NEW 2-hour deep conversation with Marlon Brando (Interview)

In this impersonal world of ours, pretense, I think, is put at a premium. We expect pretense, I think, from all of our public figures. It's par for the course for politicians to act off stage as well as on, and certainly we expect it from our performers. And when someone appears on the scene who does not quite conform, there are difficulties. I'm thinking of one who is perhaps the most celebrated actor in America, Marlon Brando.

And through the years, we have an image. We who read the papers, read the gossip columns. I think everybody does. He may deny it, but he does. Who hear a commentator on the radio or see someone on TV talking about a public figure who is always fair game. We think Brando was a man who's had difficulties or has been difficult to be with because somehow we have a feeling that he is not. Some of us suspect he is not pretending. And pretense, we value this so much. So when someone comes along, and as I noticed yesterday, I was deeply moved. It was an experience I rarely had, listening to Marlon Brando being faced by 300 kids who were editors of high school papers and a few university kids. And there was no pretense. A man was talking to his peers. Uh, Marlon Brando is in town in conjunction with a forthcoming production of his film adaptation of the novel "Ugly American." That'll be opening in a week at the Roosevelt Theater. And I was thinking, Marlon Brando, this comment of mine, does this make sense to you?

Well, it's, um, it's very pleasing to the ear and, uh, to the feelings, to have such nice things said about, about you. But I feel that in your naming of those agencies and people that do have attention, I think you, you left out one, and that is ourselves. I think that, uh, pretension is, uh, certainly a universal characteristic of man. Uh, I don't mean to use speaking said broad philosophic terms, but I, uh, within the realm of my own experience, I see pretension in myself. I think that anyone who, who pauses for a moment and examines, uh, his motivations, will find sometimes that they are not all what they seem. That, uh, our motivations are complex, and they are not as simple as we would like them. And, uh, I think in a world where pretension exists so to such degree, we can only conclude that, uh, that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, and that each of us, in his, his own small way, uh, contributes to the aggregate pretension, the national potential, perhaps by his own potentials.

We don't like at all to keep these things inside of us. We don't like to admit these things. We would much rather say we're right. And conversely, there are many people who would like to say, "I'm always wrong." [ __ ] pimps, criminals, alcoholics, unfortunates, psychopaths, people suffering nervous breakdowns tend to deride themselves in the same way that people who are who are oriented to a superior point of view. As a result, not of being so terrified of, uh, issues and conflicts that I think was so well stated in this, uh, in the poem by, uh, I can't remember his name, it was "Dover Beach" who wrote it. But anyhow, he said, "For we are here as on a darkling plain, swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night." I think that perhaps, uh, poetically and accurately and, and, uh, concisely describes a pervasive condition in, uh, man. And, uh, so I think it's so we, we tend to make heroes out of people, as we tend to make enemies. And we like to think of ourselves as pure, as Christian soldiers who are marching onward, or aesthetic philosophers who are braving the rigors of, of confusion and man's maternal despair and his sufferings at the hands of ignorance. But it's not nearly as clean as that. And even the most high-bound intellectual people, the most esoteric thinkers, at least the ones I've met, uh, I think I have experienced, uh, uh, something with them that perhaps lead me leads me to conclude that, that those that communication with oneself is a very, very difficult thing to achieve. And usually, if you talk to someone long enough and, [Music] delicately enough, you eventually will find that there's an inconsistency with what they say and what they feel. Or, on the other hand, there is a consistency with what they feel, perhaps they don't know, and what they say and what they do. And, uh, but that interaction, that interrelationship between what we think of or what we do, and how we act, and what we believe, and what we feel, is very often passes, and we, we don't see it. They're just ships that pass in the night. Uh, and, uh, in that respect, I feel that we must include ourselves, and as pretenders. Yes, as pretenders.

Something you said just now, Marlon Brando, this, we think so much of difficulty today in people communicating one with the other. You were just making a point that I feel some significance. Difficulty in communicating with oneself. That is, we ourselves. You spoke of people on two sides of the bar, respectability, the, those respectable, quote unquote, and those beyond the pale. And there are as pretty tense on both sides of the fence here. So even the individual himself. This, you found to be the case. I'm sure you speak for probably mankind. Each one finds us, who is the guy, who are you? As James Baldwin often asks, "Who am I?" The difficulty of finding out who you are. It's not, I'm sure, it isn't your problem alone. Or yours is perhaps more dramatic because you are so celebrated a figure. Uh, I didn't quite understand why you, is the seems to be your quest, finding out who you are. Isn't it? Isn't this basically the quest of all business? Yours specifically?

Well, I don't think it's the quest of all people generally. No, I think that is the, uh, uh, it's the quest of a few people. There was a book by Gerald Sykes that was written, written recently, called "The Hidden Remnant." And in this book, he discusses issues that touch very pertinently on this, this theme. Since time immemorial, it has been the advice of those who are wise, or pretend to be wise, or the disciples that have written down what they consider to be wise observations about life. And most of them, I think, can be summed up in the famous phrase that "the unexamined life is not worth living," and that the, the beginning of all wisdom is in self-knowledge. And that, uh, each man, uh, is a reflection, uh, or that the world is a reflection of oneself. And, uh, uh, certainly today, uh, it, uh, behooves us more than ever to examine these things. So often, uh, people say, "Well, don't tell me, I know. You know, I don't know my own mind." I certainly do. Uh, the infinite delicacy, the gossamer, the, uh, the ineffable, smoke-like quality of the mind to rationalize, to justify its own feelings. If you hate someone, well, let's examine, for instance, the hatred of, uh, the Negro by the Southerner, or the hatred of the white by the Black Muslims. Uh, if you examine, you talk to, uh, Elijah Muhammad. Yeah, Muhammad, Mohammed, Elijah, Elijah Muhammad, the Honorable Life. Uh, you will find contained in his, uh, in his dialectic, hatred, the absence of hatred. You will find that he, that there is no visible evidence or statement of hatred. And yet, the position certainly is one of that of someone who is, uh, reacting to, uh, suffering. The, uh, the reasons that he just, that he gives are perfectly true, 100 percent true. But the motivations are different. The motivations, uh, are completely different. And very often, people can be 100 percent right for 100 wrong reasons. And the, when you asked the, uh, I was talking to a woman the other day, an airline hostess, and she said she came from Georgia, a Southerner. And I said, "Do you believe in separate but equal facilities?" And she said, "Yes." And she said, "No, I believe in integration. Uh, I think that they ought to be integrated, but I wouldn't want to, I don't think that the races ought to mix. I don't think that the races should be mongrelized." And I said, "Why not?" And, uh, in the course of the argument, which I won't relate here, which was, uh, too, uh, extensive, it really wasn't an argument, it was an exchange of views. Finally, when she came down to the, um, the last analysis of her assumptions, it was based on what she felt. It was not based on anything of what she thought. Because as she reached out to find reasons and justifications, uh, uh, it wasn't the cleverness of my, uh, uh, my dialectic that defeated her. It was just a simple observation, a few obvious facts, such as the, uh, the, the perfectly wonderful example of integrated, uh, living that has taken place, uh, in Hawaii, which is, uh, the, uh, mixture of, uh, three, perhaps three races, three or four races, and many, many different nationalities. And that is perhaps the most salient example of what can happen. And it's perfectly delightful to be to behold that society because it's, it's a, a complete, living, documented contradiction to this mongrelization, uh, point of view that is so often expressed. But nevertheless, uh, getting returned to what we were talking about, it seems to me that, uh, that the average Southerner has a very difficult time, as does the average Northerner, in inspecting his real motivations. Because we don't really like to express, uh, to, uh, admit that we are confused, or admit that we are frightened, or admit that we are, uh, full of doubt. We don't like to, we like to just blot it out and say, "No, that condition doesn't exist. I know my own mind. Don't tell me. Don't give me any of your 25-cent psychoanalysis."

Well, um, I'm perhaps, that's, that's absolutely right. Thus we rationalize. And this word, use the word rationalize. Rationalization becomes so easy. No matter who we are or where we are. Rationalize what has we have been conditioned, perhaps, to feel or think in one way. I'd like to be a little more specific now. This, I think, is is a perfect, uh, prelude to what we're talking about. You yourself are an actor, or a performer. And I think we've been, we've been conditioned to look at celebrated figures a certain way. People who, you know, the word, the word, I'm not, Verdi is adjusting, adjustment. You know, the performer adjusts in that he is, uh, sweet before his audience. He behaves according to a set pattern. He is a glib in a particular way. Or if he isn't glib, he has a public relations handout that he pirates and reads very well. Now, you come along and apparently upset what might be called the apple cart. I remember a piece in Variety a few weeks ago. Uh, you were being quoted as speaking of the actor as being a product, a thing, a valuable thing. I'm paraphrasing, you know. I think that was it. And rather than being a human. And some actors can accept this, but you find it difficult to accept this being this valuable property. Is a word used. You are a valuable property, Marlon Brando. Yet the difficulty here is, you are also a man. Do you remember that, that quote of yours that appeared in Variety a few weeks ago?

Yes. Well, in regards, uh, to that, I think that, uh, that we must have, uh, in order to profit. I think that it is one thing to blame and to criticize. But as we do, perhaps we do that, we must realize that these observations that we have always apply to ourselves initially. And because the tendency, you know, of most people seems to me, and most nations, oddly enough, is to say, "Well, the enemy is out there. The evil is out there. The negative factors are outside myself. They have nothing to do with me." If, now, for instance, most of the, most of the Negroes in this country are rightfully and justifiably concerned with the, the, uh, outrages that have been perpetrated against them ever since they came here as slaves. And, uh, they have a perfectly decent, justifiable, econo-ethical ground to stand on and to support their, their, their claims and their desires. But, uh, and I don't mean to qualify that for, uh, at all. But if we examine, for instance, the history of the oldest republic in the, uh, in the, uh, the, uh, this, the Western Hemisphere, it is the Republic of Haiti, which was formed many, many, many years ago. I think it was in the 15th century. Men like Andre Christophe and Toussaint Louverture and Dessalines and all those great Negro ex-slaves, who threw off this colonial yoke and established their own democracy, patterned after the French. Well, today, if you, any cursory examination of Haitian history will show that it doesn't matter whether you're black or white, or whether you're oppressed, or whether you are free, or no matter what you are. The fact is that they are there. They have, have yet to be able to establish a kind of government and a kind of, uh, pattern of life that is wholesome. Because there is starvation, there is terrible, uh, social in the, uh, inequities, and, uh, uh, the most distressing, uh, maldistribution of the profits and, uh, wealth and advantages. And in all those years, they have never been able to do it. So we can't assume that that just because these things are lifted, that everything is going to be all right. Now, here in America, we have all the advantages that we could have everywhere in the world, anywhere in the world. We are a living dream. We are just a perfect example of what can be achieved and what the benefits are of, uh, uh, an integrated industrial society, uh, uh, that, uh, that has all its wants satisfied. But we're all nervous. You and I are sitting here. You were concerned about these things, and all these articles that you, uh, you, uh, uh, that you publish here in this magazine, or the interviews that you have, with the, the interest that you have, you were concerned about these issues. And the truth, and what is going on with people, what are people really saying? And you are, you are awash with doubts and concerns, and you are not at rest. You are not at peace. Your personality does not remind me that of, uh, some of the Tahitians who I've seen who are peaceful people, the Eskimos, or some other people. I am not either. And I think that we are representative, in many respects, of all Americans who have all these advantages, but do not have the essential ingredient, which is a sense of well-being and a sense of peace. We don't have it. We certainly aren't raging neurotics. We certainly aren't psychotic. We're not, we're not extreme, despite what publicity might say of us. But nevertheless, we, we still are missing something. And it's that ineffable, indescribable X quality that we really must have. And it certainly is not in money. It certainly is not in the attainment of material goods and manufactured things. Although we certainly, we certainly, uh, pursue it through whiskey, sex, notoriety, success, money, television sets, boating, Kiwanis activities, good doing, Playboy Club, Playboy Club, perfect example, status, images. We'll try to find it anywhere in the world that we can, because we think it's outside. But of course, it never is.

You know, Marlon Brando, it's fascinating the way you're answering my questions, because you're coming back to this theme of self-righteousness or false values in our very selves and values. You spoke of the Tahitians. I know, I know this from what you said yesterday to the high school kids and what I've read about you, your feelings about Tahiti. And there must be a reason for this. And we who are materially well-said, it seems that the values we pursue, then something is wrong. Then with the goals, the lack of goal, you feel?

Is that no? I don't think that's wrong with a goal. I don't think that we realize what the goal is. I think that the goal that all of us want is, is this word. It's dangerous to generalize in this term because it's such a, such a subtle issue. And, uh, it's, uh, like a protoplasm, or a rather ectoplasm, in its, uh, nature. But certainly, we do not want strife. We do not want it. But, but, uh, it's, it that seems inconsistent with what we do, because we seem to want strife. We seem to chase after it. And, uh, I think that perhaps, uh, at least partly, is it that we want strife, or chase after, or conflict, because perhaps, you know, our very lives may be a drabness or a dullness. I think that it is much easier to find an external enemy to fight than it is an internal enemy. Hitler is a perfectly wonderful, salient, uh, eternal example of a man who was a paranoid. He was a man who felt attacked inwardly by his feelings. He was a man who had a crushing sense of inadequacy and purposelessness. Uh, he was a man who felt, uh, that it was necessary to conquer the world. And of course, what he, what he really wanted to do was to conquer his own emotions, his own dreadful, his own feelings of dread and and fear, and his own feelings that one part of him was attacking another part of him. So he attacked the Jews. Now, uh, uh, as among all bigots, they will find a reason to attack the Jews, or the Chinese, or whoever it is. But he felt that it was necessary to attack these people. And then, after he, he saw that the Jews were going to be killed and exterminated, which he did, six million of them, then it was the Ukrainians. It was the Russians, the, the Slavs, rather, uh, and he felt that they should open. So they were being exterminated. There were some millions of them. I don't know how many. Then the Poles. But he had to exterminate all these people, get them out, because they were the enemies. And if, if he had conquered the world, if he had gotten the heavy hydrogen from Norway, had he perfected the atomic bomb and the buzz bomb, and, uh, assuming that he did conquer the world, you can be assured that he would have killed the Negro. He would have killed the Japanese. He would have killed everybody except the pure Aryans, or done something, done the most he could to destroy. And then, finally, when he was left with the pure Aryans, then he would, he would qualify what was purely Aryan. And eventually, he would have been perhaps left with himself, um, because, or he would have attacked the left-handed people of the world, because their minds were diseased, they were badly formed, or something. But this man had to attack externally. Now, many Germans will tell you that he made important contributions to Germany, because he came at a time when Germany was certainly economically oppressed and suffering. And it's, it's certainly true. He did build roads, hospitals. He couldn't believe he made the trains run on time. That's right. But, uh, but, uh, we always like to have things neat. And of course, they're never neat. And, uh, uh, when we attack something, it, uh, I, now, I noticed something interesting, uh, in the Freedom Riders. There was one man who went down there and was beaten up very badly, and he put a sign on himself when he came back that said, "I am a victim of racial prejudice." Uh, and he was a white man. And he put the sign on himself and stood there with his head just leaning slightly to the left, with these great bulges and bruises and things. But he put himself on display as a martyr. Now, had there been no, no justifiable and reasonable issue of Freedom Riding to devote himself to, he might have found something else. It's likely that he would have found some other cause so that he could have had himself beaten and, uh, into to a pulp so that he can hang a different sign on him and say, "I am a martyr." And, uh, it's those things that attend almost all of our activities. The labeling, then, the word labeling, perhaps might be the one that disturbs.

Well, we, we like to, we're forever, not only Americans, but people all over the world. We're saying, we like to think that the, that the trouble that we have is going to be solved by one thing or another. It's either getting all the blacks out of our way, getting all the whites out of our way and allowing us to have a decent life, getting all the rich people out of our way, getting all the, uh, uh, all the disease out of our way. Whatever it is, whatever it is that disturbs, uh, the individual that is different from him, let's say that seems different from him. You said something earlier about we want things neat and compartmentalized. There's several, a lot of questions come to my mind as you talk, but let's stick with this for a moment. I want a neat and cop and compartmentalized. I'm thinking of Jacques Tati, you know, the French humorist, and his whole approach throughout has been seeking the naturalism, imperfections, accepting the imperfection that is in life. And that he is the non-adjusted man who, in a sense, is close to the natural man. That even though he upset the routine of people who wanted order, many people found in him and his presence a certain kind of joy that would not have found otherwise, because imperfection is a natural thing. He says when the machine goes on the blink, that's when the man most enjoys it, tinkering with it, more than the man who drives the perfect car. And in a way, this is related, I think. The, I'm thinking of this word adjustment. Robert Maynard Hutchins spoke of adjustment courses in school. How terrible they are. To adjust to what? See, to adjust to what? Who sets the norm of adjustment? A Hitler wanted adjustment. And I know that you like, uh, interested in Summerhill, the school in England. A.S. Neil. He spoke of tyrants coming to being, or brutality comes from unhappiness. Unhappy people, in a sense, must find this out. Must find this scapegoat that you're referring to indirectly here. Is what I'm saying related to what you've been talking about?

I think that the, the perhaps the key word in your remarks is "scapegoat." We all must find the scapegoat because we cannot live. We cannot accuse ourselves. It's too uncomfortable. It gives us a feeling of hopelessness to accuse ourselves of our iniquities, our inadequacies, or or whatever it is. So we must find the face of that evil outwardly. As we were talking about yesterday, Joseph Campbell articulated that theme so well in in the book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces," because he traces the history of man's, uh, of man's eternal search for the face of evil, for the face of, uh, good, for the face of virtue, and for the face of, uh, badness. The idolatrous, uh, and relentless search for God and the Devil. Now, the face of God injures from culture to culture, from age to age, from person to person. And we have our own personal gods and our own personal devils. And we have our system of archangels, and we have our system of art devils, I might say. And we worship them. And if you ask everybody in the world, "What must we do to, uh, to have a decent world?" Some of them will say, "You have to, you have to take women's rights away because the women are really running the country, and they're, they're really out to get you. They own 89% of the economy, and the laws are all in favor of the women." And that's what I think we ought to do. Somebody else will say, "Well, we ought to segregate all the peoples of the world and have no kind of mixture at all, and put the mulattos and all the, uh, racial mixtures into one group." South Africa, apartheid. Yes. Or everybody has a different idea as to how to solve the world. What is useful, and what is not useful, what is good, and what is not good. Uh, and the pursuit, not only the pursuit, but the implementation of trying to achieve that leads us in the eternal circle. Now, it seems so painfully clear that if the world were all a shining democracy, at least shining in the concept that most Americans think that America is a shining example of democracy, which I think it is not, then it would be swell. The Communists think, "Well, if everybody was communized, it would be a wonderful world." Well, the minute that that happened, the day that the sun, the, the sun rose on those circumstances, would be the day that you would have people saying, fighting one another for some other reason. Because the world has never been without conflict. And it, I think it behooves us now, well, it's, it's absolutely imperative that we do it, because it is one world, whether we like it or not. It might not be one world, but it's one planet. And it behooves us now to scientifically apply all our technology and investigative capacities to the nature of hatred, to the nature of man himself, that produces, uh, the, the chaos in South Vietnam, or the murder of the American Indian in the Sand Creek Massacre, or the, uh, the Communist blood purge in Hungary. We have to do that, because we cannot, I think we can no longer go along with a luxurious, uh, and comforting concept that there is an intrinsic difference, the difference between the Russian and the American, or the Chinese and the Indonesian.

There's a theme here that seems to haunt all you're saying. That obviously, a theme that is recurring, I believe, in your work too. The saint and devil in all of us, in a sense. This is the theme of "One-Eyed Jacks," was it not? To some extent, the film that you directed as well as played in?

Yes, it was, to an extent. It wasn't, uh, fortunately articulated in the way I'd wanted it, because. Is this the theme you were seeking?

To some extent. I wanted to, uh, show that the spectrum of good and bad exists in all people, and that we cannot dispense with us. We have a duty to Carol Chessman, as we have a duty to Dr. Schweitzer. We have to respect, we have to respect one another's weaknesses. All that lives is holy. And one another's hatreds, but we have to, we have to respect the nature of hatred, but we have to understand it in order to dissolve it. We cannot dissolve it by attacking it with hatred. And the age-old, uh, the age-old rip that says, uh, uh, that that we should return the love for hatred doesn't mean that we should stand there and allow ourselves to be pounded into a pulp by somebody. Who was it? Simply means, at least to me, that we should, we that we should, we should deal with it with intelligence and with perception, and not return in kind. What it is, certainly we're not going to let Carol Chessman run loose and commit those crimes and be as socially, uh, destructive as he was. But we must, we, he is one of, he is a part of us. He is, he is someone society did something to him. One thing that, uh, and, uh, one thing that it's, that's pleasing and encouraging is the fact that the old concept, all concepts of sin and badness, are being revised in the courts. Because unbeknownst to themselves, the judiciary, the people who pass judgment on, uh, criminals and things, are coming to understand that there must be some, this must be some reason that 15 or 5 young teenage people will stomp a crippled boy to death, stomp him to death, kick him, mash him into the ground, and expunge his life. Now, we have to, it's a mystery why we did that. There's no rationalization. There's no reason for that. We can't say that they're insane, because we test them, and they're not. We can't say that they are, they're evil, because they're, they're not. They're, they're, they're just, we don't know what to call them. Eventually, we start hovering around the possibility that something is not right with these people, and maybe something's not right with our society.

Now, that is, uh, that's a good question. Because instead of being broken on the wheel, as they did in England, and punished and flailed, which of course produced nothing, we are now trying to apply some, some of our knowledge gained in recent years to these extraordinary acts. But whatever we've done, it has resulted now in a, in a swinging change, that a slowly growing arc that is aiming towards an understanding of the dynamics of human feeling and behavior.

You feel this is happening? You, you appear optimistic in saying this? You feel there is this slow growing understanding, despite the execution of a Chessman, or the self-righteous voices becoming more loud than ever?

Yes, I think that it is not, you see, of all the wonders that science has, uh, yet produced, they're, and not produced, but of all the wonders in this age of scientific investigation, the greatest wonder of all is that science itself has not until very recently focused itself on the nature of man. And what comprises him? What are the component parts of him? What makes him do this? We do it most amazingly for, in our motivational research laboratories, in order to sell people cigarettes that give them cancer, or underarm deodorant. Yes, the deodorants that. And we will do anything to exploit him. We will do everything that we can to, to, to study his discomforts and his, uh, his hopes, his fears, his foibles, his wants, his needs. Move up the quality. We must sell him quality. We must sell him stature, because he feels so inferior. The whole, this whole Playboy phenomena is interesting, because it it satisfies that urge of people feeling totally inadequate and totally without stature and individual reward. So we give them a kind of an air that's, uh, eroticism, perhaps not only eroticism, but it's a combination of many things. But among them is, uh, is a kind of, uh, male order, uh, sophistication and meaning. Because it is, it has the word "private." It happens to have probably several, several million members, and it's hardly private. But at least it's, it's clever enough to sustain the illusion they belong to something. Yes. But I think I think that a wholesale, wholesale attacks on things are now being, uh, in many, many, uh, arenas, in many, many areas, and conferences and congregations, is now being examined. So that the quality of wholesale and frontal assault on any issue, even on this issue that we're talking about, is undergoing examination.

Well, I think everything you're saying is related to you. Strangely enough, it seems not, but it is related to you as an artist, as a craftsman. I think this, you are obviously examining this, the saint and devil and all of us, the flaws within all of us. The rationalization may be specific and approaches. Pick your role. You did. You've been told about this so many times. And yet, if you find a different vein. When you did Kowalski, it was Clurman. It was Kenneth Tynan who spoke of your performance at being lyric in quality, but something more than that. Your lively imagination at work, transform what might have been, and apparently Williams accepted this change, the emphasis of the play. The audience here's a brutish, outwardly a brutish young man, yet the audience to criticize when you were doing the role, saw it through your eyes. And in a sense, Blanche, they saw a Blanche Dubois for a fraud, to some extent, because the nature of your performance, everything you've been saying, I think, is related to the way you interpret a certain role. Here, here's this man. Will you go ahead?

I don't think that it's related to that. If I'm, I may disagree. I think that, uh, those are just super amount of superficial manifestations of, of what I have, I have come to find as a result of the examination of myself. I think that it's always in poor taste and, and, uh, certainly questionable to use oneself as a reference point. And, uh, and that, uh, in that regard, in respect, I, I don't choose to use myself as a personal example. But I think that perhaps, on the other hand, that's the only, that's the only frame of reference. It's the only index, and the, it's the only lexicon that we can refer to. Certainly, I can't refer to your experiences about what the world is about. I'm not, can't refer to C.P. Snow. I'm not going to, uh, to, uh, to, um, investigate either.

Well, I must view the world from, from what the world is, and what the world is from the point of view of myself. Because I see the world through my, not only my retina, but to my psychological retina. And I have to understand how I see the world, because no matter where I look, my psychological flaws, whatever they are, and we all have them, each and every one of us, we have very definite concepts of what is good, what is bad, what is usable, what is not, what is interesting, what is boring, what is peaceful, what is, uh, threatening. And I have to learn my special language about myself in order to be able to begin to communicate with somebody else. Because if I don't know, if I don't know where those areas are, I won't know when the information is fed back into me from somebody else, that it is automatically being deflected and bouncing off the hard core of, uh, of ignorance. And I must make constant, constant adjustments for what the other person is saying in relation to the, the perceptors that, uh, I, that I must have knowledge of my own perceptors, and how I receive language. For instance, you can tell me something, it will irritate me, and you can express a point of view that it might be unsettling to me. But then I have to ask myself, "Why is that point of view unsettling?" And the first thing that I'm going to do is say, "I'm going to reach into the bag full of rationalizations, and I'm going to hurl a few generalizations," which might be very smart, might be very adroit, might be very clever, you know, and then insidious in their, in their, their use. But they might be completely wrong. When the real reason lies in some other area that I just don't can't bear to look at. And most practically seen, you see this phenomenon in the South, where people say, "Well, God, Jesus didn't forget the [ __ ] in here. Why, why hell, they'll just be running us all over. They'll, they'll ruin us. I mean, they'll ruin our race there. They're monkeys there." This and that and the other thing. And these poor, desperate people are so f filled with with, uh, a terror of what's going to happen if the Negroes come into power. They grab any reason under the sun, under the sun, and they completely ignore, out in their fear and in their, uh, distress, they completely ignore the possibility that, as a result of suppressing these people for so long, they feel enormously guilty. Feel they unconsciously anticipate a great wave of hostility, part of which is real, certainly, because the Black Muslim movement is an indication that that all is not rosy with, uh, with the Negro. And that, what at one time passed for a happy-go-lucky, smiling stereotype, yes, stereotype, the, the, the lurking antagonism in that, uh, uh, creature who had undergone humiliation and hopelessness and degradation to its, you know, to its fullest measure, is now come to life. But, uh, uh, it seems that that they now, the people in the South are undergoing very important, uh, challenges. Because each of them, they sit at home in their homes, and they say, "Well, what's going to happen? The [ __ ] are going to our school? Well, my God, they're, they're right in Mississippi now. They're in Mississippi at Oxford. This, what's going to happen to us? What are we all going to turn into [ __ ]?" And they're asking themselves all kinds of strange questions. And eventually, as a result of this pressure, the arrest of Martin Luther King, these people going down and forcing these issues, an answer is going to be forthcoming, and sooner than we expect. People are going to be living together in peace, perhaps not entirely peace, but they're going to be living together and enjoying some measure of reasonable social intercourse. And all these dreams of what was going to happen, isn't going to happen.

Well, Marlon Brando, despite your disagreement with me, I cannot dissociate what you're saying with your interpretation of certain of the roles you're playing. I'm not saying great intuition isn't at work. I don't mean it's all intelligence, but somehow I feel your particular outlook. I come back and, by the way, I have a hunch too. I'm feeling that this may be unsettling. You want to bring up Kowalski because so often you've been associated with us. And here's a stereotype made, which is wrong. And we can discuss that later on to the other roles. I want, even I wonder if the audience is aware that you are a marvelous March Banks, you marvelously shaving figure to Katherine Cornell's Candida. But somehow, the way you talk of evil, no, you talk of the saint and the devil in all of us, and rationalization. The reason that role, it seems to me, and apparently to a great many respected critics, is that your performance had so much vitality and intelligence and a lyric quality to it that it actually changed the author's intent. But this probably could not happen if you did not think. I'm not saying then you thought the way you do, but that intelligence was there to some extent. You disagree with this? I'm sorry, but I can't.

Yeah, I, I don't find the, the issue. I don't quite understand. Let me rephrase this, Marlon. Throughout this theme, and you agree, the theme of the saint and devil in all of us, and rationalization, you know, the saint, devil in all of us, is is a key, a key problem of our day, or a key something to understand. That there's a battle in all of us, the battle of the good and the bad. And it's easy to find a scapegoat, uh, because it pre, it it negates the necessity of examining ourselves. You're seeking self-examination. All of us are. In the role, outwardly, I'm watching a play by Tennessee Williams, "A Streetcar Named Desire," and there is a rather brutish, crude, rough young man on the stage, Stanley. And there's a rather delicate, sensitive sister-in-law. And outwardly, we might see a guy who's brutish, who destroys the sanity that was on the, uh, a teetering edge, anyway, of a sister. Yet, because of your interpretation, and this apparently was accepted by the playwright, he's apparently added more dimension to what I had, I've heard this set, and apparently he did say it. And some of the critics said, "Your, the power of your performance was such that the emphasis of the play was changed. We saw Stanley. We understood what made Stanley the man he is. And we also saw the fraud in Blanche DuBois through his eyes." What critics? McClurman said this?

Yes, but you used the plural. Tynan did too, was referring to Clurman here. He's a good critic because he speaks from the standpoint of a director. Yes. I think that that Eric Bentley didn't say that, and there are many critics that didn't say that. They said something entirely different. And what I mean to point out is, I'd like to use that as an illustration. It's reminiscent of the old parable that the three blind men were walking along, and they saw an elephant. And one felt the side of it and says, "Oh, here's a wall. We run into a wall." Someone else, someone the other, and grabbed the tail and says, "By no means, this is this is a snake, a snake with hair on the end of it." And the other one felt the leg and said, "You're both wrong. It's a trunk." Well, returning to what we were saying before, you saw, what Kenneth Tynan saw, you saw, what perhaps Harold Clurman saw. Now, someone else saw something different. It all depends on a particular disposition. That's always been a mystery to me, because because Shakespeare has lived through the ages, because he has communicated something eternal, that he has, he has communicated something in a major way, he has said something that has affected all of us, so he has lived. But, uh, there are others who, in their day, were considered great, but who died off because they didn't have this universal, uh, touch, these universal tentacles that just spread into the future, because, uh, they, they lack the universality of communication. Now, people will view actors as individuals. They'll view interviewers as individuals in a different way. I'm sure that there are a lot of people listening, uh, to this program, or who have listened to it one time, and thought, "Well, what the hell is he talking about? My God, he gets so esoteric and so full of finesse, and that he is a boy, that's a lot of nonsense. God, God, let's get the, you know, I, that's ridiculous. I don't want to hear that problem. I mean, Jimmy Baldwin, who's a, who the hell is he? I mean, you know, he never went to school. He's, uh, what kind of intellectual potential are they trying to afford you know?" Now, I've described this perhaps prejudicially, but there are other people who will sit also quietly and say, "Well, I've listened to, uh, I've listened to this fellow, and many of his programs are interesting, of course, uh, uh, he's wrong in this area, or he's wrong in that area. And, uh, I listened to that interview with Marlon Brando, and I think that he was certainly right about this issue, but of course, he's completely wrong about the other." And that's because he visualizes the world differently from my, than than I do. But, and you, you visualize the world differently from I do, from the way I do. So does Kenneth Tynan, and so does Eric Bentley, and so the Carol Clurman, and Tennessee Williams. But I, I only use that as an illustration to say that we will never see things when we say eye to eye. There is no eye to eye. There are some similarities. For instance, I'm on this program because you have heard me speak, you know my sister, you know some of the things that I think about, and perhaps some of the, the man in which I tend to evaluate things, which has a certain feeling. You have a certain feeling about. And I use the word feeling advisedly, because it really is feeling. Now, there are many intellectuals, and many non-intellectuals, or many pseudo-intellectuals, or aspiring intellectuals, all of which we might be a part of, who, uh, will have something in common, a cause in common. But when they get right down to it, they're great vast differences. And, uh, but they find themselves touching on these tiny little, uh, uh, pistols of, using a tentacle. Yes. And a little antenna. Yeah. Not really hitting it. Yes, because there is something in you that feels, feels that it can communicate with something in me. Now, there are something in, in other people who was saying, who have no communication with us at all. They don't understand what we're talking about, and they're just interested in what we're talking about. They think that what we're saying has nothing to do with reality, and it's just too, it's just a lot of words, a lot of follow, and it might very well be, uh, uh, you know, where certainly can't be the judge of that. There are others, uh, who will say, "My God, that was really wonderful. These fellows certainly know what they're talking about. They're, they're delving into issues that are dynamic, that are really attached to the central core of, of, of things." And, uh, these are, these are the fruits of, of introspective laborers that are going to produce some wonderful things in the world. And you know, I won't do that. No, no. But there are some people who are saying that. I know. Of course, that's completely a suspect, too. I think what you said, Martin, I'm really strangely straight, touched is the wrong word, but impress very much what you've just been saying, because you're pointing out something very important, a danger, I think, to me, I know, and obviously to you, of what I'm, I'm trying to reach you. There's no doubt of that. And I think we're making some contact, because you are a man. I think there are many facets to you. This is clear to me. This is not a public relations man's picture, because you are able, in a strange way, to articulate what many people are feeling and thinking and not doing. This matter of people seeing different things, leaving "Streetcar Named Desire" for them on people seeing different things, yet a great work of art. You're saying people will see an eternal truth. Say, well, suppose you were to do "Hamlet," just for the moment, an assumption. Would it not be a wholly different interpretation? Yet, at the same time, you're saying we would know Hamlet's motivations very well, even though your interpretation might be wholly different, say, from Olivier's or Gielgud's?

I think that, yes, I, I suppose. Well, anybody that would do Hamlet, uh, would, uh, alter in some degree, in some, uh, some poetic flavor, the nature of the man, his relationships, and his aspirations, his fears. Some would accentuate.

The confusion some would accentuate the poignancy. Some would very clearly delineate the philosophical uh uh stalemate that Hamlet finds himself in. And according to the man, they, they would, they would bring to life some part or illuminate some part of the mosaic that is that is Hamlet today.

And I use the word mosaic because I think that accurately describes what Hamlet is, because it is a mosaic of many, many things, many, many points of view, any and all of which can be successfully illuminated and accentuated, and still without disturbing the main theme of the piece. It holds itself intact. Uh, but, uh, yes, I suppose I would reflect a different aspect. As, uh, but at the same time, I think earlier, just touching upon say, Williams and Shakespeare, this is not meant to, to, you know, denigrate Tennessee Williams at all, who's certainly one of America's foremost playwrights, perhaps the most. But they added, there's an eternal truth, an eternal power in the writing of Hamlet that may not be in some other play. So no matter how you interpret, you, you were discussing with the three different major interpretations of your, of Kowalski as seen by different people, but Hamlet is a certain kind of guy. Emphases are different on part of certain performers, but that certain big truth is there that might not be in a playwright who is not of that stature, you see. And thus, it was say, your Kowalski, you, you sort of objected to the way certain people saw your own, not objective, so that people see so many different ways. Yeah.

I think that if a playwright, if a playwright has a great, great power, uh, well, I'll give you an example. I don't think that, uh, uh, that, uh, John, uh, like what's his name, he wrote *House of the August Moon*, Patrick, yeah, of course. John Patrick is a great playwright. I think that he is, uh, he's a fine craftsman, and that he wrote a wonderful play, delightful play, an extraordinary, uh, technical virtuosity in many respects. And, uh, I, for instance, I feel that I did not play that role well at all. I felt that I was miscast. Fought in the zucchini, yes. And then I didn't do, uh, very well in it, certainly as well as Davey Wayne or, uh, Eli Wallach. But, uh, nevertheless, that play had such strength in construction that it carried, it carried the bad performance of myself, and I think a performance less valuable than some others by Glenn Ford. And no matter, I don't think that any man directed it very well either. But whatever it was, the strength of the play, the framework carried us through because it was successful. That is almost an active factor-proof, director-proof, uh, vehicle. And, uh, it, it had the, the, the fiber to support the most incredible errors, uh, of interpretation and rendition. And, uh, such is the play of, uh, Tennessee Williams, *The Rose Tattoo*. That's hard to, uh, it's hard to destroy that play.

Something has occurred to me. You were speaking of John Patrick, an excellent craftsman, and not an artist. Yesterday, and speaking to the high school students, you said, "You are a, a craftsman." You know, a craftsman. Well, I would say consummate skill, certainly. But you are not an artist. You would not call yourself an artist. Why not? Well, I didn't say that I was a craftsman. I really don't, uh, uh, I say you are. Oh, well, I think that, uh, I don't know what an art of artist is. I don't know really how to apply that. Uh, there are some people who will say that, uh, Yehudi Menuhin is not an artist. He is an interpretive creator. And that an artist is someone who does makes an original contribution, uh, who performs the service of creating, holy, some, some, something that is separate from the work of other people. And that, uh, William Capel, who unfortunately died in that airplane crash, was not an artist. And that Leonard Bernstein is not an artist. He's an interpreter. And, uh, in that respect, uh, I, I don't know how to answer it. It's, um, of course, my remark was certainly partly tempered by the fact that I live in a, in a world that deals with, uh, uh, dollars and cents in a very crass fashion. That, uh, that movie production is thought of as product. It's, it's the law of supply and demand. Now, contained within that, I think, for instance, as within the, the world of journalism, uh, the *Manchester Guardian* certainly lives in a world of law that is controlled by the law of supply and demand. And they have, they have, they have to supply the demand that is made on them for a certain quality of news, certain quality of information and interpretation that will not be tolerated by, let's say, the likes of a *Time* magazine brand of journalism. But, uh, so it's, uh, with many respects, I, I don't feel that it's entirely appropriate that I should say call myself an artist when I have those associations. I think that there's great potential about artistry. And perhaps I, uh, it's out of my respect for, uh, what it means to be an artist that I don't choose to call myself one.

Appropriate that I should say call myself an artist when I have those associations. I think that there's great potential about artistry. And, uh, perhaps I, uh, it's out of my respect for, uh, what it means to be an artist that I, uh, don't choose to call myself one, because I think it's not something that's easily come by. And, uh, in the theater, just because, you know, you see the same kind of very practical, uh, monetary considerations governing theatrical enterprise here. And it's, uh, it's, I don't know. I've seen, I've seen artistry on television, to my way of thinking. Uh, I've seen the spirit of what I think is, uh, artistry, dedication, and beauty. You just hate to see the word promiscuously used. The word artist doesn't say big ads. The word colossal. You use the word interpreter. It's interesting. An interpreter. And in contrast to a creative figure. Yet something occurs to me. You like jazz, don't you? I know that you, you like good jazz. Yeah. I really don't have a good enough. You know, what is there? It's very difficult for, for me to communicate with, uh, jazz in a really fine way. I, of course, appreciate it, but I am not musically educated, nor am I attuned enough to be able to.

I was, I was leading up to something. You, you like jazz. It, we know the nature of jazz involves a great deal of improvisation. We know this. When you, uh, see a Basie band and hear a Basie band at work, or the, or the Modern Jazz Quartet, whatever, there's a great deal, there's something written, yet we know there are holes whereby the man who interprets also creates when the guy takes his solos. So here's a question of improvisation. Yet your technique as an actor involves this too, does it not? When you directed *One-Eyed Jacks*, you allowed your cast to improvise a great deal. This is, I assume, an orthodox in the making of a film. Isn't there a relation between the two here? Here's a guy. In other words, your interpretation of acting involves creating as well as interpreting. Yes, I suppose so. I, I don't mean to mince men's words about it. I certainly, certainly the actor is obliged to make a creative contribution. Uh, I think that the, that the actor has to borrow the form of the writer to bring his, uh, his contributions to life. And, uh, I certainly think that he's a creator. And I don't mean to imply that he is not, or that he, at least that he can be a creator. Some, very often he's not. No.

I was thinking the fact that you, your liking of jazz, again, perhaps I reach. This is one of my flaws, by the way. You, you're very good. Let me interview you because you point out, if you never reach, you never fall on your face. But the thing that I like is in this conversation is that you, your insight into not only yourself but into me, to a great extent too. Uh, I have a tendency, I know this, this is a confession, parenthetical, of reaching sometimes to make a point, of overreaching. And I say, I may be doing it now. And say, one of the, I think your liking jazz is quite natural because your acting is jazz. You may use this phrase as a jazz technique, call it what you will. But the similar technique is used, and that the improvisation, calling upon whatever source within you. I don't think that's true. I think that, uh, the technique that I use is primarily an intuitive one, and can be seen many, many places in the world, in many, many different circumstances. For instance, Eleanor Duse, as, uh, a woman who contrasted with Sarah Bernhardt, used the technique of feeling and the participation of her emotions and her intuitions in, uh, her acting. Uh, a man by the name of Alfonso Bedoya, who played in *The Treasure of the Sierra Madre*, he played the bandit. Gave a spectacular intuitive performance. He played with the big hat, the gold hat, yes. That was his, uh, wonderful performance. Never been, he doesn't know Stanislavski from, uh, from a hamburger or a hot tamale. Or, uh, but he gave a marvelous performance. This fellow that played him, *Bicycle Thief*, certainly not an actor. So, uh, I think readily, uh, discernible that people, uh, that it's, it's an ordinary technique, and it's not limited to. Well, I suppose you could, I, it, it is if what Sarah, uh, rather, uh, I don't know, Duse did is jazz, then I suppose what I did is jazz too. And perhaps is an accurate phrase.

I want to ask you a question though. You sit and you ask many questions, and it's so often, so often is the case, we get no impression of you as a person. We don't know what goes on in your mind. And you are of, uh, enormous influence and a vital concern to many people and many listeners. And, uh, I think that it perhaps is not inappropriate that I ask you a few questions about yourself. And, and this might startle you, but I think that you, in, in the spirit of communication, you have also an obligation to, to, uh, perhaps, uh, describe some of your feelings and your points of view. And I was wondering, what is it about this particular kind of work that interests you? Why do you, why are you preoccupied with these, these questions? So, what is the nature of your, your search and your, your furrowing out this information from people of all kinds and all, uh, all manner? What, what kind of contribution does it make to you as a person?

This is a reversal. It's a good question, Marlon. Randall, I don't know. I suppose curiosity. I don't know. And there's a danger. This is a danger that I have of being too glib. I've got to watch this. Curiosity, I suppose, is an easy way of saying it. I think, in a way, in a way, in an indirect way, I can find out a little about myself too. And again, this is also a dangerous way out. I'm inquisitive and curious, not a peeping tom. This is interesting. You might, you might be interested in this. I've never, er, I've never asked questions that would in any sense invade the privacy of a per. I don't think that's important. A man's personal life, uh, an actress, a painter's, a musician's person is of no meaning to me. That is personal, uh, peccadillos or strengths. But his art is. I think we find more about the guy, the man, the artist, using this phrase again, uh, carefully, through his work. More about him through his work. We can find out personally than, than does he drink a lot or does he go out with women a lot? That's of no significance to me.

Just a little anecdote might be in order, uh, if I may. Just a little anecdote involving Diana Barrymore. At the time, she wasn't *Suddenly, Last Summer*. And I remember the interview, and I was much taken with a man in which you played this role. I was really impressed with it, very much so. My long lunches, aren't you gonna ask me about? And I forgot what it was. Personal question. I said, "No, it's not my concern. It's not in my business. And it's not the business of my listeners." But you, as an actress, are. But that's about the only way I can. I'm not answering your question, Marlon. And yet, perhaps I am, in a way. I, I enjoy this work as much as one can within the framework which we live. Other things I'd like to do is form a confessional. Yeah.

I'd like to point out something. You see, when I ask you a simple question, such as, "Please describe what it is that you feel about, and what the reasons are that you do it," you find yourself, I've noticed, tense and, uh, uh, concerned, and perhaps a little confused, and a little, uh, unsettled by the question. And I, I mean to point out, I think this, this bears very, very importantly on what we were talking about before, of how difficult it is really to ascertain, uh, the nature of what we do. It's, it's very difficult. When you ask me a question about something, I really have to, you know, I can give you a glib answer, and I just suddenly start talking and spieling. But if I want to answer the question honestly, I have to really search in my mind. And the questions that I, you could ask me a question, uh, most of the questions you've asked me, I have asked myself before. Are the subjects I've approached, I've asked myself before. So I've come up with an answer. And whether it's right or wrong, you know, history will bear out, or further inspection will, uh, corroborate or, uh, not. But you could, uh, yesterday, when these children ask me a question, and this downstairs, I was stymied. A couple of times they said, "Did, what do you, uh?" I had to say, "Well, I, I never thought of that before. I, uh, I, uh, uh, I don't know." I'd say, "I don't know." But, uh, but I'm sure, uh, in this illustration, we find that that when someone that you're interviewing suddenly turns around and asks you a question, it's, you have to do a great deal of communication with yourself. Suddenly, you ha, a whole, uh, system of, of, uh, of, uh, finding and, uh, inspection and search begins. And, um, I think that it's useful, uh, to, perhaps, to observe that it is not easy for any of us when we are asked the simplest question to give a simple answer. I think we can give a simple answer if we're pretending. So now, the answer, the glib answer is curiosity. I find people exciting and use a phrase I'm no longer going to use as often as I have in the past, interesting human beings. Again, clichés. This is easy. Yeah. But you did. I think I've happily fallen into your pattern here. I think this is, I think I have. And I think it's good for me that I have. Because I noticed you yesterday, again, this is what impressed me very much, just this point. You could have been glib in answering the students yesterday, the high school editors, but you actually were taken. One, for instance, the question about a theme of success. This has talked about a great deal, material success. And yet, you, you spoke of the classic case, the tragic case of Marilyn Monroe, whom you knew. This is a classic case, and of a sense, there's a great deal of meaninglessness to it. Yet the kid said to you, remember, there was a tall Negro kid got up and said, "Would you change places with us if you feel this way about it?" And you were stymied for a moment. Remember that? I remember today. Thank you.

About today, uh, there's another interesting, um, um, area that seems to come up in, in this discussion. And I've noticed that recently read that the members of the military forces who are directly instrumental in the setting off of atomic warheads have to be people who are have to pass very strong and stringent and exhaustive psychological tests to realize and to, to make it absolutely sure that it will not fall, uh, to the decision, or the decision will not fall to a man who is emotionally unstable. Now, what does that mean? Yeah. What does it mean, emotionally unstable? By their, their own standards, by the standards of the army, not by the standards of, of anyone else. What they employ, uh, psychiatrists and psychologists to, uh, to investigate these people. Now, I think with that, we begin to see the encroachment of scientific investigation as it is properly applied, and perhaps should be properly applied, to our governmental figures. Now, we examine the life of Bobby Kennedy. And let us say, uh, that Mr. He is out to get Mr. Hoffa. Now, let us say that he is not out to get Mr. Hoffa, or he is, he is out to get the, the, the, what I call the, uh, uh, the mafia, not the mafia, the, uh, the syndicate. He wants to get the syndicate. Now, how much of a personal challenge, how much of his personal feelings is involved in that? And how much is, uh, is it, um, just a reasonable, cold, hard, intellectual task that confronts him? It's something that only he can, he can ask. But we can ask it. Make us. We can ascertain to a certain extent. There must be something personal about it. Jimmy Hoffa's defense of himself, certainly, is not completely the defense of his union. It's not his defense of Dave Beck or the principles of labor, certainly. There are, uh, he's defending other issues, lateral issues, hidden issues that we don't see. Mr. Khrushchev and Mr. uh, Mr. De Gaulle, Mr. McMillan, President Kennedy, are all people who are very human, perhaps all too human, in face of the most incredible responsibilities and the most awesome decisions that they have to make in this world. And, uh, uh, it doesn't seem, it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility or usefulness that a man like, uh, Senator Talmadge or Senator Ellender, are notable, who are people notable for their, uh, segregation, their, well, yes, their beliefs and their politics, tempered by, uh, their, uh, their political locations in this country, or people like Senator McCarthy, that it would be valuable to examine them. It would be valuable to see what an examination of Senator McCarthy might produce, or Mr. John Birch Society, Chambers, or Paul Robeson, or Elijah Muhammad. What is in the nature of these people that makes them leaders? Now, we are not so naive in America now as to believe we intuitively know it. But we are not so naive to believe that Richard Nixon is devoid of feeling. When he went to before the press, he made an enormous political error. And he showed himself a weakness that perhaps might have been dangerous had he been the President of the United States and been faced with the challenge of Cuba. He showed that he was a man of, uh, emotional viewers, and a kind of an emotional quality that he adhered to, for denied. But we saw it. We saw it in his face. Uh, some people are more controlled than others. We don't know to what extent Mr. Kennedy makes an emotional decision. We don't know if he ever says, "For God's sake, what's the matter with you out there? Well, why can't you do it?" We don't know what he said to the governor when, of Mississippi, over the telephone. We don't know what emotions went surging and coursing through him. But what we do know is that the world is filled with atomic bombs today. And that the unexamined life, uh, of a politician is a dangerous life. And that irresponsible and, uh, a people unprepared, people who are unprepared, uh, to handle situations cannot afford, we cannot afford the luxury of their indulgence in positions that they do not rightfully belong in. And I think, in that respect, that science is slowly coming now to point the arrow home.

There are two points you've made here, Marlon, that to me, at the moment, they seem unrelated, yet to me, they're almost mutually pledged. He spoke of the unexamined life earlier. You spoke of the unexamined life not being worth living. And today, the unexamined life of the politician, the man in power, being a perilous thing to all of us, what with the world being filled with atom bombs. That's one point. And earlier, you spoke of emotional instability tests being made by the army to see that emotionally unstable men do not handle warheads. And I'm thinking of a case you may not have heard of. This man, his name is Claude Eatherly. He was a major who was the navigator of the *Enola Gay*. That he gave the order for the bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima. Since that day, something has happened to Major Eatherly. He, he was so disturbed, his conscience, in fact, the name of his book is *Burning Conscience*, was such that he, he could not sleep. He felt guilty. He went around the country speaking against nuclear armaments. And it was decided he is emotionally unstable. He was institutionalized. May still be in Waco, Texas, now. I'm wondering, by whose standards is he, whose conscience is so sharp on this matter? Why is he emotionally unstable? Those who say, "Poor man." Why are they emotionally stable? And if their conscience is not affected by this? So I'm wondering, whose life remains to be examined? Shouldn't we, the men on the street, ourselves examine our own lives? Isn't it equally as perilous for our lives being examined today too, as the politicians?

Well, I don't suppose it's any more important for us now than it ever was. Or I don't suppose proportionately more people are examining their lives now than they ever were before. Uh, there are some people who stand head and shoulders above the others and above the rest of us because they, for one reason or another, are obliged to, uh, find these insights at whatever cost it is to themselves and the world around them. But I certainly think it behooves everyone to, to do that. But not all of us are disposed that way. But in times such as this, in relation to, uh, Mr. What was it? Eatherly? Yes. I was, uh, I was, uh, I read several articles about him. I don't think actually that his, that that crisis that he came to was a result of his having dropped the bomb. I felt that certainly that was a part of it, but that was probably just the form that his anxiety took. It certainly helped. But I think that that whatever difficulty he had and whatever complexes developed came from a much, much earlier time. But certainly, we, uh, we'll have to, uh, examine our politicians. They will have to examine themselves, and we will have to examine them much more closely because the responsibility of the politician is much greater today than it ever was. And I think that these influences, slowly, will make their concentric influences all felt all over the world. And I think that they eventually will come when men like Christie, Christian, Maute, Zacano, Sigmund, Freud, Chiang Kai-shek, De Gaulle, all of these men, in whatever time we find them, will be men of men chosen more carefully through examination of themselves and examination of the peoples, because of responsibility, because of the enormous responsibility that they hold.

Marlon, remember the, remember what you said earlier. I agree with what you say. Remember, you said something earlier about seeking the enemy without. How much easier to seek the enemy without. You know, and I'm coming now to us. You, me, everybody, we of the free world. What about us? You see, we must examine our lives. And our, I know I sound self-righteous, but self-righteousness is our danger, as well as the other side's too. Well, yes, but I think that, uh, that that kind of knowledge and depth is, uh, reserved only for a few special people who are willing to go through, to make the journey through the night sea, as someone's once said, to find one's centers. And whether it is, uh, found through the investigations of the applications of the mystique of Zen Buddhism, or psychoanalysis, or [Music] some other active, vital inspecting technique or philosophy, they will find it. But I think it's too optimistic to suppose. I don't think that history ever indicates that people en masse are, uh, willing to make that enormous sacrifice. But I'm coming back again to this matter, the life having a meaning, really, for all of us, even, even the most doltish of men. Well, life is always given meaning by people, whether it's having a lot of money, or, uh, being sexually virulent, or, uh, I don't mean virulent, I mean viral. Well, variable intent can at times be in our day, you know, which we dramatize it, so we glamorize it, or having power, a status symbol, or a lot of, uh, property, or influence, or whatever it is, that whatever it is that symbolizes success and meaning for people. People go on pursuing it. I think that it is now clear there are certain techniques that have been, uh, been developed and are being developed, uh, applied to the human being, perhaps offers a, a fair explanation, and, uh, a more useful one, as to what he is and how he works and why he works. We constantly are, are reminded that, uh, criminals and, uh, people of misfortune of that kind are being examined from the point of view of being ill, not from the point of view of being sick. And gradually, those experiments and their findings come down to the everyday level, of course, which is always dangerous, too.

I think this, uh, that this sort of preoccupation with the psyche, and this, this, I thought, I follow what you're saying. See, the reason there's a tangential reason I'd raised this yesterday. And speaking to the high school students, we spoke of, uh, you, you, they asked you about one of whom are your favorite directors, and you mentioned the Japanese director Kurosawa. And I was delighted when you, you mentioned the film *Ikiru*. Here's a perfect case of a director, and the central figure is seeking the meaning of life. He wants, what's the man is dying of cancer. He has a job of not much meaning. And suddenly, six months to live, and what the hell is life all about? And such a beautiful, magnificent thing. And you were moved, as I was, I'm sure a great many were who saw it. That, that's what he's saying, in a way. What the hell is the meaning of life? What does it mean? And this, I think, is a picture that's so universal in its impact. It applies to Dave more than ever, because time will be very short, unless we all of us, I feel, this is my own personal view, it's connected with this great work of art to me. And you pointed it out yesterday. That's why, in a way, in my mind, these indirect questions are all part of one bundle, really. Why were you moved by that film?

I was moved by the, uh, the display of character that this man had, that by his bravery and his, his refinements as a person. Uh, how little, how little it was for him to want to make a municipal recreation area for children. But that was in his last moments of life, his glory. And there was something very touching about that. The man was purified, and he became whole and dedicated. And I think wherever we see that kind of dedication, it's moving to us. It gave his life a meaning too, didn't it? A man who was a cipher till then, seemingly a cipher. To, well, let us not say he gave his life as meaning, but it gave his life more meaning. Uh, all our lives have meaning. Your life, uh, as, uh, as an interviewer, as someone who was curious about the common point of view and the esoteric point of view. The secretary who sits across the room talking on the telephone has a meaning to her life. I have a meaning to my life, diversified as it might be. But how much that meaning is valuable to us, I think varies from person to person. How real our meanings are to ourselves, I think varies from person to person. And there's no way to, to judge that. I can't judge the realness or the usefulness that your meaning has for you, and it's difficult for you to judge that for me. It's something that because we're different organisms, uh, it's something we must judge for ourselves.

On the subject of meaning, this is just a free association. A word meaning, meaningful. Yesterday, and speaking to the students, he said, "There are certain roles you seek. You, you receive many offers, of course, roles that are meaningful to you." And I know you're, uh, you're very much involved, I believe, I, I suspect, emotionally as well as artistically, with the film *The Ugly American*, that will be opening in Chicago soon. The, you, you chose this film, a role in this film, rather than, I'm sure you, you rejected a great many offers. Why?

Well, I felt that it was, um, there were many comments that, uh, uh, and many, um, many things that I felt convinced about that I would like to articulate, many sentiments and observations that I felt a kinship with, uh, that were contained in this drama. Certainly not all. Many of I disagree with, and some I wish had been more, and some I wish I had been less. But nevertheless, the, uh, the total impression of the film does, uh, share to a great extent my personal feelings, as well as George's and, uh, Mel Tucker's and, uh, Stuart Stern's. This was a picture made in concert. Should point out George's, George Englund, the producer-director of the film. Yes. And, uh, Stuart was the, Stuart Stern was the writer. Mel Tucker was the producer. And, uh, that was why I, I chose this film. Actually, it wasn't the, uh, the, uh, the part so much as it was the, uh, the film itself.

Here again, meaning. See. Well, again, you are. I know you, you may disagree, and I, it's very interesting. I sense this. You don't mind my saying it's a personal comment. Whenever I speak of your art, you say you're not an artist, or your skill, or your craft, you shy from it. So I won't ask this because you, you are obviously, I sense this, and you're clear. You're a man who probes continuously. But I'm, I know our time is short. You have to catch a plane soon to go elsewhere. But I cannot help but still be moved by you and the high school students. You yourself, you, you're aware that your life, your, your work on screen had tremendous impact on young people through the years, and as far as I'm concerned, very much for the better.

Well, they be rebellious of what I think. They question in their own way. Each does in his own way. But something that happened toward the end, when yourself, you, you were, uh, quite surprised by the questions asked by the students. You had expected, as you said, you know, the squealing kids, and the questions to a great extent were pertinent, were thoughtful. And then you said that somewhere along the line, you had lost connection with this generation, as indeed I have. There's a new generation coming up. I feel. What can you remember your reactions to yesterday, as well as this, reflect your feelings about the young 17, 18-year-old kids today, and how they would differ? I'm older than you, but whether you are, when you were 17, 18, and I know how they differ. Is something I don't know. And that, that's a result of the ineffable distance between one age and another. Uh, if it were easy to communicate with another age, then we'd never have any trouble with learning, because all that was ever written, uh, all that was ever useful has been written, rather, and there's a, is certainly, uh, accessible in literature and art and philosophy. But we read it, and we might as well be reading hieroglyphics, because you can't learn how to live except through living. And you can't communicate things that you've learned. [Music] In any way, everybody has to learn it from themselves. And it's just hopeless to try and cram down the, cram into the brains of others. First of all, we don't have any right, uh, to do that. I don't think. To invade the, uh, the minds of others. I think everyone has, certainly, a right and a duty to come to their own conclusions. But I was impressed by the fact that, that at one time, I was in some respect the hero of the young, and now I am not. Someone else has taken my place because I've gone beyond. I'm no longer a teenage symbol, and someone else has done it. But they're again, they have their own, their own gods, their own worshipers, their own heroes. I've come to realize that a hero, the hero with a thousand faces, is the hero of a thousand different people. And that I've outworn my usefulness as a hero to the teenager. They want someone else. In the spirit of rebellion, stated in a different way. And I was impressed with that. And also with the strangeness of the strangeness of looking down the funnel of the years into a time when I was 18, 19, and 20, and that it might as well be a hundred years away. It's not just 20 or whatever it is. Have these, again, this is a cursory observation on your part and mine. We perhaps neither of us is too close to touch with kids. Do you sense the more cool? This is known as the cool era, you know, the cool. You think the kids you saw the students the other day were more cool than your contemporaries when they were 18?

Yes, I think they're, they tend to be more cynical, more questioning. Well, they're, they're assaulted by so many lies every day. The false lies on television, the attitude of the announcers, the, uh, the way the products are pushed, the sort of heisting and, uh, psychological second, or second story, uh, men that that handle and push around. Everybody knows it's a lie. And that's so much that we live as a liar. But, and it's taken for granted that we live in terms of lies. But the question is, isn't so much how whether it's true or not, but how much of a lie there is in it. And, uh, I think that they are, um, they're so loaded with false values on every hand that they, that they become a little cynical. And I think it's a healthy reaction. I think it's perfectly, it's something done in self-defense. And they don't believe it. The kind of, the kind of world, the kind of Christian world that has taught them in the churches, and the kind of Christian world that they meet on Madison Avenue is vastly different. And there's a large schism in our society as a result of this endless, relentless push for, uh, the mother money.

I must ask you this, Martin. It's a personal question of you. What you said, oh, you're the father of two children. What do you tell them? I mean, in view of the framework which we live, surrounded as we are by the lie, the big lie, the little lie, perhaps not Hitler's big lie, but lies that are large enough, certainly. What, uh, what do you tell them? Tell them about what? About the world we live in today? Or when? That's a general question. What kind of people? How, what kind of people do you want them to be?

I think I don't tell them anything. I tell them something when they ask me. They say, "What is this?" or "Why is this?" And I give them, uh, I try to explain it to them as simply as I can. For instance, people have come up to me, much to my discomfort, while my son was there, and gone through this rather embarrassing ritual of asking for my autograph. The, the magical touch, rubbing the, the touchstone, the lucky stone of the, uh, the hero. And looking adoringly and worshipfully at this symbol. Strange, peculiar manifestation of our funny life here in America. So I was signing this autograph. I couldn't do otherwise. I always sign for children because they really don't know any better. But it's so distressing when you, when you see adults indulging in this, this sad, [Music] talisman-seeking kind of thing. But sometimes you just have to do it because you don't want to be offensive. But anyhow, he was there. Uh, I happened to be with my older boy, and he said, "Daddy, why does he want your name?" Well, I had to scrape the inside of my brain to give him a decent answer. I said, "Well, I don't know why they want my name. Some people do that. Some people just think it's lucky if they have things. They have rabbit's feet, and they have little charms and talismans." Yeah, talismans. And some people like me, and they want to, they want a memento from having been near me. And so they want me to scribble something. But it was quite difficult to answer. I think that the task set out for them is enormous. I think to be the sons of a famous man is an awful burden. And it's awfully tough because I'll have to live up and be constantly known as my sons. I will not be known as their father. I will, they'll be known as my sons. And that's, uh, that's an ugly, ugly burden. And I, I hope to find some way to protect them, uh, if I can, to bring them up in some place where they are protected from this thing. In other places in the world, it doesn't matter who I am. And I'm just another two-legged person walking around. But when they go to school, then they very quickly become aware of the fact that their father is somebody who was somehow an important commodity in everyone's home and everyone's life. And I think he's seen. You can't keep the kids away from the television. You can't be there all the time, and they see it. It's an enormous problem. And I wish I could spare them that. But they'll just have to bullet through as best they can, and with all the help I can give them.

You know, the phrase you just used then, "You are an important commodity," is what you said. An important commodity. So you might know, sense this is the commodity they, they worship, really, isn't it? The symbol of you. You're aware of this?

Yes, I think that, uh, we're all bought and sold in one way or another. A few of us aren't, but there's, there's a price tag on all of us. If, uh, you see ideas on television sold. You see political ideals. Ideas that are bought. I mean, the mere expression of the word "I don't buy" comes from a kind of mercantile invasion of the, uh, American mind. The values of buying and selling. And, uh, you can even buy stature, as, uh, we just think we discussed before, by being in the Playboy Club, or move up to quality by drinking a certain beer. And it's, it's perfectly absurd, and, uh, and sad. But nevertheless, that's, uh, that's the world we live in.

