← The a16z Show
The a16z Show
Marc Andreessen: How Movies Explain America
01:15:30
In this episode of Monitoring the Situation, Marc Andreessen, Katherine Boyle, and Erik Torenberg dive into the movies that best explain America, from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to Tropic Thunder to Fight Club. They explore how Tarantino’s revisionist masterpiece reimagines 1969 and the end of America’s cultural innocence, why Tropic Thunder was the last truly un-cancellable comedy, and how Fight Club evolved from a left-wing critique of capitalism to a right-wing prophecy about alienation and identity. Along the way, they trace the parallels between the counterculture of the 1960s and the internet culture wars of the 2010s, and debate whether we’re living through another great American cultural reset.
Loading summary
Transcript94 lines
- [00:00]
Marc Andreessen
La, in a lot of ways is sort of. You could describe it as like it's the archetypal American city. Here's the larger significance of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or my view of it, which is it captures a time and place that was absolutely critical to the evolution of modern America.
- [00:13]
Kathryn Boyle
The reaction from the audience is extreme laughter. You are laughing during the most violent sequence for 20 minutes.
- [00:21]
Podcast Host
Some movies don't just entertain, they help explain America. On this episode of Moderating the Situation, Kathryn Boyle and I are joined by a16z general partner Marc Andreessen to talk about the films that captured the country's turning points. From Hollywood's golden age to the counterculture. From the comedies we could once make to the stories that still define us, we look at how different directors across decades have reflected and sometimes predicted where America was heading and what its art reveals about the culture behind it. Let's get into it.
- [00:52]
Moderator
Well, excited to have the Modern the Situation crew back for another episode on Movies. Mark, thanks for joining again.
- [00:58]
Marc Andreessen
Yes, excited.
- [00:59]
Moderator
So we want to go deeper into some of our favorite movies. Mark, I know from watching movies with you that one of your genres you enjoy is movies about Hollywood. And so we want to start with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Why don't you talk about what's so remarkable about that or why you wanted to talk about it?
- [01:12]
Marc Andreessen
The reason I like movies about Hollywood, I mean, one is they tend to be very entertaining because of course the people who make movies about Hollywood are from Hollywood. They know where all the bodies are buried and they tend to put them all in the movies. And so they're, you know, oh, run up, spectacular Hollywood movies. So for people who haven't seen, I would recommend Mulholland Drive. It's one of Eric's favorites. And then the Player, which also is the all time one. You know, there's a bunch of course, you know, famous ones like Sunset Boulevard, but you know, the iconic Hollywood movie, you know, now is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, you know, like Quentin Tarantino. And so the reason I like Hollywood movies is because, you know, there are a handful of cities that have a claim to be like the ultimate American city. And you know, New York City is one of those, you know, I think you know, San Francisco in some ways, you know, where we are is, but LA and Las Vegas also of the list, by the way, for Las Vegas, see Bugsy. I'll talk about that another time. But that's the iconic Vegas movie. But la, in a lot of ways you could describe it as like it's the archetypal American city. Literally, it's a. There's a great book we can put in the notes called Thinking Big, where it goes actually the creation of the city of Los Angeles. And basically, like, Los Angeles, you could argue, is the ultimate Arab American city because it was the ultimate fake it until you make it thing like it was the. The cities. And very specifically, like, it was desert. Like there was absolutely nothing in la. And then, you know, literally it was like a land development deal by a bunch of wealthy families in the late 1800s. And they literally placed newspaper ads in Eastern newspapers. You know, this is before, you know, photography made it into newspapers. And so, like, you know, when there was like a picture of something in the newspaper, it'd be a drawing. And so they would list land plots for sale in Los Angeles and they would have like, line drawings of like, you know, orchards and like, you know, beautiful, everything's created, palm trees. And then, you know, people would like, buy the land, move cross country and discover that it was just like blasted out desert. And then, you know, they famously created the city, they carved it out of the desert. And then, you know, it's a famous saga of how they went to get the water, which turned into another great LA movie, Chinatown. And, you know, as you'd expect, you know, Hollywood kind of goes for a certain interpretation of history and so it, you know, sort of painted in retrospect as like a purely evil activity. But, you know, there's actually like a very kind of straightforward reading which is like, this is what was actually required to create a city, but it wasn't as black and white as sort of the Hollywood history has it. It was a more complex story, but still, you know, very, very interesting, amazing story. And, you know, cities like Los Angeles are created every day, so, you know, that's a pretty big deal. So anyway, like, movies about la, I think when they reach the level of capital A art, you know, they become movies about America. And so it's like a great test bed or a great subject, you know, through a great lens through which to look at the history of America. And Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is, I would say, one of the top movies along that theme. Let me start by saying if anybody watching this hasn't seen Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, pause the podcast immediately, go watch the movie and then come back, because I wait just, we are going to spoil the shit on it. And it's tremendously fun to watch if you haven't read about it, by the way, I'd Also say it's a tremendously entertaining movie. It's one of the most entertaining pound for pond movies. It's infinitely rewatchable. The cast is ridiculous. Every frame of this thing is amazing. So it's also a very fun movie. Here's the larger significance of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or my view of it, which is it captures a time and place that was absolutely critical to the evolution of modern America. And I think, Catherine, you'll remind me, but I think of the year. Was it 69? Yeah, 69. Yeah, 69. And so to put this in context, and the movie, you know, kind of goes through this, but the movie doesn't explain all the cultural backstory. It shows you what happened, but it does explain the backstory. So I'll just go through the backstory. So, you know, basically, like, what we now consider to be the kind of the cultural revolution of the 1960s, you know, really started, you know, probably like around 1964 with the Berkeley Free Speech movement, and then kind of expanded or metastasized to include, you know, the sort of hippie movements, and then, you know, the sort of birth of, like, modern rock and roll and the rise of the counterculture. You know, all of a sudden everybody's, you know, has long hair and they've got beads and they're, you know, they're wearing suede jackets and they're not washing their Levis and, you know, sort of counterculture. And so there was this like, incredible explosion of this when the baby boomers were, you know, becoming of age as basically high school and college kids. This incredible explosion of art, culture, creativity, social innovation, you know, the birth of, you know, the communes, you know, the entire hippie movement. And then, of course, this is also a world when the Vietnam War was ramping up, and so this was, you know, the ramp up in conscription of people, you know, kid American kids being sent off to Vietnam. But, you know, kind of, you know, I'd say non volunte. And so the, you know, the kind of anti war movement kicked in, the college protest kicked in, and like, the entire thing was like, you know, we kind of remember it as like this, like, incredibly, like, sort of spontaneous and, you know, largely positive explosion of kind of, you know, breaking out of the stultified cultural norms of the 1940s, 1950s, you know, the creation of the modern kind of liberated American society, by the way, obviously, also right alongside that, you know, the civil rights movement and the feminism, the gay rights, and, you know, kind of the whole explosion of modern morality. Through that period. And anyway, if you read the histories of the time, basically from 64 to 69, it was just basically this, like, just glorious, wonderful thing with, like, absolutely no downside. Like, you know, these kids that were, like, rioting on their college campuses or protesting in the streets or, like, you know, getting stoned all day or, you know, having their whole hippie thing or moving to communes and going back to the earth, like, they had discovered a far superior way to live, right? They had discovered a far superior way to, like, coexist with nature and to fight against the man and to fight against, you know, evil corporations and, you know, you know, fight for the environment, to fight for the planet, fight for peace and the whole thing. And so it was this, like, incredible kind of wave of positivity. And look, you know, the very good argument that there was a lot too, you know, a lot of people do believe that and that it was like, a time of great cultural creativity that, you know, led to enormous amounts of, like, amazing art that we still have today. And so that, you know, there's a lot to like about it. And then basically what happened is in 1969 is it sort of came that the sort of positivity came to a screeching halt. And sort of the movement, you know, basically, like, you know, turned, you know, very much the dark side, you know, that sort of began the long slide into the sort of 1970s. And that slide was basically a slide into, you know, variously, among other things, you know, it was a slide into, like, drugs, you know, very bad drug overdoses, you know, the shift in sort of soft drugs, hard drugs. You know, a lot of people who participated in the sort of cultural movement 60s ended up, like, dying. We'll talk about the death later on because, you know, the movie directly hits that. But, like, there's just an extraordinary amount of death that followed, you know, degradation and that, you know, turned into, you know, sexual liberation, it turns out, has dark sides. And, you know, maybe it isn't so great for everybody, and specifically, maybe it isn't so great for women, at least in some way. And then, you know, and then, look, you know, in the 70s, it was like, you know, Vietnam went very bad, and then the energy crisis, that economic recession and inflation and, you know, just, you know, this very kind of, you know, bitter, divisive, you know, politics, you know, in a lot of ways, you know, sort of the beginning of the political kind of dynamic that we see playing out today. So the 70s kind of things went really bad, and then, you know, the Bookending movie, Once Upon a Time is the movie sort of about that pivot point. I'll talk about that. And then, you know, Boogie Nights is maybe the movie on the other side of that, right? Which is like, once the culture's kind of sliding down a hill into chaos and madness and disease of death, Boogie Nights captures that on the other. But for the purpose of today's discussion, we can focus on 1969. And so if you read the histories of the time, basically what happened was it was the Charles Manson murders specifically in Los Angeles, and then sort of on behalf of America, it was the Manson