From New York Times Opinion, I'm Ross Douthat, and this is Interesting Times. American popular culture is in trouble. The Hollywood dream factory has gone stagnant, recycling the same stories time and time again.
Giants, like Marvel, feel too big to fail, but they've lost the ability to tell us new and surprising stories. But there is one notable exception.
The Star Wars serial Andor has somehow managed to pull off originality within the constraints of a familiar franchise. And part of its originality is that it has an explicitly political, and to my mind, left-wing, perspective on its world without feeling at all like tedious propaganda. My guest today is the showrunner behind Andor, Tony Gilroy.
We're going to talk about how art and politics interact in a show about radicals trying to defeat fascism, and whether Hollywood can ever tell stories for grown-ups again. So Tony Gilroy, welcome to Interesting Times. Thank you for having me. Thank you.
So I want to start by congratulating you on what I personally think a large number of critics and a sizable fraction of the viewing public consider the most successful Star Wars production maybe since the original trilogy. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of material to be compared with, so it's a...
It's a big thank you. So you've been frank in the past about not having been an intense Star Wars guy before you got pulled into this universe and into this work and this project. And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about what that's like, what it's like to come into this
a story, a franchise, were you saying to yourself, I'm going to do something inside a franchise that no one has done before? Or were you saying, look, there are other models here of how, you know, like Christopher Nolan's Batman or something like that? No, I'm always trying to do something that I haven't seen before that is going to be unusual. So no, I had no, I was very much not into any other model. I was very into...
striking new ground. And the other thing that I was being offered was a five-year piece of history on that calendar that you probably know pretty well. I think you're a big fan. I have that five-year tranche of history that takes you up to, uh,
The first scene in Rogue One. Right. And that is the story of the for for listeners and viewers who are not huge Star Wars fans. Right. This is the story that Andor tells is the story of the rise of the Rebel Alliance, how you get to the point in the original Star Wars where Luke Skywalker comes in and there's already this rebellion ongoing against the Empire. And you're telling a very, very political story.
Well, that was the offer. The canvas that was being offered was just a wildly abundant opportunity of –
To use all of the nonfiction and all the history and all the amateur reading that I'd done over the past 40 years and all the things I was fascinated by, all the revolution stuff, that not only I would never have a chance to do again, but I really wondered if anybody else would ever have a chance to do again. When are you going to be able to have, as we've ended up with, a 1,500-page book?
I think of it as a novel, really, a 1,500-page novel that is trying to deal with as many aspects of authoritarianism and fascism and colonialism and rebellion and coalition and sacrifice and all of that. I think this is a good place to pivot more to a discussion of politics and art, because Andor is, it's telling a political story in a way that
goes beyond anything Star Wars has done before. It's not just the world of Skywalker family and the Jedi Knights. It's a world of bureaucrats and senators, politicians, and so on, right? So talk a little bit about what is this world that you're showing? What is the political world that you're depicting in this show? The five years that I've been given are extremely potent.
You have the Empire really closing down, really choking, really ramping up. The Emperor's building the Death Star. The rebellion on Gorman was a front from the start, a cover to strip mine the planet for some mineral that they need. Fronting for what? A weapon. They are closing out corporate planets and absorbing them into the state.
They are imperialistically acquiring planets and taking what they want. They are, the noose is tightening dramatically. There still is a Senate. There are senators that are speaking out impotently. I believe we are in crisis.
The Senate has been all but completely emasculated by the time this five-year tranche is over. And there are revolutionary groups, rebellious groups, and people who are acting rebelliously who wouldn't even know how to describe themselves as part of any movement. There are a completely wide spectrum of unaffiliated cells, I guess, and activists that are rising independently across the galaxy. And
At the same time, you have a group of more restrained politicians who are trying to make an organized coalition of a rebellion on a place called Yavin, which will end up being the true victory of the rebel alliance. I wanted to do a show all about the forgotten people who make...
a revolution like this happen on both sides. And I want to take equal interest and spend as much time understanding the bureaucrats and the enforcers of the rebellion. I think one of the fascinating things about fascism is that
When it's done coming after the people whose land it wants and who it wants to oppress and whoever it wants to control, by the time it gets rid of the courts and the justice, and by the time it consolidates all its power in the center, it ultimately eats its young. It ultimately comes after its own—it consumes its own proponents. That's been the—that's—it's just reading about the last days of Mussolini a month ago, and it's just like right out of the—
People get lost and get hung out to dry. So I want to pay as much attention to the authoritarian side of this, the people who've cast it a lot with the empire who get burned by it all. So is Andor a left-wing show? Because this is something that I've said a couple times in my writing about it, using it literally as an example as a conservative columnist of a work of art that I think of as having different politics from my own that I really, really like. And I've had friends...
