Deliberating Dogface Dudes

Share on social media:

Is Hollywood Dead? A Deep Dive into the Entertainment Industry
Hollywood's Influence: Creativity, Propaganda, and Society
The Evolution of Hollywood: From Studio System to Streaming
Breaking Down Hollywood: Impact on Culture and Individualism
Hollywood's Future: Creativity, Technology, and Social Change

In general, the term "Hollywood" is often used to refer to the American film industry, its products, and its cultural impact.

The Hays Code was a set of guidelines that regulated the content of American films from 1934 to 1968.

“The Hays Code was this self-imposed industry set of guidelines for all the motion pictures that were released between 1934 and 1968,” says O'Brien. “The code prohibited profanity, suggestive nudity, graphic or realistic violence, sexual persuasions and rape.Jan 14, 2021

The Pawnbroker is a 1964 American drama film directed by Sidney Lumet,
The film was controversial on initial release for depicting nude scenes in which actresses Linda Geiser and Thelma Oliver fully exposed their breasts. The scene with Oliver, who played a prostitute, was intercut with a flashback to the concentration camp, in which Nazerman is forced to watch his wife (Geiser) and other women raped by Nazi officers. The nudity resulted in a "C" (condemned) rating from the Catholic Legion of Decency.

In this episode of Deliberating Dogface Dudes, host John Rowland moderates a lively discussion on the topic, 'Has Hollywood had a negative impact on society?' Joined by special guests Hunter Muse, Alan Marcus, and Benjamin Ballerson, the panel dives deep into the evolution of Hollywood and its influence on culture and society. The conversation kicks off with introductions and quickly moves into a debate on whether Hollywood is dead and the current state of the entertainment industry. Hunter Muse, co-host of the MELT podcast, argues that Hollywood's initial intention has been obliterated by corporate America and propaganda, leading to a decline in creativity and a shift towards programming rather than entertainment. Alan Marcus, a Mormon filmmaker, questions the very existence of Hollywood as a real entity and discusses the historical context of censorship and the changing landscape of film consumption. Benjamin Ballerson, playing devil's advocate, suggests that the entertainment industry is not dead but has evolved with technology and societal changes. The discussion touches on various aspects, including the democratization of filmmaking, the role of propaganda, and the impact of technology on storytelling. The episode also explores the broader implications of Hollywood's influence, including the erosion of social bonds, the rise of individualism, and the potential for a shift towards more thoughtful and creative content. The panelists share their perspectives on the future of the entertainment industry and the role of violence and masculinity in society. The episode concludes with a thought-provoking discussion on the need for discernment in consuming media and the potential for a return to more meaningful and connected storytelling.

- allen marcus

- Benjamin Balderson

- John Roeland

- Hunter Muse

(00:01:28) Introduction and Episode Overview

(00:02:15) Guest Introductions

(00:05:21) Discussion on Hollywood's Impact

(00:07:24) Structured Debate Format

(00:08:53) Is Hollywood Dead? Hunter's Perspective

(00:13:33) Is Hollywood Dead? Allen's Perspective

(00:17:01) Is Hollywood Dead? Ben's Perspective

(00:21:01) Initial Intentions of Hollywood

(00:34:50) Freestyle Discussion on Hollywood's Influence

(00:50:29) Open Forum and Responses

(01:07:14) Individualism and Society's Evolution

(01:28:06) Hollywood's Role in Shaping Culture

(01:50:42) Technological Shifts and Strikes in Hollywood

(02:01:31) Violence and Masculinity in Media

(02:07:35) Closing Remarks and Future Topics

https://serve.podhome.fm/deliberatingdogfacedudes

https://serve.podhome.fm/episodepage/deliberatingdogfacedudes/7

[00:00:32] Unknown:

You   win.   Good metal, dude.   Dudes,   9,   8,   7, 8,   5,   4, 3, 2, 1, fight.  

[00:01:28] John Roeland:

Hello, everyone, and welcome to deliberating   dogface dudes.   This is episode   number 7. Has Hollywood   had a negative impact on society?   And I am John Rowland. I am hosting and moderating this episode,   so that's the first time for me.   We have a special guest with us today, and how we're gonna do this is we're gonna go around with some brief intros, who you are, where we can find your work, and then we're gonna go into some intro statements   about   is Hollywood dead the current state of the entertainment   industry.   Okay. 1st, I'd like to introduce   the guest below me,   and we've just met. So I'll let you go ahead and introduce yourself to me.  



[00:02:15] Hunter Muse:

Hi, John. I am Hunter Muse. I am married to Chris Snipes and cohost of the MELT podcast.   I am a psychonaut,   but not a psychotic, which is a good thing.   I am,   a biological   female.   I feel like you gotta say that.   We have the conversation about Hollywood. We have to preface everything   with,   what gender we were born,   with.   And I am a curious   questioner   of the human experience.   I would say that is   probably the best overview   that I can give you.  

[00:03:01] John Roeland:

Great.   And right next to you on the bottom?  

[00:03:05] allen marcus:

Hi. I'm Alan Marcus. I think I was assigned,   the position of agnostic Muslim, but I'm not sure   if I could say   anything more about that at this point.   No sleeper cell agent. You never know what I'm gonna say. Popular position. It it's way more popular than you'd think.   No. The truth is I'm a Mormon filmmaker, and I'm here to sell you on edited films to take out all the, the content that should not be seen ever by anyone ever anywhere.   I don't care if you're on an airplane and you're watching a movie or you're, in a dirty theater. You know, obscenity laws exist for a reason, and let's bring them back. Maybe. I'm not sure if I'm decided on that position or not.   We'll see what Benjamin has to say.  



[00:03:54] Unknown:

Hey. I'm Benjamin Ballerson.   And, obviously, you can find me here with these fine gentlemen every week. I'm the deliberating dog faced dudes.   What's up, Bluehead?   What's up, Christy Crenco?   You can also find me on Saturdays on Weaving Spider's Welcome. We're taking a little break from that because,   upcoming, we have the Flattoberfest   event that, Marcus and I will be attending.   I will present be presenting   a spagyrics demonstration   live,   which   other people charge   $5,000 for the same   demonstration and information,   and you get it for the price of   what care Karen charges for a ticket.  

Pretty awesome.   So   hope to see everybody there, and,   look forward to this.  

[00:04:47] Hunter Muse:

I I have I have a question about that. Is spagyrics the same as spirogryx?  

[00:04:56] Unknown:

I I assume that that's I I assume so.  

[00:05:00] Hunter Muse:

Because the first time I was on Weaving Spiders, the way I ended it with you is I said, I'd love to have you on the show to talk about spirogyrics.  

[00:05:10] Unknown:

Oh, that's awesome.   That's awesome.  

[00:05:14] Hunter Muse:

Oh, that was maybe a a Chuck Mangione reference.  

[00:05:21] Unknown:

Awesome. Speaking of which,   she was on episode 263   of the spiders, and we had   I would not have called it necessarily a debate, but,   closer to a debate style conversation that was absolutely wonderful,   including,   trans sexuality in the place in the world.   So super interesting. Anybody that missed that, I'm weaving spiders webs.   So, given that, I mean, it was honestly just a fantastic conversation,   and I'm really looking forward to this one tonight.  

[00:05:57] Hunter Muse:

And we may dip back into that because 2 of the   books that or one of the books that I I   in my last meditation, I was like, oh, we should talk about this too,   is this   book, which is doctor Hillman   doctor,   Aman Hillman's   Hermaphrodites,   Gynomorphs, and Jesus, female gods, and the roots of Christianity,   which is a   really interesting read. I'm in the middle of reading it right now.   And it basically covers the idea that   our   perspective on gender is completely wrong and that   there have been   all types of versions   of sexuality   and gender throughout history,   and that the church has worked on   maybe rewriting history   to make it this very binary.  

So   I'm interested in kind of weaving that into this discussion,   because I think Hollywood has played a massive role   in   the   woke mind virus   that is selling this idea that   men are women and women are men. And these these sexual inversions   are part of   potentially a greater agenda,   but maybe not the one that we think   is the agenda.  

[00:07:25] John Roeland:

Alright.   Well, in order to try to keep this a little bit more formatted than we have in the past, I do have a 5 minute timer. So as we go around, we're gonna let Hunter   start first, and then we'll kinda pass it in the order that that we introduced ourselves. So Hunter, to Alan,   to Ben, and then we'll try to do, like, 3 more rounds of 5 minutes each. So then if someone made a comment you wanna rebut or if an obvious question pops up that we wanna move the conversation further. So we'll do 4 rounds of those in all, and then we'll open it up, and then you guys can start, you know, talking over each other. But so we're trying to just keep it a little bit more disciplined. What are you saying, Ben?  

[00:08:06] Unknown:

Yeah. And try try and kinda save the rebuttal because after the 5 minute periods, that's just laying out your positions.   And then the rebuttal periods afterwards where we can have an open dialogue and and discuss and question and clarify.   But during the fight during this, we're all just gonna basically mute while you're talking so you can get out your position that you're gonna hold later.   Gotcha.  

[00:08:31] John Roeland:

Yes. So this is a much more contrived conversation that we're having here.   But   it's exercise, and, it's again a good way to break out of the echo chamber. Okay. So we're gonna start with Hunter. I'm gonna start my timer. It's a real gentle timer, so it won't startle you or anything. And, you know, it's a a soft 5 minute timer. So Okay. First, you, Hunter. I'm gonna ask you this. Is Hollywood dead?  

[00:08:59] Hunter Muse:

I think the,   the soil that,   Hollywood   has been   nourished with   and,   birthed out of is definitely dead.   I think the old studio system that Hollywood,   was really entrenched in and was basically the infrastructure   of Hollywood is absolutely   been eviscerated and destroyed,   primarily by Corporate America,   sponsorships,   the CIA,   these,   three letter agencies that have gone in and   basically used films   for decades now, we can say, since basically, since World War 2,   used films as propaganda machines to promote war, to promote,   whatever nefarious or even not nefarious agenda   that it may have.  

So,   the   the basis of what Hollywood maybe the   the initial   intention of Hollywood   has been completely,   just obliterated   and does not exist anymore.   Now   we   have this machine   that is really,   entrenched in this idea   that   movies aren't necessarily   a form of entertainment.   They are a form of programming,   and   the intent   is not always for films to be successful.   There are many films that are made that are designed to not be successful,   and certainly not for a broader worldwide audience.   So   I think what has happened with this what we, in this space, tend to call the woke mind virus, what's happened is that   there has been a narrowing   of storytelling   and a fear   of,   telling stories that that fall outside of that paradigm,   or that agenda or that propaganda.  

So   my sense is that   that has   killed   creativity   Because now   the idea of making a film that is artful, that does not fall within that paradigm   seems outrageous. I mean, in even in the indie film world,   if you're wanting to make a, film   that is $2,000,000,   that's considered a micro budget now. You know, most films that are being made are in the 50 to a $100,000,000   range,   with the intention that there's a very limited   group of directors that can be trusted with that type of money. And it seems like now the shift   is away from feature films and now has gone into these limited series.  

So you have   some directors being given 80 to a $100,000,000   to develop a television show.   So I think that that has really changed   the   just the the format that,   entertainment is being shared and given,   but it's also created   this this isolation.   So you don't necessarily have to go to a movie theater to see a film, so you don't have this collective experience with   a 150 or 200 people or 50 people in a room all seeing the same thing at the same time. Now you are isolated in your home, and you're viewing something maybe on your phone or,   you know, on a train or   not even on a television anymore. So   I think because of that, it's a lot easier to doctor   the message because you don't have a consensus around you that is,   either agreeing with that message or maybe pushing back against that message. So it's easier to indoctrinate or it's easier to,   mind control someone   when they're staring at this very tiny   little image, and it's just, you know, them and that image.  

