AI Can Critique Shakespeare, but Cannot Write One: AGBO at TIFFCOM

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents AI Can Critique Shakespeare, but Cannot Write One: AGBO at TIFFCOM.

At TIFFCOM in Tokyo on Thursday, the focus was not just another AI demonstration, but a fundamental debate about the future of filmmaking. Chris Brearton and Dominic Hughes, two prominent AGBO executives in the orbit of the Russo brothers, delivered a keynote discussion on AI’s influence on film production.

Their statement is deliberately pointed: AI can critique Shakespeare, but cannot write a Shakespeare. In doing so, they distinguish between the ability to contextualize or evaluate a work and the task of creating original creative content themselves. For them, this is precisely the boundary that determines how AI should be used in the filmmaking workflow.

For everyone debating the use of AI in screenplays, visual effects or production planning, the key message is therefore not a new tool, but a division of roles: human creatives should become more productive through technical support rather than be replaced by automatically generated content.

What Brearton and Hughes Said in Tokyo

The keynote as an industry conversation

The two AGBO executives spoke at the content market of the Tokyo International Film Festival. The venue suits the question at hand: Here, the transformation of film technology meets the market for visual content and the companies that develop and market that content.

According to the position documented by Variety, AI has several levels of impact on filmmaking. On the one hand, it changes how film teams work. On the other, it can be used to support human creativity rather than replace it. At the same time, it will also shape the development of visual content in the future.

These are deliberately three interconnected perspectives: workflow, division of roles and the industry’s direction of development. The report also cites the famous Shakespeare example to illustrate the difference between analytical capability and independent creation.

Why “Support Rather Than Replace” Remains the Core

Critiquing is not the same as writing

The Shakespeare example makes the discussion tangible without turning it into an overview of technical capabilities. According to the example, AI can analyze a known work and formulate criticism of it, while creative authorship remains with the human being.

For filmmakers in particular, this is a pragmatic distinction. AI can be used to support processes and help create visual content. But in Brearton and Hughes’ account, it will not become a replacement for human creators. Nor does this deny the societal and economic conflict: Technological progress is changing the work, but responsibility for the result remains with people.

Not a rejection of AI, but a clear boundary

The AGBO executives’ statement is therefore not a fundamental rejection of artificial intelligence. It describes a form of collaboration: Technology takes on supporting functions, while people set the creative direction. It is precisely this approach that determines whether AI remains a tool in the hands of film teams or becomes a replacement for them.

What the Debate Means for the Film Industry

For production companies and film teams, the most important consequence lies in practical implementation. AI is not treated as an automatic source of finished stories or images, but as support for human labor. How teams handle it will determine whether efficiency gains emerge or creative control is lost.

The role of audiences can be inferred from the sources in less concrete terms. What is certain is that Brearton and Hughes expect AI to shape the future of visual content creation. Their response is not to retreat, but to draw a clear boundary between machine assistance and human creation.

More context on the topic is provided in Variety’s report on the TIFFCOM keynote. The discussion in Tokyo makes clear that the debate about AI in film does not end with questions about tools, but begins with the question of who retains responsibility in the workflow.