The Problem with Justine Bateman's AI Stance

Challenging the Gatekeepers of Creative Expression

Recently one of my favorite independent film review outlets, Film Threat had the pleasure of interviewing 80s TV actress and Hollywood veteran Justine Bateman on their YouTube channel. Hosts Chris Gore and Alan Ing spoke with her about her views regarding the climate of politics, business, and pop culture within Hollywood, and her ardent condemnation of AI as a tool in film making. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/7ka5s8yweu4?si=01dW94hgm1jjjjQU

Alone, the conversation around artificial intelligence in creative fields has become a minefield of half-truths and strategic misdirection which Ms. Bateman has somewhat placed herself at the the center of but in listening to her speak about it within the larger context of her opinions, my instincts tell me that her motivations do not entirely lay with a legitimate concern for art, politics, or the creative economy but rather her foresight regarding where market is shifting and how she might leverage it to her advantage. While she does present an articulate voice wielding arguments that sound reasonable on the surface, using talking points that are obvious to sensible people regarding the relationship between audiences and a mainstream entertainment industry on the decline, her overall stance on AI as part of the equation crumble under deeper examination, thus throwing her credibility as a good faith actor into question. 

Bateman's resistance seems less about the technical capabilities of AI and more about the existential threat it poses to a system that has long centralized creative power. It’s been a while since she has been anywhere near the top of that hierarchy but in a time of shifting power structures, she may believe there are opportunities to use manufactured consensus to press her advantage and play both sides of the fence. One side being an audience whose preferences are shifting away from Hollywood dogma, the other being the various guilds who have become hyper focused on AI as a scapegoat for the bigger problems they are causing themselves. 

In her own words, she has stated that she "doesn't give a f@%!K what people think" about her stance—a telling statement that suggests a defensive posture rather than an open dialogue. On the surface that could seem admirable or even edgy, more in line with the grassroots, anti-establishment counter culture that has arisen on YouTube and other video platforms. Speaking your mind is important and respectable but I’ve spent time with enough Hollywood players to be on alert for grifters, whether they are conscious of it or not, when the signs are there. However, statements like that can also serve as a kind of intellectual reverse Uno card that functions like a conversational shield preemptively dismisses potential criticism by positioning herself as unassailable.

No, I believe that she cares very much about what people think and she’s going out of her way to craft exactly what it is. 

I don’t mean to disrespect or lob ad hominem attacks on Ms. Bateman. She seems intelligent and obviously has talent but her approach is itself a disingenuous and disrespectful one by way of a manufactured moral high ground tailored to appear principled and uncompromising. This is a method for when arguments might not withstand rigorous scrutiny and we’ve seen it from Hollywood players for years. It’s ingrained in the culture and they typically play this game no matter what side of the Overton window they claim to stand on. 

Her upcoming film festival's trumpeted ban on AI-generated content isn't a technical decision; it's a line in the sand, drawn by someone who hopes to be a thought leader without really earning the position. It says, "I get to decide what art looks like. I decide what tools are acceptable." But art has always been about evolution, about challenging existing paradigms, and technology has always been a core part of it.

Another example of this is the term "ethical AI" which has become a convenient and nebulous concept designed to shut down conversations rather than advance them, or also a term people who aren’t entirely against Ai will use in the hopes that the pitchforks and torches won’t come out so hard against them. It's a rhetorical tactic that conveniently ignores a fundamental truth: learning through observation is how humans have always developed skills. You don’t steal anything when you are creating an interpretation of it, nor do you have to pay royalties to everyone who ever created an object that has been interpreted as a new, representative image. We don't criticize an aspiring painter for studying the techniques of masters, or a young filmmaker for analyzing classic cinema. Nor do we question when a machine is invented to make back braking and time consuming labor more efficient. So why is it suddenly problematic when an AI system does the same? It is hubris to assume that because an “artist” is doing it in service of some presumed sacred craft that our work should be somehow be elevated to a status that is above other forms of heavy lifting. 