So, yes, I would say, empirically, that Hollywood, as we know it, is dead.  

[00:13:33] John Roeland:

Great job. Just under 5 minutes.   Alright. I'm gonna pass it to Alan.   Is Hollywood dead?  

[00:13:43] allen marcus:

If by Hollywood, you mean the film industry,   What are we talking about in terms of Hollywood? Hollywood means so many different things. It means everything. It means nothing. Hollywood is la la land where dreams come true, where   women from anywhere in the world get on a bus,   go west, and then become stars and sex symbols that everybody recognizes, that type of thing. So I don't think it was ever alive. I don't think it was ever a real thing. So to ask if it's dead, well, there's a lot of clarification that needs to happen. If we're talking about this as being a business   with the sole purpose of investing the smallest amount of money possible to the maximum   financial return, I don't think that model has been   in play for many, many years. You'd look at something like Francis Ford Coppola and then giving his daughter the money and then this sort of the Hollywood elite. So it's like   when   filmmakers were over on the East Coast   and they were developing film. And then the government started to say, hey. Well, we got some patent concerns here. We got some copyright concerns over there. We have,   we have some concerns.  

They packed up, and they went to the other coast, and they got away from government, and they got away from church and morality and everything. They just went wild west, and they decided here's what we're gonna do. They tried a lot of different things. And at that point, there was a financial aspect. Money was maybe real because it's based off of a gold center. So there's so many factors that we could look at in terms   of the idea   that Hollywood   as an entertainment industry,   which has expanded beyond the 85 minute film   where   they found the perfect length of film, how many reels of film would they put on at the theater to show it on the projector,   and then maximizing butts and seats, having as many showings in the theater as possible because a theater   was a very important thing in the community. Every community would have a theater. It was like a church for many people. In fact, I think there's a quote saying something to the effect of certain religious   groups are in control of this industry, and they're telling their stories. And other   religious groups should not go and see   films that are speaking to undermine their moral values. This type of argument is this has existed from the from day 1. We've had censorship. We've had MP, double a, and rating standards.  

And maybe that that aspect is dead. I don't know if any movie today even bothers to go through to get a rating. If you watch a film on Netflix, do you know what it's rated?   Is it r rated? Is it PG 13?   Is it is it suitable for kids? Do you go to a Christian movie review site to see if this is gonna have enough nudity to keep you interested in the thing? There isn't even nudity in films anymore. So what's the point of seeing it if there's nothing to see?   So with the,   question is Hollywood dead, was it ever alive? I think we need more clarification   on that   specific   topic, but that's kind of where I'm at, and I'll pass it over.  



[00:17:00] John Roeland:

Go ahead, Ben.   Alright.  

[00:17:05] Unknown:

Interesting stuff.   Today, the subject   is Hollywood dead.   It's the first point   I have no personal connection with.   I am debating this strictly from a devil's advocate point of view.   Myself, I live off grid, and I'm as close to a Luddite as you, currently usually will find. So this is a very odd position for me to take the pro of, and I am going to be a good exercise   of, mental   elasticity.   With that said,   Hollywood itself boils down to the entertainment   industry.   With people born in the eighties,   seventies, eighties to the early nineties,   finding Hollywood itself as the center of entertainment.  

Before this,   it   was a much more broad thing with,   game shows and whatnot being out of Walla Walla, Washington,   funny enough, weaving spiders. And,   these things being much more localized,   it became a much more national and then global thing,   in the eighties and then nineties.   Entertainment   has always been subject to evolving technologies,   as many industries are.   With radio replacing reading and the occasional play when they visited town,   the moving picture replacing plays   and reading,   and bringing this to any town that had a big screen.   And today, we find streaming directly to your home to be the method of consumption.  

100 years ago, you may have seen 1 or 2 plays in your life,   read 1 or 2 books in your life,   with the exception of a king who could afford court entertainment.   Today, the poorest people poorest of people can receive a welfare smartphone   where they can consume entertainment   every moment of their considerable   free time.   Historically,   there have been few story lines   with everything boiling down to a hero's journey,   which is a comedy   or a tragedy.   With the overconsumption   of products   like any glutton,   the flavor   is in exchange for the sheer ecstasy of taking in more than you can use or enjoy.   Very similar to what's displayed   in the hunger games, where they consume food only   to   puke it out   just so they can consume   more food.  

Obviously, defeating the entire   point   to the exercise of eating.   With that, the stories all appear the same, and the actual entertainment dies.   We become Romans at a coliseum   yawning   behind soft smooth hands   until moments of the sheerest violence   or the deepest sexual depravity   bring a moment of feeling.   That is a failing in society itself,   and new stories with grander visual effects   will not cure that sickness.   With that,   I don't believe that Hollywood in and itself in and of itself is dead. I believe   we suffer from a dying society,   and Hollywood   is just   the visual representation of such.  



[00:20:53] John Roeland:

Alright.   So we're gonna go into another 5 minute round for each,   speaker.   The thought that is popping in my head is, something   that Hunter said was the initial intention of Hollywood.   I wonder if we could,   maybe elaborate on what each of us think the initial intention and maybe potential of Hollywood was.  

[00:21:24] Hunter Muse:

No?   Okay. Okay. Cool.   You know, the that's a great question because   there's   probably   the,   intention   that   maybe the businessmen   that were settling that area had. And then there's the intention   that the people   that   maybe lived in in that area   that were supporting those men had,   and then there was the intention of the people who decided to come to that area   to,   find their fortune or find fame or find some   creative outlet. I think that's absolutely,   maybe the infrastructure   of where all of that started.   But it it's very clear   that in that period,   that was a short lived period.  

So   I think very quickly people   recognized,   as Benjamin was saying, that   that the evolution of what was happening   is   that   the need to,   connect directly with   knowledge   was pivoting and shifting into a different direction.   So if someone's not reading a book and they're not using their imagination   to create a world,   then   they are,   basically,   using a surrogate   for their creativity or their imagination.   I think the people who first came to   Hollywood, came to that area recognized that.   And the idea was   selling   a dream or selling a vision of something. And so   the that first infrastructure,   the intention   was   to create places   that   they could do that in a very controlled   environment.  

Because, a, the weather was good,   you have all different types of landscape   in that part of the country,   so you can create lots of different   types of imagery.   So I think that they recognize,   just from a climate perspective,   the access   to   there's more days in the year that you can create and you can build and you can do things. So I think that was that had a a very specific,   element in the decision to go there.   I don't know if that answers the question, but I I feel like that that's kind of the basis of what you're asking me.  

[00:24:21] John Roeland:

Marcus, thoughts?   Jim.  

[00:24:26] allen marcus:

Yeah. Many thoughts. And the question   having to do with, you know, what is the point of Hollywood   or what was the initial intention of Hollywood   evidence the evidence shows   that a Hays code was established in 1934.  

[00:24:42] Hunter Muse:

Mhmm.  

[00:24:43] allen marcus:

So there was this idea that,   well, we can   record moving images. We can show   anything. Anything   could be seen that had not been seen before.   Many people discovered that, well, you could point a camera at certain features of certain bodies and   get reactions and more people showing up, like the Nickelodeons where there'd be a striptease show. So now instead of having a woman or a man   perform each night to do a striptease,   that person   could get in shape, put on the best costume,   do it   once   and never again,   and then play it back over and over and over again. And every time it costs a nickel and you spin the thing and you look at it and you see, there it is. You wanna see the striptease again, put in another nickel.   Now when the Hays Code   came about to create a self imposed set of standards for the industry, the industry wanted to regulate itself.  

So at that point, they decided that because of the cultural climate of the times   and the people of the great nation of the United States of America,   all believe that profanity was profane,   that suggestive nudity was suggestive of acts that they didn't want their young people and old people to be engaging, and They wanted people to be wearing clothing. They wanted a society to function. They wanted morals and rules. They didn't wanna break taboos. They wanted   to   remain with the taboos of the time and not show graphic or realistic violence, sexual perversions,   or rape, or any type of content   that would be upsetting anybody.  

I think at that point as well,   they were more focused on telling   realistic stories. That is to say that   the level of   fantasy   with computer generated graphics that we've gotten to today,   which is so far from realistic interpretations of day to day lives, That stuff wasn't even really in consideration.   Now they would experiment with special effects and other things   because that was the entertainment thing pushing back to say, well, real life is boring. We're going through a great depression.   People are out of work. They're hungry. There's not much hope. We've had war.   A lot of people died, so they needed to uplift the spirit. So at that time,   the purpose of Hollywood   through the military   involvement with this was to portray America   as the good guys, American soldiers as heroes so that when American soldiers return to   American soil, they would be welcomed as heroes. Contrast that later on to something like Vietnam where   those soldiers returned and they were   not considered to be heroes. They were not honored or respected. They didn't get the help and treatment they needed. So that's sort of in contrast to where Hollywood started.  

And then   as other generations of filmmakers who were probably sons and daughters   of the previous generation   continued the legacy of the family trade, this type of idea,   then they began to rebel against their parents   and the films that they made. So then you get to something like the 19 sixties getting to the seventies where you have more experimental filmmakers pushing the boundaries including more nudity,   more sex, more destructive   behavior,   more sad endings, more realistic in their in their eyed eyes, more realistic where people die at the end, no one has a happy ending,   everyone fails, there's no success, this type of thing.  

And that's not even including, like, Disney fairy tales, which seems to be its own industry   set apart from others.  

[00:28:40] John Roeland:

Alright.   Ben,   I might have given you more time, Marcus, or less.  

[00:28:47] Unknown:

Before I start, how long was my intro?  

[00:28:51] John Roeland:

You were under 5 minutes.  

[00:28:53] Unknown:

Yeah. I was shoot well, originally, our first format was 3, so that was what I original shot was. I added in a little bit. I was just curious. I think you were right around 4.   Yeah. I tried adding in a little bit just to stretch it out just as as I was going, but,   so, yeah, I'm pretty happy with where I landed anyways.  

[00:29:12] John Roeland:

Alright. So we're talking about the initial intention of Hollywood.   Ben.  

[00:29:20] Unknown:

So pivoting off of my original point that you can boil Hollywood   in and of itself   down to just the entertainment industry.   Let's look historically then at the end at the entertainment industry.   One of the oldest,   people   in societies that we know   had heavy amounts of entertainment   was the Roman society.   We turn around and we look at at Caesar and his messaging to the society and the place that surrounded that.   This was heavy propaganda   in order to get that society   to,   view the actions that he wanted to take   in a positive light. Whether it was,   and funny enough,   when   at one point in time, when Cesar   was trying to drum up a certain type of support, he painted   Germanics   as these   terrifying, almost demon like beings that were unstoppable.  

And then on the   shortly thereafter within a few years, he's painting them as as this,   savior cause because at this point in time, he's pushing for war with the golfs.   As a savior cause, you start seeing this.   We look fast forward to the times when, plays   were,   more commonly known. We see things like Vikings having horns.   And   now today,   good luck convincing people that Vikings never wore horns on their helmets, and that that would have been the epitome of idiocy.   Like, in no way would that have any battle functionality, and in fact, would have been, an extreme   handicap.  

