← Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams
Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams
The Future of Hollywood with Bryan Cranston
00:54:56
Stacey sits down with award-winning actor, producer and activist Bryan Cranston to talk about how the entertainment industry is evolving one year on since the writers’ and actors’ strikes, how Hollywood can sustain our thirst for content, as well as the livelihoods of the artists who make it.
Loading summary
Transcript43 lines
- [00:09]
Stacey Abrams
Welcome to Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams from Crooked Media. I'm your host, Stacey Abrams. I love storytelling, novels, plays, movies, you name it. And I really love television. In fact, one of my dreams as a kid growing up in the time before the Internet and the time before streaming was to be a Nielsen family, one of a select few who received a box that attached to the television and a notebook to record every show viewed by the household. Then one day it happened. We received the packet that asked us to help determine Television for America. I was giddy. For a two week period I attended that duty like Gollum over his precious. It was awesome. Very few tweens followed the ratings process like I did, or as I did in college, subscribed to Entertainment Weekly and the Economist with equal sincerity. I tracked movie premieres and their opening weekend revenue, like others followed the Nasdaq. More recently, I had the extraordinary chance to talk to Turner Classic Movies about how films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington shape political discourse and public lives. Now, you might be wondering, what does this have to do with a show focused on solving problems and grappling with social and political issues? It's because Hollywood is more than an imagination factory. It's a barometer for how we face societal change. It drives economic trends and it reflects how we are thinking about culture often before we've figured out how to describe it ourselves. It's been about one year since the two big strikes in Hollywood ended. The Writers Guild first and then the Screen Actors Guild. The strikes impacted what we saw on screen and how we discussed issues as divergent as corporate control, wages and artificial intelligence. The impasse between the studios and the writers and actors impacted the economies from Los Angeles to New York to right here in Georgia and other locations around the US and the world where many people work in the TV and film industry. It also gave us a preview into the coming tensions in the nature of work and who actually has a voice in, well, how money is earned and distributed, the role of technology in the arts, and who participates in success. To put it into context, the American film and television industry includes more than 2.77 million jobs and generates more than 240 billion in annual wages. Arts and cultural industries hit an all time high in 2022, contributing 4.3% of the gross domestic product, or GDP. To put that into context, that's more than construction and slightly less than retail trade, which is why everyone from Wall street to Main street eagerly tracked the strikes last year. The previous major Hollywood strike had occurred in 2007 with the Writers Guild. Back then, DVD sales and video on demand were brand new threats to a long standing syndication system, which meant writers were making less and less money for their work. In 2023, the strike negotiations centered around streaming revenues and artificial intelligence, illustrating once again that Hollywood is on the bleeding edge of national debates about wages, work and wealth. As SAG AFTRA president and actor Fran Drescher passionately pointed out, the entire business model has been changed by streaming digital AI. This is a moment of history. That is a moment of truth. On the consumer side, we are watching movies and TV differently than even a decade ago. As of this year, almost four out of every 10 consumers view TV via streaming, which represents a major shift away from the cable subscription bundle that had previously encroached on the broadcast TV model before the strikes and the new contracts that were negotiated as a result. Actors and writers could no longer look to Nielsen ratings to determine how much money they could expect from their content. Kate Mulgrew can no longer reasonably expect the checks I generate from my endless rewatching of Star Voyager. Today's streaming platforms are displacing broadcast TV for viewers, but the business model for creating content doesn't account for the lack of residuals from reruns, the newly shorter seasons, and the longer production timelines that keep me waiting for the next seasons of Reacher or Silo. Second, the advent of AI is no longer a sci fi trope, but a significant new player that the writers and actors are already confronting as they consider their craft and their livelihoods. Writers argued that they didn't want their intellectual property used to train AI and that AI should not replace them in the writers room. Actors were unhappy that their images, likenesses and voices should not be used to train AI and I should not replace them on the screen.
- [05:21]
Bryan Cranston
But we ask you to hear us and beyond that, to listen to us when we tell you we will not be having our jobs taken away and giving to robots. We will not have you take away our right to work and earn a decent living. And lastly, and most importantly, we will not allow you to take away our dignity.