murders that basically were the turning point. The Manson murders are the thing that people point to, and they kind of say, oh, that was the moment when we all kind of realized, oh, shit, there is a dark side to this whole thing. And like, oh, my God, here we go. And so let's talk about that at length. Let me just close off this introductory part, though, with kind of the most amazing thing about the movie that I found, which is if you know the history of that period. I mean, the Manson murders was super famous at the time. They're still famous in American culture, kind of. Everybody knows that. There was this guy, Charles Mancha, that had this death cult. He was able to get these kids to, like, go out and kill random people. And, you know, there's still like, all these, you know, questions like, how the hell did he do that? Right? And so everybody knows that he was kind of intertwined with Hollywood and intertwined with the movie industry and the music industry, and he was part of that whole thing. And so, you know, everybody kind of knows that. Oh, and then specifically for people who know anything about that, they're sort of famously, the Manson murders are also known as the Sharon Tate murders because there was this, like, incredibly, you know, vivacious, attractive, bubbly, you know, enthusiastic young blonde actress named Sharon Tate, who at the time, famously was actually married to Roman Polanski, who was, you know, one of the leading, you know, kind of new, you know, Hollywood movie directors of that time. And they were this new Hollywood glamour power couple. And then Sharon Tate, among other people, you know, Sharon Tate was one of the people murdered. And so Quentin Tarantino comes out, you know, when he first announces the movie, he comes out and he says, you know, Quentino. Quentin Tarantino is going to make the movie about the Charles Manson murders, right? And if you've seen, you know, any other Tarantino mov. Like Pulp Fiction, for example, you're just like, oh, my God. You know, it's going to be a. Like, this is going to be horrible. Like, like, like the Manson murders are bad enough, but like, you know, turning them into like a, you know, Tarantino style, you know, mass slaughter, violence, you know, Reservoir Dogs, you know, just like Blood and Guts, you know, exploitate, you know, basically super high exploitation movie as they've done in the past. It's just like it was a horror show. And I was actually. I was actually personally worried about it because my. My wife got all excited to. To. To see the movie because, you know, she, you know, because it's going to star Leo DiCaprio and it's going to be about Hollywood. It's about fashion and, you know, all this, you know, design and all this creativity. And she's like, we got to go see this movie. And I'm like, I'm like, we can't go see the movie because you are going to be so traumatized by what he puts on screen that, like, you're never going to want to ever see a movie ever again and you're going to hold it against me for the rest of my life. I didn't prevent you from seeing this movie because it's obviously just going to be a complete horror show. Like, it's just going to be a disaster. And actually, Sharon Tate's family actually came out and basically said, when this movie is fresh now, basically said, like, wait a minute, hold on. Like, you know, we don't want the memory of our, you know, of our, you know, of our. Of our family member, you know, who we still love many decades later, kind of turned into basically fodder for basically Hollywood exploitation. And then there was this amazing thing that happened and nobody knew anything about the movie, which is Tarantino, at least the way the story is recorded. Tarantino actually let. I think it was Sharon Tate's. It was either sister and maybe sister or something like that. Read the script and immediately the family did a 180 and they came right out and they said, we completely approve. We're failed to dispand him. And I remember at the time reading that, and I was like, what the hell? Like, how is it that he could possibly get the Tate family, of all people on board with putting this on screen? And of course, you know, that leads to kind of the movie sort of turns into a Valentine. A valentine. Hollywood. And to America and specifically to Sharon Tate. It's like it really kind of restores her memory in an amazing way.
- [11:08]
Kathryn Boyle
He did something very smart in the movie. For those of us who love Tarantino and Follow his work. So I think that was like, the common theme was like, oh, God, this is gonna be horrific. Right? And especially if you've read about, if you know, the Manson murders, if you've read about how gruesome they are, like, yes, that was sort of the dominant theme. But his, you know, he made a few films between. But like, I'd say the last other fantastic Tarantino film was the revenge fantasy Inglourious Basterds, which is of course, you know, again, like, could have been. It is extremely gruesome, but at the same time, it's a revenge fantasy of what could have happened. What could have happened if someone had killed Hitler. And so in the very beginning of the movie, there's a scene with Leonardo DiCaprio also at the end, but there's a scene in the very beginning where it shows all of his films and he has the famous flamethrower from Inglourious Basterds. And so if you're a Tarantino fan, you're like, wait, wait, wait, which direction are we going in? Are we going in gruesome violence with no purpose, which I would argue Tarantino's always misunderstood in that way, or are we going in a. We're going in a different direction. A little more fantastical, a little more what could have happened. And so for those of us with the eagle eye in the theater, I think we kind of knew, especially as you said, the family said, oh, it's great, it's gonna be fine. We kind of knew, okay, this film is not gonna be nearly as bad and Tarantino's gonna take us in a different direction. But he did put that little Easter egg in there for us in the first 10 minutes of the film.
- [12:36]
Marc Andreessen
So it's funny you bring that up because I of course totally missed that when I was watching the movie. I just thought it was like, it was like a real heat. So. So for people who haven't seen that, Leo DiCaprio plays a sort of a Steve McQueen style movie star of 1960s named Rick Nolan is kind of, as the movie starts, his kind of career is imploding. He's trying to figure out how to kind of turn things around and stay relevant to the times. And it does. It shows these clips from his. His prior movies in the universe and what. But I just figured it was just like a throwaway. Oh, yeah, I see. What's Flamethrower? That's funny. Ha ha. Like it didn't even for a minute occur to me. I mean, you know, it's just oh, since we're going to spoil it, we'll just say that the flamethrower plays a critical role.
- [13:10]
Kathryn Boyle
That's a pretty critical role.
- [13:11]
Marc Andreessen
Have you ever been happier to see the flamethrower get taken up then at the end of that movie? But, yeah, I mean, I just. I was like, literally, I enjoyed the movie so much when I was watching it, but I did not know. I mean, I knew it had to be something amazing that I wasn't expecting in order to get the Tate family on board. But, like, I still was, like sitting there in a state of dread throughout the entire movie, you know, still anticipating that he would somehow. Anyway, so to spoil the movie. Once upon a time in Hollywood. He basically tells you the story of the man cult of Hollywood at that time and sort of how that all intertwined and he takes it all the way up to the night of the murders, but then he takes the left turn in the history, as he does. It's an alternative history. And so the kid, the Manson cultists, who in real life culture in the movie, they go in the house next door, which is Leo's house, with Leo's friend Brad Pitt and Brad Pitt's character, by the way. I don't know. I don't know if you know this, Kevin. I'm curious if you notice the backstory of the Brad Pitt character. It does quite save us in the movie. Movie. But he explains a lot, which is basically Tarantino's conception of him as he's basically the most deadly man in the world at that time. So he's like a, you know, he plays not just a war hero, but like a greed beret, like, you know, super highly decorated, you know, basically super soldier who's become a Holly Moose stuntman. And so basically the, you know, the Manson killer is basically walk exactly to the wrong house because, number one, they're up against this guy who basically, like, you know, spent the proceeding. Whatever, you know, 20 years, you know, killing people for America. You know, basically Captain America. And then number two, it turns out Leo still had the flamethrower in his garage.
- [14:46]
Kathryn Boyle
Well, there's also. There's also the backstory that you're not totally sure how good Cliff is. Like, there's a whole backstory of did he kill his wife? Which is actually in the film and also in sort of the backstory. But, like, there he. He is. He is. He is, you know, a deadly, as you said, like a very deadly person. But that final scene. And yeah, there's no way you can anticipate like, even if you knew, okay, maybe it's not going to be as gruesome or there's going to be some sort of like revenge fantasy. There's no way you can anticipate how genius like the run up to it is. And then also the final scene, because there's this whole other thing that happens in the movie where you forget that you're watching a movie about the Mansons. Like, you forget that you're watching this horrific, like what it's supposed to be. And there's like a 30 minute scene of Rick Dalton who's sort of this, you know, aging, like he's losing his place in Hollywood. He sort of, you know, is sort of at a loss for why he's no longer powerful, right? Like, and he has this moment where he stars in this like kind of cheesy western with this like 11 year old girl. And it's like a movie within a movie. And it is like probably the best encapsulation of like what happens to actors in Hollywood. So you kind of lose track of the fact. It's like here, Sharon Tate and she's at the Playboy Mansion, she's dancing, she's this new generation, but here's this old generation of like hyper masculine figures who can't get work. And there's. It's just a genius movie within a movie where the little girl says to him, and it's probably like one of the most memorable lines. She's like, that's the, the best acting I've ever seen in my whole life. And I mean, it's like just, even if they'd stopped the movie there, it would have been just as brilliant, right? But then it goes on to this other sequence where you're like, oh yeah, we're watching, we're about to see the most gruesome, you know, possible like this. I mean, and you know, I wasn't alive in 1969, but I can imagine it's like if, you know, if Jennifer Lawrence, if it happened to Jennifer Lawrence or if it happened to Margot Roby or Robbie, who's actually playing her, right? It would just be this horrific thing. But you kind of forget. Cause there's all of these just beautiful, hilarious sequences that run up to it. You forget that you're watching a movie that's supposed to end in this horrific violence. And of course, I'll let you continue, Mark. But it ends in a different type of horrific violence, but not female on female violence that characterized the Manson murders, which I think is another kind of subtext of the film, it's just how gory and violent the actual episode is. But you don't actually see that. So I'll let you continue. But there's a whole other part of the Hollywood story that's really fascinating.
- [17:19]
Marc Andreessen
Yeah, no, that's. That's exactly right. And by the way, pop quiz. Catherine, the little girl. The little girl actress, who was she? Who was that intended to be in real life?
- [17:28]
Kathryn Boyle
I don't know, actually.
- [17:30]
Marc Andreessen
Jodie Foster.