So   then we fast forward to today's most famous pay playwright Shakespeare.   Shakespeare   was well known   for,   the different narratives that he pushed   inside of his plays.   There was a a large anti semitic,   not that I'm particularly on that page, but there was a large anti semitic movement in Europe at the time. And we can absolutely look at his place,   and we can see things like the sheeny curse,   you know, a Shylock,   you know, any number of different things that in that time period were definitely known to be racial slurs,   racial or,   generalizations,   all the things that society talks against now.  

So   this was   something that   always   was   one of the functions of the entertainment.   And then we look at where entertainment came from again,   which where where Marcus was talking about with the 50 cent or the nickel Nickelodeons   where,   that then opened up access to a broader public.   The funding of it always came from the wealthy, and the wealthy have always   had interest   in,   swaying the public.   So when we look at it,   you   you would have to convince me that   this wasn't always the case,   and that no matter what form of   entertainment you're consuming, be it books where I can find   50 books on the same subject, all taking a different side, depending on what side the user wants. Or I can watch a national geographic program   where the cub is   dying and and it portrays it as this, you know,   gentle thing that's trying to fight for survival   or   the mother of this other cub that its cubs are dying without this food.  

The story in and of itself, especially in a society that has become so focused   on subjectivity   rather than objectivity,   that is not the fault of Hollywood in any way. Entertainment's still serving the entertainment purpose. The propaganda's always been the propaganda.   It's society's fault   for   not policing itself and always has been. When   we ask other people to police for us, our mind,   what do we expect other than things that we don't want?   And, yeah, Vikings were all horny, raping and pillaging.  

[00:34:07] John Roeland:

Alright.   Just under 5 minutes. Good job, Ben.   I was gonna let the alarm shock you, but now you you got out just in time, man.   Alright.   A   couple of thoughts on where to go here. I'm kinda thinking about doing another round of 5 minutes and letting each of you kinda focus on,   a specific topic that you wanna talk about,   because I don't really wanna direct the conversation too much.   Having my own thoughts, taking notes on everything you guys are saying,   very interesting.   So I'm gonna go ahead and pass it to you, Hunter, and give you 5 minutes to just kinda   freestyle on, you know, what your main point is and what you think,   about this topic.  

Go ahead.  

[00:34:52] Hunter Muse:

I   am   positing   that   the   propaganda   machine   that controls any version of entertainment   has been,   in place   as long as there have been stories that have been told.   So   stories   were used   storytellers   were,   basically, like the newspaper   that traveled from 1,   county to another county, one town to another town,   and they really control the narrative   based   on their perceptions,   their,   their ideologies,   the things that they were focused on. So   I think that the propaganda   aspect of storytelling   is deeply entrenched   in the human experience,   because   in order to have an objective,   perception of something, you have to be able to see something from all sides.  

And as humans, we are,   tasked with seeing something   subjectively   from our perception,   and   that is a survival skill that we have. So you can go into an environment and see if it's safe or not safe based on your perceptions, based on your   subjective   experience.   I think that that is what has been used   to drive narrative   in   every culture   worldwide,   and that's why you see similar stories being told   in many different cultures that have no connection with the other.   Because I think that these allegories,   or these stories that have been told   are useful   to control people or to motivate them,   or to   shift their their focus on something. And I think that has been the driving force,   in the entertainment industry.  

It's really about what   the next,   war is or what the next cultural war is or what the next experience   that,   these machines want us to be having.   But are they based in   an objective reality? No.   No. I think it is very subjective. And so   this is why you get,   these movie executives   who don't read scripts   and are green lighting projects   of something that they've never read.   They will open a script, read the the opening scene, and either say, yes. This is a story that I want to tell, or no. This is not a story   that I want to reinforce,   or that's not the place that we want people's attention to go.  

So   I think that that   if you understand the use of   storytelling   just at and at its base,   then you can see   you can have some other perspective where you could see, like, okay, am I buying this? Like, if I go to see a film or I watch a show,   the first thing I say to myself is what is the agenda?   What are they trying to get me to feel or think   or   to stand behind?   So   I I think the thing that is most   critical in this is that we are able to have some degree of discernment   in this messaging   and be able   to, you know   Parmahansa   Yogananda said once,   you can leave the movie   at the point that you want it to end.  

Meaning that you don't have to buy into the narrative,   that   whoever the storyteller   is telling you   is trying to to push forward forth. You can say, no. I don't want that to be the ending of this movie.   And I think that there's enough   of us that are   questioning   the these,   you know, very low brow,   films.   One of the reasons Marvel is struggling right now is that they have gone so   out off the fucking rails   that people aren't buying it anymore.   And so these massive   franchises   are suffering   because there there is a consciousness,   awakening that's happening,   I would say, globally,   where   if things don't resonate with you and the and your perception and your subjective experience,   it's it's not gonna land.  

And I feel like that's where we're at right now. We're at this pivotal point in   filmmaking   and in television   where   there's certain   narratives that have been   deeply, deeply entrenched in our society   and people are just saying that doesn't resonate with me.  

[00:40:11] John Roeland:

Nice.   Good job. That was very   well spoken   and great points.   Alan,   what do you wanna wanna focus on? I have an interesting argument  

[00:40:23] allen marcus:

coming from   an education   where after high school,   there were many people around 2004,   5,   Hollywood was still   the dream for a lot of people. And the idea of going into television, film,   broadcasting,   the media, whatever that was. There were a lot of people moving in that direction.   And at that point, we talked a lot about the so called democratization   of the media.   We were using   digital   film cameras,   and the format was getting   smaller and smaller. We didn't have to lug around huge reels.   The discussion there was   now   the printing press is given to everybody.  

People have computers.   They can print their own newsletters.   They can Xerox copy them out, send them out.   That was happening   with   cameras, video cameras, movie cameras, camcorders,   the ability to record moving images   and sound, and then on top of that, computers to edit the film with nonlinear   editing, which was made very   affordable.   So with this democratization   process   and the promise of   allowing   a greater   a greater,   base of creators from all walks of life   as as the, the saying will go, the democratization process where everybody   who wants to make a movie now has within their means the ability to make a movie.  

That's the promise.   But with the establishment   of a film industry   and Screen Actors Guilds and other guilds and other clubs   and other   legal   status of   requiring   laws to be followed to make the movie, it kind of created this appearance appearance that anybody could make a movie. It's like the freedom of   speech argument   and then the freedom of reach punches you in the left,   John, the right John. It's like you're just getting beaten down from   trying to create something,   but then no one can see it. And then entering film festivals, well, you know, that's a joke too for a lot of people.   But then the more disturbing factor is   this idea that humans are lemon lemmings.  

They follow the leaders.   They have their idols. If everybody wants to be Steven   Spielberg, then they're all going to make Steven Spielberg   movies,   which is to say the film grammar has been established.   Before the ruling class allowed the democratization   of filmmaking   and movie making,   they establish a film grammar, meaning   what is expected of a movie.   How do you watch a movie,   and what is the play out of the movie? Is it a 3 act story structure?   There are established tropes. There's the hero's journey. Everybody learns   that Star Wars is based off of Young and Joseph Campbell's Heroes with a Thousand Faces.  

So everybody   is all using the same language   of film, the same grammar of film to to tell their own story. But as it turns out, the story   is the one story that's allowed to be told. So we have this idea that anybody   can make a documentary   film.   Anybody can make a narrative film. It could be fiction. It could be nonfiction. It could be anything you want it to be. But at the same time, the self censorship steps in and says, this is what is expected of a documentary film. There's a language and a grammar to the editing style, to the punctuation, to the marimba music, to let you know this is a serious,   truthful film. All these tropes have been established and are copied again and again. So instead of having this endless creativity,   we have an audience who   wants the familiar   film grammar   that they are used to.  

So they continue   to, keep the established   film and entertainment idea alive. So if if Hollywood is dead, it's it's all of us that are responsible for killing it because we didn't support   the creative   filmmakers   who were   testing   the boundaries of what they could do in terms of the film grammar, the editing style,   long   takes.   But to answer the question, is it dead? Yes. It's dead because when I go on Instagram or YouTube, all I see are film reels and those are 30 seconds or less. The intention span has gone down to 30 seconds and then 3 reels later, I can't remember.   What why did I walk in the kitchen?  



[00:45:17] John Roeland:

My kids call it brain rot.  

[00:45:20] allen marcus:

That's absolutely what it is, and it's rewarded.  

[00:45:25] Unknown:

Absolutely   amazing, isn't it?  

[00:45:28] John Roeland:

Go ahead, Ben.  

[00:45:32] Unknown:

So   when we look at any kind of a story,   our parables also   trying to get you to see things in a certain way.   So no matter what kind of story it is,   the person that is telling that story is   going to be trying to get you to see things in a certain light.   Some of the most enjoyable   stories are,   the good old   m night showman or whatever. You know, what a twist. They where he's gotten you to see things one way, and now   part of the entertainment   is,   that that entire storyline, and now you have to go back and rethink this entire story.   So even in a most benign and entertaining way, they're definitely   trying to lead your mind   into a certain way.  

With that said,   once again,   we start looking at society in and of itself.   And   while   your typical movies   have started to die off   in   the movie theater.   Once again, I would state that   while movies themselves in a movie theater have died,   streaming   is   more than alive and well. That   the average person is consuming   even when I was a kid, where a person might watch 2 or 2 hours a day, maybe 3 of,   entertainment.   And that person was considered somebody that was taking in a fairly extreme amount of entertainment.   Now most phones come with a screen time,   monitor to tell you how many whether you've spent 12 or 16 hours a day or whatever it is with your face glued to entertainment.  

So   to say that that's dead,   I would say that's dead in the version of a phoenix   where it is just burnt off the dross,   become something new, and that new thing has   vastly more power   than the old thing did. And not only that, but we've now,   allotted the ability to expand this where before   things were subject to   elaborate sets.   And those elaborate sets cost a ton of money to build and where you can look at,   especially in the eighties   nineties, you can look at different movies and start noticing that   that sets pretty much the same set. They've just done a little bit of something different to,   you know, give it a little spice.  

And   reused costumes, things like that. Now we have green screens.   You can turn your living room into   outer space or whatever it is you want.   And   it's now we're just talking about quality   is all that we're talking about.   Now when we look at   something in the eighties   where   that eighties mentality,   we had the superman troll. In the eighties, that kind of thing was extraordinarily popular.   I would say that   the Marvel's   downfall currently is just a miscalculation   where they don't realize that the power currently   just as a societal thing, and I don't think this is even they're pushing to be honest.   The anti hero story   is now the primary story where that has now replaced the hero. Nobody actually wants to have be virtuous   and good.  

They want to be a shithead and still considered the good guy. And I would say, again, this is more of a reflection upon society.   And during a short time, Hollywood failed to recognize that that the actual   Superman   I do right. I don't   swear. I'm the nice guy.   That even the bad guy doesn't get killed. He just gets a slap on the hand and you're a baddie.   That that kind of thing is is not societally   accepted currently.   And Hollywood in and of itself   had to make adjustments   where you see the Deadpool versus,   Wolverine,   2 extreme anti heroes has grossed more money than any movie in history.  

So this is again   society's issue, not Hollywood's.  

[00:50:16] John Roeland:

Is Hollywood dead?   The current state   of the entertainment   industry.   And has Hollywood had an had a negative impact on society   in general?   I was thinking maybe we could are there any,   responses to anything anybody else,   said?   Start there, and then we'll kinda open it up. So, Hunter, I'm gonna give you 5 minutes to respond to things the other guys said, and then we'll pass it around.  