- [05:55]
Stacey Abrams
This new reality, much like the advent of talkies in the late 1920s, the rise of cable in the 1970s and the proliferation of VHS in the 1980s, brings challenges and opportunities, but we are obliged to acknowledge that when things change, the basic obligations for fair labor practices and shared risk do not. The Hollywood strikes were designed to confront where and to fairly negotiate about what is to come. It was also a reminder of how intertwined entertainment, the economy and politics are in our everyday lives. More importantly, the discussions aren't over. Conversations about streaming residuals, wages and working conditions continued this year for below the line workers such as electricians and drivers, and for the coalition of unions that represent cinematographers, set designers and editors. The negotiations highlight how much has changed and will continue to evolve in the entertainment industry and how important it is to ensure that all players, from the makeup artist to the technicians to the writers and working actors, can make a fair living.
- [07:07]
Bryan Cranston
The AMPTP is focused on making a lot of money by way of our art. We want to make a lot of art and hopefully make some money at it.
- [07:18]
Stacey Abrams
And that voice is our multifaceted guest, Bryan Cranston. Bryan Cranston is not only an award winning actor who has embodied characters as diverse as LBJ and Hal Wilkerson, he's a producer embedded in the business of entertainment, an entrepreneur who has launched new brands, and a dynamic activist who believes in speaking up. Like his multiple roles on screen, his real life bandwidth makes him the perfect person to talk with about how the entertainment industry is evolving and how it can sustain both our thirst for content and the livelihoods of the artists who make it. More after the break. I am so excited to welcome Bryan Cranston.
- [08:00]
Bryan Cranston
Hello, Stacy, it's good to see you again. The last time was a few years ago in Atlanta and it was great to meet you. When I was with Annette Bening doing a movie down there. Had a great conversation. I'm a big fan of yours and eager to talk with you again.
- [08:24]
Stacey Abrams
Well, I'm now done with the interview because that's you here, so thank you.
- [08:27]
Bryan Cranston
Thank you.
- [08:28]
Stacey Abrams
No, it was a delight meeting with you and it's one of the reasons I wanted to have you join the podcast today because as much as I knew about you before, that was more just idolatry and fangirling. Actually getting to spend some time with you I think is an important conversation that other people need to get to over here. So thank you for joining. Assembly required.
- [08:52]
Bryan Cranston
I appreciate the opportunity.
- [08:55]
Stacey Abrams
So to kick it off as someone who loves a good character profile, I like to ask our guests for their origin story. And so for you, you've played icons and you've created some iconic characters of your very own. What was the first role that made you realize that you could make a living at this?
- [09:17]
Bryan Cranston
Surprisingly, it was a soap opera. When I was 25 years old, I got hired to start a show called Loving on abc.
- [09:29]
Stacey Abrams
Yes.
- [09:30]
Bryan Cranston
Do you remember that show?
- [09:31]
Stacey Abrams
Oh, of course. Loving it came on. It was after All My Children and It was around the time of Ryan's Hope, and I remember the spinoff. Oh, yeah. I was an avid fan of Loving.
- [09:43]
Bryan Cranston
Well, I was hired to be one of the series stars of the show when I was 25 years old. And to this day, I say it's one of the hardest jobs an actor can have because the quantity that you have to get through is a big challenge. But there was something about it felt like I crossed over a threshold at that moment where I thought, I can do this. I belong. And I don't think I'll ever be anything but an actor for the rest of my life. And that was true since I was 25 years old. That's all I've done for a living.
- [10:28]
Stacey Abrams
Well, as someone who watched you in not only Loving and your stint as Hal and Malcolm in the Middle. Yeah. So I'm a fan from way back before Breaking Bad.
- [10:39]
Bryan Cranston
Oh, thank you.
- [10:40]
Stacey Abrams
And, well, I told you, it's a little bit of fangirling. Slightly stalkerish, but not quite. But one thing I love is when you talk about your decades in the industry, you always describe yourself as a working actor, which has very particular emphasis. Why is it so important to you to use that descriptor for yourself in this, in the space?
