tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 2, 2017 11:00am-12:01pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> good evening. charlie is traveling. i'm allison stewart. the begin with another eventful week in washington. the supreme court upheld part of president trump's travel ban on monday. wentesday, mitch mcconnell through the senate health care's health care -- through the senate health care's plan. the white house confirmed president trump will meet with russian president vladimir putin next week at the g-20 summit in germany.
joining me is shannon pettypiece. a lot when on this week. let's get to the travel ban. the state department has issued new guidelines to indices -- two embassies for people applying to come to the u.s. from six predominantly muslim countries. what are the guidelines saying? was if: what they said you had some connection to the united states, you could be allowed to come into the country if you are from one of these banned countries. what a connection means, is where the confusion lied in with the interpretation -- confusion lies in the interpretation is if you have a father, mother, son, and law, you could come to the country just by this ban being in place. other people, even people with -- distantlatives
relatives, that would not be enough. allison: who would make this determination? willon: the determination be done by the administration, by the state department, by custom, border control of homeland security. it has gone through the legal process and will be difficult to challenge it from a lower court because you have that supreme court ruling, so now, it is up to the administration. , or thethe last time first time this issue came up, attorneys flooded the airport prepared to help people as they land. what are groups like the aclu and other groups saying about this? shannon: the prediction is where that was sort of a fast train wreck, this will be more like a slow motion train wreck. there will likely continue to be individual cases that get contested, disputed, that play out in the courts, not a broad challenge like we saw in the courts earlier.
maybe on an individual case-by-case basis. alison: let's go to president trump's tweets. there is one tweet that people have a talking about and a lot of people have condemned. it was a very personal and abrasive tweet against ,ournalists make a brezinski who i have to say someone i know. both democrats and republicans having critical of this tweet, which does not often to the president currently. did he cross some line with the republicans have been supporting him? pleasn: after all of the from republicans to dow back the trees, even the president's have been encouraging him to dial back the tweets, he leaned into the across the line tweets even further with a personal attack on someone that fits right into the vein of cyber bullying, and
essentially saying, if you attack me, over -- or if you disagree with me, i will personally attack you in your most sensitive places on twitter and make it a public feud. it comes at a time when yesterday, we were talking about could republicans and democrats come together? and trying to get everyone to unite with the health care bill. that was the talk yesterday, and today, you know, complete division. democrats moving even further away from the president. they fell for a second they will try to work with him. as you mentioned, republicans and members of the president's own party coming out saying, stop, this is unacceptable and not reflective of what the president of the medicine should be saying. alison: mr. trump ssm abrasive -- mr. trump has said some aggressive things before an expected he would back down, but it has -- with his base.
how has his base reacted so far? shannon: usually around 20% to 30% of people say they like president trump's tweets. but 67% of americans would like to see him stop, or dial it back and bring it into the presidential realm. however, as i have talked to people close to the president, has to showat he the basic he is the guy you elected. you did not send him to washington and he became a swamp creature and changed, and started putting up these politically-correct tweets. he feels like he has to maintain his authenticity. he cannot ship it that she cannot pivot, because it would -- he cannot pivot to alienate his followers.
maybe you can say it hurt his agenda by creating distractions, but it is hard to prove that. -- sore is the relative where's the negative reinforcement to tell him to stop? shannon: the president will be meeting with russian president latimer putting at the g-20 summit in germany. do we know what is on the agenda? shannon: this'll will be a moment to bring up russian interference in our elections and the cyberattacks that russia has been carrying out in the united states. there is a desperate hope of a foreign-policy community in the u.s., from members of congress, that the president will take this opportunity to say to putin , as president obama said, knock it off. send a strong signal trying to interfere in our elections is not acceptable. we do not know the president will go that far and say that because he has shown hesitation about making a big issue about russian interference, and the
feeling of those close to the president say he fears it will undermine his presidency be really eight knowledges that russians played a role in influencing elections. collusion aside, but with fake news and tweet bots, that sort of interference could delegitimize his presidency. alison: there has been reporting that president trump has tasked the national security council with bargaining chips, something to bring to the meeting to use. but with something like that be? shannon: one could be syria. there is this desire to try and strike a deal in syria, so if you go work out a deal in syria, maybe it could say, we will ease of sanctions, which congress and the senate are working hard to strengthen sanctions and not make that happen.