- [17:31]
Kathryn Boyle
Oh. Oh, is that. Oh, that's who she's supposed to be?
- [17:33]
Marc Andreessen
Yeah. Yeah.
- [17:34]
Kathryn Boyle
I didn't realize it.
- [17:35]
Marc Andreessen
Okay, she's not under that name, but that's basically the character is mostly young Jodie Foster. That makes sense. And so. And I was bringing it up because, like, representative of new Hollywood. So Jodie Foster was in that era was like a rising busy child star. And then she. She had her breakout role in, I think in. In Taxi Driver, you know, where she's just like, you know, it's like incredibly revelatory, you know, acting performance. So she's sort of representative of the new. Of the quote, unquote, new Hollywood with the much more naturalistic, like, the actual naturalistic acting style that took over from the much more stylized style of the 50s and 60s. And so I just bring it up because to your point, part of the story there is written on, you know, basically trying to get out of basically making cliched, happening genre stuff, right, where he just plays tough guy over and over again. Well, so. So the running joke up until that point is that Rick Dalton starts. Started out his career as like a tough guy movie star. And then basically, you know, over the years, like that, that. That archetype was kind of fading in 1969, so he was increasingly be being cast as the bad guy. And then, you know, and the thing is, you know, the bad guy, you know, gets like, punched, is not the guy who punches and knocks other people out. He's the guy who gets punched and knocked out, and he's sort of on this dumber slide, and he has absolutely no idea how to adapt himself to this new world. And in fact. And again, the way the movie, the way this intersects with the other part of the movie is literally when Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate move in next door to his character. And literally he's like, oh, my God, if I could just figure out a way to get invited over for a barbecue or something where I could just meet Roman Polanski, who's the leading kind of new Hollywood movie director of that time, if I could Just get caption one of his movies, then I could stay relevant for the next decade. And he just had absolutely. We. There was just absolutely no reason for like Roman philosopher, shared Tate, to give. To give this Rick Dalton character, you know, the time of day because he just de. Represented the past, they represent the future. Until of course, at the very end of the movie, you know, Rick Dalton saves, you know, saves her life and then in that she isn't. You know, that's the significance of, of him being invited over at the end of the movie is that sort of his entree to Hollywood, having basically been taught by Jodie Foster as an 11 year old in actually how to act. Basically it comes together. It's such a genius way anyway. Yeah. So basically the macro relevance of this, just to kind of restate the thesis is if the Manson murders were kind of where the cultural revolution, the 1960s went bad, then once upon a time in Hollywood, it's sort of the fantasy or the love letter to a different America in which that didn't happen. Right. And basically things kept going in a much more positive direction. But by putting on screen the alternate direction, my view is like, he really highlights how bad it was that that's not what happened. And so the tragedy of the Manson murders was not just the tragedy for the people who were killed and for their families and which was a profound tragedy, but the tragedy was like, for basically for all of la, because like la, if you talk to people who were around during that period, like things got dark in LA very quickly. Like people were so freaked out by the Manson murders, like they didn't know how many other serial killers were running around. They didn't know how many other cults there were. Everybody all of a sudden had to like lock their doors. Like people stopped going out. Like it became like. And by the way, this was the beginning of the heyday of the serial killer, you know, with Ted Bundy and you know, like, it was the beginning of this like wave of these things where people got like really, really seriously freaked out. And so that was the other. But. But then just generally in America that, you know, as I said, like that was the beginning of the downward slide in the 70s. And so by, by making the what if positive kind of, you know, all counterfactual so clear, it sort, to me it sort of highlights and illustrates in maybe the way that nothing else has been able to do. Kind of the darkness actually played out in real life.
- [21:14]
Kathryn Boyle
Totally, totally. And like I went back and watched the beginning of the sequence because it's actually a long sequence of violence. But what I remember so much. I read the reviews before, not knowing. You know, they try to not have spoiler alerts. And critics were very divided. It was like, this is so violent. This is extremely violent. And what's funny about seeing it in the theater, which was. I'm so glad I saw in the. The theme is that the reaction from the audience. And these are. Again, it's like, if you've been opening week and these are people who, like, really wanted to see this movie or are Tarantino fans, is extreme laughter.
- [21:48]
Marc Andreessen
Yes.
- [21:49]
Kathryn Boyle
As it is. You are laughing during the most violent sequence for 20 minutes. And what's really funny about what's happening on screen too, is that Cliff, who's the. You know, the stuntmen. And again, this is a spoiler. Like, turn this off. I'm gonna go into detail that he takes an edible, like. Or lsd. I can't remember if it's an edible or ls.
- [22:07]
Marc Andreessen
Smokes. Smokes an LSD cigarette.
- [22:10]
Kathryn Boyle
Yes. So. So right before. So he is, like, high as a kite when these guys come in, which is also, like, a funny part of it. And the other part that you have to like. Tarantino is so particular about details. And so the music that is playing when they come in is actually this, like, psychedelic rock band, like, and he shows the kind of transition of the 60s through music, through the entire thing, which is really important. But that scene, he's listening to the Supremes. Set me free, why don't you, babe? Right? Like, so it's this perfect moment of, like, Set me free. And these guys come in, he's high, and he's like, is this. Is this real? But. But Cliff. Cliff's response is like, laughter. He's laughing at these women, right? And these women, you know, they have their. Their knives, like, they. They are ready to. To do. To do the deed, you know, And. And. And he's laughing. And I think it's. In some ways it's. You know, Tarantino always has sort of these, like, takes on, like, masculine.
- [23:06]
Marc Andreessen
Know.
- [23:06]
Kathryn Boyle
Can't. Can you. Can you. Can you come. Can you can take the power out of whatever situation and in history by just like, this extreme violence and, like, you know, it's about to happen. And there's like a. I won't ruin the pitbull part, but, like, there is something where it's. Let's ruin it.
- [23:19]
Marc Andreessen
Let's ruin it. We're ruining.
- [23:20]
Kathryn Boyle
Okay, like, he. He sics his pitbull on. On these women, right? But it. But the watching it again, you're like, this is. It's fascinating because if. If the Mansons had been met with laughter, right? Like, instead they were met with. These are the most evil. They're. They're, you know, they're. They're. They're taken by the devil, right? Like, they were met with fear. And to Mark's point, like, that set off serial killers. Like, it gave power to this extraordinary evil for decades. And I think the point of it is, like, what if Cliff, the most masculine, deadly man in the room, had just been high and laughed and like, you know, sicced his pit bull on these women who, you know, are kind of silly and high themselves? And like, the whole thing had become a comedy, which it turns into like 20 minutes of just sheer hilar, like just absolute hilarity, even though it's the most violent thing you've probably seen in the last several years.
- [24:14]
Marc Andreessen
The Bradford character beats a him to death with a telephone. And it's just the funniest thing you've ever.
- [24:18]
Kathryn Boyle
It's like.
- [24:19]
Marc Andreessen
It's.
- [24:19]
Kathryn Boyle
It's. Yeah, it's like. And the flamethrower shows up, right? Like, I mean, it is. You could not conceive of the type of violence it meets. The most horrific violence that we know is coming, right? And like, that's the backstory to this too, is like, you know, what really happened. So you have this weird response of, you know, what actually happened, and it's so tragic. It was women on. You know, I always think it's interesting that it was like the Manson family, right? They called themselves family. It was a perversion of the family, and they actually killed a woman who was eight months pregnant, starting a family. So it's like this horrific. That's a whole. Whole other narrative to this, but, like, the fact that it's met with even more extreme violence. And at the time, it was during, you know, it was during MeToo as well. So it was violence against women. But of course, everyone wants that violence to happen because you don't want the alternative to happen. So it's this very strange movie going experience that is both delightful but also, like, you know, a lot of mixed emotions that I think, you know, probably that's why I think critics were so divided on it. I loved it, but that's why I think critics were divided on it.
- [25:25]
Marc Andreessen
Yeah. And then if you can telescope up, you know, one notch, it's. Catherine, your point. It's like. It's like the ultimate at square in the form of Rick Dalton is like, you know, still putting bro cream in his hair and trying to be like, you know, kind of James Dean tough guy, you know, you know, when that's not what the world wants. And then, and then you know, basically like I said, you know, Captain America, like an icon of the American military, you know, at the time, you know, by the way, at the time of Vietnam in which, you know, the military was, you know, not, was. It was not viewed at the level of respect that American culture has right today. You know, the fact that those two, you know, end up basically beating and roasting a bunch of hippies to death at the height of the counterculture. It's an incredibly crowd pleasing movie. And that as you said, it kind of happened at sort of the sort of, you know, very, very close to peak woke kind of during our cultural revolution the last decade. Like it, it's, it's. I, I don't know if, I don't know if it's properly characterized as like a reactionary movie, but it, it, it, it definitely not, it was definitely not the arc, the moral arc of, of, of, of other attempts at arc during that time period.
- [26:23]
Kathryn Boyle
Totally, totally. And, and, and just even the, the final scene of as you said, and her sort of being blissfully unaware, this happens. I mean that felt magical of it. Like she had no idea that someone. This happens. And you see the camera sort of pan up and it's like this is like, it just genuinely feels like this is, you know, in the same way that Inglourious Basterds was a revenge drama of what could have possibly happened, this is also like the Once Upon a Time in America story. Like what could have happened. And it was a weird movie going experience in 2019 to be surrounded by people who were laughing, who loved it. You know, it kind of went against everything, everything you were reading in the news, which is that like, you know, no one agrees with, with sort of this, this alternative history. I mean it was, it's just a brilliant film that, that yeah, I'm excited. There's a sequel coming, right Mark?
