These studies are also complicated by whether indirect effects should be included. When lots of people are vaccinated, unvaccinated people are far less likely to catch it from someone. Do you count those unvaccinated people as having had their lives saved?

It's also complicated by excess mortality measures, and whether they should be included. These can include questions like whether you count the victims of a fire which wasn't put out because firemen were quarantined. The hospital was overwhelmed and people died from other conditions because they weren't adequately treated. Even things like there were no traffic deaths that day, which there otherwise would have been, because the lockdowns kept everyone off the road.

In time we'll be able to look back with clearer vision and have firmer numbers. For now, about the one thing where there's a clear consensus is that the vast majority of lives saved, some 95% of them, were of people over 60.

3. Tetanus: 27,955,000 lives saved (1974-2024)
Data is scarce on how many died of tetanus before the vaccine became widespread, because the majority of the deaths were neonatal and were in regions where there was already high infant mortality. The vaccine had been around since the early 20th century, but uptake on it remained very low throughout most of the century.

In 1999, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and the UN Population Fund launched a program called the Maternal and Neonatal Tetanus Elimination Initiative with the goal of vaccinating enough people to get the neonatal tetanus incidence rate down to 1 in 1,000 live births. As of today, only 11 nations have yet to achieve that.

That program has brought down global newborn deaths from an estimated 787,000 in 1988, to 25,000 in 2018. That's a 97% reduction.

2. Measles: 93,712,000 lives saved (1974-2024)
Measles. Ah yes, the thing that really shouldn't be headlines in 2025, but somehow is. Because vaccine disinformation.

Measles used to be a leading cause of childhood mortality, with six million children a year dying from it before the vaccine. 100 million children got it every year (4 million of those in the United States); those who survived were often left with pneumonia, deafness, or encephalitis.

Then in 1963 the first vaccine was licensed. This has been one of the great success stories. Just ten years after its introduction, measles cases in the US dropped by 99.8% to just 10,000. In the year 2000, measles was declared eradicated in the United States.

But then 2025 happened, with widespread growth in public vaccine and science denial, led by public figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As parents are increasingly refusing to allow their children to receive the vaccine, citing their religious or ideological objections to public health, children are dying in the United States again from measles for the first time in a quarter of a century.

1. Smallpox: 500,000,000 lives saved (all time)
It is the king of all vaccine success stories. Smallpox was one of the deadliest diseases humankind has ever faced; it killed a third of everyone who got it and spread easily. It is now officially eradicated worldwide — thanks entirely to the vaccine. It remains the only disease we have so far managed to completely wipe off the face of the Earth, with the last known case having occurred in 1977. The World Health Organization declared it eradicated in 1980.

We don't know how many hundreds of millions of people died of smallpox before; it's even been found in Egyptian mummies as early as 1350 BCE. In the last century of its existence, it's estimated to have killed 500 million people. Extrapolate that back as many centuries as you like.

For much of smallpox's multi-millennium history, people around the world were attempting to inoculate against it, even with some success. They would grind up scabs from people who had survived smallpox and took the powder up their noses. They would lance the boils of animals with cowpox and needle it into people's arms. Hearing that this tended to be successful, in 1796 Dr. Edward Jenner injected a healthy boy with cowpox, waited two months, then injected him with smallpox. The boy never got sick, and the world's first vaccine was born.

By the early 1800s, smallpox epidemics in most countries stopped. By the early 1900s, there were almost no more cases anywhere. And now it's gone. If we can do it once, we can do it again.

Vaccines not only save lives; they save enormous amounts of money in saved healthcare costs. In 2011, the CDC issued a report finding that childhood vaccination prevents approximately 42,000 deaths in the United States every year, prevents 20 million cases of disease every year, and saves $20 billion in direct costs and $100 billion in total societal costs (in 2025 dollars). So it's absolutely clear from the data that people who seek ideological or other exemptions from their children's vaccines are not only putting their children's lives at a very real risk, they are costing themselves — and all the rest of us — quite a lot of money in caring for unvaccinated children who are stricken with vaccine-preventable disease.