telling russia, we will give you some leverage to do what you want in your own country. messagesomething, a that he has signal to other countries saying we will lay off human rights and won't make an issue publicly. give us something else. alison: there has been some reporting that the president and groups are not on board with concessions. or do they not agree? shannon: there are people on different sites and pages of the within nhc.on and other members of congress have their own views on foreign policy. , there are ause lot of diverse opinions. democrat.is really a jared kushner leans to the left, and then you have a steve bannon
nationalist, you have generals, like general mattis who come from a perspective from the military. is all this conflict but at the end of the day, it is trump that will make the final decision and it will be up to him. alison: how important is next week? the meeting between putin and of trump? shannon: that week will be crucial because this russia-cyber threat is real. not just interfering in our elections, but hacking other aspects of the american infrastructure. hacks of the electric grid. if there is a threat from russia after the invasion of crimea and further expansion that the russians may have. it is crucial, too, as relations go with nato and other european
leaders. at the g7 meeting, the president's last international trip, they were tense moments between germany, france, and nato members. chance to rebuild some of those relationships and encourage nato in europe that you have a strong ally in the u.s. who will be there and defend you against a potential threat from a country like russia. alison: correspondent shannon pettypiece reporting from washington for bloomberg news, thank you so much. shannon: thank you. ♪
♪ alison: donald trump's victory in the 2016 election took some of the nation by surprise. his support from palm beach to kansas has remained largely unwavering despite the issues that have so far plagued his administration. a new special report in "the economist" examines what led to the president's rise and why politics may be forever changed. john pardo is it the u.s. editor and also the report's lead author and spent several weeks in states across the country to better understand the mentality of the president's steadfast backing. i am pleased to welcome him to the program. hi, john. what prompted this? john: i was interested in looking at the trump phenomenon from the bottom up or the top down. it really feels like in 20, 30, 40 years time, people will be saying about the trump presidency, how did that happen?
and there is one way of answering that, which is to look at the campaign, the tweets, what is happening in the white house, what is happening on capitol hill? there is an entirely different way of looking at it from the bottom up, what did trump supporters think they were getting out of this deal? what, if anything, could he do that might upset them? and really, where other kind of limits of their support for him? alison: how did you decide where to go and to whom to speak? john: i tried to get a mix of places. when we talk about the trump phenomenon in politics, we think of downscale voters in west virginia, appalachia. he did do well in those places. he also did really well in some very fancy, upscale parts of new york, and parts of manhattan not , far where we are filming this. palm beach, near mar-a-lago. the thing that struck me is if you talk to trump voters in these very different locales, what they say about the president is actually very
similar. you know, they say he is a businessman he is not a typical , politician. he is a good man. the media is being tough on him. you will need to give him more time to do what he wants to do. the whole russian investigation is made up, etc. and so, that kind of consistency of worldview prompted a question for me, which is if people are , not voting on pocketbook issues, they are not really voting on economics it seems to me. what are they voting on? alison: well what is his appeal? , you kind of come to the conclusion that it is his appeal. what is it? john: i think that is right. i think he has pioneered a kind of white identity politics. the minute you come out with a phrase like that, it sounds like you are accusing trump supporters of being racist. this is not what i am trying to do. i think america has become a much less racist country over the past few decades. there is support for interracial marriage and polling. there's a ton of signs of progress.
but at the same time, politics has become, if anything, even more racialized. if you look at some of the surveys of trump voters, there is this big study in the american national election done every presidential year. if you look at that, a large majority of people who voted for donald trump say whites in america need to work together to undo laws that are unfair to other whites. you know, if that is not a kind of white identity politics, i do not know what is. alison: that is an interesting phrase, laws that are unfair to whites. what falls under that category? john: i would imagine it would be things like affirmative action. a few other federal programs like this, but this is consistent with what a lot of sociologists and researchers have found in parts of rural america. the book "strangers in their own land," found this sense of mourning on the part of white rule of america, longing for a
time that is lost when men were on top, when it seemed easier to come out of high school and go straight into a job which you were secure in for life, could afford a car, a family holiday , and those sorts of things. so, trump clearly taps into that, but if you pick that as the limits of trump's support, you miss this upscale trump voting phenomenon, which to me is as interesting. , alison: one of the things about the racial issue, white national politics, if you get a group of people of color together they will say it has , always been there. it is just now there is a leader saying it is ok to express that, that this is not something that has gone away or gotten better, but for a while, it was something you were not allowed to express out loud. when you spoke to people, did you get any sense they were willing to talk about brown people and black people in a different way? john: so people i asked the , question to directly were a little bit defensive.
