One of the biggest talking points surrounding the recent release of the documentary “Roadrunner” about the late Anthony Bourdain was director Morgan Neville’s use of generative AI to replicate Bourdain’s voice. While this decision was met with some criticism, Neville saw it as a way to keep Bourdain’s voice alive in the film. Let’s take a closer look at this controversial choice and explore its impact in the context of the documentary.
For those who may not be familiar, generative AI is a form of artificial intelligence that uses algorithms to create original content, such as text or voice. In the case of “Roadrunner,” Neville used AI to replicate Bourdain’s voice for a few lines of narration in the film. This decision sparked a heated debate among viewers and critics, with some praising the use of technology to honor Bourdain’s legacy and others decrying it as a violation of his voice and identity.
But let’s step back for a moment and consider Neville’s perspective. As he explained in an interview with Wired, he saw this as a “fun” and innovative way to include Bourdain’s voice in the film. And as the director of a documentary, Neville’s main goal was to tell the story of Bourdain’s life and work. In his eyes, using AI to replicate his voice was another tool to help achieve that goal.
Furthermore, Neville’s use of AI was not meant to deceive or manipulate viewers. He openly disclosed this choice in interviews and even mentioned it in the film’s credits. Neville didn’t try to hide or pass off the AI-generated lines as Bourdain’s own words. He simply saw it as a way to fill in certain gaps in the narrative and keep Bourdain’s voice present throughout the film.
But even with these explanations, some critics have argued that the use of AI in a documentary goes against the documentary genre’s core principles of presenting factual and authentic information. And to some extent, this is a valid concern. We have seen the dangers of deepfakes and the manipulative power of AI-generated content. However, in the context of “Roadrunner,” Neville’s use of generative AI seems to be more of a creative choice than a malicious one.
In fact, the use of AI in “Roadrunner” raises an interesting question about the definition of authenticity in documentaries. Is it based solely on factual accuracy, or can it also include the intent and artistic vision of the filmmaker? Neville’s use of AI may challenge the traditional definition of authenticity, but it also brings up important discussions about the role of technology in the documentary world.
Additionally, let’s not forget the impact of Bourdain’s own words in “Roadrunner.” The majority of the film features footage of Bourdain speaking and sharing his thoughts and experiences. His voice is the heart of the documentary, and Neville’s decision to use AI for a few lines does not take away from that. If anything, it adds a layer of depth and complexity to the film, highlighting the evolution and impact of technology on storytelling.
In the end, whether we agree or disagree with Neville’s use of AI in “Roadrunner,” it’s clear that this decision was made with the best intentions. The documentary is a tribute to Bourdain, and Neville’s use of AI was a way to honor him and his legacy in a unique and creative way. It may not have been a perfect choice, but it was made with genuine care and respect for Bourdain and his impact on the world.
In conclusion, “Roadrunner” and its use of generative AI have sparked important conversations about the intersection of technology and documentary filmmaking. While some may see this as a controversial choice, Neville’s intent and approach should be taken into consideration. Let’s not forget that at the heart of this film is the life and voice of Anthony Bourdain, and that should remain the focus of any discussion about the documentary. As we continue to navigate the ever-changing landscape of technology and storytelling, it’s important to approach these topics with an open mind and a deep respect for the subjects at hand.