[00:50:44] Unknown:

Responses. Should we just open it up then? And why don't you give a little in between?   Give your thoughts on the entire thing, and then we'll open up into a more free thing. Because look at we're at 50 minutes. You give your little thing, that's that's, like, perfect. And that gives us another hour to kinda   do back and forth. So why don't you give kind of a summation of what you thought of what's happened so far maybe?  

[00:51:10] John Roeland:

You mean me?   Okay.   I   I would say,   different thoughts I've had.   You know, obviously, if it's a form of programming,   how much worse is the programming now and why?   That's kind of an obvious   question.   It deals with the technology and,   as Hunter covered, how we consume.   You know, I, you know, I have a hard time not thinking that the whole thing was militarized from the beginning and was some type of mind control thing. The other day, I was, you know, putting on the Looney Tunes so my kids would, you know, stop watching   YouTube shorts. And the Looney Tunes, I was thinking,   is this the beginning of brain rot? You know, like, they're funny and they're to me, they're more entertaining than what these kids are are watching.  

But,   you know, as I picked up my daughter from college today and I see all these kids   on their phones in their own little worlds and thinking about when I was in college, I would have had to interact with people. I would have been more encouraged to interact with people. Now you've got everything you want, your own little community, your own little echo chamber,   you know, making you feel okay about sitting there instead of if you were in that mode when I was that age, you might be looking down at your shoes to not make eye contact with people.   Now they've given you a device to not only allow you to avoid people, but also   encourage you to and support you in that.  

So that's   kind of my thoughts.   I will say this.   In terms of the other side of the argument, I would say   there is an ability to put in   allegories about what is going on in the world. For example, the movie They Live   or the movie Mhmm. The Matrix.   Now you could consider that programming as well, but it does feel like there's some type of messaging coming through for a deeper level of consciousness   to emerge.   Is that programming?   Is that natural? Does it just get subverted by the system   like most things?   And then also movies like network   and,   Wag the Dog, which to me   are revealing the method of what they're doing. So perhaps Hollywood is not only   a a programming, it's   showing the official narrative.  

It's   for some of us, we can see that with discernment   and understand what the narrative is, possibly predict what's coming.   It seems like as of now, we're predicting things backwards. Hindsight is 2020.   We're seeing all the things that were there and then what happened. But now as we move forward, I feel like maybe   we can, you know, use these symbols and these clues   to possibly   subvert   whatever their goals are. So   and I'll go ahead and open up the form to anyone who wants   to reply or say something.  

[00:54:12] Hunter Muse:

Beautiful.   I have I have notes   as they say in Hollywood.   Absolutely.   So,   to circle back to what you said well, first of all, just to touch very quickly on what you said, John.   I think one of the things one of the reasons why   kids are   so,   mesmerized   by the phone   is that they are using frequency   as a method of mind control.   And I think the closeness   of that frequency   really informs   how addicted   you are to that device.   I see I've seen kids like this,   scrolling like this, like people who have   autism,   you know,   neurodivergent   folks,   that they just can't get in there far enough.  

But to circle back to what Alan said about the democratization   of Hollywood   and the promise   that we are all filmmakers or that we can all,   be filmmakers,   I take issue with that.   You said everyone can make a movie,   and I would pause it. No. Everyone can shoot footage.   That's not a movie.   You know? Everyone can take a selfie. That's not a portrait.   So   what has happened is this dumbing down   of what we consider   art or what we consider filmmaking,   where   everyone feels like they are making a movie because they're shooting   a 30 second reel on Instagram.  

I also take issue with you saying that everyone is using the same language.   I think, yes,   there's a mainstream   narrative. There's a mainstream   structure   that we are all   kind of used to,   but there are filmmakers   throughout history   who have not used the 3 act structure   or who have used it in different ways. So it's not beginning, middle, and end. It's end,   then beginning, then middle.   So I think that's something,   that's worthy of, being of noting.   And I think that, yes, that language is copied   over and over and over again in this very transient, very pedestrian way, but that is not necessarily filmmaking.   Pedestrian way, but that is not necessarily filmmaking.  

That's moviemaking.   And I think those are yes. We can say that's a semantic,   but you know the difference when you go see a Marvel movie   and when you watch a Fellini film. It has a different texture. It has a different   tone,   and you react   differently   when you're when you are seeing   a film because it's resonating at a different level   for you. Good.   So   I don't agree that the audience wants the same film grammar. I think this is the dumbing down of of culture,   and we are saying   everyone wants a fucking Marvel movie. Well, not everyone wants a Marvel movie, and people want   people that are going into   if they're paying $20 to see a film   and they wanna be entertained,   not everyone   is wanting the confection   of film or a movie. Some people really wanna get in there   and see something   that   either they can't relate to   and doesn't resonate with them,   and they're interested in learning about a different culture or a different way of looking at the world, or they wanna see something that is confection that just makes them feel good.  

So   I think what stories are, what the world is, is the story you consistently   tell yourself.   This is the world that we are building internally.   And   so when some folks go to the movies, they wanna see the story they're telling themselves. They want that to be reinforced,   and some people don't want that.   I think   you're correct when you say that attention span is dead   for some people,   but I just recently watched a 5 hour film with my husband.   So I think, again, it depends on where you jumped on this speeding train.   So if you grew up like I did,   where I was watching long form films   as a little kid,   I have the attention span where I can sit down   and kinda get in the seat of my soul   and and invest in   a film.  

There are people that have no interest in that   whatsoever because they grew up in the stream   of having a phone   from a very young age. So they're used to this rapid fire,   information,   and they wanna keep that that going in their in their brains.   I love what you said, Ben, about parables   or trying to get you see   to sees things a certain way.   And when you mentioned M Night   Shalimar, I was thinking of the day that I went to go see The 6th Sense.   And I leaned over to my partner in the first minute of the film, and I said, that kid's dead.   And he was like, thanks for fucking ruining this movie for   me. But it was because   there was there's just a slight energy that I perceived   where I picked up on what was going on.  

But what m Night Shyamalan is relying   on is that people aren't understanding the nuance of that film that he is making. So   I think there there are some filmmakers   who see the audit their audience as in as intentional   and intelligent   and capable,   and there's other filmmakers   who just are confectioners.   And that's all they wanna do is just feed you candy.   And these are all these things are   so intrinsically   connected   to masculinity.   And you really hit on a great point when you were talking   about   Superman   and the antihero   and kind of the idea of,   the male trope of the the alpha male trope.  

I think there has been an intentional,   castration   and emasculation   of men   because   why do you want   300,000,000   strong   men   protectors   in one country. You don't want that.   You wanna divide and conquer. You want inversions. You wanna create confusion,   so that men feel,   powerless   because then they can be controlled.   And a lot of this is about control not only controlling narrative, but it about controlling   mindset   and and making people good soldiers.   So   I think   a lot of what you were saying, John, about the social awkwardness, I really, really   resonate with that. Because I was working in a bar in New York City in 2007,   and I can fucking tell you the day   I was in the bar   when   one day men were coming in,   looking at each other, awkwardly looking at their shoes, get a few drinks, they get a little a little Irish courage,   then going up and talking to even other men.  

And then the next day,   everyone's like this   on the phone.   And it was   it was a a market shift in now I don't have to worry about this social,   discomfort   because I have this thing, the shield between me and the rest of the world.   And   I think that   social awkwardness   is   how many   countries have been how many wars have been won because of that. How many women have been conquered because of that. Because you've had to push through that. And so   allowing people   this this,   buffer   is the thing that has stopped people from actually making real connections.   I think movies like Network, Wag the Dog, even Bowfinger,   They Live,   these movies are a litmus test to gauge people's reactions.  

What they're doing is they're showing you what they're doing,   what what what the agenda is, and let's see how many people start a civil war. Oh, no one's starting a civil war. So we know we can move this   the the line a little bit further, and we can move it a little bit further.   So all of these things are with,   forethought.   Can't necessarily say malice, but I'm definitely saying forethought.  

[01:03:30] Unknown:

Good points.   So you don't   you don't think that that is the responsibility   of the consumer that   I understand that,   you know, if we put this,   comparatively   that   the person making an indie film is, you know, probably,   you know, punching out   a Kia   as opposed to the   film industry, which has vastly more monetary backing. So they're punching out Lamborghinis.   But you don't think that that's,   a real representation   of the free market when the free market   doesn't choose   to,   go to those exact,   movies even knowing, let's say that   the free market has decided Hollywood is no good. Why did it not invest its time into the indie market? And then   with that, it's monetary,   influx, which would absolutely,   bring a rise about in the quality of the movies. If we look at Northern Europe,   where   the things that we're going through,   I would say we're 10 years behind Northern Europe as far as,   the social   conditioning that has happened.  

I would say we're a full 10 years behind Northern Europe.   So   we look at some of the most heavily   propagandized   countries that have been through this and what do we start seeing?   We look at, Iceland.   Iceland has actually made for the first time   since the Christian world made it illegal   for heathens to have a huff,   to have a place where other heathens gather   and tell stories and share   spirituality.   That is back.   We start seeing movies   like,   the Northman,   which   we would normally consider an indie film. That was not a large Hollywood film, but still managed   to do as well as the vast majority of Hollywood films   today.  

And,   we look at,   movies like the promised land. The promised land isn't even in English boys and girls,   And that still was wildly   popular.   So   the free market itself is speaking.   And with that, I I do think that I I will have to concede that Hollywood   has gotten stuck in a narrative,   but I would have to state that   I when I got married,   my wife comes from literally the valley.   Like, everything Hollywood represented,   that was her life. That was what she thought the entire world was. Mhmm. And   she she had not really traveled outside of California. And,   the thing about California is is you can literally find anything here. It it it's in a it's a crazy place where you can be like me and live out in the mountains with surrounded by redwoods   and living off grid with animals running all over and bears shitting in your yard,   to being on the beach, to being in LA   down in the grind of the city.  

You can have all of it in California.   And so these people in California   don't realize there's a world outside of California.   And that people don't necessarily   see things the way they do.   So in Hollywood in and of itself, you see this giant echo chamber.   But because the entertainment sis,   industry has broken itself apart,   If you're just going to those people to see it, yeah, you're gonna get that one message. Well, when can go see   anything. And that's honestly always been the case. During the eighties,   when,   that we lived in this highly Christian world where George Carlin made a joke of the things that you could not say on television.  

We've now moved from that where that was you guys   really tonight.   Completely lost my train of thought.  

[01:07:59] John Roeland:

George Garland.  

[01:08:00] Unknown:

Yeah. George, where   you had,   that kind of thing, we've   progressed entirely in Hollywood in and of itself.   They again,   we have to boil that to the entertainment industry because the only reason we call Hollywood the entertainment industry is because at one point in time it kind of coagulated there. Mhmm. But the entertainment's   history,   industries   fast and broad, they still had crazed,   while while,   we had   most movies being the eighties version Superman type movie were literally a wet a wet t shirt, white t shirt was basically an 80 sex scene.   Today, you could find,   what was the name of that guy that made like the fly and all those movies that were just Jeff Goldblum.  

