Actor Tim Robbins Outlines Prison Rehabilitation Success, AI Threats to Hollywood

演员蒂姆·罗宾斯谈监狱改造成功经验与AI对好莱坞的威胁 罗宾斯认为，能够孕育真正艺术价值与社会联结的是以人为核心的叙事和肢体戏剧，而非自动化工具与数字孤岛。 蒂姆·罗宾斯与乔·罗根共同探讨了在最高戒备级别监狱中开展艺术项目的力量、单口喜剧作为一种哲学的演变，以及《天降神兵》（Howard the Duck）和《肖申克的救赎》等经典影片的幕后故事。他们还探讨了算法取代人工策划媒体导致的式微趋势、人工智能对好莱坞创作构成的威胁，以及实景特效相较于现代CGI的重要性。此外，罗宾斯还分享了深刻的个人经历，包括母亲的整体健康治疗历程、参加死藤水静修的体验，以及通过园艺、断食和远离社交媒体来保持内心踏实的实用方法。 “演员帮”监狱项目在最高戒备级别设施中采用即兴喜剧和肢体即兴表演，帮助服刑人员打破愤怒的反应性恶性循环，并跨越敌对帮派与种族界限进行合作。 (50:07) 单口喜剧发挥着现代哲学的作用，乔治·卡林和比尔·希克斯等表演者在演出中挑战并打破了观众根深蒂固的世界观。 (55:07) 蒂姆·罗宾斯正在制作一部聚焦二战老兵转型作家的纪录片，受访者包括戈尔·维达尔、库尔特·冯内古特、诺曼·梅勒和霍华德·津恩，同时他还发掘了个人资料库中封存数十年的未公开素材。 (61:25) 早期实体机械木偶与道具的微小瑕疵呈现出一种触手可及的真实感，而这正是现代过度精修的CGI所普遍缺乏的。 (67:21) 黑胶唱片和磁带等模拟音频格式具备声音的深度与温润感，这是经过严重压缩的现代数字音频文件无法捕捉的。 (73:03)

Actor and director Tim Robbins and host Joe Rogan argue that centralized institutions, corporate media, and digital algorithms systematically stifle independent thought and human connection, underscoring the urgent necessity of offline community, creative risk, and open inquiry. Media Playbooks, Dissent, and Retaliatory Smears (16:25) Robbins and Rogan trace a consistent institutional playbook used to punish figures who question official orthodoxies, drawing direct parallels between Robbins's experience opposing the 2003 Iraq War and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2003, Robbins faced organized blacklisting—including the abrupt cancellation of his scheduled 15th-anniversary appearance for Bull Durham at the National Baseball Hall of Fame by its president, Dale Petrosky—as well as fabricated tabloid stories in the New York Post and attacks labeling his anti-war play Embedded as conspiratorial. Robbins observes that disproportionate media fury acts as a 'poker tell' indicating criticism has struck a core vulnerability. Robbins argues this pattern resurfaced during COVID-19, where early inquiries into repurposed treatments like Ivermectin or critiques of school closures were met with media vilification, deplatforming, and coordinated misinformation. Drawing on conversations with locals while touring his play Topsy Turvy in Romania, Robbins notes that citizens who lived under the Soviet Union instantly recognized modern cancel culture: authorities stockpile dossiers and overlook compliance, only to unleash character assassinations the moment a person deviates from the state line to intimidate the broader public. Oligarchical Cinema, Risk Aversion, and Generative AI (9:08) Robbins details the decline of Hollywood’s creative independence, describing what he calls 'oligarchical cinema'—wealthy elites, corrupt institutions like FIFA, or intelligence agencies funding high-profile features to sanitize their public images. Robbins recalls turning down lucrative roles, including playing the Director of the CIA in three separate projects over a seven-month span. In modern production, independent financiers demand guaranteed foreign presales to eliminate financial risk upfront, leaving distinct mid-budget films abandoned while studios funnel $200–$250 million exclusively into formulaic blockbusters. This commercial homogenization is now accelerated by artificial intelligence. Rogan and Robbins express concern that prompt-based script synthesis replicates automated theft rather than genuine human intuition. Robbins criticizes SAG-AFTRA and WGA union leadership for failing to enforce an unyielding hard line against AI substitution during contract negotiations. As an industry safeguard, Robbins highlights a proposal by director Reed Morano to introduce an official, certified 'AI-Free' label for films and television programs, preserving the premium on irreplaceable human artistry. Emotional De-escalation Through Prison Theater (49:04) To counter societal polarization with tangible rehabilitation, Robbins established The Actors' Gang Prison Project, an initiative active for more than two decades in maximum-security facilities. The program uses commedia dell'arte techniques, physical character masks, and spontaneous improvisation rather than standard play scripts. In prison environments where displays of grief or fear jeopardize safety and anger serves as the mandatory survival mask, stylized characters grant inmates permission to express suppressed emotions without violating the unwritten rules of the yard. Facilitators mandate that rival gang factions and divided racial groups train within the same room. By guiding participants to respond to simulated hostility with non-reactive emotions like sadness or joy, the exercises interrupt automatic cycles of violence. Robbins recounts exercises where incarcerated men across gang lines confront shared grief together, actively recognizing their common humanity and de-escalating racial tension in real yard settings. Digital Isolation, Biological Connection, and Grounded Presence (36:26) Robbins and Rogan argue that replacing spontaneous physical interactions with mobile feeds and recommendation algorithms degrades social fabric and health. Robbins laments the loss of uncurated 'water cooler' interactions and neighborhood gathering spots like independent video stores, which exposed individuals to diverse viewpoints rather than self-reinforcing algorithmic silos. Citing the electromagnetic field generated by heart neurons, Robbins contends that humans are biologically wired to congregate in person, asserting that enforced social isolation and solitary confinement function as physiological and psychological torture. To counteract pervasive digital overstimulation and outrage algorithms, both speakers advocate intentional boundaries. Robbins finds physical and mental equilibrium through routine fasting, home agriculture, and pickling harvests, while referencing Lucretius's Epicurean text De Rerum Natura as a reminder to appreciate daily existence. Ultimately, Robbins and Rogan warn that persistent digital hostility fuels pervasive loneliness—a condition Robbins warns can be fatal—while deliberate real-world relationships generate reciprocal health and resilience. Robbins and Rogan leave unresolved whether decentralized media and grassroots initiatives can sufficiently offset centralized corporate consolidation and automated entertainment, but they emphasize that individual resilience hinges on resisting digital outrage and actively choosing face-to-face community.

演员兼导演Tim Robbins与主持人Joe Rogan深入探讨了官方叙事与舆论机器对异见者的打压、好莱坞工业在资本与AI冲击下的创作危机，以及在高度数字化与分裂的现代社会中重建真实人类联结的必要性。 舆论控制与异见打压的机制 (16:25) Robbins回顾了自己2003年公开发声反对美国入侵伊拉克后的遭遇。当时作为少数公开反战的知名公众人物，他在国家棒球名人堂纪念《Bull Durham》上映15周年的预定亮相被其时任主席Dale Petrosky突然取消，其反战讽刺话剧《Embedded》更招致非戏剧评论界的猛烈人身攻击乃至不实抹黑，甚至《New York Post》还捏造了针对其私人生活的负面八卦。Robbins指出，当年针对伊拉克是否存在大规模杀伤性武器的质疑在欧洲媒体上本有更透明的报道，但美国本土舆论环境却迅速将批评者污名化为恐怖分子同情者，以此制造寒蝉效应恐吓公众保持沉默。他提及前伴侣Susan Sarandon因就加沙军事行动公开发声而遭到经纪公司解约并面临行业抵制，认为这种针对标志性人物的打击意在向全行业发出震慑信号。 Robbins与Rogan认为，2003年伊拉克战争的舆论操纵手法与新冠疫情期间的媒体叙事如出一辙，任何质疑官方共识的声音都会迅速面临封禁与边缘化。例如，医学界本已广泛应用并曾获诺贝尔奖、被列入世卫组织基本药物清单的Ivermectin，在媒体笔下被单一刻画为“马用驱虫药”，甚至有媒体刊登虚假配图宣称急诊室因该药物过量而排满长队。两人指出，当权者常将专业知识或“科学”教条化，甚至将对专家的批评直接等同于反对科学，进而压制了公开探讨与修正假设的空间。 戏剧共情与监狱创伤修复 (49:04) 在经历政治立场的舆论风波后，Robbins寻求以建设性方式推动实际的社会变革，于20年前发起了“演员帮监狱项目”（The Actors' Gang Prison Project）。该项目深入最高戒备级别的监狱，利用源自意大利即兴喜剧（Commedia dell'arte）的形式与面具，引导服刑人员表达被压抑的情感。Robbins解释称，在监狱严酷的生态中，“愤怒”是院子里唯一被允许且用于自卫的生存面具，表现出悲伤或恐惧往往意味着致命的脆弱性。该项目通过角色扮演，使学员得以在不违背监狱潜规则的前提下表达悲伤与恐惧等情绪，进而打破习惯性的暴力反射机制。 该工作坊要求敌对帮派成员及不同种族阵营的人员同处一室。例如在模拟向逝去亲人墓前献花的环节中，参与者在共同的哀伤体验中对视，迅速跨越帮派界限建立起人际共情。Robbins指出，类似的创伤与去社交化也出现在疫情封控后的青少年群体中，长期隔离使得回归课堂的学生甚至无法与人进行眼神交流，而通过戏剧表达与面对面的情感交流，人们得以重新恢复与同伴的真实连结。 影视工业异化与AI技术挑战 (9:08) Robbins回顾自身职业生涯时指出，拒绝不当金钱诱惑是维持作品质量的关键。早年他在经济拮据且长子刚出生时，曾获邀以100万美元出演喜剧片《Folks!》，但最终听从资深演员Alan Arkin的建议放弃该片，转而接拍Robert Altman执导的《The Player》，此举彻底改变了他的演艺生涯。Robbins警惕所谓“寡头式电影”的倾向，即富豪精英、涉腐机构或情报部门出资拍摄高成本影片以美化自身形象，例如他曾多次被邀请出演美化中情局局长或国际足联主席的角色。 针对当前好莱坞的现状，Robbins与Rogan探讨了制片厂极度厌恶风险带来的弊端。目前的独立电影融资往往要求在开拍前就锁定海外预售以保本，导致投资方缺乏艺术冒险精神；好莱坞过度偏向动辄2亿至2.5亿美元的青少年商业巨制，而400万至500万美元的中小成本成人剧情片却举步维艰。两人还探讨了生成式人工智能对编剧和演员生存带来的直接威胁。Robbins正在撰写《The Player》的现代续篇，并对演员工会（SAG-AFTRA）及编剧工会（WGA）领导层未能在合约谈判中就AI替代设立绝对底线表示批评，同时肯定了导演Reed Morano提出的为影视作品设立“无AI认证”（AI-Free seal）的行业倡议。 技术过载、具身体验与精神觉察 从实体唱片、模拟磁带到智能手机与流媒体算法，对话讨论了技术加速如何剥夺了人际交流与偶遇文化的深度。Robbins与Rogan认为，社区书店、音像店和线下“饮水机旁的交谈”曾促成跨越观点的交流，而如今基于算法的推荐机制和数字信息茧房不仅极易引发群体极化与网络刷分，智能手机的持续通知更让现代人陷入数字过载与社交焦虑。为此，Rogan采用完全不联网的专用笔记本进行写作，Robbins则通过打理园艺、传统发酵腌制等农作劳动，以及定期进行14天只摄入柠檬枫糖汁的净化断食来摆脱精神迟钝。 在精神与哲学层面，Robbins回顾了自己通过深度灵性体验寻求内心平静的过程，分享了化解对社会撕裂挫败感并与逝去亲人精神连结的个人经历。他引用古罗马诗人卢克莱修阐释伊壁鸠鲁学派的著作《物性论》（De Rerum Natura），强调生命是微观粒子转瞬即逝的奇迹碰撞，应当主动感知日常存在的魔力，而非陷入冷漠消极。Robbins还分享了一位西藏女性曾在他人生低谷时无私照料他并警醒他“西方人总把一切当生意”，使他认识到学会坦然接受关爱是付出真爱的前提；两人一致认为，长期处于孤立与数字愤怒中会严重损害身心健康，唯有走向社群、选择面对面的正面关怀，才能抵御现代社会的离散倾向。 本期对话通过演艺经历、政治反思与灵性探索，揭示了主流叙事对个体的规训以及数字技术对人际社群的侵蚀。虽然对谈涉及的诸多非理性体验与替代医学观点缺乏严格的实证检验，但其核心诉求始终聚焦于如何在充满算法噪音与极化敌意的时代，通过戏剧艺术、独立思考和现实关怀重建有温度的人类社群。

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 PowerfulJRE 于 2026 年 8 月 24 日发布。本期为《Joe Rogan Experience》第 2532 期，嘉宾是曾荣获奥斯卡奖的著名演员、导演、编剧兼制片人蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins，代表作包括《肖申克的救赎》《神秘河》及 Apple TV+ 剧集《羊楼》）。 ## TL;DR 蒂姆·罗宾斯与乔·罗根回顾了《肖申克的救赎》的逆袭历程与拒绝拍摄“寡头宣传片”的职业操守，并畅谈了当年因公开反对伊拉克战争遭到媒体构陷和棒球名人堂封杀的真实代价。罗宾斯尖锐批判了疫情期间严苛管控与取消文化对社会纽带及青少年的创伤，并分享了他依托非营利剧团在加州18座监狱开展戏剧工坊、化解帮派仇恨的实践。两人还探讨了实体黑胶美学、AI 与算法对编剧创作的侵蚀，以及好莱坞不敢冒险的避险顽疾。在节目后半段，罗宾斯分享了极度私密的精神旅程，包括14天极限断食、死藤水体验中与亡母的跨时空重逢，以及放下交易型思维、重新体悟生命善意与奇迹的存在哲学。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话真挚、深邃且充满智识的激荡，流露着两人历经风雨后的坦荡与惺惺相惜。叙事弧线从前期对政治谎言、主流媒体抹黑及体制审查的清醒批判，逐渐沉淀为对戏剧艺术与人性救赎的坚守，并在后半程自然过渡到极具灵性与温情的个人生命独白。整场访谈听来既有洞悉名利场虚妄的锐利锋芒，又充满卸下戒备后的从容与慈悲，给听众带来厚重且直击心灵的情感共鸣。 ## Bulletin - [01:20:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4853s) 影史经典《肖申克的救赎》在1994年上映时因片名晦涩及档期竞争惨烈而在院线票房遇冷，后依靠特德·特纳在自营有线电视网的无限次轮播与录像带租赁热潮，逆袭成为连续15年蝉联 IMDb 影史榜首的传世神作。 - [52:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3140s) 蒂姆·罗宾斯创立的“演员工作坊”（The Actors' Gang）监狱戏剧改造项目已拓展至加州18座监狱，通过引入意大利即兴喜剧技巧成功化解敌对帮派暴力冲突，并唤醒长期被极端环境压抑的人性共情。 - [10:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=649s) 罗宾斯披露曾多次推掉中情局局长及国际足联（FIFA）高层等粉饰性角色邀约，并回顾在2003年伊拉克战争爆发前夕因公开反战而遭棒球名人堂封杀与媒体围剿，直言所谓的大规模杀伤性武器（WMD）从始至终都是谎言。 - [01:31:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5468s) 面对 AI 对好莱坞叙事艺术的侵蚀与资方避险机制下的公式化制作，罗宾斯批评演员工会与编剧工会在劳资谈判中向 AI 妥协让步，呼吁建立“无 AI 创作官方认证”（AI-Free Seal）以捍卫原创人类作品的纯粹性。 ## Key takeaways - [09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=582s) 在面临生计压力时坚守艺术直觉并“敢于说不”，推掉劣质喜剧《大众情人》并等待罗伯特·奥特曼执导的《大玩家》，是彻底重塑罗宾斯演艺生涯的关键转折点。 - [10:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=649s) 警惕权贵机构出资打造的“寡头电影”（oligarchical cinema），中情局、国际足联及涉事矿业巨头频繁试图通过高片酬影视项目粉饰自身贪腐与管理过失。 - [17:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1052s) 反战异见往往成为主流建制派定点抹黑的靶子；罗宾斯在2003年伊拉克战争初期遭舆论冠以叛国罪名，然而事后全美社会共识与历史发展彻底证实了他的质疑完全正确。 - [23:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1405s) 媒体与权力机构通过炮制虚假新闻（如《滚石》编造伊维菌素挤爆急诊室）和取消文化（Cancel Culture）制造恐慌，其实质是通过公开羞辱异见者来威吓普通公众保持顺从。 - [38:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2319s) 剧场的核心使命在于打破思想壁垒、促进异见者面对面共情；罗宾斯宁可让剧院停摆两年，也坚决拒绝执行将未接种疫苗观众拒之门外的歧视性疫苗护照政策。 - [50:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3004s) 戏剧具有重塑认知的精神疗愈力量；罗宾斯的监狱戏剧项目通过设定清晰规则并引导即兴角色转换，促使原本势不两立的黑白帮派成员在放风操场上心照不宣地借假打保护彼此。 - [01:06:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3966s) 物理实体的粗糙不完美孕育了不可替代的艺术张力；相比完美无瑕却冰冷疏离的 CGI 虚拟算法和数码修音，实体特效怪物、吉米·亨德里克斯带啸叫的即兴吉他与黑胶凹槽中的模拟声波更具灵魂温度。 - [01:38:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5930s) 好莱坞当代投资逻辑发生根本性恶化，制片方通过海外预售在开机前便锁定利润彻底规避风险，导致缺乏商业明星加持的严肃独立佳作极难获得像样的宣发与公映机会。 - [01:41:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=6076s) 在流媒体内容喷涌成灾的当下，权威电影引路人（如西斯克尔与伊伯特）的缺位导致大众陷入淘金疲劳，同时将艺术创作绑架进“文化战争”的政治正确审判严重扼杀了观影本身的震撼与乐趣。 - [01:56:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7000s) 走出数字设备的信息轰炸，通过亲手打理果蔬花园、掌握传统酸黄瓜腌渍技术以及长达14天大师排毒法断食摆脱糖瘾，是找回精力平稳与心智极度清晰的有效途径。 - [02:14:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8048s) 生命具有超越物理度量衡的深维联结；无论是在死藤水仪式中与亡母灵体的深度化解，还是外祖父逝世两月后托梦并在闹市车流中精准护佑幼子化险为夷，均揭示了精神力量对现实的实质影响。 - [02:23:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8621s) 摆脱西方功利式的“交易型人际思维”；在人生至暗时刻受到藏族女子无私灵气疗愈的点拨，罗宾斯领悟到人必须先学会彻底放下戒备、坦然接受关爱，才可能真正懂得如何给予爱。 - [02:27:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8844s) 社交媒体推荐算法通过放大愤怒与焦虑系统性毒害大众心智，罗宾斯呼吁学校设立针对数字技术心理侵蚀的批判性通识课程，强调抵御孤立与重建真实社区联结是身心健康的决定性基石。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1s) 幕后制作人追星与《肖申克的救赎》的影史地位 录音一开始，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）就打趣道，制作人扬米（Young Jamie）整个人都激动坏了，甚至紧张到不敢直说——因为《肖申克的救赎》（The Shawshank Redemption）一直是他人生中最爱的一部电影，能亲眼见到主演蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）让他彻底陷入狂喜。蒂姆·罗宾斯微笑着向扬米致谢。罗根由衷感慨，罗宾斯参演的不仅是一部好电影，更是人类电影史上最伟大的作品之一。 罗宾斯坦言，能够成为这部经典的一部分就像是一份上天的恩赐。无论走到哪里，只要有人走到他面前提起这部电影，那种表达往往都发自内心深处，带有极其真挚而沉重的情感共鸣。罗根则半开玩笑地强调，如果有谁不喜欢这部电影，那真得去看看医生或吃药治疗了，因为这部片子无可挑剔。令人称奇的是，这样一部充满人性光辉的佳作，原著竟然出自以恐怖悬疑著称的斯蒂芬·金（Stephen King）之手。 ### [00:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=52s) 斯蒂芬·金的写作狂热、多产与早期挣扎 谈及原著作者斯蒂芬·金，罗宾斯提到，当年收录《肖申克的救赎》的那部中篇小说集（《四季奇谭》）中，其实还包含了另一部改编为影史经典的《伴我同行》（Stand by Me / 原著《尸体》）。罗根感叹斯蒂芬·金堪称小说史上最高产的作家之一，题材风格跨度极大，多产到出版商甚至因为担心市场上“斯蒂芬·金”名字的书过饱和而不得不让他使用笔名理查德·巴克曼（Richard Bachman）发表作品，而他换了个笔名依然本本畅销。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 斯蒂芬·金《四季奇谭》经典中篇衍生电影 accDescr: 展示斯蒂芬·金中篇小说集《四季奇谭》孕育出的两部影史经典电影。 subgraph Collection["《四季奇谭》（Different Seasons）"] N1["中篇《丽塔·海华斯与肖申克监狱的救赎》"] N2["中篇《尸体》（The Body）"] end subgraph Movies["影史改编经典"] M1["电影《肖申克的救赎》<br/>（Tim Robbins 主演）"] M2["电影《伴我同行》<br/>（Stand by Me）"] end N1 --> M1 N2 --> M2 ``` 两人的话题随后转入斯蒂芬·金狂野而混乱的早年生涯。罗根指出，金在早年曾深陷酗酒和可卡因成瘾的深渊，很多巅峰之作在创作时几乎处于断片状态，甚至自己都记不得是怎么写出来的。两人谈到了金差点把手稿扔进垃圾桶的轶事：他的成名作《魔女嘉莉》（Carrie）曾被直接扔进废纸篓，幸好被他妻子救了回来并劝他完成。罗宾斯回忆起自己大学毕业后一边做着朝九晚五的工作一边阅读《闪灵》（The Shining），那本书彻底颠覆了他对写作可能性的认知。 罗根提到斯蒂芬·金本人其实极度不喜欢斯坦利·库布里克（Stanley Kubrick）改编的电影版《闪灵》，原因在于金认为杰克·尼科尔森（Jack Nicholson）的角色在电影一开始就显得过于癫狂，缺少了小说中旅馆恶灵逐步渗透、精神慢慢崩塌的渐进过程。罗宾斯对此表示理解，但指出那毕竟是库布里克的个人艺术诠释，经典自有其独特的恐怖张力。两人一致认为，即便在斯蒂芬·金早期那些充斥着恶魔附身、恐怖小镇的黑暗迷乱故事里，依然涌动着罕见的温柔与对人性幽微之处的深切理解——正如在《肖申克的救赎》中，一座监狱图书馆竟然能成为灵魂最终解脱与救赎的阶梯。 ### [04:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=262s) 苹果剧集《羊楼》与土耳其地下城代林库尤的惊人巧合 话题自然过渡到了罗宾斯出演的科幻剧集《羊楼》（Silo）。罗根表示自己刚熬夜补完了前两集，被宏大而压抑的设定深深吸引。这部剧让他立刻联想到了土耳其卡帕多奇亚地区真实存在的古代奇迹——代林库尤地下城（Derinkuyu underground city）。罗宾斯也表示曾看过相关的照片。 罗根详细讲述了代林库尤传奇般的发现过程：1963年，一名当地居民在家里养的鸡穿过地下室墙壁的裂缝消失不见，他在砸开墙壁找鸡时，意外凿开了通往这座深邃庞大地下世界的入口。整座地下城规模空前，考古学家估算其全盛时期能容纳多达两万人居住。罗根感叹，没人确切知道这座地下城到底是何人所建，也没留下明确的历史记载。碳十四测年法往往只能测定后来者遗留的有机物，而无法精准锁定建筑本身的挖掘年代。 - **发现年份**：1963年因当地居民找寻失踪的家禽而偶然发现。 - **结构规模**：深入地下约85米（约280英尺），目前已探明多达18层，向公众开放参观的区域仅占整体的10%左右。 - **完善的生活设施**：内部不仅建有贯通各层的通风竖井和水井，还配备了马厩、酒坊、榨油坊、大容量粮仓、学校以及教堂。 - **防御机制**：各通道配备重达半吨、只能从内部转动闭合的圆形巨石门，显现出强烈的避难与防卫意图。 罗根推测，建造这样一座地下城，背后很可能是为了躲避不可抗拒的外敌军队，或是遭遇了极端的气候灾难。他提到了约11800年前的“新仙女木期”（Younger Dryas）假说，当时疑似发生的彗星撞击导致了全球文明大洗牌，而地下避难所正是人类躲过浩劫存活下来的关键方式。他惊呼《羊楼》所展现的末世筒仓，简直就是代林库尤地下城的高科技现代翻版。 ### [08:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=506s) 隔离期间的剧本共鸣与“敢于拒绝”的职业智慧 罗宾斯回忆起自己接拍《羊楼》的契机：当时正值疫情封控时期，当他坐在家中翻看寄来的剧本时，背脊阵阵发凉，立刻意识到这个剧本具有极强的现实隐喻——“这分明就是在讲我们现在所处的现实。”故事描绘了一个信息遭到严密审查、思想受到高度管制的封闭社会，所有人被强制要求顺从，任何不服从规则的人都会被放逐到充斥着致命毒素的恶劣外部世界中。这种荒诞与现实中的隔离体验形成了完美的同步映射。 罗根追问罗宾斯，在漫长而辉煌的演艺生涯中，为何总能奇迹般地抓到这种时代情绪契合的顶尖项目？除了卓越的表演天赋之外，到底是什么造就了这种“幸运”？ 罗宾斯平静地给出了答案：关键在于“在关键时刻说‘不’的能力”。他坦言很多演员缺乏这种克制。他回忆起自己第一个孩子刚出生时，囊中羞涩、经济状况极度窘迫，当时甚至有人开出100万美元的高片酬邀请他去演一部愚蠢肤浅的烂俗喜剧，在极度缺钱的巨大诱惑面前，他面临着艰难的人格与职业抉择。 ### [09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=582s) 拒接烂喜剧与《大玩家》带来的职业转机 蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）回顾了自己职业生涯的一个关键转折点。当时他面临着抉择：如果愿意等待，导演罗伯特·奥特曼（Robert Altman）正在筹备电影《大玩家》（*The Player*）；但与此同时，他手头还有一部摆在眼前的商业喜剧片邀约。罗宾斯决定孤注一掷，推掉那部“愚蠢的喜剧”。乔·罗根好奇地问起那部片子的名字，罗宾斯回忆说片名叫《大众情人》（*Folks!*）。当时他特意飞往洛杉矶去谈项目，搭档是著名演员阿兰·阿金（Alan Arkin），阿金原本要在片中饰演他的父亲。见面时，阿金直截了当地问他：“你到底他妈的为什么要接这个剧本？”罗宾斯坦率回答：“因为我缺钱。”阿金则说：“我不知道，反正我不是很想拍这玩意儿。”这番对话让罗宾斯暗自庆幸，阿金的直言不讳印证了他内心的真实想法。 于是罗宾斯果断拒掉了那部戏。不久后，《大玩家》的筹备顺利推进并成功开拍，彻底改变了他的整个职业轨迹。罗根对此深有共鸣，指出人生最关键的就是倾听内心的声音和直觉，哪怕身边充斥着试图将你拉向另一条道路的各种诱惑与压力，也必须坚持正确的方向。 - 关键电影项目：罗伯特·奥特曼执导的讽刺杰作《大玩家》（*The Player*，1992）。 - 险些接拍的喜剧片：《大众情人》（*Folks!*，1992），原定与阿兰·阿金合作饰演父子。 - 职业法则：当面临生计压力与艺术直觉的冲突时，坚守内心的“北极星”能避免职业生涯走入难以翻身的死胡同。 --- ### [10:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=649s) 拒绝寡头电影：中情局、国际足联与智利矿难 罗宾斯提到，大约十到十五年前，他在短短七个月内接到了三次出演中情局（CIA）局长的角色邀约。罗根问他是否想过这背后代表着什么，罗宾斯表示自己完全摸不着头脑。作为一个普通人，面对房贷和账单的现实压力，拒绝高额片酬极其艰难，但他内心的底线让他最终说了“不”。更荒谬的诱惑还在后面：几年后，他又在几个月内连续收到类似性质的剧本，其中一个邀请他扮演国际足联（FIFA）的掌门人。现实中国际足联贪腐丑闻缠身，但在这部由国际足联自己出资赞助的影片里，他们却被塑造成了“世界上最崇高的一群人”；尽管当时开出的片酬极其诱人，且历史上的国际足联主席还是个巴西人，但这就是一部不折不扣的自我粉饰宣传片。 紧接着，他又收到一个片约，邀请他饰演智利一家矿业公司的高管——该矿场刚发生了震惊全球的严重塌陷矿难。在剧本中，矿业公司的高层全都是大好人，灾难发生的原因绝非管理不善或责任疏忽。罗宾斯由此洞察到了一个现象：全球的寡头与建制力量已经开始自己出钱拍摄美化自身的电影，他将其称之为“寡头电影”（oligarchical cinema）。这些权贵机构相信金钱可以买通任何人，而罗宾斯也坦言自己曾险些被买通，但关键时刻他只能坦诚面对内心，拒绝出卖良知去为谎言站台。 - 中情局题材角色：七个月内收到三次出演中情局最高主管的邀约。 - 国际足联宣传片：国际足联自掏腰包拍摄的自我美化电影，掩盖现实中的贪腐黑幕。 - 智利矿难题材：试图将企业安全管理过失粉饰为天灾的人设剧本。 - 现象总结：权贵阶层通过“寡头电影”洗白公众形象，且公众往往难以察觉其中的宣传意图。 --- ### [12:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=771s) 从《秃鹰七十二小时》到伊朗门丑闻的荒诞现实 谈到那些中情局题材的影视剧，罗宾斯证实这些项目最终确实都被拍成了电视剧或电影，但作品质量“毫无可取之处”。他感慨好莱坞叙事风格的变迁：过去有像《秃鹰七十二小时》（*Three Days of the Condor*）这样敢于深刻质疑和批判中情局的经典政治惊悚片；而如今的影视作品里，中情局特工即便违抗命令搞小动作，本质上也全都是正面英雄。罗根表示，中情局里固然有履行职责的好人，这样一个机构的存在或许有其必要性，但它拥有不受制约的巨大权力，历史上曾干过无数阴暗勾当，甚至为了达到目的不惜走私贩毒。 这番话引出了罗根对20世纪80年代“伊朗门事件”（Iran-Contra affair）的回忆。罗根回忆起自己刚高中毕业时，电视上整天都在播放奥利弗·诺斯（Oliver North）受审与罗纳德·里根总统的听证会。罗根还模仿了当时波士顿著名脱口秀演员吉米·廷格尔（Jimmy Tingle）讽刺里根的经典段子：记者追问总统是否向仇视美国的敌人倒卖军火，里根回答“记不清了”，廷格尔吐槽说：“好吧，要是你以后再向仇恨我们的国家卖军火，拜托拿张便利贴记下来，贴在冰箱门上！”罗宾斯也对这段历史印象深刻，他在80年代就曾专门以此为题材创作过一部戏剧，并由自己创立的“演员工作坊”（The Actors' Gang）搬上舞台。罗根补充道，最近社交媒体上有个极具讽刺意味的迷因：当年因在洛杉矶涉嫌贩毒筹资资助尼加拉瓜康特拉反政府武装而受审的奥利弗·诺斯，几十年后竟然在福克斯新闻（Fox News）上摇身一变，成为了权威的海外战争军事分析专家。 --- ### [15:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=928s) 伊拉克战争谎言与独立媒体的崛起 罗宾斯深刻指出，在主流建制圈子里存在一种由来已久的官官相护机制：那些彻底犯错的人不仅没有被问责，反而能步步高升；在伊拉克战争问题上犯下弥天大错的官员和媒体人们，事后纷纷升职加薪，既没有一个人丢掉工作，也没有任何人面临法律追责。罗根深表赞同，并指出当今时代是他们有生之年里真正出现“独立媒体”的唯一次机缘。许多不依赖任何大型企业财团的独立记者，正活跃在 Substack、YouTube 和 X 等平台上，正是这些人揭露了主流媒体与中情局等政府机构长期深度勾连、联手向大众灌输剧本真相的丑闻。 罗根批判道，当年他们以“伊拉克藏有大规模杀伤性武器”（WMD）为由悍然发动战争，结果根本没有找到任何所谓的大规模杀伤性武器。然而在荒谬的现实中，没有任何造谣者承担后果，那些曾经撒谎的人如今依然衣冠楚楚地坐在电视演播室里，继续对公众指手画脚，告诉大众下一个该关注的危机是什么。 --- ### [17:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1052s) 因反战被棒球名人堂封杀与《随军记者》舞台剧 罗宾斯将话题拉回反战人士所付出的真实代价。当年在伊拉克战争爆发前夕，全美站出来公开反战的知名公众人物屈指可数，罗宾斯是仅有的四五位名人之一。他四处参加电视辩论并公开发表演讲。然而，站出来的代价极其沉重：当时正值他的经典棒球电影《百万金臂》（*Bull Durham*）上映15周年，美国国家棒球名人堂总裁戴尔·佩特罗斯基（Dale Petroskey）竟以他的政治言论为由，直接取消了他在名人堂的周年纪念庆典活动。 这一封杀引发了巨大风波。罗宾斯当时正在外地演出，得知消息时报纸已经印发，外界舆论几乎一边倒地将他扣上“叛国者”的帽子。面对这场舆论伏击，罗宾斯人生中第一次聘请了危机公关专家。那位公关采取了极为巧妙的反击策略，他们将罗宾斯写给戴尔·佩特罗斯基的回应信公开发表，并直接寄给了全美的体育专栏作家们。令人意想不到的是，正是这群体育记者率先站出来撰文力挺言论自由，为罗宾斯据理力争。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 罗宾斯反战言论危机公关应对流程 accDescr: 展现罗宾斯在伊拉克战争期间公开反战后遭棒球名人堂封杀并巧妙化解危机的过程 subgraph 封杀危机 A["公开反战演讲与电视表态<br>(2003年伊拉克战争前夕)"] --> B["棒球名人堂取消《百万金臂》15周年庆典<br>(总裁戴尔·佩特罗斯基发难)"] B --> C["主流媒体舆论伏击<br>(被扣上叛国帽子)"] end subgraph 危机公关与反击 C --> D["首次聘请危机公关专家"] D --> E["向全美体育专栏作家精准投递公开信"] E --> F["体育记者发文捍卫言论自由"] end subgraph 艺术反抗 F --> G["创作讽刺剧《随军记者》(Embedded)"] G --> H["布什'任务完成'演讲后3周首演<br>(巡演至纽约公共剧院及伦敦)"] end ``` 2003年战事正浓之际，乔治·W·布什总统登上航空母舰打出著名的“任务完成”（Mission Accomplished）横幅。就在那场闹剧发生三周后，罗宾斯自编自导的反战讽刺戏剧《随军记者》（*Embedded*）便迎来了首演。该剧随后在全美展开巡演，甚至登上了纽约公共剧院（The Public Theater）和伦敦的舞台。但在进入纽约预演阶段时，该剧就遭到了建制派媒体的恶毒攻击；《新共和》（*The New Republic*）杂志甚至派出非戏剧评论人员潜入预演现场，撰文对他进行人身攻击。罗宾斯感慨道，历史最终证明他是对的，但当年构陷他的人却从未对他说过一句抱歉。 ### [19:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1195s) 反战立场的代价：从被扣帽子到“命中目标” 蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）回忆起当时外界为了抹黑他在公共剧院（The Public Theater）上演的反战戏剧，无所不用其极地给他扣上“阴谋论者”、“反犹分子”等各种恶名。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）不解地询问，他们究竟是怎么把反战与“反犹”扯上关系的？罗宾斯直言，这根本不需要逻辑依据，纯粹是舆论抹杀异见者的惯用招数。罗宾斯之所以坚决反对伊拉克战争，是因为他当时一直在阅读欧洲等外国媒体的报道；与美国国内一边倒的宣传不同，外国媒体更加透明、开放地报道了所谓“大规模杀伤性武器”（WMD）缺乏实证的真相。当他依据这些可信来源提出公开质疑时，迎来的却是铺天盖地的恶毒围剿。 在扑克牌局里，对手的异常反应往往暴露底牌，而在政治舆论中，激烈的攻击同样意味着“你正击中靶心”。罗宾斯对比了两场海湾战争中政府与媒体的态度：1991年海湾战争爆发时，老布什总统尚且公开表示“这是一个民主国家，人民有权反对战争”；但到了2003年伊拉克战争，异见者却立刻被扣上“叛国者”、“萨达姆支持者”以及“恐怖分子同情者”的帽子。这种歇斯底里的围攻，反而让他清醒地意识到自己触碰到了掌权者的谎言痛处。 - 质疑伊拉克战争的信息来源：罗宾斯参考了报道更为透明客观的欧洲与外国独立媒体，发现并无大规模杀伤性武器证据。 - 两代布什政府对待异见者的态度反差：老布什（1991年）承认民众有反对战争的民主权利；小布什时代（2003年）则直接将反战者定性为叛徒与恐怖分子同情者。 --- ### [21:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1283s) 媒体制造的恐慌与真实的民间态度 罗根指出，罗宾斯当年的质疑最终被历史证明是完全正确的。如今这已成为无可争议的共识——那是一场建立在谎言之上的灾难性战争，大规模杀伤性武器根本子虚乌有。然而荒唐的是，体制往往要在事过境迁数年之后才勉为其难地承认真相。罗宾斯感叹这种剧本如今正在新冠疫情上重演，例如针对安东尼·福奇（Anthony Fauci）的听证审查；罗根也讽刺道，如果一个人没有做亏心事，又何须千方百计谋求免死金牌式的庇护。 回忆起2003年被主流媒体大肆围剿的岁月，罗宾斯承认那确实令人心生恐惧。当时他住在纽约，每天早晨送孩子上学时，甚至提心吊胆地以为街上会有愤怒的市民对他破口大骂。然而现实却截然相反：现实中遇到的人要么走上前来鼓励他“干得漂亮，感谢你替我们发声”，要么即便观点不同也会礼貌地表示“你有表达观点的权利”。后来他带孩子去得克萨斯州圣安东尼奥观看 NCAA 最终四强赛（Final Four），原本以为深入保守派大本营必遭敌视，结果根本无人找茬。媒体所竭力构建的人人喊打的虚假现实，其真实目的并不是反映民意，而是借由公开霸凌公众人物来恫吓普通人保持沉默。 --- ### [23:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1405s) 伊维菌素事件与荒谬的舆论抹黑 这种通过抹黑与恐吓迫使异见者闭嘴的手段，在新冠疫情暴发时如出一辙。罗宾斯观察到，任何站出来提出疑问的人都会瞬间遭遇封号、边缘化甚至社死（Cancel）。他特别提到了罗根此前因为使用伊维菌素（Ivermectin）而遭到的舆论围剿。罗宾斯透露，自己感染新冠失去嗅觉后也服用了伊维菌素，仅仅一天之后嗅觉便恢复了，因此他深知这种药物确实发挥了作用——在紧急状态下，利用一切既有且安全的治疗手段本是常识，何必苦等所谓的“神奇药水”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伊维菌素事实与媒体舆论抹黑对比 accDescr: 展现伊维菌素真实的医学背景与媒体将其污名化为马药宣传之间的巨大反差 subgraph 真实医学事实["真实医学事实与历史"] A["1987年批准用于人类<br/>人类历史上使用数十亿剂次"] B["世界卫生组织 (WHO)<br/>基本药物标准清单"] C["2015年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖<br/>用于治疗盘尾丝虫病等"] end subgraph 舆论宣传抹杀["媒体舆论机器抹黑"] D["污名化为'马用驱虫膏 / 马药'<br/>(Horse dewormer / Horse paste)"] E["炮制虚假新闻与假照片<br/>《滚石》造谣俄克拉荷马急诊室超负荷"] F["威吓公众禁止尝试替代疗法<br/>全力服务单一疫苗叙事"] end 真实医学事实 -.->|遭遇主流媒体扭曲抹黑| 舆论宣传抹杀 ``` 罗根痛斥媒体针对伊维菌素的污名化简直荒谬透顶。媒体将其恶意描绘成“马用驱虫药膏”（Horse dewormer），完全无视它曾获得诺贝尔奖、被列入世卫组织基本药物清单、在全球拯救了无数盘尾丝虫病（河盲症）与登革热患者的事实。更恶劣的是主流媒体制造假新闻的狂热程度——《滚石》（Rolling Stone）杂志曾刊登一篇耸人听闻的报道，声称俄克拉荷马州的急诊室被滥用伊维菌素中毒的患者挤爆，导致枪伤受害者都在门外排队无法就医。后来证实该报道彻底造假，配图不仅与急诊毫无关系，甚至是一群在冬天穿着厚外套排队接种流感疫苗的旧照片。这种粗制滥造的虚假信息背后，显然是耗资巨大的有组织舆论工程。 - 药物真相：伊维菌素不仅广泛用于治疗人类寄生虫疾病，并获得诺贝尔奖，还是世界卫生组织（WHO）公认的最安全基本药物之一。 - 假新闻典型：《滚石》报道的所谓俄克拉荷马州急诊室因伊维菌素中毒导致枪伤患者无法就医的假新闻，配图被证实为早先人们排队注射流感疫苗的旧照。 --- ### [25:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1546s) 制造分裂的古老权术与网络水军时代 罗宾斯深刻指出，过去这五年间层出不穷的危机与社会撕裂，本质上都是统治阶层“分而治之”的古老权术，是一场场“伪装成革命的精心策划的混乱”（orchestrated chaos masquerading as a revolution）。原本公众在某些议题上达成了共识与联盟，但新的危机旋即被抛出，让人群瞬间互为仇敌。掌权者自古以来维系权力的秘诀，就是让底层人民在内部永无休止地相互撕咬，从而无法凝聚集体力量追究权力中枢的责任。 罗根对此深表认同，并补充说当今的社交网络将这种分裂操纵推向了极致。不仅是美国，世界多国政府以及资本力量都在幕后操纵着庞大的水军农场。许多看似普通的个人账号——头像可能是一个手持书本、温文尔雅的普通女子，背后实则是排列整齐的电脑机房，操作人员批量煽动愤怒、推送极端议题。而在当下，这项工作更被自动化 AI 机器人全面接管，它们可以随意扮演极右翼民族主义者或极左激进分子，24小时不停歇地撕裂舆论场。 --- ### [27:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1647s) 伦敦街头抗议与“群体性形成精神错乱” 罗宾斯分享了自己在伦敦封城期间拍摄项目时的一段亲身经历。一天他在酒店附近看到反封锁游行，本着遵守防疫规定的心态，罗宾斯戴着口罩走入人群观察。当时主流媒体将这场游行定性为极右翼“国民阵线”（National Front）的暴徒集会，然而当他真正与抗议者交谈时，却惊讶地发现现场大多是嬉皮士、顺势疗法倡导者和言论自由捍卫者。当罗宾斯在推特上据实发表“这似乎并不是一场左右翼政治对抗”的言论后，瞬间遭到了数百个账号排山倒海般的围攻与谩骂，逼得他只能抽身感叹“这群人全疯了”。 罗根指出，这种狂热不仅来自官方宣传机器和网络水军，更蔓延到了现实中许多普通人身上，形成了罗伯特·马隆（Robert Malone）等人所称的“群体性形成精神错乱”（Mass Formation Psychosis）。大批民众自愿充当起了政府与跨国制药巨头的免费执法者，主动审查、监视身边的同胞。罗根分析，现代社会中有太多人从未经历过真正的苦难与逆境，一旦未知危机降临便陷入极度恐慌与崩溃；为了消除内心的脆弱，他们迫切渴望站队抱团，在随波逐流的狂热中互相强化偏见，急于证明自己站在了“历史正确的一边”。罗宾斯也附和道，这些人的初衷往往自诩高尚善良，却在体制的情感绑架与道德操控下，沦为了助纣为虐的工具。 ### [29:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1777s) 承认“我不知道”与破除对所谓“专家”的盲信 蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）坦言自己过去也曾陷入那种由恐惧驱动的行为模式，身边的朋友和挚爱之人同样未能幸免。随着年岁渐长，他悟出人生中真正让人解脱的两种心境：一是坦承“我不知道”（"I don't know"），二是承认“我可能错了”（"I may have been wrong"）。这两句话为他开启了通往崭新认知的大门。正因如此，他开始对那些自诩道德崇高的“专家”抱有极大的不信任。他认为，一个人一旦自命为专家，往往意味着他已经停止学习、不再与外界交流，也不再挑战自我的认知边界。回顾历史，盲目信任所谓专家的下场往往十分惨烈——正是那些鼓吹“大规模杀伤性武器”（WMD）的专家，以及推波助澜的各类说辞，将世界拖入了一场又一场暴力的深渊。对他而言，任何故事都有多面性，而与持不同意见者展开真正对话，其价值远胜于听从一家之言。 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）对此表示赞同，不过他也指出，在某些深奥的硬核科学领域，人类确实需要专家。例如要弄懂大型强子对撞机（Large Hadron Collider）究竟在捣鼓什么、什么是希格斯玻色子（Higgs boson）、或是探索宇宙早期状态的奥秘，普通人显然必须向那些耗费数十年积累深厚知识基础的粒子物理学专家请教——罗根打趣道，等物理学家测出只存在四分之一秒的粒子时，他自己宁愿“待在酒吧里喝酒”。然而两人一致认为，当专业领域延伸到公众生活时，体制往往会严重变质。最令人咋舌的莫过于安东尼·福奇（Anthony Fauci）在疫情期间那句傲慢的宣言：“批评安东尼·福奇，就是批评科学。”这种言论彻底将科学神化为一种不容置疑的“拜物宗教”。 - 罗宾斯体悟到的认知跃迁：敢于说出“我不知道”与“我可能错了”，这是打破认知封闭的前提。 - 盲信“专家”的历史教训：从伊拉克战争时期关于大规模杀伤性武器的所谓专业研判，到诸多地缘冲突，体制背书的专家屡屡将大众引向灾难。 - 真正科学精神的核心：科学本质上是流动的、靠数据驱动的过程，应允许多种视角并存、提出新假说、开展新测试，而不是将其固化为不可动摇的“砖头”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 科学探索与教条权威的对比 accDescr: 对比了健康科学探索模式与将权威神圣化形成的教条模式之间的差异 subgraph HealthyScience ["健康的科学探索"] A["提出假设与数据实测"] --> B["多重视角/同行评议"] B --> C["持续质疑与修正"] C --> D["流动且开放的认知体系"] end subgraph DogmaTrap ["专家教条与权威化"] E["自居终极权威/专家"] --> F["将批评等同于反科学"] F --> G["审查异见/取消平台资格"] G --> H["退化为排他性的宗教狂热"] end ``` --- ### [32:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1966s) 封控对青少年的创伤与“异端审判”式的舆论环境 科学一旦失去了允许提问的土壤，就会演变成冷酷的教条；任何人只要胆敢对教条提出质疑，就会立刻被打成宗教中的“异端”（heretic）并逐出门户。罗根指出，当时甚至连来自麻省理工学院（MIT）和哈佛大学（Harvard）的真正权威学者，仅仅因为发文质疑封控政策的合理性、指出封校可能严重损害儿童身心健康且儿童对该疾病并不脆弱，就惨遭 Twitter 等社交平台封号（deplatformed）。 罗宾斯经营着位于洛杉矶的非营利剧团“演员帮”（The Actors' Gang），该剧团长期开展各类青少年教育项目。他沉重地提到，过去五年来，他们一直在收拾那段封控岁月留下的烂摊子。对于处于性格塑造关键期的孩子们而言，他们被生生剥夺了整整两年的受教育与社会交往机会，若这恰好发生在高中毕业年，打击更是毁灭性的。刚解封复课时，走进教室的孩子们眼神不敢与人接触、全程低头盯着地板，表现出严重的去社会化与心理创伤。罗根也补充说，对幼童来说环境更显荒诞与恐怖：身边的大人全部戴着口罩、形同“抢银行的劫匪”，孩子想摘口罩还会被厉声训斥，不仅失去了阅读人类面部表情的绝佳学习机会，身心更是长期笼罩在焦虑与惶恐之中。所幸“演员帮”的戏剧课程通过引导情绪表达、眼神交流和同伴互动，正在一步步把孩子们拉出阴霾。 - 审查异见学者：即使是 MIT 和 Harvard 的顶尖医学/公共卫生专家，因对封控政策提出异议，亦在社交媒体上遭到禁言和封杀。 - 儿童成长的不可逆代价：长达两年的隔离导致青少年出现严重的去社会化心理障碍，缺失了眼神接触和面部情绪辨识等关键发育环节。 - 面对狂热的心态：罗宾斯强调自己对当年被这套极其精密的宣传机器卷入的人们抱以同情和宽容，不去指责个体，但必须保持清醒认知，防范未来重蹈覆辙。 --- ### [35:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2148s) 言论自由的本质与被摧毁的“饮水机社交” 罗根感叹，整个社会如此轻易就步调一致地对异见者展开群起围攻，这反映出了人性中令人不寒而栗的弱点。罗宾斯则表示自己依然对人类心存信任，但也承认这是一记沉重的耳光。罗根提到，私下里其实有大批人极度反感当时的种种严苛政策，但迫于保住饭碗和社区声誉的生存压力，只能咬紧牙关保持沉默，唯有在私底下喝上两杯酒后才敢吐露真心。对此罗宾斯直切要害：如果一个人行使自由发声的权利，其代价是面临工作被砸、前途尽毁的威胁，那我们是否还能自称生活在一个“自由社会”？ 在罗宾斯看来，整个时期最惨烈的社会悲剧，莫过于“饮水机旁闲聊”（water cooler conversation）这一生态的彻底灭绝。职场饮水机边那些偶然发生的对话，迫使人们在现实中与持不同政见的人面对面接触，学着去包容和理解异见。然而，物理隔离将所有人推入了各自的“思想筒仓”（silos of thought）与算法茧房之中，人们接收到的一切信息都在单向强化既有偏见，而非带来挑战。甚至在酒吧里边看球边随手给旁边陌生人买杯啤酒、求同存异的偶发社交瞬间也荡然无存。 - 虚伪的自由：当公开发表个人观点会导致丢掉饭碗和生计被剥夺时，言论自由已名存实亡。 - 算法茧房与思想孤岛：远程封控切断了现实生活中的偶然交互，使得大众只能在算法喂养的信息中强化偏执。 - 共同体验的治愈力：体育比赛、现场音乐和戏剧之所以宝贵，是因为它们能让具有完全不同背景和政治信仰的人聚在一起，共享同一种情绪。 --- ### [38:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2319s) 剧场作为社区纽带的尊严：拒绝查验疫苗护照 罗宾斯将这种社会连接的理念深深植根于他的剧场工作中。他谈到，戏剧最迷人的魅力在于把形形色色、思维迥异的人带进同一个空间，让他们在同一瞬间大笑、在同一时刻落泪，在共情中建立起真正的社区纽带。剧场最不该出现的情形，就是台下坐满了一群思想高度同质化的观众。 正因如此，当他洛杉矶的剧场在被迫关停长达一年半之久、当局终于通知可以重新开业但附加了苛刻条件——必须在剧场大门口严格查验观众的“疫苗护照”（vaccine passports）时，罗宾斯感到怒不可遏。在与剧团成员深入商议后，他们毅然决然拒绝了这项要求，哪怕这意味着剧场必须继续关门满整整两年。罗宾斯掷地有声地指出：一旦在门槛上设立这种政治或合规审查，无异于向世人宣告“本剧场只接待顺从政府意愿的人”。这种做法从根本上背叛了剧场存在的初衷与神圣使命——剧场理应是一个向所有人敞开大门、包容不同思想并促成人们相聚相融的公共场所，绝不能沦为权力筛选顺民的工具。 ### [40:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2401s) 剧场的防疫荒谬与疫苗通行证漏洞 在讨论剧场重新开门的艰难历程时，蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）提到，他们当时选择再等待六个月，坚持直到所有人都能不受限制地进入剧场才正式复工。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）随即分享了自己在纽约麦迪逊广场花园（Madison Square Garden）演出的讽刺遭遇：当时纽约推行了严格的疫苗通行证制度，观众入场观看演出必须出示疫苗证明，但法律对登台的表演者却存在豁免条款。这导致了极其滑稽的场面——台下满场数万名观众全都按规定持有疫苗护照，但台上表演的罗根却根本没有接种。罗根回忆道，当时甚至有一位参议员对此大为光火，抨击罗根钻了法律漏洞在台上演出，甚至提议立法强制要求表演者也必须接种疫苗，罗根自我调侃道：“照他们的说法，我一个人就能感染整座麦迪逊广场花园，成为超级传播者。” 蒂姆对比了过去几年他在英国伦敦西区（West End）与美国百老汇（Broadway）看到的截然不同的恢复景象。伦敦西区的剧院在解封后迅速迎来了票房的反弹与复苏，其关键在于政策的包容性：英国允许观众出示疫苗通行证，但同时也接受阴性检测证明，并不强制要求观众必须注射疫苗。因此，西区没有流失它的观众群体，人们很快重返剧场。反观百老汇，强硬的疫苗指令实际上直接将大约三分之一的潜在观众拒之门外，相当于对他们直接宣告“这里不欢迎你们”，导致百老汇后续为了把这部分群体拉回剧场经历了极其漫长而艰难的挣扎。 罗根对这种僵化且不合逻辑的管制表达了强烈愤慨。他直言，只要一个人的病毒检测呈阴性，那他就是安全的，何必在乎他是否接种了疫苗；更不用说那些曾经感染过 COVID 并且康复的人，他们所获得的天然免疫力甚至比接种疫苗者高出七倍。在罗根看来，这种对科学事实视而不见、强制所有人步调一致的做法，本质上完全是在替跨国制药寡头打工做推销，而公众对这种荒诞指令的盲从更是令人匪夷所思。 - **百老汇与伦敦西区的策略差异**：伦敦西区采取“疫苗证明或阴性检测”双轨制，迅速恢复元气；百老汇采取严苛排他政策，直接损失约三分之一的观众基数。 - **天然免疫数据**：罗根指出，真实感染后康复所获得的自然免疫保护力，相比纯粹接种疫苗被证实高出整整七倍。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 百老汇与伦敦西区防疫复工机制对比 accDescr: 对比百老汇的绝对疫苗门槛与伦敦西区的灵活检测机制对观众群体及市场复苏的不同影响。 subgraph Broadway["百老汇（Broadway）模式"] A1["严苛疫苗通行证门槛"] --> A2["拒绝阴性替代选项"] A2 --> A3["排斥约1/3未接种观众"] A3 --> A4["票房复苏漫长受阻"] end subgraph WestEnd["伦敦西区（West End）模式"] B1["双轨准入政策"] --> B2["认可疫苗或阴性检测"] B2 --> B3["保留全体观众客群"] B3 --> B4["演出市场迅速全面反弹"] end ``` --- ### [42:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2532s) 东欧视角的“取消文化”与苏联式压迫 谈及疫情对社会行为模式的重塑，罗根指出，尽管 COVID 确实造成了破坏，但如果与历史上动辄夺走数千万人性命的黑死病或西班牙流感相比，它在客观上算是一场相对温和的疫情；然而，仅仅面对一场比普通流感严重两倍左右的病毒，整个社会就被驯化到这种言听计从的程度。罗根认为，如果幕后确实存在操纵社会的操盘手，他们在这场社会实验中获取了大量关于大众如何轻易屈从管制的宝贵数据。 蒂姆对此深有感触，并分享了自己创作并执导的一部以疫情封控为主题的话剧《颠三倒四》（*Topsy Turvy*）。该剧在东欧巡演期间，观众的反应让他印象极深。在罗马尼亚演完后，蒂姆询问当地的疫苗接种率，对方告诉他大约只有40%。蒂姆好奇为何接种率如此之低，当地人直白地解释道：“我们在苏联统治下生活了那么多年，太懂得如何表面装作服从、实际根本不遵守了。” 更让蒂姆震动的是当地人对现代西方“取消文化”（Cancel Culture）的清醒洞察。当地居民直言不讳地告诉蒂姆，西方如今的取消文化与曾经的苏联体制如出一辙：“当年在苏联，体制会暗中给每个人建立一份秘密档案。只要你是一个老老实实听话的党员，档案就会永远封存，相安无事；但只要你敢在言行上越界、踩了红线，他们就会立刻搬出那份尘封的黑材料——比如你三十年前跟秘书有过一段婚外情。他们会借此毁掉你的家庭、葬送你的事业，并在公众面前大张旗鼓地公开批斗你，以此恐吓其他所有人乖乖守规矩。”东欧人民从切身的历史创伤中一眼看穿，当今西方的取消文化正是披着道德外衣在沿用同一套极权震慑手段。 - **罗马尼亚的接种率现实**：当地接种率仅约为40%，民众凭借在极权统治下积累的生存智慧，演练出一套“表面遵从、实则抵制”的对抗机制。 - **秘密档案逻辑**：取消文化与苏联极权审查在心理机制上完全同构，其核心均在于通过定点清除越轨者并公开示众，制造恐惧以维持群体服从。 --- ### [44:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2669s) 反战风波、媒体造谣与奥威尔式的社会恐慌 东欧人对取消文化的剖析，瞬间让罗根联想到了蒂姆在2003年伊拉克战争初期遭受的残酷围剿。罗根指出，彼时互联网与社交媒体尚未普及，普通个体完全没有发声自辩的独立渠道，主流媒体拥有绝对的话语垄断权与抹黑能力。蒂姆回忆起那段日子，愤怒与无奈溢于言表。当时他正在公共剧院（The Public Theater）自编自导反战讽刺话剧《深入敌后》（*Embedded*），演出结束后常去剧场附近的酒吧。在此期间，《纽约邮报》（*New York Post*）竟然公然捏造事实，在报道中绘声绘色地宣称他在某家夜店的一棵棕榈树下与一名女子热吻偷情。 这种毫无底线的凭空捏造不仅对蒂姆当时与苏珊·萨兰登（Susan Sarandon）的婚姻关系造成了极其恶劣的负面冲击，更让他彻底看清了权力打压异见的肮脏伎俩。蒂姆感叹道：“他们直接将你定性为敌人，然后就会不择手段地动用一切武器来抹黑你、毁掉你的公信力。当这种事情真正落到你头上时，那种冲击力是极其巨大的，你会惊恐地意识到：在这里，事实和真相根本一文不值。” 罗根对此严正指出，言论自由是美国建国宪政最重要的基石，也是美国在历史上区别于专制帝国的关键所在，但如今这项神圣的权利正遭到全面系统的绞杀。这种打压已经不仅限于剥夺发声渠道，更是演变成了一种有组织、有预谋的人格谋杀与恶意造谣，其目的正是为了在全社会散播寒蝉效应。蒂姆虽然苦笑着调侃“好在我们至少还没有古拉格集中营，不用半夜被秘密警察从被窝里抓走流放到几千里外的苦寒之地”，但罗根严肃反驳称，这种做法已经彻底背离了美国自我治理实验的初衷——言论自由一旦被剥夺，权力者就能肆意划定思想的边界，而这正是通往独裁暴政的第一步。 --- ### [47:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2821s) 封杀代价、历史共识与监狱戏剧的救赎之路 两人随后探讨了文艺圈近期因为政治立场遭受严厉制裁的现实案例。蒂姆主动提到了自己的前伴侣苏珊·萨兰登（Susan Sarandon）的遭遇：作为美国电影界几代人中声名显赫、备受敬重的殿堂级影后，苏珊仅仅因为公开反对以色列在加沙地带的军事行动，就惨遭其经纪公司火速解约，并在行业内遭到全面封杀，如今在好莱坞甚至很难接到戏约。罗根对此愤愤不平地表示，面对加沙城市被彻底夷平、近90%的建筑化为废墟的毁灭性惨剧，任何人表达基于人道立场的质疑都是合情合理的，根本不该被视作离经叛道；而体制之所以公开制裁像苏珊这样重量级的人物，其真正目的正如蒂姆所言：“杀鸡儆猴，明摆着是在警告所有人——‘看好了，我们连她都能轻易毁掉，收拾你们更是易如反掌，所以都给我闭嘴！’”（"See, we could do that to her, so we could do it to you. So, shut the fuck up."） 罗根还提到了平克·弗洛伊德（Pink Floyd）乐队的传奇乐手罗杰·沃特斯（Roger Waters），指出他在冲突爆发初期就顶着巨大的政治压力公开将战火定性为“正在实时发生的种族灭绝”，因而遭遇了狂风暴雨般的围剿与围攻。但罗根断言，正如蒂姆在2003年伊拉克战争初期因反战被打上叛国标签、二十年后反战却成为全美无可辩驳的普遍共识一样，历史的车轮终会证明早期的孤勇发声者才是站在正确的一方。 经历过2003年的政治风暴后，蒂姆坦言自己的心境发生了深刻转变。他意识到自己不想再深陷在纯粹空洞的争吵中，而是渴望投身于能够真正带来实质性社会变革的具体行动。早在二十年前，他就依托自己的非营利剧团“演员之帮”（The Actors' Gang）开创了一个针对监狱犯人的戏剧改造项目（Prison Project）。该项目并不教囚犯排练整场戏剧，而是引导他们穿上戏服、化身特定角色，以此在安全的艺术空间中释放那些在冰冷监区里被压抑了几十年的复杂情感。蒂姆深刻剖析道，在残酷的监狱环境中，囚犯为了生存只能展现单一的“愤怒”，那是他们在放风操场上必须佩戴的防卫面具——“你必须表现得像个恶霸混蛋，否则你就会死在里面”；而戏剧的意义，恰恰在于卸下这层暴戾的防线，唤醒他们早已不敢触碰的脆弱与悲伤。 ### [50:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3004s) 监狱戏剧工坊：用意大利即兴喜剧化解帮派仇恨 在极端封闭且压抑的监狱环境中，展露恐惧或妥协通常被视作软弱致命的致命弱点，甚至连快乐也受到压制。蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）解释了他们如何在监狱中建立戏剧项目：将囚犯带入一个房间，向他们介绍源自意大利即兴喜剧（Commedia dell'arte）的经典原型角色，并要求他们在即兴表演中表达情感并作出反应。核心机制在于打破固有的暴力连锁反应——当一名表演者在即兴场景中愤怒逼近时，现场引导师（facilitator）会促使对方不要以怒制怒，而是尝试做出截然不同的情感回应。这一练习让参与者顿悟：面对愤怒并非只有反戈一击，人生还有其他解法。