- [11:04]
Bryan Cranston
If I may take a step back again to a little more of the origin story. My. Both of my parents were actors. They met in an acting class in Hollywood after the war, about 1949 or so, and had stars in their eyes and wanted to crush it, just like every aspirational person that gets off the bus in New York or Los Angeles wanting to make their mark. And they began. And they got married in 1952 and started having their kids. There were three of us. My dad then continued on with the acting career. My mom, housewife, as was. As she pointed out to me, it felt like I had to make a decision either or. At that time, society wasn't very accepting of a woman who had dual ambitions. And so she made the decision to become a housewife and a mother. And she didn't regret having children, but regretted years later that she felt she was compelled to do that, to make that demonstrative movement. My father had never lost the idea of becoming a star, and eventually it really destroyed him. It was either stardom or nothing. Can you imagine every time a batter came up to the plate and swung for a home run? Each and every time, your success rate would be very, very low and you wouldn't make it. And my father's acting career dwindled. There was some movement but basically it was not going to work. And I think that taught me not to have that expectation bar so high that it's unattainable. I wanted to put my goal to say, well, if I can make a living as an actor, if I could be a strong, steady, working actor and make my living as an actor, that is my ambition and that's my goal. And to this day, that's my proudest accomplishment as an actor after 47 years, is that at the age of 25, I've never had to take on another job. And by it's not suppressing my ambition, but it was just being realistic, being realistic and enjoying the fact that I get to be an actor for a living. And so I just keep my head down. And anything that comes beyond that is really the cherry on top of the sundae. Because I never take a job thinking this will get a nomination or this will bring some attention, or it's always to. Because the job was exciting and interesting and provocative to me. And so I just employ the work ethic, get in, do my job. If someone taps me on the shoulder and says, hey, we want you for this other movie, oh, fantastic, or hey, we, we just nominated you for such and such, wow, that's great. But I just keep myself in a little bit of, you know, reality check so that I don't fly off the handle.
- [14:41]
Stacey Abrams
Well, one of the ways you just described this, you described your mother making the choice. Part of it was societal and generational, part of it was the need for financial stability. And you describe your father's approach, which created a great deal of financial instability. And then there's just this third layer, which is the tendency to idealize what it means to be in Hollywood. But what you're describing is that you have a job and there's a tendency to, I think, discount the work that goes into the economy of entertainment. Earlier in the podcast, I point out that this is an industry that is in the top 10 contributors to America's gross domestic product. And yet for some reason, we expect workers in Hollywood, on screen, in writers rooms, below the line workers, we expect them to not ask for better pay and better working conditions, as though they don't have to afford rent or take care of their families or have health care. Talk about the through line you see from your parents to your work ethic to where we are today and how difficult it can be for some people to have stable careers in the arts.
- [15:55]
Bryan Cranston
Well, first and foremost, I don't think there's ever going to be a shortage of People wanting to get into the arts, actors, writers, directors, producers, and even people below the line looking for steady work is a great thing. I think there might be something askew with the expectation of work and how much you're willing to go after it now. When I first became an actor, I first planted my flag and said, okay, this is what I'm going for. I was 23 years old, and I said, I know that there are actors that I can compare myself to that I'm better than they are. And then there are also actors that are better than I am. And that's always going to be the case, you know, and you can't control someone else's talent as far as how you position yourself to get work. But what you can control is the amount of work that you yourself put into it. And I vowed that no one was going to outwork me. So I would get my survival jobs as a waiter. I would work every weekend nonstop. I would take on extra shifts on the weekend. I'd work double shifts Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, Sunday day, Sunday, I would just work, cram the weekend with work so it would pay my nut and keep me free during the week. And people would say, well, every single weekend you're working, isn't it? I go, no, I have an opportunity to make the most money. And also, I'm not interested in going to parties and things. I'm here to be an actor, and that's what I want. So I try to teach that. You can't teach a work ethic, but you can light a fire under someone. I think. I think I can inspire the next generation to listen to that and say, no matter what, any successful endeavor has a chance to succeed. Right? If someone is willing to put the time in. And it's like Malcolm Gladwell saying, you need 10,000 hours to become proficient or an expert in anything. And I think that's true, that unless you're willing to spend the extra time. Put it in, it won't happen. I occasionally will get questions from aspiring actors or writers, directors to say, so how can I get in there? And I said, are you looking for the shortcut? And yeah, yeah. What can I do to bypass certain things? I could save you a couple years by telling you, get out now. If you're looking for a shortcut, get out now. Go find something else that you can find some joy in. But these kinds of positions, there are no shortcuts. And I think, in truth, I've worked with really, really strong, multitalented actors in my career. I Don't think I've really worked for any true geniuses once I've been in the trenches with them and realize, oh, they're a little nervous, they're not quite sure of the character yet. How interesting. It's like, and let's work together, because that's the way I was feeling. And so it really does take that desire to put in the energy, your passion for the work itself. And that's the fun. It's the process that's fun, not the end journey. I want to go through the process.
