My Interview with Boots Riley

My Interview with Boots Riley 

Originally Published: 23 May 2019

Additional Edits: 30 January 2026

Hey guys. I recently watched Sorry to Bother You, and it bothered me so much that I had to process it creatively. I decided to do an interview with the director, Mr. Boots Riley. Read it if it's your thing. Also, watch the movie—it's worth the discussion.

(Note: This is a fake interview for fun and satirical purposes. I mean no harm by it; I’m just exploring the outsider views & themes.)

---

Me: I am here with Boots Riley, the director of the anti-capitalist movie Sorry to Bother You. Thanks, Boots, for joining me.

Boots: Yeah, yeah, let's get this done with.

Me: First question. What I found interesting in your movie is that there are no robots in it! It feels somewhat weird to have a movie critiquing capitalism in 2018 with no robots, while in real life, people are losing jobs to automation. I’ve even received telemarketing calls from machines... they replaced workers with software as early as 2015.

Boots: Look, I made that movie to capture two markets that cross over perfectly. First, the "virtue-class." These are people who have replaced "wealth" with "virtue" as their primary currency. I needed to center them in their own movie so they could feel like, "Yeah, I am the shit." But I’m also selling to the "Luxury-Belief Class." These are the wealthy elites who adopt ideas that confer status upon themselves while often hurting the lower classes. One group uses the movie to feel like heroes for being "poor," and the other uses it to feel "radical" while staying rich. It’s a perfect loop.

Me: Why is that important?

Boots: Because you have a bunch of wussy dudes patting themselves on the back for not participating in "evil" capitalism. It’s built on Luxury Beliefs—the idea that being "unsuccessful" is actually a righteous choice. They act like they could participate in capitalism and be successful if they wanted to, but they choose not to because they have "ethics." When in truth, they don't have the balls. This is a movie for those guys, and for the rich people who want to hang out with them to feel "grounded." They deserve a movie that affirms them, telling them: "No, it's not because you lack the drive to compete; no, it's because you’re too moral." That's the cross-section I am targeting.

Me: I get that, but the movie could still have had robots in it.

Boots: Well, I could have had robots, but I chose not to. Robot VFX would have cost half the movie's budget, but the man-horse visual effects were cheaper. So I said, "Fuck robots!" We couldn't afford them. We’ll use man-horses instead of robot workers. I made the story around people getting turned into man-horses to work as slave labor because the critics eat that slavery shit up. Do you think if the movie had robots as slave workers instead that the movie would have a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? Fuck no. If I had robots in it, the movie would have been just another blockbuster. I needed to differentiate it from Michael Bay shit. Slave labor + wussy dude + anti-capitalism + weird animation = critical darling.

Me: So you have nothing against robots or... something to say about robots right now in this capitalist society?

Boots: Shit, I have lots to say about robots. I love robots. The lack of robots in my movie is a hint because the people who should be watching Sorry to Bother You—the blue-collar workers—are actually watching Transformers. (Editor's Note: Transformers: The Last Knight was a massive global hit just prior to Riley's film release). They root for capitalist products—Ford Mustangs, Ducati bikes—to save the world. That's Transformers: mass-produced products are our heroes.

Or maybe the blue-collar worker is watching Mission: Impossible instead (Editor's Note: Mission: Impossible - Fallout was released the same month as Sorry to Bother You, July 2018), where he learns that a BMW is the car of choice for doing impossible shit. The guy working at the warehouse doesn't want to see a movie about a warehouse; he wants to see a guy in a BMW. I'm not selling to him; I'm selling to the guy who feels guilty about owning a BMW. The blue-collar workers are aspiring; they give a shit about BMWs. But the "wussy dude" doesn't care about BMWs—or he pretends not to. He consoles himself by thinking he could get the BMW if he wanted to, but chooses not to. So, he is a "better" human for it. I needed product placement to speak to my target audience—the guy who uses the evils of capitalism as an excuse to not get off his ass and work.

