Maggie Gyllenhaal Was Asked to Use AI to Recreate Marilyn Monroe. But it Flopped Compared to Dakota Johnson
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Maggie Gyllenhaal has revealed that a fully AI-generated recreation of Marilyn Monroe was scrapped from her short film "Flesh Impact" after it proved far less compelling than Dakota Johnson's live-action performance. Speaking at a Venice Film Festival creativity summit, she said producers had asked her to use licensable AI, trained on licensed Monroe footage, to overlay the star's face onto Johnson's; she ultimately discarded the AI version, calling it lifeless compared with the emotion Johnson brought to the role. She also warned more broadly that AI-driven cost-cutting in filmmaking mainly benefits the companies licensing the technology rather than filmmakers themselves, and could make it harder for directors to secure traditional budgets in future.
The 17-minute film, made with the blessing of Monroe's estate holder Authentic Brands Group, stars Johnson as Monroe in her prime and Ellen Burstyn as an imagined older version of the star, who died aged 36 in 1962; Peter Sarsgaard and Sepideh Moafi also feature. Gyllenhaal cautioned that if AI can cut a $40 million production to $4 million, or even $40,000, financiers may stop backing films made "the old way", a concern she raised without naming who specifically requested the AI version. Her comments went viral alongside separate remarks at the festival's opening press conference, where she questioned why so few women directors featured in this year's main competition. "Flesh Impact" is set to have its world premiere at Venice on 7 September.
- Sources
- 2
- Outlets
- 2
- Left · Centre · Right
- 0 · 0 · 0
In short
- Gyllenhaal scrapped an AI-generated Marilyn Monroe from her short film
- Dakota Johnson's live performance was judged far more moving than the AI version
- She warned AI cost-cutting could squeeze traditional film financing
How this story developed
- 2 months ago Maggie Gyllenhaal has revealed that a fully AI-generated recreation of Marilyn Monroe was scrapped from her short film "Flesh Impact" because it lacked the emotional depth of Dakota Johnson's live-action performance.
- 2 months ago Actor and director Maggie Gyllenhaal has revealed that an artificial intelligence recreation of Marilyn Monroe was scrapped from her short film "Flesh Impact" after it failed to match the emotional impact of Dakota Johnson's live-action performance.
- 2 months ago Maggie Gyllenhaal has revealed that a fully AI-generated recreation of Marilyn Monroe was scrapped from her short film "Flesh Impact" after it proved far less compelling than Dakota Johnson's live-action performance.
Full account
Maggie Gyllenhaal has revealed that she experimented with artificial intelligence to recreate Marilyn Monroe for her new short film, Flesh Impact, before abandoning the technology because it could not match the performance delivered by Dakota Johnson. Speaking at a creativity-focused industry summit held during the Venice Film Festival, the director and actress explained that those behind the project had asked her to trial a licensable AI system, distinct from tools such as OpenAI's, which had been trained on officially licensed footage of Monroe.
According to Gyllenhaal, the process involved mapping an AI-generated version of Monroe's face onto Johnson's performance. Despite considerable effort, she ultimately discarded the results, saying that what Johnson brought to the role felt far more authentic, emotionally resonant and alive than the AI-assisted version. She went further, suggesting that the technology had undermined the very qualities the project had originally set out to capture, describing the experiment as a fundamental failure.
Flesh Impact is a 17-minute short made with the cooperation of Authentic Brands Group, which holds rights to Monroe's estate, and is billed as a tribute to the actress. Johnson portrays Monroe at the peak of her Hollywood fame, while Ellen Burstyn plays an imagined vision of her in later life; Monroe died in 1962 at the age of 36. Peter Sarsgaard and Sepideh Moafi also feature. Reporting on the film's creative development indicates it was commissioned by the car manufacturer Genesis to mark what would have been Monroe's hundredth birthday, built around the imagined scenario of her attending an audition at that age and finally being given the chance to speak for herself. The short is set to premiere at Venice on 7 September.
Beyond the AI anecdote, Gyllenhaal used the discussion to raise wider concerns about the film industry's growing enthusiasm for AI as a cost-cutting tool. She questioned the narrative that such technology democratises filmmaking, pointing out that ownership and profit from AI tools tend to remain with the companies promoting them. She warned that if a big-budget production could eventually be replicated far more cheaply using AI, traditional financing for filmmaking as it currently exists could disappear almost entirely, leaving only a small niche market for conventional production methods.
Where outlets differ
From the full account, which is AI-written from the sources:
The first source centres on Gyllenhaal's viral remarks about the failed AI experiment and her broader worries about AI's economic impact on filmmaking, including quotes on cost and ownership.
The second source (Variety's exclusive feature) does not mention the AI experiment at all in the excerpt provided; instead it focuses on the film's creative origins, including Genesis's brief to give Monroe a voice she was denied in life, Gyllenhaal's decision to imagine Monroe at 100, the audition-based structure, and the significance of the title, which references a phrase coined by Billy Wilder.
Only the first source specifies production and executive-producer credits and the involvement of Authentic Brands Group, while the second focuses more on Gyllenhaal's personal creative process and her dual role as director and Venice jury president.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of AI-assisted filmmaking argue that licensed, consent-based tools like the one trialled here could democratise the industry, letting talented directors tell ambitious stories without needing tens of millions of pounds in backing. They point out that Authentic Brands Group's involvement shows estates can be properly compensated and protected rather than exploited, and that testing such technology in good faith, as Gyllenhaal did, is how the industry responsibly learns its limits. For them, a tool that can lower costs is not inherently a threat to artistry; it simply widens who gets to make films, and filmmakers remain free to reject it, as happened here, when it falls short creatively.
The case against
Sceptics, echoing Gyllenhaal's own misgivings, argue that AI-driven cost-cutting mainly enriches the companies that license the technology rather than the directors, actors and crews who make films work, and could erode the traditional budgets and jobs that sustain the craft. They worry that even consensual, licensed recreations of a performer's likeness set a precedent that normalises replacing human performance with synthetic imitation, undervaluing the emotional depth and lived judgement an actor brings, as this very experiment demonstrated. Combined with concerns about shrinking opportunities for women directors, they see this moment as evidence that unchecked technological shortcuts risk narrowing, not expanding, who gets to make meaningful cinema and how well it is rewarded.
Explained simply
Maggie Gyllenhaal is an American actress and director whose short film, "Flesh Impact," is premiering at the 2026 Venice Film Festival. The film reimagines Marilyn Monroe, the classic Hollywood star who died in 1962, with Dakota Johnson playing her in her prime and Ellen Burstyn playing an older, imagined version of her; the production was made with permission from Authentic Brands Group, the company that holds rights to Monroe's image and estate.
The story centres on the growing use of artificial intelligence in filmmaking, particularly tools that can recreate the likeness of deceased celebrities using licensed footage. Gyllenhaal has spoken publicly about being asked to use such AI to digitally overlay Monroe's face onto Johnson's performance, raising questions about how this technology might affect acting, budgets and who profits from it.
This matters because it touches on a wider debate within the film industry about AI's role in production costs, creative authenticity and the livelihoods of actors and filmmakers, at a time when AI tools are becoming increasingly capable and accessible. The Venice Film Festival itself is one of the most prominent events in international cinema, giving such comments significant visibility.
Coverage · 2 sources
AI Government Politics Research Science Technology