often they went out of the way , to make the point about how they personally did not hold racist views and so forth. but i had a really interesting experience along these lines. i was in a town called coleman , which is in north alabama. it is a largely white town, founded by the descendents of german immigrants. and almost everyone there voted for donald trump. and i was speaking to the mayor of coleman, and i said how much , of this is about race? he said it does not have anything to do with race. there is this town nearby called colony, which is entirely african-american, and all the folks there voted for donald trump, too. so i thought, hang on. [laughter] john: i got straight in my car and headed down the road to colony. alison: good reporter. john: and colony was fascinating because it was a little town founded after reconstruction at a time when some freed slaves were able to get 40 acres and a mule. not many people as you know got that deal, but some did.
the settlement had been there since the late 19th century. it was and is an entirely african-american sort of small town, alabama place. i went around there talking to people about how they viewed politics. they also agreed that race was much less of a problem in america. some of them had memories of schools being desegregated and so forth, some of the older folks i talked to there. but i looked at the voter returns. almost everyone in colony voted for hillary clinton. there's something interesting going on. america has become less racist on most objective measures, but politics has become more if anything, more racialized. alison: what do you think is least understood about this group, about the devout trump supporter? john: i think the thing that is least understood, i will cheat a bit and say two things. one, i think if you just look at trump rallies in the 2016 campaign and red across that , archetypal trump supporters, you might think of very large
men in biker jackets and tattoos shouting, "lock her up." the typical trump supporter is a typical republican. 90% of people who voted for mitt romney went on to vote for donald trump. is much more polite small-town america, where i spent much of my time during this reporting, a very polite, nice place. trump supporters were unfailingly kind, nice, and polite. so, this idea it is some tremendous, angry, upsurge of emotion is not quite right. and the second thing, just briefly people like me who spend , their time looking at public policy, have a big tendency to overestimate how much people know about politics, how closely they are following politics. about 20% it seems of americans follow politics pretty closely. for the rest, they are not paying a lot of attention to what is going on. it is very easy to forget that when you are a news junkie like me. alison: what i thought was interesting and a little bit sad
was that some of the people you talked to did not have a basic understanding about which party stood for what. john: again, i found this really striking. it is the case when you talk to voters often that they jumble together a lot of points of view that do not fit neatly into one party or the other, i found. and yet there are consistent republicans or democrats. for them, what i did is i tried for them, what i did was try to find out if it was just a few people in my notebook or if that is true, if there's research that backs this up. and again the national election , study says that about 30% of people who voted in 2016 cannot place republicans and democrats on a left-right axis. if you say which of these parties is in favor of more spending, and which of these parties is in favor of cutting spending? about 30% of voters are not quite sure. a decent number of trump voters
in 2016 thought the democrats were the more conservative party than the republicans, and a not insignificant number of hillary clinton voters also thought democrats were more conservative than republicans. so these kind of really neat , categories that i have used, that i use all the time as a writer and reporter, they suggest a level of political knowledge, which is not entirely accurate. alison: i want to go back to something because it is something i am stuck on. when you describe the trump voters as kind and nice, we discussed this. i spent time with trump voters who were lovely people, really cared about their family. as someone who's parents went to segregated schools, and i'm not a dinosaur so it was not that , long ago, how do the trump voters square with the haze of
racism, especially around the campaign? john: i think first, they would tonight it is there. and they don't hear the same thing voters with your family's, experience, or the voters whose parents might have immigrated from elsewhere here. so, i think the dial is adjusted differently. they do not think it is fair. they do not think in their personal lives are prejudiced. then there is a whole line of argument that says, well, the civil rights era was a long time, which of course, it wasn't. and shouldn't the playing field be entirely leveled? is affirmative action some plot against my family and my children? alison: so, they feel the playing field is now unlevel at their disadvantage? that they are the victimized in some way? john: that's right. i think it comes across in race. i think there is also a bit of it in gender. so one of the things that was , surprising about last year's
election was how little it was about gender. all the very large levels of support even among college-educated republican women for donald trump. quite a lot of trump supporters think that it is better if a man is out there working, and a woman is at home. it is a kind of social conservativism, not in an abortion, gay marriage kind of way. it is a social conservativism like in the 1950's. quiet often these are women who , themselves are working and do not necessarily want to be. they would rather have a situation where their husbands were being the breadwinner. so that was something that fascinated me as well and scrambles your categories a little bit when you go around talking to people. alison: it sounds like you talked to people who were a bit nostalgic. john: yeah, i think nostalgia is a huge thing. "make america great again" is an incredibly nostalgic message. ,and a very surprising message for me looking into american
politics. the sort of first rule of american electoral politics, as i was told, is you need to be the most forward-looking candidate, the most city-on-a-hill kind of candidate. and then you have this candidate, donald trump, who early on was going around saying america is a hellhole going down fast. the whole appeal of "make america great again," no one is quite specific on when it was great. or at least the president hasn't. and yet it is a deeply backward looking, deeply nostalgic appeal, and it is very powerful. alison: one of the things i thought was particular interesting that you pointed out in your piece, your report, was the way people vote depends on their educational level. right? the more education you have, you tend to be more progressive. the less education, more conservative. this feels like a self-perpetuating cycle. because you will have educated folks saying we know better how to run the country than you people without education.
