Tim Robbins Keynote Speech @ NAB 2008

[Garrett M. Smith]

Was anyone there? They have 6 minutes posted on AdAge - and now YouTube, but from the news articles it sounds like he said more. Just curious what else he said.

Anyway, for those that have zero clue what I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn5roSm6EcY

Garrett

 

[Priyesh P.]

absolutely fantastic. and it´s nearly the same situation over here in germany. it`s a quite universal statement/call he made. thanks for pointing to it pheboglobi!

 

[Randall Nott]

I got stuck behind the accident on Sahara Blvd. and missed it. By the time I got inside, my priority was getting to the RED booth.

While I tend to agree a lot with a lot of what he has to say, I do find him a little self-righteous at times. Personally, I found him much more eloquent and moving in his performance in last years' "The Secret Life Of Words" (during which I, once again, fell in love with Sarah Polley).

Not trying to be glib, I just think a well made narrative can have much more power and influence than a finger wagging speech. The real shame is that the meaningful works he says we should all aspire to come and go so quickly.

 

[michael zaletel]

I believe this is a link to full text and audio. NAB apparently did NOT allow it to be filmed which is why it may be difficult to find a full-length video.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-robbins/addressing-the-national-a_b_96836.html

-shooter

 

[Anthony Gratl]

I got stuck behind the accident on Sahara Blvd. and missed it. By the time I got inside, my priority was getting to the RED booth.

Well, that kind of says it doesn't it? Rather look at technology instead of listen to a keynote.

While I tend to agree a lot with a lot of what he has to say, I do find him a little self-righteous at times. Personally, I found him much more eloquent and moving in his performance in last years' "The Secret Life Of Words" (during which I, once again, fell in love with Sarah Polley).

He sounds self righteous because he has the courage of his convictions. It's an entirely different concept from "yes sir no sir right away sir". I can't believe your trying to compare his speech with an acting performace of his. In the film you watched, he was ACTING! He just happens to have a good delivery, which bodes well for making speeches.

Not trying to be glib, I just think a well made narrative can have much more power and influence than a finger wagging speech. The real shame is that the meaningful works he says we should all aspire to come and go so quickly.

You're not glib, just a little naive. The point of speeches like that is to, among other things, wake ordinary people up to the idea that they are not alone in feeling the way they do, and in this particular speech, also let the people making the cultural programming decisions know that they WILL be held accountable at some point. The real shame here is that you seem to confuse what's important, and also what's real. Film narratives are reconstructions of reality. The meaningful works that he's refering to generally don't come and go quickly if you pay attention to them, analyze and understand them, and then incorporate them into your life, instead of the mindless drivel that dominates the airwaves and fills your head with an ever shifting mass of ideas and notions of coolness and reality. And by your, I mean everyone not just you.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I thought this speech was great once I heard the whole thing via Shooter's link.

We all need to think about what messages we are putting out there. I'm hoping it's things like the RED revolution along with the Internet that keeps diminishing the power of the corporate broadcasters. It's nice to hope they'll change... but we'll have to BE the change if it's going to happen.

and I don't think that's a particularly Republican or Democratic sentiment. I sense people on both sides are tired of the sex, lies and videotape corporate broadcast culture.

 

[Priyesh P.]

The biggest cowardice I`m seeing in all of our "western" countries is, that celebs, big money people etc. always hand on responsibility to other people, for example, the parents. It is my very personal belief, that each one of us, ESPECIALLY those in the media have to act with the liability in mind we have towards the public. It all too easy to push it away from you. In my own case, I´ve reclined to direct gangster-rap-videos after I had these feelings and accepted financial penalties for my decision.

 

[Randall Nott]

Thanks for the link, Shooter. Nice to hear the entirety in context. I like his wicked sense of humor.

Thanks for amusing me, Evolve. I suspect we are more of like mind than you let on, but I'll answer you.

Well, that kind of says it doesn't it? Rather look at technology instead of listen to a keynote.