especially on the right, come back to me and say, oh, you know, it's not left-wing or right-wing. It's just a TV show about resistance to tyranny. But I think you've made a left-wing work of art. What do you think? I never think about it that way. I never think about it that way. It was never, I mean, I never do. I don't. But it's a story, but it's a political story about revolutionary. Do you identify with the empire? No.
Do you identify with the empire? No, I don't. But I don't think that you have to be left wing to resist authoritarianism, right? But I see the empire as you just described it, right? It's a fascist
It's presented as a fascist institution that doesn't have any sort of, you know, communist pretense to solidarity or anything like that. It's fascist and authoritarian. And you're meditating on what revolutionary politics looks like in the shadow of that. Right. I mean, who. So you talked about all this history that you brought in. Yeah. Talk about that history.
little bit. I mean, my education is very, very spotty and not college graduate, but completely autodidactic. I grew up in a house with an amazing library, and I've been a very active reader my whole life. And I've done just an incredible number of deep dives in my life where I've become obsessed with all kinds of different things, and I've made my own syllabus, and I've
I mean, I don't know. I probably read Stefan Zweig's Marie Antoinette when I was 15 or 16 years old and started a French Revolution jag. And then, you know, and I probably revisited that. I probably revisited the French Revolution half a dozen times in my life. And probably the last thing I read was, oh, and there's a great novel, Hilary Mantel's A Place of Greater Safety. Oh, yeah. It's a terrific book. Amazing book. And so I've done that. And I was obsessed.
with the Russian Revolution. And then the literature on that has expanded over time. And the show trials. And, you know, I don't know if you've ever seen House of Government. It's just an incredible book. And at different times, different things will come out. Oliver Cromwell, Zapata, the Roman Revolutions. And so, yeah, I mean, my syllabus for the show is, it just goes back too far and too deep. It's just something I've always been fascinated in. I don't think of the show as,
as a left-wing show. And I don't want you to think that I came on the show, I sort of said before, I saw the opportunity to use all this material and to dig into all these things, but that is not how I write.
It's completely antithetical to the way I write. I write very, very small. I trust my instincts are going to take me someplace larger if I'm doing it right. But it's really almost exclusively all about character. I plot through dialogue. I go very, very deep. And you can see how many characters I have and how many I'm carrying. And I...
I don't think of it as a pushing or promoting or anything. In fact, the ideology... But you're rooting. But in the end, I mean, in the end, you're rooting. I guess here's how I think about it. Yeah, go ahead. Right, so this is a show, it's a story, where you are rooting for...
against a fascist regime, right? Okay. As you said, you're not rooting for the empire in the end, right? No. So that to me is sort of the political foundation of the work, right? And that's why I use the term left-wing, not because you have a 10-point list of revolutionary demands that you, Tony Gilroy, support, but you're telling a story in which basically...
So you're on the side of the radicals and the revolutionaries. But then at the same time, and this is why I think it is effective art, what I think you've been able to do, maybe coming out of all of this autodidactic reading, right, is give people a window into why the radicals, even if you're rooting for them, you can see how things can go wrong, right? Yeah.
But that is what I really like about the show's approach to politics, right? But there's no ever – what's fascinating is there's no – and particularly in the second season, I was really eager to get into the idea of particularly for – and using Stellan Skarsgård's character, Luthen, as the sort of – and Forrest Whitaker's character as sort of the original gangsters and the difficulty of integrating the –
the inceptors of radicalism into a coalition. But I never, there's never anybody, I don't think, whoever espouses an actual ideology of what they want to achieve at the end, other than to please leave us alone, stop killing us, stop destroying our communities, don't build the Death Star and kill us. There's not a...
I never have a character I don't think stand up and say, this is the galaxy that I am trying to build, and this is what I want to see. No, that's fair. And that is, in fact, literally the argument that some of my more libertarian friends who love the show have made to me, saying, oh, you know, this is ultimately a show about localism and, you know, leaving us alone against the depredations of tyranny. But talk a little bit about how you portray the people who serve the empire, though.