Well, Goldblum was the actor, but what was the director's name? The guy who made that special effects that were just super gory and Cronenberg.   Cronenberg.   Yeah. You know, you could find Cronenberg at the same time. It's it's just all dependent on you, which is   why I'm saying it's not really on Hollywood. This is entirely on society.   You even look at something like the Marquis de Sade.   Like, when the Marquis de Sade came out,   if that was something that these weird people weren't about, then   the the, nobody would have bought his works. It would have died right there.   But people for voracious   for that kind of thing, and that was 100 of years ago. Like, this isn't a today thing. People were   absolutely   about depravity   and loving it and bathing themselves in it 100 of years ago. This is just a cyclical thing, and they're just providing what the consumers want. It's the consumer's problem.  



[01:10:02] allen marcus:

And the consumer wanted one thing. The reason anyone would go to a movie theater on an afternoon   was for the air condition. If they didn't have air condition, if it wasn't a comfortable room, no one would sit through any of these movies. They're all terrible.   They're all uninspired.   They're all predictable. They're all so boring. So without air condition   in the theater, no one's going to see these movies.   Other innovations have been 3 d movies.   Every so often, they come around,   a new generation tries it, realizes how terrible it is,   and then it's gone.  

They had other innovations like smellovision where you'd have scratch cards,   you know.   Little number shows up on the screen, you scratch the guard.   You breathe it in, it's disgusting.   You tried that you tried that gimmick once and then, you know, never   again. They had tinglers under seats where you get zapped or electrocuted.   They had water misters, mist machines.   You know, all these sort of innovations in the theaters   only went so far. Consumers   don't want innovation. They don't wanna be surprised.   They don't wanna be challenged.   You get a movie director like Christopher Nolan. Sometimes he's praised, but then he releases a movie, like, with Tenet where it's going forwards and backwards, and the audio was terrible, and then you have to read the subtitles. There's so much going on that people couldn't get lost in the film. When I'm talking about film   grammar, I'm talking about   the way the film is edited   so that the viewer is not pulled out of the scene. If there's a continuity error,   for example,   Forrest Gump, he's got his hat on, and then it cuts   and then it cuts back to him and his hat is gone, people are gonna say, well, wait a second, where did his hat go? So unless it's shown on the screen, the film grammar has to show what's going on. Films are showing   actions   of characters.  

And then Mike Figgis comes along in, like, 2,000,   and he shows 4 screens on one screen like we're seeing now. Now we have 4 faces, 4 separate screens, 4 videos. Yep. They they tried that with this time code movie   where they would have   essentially 4 movies playing out at the same time on the screen, and audience were like,   there's too much visual stimulation   here. I want one thing to focus on. I want   simple   film grammar. I don't want experimentation.   I don't wanna be challenged.   I don't want to   see an art film unless I'm going to an art gallery. If I wanna see an art film, that format has navigated into the the area of music videos. Short form music videos   have been the place for creative experimental filmmakers to go. It's set to music. It's short, under 10 minutes. You know, Michael Jackson's thriller was a little bit longer.  

These types of ideas. But for   the film viewing audience and from for filmmakers today who go to film school or they get a Robert Ramirez,   you know, or a book where you can do film school at home. You read the book, you watch the DVD,   you you read the master class   lectures and these types of things where the where the masters are teaching the students, and the students today just wanna imitate the masters who have already made everything there is to make. There's no new story to tell. There's no new way to film a nude scene. There's no new way to light it. I mean, people know what art is, and they know what art isn't. And if they go to a movie   and it frustrates them because of a continuity error, or they can't hear the volume because people are mumbling, there was a whole genre   of independent film that got called mumblecore   because everybody kinda just mumbles over each other, and they're all talking at the same time. That's not   what people want. People wanna hear one voice at a time. They don't want an ultimate film where you're walking by and you're hearing all the ambient audio and all the conversations happen. No. No. No. No. People don't want that. They tried it. They didn't like it. They spit it out.  

They don't want it.   People understand   what a film is supposed to do.   And all of the hard rough edges have been sanded off. The the church has been polished so much that it shines.   People wanna be given what they want.   They don't want anything more than that. They don't wanna learn a lesson. They don't wanna go into a film and have to do an old cult decoding.   And anybody who tries to do an old cult decoding   is sort of like,   if they're serious about this, are they underestimating their audience to say that pointing   at a skull in a movie and saying this is a movie about death because the skull   is a bone from a dead human.  

This type of decoding has gotten so   dumb   and ridiculous, and anybody who does a decode today   pointing at a symbol and saying, see this symbol? I have to explain to you what the symbol   means. Symbolism   is written into the script   from the first draft.   And then the second draft, they add another layer of symbolism. They keep throwing in more and more symbolism into the movie   because they feel the movie has to have a meaning,   and it has to have layers of meaning, and they have to make it artistic.   And the artistic   integrity and the value of the film is judged based off of the use of the symbolism,   the colors,   the sound, everything that goes into the movie   is so,   pushed into the film by everybody on the film set. You can't blame the writer. He's not responsible for the movie. You can't blame the director. He's not responsible for the movie. The editor has more responsibility   in terms of the edit and the final cut of the film, but he's not the person who filmed any of it. The actors themselves,   they have to say the lines that are in the script. If they get into improvisation,   they're gonna get slapped on the wrist and treated like cattle. What did Alfred Hitchcock call them? Cattle.  

The film industry is so tightly   constrained.   The acting guild,   that's one guild. You get a you get the writers, they go on strike,   bye bye Hollywood movies. There's no movies for 2 years. No television. No nothing because the writers   are arguing about an issue, and they do that   every few years   on cycle. You can set your clock by it. So there's nothing new. There's nothing unpredictable,   and there's nothing exciting.   It's dead.   Absolutely dead. Dead. Dead. Dead.  

[01:16:59] John Roeland:

I gotta say,   I mean, I don't know. I guess you consider this Hollywood, but, like, the the show, Curb Your Enthusiasm.   Mhmm. I mean, I get a lot of pleasure out of that show because, I mean, at least by the final season, I kinda understood   the the flow of it. And, like, it's almost like he had you guessing what dumb mistake he was gonna make or what crazy thing would happen. And then it would be something that you didn't predict. But, like, I'd be sitting there trying to predict, like, oh, this is gonna happen. You know? Or this is gonna happen. And, like, I don't know. To me, like, that was I I experienced that as, like, very creative the way they wrote that. It's like it had you thinking about the setup.   And so   and it makes me think about, you know, English, you know, literature in high school where you don't really understand, like, it's just a story. What are we looking for? You know? And there's this deeper meaning that's there. But depending on your level of consciousness,   you may or may not see it.  

And,   you know, I do think that,   maybe not I don't know, modern, you know, films of today, but I would say I mean, my favorite film is Fight Club.   And as I watched that over and over, I was actually taking,   sociology classes at the time, and my teacher is telling us that it's, like, it's Marx and Freud mixed together. You know? And I'm just like, oh, like, I I didn't you know, I liked it for what it was, but now I see it's this deeper thing. And   so,   I mean, that to me, that's my favorite one. And, I I definitely think that, you know, there is a   it's   a it's something for you to expand your consciousness   on some level. You know?  

I don't know again what the intentions are behind the people. There may be a deeper   deeper level that even the director doesn't know or the writer doesn't know. But somebody in there is putting in something that's   worthwhile to me to think about. It's Satan.  

[01:18:59] Hunter Muse:

Well, from your perspective, Alan, it's a dude.   When you said that, like,   the writer, he, the director, he,   I just as a as a writer and a director,  

[01:19:18] allen marcus:

someone that's that's working on those crafts. I just found that. So I'll ask you now, if I call a woman who's an actor   an actress, does that denigrate her crap? Does that lessen her? Is that a diminutive?  

[01:19:32] Hunter Muse:

No. I don't think that at all. I I think that Well, you're wrong.   I'm   completely   ready to be wrong. I love being wrong. That's that's actually where I learn the most is when I'm wrong.  

[01:19:49] Unknown:

I thought it was hilarious when you were mentioning the difference between,   indie film or a cheaply made film and a quality made film. I don't know if you've ever watched that series called Black Flags.   I think no. Black sales. It's called black sales.   It's a it's a it's a prelude to treasure island.   And in it, there's a scene where this pirate has has   counterfeited this masterpiece   painting, and he's trying to get it to the seller. And   the seller's like,   how could you possibly expect me to sell this off as a masterpiece? He's like,   vase,   vase,  

[01:20:30] Hunter Muse:

flower,   flower, tit,  

[01:20:32] Unknown:

tit. Because in the picture, there's one tit hanging out. You know? She's got one boob exposed. He's like, all the elements are here. What what's the problem?   Oh, fuck. It made that that just made me think of that scene, which was absolutely hilarious because they kept art because then the painter's like,   what do you mean? This obviously doesn't look the same. I I can't sell this as a masterpiece.   Flower?   Flower.  

[01:21:01] Hunter Muse:

I   I   patently disagree   that   the audience   is this,   you know,   nebulous automaton   that we can say the audience wants this.   I don't agree with that at all. I think that   this is that's the mentality of the studio executive   that is going and having a conversation with their 15 year old and getting   advice about whether or not they should buy a movie, because   they think the 15 year old knows what the what a 60 year old man wants or a 45 year old woman wants.   I don't paint with such a broad brush, and I have seen so many amazing films   that have been made, and and television shows that have been made in the past 2 years   that that are smart and thoughtful   and creative and interesting,   I would point you to a show, a German show   called Dark.  

It's on Netflix.   Or the new Apple TV show Dark Matter.   And both of these shows are about interdimensional   travel,   and what I find fascinating   is   this collective unconscious   where people   that are not only creative, but people who are   sentient and alive are having these visions or dreams,   and then someone is going and taking   that vision and dream and writing a story and then able to collaborate with someone who can art direct that story and someone else who can set direct that and prop property master that and act that.   I think there's an entire ecosystem   that exists in the filmmaking world   of people who are thoughtful   and brilliant and   smart, and they're getting their art made   because   this low hanging fruit, the dumbing down   of the human consciousness is not working anymore.  

And I think one of the things one of the benefits   of   the the debacle of the past few years is that it gave people a pause   to sit back and actually maybe read a book, or do some,   something creative.   Plant a garden.   Like like,   maybe be in their world in a different way where they're connecting with something that is   perhaps grander or larger than themselves   that has actually helped them get back to their nature.   So   I see   the spectrum   of,   filmmaking   and television making   broadening. Yes. There is the pocket of the reality   television,   Eddie that some people are swirling in, and that very much   has legs and, you know, the reality show,   franchises   of, like, home improvement shows or real estate shows. Like, there there's this aspirational living   aspect of television that very much is consumer driven and people are really into.  

And then there's this other   aspect   that is maybe more thoughtful. So I think there's a spectrum now of,   art that you can reach or,   entertainment that you can connect with that's not just in this country.   So   because we have these devices or the Internet, we have an ability to connect with stories that are in China or in Japan or in Africa,   you know, in areas that we may never visit, but we can relate   because we are being given the the capacity   and the capability of seeing the sameness of the human experience   regardless of where we are,   on this earth.  



[01:25:08] Unknown:

So I mean, wouldn't that more go toward the point that that we're making though, where where the entertainment system   industry really isn't dead. It's just diversified   and become less,   homogenized   in that it really,   which I think kind of matches almost every other entertainment system,   whether it's we don't really see the 1980s   style concerts where we have,   bands every weekend filling Madison Square Gardens and other   things like that,   where we're starting to see more local,   productions   as smaller productions.   I I I think this just fits again with the time period, but I think it absolutely says that,   the entertainment industry is alive and well. And in fact,   I would I would posit that we are   by far the most entertained   society   that has ever been in that,   that is   without the   it's almost like blaming the the food industry on people being fat. Like, everybody wants to blame   the industry as if they didn't consume it themselves.  