Bateman's arguments reveal a more insidious dynamic. She leverages her status as a respected Hollywood figure—someone who has spoken intelligently about industry issues—to create a narrative that ultimately protects existing power structures from meddling, other from her own. Her platform allows her to present arguments that sound measured and reasonable, knowing full well that her loyal audience will simp and rally behind her without critically examining the underlying assumptions. I’ve seen and spoken about this in it’s other forms at great length already, which you can read here.

The real innovation of AI isn't about replacing human creativity—it's about democratizing (for lack of a better word) the creative process. For disenfranchised individuals who have been systematically shut out of traditional creative industries, AI represents more than a tool. It's a pathway to realizing visions that were previously impossible. 

Consider the filmmaker working from a small apartment, the writer with physical limitations, the storyteller in a region with next to no resources. AI doesn't threaten their creativity—it amplifies it. It provides a level of access and opportunity that was unimaginable just a few years ago.

I feel it takes a real sense of self-importance and extremely limited vision to think otherwise. Whether from dishonesty or ignorance, Bateman skirts around these instances and chose to frame her argument as purely corporate/studio systems using AI to screw over everyone else when it fact it will act as an equalizer between the two. 

I’m not saying that everyone should use it or that it will be the right tool for every instance. If your vision for a movie is about an actress wanting to break out of being type-caste or a middle aged woman picking up a young boy, then I can see how AI would have no use for you. However, if your sites are set on something fantastical or extreme that previously only begging a big money executive who would insist that you compromise your vision could bring you closer to, then how is that a bad thing? 

During the live-stream, when asked in ‘the chat’ if there were any instances where an aspiring filmmaker might benefit from using AI, her reaction was to show visible disdain and contempt by sticking her tongue out and shuddering. Whatever she had to say after that, this action told me that she has placed herself above anyone who would dare consider another avenue of creativity that might compete with what she is comfortable and familiar with. In this way she can dance around nuanced critique and selectively apply blanket dismissals, which is a trademark of control-oriented rhetoric, all while pretending the label of “based”. 

Bateman's film festival ban on AI-generated content isn't a principled stand. It could have been because like my own advocacy for practical effects, it could have served to elevate a particular method of creating without attacking an adjacent contemporary one; CGI being the other case in point in my instance. No this seems to me to be a carefully constructed barrier, a velvet rope that keeps the established players in control. She positions herself as a protector of artistic integrity while simultaneously maintaining the very hierarchical system she claims to critique.

In other words, in true Hollywood fashion she saw a hot button issue that everyone is talking about, formed a half-baked opinion about it, and asked, “How can I make this about me?”

The most telling aspect of these arguments is what remains unspoken. It's not about protecting art—it's about protecting a specific vision of who gets to make art, who gets to profit from it, and who controls the narrative.

Innovation has always been met with resistance and yes, there are many much needed conversations about the negative aspects of how it will impact all of our lives from scams to authoritarian uses but to lump them all together and insist that we throw the baby out with the bath water is just another disingenuous goalpost move. 

From the introduction of sound in cinema to digital effects, every technological leap was initially viewed with suspicion. Not everyone is willing to adjust for new shifts in the market when they’re comfortable with how things are. With AI it is no different. It represents an expansion of creative possibility, not a threat to human creativity.

Will all of it be good? No, but if none of it were good there wouldn’t be a use or a market for it. All of these predictions about how it will destroy entertainment and our economy are just that and they are mainly cast by people with very limited vision. We don’t know what is going to happen but as human beings we must keep some degree of faith that we can navigate things as they happen. If the more than likely assumption that AI can’t be creative is true then it stands that what is being produced by the people who use it now is still due to their creativity, which was always pulling from other places, always transformative of what came before, long before AI came along to speed the process along. 

The future of storytelling isn't about maintaining existing power structures. It's about breaking them down, about creating space for individuals and ideas that have yet seen the opportunity to be considered. AI is the tool that makes this possible—a leveling force that challenges the very notion of who gets to be a creator. That’s not going to stop people creating in whatever other way they please. 

If you’re mad that the wind might not blow in your favor, you’re not thinking about art, you’re thinking about yourself and your pocket book. Fair enough but to that I’d say, welcome to everyone else’s reality. Pick up your burden the same as the rest of us. 

Creativity has never been about limitation. It's about possibility.