I am, I'm with everybody on the show. I have to, I truly, without sounding like a t-shirt or a cliche, I mean, I have to live through every single one of them to do it properly. I have to really feel for every single person in the show. And there's no, there's no shortcut to that other than to, to empathetically dive into every person's point of view and every person's insecurities. And I'm as invested as,
in Partagas and De Jamiro and Cyril as any of the other characters in the show. I mean... And these are just, again, these are the characters who are imperial in various ways. Gestapo, say they're Gestapo. Yeah, exactly. I don't have the luxury. That sounds so glib. I just don't... I don't have any other way to work other than to fully be with everybody that I'm writing for and taking care of. And then as a dramatist, I also have actual...
human beings who are doing this that are you know vivid and alive for me and so your your empathetic response to the character is also then as a as an element of transference to the people that are playing the parts and i don't know any other way to do it i just go back to your last point about before we move on from it yeah i think if there's any ideology in the show at all
that is expressed, that seems consistent through the whole thing. And it is something that I think, and I don't know where it lines up. I think it would probably be just as confusing for you to try to make a left-right marker on it. But I feel the disruption of community and all the varieties of community, whether it's on a large scale with colonialism, if it's on a small scale with a city and a town or a family. The empire in the show is consuming people
and destroying communities everywhere. And the concept of community is the universal, I think that's the universal flag that I can fly all the way through the whole show and feel comfortable with. I mean, to me, what you've just described, the sort of mentality of
Always trying to see the world through your character's eyes, through each character's eyes, right? Even when they're on opposing sides, even when they represent a community-destroying perspective that, you know, you yourself are against. That is the key to doing successful art about politics, right? But it seems tremendously hard.
I think, for people to do in the sense that like when I think about most art that tries to capture American politics, certainly, but, you know, any kind of politics that gets close to the present moment, certainly, there's just a failure of, a conspicuous failure of empathy for anyone who's not on the same side as the screenwriter, the novelist, the filmmaker, and so on. That's my sense of things. And again, it's one reason that I appreciate
and or, I think. Do you think that there, like, in terms of cinema, modern cinema or modern TV, do you think there are other shows and movies that tackle politics that you admire, that you think pull this off, this kind of cross-political empathy? I don't know if I want to answer that by giving a list of shows. I'm going to push deeper on that. That's even better. Please push deeper. I'm going to push deeper on that. Um...
Like I heard, I have to study up a little bit to come on a podcast like this with an interview like this because it's a bar. It's a very serious podcast. No, the bar is higher. No, seriously, man. This is a trickier conversation than most of the ones I have to have on this. I listened to the podcast that you did with the, I don't know the gentleman's name, the one who's trying to revive the vibe shift into the- Yep, Jonathan Kieperman. Right wing, yeah. Right wing publisher, yep. What always-
Why is, not just Hollywood, you can sort of say, why has Hollywood for the last hundred years been vaguely, you know, been progressive or been liberal? I think it's a much larger, I'll go farther and say, why is almost all literature, why is almost all art that involves humans trend to progressive? Let's stick with Hollywood. You can't make a living as an actor or as a writer or a director living
The higher degree of empathy that you have...
The more aware you are of behavior and all kinds of behavior, the better you're going to be at your job. We feed our families by being in an empathy business. It's just baked in. You're trying to pretend to be other people. The whole job is to pretend to be other. And what is it like to look from this? And people may be less successful over time at portraying Nazis as humans. And that may be good writing or bad writing. And there may be people that have an ax to grind. But in general...
Empathy is how I feed my family. And the more finely tuned that is, the better I am at my job. And that is what actors do. I have to play, I'm going on Broadway, I'm playing a villain for six months. I gotta live in that. I'm playing the slave. I'm playing the fisherman. I'm playing the nurse. I'm the murderer. You have to get in there. You have to live lives through other people. I think that the simple act of
That transformation and that process automatically gives you a more, what I would describe as a more generous and progressive point of view. It just has to. And I don't see how you can buy if you're going to reissue the Hardy Boys or something, you know, or try to twist a knot and...
say that Melville or the Coen brothers are, you know, made a piece of right-wing art because you sort of see something in there. I think it really misses the larger point of the struggle that that movement is going to be up against. Does that make any sense to you? I mean, yeah, I think that that is the view of many, if not most people, who work in the arts that I've had sort of sustained conversations with about...
politics, why art tends to be liberal or progressive coded and so on. I think just, you know, just to speak up on behalf of the conservative critique, I think you would say a couple things, right? One is that liberalism and progressivism itself is in 21st century America is a power structure, a set of assumptions, views about who's good, who's bad. It passes a certain kind of judgment on the past, right?