- [20:22]
Stacey Abrams
Part of what you describe is sort of the gauntlet, the people who make it through. So when you get to the other side, you find folks who are now asking about the business of being in this space. And in fact, you spoke quite eloquently during the SAG AFTRA strike about how different the business model of entertainment is now than even 10 years ago. And we think about the longitude or the length of your career. I mean, you've seen it evolve several times. Can you describe what today looks like and feels like, especially given that we're a year out from the strike, what outstanding topics still need to be addressed?
- [21:02]
Bryan Cranston
I think it's foundational in American culture to have a strong work ethic. People have come to this country and realized, oh, I have some opportunity by and large. Not always, but I have opportunity if I work hard to achieve. We get to the point where work is our number one focus. We are very work oriented. And it almost seems like family or leisure or self help or self enlightenment is a secondary choice. You look around the world, Europe having a month or six weeks of vacation time, and you know, Greece had a retirement age of 53 or something. And it's like, wow. And all these and all these measures put in to support life like that. If you go to Italy, they come to work 10:30, 11:00 or something, they open a shop, they'll work for a few hours, close the shop, have a big lunch, take a nap, come back at night. It's not like America. America, if it says it opens at 9, we want that store to open at 9. And we're looking at the hours constantly in our business. In show business, it's changed pretty significantly over the years in a decreased valuation of the human condition. I think the salaries haven't risen commensurate with inflation, with cost of living, but also there's more of a demand on time in our business. It's not unusual for a film shoot to have crews working 16, 17 hours a day. And now they're making overtime and they can maybe justify their absolute exhaustion by making money. That's the substitute. But what to what damage? It damages the family unit, it damages their own personal health, their eating habits, their sleep patterns, all these things are affected. And I'm one of those that I would love to be able to have a, a four day work week be the norm in all of American business. Wouldn't that be something that every, every time, every worker in America has three days off to where you can really relax, really spend that time with your family in some way. But that would take an emphasis away from money. And America loves money. America puts money on a platform and we have idolatry toward the almighty dollar and capitalism gone amok. It's just to me, to worship money that much is so detrimental. It's like our healthcare system. To me, having a person's health depend on someone else making money if you don't get care is absurd to me. So those kinds of things, capitalism has been entrenched in our system for a long, long, long time. Greedy capitalism is something that I just don't understand how you, your efforts to make money are never going to be satiated. You're always going to want more because there's nothing truly at the end of it. It's all a number on a piece of paper. It's intangible. So you keep thinking I need to keep achieving more and more and more. To what end? I don't know. And maybe it's my age, maybe that I'm 68 now and maybe I'm starting to see things differently. I do know that I want less and less material things in my life and more experiences and more peace, more calm than ever before. I have less desire to venture into new businesses and uncover things and try to get involved in more and more things. I want less and less so that I can actually treat myself to read a book during the daytime and not feel guilty about it, that, oh God, I'm not working, it's a bad thing. But I do feel that, well, as.
- [26:18]
Stacey Abrams
Someone who has been able to make a very substantial living on your craft and on your art, you put a lot at risk to speak up for those who did not. You were one of those high profile actors like Cheryl Lee Ralph and Jack Black and Amy Adams who were on the front lines of the strike when you could have sort of held back and not put yourself in that position. And when we think about those who do not have the presence, the profile that you have, why was it important for you and others to leverage that position, to ensure that others had access to the resources, had better wages, had better protections. Why did that matter so much for you, Stacy?
