Justine Bateman (7:57)

Hi.

Mike Pesca (7:58)

In the beginning of your piece, you say when I speak about God, I'm talking about something genuinely magical, something that's complex. And I took it to mean I was reading Luke Burgess, who wrote a book about mimesis and he has a definition of spirituality just as something that is bigger than oneself. So if we define God Pretty broadly as inclinations or instincts that are bigger than the self. Is that a fair enough working definition to get to your thesis?

Justine Bateman (8:30)

Well, God, you know, I think for the purposes of that article is like the source of all creativity.

Mike Pesca (8:37)

Okay.

Justine Bateman (8:38)

And the source of new ideas.

Mike Pesca (8:39)

It can encompass concepts like inspiration or art. Art is God in maybe how we are thinking about what your thesis is.

Justine Bateman (8:47)

Whatever it. Whatever comes to mind for someone else. You know, I. It's like I'm not in the business of getting into people's heads and trying to, you know, secure some, you know, complete definition of anything. But just for the purposes of that article, I was saying, you know, God is a source of. Of all creativity. So, yeah, if you get a great idea and. And also the means to follow through. God was, you know, kind of gracing.

Mike Pesca (9:19)

The situation if we're saying that God needs Hollywood. Another way to say that is if we stymie artistry and creativity. Because Hollywood isn't. Isn't doing what it should be doing. If over the last couple of decades, as you've been observing it, Hollywood has changed and now it's an impediment to creativity, you know, that's bad for the world, that's bad for spirituality, that's bad for everyone.

Justine Bateman (9:43)

I mean, we're going to get a lot of mileage out of defining Hollywood right here.

Mike Pesca (9:47)

Okay, let's do it. I guess we've been circling around. Go ahead.

Justine Bateman (9:50)

What Hollywood used to be. For 100 years, it was the film business and the TV business. And there was. There was kind of room for all types of projects and there was enough money to go around. There was a lot of opportunity. There was a lot of apprenticeship.

Mike Pesca (10:09)

And.

Justine Bateman (10:09)

A lot of new ideas and a lot of swing for the fences. And, you know, you had some B movies and some A movies and everything. That was a good mix. After the streamers got involved, or rather started showing our work on their websites or apps, that's in a completely different DNA. And so, you know, I'll skip the in between, but fast forward, there's a content conveyor belt now because that's what suits their purposes. So there's no more Hollywood as it was like that ended a little while ago. Now it's just kind of a content conveyor belt. There is a new film business emerging that. And then of course, you have to include AI and all of that sort of content conveyor belt because it can automate all of that content. And I. Content. There's a distinction from a very big distinction between content and filmmaking. Yeah, content's just like stuff. So when I was saying, like Hollywood, it's like those who are working in the business who are not. Not from a tech company, like, not a tech company, not have that tech company DNA, but, but of like scaling and selling and, but rather are called to filmmaking. Like, yeah, where's your swinging for the fences attitude? Where's your, where are your new ideas? And you know, we can get into the details of where that, where that went. We can get into the details of how studio executives who, even, even the studio executives who are working now who love film are not encouraged to champion their favorite projects. They are handed algorithmic reports and said, this is what you need to adhere to. You can't. There's no God in that. That's what I'm saying. There's no fountain of creativity flowing through that kind of exchange.

Mike Pesca (12:27)

Well, it's an algorithmic spirituality. The algorithm is the God.

Justine Bateman (12:32)

Lower G. Sure.

Mike Pesca (12:33)

So do you think compared to the time. I don't know what your starting time or ideal time might be. The 1970s with Raging Bull and Easy Rider, as was the title of a book. The 1980s with Must See TV, NBC Thursday nights, and essentially four networks because Fox came along. Compare the amount of output and the amount of creativity allowed in the TV shows then, and it's not like there wasn't formula content then, and compare it to now with everything that's going on. And Apple owns a network and Netflix is, Is a tech company. But there are 600 shows in production, so it's worse now with 600 shows. In terms of creative flourishing, I don't mean on average, but just with 600 shows, isn't it the case that 30 or 40 really wild, weird creative ones will get through? And how that Compare to the 1970s or 80s?

Justine Bateman (13:27)

Okay, so production right now is down 40% overall from 2019 numbers. So what do you mean 600 shows?

Mike Pesca (13:35)

Well, where do you FX? The head of effects does account. And somewhere around 2021 or 2022, there were 600. You're right. It's fallen by a couple then.

Justine Bateman (13:44)

But I don't, I just don't know. I understand what you're saying. You. You feel there are more productions now than there used to be.