I think, that can be antithetical to serious art, that you get a lot of progressivism where it's like, you know, the moral arc of the universe is always bending in a particular direction and everyone in the past who had different views is benighted and wrong and so on. And that is its own failure of empathy and understanding, I think, and one that progressives are particularly prone to. So the empathy for events is what you're saying? No, the empathy for...
people who existed who had views that contemporary progressives now consider benighted, for instance. Like, you know, I'm trying to make a deeper point. Well, but you're asking me why I'm saying just the act of the job, just the act of the day-to-day work puts you, it doesn't matter. The ideology may be, there may be exceptions to all across the spectrum, but in general, the act of pretending to,
to be someone else or you know many actors don't like to use the word pretending and writers don't like to use the word pretending the act of inhabiting or or becoming someone else in any iteration in any historical setting just that simple transformation and the and the work that goes into that and until the point where you can access it immediately that act um
I'm very eager to put it in a religious context for you because I know what a strong flavor that is on this show. It's perhaps not religious, but it is an act of transformation that is more than a magic trick. And it doesn't necessarily put you in an ideological—it doesn't cast your vote, but it does open your mind in a way that forces you to—
Think twice about the person who's sitting next to you on the bus. Right. And I guess what I'm just trying to suggest is that some people do it better than others, right? Some artists do it better than others. But there is also a pattern where art that is made in an environment where people share a particular worldview, where it fails the test you're setting it, right? The test of empathy is often when it's confronting people who
hold views or represent ideas or institutions or anything else that contemporary progressives don't favor. So just to give you an example, right? And again, you don't have to agree with this because, you know, you don't have to criticize any of your colleagues in the business, right? But if you go back and watch a movie like The Shape of Water,
Guillermo del Toro's movie that won Best Picture sort of at the beginning of sort of what we now think of as the Great Awakening, right? In a way, it's a very empathetic movie. It's a movie about how a band of outsiders, minorities, non-humans, and so on, band together to defeat an evil authoritarian figure. But the evil authoritarian figure is supposed to be like the evil representative of white Christian McCarthyite masculinity. And, you know, Michael Shannon does a
in a way, a very good job portraying the role. But as I sit there watching the movie, it's a movie that absolutely has no empathy for anyone outside its circle of sort of virtuous outsiders. It has no sense of what it would, you know, what would it actually be like to be, you know, a sort of patriotic... I don't want to defend that picture. Okay, good. I don't think it's a subtle picture and I think it's doing what... What do I come back with? Let's talk about In the Heat of the Night. Let me...
Let's talk about In the Heat of the Night for one second. Just to pick a... Okay. I mean, In the Heat of the Night, the Rod Steiger character, the Southern Sheriff, couldn't be more of a cliche as the movie starts, couldn't be more of a living caricature of what we all expect and lives on those expectations. As the movie tracks along...
And as some great writing and great directing and great acting gets done, you gradually become to realize that everybody involved in that picture is absolutely as invested in him as they are in Sidney Poitier. And they're absolutely invested in that character as much as they are in any other character. And the whole thing is alive. And the difference between Shape of Water is it's a...
It wants to be gothic. I'm not sure what Guillermo was going for there. I'm sure there was a different kind of movie. But when people really care about it, they get there, I think. I don't know. Well, let me give, I agree with you completely about In the Heat of the Night. Let me give you an example from your own
work, right? Which is, I think, the best movie that you made. You've only actually, you've directed three movies? How many movies have you directed? Three movies, yes. Three movies, right. So they're all good, to be clear, but the best of them, I think, by general consensus, is Michael Clayton, which is a movie that stars George Clooney as a lawyer who's a fixer, who ends up dealing with a case of corporate malfeasance where, you know, a company essentially
poison to town, poison kids, right? And one of his colleagues has a crisis of conscience played by, or essentially has a mental breakdown driven by a crisis of conscience, right? And this is, again, I would describe, this is a movie I love. I love Michael Clayton. I would, again, describe it as kind of a left-wing movie. It's a movie about how they're evil. Why? Why is that? Okay.
