What the AI Actor Tilly Norwood Means for the Future of Film
Moviegoers love to mythologise once-in-a-generation actors. Marlon Brando, Audrey Hepburn, Jack Black in A Minecraft Movie.
But what if the film industry didnât have to wait for the years to pass before a new star is born?
This is a conversation that is being had around the boardrooms of Hollywood this week, following the unveiling of Tilly Norwood, an AI-generated actor created by Xicoia, a London-based talent studio that produces what it calls "digital artists".
Norwoodâs creators described her as the next Scarlett Johansson during her debut at the Zurich Film Festival, where clips of her acting were screened.
Since then, it has been reported that several acting agencies are in talks with Xicoia to sign Norwood.
Immediately, droves of actors and industry unions came out in criticism of the start-up's project, suggesting that AI-generated actors represent an existential threat to human performers and the artform at large.
Whether Xicoiaâs screening was simply a clever marketing tactic or a genuine attempt to disrupt the industry, movie studios will be reflecting on the questions this technology poses to their product going forwards.
SAG-AFTRA leads the protests
SAG-AFTRA, the US actors' union, released a statement opposing Norwoodâs creation shortly after the screening in Zurich, clarifying the legal and ethical issues at stake.
"To be clear, 'Tilly Norwood' is not an actor, it's a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers â without permission or compensation," the union stated.
The union added that the technology "doesn't solve any 'problem' â it creates the problem of using stolen performances to put actors out of work, jeopardising performer livelihoods and devaluing human artistry".
This statement speaks to one of the central concerns in the AI debate right across entertainment and arts. The data that AI models are trained on is derived from the work of real artists, more often than not without their consent or any form of compensation.
The actors lash out
More recently, actor Emily Blunt said that she had been alarmed by the development.
"Good Lord, we're screwed,” she said on the Variety podcast. “That is really, really scary. Come on, agencies, don't do that. Please stop. Please stop taking away our human connection.”
Other actors were more direct in their criticism.
Actor Melissa Barrera wrote on Instagram: "Hope all actors repped by the agent that does this, drop their a**."
Actor Mara Wilson questioned the logic of creating an AI composite when real actors already exist. "And what about the hundreds of living young women whose faces were composited together to make her? You couldn't hire any of them?,” she asked.
Actor Ralph Ineson's response was more succinct: "F**k off."
Elsewhere, Natasha Lyonne, who is working on a feature film using what she describes as "ethical" AI, also condemned the development.
"Any talent agency that engages in this should be boycotted by all guilds,” she argued. “Deeply misguided and totally disturbed. Not the way. Not the vibe. Not the use."
The creatorâs perspective
Eline Van Der Velden is the CEO of Particle6, the company which produced Norwood's debut appearance in the short film AI Commissioner. She has come out in defence of the technology, suggesting that it can be a useful creative tool.
"I see AI not as a replacement for people, but as a new tool â a new paintbrush. Just as animation, puppetry, or CGI opened fresh possibilities without taking away from live acting, AI offers another way to imagine and build stories," she explains.
She described creating Norwood as "an act of imagination and craftsmanship, not unlike drawing a character, writing a role or shaping a performanceâ.
Eline says that although Tilly Norwood and her short film debut are "100% AI-generated", bringing such a character to life "takes time, skill and iteration".
The reality of the market
Despite the marketing hype surrounding Norwood, her debut performance has yet to demonstrate any kind of commercial viability.
AI Commissioner, released two months ago, has accumulated more than 700,000 views on YouTube, many of which can be attributed to the vitriol with which the creation of Norwood has been received.
The actual technical execution of the AI has some quite obvious limitations too, with viewers noting that the animation is blurry and the dialogue is noticeably wooden.
Be that as it may, Hollywood has never before been so financially stretched. Fewer people are going to cinemas and the costs of filmmaking is rising every year.
Critics worry that studios may eventually turn to AI as an economic imperative. And if money is all that matters then it is easy to see why.
Synthetic performers donât need salaries, they donât need residuals, they arenât part of unions, they donât even need catering.
AI actors donât age, they work without breaks, they have no creative demands and youâd be very surprised if they found a way to get themselves cancelled.
A future in which cinemas are dominated by AI films may be a long way off, but it is obvious why actors are anxious, even at this early stage.