- [27:05]
Bryan Cranston
I see myself as them because my personal situation, I was struck by lightning, with good fortune, and it catapulted me to a place that was surprising and wonderful and exploratory. But deep down inside, I'm still a working actor. I still enjoy the craft. I still enjoy that work. And I want to preserve that work for future generations and also the generation now. These working actors that struggle to make a living, to keep their health insurance, to qualify for a pension, these are vitally important things. So anything I could do to help them find that is of interest to me.
- [28:04]
Stacey Abrams
And part of finding that and making certain that they have jobs, that they can be working actors and in some cases, working writers, is making sure that humans have the jobs. One of the things you spoke very eloquently about throughout your career is the value of writers. You've said that an actor is only capable of incredible things when the script is also incredible. And one of the target discussions during the strike, especially for the Writers Guild, was the role of AI can you describe, in layman's terms, how AI might shift the livelihood of an actor as much as it does a displaced writer?
- [28:43]
Bryan Cranston
Well, we've seen the ability of AI and the deepfakes to be able to create what looks like a person we know, saying certain things, pro or con, pick a subject that just didn't happen. It's. It's amazing where we are. It's a fascinating time of our lives that artificial intelligence has become such an important technology, and it's on the cusp of changing all of our lives. And so you look at the Writers Guild of America, which we struck, the Screen Actors Guild struck at the same time with them, or virtually the same time. Their new contract states, for the first time ever, that a scripted series or film must be written by a human being. Where in our past history have we ever thought specifying those terms was going to be necessary? How? This is where we are. So when you hear of that, you go, my God, what else can they do? Well, they can do a lot. They can totally replicate an actor's work. They can. They have. If you take me, for example, I've been around for a long time. So they can take any number of performances that I've done and pick and choose comments or words or sentences or even facial expressions and put them on a new person. So they could take my. My beady eyes, for example, and they could take George Clooney's hair and, you know, Glenn Powell's chiseled chin and someone. And they create a whole new person. But there's something familiar about. So they pick and choose. And so you're not able to say, wait a minute, those are my eyes. It could be anyone's eyes. That's not your chin, so it's not you. And so we're creating a Frankenstein kind of possibility of the amalgamation of actors. Work over the course of decades can now become a new entity along with. And by the way, if we're a little too close to Bryan Cranston's actual voice, we can use technology just to tweak it a bit so he sounds just a little bit different. So we're in the clear. There's so many potential hazards and obstacles to go through. Is it a bad thing? Well, if it falls in the hands of people who are duplicitous, then yes, it certainly can be. And I know there's a movement out there now to try to set up guidelines for AI because it's unwieldy right now. It's a monkey with a machine gun. And it's like, whoa, how do we deal with this? How do we approach this? It's too dangerous. And so we have to first disarm the thing and have everyone agree. We do need some guidelines. We do need some structure set up so that as we all venture into this, human health is at the top of it. Human occupation is at the top of the list of what we're doing. You know, it's like when you hear of financial institutions saying they have a fiduciary duty, I think the connotation people think is, oh, they have a financial duty to represent their clients. It actually means an overall responsibility. It is not specifically financial. It is overall health and wealth. And to look after a human being's experience and in society, what's best for this person and that person's place in society, and ultimately, what's best for society as a whole.
- [33:28]
Stacey Abrams
One of the reasons I wanted to do this podcast writ large, and particularly this one episode with you, is that we hear all of this on the news, we see it on social media. We don't always understand what we're hearing, and so we feel overwhelmed by the crises or the issue, but we don't necessarily have the language or to your eloquent explanation of what fiduciary means. We don't know what the words mean. We don't know quite how we get where we are you talked about the implications of AI and how it would change how television and film are being created. There's also been this dramatic change in how television and film are being consumed, and that's changing revenue models. One of the, I think, benefits of your history in the industry is that you've watched the model evolve and you've seen things happen. And as someone who has recently started up a company, you know there are lots of plot twists from the minute you have an idea to when you finally get it out into the marketplace. So here's what I'm asking you to do. For those who rely on residuals as part of their business model, actors, writers, the advent of streaming, the shorter seasons, the changing dynamic has created a new economic reality. So for listeners who have no idea what any of those words I just used mean, can you explain the difference between how your Breaking Bad earnings shifted with the coming of Netflix versus what would have happened in the days of cable syndication?