这种心理重塑不仅适用于舞台，也能直接映射到现实中。 通过唤醒深埋已久的情感，囚犯们开始意识到自己的身份并不等同于导致他们入狱的那次最糟糕的犯罪行为。罗宾斯的团队在编排小组时，甚至会刻意安排敌对帮派的成员共处一室。令人震撼的共情往往在极具张力的即兴练习中爆发：例如，大家在虚拟场景中为某个人的墓碑献花，低声倾诉对逝者的悼念；当导师说出“现在，看着彼此”时，双方在满是哀伤的眼神中看到了共同的痛苦，瞬间跨越了种族与帮派的鸿沟。罗宾斯回忆起一件真事：两名分别是一黑一白、身处敌对帮派的囚犯特意跑来告诉他，两周前牢房的“发令大佬”（shot caller）下令在操场干架，面对绝对不可违抗的江湖规矩，这两个参加过戏剧班的男人心照不宣地找上彼此，在地上翻滚扭打、装模作样地“拼死搏杀”，既交了差又保住了对方，没有让任何人受伤。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 监狱即兴戏剧干预机制 accDescr: 展示敌对囚犯如何通过戏剧训练打破愤怒连锁并建立共情的转化流程 subgraph 传统监狱反应 A["遭遇愤怒/威胁挑衅"] --> B["条件反射：以愤怒/暴力回击"] B --> C["帮派斗殴与冲突升级"] end subgraph 戏剧工坊介入 D["引入 Commedia dell'arte 经典原型"] --> E["即兴表演实验多样情感反应"] E --> F["导师干预：以非愤怒情绪化解怒气"] F --> G["共情场景唤醒内在悲伤与人性"] end G --> H["打破种族与帮派壁垒：虚构演戏避免现实流血"] ``` ### [52:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3140s) 深入一线行动：从好莱坞募捐会到加州18座监狱 目睹活生生的人格重塑过程，给罗宾斯带来了前所未有的心理震撼与灵感，这与他在公立学校儿童项目中见到的改变如出一辙。谈及投身此事的动机，他坦承自己曾多年疲于应付好莱坞形形色色的慈善晚宴和筹款会。虽然筹款意义重大，但出席者在光鲜亮丽的晚宴散场后，内心往往极其空虚，觉得自己除了吃一顿大餐外什么都没做。而走进铁窗、在泥泞与抗争中亲力亲为，不仅极大地满足了他骨子里的社会活动家本能，也显得无比真切。 基于在加州奇诺（Chino）和诺科（Norco）监狱试点项目的成功经验，罗宾斯带领团队摸索出一套系统的运作方式： - 耗费数年进行试错式探索，建立规范规程，例如与监狱系统对接安全培训； - 设立清晰的边界机制，明确规定“我们是来排戏的，不讨论你们的具体案情”，彻底杜绝让项目偏航的干扰因素； - 坚持高强度体态肢体表达与幽默感相结合的教学方法，让即便初见觉得古怪别扭的囚犯也能在笑声中放下防备，促成精神层面的意识蜕变。 早年加州整个矫正系统中只有极少数的音乐和两项戏剧类改过自新项目。随着该模式的深入推广，他们成功游说州政府加大对“监狱艺术计划”（Arts in Corrections）的财政拨款。截至目前，罗宾斯负责的戏剧项目已全面扩展至加州境内的 18 座监狱。他深信，优质的剧场演出和电影能彻底改变一个人的思考轨迹，艺术本就是触及心灵、转化意识的终极载体。 ### [55:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3338s) 站在舞台上的哲学家：卡林、希克斯与思想冒犯的艺术 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）顺着罗宾斯的“艺术转化意识”论调，将话题延展到单口喜剧领域。罗根表示，传奇喜剧演员乔治·卡林（George Carlin）的每一次专场演出都在重塑自己的思想认知。卡林绝不会为了迎合大众而营造“咱们都是自己人”的虚伪默契，相反，他会顺着观众的预设猛然反转，精准戳中听众潜意识里的虚伪之处。这种不留情面的揭露背后，蕴含着一种深沉的信念——人类本可以做得更好。 在提及贾德·阿帕图（Judd Apatow）执导的卡林纪录片时，两人感叹起时代思想传播介质的演变。在20世纪初，哲学家之间公开展开的针锋相对的辩论曾是万众瞩目的社会盛事；而对于当代社会而言，那些敢于挑战主流信条的优秀脱口秀演员，实际上接过了古代哲学家的衣钵： - 他们用争议性命题测试大众的认知底线； - 优秀演员不会只顾兜售廉价笑料，而是以冒犯打破固有世界观，逼迫受众重估现实； - 比尔·希克斯（Bill Hicks）更是这一流派的先锋，他的段子有时甚至完全不带有逗乐性质，而是赤裸裸的思想重击，随后再抛出笑料将观众拉回安全区。正如伟大的戏剧一样，让人第一反应是抗拒与破口大骂，冷静下来却不得不接受其内在逻辑的洗礼。 ### [59:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3548s) 戈尔·维达尔与政治讽刺电影《天生赢家》 随着讨论深入，罗根惋惜当下虽然内容充斥泛滥，但真正有思想交锋深度的文化产品却凤毛麟角。他提到了著名的政治纪录片《最佳敌人》（*Best of Enemies*），该片记录了当年处于收视低谷的美国全国广播公司（NBC）策划的一系列历史性电视辩论：左翼进步派知识分子戈尔·维达尔（Gore Vidal）与保守派教父威廉·F·巴克利（William F. Buckley Jr.）展开的长篇智识交锋。这种没有任何滤镜掩饰的顶级思想过招，不仅开创了电视政论的先河，更展示了极度克制而又凶狠的学术论战魅力。 罗宾斯随即透露了他与戈尔·维达尔之间深厚的私人友谊。在罗宾斯的导演处女作政治讽刺片《天生赢家》（*Bob Roberts*）中，他塑造了一个打着民谣歌手旗号竞选宾夕法尼亚州参议员的右翼政客角色。当时，他成功邀请到维达尔亲自出山，在片中饰演自己的民主党竞选对手布里克利·佩斯特（Brickley Paiste）。维达尔在现实生活中一直对真正的政治抱有若即若离的兴趣，这次客串堪称量身定制。罗宾斯表示，正因这次合作，他们结成了忘年之交，而他本人目前正在剪辑一部关于维达尔的全新纪录片。 ### [01:00:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3641s) 封存多年的二战作家纪录片与片场自制短片 蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）透露，他多年前拍摄了一部纪录片，讲述四位参加过二战并最终成为文学巨擘的军人作家：戈尔·维达尔（Gore Vidal）、库尔特·冯内古特（Kurt Vonnegut）、诺曼·梅勒（Norman Mailer）和霍华德·津恩（Howard Zinn）。这部作品曾被长期搁置在库房中，如今他终于完成了最后的剪辑与制作。罗宾斯表示，他在过去的岁月里总是马不停蹄地从一个项目奔赴下一个项目，从未停下脚步。最近一年他放慢节奏，开启了仓库里尘封的箱子，发掘出大量从未面世的珍贵素材，并计划在9月1日上线的新网站上逐步公开这些档案。 早期经济状况好转后，罗宾斯买了人生中第一台便携摄像机，从此养成了在电影片场自娱自乐拍短片的习惯。其中有两部短片是在拍摄臭名昭著的漫改科幻片《天降神兵》（Howard the Duck）时制作的。那部电影的拍摄周期极其漫长、令人筋疲力尽，罗宾斯为了打发无聊时间便自导自演，甚至“非法”借用了剧组的霍华德鸭实体木偶，让这只道具鸭子成了自己自制短片里的主要角色。 - 纪录片聚焦的四位二战士兵兼名作家：戈尔·维达尔（Gore Vidal）、库尔特·冯内古特（Kurt Vonnegut）、诺曼·梅勒（Norman Mailer）、霍华德·津恩（Howard Zinn） - 罗宾斯计划于9月1日推出个人新网站，集中展示从仓库储藏箱中翻出的历史个人作品与影像档案 --- ### [01:02:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3727s) 《天降神兵》的灾难现场与机械木偶的失控 谈到《天降神兵》，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）感叹那是一部极度怪异的电影。罗宾斯回忆道，开机第一天走进片场，他就预感这片子要出大乱子。最主要的问题在于主角鸭子的木偶制作根本还没达到可拍摄状态，而且造型“过于可爱”。在原始漫威漫画中，霍华德鸭是一个抽着雪茄、脾气暴躁粗鄙的硬汉形象，带有一种类似《怪猫菲利克斯》（Fritz the Cat）般的边缘成人色彩；而电影版却把它改得温和可爱，但剧情依然保留了人类女性与外星鸭子谈恋爱的离奇设定，让罗根忍不住吐槽这画面简直像是荒唐的“人兽恋”。 当时的技术水平根本无法完美呈现一个活生生的说话木偶。罗宾斯提到，整部电影里有一场仅有两分多钟的超轻型动力飞机（Ultralight plane）空中追逐戏，剧组却足足拍了六个星期。尽管戏里看起来是在飞行，但演员只是坐在架空的模型道具舱里，真正的特技则需要专业人员操作。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Howard the Duck Production Pitfalls accDescr: 导致1986年版天降神兵陷入制作困境的核心因素与罗宾斯的事业转折 subgraph Problem ["制作致命伤"] A["漫画原著气质"] --> B["暴躁抽雪茄、边缘成人色彩"] C["电影道具成型"] --> D["外形过分可爱、技术机械不达标"] B -. 冲突.-> D end subgraph Shooting ["漫长耗时的拍摄"] E["6周拍摄周期"] --> F["仅产出约2分半的动力伞追逐戏"] end subgraph Career ["事业险局化解"] G["乔治·卢卡斯刚做完《星战》制片光环"] --> H["剧本难懂也以为能成"] H --> I["提前拍完《五角街》与朱迪·福斯特合作"] I --> J["上映扑街后成功护航个人演艺声誉"] end ``` - 拍摄超轻型动力机追逐战：耗时长达6周，成片中仅占2分半至3分钟 - 制作班底光环与盲目信任：当时好莱坞对执行制片乔治·卢卡斯（George Lucas）充满崇拜，认为他刚缔造了《星球大战》，即便剧本读起来古怪，大家也相信“他们总有办法搞定” - 事业救命稻草：在《天降神兵》惨败前，罗宾斯已经与朱迪·福斯特（Jodie Foster）、约翰·特托罗（John Turturro）合作拍完了独立犯罪剧情片《五角街》（Five Corners），因而并未被烂片票房毒药所吞没 - 同情与无奈：罗宾斯对导演威拉德·赫伊克（Willard Huyck）和操偶师团队深表同情，认为问题出在当年尚未成熟的电子机械设备本身，而非操偶师不够尽力 --- ### [01:06:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=3966s) 模拟特效的粗糙美学与过度CG带来的认知疏离 罗根与罗宾斯探讨了电影视觉特效从实体道具向纯数字技术（CGI）演进的得与失。回顾早期《星球大战》的摩斯艾斯里酒吧场景，以现在的眼光看，那些外星人的面具表情僵硬、动作笨拙，甚至带有定格黏土动画的痕迹，但这种物理实体的存在感却赋予了画面独特的生命力。两人一致认同，如今的计算机特效无所不能，反而让观众失去了惊艳感，“粗糙不平的边角反而更动人”。 罗根指出，当人脑注视CGI生成的生物或变形画面时，潜意识总能分辨出那是虚拟算法，无法产生真正的恐惧感。传奇特效大师里克·贝克（Rick Baker）当年在《伦敦狼人》（An American Werewolf in London）中制作的机械狼人实体怪物真实且有威慑感；而后来他在新版《狼人》（The Wolfman）中大量使用CGI完成变形过程，观众的脑海便会自动跳出“这不是真的”的抽离感。 - 物理实体道具的不可替代性：实体模型在光线和空间中有物理交互，能欺骗大脑产生真实感 - CGI的完美陷阱：过于精细和绝对完美的计算，反而破坏了悬念与观影沉浸感 --- ### [01:08:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4081s) 真实的人性缺陷：从吉米·亨德里克斯到黑胶唱片 罗宾斯将这种追求“物理不完美”的审美延伸到了音乐领域。如今的流行音乐充满了自动修音（Auto-Tune）和分轨修正，抹平了所有的棱角；然而最动听的音乐往往蕴含着细微的人类失误与演奏偏差，吉他扫弦时哪怕有一点点吃音或走音，往往更具味道。罗根举出吉米·亨德里克斯（Jimi Hendrix）在伍德斯托克音乐节上演奏美国国歌《星条旗永不落》（The Star-Spangled Banner）的经典现场，那种近乎即兴、伴随电吉他啸叫与高度不可控危险感的演奏，充满了直击人心的力量。 两人由此谈及模拟音频介质的持久魅力。人们至今迷恋黑胶唱片，正是因为那些细微的沙沙声、爆裂音以及没有经过数码机器修饰的纯粹人声。罗宾斯提到自己家里收藏了一台需要手动摇柄发条的78转（78 RPM）老式留声机，搭配着巨大的喇叭扩音器。他常常想象，在1910或1920年代，一个生活在荒凉大草原上的普通家庭从西尔斯（Sears Roebuck）邮购目录订购这样一台机器，当唱针第一次划过醋酸纤维唱片、纯净的人声在客厅回响时，那种能够在自家里起舞或坠入爱河的体验，堪称神迹般的感官启蒙。 - 吉米·亨德里克斯在伍德斯托克的国歌独奏：展现了未经修饰、直面失败风险的即时危险感与临场感 - 早期唱片历史：从托马斯·爱迪生（Thomas Edison）发明的蜡筒留声机，到1920年代西尔斯目录普及的78转虫胶/黑胶圆盘唱片工业化量产 ### [01:10:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4222s) 黑胶唱片的诞生与模拟音频的“魔法” Joe Rogan 和 Tim Robbins 开始探讨早期唱片技术的发展史。为了核实第一张能用唱针播放的黑胶唱片是在何时诞生的，Rogan 甚至现场使用 Perplexity 进行了查询。Robbins 最初盲猜是 1919 年左右，但检索数据显示：1931 年，RCA Victor 首次推出了采用 Victrolac 乙烯基材质压制的 12 英寸、33⅓ 转唱片；随后在 1948 年 6 月 21 日，哥伦比亚唱片（Columbia Records）正式推出了 33⅓ 转的微槽密纹黑胶唱片（LP），并在 1949 年迎来了 45 转单曲唱片。他们感叹，像 1960 年代 Jimi Hendrix 的《Voodoo Child》这样伟大的录音艺术，其所依托的载体技术在仅仅二十年前根本还不存在。 两人随后惊叹于黑胶唱片的声学奇迹。Rogan 回忆起童年时看着唱针落在旋转唱片上并流淌出音乐的魔法感，并提及在显微镜下放大千倍观看黑胶纹路时的震撼画面——那些细微凹槽中刻印的正是声波本身。他们想象若是外星文明来到地球看到黑胶唱片，一定会觉得不可思议：仅凭塑料盘上的微小凹槽，竟然能同时容纳竖琴、班卓琴、鼓点、整个交响乐团，乃至 Janis Joplin 极具穿透力的人声。Robbins 对当前黑胶唱片的强势复兴感到十分振奋；Rogan 则指出，随着数字世界越来越虚拟化，人们反而愈发渴望实木桌子、模拟黑胶这样带有真实物理质感和有机温度的人造物。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 音频与视频实体媒介演进时间线 accDescr: 展示从早期黑胶唱片到现代流媒体与算法时代的媒介演变路径 subgraph AudioFormats ["音频介质演进"] A["1931年：首张 Victrolac 乙烯基唱片"] --> B["1948年：哥伦比亚推出 33⅓ 转微槽 LP"] B --> C["八轨磁带 (8-Track)"] C --> D["卡式录音带 (Cassette)"] D --> E["数码压缩音频 (MP3 / 流媒体)"] end subgraph VideoFormats ["视频与分发模式变迁"] F["广播电台 / 传统影院"] --> G["VHS 录像带与实体租碟店"] G --> H["算法推荐与流媒体平台"] end AudioFormats -. 实体质感被数据取代.-> VideoFormats ``` ### [01:13:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4383s) 整理父亲的音乐遗产：卡带与“Robbins Radio” Robbins 分享了自己近期在家庭档案整理中的重大发现。他找出了许多尘封已久的卡式录音带，放进播放机一听，发现声音品质出奇地惊艳。他解释说，相较于被反复高强度压缩的 MP3 文件，小小的卡式磁带实际上保留了更为丰富细腻的声音信息。为了防止物理介质随岁月老化降解，他正忙于将这些原始录音全面数字化。 这项整理工作很大程度上是为了纪念他的父亲。他的父亲不仅是知名民谣乐团“The Highwaymen”（曾发行过五张专辑）的成员，同时也是一位严肃的古典乐音乐家和合唱团指挥，生前用卡带录下了大量音乐。Robbins 计划在自己的个人新网站上推出一个名为“Robbins Radio”的线上电台，把祖父、父亲、兄弟以及他自己多年来创作的音乐做成一个无缝轮播的电台频道。不仅如此，他还翻出了好几大箱父亲当年的手写总谱，目前正在全力转录整理，预计在半年内将整个音乐档案馆对公众开放。 - **Robbins 家族音乐背景**：Tim Robbins 的父亲曾是民谣乐团 The Highwaymen 成员，兼具古典合唱背景，习惯用手写谱与卡带保留音乐创作。 - **Robbins Radio 计划**：汇聚 Robbins 家族祖孙四代音乐作品的个人全天候播放电台，预计约半年后随完整档案上线。 ### [01:14:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4479s) 磁带、八轨机与扔出窗外的 Bread 乐队 随后话题转到了汽车音响与磁带格式的变迁上。Rogan 记得自己高中时车里装了卡带机，而 Robbins 补充道在八轨磁带（8-track）之后，卡式录音带带来了极佳的录音体验，人们甚至能买到顶级的麦克风直接接到卡座上。相较之下，早期的八轨磁带既笨重又极其反人性，有时一首歌播到一半会硬生生掐断，伴随着换轨声切换到下一轨继续播放。 Robbins 分享了一件发生在 1977 年前后的荒谬往事：当时他正和好友 Frank（现居奥斯汀）开车前往纽约州立大学普拉茨堡分校（SUNY Plattsburgh）。车里的八轨播放机正放着流行摇滚乐队 Bread 的歌，Frank 突然暴怒，一把将磁带从机子里扯出来，摇下车窗直接扔到了公路外面，并吼道：“我们再也不听这玩意儿了！从今往后只有朋克摇滚（Punk Rock）！”随后换上了性手枪乐队（Sex Pistols）。这成了 Robbins 音乐人生中最具分水岭意义的瞬间之一。 Rogan 也回忆起自己童年在佛罗里达第一次见识八轨磁带的震撼经历：朋友 Javier 的母亲在车里放了一盘 Pablo Cruise 乐队的八轨磁带（放着《Rio》那首歌）。在此之前，Rogan 只见过车里放收音机电台，那位母亲能主动把磁带推进去、想听什么就听什么的举动，在年幼的 Rogan 眼里“简直像个女巫在施法”。两人还聊到了卡带在车里被烈日晒融的惨痛遭遇，以及磁带被卷进机器后，大家不得不伸出小拇指或者拿笔拼命把带子倒卷回去的集体记忆。 ### [01:17:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4633s) 消失的实体店、算法霸权与《地堡》的高口碑 实体录像带（VHS）的诞生标志着人类首次拥有了在家中自主选择观看电影的自由，但由此带来的实体录像带店的消亡却让两人深感惋惜。Robbins 哀叹道，过去走进录像店、唱片店或独立书店，你会遇到真正懂电影、懂音乐的店员——当你告诉对方自己刚看完什么片子，店员能凭借其独到的品味精准推荐《阿尔及尔之战》（The Battle of Algiers）这样的冷门杰作。如今，这一切人情味与专业筛选全被冰冷粗暴的推荐算法取代，便利性虽然暴涨，但人类引路人（arbiter）却彻底退场。 Rogan 补充道，虽然现代人失去了实体店员，但网络社区的口碑自发传播、以及 IMDb 和烂番茄（Rotten Tomatoes）的评分机制多多少少弥补了这部分空缺，让人们在决定观影前能看到大众真实的态度。Rogan 提到 Robbins 主演的 Apple TV+ 热播科幻剧集《地堡》（Silo）在烂番茄上曾拿下 100% 的极高好评，Robbins 听后打趣道：“你这一公开说出来，那些黑粉就要冲过去恶意刷差评给炸没了。”随后，Rogan 表达了对当前流媒体剧集泛滥的感慨，但也重点称赞了由 Michael Fassbender 主演的 Paramount+ 间谍剧集《间谍机构》（The Agency），盛赞其第二季的剧本与表演水准极高，足以让市面上的大部分剧集相形见绌。 ### [01:19:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4778s) 娱乐泛滥的时代与过去影院观影的主动选择 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）在开场时盛赞了迈克尔·法斯宾德（Michael Fassbender）的精湛演技，称他在新戏中饰演的中央情报局（CIA）特工极具层次感，既含蓄又才华横溢。然而，当今流媒体平台上的内容多到让人无从下手，甚至“一个人可以把一辈子都荒废在单纯被娱乐上”。罗宾斯回忆道，过去要想获得娱乐其实是一件有门槛的事情：你必须在生活中做出主动选择，提前计划赶在晚上七点前出门，找地方停车，买好电影票和爆米花，然后老老实实坐下来看完整场演出。 罗根对此深有同感，指出过去的相对不便反而创造了一种特殊的体验。以前人们面临的选择往往只有两三部电影，经常遇到大片（比如《星球大战》）影票售罄的情况，观众只能退而求其次，凭着海报上某个眼熟的演员“碰碰运气”，却常常因此意外撞见一部精彩绝伦的冷门佳作。 ### [01:20:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4853s) 《肖申克的救赎》的票房失利与时代神作的逆袭 聊到观影的意外收获，罗根提到了影史经典《肖申克的救赎》（The Shawshank Redemption）刚上映时在院线遇冷的怪现象。罗宾斯证实了这一点：影片虽然荣获了七项奥斯卡金像奖提名，但在影院公映时却门可罗雀。罗宾斯坦言，片名晦涩难懂可能是一个重要原因；他在同一年还主演了科恩兄弟执导的《金钱帝国》（The Hudsucker Proxy），两部电影的英文原名（*The Hudsucker Proxy* 和 *The Shawshank Redemption*）都让普通观众摸不着头脑。甚至在餐馆偶遇影迷时，常有人结结巴巴地夸他：“我很喜欢你在那部什么《雕骨救赎》（scrimshaw reduction）或者《希姆申克》（Shimshank）里的表演。” 更为严酷的是1994年无可比拟的院线竞争，同期的神作包括《低俗小说》（Pulp Fiction）、《侏罗纪公园》（Jurassic Park）的余波以及金·凯瑞的《神探飞机头》（Ace Ventura），公认是电影史上最辉煌的年份之一。然而，《肖申克的救赎》最终依靠独特的商业机制迎来了重生：当时执掌华纳兄弟与电视帝国的特德·特纳（Ted Turner）以极低廉的成本将这部电影的电视版权“卖给了自己的电视频道”。由于毫无播出成本压力，他的有线电视台反反复复轮播这部影片并赚取丰厚的广告收入。正是这种铺天盖地的反复曝光，加上随后的家庭录像带（VHS）热潮，让大众终于发现了这部杰作。罗宾斯感慨，特纳的商业精明乃至贪婪最终成就了一件美事，让该片连续15年霸榜 IMDb 影史第一名；这也让他始终铭记自己就像“寓言里的乌龟”，坚信乌龟最终能跑赢比赛。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 《肖申克的救赎》逆袭路径 accDescr: 展示电影从票房失利到通过电视转播与录像带登顶影史第一的完整链条 subgraph Phase1["院线遇冷 (1994)"] A["晦涩片名 + 强劲对手<br/>(低俗小说/神探飞机头)"] --> B["院线票房惨淡<br/>获7项奥斯卡提名但无人问津"] end subgraph Phase2["渠道破局"] B --> C["特德·特纳低价转卖电视版权至自营频道"] C --> D["电视台无休止重播获得极高曝光率"] D --> E["家庭录像带 (VHS) 租赁爆发"] end subgraph Phase3["影史封神"] E --> F["观众口碑发酵<br/>连续15年蝉联 IMDb 榜首"] end ``` ### [01:24:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5054s) 好莱坞的转向与流媒体带来的长篇叙事革命 两人随后探讨了后疫情时代影院文化的重塑。罗宾斯指出，好莱坞制片厂在疫情爆发前其实就已经对成年观众失去了信心，重心完全倒向迎合青少年的大制作超级英雄与动作大片。像《肖申克的救赎》这样细腻深沉的作品，在今天的院线体系下根本不可能获得立项，因为它们无法承载庞大的多平台动作大片产业链。 但这种趋势也带来了积极的副产品：严肃的成年人故事全面迁徙到了流媒体平台。创作者们不再受限于旧好莱坞两小时以内的片长枷锁，而是能够以单季长达10小时的篇幅构建深厚的长叙事架构。罗根举例称，像《怪奇物语》（Stranger Things）相当于一部长达30小时的巨作，而《黑钱胜地》（Ozark）每一集都具备顶级电影的视听水准与预算体量。这种连贯且持久的戏剧张力，是以往单部电影极难实现的艺术形式。 ### [01:26:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5209s) 《羊头地窖》的角色演变与编剧在电视圈的绝对生杀权 长篇叙事不仅赋予创作者更大的发挥空间，也让演员的表演生命力更加丰富。罗宾斯以自己在 Apple TV+ 剧集《羊头地窖》（Silo）中的经历为例，透露他在前两季塑造的形象将在第三季迎来翻天覆地的颠覆性转变。这一设计早在项目伊始就被主创构思完成，当时主创曾对他说：“听着，好戏都在第三季。”罗宾斯解释说，虽然开拍时谁也无法预料剧集是否会续订第三季，但主创团队在第一季结束时就必须向制片厂完整陈述后两季的清晰走向。 谈到电视剧创作的权力结构，罗宾斯和罗根打趣道，演员绝对不能在剧组惹恼编剧，因为“编剧如果看哪个演员不顺眼，随手就能把这个角色写死”。罗宾斯回忆起自己当年执导电视剧时，同行导演分享过的一个真实剧组轶事：当时有三名演员在片场极度难伺候，一人涉及性不端行为，一人成天钻牛角尖神神叨叨，另一人则在其他方面频频生事。最终，编剧们在季终集里安排了一场枪战戏，精准地让这三名角色被子弹击中与其恶习直接对应的身体器官，其中两人重伤，带头闹事的那个则被当场彻底击毙。这证明在电视剧领域，千万不要低估编剧掌握的惩戒手段。 - 1994年同期竞争的热门电影包括《低俗小说》、《侏罗纪公园》以及《神探飞机头》。 - 特德·特纳在掌控华纳兄弟与电视网络期间，通过自产自销的廉价版权交易，利用 TNT 等电视频道的反复重播拯救了《肖申克的救赎》。 - 《肖申克的救赎》在 IMDb 影史 Top 250 榜单上长期位列第一已达15年之久。 - 罗宾斯参与主演的 Apple TV+ 科幻悬疑剧集《羊头地窖》（Silo）在第三季对他的角色有重大反转安排。 ### [01:29:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5347s) 编剧的生杀大权与 AI 带来的生存恐慌 谈话开篇，两人调侃起美剧编剧掌控角色命运的巨大权力。Joe Rogan 笑称，编剧总在寻找角色发展的各种切入点，如果某个演员在片场表现得像个混蛋，编剧们就会私下嘀咕：“直接写死他得了，弄成恋童癖然后再弄死他，这收视率肯定爆表。”面对这种随心所欲的剧情转折，演员只能老老实实配合。然而，好莱坞当下弥漫的真正恐惧来自于人工智能（AI）。Joe 指出，好莱坞上下对 AI 取代编剧、演员乃至彻底颠覆人类叙事艺术感到极度惶恐，尤其是编剧群体。在现有的 AI 引擎下，制片人只需输入几部经典电影作为模板，例如“把《浑身是胆》（Bullitt）、《盗火线》（Heat）与《疾速追杀》（John Wick）糅合在一起，设定好主角与面临的困境”，AI 几分钟内就能输出完整大纲；如果要求“写得更有昆汀·塔伦蒂诺（Quentin Tarantino）的风格”，或者“加入斯坦利·库布里克（Stanley Kubrick）式的诡异深意与隐藏彩蛋”，AI 也能瞬间修改完成。这种创作本质上是建立在对过往所有人类作品的“借鉴与剽窃”之上，但由于 AI 生成速度极快，人类创作者根本无法在效率上与之竞争，更不知道该去起诉谁。 ### [01:31:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5468s) 人类经验的独特性与工会的退让 Tim Robbins 坦言自己对 AI 的泛滥非常抵触，但他依然对人类个体经验的不可替代性抱有信念。他透露自己正在撰写一部《幕后玩家》（The Player）的衍生伴随作品，探讨如果当年那个角色活在当今时代会发生什么。这种饱含个人独到视角的创作，是任何程序都无法简单拼接出来的，真正有才华的人终究能找到区别于 AI 的立足点。不过，Tim 对演员工会（SAG-AFTRA）和编剧工会（WGA）在上一轮劳资谈判中的妥协感到极为失望。他认为工会本应划下不可逾越的红线——绝对禁止使用 AI 替代真人演员与编剧，但工会最终做出了让步，这必将带来严重的后患。Joe 赞同这一担忧，指出在资本主导的影视工业中，经济利益往往压倒一切，使用 AI 生成内容的成本远低于聘请顶级编剧，尽管 AI 实际上是在无偿剥削这些编剧过往的心血。 - **个体创作的不可替代性**：优秀的编剧依靠独有的生活阅历与艺术视角，这是 AI 算法无法靠数据库简单拼凑的。 - **工会防线的失守**：演员工会与编剧工会在面对资方时未能坚守“全面禁止 AI 替代人类”的硬性红线。 - **经济成本驱动**：AI 创作虽然缺乏灵魂，但低廉的边际成本让好莱坞高层在商业决策上面临难以抗拒的诱惑。 ### [01:33:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5581s) “无 AI 认证”倡议与好莱坞不敢冒险的顽疾 谈到观众对真正人类创作的渴求，Tim 提到他的伴侣、导演里德·莫拉诺（Reed Morano）曾提出一个极富创意的倡议：为所有未采用 AI 制作的影视作品颁发官方认证标识（AI-Free Seal），就像食品包装上的“非转基因”或家长指引标签一样。Joe 对此拍手叫好，认为这正是解决信任危机的良方，因为大众之所以被杰作打动，核心就在于感知到背后凝聚着人类真实的创造力。随后两人聊起近年来杀出重围的低成本黑马作品，例如由二十多岁、油管背景的年轻导演执导的惊悚片，全片没有大牌明星，却凭借极具原创性与诡异感的设定风靡一时。Tim 感叹这种不按套路出牌的意外成功正是当下观众极度渴望的，但现今的好莱坞却深陷公式化泥潭：制片方不愿承担任何风险，只愿意做精确算计的商业买卖，甚至要求主创必须找来身价 2000 万美元的巨星并说服其以 30 万美元的极低片酬出演，才肯批下 1000 万美元的预算。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 影视创作模式对比 accDescr: 对比好莱坞公式化避险模式与独立原创冒险模式在制作机制与观众反馈上的差异 subgraph Conventional["好莱坞当今公式化避险模式"] A["锁定商业明星 / 压低预算配比"] --> B["套用大数据与受众偏好模板"] B --> C["产出预设好的流水线产品"] C --> D["观众感知到流水线套路而产生反感"] end subgraph Original["传统独立电影冒险模式"] E["资方投资于未知的艺术风险"] --> F["给予创作者充分自由与终剪权"] F --> G["孕育出真实、新鲜的黑马作品"] G --> H["带来意外的市场惊喜与艺术共鸣"] end ``` ### [01:35:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5742s) 赌徒精神的消亡与独立电影的发行困境 Tim 回忆起自己初出茅庐的时代，当时好莱坞还有像乔·罗斯（Joe Roth）这样敢于下注的掌权者。当年乔·罗斯直接给 Tim 拨出预算让他执导《风云时代》（Cradle Will Rock），并给予他最终剪辑权（Final Cut），直言“放手去干吧，小子”。Tim 强调，唯有敢于承担风险，才可能孕育出真正真诚、崭新的艺术表达；若处处讲求精确计算与受众画像，观众一眼就能看出这是预先打包好的快餐。Joe 将这种冒险比作脱口秀演员在俱乐部试验全新段子时的刺激感——虽然随时可能冷场，但一旦赌赢并引爆全场，那种成就感无可比拟。然而这种精神在好莱坞已被极度高昂的制作宣发成本挤压殆尽。漫威式的超级英雄大片动辄耗费 2 亿到 2.5 亿美元，资方将其视为稳赚不赔的投资；相反，优秀的独立电影人只需 400 万至 500 万美元的制作预算，加上宣发总计不过 1400 万美元，资方却不敢涉足。Tim 极为怀念罗伯特·奥特曼（Robert Altman）那个时代，导演能够纯粹按照个人风格拍片，哪怕笑着宣布“这部新片大家肯定会讨厌”，也依然拥有拍片和公映的空间。而在当下的市场格局中，缺乏发行渠道让独立制作者举步维艰，自制电影的发行依然是一场胜算渺茫的高危赌局。 ### [01:38:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=5930s) 现代电影融资模式与被埋没的佳作 谈到如今筹备一部电影的严苛现实，乔·罗根询问在正式开拍之前是否必须先搞定发行。蒂姆·罗宾斯给出了肯定的答复，并指出如今的行规是必须在前期就敲定海外版权预售（foreign sales）。他解释道，当前的商业逻辑已经演变成投资人必须在摄影机开机那一刻就已经收回成本甚至盈利，彻底杜绝任何资金亏损的风险。投资方早早把片子卖出的价格高过制作成本，在这场完全没有赌注与风险的生意里，只有当影片在电影节上真正一鸣惊人、口碑大爆时，资方才会追加资金用于宣传推广；而一旦影片反响平平，投资方也毫不在意，只当是稳赚不赔的买卖，转头就把版权打包塞给DVD或流媒体平台。 罗根感叹这种唯利是图的体系让创作环境变得极其糟糕。罗宾斯对此深有同感，透露自己的伴侣目前也深陷这种发行的挣扎之中。罗宾斯直言自己早就“从那家酒店退房”不陪他们玩了，因为他不想再经历那种心碎的滋味，于是选择完全独立创作——自掏腰包拍摄、自己剪辑，这也是他决定搭建个人网站的原因，打算把手里积压的大量未上映作品逐步释放出来。不过他也坦承，独立做这一切其实非常孤独；最让人心满意足的体验依然是带着强大的宣发机器去戛纳电影节斩获最佳男主角，就像当年华纳兄弟全力支持《神秘河》（Mystic River）那样，全心全意相信电影的价值并投入真金白银去做推广。罗宾斯感叹，在自己凭借《神秘河》捧得奥斯卡小金人之后，曾接连出演了三部他认为是自己职业生涯顶峰的杰作——《言语的秘密生活》（The Secret Life of Words）、《代号46》（Code 46）以及《引火线》（Catch a Fire），然而因为发行方不愿承担宣传风险，这三部优秀的影片几乎无缘大众视野，被彻底埋没。 - 现代独立电影融资模式：依靠海外预售在开机前彻底锁定利润并规避风险，缺乏节日声量的影片往往被直接雪藏或低成本处理。 - 罗宾斯应对心碎行业现实的举措：退出主流工业发行的繁复博弈，自己投资制作、剪辑，并通过个人网站逐步发布未公开作品。 - 罗宾斯心目中被市场发售机制牺牲的三部个人最佳电影：《言语的秘密生活》、《代号46》、《引火线》。 ### [01:41:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=6076s) 西斯克尔与伊伯特的时代：流媒体时代呼唤真正的“电影鉴赏家” 罗根指出，当下的市场极度需要像吉恩·西斯克尔与罗杰·伊伯特（Siskel and Ebert）这样的标志性影评人，能够慧眼识珠地从沙砾中挑出被埋没的遗珠。在那个时代，西斯克尔与伊伯特拥有至高无上的话语权，一旦两人同时亮出“双拇指向下”（two thumbs down），这部电影的商业前途基本就彻底完蛋；他们私底下针锋相对的傲娇互怼和幕后花絮也充满了娱乐性。罗宾斯回忆自己当年很幸运，总能得到这两位传奇影评人的高度评价。两人不仅有极高的审美品味，更是打心底里热爱电影的每一个细节，他们会用充沛的专业热情和深刻理解，在电视节目里花整整15分钟去深度拆解一部电影的表演微妙之处、剪辑构造甚至是配乐，这种长篇幅的严肃影评在如今的快节奏时代几乎绝迹。 两人探讨起为何在流媒体海量内容喷涌的当下，反而缺乏这样一档具有公信力的指南节目。罗根认为，现在的观众每天被数以百万计的流媒体剧集和新片淹没，大家最渴望的反而不是刻薄挑剔的“批评家”，而是一位真正有激情的“电影鉴赏家”（appreciator），能发自内心地帮大家淘出好货并介绍老电影。罗宾斯则从职业影评人的角度分析了其中心力交瘁的现实：过去他与影评人交谈时，对方抱怨为了淘出一部真正的佳作，不得不硬着头皮看完十部令人脑仁发疼的劣质烂片（dreck）。虽然罗根笑称如果在家或者去电影院看到烂片大可以直接拔腿走人，但在现场剧院当着主创的面却很难中途退席。罗根打趣罗宾斯应该去挑头制作这样一档只聚焦于好作品、传递热情的推荐节目。 - 西斯克尔与伊伯特模式的绝响：单片探讨长达15分钟，从表演细节到配乐全方位剖析，凭借纯粹的专业热爱影响整个影坛。 - 影评人生理与心理层面的倦怠（Burnout）：为了淘出一颗珍珠，必须忍受并完整审看大量极度平庸与折磨人的烂片。 - 流媒体时代的核心痛点：内容生产呈几何级过剩，但能够打破算法壁垒、带领观众发掘冷门优质作品的受信任引路人却彻底缺位。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 从传统影评到流媒体泛滥的演变 accDescr: 对比西斯克尔与伊伯特时代的权威深度影评模式与现代流媒体海量内容下的迷失现状。 subgraph ClassicEra["传统时代：西斯克尔与伊伯特"] A["专业影评人深度审片"] --> B["电视深度长评（每部15分钟）"] B --> C["权威口碑建立（双拇指评级）"] end subgraph ModernDilemma["现代流媒体时代：内容过载与疲劳"] D["流媒体海量剧集与影片喷涌"] --> E["淘金疲劳：1部佳作对应10部劣作"] E --> F["缺乏权威引路人与鉴赏家"] end C -.->|"时代断代与缺失"| F ``` ### [01:44:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=6271s) “文化战争”对创作的侵蚀与神话背后的历史真相 罗根和罗宾斯一同缅怀了过去的观影仪式感——每周五大家都会满怀激动地期待一部重量级新片上映，随后成群结队涌向电影院。而反观当下，即便是像围绕荷马史诗题材展开的重磅大制作，往往也会被裹挟进无休止的“文化战争”（Culture War）与政治正确争论之中。罗根提到，虽然有很多人因为选角争议（例如艾略特·佩吉饰演特定角色、或者让非裔演员饰演海伦等）在网上大肆攻讦甚至宣称要抵制，但所有真正看过全片的朋友都赞不绝口，劝大家扔掉那些无谓的争端去享受极度震撼的视听盛宴。 罗宾斯和罗根都对这种充斥在左右两派之间、随时随地寻找道德借口互相倾轧的风气感到厌烦透顶。罗宾斯直呼“放过我吧，我真的不想一直被夹在这些毫无意义的口水战中间”；罗根也明确表示，自己在意的是一部作品是否引人入胜、是否好看，而不是它在政治光谱上是否“正确”，“正确”在历史上从不代表伟大的艺术。由此他们引申到神话创作本身——正如海伦与特洛伊之战本就是由口头神话演绎而来的故事，争辩其是否符合所谓的历史写实毫无意义。更何况历史本身就充满反转：在20世纪考古挖掘证实特洛伊遗址确实存在之前，学界也曾长期断定特洛伊战争纯属虚构文学。古代故事的迷人之处恰恰在于其虚实难辨的起源与神话模糊性。 - 观众对“文化战争”审查艺术的审美疲劳：艺术的衡量标准在于其娱乐性、震撼力与艺术造诣，而非是否符合两极化的政治正确标准。 - 荷马史诗与特洛伊的历史戏剧性：原本被全盘归为虚构神话的特洛伊城，最终在现代考古发掘中被证实具有真实的历史实体遗存。 ### [01:47:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=6427s) 踏上古罗马露天剧场：穿越千年的声学体验 话题随后从古希腊神话顺畅地延展到了古代建筑所承载的鲜活历史。罗宾斯向罗根询问是否曾亲自站上过古罗马露天圆形剧场（Roman amphitheater）的舞台，罗根赞叹那确实是一种直击心灵的奇妙体验。罗宾斯感慨，当你踏足其间时，能够真切地感受到那些风化巨石中沉淀的厚重历史。他分享了一次在法国里昂（Lyon）的古罗马剧场排演舞台剧时的神奇发现：在剧场的排练过程中，如果两位演员在舞台上像日常窃窃私语那样交谈，台下的开阔观众席根本听不到一丝一毫的声音，这展现了古代建筑在声学与空间设计上令人着迷的严苛构造。 - 古罗马剧场的历史沉浸感：古迹巨石承载着千年演艺与人类活动的物理记忆。 - 法国里昂古剧场排练逸事：若演员不掌握特定的发声技巧与台词投射方式，舞台上的寻常对话在空旷的古罗马阶梯剧场中将完全无法被观众席捕捉。 ### [01:47:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=6453s) 早期电影表演的演变：从舞台夸张到现实主义突破 蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）与乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）深入探讨了电影表演形式的历史演进。在早期的舞台剧中，演员必须大声向台下投射声音，以便后排观众能够听清；如果他们像现实生活那样自然说话或只是与对手演员眼神交流，观众根本听不到声音。然而，当这些没有麦克风经验的舞台演员最初转入电影拍摄时，这种夸张的投射式表演在镜头前显得非常诡异和格格不入。 罗根指出，电影表演经历了一个过渡期，直到马龙·白兰度（Marlon Brando）横空出世。白兰度的表演方式完全像一个真实的人，当时的人们震惊地表示：“他到底在搞什么鬼？”罗宾斯补充提到蒙哥马利·克利夫特（Montgomery Clift），强调他们二人代表了表演艺术的巨大飞跃，使演员们卸下了戏剧化演出的沉重包袱，真正步入了现实主义表演的殿堂。 两人感慨，从电影的诞生到有声电影与巨星时代的到来，时间跨度其实极短： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 电影表演与技术的演进时间轴 accDescr: 展现从舞台腔夸张表演到自然现实主义，以及从默片到现代大片的演变历程。 subgraph S1["表演形式变革"] A["早期舞台式表演<br/>（高声投射/夸张外放）"] --> B["自然主义革命<br/>（白兰度、克利夫特）"] end subgraph S2["电影技术演进"] C["1920年代默片时代<br/>（《诺斯费拉图》/《大都会》）"] --> D["1927年有声电影问世<br/>到五六十年代经典杰作"] D --> E["现代数字与流媒体时代<br/>（《沙丘》/手机即时点播）"] end ``` ### [01:48:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=6520s) 默片时期的感官魔力与德国表现主义电影 罗根提到有声电影始于 1920 年代后期（大约 1927 到 1929 年），而短短几十年之后，影坛就诞生了《码头风云》（On the Waterfront）、《江湖浪子》（The Hustler）以及《公民凯恩》（Citizen Kane）这样的杰作，创作者们几乎是在实践中边摸索边确立了电影语言。罗宾斯则对早期默片不用台词就能讲故事的非凡才能赞叹不已，直言查理·卓别林（Charlie Chaplin）才华横溢。 两人热烈讨论了 1922 年由 F.W. 茂瑙执导的默片经典《诺斯费拉图》（Nosferatu）以及弗里茨·朗（Fritz Lang）的《大都会》（Metropolis）。罗根回忆自己小时候在旧金山公共图书馆的放映夜第一次看《诺斯费拉图》，当时就觉得不可思议。罗宾斯将其归功于德国表现主义电影强大的光影调度与独特的视觉张力，并顺势推荐了彼得·洛（Peter Lorre）主演的 1931 年经典犯罪惊悚片《M 就是凶手》（M）。他们感叹，在那个没有特效和声音的年代，大银幕上移动的影像对于观众来说如同“疯狂的炼金术”或魔法；没有对白声音，观众需要阅读字幕、聆听现场风琴伴奏并在脑海中自行补全角色的声音，这种“半阅读半观看”的体验带来了完全不同的感官投入。 - 《诺斯费拉图》（Nosferatu）上映于 1922 年，被公认为影史最佳吸血鬼电影之一。 - 弗里茨·朗执导的经典悬疑犯罪片《M 就是凶手》（M）上映于 1931 年，讲述全城追捕连环杀手的故事。 - 早期电影院常配有风琴演奏师，根据银幕画面实时伴奏以烘托情绪。 ### [01:51:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=6698s) 体验的异化：主动寻找乐趣与即时满足的代价 罗根与罗宾斯探讨了时代变迁的速度。罗根感叹，人类历史上 1520 年和 1620 年的生活几乎没有区别，但 1920 年和 2020 年完全是两个世界。1920 年人们在电影院惊叹于《诺斯费拉图》，如今口袋里的智能手机却能随时点播《沙丘》（Dune）或是罗伯特·艾格斯（Robert Eggers）执导的新版《诺斯费拉图》。然而，这种随时随地的即时娱乐却剥夺了某种“仪式感”——那种走出家门、去电影院甚至特意去录像带租赁店挑选电影的珍贵体验。 罗宾斯将这种现象上升到“做自己生活的主动参与者”这一哲学层面。他回忆起自己在 1970 年代末刚从纽约搬到洛杉矶的经历：在纽约，生活和乐趣会直接撞进你的怀里，走在街上随时都有事情发生；而在洛杉矶，一切都太分散，如果不主动开车出去寻找乐趣，生活就会极其无聊。直到他意识到“必须主动规划、在这个周末开车 30 分钟去看一场朋克摇滚演出”，并成为自己文化生活的主动参与者之后，他才找到了自由。反观当下，数字设备让一切娱乐唾手可得，却也像一只时刻渴望被喂食的小狗一样，不断打断人们的专注力。 ### [01:54:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=6880s) 数字过载的困局：未读短信与社交礼仪的绑架 面对手机无休止的打扰，罗宾斯询问罗根是否考虑过彻底扔掉手机，甚至换成功能单一的翻盖机。罗根表示自己曾尝试过断网数周，但由于工作邮件和各种事务无法完全脱离手机。为了保证创作专注，罗根有一台专门用来写作的联想 ThinkPad 笔记本电脑，该电脑完全断网或仅用于查阅特定事实资料，绝不用来浏览网页或无意义冲浪。 然而智能手机依然让罗根感到疲惫不堪。朋友们总是发来大量的搞笑视频或 Instagram 帖子，导致他不得不频繁被拉回社交网络中。如果把手机放下整整一天，再次拿起时往往会堆积多达 70 条未读短信。罗根坦言，这种数字社交环境形成了一种非常古怪且令人窒息的动态：现代人把“不回复信息”误读为对彼此关系的冒犯或否定，哪怕你看了之后发自内心地笑了，只要没有点两下屏幕留下一个小红心或笑脸表情，就会有人觉得被冷落。罗宾斯深有共鸣地表示，这种社交动态对人的精力索求实在太多，适应不良其实恰恰说明心理机制仍算健康。 ### [01:56:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7000s) 园艺之境：逃离信息过载的内心宁静 现代生活与庞大的社交圈子极易榨干个人的心理带宽。正如乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）所言，如果一个人每天拥有一百个单位的专注力配额，庞杂的信息轰炸会轻易将这些配额吞噬殆尽，彻底剥夺投入其他有意义事务的精力。蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）对此深有感触，而他的解压良药是坐在自己的花园里。对他而言，泥土与植物是切切实实的存在，泥土孕育出生机，结出可以直接采摘食用的果实。投身于园艺，不仅能让人从浮躁的信息洪流中脱身，更能赋予人一种每天让事物变得更美好、去细心呵护什么的寄托。罗宾斯在洛杉矶建有自己的花园，平日里种植各类香草；当清晨走到院中掐下一把新鲜的香草，直接撒入正在煎烤的蛋卷里时，那种体验看似微小，却能带来直击心灵的踏实与满足。 ### [01:57:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7068s) 丰收、腌渍与刻在基因深处的生存本能 罗宾斯还分享了今年他在美国东部与儿子共同打理的蔬菜园。虽然他最近不在东部，但儿子常兴奋地向他汇报西红柿和黄瓜正疯长爆棚。大自然的慷慨令他惊叹——只需阳光和水，泥土便能回馈无尽的丰饶。罗根指出，人类对耕作与收获的兴奋感是深植于数万年基因记忆中的奖励机制，因为看到果实就意味着有饭吃、能生存下去。当秋季丰收带来大量富余的作物时，罗宾斯顺势掌握了腌渍（pickling）的技能。一想到盛夏收获的黄瓜经过腌制，能在严寒的十二月变成一罐罐清脆爽口的酸黄瓜，他不禁感叹这正是人类祖先赖以渡过漫冬的生存智慧。罗根随后补充道，腌渍与发酵食品之所以珍贵，还在于它们富含益生菌，能极大滋养肠道微生态。罗宾斯笑着透露自己甚至会留着吃剩的酸黄瓜汁拿来调马丁尼酒，或者直接当日常健康饮品喝下。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 农作丰收到冬季生存与健康的循环逻辑 accDescr: 展示从自然耕作、果实丰收到通过发酵储存过冬并改善人体微生态的完整路径。 subgraph 自然耕作与收获 A["泥土、水分与阳光"] --> B["夏季作物疯长 (黄瓜/番茄)"] B --> C["秋季丰收与作物富余"] end subgraph 储存与健康益处 C --> D["传统腌渍与发酵技术"] D --> E["冬季食物储备 (跨季生存)"] D --> F["益生菌与肠道微生态调节"] F --> G["酸黄瓜汁饮用/调酒"] end ``` ### [02:00:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7221s) 14天极限断食：大师排毒法的身心重置 谈及肠道微生态与对抗现代加工食品中的隐形毒素，罗宾斯透露自己刚完成了一次长达 14 天的“大师排毒法”（Master Cleanse）。整整两个星期内，他完全不进食任何固体食物，仅依靠由柠檬汁、卡宴辣椒粉（Cayenne pepper）和枫糖浆调配的流质补充能量，并在每天清晨进行一次肠道彻底排空。这番经历让罗根大为震惊。对于断食结束后的恢复期，罗宾斯表示必须循序渐进，通常需要约一周时间“重新着陆”——从清汤起步，随后过渡到浓汤和蔬菜，绝不能一上来就大鱼大肉啃牛排。 断食期间的身心状态变化极为奇妙： - **前三天最为煎熬**：熬过饥饿的瓶颈期后，体内精力水平会变得异常平稳，没有能量起伏的波动。 - **高阶运动表现**：在断食初期他甚至能照常做运动和骑车，直到第 10 天左右才因消耗过大而停止高强度体力活动。 - **环境清洁冲动**：身体的自我净化往往会投射到外部环境上，断食期间他会产生强烈的冲扫除欲望，把家里的壁橱彻底收拾干净。 - **重置生理系统**：排出体内积聚毒素，杜绝酒精和对身体有害的摄入，换来的是极致的专注力与“彻底的心智清晰”（total mental clarity）。 ### [02:02:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7365s) 酮体供能模式与糖分成瘾的现代陷阱 罗宾斯表示，每当自己生活稍有放纵、体重增加且身体感觉沉重不适时，他便会选择通过断食来清理身体。在这 14 天的断食中，他足足减掉了 25 磅体重，平均每天减重近两磅。罗根解释道，这表明身体已彻底进入利用脂肪和酮体供能的生酮状态。罗根联系自身经历指出，无论是在生酮饮食还是纯肉饮食（Carnivore diet）中，以酮体驱动的大脑都会表现出惊人的清晰度，全天精力平稳如一条直线，既不会出现饱餐后的昏睡萎靡，也不依赖咖啡因的脉冲刺激，甚至连睡眠需求都会自然减少，同时还让昼夜不停运转消化的肠胃系统得到了彻底休息。 谈到不良饮食，罗宾斯直言“糖分”才是潜伏在生活中的真正剧毒。过去这种糖瘾往往伪装在酒精里，如今虽然他已极少饮酒，但白糖依然极具成瘾性——刚吃下去时令人愉悦，紧随其后的代价却十分沉重。罗根附和道，现代人摄入的精炼糖在人类演化史上从未出现过，祖先若想品尝甜味唯有采摘野果，而如今一份巧克力糖棒或快餐连锁店的暴风雪冰淇淋，便能轻易将上百克糖分粗暴地灌入肠胃，吃完往往直接引发剧烈头痛。借用古老谚语 "Candy's dandy, but liquor's quicker"（糖果固然好，烈酒更快倒），烈酒本质上就是高度浓缩的糖分。罗宾斯表示虽然自己不愿在养生理念上表现得像个极端狂热分子，但他对健康饮食的认知，很大程度上源于母亲从小便引导他们接触天然有机食品的启蒙经历。 ### [02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7548s) 母亲的自然疗法信念与对医疗权威的审视 蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）深情回忆起母亲对健康和身体的超前认知。早在1960年代末（大约1967年），母亲读到了一本关于食物毒素的书后，便果断从全家人的食谱中剔除了加工食品与白面包。在那个顺势疗法（Homeopathy）还不为人知的年代，她其实就已经是这方面的先驱。后来母亲不幸罹患癌症，医生勒令她必须接受化疗，但她断然拒绝，坚持“不，我绝不做化疗”，而是彻底改变摄入体内的饮食与养分，最终奇迹般地战胜了癌症。在罗宾斯的成长历程中，母亲始终是他健康观念的精神坐标，她总挂在嘴边的一句话是：“身体是一座圣殿，身体能够治愈一切疾病。”她坚信，很大程度上这取决于你在心智上如何面对疾病，只要你深信自己能够自愈，身体便能自愈。 当乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）好奇这是否源于书籍时，罗宾斯认为这是阅读与母亲天主教信仰的结合。他观察到几乎所有宗教都有禁食日，不约而同地强调每周断食一天的重要性，母亲虽然不会在孩子们年幼时让他们挨饿，但对疾病持有非常全面的整体观（holistic approach）。母亲还将一种强烈的怀疑精神深深烙印在孩子们脑海中：“无论任何医生对你说了什么，你都必须去质疑。一定要去找另一位医生核对，看他们是否给出相同的诊断，永远都要如此。”母亲之所以对医疗行业怀有根深蒂固的不信任，是因为在1950年代，她的父亲与哥哥在短短一年内相继因医疗事故丧生。在那个年代，医生被视作不容冒犯的绝对权威，根本无人敢想去打医疗官司，因此母亲面对医嘱时，始终抱持着高度警惕与质疑的态度。 - **健康哲学**：视身体为神圣自愈系统，饮食去加工化，强调心理信念对身体修复的关键作用。 - **家庭创伤**：外祖父与舅舅在1950年代因医疗疏失相继离世，促成了母亲“永远寻求第二意见”的行医审视法则。 ### [02:08:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7708s) 死藤水仪式中的母子相会：疲惫战士的疗愈旅程 罗宾斯询问罗根是否体验过死藤水（Ayahuasca）。罗根表示自己虽然没喝过死藤水，但尝试过其有效活性成分 DMT（死藤水相当于口服生效版本的 DMT）。罗宾斯坦言，在参加死藤水仪式时，向导会要求你带着一个明确的意图进入体验。当时的他，内心正充斥着对外部世界的愤怒与沮丧——目睹社会撕裂、人们因为鸡毛蒜皮的荒唐事反目成仇、多年老友断绝往来、人们仅仅因为表达观点就遭到“取消”（Cancel culture），他迫切渴望摆脱这种吞噬内心的怒火。在这场极其深沉震撼的精神旅程中，已经逝世的母亲突然显现。 罗宾斯描绘道，那种感觉并不是耳朵听到真实的声音，而是心灵深处无比确凿的感知，你清晰地知道她就在那里。母亲回应了他的诉求，对他说：“你受伤了。你是一名战士，你受伤了，你需要休息，但战斗并没有结束。”不仅如此，母亲还带他重温了共同生活中的诸多岁月切片，甚至解开了他从幼儿园起就耿耿于怀的某件往事，母亲在意识中温柔地承认：“在那件事上你是对的，我很抱歉当时没有听你的。”这场深度的灵魂对话让罗宾斯在仪式结束后感到前所未有的轻盈与释怀，不仅放下了世俗的怨气，更切实感受到与母亲之间那种超越生死、依然同在的至美联结。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 死藤水灵性疗愈流程 accDescr: 展示蒂姆·罗宾斯带着世俗创伤进入死藤水仪式，并在体验中获得母亲抚慰与疗愈的过程。 subgraph Mindset["内心困境与意图"] A["目睹社会撕裂与取消文化"] --> B["带着释怀愤怒的意图入局"] end subgraph Encounter["神秘体验与母亲对话"] B --> C["母亲灵体显现"] C --> D["认可战士身份并叮嘱休整"] C --> E["化解童年未解心结与遗憾"] end subgraph Result["疗愈结果"] D --> F["彻底释怀轻盈"] E --> F F --> G["重塑内心力量与生命联结"] end ``` ### [02:11:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7900s) 离世前的梦境与重逢：母亲平静走向彼岸 罗宾斯接着分享了母亲离世时一系列令人难以置信的超自然细节。当时他的父亲享年80岁去世，78岁的母亲身体并无疾患。在墨西哥举办的葬礼上，母亲表现得异常坚毅克制，昂首唱完了父亲生前最喜爱的歌曲，全程没有落下一滴眼泪。为了照料母亲，家人们离开前特意聘请了护工，但临别前一晚母亲却神情烦躁，不安地向罗宾斯念叨不信任这些人、担心私事被传出去。罗宾斯安慰她无需担心后离开。然而第二天一早，母亲神色大变，对留在屋里的女儿们说：“昨晚我说的一切，都别往心里去了。” 面对女儿们的困惑，母亲讲述了当晚做的一个梦：她发现自己回到了位于加州韦斯特伍德（Westwood）的童年老家，客厅里矗立着一个令人生畏、不敢直视的石头雕像，让她深感不安；但当她望向凸窗外时，却看到由她此生第一位挚友领头的一大群人正沿着街道向房子走来。人群中有儿时的玩伴、合唱团的故友、昔日的同事——全都是已经故去的人。当他们聚集在门前时，母亲瞬间明白了一切都会安好，那些故人正是为了告诉她“一切都会没事的”而前来迎接。几天后，罗宾斯便接到了母亲去世的噩耗。护工透露，临终前一夜，并未患病的母亲突然指着虚空说：“他来了。吉尔（Gil，母亲的亡夫）来了，他来接我了。”护工试图安慰她说人不在那里，母亲却极其笃定地纠正：“不，他绝对在这儿，而且他看起来非常强壮”（父亲生前因病极其虚弱）。那天夜里，母亲便在睡梦中安详离去。 - **梦中预兆**：在童年故居的梦境中目睹逝去故人的迎候队列，心中的死亡恐惧瞬间消解。 - **临终显像**：重见已故丈夫恢复强健体魄前来接引，平静走向生命终点。 ### [02:14:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8048s) 超越科学度量的真实连接与神秘感应 罗根对这段往事感慨万分，直言即便是世界上最愤世嫉俗、坚决不信死后世界的人，面对这种现象也无法轻易打发。无论当时大脑内部正在经历何种神经化学递质的释放，能让一个人带着与挚爱之人重逢的欣慰与笃定走向死亡，本身就是一件无比美好的事情。在罗根看来，用冷嘲热讽的态度去解构这些体验毫无意义；就像死藤水仪式一样，外界轻描淡写地斥之为“幻觉”，但那种体验所带来的认知重塑、内心释然与情感震撼，其力量和真实性与真正的跨时空交流毫无二致。罗宾斯对此深表赞同：不能因为一种存在无法用卷尺测量或放在天平上称重，就武断地断定它不是真实的；人类对于心灵与意识的运作方式依然知之甚少，诸如双胞胎之间奇特的心理感应，或是相隔两千英里的母亲在深夜突然惊醒预感到孩子出事、五分钟后便接到求援电话的案例屡见不鲜。 罗宾斯随即讲述了自己经历的另一次亲身验证：在他深爱的外祖父去世两个月后，他在睡梦中突然惊醒，清晰地听到了外祖父的声音在耳边说：“别担心，我会处理好的。”罗宾斯当时完全摸不着头脑，但那句话无比清晰坚定。仅仅15分钟后，他便接到了当时的伴侣苏珊（Susan Sarandon）打来的惊魂电话。原来，他们年仅6岁的儿子迈尔斯（Miles）刚刚突然独自冲到了繁忙的第七大道（7th Avenue）正中央；苏珊惊恐地回忆称，当时冥冥中就像有什么神秘力量瞬间将孩子死死定在原地，一辆汽车紧贴着迈尔斯身后飞驰而过，另一辆汽车紧擦着身前呼啸而过，孩子竟奇迹般毫发无伤。挂断电话的那一刻，罗宾斯心中彻底了然：他完全清楚刚才究竟发生了什么。 - **不可度量的真实性**：超越感官与仪器的体验无法被狭隘的唯物度量衡抹杀，主观体验带来的认知转变具有同等的实质力量。 - **隔空庇佑案例**：外祖父逝世两月后托梦断言“我会处理好”，一刻钟后幼子在纽约闹市车流中离奇定步化险为夷。 ### [02:16:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8196s) 存在的其他维度与心脏的能量连接 蒂姆·罗宾斯（Tim Robbins）回顾了那次近乎超自然的经历，坚信某种无论来自何种存在维度的能量，都在关键时刻英勇地挽救了他儿子的生命。对方当时现身并对他说了一句平静而笃定的话：“别担心，我会处理好。”这让他彻底相信，生命与死亡之间存在着超越物理层面的其他维度，人们完全可以通过多种途径去触及这些境界，而不一定非得借助死藤水（Ayahuasca）这类致幻体验。只要人保持开放、懂得倾听，世界就会展现出更深层的运行逻辑。例如在现实中，那些看似偶然的街头偶遇——突然遇到一个自己一直挂念想见的人——在罗宾斯看来绝非巧合，而是某种超越肉眼可见的“神圣安排”或更高维度的能量流动。 这种能量层面的交互不仅存在于玄学叙事中，罗宾斯提到有欧洲（西班牙或葡萄牙）的心脏病学家曾研究过心脏独特的电磁场及其沟通机制。现代医学常把心脏简单地贬低为一个“肉质机械泵”，只负责终身泵血，然而研究表明心脏某些区域拥有的神经元密度甚至超过大脑的部分区域。这种电磁能量解释了为什么人类与他人或宠物相处时能获得更长的寿命与更好的健康：长期与世隔绝的人之所以痛苦，是因为他们切断了与其他生命之间的电磁场联结。人类渴望聚集、渴望融入群体是一种维持生命活力的生物本能。 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）顺着这个话题指出，正因如此，监狱中的“单独监禁”（solitary confinement）才是一种极其残忍的折磨，许多人甚至直接将其定性为酷刑。罗宾斯对此深表赞同，并联想到疫情期间的全面封锁：当整个社会陷入物理隔绝时，那种孤独感的杀伤力极其惊人，特别是对于那些原本就饱受焦虑症、抑郁症折磨或存在社交障碍的人群，长达一年甚至一年半的极端孤立无疑是雪上加霜。 --- ### [02:19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8381s) 卢克莱修与伊壁鸠鲁主义：重新找回生活中的“魔法” 罗宾斯反思了现代人普遍存在的认知障碍：人们往往急于将事物划分为“真实”或“虚假”，生怕承认神秘现象会被人嘲笑为愚蠢上当，但这种封闭狭隘的心态并不会给人生带来任何益处。他指出，生活中其实充满了“魔法”。他提到公元前古罗马诗人卢克莱修（Lucretius）受伊壁鸠鲁主义（Epicureanism）启发写下的长诗《物性论》（*De Rerum Natura*）。在现代语境下，伊壁鸠鲁主义常被误解为对美食、美酒的世俗享乐追求，但其最初的哲学内核却是一场深刻的精神觉醒：整个生命本身就是一个奇迹。 这门哲学的核心观点认为，眼前发生的一切都是宇宙原子（或构成世界的最小粒子）独一无二的随机碰撞，当前这一瞬间发生的事情在此前从未有过，在此后也绝不会再次发生。生命的目的就是去感知并享受这种存在本身的愉悦，同时避免痛苦——痛苦既包括因过度放纵造成的伤害，也包括因麻木、孤立或丧失对奇迹的感知而导致的心理枯竭。罗宾斯感慨，很多人每天醒来感到死气沉沉、机械应付，完全被生活磨平了知觉；但只要转换心态，意识到早晨醒来能够自主呼吸、看到窗边盛开的仙人掌、看到晨光穿透玻璃，这本身就是不可思议的奇迹与魔法。 罗根补充道，这种视角的转变往往需要主动练习。试想如果一个人正躺在医院奄奄一息，此时若有一句魔法咒语能让他瞬间恢复健康、重回家中，他必然会对生命产生彻底脱胎换骨的感激之情。对健康人而言，即使遭遇困境，只要经常提醒自己“我还活着、还能行动、还能对爱的人道声问候”，就能在广袤的宇宙面前建立起宝贵的谦卑感。罗宾斯总结道，保持这种谦卑不仅让人由衷赞叹生命，也能让人学会宽恕他人，并在犯错时真诚地请求宽恕。 --- ### [02:23:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8621s) 拒绝交易式思维：藏族女子的疗愈与人间的“天使” 罗宾斯分享了自己人生最低谷、最黑暗时期发生的一件刻骨铭心的往事。当时一位他仅有过一面之缘的藏族女歌手突然毫无预兆地登门拜访。面对满脸错愕的罗宾斯，这位女子直接告诉他：“你遇到了麻烦，我是来照顾你的。”随后，她为罗宾斯点燃藏香、吟唱颂歌，并进行了灵气疗愈（Reiki healing），接着下厨为他做了一顿晚饭。 吃完饭后，罗宾斯下意识地端起碗碟准备去厨房清洗，并说道：“既然你负责做饭，那理应由我来洗碗。”女子立刻命令他坐下，并严肃地对他说：“这就是你们西方人的毛病，把所有事情都当成商业交易（business deal）。我是全心全意为你做这件事的，你难道就不能单纯接受别人对你的照顾吗？在学会坦然接受爱之前，你永远不可能真正懂得如何去给予爱。”（"You will never know how to give love until you know how to receive love."）这番话给罗宾斯带来了巨大的精神震撼，他猛然惊醒，意识到自己过去始终困在利弊权衡、礼尚往来的“交易型关系”中。事实上，纯粹的给予与敞开心扉的接纳，远比机械的互惠更具力量。临别之际，罗宾斯再次追问她因何而来，女子只留下一句：“你曾为这个世界做过好事，我们需要你”，随后便悄然离去。 这段经历彻底扭转了罗宾斯的生活态度。他坚信这世上确实存在着“以人类形态显现的天使”，他们是爱、慈悲与慷慨的纯粹化身。这种力量始终存在于世间，但唯有当一个人放下冷漠、犬儒和防备，彻底坦诚甚至在精神被击垮时主动敞开怀抱，才有可能感应并接纳这种善意。罗宾斯与罗根一致认为，现实中充满了试图拖垮人的负面力量，若一味被负面情绪消耗，人就会彻底遮蔽双眼，进而错失身边的纯善能量。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 认知转变与接纳爱的过程 accDescr: 展示从交易型思维到全心接纳与给予爱的心理转变过程 subgraph Trap["旧有认知模式：西方交易型思维"] A["遭遇人生至暗时刻<br/>封闭、防备与痛苦"] --> B["陷入交易型人际逻辑<br/>'你做饭，我就必须洗碗'"] end subgraph Awakening["转折：接受善意与当头棒喝"] C["人间'天使'现身<br/>无条件的灵气疗愈与照料"] --> D["观念重塑：<br/>'在学会接受爱之前，<br/>你永远不懂如何给予爱'"] end subgraph Transformation["境界提升：超脱交换的纯粹之爱"] E["破除等价交换执念<br/>放下冷漠与犬儒心态"] --> F["体悟纯粹的慈悲与爱<br/>全然给予，坦然接纳"] end Trap --> Awakening Awakening --> Transformation ``` ### [02:27:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8844s) 算法对情绪的毒害与社交媒体的反思 乔·罗根与蒂姆·罗宾斯深入探讨了现代社交媒体与推荐算法对大众心理的深层侵蚀。罗根指出，当今算法最致命的问题在于它会本能地放大并推送那些让人感到愤怒、沮丧和焦虑的内容。如果一个人整天沉溺在社交媒体的消极情绪中，脱离了眼前真实的现实生活，实际上就是日复一日地用外部的戾气毒害自己的心智。罗宾斯对此深有同感，承认对抗手机的诱惑是一场永无止境的拉锯战，因为“那该死的东西整天都在嗡嗡震动”。不过他也摸索出了自我节制的防线，例如坚决不在清晨醒来第一眼就去碰手机。 谈及这种新型媒介对人类文明的冲击，罗根类比道，正如电影和黑胶唱片在刚诞生时是全新的技术形态一样，社交媒体更是人类前所未见的入侵性力量，大众需要漫长的摸索才能搞清楚正确与错误的边界。罗宾斯深切担忧这种滥用带来的深远恶果，强调如今学校里根本没有教导孩子如何面对这些技术。他直言教育系统应该专门设立一门课程，去系统剖析社交媒体的阴暗面：明确揭示它如何扭曲人类的意识形态、摧毁专注力、剥夺生活中的喜悦以及对当下时刻的感知，并不可避免地将人们拖入永无休止的对立与冲突之中。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社交媒体与现实专注的心理路径对比 accDescr: 对比沉溺算法带来的负面循环与投身现实带来的正向蝴蝶效应 subgraph Neg["算法负反馈循环"] A["算法优先推送激怒内容"] --> B["陷入全天候网络焦虑"] B --> C["注意力分散与快乐被剥夺"] C --> D["持续诱发人际矛盾与对立"] end subgraph Pos["现实正反馈循环"] E["设立界限与专注眼前现实"] --> F["感受友谊、爱与社区价值"] F --> G["改善身心健康与个人能量"] G --> H["引发向外辐射的蝴蝶效应"] end ``` - **警惕清晨的屏幕**：罗宾斯强调自己现在已经戒掉了“早晨醒来第一件事看手机”的习惯，以此保护清晨的专注与心境。 - **缺失的技术通识教育**：目前学校教育未能跟上数字技术的侵蚀步伐，缺乏针对社交媒体如何“窃取喜悦”和“扭曲意识”的批判性引导课程。 --- ### [02:29:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8945s) 善恶的能量、蝴蝶效应与真挚告别 在谈及社交媒体引发的无休止对抗时，罗宾斯直截了当地将其定性为一种“邪恶的力量”。罗根十分赞同这一判断，并进一步剖析了人们对词汇的心理防御机制。他指出，当代人在面对“善”、“恶”、“天使”或“上帝”等词汇时往往会产生抵触心理，但剥离掉宗教或形而上学的包袱后，现实世界中确实存在着切实的正面与负面、爱与邪恶。罗根认为，一个人的生命是由他所聚焦的事物所定义的：如果脑海中充斥的全部是糟糕透顶的负面事物，便绝不可能过上充满爱与精彩的生活。 相反，如果一个人选择将注意力倾注在积极的维度——沉浸于爱、真挚的友谊、社区联结以及自认为真正有价值的事情中，不仅能从内部获得更好的生命能量，其对待他人的方式也会发生翻天覆地的转变。这种善意与充盈会像蝴蝶效应一样向外泛起涟漪，进而积极影响接触到的每一个人。罗根特别提到，这种生活方式对生理健康也至关重要，正如两人先前所探讨的那样，孤立与孤独是健康最大的杀手之一，罗宾斯更是感叹道“孤独真的会要了你的命”。在全场谈话的尾声，罗根毫不吝啬赞美之词，由衷称赞罗宾斯是个“酷透了的家伙”，罗宾斯也真诚感谢了罗根的邀请，两位老友在轻松温暖的互道感谢中为本次长谈画上了句号。 - **注意力塑造生命体验**：思维的投射决定生活品质，持续沉浸于恶意与抱怨会彻底剥夺体验美好生活的能力。 - **健康的最大威胁**：社交孤立与孤独感对身心具有实质性的致命破坏力，而真实的情感联结和社区归属是维系健康的关键支柱。 - **罗根的谢幕评价**：罗根在节目收尾时向罗宾斯坦言“跟你聊天太愉快了，你真是个酷透了的家伙”（"Tim Robbins, you're a cool motherf***er"）。 ## Notable quotes > [09:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=582s) 你到底他妈的为什么要接这个剧本？ — 阿兰·阿金 (Alan Arkin) > [29:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=1777s) 批评安东尼·福奇，就是批评科学。 — 安东尼·福奇 (Anthony Fauci) > [35:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2148s) 如果一个人行使自由发声的权利，其代价是面临工作被砸、前途尽毁的威胁，那我们是否还能自称生活在一个“自由社会”？ — 蒂姆·罗宾斯 (Tim Robbins) > [47:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=2821s) 杀鸡儆猴，明摆着是在警告所有人——‘看好了，我们连她都能轻易毁掉，收拾你们更是易如反掌，所以都给我闭嘴！’ — 蒂姆·罗宾斯 (Tim Robbins) > [01:14:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=4479s) 我们再也不听这玩意儿了！从今往后只有朋克摇滚！ — Frank > [02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7548s) 身体是一座圣殿，身体能够治愈一切疾病。 — 蒂姆·罗宾斯的母亲 > [02:05:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7548s) 无论任何医生对你说了什么，你都必须去质疑。一定要去找另一位医生核对，看他们是否给出相同的诊断，永远都要如此。 — 蒂姆·罗宾斯的母亲 > [02:08:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=7708s) 你受伤了。你是一名战士，你受伤了，你需要休息，但战斗并没有结束。 — 蒂姆·罗宾斯的母亲 > [02:16:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8196s) 别担心，我会处理好的。 — 蒂姆·罗宾斯的外祖父 > [02:23:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8621s) 这就是你们西方人的毛病，把所有事情都当成商业交易。我是全心全意为你做这件事的，你难道就不能单纯接受别人对你的照顾吗？在学会坦然接受爱之前，你永远不可能真正懂得如何去给予爱。 — 藏族女子 > [02:23:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8621s) 你曾为这个世界做过好事，我们需要你 — 藏族女子 > [02:29:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY&t=8945s) 跟你聊天太愉快了，你真是个酷透了的家伙 — 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan) ## Mentioned 蒂姆·罗宾斯 (Tim Robbins), 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan), 扬米 (Young Jamie), 斯蒂芬·金 (Stephen King), 斯坦利·库布里克 (Stanley Kubrick), 罗伯特·奥特曼 (Robert Altman), 阿兰·阿金 (Alan Arkin), 安东尼·福奇 (Anthony Fauci), 苏珊·萨兰登 (Susan Sarandon), 罗杰·沃特斯 (Roger Waters), 乔治·卡林 (George Carlin), 比尔·希克斯 (Bill Hicks), 戈尔·维达尔 (Gore Vidal), 威廉·F·巴克利 (William F. Buckley Jr.), 库尔特·冯内古特 (Kurt Vonnegut), 诺曼·梅勒 (Norman Mailer), 霍华德·津恩 (Howard Zinn), 乔治·卢卡斯 (George Lucas), 吉米·亨德里克斯 (Jimi Hendrix), 特德·特纳 (Ted Turner), 迈克尔·法斯宾德 (Michael Fassbender), 吉恩·西斯克尔 (Gene Siskel), 罗杰·伊伯特 (Roger Ebert), 马龙·白兰度 (Marlon Brando), 蒙哥马利·克利夫特 (Montgomery Clift), 查理·卓别林 (Charlie Chaplin), 弗里茨·朗 (Fritz Lang), 卢克莱修 (Lucretius), 《肖申克的救赎》（The Shawshank Redemption）, 《伴我同行》（Stand by Me）, 《闪灵》（The Shining）, 《羊楼 / 地堡》（Silo）, 《大玩家》（The Player）, 《随军记者》（Embedded）, 《天生赢家》（Bob Roberts）, 《天降神兵》（Howard the Duck）, 《神秘河》（Mystic River）, 《言语的秘密生活》（The Secret Life of Words）, 《代号46》（Code 46）, 《引火线》（Catch a Fire）, 《诺斯费拉图》（Nosferatu）, 《大都会》（Metropolis）, 《M 就是凶手》（M）, 《物性论》（De Rerum Natura）, 演员帮 (The Actors' Gang), 中央情报局 (CIA), 国际足联 (FIFA), 代林库尤地下城 (Derinkuyu underground city), 伊维菌素 (Ivermectin), 意大利即兴喜剧 (Commedia dell'arte), 演员工会 (SAG-AFTRA), 编剧工会 (WGA), 黑胶唱片 (LP), 大师排毒法 (Master Cleanse), 死藤水 (Ayahuasca) ## Video description Tim Robbins is an Academy Award-winning actor, director, writer, and producer known for such films as "The Shawshank Redemption," "Mystic River," and "The Hudsucker Proxy." He currently stars in the Apple TV+ series "Silo." https://www.apple.com/tv-pr/originals/silo/ https://www.timrobbins.net Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Open an account in minutes at https://Chime.com/Rogan Switch today at https://www.Visible.com for just 25/mo. Or Save $10 on your first month of Visible+ Pro with code ROGAN. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur_-7JONZlY)