and people without education full say you do not know how it is to live in the world. you elitist folks over there to. and he goes around, and around, and around. from your conversations, was there anything you could see that would break that cycle? john: as you rightly observe, it is really hard to get out of it. if a political divide is over something like the income tax rate, you can imagine coming to a compromise about that. when a political divide comes -- divide becomes about what sort of person are you? it becomes a lot harder to bridge. one of the things when i was reporting this was spend a lot of time in a well educated district of virginia around arlington, something like 35% of voters there have postgraduate degrees. it is a super zip code. and went for hillary clinton by miles. the next day, i spent time in west virginia three, which is at the opposite end of the scale. people with very low levels of
education relative to west virginia eight, and the big trump supporting territory. and the mutual antipathy you describe there is really powerful. west virginia is a coal mining three place. a lot of people you talk to there think the declining coal mining jobs are deliberately chosen by the fancy people with postgraduate degrees in virginia. you know, the level of mistrust bordering on hatred is something that shocked me. alison: it is also a level of not understanding each other coming from both sides because they live different lives. a lot of this is also about proximity, urban versus rural, as much as anything else. live they do, alison, there he different lives. you see that at its most stark in the life expectancy numbers. i mean these two congressional districts i was talking about, virginia and west virginia, the
average male life expectancy in bits of west virginia three is 16.5 years lower than it is in virginia's eighth district around arlington. these places are less than 200 miles apart. and the difference is extraordinary. alison: something i had not thought about, and it was really interesting to reading your report was what you described as the "california affect." we have all made it new york and the south or the northeast and the south, but there's an important part about the california contingent of the trump administration and trump ethos. can you explain that? john: that's right. if you look back in the 1990's in california, it was a wrenching time for racial politics. you know, the republican party for a certain time, tried to play on resentment against the rising latino minority.
there was a lot of politicking around spanish-language in schools and immigration and so forth. and then at a certain point, the republican party made peace with all of that, but there was a whole load of california conservatives who were losing side of that argument, who then took it to washington. in the white house is full of californian refugees, people like steve bannon who spent time , in hollywood as a film producer. stephen miller who works closely with him at the white house. quite a lot of the breitbart tendency within the white house seems to have grown up within white, california that did not particularly like the way that state changed racially and has , taken the fight nationally. alison: we are talking on a day when the president of the united states tweeted something very personal about a member of the
news media. is there anything president trump can do? does he have any achilles heel with his base? is there anything he could do or say that would really shake their support? john: i think he has a huge amount of latitude with them. i have to say. partly on things like this. people i talked to about the tweeting, often said things like, we don't really like him. -- we don't really like it. the way she was a bit more presidential, but then qualify the news media is out to get him. it is a way for him to get his message across. did -- it isy for a way for him to get his message across. he is an unconventional politician. it almost feels to me that once they made the decision to support a particular candidate.
they're able to been how they view the world in order to fit. on the left and the right. i was writing mainly about trump supporters. i think the same thing happens on the left. one of the starkest illustrations of this, if you look at a policy issue, attitudes towards russia used to be the case the republican party was the anti-communist party, the hostile to russia party, vladimir putin was bogeyman. a big donald trump wins the nomination, gets elected, and republican voters have a much more favorable view of vladimir putin and democratic voters heading in the opposite direction. .oth sides do this i am sorry, that is a rather long answer to your question. i was much more struck by the , and clearly he made a joke about being able to shoot somebody in the street. and people would forgive him.