- [35:09]
Bryan Cranston
The business model that I came into this business in when I first started working professionally in 1979 was that an actor, for an example, you'd be hired for a television show. Let's say you were a guest star on a TV show and you made X amount of dollars, let's say $2,500 for your working on this show. There were several different revenue streams when collectively assembled, allowed an actor to make a living. Same thing with a writer. So let's say I did this job for $2,500, and then you would count on it reran. There was a rerun fee matching that, so you'd make another $2,500, and then it would go into syndication. So the major networks own the majority of stations around the country and are affiliated with those networks, but outside of that are independently owned television stations that would lease those shows and pay a certain amount. And I would make a residual on that one episode I did when it played in Cincinnati or wherever around the country, a cumulative fee. Then it would go to a vhs. In those days, it would go to a VHS sale so people can have the full complete set of Seinfeld, you know, for all nine seasons on a cassette tape. And they would buy that. And that was another revenue stream. And it sounds like, oh, wow, the actor has a lot of. But an actor doesn't work anywhere near as much as they want to work because of the level of competition. And it's just this. There's a lot of. It's a crowded field. So I relied on all those things to be able to make my living, to be able to pay my rent and go to acting class and have gasoline in my car and insurance and things like that. Now that transitioned into a one time fee with the consolidation of the legacy studios, getting into the platform business, which was preceded by Netflix. Now if you remember Netflix, the red envelope Netflix, when you used to have them send you that envelope, it was very analog. Oh, here's this disc. And I put the disc in the machine and I push a button on the machine and it shows up on my television set. Well, they transitioned in the late 2008, 2009, I believe, to stream, where you can simply push a button on your computer. And that changed the world. So they rule the roost. It's a very well run company and they, they have a lot of product, they create a lot of jobs. So I can't fault Netflix at all for building their business and, and doing so and having the foresight of where the business was going to go and where they needed to be on the vanguard of that. I praise them. That's amazing that they were able to see that and then capture that audience. Meanwhile, while doing so, a huge part of the consumer experience left. So not only did we lose record stores, but remember going to Blockbuster and renting a movie for the weekend, that whole industry of renting films at a brick and mortar store all across the country is gone. That's a thing that we now look upon favorably in melancholy terms and go, that was so sweet. Remember that? But that industry is dead. So now you have this technologically advanced situation where, where you watch Netflix and now all the rest is streamings and you're just pushing buttons and it's immediately there for you. And that's fascinating where. And the streaming model, you don't usually have to wait a week. It's all of them there. So you could feed your addiction immediately, you know, into the main vein of your body to say, I want to watch all 10 episodes this season in one sitting. And like, that's up to you. So in a great way it gives the power and control to the consumer. But like anything, the consumer needs to self govern themselves. To say, that's too much, I need to parse this out, I need to, you know, whatever, I need to go to work. I can't sit here on the couch and watch another. And in so doing, the revenue streams shrank. So the broadcast television, cable television, the independent stations around the country, they're all in a diminished trajectory. Their business models have slowed greatly. Advertising has slowed tremendously. Everyone is online watching YouTube and TikTok and Netflix and Amazon and Apple and whatever. And that's an easy way. And you could do that on your phone. So they have one source, you could watch it on several different methods, but it's one source, one membership, so to speak. So they made it very easy for you to cut out, cut the cord. And by doing so and having broadcast television, what I grew up with being the three headed monster for so long is now an afterthought broadcast. And they don't want to admit it, but the proof is in the pudding. The advertising dollars have diminished greatly. What that then does to me as a person who creates shows, we're then told, you've got to cut your budget, slice your budgets. You want to have a chance to be on our air, you've got to be half what we used to spend. And you realize, how am I possibly going to create a show for half of what it was? And that is why you see more game shows, more adventure shows with non professional talent filling that space and they don't have to pay them anything, basic salaries. So it's changed dramatically. And I know that every generation goes through fundamental changes and I'm sensing it now, I'm feeling it, I'm seeing and weighing the difference from when I came up. What is now. It's tougher now. To me, I think it's a lot tougher for someone to start their career as an actor, writer, director in this business than it was in 1979.