- [27:13]
Marc Andreessen
There is indeed. There is a, There's a deed which is going to be. And let me also say number one, there's a sequel coming which, you know, it's going to be just incredible, I'm sure. But also there was a. There Tarantino. It's so funny. So you guys may both remember this, but back before the Internet and even back before like DVDs and video rentals, if, if you like didn't see a movie when it was in the theater, like you didn't see it and, like, it might show up on TV, like, two years later, but they would have cut all the good parts out, and they would have, you know, stuck in all the commercials. And so you, like, basically in one shot to see a movie in the theater. And then if you wanted to see it again and it was out of theater, you couldn't. And so there was this genre of paperback novelizations of movies. And so what you would do is you would buy the paperback novelization and you could read that as many times as you want. So, you know, my. I had a shot these things when I was a kid. You know, Star wars and all these things, you know, you know, read them all, like, 14 times. And so anyway, so Tarantino being sort of a child of this era, like I am Tarantino, actually wrote a paperback novelization of the movie Once upon a Time in Hollywood. And he specifically wrote it as a paperback novelization. And so it came out in paperback and very much as an homage to this. But, of course, being Tarantino, it actually turns out, of course, it's not just a paperback novelization. It turns out it's like an entirely new novel. And it's actually funny because it doesn't. The novel is sat in the same world of the movie and goes much deeper into the theme themes of the movie. But, like, he doesn't even get. He doesn't care at all about, like, having the plot of the movie actually in the novel. And so he just throws away right up front in the novel. Oh, yeah, yeah. And then Rick Dalton, like, roasted a bunch of hippies, you know, his swimming pool that night. Right? So, like, it's like the plot's not the point for the novelization. So the novelization, I think. I think, is a. Very few people have read it, you know, kind of just by ratio of how he. How he came out with it, I think, because I think people didn't know what to make of, like, literally a paperback novelization in, like, 2022 or whatever came out now. But I think he does a reasonable claim on being a great American novel. And the reason specifically, Kevin, I think you write a lot because it just. It goes much deeper into all the themes of the, you know, that we're talking about. And so it, like, it goes really deep into the transformation of Hollywood that was happening at that time. You know, it goes really deep into the making, you know, this. The western show that happens inside the movie, which is actually a real show called Lancer. It was actually a real show with. With that, you Know, with that setup and with those actors. Characters, and it goes much deeper into all the characters, and it goes deeper into the Manson family. And so it's. Yeah, it's really amazing. And by the way, I should also say the movie does have a scene in which it is left ambiguous as to whether or not Cliff Booth killed his wife. By the way, let me just say the wife, played by Rebecca Tehart, who just, like. I think she's in the movie for, like, 30 seconds, and she almost steals the movie. Like, she's just hysterically funny. And she plays, like, the meanest, like, wife in the world. She's just, like, hectoring and, like, screaming at Brad Pitt. And they're literally on a fishy boat. Brad Pitt has a spear gun in his lap. And it is sort of. And in the movie, it's, like, set up as basically, you know, there was a speargun accident, you know, following this argument. And did Brad Pitt actually deliberately kill his wife or not? And of course, in the novelization, it makes very clear, yes, he. In fact, yes, he. I think. I think it's in the. I think it's in the novel. I think it's like, yes, Brad Pitt definitely killed his wife and got married. Cliff Booth killed his wife and got married with it. And then I think that. I think. I think he says. The novel. He says. And that was one of the three times that Cliff Booth committed murder and got away with it. So, anyway, anyway, for those of you who've only seen the movie, it turn. It turns. It turns out the Cliff Booth character actually, yes, has a real dark side. And yes, the. The hippies picked the wrong house stu. To stumble into. And.
- [30:42]
Moderator
And so is the. We were talking offline about how it's, you know, there's some relevance to today is. Is the connection that. That, you know, the 2000 and tens, to some people was seen as a sort of glorious march towards, you know, progress. And then, you know, whether it's the 2020 Floyd riots or more recently, the Luigi, you know, Manion murder or the murder of Charlie Kirk, there's kind of this moment of, oh, my God, this thing is gone off there. Is that.
- [31:07]
Marc Andreessen
That kind of the. Yeah. So I would say whichever side of the political and social spectrum you're on, like, the world that we live in today is a much darker version of what everybody thought we were going to be living in. I mean, mean, like, so for people who were, like, 100% on board with, like, the social. So back up a second, Eric, to your point. So, like, I Think there's a very direct analogy of let's call it 1964-1972 or something with the reelection of Richard Nixon. Like that cultural revolution that happened during the 60s, kind of the hippie Vietnam, you know, kind of revolution. I think what we, what we in America have been through in the last decade is sort of another version of that. Like I think we went through our version of that. It started around, I would date it to like 2015, 2014 and then you know, it basically that era sort of ended November 2024. Obviously if you're on the right, you're like, oh my God, thank God that's over and the world could move on. If you're on the left, of course, you're like, oh my God, what just happened? How did the revolution imperialism go so bad? That is precisely what happened at the end of the revolution, the 1960s and specifically I mentioned 1972. So Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968 and it was a hard fought race in very dramatic Minnesota. Right. But then he was re elected in 1970 too in a landslide, like I usually was to Catherine. It was like a 49 state landslide or some crazy thing. Like it was just like overwhelming landslide. So it's like the American people basically rose up and basically said, yeah, no more of this, it's over. And so we, you know, we, I mean the echoes are just like profound of how this played out, you know, and they're echoes, right. It's not exactly comparable, you know, in Iraq and Vietnam, you know, play different roles and so forth. And the economy, you know, is developed in different ways and you know, Trump and Nixon are different people and so forth but. And the social movements are different, you know, and times have changed, but still like there was a cultural revolution, it was either glorious or terrible for some period of time and then get ended. Right. It was just like a sequence of events happened where just like it was over and you're out the other side and you're in a new world. And then I would argue like that's exactly what, that's exactly the process kicked off in 69 with the massive murders and then sort of bookended in 72 with Nixon's re election and then kind of slide into the 1970s and then ultimately 1990s communities like that transformation. And then I would argue that's precisely the same kind of transition that we're going through right now. And I think it's either thrilling or horrifying people in a very similar way at the end of the 60s either thrilled or horrified people. Catherine, would you agree with that?
- [33:29]
Kathryn Boyle
I would, I would. And I also, since you mentioned Vietnam, I want to transition to the best Vietnam war film ever made.
- [33:38]
Marc Andreessen
Okay, this is. This. This is everything we've set up until now is milquetoast as compared to. To the extremely controversial plan that Catherine's about to make. Please go for it.
- [33:45]
Kathryn Boyle
It is. It is by far the best Vietnam war film ever made. And of course, it incorporates every Vietnam War film every ever made, including Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, you know, once, or Born on the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now. The best Vietnam war film ever made is Tropic Thunder, but it also happens to be one of the best films about Hollywood. Actually. I would actually say that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, while his incredible film is more about America, but Tropic Thunder is also about America in different ways and reveals a lot about America, but is by far the best Hollywood film ever made. I'll let Mark talk about why that is.
- [34:25]
Marc Andreessen
Well, data. Tropic Thunder was what year it was?
- [34:29]
Kathryn Boyle
2008, which is actually very important, because I think one of the things that people forget is that 2008 was also the year where we had a POW from the Vietnam War running for office against the first black president in history. And that is a very important context for all of the themes dealt with inside of Tropic Thunder, which, of course, is a comedy, it's a satire, but it satirizes everything in the kind of before times. 2008. But I think that is a very important subtext to what came out during an election year where those two themes were on display. But I'll let Mark get into the summary since it's also one of his favorite, favorite films.
- [35:09]
Marc Andreessen
Well, it is. Although I. I'm gonna. I'm defer so. Because, you know, I think it's. I think it's historically fun. You know, it's maybe the funniest movie. Funniest Hollywood movie the last 25 years or something. Like, it's just. It's just like an incredibly entertaining movie. And just for people to just have a sense of, like, how much times have changed. Like, the most. I mean, there's many amazing things about it, but one of the most amazing things about it is, you know, they go, the great actor Robert Downey Jr. Plays the entire movie in blackface. And not only plays the entire movie in blackface, like, I would say, extraordinarily commits a bit.
- [35:41]
Kathryn Boyle
He's a method actor playing a method actor. Movie in method playing another method actor playing an actor in a type of blackface. Again, which, to your point on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, when the film was first announced, this was known that Robert Downey Jr. Was going to be playing an actor in blackface. And as you can imagine, it was the same thing that happened with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, where it was like. Like. Like the. You know, in the same way that the. The Tate family was terrified of what would happen in the film, there was a whole kind of, you know, terror of what. What is going to. Like Robert Downey Jr. Like. Like. Like he's destroying his career. Like, who does Ben Stiller think he is doing this movie? Right? Like, no one actually knew the backstory or how it will be satirizing Hollywood actors who will go through any extreme length to win an Oscar. But. But when you get into the film, it is handled so beautifully and delicately. And actually, I was. I was reading. I was reading how they handled it when they were producing it, which was that they invited, you know, a number of members of the naacp. They invited, you know, a number of different, like, very thoughtful critics and said, you have to see this film first and see. And it was again, the same sort of thing where it's like, everyone saw it first and they said, don't worry, it's perfect. Right? It's hilarious. And so I'll let you continue. But it, like, they handled it in a way.
- [36:58]
Moderator
Did. Did they have to apologize in the 2010s? I remember Jimmy Kimmel had to apologize for blackface or something, or one of these people. Did they get away with it?