Vaccines are history's great medical success story, having saved more lives than anything else.

Remember in The Dark Knight when we all applauded the Joker for heroically blowing up a hospital?Or remember when we wat...
25/03/2025

Remember in The Dark Knight when we all applauded the Joker for heroically blowing up a hospital?

Or remember when we watched Star Wars and cheered for the protagonist Darth Vader as he destroyed a planet to punish the rebel scum for daring to resist him?

How about when we watched Schindler’s List anxiously hoping the N***s would be able to thwart the diabolical scheming of the villain Oskar Schindler to prevent them from committing genocide?

Or when we watched Avatar and cheered for the interstellar megacorporation and its army of mercenaries to displace the indigenous people of Pandora to steal their land?

Or when we watched The Pelican Brief hoping the heroes would find some way to kill Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington to stop them from reporting the truth about their crimes?

Or when we watched The Pianist and wept at the evil Jews attacking innocent N***s in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising?

Or when we watched The Lord of the Rings and booed the villainous men, elves and dwarves fighting to survive a siege by Saruman’s heroic army of orcs?

Or when we watched V for Vendetta on the edge of our seats worried that the government would fail to stomp out the rebellion, suppress the truth from coming out, and impose more authoritarian measures on the people?

Or when we watched Revenge of the Sith and cheered for the hero Anakin Skywalker mass murdering children in order to wipe the Jedi out of existence?

Yeah, I don’t remember that either.

Nobody seems to have trouble figuring out who the real villains are when it’s happening in the movies. The narrative managers and spinmeisters make it a lot harder to sort out the villains from the victims in real life.

Normally it’s misguided to view any conflict as simply evil villains murdering innocent victims, but not with Israel and Gaza. It’s an apartheid state that’s backed by a globe-spanning empire, raining bombs onto a giant concentration camp packed full of children because they’re the wrong ethnicity.

It’s pretty black and white, actually.

Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley):

Werner Herzog had never even seen a movie until he was 11. Now 82, the visionary director is working constantly, still m...
22/03/2025

Werner Herzog had never even seen a movie until he was 11. Now 82, the visionary director is working constantly, still making movies no one else would or could ever dream of.

Werner Herzog had never even seen a movie until he was 11. Now 82, the visionary director is working constantly, still making movies no one else would or cou...

On a dry lakebed in the Mojave, a group of friends build a practical scale model of time: 13.8 billion years of cosmic e...
15/03/2025

On a dry lakebed in the Mojave, a group of friends build a practical scale model of time:
13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution, and our place within it.

On a dry lakebed in the Mojave, a group of friends build a practical scale model of time: 13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution, and our place within it. Be...

Challenge the algorithms stalking you. Visit and pursue some of these websites.
14/03/2025

Challenge the algorithms stalking you. Visit and pursue some of these websites.

Web links that enlighten and entertain. Sources of crucial knowledge.

Sunday’s Oscars ceremony was a productive night for The Brutalist, which scooped up the statuettes for cinematography, s...
06/03/2025

Sunday’s Oscars ceremony was a productive night for The Brutalist, which scooped up the statuettes for cinematography, score, and best actor. Since the film’s release late last year, the deluge of acclaim for Brady Corbet’s epic, three-and-a-half hour tale of broken bones and busted dreams in post-Holocaust America has had a distinctly revivalist slant. Critics have praised both the expansiveness of the film’s vision—a return of sorts for Hollywood to grand Golden Age themes of exile, will, belonging, and loss—and its reinvigoration of several dormant photographic and narrative techniques: the intermission, the stock postwar character of the rich American jerk in Europe, and VistaVision, the widescreen format on which the feature was shot.