Because the foundation of the movie, and I would say this, like, if you make a movie, if you make a movie that's about how, where the moral foundation of the movie is that the American military is, you know, awesome and kicks ass, I might love that movie or I might dislike it, but I would, I'd call that a kind of right-leading movie. And if you make a movie about how evil corporations are poisoning your children, I'd call that a left-wing movie, right? But what I, what I want to get to is the villain in that movie is played by Tilda Swinton, terrific performance. And,
To me, you create her and she creates the character too, right? In a way that is, again, sort of fulfills the goal of creating a character who you're rooting against, who's obviously the bad guy, but who is deeply human, fascinating, sort of bizarre, and
totally relatable in various ways. Again, in a way that I think lots of movies that have a political perspective fail at. And that's all I'm getting at, right? I think that there is a way in which you can make a movie that has a political point of view that captures the fullness of reality. And it's hard to do, and you do it well, and not everyone does.
This isn't even a question. I'm just I'm just no, no, no. All right. Well, let me let me let me respond to that. I think you might have you might have an opening statement in on and or because it is essentially there's a lot of politics and and fascism is identified. And but.
I just, it's funny. I just saw Clayton for the first time in 18 years the night before last. Really? They had a screening in LA. Yeah. And they had a show print and we're out promoting Andor and they tied it in with that. I hadn't seen it in 18 years. I went in a packed theater just two nights ago and saw it again. So it's fresh in my mind.
I really don't—I'm going to really push back against left-wing on that picture. I don't understand at all what is left or right about poisoning people with a pesticide and lying about it. I don't think anybody on the right wants to be—if I was—let's keep my politics out of it, but I can't see myself ever in any iteration of myself identifying with the corporation that has—
been fighting a class action shoot for poisoning people. Right, but that's what... But wait, Tilda Swinton's character is so... She's such a lost person. She has to practice being herself. She's completely... If there's a political element about the movie, I think, at all, it's Tilda Swinton...
trying to falsely approximate what she thinks may be male corporate behaviors. You might be able to make an argument about that, but like, who wants to defend pesticides? I don't think it's left or right at all. I think it's about people...
I mean, I think I'm a moralist, if you want to know the truth. I mean, in the number one definition, not the number two definition. But I think I really, in the end, I think there's a moral code that I have. And I think that gets expressed a lot. But it's impossible for me to see Clayton as an ideological thing. Well, it's just that this is the last thing I'll say, because I want to ask you a different question about Michael Clayton. The last thing I'll say is just... But do you... Of course, of course, of course you don't identify with...
with the corporation that's using pesticides to poison the children, right? But if I made a movie, let's say I made a movie, right? And it was about a English department faculty that was led by a...
you know, African-American lesbian professor that, you know, persecuted a virtuous Catholic conservative academic and got him fired. Right? Right. I would feel like I'd made kind of a right-wing movie. But then I could say, oh, well, what, are you on the side of persecuting Catholic intellectuals? No, no one's on that side. Well, no, but who you choose as your villains does have political implications. That's all I'm saying. Right.
So let me ask you a different question about Michael Clayton. Okay, go ahead. So why didn't you make more movies like Michael Clayton? It's been 18 years. Why are there, you know, Duplicity came out after that, and then you did a Bourne movie, and then you got sucked into the Star Wars universe. But I watched that movie. I was like, I could watch five more movies, 10 more movies like that from Tony Gilroy.
I mean, well, that's a... I mean, if you look at my complete CV, it's pretty chaotic, and you could tell that I... As to go back to what we said before, I don't really want to do anything that I've done before. I really wanted to make Duplicity. I really had a guess making it. I went from there to Legacy. I really tried to give... I'd been on the Bourne franchise for many years, and that's its own shambolic success, and I wanted to give them a...
a Marvel universe in a way. We really had a way of doing that. There was just too much bad blood and too much confusion that it didn't work. The life of a screenwriter, the life of a writer-director, I have not been able to pick and choose what I've wanted to do. And that's, well, that's the core of the question. So I, you know, I grew up younger than you. I grew up in the 1990s, which meant that, you know, for me...
as a teenager, someone who was not as crazed about the movies maybe as you were, but who liked them a lot, and they were a big part of my life, hanging out, going to the movies on weekends, right? I sort of took it for granted then that you would have...