Mike Pesca (13:54)

But of course, yeah, the number of original scri. Salaries on the Networks dropped by 14% to 516 shows, according to research. So I'm just taking that one data point that's.

Justine Bateman (14:08)

I'm just not sure there are 600 shows in production right now.

Mike Pesca (14:13)

Yeah, probably less. You're Right. It's probably in the 500s.

Justine Bateman (14:18)

I mean, I guess we'd have to define what shows means, because if you do, like three episodes and call that a series. You know what I mean?

Mike Pesca (14:26)

Yeah.

Justine Bateman (14:28)

I mean, one could argue. Sure. That there is a greater volume because there's more. There are more avenues through which to show the material. You know, like, there's not just three channels. I mean, that changed with basic cable and then certainly with, you know, I mean, any website can do a show. So that's why, I mean, like. Sure. And, you know, there's also a lot of stuff at Costco. There's a lot of stuff at swap meets. There's a lot of.

Mike Pesca (15:02)

Right.

Justine Bateman (15:03)

That thrift store. But how much of it is good? I don't know.

Mike Pesca (15:09)

Right.

Justine Bateman (15:09)

Are you able to easily find something good to watch every night?

Mike Pesca (15:14)

Yeah, definitely. But.

Justine Bateman (15:15)

Oh, good.

Mike Pesca (15:16)

This. This is. But it doesn't negate or it doesn't rebut what you're saying. The algorithms are deciding things. And the ones that get through, like, andor is this great show, but it wouldn't exist if it wasn't part of the intellectual property of Lucasfilm, which is sold to Disney. And they had a number of duds and then they come up, thankfully, with this good one. Right. So I don't know. I would agree with you. I think the landscape is worse than. Compared to the older days.

Justine Bateman (15:45)

I mean, that was a very big purchase. They're definitely get. They're going to get their money's worth.

Mike Pesca (15:51)

Right.

Justine Bateman (15:51)

They're gonna.

Mike Pesca (15:52)

They're gonna.

Justine Bateman (15:52)

You're never. You're never not gonna see a star. I mean, they're never gonna let that die, which is weird. Yeah.

Mike Pesca (15:59)

So what's the theological part of it? Is it the spark of God, the spark of creativity in film and TV series wasn't what it once was or should be. Is that part of what you're saying?

Justine Bateman (16:12)

I'm saying that, I mean, there's a. There's a number of things that sort of shut down what was happening in film and. And series. There was the. There's been a lot of merging, and every time there's a corporate merging in Hollywood, there is more and more. More and more corporate behavior that's incorporated into, you know, into a production that. That flies in the face of, like, coming up with new stuff and being quick on your feet. And so you've got that. You've got the. The whole woke thing. The whole. And that really did feel like a spiritual pressing down on everybody and. And a lot of fear. In there. You know, people afraid of losing their jobs and all of this for, you know, if they were to do something different or say something different. I mean, comedy was one of the first things on the chopping block. Cause you really can't, you can't, you can't manhandle comedy. You know, it's like a balloon.

Mike Pesca (17:27)

It's an involuntary response and often not the one that if you're trying to present your best self to your neighbors, you'd indulge in.

Justine Bateman (17:34)

Well, when you're making a comedy series or film, you can't manhandle it, you can't note it to death. You know, drama can survive that, but comedy can't. Cause it's, it's like a balloon. You know, you handle it too much, you'll pop it and it's just not, it's not there anymore. So you had that, you had a lot of fear. And so what happened is, and then, and then you bring in this, you know, the, the interests of the streamers, which is content conveyor belt, according to what the algorithm is. I mean, it's silly. It's like the success of the film business was never predicated. Yes, sometimes you give people what they want kind of thing, but the success of it, the, the, the velocity, forward velocity of the film business was always predicated on giving people something they didn't know they wanted, giving people something new, stepping out forward. If you didn't have that, heck, if you didn't have that, you wouldn't even have blockbusters.

Mike Pesca (18:37)

Yeah.

Justine Bateman (18:37)

Because that was something new.

Mike Pesca (18:39)

Right. George Lucas had to invent Star wars and it was new and Jaws and all these tent poles that were once new and creative and now it's all just retreads.

Justine Bateman (18:49)

Yeah. I mean, you had to, you had to have that kind of attitude to do musicals even to do all the things that are sort of standard now. At some point, you know, at some point rock and roll was like completely new. Jazz was completely new. So there's this risk taking that has been just, just, they've just smothered it. It's. And so that's why I say there's a new film business that's emerging that is, that is, that does take hold of that. That's the Hollywood, like true Hollywood DNA, the film business DNA. What's going on now is not. Which is why it's not been. There's some exceptions to what I'm saying. Of course there is some good work that stands out. But. And then you, you bring into the fact that marketing is so, so, so difficult for the film business now because you don't have these, you know, you don't have a focused audience to which to market. You know, it's so completely scattered. So even when something is good, it's hard to let people know what's good. You know, it is like going into a Costco and like pawing through or a thrift store and pawing through everything and trying to find that one bag that might be in there.

