A tough act

From red carpet to picketA group of people who stand outside a workplace during a strike persuading other workers not to enter. line. On Thursday night, the cast of blockbuster Oppenheimer left the UK premiere to join the biggest actor strikeWhen people refuse to work until their demands for changes have been met. in 60 years.

Hollywood performers join writers in an effective global shutdown of the industry. TV shows postponed. Films delayed. The Emmy and Academy Awards left in doubt.

They want fairer pay from online streaming companies and protection against artificial intelligence. The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) fears AI is putting actors out of work.

SAG president Fran Drescher says services like Netflix create a "dystopiaThe opposite of utopia (an imaginary vision of a perfect world). The term dystopia comes from Greek and literally means bad place.", replacing actors with machines.

But does this matter? UK doctors are also striking over pay and conditions. Are they more important to society? And if AI can make movies - why stop it?

It is an "opportunity for more voices to be heard", says actor Tye Sheridan. He founded an AI app that makes it cheaper and easier to add computer-generated characters to film.

"We saw this coming," says Tom Hanks. A younger digital version of himself will appear in a sequel to Forrest Gump. And he expects his AI avatar "to go on and on" making films.

CSI was used to resurrect Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia in Rogue One and give Christopher Reeve a comeback cameo as Superman in The Flash.

Journalist James Troughton calls this "disgusting ... spoonfed nostalgia" that puts living actors out of work and disrespects the rights of the dead.

But could a computer take a lead role? Animator Lukas Niklaus doubts it. "Human emotions are too complex for an AI to fully grasp." Only a skilled actor can make a character believable.

And AI can also be creepy, says Film academic Joshua Glick. It can be reassuring to know there is a real live person behind the character.

A world without actors may not need gossip columns, TV interviews and red-carpet premieres. But it is not just about the glamour, argues theatre actor Jackie Apodaca. Their "timeless function" is to carry our "frustrations, fears, desires, and hopes". Evidence suggests cinema-going is good for our mental health.¹

In 1960, the strike lasted 21 weeks. Insiders warn the current action could last months. So we may soon discover what a world without actors is like.

Yes: "Survival is insufficient," wrote Emily St. John Mandel in Station Eleven, her post-apocalyptic novel about acting. We will always need actors, for they help us understand what it means to be human.

No: Acting is just about making things look real. Computers are better at that than humans. In the future, we will be guaranteed five-star entertainment with AI-made films tailored to our personal tastes.

Or... New technology always changes entertainment. Film actors need different skills from theatre performers. AI will not make acting obsolete, but it may profoundly alter what it means to be an actor.