serious movies for grownups, fun, original movies, a movie you worked on devil's advocate, right? The Al Pacino, right? Keanu. Right. So that, that was the kind of movie that going to the movies meant you were going to see a big movie star giving you a big speech, you know, playing Satan in a Manhattan sky rise. It was great stuff. Right. And to me, the big change in American pop culture in the last 20 years is that the world that
made movies like Michael Clayton movies like devil's advocate possible has just sort of gone away and I'm wondering if you agree with that right it just it just seems incredibly hard go ahead you stop going to the theater you stop going to the theater well I started capital Y stop going to the theater no I take that personally because I do have a lot of kids and I don't get to the movie theater you don't so it is my fault personally totally now I mean the the
Man, I've been around so long. I've seen this whole thing. I've seen all these dynastic changes happen and ridden it through. The economics are just what they are. And Michael Clayton existed in that moment where the model on that movie is if I could get a movie star whose full freight price is
was basically the cost of the movie and they do the movie for free, I had a movie. I mean, even at that point, if George is gonna come in, I think the movie costs 20. I think George was getting 15, 20 at that point. And he waives his fee. He owns the picture. That's how that movie gets made.
That model began to degrade over time, and now it's an impossibility. I mean, now Clayton is absolutely a streaming show. Well, there aren't movie stars anymore, right? There are no movie stars anymore. No, there are no movie stars. And so all of these things have changed. So I...
My father was in the same business. My brothers are in the same business. I have grown up in this my whole life. It's prenatal for me. And one of the major, most important things carved in stone that I know, it does no good to complain about the weather, man. You got to go out. You got to see what's there. Now, I don't want to... I grew up, my brothers and I grew up, my friends and I grew up with a generation of writers before us, great writers and great producers and directors and whatever. But they...
Many of them became embittered by the changing landscape and the changing topography of what had happened. And that's a lesson that I've taken away. I'm staying flexible. I want to work. I want to be obsessed. I want to work on something that I'm into. What gives you hope right now? Like, do you think that we are just stuck in a world where you can maybe make something great inside a franchise?
but mostly movies for grownups are over or do you, are you, do you think things are going to get better? I don't man better. I don't know. I think there's a couple of really significant things. I mean, I just personally, I have a movie that I'm hoping to get greenlit very soon. That's very much a, that'll go back and direct. And it's about movie music and it's, it's certainly not Clayton that it's a thriller, but it's very much in the same scale and it's very ambitious and unusual. And it's,
If I get to make it, I think you'd say, oh, this is the thing I was talking about. But... Good. What's new and good? I'll tell you what's good. What's good is time. The two major developments I would say are the best developments in recent years is one is Tony Soprano, because prior to Tony Soprano,
Every writer who ever went into a pitch meeting or ever dealt with an actor, there was always a note, can we make this character more sympathetic? How do we make Ross more sympathetic? Should we give you a dog? I get those notes from my producers every week. If you had a dog, if you had a dog there, a puppy, it would be a lot better. After Tony Soprano, people really began to realize something that had already been staring at them, which is the characters need to be fascinating.
and have to be relatable in some way, but they have to be fascinating more than anything else. And sympathetic wasn't the characteristic that everybody wanted. I think that's a huge tectonic development. I think the other development that's probably more significant is time.
The ability to tailor the size of the canvas or build a house to the lot appropriately is an incredibly liberating creative development. That's transformative. I have a story.
Does it really want to fit into a three hours? Does it really want to fit into seven hours? Does it really want to be 24 episodes? Is it really just a movie? Is it, I think how shows are delivered time will now be, it's just, I mean, I can't stress how it's almost as if you added perspective to painting it's Jado or something. It's really like, that's a really major development. Now, all that said, all that happiness and everything that's great, um,
And I listened to your AI podcast. I was talking to people in LA the last couple of days. I've heard some just absolutely brilliant
gothic, dire information or prognostication about AI. I don't know how to deal with that. I don't know how to think about it. I don't know what you did with that. When you finished that podcast, what did you think when you were done with that podcast? Did you want to go out to the parking lot and scream or what? I didn't fully believe it. That's the truth. I don't think the world's ending in 2027. I think with the movies...
