The day John Lennon was shot, on Dec. 8, 1980, he and Yoko Ono gave an interview to a San Francisco radio crew from their home in New York’s Dakota Apartments.
They were promoting their new album “Double Fantasy,” but the two-hour conversation was wide ranging. Though the interviewers had been warned “no Beatles questions,” Lennon and Ono were thrillingly open. That day, Annie Leibovitz also shot the famous portrait of a clothes-less Lennon wrapped around Ono.
The interview is similarly naked. The two, particularly Lennon, riff on love, their relationship, creativity, life after the Beatles, raising their toddler son, writing songs in bed and much more. At the age of 40, Lennon sounds like someone who has found real clarity.
“I feel like nothing happened before today,” said Lennon.
In “John Lennon: The Last Interview,” Steven Soderbergh turns those surviving tapes into a documentary that does as much to demystify Lennon and Ono as “Get Back” did to the Beatles. The film debuted Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival.
“I was just so compelled by their generosity of spirit throughout the conversation,” Soderbergh explained in an interview Saturday in Cannes. “It’s like the world took place in one day, in this apartment.”
Making it posed an acute problem. Soderbergh was resolved to let the audio play. He could finds ways to visualize much of the film, but that still left a large gap where the conversation grows more philosophical.
“I worked on everything that could be solved except that for as long as I could,” Soderbergh says. “Then there was the inevitable moment of: OK, but really what are we going to do? We just started playing and ran out of time and money. That’s where the Meta piece came in.”
Soderbergh accepted an offer to use Meta’s artificial intelligence software to conjure surreal imagery for those sections, which make up about 10% of the film. When Soderbergh let the news out earlier this year, it prompted an uproar. One of America’s leading filmmakers was using AI? In a film about a Beatle, no less?
The AI parts (overwhelmingly slammed by critics in Cannes) are fairly banal and don’t differ greatly from special effects — there are no deepfakes of Lennon. But they put Soderberg at the forefront of an industrywide debate about the uses of AI in moviemaking. It’s a conversation the director, who has made movies on iPhones, is eager to have.
Q: At a time when AI in film is under much debate, you’ve been very forthright about your use of it here. Why?
SODERBERGH: Transparency is so important in the world outside of the creative context, we’re not aware of the extent that this is being used and used to manipulate us. We don’t know because they’re not telling. We find out after, by accident, by some whistle blower. I’m like my own whistle blower: “This is what he’s doing.”
Q: Did you expect such a strong response?
SODERBERGH: I knew what was coming. I take it very seriously, and I understand why people have an emotional response to this subject. As I’ve said before, I feel like I owe people the best version of whatever art I’m trying to make and total transparency about how I’m doing it. But, yeah, you don’t say yes to Meta offering you these tools and offering to finish the film and not know you’re going to come in for some heat. That was part of the deal.
Q: Some fear generative AI will tear apart the film industry. You don’t see it as a bogeyman, though.
SODERBERGH: I think most jobs that matter when you’re making a movie cannot be performed by this tech and never will be performed by this tech. As it becomes possible for anybody to create something that meets a certain standard of technical perfection, then imperfection becomes more valuable and more interesting. We haven’t seen yet someone with a certain amount of creative credibility go full-metal AI on something, and see how people react. I think it’s necessary. How do you know where the line is until somebody crosses it? I don’t think what I’m doing crosses it. Some people may disagree. I don’t know where my line is yet. I’m waiting to see.
Q: What kind of prompts did you give the program to create the animations?
SODERBERGH: Circles of light that come out of nowhere, things like that. A black rose that turns into a Busby Berkeley thing and then a red rose. I wasn’t very articulate to the people I was working with. It was hard to describe the things I wanted to see. The good part about this technology was at least ability to have something in front of me quickly that I could respond to.
Q: Did your experience give you any kind of framework that you think this technology should be limited to?
SODERBERGH: I’ve determined my rule is: It has to be necessary. Is it the only way to accomplish what I want to see? Is it truly the best way to do it? That’s the real question. You’re going to see a lot of people doing stuff with AI that fail those two challenges.
Q: There’s the ethical debate but also an aesthetic one. This is otherwise a naked human dialogue.
SODERBERGH: I needed a way to follow them in flight visually, or I’m not doing my job. It’s hard to judge how long it will take us to find homeostasis with this technology. I think we will. Just looking at this technology in the movie making business, each department has or will have a very different relationship with it. I’ll have a different relationship than a writer, than an actor, than the costume designer, the production designer, the sound effects ople.
Each creative person is going to have their own prism and be affected by it in different ways. Our inherent desire to have a simple template for how this is to be approached is part of the problem. I don’t think that’s possible. I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all.
Q: Regardless, the conversation in the film is deeply inspiring.
SODERBERGH: Especially his burning desire to destroy the male rock star myth — at a time when that was not the mood anyone else was in. That’s inspiring. What I hope young people who see it get out of it is: This guy told the truth about everything from the jump, right up through the last day of his life. He just was built that way. And he was constructive. He was very opinionated but also very thoughtful and all in the aid of: Can we do this better? Can we do a better version of human beings on this planet?