Mike Pesca (20:03)

When you write that Hollywood needs God and this is what he wants, I don't know if that's true. I'm not going to get into theology. But to know what God wants or who God is, it doesn't resonate with me. But your points about the algorithm and your points about. Or someone like me, the points about corporatism and how decisions get made and how once the spark of creativity was allowed to flourish and now it isn't. If we think about it as a soulless enterprise now, then it does begin to resonate with me. But I'm wondering if there are important parts of the argument that are lost if I make that substitution.

Justine Bateman (20:43)

Oh, I don't know. I mean, we'd have to come through the whole article and do word substitution. I mean, basically what the article is saying, if you look at the definition of God that I put in there for the purposes of the, of the article, I'm just saying you can't do the film business without fearlessness. And a source of fearlessness is God. I mean, whether you believe in him or not, like it just is. And you need fearlessness and you need real creativity. I don't mean like you're a creator. I'm not talking about that.

Mike Pesca (21:25)

Yeah.

Justine Bateman (21:26)

I mean, real creativity to me is some idea that is like new, not, not like a story we've never seen before or something. But it's an approach to a story. It's an approach to, to a concept. It's an approach to what's coming or what's been or what's happening. Now that is fresh. That is a perspective that is that most people hadn't thought of before and that new things coming out of the air, I mean, I guess people can imagine it comes from the clouds or the weather or something, but I think that's a little limiting.

Mike Pesca (22:18)

Right. So you write in the article, big subhead is God equals the source of all creativity. So that is among your definitions for.

Justine Bateman (22:25)

The purposes of the. You know, all I'm saying is Hollywood would do well to shrug off things that are not Its DNA, like fearfulness, like people pleasing, like algorithmic assemblage of stories. This is not Hollywood DNA. It's not. It's not the filmmaking world. But like I said, there's a new filmmaking business emerging that does subscribe to fearlessness and new ideas and new ways to do a project. And they're not using algorithms and they're not using AI and all this crap that just keeps you where you are. Algorithms. Algorithms, at least for. For selling purposes. And most of them are. That are used by streamers and sites like Amazon or whatever are geared to read where you've been, essentially, and then to keep you there.

Mike Pesca (23:33)

Yeah.

Justine Bateman (23:34)

I mean, if you're, if you stay who you are, you're so much easier to sell to. If you continue to grow as a person, you are a moving target. That's very difficult for it to recommend things to you.

Mike Pesca (23:48)

Right.

Justine Bateman (23:49)

And that was the magic and is now with the new film business. But that for 100 years was the magic of Hollywood. Sometimes it works, sometimes it didn't. But, you know, that's what you did. You were like, you had a lot of studio executives, a lot of producers, a lot of writers who go, like, I got a feeling. I got. I just got this idea burning in me. This is what I got to do, I got to do. And you do it. And because when you, when you write a film, by the time you shoot it, it might be a six months, a year later, if you're lucky, if you got all the money together or you got a studio to buy it, whichever, and then you shoot it and then you sell it. Now you're talking, like, maybe two years from when you accomplished writing the script. So the, I mean, there's, there's some magic involved there. It's undeniable that you could do something two years ago that hits a nerve or resonates with. With a society when it's released. That's pretty phenomenal. But that only happens, I have found, when somebody's got this burning idea to do something. And that is not algorithmically set. That is not based in fear. That is a. That is a, like almost a creative ferociousness, you know? And if you're full of fear, pretty hard to get there.

Mike Pesca (25:14)

Justine Bateman is a writer, director, producer, author. Her books include Face and Fame. The latest from Tablet magazine, now available in physical hard copy, is why Hollywood Needs God and why God Needs Hollywood. Justine, thank you so much.

Justine Bateman (25:28)

Thank you.

