Chris Miller
The future is not automatic. The new Focus Features documentary The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist is a hand-made, eye-opening tale about the most powerful technology humanity has ever created… and what’s at stake if we get it wrong. Directed by the Academy Award®-winning filmmakers behind Everything Everywhere All at Once and Navalny, the doc features leading AI experts, critics and entrepreneurs, including Sam Altman, the OpenAI CEO, with views on the near-to-midterm future ranging from doom to utopia.
For cinematographer Lowell A. Meyer, working on The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist meant finding visual ways to explore those ideas while keeping the filmmaking process grounded in something unmistakably human. Rather than hiding the mechanics of documentary production, Meyer and the team intentionally allowed cameras, lights, and even the act of making the film itself to appear on screen. The filmmakers were basically inviting audiences into the process of discovery as the directors, Daniel Roher and Charlie Tyrell, engage with some of the leading voices in the AI space. Meyer breaks down the production process and much more in the conversation below.
See The AI Doc theater listings here.
Film Obsessive: The title The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist suggests a complicated emotional relationship with technology. How did you think about cinematography as a way to reflect that mixture of anxiety and hope?
Lowell Meyer: I approached it visually through how we lit the interviews. I wanted a high-contrast look—something that suggested both light and darkness without feeling too heavy-handed. We used a 4×4′ LiteMat 8 positioned close to the subject, primarily lighting one side of the face. On the opposite side, we placed a 4×4′ negative fill—sometimes even larger depending on the stage. We then added a key and an eye light to bring back some detail in the midtones. The result was an image where one side of the face sits in light while the other falls into shadow.
The B-camera often shot into the darker side of the subject’s face, which created a bright edge on the subject far-side of their face. That B Cam had a really flattering edge light because of where I placed that profile LiteMat 8. And because the visual motif of the film was to show the construction of the interview, almost in a behind-the-scenes sort of way, I would often frame shots on the B and C cam where you could see that light in the background.
It looked like this oppressive, blooming, gridded, large, white pattern behind the subject: and to me, it gave the impression like the interviewee in the frame is on the cutting edge, facing some sort of looming technological breakthrough. The hot white light symbolized to me either the bright light associated with something divine, heavenly, god-like; or something more like a nuclear explosion going off, death, obliteration, with the gridded and full frame pattern feeling so machine made and perfectly geometric in nature.
In a simple way, the lighting scheme reflects the duality of the conversation around AI—hope and concern existing at the same time.
But at the same time, interviews need to stay practical. Some subjects only had about an hour available, like Sam Altman or Ilya Sutskever, so we had to keep the setup straightforward and focus on capturing their responses clearly.
When you’re shooting a documentary about something as intangible as AI, what kinds of images become important to you as a cinematographer?
The imagery needed to feel human-made—organic, textural, and layered. This was a multidisciplinary film, so not every image came from me. Daniel shot a lot of iPhone footage, and there’s animation created by Charlie Tyrell and the animation team in Canada that helps visualize the more abstract ideas.
On my side, we focused on making the filmmaking process visible. The interviews are intentionally a little behind-the-scenes. You see people walk to their seats, adjust their microphones, and even the slate coming into frame. It’s very much coded as “a documentary being made.”
That approach puts the humans making the movie on screen. Daniel is also the central character of the film, so we wanted to show him actively engaging with the subject—sometimes through interviews, sometimes through recreations or pickups that show his daily life and creative process.
Ultimately, we were traveling to speak with some of the brightest minds in the AI world. The imagery simply invites the audience into that process and lets them see the team behind the documentary. In that sense, the film is a bit meta about its own creation.
How closely did you collaborate with the editor when thinking about how the footage would function in the final structure?
Quite a bit. There were two editors on the film—Daysha Broadway and Davis Coombe—and I worked most closely with Davis.
Because the film was constantly evolving in the edit, we often needed additional shots of Daniel that could help bridge conversations or clarify ideas. For example, after filming an interview with someone like Sam Altman, we couldn’t go back and shoot with him again. But we could record Daniel asking a follow-up question or reacting to something in the edit.
So we’d sometimes shoot pickups in places like a camera rental house or Daniel’s office. There were also moments where we staged small recreations—Daniel at his computer, for instance—which became a recurring visual motif in the film.
It was a very iterative process: shooting, editing, realizing what was needed, and then shooting again.
What was the most visually challenging part of the documentary to shoot?
Much of the film is interviews, so the main challenge was managing those setups repeatedly in different locations with different people.
Some interviews carried extra pressure simply because of the subject’s schedule. With certain people, you might start rolling before they even walk into the room. Once they arrive, there’s little time for adjustments—you just begin the conversation.
The real challenge was logistical. We often traveled with the gear, built the setup, shot the interview, wrapped, and flew back the same day. But we had a great team, and over time the process became very efficient.
Documentary cinematography often requires reacting quickly to real-world situations. Was there a moment where improvisation behind the camera led to something unexpectedly powerful?
The main improvisation happened with the third camera in the room.
Most interviews were filmed with three cameras: an A-camera medium shot, a tighter B-camera at an angle, and a handheld C-camera with a zoom lens. Either I or the other DP, Jenni Morello, would operate that camera.
The C-camera was meant to be more reactive. It wasn’t on a tripod, it was handheld. And I put a zoom on to stay flexible. During long interviews—sometimes eight hours of shooting in a day—I could move between shots of Daniel and shots of the interview subject. More than anything it was meant to cover Daniel behind the camera, but – if motivated – I could capture his drawings, shots of the camera monitors, or a novel wide of the scene. I was even encouraged by Charlie Tyrell to give him, Daniel, and the editors visual transitions, like an intentional zoom, rack focus, or whip pan or tilt into a shot if it gave them a way to cut it into the edit in a more interesting and unique way.
This handheld camera often added a much needed humor or energy in what could be an otherwise heady or dense interview. For example, during one interview, in which an interview subject is wrapping up a long-winded explanation about AI risk, I quickly whipped over to Daniel, and he replied almost instantly, “That sounds bad.” That part always gets a big laugh in the screenings we’ve done, and it’s because it feels so genuine and almost intentionally comedically-timed.
It’s these little reactive moments that help make the interviews feel more alive, and invite you into the real-life exploration and conversation that Daniel and the team are engaging in with the film’s subjects.
You’ve worked with M. Night Shyamalan on Knock at the Cabin, Servant, and Caddo Lake. What’s one piece of advice from him that has stuck with you?
One thing that stuck with me from working with Night is the importance of preparation combined with flexibility.
You go in with a clear plan, but you also understand that once you start shooting and editing, the film will evolve. Sometimes that means returning to capture one more shot or adjusting the structure based on what you discover.
That approach actually translates well to documentary filmmaking. On this project we had a strong plan, but the film continued to evolve as we shot more interviews and refined the story of Daniel’s journey.
Being willing to go back for one additional shot—whether it’s an insert, a reaction, or a small recreation—can often be what tightens the sequence and helps the film reach its final form.
