The rise of an AI-born star
At Zurich’s film festival over the weekend, a provocative new concept hit the red carpet: a production studio called Xicoi introduced its talent studio alongside an AI-generated actress named Tilly Norwood. The claim is audacious—that a performer can be created from algorithms and data and then presented as a potential international box-office draw. Dutch comedian Eline Van der Velden, 39, is behind the project, suggesting a future where Hollywood stars might be crafted rather than discovered. For many, the idea raises a question that stretches far beyond one festival: what does it mean to watch a performance that has no human life behind it?
The technology and the talent studio
Norwood’s profile is still singularly modest by traditional metrics: a modest following on Instagram and a debut in a short humor piece described as “one hundred percent AI-generated.” Yet the demo has ignited a broader debate about the industry’s next frontier. Xicoi positions Norwood as a potential replacement or companion to today’s major names, arguing that AI can extend storytelling in novel and efficient ways. Critics, however, worry that the practice sidelines human experience in favor of data-derived impersonation.
Industrial reaction: unions and actors speak out
The most pointed critique has come from SAG-AFTRA, the union representing many of Hollywood’s performers. In a formal statement, they argued that Norwood is not a real actor but a character created by a computer program trained on the work of countless professionals. They warned that such a character lacks life experience and genuine emotion, and they suggested that audiences may reject content that is detached from human reality. The union’s stance underscores a broader fear: if studios rely on synthetic performers, what becomes of authentic craft and fair compensation?
Voices from the profession: fear and resistance
Beyond the union, several high-profile actors have voiced concern. Natasha Lyonne urged colleagues to boycott projects that embrace AI-inspired talent, calling the approach misleading and harmful to the profession. Emily Blunt, guest on the Variety Awards Circuit Podcast, reacted with alarm: “Is that AI? It’s really, really scary. Please stop erasing human connection.” Blunt’s reaction mirrors a wider anxiety about the erosion of the human element in acting that audiences have long valued.
Alyssian counterpoints: AI as tool, not replacement
Not everyone condemns the experiment. Eline Van der Velden has pushed back against the backlash, framing AI as a tool rather than a replacement. In an Instagram post, she argued that AI is akin to animation, puppetry, or CGI—techniques that opened new storytelling possibilities without diminishing the art of performance. Van der Velden contends that AI could expand narratives and offer fresh modes of expression, provided it respects the human skills that drive emotional resonance.
What this means for audiences and the future of film
The debate is about more than a single studio or a single fake star. It raises fundamental questions about authorship, rights, and the economics of cinema. If AI-generated performers become a staple, studios may need to rethink contracts, residuals, and the boundary between synthetic and human labor. For audiences, the core question remains: do audiences want performances that feel crafted without a living performer behind them? Or will fans still seek the nuance and vulnerability that only a human artist can provide?
Conclusion: navigating innovation with responsibility
As Zurich’s weekend conversations make clear, the film industry stands at a crossroads. Tilly Norwood, as a symbol of AI-generated stardom, highlights a powerful potential and a consequential risk. The coming months will determine whether AI can meaningfully contribute to storytelling while preserving the human touch that has long been cinema’s heart.
