For a long time, AI in video production was a trade-show promise: dazzling demos, generated shots doing the rounds on LinkedIn, and not much in our actual working days. That just changed. AI is no longer an experiment, it has moved into the edit suites, the logging tools, the subtitling software. The question is no longer whether we use it, but where.
At the studio, we have a clear position on this. And it comes from where we come from.
A studio founded by an engineer
BOW is a director who was first an engineer. That means we have no reflexive fear of technology, we have always seen it as a tool, never as a threat or as magic. A tool is judged coldly: what does it save, what does it cost, and at which point in the chain.
That is exactly the way we look at AI today. No panic, no fascination. A question of method.
What we automate without hesitation
Part of our job is time, not talent. Logging twelve hours of event footage. Syncing, multilingual subtitling, first selects, turning a single film into fifteen formats for social media, vertical reframing variants. This work is necessary, but it carries no signature: no one will ever recognise “the BOW touch” in a subtitle file.
There, AI is a blessing. The industry’s numbers confirm it: a large majority of studios have already brought it into their workflow, with post-production gains measured in tens of percent. For us, that does not mean “producing cheaper.” It means giving time back to the eye, fewer hours spent sorting, more hours spent choosing.
What we’ll never touch
And then there is everything else. The edit that turns a walk up the red-carpet steps into a piece of cinema. The exact moment you cut a shot because an emotion just passed. The choice of a silence. Directing a speaker who does not know what to do with their hands. What a brand really has to say, and the way we decide to tell it.
That, no AI does, because it is not a computation problem, it is a problem of point of view. An AI generates what is probable; a director chooses what is right. The two are not playing the same game.
The risk, as we see it, is not that AI replaces directors. It is that it pushes everyone towards the same smooth, optimised, edge-free beauty, an “average” beauty at an unbeatable cost. And a market where everything looks alike is precisely a market where a point of view regains its value.
Why we’re talking about it now
Because the subject has just shifted from debate to reality. In early June 2026, the CNC (France’s national film and audiovisual body) presented a study to the National Assembly on the impact of AI on the film and audiovisual industries, a sign that the French industry is organising its thinking rather than enduring it. And in Cannes, where we work, the conversation has changed in nature: people no longer ask whether AI belongs in creation, but how it fits into the realities of production and distribution.
For brands, this raises a real question: should you go for generated content, faster and cheaper, or keep a studio that actually films? Our answer is not ideological. It is: both, but each in its place. AI to speed up what has no authorial value. Humans for everything that has to carry your brand.
Le beau attire, le BOW transforme
It has been our line from the start. Pas que du beau, du BOW. Today, anyone can produce beauty, AI makes it on demand, by the thousand. What cannot be generated is intent: starting from a goal, understanding what you want to stir in the person watching, and making every choice in service of that.
AI does not change our job. It clarifies it. It absorbs the mechanical time and lays bare what has always made the difference: the rigour to structure, the craft to embody, and an eye that decides.
Got a story to put on screen, and the wish for it to look like no other? Let’s talk.