- [37:06]
Kathryn Boyle
Interesting point. So they didn't. So when it came out, it was so clearly satirizing white actors who were trying to win an Oscar. Right? Like, so it was clearly satirizing everyone. It was not. It was. You know, it was. It was sort of universally beloved. So much so that. That Robert Downey Jr. Was nominated for an Oscar, which is a whole other backstory to how they made that happen, because it was kind of a continuation of the movie that they, as a joke, joke, petitioned the Academy, you know, it said, for your consideration. And the Academy actually nominated him for an Oscar for the role. So it was so beloved, like, what he did and how brilliant the role was that no one cared. But I believe it was like, 2017 or 2018 when this sort of, like, new crop of young people came through journalism and said, like, this is horrible. They tried to sort of cancel him. You might know Mark better if how he handled it, but, like, like, clearly they did not Cancel Robert Downey Jr. For doing a satirization of the role he played.
- [38:05]
Marc Andreessen
So just to fill this in, and then we'll get to the. I'm going to get to Catherine. The Vietnam aspects of this, but Vietnam War movie aspects to this. But yeah. So just specifically what happened was. Correct me if I have this wrong. Robert Downey Jr. A white American actor, plays a white Australian actor who is a method actor, who I think was sort of loosely inspired by Daniel Day Lewis as sort of a, you know, sort of that kind of sort of, you know, super ill elite. You know, there's a couple scenes where you see. Where you see. Where you see Robert out of black face, but dressed up. Dressed up as the Australian actor who, like, has, like. I forget what's like, translucent green eyes or something. It's this very striking look and, like this very plummy Australian accent. And so it's a white American actor in real life playing a white Australian actor playing a southern black man in blackface for the entire movie. On top of that, I believe Robert Downey often. Often improvises throughout his MOV movies. And I think a fair amount of the. I think a fair. A fair amount of the portrayal was him on the spur of the moment, which is fairly incredible when you see it because he fully inhabits the world. And then, of course, he's actually in the movie. He's actually in the movie, inside the movie. He's in a platoon with, of course, Ashley. Black guy, who's a young black actor whose name I can't recall. But he just, like. It's impressive having this.
- [39:24]
Kathryn Boyle
It was such a special to him. It's a brilliant. Like, the way they play off each other is brilliant. His name in the film is Al Pacino. Chino, but Al Pacino, he's a rapper.
- [39:34]
Marc Andreessen
He's a rapper who becomes an actor.
- [39:36]
Kathryn Boyle
Yes. And there's a whole other.
- [39:41]
Marc Andreessen
Go ahead. Sorry.
- [39:42]
Kathryn Boyle
Oh, no, no. I was gonna say there's a whole other through line there of his. His role. Because I think one of the things that everyone remembers in the film is they have the fake trailers before the film starts, and he is Al Pacino the rapper and he's selling a drink that he calls Booty Sweat. And what's so funny about, like, how brilliant this film is because not only do they satirize Hollywood in the film, they were like the first Barbenheimer, like, what they did. They're like, we're going to market this in so many funny ways. They did incredible things before and after the film. But one of the things that they did was they made Booty Sweat into an actual drink. Marketed it through the entire Oscar petition. Like they, they went so far. I mean, the only film that's done this as exceptional as Tropic Thunder was Barbie. But they figured out how to turn every aspect of this film into a marketing genius. The other smart thing that they did, by the way, that one of the actors that Ben Stiller. Ben Stiller plays, this guy named Tug Speedman who is based on a dumb. Tom Cruise. His name is Tug Speedman. Right. Like, where did they get that name? It's Tom Cruise. But they also have Tom Cruise in the movie as, as the producer who's based on Harvey Weinstein. Les. I can't remember his name.
- [40:54]
Marc Andreessen
Les Grossman.
- [40:55]
Kathryn Boyle
Les Grossman. Yes. And so. But they didn't want anyone to know Tom Cruise was in the film. So they actually sued anyone, any of the paparazzi who took pictures of him before, because they wanted people to come to the theater and not know that Tom Cruise was in it. And of course, he like wrote his entire role, like, to your point, in improv, he improvised that entire role and wrote it like it was sort of hit. Tom Cruise's brainchild. I think they originally offered him something else and he's like, no, no, I want to play Harvey Weinstein. And it is genius. But they did so many things to make sure that the entire sort of cult of the movie, outside of the movie was like Hollywood produced. Where you, to Mark's point, you have this method actor playing a method actor who is trying to get an Oster through his method acting, who ultimately ends up getting nominated for the Oscar, losing to Heath Ledger the year that Ledger died posthumously when it was awarded to him. But it's. It's like they could not have. It is a 20 year project. That's the other. That's the other very interesting thing about this was like Ben Stiller has been working on this since the 80s and it was just that year where they were finally able to get it made. And it is this brilliant commentary on all of Hollywood. And we can get into the Vietnam stuff too, because I think it's also a commentary on that. But it is the best Hollywood film ever made, even in the fact that they were able to successfully sway the Oscars.
- [42:16]
Marc Andreessen
Right. Well, it was also, Catherine, to your point, it was also the reset of the Tom Cruise image issues at the time, because this was after the sort of run of controversy around him and Scientology and his personal life and all those things. And there There was this run of very bad publicity. A lot of people in the industry were worried that he was not going to be a bankable movie star anymore. And I think that this role in this movie was basically his recovery from that, which. Which was pulled off absolutely perfectly. And of course, he then went on to be an even bigger movie star than before. Totally. Yeah. So it's a great career resurrection in the middle of this.
- [42:45]
Kathryn Boyle
Yeah.
- [42:45]
Marc Andreessen
And then, yeah, just. Just in terms of, like, how. How much times have changed or, you know, somebody once said that the past is a. Is a foreign planet or, or another country is. Yeah. Like, you had. You had an American actor being nominated for an Oscar for, For a character performed at black blackface in 2008, directed by a Hollywood filmmaker who is obviously a genius, but, you know, within 10 years was like, he, you know, Ben Stiller subsequently became one of the wokest Hollywood figures. You know, in the years that follow, like, you know, all through the last decade, like, Ben Stiller has been like, you know, you know, to the left of Che Guevara on every social and political issue. And so, you know, I don't know, I've never met him. I've had great admirer at his art, but, like, I wonder how much of his shift to the far left, politically and socially was a reaction to having made this movie.
- [43:32]
Kathryn Boyle
Well, and the other thing is, I mean, everyone focuses on Robert Downey Jr. But there are, like, at least four other untouchable things that happen in that film. So the, the disability advocates. Actually, when the film came out, the people who were Most upset in 2008 were the disability advocates because of the commentary on what's. I believe it's what's eating Gilbert Grape. Right. Never, like, all of a sudden, Forrest Gump.
- [43:55]
Marc Andreessen
And Forrest Gump.
- [43:56]
Kathryn Boyle
And Forrest Gump. Yes, yes.
- [43:57]
Marc Andreessen
And Rayman and Raymond. But, yeah, Simple Jack.
- [44:02]
Kathryn Boyle
Simple Jack, yes. So the, the, the famous line that is said is. And again, I'm quoting the film never go full retard, which was okay to say in 2008, except for the disability advocates who were very upset about it. And of course, like, they were sort of on the fringe in 2008, but that was actually the thing that Ben Stiller had to apologize for because they didn't test the film on SimpleJack, but it was commentary from Robert Downey Jr. In blackface, saying everybody knows, and then saying the line. Right. Because Doug Speedman doesn't play it as he should. He does the Leo DiCaprio, what's eating Gilbert Grape? Sort of like, you Know, full on. Right. Doesn't Rainmaker. But there's two other things that happen. So the. The other thing that I think people didn't realize is that it is so much of a commentary on Vietnam War film because a lot of Vietnam War memoirs in later years have been proven to be completely disingenuous. Right? So it's like people who said they went to Vietnam didn't go to Vietnam. And so in the storyline and the film, the guy whose memoir Tropic Thunder the movie is actually based on.
- [45:09]
Marc Andreessen
Right.
- [45:10]
Kathryn Boyle
Is a member of the Coast Guard who never got sent to Vietnam, who worked for the sanitation Department. Right. That's like a whole theme in the movie. And so there's this, like, brilliant commentary also on, like, you know, veterans issues. And I think some veterans groups were upset about it. There were also people who were very upset with Tom Cruise's portrayal. And it was, you know, it was before we kind of all knew who he was portraying and everything, but there were people who were very upset that they felt that that was a stereotype. So, like, pretty much every character, like, there was. There was people who were. And again, these are fringes. It wasn't like mass commentary on this, but they're like, they managed to insult, like, every protected group in a way that like. Like everyone kind of was like, well, yeah, but it's. It's satire, right? So it was a totally different time in America, but it wasn't just, you know, focus on. On race relations. I mean, it was on. You know, we had a V again. We had a Vietnam POW running for president that year. Year. And. And basically a mockery, like, the greatest mockery of Vietnam film ever made. So in some ways, it's like this film was just like, so perfectly timed for the era we were living in.
- [46:14]
Marc Andreessen
Well, we still have to this day. Let's not name names on. On. On. That's otherwise a fun. A fun podcast. But there are c. United States politicians in. In serious offices who like, literally faked Vietnam War records. Like that. Like, that's not over. Like, that's actually still the case. And so to. To your point, like, you know, there. There were many people obviously, who served very honorably Vietnam, and then there completely fake stories and wrote them the rest of their career. And like, you know. Yeah. So the movie takes like, it's your point. Movie, among other things, takes direct aim at that.