Your implication is that listening to the keynote is a loftier ideal than looking at technology. Having heard the speech now, I'd have to argue the opposite. I suspect the technology of RED and company will have a more profound impact on the democratizing of cinema than Tim Robbins could ever hope for. But you misread my post. My priority was to see the RED booth AFTER I'd gone to the keynote, but missed it because of traffic. No idealism at work there though, I am as much a glutton for the cult of celebrity as 80% of the people that made it.

He sounds self righteous because he has the courage of his convictions. It's an entirely different concept from "yes sir no sir right away sir". I can't believe your trying to compare his speech with an acting performace of his. In the film you watched, he was ACTING!

Since he had to weigh how friendly the audience was toward him before speaking, I'd say he has the luxury of his convictions. Not that trailblazers are any more important than the maintenance men who keep the path clear. That he does admirably in speaking for those he feels are ignored. But to not realize the speech is also a perfomance...

In the film you say he was ACTING! in capital letters and exclamation point, by which I can only assume you didn't see the film. I would call it acting, lower case, in the smallest font still readable. Very subtle and beautifully done. Let's just say he is an integrated artist, his acting talents contribute to his activism, and his activism contributes to his acting.

You're not glib, just a little naive. The point of speeches like that is to, among other things, wake ordinary people up

Thank you. It's taken me years and years to become naive. I can only assume from your sagacity that you may be younger than me. Sorry if I was snoring.

The real shame here is that you seem to confuse what's important, and also what's real. Film narratives are reconstructions of reality.

Bad habit, I suppose. Without story, and history, reality is uninformed. The illusion of separation is yours.

The meaningful works that he's refering to generally don't come and go quickly if you pay attention to them, analyze and understand them, and then incorporate them into your life, instead of the mindless drivel that dominates the airwaves and fills your head with an ever shifting mass of ideas and notions of coolness and reality.

Thanks for illustrating my point about self-righteousness putting a wedge between people. I think his speech had an impact on Hollywood though. I just checked my TV guide and "Amos and Andy", "I Dream of Jeannie", and "Knight Rider" have all stopped creating new episodes.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

Thanks for amusing me, Evolve. I suspect we are more of like mind than you let on, but I'll answer you.

likewise, your response made me smile. of like mind we may be, although your senility outweighs my youth....

Your implication is that listening to the keynote is a loftier ideal than looking at technology. Having heard the speech now, I'd have to argue the opposite. I suspect the technology of RED and company will have a more profound impact on the democratizing of cinema than Tim Robbins could ever hope for. But you misread my post. My priority was to see the RED booth AFTER I'd gone to the keynote, but missed it because of traffic. No idealism at work there though, I am as much a glutton for the cult of celebrity as 80% of the people that made it.

I must have misunderstood. I thought you had choice in the matter. Nothing to do with idealism, I assumed you could have done both. The speech will only happen once though...although I wholeheartedly agree about Red changing the world. Of course the real democratization of culture still depends on what you decide to shoot and for what reasons.

Since he had to weigh how friendly the audience was toward him before speaking, I'd say he has the luxury of his convictions. Not that trailblazers are any more important than the maintenance men who keep the path clear. That he does admirably in speaking for those he feels are ignored. But to not realize the speech is also a perfomance...

It's funny, I don't consider Tim Robbins a trailblazer.
Are you saying that we don't have the luxury of our convictions? Isn't that what defines our lives, our sense of integrity, and our personal freedom?
Shouldn't that be our saving grace?

In the film you say he was ACTING! in capital letters and exclamation point, by which I can only assume you didn't see the film. I would call it acting, lower case, in the smallest font still readable. Very subtle and beautifully done. Let's just say he is an integrated artist, his acting talents contribute to his activism, and his activism contributes to his acting.

Subtleties of acting aside, he still was doing just that no? Emphasis on the word had to do with separation Tim Robbins the character actor from Tim Robbins the individual. Maybe I'm being too earnest. It's late, and I think you're chiding me. But I guess I just don't find the guy inspiring. It's becoming vogue to say "wow things are really fucked up" while wearing a suit. "Integrated artist"? Please expand....

