Oscar-winner Tim Robbins says his latest role in the show Silo was inspired by “questionable choices” made during the pandemic, including lockdowns.
In the Apple TV+ series Silo, the 64-year-old (that doesn’t seem possible) plays a leader in a post-apocalyptic world where the population has been forced underground into silos.
Robbins spoke with the far-left Variety about why he took the role.
“I’ve always been curious about what goes on in leaders’ heads when they have to do something that is morally compromising for what they consider the greater good,” Robbins explained. “I always look at that as a terrible no-win situation. And I often wonder if those measures that they take, that are immoral, are necessary.”
Variety asked if he was referring to anything specifically. “I’m talking about politicians that compromise themselves and make decisions that they believe are for the good of people, but those decisions involve censorship or lying or deception of some kind that leads to people getting hurt,” the actor explained. “And I wanted to play that guy, I want to deal with that moral complexity in trying to understand where the human being is,” he added. “I think we’ve been through three and a half years of extraordinary and questionable choices made by people that are supposed to be leading their countries.”
Robbins said yes when asked if he was specifically referring to the anti-science China Flu lockdowns. “Yeah, I’m talking about that,” he admitted. “I’m talking about a whole bunch of stuff, lack of freedom of movement, lack of freedom of assembly, lack of freedom of speech. You want to keep going?”
Robbins went on to explain he was specifically concerned about how the government took away the basic American right of assembly.
“Even in the worst, oppressive societies, there’s been assembly allowed,” he said. “Sometimes those assemblies are monitored, and so it’s not safe. But supposedly, in a free society, one should be able to collectively gather with others.”
“The reason why that’s important to collectively gather with others is that becomes a forum. You don’t know that everyone in the same room as you agrees with you. So therefore, it’s an essential part of living with other human beings,” he continued. “You have to work through differences. And instead, we were separated and became more and more distanced from each other and more and more angry with each other.”
Of late, Robbins has not been quiet about his disgust with the American left-wing establishment. After the truth about the government using Twitter to censor dissent, he’s criticized the corporate media for not only having “ignored the story but now attack the journalists, effectively serving as a thuggish censorship arm of the government.”
He added, “What an embarrassing, shameful time for the Democrats and the ‘free’ press. You are losing any shred of credibility you had, you fucking fools.”
He’s also criticized the left for attacking those skeptical of vaccines and lockdowns. He also called for an end to the “charade” of Hollywood’s anti-science COVID protocols.
For most of his public life, Robbins has been seen as a dedicated left-winger, someone who would never side with those of us disgusted with the media censors and Mad King Fauci.
Because I’m familiar with his work as a writer and director, I’m not all that surprised. A good example is Dead Man Walking (1995), which Robbins wrote and directed. He and star Susan Sarandon (who won the Oscar) are obviously opposed to the death penalty, but the movie never demonizes the other side. In fact, those who wish to see Sean Penn’s character executed are the devastated families of his murder victims.
To those who favor the death penalty, he asks tough questions: Is it right to take the life of a man who has truly repented?
To those who oppose the death penalty, he also asks tough questions: This cold-blooded murderer is everything you despise: a white, racist, redneck rapist. What’s more, his legal execution will give these families peace. Are you sure about this?
Dead Man Walking might be the best example of the last thirty years of an artist with the moral courage to approach a polarizing and difficult issue with truth, humility, nuance, and no small amount of grace. So, when Robbins says he took the role to try and understand better the fascists who took away our rights, I believe him.
When movies approach a serious subject, affirmation is the last thing I’m interested in. Affirmation is boring. What improves the mind is critical thinking. I don’t want to be told what to think; I want to be provoked into thinking, into mulling the question. This is only accomplished through subtext. Subtext is, “Rage against the dying of the light.” Text is, “Fight death.” Which one of those inspires you more? Which one fires off the mind to think the subject over?
Subtext makes Dead Man Walking a masterpiece (it also made my “greatest movies” list.) Conversely, text is what makes Just Mercy forgettable.
Robbins also deserves credit for openly bucking the left-wing establishment in support of his principles of liberty and free speech.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.