- [46:43]
Kathryn Boyle
And I believe the guy wears a hook the whole film's hand. I mean, like, there's like, this movie is so brilliant. It's so brilliant. And the levels of, of commentary just are remarkable to this day.
- [46:57]
Marc Andreessen
Yes, yes. And so. Yes, yes. Cute. Yes. I mean, just like, so, yeah, maybe this is bookends the previous, previous conversation of just like. Yes, this is clearly made before the cultural, before our verse with the cultural revolution. And so it's, it's, it's like a, it's like, it's like an ancient artifact. Like I say, only now are we reemerging into a world in which a movie like that could be made. Like for a movie like that, for the last probably, what, 13 years or something would have been totally off limits. And we're coming out into a world now where movies like that can get made again.
- [47:26]
Moderator
Yeah, Jimmy Kimmel's not going to bring back the man show.
- [47:30]
Marc Andreessen
Her return to.
- [47:30]
Moderator
His, his, his routine.
- [47:32]
Kathryn Boyle
Words.
- [47:33]
Marc Andreessen
For people who follow. Yes. For people who don't get the reference, for anybody who followed the recent Jimmy Kimmel sort of affair and all of the outrage, it is worth going on YouTube and just, yeah, looking at clips from a Jimmy Kimmel show 20 years ago, which was literally called the man show, and to, just to get a sense of the long and twisty road that some of our highest, most famous public figures have followed.
- [47:57]
Kathryn Boyle
And also a tale of two comedians. Right, because it's him and Adam Carolla, right, And it's like their careers have detoured dramatically. Play the show.
- [48:06]
Marc Andreessen
Yes, that's right.
- [48:07]
Moderator
Two other films we wanted to discuss were Oppenheimer and Fight Club.
- [48:12]
Marc Andreessen
So let's start with, let's start with, let's start with Oppenheimer. Just because it's, it's more, it's, it's more recent. So I, I, I will make the case. So I'm a, I'm a, you know, enormous Christopher Nolan fan. I've seen all his movies. I love all his movies. I, I think they're really tremendous. You know, I, I think that I, you know, I say this, I'm, I think Tenet is one of the best movies I've ever seen. And like, I, I, I, I sat through Tenet with a giant smile on my face. The entire movie, like, was just like absolute magic. Obviously, I love Deception. I love many of his movies, but I think Oppenheimer was like an incredibly well made movie and had incredible performances and was put together really well. It was tremendously interesting to watch. I will argue that it did not reach our level of capital A art. I think it actually quite badly fell short on sort of, I would say, morality and ultimately in importance to our culture. But yeah, Let me, I'm be happy to get my feel on that. But let me just start by saying Catherine would just out of the gate. Would you agree with me on that or would you like to, would you like to take that, Would you like to take the pro side that Oppenheimer was greater?
- [49:13]
Kathryn Boyle
No, I, I, I agree with you, but I probably, I probably concur, like, I probably have different reasons than you as to why I didn't think it worked. Like, and I should, I should preface it with like, I, I had hyped this movie so much where my expectations might have been so ridiculously high that when I finally saw it I was like, meh. But I do think it's interesting. Robert Downey Jr. Was all, he won the Academy Award finally for Oppenheimer. He deserved it for Tropic Thunder. He was fantastic in the movie. But I will say he deserved it for Tropic Thunder. And if not for Heath Ledger, he would have won it for Tropic Thunder. And I feel like that that would have been really the role he should have won it for. But he was fantastic in Oppenheimer as well. So to your point, like there were many good performances. My sort of criticism is probably different than yours, but it probably has a lot more to do with like the actual sort of storytelling and filmmaking than the actual content of, of the, of the work.
- [50:05]
Marc Andreessen
Okay, got it. Yeah. So, because I would say so for people who haven't seen it, we're going to spoil it. So Robert, Robert, Robert Downing plays a real life guy named Lewis Strauss who was a, he was a very high ranking, like sort of important person of the, of the, of the 1950s, 1960s in the government and ended up, I forget the exact role, but basically ended up overseeing Oppenheimer, having a security clearance stripped and basically being booted out of the, out of the military industrial complex after, after, you know, basically leading the creation of the atomic bomb. And the movie kind of goes through that whole story and you know, it's a fantastic performance. All the, all, I mean look, all the performances in the movie were fantastic. Tillian Murphy was just outstanding as Oppenheimer. And then I was in Ben. I think it's Benny Safdie, one of the Safdie brothers, played Edward Teller and like almost just stole the movie just with that portrayal. And again, you know, a real person, but creator, but later the creator of the hydrogen bomb. Anyway, so fantastic performances, fantastic direction. I don't know. I will argue my critique of the movie though. It involves the following claim, which is that Lewis Strauss is actually the hero of the movie.
- [51:08]
Kathryn Boyle
Yes. Maybe go into that history. So people understand because that is definitely not the takeaway from the film.
- [51:14]
Marc Andreessen
Yes. That is not what the film intend. You know, the film intended. I think the film intensity of. Catherine would agree with this. The film intended to contrast basically a great man, Oppenheimer, to basically an aspirant to greatness who, you know, fell badly short in the Lewis Drought character who sort of brought the great man low and in a fund fundamentally unfair way. And then it sort of. The movie sort of sets up both Oppenheimer and actually also specifically Albert Einstein as sort of the key moral authorities of. Of the era with respect to use of nuclear weapons. Both. Both claims of which I believe are like deeply incorrect on substance. And this is my critique of this. My critique of the movie is not in its execution or any of the performances. My critique is the morality of the movie, I think is very badly upset upside down. And it's upside down in a way that kind of flatters our current politics, but like is very badly upside down in terms of what actually happened at the time. And so the. The movie basically tells the story. Of course, Robert Oppenheimer, the. The sort of person who ran the Manhattan Project, created the atomic bomb, which was then, you know, at least historically gets credit for, you know, helping to end World War II, you know, when. When. When the US dropped. Drop dropped, you know, the only two uses of the atomic bomb in wartime, you know, to date, where, you know, the US dropped a bomb on. On Japan twice in 1945. And you know, and, you know, there's even still to this. But, you know, generally accepted history, I think is that. That, you know, that ended the Pacific theater conflict, you know, sooner than it would have. It prevented the need for a land invasion of Japan, you know, you know, conceivably, you know, save like a million lives or something like that. Now, by the way, it was dropping the atomic bomb on two civilian cities. Right. So again, you know, like, the morality at the time was, you know, quite a bit different than, you know, than maybe ours today. But. But anyway, so that's kind of history of it. And then, you know, famously, the Manhattan Project was sort of this assembly of. Of sort of the finest minds in America, Many. Many of whom by the way, were, you know, refugee, you know, not. Not often I'm. Oppenheimer's character actually is a. Is a play, is a. In. In a movie, in. In reality and in the movie is German Jewish, whose family, you know, had. Who his family had arrived much earlier. And. But then a lot of the other key members of the Manhattan Project, you know, kind of been one of the great twists of irony were Hungarian Jewish refugees from, you know, from. From basically the Nazi kind of rampage through Europe, you know, who came to the U.S. and basically, you know, helped arm up the U.S. of which Edward Teller was example of that. And so anyway, so the movie tells us kind of amazing story of the Manhattan Project, but specifically the arc of Oppenheimer. I guess I'd say that the conventional. Let me back up for a sec. I think the first half of the movie, I think, is actually quite historically grounded and I think has at least I agreed with this interpretation of history. And so there's a following. So the first half. And I think the movie's maybe a little bit schizophrenic and I should give it a little bit more credit than I. Than I was. But, like, the first half of the movie is actually a. It's one of the only recreations on film of what American elite culture and society and American research establishment of kind of the leading experts at the time, the 1920s and 30s, like, how thoroughly saturated that that world was Communism. And. And specifically, it sort of recreates, you know, this sort of the. There's actually. There's actually a joke in the movie. There's a line in the movie that sort of one of these. One of these jokes is not really a joke, which is the joke, as you know, because there. A lot of the movie takes place as is set up as at UC Berkeley. And there's sort of a joke in the movie which is like, you know, well, you know, you know, it's so and so on the Berkeley faculty, you know, as a communist and somebody else will says, yes, like, half the Berkeley faculty are communists. Like, every. Like, everybody knows that. Like, it's just completely taken for granted. And of course, you know, the politics of that aside, the issue becomes. Okay, now they're working on a classified weapons program. You know, the US is, you know, is kind of variously at odds with not just Germany, but also with Soviet Russia. And, you know, there's this very big concern, you know, this effort is inventing this, you know, super superweapon. And there was a, you know, very high degree of concern that the. The secrets of the atomic bomb were going to, you know, just walk their way out the. Out the door from Los Alamos that were going to end up, you know, bad people's hands, you know, and one fear obviously was they'd end up in Hitler's hands. But another fear was they would end up in Stalin's hands. And by the way, spoiler alert, that's exactly what happened. So in fact the nuclear secrets walk right out the door. And you know, and basically the, both the concepts of the atomic bomb and then actually, actually the specific wiring instructions for the atomic bomb were actually walking right out the back door of Los Alamos into, into, into, into Soviet's hands. And Stalin got the bomb very quickly after that. And it was directly derived from the work that actually happened on the Manhattan Project. And so it turned out the Manhattan Project like it really was renal time to despise. And there, there's these famous names in history, like the Rosenbergs, like David Greenglass that you can go through and read about if you want. But like, like the, the fears of all of the people who were worried about this were actually correct. It is actually what happened. By the way, there's a character in the movie, Boris Pash, who is sort of the security officer at the Manhattan Project, if both in real life and in the movie. In the movie he's sort of portrayed as this like guy with basically