[9:42] 阿兰·阿金 (Alan Arkin): 你到底他妈的为什么要接这个剧本？ [29:37] 安东尼·福奇 (Anthony Fauci): 批评安东尼·福奇，就是批评科学。 [35:48] 蒂姆·罗宾斯 (Tim Robbins): 如果一个人行使自由发声的权利，其代价是面临工作被砸、前途尽毁的威胁，那我们是否还能自称生活在一个“自由社会”？ [47:01] 蒂姆·罗宾斯 (Tim Robbins): 杀鸡儆猴，明摆着是在警告所有人——‘看好了，我们连她都能轻易毁掉，收拾你们更是易如反掌，所以都给我闭嘴！’ [74:39] Frank: 我们再也不听这玩意儿了！从今往后只有朋克摇滚！ [125:48] 蒂姆·罗宾斯的母亲: 身体是一座圣殿，身体能够治愈一切疾病。 [125:48] 蒂姆·罗宾斯的母亲: 无论任何医生对你说了什么，你都必须去质疑。一定要去找另一位医生核对，看他们是否给出相同的诊断，永远都要如此。 [128:28] 蒂姆·罗宾斯的母亲: 你受伤了。你是一名战士，你受伤了，你需要休息，但战斗并没有结束。 [136:36] 蒂姆·罗宾斯的外祖父: 别担心，我会处理好的。 [143:41] 藏族女子: 这就是你们西方人的毛病，把所有事情都当成商业交易。我是全心全意为你做这件事的，你难道就不能单纯接受别人对你的照顾吗？在学会坦然接受爱之前，你永远不可能真正懂得如何去给予爱。 [143:41] 藏族女子: 你曾为这个世界做过好事，我们需要你 [149:05] 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan): 跟你聊天太愉快了，你真是个酷透了的家伙

[50:07] Tim Robbins: And what they come to understand is that they don't have to respond to anger with anger... they start to understand that they are more than the worst act that got them there. [55:07] Joe Rogan: That's the whole great purpose and function of a philosopher or a stand-up comedian is to take your worldview, shatter it a little bit and make you rethink. [61:25] Tim Robbins: I walked on the set the first day and knew we were in trouble... it was just betrayal by puppeteering. [67:21] Joe Rogan: This part of it is just like your brain's like, 'This isn't really happening,' [73:03] Frank: We're never listening to that again... it's punk rock from this point forward. [77:28] Tim Robbins: You have access to everything, but you don't have the arbiter that is a person [80:54] Tim Robbins: I'm the turtle. I know the turtle can win the race. [84:34] Tim Robbins: Writers don't... if an actor is like trouble, they'll kill him. I've been told about one of the guys I worked with... there were three actors that were giving him a real hard time... Basically, they shot them all in the anatomy that was associated with what their problem was. [93:45] Tim Robbins: Only will the risk produce something genuine and new and fresh. If you don't gamble... it's going to—the audience going to know it. [125:33] Tim Robbins: You're injured. You're a warrior and you're injured and you need to rest, but the fight's not over. [131:40] Tim Robbins: Don't worry, I'll take care of it. [140:19] Tibetan singer: Sit down. That's the problem with you people in the West. It's all a business deal. I'm doing this for you. Can you just accept that I'm taking care of you?... You will never know how to give love until you know how to receive love. [145:41] Joe Rogan: Tim Robbins, you're a cool motherfucker

[0:01] Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. [0:04] >> The Joe Rogan Experience. [0:06] >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY [0:08] NIGHT. All day. [0:12] >> All right. Jamie's very geeked out. I [0:14] want to let you know. He didn't want to [0:15] say it. [0:16] >> Shank is his all-time favorite movie, so [0:18] he was kind of freaking out when he met [0:19] you. [0:20] >> Thanks, Jamie. [0:20] >> No problem. [0:21] >> I mean, [0:21] >> thank you. It's all time. I mean, you're [0:23] you're a part of one of like easily one [0:25] of the greatest movies in the history of [0:27] people. [0:28] >> I know. It's such a gift. I mean, when [0:30] people come up and say something about [0:32] it that it usually is coming from a [0:35] pretty deep place, you know, [0:37] >> if you didn't like that movie, there's [0:39] something you should go to a doctor. [0:40] There's you need medication. There's [0:42] something wrong with you. It's amazing [0:44] movie. And weird that it's a Stephen [0:46] King movie, too. You know, he's that guy [0:48] is arguably one of the most prolific [0:51] guys in the history of fiction. [0:52] >> Yeah. And in the same novella, there was [0:55] uh Stand by Me, too. [0:57] >> Oh, wow. [0:57] >> Yeah. So [0:58] >> that's amazing. [1:00] >> So weird he writes so his stuff his [1:02] stuff varies so much. He had to do like [1:04] a pseudonym at one point in time. [1:05] Remember he did Richard Bachmann cuz he [1:07] was turning out so many books. So like [1:08] hey we can't keep selling these [ __ ] [1:10] Stephen King books and he's like well [1:12] how would I come up with another another [1:14] name like give me a fake name and he [1:15] just started killing it under gota gota [1:19] >> Yeah. Wild wild guy [1:21] >> man. [1:22] >> Yeah. Just a very unusual human. You [1:24] know they exist. [1:25] >> Yeah. I've only met him once. [1:27] >> Really? Yeah. [1:28] >> Did you meet him like when you were [1:29] filming the movie? [1:30] >> Uh around the premiere time. Yeah. [1:32] >> Yeah. So, he's out there, man. [1:34] >> Yeah. [1:35] >> You know, during his early days, I'm I'm [1:38] fascinated by his early days cuz his [1:40] early days he was off the rails with [1:43] cocaine and alcohol and some of the best [1:45] [ __ ] that he made. He doesn't even [1:47] remember read writing it. [1:48] >> Wow. [1:49] >> I think Coo I think is one of the books [1:51] his wife took out of the garbage cuz he [1:53] threw it away. He's like, "Fuck this [1:55] book. This book sucks." It was it was [1:56] Coojo or one of the classics. [1:59] >> Yeah. [1:59] >> And she was like, "Are you out of your [2:01] [ __ ] mind?" Like, "This is [2:02] incredible." [2:03] >> And he was literally gonna throw it out [2:05] cuz he was just out of his mind. [2:06] >> He wrote The Shining, right? [2:08] >> Yeah. [2:08] >> So, [2:09] >> was it Carrie? [2:10] >> He threw Carrie away. [2:12] >> Crazy. Crazy. [2:14] >> Crazy. [2:16] >> Yeah. Shining was a big movie for a [2:18] book. Big book for me. I was, you know, [2:20] working in a nineto-five job and, you [2:23] know, in between colleges and it really [2:25] like woke me up to [2:27] >> Yeah. [2:27] >> to all kinds of great possibilities in [2:30] writing. [2:31] >> Well, he hated the movie, which is so [2:33] crazy cuz he felt like Jack Nicholson [2:36] got insane too quickly. [2:38] >> Really? [2:39] >> Yeah. Cuz in the book, you know, I read [2:41] the book, too. It's it's very different. [2:43] similar, but it's more of a drawn out [2:46] process of him becoming possessed by the [2:49] property. [2:50] >> A slower roll out. [2:51] >> Yeah. He like Jack Nicholson was kind of [2:53] kooky already, like right away, which [2:56] you know, [2:57] >> it's Jack Nicholson. Like it's also [3:00] Stanley Cubri. It's like he's got to do [3:02] his interpretation of it. You just got [3:04] to accept that. [3:05] >> Of course. Yeah. That's some scary [ __ ] [3:07] in that. [3:08] >> [ __ ] man. His books are insane. Yeah. [3:11] It's like what is going on inside that [3:13] guy's mind or was going on inside that [3:14] guy's mind when he was writing that. [3:16] >> God knows. [3:17] >> I think once he got clean, he kind of [3:18] changed and straightened out and [3:21] different different human now. [3:23] >> But boy, I'm I'm fascinated by the off [3:25] the rails days cuz the books were so [3:27] nuts. [3:28] >> Was was Shawik during that time? [3:31] >> I don't know. It must have been. It must [3:34] have been because I I don't think he got [3:36] sober until [3:39] it was decades after his career began. [3:42] >> Wow. [3:43] >> Some of the great stuff like [3:47] I think all the stand I think all that [3:49] stuff he was out of his mind and he was [3:50] writing all those. [3:51] >> But in the midst of all that madness [3:52] there's a tenderness, you know. Oh yeah. [3:54] That's Oh, a great humanity to it all. [3:57] Yeah. but also just a a true [3:59] understanding of the darkest nature of [4:02] humans and [4:04] >> and how they're influenced and then of [4:06] course you know demonic possession and [4:09] Salem's lot and all that other crazy [4:10] [ __ ] like it was just [4:12] >> it was so good [4:13] >> but then the idea that a library can be [4:15] the uh you know in Shashik that the [4:17] library can be the liberation. [4:19] >> Yeah, you know. [4:20] >> Yeah. No, it was it was amazing amazing [4:22] movie. Um, we were talking about your [4:25] new show, Silo, which I not new. Um, [4:28] it's been around for three seasons. I [4:30] just started watching it, so it's new to [4:32] me. I watched the first two episodes [4:33] last night. It was [ __ ] great and [4:35] very original and interesting. And I was [4:38] telling you before that it made me think [4:40] of this place that they discovered [4:42] fairly recently in Turkey called Darren [4:45] Cuyu. And Darren Cuyu is this [4:47] underground city that's massive. I think [4:51] it I think it could I think it could [4:54] hold 20,000 people. [4:56] >> Wow. [4:57] >> Something nutty like that. [4:58] >> I've seen pictures of it. Yeah. [5:00] >> Found completely by accident. [5:02] >> Yeah. [5:02] >> So, some guy lost one of his chickens, [5:04] went through a hole in the wall and [5:06] never came back and he was trying to [5:08] figure out where this [ __ ] chicken [5:09] went. So, he broke down the wall to see [5:11] what was going on. And then they [5:13] realized that there's this insane [5:16] underground city. [5:17] >> Oh my god. [5:18] >> Yeah. underneath this town in Turkey and [5:20] it's massive. Just absolutely massive. [5:24] They have no idea who made it. There's [5:26] no historical record of it. [5:27] >> Any idea of when? [5:29] >> Well, you know, they they make guesses [5:32] based on stuff they find there, but it's [5:34] when you carbon date an object, right? [5:36] So, you could go visit the pyramids [5:38] today, right? And you could leave behind [5:40] some stuff, right? And then [5:42] >> everybody dies. Humanity dies out in a [5:44] cataclysm. And then a 100,000 years from [5:47] now, people start looking through the [5:49] the piles of some of these sites and the [5:51] pyramids will probably still be there. [5:53] And if there was any organic material [5:54] left, like a book that you left or, you [5:57] know, a leatherbound book or some piece [5:59] of wood, they could carbon date that. [6:01] And then that would say the time that [6:03] you were there, but it wouldn't say the [6:04] time the actual structure was made. [6:06] >> All right. [6:06] >> So, who knows how long people show me [6:08] some more pictures of that, please. [6:09] >> I was looking up when it was made. [6:11] >> Do they know? [6:11] >> No, definitely don't know. They they [6:13] didn't even know it existed. I mean, it [6:15] was When was it found? [6:18] >> I feel like it was found in the 20th [6:19] century. [6:21] >> There must have been some kind of [6:22] hostile force that they built it to. [6:25] >> Exactly. Or something going on outside. [6:29] And not not just hostile, but [6:31] environmental. [6:33] So 1963, rediscovered in 1963. [6:37] >> Wow. [6:39] >> That's crazy. is in his [ __ ] house. [6:42] Even today, only 10% of it is accessible [6:44] to tourists. The rest is still being [6:46] explored. That's how nuts it is. So, how [6:49] many people do they think it held at [6:51] when it was operational? I think it's [6:54] something like 20,000 people. I That's [6:56] how big this place is. [6:58] >> That's amazing. [6:59] >> So, they don't know when or why. And [7:03] depending on how around 20,000 people [7:06] >> plus livestock [7:07] >> plus livestock and food stores. [7:10] >> Really? How they farmed down there? [7:12] >> Who [ __ ] knows? I I don't know. But [7:14] they had grain storage. They had all [7:16] kinds of stuff down there. [7:17] >> Oil presses. [7:18] >> 18 levels reaching 85 m. So 280 ft deep [7:23] into the ground with ventilation shafts, [7:25] wells, stables, wine and oil presses, [7:28] storage rooms, chapels, and school [7:31] rooms, plus a halfton circular stone [7:33] doors that could be rolled shut from the [7:35] inside only. So they were obviously [7:39] either fighting off some sort of an army [7:41] or the outside air was hostile. There [7:43] was something going on. [7:44] >> Got too hot or something. [7:45] >> Could have been. [7:46] >> Yeah. Yeah. [7:47] >> Well, there's been many moments in the [7:49] the time that human beings were alive [7:51] where there have been cataclysms. You [7:53] know, there's this thing called the [7:54] younger desty. That's around 11,800 [7:58] years ago. There's all this evidence [8:00] that there was massive asteroid impacts [8:02] all over the earth, comet impacts. [8:04] Uh-huh. [8:05] >> And they think that it was probably a [8:07] reset of civilization. And so this could [8:10] have been post that. It could have been [8:12] how some people survived in in these [8:15] areas. [8:16] >> Human beings have this amazing ability [8:19] to survive. [8:20] >> Yeah. [8:20] >> I mean, you know, [8:21] >> which is silo. I mean, it's it's really [8:23] a silo is a modern version of Darren [8:25] Kuya. [8:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. And here I was, you know, [8:29] uh, in the middle of lockdown when I [8:30] received those scripts and I was like, [8:33] "Oh, this is this is actually talking [8:35] about right now." [8:36] >> Yeah. [8:37] >> This is about a controlled society where [8:40] information is censored and where um [8:44] compliance is necessary and if you don't [8:47] comply, you get sent out into the [8:48] hostile environment. Uh, it was all too [8:52] uh familiar metaphorically for me. [8:54] >> It's perfect timing. Yeah. Perfect [8:56] timing [8:56] >> because you got to think that he must [8:57] have written that before, right? [8:59] >> Yeah. Many years ago. [9:00] >> So, it was just got lucky. [9:02] >> Yeah. Yeah. [9:03] >> Perfect synchronicity. [9:05] >> Yeah. [9:05] >> Yeah. [9:06] >> I've been blessed that way in my career. [9:08] Yeah. [9:08] >> What do you think that's about? Do you [9:09] ever wonder why you're so lucky? [9:12] >> Obviously, you're very talented, but [9:14] it's also there's a lot of talented [9:16] people that don't nothing ever happens [9:18] for them. [9:18] >> I think it comes down to the ability to [9:20] say no. [9:23] uh at crucial times when I was facing [9:26] down either, you know, you know, when I [9:29] remember when I first had my uh first [9:32] child and I was broke and I got offered [9:35] this comedy that was dumb and it was a [9:39] million bucks and I needed the money and [9:42] I also had an opportunity if I waited uh [9:46] Robert Alman was trying to put together [9:48] the player. Ah. [9:50] >> So I threw caution in the wind and said, [9:53] "No, I can't do that stupid comedy." [9:55] >> What was the stupid comedy? Do you [9:57] remember? [9:57] >> Uh, yeah. It was called Folks. [10:03] I remember flying out to LA to meet on [10:06] it and uh I'm with Alan Arin [10:09] and uh he was the guy that was going to [10:11] play my father in this thing and he [10:13] said, "What the [ __ ] are you doing this [10:15] script for?" I said, "I need the money." [10:18] He says, "I don't know. I'm not sure I [10:20] want to do this thing. [10:26] I was like, thank you Alan Arin for [10:28] confirming what I was thinking. Wow. [10:30] >> Yeah. [10:31] >> And so I said no and and then player [10:33] came through and shifted my whole [10:36] career. So [10:37] >> yeah, it's a matter of following that [10:40] voice in your head, the instinct, the [10:42] one that's telling you this is the right [10:43] way to go. [10:44] >> Yeah. even though there's all sorts of [10:46] influence that want to lead you into the [10:48] other direction. [10:49] >> There was a period of time uh about 101 [10:52] 15 years ago when I got offered in the [10:54] course of [10:56] seven months I got offered to play the [10:59] head of the CIA three times. [11:03] >> Did you ever wonder what that's all [11:05] about? [11:05] >> I I couldn't even imagine. I mean, for [11:08] some reason that was I don't know. I [11:11] have no idea. And then a couple years [11:13] after that and again, you know, you're [11:15] you're looking down at your bills and [11:18] your mortgages and stuff and you need [11:20] the money and just have to I don't want [11:22] to do that. Right? Then a few a few [11:25] years after a couple years after that, I [11:26] got offered in the course of a couple [11:29] months one to play the head of FIFA [11:33] >> uh which is a corrupt organization, but [11:35] in the movie it was, you know, you know, [11:36] they were the best people in the world, [11:38] right? [11:39] >> Propaganda. Not to mention that the head [11:41] of FIFA was a Brazilian and I had, you [11:43] know, but they were offering a ton of [11:45] money and basically it was FIFA [11:46] producing a movie about itself. [11:49] >> Oh wow. [11:49] >> And uh after that I got a offer to play [11:52] the head of the Chilean mine that was uh [11:55] had just had this huge disaster and it [11:57] turns out the mining company was they [11:59] were really nice people you know [12:00] according to the script [12:04] and it wasn't bad management or anything [12:06] or you know that that made the disaster [12:09] happen. So, I realized that that the [12:11] oligarchs are starting to make movie [12:13] about themselves. It's got oligarchical [12:16] cinema. It's it's like they produce [12:18] movies that make themselves look really [12:20] good [12:20] >> and you can get away with it. [12:22] >> Oh, hell yeah. Nobody knows. Nobody [12:23] cares. And they think they can buy [12:25] anybody. And they almost bought me, but [12:27] I just I have to at times I just have to [12:30] look, you know, face it down and say, [12:32] "Listen, it it's not right in my heart. [12:34] I can't I can't do it." [12:36] >> Yeah. Well, that's great. you've got [12:38] that north star. [12:39] >> It's great that I had the luxury to do [12:41] that. You know, often times people don't [12:43] have that luxury, [12:44] >> right? And one bad decision can pigeon [12:46] hole you right [12:47] >> in a bad direction and then you'll never [12:49] get the ones that you really want, [12:50] right? [12:51] >> Yeah. These movies about you playing CIA [12:54] head, did they ever get made? [12:55] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, there were TV shows and [12:58] movies. Yeah. [12:59] >> Was any of it any good? [13:01] >> No. [13:08] I I remember the I remember when we were [13:10] doing movies like uh you know the day of [13:13] the condor you know which was like [13:15] critical of the CIA and I think now we [13:18] have the rogue CIA agents that are [13:20] actually good guys and you know listen [13:22] CIA you know whatever it does nobody [13:25] really knows the extent of what they do [13:28] but they do have a lot of good [13:32] portrayals in in the media. [13:35] >> I think there's good people that are in [13:37] the CIA as well and I think that it's [13:40] necessary. I just think that they [13:42] obviously have unchecked power and [13:43] they've done some really [ __ ] shady [13:45] [ __ ] [13:46] >> Yeah. [13:46] >> You know, in in the name of this is the [13:48] right thing to do right now, including [13:50] selling drugs. [13:51] >> Yeah. You know, [13:51] >> I remember that. I ran Contra. I [13:53] remember that. [13:54] >> That's one of I mean, I remember that [13:56] because I was gosh, I guess I was either [13:59] right out of high school. It was like in [14:01] that area where the whole Oliver Stone [14:03] thing was on television all the time and [14:05] it was just [14:05] >> Oliver North. [14:06] >> Oliver North, excuse me. Oliver North [14:08] and Ronald Reagan and uh there was this [14:10] guy uh Jimmy Tingle, hilarious Boston [14:13] standup comedian [14:14] >> who had a great joke about it [14:16] >> where they're interviewing uh Ronald [14:18] Reagan and they say, "Mr. President, did [14:20] you ever sell arms to people who hate [14:23] us?" And uh he he's like, "I don't [14:26] remember." He goes, "Well, in the [14:27] future, if you sell arms to people who [14:29] hate us, jot it down." [14:35] >> Make a note of it. [14:37] >> He goes, "Put a postit on your [14:38] refrigerator." [14:40] >> Today I sold arms to Iran. [14:43] >> I remember that. That was in the 80s. I [14:45] I I did a play about it. I wrote a play [14:47] about it. Really? [14:48] >> And we performed it with the actors [14:50] gang. Yeah. There was a meme that was on [14:52] uh social media recently that was it [14:55] showed Oliver North during the the whole [14:58] Iran Contra trials when you know they [15:00] got caught selling drugs in Los Angeles [15:03] to fund the Contras versus the [15:04] Santinistas in Nicaragua and then he [15:07] goes to jail and then then the same guy [15:09] you see later on Fox News as like a war [15:12] analyst and it's like this hilarious [15:15] meme like if you told me if you told me [15:18] in 1980 whatever the [ __ ] it was where, [15:20] you know, he got in trouble that he [15:22] would eventually be the guy that they [15:24] call upon for expert advice on what's [15:27] going on overseas. Like, [15:28] >> yeah, that's a it's a deep connection [15:31] that goes back years. All the people [15:33] that get it wrong, they get they got [15:35] particularly Iraq war, they got anyone [15:37] that got it wrong got promotions. [15:38] >> Yeah. And no one got in trouble. [15:40] >> No one got fired. You know, people in [15:42] the media as well, you know, they they [15:43] promoted it. They got, you know, better [15:46] jobs. Well, this is kind of the only [15:49] time in our lifetimes where there's [15:51] actual real independent media, you know, [15:53] where there's independent journalists [15:55] that are not connected to any major [15:57] corporations that are operating either [15:58] on Substack or online or on YouTube or [16:00] on X. It's fascinating because they [16:04] they're the ones that are exposing all [16:07] these connections that the media and the [16:10] Central Intelligence Agency and all [16:11] these other government organizations [16:12] have had where they've all been working [16:14] together forever spinning narratives on [16:17] TV. And so like anytime something like [16:19] the Iraq war happens where they go, "Oh, [16:21] we've got weapons of mass destruction. [16:22] We got to go in there." No weapons of [16:24] mass destruction. No one no one goes [16:25] away. No one gets in trouble. And the [16:27] same people are on TV telling you about [16:28] some new thing that you have to pay [16:29] attention to. It's like this is nuts. [16:32] This episode is brought to you by Chime. [16:34] And I know people don't usually get [16:36] excited about banking, but Chime is [16:38] doing something different and it's worth [16:40] paying attention to. In a recent survey, [16:42] they ranked the number one choice for [16:44] new checking accounts in America. That [16:46] means real people, millions of them, are [16:48] choosing this over traditional banks. [16:51] That's because banking at Chime is fee [16:53] free. No monthly fees, no overdraft [16:56] fees, and thousands of feefree ATMs. But [17:00] here's the real kicker. If you get their [17:02] Chime card, it gives you 5% cash back on [17:05] a category you actually pick yourself. [17:07] Your savings rate, crazy high. It's nine [17:10] times the national average. They're [17:11] calling it the most rewarding way to [17:13] bank. Go to chime.com/roganogen. [17:16] Takes a few minutes to sign up. Chime is [17:18] a fintech, not a bank, banking services. [17:22] and Chime card provided by Chime's bank [17:25] partners. Terms and limits apply. Go to [17:27] chime.com/disclosures [17:30] for more details. [17:32] >> Well, some people get in trouble. People [17:34] that come up out against it [17:36] >> and there's never any apologies. I I I [17:38] did I did I you know, I risked, you [17:40] know, a lot to do it and uh you know, [17:43] wound up being right, but no one ever [17:46] said, "Hey, you were right." You know, [17:47] and [17:48] >> this was during the Iraq war. [17:49] >> Yeah. Um, what did you say? [17:52] >> I uh I I I was one of maybe five people [17:56] that were famous that came out against [18:00] that. Um went on, you know, in various [18:03] television shows and made a couple [18:04] speeches. I got my uh appearance at the [18:08] Baseball Hall of Fame for Bull Durham [18:10] 15th anniversary or something like [18:11] cancelled uh by the head of the the [18:14] Baseball Hall of Fame. It was [18:16] >> real uh you you know it was funny [18:18] because I was [18:19] >> I was doing a show at the time and uh I [18:22] heard about it and I had I started [18:24] writing a response but uh it was already [18:27] printed by the time I had my response. [18:30] Right. So I got the next day I got a [18:33] bunch of um people contacting me. I [18:35] hired a crisis PR person for the first [18:38] time in my life and uh wound up getting [18:40] my letter to Dale Petroski, the head of [18:43] the Hall of Fame out there with the uh [18:47] with the press release. They were [18:49] basically ambushed trying to, you know, [18:51] to call me a traitor and all this stuff. [18:53] >> Wow. [18:53] >> And um so I pushed back and the the [18:57] publicist that I had hired was very [18:59] smart. He said, "We're going to send [19:00] this to all the sports writers." And it [19:02] was the sports writers that wrote the [19:04] articles defending freedom of speech. [19:06] >> Wow. [19:07] >> At the time. So it was um [19:09] >> what year was this? Is this is right [19:11] after 911? [19:12] >> This was uh right when we were cooking [19:14] up the war, 2003. [19:16] So um and I remember you know and I also [19:20] wrote a piece about that called Embedded [19:23] uh that we've performed for the first [19:25] time three weeks after Bush landed on [19:27] that aircraft carrier with a mission [19:29] accomplished thing. So that wound up [19:32] playing it uh across the country. We [19:35] toured it and played the New York Public [19:37] Theater and played in London. But it was [19:40] attacked when we went to New York. you [19:42] know, they sent someone uh from that [19:45] wasn't a theater critic be while we were [19:47] still in previews and published this [19:49] thing in uh I think it was the New [19:51] Republic uh basically calling me [19:55] conspiracy theorist, anti-semite, all [19:57] this stuff [19:58] >> to try to discredit this play that was [20:00] playing at the public. [20:02] >> How did they connect anti-semite? [20:03] >> You know that it that doesn't matter [20:05] that that's what they throw at it. There [20:07] was nothing anti-semitic about the play. [20:08] Of course, [20:09] >> it's it was just a it's it's one of the [20:12] things they use to to discredit people. [20:14] >> What did you know um about like So, what [20:18] made you compelled to come out against [20:20] the war? Like [20:20] >> I was reading foreign press. I was [20:22] reading uh stuff from Europe and um what [20:26] they were writing about the weapons of [20:28] mass destruction and that there that [20:30] there wasn't any evidence and it wasn't [20:32] being covered like it was uh here. It [20:34] was more open, more [20:37] >> transparent. the the reporting and so I [20:39] was trusting that and I trusting sources [20:41] that I had trusted in the past and uh [20:44] realized that when I did question the [20:48] attacks were viciferous. So that usually [20:51] is a tell like in poker that's like a it [20:54] usually means you're on to something. [20:55] you're over the mark [20:56] >> if they if if you if they when I came [20:59] out against that first war in Iraq in ' [21:01] 91 [21:03] remember the Elder Bush said well you [21:06] know this is a democracy people have the [21:09] right to oppo you know oppose it and [21:11] that that was their response but this [21:12] one was like you're a traitor you're [21:14] Saddam supporter terrorist sympathizer [21:17] all that stuff they really attacked and [21:20] that told me that uh was probably over [21:22] the target you know so [21:23] >> yeah that had to [21:26] a very disturbing moment because look, [21:28] it turns out you were right. And not [21:30] only were you right, but now today in [21:32] 2026, it's universally accepted that [21:35] there were no weapons of mass [21:36] destruction. That was a terrible war and [21:38] it was not something that should have [21:39] ever happened. [21:40] >> Yeah. [21:40] >> Universally. Like if you said it today, [21:43] it's not even remotely controversial. [21:45] >> Yeah. Well, that's the way it works. [21:46] They finally they admit the truth later. [21:49] You know, I think they're doing that now [21:51] with co, you know, the Fouchi is going [21:54] to do his thing tomorrow. I very curious [21:56] to see what happens with that. So, [21:59] >> well, they don't give you a universal [22:01] pardon for 10 years [22:03] if you didn't do something. I mean, you [22:05] don't you don't campaign for that if [22:07] there's not some [22:08] >> some smoke. Yeah, that was a very scary [22:11] time that, you know, it was, you know, [22:13] to come out when when people when when [22:16] the when the media is attacking you, [22:18] it's a very scary thing. But the great [22:21] good fortune I had uh in 2003, so living [22:25] in New York at the time, right? So, I [22:26] would have to walk my kids to school and [22:30] uh I remember thinking, "Oh my god, [22:32] what's going to happen?" You know, are [22:33] there going to be people yelling at me, [22:35] etc. And that wasn't the truth. The [22:38] truth was that people if anything said [22:41] you know way to go [22:43] >> right [22:44] >> uh thanks for speaking for us and if [22:46] they disagreed they said you know you [22:48] have the right to do it that's the way [22:49] generally people are in this country [22:52] >> and should be [22:52] >> and and we I usually would take uh every [22:55] year I would take my kids to um the [22:58] final four and that year it was in San [23:01] Antonio and I remember thinking oh my [23:03] god I'm going down to Texas and they're [23:05] going to yell at me down there and no [23:06] one said a damn thing. So the reality on [23:09] the ground was a lot different than the [23:11] reality they were creating. The reality [23:12] they were creating was to intimidate [23:14] other people into silence. [23:16] >> It wasn't based on any kind of real [23:18] reality of people being angry at me. It [23:21] was more uh them trying to intimidate [23:24] others. [23:25] >> And so that same thing kind of happened. [23:27] And I I recognized that same smell uh [23:31] when COVID was happening when people [23:33] came out uh and started asking questions [23:36] and were deplatformed or um marginalized [23:39] or cancelled and uh you know I I I [23:43] followed what you were going through [23:45] with the the Ivormectin which was [23:48] >> uh a drug that I had taken and you know [23:51] I had lost my sense of smell and a day [23:53] later it was back. So I I knew there was [23:56] something going on with that. And and [23:58] you know, in an emergency, why not find [24:02] whatever you can treat until your magic [24:04] potion arrives, you know? [24:06] >> It wasn't just that. It was like the [24:08] completely disingenuous characterization [24:10] of it as a veterinary drug and calling [24:13] it horse paste or horse dewormer, which [24:17] is crazy. Yeah. It's crazy to because [24:20] maybe that would have worked in 1980 [24:22] when people would have to go to the [24:23] encyclopedia to find out what Imekin [24:25] really was. But when you're trying to do [24:28] that in 2020, it's just too easy to look [24:30] up, oh look, it got a Nobel Prize for [24:33] use in human beings. Oh, it's great for [24:35] yellow fever and deni fever and river [24:37] blindness and oh, this has been used [24:39] billions of times. Oh, it's one of the [24:41] safest. Oh, wait, wait a minute. It's in [24:43] the World Health Organization's [24:44] essential medicines list. Yeah, this is [24:46] crazy. But yet on television it's horse [24:48] dewormer. And even the Rolling Stone had [24:51] an article where they showed people [24:53] waiting in line. They said that people [24:54] in Oklahoma were waiting in line at the [24:57] emergency room with gunshot wounds [24:59] because they couldn't get in there [25:00] because so many people were overdosing [25:02] from ivormectin, [25:03] >> right? [25:03] >> Which is just fake. [25:05] >> Yeah. [25:06] >> And it's in the Rolling Stone and you're [25:08] like, [25:08] >> "What is going on? This is this is [25:10] insane." Even the photograph was fake. [25:12] The photograph showed people wearing [25:13] winter coats because really the line was [25:16] people waiting for a flu shot. That was [25:18] the actual line, right? And they were [25:20] trying to say that these are people [25:21] waiting in line to go to the emergency [25:23] room for a gunshot wound. Like first of [25:25] all, how many [ __ ] people are getting [25:26] shot in Oklahoma? Like what what's going [25:28] on over there? Are you having gunfights [25:30] on the streets? [25:31] >> Wild stuff going on at the time, you [25:33] know, the disinformation and the [25:35] >> Yeah. And just orchestrated propaganda. [25:39] Orchestrated organized. [25:41] >> Yeah. with big money behind it. Wild. [25:44] Wild to watch. [25:46] >> I I suspect that that whole period of [25:48] time was another way to divide us, you [25:51] know, in the in the in the in the larger [25:53] picture. You know, the [25:55] >> orchestrated chaos masquerading as a [25:58] revolution. you know, it's it's it's [26:01] there's been so many of those things [26:03] over the past 5 years, you know, that [26:05] have [26:06] >> you know, alliances that you're building [26:08] and then all of a sudden there's a new [26:10] crisis and now you don't like those [26:12] people that you were building alliances [26:13] with. And it's just one after the other. [26:15] And I ultimately at the end of the day, [26:17] I think it's all about division. It's [26:19] all about dividing us uh and making us [26:23] argue with each other, not finding [26:24] common ground. And uh that's ultimately [26:28] the strategy that's been used from time [26:32] and memorial, you know, for p the power [26:34] to stay in power. How do you get people [26:36] fighting with each other, [26:37] >> right? [26:39] >> Yeah. People don't like to hear that, [26:40] but that's that's a strategy that's been [26:42] used all throughout history. Yeah. And [26:43] it's a good one. Yeah. It works. And [26:46] especially in today's day and age when [26:48] you have social media and then you have [26:51] not just our government but many [26:53] governments that have fake accounts and [26:55] these people just get outraged about [26:57] things or attack things or you know have [26:59] a narrative that they push and you don't [27:01] know if it's real people. You don't know [27:03] what it is. It's just a bunch of [27:04] accounts. You go to the accounts, a [27:05] guy's face, you know it's a woman [27:07] wearing a dress holding a book. She [27:08] seems normal. Meanwhile, it's a man [27:10] somewhere with a bank of computers that [27:13] are all connected to the internet that's [27:14] typing in these different responses with [27:16] a bunch of different or now it's AI [27:18] automated. Yeah. You know, you tell this [27:20] bot to be a a right-wing nationalist [27:23] that's like attacking anything that's [27:25] >> Yeah, it's crazy, man. It's on both [27:27] sides and it's nuts. It's I I was over [27:29] in London doing a project and um I I [27:33] noticed this was during their lockdown [27:35] and I noticed by my hotel there was this [27:38] protest and I I went down to check it [27:41] out, put my mask on. I was very [27:43] compliant at the start of all this and I [27:46] uh I noticed, you know, what they were [27:49] portraying as national front [27:51] right-wingers was actually hippies and [27:53] homeopaths and free speech activists. [27:56] And I I talked to them and I tweeted uh [28:00] hey I don't think it's a right left [28:02] thing here and [28:06] hundreds of attacks of is that whether [28:09] they're bots or you know organized army [28:12] of you know righteousness I have no idea [28:15] but it was I just at that time at that [28:17] point I was just like [ __ ] it I'm not [28:18] going to not going to put my foot in [28:20] this water. These people are nuts. This [28:23] is a crazy crazy time. Yeah, it was [28:26] crazy. Not just from the propaganda [28:28] perspective, but from actual people that [28:29] I knew that were really terrified that [28:31] got caught up in it all. And it was, you [28:34] know, mass formation psychosis is what [28:37] some people called it. And I think [28:38] that's a a good description of Robert [28:40] Malone, I think, termed that or got that [28:42] from somebody else. But that that's [28:44] really what it was. Like everybody just [28:46] kind of went nutty. And there was people [28:47] that were doing the government's job for [28:49] the government or the pharmaceutical [28:51] drug company's job for them. They they [28:53] were the the ones that were enforcing [28:55] all these things. Yeah. And they they [28:57] were doing it because they wanted to be [28:59] they wanted a solution. They wanted to [29:00] be correct. And unfortunately, there's a [29:03] lot of people in this world that don't [29:05] experience much real adversity. And when [29:08] real adversity comes at them, they fall [29:09] apart and they don't they don't know [29:11] what to do and they get scared and they [29:13] they lump up together in teams and then [29:16] they reinforce each other and repeat the [29:18] same things and and they all want to to [29:22] be a part of the right side of history [29:24] or the right side of whatever it is. [29:25] >> And also they're being led to believe [29:27] that that's the virtuous thing to do and [29:29] and you know so it's not like they're [29:32] you know their their intentions are [29:33] good, [29:34] >> right? Uh and um because of that, you [29:37] know, I've I've had a similar experience [29:39] where, you know, friends of mine and um [29:41] people I love that, you know, fell into [29:43] that as I did. I fell in into it for a [29:46] while, you know, that kind of fearbased [29:48] kind of [29:49] >> behavior. And um [29:51] >> I just uh I I've come to understand in [29:55] my later years that one of the things [29:58] that's truly liberating is the ability [30:00] to say, "I don't know." [30:02] >> Yeah. and I may have been wrong. That [30:05] these are two things that have led to [30:08] such great discovery for me. Um, it's [30:11] it's I I really don't trust anymore. I [30:15] don't trust virtuous experts. I don't I [30:17] don't think uh I don't think experts are [30:21] are or are [30:23] I don't believe in experts. I I I think [30:25] if you if you consider yourself an [30:27] expert, you you're done learning. you're [30:30] done speaking with others. [30:32] >> You're done challenging yourself. And uh [30:36] when we put our faith and trust in [30:39] people that are deemed experts, it [30:41] ultimately throughout my experience, [30:44] it's it's led to bad things. Um the [30:47] experts that talked about weapons of [30:49] mass destruction, the experts that talk [30:51] about, you know, various things that [30:54] have led us to uh violent altercations [30:57] throughout the world. I don't I don't [30:59] trust them anymore. I I I trust the idea [31:02] that there are many sides to a story and [31:05] that there is very um there's a lot to [31:08] be gained from having dialogue with [31:11] people you disagree with. [31:13] >> Absolutely. I mean, you know, there are [31:15] experts in some fields and we do need [31:17] them. It is important. Like if you want [31:20] information about the Large Hadron [31:22] Collider, you don't understand like what [31:24] what are they what are you guys doing [31:25] over there? like you need to talk to [31:26] someone who actually understands it, [31:27] who's an expert on particle colliders, [31:30] you know, and it takes a long time to [31:32] develop that sort of knowledge base and [31:34] have an understanding of what they're [31:36] actually trying to accomplish. What is [31:37] the Higs Bosen? What was this particle [31:39] that is a part of that? What is the [31:41] early stages of the universe? Okay, [31:44] >> you're going to measure it. I'll be in [31:46] the bar. [31:46] >> It exists for a quarter of a second or [31:48] something like that. What what are you [31:49] guys doing? Yeah, but the the problem is [31:52] like to bring it back to co one of the [31:54] things that Fouchy said that was so [31:56] wild. He said when you are criticizing [31:59] Anthony Fouchy, you're criticizing [32:00] science. [32:01] >> Yeah. [32:02] >> Well, that is one that just the fact [32:04] that he felt so confident that he could [32:07] say that that is such a crazy thing to [32:10] say and then science became like an [32:12] object religion. [32:14] >> Well, science is supposed to be data. [32:17] It's supposed to be measuring data and [32:20] it's supposed to never be settled. And [32:22] it's always supposed to have a bunch of [32:24] people from various various positions of [32:27] viewing down on this thing, analyzing it [32:29] with new new studies, new data, new [32:32] tests, new hypothesis, working out and [32:34] communicating with each other. It's not [32:36] supposed to be a brick like, you know, [32:38] like this is a brick. If you question [32:39] the brick, like no, no, this is a [32:41] [ __ ] fluid thing that exists only if [32:44] you allow people to ask questions. The [32:46] moment you stop questioning data then [32:50] like and even real experts like guys [32:53] from MIT and Harvard were getting [32:55] deplatformed off of Twitter because they [32:57] didn't believe it. They were saying look [32:58] I don't think this lockdown idea is a [33:00] good idea. I think it's bad for [33:01] children. I think children aren't even [33:03] really susceptible to this disease. Like [33:06] why we why are we doing this? Like [33:07] what's going on? [33:08] >> It became a faith. It it became dogma. [33:10] And if you question the dogma, you were [33:12] a heretic. [33:13] >> Yeah. [33:13] >> You were kicked out of the religion. [33:15] It's it's uh it's was a scary time and [33:18] still is scary. You know, we deal uh the [33:21] actors gang u my nonprofit in Los [33:23] Angeles. We have education programs and [33:26] um we've been dealing with the the [33:29] ramifications of that lockdown for the [33:31] last 5 years. You know, this kids are, [33:34] you know, had two years robbed of them, [33:37] right, [33:37] >> from socialization and education. [33:40] >> And imagine that was your senior year of [33:41] high school, too. [33:42] >> Oh my god. You know, [33:43] >> [ __ ] And we're we're dealing with the [33:45] the the the after effects of that. And [33:48] uh gratefully uh the kind of work we do [33:52] brings them out again. And you know get [33:54] some expressing emotions, making eye [33:56] contact, uh having experiences with [33:59] other children and that are productive. [34:01] And you know it you the good news is you [34:04] can get out of that funk. But that was [34:08] this it was really scary to see those [34:10] kids walk in to classes uh after that [34:14] lockdown cuz they wouldn't make eye [34:16] contact looking at the floor, you know, [34:18] kind of desocialized and traum [34:21] traumatized and you know, it was really [34:23] scary. [34:24] >> Critical development time for them. [34:26] >> Absolutely. Absolutely. [34:27] >> Yeah. And all of a sudden they're [34:28] wearing like imagine being a toddler and [34:30] all a sudden everyone has a mask on and [34:33] >> Yeah. It's weird. [34:33] >> You you don't want to wear the mask. [34:35] They keep trying to take it off and [34:36] people yell at them, put it back on. And [34:38] so it's like terror and anxiety and [34:41] confusion. Also, you're not reading [34:42] people's faces, which is like an [34:44] important part of the developmental [34:45] process. You get to know people, you [34:47] read faces, you see how people talk. All [34:50] of a sudden, everyone's wearing a mask, [34:51] everyone's robbing a bank. Like, this is [34:53] crazy. [34:54] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, I I I've [34:58] tried to approach it all with uh just a [35:01] openness and a compassion for people [35:03] that went through that. You know, I I [35:05] don't attach blame. I don't, you know, [35:09] everyone there was a pretty [35:10] sophisticated propaganda machine that [35:13] was happening. And I I have great [35:15] compassion for people that fell into [35:17] that. And I I I I [35:20] you know, I just want us to not do it [35:23] again, you know. I want us to have the [35:25] uh knowledge and the [35:27] the consciousness to not fall for that [35:30] again. [35:31] >> Yeah. Hopefully. It's just it it was [35:34] very eye opening that it was so easy to [35:36] pull off, you know, that it was so easy [35:40] to get people to just gang up like that. [35:42] It was just [35:45] >> it said it it was it said a lot about [35:47] us. [35:48] >> Yeah. [35:48] >> Unfortunately. And um you know uh I I [35:54] hold faith in humanity, but that was uh [35:57] that was a um that was a tough one. [35:59] >> I do as well. And I think it was a [36:01] learning moment for a lot of people [36:03] whether they admit to it or not, whether [36:05] they're public about it or not, because [36:06] I know a lot of people that just weren't [36:07] public about their descent, but they [36:10] really didn't like any of it. And they [36:11] just didn't really have a position to [36:14] talk about it. And you know, they wanted [36:15] to keep their job and wanted to keep [36:16] their place in the community or whatever [36:19] it was that they were trying to protect [36:20] and they kept their mouth shut. But [36:21] you'd get a couple of drinks in them [36:23] when they were alone, they would tell [36:24] you. Well, that begs the larger question [36:26] is, you know, is it freedom of speech? [36:28] If when you freely speak, your job is [36:33] threatened and your future is [36:35] threatened. Is that are we living in a [36:37] free society, you know? [36:39] >> Right. [36:40] >> Um [36:41] it's uh and that that's still that's not [36:44] just co that's a that's a lot of things. [36:46] That's [36:46] >> is a lot of things. It's almost [36:48] everything. Yeah. [36:49] >> And it it's one of the most important [36:52] things that we do is we disagree. We we [36:55] talk. You you have conversations and [36:57] >> it's the only way to learn [36:58] >> and you get exposed to information that [37:00] maybe you didn't know before you [37:02] establish this opinion that you're [37:03] arguing. [37:04] >> Do you know what was the big tragedy in [37:08] my opinion uh during that time period is [37:11] that we totally lost the water cooler [37:14] conversation. that accidental [37:16] conversation that happens at work with [37:19] the a coworker who you don't necessarily [37:21] agree with, but it's a human being [37:23] expressing something to you in in in [37:27] person and you have to deal with that [37:30] person and their opposing viewpoint. [37:33] >> Yeah. uh we got into our own silos of [37:37] thought [37:38] >> and algorithms of thought and everything [37:42] we experienced during that period of [37:44] time was an affirmation of what we [37:46] believed [37:47] >> rather than a challenge to it. [37:49] >> Yeah. [37:50] >> And so the water cooler was completely [37:52] eliminated. the idea that the accidental [37:55] conversation at a bar um where you're, [37:59] you know, watching a game on the [38:02] television and someone sits next to you [38:04] that is not necessarily of your belief [38:07] system, but you buy them a beer and you [38:09] watch the game together. You know, [38:11] >> all these moments of uh meeting up that [38:15] were were eliminated. [38:18] >> And uh you know, that's what I love [38:20] about sports. I love that you can go [38:22] watch a game and not think about [38:24] politics or not think about your [38:26] differences and think about the team [38:28] that you like and [38:30] >> and and support them together. Same [38:32] thing with theater or any kind of [38:35] gathering of of of individuals, music. [38:38] Uh [38:39] >> um you the what I love about the theater [38:43] that we do is that we're able to take [38:44] people to a common emotion and we never [38:49] want to have a completely [38:51] uh I don't we don't want audiences that [38:54] think the same, right? [38:57] uh you want a disperate amount of people [39:00] uh different beliefs that you can get [39:03] them to share a common emotion and get [39:04] them to laugh together, get them to feel [39:06] something and cry together. Uh that is a [39:09] that's the community you're able to [39:11] build when you're doing a show as you [39:13] know. You know, you you what really [39:17] pissed me off was that when we're we had [39:19] a we have a theater in Los Angeles and [39:21] it was two years we had to be closed. [39:24] Uh, and a year and a half in, we were [39:26] told we could open, but we'd have to [39:29] check vaccine passports at the door. [39:32] And, and I talked to some people at the [39:34] theater, and we agreed there was, no, we [39:36] can't do that. Because what that is [39:39] doing is it's basically saying the only [39:41] people allowed in our theater are people [39:43] that agree with what the government [39:45] wanted. And that for me is not a [39:48] theater. that betrays the whole purpose [39:51] and function of what a theater should [39:53] be. It's a gathering place for the [39:55] community that might think differently [39:57] to bring them together. [39:59] >> And this was saying basically if you [40:01] agree you can come in [40:03] >> and that so we waited another six months [40:06] before we opened the theater until [40:08] everyone could come in. [40:11] >> Yeah. Um, there was a time where you had [40:14] to have a vaccine passport in order to [40:17] perform and uh I there was an exemption [40:21] in New York and you had to have a [40:24] vaccine uh passport if you wanted to go [40:26] to a show, but you didn't have to have [40:28] one if you were performing and I did [40:31] Madison Square Garden. So, the whole [40:32] audience had to have vaccine passports, [40:35] but I didn't. M. [40:37] >> And so there was a senator, I forget who [40:39] it was, that was proposing a a a new law [40:43] based on me sleep sneaking through the [40:46] loophole that performers should have to [40:49] be vaccinated as well. And he was upset [40:51] that I didn't have a that I wasn't [40:53] vaccinated and that I was performing. [40:55] >> You could have infected the entire [40:57] Madison Square. [40:58] >> I could have been a super spreader. [40:59] Yeah. But [41:00] >> well, you know, in London, uh they spent [41:03] a lot of time over there the last five [41:04] years, but they their uh West End [41:06] rebounded immediately [41:09] uh unlike Broadway. Uh and the reason it [41:12] did is because during that time period, [41:14] you could show a vaccine passport, but [41:16] you could also show a negative test. So, [41:18] they didn't demand that you have a [41:20] vaccine. So, they didn't lose their [41:23] audience. Their audience came right [41:25] back. And in Broadway, they basically [41:28] told a third of their audience, "You're [41:30] not welcome." [41:31] And so, I can see why it might have been [41:34] a struggle to get those people back into [41:36] the theater. [41:37] >> Well, it was it didn't make any sense. [41:38] Like, if the people are negative, [41:40] they're negative. What do you give a [41:41] [ __ ] if they're vaccinated? Also, what [41:43] about people that got COVID and then [41:44] recovered from it who have far superior [41:47] immunity, 7x superior immunity to people [41:51] who were vaccinated? Like, what are you [41:52] what are we doing here? Like this is you [41:54] are you you're doing the pharmaceutical [41:56] drug company's work for them. [41:58] >> Yeah. [41:58] >> You and you're making people follow [42:00] along and in lock step and it's just [42:03] nuts. It just didn't even make sense [42:05] that people were going along with this. [42:07] >> Yeah. [42:09] Well, glad that's in the rear view [42:12] mirror. [42:12] >> Yeah. For now. But, you know, I feel [42:15] like it's a case study in a lot of I [42:17] mean, if if there are people that are [42:19] man manipulating society and I think [42:20] there are, there's a lot of lessons that [42:22] they learned from how we behave and you [42:26] know, relatively speaking without making [42:28] light of the pandemic, relatively [42:30] speaking, a fairly mild pandemic in [42:33] terms of like, you know, the bubonic [42:34] plague and all sorts of other things [42:36] that have happened throughout history, [42:37] the Spanish flu have killed way more [42:39] people. Like, it could have been way [42:42] worse, right? So just one that was just [42:45] twice as bad as the flu got people to [42:48] behave like that. [42:49] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, the good news is [42:52] though um the uptake wasn't uh [42:56] you know a lot of people took it because [42:58] they had to. It wasn't like [43:01] enthusiastically taking it. Uh we did a [43:04] play called Topsy Turvy which was about [43:07] lockdown and we performed that in [43:09] Eastern Europe and um it was really [43:11] interesting to see their response there [43:13] because uh I would uh one of them said [43:16] afterwards you know I asked uh you know [43:18] what was the uptake on the vaccines in [43:21] in Romania and they said something like [43:23] 40%. And I said, 'Well, how do you [43:25] explain that? And they said, 'Well, you [43:28] know, we lived under the Soviet Union [43:30] for many years, so we know how to look [43:32] like we comply when we're not complying. [43:36] And I said, "What else reminds you of [43:38] the Soviet Union?" They said, "Without a [43:40] doubt, cancel culture." I said, "Why?" I [43:42] said, "Well, Soviet Union used to keep [43:45] files on all of us, right? So, as long [43:47] as you're a good party member, there [43:48] wouldn't be a thing said." [43:50] >> Yeah. But um once you stepped out of [43:53] line, they brought out that old file. [43:55] Now that affair with your secretary from [43:57] 30 years ago is going to ruin your life. [43:59] They're going to ruin your family. [44:00] They're going to kill your career. And [44:03] they're going to make a big public [44:04] display of it to show other people to [44:08] stay in line. And um they felt like [44:11] cancel culture was basically operating [44:13] in the same way as the Soviet Union did. [44:16] And it was really interesting to see [44:17] that perspective in Eastern Europe. [44:20] people that have, you know, lived under [44:23] that kind of oppressive [44:25] situation and their perspective on [44:28] modern day. [44:29] >> That must have really made you think [44:30] about what happened to you during the [44:32] Iraq war. [44:32] >> Yeah. [44:33] >> Right. [44:34] >> Yeah. [44:34] >> Because that in particular because back [44:36] then there's no real social media [44:39] >> and there's no real way to get your [44:41] message out. [44:42] >> Oh man, they they lied. They made up [44:44] they made up things. Yeah, they made up [44:46] this I was I was doing this play [44:48] embedded at the time at the Public [44:50] Theater and we'd go out afterwards and [44:53] uh the New York Post wrote that I was [44:54] making out with a woman under a palm [44:56] tree at this club and I it was it was [45:00] just they just made it up and got me in [45:03] you know didn't really help my marriage [45:05] at the time and you know they just lie. [45:08] They basically lie you know they'll [45:10] attack you. They just decided you were [45:12] an enemy and they were going to pull out [45:14] whatever stops they can. [45:15] >> Discredit you in whatever way they can. [45:17] >> Wild. [45:18] >> Yeah. That's a powerful thing when it [45:20] hits you and and and you realize, oh my [45:22] god, the the truth doesn't matter here. [45:24] >> Yeah. Well, that's what's so scary about [45:26] it is that in this country where freedom [45:28] of speech is supposed to be one of the [45:30] cornerstones of our society, it's one of [45:32] the most important things we all [45:33] recognize. It separates us from [45:35] everywhere else in history. like this is [45:37] the first country we're really it's [45:39] written into the the doctrine of the [45:41] country. You're supposed to have the [45:44] freedom, the ability to express yourself [45:46] and that this is being attacked and [45:49] suppressed in all sorts of different [45:50] ways. Not just stopping your ability to [45:52] express yourself, but attacking you in a [45:55] concerted