Me: Let's talk about the hero, Cassius. There's a scene where Cassius apologizes to Squeeze, the guy who made out with his girlfriend. That scene was crazy. Does Squeeze apologize for moving in on Cassius's girlfriend? No, instead they preach to Cassius about betrayal and doing right. At that point, I wanted to punch that Squeeze guy in the eye...

Boots: Well, that's the target market. Squeeze is a union leader, man. In this market, "Organizer" is the new "Alpha." You don't punch the organizer; you apologize for being in his way. While Cassius and Detroit were broken up, she canoodles with Squeeze, who is Cassius's coworker. In the movie, this is put beyond "moral questions"—it’s a righteous feminist statement, motherfucker! 

Detroit (Tessa Thompson) carrying Cassius (LaKeith Stanfield) on her back.

But the important thing is this: the wussy guy’s fantasy is to fuck a woman who has more power than himself. His fantasy is that the girl could fuck anyone she wants, but she fucks him instead. He doesn't even need to get a high-paying job to get Tessa Thompson. No, she loves him as he is. That's the fantasy for that type of guy. This is why when people criticized Detroit, I defended her character by saying, "She fucks who she wants because she wants to and when she wants to." Why mention this at all? Because that's the fantasy of my target guy, and also I knew the adjacent target market—women who identify as feminists—would applaud that. Heck, I gave those women their fantasy guy. I even had a shot of Detroit carrying Cassius on her back like a baby. A wussy man-baby. That's their fantasy—that they are strong enough to lift their boyfriends on their backs. And their boyfriends don't mind because they don't care about traditional gender norms. I gave them their "bae" fantasy and what do I get? Complaints!

Me: I wouldn't trust a guy who says that a free woman is someone who fucks whomever and whenever she wants. It sounds like a ploy to get pussy when it comes from a guy. I mean, what's in it for him?

Boots: Hell, it's still a trap when it's said by women. Everything is a trap! We are here to mate and reproduce. Everything a man says or does is to get an advantage with women. It's basic science; it's in books about evolution. So, of course, saying that is a ploy. It’s meant to signal to specific ladies that you are MORE evolved than other guys. But that view is entirely against evolutionary biology.

We live in a time where nobody gives a shit about science or facts. Before, it was understood that men had to be fucking millionaires to fuck a woman like Tessa Thompson. But then people started rebelling against biology and they created ideologies that women can screw as much as they wanted to with no consequences... and that ideology gave birth to man-babies like Cassius. These guys found a strategy to get laid by appearing "progressive." The strategy for proving your fitness is now an identity, not money.

Me: So you don't think this fits with evolutionary biology?

Boots: No. Women who are rabid readers of evolution will agree with me. Women who have degrees in Cultural Studies or some shit like that will disagree. I believe in science. The appearance of characters like Cassius is merely the evolutionary equation trying to balance itself. Will they survive? No. The world will eat them up. They will always be out-evolved by people who out-compete them successfully. People who don't have a fearful attitude towards capitalism.

Me: But in the movie, Cassius’s idea of "moral victory" at the end is fucked. He gives up the posh life...

Boots: What are you, dumb? Cassius gives away his fancy car to one of his "friends," while he settles for something simpler. And then him and his morally upright girlfriend move back to live in his uncle's garage. That's what "good people" do—they move into a garage as if there were no other alternatives. And then they fight capitalism from there. Its all just "Luxury Beliefs" shit.

Me: To put it another way, what's presented as "goodness" in this capitalist world is weird. My preferred movie would ask if it's even possible to be "good," and what the limits of that goodness are.

Boots: No such thing as a good person in capitalism. The revolution will never come. Ever. Workers will never rise up. From discussions about the movie Black Panther to talks about "representation" in that Meghan Markle & Prince Harry Royal Wedding—true revolution has been substituted by a survival strategy. Everything in pop culture just says, "Forget it."

Me: But man, you are part of radical bands and you say you're an activist?

Boots: It's all strategy, bruh. Let's Get Free by Dead Prez was released by Sony Music. Nobody cares.

---

Afterword: 

When we look at films like Sorry to Bother You, it often seems like looking at a disguised survival strategy. If "Boots" is right, then our ideologies—whether progressive or capitalist—are often just masks for biological and social competition