But The Brutalist’s most intriguing and controversial technical feature points forward rather than back: in January, the film’s editor Dávid Jancsó revealed that he and Corbet used tools from AI speech software company Respeecher to make the Hungarian-language dialogue spoken by Adrien Brody (who plays the protagonist, Hungarian émigré architect László Tóth) and Felicity Jones (who plays Tóth’s wife Erzsébet) sound more Hungarian. In response to the ensuing backlash, Corbet clarified that the actors worked “for months” with a dialect coach to perfect their accents; AI was used “in Hungarian language dialogue editing only, specifically to refine certain vowels and letters for accuracy.” In this way, Corbet seemed to suggest, the production’s two central performances were protected against the howls of outrage that would have erupted from the world’s 14 million native Hungarian speakers had The Brutalist made it to screens with Brody and Jones playing linguistically unconvincing Magyars. Far from offending the idea of originality and authorship in performance, AI in fact saved Brody and Jones from committing crimes against the Uralic language family; I shudder even to imagine how comically inept their performances might have been without this technological assist, a catastrophe of fumbled agglutinations, misplaced geminates, and amateur-hour syllable stresses that would have no doubt robbed The Brutalist of much of its awards season élan.

What matters here is not this particular infraction but the precedent it sets, the course it establishes for culture.

This all seems a little silly, not to say hypocritical. Defenders of this slimy deception claim the use of AI in film is no different than CGI or automated dialogue replacement, tools commonly deployed in the editing suite for picture and audio enhancement. But CGI and ADR don’t tamper with the substance of a performance, which is what’s at issue here. Few of us will have any appreciation for the corrected accents in The Brutalist: as is the case, I imagine, for most of the people who’ve seen the film, I don’t speak Hungarian. But I do speak bu****it, and that’s what this feels like. This is not to argue that synthetic co-pilots and assistants of the type that have proliferated in recent years hold no utility at all. Beyond the creative sector, AI’s potential and applications are limitless, and the technology seems poised to unleash a bold new era of growth and optimization. AI will enable smoother reductions in headcount by giving managers more granular data on the output and sentiment of unproductive workers; it will allow loan sharks and crypto scammers to get better at customer service; it will offer health insurance companies the flexibility to more meaningfully tie premiums to diet, lifestyle, and sociability, creating billions in savings; it will help surveillance and private security solution providers improve their expertise in facial recognition and gait analysis; it will power a revolution in effective “pre-targeting” for the Big Pharma, buy-now-pay-later, and drone industries. Within just a few years advances like these will unlock massive productivity gains that we’ll all be able to enjoy in hell, since the energy-hungry data centers on which generative AI relies will have fried the planet and humanity will be extinct.

So much for business; what about art? The Brutalist’s AI touch-up fits the broader culture’s fetishization of perfection and flattening, but image filters and technologies like Auto-Tune consciously draw attention to their artificiality, almost making a virtue of it, which is not at all the case with the film’s deployment of AI. The modifications overseen by Jancsó and Corbet don’t directly offend the senses the way regular AI art does, since they’re defined by their absences: instead, it’s the idea of the technology’s application that rankles, and the film is tainted by association. A work that tries so hard to be viewed as important cinema feels suddenly hollow in retrospect, and certain scenes—in particular, the one where László’s wealthy patron stumbles over the pronunciation of “Erzsébet”—now read as straightforwardly cynical. AI seems poised to decimate the voice acting industry; how long will it be before filmmakers give up on the whole time-wasting business of dialect coaching and language research and toss their performers’ untrained vocalizations directly into the linguistic Instant Pot? Corbet’s stated aim in applying Respeecher was “to preserve the authenticity of Adrien and Felicity’s performances in another language”—to make their accents, in other words, more authentic. But authentic to what? Plasticized authenticity is no authenticity. The Brutalist is a fiction, whatever the resemblances between Tóth’s character and modernist architect Marcel Breuer, and like all fictions it has the freedom to be as inauthentic as it pleases. The filmmakers’ recourse to corrective AI is not like the use of gut-string instruments in classical music or the design of Shakespeare’s Globe in London, which claim fidelity to the traditions of pre-Romantic orchestration and Elizabethan theatre, respectively; it’s a filmmaking prosthesis that cheats the viewer and cheapens the performances.