effort and lying about you, [45:58] just lying about you in order to scare [46:00] other people. It's very Orwellian and [46:02] it's very unamerican. And the fact that [46:04] like the New York Post would do that to [46:06] you or whoever it was from the New York [46:08] Post would do that like what the [ __ ] [46:10] man. [46:10] >> Well, the good news is there's no [46:12] goologs. [46:13] >> Yeah. [46:13] >> You know, they don't arrest you in the [46:16] middle of the night and right [46:17] >> force you to into some kind of prison [46:21] thousands of miles away. [46:22] >> Sure, it could be worse. Yeah. But it's [46:24] not it's not along the line of the [46:27] American way of life, you know. And if [46:29] you if you are a person who really does [46:32] appreciate what this experience in this [46:36] this experiment in [46:39] self-government, which was the United [46:40] States, it's it's supposed to have free [46:43] discourse. That's a big part of it. The [46:45] founding fathers recognized that. You've [46:47] got to have the ability to talk about [46:49] things, [46:49] >> right? [46:50] >> And if you don't, we're [ __ ] Because [46:52] if someone can tell you what you can and [46:54] can't say, that's step one. And then [46:57] everything else falls in line after that [46:59] and next thing you know you've got a [47:00] dictatorship, [47:01] >> right? And that and there's people that [47:03] have you know lost opportunities or you [47:05] know uh in show business that uh [47:08] recently that uh including my ex Susan [47:11] Sandon who uh you know was against the [47:14] what was happening in Israel and lost [47:15] her agent and you know is having a hard [47:18] time finding work. This is [47:20] >> crazy. [47:20] >> This is nuts. Yeah. And especially [47:23] someone like Susan Sandon, like one of [47:26] the most respected and established [47:28] actors of many generations, like she's [47:32] been around forever. [47:33] >> The fact that a a take on something that [47:36] if you're just looking at it like what [47:39] what is what are how could you defend [47:41] that? Like how could anybody defend [47:42] that? I don't even know how many people [47:44] are dead. You have a complete wipeout of [47:47] a city. Like 90% of Gaza is gone or [47:50] whatever the percentage is. You look at [47:51] the buildings. You look at what it used [47:52] to look like. You look at what it looks [47:53] like now. Like this is defensible. [47:56] >> Yeah. Yeah. And and the and I think the [47:59] point of it is to make a show of it and [48:01] to say, "See, we we could do that to [48:03] her, so we could do it to you." So, shut [48:04] the [ __ ] up. [48:05] >> Yeah. You know. [48:06] >> Yeah. Especially the timing of when you [48:08] do it, right? If you're against Gaza [48:11] now, it's uh safer than being against [48:14] what happened uh a year and a half ago, [48:16] say, you know, especially close to [48:18] October 7th. If you were one of the [48:20] early like Roger Waters, one of the [48:22] early people talking about this is this [48:24] is you're watching genocide in real time [48:27] and [48:29] >> they they came for that guy. [48:31] >> Yeah. [48:32] >> And you know, more people see it the way [48:34] he sees it now. And just like what [48:37] happened to you with the Iraq war, [48:38] you're 20 years from now, it's going to [48:40] be a universally accepted opinion, I [48:42] bet. [48:42] >> Yeah. Yeah. [48:46] Well, that it's just [48:49] it's crazy to go through something like [48:50] that and for you to have gone through it [48:52] like really early on, you know, for you [48:54] to have gone through that in 2003. [48:57] I guess it really does inform your [48:59] opinions though, like when you see [49:00] things that are happening today, you go, [49:02] "Okay, I've seen this before." [49:04] What I started looking for uh after that [49:08] was a way to uh be someone that was more [49:13] involved with uh something that could [49:16] affect change. In other words, um I used [49:18] my uh nonprofit. We started a prison [49:21] program uh 20 years ago and we see the [49:26] the change that happens. We we you know [49:29] we have people that go in and basically [49:31] offer rehabilitation [49:33] uh in the form of uh theater and not [49:37] doing plays or anything but getting [49:38] people to uh play emotions through [49:41] characters that we introduce to them. [49:44] And in doing so uh unlocking uh emotions [49:47] that have been suppressed for many many [49:50] years. So in prison there there's one [49:52] go-to emotion. It's it's anger. That's [49:54] your survival face. That's your mask on [49:57] the yard. You have to be a badass or [49:59] you're going to die. But um uh sadness [50:04] is compromising, fear is compromising, [50:07] and happiness is genuinely not [50:10] encouraged either. Uh so we get these [50:13] guys in a room, we get introduce them to [50:16] these stock characters from the Kameda [50:18] Delerte, and then they have to express [50:19] their emotions and make choices in with [50:21] their emotions in improv. And what they [50:24] find is that if uh someone approaches [50:27] them in anger in an improv, the [50:30] facilitator will encourage a different [50:32] emotion in response to anger than anger, [50:34] right? And what they come to understand [50:37] is that they don't have to respond to [50:40] anger with anger. There are other [50:42] choices and in in fact in real life they [50:45] can do that too if they can do it in an [50:47] improv. And so what happens is these [50:49] people tap into long dormant emotions [50:52] and start to understand that they are [50:54] more than the worst act that got them [50:57] there. Um they they uh tend to um create [51:02] bonds across gang ties, racial lines. Uh [51:06] we when we're putting together a group, [51:08] we ask that rival gangs are in the same [51:11] room with each other. [51:12] >> Oh wow. And um what happens is these [51:16] bonds are made through the sharing of [51:18] emotion. Like we get these guys into an [51:20] improv where they're all putting a [51:22] flower on a grave of someone and saying [51:24] something under their breath about the [51:26] person that's deceased. And then at some [51:29] point the facilitator will say, "Now [51:30] look at each other." And they're looking [51:32] at each other with these eyes of [51:34] sadness. And they realize they have a [51:37] lot in common. you know, in that shared [51:39] emotion. I had two guys come up to me, [51:41] one black guy, one white guy. Uh they [51:44] said, "We got to tell you what happened [51:45] two weeks ago. We were our shot callers [51:48] said, you know, we're going to have a [51:50] fight on the yard." And so, you know, [51:53] they never you never question the shot [51:55] caller. And so, you know, this going to [51:56] happen, you know, and so what they did [51:58] was they found each other, these two [52:00] guys, and they rolled around on the [52:03] floor acting like they were killing each [52:06] other. [52:09] Wow, how convenient. [52:11] >> Yeah. [52:12] >> So, uh, it looked like they were [52:15] participating, but they weren't hurting [52:16] each other. [52:17] >> Oh, wow. [52:18] >> Yeah, [52:18] >> that's a good solution. [52:20] >> It's amazing what happens when you [52:22] experience something that like that in [52:24] person, when you see the transformation [52:26] happen, and we see this in in our school [52:29] children as well. That's something that [52:32] is deeply inspiring. you you know that [52:36] you've had something to do with some [52:38] some a real change right uh whereas for [52:41] years I was asked to you know attend [52:44] fundraisers and you know various causes [52:48] and uh I you know it's yeah it's great [52:51] that they're doing that and it's great [52:52] that they're raising money for these [52:54] organizations that need it but at the [52:57] end of the day you don't really feel [52:58] like it did anything other than go to a [53:00] dinner and uh this was a way to get my [53:04] hands dirty and really, you know, get in [53:06] the struggle of it. And I found it to be [53:10] so um so much more satisfying as far as [53:14] that whatever inclination I had towards [53:16] activism was was really fed by this as [53:20] opposed to hopping from fundraiser to [53:23] fundraiser. [53:25] >> It just felt more real. It felt like [53:27] something that I could take that [53:30] experience and then I could say to my [53:31] group, "Let's expand. Let's get into [53:33] more and more prisons." So now we're in [53:35] 18 prisons in the state of California [53:38] doing these programs. [53:38] >> Did you have to develop a a curriculum [53:41] like how how you begin to reach out to [53:44] these guys and how you set it up like [53:46] how you [53:47] >> It took a couple years uh you know kind [53:49] of pilot program in one prison uh in [53:51] Chino in uh and Norcco in uh Southern [53:55] California. Um trial and error you know [53:59] uh what what's the way to do it? What's [54:02] the way not to do it? Uh, of course you [54:04] go through a training with the prison [54:05] system of certain things to watch out [54:07] for and you know um you develop these [54:11] lines where you say you know we're here [54:14] to do this not to talk about your case. [54:16] You know there's all kinds of things you [54:18] learn how to avoid the distractions that [54:21] will derail the program. But uh [54:24] essentially it's a very physical way of [54:27] working and it's also uh there is a lot [54:30] of fun in it. So those two things [54:32] together um allow the entry for these [54:36] guys that are you know they're in the [54:39] room because they want to be there but [54:40] it's weird stuff we're asking them to do [54:43] >> and uh if they can have a laugh about it [54:46] and then something about it shifts some [54:49] kind of consciousness inside them that [54:51] that that means something to people. You [54:54] got to remember these people are, you [54:56] know, when we started there was only one [54:58] other [55:00] uh program in the in the state of [55:02] California that was offering [55:04] rehabilitation through any theater. So [55:07] uh there was a couple music programs and [55:09] uh two two theater programs and now [55:12] we've were able to lobby the state to [55:15] get more funding for arts and [55:16] corrections. Uh because arts art is a [55:19] transformer, you know, it is something [55:21] that can shift consciousness. I truly [55:24] believe that. I've seen it with my own [55:27] uh the work that I've done. You know, [55:29] I've seen how uh people can think in a [55:32] different way after they see something [55:35] in the theater or in the movies or, you [55:37] know, [55:38] >> a good a good standup can do the same [55:40] thing. You know, how George Carlin used [55:42] to shift my consciousness every new [55:44] special because he would always be [55:46] challenging me. [55:47] >> Sure. [55:47] >> He he it wouldn't be like, "Hey, hey, [55:50] you know, we're all in the same club." [55:51] It would be, yeah, we you thought we [55:53] were in the same club, but here's a [55:55] here's a little thought. And you realize [55:58] he's talking right at one of your [56:00] hypocrisies. [56:01] And that was his genius. It was his [56:03] ability to really tap into we can be [56:06] better, [56:07] >> right? [56:07] >> We can all be better. This episode is [56:09] brought to you by Visible. It's [56:11] officially summer, folks. And boy, what [56:14] a summer we are having. It feels like [56:15] one of those good oldfashioned summers [56:17] where you just want to enjoy every [56:19] moment and keep up with the action. Your [56:21] best companion this summer, Visible [56:24] Wireless. Visible gives you unlimited 5G [56:27] data and unlimited hotspot powered by [56:30] Verizon for just $25 a month. So you can [56:34] make this the summer of fun and savings. [56:37] Visible is more than just a wireless [56:38] plan. It's unlimited wireless designed [56:41] to always keep you connected with no [56:44] contract to tie you down. Switch today [56:46] at visible.com. Plan start at $25 a [56:50] month or get our premium Visible Plus [56:53] Pro plan and save $10 on your first [56:56] month when you use promo code Rogan. [56:59] Terms apply. See visible.com for plan [57:02] features and network management details. [57:05] Yeah, there's been a few guys like that [57:06] throughout history that really have [57:08] figured out a way to embed humor into [57:11] social commentary. [57:13] >> George Carlin's probably the most known [57:15] for it. But do you know about Bill [57:17] Hicks? [57:18] >> Yeah, for sure. [57:18] >> So, he was probably in my generation, [57:21] he's the one that twisted people [57:23] >> the most to like a lot of comics would [57:25] watch him and go, I what am I doing? Why [57:27] am I doing what I'm doing? This guy's [57:29] doing something that's like so much more [57:31] meaningful. [57:31] >> Yeah. Who was it in Apatile's [57:34] documentary about Carlin? There was a [57:36] comedian that said [57:39] uh George Carlin was basically in the in [57:42] the early part of the century in the [57:44] 1900s [57:46] >> Phil philosophers debating used to be a [57:48] huge deal, right? Like hundreds of [57:50] people, thousands people come watch [57:52] people debate to different points of [57:54] view. [57:54] >> Sure. He said that's that's what the [57:58] current philosophers of our generation [58:00] are the better stand-up comedians. [58:03] >> The ones that test your belief system by [58:06] saying something that you know might be [58:08] controversial or you know challenges [58:10] your worldview. [58:12] >> That's the whole the great purpose and [58:14] function of a philosopher or a stand-up [58:18] comedian is to take your worldview, [58:21] shatter it a little bit and make you [58:22] rethink. [58:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh, and Hicks was sort of [58:29] for our generation, he was like the [58:31] first guy that really did that in a way [58:33] that like some of the things that he [58:35] said weren't even designed to be funny [58:37] at all. It was just designed to make you [58:38] think about things differently and then [58:40] he would hit you with some funny things [58:41] after that. Sort of keep you occupied. [58:44] >> Yeah. [58:45] >> Yeah. [58:46] >> Prov provocative uh statements that you [58:50] know the first reaction is [ __ ] that. [58:52] No, that's not true. [ __ ] that. And then [58:54] you realize, oh [ __ ] he's bringing me [58:55] there. And it's like a a great play can [58:58] do that, too. A great movie can do that, [59:00] too. Provoke you and challenge you and [59:03] then make you refocus, rethink. [59:08] >> Yeah. It's just amazing how little of [59:10] that we have today and how much content [59:14] we have today. Do Did you ever see the [59:16] documentary um God, what is it with the [59:20] the documentary with William F. Buckley [59:22] and uh the other [59:24] >> Yeah. You know what I'm talking about. [59:25] >> Gorvidal [59:26] >> and Gorvidal. Yeah. Yeah. Where they had [59:28] these It was I guess it was NBC I think [59:31] it was and NBC was failing in the [59:33] ratings. [59:33] >> I was going to say Relentless Enemies, [59:35] but that's the line. [59:36] >> Best of enemies. [59:37] >> Best of enemies. [59:38] >> Best of enemies. Yeah. [59:39] >> Great documentary. Yeah. So they had a [59:41] series of these debates on television. [59:44] Gorvidal being a progressive and William [59:47] F. Buckley being a conservative. Very [59:50] interesting because th this kind of [59:52] hadn't happened before on television [59:54] where you have these long- form [59:56] discussions with these two guys just [59:58] intellectually jabbing at each other. [60:00] Yeah. [60:00] >> And it was great. It's like the the [60:02] documentary is really amazing. [60:04] >> I uh I I was friends with Gore. [60:06] >> Oh, really? [60:07] >> Yeah. Uh he uh I he uh agreed to do my [60:11] first film, Bob Roberts, which is about [60:13] a a right-wing folk singing candidate [60:16] for Senate in Pennsylvania. And um Gore [60:21] agreed to play Brickley Paste, my uh [60:23] Democratic opponent, right? And so he [60:25] played a politician, which is something [60:27] he always kind of flirted with in his [60:29] real life. There he is. [60:32] >> And so I got to be uh quite friendly [60:35] with him. And um I actually did a [60:37] documentary that I'm editing right now [60:41] uh about four soldiers from World War II [60:45] that became great writers. uh Gore, Kurt [60:49] Vonagget, um Norman Mailor, and Howard [60:52] Zinn are all in this uh documentary. I'm [60:55] I'm I filmed it many years ago, shelved [60:57] it, and now I'm uh in the final stages [61:00] of putting it together. I'm opening a [61:02] new website in uh uh September 1st and [61:05] this is one of the many things that I [61:06] have in my vault and my storage units [61:09] that I've just been getting out over the [61:10] past year and finding all this crazy [61:13] stuff that I have that I've never [61:14] finished because I've been going from [61:16] project to project to project. So, I [61:18] slowed down a little bit and just opened [61:20] up some sealed boxes and uh it's it's [61:23] been really fun. It's one of the things [61:25] is uh also I used to [ __ ] around on film [61:29] sets with this you know when I had [61:32] enough money to buy a video camera for [61:34] the first time and so I started making [61:36] these little short films on on movie [61:39] sets and uh one of them is uh there's [61:42] two films from uh when I was doing [61:43] Howard the Duck [61:47] and you know one of those endless [61:50] productions that just went on and on and [61:52] on. So, I just started amusing myself by [61:55] making my own little short films and one [61:57] including, you know, I'm sure illegally [61:59] using the duck itself, you know, um, [62:02] which I made a character in one of the [62:05] films. [62:07] >> I forgot about Howard the Duck. [62:09] >> Crazy. We walked on the set the [62:11] >> What a [ __ ] weird movie that was. [62:13] >> I know, right? We We walked on the set. [62:16] I walked on the set the first day and [62:19] knew we were in trouble. [62:23] Why'd you know [62:24] >> the puppet? It wasn't ready. [62:27] >> And uh it was a little too cute. If you [62:29] look at the comic book, [62:30] >> right? [62:31] >> Uh Howard the Duck was not that cute. [62:35] >> No, he was a cigar smoking kind of [62:37] shitty mean duck. [62:39] >> Yeah. Kind of Fritz the Catish like, you [62:42] know, like really kind of [62:44] >> borderline obscene. And [62:46] >> it was a Marvel comic, right? [62:47] >> Yeah. [62:47] >> Yeah. And so, um, do you have an image [62:50] of the old Howard the duck from the [62:52] comic? Yeah, that guy. [62:55] >> Yeah. [62:55] >> So, I walked on the set and I saw that [62:58] cute duck. I was like, uhoh. [63:00] >> Yeah. He was always with chicks. Look at [63:01] >> Always with chicks. Yeah. [63:04] Which was very weird. Like, hey lady, [63:07] what are you doing? You're [ __ ] a [63:08] duck. What's going on here? Beastiality. [63:12] Like, what is this? What is his charm [63:14] got you? Like, what is what's the [63:16] message there? [63:16] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, [63:18] >> he's a strange character. [63:19] >> Very strange. And I don't think they had [63:22] the technology to pull it off. [63:24] >> Um I remember [63:25] >> you need to try again now. [63:26] >> Yeah, it' be good. I could take the old [63:28] film and animate it. [63:31] But um you know, I I I spent six weeks [63:34] on that film doing an ultralight chase [63:37] that lasted maybe two minutes in the [63:39] film. [63:40] >> What's an ultralite plan? [63:42] >> You know what the ultralight planes? [63:44] Basically, it's you and the wings. [63:46] >> Mhm. and a motor. And so there's a chase [63:49] sequence at the end that's about 2 and a [63:51] half minute, 3 minute long. [63:52] >> Did you actually have to get in one of [63:54] those things? [63:55] >> No. [63:56] >> I mean, I got in like a fake one. [63:58] >> Good. [63:58] >> Yeah, cuz No, you you have to be You [64:01] have to fly it. The guy [64:02] >> Yeah, you you have to That's fake, of [64:05] course. Right. [64:07] >> The duck's real [64:09] >> looks so legit. [64:14] Yeah. But [64:16] >> was that one of those ones where your [64:17] your little voice you didn't listen? [64:20] >> No, not at all. Because that was early [64:22] in my career, right? So it was George [64:24] Lucas, remember? And he just done George [64:26] Lucas. [64:26] >> Yeah. And he just done Star Wars. [64:28] >> Whoa. [64:29] >> So it was it had to be good, right? [64:31] >> He went from Star Wars to Howard the [64:35] Duck. [64:35] >> Well, he produced Howard the Duck. [64:36] >> Okay. [64:37] >> But he had just produced Star Wars. So, [64:41] you know, it was like, hell yeah. Right. [64:43] >> I don't know. It doesn't make sense on [64:45] the page, but [64:47] >> he'll figure it out. They'll figure it [64:48] out. [64:52] >> I was so lucky, too. Again, blessed [64:55] because I got a movie called Five [64:57] Corners that was with Jodie Foster and [65:01] John Turo uh right around the same time. [65:04] So, I was I'd already done that movie [65:07] when Howard came out. [65:09] >> So, it's kind of saved my ass. You [65:12] already had one in the chamber. [65:13] >> Yeah. [65:13] >> You had a good one on the pipe. [65:15] >> Yeah. [65:17] >> Thank god. [65:21] >> It just I wonder why George did it. Like [65:23] it seems so odd to try to do a movie [65:26] with a talking duck. [65:28] >> Yeah. Well, maybe it made sense when [65:30] they imagined it. [65:32] >> Maybe they were on acid or something. [65:34] It's like seems [65:35] >> I just remember those poor puppeteers, [65:37] man. And they were trying to make this [65:38] thing work and it and just I don't think [65:40] the technology really existed or what [65:42] >> it was like 86 or something. [65:44] >> Yeah. And it was they were they were [65:46] trying so hard and [65:48] >> it just it was it was you know I felt [65:50] for everybody including the director. I [65:52] I felt he would tried his damn best you [65:54] know and it was just betrayal by [65:57] puppeteering [66:00] and it wasn't the puppeteers it was the [66:03] actual [66:04] >> machinery. Well, it's kind of if you [66:06] think about Star Wars in particular, [66:07] it's kind of amazing they were able to [66:09] pull that off with the technology that [66:12] was available at the time. Yeah. To have [66:14] this crazy movie where like the cantina [66:17] scene and [66:19] >> you go in there's all these different [66:21] [ __ ] creatures from different planets [66:23] and like they did not have very good [66:26] technology back then. Like if you watch [66:28] that cantina scene now, like whoa, looks [66:31] terrible, [66:32] >> right? [66:32] >> Looks so clunky. like the masks don't [66:34] move like everyone's got their faces [66:37] stuck. [66:38] >> It's almost like, you know, looking at [66:39] claymation around that time, you know? [66:42] >> Yeah. [66:42] >> Yeah. Um amazing what they can do. But I [66:46] do like the old school. I do like the [66:48] kind of analog uh version of because [66:51] when with the CGI and everything, it's [66:53] all so sophisticated and so [66:57] >> they can do anything now and you almost [66:59] want them not to be able to do [67:01] everything, you know. [67:02] >> Oh, 100%. Yeah, just want a little [67:05] little roughness around the edges. It [67:07] really helps. [67:07] >> Well, there's also a thing about CGI [67:10] where the part of your brain that is [67:12] looking at it recognizes that this is [67:14] not a real thing happening. Like as good [67:16] as it looks, there's something about it. [67:18] >> Yeah. Which is why uh a lot of the movie [67:21] special effects guys like the monster [67:23] guys like Rick Baker and along those [67:25] lines who did Star Wars, American [67:27] Wereolf in London, that thing outside, [67:29] the wolf that you see in the hallway [67:31] that um [67:33] >> they wanted to make sure that it looked [67:36] like a real thing, right? It was a [67:38] physical object. So you had a phys so in [67:41] order to make it a physical object and [67:42] obviously CGI wasn't even available back [67:44] then but you see it and you know it's a [67:48] real thing whereas like later on he did [67:50] they did the wolf man and Rick Baker did [67:52] that as well and there's a lot of CGI in [67:54] there and the transformation scenes and [67:56] this part of it is just like your [67:57] brain's like this isn't really [67:59] happening. Yeah, [68:00] >> I don't like it. [68:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of the same way in [68:03] music too. like when they correct [68:06] everything and make the autotune. You [68:09] >> great music has a little bit of mistake [68:10] in it. You know, they it has a little [68:12] bit of like human error. [68:15] >> Um when you're hitting a chord on a [68:17] guitar, [68:18] >> there's, you know, there's a way to play [68:20] it perfectly, but there's also a way to [68:22] play it a little messed up. Right. [68:24] >> And I kind of prefer the little bit [68:26] messed up. [68:27] >> Like when Hendrickx did the Star [68:28] Spangled Banner at Woodstock. [68:30] >> Yeah. [68:31] >> You know, there was something about it. [68:32] It was like [68:35] Yeah, it was immediate. It was at the It [68:38] was being done at that moment with full [68:41] danger, [68:42] >> you know, [68:43] >> which is a great thing to listen to. [68:46] >> Yeah. This it's really happening. It's [68:49] not polished and edited and sent through [68:52] a machine. [68:53] >> Then you get the feeling that that maybe [68:54] that was the second or third time he'd [68:56] played it, [68:57] >> you know, ever. Or maybe the first, [69:00] >> right? [69:01] >> Which would have been even more insane. [69:03] But uh you know [69:05] Yeah. [69:06] >> Well, that's why people like records. [69:08] They love listening to the scratches and [69:10] the pops and then you hear the the the [69:13] voice like this just pure recorded [69:16] voice. There's no autotune. There's no [69:18] nothing messing with it. [69:19] >> Y [69:20] >> especially like an old record. [69:22] >> I have one of those um 78s where you [69:25] have to crank them up and [69:27] >> Oh, wow. [69:27] >> and uh they have the little uh you know [69:29] cone that amplifies it, right? Oh wow. [69:33] >> 1920 or 1910 or something like that. And [69:37] I just imagine, you know, living on the [69:39] prairie and ordering this from Sears [69:42] Robuck, right? And getting your first, [69:46] you know, record and putting it on and [69:50] hearing this a voice coming from this [69:53] acetate. [69:54] It must have been magical. It must have [69:56] been like, you know, transformative [69:59] >> to, you know, this amplified song that [70:02] you can dance to or fall in love to [70:05] right in your living room. [70:06] >> When did they first figure that out? [70:08] >> I think it was early part of the 20th [70:10] century. [70:11] >> Thomas Edison. [70:12] >> Thomas Edison. [70:13] >> Yeah. They had like this little [70:14] cylinder. [70:15] >> But when they started mass-producing [70:16] them in [70:17] >> like just records. [70:18] >> Yeah. When was the first I think in the [70:20] 20s. [70:20] >> I think they m they might have [70:21] mass-produced those because people had [70:22] them. just a way different player. Let's [70:26] uh ask Perplexity. What was the first [70:29] record? What was the first actual like [70:32] record disc that you could play with a [70:35] needle? Like a real record. [70:42] >> I want to say like 1919. [70:46] I'm just taking a wild guess [70:48] >> because there's a famous viral video of [70:49] a guy dropping that time set [70:51] >> 1931 [70:53] 12inch 33 and a3 RPM disc was pressed in [70:56] Victor's vinylbased Victrolac [70:59] >> but that's 33 and a3 [71:02] >> uh what about the 78s or is it called [71:04] say 78 [71:06] um 23 minutes versus roughly the shellac [71:09] 78 [71:10] >> 48 vinyl LP arrived in June 21st 1948 [71:14] Columbia Records unveiled Oh, 33 and a [71:16] third micro groove long playing record. [71:18] So, was that it? [71:20] >> But in the 20s and 30s there was a micro [71:22] groove. [71:24] >> 47 you got the 459. [71:27] >> Oh, okay. So, the little [71:28] >> 31 first first vinyl disc. [71:31] >> Wow. So 31 for the first vinyl disc, 48 [71:35] for the first real album, which is [71:37] really nuts because if you think about [71:39] like all the amazing albums of the 60s, [71:42] you're talking about a technology that [71:43] didn't exist 20 years prior. [71:45] >> Oh, that's weird. [71:47] >> Nuts. [71:47] >> Yeah. [71:48] >> Nuts. Right. So like when you're [71:50] listening to Voodoo Child, [71:51] >> like that technology 20 years ago didn't [71:54] exist. [71:55] >> Do you remember the magic of watching it [71:58] for the first time? Like when you put [71:59] that thing down when you're a kid and [72:01] you put it on the thing and this music [72:03] starts coming out. [72:04] >> Oh yeah. Well, I remember the ones where [72:07] the Look at that. Look at the vinyl [72:08] grooves around a thousandx [72:10] magnification. You see the waveforms of [72:12] the music itself. That's crazy [72:16] >> that those little weird Imagine if you [72:18] were like from another civilization and [72:19] you saw these things. You'd be like, [72:21] "What the [ __ ] is this?" Like what do [72:23] they have here? [72:24] >> How did they figure that out? [72:25] >> You're right. What is this? You'd be [72:26] like, "What? That's they figured out how [72:28] to make music out of that. And you could [72:30] hear a harp. You could hear banjo. You [72:33] could hear drums. [72:34] >> An orchestra. [72:35] >> Yeah. You could hear Janice Joplin all [72:37] in that. [72:38] >> Yeah. [72:38] >> How'd you do that? Like what? [72:40] >> And if it scratches, it skips. [72:44] >> I'm really encouraged that vinyl is [72:45] making a comeback. I really excited [72:48] about that. [72:48] >> People love it. [72:49] >> Yeah. It's all the difference. [72:51] >> Like people love like wood tables, you [72:53] know? people like as the world gets more [72:55] digital, people want things that are [72:58] >> organic, something that a person made, [73:00] something that seems like it makes more [73:02] sense. [73:03] >> I've been finding uh you know, in my [73:05] search for my archive and everything, [73:07] cassette tapes that I put on. They sound [73:10] amazing. [73:10] >> Really? [73:11] >> Yeah, they sound really good. [73:14] because you know there's more there's [73:16] more information in in a little cassette [73:19] tape than on a you know whether it's MP3 [73:22] that's been compressed you know and [73:24] compressed and compressed and compressed [73:27] >> but uh you know I reals are obviously [73:30] sound still great but the cassette tapes [73:32] really survived. I've been digitizing [73:35] everything, of course, you know, just [73:36] just to make sure that they don't decay, [73:39] >> but um it's been really interesting. my [73:42] a lot of my dad's music uh he recorded [73:44] on cassette tapes you know he was a a [73:46] folk singer and they did five albums as [73:49] the highwayman and you know but he he [73:52] was a classical musician and did coral [73:55] music and so he had a group then he [73:57] would record on these cassette tapes and [73:59] so we've been digitizing those because [74:01] we're I'm going to put them all on my [74:03] new website this thing called Robins [74:06] Radio which will be my dad my granddad [74:09] my brother and self the music that we've [74:12] done over the years kind of on playing [74:14] on a constant loop when you come on to [74:16] the website. [74:16] >> Oh wow. [74:17] >> Yeah. So I was to honor my dad. I've [74:20] been digitizing also his scores and um [74:23] you know he he wrote music by hand and [74:27] so I've got boxes and boxes of that that [74:30] I've trying to transcribe and make [74:33] available. Probably in about six months [74:35] we'll have that archive up. But [74:37] >> Oh, that's awesome. [74:38] >> Yeah. [74:39] >> Yeah. When did they figure out how to [74:41] put things on cassette tapes? [74:43] Because that that happened that was [74:45] around when I was in high school. I [74:47] remember I had a cassette deck on my [74:49] car. [74:50] >> Yeah. And there was pretty good [74:51] technology. You could buy a really good [74:54] microphones and plug them into a pretty [74:57] good cassette player. [74:59] >> Well, eight track was the first, right? [75:01] >> I think so. But those were so [75:03] impractical. [75:04] >> Well, they were huge. [75:05] >> Yeah. Plus, they'd stop in the middle of [75:06] a song and then go to the next track and [75:09] continue. Oh, really? Yeah. [75:10] >> I remember driving with my friend Frank [75:13] who lives in Austin right now. And we [75:15] were driving back up to school, my first [75:17] school, college, Platsburg, and uh there [75:19] was a eight track uh of bread playing. [75:22] You remember that band Bread? [75:24] >> And and he this was around 1977. and he [75:28] rips it out of the eight track, rolls [75:30] down the window, throws it out of this [75:32] is we're never listening to that again. [75:35] He's this is it's punk rock from this [75:37] point forward. And it was it was like a [75:39] a defining moment in my musical life was [75:42] like Frank saying no more bread. [75:46] No more bread. [75:47] >> He's going to put his [75:48] >> sex pistols now. [75:49] >> That's hilarious. [75:51] >> Uh I remember my first introduction to a [75:54] track. My friend Javier when I lived in [75:56] Florida, his mom had an eight track [75:58] player and uh she had what is that song? [76:01] Who sings it? When my baby When my baby [76:04] smiles at me, I go to Rio de Janeiro. [76:07] Remember that song? [76:08] >> I don't remember who sings it. [76:10] >> Uh Pablo Cruz. [76:11] >> Oh yeah. [76:12] >> Okay. Yeah. And she had a Pablo Cruz [76:15] eight track in her car. I'm like, "This [76:16] lady's a wizard. [76:18] >> She's got her own music." Cuz before [76:20] then, I think I'd only seen people play [76:22] stuff that was on the radio. [76:23] >> Right. Right. [76:24] >> And she put it in there and she pressed [76:26] the button. I was like, "This is crazy. [76:29] She gets to pick what songs are on the [76:31] radio in a car." [76:33] >> I thought it was the wildest thing I'd [76:35] ever seen in my life. [76:36] >> Yeah. Yeah. That was right. It was eight [76:38] track first, then the cassette, and then [76:40] the [76:40] >> the cassette was so much better. And you [76:43] had to flip it over though, pop it out. [76:44] >> But those things are cooked in the sun, [76:46] though. I mean, [76:47] >> oh yeah. Oh, I lost a bunch. I used to [76:49] have one of them big books, you know, [76:51] the cassettes in it, these little vinyl [76:52] things. [76:53] >> You leave it in your car and they get [76:55] [ __ ] and then it gets stuck in the in [76:57] the tape machine and you had to do it [76:59] with your finger. Well, you had to try [77:00] to wind it back with your finger, [77:03] >> which I did like a month ago with one of [77:06] the old cassettes. [77:06] >> You had to stick your pinky in there. [77:08] >> I just I just did that last month trying [77:10] to re respool it. [77:13] >> Yeah. Nobody knows what the [ __ ] we're [77:14] talking about today. Well, then you know [77:17] VHS tapes was the next one because that [77:19] was the first time where you could [77:21] choose to watch a film at home. [77:22] >> Yes. [77:23] >> You know. [77:24] >> Yes. And a huge deal too, you know. Um I [77:28] I mourn the loss of video stores. [77:31] >> Oh yeah. [77:32] >> It was a great experience. [77:33] >> Well, yeah, because you could go and you [77:34] say, you know, I just saw this film and [77:36] there was someone that really loved film [77:38] there, [77:38] >> right? [77:39] >> And he could say, well, if you like that [77:40] one, check this one out. [77:42] >> Yeah. it that was that's now been [77:44] replaced by an algorithm, [77:46] >> right? [77:46] >> And I'm not trusting that algorithm is [77:48] going to find it's you know there going [77:50] to show me the way to Battle of Alers or [77:53] any kind of these great movies. [77:55] >> I just if the the personal [77:58] >> was lost same thing with record stores. [78:01] You could go in and like what's what's [78:03] new and hear what's playing and you know [78:05] talk to the guy and get what what his [78:07] opinion was. and bookstores too. You [78:10] know, it's like [78:11] >> uh if you told me 30 years ago that it [78:13] would be, you know, it's very hard to [78:15] find a bookstore, a record store, or a [78:17] video store, I would say you're crazy. [78:20] >> But now it's all like very convenient. [78:22] You have access to everything, but you [78:25] don't have uh the arbiter that is a [78:28] person. You have the arbiter that's [78:30] almost a machine, [78:31] >> right? You get a little bit of that with [78:33] people online recommending stuff. Yeah. [78:36] Which is kind of cool. [78:37] >> You know, someone says, "Hey, I just saw [78:39] this show. It's [ __ ] incredible." [78:40] >> That's true. [78:41] >> You get a little bit of that. [78:42] >> And then you get IMDb and Rotten Tomato [78:46] scores, which I think that does [78:48] something. You know, they're they're a [78:50] little manipulated occasionally, but [78:51] there's something to it where you get to [78:53] see what people think about it. [78:56] >> That helps. [78:56] >> Yeah, that's nice. I think Silo's like [78:59] 100% Rotten Tomato. [79:00] >> Is it really? Yeah. Right now it is. [79:02] That's nice. [79:02] >> That's Once you said that though, you [79:04] put it out there. [79:04] >> I know. Now it's [ __ ] [79:07] >> I just killed it. [79:08] >> They're going to bomb it. They're going [79:10] to bomb it into oblivion. [79:11] >> 100%. We'll see about that. [79:16] >> But there's there's almost too many [79:18] shows, you know. There's just too much. [79:20] I just got into The Agency. Um I just [79:23] finished season two of The Agency, [79:25] Michael Fastpender. Yeah, [79:26] >> it's a a CIA um series that's on [79:30] Paramount. It's [ __ ] incredible. It's [79:33] so well written. It's so well acted that [79:36] it makes so many other shows seem really [79:38] clunky cuz it's just it's so good. [79:41] >> He's got so many layers to it and it's [79:43] subtle and it's brilliant and it's and [79:45] Fastpender is one of my favorite actors. [79:47] He's [ __ ] incredible. He's great. [79:48] He's so good. He's so good in this. [79:51] >> You know, he plays this CIA spook. So [79:54] many things to choose from. [79:56] >> Too many. [79:57] >> Yeah. [79:57] >> Almost. [79:58] >> Yeah. [79:58] >> I mean, you could essentially you could [80:00] waste your whole life just being [80:01] entertained. [80:03] >> Like it used to be difficult to be [80:04] entertained, which I think there's [80:06] something to that. You had to go to a [80:07] place, you had to pay, buy your popcorn, [80:09] sit down. You got [80:10] >> to make active choice in your life. Now [80:12] it's just like, [80:14] >> yeah, steps along the way, they've made [80:16] it more convenient to be entertained. [80:17] But then again, it's like there's [80:19] something lost in that, you know, like, [80:22] oh, the movie starts at 7:00. Come on, [80:23] we got to get out of here. We got to go [80:25] park. We got to get there. Got to get [80:26] there in time. [80:28] >> There was a lot to it. [80:29] >> Or or the idea that, you know, if [80:30] there's only three choices, [80:32] >> you're going to st you might stumble [80:34] into something you wouldn't have [80:35] watched, [80:36] >> right? [80:36] >> And be surprised by [80:37] >> Oh, all the time. You'd go, "What do [80:39] they what do they have at the movie [80:40] theater?" Like, "What's this?" All [80:41] right. Well, there's no more Star Wars [80:43] tickets left, so we could go see this. [80:46] You want to see this? Like, what is it? [80:47] I don't know. Yeah, this this guy's in [80:49] it, though. I like him. Like, okay. [80:51] >> Yeah, let's check out. We just take a [80:53] >> take a guess. That's the crazy thing [80:54] about Shaw Shank is that it wasn't a big [80:57] hit in the movie theater initially. [80:59] >> No. [81:00] >> Which is really hard to believe now. [81:02] >> Yeah. No, it was uh it was it was [81:05] nominated for seven Academy Awards, but [81:07] nobody went to see it. [81:09] >> That's nuts. [81:10] >> Yeah. Maybe it was a title they didn't [81:12] understand or I don't know what it was. [81:14] I was in two films that year. One [81:17] Hudsucker Proxy and Shang Redemption. [81:19] two really challenging titles, but like [81:24] what's it about? Hudsucker? I don't [81:26] know. What's it about? Uh Shaw, who [81:28] know? I I had people coming up to me and [81:30] said, "I really liked you in that um [81:33] scrimshaw reduction." [81:36] Like, um yeah, thank you. [81:40] >> They don't plan on meeting you and they [81:41] run into you at a restaurant like Tim [81:43] Robins that movie. There's Shrimp Strong [81:47] Shimshank. [81:48] Shimshank Shashank. [81:50] >> What did it come out against? What other [81:53] films were out at the same time as Shaw [81:54] Shank? Was there there other like big [81:56] movies? [81:57] >> Oh wow. [81:59] >> Oh wow. Jurassic Park. [82:02] >> Whatever. [82:02] >> Puliction. Oh Jesus. [82:04] >> Ace Ventura. [82:05] >> Oh my god. Ace Ventura too. [82:07] >> That's one of the best years for movies [82:09] in history. [82:09] >> Oh my god. [82:10] >> Yeah. Pulp fiction. Oh my god. But um [82:14] you know it it it it made its way [82:19] interestingly enough because um so Ted [82:22] Turner was running Warner Brothers at [82:24] the time, right? And Warner Brothers [82:26] produced Shaw Shank Redemption and um [82:30] when he sold the rights to it for [82:34] television, he sold it to himself at the [82:37] lowest cost possible. So basically you [82:39] had a a film nominated for seven Academy [82:42] Awards that was getting sold like it was [82:45] beach blanket [ __ ] right? And and [82:50] so it didn't cost him anything to put it [82:52] on his channel. [82:54] >> Ah [82:54] >> so he put it on again and again and [82:57] again was getting all those advertising [82:59] dollars that come with playing something [83:01] on his his TV channel. And I think [83:04] that's why it caught on because it was [83:08] ubiquitous. It was always there. It was [83:10] always something you could see. [83:12] >> And so eventually people understood what [83:14] kind of movie it was. [83:16] >> Wow. Oh, [83:17] >> and so that's a good example of where [83:19] someone's business acumen or greed or [83:24] whatever you want to call it, uh, w [83:26] winds up producing something quite [83:29] lovely, you know, something that [83:31] actually I'm really grateful for, uh, [83:33] because so many people know that film [83:35] and it's been like number one on IMDb [83:38] for the last 15 years. Isn't that crazy? [83:40] >> Yeah, it's crazy. [83:42] And that was one of those movies that [83:43] also took off like wildfire once it got [83:46] into video [83:48] >> because once people could watch it at [83:49] home. [83:50] >> Yeah. [83:50] >> That was even though if it didn't do as [83:52] well in the theaters as it should have [83:54] on video it did fantastic. [83:57] >> Yeah. Which is why I I really I I always [84:00] remember that when you know I'm in a [84:02] movie and it doesn't quote unquote [84:05] perform you know I I I I'm the I'm I'm [84:08] the turtle. [84:11] I know the turtle can win the race. [84:14] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's uh that was something [84:17] that was lost also during the pandemic [84:19] and I was really worried about that that [84:20] it wasn't going to come back. It seemed [84:23] like it was so easy to stream films at [84:25] home that people just for a while it was [84:28] hard to get people to go out to movie [84:29] theaters. [84:30] >> Yeah. [84:30] >> And the experience is very different. [84:32] Yeah. [84:32] >> It's very different. [84:34] >> Yeah. It's been a struggle, you know. [84:37] Um, and you know, I think also a lot of [84:41] producers in Hollywood or studios lost [84:44] faith in their adult audience even [84:46] before the pandemic. I mean they've [84:49] we're producing movies for [84:53] teenagers and you know there's nothing [84:55] wrong with that but uh because they can [84:58] be that can drive an economic engine but [85:01] at the same time you know films like [85:03] Shaw Shank Redemption would not get made [85:06] today because they're about something [85:09] that isn't about the ex the whole huge [85:14] multi-platform experience of a action [85:17] movie and um that's unfortunate and [85:20] that's kind of migrated into streamers. [85:23] You know, the people that adults that [85:25] like to watch stuff tend to watch these [85:27] longer form things and that's a a nice [85:31] thing in a way because it's allowing [85:33] filmmakers to make 10-hour films. You [85:36] know, when you think about it, uh a [85:38] season of a of a a show is 10 hours. And [85:41] so you can think in this like kind of [85:43] long form of telling a story which is a [85:47] which is a nice thing which would have [85:48] been impossible in old Hollywood you [85:50] know right [85:51] >> got to keep it under two hours. [85:53] >> So now you have the opportunity uh [85:56] creators have the opportunity to create [85:57] long form entertainment. [85:59] >> Well that I think is one of the [86:01] beautiful things about some of these [86:02] Netflix series is that you you like [86:06] things like Stranger Things you [86:07] essentially have you know a 30-hour [86:10] movie. Yeah. or however many episodes it [86:12] is. And like Ozark is a great example of [86:15] that. It's like [ __ ] amazing show and [86:17] it's essentially like a movie every week [86:20] and the story continues to progress and [86:24] you get a chance to really stretch [86:26] something out and but you get the [86:28] quality of like a great film, but you [86:32] get it extended, you know, with these [86:34] huge budgets. the fact that they're able [86:35] to do this like so because of streaming [86:38] it has opened up this long form aspect [86:42] of storytelling that I think is really [86:44] difficult to do in a movie like Kill [86:46] Bill kind of did it a little bit you [86:48] have two episodes of it [86:49] >> was nice also as an actor like with silo [86:52] I've got I've had three seasons the [86:54] first two seasons my character [86:57] represented something which completely [87:00] shifts in season 3 [87:01] >> oh spoiler alert don't tell [87:03] >> no I'm not telling you what it is Bro, [87:04] >> I can't believe you did it. [87:05] >> I'm just telling you that. [87:06] >> Lift it up for me. I know I'm going to [87:07] be looking for that. [87:10] >> You won't you won't even be able to [87:12] guess. [87:13] >> Okay, good. [87:14] >> Good. [87:15] >> It's It's such a profound uh It's And it [87:17] was fun to play. It was like this kind [87:19] of like and I was told about this at the [87:21] beginning. The the creator said, you [87:23] know, listen, uh [87:25] wait till season three. [87:27] >> That's interesting because I always [87:28] wonder how far they map these things [87:30] out. you know, didn't he have a Did they [87:33] even know that they were going to be [87:34] picked up for season 3 when he started? [87:36] >> Um, no. But they knew at the end of [87:39] season one [87:41] what the trajectory of two and three [87:43] was. [87:44] >> So, if it got picked up, they have [87:45] >> Well, if they were going to get picked [87:46] up, they would have to tell you what [87:48] they would have to tell the studio what [87:49] two and three are, [87:51] >> right? So, um, the other thing that you [87:55] have to consider is that [87:57] >> if you're an [ __ ] they'll [ __ ] [88:00] kill you. [88:01] >> It's true, [88:02] >> right? [88:03] >> Writers don't, you know, writers don't, [88:05] you know, if an actor is like trouble, [88:09] >> right? Right. Right. [88:09] >> They'll kill him. [88:11] >> They will. I've heard it. I've heard [88:13] I've I've been told about uh you know, [88:15] one of the one of the guys I worked with [88:17] was uh I won't say his name, but you [88:20] know, when I was directing for [88:22] television, um uh I did a couple [88:24] episodes on this show, and he told me [88:26] about a a show that he was doing where [88:29] there were three actors that were giving [88:30] him a real hard time. And um one of them [88:33] was uh getting in trouble because of, [88:35] you know, uh sexual inappropriateness. [88:38] One was getting in trouble because of, [88:40] you know, they were too much in their [88:41] head. And the other was, you know, uh [88:44] something else, you know, something [88:45] about um another Basically, they shot [88:48] them all in the anatomy that was [88:50] associated with what their problem was. [88:52] So, [88:54] all three of them were shot in the [88:56] finale. [88:57] >> Oh, no. [88:58] >> They said, "Well, we allowed a couple of [89:00] them to survive, but one we really [89:01] killed off." It's like, [89:03] >> so, you know, it it you don't mess with [89:05] the writers. They're in television. They [89:07] they uh they they wield a lot of power. [89:09] And uh [89:10] >> not only that, they're also looking for [89:12] angles, different places to take the [89:14] character. And if you're a douchebag, [89:15] they're like, "Let's [ __ ] kill him." [89:17] >> Yeah, that'll be a good show. [89:18] >> Figure out a way to kill this guy. [89:21] >> Let's turn him into a pedophile. And [89:23] then we kill him. [89:26] >> He can basically [89:28] >> You can do whatever you want. Here's the [89:29] twist. You didn't see this coming. [89:31] >> Yeah. [89:32] >> Yeah. [89:32] >> Yeah. Watch out. [89:34] >> Yeah. [89:34] >> Be nice. Well, you know, there's a lot [89:36] of fear in Hollywood when it comes to AI [89:40] and replacing writers and replacing [89:43] actors and just replacing this whole [89:46] human created thing of storytelling. And [89:50] I think writers in particular are really [89:51] terrified because you could kind of, you [89:55] know, with with AI engines today, you [89:58] could kind of take a few films, right? [90:00] Like you could kind of take like uh [90:02] bullet and heat and a few and they say [90:06] make me uh John Wick meets bullet meets [90:09] heat and uh this is the protagonist. [90:12] This is this is what he's facing. This [90:14] these are the issues and AI can turn it [90:18] out in a few minutes [90:20] >> and then you could say uh make it more [90:22] like Quinton Tarantino would do it and [90:24] then it'll do that. It'll fix it in that [90:25] way. That's crazy. And you say okay I [90:27] want it more like cubric aspects to it. [90:30] I want some weirdness to it, some some [90:32] real thought, some Easter eggs, some [90:35] hidden aspects to it that people connect [90:37] later. And it'll do that. It'll it can [90:40] do stuff instantaneously based on and [90:43] it's kind of stealing, right? But it's [90:46] not, right? It's it's making an original [90:48] thing, but it's not because it's [90:50] inspired by everything else that's [90:51] already been made. But that's kind of [90:53] what people do, but not in the same way. [90:56] And we don't do it that quick either. [90:58] And so for writers, it's [ __ ] [91:00] terrifying. [91:01] >> Yeah. And who do you sue? I mean, you [91:03] can't sue AI. [91:04] >> Well, artists are having a real problem [91:05] with that. [91:06] >> I have a real problem with it. Yeah. [91:08] >> I don't I don't like it at all, but I [91:10] also have faith in the individuality of [91:13] the human um experience. And uh what I [91:17] what you like I'm writing uh a um a [91:22] companion piece to the player uh right [91:24] now. uh and you know what would happen [91:27] if that character was uh alive today [91:31] >> and so um I have my perspective that [91:35] only I'm going to bring to that right [91:37] >> I don't think you could plug that into [91:39] >> so I I I think talented people will [91:42] figure out a way to be individual and [91:45] apart from AI and [91:46] >> but I but I also really don't like the [91:51] uh the lack of protection that the [91:54] guilds and the unions are offering their [91:57] membership. Um, you know, there there [92:00] should have been a hard line uh for the [92:02] actors union and there wasn't. The hard [92:05] line should have been, you know, you [92:07] cannot use this to replace actors, [92:09] >> right? Or writers, [92:11] >> but there was compromise and or writers [92:14] for the writers union. Uh, I don't think [92:17] that that protection was held up at the [92:20] last negotiations and I think that we're [92:22] going to see the ramifications of that, [92:24] you know, unfortunately. Well, that's [92:26] what's scary is that ultimately [92:28] economics has a major impact on the [92:32] decisions that they make and it's way [92:35] cheaper to do it that way. It's way [92:37] cheaper to use AI to write things than [92:40] >> screenwriters, especially really [92:41] talented screenwriters, even though it's [92:43] kind of drawing on the past creative [92:45] work of really talented screenwriters, [92:48] >> right? [92:48] >> They don't get compensated for it. I [92:50] think ultimately people are going to [92:52] want and appreciate something that's [92:54] made by a human being because it's one [92:56] of the things this what we really like [92:57] not just be entertained we really love [92:59] the fact that someone made something. [93:01] >> Well my girlfriend Reed Morano has been [93:04] advocating for um a seal to be put on [93:09] projects that are made without AI. [93:11] >> That's a great idea. Yeah, [93:12] >> that is a very good idea. [93:13] >> I think that's a great idea. [93:14] >> I like that a lot. I think I think Yeah. [93:17] Instead of like the parental warning [93:18] >> AI free. Yeah, AI free, right? No GMO [93:21] foods, [ __ ] [93:24] >> There's something to that. I think [93:25] that's a great idea actually. That I [93:27] think that might be the way. That might [93:29] be the solution is a seal. Yeah, I like [93:32] that a lot. Makes sense. The people, you [93:36] know, there when you see a great [93:38] something that someone made, what what [93:41] one of the things that you really like [93:42] about it is that it came from a human [93:44] being's creativity. Yeah. [93:45] >> Like, did you see Obsession? [93:47] >> No. It's [ __ ] great. It's so good. [93:51] It's so crazy and so creepy and so weird [93:53] and and so brilliant and like no one in [93:56] it is famous and it's phenomenal and it [93:58] and it's really original and creepy. And [94:01] one of the things I loved is like this [94:03] is what is he like 25 or something like [94:05] that. [94:05] >> The director. [94:06] >> Yeah, I think so. [94:07] >> I think he's 25 years old. [94:08] >> Yeah. [94:08] >> Who who you know had done a bunch of [94:11] YouTube stuff. [94:11] >> I love it. is a a complete accident and [94:14] huge hit. [94:15] >> Has this amazing idea and you got these [94:17] people who they're relatively unknown [94:20] but really talented. [94:21] >> Well, we're craving that. [94:22] >> Yes. Yes. [94:23] >> We don't want the formula. We never have [94:26] what wanted the formula and it's so [94:28] maddening to try to set a movie up right [94:30] now in Hollywood cuz what they want is [94:33] they want [94:34] >> someone an actor that's worth $20 [94:37] million and they'll give you $10 million [94:39] to do the film. You get the guy that [94:41] that they normally would have to pay $20 [94:43] million [94:45] >> and you get him to do your film for, you [94:47] know, $300,000. [94:49] >> You got a film. [94:52] >> Good luck. [94:52] >> There's no gamblers anymore. [94:54] >> There's no risk takers. When I was [94:55] coming up, you know, you had these guys [94:57] like actually Joe, you know, Joe Roth [94:59] gave me the money to do Cradle Rock this [95:02] for, you know, and he says it was [95:03] basically like here's the here you go, [95:05] kid. Do it. I'm like, really? I get to [95:09] do this, you know, wound up with, you [95:11] know, Final Cut and everything. They [95:14] used to do that. They used to [95:16] >> invest in the risk, right? Because only [95:20] in only will the risk produce something [95:22] genuine and new and fresh. Uh if you [95:26] don't gamble, you're and you're you're [95:29] measured and you you're on a formula and [95:32] you got your stars, it's going to the [95:34] audience going to know it. [95:35] >> Yep. They they they know it's oh this is [95:38] prepackaged and pre-programmed for my [95:40] demographic. Yeah. [95:41] >> And I kind of resent it. [95:42] >> Yeah. [95:43] >> You know, and whereas something like [95:46] that obsession is like coming out of [95:48] left field. No one is predicting it, [95:51] programming it. It's just an accident [95:54] and people love it. [95:56] >> Yeah. That's what is exciting about, you [95:59] know, it's like when you're trying a new [96:02] m material in a in a club and you're [96:04] like, I don't know if it's going to [96:06] work, but I'm [ __ ] do it. And it gets [96:09] the laugh. That's that thrill is what [96:12] it's all about, right? That's the that's [96:14] the moment where you go, I gambled and [96:17] it paid off, [96:18] >> right? Yeah. [96:19] >> That's that I don't know how much we [96:22] have that experience anymore in in in [96:24] Hollywood. Do you think it's just [96:26] because of the extreme cost that's [96:28] involved? I mean, just to promote a [96:30] film, like if you have a film and it's [96:32] got a budget, like especially I think is [96:35] that it's probably why so many superhero [96:37] movies get green lit, right? Because [96:39] it's one of the only gamles like if [96:41] you're gambling on an Avengers movie, [96:42] like you can't miss. [96:44] >> Get the Hulk to smash a bunch of [ __ ] [96:46] Captain America comes in, you're good. [96:48] Like this is you're good. You're going [96:49] to make your money back. And so you you [96:52] kind of have to, you know, like if [96:55] you're a money person, if you're not a [96:56] creative person, you're just a money [96:58] person who happens to be in the movie [96:59] business, which I'm sure a lot of them [97:01] are. They're just looking at as a return [97:03] on investment. [97:04] >> Yeah. But I as you know, that's always [97:08] been that way to some degree, but um I [97:11] don't know. I don't know why it became [97:14] such a risk to try new stuff. Um, I [97:19] mean, because they're not putting that [97:20] much money into it. You know, those [97:22] Marvel movies, they're costing them $250 [97:24] million, $200 million to produce, [97:27] >> right? [97:27] >> There's independent filmmakers that are [97:29] proven independent filmmakers that are [97:31] asking for like5 million,4 million to do [97:34] a film. So, if they put some [97:36] advertisement in it, maybe it's going to [97:38] cost them 14 million all told. And, you [97:42] know, can they make that back? Is the [97:45] marketplace going to support that? But [97:47] who knows? I I wouldn't want to be an [97:49] investor, but I also um you know I I I I [97:54] have a a nostalgia for a time when [97:58] Robert Alman could make a film, you [98:01] know. [98:01] >> Yeah. [98:01] >> And uh it could just blow people's [98:03] minds. And then the next film he made, [98:06] you know, as he would gleefully tell [98:07] you, they're going to hate this one, you [98:09] know. And [98:11] I I love that, you know, that and people [98:14] would either love it or hate it, but he [98:17] was making his own films. He was making [98:19] distinctive films that were him. Yeah. [98:23] >> Is it more difficult or easier to get a [98:27] film released today if you make it [98:29] yourself? [98:32] >> Because you don't have distribution [98:34] really. So, you know, um I suppose in [98:37] the future there's going to be some form [98:39] of distribution that uh will be more [98:42] egalitarian, but I right now it it's a [98:45] huge risk. [98:45] >> What how does distribution work? Like [98:47] say if you decided you're going to get a [98:49] bunch of investors together