i do not think that this is the case. within the realm of normal politics, i think he could get away with pretty much anything. alison: he is their guy. shannonjohn: he is their guy. imagine you are a coal miner in west virginia. lots of democrats did not understand why people in coal mining towns in west virginia voted for a billionaire who showed up there and said, guys you will have your jobs back. democrats looking at that thing the president cannot do that. he does not get to command the world price of coal. anyway coal comes from wyoming these days. and america has got a ton of natural gas from fracking. so, you know, this is kind of hucksterism. but, it is so much more powerful to turn up in a town and say, i -- and say, i am going to do the thing you really want than it is to turn up in a town and say, i have these initiatives for world broadband and job retraining and so forth.
even though those things might be more helpful politically it , comes down to political identity, who is on your side. who is on the other side. i think donald trump has a genius for convincing people that he is on their side. and it is really powerful stuff and politics. alison: what you anticipate in the next few years with the trump administration? do you anticipate continued support? do anticipate a reelection? john: the thing that struck me so far is looking at the first five months, you have the attempt or punitive place obamacare, which has been a mess. we have a special counsel looking at what has been happening at the white house. your berries promises that the president has made, like building the wall. you would have thought, given that that the loss of his -- that a lot of his supporters would have given up on him by now. but that is not the case. there is a bit of moment in the wass south a week after he
inaugurated, but it has been pretty stable. my hunch is that people are not going to desert him. reelection, it is obviously too early to say. in my opinion, people are too quick to underestimate the -- underestimate the possibility that he could get reelected. if you look at the approval arengs and saying they pretty lousy, but the economy is strong. imagine where it will be in a few years time? i don't know i think people are too quick to write him off. there is a real power to what he has been able to do. think, not like something we have seen before and america -- we had seen before in america. alison: thank you so much. ♪
out their frustrations when a runaway servant played by , dave franco, takes refuge in their convent. it was reviewed as a deliciously deadpanned sexual farce. here is a look. ♪ high dad. high, dad >> hi, sweetheart. >> maybe marriage is not your calling. >> mr. alessandro, daydreaming about somebody that will take her away. >> did he just smile at you? >> why is he smiling? who is that? >> i don't know. >> mr. fernando? >> mr. alessandro. >> sister maria. >> bling bling. >> they call me a jew. >> lustfullness, homosexuality. did you really roll your eyes? you are rolling your eyes.
>> i slept with another man's wife. >> one of you sluts thinks he is quite the jester. >> these girls could talk, i -- these girls can because, i am not going to lie. they can be very tough. >> i have to turn up. >> may physically attack people. bling, bling, do my own thing ♪ >> are you sure you have never been touched by a man? >> never. >> it is the greatest pleasure on earth. >> what is wrong with her? >> she are on drugs. >> the longest list i have ever had. the use of language, eating blood? do you think i have ever written down eating blood before? where am i?
[screams] alison: i am pleased to have the writer, director, aubrey plaza and dave franco. you have the rare distinction of being someone who is able to use their college studies in their work. you had a minor in medieval studies. you are able to apply it to film by using the decameron. you are in a class on sexual transgressions in medieval literature? >> yes. alison: so when he first read this story, what made you think, or when did you think, i can apply this to film? >> on a first read it, i was blown away by the history of it because growing up, in america, we are not familiar with what it was like in the middle ages. we are kind of just a 200-year-old country. but what blew me away the most daythe people back in the were not the way we thought they were. they were not super religious
zealots. oftentimes, they were forced into that tradition. whether they were the youngest divorcees, or spinsters, for various reasons, they were stuck in the fly. and they were rebuilding all the time. we were in this class reading about what it was like for those people, and reading the divorcees, or spinsters, forpenitential, the c parchments, and the irony of what we think they are and the way they really are, the sort of tension i had , always wanted to do something with it. it was in the back of my mind for years, the opportunity presented itself and i jumped on alison: is that why medieval literature is so is so body and racy? i always wonder that. >> a lot of it is. specifically picasso was taking an approach that was sort of humanist. cutting through the fake aura of what people were like and how they truly were. taking thesel was people that we assume are these