It’s also, in some ways, filmically illiterate. What damage would it have done to The Brutalist had Brody and Jones been allowed to detonate their Hungarian on the audience uncorrected? No non-Hungarian ever lost critical or intellectual respect for failing to master the Hungarian language, a famously difficult tongue. Besides, the history of cinema is replete with bad accents that did nothing to dent the greatness of the performances to which they were attached. Russell Crowe played Master and Commander’s Captain Jack Aubrey in the voice of an Australian rugby league player ten Carlton Draughts deep at the Coogee Bay Hotel; in The Last Temptation of Christ, Harvey Keitel’s Judas sounded like he’d pitched up in Galilee straight from the Bronx. These films arguably gained in depth and universality for the “inauthenticity” of their performers’ accents; indeed, Martin Scorsese explained the mishmash of pronunciations among The Last Temptation’s Twelve Apostles as a deliberate directorial strategy to highlight the characters’ timeless humanity.

The Brutalist’s use of AI might, on a very generous reading, recall postwar Italian cinema’s tradition of motor-only shooting, which involved capturing solely the picture on set and overdubbing the dialogue afterwards; this is the “cheat” that allowed so many foreign actors, few of whom could speak Italian, to act in films produced in Italy during the decades that followed the war. But the dubbing of that era was obvious to the viewer, and the constraints it imposed turned out to be richly generative. Eventually the friction between image and sound became a narrative tool in its own right, literalizing the sense of alienation and crisis central to the work of filmmakers like Michelangelo Antonioni, Dario Argento, and even neorealists like Luchino Visconti: far from limiting the horizon of performance, dubbing enriched Burt Lancaster’s portrayal of Don Fabrizio in Visconti’s The Leopard by showing the Sicilian nobleman as a man out of sync with the times, his lips perpetually half a beat behind his words. Thanks to AI, modern filmmakers are now freed, at least in part, from the sense of representational limits that constrained their predecessors; disappearing with those former boundaries, perhaps, will be the resourcefulness and experimentation that created so many aesthetic breakthroughs during the pre-digital era.

To incorporate AI into the production of art today, no matter how sparingly or subtly, is to endorse Silicon Valley’s politics and worldview.

The flaws and idiosyncrasies of performance are part of cinema’s charm, its capacity to surprise. We all enjoy it when actors nail a foreign language or accent: one thinks of Meryl Streep as Lindy Chamberlain in A Cry in the Dark, all upward inflections and squeaking diphthongs, or Leonardo DiCaprio’s pitch-perfect Rhodesian gemstone smuggler in Blood Diamond, or Robert De Niro chomping through syllables in The Godfather: Part II’s Sicilian dialect scenes. But it can be equally enjoyable when actors don’t (see any film set in America that stars Nicole Kidman). The problem with The Brutalist is that viewers—savvy, Hungarian-speaking viewers mostly, but in theory all of us—are stripped of the ability to construct their appraisal independently, since the foreign language accents in the film are all already perfect. Applied more broadly, this kind of anti-wabi-sabi has the potential to make movie-watching less fun, replacing active critical engagement with a drab appreciation of machine-managed flawlessness, and acting less interesting. It also betrays the very premise on which dense, mythological filmmaking with aspirations to capital-m Meaning—a category to which The Brutalist, with its elephantine symbolism, slightly vapid literary allusions, and ambitious attempt to marry Sebaldian irresolution to Randian monumentality, clearly belongs—is built: that acting is method, a craft, a struggle, and each actor’s performance an expression of individual skill. “Adrien and Felicity’s performances are completely their own,” Corbet has argued. Only, they’re not. Brody and Jones’s performances may now be authentic to spoken Hungarian, but they’re no longer authentic to themselves: at least in the parts of the film with Hungarian dialogue, the acting stands more as a monument to the prowess of the voice-matching software than that of the actors. Not even actors’ actoring—the one thing that intuitively seems like it should provide refuge from the epistemic pollution and advancing brain rot promoted by AI-generated culture—is safe anymore. Jeremy Strong must be protected at all costs from this technology’s creeping evil.

