Harmony Korine Avoids Books, Doesnt See Movies and Thinks AI Is the Art Form That Holds the Most Promise

Harmony Korine doesn’t do anything by the book. In fact, he doesn’t even read books.

“Oh, I haven’t read a book in two or three decades,” Korine says, not proudly but matter-of-factly, but maybe also a little proudly.

The iconoclasticGummoandSpring Breakersdirector may be associated with earlier eras of outre cinema. But provocateurs never go away — they are just reborn as immersive artists using the latest LLMs.

At 53, Korine has found himself up to a new kind of art form, or what he believes will become that, seeking to create cinema he describes as “digital drugs.” The form was hinted by, but goes beyond the bounds of, his projects of the last few years like video game/VR/cinema mashupsAggro Dr1ftandBaby Invasion.

Korine recently created a short-form piece set in the Miami Design Districtfeaturingtrippy images like astronauts and shapeshifting cat astronauts, all moving through the sunlit spaces of upscale South Florida outdoor malls while butterflies float by. And his studio EDGLRDhas a dealwith upstart GenAI firm Runway to explore the tech further. (He also is working onwebtoons — traditional entertainment, comparatively.)

As he walked throughthe South Beach offices of EDGLRD(pronounced edgelord despite the vowel efficiencies) on a recent afternoon, Korine demonstrated how he is looking to reach for his 90’s rebel-boy rep, only with late-2020’s tools. Korine finds movies uninteresting (the only one he can recall seeing in 2025 was Rihanna’sSmurfs) and believes all the criticism of AI slop deserves an eyeroll.Instead, working on AI-driven immersive projects is what excites him, an artistic fridge cigarette to gives a break from all the noise (even if it creates some more.)

Also, he thinks the Bella ThorneSpring Breakerssequel is ridiculous. (This interview has been edited for clarity, slightly.)

So what books have you read recently?

Oh I haven’t read a book in, gosh, two or three decades.

Have you seen any movies that you’ve liked —Sinners? Weapons?

No I didn’t see those. I watchedSmokey and the Banditrecently. What did I go see in the last year? [Pauses to remember] I sawSmurfs 2 [Rihanna’sSmurfs].I saw that. I look at the list of nominations for awards and I’ve only heard or two of them. I don’t know why that is. I used to live in movie theaters. Now I don’t even know who all of these people are.

You’ve also been producing far fewer films, working instead in a kind of post-cinematic space.

Yes, more post-narrative, sensory, experimental kinds of entertainment.

And AI.

Yes of course.

Many filmmakers say it’s push-button and regurgitative, and they have plenty of evidence, though your AI work definitely contains a distinct vision. What do you say to those who argue the only thing it can really create is slop — just synthesize what’s already been done?

I think it’s the very beginning. We’re justat the point of understanding what we’re capable of with it and then is there a world where the aesthetics take over and we use it in a way that’s not really about the idea of realism but turning it into something more transcendent and experiential and beyond a simple narrative articulation. It’s the idea of adapting it as a tool or a paintbrush.Of course nobody wants AI slop, but that’s not what it will be. AI slop works well for social and for really short-form content but the idea people are chasing now is is there a way to add emotion.

The anti-AI set — the Guillermo del Toros and other directors and plenty of our readers as well — would say that sounds good but you can never really achieve that.

I don’tunderstand how anyone can say they’re anti something that’s potentially creative. If it’s not working for you today it could work for you a year from now. Soon conversations like that won’t even matter. It’s like discussing the Internet. It already is. But I also think you should not even try to use it to imitate moves or traditional narratives or classic IP. It’s a losing battle. You use the instrument to create its own form, its own logic, its own world.

Meaning we’regetting thrown off because people are trying to map AI onto traditional art forms.

I don’t want to be a spokesman for AI but personally I am trying to create something in a specific way, something that moves beyond traditional media or content, and what are the bounds of that, are we heading to a world even where we can share cinema telepathically. I feel like even leading with technology is a disservice; that part should almost come last. If you’re leading with how it gets made people will be skeptical; if you’re trying to use it to win an argument, you will lose. These things have to work on their own.

Do you think it does right now?

For me it does. My interest is pretty visual. It’s like “wow, I can sit at home and animate and make cartoons.” It comes from a very creative place. Technology has started to parallel my dreams. This is something immediate, its own form, not a top-down language but the magic of creating something new. It’s the thing I’ve been chasing my whole life. It’s what comes after everything. It’s feeling,emotion, something beyond logic.

I do feel when you watch AI movies—the stuff actually being made with the tools — that it does have a little bit of that surreal post-rational aesthetic. At the Runway AI Film Festival last June all of the movies gave that kind of feeling, like they existed in an alternate dream world.

Absolutely. It’s a sense of almost digital drugs. Is there a way to have entertainment that’s a kind of emotional vibration? It’s the idea of cinema that you can basically be inside.

That’s what you tried in this Miami Design District piece that just ran at Art Basel Miami Beach.

Yes, an augmented experience where characters come alive in a landscape that’s unlike any that exists.

I feel like that same description could have been applied to Gummo and Kids [which Korine wrote]; those also were new landscapes that also were unlike any that existed on film.

That’s always what’s driven me, trying to make something that I’ve never seen before.

There are plenty of indie filmmakers who say there are always new rules to be broken within the form, you don’t have to cross media. Do you think they have a point?

I mean those people exist and they can spend their life doing that if they want to, that’s up to them. I’ve been making films since I was a little kid and all I saw was Hollywood gatekeeping and I never wanted to be a part of that. I just wanted to sit in a room and do anything I could to understand my own imagination with no dilution. And if you look back at so much of what we think of as conventional entertainment they were also radical in their time and people were so upset. But after time people consumed them and you see them everywhere.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean everything radical becomes popular or the standard. Every square is a rectangle, etc.

No, that’s true. But for me it’s just following the progression of my own curiosity. We should also be asking if there is a way to have fun again, is there a way of not knowing the rules and what you’re capable of, is there something that hasn’t been done, is there a sound or an image or a moment to discover. My interest comes from not knowing and feeling like there’s something new to find or create.

Speaking of something new, I do have to ask about a piece of yours back in trad-land. There’s a whole new Spring Breakers being planned by the producers [who own the rights], with Bella Thorne and Grace Van Dien and all these newer twentysomething actors. You’re not involved with it. Why is that?

I have no interest in it. The first movie exists, it already is what it is for me. The thought wouldn’t even enter my mind to be involved. I can’t imagine why you’d want to make another one because it already exists.

Is it a compliment people want to continue the story?

Not really. It’s already its own thing; there’s no need for a sequel. But it’s not up to me.

Will you see it when it comes out?

Nah.