essentially a stick up his butt. Like this like guy who's like, you know, like constantly like, you know, cross examining and not trusting the scientists and thinks that I'm a. Oppenheimer is probably a spy and the whole thing. And he's kind of portrayed as this like over the top, you know, kind of thing. But like if you, if you go, if you read his Wikipedia entry of like what his life story had been up until that point, he's another one of these guys who are just like, yeah, just this, this incredibly impressive backstory of like service to the country and fight a communist. And then you know, and then like, you know, whether he was right about Oppenheimer, what to talk about, but like he was right that like titlass almost with kind of despise and this is going to lead to catastrophe, you know, with, with Stalin getting the bomb. And then, you know, the Strauss character was also very worried about that. And again, you know, outside of whether he was right about Oppenheimer per se, he was, he was right about the, he was right about the broader issue. And so that is what actually happened. And so like all of the security concerns that are kind of set up to what is sort of portrayed as the persecution of Robert Oppenheimer, like they were all completely legitimate security concerns. And in fact the worst case scenario actually did happen. Like all the secrets like walk right out the door, went Straight to Stalin. The first Soviet. We now know this, the first Soviet atomic bomb was wire for wire compatible with the US Nagasaki bomb, right? So they got literally the wiring threats. And you know, for people who have read about nuclear weapons, like it's actually very hard to detonate at nuke and they have to be wired in a very specific way. It's like you can't, they're, they're very difficult to set off. And like the Soviet spies on the Manhattan Project literally like transfer that information to Russia made a nuclear power. And so anyway, like within that there's this arc of basically Oppenheimer, you know, was he or was he not? There's one arc actually which is was he or was he not himself a Soviet asset? Which is, it's generally viewed historically that he wasn't literally a Soviet asset, although I think there are still questions around that in fairness and we can talk about that. But then there's just this broader thing which is even if you to want wasn't like was he trustworthy and could, could he be relied upon? And then there was a specific thing that actually happened which the movie presents a version of that I think is not, is my understanding history is not correct, but which is Oppenheimer basically worked his butt off to, to deliver the atomic bomb for the purpose of beating Germany and Japan. But then immediately upon that happening, the US weapons program shifted into making the hydrogen bomb, which was going to be the, you know, the big one that was going to be used ultimately, you know, ultimately was going to be used in the, the Cold War as a deterrent against the Soviet Union in a project led by Edward Teller. And the accusation always was Oppenheimer deliberately slow rolled the development of the hydrogen bomb. He tried to prevent that from happening at first. Oppenheimer's version of the story is it's one thing to have a nuke that could take out a city to end a war. It's another thing to have a nuke that could take out the planet. And so should we really be doing this? But there's another version of the story which is you were completely in favor of beating Germany and Japan, but the minute it came to beating the Soviet Union, you got bit a quite whole feet. You know, isn't that interesting, right, that that's the thing that you didn't want to have happen. And then there's just the reality that like Oppenheimer's background and political activities and like all of the people around him, including his wife and his girlfriend and his brother were actual like I don't believe this would be the case. I think his wife, his girlfriend and, and his brother were all actual communists. Like actual capital C car carrying communists. And then Oppenheimer himself was like embroiled in communism. And it's, it's sort of communist, you know, sort of adjacent or organizations, you know, his entire life he's not known ever have been a member of the Communist Party. Although again there's, there's, there's, there's ambiguity there because the Soviets had a practice of having their best placed assets actually never become members of the Communist Party because of course they were trying to protect them against exactly the kind of persecution that Oppenheimer got, got, got levels against him. But anyway, so in, in the movie ultimately his security clearance gets, gets stripped and he sort of resigns to disgrace. The movie paints this as like a great act of moral heroism on his part where basically he wanted credit for the little bomb, but he didn't want the big bomb to happen and certainly didn't want to have anything to do with it. You know, and, and look, you know, he's dead, they're all dead. Like, you know, I, I don't know that we'll ever know like what, what, what lay in their hearts. But there are very interesting questions around this. And then there's the, the, and then there's my most stinging indictment of the movie which is Einstein was the exact opposite of immoral exemplar. Einstein was Stalinist. Like Einstein was like a full on. Like Einstein was pro stalic, like not even just pro communism was actually like pro Stalin and Einstein thought but like American democracy was like not going to cut it and we clearly needed to get to communist dictatorship. And there's a book that goes through this called When Reason Goes on Holiday that came out a few years ago that kind of goes through all of Einstein's writings and speeches, kind of reconstructs this history. And so the movie kind of presents Oppenheimer and Einstein as like the adults and especially Einstein as like the moral adults in the room to a degree that I just think is like basically at this point bizarre. And the reason it's bizarre is because the whole thing is set up of like oh my God, what if the atomic bomb destroys the world? Oh my God, you know, this whole thing and all politics involved in that sort of ending this forth. But like we're sitting here 80 years later and the thing that we know today, and I don't know that any of us would choose to have had the events play out this way. And maybe the world would be better without the bomb or whatever. But, like, what we know today is World War III didn't happen. And so basically, like, everybody, everybody in sort of the military, political establishment in 1945 kind of took it for granted that there was going to be World War three with the Soviet Union at some point, and it was going to be a land war, you know, in Europe and around the world. And it was going to kill probably, you know, on the order of 200 million people. And it was just going to be absolutely devastating. And like, you know, in any other era, like, of sort of geopolitics like that almost certainly would have happened, given how tense of it got, especially in the 60s and 70s. And like, literally it didn't happen. Like, World War III is the dog that didn't bite. And the reason World War 3 didn't happen is sort of, I think, fairly obvious, which is mutually assured disruption. Right? That the fact that both sides had nukes basically meant that neither side to go to war with the other. And that resulted in, you know, it resulted in a cold war, but not a hot war. And so I, you know, I think if you kind of stack up Oppenheimer and Teller and these guys, you kind of say, you know, bite. By building bombs that could destroy the world, they prevented at least one major world war, by the way, if not many. And by the way, the existence of nukes may prevent another world war for 500 years. We don't know yet. But mutually assured destruction is still in effect. They may be causing us to not have a hot war with China. The fact that both the US And China had nukes. And so anyway. And by the way, that's all debatable. And you could argue that. That. But, like, that's the argument. That's the argument that ought to happen, like, especially with what we know today. And I just thought the moody. Like, I thought the movie just like, really cheated on the morality of it because it kind of presented this as guy that slam dunk, that the nuke was bad and that these people were bad and the whole thing was bad and that Einstein was like a. Sorry. That both Einstein and Oppenheimer were moral heroes in some extent, kind of trying to line up against this. And I just thought that really cheated the audience.
- [62:27]
Kathryn Boyle
I think you and I are much closer on our critique of it. My sense is very similar to yours that it started it out very strong. Right? Like, like your, Your. The portrayal in Berkeley, like, was a very interesting. You know, like, you kind of, you Saw this complex figure and complex character. And then there's this whole middle section on the Manhattan Project that kind of culminates in what I would say is, like, incredible, like, visuals and sound. Like, actually, like, the movie excels in both score and sound. And if you saw it in the theater, you were like, the. The. The sound editing is like, the thing that won the Oscar. I think they won 10 Oscars. I mean, they won everything. But it's like. Like, sound editing and scores. Like, just incredible moviemaking. And then to. To use your word, schizophrenic. Like the third part, which is all about, you know, Robert Downey Jr. Jr's character being, like, a villain, it sort of ends with this. You know, there's this brilliant scene that I think everyone remembers where they show him giving a speech to all the people at Los Alamos. And then they show, like, him envisioning bodies in. You know, in Hiroshima, right? And you kind of see the juxtaposition. You see him sort of losing his sort of conviction that he did the right thing. And I feel like if they had just stopped the movie there, it would have been the commentary on, okay, we don't really understand his legacy. But instead they had to tie it up. It was almost like, for writers and artists, if you don't know how to end something, you kind of tie things up with neat bows that have nothing to do with the thing that happened before. And it felt like the third section on the security clearance and on him being a hero was almost like the filmmaker's apology. Like, actually, no, no, I'm gonna side. I'm actually gonna paint this for everyone inside that he was actually a good man. And. And there's. There's no sort of moral ambiguity about this. This figure. Like, he was actually a good man. And actually the real villains are the national security hawks and the people in Washington and the bureaucrats. And, like. And then it was just this sort of portrayal of, you know, the evil bureaucracy coming for the beautiful scientist. And. And it sort of mimicked, I think, also a conversation that was happening in 2023 when it came out, which is all of these great AI scientists basically saying, oh, well, no, AI is actually going to kill us all. And, you know, I know this because I'm an expert. It was like the same sort of thing. And I kind of felt like that was also the. The sort of language of the end of the film is like, no, no, it's normal for people who. Who build incredible things to, like, actually regret their innovation. And it just Felt like way too buttoned up for a film that has a lot more complexity and that if they had just ended it at hour two, it would have been masterpiece.
- [64:54]
Marc Andreessen
Yeah, it felt like you wanted to conform with President Amiral, like, very badly. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And so anyway, so that's my long extended argument for why Leo Strauss was actually the hero of the movie was correct. Oppenheimer could not be trusted. Oppenheimer needed to be rejected from the project. Also, Lewis Strauss is shown in the movie as being very jealous of Einstein, but if you squint, you could say he also had Einstein's number. He knew Einstein was not be trusted, which was 100% true. And then. Yeah, Catherine, to your point again, I guess exactly right, what you just said, the comparison to AI if you read the history of those people at that time, specifically people like Oppenheimer, you realize, yeah, the people who invent the technology have no special moral claim. They have no special predictive power for the consequences of the technology, and they have no basis for a superior moral claim on the implications of the technology. And I will say this, the movie being made by geniuses, there was a scene in the movie that actually did kind of of hit that, which was based on a real life thing that happened, which was Oppenheimer, after the war, visited Harry Truman in the White House. And basically, and this is sort of in the histories, in the real world histories, Oppenheimer basically went to Truman and essentially, basically confessed enormous guilt for having built the atomic bomb and for the US Having dropped it on Japan. And actually, in real life, Truman is. I forget the exact quote, but it's in the Truman biographies. Truman basically said, basically, basically got him out of his office as fast as possible and told his chief of staff. I think, I think the exact line was, never let that weepy son of a bitch in here again. And then I think the line of the movie is based on something Truman apparently actually said, which was, you know, Robert, you didn't make the decision to drop the bomb. It's not on you. I made the decision. Right. Which, right. Which, which is like. Which is like an incredibly powerful thing, which is the duly elected commander in chief of the country made that decision as he should have. The scientist does not have the moral authority to decide how the technology is used. It's our, you know, in our system of government that the commander in chief has that authority in our elected representatives. And so to the movie, so Norma's credit, it did include that. It did show that. And again, in my fantasy, cut of the Movie, that's the end of the movie. So they kind of nod to that. But like I said, then they let him off the hook at the end.
- [67:10]
Moderator
Shall we close with Fight Club?
- [67:13]
Marc Andreessen
Fight Club? Well, we could span an entire entire. We can spend hours on just Fight Club and we probably should at some point. I, I would just say about Fight Club, Fight Club's an amazing. I, it's like, I think it's, I, I think it's, it's 100% true art with capital A. I think it's amazing. I think it's, you know, definitely going to stand the test of time, you know, already is, you know, it's one of those movies and it's, it's one of those movies that has that characteristic we talked about last time where like, if you watched it the week it came out versus a year later, versus five years later, versus 10 years later, versus 20 years, versus 30 years later. Like it has new meanings as, as, as our society evolves and it's got, and you can kind of, you can at any, at any kind of point in time, you can kind of use it as a prism on our society. It's, it's a, it's, it's amazing in retrospect, I guess my, my sort of social, political kind of, kind of analysis of it would be like, it was clearly intended as a left wing movie at the time because it was sort of, it was sort of, you know, and the novel that, you know, that's the famous novel that it's based on, you know, and it's sort of this, you know, almost like what was it? Remember the original, like it was the sort of left wing anti capitalism of that left wing anarchism, you know, a little bit like that, you know, the 90s version of like Luigi leftism or something where it's like, you know, capitalism is this, you know, basically this horrible right wing machine that's like crushing everybody's spirits. And of course in the movie Ed Norton Place, you know, sort of an office drone who just like absolutely hates his life and you know, has no future and like hates himself and you know, ends up doing all the things that, you know, kind of play out in the movie which, you know. And then by the way, the movie culminates in basically the destruction of capitalism. You know, basically what is it? He takes down the buildings containing. I think it's like all the, what is it? All the bank records or credit card records to kind of, you know, wipe the slate clean and start, start, start the economy, society over again. So at the time, it's just like, wow, that's like a really left wing message. And of course it's, you know, it's like, it's, you know, David Fincher and it's Ed Brad pit. It's like one of the best, most entertaining, you know, most captivating movies ever made. It's, it's phenomenal. But like, it's fundamentally a left wing movie. You watch it today and you're just like, wow, it's like ultra right wing. Like, it's like ultra, ultra, ultra right wing. Because it's a. To start with, it's a white cat. Gosh. Right, right. And so like, it's literally, you view it today and you're like, wow. It's, you know, it's, it's, you know, the stereotype would be it's a. Right, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a white, you know, it's a privileged white male incel. You know, basically. Right. You know, with like every advantage in the world who said, you know, who nevertheless has built up this persecution complex. Right. And you just, through today's lines, you're just like, wow, that's like an ultra right wing movie. And then, by the way, the, the sort of argument the movie makes about why capitalism is like the great, you know, atomization of society and like, nobody has any type anything, and people are just like interchangeable cogs in the great, you know, kind of, you know, in the great kind of machine of modernity, you know, they kind of put on this assembly line through complete, meaningless until they die. And like, all concept of like family, community is like completely ruptured. And like, capitalism is like, you know, basically the machine that does that. You know, neoliberal capitalism is the machine that does that, like sitting here today. That's a Reitman critique. And so I probably shouldn't name names, but I did talk to somebody who was involved in the making of the movie. I don't want to, I don't want to represent his views, but specifically by name, but I talked to somebody who made the movie and I laid up my theory that it was a left wing movie at the time and now it's a right wing movie. And this person basically said, oh, no, it's very clear in the movie that at the end that he greatly regrets what he's doing. He's filled with regret. It's a very kind of sad, tragic ending. And I was like, oh, well, then if you just used AI to just go in there and tweak the final scene of the Ed Norton character standing watching the buildings come down. And if you just tweak the final scene to where he would have a sly little smile on his face, all of a sudden, the entire movie becomes this basically ultra right wing from start to finish. Anyway, I'll pause there. I was just going to say, whichever way you interpret it, I think that movie definitely is definitely art. I think it's amazing. I think people will be watching it and discussing it 100 years from now.
- [70:55]
Kathryn Boyle
To bring it back to the original thesis of this podcast, monitoring the situation that's going on in the Internet. What went viral this week related to fight club was PSAs that Brad Pitt and Edward Norton put out before the movie came out in theaters. And if you have. I won't. This is one thing I won't spoil. But it was going viral. Like, why don't we make PSAs about staying silent in the theater like this anymore? You have to watch it. It's like 90 seconds. And it just confirms that Brad Pitt is the goat. He is hilarious. And that he puts serious thought into everything he does, including the please stay quiet in the theater PSAs that went out before the movie came. Came out in theaters 25 years ago. So watch it. I'm glad it's going viral again. And we should definitely make actors do those PSAs for theaters.
- [71:41]
Marc Andreessen
So, Catherine, that movie came out in 1999.
- [71:44]
Kathryn Boyle
Yeah, 1999.
- [71:45]
Marc Andreessen
Which is kind of universally I remembered as like, a year of, like, absolutely amazing movies. Yes. Maybe the best. Maybe the best single year for movies in the last, like, 40 years or longer. So question. Could that movie. So number one is that movie was, at least according to the council I've read, that movie was very difficult to make. And then once they had in the can, like, people, the original people who saw it, like, were, you know, it's just like a lot of people just, like, didn't know what to make of it, you know, because there's a very simplistic reading of it, right? Which is just, like, total nihilism and, like, just destruction and, you know, size of violence, you know, to no purpose. It's one of those movies where, like, you have to have a lens on the movie. You have to have an idea of the movie, or the movie has to get its idea across to you, and you have to. You have to catch the idea before you can actually watch it properly. Because if you just watch it, otherwise, it just seems like it's just, like, tremendous nihilistic, which I, you know, very much I very much don't believe that it is. But, you know, I think it was very controversial at the time. It was very hard to get made. You know, it's, it was misinterpreted by many people over the years. And by the way, the people who made It Might Be Me is misinterpreting it. And so that movie could get made during that era. Could that movie have gotten made after the 90s?
- [72:51]
Kathryn Boyle
I feel like it's the, like the consummate 90s film, right? Like, like just the, the, as you said, like the critique on consumerism, like the sort of early critique on, you know, kind of the consumerism affecting masculine, like, traits. Right. Like, like the whole, the whole reaction of, you know, we're gonna have a fight club to kind of reclaim our, our masculinity and sort of our life and our, you know, that, that felt like was actually. I mean, it's, it's interesting because it's the same critique, it's the same conversation that's happening right now, but it really was also a natural 90s conversation to sort of, you know, and that's the same thing as I believe 1999 was also American Beauty. And that's a similar sort of, like all of these movies had the same sort of, to your point, nihilism, but sort of this David Foster Wallace esque sort of consumerism is destroying us. We're moving to the suburbs and we have to reclaim in some way. And like the sort of. I don't like the portrayal of any man feeling like constrained in, in their, you know, it was always, it was always sort of like the consumerism and the suburbanization of America is destroying sort of like masculine freedom. Right? So there were like, oh, that was like a very 90s coded end. End of the 90s film era. Like, I don't. So part of me is like, I don't. It could probably be made, but it would probably be made with totally different ethos and maybe a totally different take on that thesis now. Like, the thesis is slightly different than what it was in the 90s, which is that like, you know, like Walmart is destroying you. Right? Like, it's a very different now it's like tech is destroying you, but at the time it was Walmart and capitalism were destroying you.
- [74:24]
Moderator
Mark, Katherine, thanks so much for, for coming on and talking about movies again.
- [74:27]
Marc Andreessen
Awesome.
- [74:28]
Kathryn Boyle
Thank you so much.
- [74:28]
Marc Andreessen
Mark.
- [74:31]
Podcast Host
Thanks for listening to this episode of the A6TZ podcast. If you like this episode, be sure to like, comment, subscribe, leave us a rating or review and share it with your friends and family. For more episodes, go to YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. Follow us on X16Z and subscribe to our substack@A16Z substack.com thanks again for listening and I'll see you in the next episode. As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any ASIC 16Z fund. Please note that a16z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see a16z.com disclosures.