“My uncle is above all a principled artist,” Tóth’s niece, Zsófia, says in The Brutalist’s coda, introducing the aging architect at the launch of a retrospective in his honor at the Venice Biennale. (Some of the “retro” digital renderings in the memorial video included in this scene were also, Corbet has admitted, produced with the help of AI.) The film’s figurational manipulations are especially jarring when you consider the substance of the story—the artist’s singular struggle to realize a vision in the face of a boorish and unfeeling culture, to create beauty amid crushing pressure to cut corners and lower his own aesthetic principles—and the nature of architectural brutalism itself, which was originally conceived as a celebration of the texture and blemishes of béton brut, the unfinished concrete that gives the style its name. An AI-smoothed brutalism, with its rough edges and warped pours all corrected, would be a contradiction in terms. The film’s technological “improvements” are also at odds with the respect Corbet wants us to give him for his own work as a visionary creator. Every frame in The Brutalist groans with directorial intent, with the strain of a visible effort to convince us we are watching cinematic art every bit as powerful and totemic as the architecture on screen. But the actors? Well, they couldn’t nail their Hungarian vowels, so we had to rope in the AI voicebox to bring their material up to scratch. The director is the driving force of film history; performers are just limbs on a set awaiting a tune-up in post.

In the end, the debate over artistic choices made and avoided in The Brutalist may be immaterial. What matters here is not this particular infraction but the precedent it sets, the course it establishes for culture. We already have AI up the w***o in films like Here, which used facial effects to “de-age” Tom Hanks and Robin Wright, and several other Oscar-nominated films this year employed Respeecher, including Emilia Pérez and Dune: Part Two. But The Brutalist represents AI’s most meaningful incursion to date into the sanctum of Serious Cinema. Historically, technology has been a boon to creativity—and nowhere has that been more powerfully the case than in film, whose history can be read as a sequence of explorations of the possibilities latent within different apparatuses and techniques. But AI is a different beast from color film, or the Louma crane, or the hand-held camera: it’s steroidal, aesthetically corrupting, and unlike these earlier advances it confronts the filmmaker with real ethical questions. AI increasingly feels inseparable from Silicon Valley and the specific disdain the tech industry reserves for society and culture, for a body politic with needs and aspirations beyond those that feed the machines. Use implies complicity. To incorporate AI into the production of art today, no matter how sparingly or subtly, is to endorse Silicon Valley’s politics and worldview: its exploitation of both producers and “users,” its blithe indifference to the social impact of post-automation layoffs and the environmental assault of industrial data processing, its cramped and uninteresting idea of imagination, its petrification of creation. It’s a vote for the as****es. Implicitly, since the models gain strength by mastering the domain of the known, using AI to enhance art is also tantamount to an acceptance that culture has stopped, that everything is recursive and we have no fresh terrain left to explore.

A culture without imperfections is a culture without a soul. In the realm of daily experience the room to escape AI feels increasingly narrow: the tide of slop is simply too overwhelming for meaningful resistance. But artists—especially those with portentous designs on investing their creations with meaning, like Corbet—still have a choice, as does their audience. The question, to be asked out loud in a hackingly bad Hungarian accent, is this: Milyen jövőt akarunk? How much future do we want?

To incorporate AI into the production of art today—no matter how sparingly—is to endorse Silicon Valley’s politics and worldview.

Address

20th FL, Central Tower, Box 42, 28 Queen's Road Central
Hong Kong

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 17:00
Thursday 09:00 - 17:00
Friday 09:00 - 17:00

Telephone

+85221599108

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Muse Films posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The Muse Films:

Share