I have never been particularly supportive of fully AI generated films. That does not mean I am against AI. Far from it. I believe it can be an extraordinary support tool when it helps human beings research, prepare, experiment and create. But an entirely AI generated film? I have always thought: I am simply not the audience for that. Partly because I do not want human performance to disappear from our screens, and partly because I do not want actors’ work replaced. Then Paul Schrader entered the conversation. Schrader is one of our most remarkable storytellers. He wrote Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, and directed American Gigolo and First Reformed. One of my ten favourite films, and quite possibly my number one, is his 1990 film The Comfort of Strangers. Now he intends to make Three Guns at Dawn using entirely AI generated human characters instead of actors. He has also said of the jobs AI may remove: “Those jobs are gone, babe.” I strongly disagree with him on that. Progress should not require us to shrug while human artists and craftspeople are pushed aside. A remarkable filmmaker does not get a free pass simply because I admire his work. But he has still opened a debate in my mind. If a storyteller of Schrader’s calibre uses AI to tell a story that could not otherwise be made, do I refuse to watch it on principle? Or do I watch and judge whether the human imagination behind the technology still reaches me? I know where I stand on protecting actors and human performance. That has not changed. But for the first time, I am questioning whether I can dismiss every AI generated film without seeing what a great human storyteller does with the medium. We have choices to make, both as artists and as audiences. What do you think? Would you watch it? Why is he forced to use AI Article URL: https://theplaylist.net/paul-schrader-ai-black-actors-three-guns-at-dawn-20260906/ #TheActorsCopilot #ActorsWithTheEdge #PaulSchrader #HumanPerformance #AIFilmmaking

My next major performance—and my Polish feature-film debut on the big screen—is fast approaching. Please forgive me for not translating the Facebook page, but I think you'll be able to find out everything on your own. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1QDkUuZ1n8/

I have a general question for you. Taking into account that you don't have a steady or large income from this industry, what job do you recommend, where the employer agrees to give time off for shooting days?

We have had a couple of DM's on line learning - so here is how I approach it xxx Let me be honest about line learning, because most of us were never really taught how to do it. We were handed a script and told to know it by Thursday. So we do what feels like learning. We read the page over and over, we say the words back until they sound about right, and we call that memorising. Then the tape lands with a short deadline, the panic starts before we have acted a single truthful moment, and half the prep time that should have gone into the actual work gets swallowed by trying to hold the words in place. I want to give you a different way in. Not a trick, and not a hack. A way of learning lines that is grounded in how memory actually works, and that happens to be exactly how experienced, working actors already do it. Some of this will feel like it turns the whole thing upside down. Good. That is usually where the real lightbulb is. 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 Here is the finding that changed how I think about all of this. Two researchers, Helga and Tony Noice, spent decades studying how professional actors hold hours of dialogue in their heads. What they found is that skilled actors do not sit and memorise the words at all. When they tested actors against ordinary people on plain memory tasks, like learning a passage from an encyclopaedia, the actors were no better than anyone else. Their memory was never the superpower. Their method was. What actors actually do is chase meaning. They break a scene into beats, into a chain of intentions, and they work out why the character says each thing, what they want, and what they are doing to the other person in the room. The Noices called this active experiencing. And here is the part that matters for you. When you learn a scene that way, the words stop being a list to hold and become the natural result of the thought underneath them. You are not remembering lines. You are remembering what you want, and the words arrive to go and get it.

I have a task for those of you with a bit more life experience. Something for you to relax with. Just for fun, I created a "longline" with a "grok" (a rough sequence) for the next 007 installment, complete with a soundtrack. Can you tell which one fits Bond better? Description: You are Viktor "The Connoisseur" Radek – the international king of the black market of luxury. Officially: collector of rare wines, classic Ferraris and English football. Unofficially: the man who controls the entire supply chain from vineyards in Tuscany, to tuning workshops in Italy, to illegal betting on the Premier League. Your weapons are not lasers or sharks – it's taste, style and psychology. You can destroy a human with one glass of Bordeaux and one well-chosen tie. Bond hates you because you're too elegant, too confident and too... human. You have a beard, glasses and that slightly ironic smile that says "I know you're going to lose, but first let's drink something good". Your theme: you want the world to return to "true luxury" – before everything became plastic and digital. For you, Bond is a symbol of the old order that needs to be destroyed... in style. Based on what you read and hear—which one would be a better fit?