At Cannes 2026, cinema found itself suspended between two impulses it could not reconcile: the instinct to protect human creativity and the economic gravity pulling the industry toward artificial intelligence. While the festival's official competition barred AI-generated work in solidarity with artists, the market floors below buzzed with Chinese state-backed productions and Western directors openly boasting of hundreds of millions saved through generative tools. The question that emerged — not just about film, but about authorship, labor, and what we mean when we call something art — has no c
Cannes exposes cinema's AI paradox: artists wary, industry racing ahead
The technology exists. Fighting it is a battle already lost.
Mark
So the festival banned AI films from competition, but the market was full of them. That seems like a contradiction.
Mimi
It's not really a contradiction—it's two different institutions making different bets. The festival is protecting a certain idea of cinema, of authorship. The market is responding to what's actually happening in production. They can coexist, at least for now.
Mark
But doesn't that create a weird incentive? If you want prestige, you avoid AI. If you want to make money fast, you use it.
Mimi
Exactly. And that's the real tension. A film shot in 20 days for half a billion euros saved—that's not theoretical anymore. That's happening. The question is whether the festival's line holds or whether it becomes irrelevant.
Mark
What about the artists? Are they actually scared, or is this just talk?
Mimi
Both. Some, like Demi Moore, see it as inevitable and want to figure out how to work with it. Others, like Paul Laverty, see it as a threat to their labor and their control over their own work. The Japanese director Kore-eda was interesting—he doesn't use AI, but he's not hostile to it either. He's curious.
Mark
And China is just... running with it.
Mimi
China is positioning it as a national strategy. This isn't individual filmmakers experimenting. This is the state backing a 12-billion-euro market in five years. That changes the game entirely.
Mark
So what happens next?
Mimi
The festival's rules probably won't hold. Or they'll become ceremonial. The real question is whether legislation catches up, and whether artists can negotiate protections before the technology becomes too embedded to regulate.
The Pulse
- Jury members clashed on opening day, with Demi Moore counseling pragmatic acceptance and Paul Laverty warning of the unchecked power of the corporations writing the algorithms shaping human culture.
- Cannes drew a formal line, barring AI-created films from competition — a principled stand that the market, running parallel and louder, had already rendered symbolic.
- China arrived at the market not quietly but triumphantly, with state-organized galas, robot appearances on La Croisette, and projections of a 100-billion-yuan AI film industry within five years.
- Western directors like Doug Liman shot entire thrillers in warehouses using AI-generated locations, claiming savings of over 200 million euros and eliminating whole production departments in the process.
- Artists in the competition — from Hirokazu Kore-eda to debut directors — watched cautiously, noting cultural fractures between Western dystopian anxiety and Eastern philosophies of human-AI coexistence.
- The festival ended with the paradox intact: the industry accelerating past the line the artists had drawn, and no consensus in sight on who owns what when a machine helps make the work.
At Cannes 2026, cinema found itself suspended between two impulses it could not reconcile: the instinct to protect human creativity and the economic gravity pulling the industry toward artificial intelligence. While the festival's official competition barred AI-generated work in solidarity with artists, the market floors below buzzed with Chinese state-backed productions and Western directors openly boasting of hundreds of millions saved through generative tools. The question that emerged — not just about film, but about authorship, labor, and what we mean when we call something art — has no clean answer, only an accelerating urgency.
Cannes 2026 opened with a disagreement that set the tone for everything that followed. On one side, jury member Demi Moore argued that fighting AI is a battle already lost — better to learn alongside it. On the other, Paul Laverty urged deep skepticism toward the tech corporations writing the algorithms that shape our lives. Neither position won. Both turned out to be true at once.
The festival's official stance was clear: general delegate Thierry Frémaux announced that competition films could not use AI in their creative processes, framing it as a defense of artists, screenwriters, and performers whose livelihoods were at stake. It was a principled position. It was also, as the week unfolded, increasingly beside the point.
In the market running alongside the festival, the mood was entirely different. Where a year ago producers using AI kept quiet about it, now they advertised it openly. China led the charge — organizing the market's only formal gala evening, backed by state film bodies and production companies, with a robot strolling La Croisette and a screen projecting a forecast: a 100-billion-yuan AI film sector within five years. Two films were presented as national landmarks: the country's first AI-animated feature and its first AI-generated documentary.
The Western side of the market offered its own kind of shock. Director Doug Liman shot a 70-million-euro thriller with a cast including Casey Affleck and Gal Gadot over 20 days in a London warehouse — every location AI-generated, the lighting department nonexistent, with producers claiming savings of over 200 million euros. A startup called Higgsfield AI made a feature in two weeks for under 500,000 euros, 80 percent of which went to computing costs.