It's a question about... I hope you're right. I hope I'm right too. We'll find out. I hope you're right, man. To me, the question with AI, the great question, is an audience question, right? For your business. If you get an AI that can generate, you know,
1,500 simulated versions of Michael Clayton or Andor. And let's be honest, there'll be 1,500 simulated versions of a Marvel movie or a Star Wars show, right? And the actors aren't real. And there's no actual screenwriter behind it. Do people want that? And...
I sort of think that they don't in the end, that like even if most people watch and or don't know who Tony Gilroy is, in the end, they want to think that there is a mind and a human being behind the story, just as they definitely want to think that, you know, you're talking about the work your actors do, right? That it's like it's Tilda Swinton and George Clooney playing those characters. Even in an age when movie stars have declined, people want to think they don't want a
AI simulacrum playing a fictional character. And this may be my total naivete, but I do think that's what it comes down to for Hollywood with AI. It's does the audience accept the substitution of whatever AI can do for what you can do? And I'm hopeful that they don't.
I mean, I think that's, I'll talk about that for one minute, but I think it's subsidiary to like, well, maybe people will have nothing else to do to watch because they won't have any jobs and they won't have anything. I mean, or maybe it's a Chinese AI nuclear race. No, I mean, it's so terrifying. There won't be a movie business. I don't know. I don't know. I don't want to be, I mean, one of my, you know, one of my, I think,
A personal philosophy that I've, it's not something, again, it's not an agenda I put in. I find this, you find out forensically what you really think when you go out and sell your picture. It's really an odd thing. And over time, I've really become more aware in these kinds of conversations and post facto what I've really been doing. And one of the things I feel I've really been doing, I think human behavior is,
And human insecurities and just all the things that make us chaotic, complicated beings has always had a corrosive effect on every technology and weapon and everything that's been thrown in its way. I think it's like water. It leaks down and it rusts. It's managed to wonderfully rust out all of the things that have been thrown at it before. I don't know.
If this is one that we can beat. And in your scenario, maybe it's true. Maybe live theater will become just this cult-like thing. Maybe there'll be some huge, incredible renaissance of return to an acoustic community in every way, shape, or form. I don't know. But I am not sanguine about the next corner we're going to turn. And...
That's something I have no, we have no frame of reference for that. So absent that, I would try to be optimistic, I suppose. So that's a dark place, Tony. So give me some light. Give me some advice right now. Set aside AI, just the movie industry without the total transformation, just the movie and TV industry that you're in right now. Give me advice for the young Tony Gilroy or the would-be Tony Gilroy, the would-be screenwriter, director, whatever else of 2025. What would you tell them?
Well, I give the same advice. All these people come and kids come and whatever. I mean, now it's simple. The young, they're eager to learn. No, but have something to say. It's just people can't be doing this job because they think it's cool or the money's good or whatever. I mean, there's no point in this if you don't have something to say. The optimistic other thing is what do people talk about everywhere? They talk about what are you watching? What are you seeing? Did you see this? What episode are you on? The amount of narrative that is being consumed...
And the, I guess, the leisure time liberation and the accelerated, you know, just the delivery systems that can bring it to you. I mean, narrative is an essential food group to the human experience, and it has never not been thus. Will that go away because it's a machine doing it? I don't know. How will machines do it? Will they do it better? Will people accept that? I have no idea. But people...
We tell ourselves stories in order to live. No, I mean, a lot of times I'll tell writers if they're telling me, you know, one of the things I always say is it's really good to tell your story if you're working on something. It's a campfire story. I mean, the best writers are people who can sit down. I could sit down and I really think confidently with a little bit of lead time and a vodka in my hand at a campfire, I can hold your attention. I can really hold your attention. That's really valuable. That never ends. So that seems to be proven. Good.
Well, then we'll, if the AI 2027 scenario is real, we'll agree to meet up around the campfire in the post-apocalyptic ruins. And you can tell me a story, Tony. All right. You bring the bottle. Thank you so much. A pleasure. As always, thank you so much for listening. And as a reminder, you can watch this as a video podcast on YouTube. You can find the channel under Interesting Times with Ross Douthat.
Interesting Times is produced by Sophia Alvarez-Boyd, Andrea Batanzos, Elisa Gutierrez, and Catherine Sullivan. It's edited by Jordana Hochman. Our fact-check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris.
Original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero, Amin Sahota, and Pat McCusker. Mixing by Pat McCusker, audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulowski, and our director of opinion audio is Annie Rose Strasser. ♪