highfalutin, religious people, and ultimately showing there was a cinema of hypocrisy and pent-up repression that did not have a chance to be discussed in his time. alison: was that your goal, too? >> yes. very much. alison: let's talk about the nuns, they are sort of like medieval mean girls in a way. >> i guess you could describe -- you could describe them that way. they are girls, women that were kind of forced into being nuns back in the day. not everyone that was a nun was religious. so they have a lot of pent-up aggression for those reasons. alison: your character, especially. she seems for the salty and saucy. [laughter] >> yes. i think she sees herself as the
protector of the other sisters. she is definitely a more -- she's definitely a more dominant force. alison: one of the things i loved and laughed out loud in the first 20 seconds of dialogue, the nuns are cursing. was that intentional to hit it right out of the gate to let people know this film will be a little different, be prepared? for a moment was played laugh, but the overall approach was to make it feel contemporary the dialogue, so we could identify with these people as opposed to seeing them as something that is more rarefied. when he wrote the book, he wrote it in florentine dialect, so it was written for the people. and so, it was less like a joke, and more of a way of humanizing these people. and for us to be able to connect ,ith impaired you have options you can a people speaking with a british or tying accent. it all seemed like the wrong
choice, but with this bead and tone of the comedy i was trying to attempt, i thought the best way to achieve that was to have people talk the way we talk now. that way we would identify with them more. alison: dave, you have perhaps the most challenging part in the movie because for a good part of it, you don't speak. dave: right. alison: your character but tends to be a deaf mute. when you are thinking about that because we do meet you at the beginning, and you fall silent, how did you prepare for that. -- how did you prepare for that? how did you decide how you would play that? dave: it was the thing that i was most nervous about. i had several conversations with jeff about it because i was nervous that i was going to be sitting there and things doing nothing. just blank faced, doing nothing. ultimately, he had me think about it in a different way where he had me approach this as more of a challenge.
i had to get across all of these emotions without speaking of pretending i cannot hear anyone. hopefully, that comes across in the reactions on my face. definitely difficult, and i give jeff a lot of credit toause i laid on him a lot make sure that what i was thinking came across on my face. alison: talk about faces for the three actresses. you really have to use your face a lot because you are covered up from head to tell -- from head to toe in the habits. aubrey: oh my god, it was most -- most of the movie. alison: did you concentrate most initially? or did that come to after work of? -- or did that come to after rehearsals? aubrey: we didn't have a rehearsal. that was something that once we put the costumes on, we were like wow, here we go. it just kind of happened. alison: you are lucky you have three actresses with the
greatest eyes. i was like, who has that express of eyes? let's take a look at a clip with you as the sister. we will get a sense of who she is. >> what is going on with sister? she has been so out of it. >> i don't know. her dad is probably visiting her or something. >> again? >> she is delusional. >> yes, she is so delusional. >> she is pathetic. just because your dad gives money to a convent does not mean you will get everything you want. >> yep. her the other day and she was staring out of the window for 10 minutes, not moving. >> not really -- really? about ably daydreaming guy to take her away from here. >> good luck. >> i know. so, what was mother ryan think you earlier?
>> nothing. mind your own -- business. alison: how was that for you guys in terms of being in a location in italy, and a remote part of tuscany? where can i see that in your performance that you were there and caring very much about the historical accuracy? >> i don't know. it was great. everything felt real. walking around the grounds of a 14th century convent. for acting and for getting into those characters, i think. dragging, pulling the donkey down the hill, and you know, that was kind of beverly a wow,t where i was, like this is really hard.