Like, the fat the food industry didn't make you fat. Nobody from McDonald's was kicking burgers down your mouth.   And, you know,   it's not how it worked. And so the   ones that are having an issue, this is this is what they consume. It's what they wanted. And we're just at a very, very whiny   time,   in the world. And I think that we're also at a time where we're just   made this transitional shift where,   we've moved to more localized,   less polished,   which again is just the the the free market speaking.   And with that, it the diversity is   is extreme. I mean, look at,   you could you could make a pause it that the guy was a plant and that he was pushed. But you look at guys like Oliver Anthony who doesn't have a record label.  

And because of today's   services,   he exploded.   And then you look at the same token,   guys that think that they're a   fairy princess   gremlin queen   and dressed up, and they'll have 5,000,000   PewDiePie followers,   whatever the fuck that is. And, like,   the the these people are just over entertained, overconsumed,   and that is their problem. Maybe go outside and do something, and and the world won't be so weird.   Yeah. I know. This was a hard debate. She picked a subject that I that I'm definitely not on the pro side. Sir. I'm doing my best to stand up for Hollywood.   Sir. This is a hard job.  



[01:28:09] allen marcus:

Sir. Sir. Hollywood is Bollywood.   Praise president Kamala.   This sort of globalism,   universalism,   one world government, one world religion, one world cinema   is not great   for   America.   Hollywood,   at its best,   was spreading democracy   and defending   America   from all the foreign threats.   So now we have this subversive   aspect of film that we need to talk about   where   the propaganda from other countries,   other groups of people,   people that wear specific sized hats on their heads, are in control   of all the industries   of the world, and they're subverting   all established orders.  

You'll look at a movie from 1964   that broke the Hays Code, The Pawn Broker.   It became important for the plot of the film   to show   the woman having her clothes forcefully removed   as she was forced to surrender herself   to another   man. This is a forceful situation, very important to the plot of the story.   And because of this Trojan horse tactic,   people got a taste for the human breast,   the the female breast the woman's breast.   I mean, now you could probably see a man's breast. You could see anything you want in the theater now. It's tolerated.   There's a level of tolerance   and acceptance and diversity   that is forced upon us.  

And   has Western civilization   benefited   from   this   diversity and this exposure to global cinema and other ideas?   The subversion   through the media   has caused the degradation   of the minds of men. Now there isn't so much nudity in films anymore because of the democratization   of the camera   where   amateurs, in quotes, amateurs   are now given the means of production   to create their own little home movies,   which are made available to free on other websites and clip sites and tube sites,   which were which are owned by   people who are former Hollywood executives. So the film industry   has shifted into the the amateur category,   which has just gotten even more extreme in Gonzo and just desensitize everybody to it. No one's talked yet about the violence, the over the top violence and the amount of murders   people see.  

Killing and death isn't even real   to anyone anymore. They don't know   what   death   is in reality   because the media,   all forms of media, including video games, music videos,   every aspect of entertainment has gone so far extreme to niche   potential. The the potential of the niche   audience.   Your the other point, Hunter, was that film brings people together and they expose them to new ideas. That's great. That happened once. People didn't like it, and then they never go back to seek out the stuff that doesn't agree with them already.   Their interest in music is formed by the time they're 15 or 16, and they listen to that same genre of music the rest of their life. They listen to that same style   the rest of their lives. The opinions are formed very early on,   and then people continue to seek out things that they already are familiar with, that they already like, with the opinion they already agree upon. A lot of times it's what their friends and their social peers and groups   tell them is the correct opinion to have throughout the film and the media and the platform and the politics and all of that. So there is no true diversity or celebration of different points of view.  

People have multiple   screens,   and they can watch   multiple things at the same time. And many people do that. They have   a movie playing,   and they're watching YouTube videos on their phone, reels and things. They're not focused on one thing. They're not taking in the message of the medium   completely.   They're not emerged   and they're they're they're not lost in the immersion of 1 media,   1 song. They're not playing   an album from beginning to end. If they don't like a song, they're skipping it. If they don't like a song, not only do they skip it, but they delete it from the hard drive. Well, they're not even   downloading things to their hard drive because everything is so ephemeral   and it's thrown away.  

It doesn't mean anything.   There's no collectibility.   It's not art. It's not passed on to people. It's a Spotify   playlist   to which they have to listen to the correct   songs. So at the end of the year, they can show their Spotify rap list to say that they listen to the proper songs that are accepted by their peer group.   So there is no deviation from that norm.  

[01:33:27] John Roeland:

I'd like to add something real quick. Sure.   The the,   it's the process of individual   individualism   where everyone is just focused on their selves. And Hollywood   obviously is a nod to   magic   and sorcery. Mhmm. So   movies become the new drug. Right? Movies are   video and audio   moving pictures. Right? This is the new form of   pharmakeia,   and then it evolves from movies to TVs. Now it's in your house. Mhmm. To   cable, VHS players.   You know? More more choices keeping you more   distracted, more things to to look at, to consume. Turns into video games and computers,   reality TV and social media,   and now iPhones. So we're all   being, you know, while we see it as, like, it is niche roots, but it's getting smaller and smaller where it's just you, everything you need. And again, of course, the matrix is is an allegory to this because now, you know, do we put on the virtual helmet, go in the rec room,   build a community in there, and that's where you spend most of your time. The economy is gonna be built on that. So,   I mean, it   you know, was the original intention good? That kinda seems like they were showing us it wasn't. This is a broadcast.  

They are,   they are trying to get us divided, separated,   individualized.   So, again, to weaken us. So, again, I guess we're all agreeing with each other.  

[01:35:07] Unknown:

So   wouldn't that though   be the natural order of things   once you   made things into   a a board like universal group   that,   now that we've applied a macro verse   that we're automatically gonna now start dividing, subdividing into micro versus,   which   now that we have this one thing,   like, before   you,   let's   take the modern story. I don't   not siding with the modern story here.   But if we take the modern story of   originally in this country, there was basically 2 groups, Native Americans   and white people.   And we turn around,   and after 200 years, we're just Americans.   But after   after   at some point in time, we go from   we can look at, like, the fifties,   which would have been the beginning of the heyday of Hollywood.  

We as a country were somewhat,   somewhat,   united,   you know, with   small diverse factions, you know, as as is always gonna exist. I don't care what   kind of a utopia you're in. You're gonna have somebody bitching around over in the corner over here about something.   We as a country were fairly,   united and became the United States.   And anytime once again, you start, like, when you look at things from the occult version.   When, part of the   confusion with the transgenderism   is is this lack of understanding and how a cult really works. And when you,   isolate something down into just a masculine, well, now that everything in this group is masculine,   well, now that   I'm really staring at it, half the group's kinda more feminine than they are masculine even though this whole group's masculine.  

And you can and then now that we're looking at this homogenized   group, I'm starting to notice a whole lot more other little differences too. Maybe they aren't all exactly the same.   And so to me, it seems like this,   breaking apart into groups,   post,   unification   would actually be a natural order of things.  

[01:37:41] John Roeland:

I I actually,   I think you're right. I wanted to tie into the individual individualism   is, you know, Tocqueville   looked at America, I believe,   1800   late 1800   came from France,   was looking he predicted that this is where it would go because he was saying, like, you know, the nuclear family was the perfect family for capitalism,   for the the Protestant ethic. It was the best, like, unit of consumption of, like, the family setup.   And so that through this, social bonds would get broken more and more   until eventually you'd just be by yourself, afraid of your neighbors.   So you give over your power to   the government   because you're you're in so much fear of,   you know, meeting up with the local community group and having a discussion   about what you wanna do in your community. All those social groups have broken down. And,   so, yeah, I mean, I do I also do think it is kind of a natural progression,   in the sense of   conscious in consciously, we,   we're supposed we're, we're, we're developing the I, we've developed the I, the concept of, Hey, I am John and you are and so that's a level of consciousness   and now we need to that's intellect,   materialism,   but now we need to raise back up out of that. So I do think that   to me, there feels like there is a shift where we've gone so individual, but now some of us are starting to make local groups and   meet more. And even if we're doing it online,   communities are being created.  

So it does feel like maybe we've gone to a certain point, and some of us are like, wait a minute. This is important.  

[01:39:28] Unknown:

Growing food Can I get a clarification   on what you meant by the the move?   Alright. So you said the nuclear family was the beginning of breaking this apart. What was the situation   prior in your in in your story here? What was the I think it would be more like,  

[01:39:48] John Roeland:

multigenerational   families,   you know, to go maybe back just a little step further, like, more,   the what what Tocqueville   predicted was that the government was sort of pushing us into   more and more individualized   breaking social bonds   because that keeps us divided,   which would turn us into,   like, a tyranny. We would give up our   sovereignty, our power. So,   that would be my guess. I mean, I see that just even in my regular life.   When my grandmother died,   basically don't talk to all my cousins anymore. She was sort of the center of the family,   and that's happened in multiple families that I've seen, you know, amongst friends and things like that.  

And,   like, my mom, she doesn't even won't even consider moving in with us. You know? But you see people come from different countries.   They're living   6 people in an apartment, and they're doing pretty well for themselves because they don't have the stigma.   You know? So,   anyway, it's just a theory, but it does seem, at least from my observation,  

[01:40:55] Unknown:

that does seem to What's interesting for me is is, honestly,   so   where I would put this, and this is a huge debate point.   This this would be a heater of a debate. But for me, actually, the   invention   of incest   was that was the breaking point for this. So where the Catholic church came in   and stated it that incest was illegal,   we immediately started breaking apart the family structure.   Whereas before,   they   you had, like, a 99% chance of marrying a girl in your village or from the next village, which you were definitely related to. Most definitely.   Like, it might not it wasn't your sister, but it was your cousin or your somebody's that you're related to's kid. A 100%.  

It it's just how it worked out because, see, when you're not able to travel very far,   your choices are are very limited. And so when we look and then   when we look at those choices,   those people the people that they married would have had interest in,   the success of the family.   So say I married my second cousin,   well, my second cousin isn't gonna wanna see her family succeed over mine. We have the same family. Like, it's just a general family welfare that we're interested in. We're gonna have the same basic religious beliefs.   Our children are gonna be more likely   to follow-up   with the morals   and the dictates that we live by because that's what they've been taught. We're in today's world   very seldomly even it seems   are the 2 people in the household religiously,   similar,   background similar.  

We've definitely been pushed into that. And I would have to say that the start of that was the Catholic church with the with the incest laws.  

[01:42:56] Hunter Muse:

Well, I I definitely think that that played a role. If you look back into, like, the 1500,   it was illegal for a woman   to travel alone.   So a woman could not go to the next village over   unless she was escorted by a man. So this is   probably one of the things that really,   entrenched   this incestuous,   lineage is because you weren't allowed to go and try to seek a husband from another country or another  

[01:43:29] Unknown:

I'm stating the incest is natural.  

[01:43:32] Hunter Muse:

Well, what I'm saying is that one of the reasons that that was happening is because you weren't allowed to kind of go outside of the confines of your family.  

[01:43:43] Unknown:

I think the shift from the So so in the in the let's say 1400,   would that law have been to to limit women in in in order to hamper them, like, you're not allowed to do things? Or would that law have been   because you're about to go out and get raped by 6 high women?  