In the competition, artists processed the same reality more slowly. Hirokazu Kore-eda, whose film explored AI clones of a deceased child, observed that the West associates AI with dystopia while the East frames it as coexistence between humans and non-humans. He doesn't use AI himself, though he found it useful for script feedback. A debut director argued that some things — especially art — simply cannot be replicated.
By the festival's close, the shape of the divide was unmistakable. The industry had moved forward; the artists were still deciding whether to follow. The line Cannes drew was real. The market had already crossed it.
The Cannes Film Festival opened this year with a question that no one could quite answer: what do you do when the tools that terrify your artists are the same ones making your industry run faster and cheaper than ever before?
On the first day of the festival, before the competition films had even been screened, jury members Demi Moore and Paul Laverty found themselves at odds over artificial intelligence. Moore argued for pragmatism—the technology exists, she said, so fighting it is a battle already lost. Better to learn to work alongside it. Laverty countered that the public should be deeply skeptical of the tech billionaires and corporations controlling the most popular AI systems, since they're the ones writing the algorithms that shape our lives. By the time the festival ended, it was clear that this disagreement would define everything that followed.
The festival itself drew a line. Thierry Frémaux, Cannes' general delegate, announced that the competition would not accept films created using AI in their creative processes. The festival, he said, stood with artists, screenwriters, actors, and voice performers whose livelihoods could be threatened. Legislation would be necessary. It was a principled stance. It was also, in a way, beside the point.
Downstairs in the market—the sprawling bazaar of dealmaking that runs parallel to the festival—a different story was unfolding. A sales veteran told Variety that a year ago, people using AI were embarrassed to admit it. Now they don't bother hiding. Chinese productions arrived in force, promoted openly as AI-generated films. On May 14th, China held its gala night at the market, the only formal evening event of its kind. The Chinese Film Administration, the China Film Group Corporation, the China Film Producers Association, and the state-backed production company Wing Sight organized it together. A robot from the company Magic Lab walked down La Croisette. In a pavilion, a screen displayed a projection: within five years, the Chinese AI-based film sector would become a 100-billion-yuan market—roughly 12.6 billion euros. A spokesperson told El País that among the 180 films being shown, many contained AI-generated elements, though they wouldn't specify how many.
Two films were presented as landmarks. The Reunion Journey was promoted as China's first AI-animated feature. Leyendas del sur claimed to be the country's first AI-generated documentary. Alongside these screenings, filmmakers and producers held panels asking the question that no one had quite resolved: when AI intervenes in creation, who is the author?
But the real shock came from the Western side of the market. Doug Liman, the director of the Bourne films and Edge of Tomorrow, had made Bitcoin: Killing Satoshi, a conspiracy thriller starring Casey Affleck, Gal Gadot, Pete Davidson, and Isla Fisher. The production shot for 20 days in a London warehouse in March, on a budget of nearly 70 million euros. Every single location was generated by AI. The lighting department didn't exist. The producers claimed they saved over 200 million euros by eliminating entire departments and creating 200 distinct locations through generative technology. Acme AI & FX, the company behind the film, has a dozen more projects in development.
Other productions followed the same logic. Hell Grind, made by the startup Higgsfield AI, was created in two weeks for less than 500,000 euros, with 80 percent of that spent on computing costs. Higgsfield signed an agreement with Chuck Russell, who directed The Mask and Eraser, to make two feature films using AI tools for world-building, creature design, editing, and post-production, with real actors performing in LED studios against AI-generated environments. Even more experimental was Sh(AI)ved, a collection of AI-generated short films based on photographs from erotic magazines published fifty years ago.
Yet the festival's official competition told a different story. Hirokazu Kore-eda, the Japanese director, presented Sheep In The Box, a film about a couple who contact a company that uses AI to create clones of their deceased son. Kore-eda noted that perceptions of AI differ between East and West. In the West, he said, it's associated with dystopia. In the East, it's about coexistence between humans and non-humans. He doesn't use AI himself, but he asked a team member to have ChatGPT read and evaluate his script. It was useful, he said, though it offered nothing unexpected. Maria Martínez Bayona, making her feature debut with The End Of It, a dystopia about immortality, said she wasn't particularly worried about AI. We're in an embryonic moment, she argued. Everyone attacks it in confusion. But some things, she insisted, are impossible to replicate. Especially art.
By the end of the festival, the paradox was complete. The industry was moving forward at speed, cutting costs and timelines in ways that seemed almost inevitable. The artists were watching, wary and divided, trying to figure out how to protect what they did while acknowledging that the technology wasn't going anywhere. The festival had drawn its line. The market had already moved past it.
Notable Quotes
The opposition engenders opposition. AI is already here. Fighting it is a battle we will lose. Finding ways to work with it is a valuable path we can follow.— Demi Moore, jury member
The film industry and society should be deeply skeptical of tech companies and billionaires controlling popular AI services, because they decide the algorithms that affect our lives.— Paul Laverty, jury member
Want the full story?
Read the original at EL PAÍS ↗
Technology