and put [98:50] together a film, do you have to get [98:52] distribution before you even start [98:54] producing? [98:55] >> Yes, you you have to have foreign sales [98:57] in place. [98:58] >> Whoa. [98:59] >> Um [99:00] >> foreign sales. [99:01] >> Yeah. like uh I think basically the the [99:05] economic model right now is those the [99:08] investors want to be paid and not be [99:11] losing money by the time they start [99:12] shooting. In other words, they're not [99:14] going to lose money. They've already [99:16] sold it for more than they've paid. And [99:20] and so there's really no risk, no [99:22] gamble. Um, [99:25] then if the movie catches fire at a film [99:29] festival, then they'll put the money [99:30] into advertising it. If it doesn't catch [99:32] fire at a film festival or with critics, [99:35] they'll just, you know, okay, I already [99:36] made my money, you know, we'll just sell [99:38] it to, you know, DVDs, whatever. [99:41] >> What a [ __ ] shitty environment to [99:43] create something. [99:43] >> It's hard. It's hard. Yeah. My my gal's [99:46] struggling with that right now. I [99:47] checked out of that hotel a while back, [99:50] you know. I was like, I I don't want my [99:52] heart broken like that. So, I've just [99:54] been doing things on my own. I've been [99:56] producing things on my own, shooting [99:58] them, editing them. That's one of the [100:01] reasons I wanted to do this uh website [100:03] was because I've got all this stuff that [100:05] is unreleased and uh just going to start [100:08] releasing it slowly. [100:10] >> Is that more satisfying to do it that [100:11] way? Not [100:13] >> It's more satisfying to go to can and [100:14] win best actor. I mean, much more [100:17] satisfying [100:19] when you have a machine behind you [100:21] that's supporting it. It's great. You [100:22] know, you Mystic River, you know, that [100:24] that kind of like you have Warner [100:26] Brothers like, "We love this film. We're [100:28] going to make sure that people see it." [100:30] That's what you need. You need your your [100:32] sponsors that that are that get it, that [100:34] want people to see it, that see the [100:36] value of it, and they'll put money into [100:38] advertising, and that's a great [100:41] experience to be in. The other thing is [100:43] just, you know, pretty lonely. It's [100:45] just, you know, you're trying your best. [100:47] I was in three movies after um I won the [100:50] Oscar for Mystic River that I've [100:53] considered three of the best movies of [100:55] my career, but nobody's seen them. This [100:56] is the Secret Life of Words, Code 46, [101:00] and Catch Catch Catch a Fire. And [101:03] they're all excellent movies. Uh, but [101:06] they came at a time that where, you [101:07] know, the producers or the people that [101:11] were distributing them didn't really [101:13] want to risk the the money they would [101:16] take. [101:16] >> See, that's where there's a room for [101:18] like a Cisco and Eert type character [101:20] today that can find those films and say, [101:23] "Hey, this one slipped under the radar, [101:25] but this is really an actual person [101:27] that's a giant movie buff that can go [101:29] back and watch these [101:31] >> and comment on them." And we don't [101:34] really back then. Cisco and Eert were [101:36] the guys. If they gave you two thumbs [101:38] down, you were [ __ ] [101:39] >> Yeah. [101:40] >> You were [ __ ] [101:40] >> Yeah. [101:41] >> And you know, they were very catty with [101:43] each other. It was like It was a fun [101:45] thing. It's fun to watch the outtakes. [101:47] How much those guys actually didn't get [101:48] along. [101:49] >> Yeah. [101:50] >> Yep. But [101:51] >> I was lucky with them. They they gave me [101:53] great reviews. [101:54] >> It was a good They had good taste. [101:56] >> Yeah. [101:56] >> You know, [101:56] >> they did. And they loved film. [101:58] >> Yes. They clearly loved film and they [102:00] loved all aspects of it. They would talk [102:02] about with great understanding and great [102:05] passion the subtleties of the [102:07] performances and what really and how it [102:09] was put together. Even they talk about [102:11] the score, you know, they [102:13] >> spend like 15 minutes on each film too, [102:16] which was [102:18] >> never happen these days. [102:19] >> And it was a hugely successful show, [102:22] which is like really confusing why [102:24] there's not something like that today. [102:26] >> Yeah. because there's so much content [102:28] today. If you were like, it's not like [102:31] what's out in the movies right now. Like [102:33] today, [ __ ] there's a million shows [102:35] that are streaming. There's there's so [102:37] much [ __ ] going on. There's so much [102:39] content that if you had a trusted [102:42] source, you know, a person who's like a [102:45] a real good critic of stuff who really I [102:48] mean, not even a critic, an appreciator [102:49] is a better word. like someone who's a [102:51] real passionate enthusiast of film and [102:54] of, you know, different creative works. [102:56] They could just talk about something and [102:58] recommend stuff. [102:59] >> Yeah. But then there's the burnout of [103:02] that, too. Like, you know, I would talk [103:04] to some of these guys and they'd be [103:05] like, you know, for every one of those [103:08] good films, we have to see like 10 dre, [103:12] you know, and the time spent [103:15] >> watching these things kind of [103:18] mindnumbingly [103:19] painful for some of these people, [103:22] >> you know, imagine having to, you know, [103:24] weed through the muck to get to the [103:26] >> I guess. But can't you just walk out of [103:28] the film like just like you walk out of [103:30] a movie theater and you're like, "This [103:31] movie sucks." I've done that a few [103:33] times. Me, too. [103:33] >> It's a boring It's a terrible place to [103:35] be. You're like, I can't believe I'm [103:36] leaving. [103:37] >> Hard to do in the live theater, though, [103:38] because when when they know you're [103:40] there, [103:40] >> right? That's different. Yeah. [103:42] >> But if you're if you're watching it at [103:44] home, I mean, it's really what you're [103:46] trying to do. If you you want to be one [103:47] of the person says, "This is the worst [103:49] [ __ ] movie I've ever seen in my [103:50] life." And that's what you're doing. But [103:52] if you want to be a person who's just an [103:53] enthusiast of great stuff and just keep [103:55] it on the positive side, there's so much [103:58] great stuff to review and so many great [104:01] things from the past that people haven't [104:02] seen before that you could you sort of [104:05] turn people on to. [104:07] >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that would be great. [104:09] >> It's kind of weird that there's not [104:10] someone like that right now. [104:11] >> It is weird. It is weird. Um I think [104:14] maybe you should uh you should do that. [104:16] Produce that. [104:17] >> Produce that. [104:19] But I mean, it just doesn't even make [104:21] sense that there's so many different [104:25] like there's so much content, but yet [104:27] there's not that one thing that was a [104:29] really big part of the movie experience [104:30] when we were younger. [104:31] >> Yeah. And the Friday, you know, that [104:34] idea that there's some exciting movie [104:36] coming out on Friday and we're going to [104:38] go to it. [104:38] >> Yeah. It was huge. That was huge that a [104:42] movie was coming out. Like I guess you [104:44] have it right now with the Odyssey. Like [104:45] a lot of people are that's like one of [104:47] those movies that's so big people are [104:49] scrambling to go see it in the movie [104:51] theaters and it's getting people excited [104:52] about it [104:54] >> along with a lot of the culture war [104:55] controversies that everybody that I know [104:58] that's seen it I haven't seen it yet [104:59] says [ __ ] throw all that away. The [105:00] movie's amazing. [105:01] >> That's what I hear. [105:02] >> Yeah. [105:02] >> Yeah. [105:03] >> They just like it's almost like a good [105:05] way to bait people into getting really [105:07] uh you know [105:09] >> confrontational. You getting tired of [105:11] that though? [105:11] >> Oh yeah. real sick, you know, like, oh, [105:16] >> it's not correct, you know, and it's [105:18] just I'm I'm tired of it from both [105:20] sides. I don't want to I don't want to [105:22] hear judgment and I just I I'm [105:26] >> Help me. I I don't I don't I don't want [105:29] to be in the middle of this fight [105:30] constantly, you know? [105:32] >> It's the only I I feel like this is [105:35] again what we were talking about before, [105:37] you know, it's the uh as long as we're [105:39] fighting with each other. [105:40] >> Yeah. And they were fighting about films [105:42] that are coming out. I was like, "Come [105:43] on, guys. Calm down. Calm down." [105:45] >> Like, I don't care. It's just is it [105:47] entertaining? Is it good? It doesn't [105:49] have to be correct. That doesn't mean [105:51] anything to me. There's never been a [105:53] time in history where correct was [105:54] important to me. [105:55] >> Yeah. Or indicative of great art, [105:58] >> right? It's just make it good. And by [106:00] all accounts, everyone that I know [106:01] that's seen the movie said it's [ __ ] [106:02] incredible. [106:03] >> Yeah. [106:03] >> I'm going to try to see it soon. But the [106:06] culture war part of it is like at the [106:09] very least it got people excited to see [106:10] it [106:11] >> and either to hate it or but I know a [106:13] lot of people that wanted to go hate it [106:14] and because they were upset you know [106:17] >> that Elliot Page played this person. [106:20] >> I understand that. I just [106:21] >> Helen of Troy is a black lady like uh [106:23] >> who [ __ ] cares. [106:24] >> This doesn't matter. [106:25] >> Not that's a madeup story like [106:29] >> Exactly. It's a myth to begin with. [106:32] >> Yeah. [106:34] It apparently might actually be based on [106:36] a real place though. You know, they used [106:37] to think that Troy was not a real place [106:40] and then they discovered it. [106:41] >> Um I think that was [106:44] was in the 70s. When did they discover [106:47] Troy? because they used to think that it [106:49] was completely mythical, that it was [106:51] just fiction, a work of fiction, and [106:52] then they found the actual real city [106:54] >> and they're like, "Oh, like that's the [106:57] weird thing about really old stories is [107:00] that like there's so it's so ambiguous [107:02] as to what was the root, what was what [107:04] was the origin of the story? Was this a [107:06] real event? Real [107:07] >> you ever stood on the stage of a old [107:10] Roman amphitheater?" [107:11] >> Yes. [107:12] >> That's something else. [107:13] >> Yeah. It's wild. [107:14] >> Yeah. [107:14] >> Yeah. [107:15] >> There's history in those stones. Mhm. [107:18] >> And um you know, we were doing a show [107:20] over in Leon, France in one of those um [107:24] theaters and um we found something out [107:27] uh because we were doing rehearsal and [107:29] when you're talking to the other actor [107:31] like this, you can't hear it out there [107:32] at all. [107:33] >> Ah, [107:34] >> and it's so it it told us that that what [107:36] they were doing was this, you know, back [107:39] in the old days. [107:40] >> Yeah. [107:40] >> They had to perform out because you [107:42] wouldn't be able to hear if you were [107:43] doing realistically talking to someone, [107:45] making eye contact. That's what's weird [107:47] about early film is that early film you [107:50] have stage actors who are used to doing [107:52] it with no microphones [107:54] projecting now doing it on film. So it [107:57] looks odd. Yeah. [107:58] >> It's like there was this transitionary [108:00] period and then Brando came along and [108:03] Brando just did it real and everybody's [108:05] like what the [ __ ] is he doing? [108:07] >> Yeah. [108:07] >> Like he's acting like a real person. [108:09] This is crazy. [108:10] >> Yeah. Him and Montgomery Cliff, too [108:12] dude. [108:12] >> Yeah. [108:13] >> Yeah. that that was a you know huge step [108:16] forward for uh all of us. [108:18] >> Yeah. you know that uh to take the onus [108:20] off the theatrical and get more into the [108:22] real, you know. [108:24] >> And again, if you really think about it, [108:26] not a whole lot of time between [108:29] like the invention of film and then [108:32] movie stars and all these things [108:34] happening like this is a completely new [108:37] cultural thing like from the early like [108:39] what was the first film like the first [108:42] film with sound? [108:45] >> What year was that? That was first [108:47] >> 1920s 27 29 something like that. [108:49] >> Wow. So think of that. So you have from [108:52] 27 and then just a few decades later you [108:55] have on the waterfront, you have the [108:57] hustler, you have these these incredible [108:59] movies that do they just have to figure [109:03] out on the fly, you know, how to Citizen [109:05] Canain and they have to figure out on [109:07] the fly how to do this. But also the if [109:11] you ever watched the the first films [109:13] like the the silent films and the [109:15] ability to tell a story without words [109:18] >> which was a whole other you know talent. [109:22] >> Uh I mean you watch those Chaplain films [109:24] is like that man was insanely talented. [109:27] >> Well Noserado [109:28] >> the original Noserado. I love that film. [109:31] >> I saw that at a public library in San [109:32] Francisco when I was a kid. They they [109:34] had a a night where they played it and I [109:36] went to see it and I was like this is [109:38] nuts. Incredible. Incredible. [109:39] >> Think what year was that film? [109:42] >> 1922. [109:43] >> 1922. [109:44] >> And then Metropolis was a crazy movie. [109:48] >> Yeah. [109:48] >> Yeah. [109:49] >> Yeah. I love that old stuff. [109:50] >> Oh, that's great. Those movies are [109:51] great. And at the time, you got to [109:53] imagine like the experience of going to [109:56] see that where no one had seen movies [109:57] before. This is like a new thing. Seeing [109:59] things moving around on a giant screen [110:02] like this is mad [110:03] >> alchemy. [110:04] >> Yeah. [110:05] >> Crazy magic. Satan. And you had to read [110:08] what they were saying to each other on [110:10] the screen. Yeah. And then music would [110:11] play. They had a guy with an organ that [110:13] was playing music along with it. Like [110:15] what? [110:16] >> Yeah. Super cool. [110:17] >> It is super cool. [110:18] >> I would love to like if you could try [110:20] time travel and go to one of those [110:21] >> Oh, yeah. [110:22] >> like movie theaters back there. [110:24] >> Look at there's there is [110:26] >> I mean one of the best vampire movies of [110:29] all time, too. And so the lighting is [110:31] just so good. [110:33] >> German expressionist. [110:35] Uh, do you ever see M? The uh Peter [110:39] Lori. [110:41] Um, [110:42] >> it's just M. [110:43] >> It's called M. Yeah. [110:44] >> The letter M, [110:45] >> isn't it? M [110:46] >> 1931. [110:47] >> Yeah. 1931. No, I never saw it. It's [110:48] really good. [110:49] >> What is it? What's it about? [110:50] >> Uh about a murderer uh that's stalking a [110:53] bunch of people. [110:54] >> Um yeah, I I was uh a huge fan of that [110:58] whole genre of film making. Well, [111:01] there's something so exciting about it [111:02] because it like when you limit the the [111:05] sensory input like you have to read the [111:07] words and you watch it's all black and [111:09] white and there's music playing. It's [111:11] like it's a totally different thing that [111:13] you're taking in. [111:14] >> Yeah. [111:14] >> You know, it's like it's almost like [111:16] half reading, half watching. [111:18] >> Yeah. You know, like you're reading a [111:20] like you don't hear their their voices. [111:22] You have to create their voices in your [111:23] head. [111:23] >> Yeah. And you're feeling in a different [111:25] way too because of the you know, it's [111:27] black and white. It's not real, but it [111:30] it is real. And so, [111:32] >> yeah, it's it's uh it's a great great [111:35] form. We should have more of those. [111:38] Well, [111:38] >> it's just hard to imagine that this is [111:40] only a hundred years old. That that from [111:42] there to now, this is a hundred years. [111:44] That's a blink of an eye. Yeah. [111:46] >> And when when you think about human [111:47] history, like when we think about like [111:49] the 1500s versus the 1600s, we kind of [111:52] think it's basically the same. If you're [111:53] born in 1520 or 1620, it's [ __ ] [111:56] exactly the same, [111:57] >> right? But you're born in 1920 or 2020 a [112:00] [ __ ] completely different world [112:01] you're living in. Huge. [112:03] >> 1920 you have Nospherado. [112:05] 2026 you have the Odyssey. You know you [112:09] >> you have Dune. You have these insane [112:11] films. [112:12] >> Right. Not to mention the the technology [112:14] you personally possess. [112:16] >> Yes. [112:16] >> Right in your pocket. [112:18] >> Right. Any moment in time you could [112:19] stream a movie. [112:20] >> I could see Naseratu right now on here. [112:23] >> Yeah. Or the Robert Edwards one, the new [112:25] one which is [ __ ] fantastic. But it's [112:27] just instantaneous. Everything's [112:29] instantaneous and everything's right [112:30] there for you. So, it's great in that [112:33] sense that you will be entertain. [112:35] There's something to watch no matter [112:36] what. But you're there's you're missing [112:40] something on the like the specialness of [112:42] like having to go out and go to a place, [112:45] even go to a video store and go get it, [112:48] you know? [112:49] >> Yeah. [112:50] >> Yeah. [112:50] >> There's something missing. [112:52] I think I think that that's really at [112:54] the core of it though is the you know [112:57] I've decided this is what I'm going to [113:00] do today whole thing you know like pre [113:03] pre this [113:04] >> like I am going to be an active [113:06] participant in my life [113:08] >> it's it's when I first moved to LA that [113:10] I first understood this in the uh late [113:13] 70s [113:15] LA as opposed to New York where I grew [113:17] up LA you have to make a choice to find [113:21] your fun. New York, it'll drop in your [113:24] lap, right? If you walk down the street, [113:27] something will present itself. But in [113:29] LA, when I first moved out there, I [113:31] realized you got to drive there. You got [113:34] to drive and find your fun. And and and [113:36] you have to be an active participant in [113:38] your in your cultural life. Um, and once [113:42] I understood that about LA, I could [113:43] understand how to live there. It was it [113:46] was at first very frustrating because it [113:47] was very boring, right? It wasn't [113:50] happening, you know, when I walked out [113:52] on the street. There was no street to [113:53] walk out on. It was just too big. But um [113:57] it's that kind of um I I have chosen [114:02] this weekend to drive 30 minutes in that [114:06] direction to see this punk rock band, [114:09] right? That and I will be an active [114:11] participant in that. And once you do [114:13] that, you're liberated. Then then you [114:16] then you know anything's possible. But [114:18] now it's like I want it in my backyard. [114:22] >> Not only that, now that thing interrupts [114:25] you while you're taking something else [114:26] in, [114:27] >> right? [114:27] >> It constantly wants your attention. It's [114:29] like a puppy. [114:30] >> It's like you're like, "Hey, hey, hey, [114:33] watch the movie. [114:33] >> I want to be fed." [114:34] >> Yeah. It's constantly demanding your [114:37] attention or at least enticing you to [114:39] take a look at it. [114:40] >> Vibrating in your pocket, [114:42] >> you know? [114:43] >> Yeah. [114:44] Have you ever thought about trashing it? [114:48] >> Uh, I've gotten off social media for [114:51] weeks at a time. I've done that, but I [114:53] need it for work too much. I need it for [114:55] emails. I need to I can't always just be [114:58] in front of a laptop. [114:59] >> Do you have a uh like a flip flip phone? [115:02] >> No. No. [115:03] >> I'm thinking about getting one. [115:05] >> I have a computer that I write on that's [115:07] not connected to anything. My my writing [115:09] computer is just a a Lenovo ThinkPad. [115:12] it. I never use it for anything other [115:14] than writing. It doesn't if I go online, [115:17] it's just to research something like ask [115:19] a question like, "What is this? How does [115:20] this work?" Right? [115:21] >> It's never I I never surf the web. I [115:24] don't look at any websites. I don't do [115:25] anything with it. Right? [115:26] >> And that helps a lot for that. Uh but [115:28] for phones, [115:30] >> I have too many friends that are sending [115:31] me funny things. There's always like [115:33] some funny thing and I all right, I [115:35] guess I'm back on Instagram. Check it [115:36] out. Like, oh Jesus, this is crazy. [115:38] There's too much coming at you. And the [115:42] problem is if I put it down, which I do [115:44] often for like the whole day, when I [115:47] pick it up, I'll get 70 text messages to [115:50] go through. [115:50] >> I know. I know. [115:51] >> And then I don't respond to some and [115:52] some people get mad and then like, I'm [115:54] sorry. It's like [115:56] >> it's it's too much. It's too much coming [115:58] in. And then there's so much, hey, look [116:01] at this. Hey, check this out. Have you [116:03] seen this? What do you think about that? [116:05] You think this is real? you know, [116:08] >> and then the people that you don't [116:09] respond to can oftenimes take the lack [116:13] of response as basically basically you [116:16] saying [ __ ] you and it's not the case at [116:18] all. [116:18] >> Right? [116:19] >> You just don't have the time to do it, [116:21] right? [116:22] >> And you read it and you liked it and you [116:24] smiled, but you didn't put a smiley on [116:25] it, [116:26] >> right? You have to put a little heart. [116:27] You got to double double click. [116:28] >> It's a very strange social dynamic and [116:31] it's it's I'm not sure I I uh I'm very [116:34] good at it. [116:35] >> No. No. probably a good sign. [116:37] >> Yeah. [116:38] >> Yeah. It demands too much. That's the [116:40] problem. As much as it is interesting, [116:42] if you have a wide social circle, it it [116:45] demands too much of your if you have, [116:48] you know, hundred units of attention [116:49] that you have for use throughout the [116:51] day, it demands too many units, right? [116:53] >> There's just too much coming at you. [116:55] >> Yeah. [116:55] >> And it'll take away from other things [116:56] that you do. And that that's that's a [116:58] real problem. [116:59] >> Yeah. Yeah. I like sitting in my garden. [117:03] >> Is that your thing? [117:04] >> Yeah. [117:04] >> Yeah. [117:05] >> Yeah. I have a really good I I I've I've [117:07] been gardening. Yeah. That's that's the [117:10] that's my peaceful place [117:11] >> as a real thing. It's real. It's dirt. [117:13] >> Yeah. [117:14] >> Real plant grows out. Life comes from [117:15] it. [117:16] >> Yep. You can eat stuff from it. [117:18] >> Yeah. You need stuff to do, right? You [117:20] need a thing that can take you away from [117:23] the other things. [117:23] >> Something to make more beautiful every [117:25] day. [117:27] Something to, you know, something to [117:29] care for. Um, it's, you know, whether [117:34] it's the gu I have a garden in in Los [117:36] Angeles that, you know, I grow herbs [117:38] >> and, you know, the to walk down and put [117:41] that those herbs, those fresh herbs in [117:43] the omelette you're making, [117:45] >> you know, it's a it's not it's a small [117:47] thing, but it's huge. [117:48] >> Yeah. And then uh I have back east I [117:51] have I planted a garden with my son this [117:53] year, you know, like vegetable garden [117:55] and he's you I haven't been there but [117:57] he's been saying the tomatoes are coming [117:59] like crazy and the cucumbers and you [118:01] know that's such a Yeah, there you go. [118:03] It's this uh it's a I've really love [118:07] this. I love the idea that we can you [118:11] know the earth has so much to offer us. [118:13] You know, all it needs is water and [118:15] sunlight and it'll produce all these [118:18] beautiful things. And [118:20] >> well, there's built-in human rewards [118:23] for growing things, too. It's like a [118:25] human reward system that we have had in [118:28] our DNA for thousands and thousands and [118:31] thousands of years. When you grow things [118:33] and they they produce fruit and they [118:36] produce vegetables, like it's exciting. [118:38] Yeah. [118:38] >> Cuz you're going to eat. Yeah. You're [118:39] going to survive. [118:40] >> Yeah. And then when you when you're [118:42] doing your harvest in the fall, you you [118:45] have an abundance, right? And then I [118:47] learned how to pickle. [118:48] >> Ah, [118:49] >> and that's a joy because now you're now [118:51] you're set for the winter, right? Now [118:53] you got a refrigerator full of pickled [118:55] stuff. [118:56] >> And um uh you know to be able to bite [119:00] into a crisp pickle that you grew as a [119:03] cucumber in the summer in December, it's [119:06] just like you know this is how they [119:08] survived. you know, this is those, you [119:10] know, the storage of crops and h how you [119:15] how you make them survive uh through the [119:17] winter. It's a a skill that, you know, [119:21] uh that Well, that's why we're still [119:23] here. [119:24] >> And then you find out that pickling and [119:26] fermented foods and all these things are [119:28] fantastic for your body. [119:29] >> In a way that other foods just aren't. [119:31] >> Yeah. [119:31] >> And helps your microbiome and helps your [119:34] gut. [119:34] >> Yeah. And then you can, you know, use [119:37] the extra pickle juice for a martini, [119:39] right? [119:39] >> And it's fantastic. [119:40] >> Or you can just drink it. [119:42] >> Buy pickle juice. I have a company that [119:44] sells you these little packets of pickle [119:47] juice and you drink it because it's a [119:48] probiotic beverage. [119:50] >> Yeah, I have I have many jars of uh [119:52] pickles that are there's no more pickles [119:54] in, but I keep the juice for uh for [119:57] drinking. It's uh and you know fermented [120:00] foods and uh you know I've learned you [120:03] know so much about um the uh the gut [120:07] biome and and and and how to make that [120:09] healthier and uh uh all these challenges [120:13] we're up against with all the poisons in [120:16] our food and how to get around them and [120:17] how to cle clean clean yourself out and [120:21] I just did a a cleanse uh uh one of [120:23] those master cleanses I just did 14 days [120:26] on where you don't eat thing for 14 days [120:28] and it's amazing how how great you feel [120:31] at the end of it. [120:32] >> 14 whole days. No food at all. [120:34] >> No food at all. No. [120:35] >> Wow. What What did you drink? Water. [120:37] >> It's lemon juice, cayenne pepper, and uh [120:40] and and maple syrup and that that'll get [120:43] you through the day. And then but every [120:44] morning you're doing a purge, right? So, [120:47] you're cleaning out you're cleaning [120:48] every all the poisons out. I do that a [120:51] couple times a year. [120:52] >> 14 days is a long time with no food. [120:54] >> It is. [120:55] >> What? But it's the first thing you eat [120:56] when it was over. [120:58] >> You got to ease your way back in. Like [121:00] clear broth first, then soups, then [121:03] vegetables, then you get to [121:04] >> over how long? [121:06] >> About a week re-entry. Yeah. [121:08] >> Whoa. [121:09] >> I mean, you're eating, but you're not [121:10] going for the steak first. [121:12] >> Right. Right. Right. [121:13] >> You know, and so you have to kind of [121:14] ease your system back into it. [121:17] >> Do you experience mental clarity when [121:19] you do that? [121:19] >> Total mental clarity. [121:20] >> Interesting. [121:22] >> Yeah. [121:22] >> I've never done it. The most I've done [121:23] is a day. First three days are tough, [121:26] but then once you get past the third [121:28] day, it's it's pretty it's pretty the [121:32] your energy level is like constant [121:35] throughout the day and you can work you [121:38] I play sports with it, you know. I it's [121:41] it's around 10 days you should stop [121:44] doing the physical stuff [121:46] >> too much exertion. [121:48] >> I can still take a bike ride and stuff [121:49] but [121:49] >> but you were working out three days of [121:51] no food. [121:52] >> Yeah. Wow. [121:54] >> Um, you have to, you know, everyone's [121:57] going to have their own reaction. So, [121:58] you know, I'm not advocating even to do [122:01] it because, you know, [122:02] >> I don't want to be responsible for that. [122:04] But for me personally, it's really [122:05] helped [122:06] >> because it also it restarts your system. [122:08] It basically you get rid of the toxins. [122:11] Uh, you're certainly not drinking. [122:12] You're not doing any kind of abusive [122:15] [ __ ] to yourself. And, uh, and basically [122:18] your body is is thanking you by the [122:21] clarity it gives you. like you you're [122:23] really like and the other thing that [122:26] happens is I'll just start cleaning [122:28] [ __ ] right? So, you know, when I'm on a [122:30] cleanse, I'm going to clean a closet [122:33] >> because you're not only cleaning [122:34] yourself, you're cleaning the your [122:36] environment around you. [122:38] >> And um it's uh I you know, I I just I [122:42] just did it two weeks ago. So, [122:44] >> yeah. [122:45] >> How do you decide when to do it? Usually [122:48] when you've been a little indulgent and [122:50] you're not feeling too good [122:53] and uh you know you put on a little [122:55] weight and just like I got I don't feel [122:58] good. I want to you know clean out. [123:00] >> You must lose a ton of weight