What to know
- CapCut sponsored a global AI event at this year’s Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) Market that showcased submissions made using its Video Studio.
- Suad Alad, a film writer with Toronto entertainment publication 1st on Film, says generative AI does not belong in film because creating films with AI doesn’t encourage creative innovation, as AI pulls from films that already exist.
- She also points out that struggling is part of the point in making art, as it allows one to experience the process of creating something from start to finish.
Does artificial intelligence belong in movies?
It’s a question that’s been floating around in creative circles ever since the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) tools that can automate scriptwriting, video generation, and storyboarding.
At the 2026 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), video editing company CapCut hosted CRE[AI]TE: New Voices in AI Filmmaking at TIFF Market, a global AI festival that showcased top submissions by creators using CapCut’s Video Studio.
Recently, well-known directors like Martin Scorsese, Darren Aronofsky, and Steven Soderbergh have also come out in support of integrating AI into their movies, helping streamline storyboard development, pre-production, and visual effects.
To discuss more about whether AI has a place in filmmaking, Now Toronto turned to Suad Alad, a film writer and critic with Toronto-based entertainment publication 1st on Film.
Alad says it feels like an oxymoron to refer to anyone who uses generative AI in their filmmaking as artists, especially at a film festival that “has been known to pioneer creative innovation for over five decades.”
“It just seems completely antithetical to why I believe TIFF exists,” Alad says. “But what I really couldn’t wrap my head around was why CapCut, of all platforms, would be the company to support its use within their app.”
She says CapCut used to be the scrappy, affordable video editing software for aspiring editors who couldn’t afford Adobe Premiere or After Effects.
“It was an app fans would use to create edits of their favourite television shows, movies, and the people who starred in them. And what made it all the more meaningful was that it was all done completely by the person uploading these videos.”
Furthermore, Alad says the ability to create new works in film, music, and literature is fundamental to human existence. She points out that using AI in filmmaking feels redundant because generative AI models its creations on work that already exists, so it’s not creating new works, just rehashed versions of films.
“Everything generative AI creates is modelled on work that already exists. Nothing is conjured up through a mix of inspiration and personal experience. And none of this is done with any credit to the artists it is ‘learning’ off of,” she explains.
Struggling is the point
To Alad, the struggle in making art like movies is half the point. She says the ability to experience a process from start to finish, and possibly fail in doing so, has become a lost art, especially to those who are in favour of using generative AI to make art.
“There is nothing about the arts that relies on the existence of natural born talent,” she says.
“One does not wake up, having never written creatively or captured anything on film in their lives, and ends up making something on par with the works of Shakespeare or Virginia Woolf, or Agnès Varda or Wong Kar-Wai.”
Alad says the reason directors of our heyday were able to make generation-defining movies was due the process of honing their craft. She says using AI in the process means you only care about the end product.
“That is what is fundamentally antithetical to the very existence of art and the people who create it with the labours of their love and passion for it, and the labours produced for it by their own two hands.
Complete transparency
Despite being personally against using generative AI in filmmaking, Alad understands that when a tool is available, people will use it.
She believes complete transparency with audiences may be the best solution, such as putting disclaimers during the opening credits.
“Adding disclaimers that are similar to content warnings played at the start of films could be a solution,” Alad muses. “Or, when looking into upcoming movies, irremovable tags that identify this film as one that uses AI within it, and a complete outline into how it was used could be a start to ending it entirely.”
As a real world example, she points to Maggie Gyllenhaal, who considered using AI for Flesh Impact, but decided against it once the result of it just didn’t fit her image. Her decision stirred up conversation around the AI tools filmmakers are using and how it is being used.
“Many were happy that she never went through with it, but I think, from what I saw, they were happy to know she admitted to it.”