- [42:53]
Stacey Abrams
So we need to fix that.
- [42:55]
Bryan Cranston
Yes. How do we fix that?
- [43:05]
Stacey Abrams
Well, that brings me to my next question. So you have been this extraordinary spokesperson, and when everybody knows your name, that means you can have a significant impact on conversations about more than just entertainment. It can be about politics, public policy, culture. In fact, recently a singer some of us may have heard of decided to endorse Kamala Harris for president. And the response was biblical because she strayed from where she should be. You've just described a business model that has very real implications for economic capacity, for the way people live their lives. How do you rebut the argument that you should just stick to acting and that others like you should just stick to entertainment? Like, what's your response?
- [43:49]
Bryan Cranston
I want to have a voice. I think everyone's entitled to a voice. If someone wants to listen to me, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. In fact, I'm making a point now. Whenever I get into a conversation that may be not contentious but of varying degrees of ideology, I will ask the person, if it's a political question, if a political issue, do you vote? Do you vote? And if you vote, I am more than willing to listen and actually very curious about your point of view and how we differ or how we're similar. But if you don't vote, I don't want to talk to you because you have decided not to have a voice, specifically not to have a voice. And so to me, you're moot, I don't think until you say you're going to vote. Vote for whomever you wish, but vote. Until you say you're a voter, you do not have a voice.
- [44:56]
Stacey Abrams
I did not tell you to say that. But okay.
- [45:01]
Bryan Cranston
But that's my point, is that I think there's, you know, as you know, Stacy, there's been so much vitriol. When I was doing research, I played Lyndon Johnson on stage and in a movie. And when I was doing my research on it, going back through when he was a congressman to when he was a senator, master of the Senate, and I would read passages from his own autobiography, Vantage Point, and all the biographies written about lbj, and invariably there were many, many, many passages talking about. And then at a softball game, I leaned over to my Republican counterpart and I said, ben, how you doing? And he said, and then later at dinner when my Democratic friend was talking to the Republican people engaged back in the day, they could have mutual respect and still be in a position where they are not afraid to voice their own individual opinion and ideology. We have to get back to the point where we can disagree without being disagreeable. I know that's easy to say. That's a common quote now, but there's merit to it. Why can't we be able to have a discussion and say, this is what I feel and it differs from what you feel. I understand how you feel. And we don't have to agree, but we also don't have to be disrespectful and mean spirited and vitriolic and all these things that we now find ourselves in the current political environment. It's disappointing.
- [46:49]
Stacey Abrams
I share your concern. Part of this nature, part of the nature of current politics is that you have to believe what I believe. The other is that I have my own facts and you have your own facts, and never the twain shall meet. I recently watched an episode of youf Honor where you play a judge who literally goes to the scene of a crime because he needed to understand how it happened. I won't give anything else away. So part of the goal here on the show is to help people take what we talk about and turn it into a way they can behave. So for the people listening who want to do something, who want to use the arts and connect the dots the way you have, what's your advice to them?