Mike Pesca (25:41)

And now the spiel. Do European leaders not understand populism? I thought they kind of invented populism at least named it, certainly suffered from it. I ask because European leaders leave themselves open to attack. They keep doing it, not just by making compromises, but by selling those compromises as if they are dutiful custodians of decline, opening themselves up to being outflanked by more radical parties, including right, left, pincher moves that would collapse the Maginot lines. I take the latest 15% tariff negotiations with Donald Trump. They did not win those negotiations. Arguably no one did. But arguably, arguably, Trump will successfully argue to his people that he did. The Europeans are not doing that. They offer their publics lines like the best of a bad situation, when in this social media moment what's popular is to pretend that the bad situation is the best. Trump gets it. The US isn't in any more populist or better position in terms of leverage than Europe. Europe has 27 nations, 450 million customers. It's not exactly Malaysia. It can't just be elbow to side or bowled over. But Trump will not accept, at least rhetorically, a loss. The eu, on the other hand, has signaled that's exactly what they'll accept. German President Frederick Mears said the economies of the US and Europe would both be hurt, but also said the EU negotiating team, quote, couldn't expect to achieve much more. Here's a DW report quoting the EU Trade commissioner, Maros Sefkovich.

Unnamed EU Official (27:28)

The message from matters which says that while it was, it says that it was the best deal on difficult circumstances, so exciting.

Mike Pesca (27:37)

And as far as the EU Commissioner.

Unnamed EU Official (27:40)

Ursula von der Leyen has described it as, that 15% is a number that should not be underestimated. She says, though, that is the best that they could get.

Mike Pesca (27:50)

No, no, that is not the way you do it. You say this is the best we could possibly do. Many people are saying it's even better than that, even better than they thought. Not a lot of people know that. A lot of people are saying that it's even better than they thought. France's prime minister did an okay job calling this all a submission. Good. But the French prime minister, he personally doesn't have a lot to lose. He's in a weaker position than the president just in terms of the structure of French politics. And in France, his key political position is an austerity budget that everyone hates. So I don't know if he's going anywhere. But good, take it to Trump. Use some vivid language. The French are good at that. The Europeans are being what we used to call irresponsible, and they're not Wrong, but they're not meeting the moment, they're not meeting a madman head on. You can't make Trump capitulate, but. But you can't come across as if you full on know that you can never make Trump capitulate. So ideas like half a loaf or the best we could do, I mean, they do make you sound like what you are, which is a responsible caretaker managing downside for hundreds of millions of people. And to be fair, half a loaf in the European context of baguettes or semolina is a lot more compelling than Wonder Bread. But it's no pathway to popularity, not in 2025. Trump won this round of negotiations by embodying his usual madman theory, which helps because he might also be a madman. The eu, diffuse technocratic responsible, actually didn't have anywhere to go, but they didn't need to signal that over and over again. So let me tell you a little bit about my changing theory of politics. For a long time it was that you very much have to be a responsible steward of finances and then you might not get plaudits, you might not get called a hero, but people with firm economic growth beneath their feet will more or less reward you. Doing the right thing economically will correlate not just to doing the right thing, but to more success than not. I don't think that's true anymore. Bombast and brinksmanship are more rewarded in this fast twitch media age. Now, to be fair, the bombast, the brinksmanship. In the United States, every ceiling's a debt ceiling. It may be more a tactic available to Americans than European politicians. We have a much bigger economy than even the larger bipopulation eu. We mint the world's reserve currency. And this is really important. There is no real track record in the United States of an instant vicious backlash against a daring but failed and let's call it stupid economic policy. That's what exactly happened in Britain when Liz Truss and her Chancellor of the Exchequer, its finance minister, quasi kwarteng really bollocks things up and everyone in Britain knew it. And she was gone and he was gone and they felt consequences. Nothing like that has ever happened in the United States. Not so quickly, not since Hoover. And it wasn't that quick then, and maybe not even including Hoover. So Europeans do have to act more responsibly because they've borne the responsibility of their actions more acutely. Same with world wars, you could argue, and I don't really think it's proper to act like Trump. Oh no, I don't. And I also don't think it's good strategy to be as intransigent as he is. But from a negotiation standpoint, if you don't at least play the role, you're going to get rolled. And from a communication standpoint, the public is not going to like what it's told. And from a popularity standpoint, you're going to leave the voters cold. So at least when you make a bad deal, at least sell the hell out of it. Wrap it up with a little truculence of your own. Don't assume that coming across as reasonable is always the most reasonable strategy. So that's what I would do. But if I were a European politician, huh? Where would I live? How much would I pad my expense account? Would I rail against the EU and their regulation of chips? So many questions. Would I vacation in Antwerp? Don't even know. But here's what I would do on this issue. I would assign the deal. But unlike a decade ago, I wouldn't tell myself that I'd be ultimately rewarded for doing the right thing. These days, I would more hope that I could survive doing the right thing. And that's it for today's show that just is produced by Cory Wara. Our production coordinator is Ashley Khan. Astrid Green runs our socials and Michelle Pesca is in charge of it all, but with a light hand. Oomparuji Peru Duparu and thanks for listening.