Formulaic: Film Review of F1
★★★1/2
Illustration by Michael DiMilo
By Geoff Carter
Artificial Intelligence is the newest face of runaway technology. Will it corrupt the minds (and academic skills) of our children, destroy human creativity, and—as in the nightmares of dystopian sci-fi fans (see The Terminator or Blade Runner) enable machines to take over civilization? It just might. The sudden tsunami of AI text and images flooding our airwaves and social media is overwhelming and more than a little mind-boggling.
It seems far too easy. Illustrations and other artwork can be produced by simply inputting data into an AI generator. Ask for a girl walking down the aisle of a church? Boom. You’ll get it. A country western song (and not a bad one) was produced and (would it be performed?) by AI. Ask for a report on the reproductive habits of American bullfrogs and—boom, you’ll get it. Some have even attempted to have AI write the great American novel.
How does it do it? By assimilating, or copying, what has gone before (what some might call plagiarizing). In fact, text produced by AI has been challenged legally in a number class-action lawsuits charging copyright infringement and data privacy violations because these companies “train” their AI models by feeding them hundreds of thousands of pages of text and dat. The AI models then use this data to “predict” where a narrative might go, so the stories, songs, and movies they might create (if that’s the appropriate term) is derived entirely from previous human works—copyrighted works. One class-action lawsuit filed against AI giant Anthropic by authors charging copyright infringement and data privacy violation was recently settled for $1.5 billion dollars.
Concerns about the homogenization of art, the degradation of the human element in art, and the possible lack of diversity in a closed loop of data in an AI model have arisen not only within art communities but also in the general population.
Will human creativity die? Will we eventually be getting nothing but technically slick but inherently soulless entertainment? Is this what’s in store for us when we go to the theater, art galleries, libraries, or the movies? Not that we don’t buy books or go to movies that are inherently similar. Rom coms, action films, and horror movies are inherently—intrinsically—predictable. And viewers don’t mind. In fact, they seem to like it.
I don’t believe that FI, the new film by Joseph Kosinski was created using AI. In fact, I know it is not. But this film is such a slick, well-polished, and—well—predictable movie that it very well could be the product of its predecessors. It is a meticulously crafted and impeccably constructed film. It has refined to perfection elements of all racing films that have gone before it.
If we consider the litany of famous racing movies like Gran Prix, Le Mans, Ferrari, Ford versus Ferrari, Winning, Death Race 2000, and dozens more—even the parody Talladega Nights, we find the elements leading—inevitably it seems—to F1., a film which so slickly combines the glossiest elements of new technology, tropes of the racetrack, and worn character archetypes of the genre that it looks as if it were as meticulously designed as a Formula racing machine.
A good portion of the film was shot at Silverstone Circuit, a Grand Prix track in England. Additional shooting also took place during Grand Prix weekends with the cooperation of the FIA, the governing body of Formula 1. Authentic race footage was used for the film, and real racers and members of the organization appeared throughout the movie. The glossy state-of-the-art technology now used in the racing industry is a star unto itself. From the trackside control booth to the digitized pit crew to the air tunnel and speed trackers, the attention to detail is simply jaw-dropping. When Sonny resorts to less-than-orthodox strategies in order to garner wins for Ruben’s APXGP-F1 team—and keep it from bankruptcy—the story dives into an even deeper layer of reality.
F1 is an action film that contains elements of the buddy movie, sports movies, and the underdog story, and like most of these sorts of genre movies, the plot of F1 and its characters are eminently predictable. From Sonny Hayes (Brad Pitt) the embittered hero to Joshua Pierce (Damson Idris) the young hotshot who doesn’t believe he needs to listen to anyone to Ruben Cervantes (Javier Bardem) the benevolent team owner, the audience is presented with a cast of characters who are as familiar as yesterday’s news—which is fine. It’s that type of movie. Viewers don’t (usually) go to a racing film to gain insights into the human condition. Audiences go to genre films, like racing flicks, mostly to be entertained and to confirm the validity of what they love and what they believe—they want affirmation.
F1 definitely delivers on this. Besides the razor-sharp direction and crisp editing, it features a pantheon of some of the best actors out there. Brad Pitt plays Sonny as the typical Hollywood action hero, a scarred and complicated man seeking redemption, but his performance is eerily reminiscent of actors seen previously in these types of roles, movie stars like Steve McQueen or Paul Newman or James Garner. In the scene where he first arrives at the track, he enters the medium-long shot clad in blue jeans and plaid, casual, but undeniably and incredibly cool.
Besides excellent supporting acting turns by Shea Whigham, Javier Bardem, and Kerry Condon (as team technical director Kate McKenna), over a dozen actual Formula 1 drivers make cameos in the film, lending even more credence to the veracity of the film. It’s regrettable that some of these artists (Condon and Wigham in particular) aren’t given more to do. Condon, one of our best and most underrated actresses, is given a character arc that is flatter than racetrack itself. Shea Whigham appears near the beginning and is off the screen in a heartbeat.
F1 is not a great movie, but it is an excellent one. Building on the great racing films that came before it, this movie adds layer upon layer of detail, action, and authenticity. It describes race strategy impeccably and is a gripping movie in that regard. Unfortunately, the underdog story seems stale and the tension between the grizzled veteran and the hotshot upstart is formulaic enough to be manufactured by (yep) AI. In short, there’s nothing new here.
It’s unfortunate that what is an excellent movie could have been a great one. Instead of relying on worn tropes and stale characters, F1 could have more closely examined the lingering specter of mortality, they psychology of competition, the effect of loss, or equity in the profession, but perhaps that would have defeated its purpose. F1 is a product of everything that has gone before it and, except for some shiny new gimmicks and stylistic flair, it is not more than the sum of its parts. Like the Formula One racing car, it is an immaculately constructed vehicle that goes very fast but never gets too far.