people had to do a lot of crazy stuff. it was helpful. dave: i think a lot of people will try to reduce this movie to comedy, butun because of where we shot and the effort that jeff put into making it historically accurate, it is really like a beautiful art ill disguised as his raunchy comedy. and so, i don't know, think that at to the comedy when you are in these beautiful locations that are shot so well, and we are playing things very seriously as opposed to trying to claim to the jokes. jeff had aead that strong point of view and that really threw you into the project. what did you mean by that and how was it useful to you as an actor? dave: yeah, with the director, that is what you want. you want someone that knows exactly what they want, and with just, i don't know how to describe it exactly, but he sees the world in a unique, amazing way, and i want to jump
on port with those people. and i want them to take me on this journey because i could never come up with this myself, and i'm just curious to see it through his eyes. >> i slept with another man's wife, he is a noble man, he is -- and he is my master. >> that is adultery. >> i know. >> that is a serious sin. >> sometimes, she would place her mouth around my sex. >> well, that is sodomy. that is a serious sin. >> is it also considers albany if i place my mouth on her sex while she simultaneously at her bow around mine -- some tennessee has her bow around mine? >> why would you do that? >> because she liked it. [laughter] inson: that is dave franco
"the little hours." he is joining me with aubrey plaza and jeff bana. this has been described as improvisation. but you as a director clearly shaped the found and the direction and the narrative. so how does that work? you with a director as a strong point of view out mighty improv? jeff: i think improvisation is a big, generic term. it is a spectrum. there are movies where people don't know the scene until they get into it. i think my approach is a little more matter. it did break out people are saying. it was not like a one sentence like pursing. it was spelled out when the person was saying. but i did not want to have the actual lines written. i wanted them to be in their own words. why? it feels contrived when actors are forced to say certain lines
that were not enough to them. i personally, my first movie, i tried hard to not make the dialogue to make you feel like how people talk. realized a faster way of doing that is to have the actors inspired to save airlines, and have a little bit of you know, the unknown added to it so when they are saying with thees, and then response, they are not anticipating and waiting for them to finish, but they are listening and armour present. i tried that with my second movie and i liked the result, so i wanted to try it with this movie. adding to the fact that this was supposed to have a colloquial feel, it would be kind of nice to this so making when you are in a beautiful location that is a period. we would have three or four takes and i would take the performances and give them some suggestions for lines, or tell them to edit stuff out, and by , we were of four take
locked in for coverage. it wasn't like we were throwing something against the wall to see what would stick. aubrey, when did you run about yourself as an actor from this project? that there areed all different kinds of improv, i guess. , yeah, it is a really different, it is a different kind of movie and style that i have ever been in before, so i learned a lot about how i am in that situation, and put it in myd of own plan for what i came up with the character, but collaborate with the director on every scene, and try to weave those together. and it is a different kind of
process. and it is challenging, but rewarding. the timeframe for this film is fairly quick, right? 20 days. what effect does that have on you as actors and the work you do when you have a limited amount of time and this has to get done? a little pressure, but you try not to think about it. i mean, again, it is like jeff knew what he wanted, and he knew what he needed from us, and he guided us in a really, specific way. doing, bring it and a lot ofmprov, movies with her is improv, the actors are going on these long tangents that have nothing to do with driving the story forward, and jeff make sure we do not do that. he really simplified everything. alison: and you are producer and an actor. you know you have to get these things done and you need to
protect your skill and your craft and what you are working on. how did you balance the two? aubrey: i would say, you know, once we started shooting, i was really focusing being an actor. in preproduction, i had different things, you know, that i helped to do, some research on, the nun services, the chapel services because those needed dialogue as well. but while we were shooting, you know, being a producer, taking on that role in this film was a almost likeike hosting the cast and crew with jeff. we have his group of people in the middle of nowhere in tuscany. we're trying to keep this ship afloat and anticipate disasters, and think on our feet, and just kind of make good choices and
take care everyone. i think that is the overall, you know, description of what happened as a producer on a movie like that. and so, for me, it was mostly about acting, but i would kind of help in whatever way i could. jeff: setting the tone. aubrey: taking pictures. i was a photographer someday. whatever needs to be done. alison: and the promotion of the film, you have embraced some of the criticism. you have taken it on his a badge of honor. some criticism from various catholic groups. before you started the film, did you folks as producer and director and his friends, sit down and say, ok, this is what we are doing. we know this could have -- this could be thorny for some people. but with those conversations like?
jeff: i was not over thinking that kind of stuff. it did not occur to me until we were getting locations in italy, though the book was written a while ago, does ruffle feathers. -- written in 1350, it still ruffles feathers in italy. i think it is a really important part of their culture and history, but at the same time, think it is a bit controversial. that was sort of a reality check. maybe some people would be offended. for me, it was more of an expression of what was happening in the history of that era. and people will choose to not want to look at the past, but for me, shine a light is interesting. ♪
our viewers worldwide, i am jonathan ferro with 30 minutes dedicated to fixed income. this is "bloomberg real yield." ♪ jonathan: coming up, chair yellen says value waiting looks somewhat rich. draghi's words sparked a bond tantrum. did investors misjudged the speech? credit is on track for the past record. the big issue, did investors misjudge draghi's speech? >> i think it was eloquently put. >> the words were confusing, to be honest.