[01:44:03] Hunter Muse:

Probably the latter. Right. So So I mean, it's not like they were trying to  

[01:44:09] Unknown:

to do that. I mean,   when I look at nature in and of itself, nature's horrifyingly   incestuous. Every other animal in the world is horrifyingly incestuous.   And what that does is   this kind of dips   boy, we're really gonna we're really completely away from Hollywood.  

[01:44:30] Hunter Muse:

But are we really? Are we, though?  

[01:44:33] Unknown:

Right. Right. Hollywood  

[01:44:35] allen marcus:

is incestuous,   and there's the idea of the the nepotism.   And I wanna go back to what John was talking about, this, Tocqueville idea, these, Dazed and Confused films, glorifying drug use? Mhmm.   You're Tocqueville?  

[01:44:50] Unknown:

Are you cool, man?  

[01:44:53] Hunter Muse:

We got a unicorn.  

[01:44:55] John Roeland:

I gotta I gotta end the one thing about Tocqueville, though. The the greatest thing about him his theory is that he made a distinction between individualism   and individuality.   That individuality   implies a group,   implies other people. Individualism   is like   solipsism. You know? Like Alright. Alright. Alright.  

[01:45:16] Hunter Muse:

Well, the the Soaks up. The shift away from   a great   agregarian,   society and culture where we are working on a farm together and we are all invested in that farm   and that property,   and moving people into the city,   and and actually   forcing men to go work in factories.   This was the real destruction   from my perspective of the family.   Because what you had was men who were running farms,   which was a very, as you know, Benjamin, a very difficult life.   These men suddenly were then tasked to go work for other men, which was completely emasculating,   and many of those men became raging alcoholics,   unable to work, and so women and children were sent into the factory.  

So the destruction   and the erosion of the family happened when we moved out of the country   into the city and were placed in these boxes, basically, which is not our nature.   So I think that is   that's the first step to   this erosion of   the communal society.   As you were saying, John, if you,   meet people from South America   or from Asia or from Africa,   it's very common that you have multigenerational   families living together.   That's not only   so you have built in housekeeping or built in daycare   for your children,   but there's also   generational learning that's happening in those cultures and in those environments, and a respect   for your elders.  

Where in an individuated   society,   what happens   is,   well, I turn 18, I wanna move away from my family. I don't wanna live with my grandma. I don't wanna live because that's not cool.   So I think there's definitely that aspect,   but I think   that   one thing that happened through this whole past few years debacle is that suddenly people were moving back home and suddenly do have generational people living together. Right now, we live,   in a home with Chris's father.   So   our sons are getting the knowledge   from his father   of working on cars, of building, of things that you wouldn't necessarily   learn in the home, you might learn in high school by taking a shop class.  

But I did wanna touch on 2 points   before we get close to wrapping up.   1,   Alan, I don't know if you know about the Waldorf School System,   but all of, our children went to Waldorf Schools, and so they learned   handwork   and farming   and,   how to write in cursive   and reading poetry   and designing their own lesson books. So I don't think   it is a lost cause. I think there's still people who are very much into,   maybe a dialing back and getting closer into this Luddite,   lifestyle.   And   you what's amazing, it's just like the people who live in Silicon Valley   who all are programmers who don't let their kids have iPhones.  

So the the elite   are sending their kids to Waldorf Schools. All these fancy actors, all their kids are in Waldorf Schools because they want them to have these very basic   social skills. And to touch on the strikes, you guys may not know this,   but there have been 5 strikes   that   a writer that I,   have been working   with was a part of, and he said every strike in Hollywood was based on technology.   So as technology   increases, as we move away   from, VHS, there was a strike. When we moved into DVD,   there was a strike. When we move into,   the, what what was the next one? He mentioned what all 5 of them were. The last one was streaming.  

So with the writers   Blu ray was probably the other one. Right. So when the writers strike happened recently,   it was because   of the streaming services. And these   giant companies making shit tons of money, and the writer saying, hey. We want a cut of the pie.   So   it's kind of an interesting if you kinda track that, you can see how   Hollywood is   trying to move forward in a certain way, and they're not bringing   the talent along with it.   So then the talent wakes up and then they're like, hey. You're making all the fucking money, and we're not getting a cut of that. So that has really influenced and affected,   the system.  

What I'm saying is   the studio system, what I call Hollywood,   is dead.   It does not exist.   Meaning, there's not just 3 studios,   there's not just 3 actors,   there's not just 3 producers, there's not 3 films that are being made a year. Now,   yes, it has been democratized.   But in that   democratization,   what has happened  

[01:50:45] allen marcus:

is it has destroyed the majority. It is crud. It's all crud. It's all garbage. It is now it has  

[01:50:52] Hunter Muse:

destroyed what was this very closed   boys club,   predatory   system. That is gone.   Does that mean that they're still not predators or they're still   now they're female predators. Now there's female executives that are like, if you want this movie, you have to fuck me because they're trying to play in the boys club.   But I'm just saying that   this infrastructure   that was completely in control   is   gone.   But the CIA is still involved in Hollywood.   There's still propaganda   in Hollywood. All of those things are still happening.   They're just not being   maybe policed in the same way as they were 40 years ago.  



[01:51:42] John Roeland:

Have they moved to YouTube?  

[01:51:47] Hunter Muse:

Yes.   Well, they're in they're in every corporate   headquarters.   So now it it's Viacom,   it's Amazon.   I mean, it's it's   still a a there's still an infrastructure,   but it's a corporate overlord who's standing over that. It's not just the CIA who is making films.  

[01:52:09] allen marcus:

It's also a facade.   Yeah.   There's there there so I don't know what Catholic priest had said this. They probably all said this at some point, but there was a statement something along the lines of having a television in your living room is like having a rabbi   in your living room. So it was very clear that there's distinctions between religious groups,   churches, and neighborhoods,   and then they were very clear to say that this is a tool of propaganda   from one perspective.   That perspective is being broadcast on the 3 channels that are going on over the air.   Now we have   this, own nothing and be happy idea moving forward into this, age of,   the Aryan. What the the age of air, I don't know. You get hippie dippy new age ideas that, you know, we were in one certain age, and now we're in this more ethereal   sort of space where everything can just be deleted and gone and minimalism   and don't need to own anything,   which then moves into this,   rewriting of history,   created mandala effects   where you get George Lucas   who can't tell you, well, Han shot first or who shot first. Well, all the old versions are deleted. They're not canon. They're not real, And the story   changes with each release. And with a digital library,   those books that you own, the music you own, they can change one aspect of it in your digital library,   and you wouldn't know because you don't have a permanent copy   to compare it to. So this sort of gaslighting   and rewriting of history and tearing down statues,   this is what the media,   the medium   has been used for all along. Clearly,   the overall purpose   and going backwards in analyzing   what it's done and how it's been used, it's always been   a tool   that's been sharpened into a weapon   that's done   innumerable   damages to all sorts of people.  

But because we're   in love, we have such an affinity towards   actresses   that we saw when we were very influential   in our development stage. And that actress, the way she dressed, the   the nylons   tights that she wore, the fishnet stockings,   that is forever   what a certain generation   is always going to want   and desire.   But then the shifting beauty standards   as seen on the film   and in the magazines and the covers in Vogue and the fashion industry,   that that shifts it. The changes of fabrics, the changes of styles   over time. So it's always a moving target,   and it never satisfies.  

So it's always this carrot   dangling in front of us, but it's not a real carrot.   So we're at we're we're hungry for a spiritual fulfillment.   Women generally want   attention.   Men give women attention to get the sexual gratification,   and neither are satisfied because they're both using each other.   You go to a movie, and you learn romance, and then you take a blue pill, and you swallow it. And after the matrix released in 1999,   movies were completely   ruined   because everyone had to put their own   interpretation   on the movie. So you have this red pill idea that came from a meme from a film,   and the red pill meant something different to everybody you would ask. What does the red pill mean? What taking the red pill means seeing the truth, but it was   one specific truth from a point of view   from one specific person he asked. You ask another person, and it could be equal and opposite to what the other guy had just said.  

So it's not one consensus reality. It's the fractured reality   where people find information that confirms   their bias. That's the weapon   that splits everyone apart. So now we're focused on our own thoughts, our own opinions, our own feelings, our own affinities and loves and lusts and desires for things   that we didn't even know   were presented to us and given to us. It wasn't something that we thought about consciously. So it's the subconscious   ideas,   and movies are parroted. They're repeated.   I went and saw an early release of that Borat film, that very long title Borat film with that funny guy.   I saw an early release. I thought it was funny. I chuckled. I realized that the language that we thought was Kazakhstan,   they were actually speaking Hebrew in the film.  

So the the language we didn't understand   was Hebrew. We knew English, but we didn't know Hebrew. So people who could speak Hebrew were laughing. All the English speakers thought it was Kazakhstan,   and they read the subtitles, and they weren't getting the message.   A month later   2 months later, when it was in ride release, everyone said, very nice.   You know, her sleep hangs like, sleeve of like, like, her vagina hangs like sleeve of wizard or these these phrases that people kept repeating over and over again Mhmm. Just proves   that people   absorb stuff,   don't think about it, don't process it, and then repeat it. This is how women dress themselves.  

What is the model wearing? What is my favorite actress wearing? I'm gonna wear that.   Men did the same thing. They'd smoke cigarettes and wear cowboy hats when westerns are popular.   Westerns are very unpopular now.   We don't have westerns. The film industry,   in large part,   established the genre of the western film, and that was the American movie.   For a huge portion of its industry,   they were putting out westerns,   those types of movies. And then maybe it moves into the Vietnam era, and then you get something like MASH.   And David Foster Wallace noticed that there's men of a certain generation   that got very obsessed   with MASH to the point where they'd keep journals and logs and notes, and they just write everything down,   which leads into now we have the Internet and computers.  

When I go and search for information   and I find information about World of Warcraft   before I find any real world information.   So the world of fiction has completely taken over the minds of   everyone.   It's taken over the Internet. There's no easily   searched way to say, can I only have search results   that are   based on reality   from newspapers and historical periodicals?   I don't need to know the history of Pokemon. I don't need to know the lore   of Yokai and Japanese demons   from video games. That's very interesting,   but I don't wanna get my news and history from   movie synopsis.  

And that's the other thing.   If we watch a movie   like ET proving aliens are real and then the   the walkie talkie   well, it was a gun. I remembered it was a gun, but now it's a walkie talkie. So they changed these things. And The Goonies   was so filthy, but I only ever saw   the safe television version. So the censorship aspect.   So even if we watch the same Blu ray copy of a movie, and then we talk about it later,   everyone in the room saw a different   movie.   The movies aren't bringing us together. They're driving us into our escapism,   into our strange furry fetishes,   Space Jam,   that Lola Bunny in this the newest Space Jam movie. All the girls on OnlyFans are doing her,   cosplay   of this sexy anthropomorphic   rabbit bunny thing. And now there's a whole generation of 12 year olds who are like, I like girls with rabbit teeth and   fuzzy wait. But wasn't that Playboy?  

So then it goes back further.   So then I'm thinking, well, it's not a new thing. It's the same old thing in recycled cycles   over and over again. And the only way to, quote, unquote, escape the matrix   is to stop trying to figure out what the meaning of that movie was. We don't care what the occult symbolism in a film is.   We have our own lives to live. We have our own diaries and journals to keep, but instead   we're talking about movies we like and sports ball games and circuits. So it goes back to the Roman idea of bread and circuses   over and over and over again.  