doing [123:02] that. [123:02] >> Yeah. [123:03] >> How much have you lost doing 14 days? [123:07] >> 25 pounds. [123:08] >> Whoa. [123:09] >> Yeah. About two a day. [123:10] >> Wow. [123:12] >> Yeah. [123:13] >> And then so then your body's running [123:14] completely on ketones, right? because [123:16] your body's running on fat. [123:18] >> Yeah. [123:19] >> And so your body's burning fat and [123:21] ketones when you run on I've I've been [123:24] on ketogenic diets in the past and then [123:26] I've been on the carnivore diet which [123:27] does the exact same thing where your [123:29] your mental clarity is just so much [123:31] better. Like everything just runs [123:33] smooth. It's just like you you're like [123:35] you were saying you have the this level [123:37] flat energy throughout the day. There's [123:39] no highs and lows like crashing after a [123:42] big meal [123:43] >> or caffeine bumps or Yeah. All that [123:46] stuff. [123:46] >> Yeah. [123:47] >> Yeah. But but staying up till you know [123:50] midnight and fine. No, the energy is [123:53] fine [123:54] >> and you sleep less too. You need less [123:57] sleep for some reason. I don't know why [123:59] but [123:59] >> also I think it's probably good to give [124:01] your digestive system a little break [124:03] too. Just Yeah. [124:04] >> Let it relax. I mean, it's constantly [124:06] work, especially if you eat all [124:08] throughout the day. If you're a snacker [124:10] and then you have late at night, you [124:12] have a little bite to eat, you wake up [124:13] in the morning, you have breakfast. [124:14] Like, your digestive system is just [124:16] constantly grinding out this food and [124:18] digesting everything. [124:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. The real the real poison for [124:23] me is is sugar. [124:25] >> You know, it it manifested in alcohol [124:27] for a while, but I don't drink that much [124:29] anymore. But sugar is the is the is the [124:32] big [124:34] >> for everybody. [124:34] >> Yeah, it's a tough one. It's a it's a [124:36] very addictive and and you know, you [124:39] think, oh, it feels great when you Yeah. [124:42] first have it, but then it makes you [124:43] pay. So, [124:45] >> well, it's also with modern diets like [124:48] what the the kind of sugar that we have [124:50] available today really never existed in [124:52] the past before. [124:53] >> That's true. [124:53] >> You know, for most of human history, if [124:55] you wanted something sweet, you had eat [124:56] fruit, [124:57] >> right? You know, and now all of a sudden [124:59] you've you got candy bars. You have [125:01] stuff that comes to you in this insane [125:03] form where you have a hundred grams of [125:06] sugar in something that you can eat, [125:07] right? [125:08] >> Like that's nuts. Yeah. [125:09] >> You know, or a drink, you know, you get [125:11] one of those. What is it? BaskinRobins [125:13] blizzard. Is that the one that does [125:14] >> Oh my god, [125:15] >> that thing. [125:16] >> Those things will mess you up. [125:17] >> Oh, you get a headache after you're [125:19] done. [125:19] >> I know. It's like It's like alcohol. [125:21] What's that expression? Uh [125:23] >> uh candy's dandy, but liquor's quicker. [125:25] >> Yeah. [125:26] >> Yeah. It's just, you know, it's liquor [125:28] is just concentrated sugar. It's just [125:31] like, you know, [125:33] >> um but uh you know, I I try not to be [125:37] too [125:39] much of a zealot about any of this [125:41] stuff. Um but I I have like my mom uh [125:45] was introducing us to natural food in [125:48] late 60s. So she she she had read a book [125:52] called Poisons on Our Food and started [125:55] taking processed food out of our diet [125:57] and [125:57] >> Oh wow. [125:58] >> White bread. This early on like 1967. [126:01] Yeah. [126:02] >> So she she was a real uh you know um [126:07] she really was a a homeopath before it [126:10] was called a homeopath. [126:12] and uh wound up getting uh cancer and uh [126:16] was told she had to have chemo and said [126:19] no, I'm not doing it and kicked it [126:21] herself, you know, with uh changing [126:24] what she was putting in her body. And so [126:26] I've always, you know, uh had had her as [126:29] a kind of guidepost for my health. She [126:32] used to always say the the body is a [126:35] temple and uh that the body can heal [126:39] anything. Um, and it a lot of it has to [126:42] do with how you approach it in your [126:44] mind. And if you believe that you can [126:46] heal yourself, you can heal yourself. [126:48] >> Is she getting this from books? [126:50] >> I think she got it from um a combination [126:53] of books and her faith in, you know, um, [126:58] Catholicism. Uh, I think every every [127:01] religion has a fasting day for some [127:05] reason. Mhm. [127:06] >> Uh that seems to be something that is [127:09] common to all religion that there's a [127:11] it's important that you not eat one day [127:13] a week. Uh she wouldn't do that with us, [127:16] you know, as kids. She wouldn't starve [127:18] us for a day, but she did have a a whole [127:21] uh holistic approach to the way that she [127:24] viewed illness. And um I remember her [127:28] drumming it into our heads that if you [127:31] ever get told by a doctor anything, you [127:34] have to challenge it. You go go to a [127:36] different doctor and see if they say the [127:38] same thing. Always. Always. Always. She [127:41] lost her father and her brother within [127:44] the course of a year to medical [127:46] malpractice. [127:47] >> Oh wow. [127:47] >> In the 50s. And so she had a a serious [127:50] distrust of the medical profession. And [127:52] back then it was like you there was no [127:55] one even thought about suing for [127:57] malpractice. It was like that's the [127:59] doctor. He's an authority figure. You [128:00] can't mess with him. Right? So she she [128:03] always approached it with a a healthy [128:06] level of uh questioning whenever she was [128:11] given advice by doctors. [128:13] >> Wow. [128:14] >> And um it's interesting. she, you know, [128:17] she's always been, you know, I've always [128:19] kind of wondered how she would have [128:22] reacted to this recent thing and all [128:25] that. Um, [128:28] but uh I I I have Have you ever done [128:31] Iaska? [128:32] >> No. [128:32] >> Yeah. I I [128:34] >> But I've done DMT, which is the that's [128:37] the actual compound that's active in [128:39] Iawaska. Iaska is an orally active [128:42] version of DMT. [128:44] >> Yeah. Yeah. I was uh you know where they [128:48] tell you to go in I when I did it they [128:49] tell you to go in with an intention [128:52] >> and my intention was to uh you know I [128:55] was frustrated with feeling anger about [128:58] what was going on in the world and I [129:00] said I want to release that I don't want [129:02] to be consumed by that anger [129:06] and so uh I wound up in this you know [129:10] the heavy duty you know um [129:14] journey journey that Iaska is. And my [129:17] mom showed up. [129:19] >> Wow. [129:20] >> Yeah. And um [129:23] she's I It's not like you actually hear [129:26] a voice, but you hear a voice, right? [129:27] You basically she's there. You know it's [129:30] her. She's saying something to you. [129:33] And what she said was, "You're injured. [129:38] You're a warrior and you're injured and [129:42] you need to rest, but the fight's not [129:44] over. [129:47] >> That's That was what she That's what she [129:52] told me in response to my intention. [129:55] >> Whoa. What were you battling? [130:00] I was battling my frustration with [130:05] the [130:07] dissolution of society, people being [130:10] angry at each other over ridiculous [130:12] things, long friendships being affected, [130:17] um people being cancelled for expressing [130:19] their opinion, all this stuff. And I I I [130:23] wanted out, right? I I I wanted to be [130:26] absolved of that. I didn't want to be [130:28] engaged in it. And um what she told me [130:32] in in the course of this thing, believe [130:34] it or not, you know, I understand people [130:35] will be, "Oh, that's woowoo and you're [130:37] just tripping and whatever, but I but I [130:40] definitely felt her presence there. It [130:42] was no doubt it was her. I went through [130:44] a whole journey with her. I saw things [130:45] from our lives together. And um I I [130:49] there was one moment where I was, you [130:51] know, I was always been curious about [130:55] something that happened in kindergarten [130:58] or something. I don't remember. And she, [131:01] you know, at at one point I I felt her [131:04] presence and she said, "You were right [131:05] about that. I'm sorry we didn't listen [131:07] to you." You know, and this kind of [131:09] really profoundly deep experience. And [131:14] um but at the end of it I felt [131:16] completely lighter and completely you [131:19] know uh relieved to have been through [131:22] the experience and a great great [131:26] connection with my mom you know just [131:28] like a beautiful like ah she she gets it [131:32] she she's still around. I've had quite a [131:35] few experiences in this realm. Um and my [131:40] mom in fact uh you know uh she she my [131:44] father died uh when he was 80 and my mom [131:47] was 78 and um she wasn't sick but my dad [131:52] had been dying for a while and uh we all [131:54] got down to say goodbye to him. and they [131:56] were living in Mexico at the time and we [131:58] went to the funeral and my mom was very [132:00] stoic and and sang very strongly my [132:03] father's favorite song at the funeral [132:05] and she didn't cry and we were all [132:07] concerned about her and we hired a [132:09] couple people for when we left to take [132:11] care of her and uh she was really [132:14] agitated the last night and she was um I [132:17] was there and she said you know I I [132:19] don't I don't trust these people. I [132:20] don't know if they're going to talk [132:21] about you or you know and you're famous [132:23] and all that stuff. And I said, "Mom, [132:25] don't worry about it. You know, they're [132:27] just here to get you stuff if you need [132:28] it. Don't worry about it." She I go off. [132:31] She wakes up the next morning. She says [132:33] to my sisters who are still in the house [132:35] with her, uh, everything I said last [132:37] night, "Don't worry about it." [132:40] And they said, "What? What happened, [132:42] Mom?" She said, "I had a dream." She [132:44] said, "I was in my childhood home in [132:46] Westwood, California, [132:49] and there was something in my living [132:50] room, and I couldn't look at it. It was [132:51] this stone figure, and I couldn't look [132:52] at it. and it was disturbing me. I [132:54] didn't want to look at it. But then I [132:56] look out the bay window and then coming [132:58] down the street, I see, led by my first [133:01] friend in life, a group of people coming [133:04] towards the house and it didn't make any [133:07] sense. There were people from my [133:09] childhood, people from my coral society, [133:11] people from my work, but they were all [133:13] there and they all came to the door. And [133:15] when they showed up, I realized [133:16] everything was going to be fine. And I [133:19] realized, oh my god, that was the [133:21] departed that had come to say it's going [133:23] to be okay. [133:23] >> Wow. [133:24] >> And um so my sisters left [133:30] uh 3 days, 4 days later, we got a phone [133:33] call. My mom has died. [133:35] She wasn't sick. And then my sister [133:38] talks to uh the woman that was taking [133:41] care of her. And she said it was really [133:44] strange. you know, the night before she [133:46] died, she said, "He's here." [133:49] And they said, "Who's here?" And she [133:51] said, "Gil, my husband. He's here. He's [133:54] come to get me." And they said, "No, [133:57] Mary. He's not. He's not there." And she [133:59] said, "Oh, no. He most certainly is. And [134:01] he looks very strong because he died [134:04] feeble." [134:06] Goes to bed that night and passes. [134:08] >> Whoa. [134:10] So, even the most cynical person in the [134:13] world that doesn't believe in afterlife [134:15] or anything, how do you explain that? [134:18] How do you explain whatever chemicals [134:21] were going on in her brain to bring her [134:22] to that passing where she was going to [134:24] join the person that she loved for her [134:26] entire life? That's a beautiful thing [134:29] regardless of how you look at it. I [134:31] don't think there's any value in being [134:33] cynical about these experiences. And [134:36] even the Iwasa experience, like this [134:38] idea that you're hallucinating and that [134:41] that's what this is, [134:44] doesn't matter. It's the same [134:45] experience. If you really did make [134:48] contact with your mother in the [134:49] afterlife and you really did have this [134:52] communication versus whatever the [ __ ] [134:55] hallucination means, I don't know what [134:56] you what you mean by that. It's the same [134:59] experience. [135:00] >> Yeah. So like there's no value in being [135:02] cynical about it. Like you get a you get [135:06] there's something that you experience [135:08] from it that's tangible. It's it's real. [135:11] You feel it. It changes your [135:13] perspective. It changes the way you feel [135:15] about the world. Yeah. Like that's a [135:17] real thing. Just because you can't put a [135:20] measuring tape to it or you can't put it [135:22] on a scale, don't say it's not real. [135:24] There's so many ways of being that we [135:26] haven't even studied or have no idea [135:29] about how we how how people can [135:31] communicate over 2,000 miles. Like a [135:33] mother wakes up in the middle of the [135:34] night knowing something's wrong with [135:36] their child and five minutes later the [135:38] [ __ ] phone rings. [135:39] >> What the hell is that? [135:41] >> Or twins. Twins who have some sort of [135:43] very strange connection with each other. [135:45] Yeah. when I was uh my grandfather who I [135:48] was very close to he uh he was had been [135:51] dead for two months and I had a dream [135:53] about him and he and I woke up like [135:57] startled and I heard his voice you know [135:59] and he said basically don't worry I'll [136:01] take care of it [136:03] and I didn't know what the hell it meant [136:05] but it was very clear it was like I'll [136:07] take care of it [136:10] 15 minutes later I get a phone call from [136:12] Susan and my son Miles who was I 6 years [136:16] old at the time had run out into the [136:20] middle of 7th Avenue and she said it was [136:22] the weirdest thing some it was like [136:24] something stopped him like like that and [136:27] a car goes behind him and a car goes in [136:29] front of him [136:31] and I was like I know exactly what just [136:34] happened. [136:36] He he was he whatever that is, whatever [136:39] energy he could muster in in whatever [136:42] phase of being he was, he [ __ ] saved [136:46] my son's life [136:48] heroically. [136:50] I'm no doubt about that. Why would he [136:52] show up and say that to me? He said, [136:54] "Don't worry, I'll take care of it." [136:56] >> Wow. [136:57] >> So, I I I totally believe this stuff. I [137:00] I believe that we [137:03] that life, death, there's other plains [137:05] of existence [137:07] um that we can get to through various [137:10] means. It doesn't have to be Iawaska. It [137:13] doesn't there are if you're open to [137:16] um listening in different ways. There [137:20] are great things available for you. It's [137:24] like the idea of an accident. Is it an [137:26] accident that you run into that person [137:28] that you've been wanting to talk to and [137:30] all of a sudden now they're right in [137:31] front of you, [137:31] >> right? [137:32] >> You know, that's not an accident. It's [137:33] it's divine whatever, [137:37] you know, whatever the divine is for [137:38] you. It it it's there's there's another [137:41] level of energy that is going around. Uh [137:44] you know, the we haven't even studied [137:46] what how the heart communicates. [137:49] uh you know there's that uh Spanish or [137:53] Portuguese uh cardiologist that talks [137:56] about the realm of communication in in [137:58] in the electromagnetic field of the [138:00] heart and what that means and how the [138:04] heart can communicate and has an parts [138:07] of the heart have more neurons in parts [138:09] of the brain and like what is that all [138:12] about and it's such we don't we don't [138:14] think that way you know we don't want to [138:18] experience We we have a it's a heart is [138:21] a meat pump and that's it just runs in [138:23] your entire life. [138:24] >> Yeah. [138:25] >> Uh but it doesn't this guy is suggesting [138:27] no it's electromagnetic energy. It's [138:29] what makes us live longer if we're with [138:31] someone else or with a pet. You know [138:33] that some that people that are isolated [138:37] and alone are hurting and they're not [138:39] having that electromagnetic connection [138:41] with other people. It's why we crave [138:43] crowds. It's why we want to be in, you [138:45] know, groups of people. It's a natural [138:48] thing. It It keeps us alive. It keeps us [138:51] activated in a community. Yeah. [138:53] >> Um and but we don't study that. We don't [138:56] study what that is. And I think it's [138:58] kind of magical. And [138:59] >> that's why solitary confinement is such [139:00] a cruel posture. [139:01] >> So cool. Yeah. [139:02] >> Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of people [139:04] that think it's actual torture. [139:06] >> Of course it is. Yeah. [139:07] >> Of course it is. [139:08] >> You you've got nothing to interact with. [139:11] And um it's why the you know it's why [139:15] that lockdown was cruel. You know that [139:17] we you know the just the scope of that [139:20] loneliness was is just immense. You know [139:23] that [139:24] >> some people had to deal with [139:25] >> especially people that were already [139:26] struggling when some people were already [139:28] filled with anxiety and they already had [139:30] suffered from depression. They were [139:32] already weird socially. Then all a [139:34] sudden they're just completely isolated [139:35] from everyone else for a year or a year [139:38] and a half. Yeah. Depending on where you [139:40] lived. [139:41] So, it's weird this desire that people [139:43] have to define things as real or not [139:45] real and and also to let everyone know, [139:48] oh, I'm not falling for that nonsense, [139:51] you know, but God, I mean, at one point [139:54] in time, do you have to say, well, all [139:55] these stories, all these experiences [139:57] that people have, maybe there's [139:59] something to it, and maybe this [140:00] closed-mindedness is not bene benefiting [140:03] me in any way. [140:04] >> Yeah. I mean, there's magic. [140:07] >> There's magic in the world. I mean [140:10] there's this old way of thinking I I [140:13] became Do you know what the uh um uh [140:17] there's a book called the the nature of [140:19] things by a guy named Lucriccius written [140:21] in 350 BC and it's Epicurianism and [140:25] Epicurionism now is about you know you [140:27] like food you like wine whatever back [140:29] then it was like the whole purpose of [140:31] this philosophy or religion whatever you [140:34] want to call it was that the that all of [140:38] Life is a miracle. All everything that [140:40] you're seeing in front of you is the [140:43] first time it's happening and will never [140:44] happen again. It's a collision of atoms [140:47] in a particular way. They don't call [140:49] them atoms, but they call them the [140:50] smallest particles that create unique [140:54] experiences every moment of your life. [140:57] And the whole purpose of life is to seek [141:00] the pleasure of that and avoid pain. And [141:04] the pain can be either living isolated [141:08] or without the idea of magic or [141:12] indulging in something where it creates [141:14] pain. Too much pleasure creates pain. [141:17] But this philosophy in this beautiful [141:19] long form poem uh written by Lucriccius [141:22] in 350 BC is all about magic. It's all [141:26] about this idea that look how lucky we [141:29] are to wake up in the morning and see [141:30] that freaking cactus blooming. You know [141:35] that's like when we get so [141:39] inured from that so you know anisticized [141:43] from the magic and it's all just the [141:46] doldrum and every day is the same that [141:49] that's robbing yourself of so much right [141:52] that that the idea that what if you just [141:54] woke up and said hey it's [ __ ] magic [141:57] it's this is amazing first of all I'm [141:59] breathing second of all look at that sun [142:02] coming in the the window and this is [142:05] going to be an amazing day [142:08] instead of like ah [ __ ] I got to get up [142:10] and you know [142:11] >> do my [ __ ] thing you know like no [142:15] >> that's also relative because if if you [142:17] were dying in a hospital [142:19] >> and you had this opportunity say okay [142:22] I'm all you have to do is say these [142:24] magic words and you'll be transported [142:26] back to health in your home with a [142:29] completely new perspective and a [142:30] completely new appreciation for just [142:33] being healthy and alive. [142:35] >> Yeah, you just it's just hard for people [142:38] to shift that perspective and think like [142:39] that all the time. But if you could [142:41] force yourself just as an exercise to [142:43] say, I am so lucky to be above ground. I [142:46] am so lucky to be healthy and mobile if [142:49] I am and I could just go do what I want [142:52] to do and live my life and and go say hi [142:55] to people I love. [142:57] >> Yeah. And appreciate it. And the idea [142:59] that you can also even if things are bad [143:02] that if you approach life that way then [143:04] you there is a possibility of making [143:06] everything better and it has to do with [143:08] humility. It has to do with being able [143:11] to say [143:13] uh I can forgive somebody for something. [143:15] I can also ask forgiveness for something [143:18] I've done. These it's all about [143:20] humility. It's all about a hu humility [143:23] in the face of not only your own [143:24] personal experience but in how you view [143:26] the universe. Like um I we're either I'm [143:31] lucky to be here or uh what a blessing [143:35] to be able to have this life I've had. [143:39] Um I want to give and I want to I had [143:43] this beautiful experience when I was [143:46] going through my you know one of my [143:49] darkest periods. this woman showed up [143:52] and [143:54] I'd met her once in my life, this [143:56] Tibetan woman. She's a great singer and [143:59] she she uh I I I said, "Why are you [144:02] here?" She said, "You're in trouble. I'm [144:05] going to take care of you." And I didn't [144:06] even know her. And I I said, "All right, [144:09] okay." And so she [144:12] she did this Reiki healing on me. She [144:14] sang. She wrote incense. And [144:17] >> I didn't understand it. I didn't [144:19] understand why she was there. [144:21] She makes me a a meal that evening, the [144:23] first evening she's done all this [144:25] healing on me. And she says, uh, you [144:28] know, she makes the meal, I'm eating, I [144:30] finish eating, I start taking the [144:32] dishes, right? She says, "What are you [144:35] doing?" [144:36] I said, "Well, you cooked. I'll clean." [144:39] She says, "Sit down." That's the problem [144:42] with you people in the West. It's all a [144:44] business deal. [144:46] I'm doing this for you. Can you just [144:47] accept that I'm taking care of you? Can [144:50] you accept that? And she said, "You will [144:53] never know how to give love until you [144:55] know how to receive love." And it blew [144:58] my mind. Because at the time I I [145:01] realized [145:03] I was engaged in that kind of [145:06] transactional way of looking at [145:08] relationships [145:10] that the idea that giving completely is [145:14] so [145:16] much better. You actually get more out [145:19] of it than you do receiving it. M [145:23] >> and once I understood that it kind of [145:26] transformed everything for me because [145:28] and that was a person that was a total [145:29] stranger and she showed up just out of [145:32] nowhere and I said finally at the end of [145:34] it I said why are you here and she said [145:37] you have done good things for the world [145:42] we need you [145:44] and she left [145:49] >> and you know that so I'm I I didn't plan [145:54] that. I didn't There was I had no idea [145:56] that was going to happen. But it made me [145:59] realize [146:01] there are angels in this world. [146:04] They are manifested as human beings. But [146:07] there are certain kinds of people that [146:09] are there for you if you are open for [146:12] it. If you are closed off and cynical, [146:16] you will not see your angels. [146:18] But if you are maybe sometimes just [146:21] completely wiped and you you have no you [146:24] know you just ready to receive it and [146:28] maybe [146:31] the fact that I was able to receive that [146:32] I think really helped me and and helped [146:34] me shift everything. It's always a [146:37] struggle. Of course, it doesn't that [146:39] lesson doesn't mean that I'm that way [146:41] forever, [146:42] >> right? [146:42] >> But it's a reminder. It's a it's it's [146:44] it's that there that there is another [146:47] energy in the world that is actually a [146:50] energy of good. We have consumed by the [146:55] bad all the time. There's all these, [146:58] >> you know, negative forces that are [147:00] trying to bring us down. And I think [147:02] that that sometimes we get so defeated [147:06] by those things that we are not open to [147:09] the energy of the angels, the the good. [147:12] And when I say angels, I don't mean [147:14] >> I know what you mean, [147:14] >> you know. [147:15] >> Yeah. [147:16] >> Super positive people like something [147:18] >> some pure expression of love and [147:22] compassion and generosity. [147:24] >> Yeah. [147:24] >> Yeah. And that's this is the real [147:26] problem that with social media and [147:28] algorithms in particular is that it it [147:31] really highlights the things that make [147:33] you upset. [147:34] >> It does. [147:35] >> Yeah. And that kind of energy is like [147:38] really is that is that affecting your [147:40] everyday life? Well, it is if you dive [147:42] into the negativity all day long and [147:45] you're engrossed in social media and [147:47] getting upset about things rather than [147:49] experiencing the life that's actually in [147:51] front of you and and doing it from a [147:54] positive perspective and not [147:56] concentrating on all these external [147:58] things that could be making you angry or [148:01] making you frustrated or filling you [148:02] with anxiety. Well, you're actually [148:05] poisoning yourself with that. [148:06] >> Yeah, you are. and which I've and and [148:09] it's a constant battle because that damn [148:11] thing's buzzing all the time, [148:13] >> but I have gotten better with it. I I [148:16] will not look at it first thing in the [148:17] morning anymore. [148:18] >> Well, it's much like we were talking [148:20] about like film and records being a new [148:22] thing. This is a really new thing and [148:24] this is very invasive. It's a very new [148:26] thing and very invasive and it's going [148:28] to take a while for people to figure out [148:30] the right way and the wrong way to use [148:32] it. [148:32] >> Yeah. and what what are the [148:34] ramifications and the consequences of [148:36] using it incorrectly? You know, because [148:38] this no one's teaching that, you know, [148:41] they're not teaching children that in [148:42] school. There should be a course on this [148:44] is the negative aspect of social media. [148:46] These are these are the negative aspects [148:48] of interaction. This is what it's doing [148:50] to your consciousness. This is what's [148:52] doing to your focus. It's stealing your [148:55] joy. It's stealing your your your [148:59] appreciation of the moment, [149:01] >> right? And it's leading you into [149:02] conflict constantly. [149:04] >> Constantly. [149:05] >> And um you know that's a negative thing. [149:09] That's a that's a force of evil. [149:12] >> Yeah. [149:12] >> Strong word, but you know [149:13] >> it's the right word though. Yeah. [149:14] >> You know it's again there's these words [149:16] good, evil, angel, God. They [ __ ] with [149:19] people because they're like, "Oh, what [149:21] is that?" It's I think got to kind of [149:24] abandon that way of thinking and just go [149:26] well this there's certainly positive and [149:28] negative and there's certainly love and [149:30] and evil. Those are those are real [149:32] things and there's good there's good in [149:34] the world and also the more you [149:37] concentrate on other things the more [149:39] your life is defined by those other [149:41] things whether it's good or bad. So if [149:43] you're constantly thinking about bad [149:45] things like well you can't have a very [149:47] loving and amazing life if you're [149:49] constantly inundated with thoughts about [149:51] negative things and on the other side of [149:53] it if you're thinking in a positive way [149:55] and enjoying love and friendship and and [149:58] community and just doing stuff that you [150:00] actually find value in well that's got [150:02] to give you better energy and life and [150:05] also the way you interact with other [150:07] people will be different so you'll [150:08] affect the way they feel and that'll [150:10] have that butterfly effect out to the [150:12] rest of the people they come in contact [150:14] with. [150:14] >> Not to mention, it's really good for [150:16] your health. [150:16] >> Yes. [150:17] >> Well, like you were saying before, one [150:19] of the worst things for your health is [150:20] loneliness. [150:21] >> Yeah. Yeah. It'll kill you. [150:24] >> Tim Robbins, you're a cool [ __ ] [150:26] >> Thank you, man. [150:26] >> I enjoyed talking to you. [150:27] >> I appreciate it. [150:28] >> Great. Thank you very much. [150:29] >> Thanks for having me. [150:30] >> My pleasure. Goodbye.