It's taken me years and years to become naive. I can only assume from your sagacity that you may be younger than me. Sorry if I was snoring.

Don't be sorry, I forgot what you wrote a response to, and I'm feeling too sloth-like to create a new tab. Sounds like I was being harsh. But for some reason I like the word sagacity, even though I know you're kicking me in the balls with a big grin on your face. Luckily my training allows me to use a cross hand block.

Without story, and history, reality is uninformed. The illusion of separation is yours.

Well that brings us to the tricky business of time. All of the great mathematicians and astronomers and physicists have written at length on this. It's mostly over my head, but it has a critical role in this notion of "reality". And there is separation. Separation of perception. Memory as a functional byproduct of time. Creating reality by rewriting history is also an uninforming, something that our current media demi-gods are very good at.

Thanks for illustrating my point about self-righteousness putting a wedge between people. I think his speech had an impact on Hollywood though. I just checked my TV guide and "Amos and Andy", "I Dream of Jeannie", and "Knight Rider" have all stopped creating new episodes.

Well, okay I'm not really self-righteous, moreso passionate and opinionated. As far as wedging does, 95% of us are ostensibly all in this together. I leave the wedging to the Bushes of this world. There's a fine line between pushing yourself and others to think and have meaningful anonymous dialogue over the internet, and coming across as an asshole. Although I can be an asshole, that wasn't my intention. First pint's on me.
Of course his speech had no impact. It's telling the broadcasters to change and that their programming hurts everyone. They're going to cover that on the news: BREAKING NEWS FROM VEGASs: "Attention good people of america, this is the television puppetmaster here with an important announcement..........we suck, but we're gonna fix it. In Mr. Robbins' neighbourhood."
Finner I know is disappointed about the whole Knight Rider thing. Course, as hst said, television is a long plastic hallway where thieves run free and good men die like dogs, which is why I don't watch it.

 

[Clint Johnson]

Course, as hst said, television is a long plastic hallway where thieves run free and good men die like dogs, which is why I don't watch it.

Well, in television's defence, there is so damn much of it that the good 1% of it still creates more quality material in any given week (barring writers striking) than is in the theatres. Not watching television because Paris Hilton had a television show is like not reading books because Deepak Chopra wrote books.

 

[Anthony Gratl]

Well, in television's defence, there is so damn much of it that the good 1% of it still creates more quality material in any given week (barring writers striking) than is in the theatres. Not watching television because Paris Hilton had a television show is like not reading books because Deepak Chopra wrote books.

so out of every 100 shows, 99 suck. So your saying that I can't find a couple of good movies a week? I can find that at any rep theatre anytime. The studio theatres have a similar ratio happening most seasons of the year.
With defence like that, you'll be playing for the leafs in no time hmy:
...I know Clint, I know, it's leaves. I never raked leafs....maybe that's where their problems start.

 

[Clint Johnson]

so out of every 100 shows, 99 suck. So your saying that I can't find a couple of good movies a week? I can find that at any rep theatre anytime. The studio theatres have a similar ratio happening most seasons of the year.
With defence like that, you'll be playing for the leafs in no time hmy:
...I know Clint, I know, it's leaves. I never raked leafs....maybe that's where their problems start.

Yup, one hour in every hundred for television is about right in my mind. You also have to realize that the only reason that there is only 300 - 400 hours of original programming a week right now in North America is because of the un-struck WGAs work hasn't made its way through the pipeline yet. So when they all crank back up again there should be a lot more than that hitting the small screen again.

And you're saying that you can find 104 good movies in any given year! You are WAY more generous than I. There might be five six movies that I'll bother going to the theatre to see and maybe another dozen or so that I'll make a point to watch on DVD or catch on a movie channel.

But I'm not a complete television slob... if I can't find work in television I would slum it in feature films for the paycheck... just don't tell anyone.h34r: