William Hurt – Humans

By starrymag | June 26, 2015

Q) Could you first just talk about kind of what it was that first attracted you to this part and made you decide that you had to do it?

A) Well, initially it was just the title. And because that’s my topic. And then realized that it was about human beings and machines, but still titled Humans, it was intriguing. And it’s about a topic that I’ve been interested in most of my life. And then I started reading it and I realized it was full of character and good questions like the nature of this interview today, and the technology that we’re using to have it, which is so dislocating but at the same time, pretty interesting. So this is an example of why the series interested me.

Q) Do you think if Synth were real, would you want one or would you be too afraid?

A) Funny, I was just talking. I just had lunch with the writers and we remarked on how every single interviewer asks us that question. And we don’t want to be boring but it’s a hard thing to answer. We don’t want to answer the same thing every time. I certainly don’t. My answer is, I don’t know. And I wouldn’t know without knowing a lot more. And I think that’s sort of the key here, is to ask questions about the whole, about this situation, that human beings are incorporating in the most literal sense, technology into their being. Whether or not, you would have a robotic in your home and what level – I should probably do this here – has a lot to do with what that robotic is, what it’s equipped to do. What kind of relationship you want to have with it, and those are the answers, those are questions I don’t have answers to yet. I’d have to interview the respective employee.

Q) Ever since Altered States, way back then, you’ve just made a lot of, lot of movies that have kind of had like a science fiction but where real science was at a core of it. Is that the, just a coincidence or is that a subject you’ve always been interested in, how science relates to people and so on?

A) Oh, no question. It’s been a fundamental interest of mine, the whole time, since I was young.

Q) What originally fascinated you about it and what, as you’ve gotten into all these different roles have you found fascinating?

A) As I began to read science fiction, important science fiction, specific, most especially Isaac Asimov and began to realize that it wasn’t anywhere near as much fiction as people were thinking, or generally people were thinking. It fired my imagination to red hot. I just realized what they were talking about was anything but imaginary. And so I was enthralled and always have been.

Q) On “Humans,” give us an example, what parts of this really particularly – because obviously it’s science and it’s not very fiction, because we’re very close to it, what parts of it particularly fascinate you?

A) The thing about Humans that most interested me as a specific project was the stance from which the questions about the whole subject are posed and asked. And the stance is our life today. So it’s more about, not about the future being asked what it’s going to be from the future standpoint. It’s the present being asked what the future’s going to be with, by introducing that future to us now, who we are now. So it really is a vivid way of posing the questions to viewers today. What I mean is that in our, you know, so we’re watching the television, and in that television is a family, and the family, there’s a house, and in the house is a living room, and in walks the Synth. And that living room is like our living room. That kitchen is like our kitchen. Those people are like our people, like us. And they’re going to ask the questions that we would ask if that happened right now. And that’s the most vivid way to pose questions about the help, the hindrance, the invasion, the furtherance of human beings.

Q) What intrigued me about this show and your character is that he was co-inventor of the Synth, but also now is in situation where he has almost an emotional attachment to one of the Synths in Odi, and then Vera comes into the picture. Kind of describe to us what that, those relationships are and how in your character, your life is really changed because of it.

A) Well George made a choice, an important… life important choice not to go forward with designing Synth since what he prematurely. He was involved in the engineering of the mechanics of the bodies but not the so called minds. And what he did was make a choice to remain human in the most fragile sense of the word, the most vulnerable sense of the word because he saw something in that experience though it was fraught with the worst risks any of us faced, the risk all of us face, morality itself, of realizing the potential, or his potential as a human being. So in other words, he went home and he lived with his wife. His wife passes away and then he suffers an anomaly, a cerebral malfunction and he loses some of his memory systems, which makes Odi, who was a robotic of the fundamental sort, not the sentient kind in the life that he had with his wife. And he, that robotic has all the memories of the event that took place while that robotic was part of their life. And that becomes George’s relationship to his wife because the Synth are not – and Synth means synthetic – remembers all those events in rudimentary fashion. And that helps George continue the life of the life of his relationship with his wife. And that’s why the emotional part exists. He knows that Odi is a machine but he also is grateful to anything that helps keep his memories of his beloved alive. And so he allows himself the responsible pleasure of rejecting onto Odi some of the feelings, but at the same time he always differentiates between real and unreal. So it’s an interesting question for all of us how much are we going to let ourselves feel about machinery when in fact the machinery is there to be an extension of a far more complex computer, which is the computer of our biochemistry, our bodies. It’s a big, big, big question.

Q) Also can we, as humans, love a machine?

A) I don’t think you can really love a machine in the way that you would love a human being, unless and this is what I, this is – it may sound flippant to you, but I’ve used it in a couple of other interviews, unless the machine becomes human. So I think that’s our task. If you want to have as fulfilling a relationship with a machine as you do with a human being, then you better make sure that, that machine is as fulfilled, or potentially fulfilled as a human being is, and that would be our task. And I would love to be able to spend about ten minutes explaining what that means to me. I mean that if the machine were more human it would make sense. And so, are we going to have the audacity to make machines more human, which means of course, they can do very great risk, of giving machines the capacity for suffering and surprise.

Q) I’m sure this series is going to bring up a lot of questions like these.

A) I hope it does and I hope it does to the American audience as it is already done so beautifully with the British, with the, because they responded very, very loud and clear to it. And I’m hoping the Americans do the same, we Americans.

Q) What was it you found challenging about portraying this character?

A) I find it more challenging when I’m asked to play characters that aren’t so interesting, which I usually refuse. It’s challenging – I can’t say that this was challenging because I was so furiously kind of in love it, you know. So I just went to work very excited every day. I didn’t feel challenged in the sense that I was worried or, you know, that it was an impediment. There was no impediment here, unless it was the standard pediment that not having enough time to prepare, but which is a great one. So that would be the challenge. The challenge would be the standard idea of preparation, but in this particular case having it done in Britain and there’s a, that comes the culture of theater, which I come from so there was a lot more possible there for me, lots of levels of communications. Go ahead.

Q) Was there anything then about Millican that you thought of that may not have originally been in the script for him, maybe something about his backstory?

A) Yes, I don’t, the things, you can add anything you want as long as it doesn’t contradict anything that’s there. That’s the rule. The rule is you can invent anything that doesn’t contradict the truth of the character as described. And no character as it exists on the page, in any script I’ve ever read is a large percentage of its potential because they leave you, in a good script they leave you creative room. So they didn’t write down how his hair, his hairdo, so I did that. There are lots of things I invented about him, using my own personality, traits and other ones that I invented for him and, but I didn’t contradict anything on the page.

Q) Are you as a person or you as the character, either one, how do you think the three robotic laws that Asimov laid out are enough as machines develop as you said, human qualities become human. Are those really enough and is this show going to explore and is your character going to personally explore this as kind of the creator of these Synth, which the name in itself gives an elevation over robots or I take even androids?

A) I don’t think the three are enough, no. I think they’re the most fundamental over general guidelines. I myself think that if Synths are to allowed to become or insist on becoming sentient. That, that sentience will be a function of a consciousness that is in itself a function of very, very complex ethical interactions, ethics that are somehow rather transcribed into the root files of the hardware and software that go into the huge conference call of their mind. I think that the rudiments, the basic rules are great fundamental ethical guideline, but I think that the real interaction of ethics is as complex as a 1500 year Buddhist conversion. And I think that’s where consciousness actually comes from, is that every human being has thousands of voices in their mind and spirit, interacting to create in a sense, the being of human being. And I think that if this singularity of sentient that we call, that we somehow, I don’t know what to really call it, this will take place. It will take place as a matter of extraordinarily complex comprehension of all the interactive elements that go into the thing we call consciousness. And I think that’s quite a long ways off. I think it will include perhaps unforeseen as yet dimension, or at least unforeseen by some, which is that I believe that the senses are very, very much a part of that interaction, that immense conversation that takes place within all beings. And I think each one of those senses has in an allegorical way a mind of its own and comes to the party replete with its own genetic memory of everything that happened through creation. So I think that smell and sight and sound will all be sitting at the great round table of consciousness. And as well as other theoretical components that may seem more complex but in my understanding, are not. I think that this thing that we’re calling the singularity, what we call the technological singularity, there are other kinds of singularity. There’s approaching and I think that the bare beginning of the conversation about that are starting now as the rudiments of an immature computer technology are showing us the hints of the future that may be coming, or some of the vast questions about it that may be coming. And so I think that as we map the mind, and by the mind I mean something very multidimensional in not only its physical pathways but its philosophical pathways. I think we’re going to run into a marvelous, demanding, challenging nest of components. But I think Asimov in his absolute brilliance was able to reduce it to three principles that we can resonate with right now and I’m glad for him. I’m glad for his existence. I’m grateful that I was alive to read him.

Q) I did find an interview with you from a couple years ago, where you talked about you don’t play people, you chose to go for the character.

A) Right. I’m a character actor.

Q) If you would elaborate kind of on that statement now and how it pertains to your portrayal of Dr. Millican?

A) Well, I, we were just talking about Asimov protocols and how they breakdown into three elegant, simple, vast ideas. I would add one more note to the comment that I made about character. I do go for character but I go, the character as a function of the entire play, the entire screen play. So really what I want when I’m reading a screenplay, is to have the feeling when I’m finished with it that I would basically like to go and play any character they offer me or even go for coffee on the film set. That I want, my feeling is that I want to be part of that project. So that’s the first criteria for me, is do I want to be part of the whole, the whole thing.

Q) I understand that you’re a private pilot.

A) Yes, I was. I mean I haven’t flown for a while but I flew for about 30 years, yes.

Q) I was just wondering if any of that training ever helped you with your characters on screen?

A) Yes, it’s, I mean what helps you with your characters is inspirations in life. And the hobbies that I’ve chosen are the ones that connected me to life and that certain is one of those things that flying thrilled me for most of my life. I started out very young flying unusual aircraft, flying in unusual aircraft.  The first time I flew long distance was in 1951 when I flew from San Francisco to Hawaii in a plane called the MARS, which is larger than a 747, was an amphibious airplane, prop driven and it would double decker with birds. It had been a military aircraft and then was converted to commercial. I flew PBYs in Catalina – in, I flew in PBYs, Catalina’s, EC3s, 2s, 4s, C47s, all those things in the Pacific in the early 50s. I flew, I was in, I think I was in the second Pans Atlantic 707 flight, I think it was in the sixth or seventh Pans Atlantic comet flight. I’ve had myself, I’ve owned airplanes from Cessna 180s. I had a part interest in a de Havilland Beaver. I had a Cessna 5, Seneca 5, I had a 206, a Bonanza. So I flew quite a bunch of stuff and it inspired me no end to see the world from that point of view, from high up but also in the peace time, civilian job, which is the job with the highest level of personal responsibility legally permitted.

Q) if you could just elaborate a little bit more about kind of how theater shaped you. I mean you’ve done a zillion movies but what is it about the theater start, Boars Head or anywhere else that just kind of shapes you as an actor or a person?

A) It’s great that you ask that question. Thank you very much for it. I don’t actually see myself as a film actor. I see myself as a theater practitioner. And I see all the different forms of expression in the theater as being what I do. And it has lots of different parts but it’s fundamentally the same basic art form, and I reduced it to its components, it’s fundamental components a long time ago, the same way that Asimov tried to do with the protocols. And I see it, I see what I do as going to work at the art of the theater. And that can happen in television. It can happen on film. It can happen on stage. It can happen lots of ways. But I do see it fundamentally as that art form and the principles of drama. And the principles of character development, and the principles of the relationship of character to destiny are its perennial questions and those are the questions that interest me in life and that’s why I do it.

Q) There’s something that disturbs me about the show a little bit is with your character and Vera, it’s almost like she’s kind of not only running the household but running you a little bit. Kind of talk about that aspect of that and how machines on the series play into that.

A) I think it raises a big question about whether machines are going to be used to inflict a police state on us, I mean on the people who are not competent or in agreement with the use of them. And as we are, as in a police society, it is the responsibility for every civilian to resent the state over controlling individual’s existence, and in lots of different way, lots of different stages of life. Just recently for instance in England, they agreed to allow three different portions of genetic coding to be included in one in vitro fertilization. That’s a law. That came up, there’s a lot of people who are protesting against that. But what they were trying to do is the fight for it, which prevailed was based on an argument that said that there would be less likelihood of painful mutation in the egg when fertilized because it reduced by a very large percentage, the chance for mutation, or handicap. And at the same time that a lot of people are going, wait a second, are we going to be creating an animal husbandry state, a boutique genetics state and are we allowing evolution, or God to do the designing of our species. So, there are huge questions about this, and we she walks in the room she’s like the stereotype of the police state meddling in your life at a time when you’re losing some of your physical capacities but may not be losing them mentally. I think that the series is designed to raise a lot of questions that I don’t think it has the presumption to answer them finally. I think this is what makes it a good series, or part of what it does.

Q) Do you think we’re going to have a conversation in this show, of course you know more better than we do, about the value of wisdom, age, and how that reflects upon humanity? And how bringing machines, which are all new and shiny, accept yours in that conflict which we have the new versus the old, especially in technology of people and skillsets, how do you see that portraying for you?

A) I don’t know how it’s going to go with the series, because I don’t know what they have planned for the series. Anything that this series would do now or in the future, I’d want to be of, if they ask me to be. And I can’t imagine that, that question you’re asking, which is essentially important one wouldn’t be part of the game. I can’t imagine that all important question would be there. I think that’s really kind of what it’s all about.

Q) Now for you personally, do you think that’s what one thing would separates from AIs today and always will, or will it not?

A) I don’t think necessarily always if the components of consciousness and memory are brought together with as much reverence as nature has created us with. If you make carefully asked questions with a lot of information, you’re more likely to come up with some reasonable. So I do think that certainly the part of a potentially sentient machine that would be actually, probably easier to accomplish than consciousness itself, would be the library part, the history part, the access to information part. I think that, that’s something that right now, is more developed than the collation or the synthesis part, or I mean, not synthesis, maybe that’s not the best word, but the collation or the interpolation part. In other words, I think accessing information is more possible at the moment than analyzing it well. I think the algorithm for analysis are the ones that you have to be most watchful about.

Q) It as scary as the big data today.

A) Yes, exactly right. And then you have this issue you between notions of privacy, which wouldn’t necessarily be what someone in the NSA would be afraid it is, which is an indulgence or a right to for a few people to harm many people. It could also be that without essences known of as privacy, that you won’t be able to create the bubbles of quiet and freedom in which human imagine can dare to go places it hasn’t been before. So that function of the notions of individuality hasn’t been talked about very much. Most of the ones that are talked about are the ones that infer the anarchic instincts or the indulgent pleasure, the ones that are irreverent and irrelevant to human society But, you know, without that capacity to go where we haven’t been before, usually the vessel for that is a smaller vessel, the individual vessel, versus the mass level, which is a structural vessel. They’re both necessary, but if a society is defined as security on the one hand and innovation on the other, or safety and love, love of the whole and love of the individual, I think you’re cutting off half of the horizon.

 

 

*CONFERENCE CALL*