I'm wanting you, you're obviously a thoughtful man. So I'm, and you are in a certain position that is, as you sense, not too enviable. Many envy you, indeed. Yet, and yet I know you do not feel this way about it. You've explained why graphically, vividly enough. Yet, how do we keep the kids? This is the question. Obviously, they're cynical because the lies about. But isn't there some way, and this is again, this is the Pollyanna in me, that life, there is a better way of living? In other words, if the child becomes the cynic, he's a half-man, isn't he? The cynic, he's a half-man, isn't he? How then can he be the full man in our time? I don't know whether you can answer it, and who can. But again, I come back to your kids, to your children. You see, I can't answer, and I've done the best I can with my age, in my life. I don't think that I'm a raging success in my life. I don't think that I've achieved certain things that I would perhaps like to have achieved within the realm of my own soul. But then, we do what we can. We can't do any better than we can. And we use the, the techniques and the reserve fuel tanks that are afforded us. And maybe his life will be less pressured in some way. Maybe. So hard to tell. When nations and empires rise and fall within a period of 25 years, and there are fantastic revelations by science, it'll be difficult to predict how difficult the world will be. But, or how good, perhaps. Yes. Or how good, perhaps. But as I get older, I, uh, I've become more convinced that a simple way of life, a life that that is directly related to living, the, the getting of food and the making of it, the preparing of it, the work that is direct, directly related to living, such as the kind of work that you find in almost any primitive community, I think is fundamentally more wholesome. I think that richness and success has just so poorly distorts life. It hasn't really meant anything. I think that it tends to mean something because people think, well, they'll have security. But they don't. We don't have economic security here. We're little islands separated one from another. You know, if you starve, you have to go to the state. But you're a social reject if you're poor, and you haven't, if you're not successful, there's something, uh, something sick about you, something malignant and unusable. People don't like to be around failure, at least failure on the common sense. And, uh, they can't understand people can't understand, uh, uh, other people turning their back on, uh, material goods and not taking full advantage of it when you can. Other people. I think again, speaking to the students, you mentioned Tahiti. This was the place that apparently, which you grew most fond there. Then material success is not what it is here. Well, they have no sense of, of what it is to have or have not. They, uh, they have bananas, they have, uh, coconuts, they have breadfruit, they have fish in the lagoon. They want a house, they stick some palm fronds together and a few hunks of wood, and, and for a few pennies, they can get a pareo, and they live perfectly happy. That the Tahitians don't work except when they want something specific. But that would, of course, change when the marketing psychologists invade that area. When the, uh, the world communication system is, uh, complete. Then the Japanese sin flood the South Pacific with a lot of television sets, then the marketeers will invade the realm of the Tahitian also, enforce a market, force him to want things, tease him into it, cajoling him to shame him into it, humiliate him into it, saying, "You're poor, you're backward, you're, uh, you're no good, you're not civilized, you have no teeth, uh, you're this, whatever it is." However, they, they always shame us, right? As Flaherty's *Moana of the South Seas*, way back, the documentary was of that theme. But recently, when it's very poignant, Tahiti, the point you make, the Australian Broadcasting Company recently had a documentary, quite powerful, of civilized, quote unquote, invasion of Tahiti, and what was beginning to happen, the very thing you're describing. Perhaps then there will be no, no place Melville saw it anymore.

This leads to this crazy question of the technological age we live in. It is a value, is it not? The machine. The machine is not evil per se, but it's the way, certainly, is being used. Yes. I think that, uh, America is, uh, not finished with its pioneering in this world, oddly enough. We are pioneering a great many things. Certainly, we were pioneering through an age of the Indonesian of, uh, our lives with material things, the inundation of our minds with material considerations. And, uh, so often we're criticized as a tinkertoy society and a gadget-oriented civilization. And, uh, with a butt of so many, uh, jokes as a result of that. But I think when you go to Paris now, or Germany, and you go to Italy, you find the same kind of merchandising psychology, the same kind of mercantile thinking, the forced markets. Uh, it has also often reminded me of a forced feeding geese, when they stuff a metal pipe down a goose's throat and pour corn in that to swell his liver. That's what they've done to us. They've swollen our liver. We've done that to ourselves. And it'll take time for us to understand what we're doing to ourselves, that it really doesn't mean anything. That the rat way, the rat race, the, you know, the conniving and [Music] the, uh, the, uh, racing, uh, lust that we have for success, is, uh, finds us counterfeit.

This brings us back, doesn't it, Marlon, to the examining, the self-examined life? You know, it brings it back to that again. So again, to each, I'm thinking about you in that plane, and this has been very rewarding, certainly for me, and I know for the audience. Conversation with you. You, uh, turned the tables on me earlier in the interview by asking me a question, why I'm doing what I'm doing. You know, I never really asked you this, but I will now. Marlon, why, why, why?

Are you an actor? Why'd you become an actor? I don't know. I, the reasons for the reasons that we do things are lost, I think, in the very subtle nature of our being.

[Music]

I suppose I once thought that if you took a handful of sand and threw it up into the air in the wind, you could predict, if you knew all the factors, the weight of each grain of sand, its location in the mass, its uh shape, its specific density, the uh the application of the pressure, the force of the wind, uh theoretically you could predict what would happen if you knew all the factors and where each sand grain was located exactly, what was happening in its relation, its weight, its collision force, uh in relation to the the mass. But uh, I'm trying to look out the word. No, okay, okay.

But uh, I don't think that uh that's possible. And in the same way, it's not possible to understand what we, what we do. And you know, I, I can't, I don't know why. I can make guesses at it. I can make guesses at it and probes at it. But uh, I don't suppose I could really tell you why. It's lost in the tangle of uh all the things that make up what I am as a person, which is uh infinitely uh complex and intricate and perhaps beyond our perception, at least beyond mine.

But I think that something very useful has come out of this discussion and many of the discussions I've had recently. I think that exchanges of this kind uh with people, there, there is a uh there's a growth in communication and a hunger for it. On television, you see so many shows going uh discussion shows, and you wonder when they first came out, what the hell are they doing? They're just sitting there talking. And gradually you came to realize that there was a hunger for conversation, for exchange of ideas. And I think this is a really a remarkable thing because uh whereas it took 1500 years for Buddhism, I think, to come from India to Japan, it takes the twist 37 hours to get to uh Australia, maybe less, whatever it is. And so when new worthwhile dynamic ideas, conceptions come, we can uh there, there can be a very quick exchange of them and application of that knowledge. And I think that's uh that's wonderful.

It's also dangerous too, because uh it's uh with the um the television and the radio and uh whatnot, it's so easy to uh would train, poison, and discipline people's minds, as they do in Red China. They have loudspeakers that blast from morning till night, uh make announcements from morning till night, rubbing and scrubbing this uh this uh propaganda into their the souls and the bones and the minds of these children. The Nazis did that, and it was very difficult. There was an article that I read which dealt with the denazification of emotionally disturbed children in Germany after the war, because these children were brought up as Nazis. They were told to tell on their parents, and they became very neurotic and full of problems about that. And it's very hard to eradicate that.

Even now, there are people walking around who still are diseased from that malignant influence. Using your cue, Marlon, of looking within ourselves too. We too have it. They have it, and we have it in our way, as you explained earlier, with the magic box, continuously with that particular kind of brainwashing too, whether it be the good cigarette that is better than the other, or whether it be this particular deodorant, but it's better than the other. It's a different way, a lesser extent. And yet, I think it's, I think what's come out of this is our own sense of the need to be more aware, too, of our early. You spoke, the very first question asked about pretense, and you spoke with the pretender. And all of us be aware of this.

One last question, Marlon, and I release you. Anything that you'd care to say we haven't talked about? This is always a, this is the catch-all. Is anything during this past hour and a half or so that's on your mind or around it that you'd care to say?

No, uh, except that I might point out that I've had so many microphones stuck in my face in the past three weeks since I've been on this uh 35,000-mile tour. Uh, I've often asked myself the question, they find myself talking, what are you talking about? Why is the microphone stuck in your face? I know that if I was a dentist from Duluth, that it might not be my uh face that the microphone was stuck in. And I find myself giving my opinions, and but always at the same time wondering why, why are my opinions asked? And I wonder sometimes if not this very moment is not a manifestation of the kind of thing we were talking about. Why me and not you? Why me and not my secretary sitting across the room with a waiter? Uh, but I suppose you do, you do interview all kinds of people, don't you?

Again, Lee, that phrase, quote unquote, the artist. Because I think he, to me, is an attractive guy. He may be neurotic in his own way, as all of us. However, there's something about this man who explores. And he, not everybody, I'd say generally, someone in the field of what you might call the, the fine and lively arts. It's a general phrase. Somebody who is exploring one way or another. But uh, in uh Gray's eulogy in a country churchyard, he says, "Full many a flower is born to blush unseen." And you never can't tell. I, I recommend that book again, that the general psycho called the, the hidden, the hidden remnant, which deals with this, because we never know where we'll find that person. Certainly, we won't find him. Categorically, I don't believe, as you do, that the artist is a man who necessarily is the articulator of wisdom or knowledge. I think you'll find it in the mason, or the uh, the shoemaker, or the farmer, or in the, in, in maybe a Tahitian who who can't even articulate it.

I didn't mean it that way, Martin, just to uh correct it. To give you, since you've asked, uh perhaps the most powerful guest I've ever had too was Big Bill Broonzy, holy unlettered blues singer, perhaps the wisest man I've known, and a cockney waitress in London. These may be my two most exciting guests. So I'm, I meant in the general, in the general sense, it's someone who, in one way or another, explores. And often it's because of the nature of his work, the quote-unquote artist. But that's the idea. You know, it would be interesting, I would think, some time to uh to get criminal and ask him. You did marvelous, Jimmy Blake. Jimmy Blake has spent 25 years in the pokey. Uh, he's again, he's, he's an artist, though he's close to me to the American Jane. Jimmy Blake is an articulate convict. And he, well, this last thing, perhaps, on subject pretense, he said he found life in prison less, as he, as he left it today, less the prison on the world outside.

That's wonderful. Listen, at that moment, at that point, I think that's a, that's a fitting close. I, I do want to say that that a lot of uh strife and storm and wrong come my way because uh I am a sellable commodity and a commodity and and I get bought and sold all the time. And it's rare that I can really sit down and give my point of view unedited and not invented and to be judged for what I've said as a result of saying it completely. And anyhow, I'm very grateful to you for that opportunity because uh so often it is unpleasant to see yourself so rudely misrepresented. And I, thanks very much. Starts and goodbye.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Marlon Brando. Thank you very much. And I know I speak for the listeners that we're delighted that Marlon Brando has come out and set his peace. I think now we're closer to the man than we've been. The image, one thing. The man, something else. Marlon Brando, thank you very much.