- [47:32]
Bryan Cranston
We've heard before that living in moderation is best for everyone. And I. I tend to agree with that. It doesn't mean you're flatlined, but it means that you have peaks and valleys and peaks and valleys. But basically you come to that center line. The center line to me means tolerance, inclusion. It means I'm willing to listen, I'm willing to accept. I'm willing and eager to exchange. The more fringe that people live on, the less likely you are to be able to listen, the more likely you are prone to pointing fingers and pointing out how different someone is. And because they're different, you don't like them. Because we. When someone is different, because when someone we don't understand, we have a tendency to villainize that. We don't know it, we don't understand it, therefore, we're afraid of it. And when we're afraid of something, we tend to push it away from us. Well, we have to start making friends with the people who are. We may deem unfriendly. And I think the beginning of that is to tolerate other points of view and say, hey, I'm willing to step toward the middle. Are you. Are you willing to come closer to the middle, to meet me here, to where we're close enough to shake hands? Because right now there's not. There's only finger pointing from afar, and there is only the refueling of your own sensibilities by what you read and what you listen to. And it has a tendency to isolate us even more. So I would say turn off the social media, turn off television, breathe, go for a walk, meet the neighbor who has a dog on a walk or something and talk. And all of a sudden you might realize, oh, they're on the opposite side of the political aisle. But I like her. She's. She's nice. And why can't neighbors have different opinions and they make good neighbors? I often said, you know, George W. Bush, I didn't like him as a president, but I think I would really like him as a neighbor. I think he would have made a great neighbor, you know, so it doesn't have to be so that everything is attached to an ultimatum or a quid pro quo that either, if he does this, I'm going to do that, or it's like, ready for attack. The conversations that I'm hearing. Mostly now you're just waiting to interject your attack as opposed to really listening and going, huh, I hadn't thought of that. That's an interesting point of view. I may have to process that, but I think there's something else here. Have you thought of this? And truly exchanging ideas, mostly right now we feel like we're on the end of a leash to continue with the dog metaphors. We're on the edge of a leash, ready to bite, ready to attack. And that's just not sustainable in a society. It's too exhausting, too well.
- [51:12]
Stacey Abrams
Bryan Cranston, you have portrayed LBJ on Broadway and screen. You tackled the blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo, who gave us Roman Holiday and Spartacus and who risked his job speaking up for his principles as one of our very own Antoninuses, who stands in the breach and says, I am Spartacus. I want to thank you very much for your time today.
- [51:35]
Bryan Cranston
Thank you, Spartacus. I thank you, Stacy. I look forward to seeing you in person again soon.
- [51:42]
Stacey Abrams
Likewise. This has been a delight. Thank you so much.
- [51:45]
Bryan Cranston
Oh, thank you.
- [51:51]
Stacey Abrams
Each week we want to leave the audience with an opportunity to make a difference, a way to get involved, or just to get started on working on a solution. In a segment we like to call our toolkit, as assembly required, we try to encourage the audience to be curious, do good, and solve problems. Brian Cranston reminded us of the work behind the art of entertainment, the obligation to be heard as voters and as fellow Americans, and the opportunity to support the arts with our engagement. To learn more about how artists make a living and entertain us all and why it matters, check out the documentary about the 2007 strike called Pencils the 100 Days of the Writers Guild Strike. The aftermath of the 2023 strike continues to reverberate, so you can do a bit of good by donating to the Entertainment Community Fund. They support workers across the industry financially, probably even someone who works on a show that you love. Speaking of which, when you see a show you love, stream it. Tell your friends and family to click play. Become today's Nielsen family. Because the more data we can help artists and makers gather to show what we want, more of the more likely we are to get it and give writers and performers the work they love. If you want to tell us about how you're taking action, send us an email@assemblyrequiredrooked.com or leave us a voicemail and you and your comments might be Featured on the pod. Our number is 213-29395 that wraps up this episode of Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams. Meet you here next week. Assembly Required with Stacey Abrams is a crooked media production. Our lead show producer is Stephen Roberts and our associate producer is Paulina Velasco. Kira Paulaviev is our video producer. Our theme song is by Vasilis for Thank you to Matt DeGroat, Kyle Seglin, Tyler Boozer and Samantha Slosberg for production support. Our executive producers are Katie Long, Madeline Herringer and me, Stacey Abraham. We want to introduce you to a brand new storytelling show hosted and produced by the amazing Lupita Nyong'o. It's called Mind you'd Own and it's about navigating what it means to belong, all from the African perspective. Lupita reveals parts of her life that she's never shared before and dives into nuanced, intimate stories from Africans around the world. From incredible original music and sound design to insights and introspection, this show will take you on a whole new adventure and transform how you see the world. Mind your Own is out now wherever you get your podcast.