So at this point in my life, recognizing that all the video games, all the movies, all the music, and all the pop culture stuff that I have all this knowledge about, it's absolutely worthless   because it's all my own interior life and my own way of entertaining myself to pass time, and time is tick tick tick tick tick tocking.   And I'm a dancing nurse during a pandemic.   What does it matter and what does it mean? There's no value   in any of this stuff.   It's completely pulling out all the value of an individual life,   and it's making a mockery of it. And everyone is sarcastic,   and everyone is insincere,   and everyone jokes and has an opinion and a comment about everything else,   but no one is doing   the heroic   thing,   but they'll go and complain that other   military people are stealing valor from true heroes, and they're arguing   over   inconsequential   things.  

And this is all enforced through movies and documentaries which portray,   in quotes, real life, but it's the furthest thing from it.   It's the furthest thing from it.  

[02:02:32] Unknown:

My favorite part of that very extended diatribe   was that Marcus completely took the opposite position.   It switched sides. That was my favorite part of it.   That's what I was gonna say. In the middle, Marcus, like, fuck Hollywood. I can't do this anymore.  

[02:02:52] John Roeland:

I was gonna say the same thing. This is Marcus's argument   for Hollywood.  

[02:02:57] allen marcus:

I can't give up. I can't defend those those guys, those   those women, the gay agenda.  

[02:03:04] Hunter Muse:

I can't defend. It's indefensible.  

[02:03:07] John Roeland:

I wanna I wanna share this again. I know you saw it, but it was kinda while you were talking, but I thought this kinda relates.   Gen x is always mad.   We had to replace our record collections with the tape collection and then replace that with the CP collection   then with the MP 3 collection, and now we need to   stream it. And I was thinking on that with what Alan was saying is that I used to think you can't really ever burn all the books. But in this way, you you maybe could   get everything onto a file,   you know, and it's it's kinda like the memory hole. Right? It's like, if if everything is online now and that's where you have to go search for it, you lose a lot of control. You don't need to burn the books is the funny thing.  

[02:03:49] Unknown:

You know? Because I mean, when you look at it,   literally how many people even open an article and read what the article says.   Whatever the general consensus of what that says, whatever they heard about it,   they're never gonna open the article up and read it. And I can't imagine that it's any different for a book. You know what I mean? Like like,   the books are always, I think,   like, you walk in a u any used bookstore, pick books up for 50 fucking cents. Like, you got assholes like archaic sitting there with a whole library.   Look at my library. Like, dude, that was $12 in a used bookstore. Go fuck it.  



[02:04:28] allen marcus:

It's performative   set dressing. This is what I'm this is what I'm saying.   People are not   authentic   at all. They're they don't they don't even know who they are. Oh. So they imitate   people that they look up to, role models,   sex symbols, whatever it is. The coolest guy in the, you know, in the movie.   How many   there's a strange phenomenon   of a certain specific person   and a certain time in history who would become a Michael Jackson impersonator.  

[02:04:58] Unknown:

You get Corey Feldman who's still doing that, Michael Jackson. You know, that's the second time you get brought up Goonies, and now you're and you know what? When you were talking about Goonies and how there's I was like, is he just a Corey Feldman acolyte?   And now here you are talking about Feldman again. Is that your whole fucking problem that Feldman didn't get the glory that he is that he deserved?  

[02:05:23] allen marcus:

Hollywood did him dirty.   There's no successful   Disney movie actress,   child actors. That's that's a whole other debate that we get into, but   the exploitation   of children   extends to the exploitation of every   actor   on film. Everyone   is exploiting themselves   behind a camera   performing   like a monkey   in front of a camera   for likes and treats   and up votes and whatever it is, the social credit score stuff.   It's so dumb. And I've been to situations where   I'm in a private setting,   and someone's like, that's great. They take a camera out, and they wanna take pictures. I don't I don't consent   to being photographed. I thought it was understood. The social contract here was   we're in a private home.  

We're not taking pictures. We're not posting the Facebook, and we're not tagging each other   on   social media.   Let's let's protect our privacy.   What happened to   this sort of thing where   women on Snapchat are taking pictures of their children   all along. They're so lonely and isolated.   And then the men are just going on there, and they're like, oh, content. Great. Okay. And then the women are like, this is my daughter. This is my son. This is 1st day of school. They're documenting their lives. They're moving on, and they're wondering, well, where are all the men? Where are all the cool guys smoking   cigarettes and   riding camels and exploring Egypt and doing cool stuff?  

They're all in cells.   All the men are in cells, and the women are so frustrated.   Are you late? Just Hollywood.  

[02:07:15] Hunter Muse:

At some point,   we probably run out of time, but at some point, I would love to talk about violence,   and men,   because   there is a lot a lot of information about that out in the world, and,   I would love to hear you guys' take on it.  

[02:07:35] Unknown:

Wonderful.   We can definitely we would love to have you back. This has been great.   We'll figure out how to formulate what you're thinking into a   debate prompt.   Actually, I think this kinda goes in   with something that John had mentioned   that there is now the,   trope going around that men shouldn't be around kids because they have anger issues and things like that. I think this will fit. I already thought that this was a conversation   that needed to be had.   We would love to have you back and have it.   We need to figure out how to make it into a debate prompt.  

[02:08:16] Hunter Muse:

Does   well, maybe does does,   violence   does violent imagery make men violent?   Because that could be music, that could be film, that could be cartoons, that could be video games.  

[02:08:36] Unknown:

Yeah.   You would have to include in there are men just inherently violent. And then also in the prompt somewhere, figure out how to word it in a way that,   is that a problem?   Because I because that's where I'm gonna go with it is is I don't see a problem with violence myself for,   all that we,   claim, you know, we were all taught in school. Most of us are, gen x, you know.   We were all taught in school and taught by society that violence didn't solve any problems.   Which fucking problems are those? Because, which ones weren't solved by violence historically?   Typically, there's a breakdown at some point in time,   in diplomacy where one side takes a hard stand and the other side takes a hard stand. And then when that can't be resolved,   violence.  

Like,  

[02:09:29] Hunter Muse:

what happens? And just and just very, very quickly to your point,   the study   that I saw   was that if you try to inhibit   young boys'   expression of violence, whether it be through imagery, drawings, or writing,   that that actually,   stunts development.  

[02:09:52] Unknown:

Not only that, but I would state that it makes them more violent. Where you see these young men that are especially the the libtards that live in a city that have never actually like, I grew up getting punched in the mouth and throwing off a bales and throwing people off bales and drop kicking them and things like that. And in that time when I when I was allotted to have violent fun,   I learned about violence. And now I am very, very aware of where to apply that in the application of it. I understand,   how what the application if it's gonna do, how much it's gonna take, and that's only through use of it. So now that I'm an adult and I don't need to have play violence,   the violence when it's needed, and there's many times that it's needed.  

That that's something I'm perfectly comfortable with. But then at the same token,   when it's not needed,   I'm perfectly comfortable with not having it. And because I'm like a bird that lands on a branch that's not worried about the branch because it can fly,   I'm less prone to violence because I'm not scared,   because I'm comfortable.   It's a similar,   effect of my big fat pit bull over here,   tier.   That guy has literally been bit in the face like 20 times by small dogs. He's just like, dude, what are you doing over here? What are you  

[02:11:19] Hunter Muse:

doing? To to, William McKnight's point, this is a brilliant book, Power Versus Force,   written by,   David r Hawkins.   This is really, really great book talking about,   energy and different types of energy and how we express energy.   But this is a very powerful conversation, and I would definitely like to be involved in it again.  

[02:11:44] John Roeland:

100%.   I wanted to point out that,   in the childcare field, there's kind of a philosophy starting to go around that you should allow   young boys to rough house if they're not hurting each other. Absolutely. Because typically, it would be like, you know, no. You can't play that way. It's dangerous. But now they're recognizing   that that's a natural state for boys,   to kinda tumble around together. Not all boys, but some of them need that. Absolutely.  

[02:12:11] Hunter Muse:

So, you know, that's And and it can cause speech impediments and all kinds of issues if you try to suppress that energy.  

[02:12:19] John Roeland:

Yeah. I would say that the imagery and the technology   probably suppressed that first. Mhmm. And then gave them,   you know, violent games to, like, play that out in their mind, and it get so it's like a false   sense of that Exactly. Righteous,  

[02:12:36] Unknown:

anger. So Absolutely. Well, you and you never develop reality with it. Like, in a video game, I can kill the entire team, and it's okay. They're gonna respond.   I realize if I do if I hurt my friend, my friend's not gonna respond because   in real life, that's what I've been experiencing. And and   there's a disconnect there that they need to have that violence. And in fact, I would state that even if they hurt each other, as long as it's not like one kid just beating the brakes, like, little boys need to hurt each other because it's that hurting each other is where they really start working things out. That you know what? That can happen without me having to go scorched earth. That I that that's okay.   That sometimes,   like,   one of the things like this is,   is it for Zetta that said,   a barbarian will always will always be more polite than a civilized man because a civilized man doesn't fear getting his skull split. Mhmm. But, you know, when you've been punched in the mouth for saying something slick a few times and getting too out of line,   you quit wanting to get out of line. That's, you know, that's,   and there's it's through that that boys   learn how to interact. Like, you see this with animals too.  

Totally. When,   animals are interacting with each other, especially,   it's bad now because we pull puppies and kittens away from their parents so fast.   But they will teach them how to socially interact with each other. When they've gone too far, they'll   snap and put like, you see a mom a mom dog when the puppy gets too rowdy, she'll put her mouth on her, just smash her to the ground like, you don't do that. And the puppies, they learn. And this is   again,   this,   one of the things I would have read, I would have liked to have debated and we will in the future is whether we're in a masculine or a feminine society. And we're, in my opinion, we are in a highly feminine society. Totally.   And because of that,   we have absolutely curved   and to ill effect   the masculine.  



[02:14:46] Hunter Muse:

It's created in inversion.  

[02:14:48] Unknown:

Yeah.   Yeah. And it's made crazy,   very violent   men who   aren't really men. They're very cucked   and they're violent. They're ready to,   just go off the deep end with things rather than have a reasonable response, and that's measured.  

[02:15:07] Hunter Muse:

Absolutely.   Thank you guys for having me. I have so enjoyed this.   It's been amazing.  

[02:15:15] John Roeland:

Yeah. Thanks for being on.  

[02:15:18] Unknown:

Absolutely. And we will definitely set that up and make another show out of that. William, you need to pick a good subject and make sure you got some good Internet.   And pick something that we can debate on. This was so hard. I'm glad you picked it because it was a very good mental exercise.   But holy shit, trying to try and make Hollywood out to not   to not do shit on that thing.   Wow. Wow. It needs to burn and die. It needs to burn and die.  

[02:15:47] Hunter Muse:

So what do I do? Do I just leave the studio? How do I Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We're we'll actually,  

[02:15:53] Unknown:

we'll we'll we'll close it out. You guys ready to close it out? We can, close the stream out and then hang out after the broadcast. Yeah. And then us guys usually talk. Yeah. You just hit leave studio.   And, yeah, let's do this again. Thank you, Hannah. Alright. Thank you. Thanks, everybody.  

[02:16:07] Hunter Muse:

Love you guys. Have a good night. We'll see you soon.  

[02:16:10] Unknown:

Love you, guys.  

[02:16:11] John Roeland:

Thanks. Thanks, everybody, for coming.  

[02:16:52] Unknown:

9,   38,   7,   8,   5,   4,   3, 2, 1, 5.