tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 14, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." wilfred: good evening. charlie is away. i am wilfred frost. cleaned again this evening -- we begin with foreign policy. president trump arrived in france for a visit with emmanuel macron. the two presidents held their first official bilateral meeting. today also marks the one-year anniversary of theresa may becoming britain's prime minister and the day the united states reached its refugee camp. -- cap. joining me is matthew barzun. he recently stepped down from his post as u.s. ambassador to
the united kingdom, and david miliband, the former british foreign secretary. i'm pleased to welcome both to this table. president trump's visit to france. earlier today, he held a press conference with emmanuel macron. the tone compared to their initial meeting at the nato conference with the infamous strain handshake between the did two, point today to signs of improvement. how do you think the president is viewed in europe at the moment? >> you don't have to take it from me. you can look at the polls and they are pretty clear that president trump's positions on a range of issues are a stark contrast to the center ground of european opinion. he stepped back from advocating that more countries should leave the european union. but i think his decision with respect to the paris climate accord struck very hard. i think what you are seeing is president macron setting a startling pace in the first 60 or so days of his presidency.
he is out there establishing himself with angela merkel as a joint leader of europe, the real spirit of hope in europe at the moment. the french minister said britain has chosen brexit. america has chosen retreat. france has chosen hope. there is a real sense of boldness. i think he sees an opportunity in this british retreat for him to establish himself to be a hard power. france is meeting its 2% defense commitment, so he is not going to get hit from president trump on that. the story of the day is partly why president trump agreed to go , but also the entrepreneurship of president macron inviting him in the first place. wilfred: do you think there is a strange similarity between president macron and president trump? both political outsiders. both not originally part of a traditional local party. -- political party.
now in quick succession, leading their respective nations. >> president macron has broken the two main parties of french politics. socialists down to 30 seats, republicans almost down to 30 seats each. i don't see immediate similarities. president macron is strongly committed to the united nations. president trump stepping away. one thing that will be interesting when the details come out of their meeting is from a french point of view what president trump and the administration have been saying about a range of issues with respect to human rights. it has gone down very badly. i wonder how that has been taken on. wilfred: matthew, in terms of a clear sense on bilateral relations rather than multilateral relations, is that a mistake? can he achieve as much as the
u.s. would want to achieve through simple bilateral relations? matthew: i think it is both. i will not speak for the current president. my former boss, barack obama, was a great example of how you do both. david mentioned the climate accord. the progress in paris getting all those countries to sign on was spurred on by a bilateral deal between the united states and china. if you do both well, you can get good results. wilfred: indeed today, president , trump did suggest there was a possibility in the future the u.s. would return. although that wasn't his base case. matthew: if i could jump in on something david said characterizing the french friend's comment about what the united states is doing. i think it is important to say governors, mayors, companies in the united states are not
retreating. they are engaging. many of them, in terms of climate, are living up to the targets and doing it for good business and political reasons, to protect the air, water, and land they care a lot about. i think we spend so much time on shows like this and everywhere else talking about the current administration. with good reason. i think it is important we do not lose sight of progress happening in other places. wilfred: in terms of the g20 meeting, you wrote going into it the g20 was set up to address pressing problems and the refugee crisis was crying out for such leadership. did the refugee crisis receive that leadership? david: in a limited form. there was an important german initiative in respect to aid for africa. that is important. it is massively underfunded. there are four famines threatened in africa at the moment. south sudan, somalia, northeast nigeria, and yemen, which is not
quite in africa, but for the first time, the u.n. has said it is the worst catastrophe in 40 or 50 years. these famines are not because of lack of food but political division and conflict. war is producing the conditions that mean people do not have access to food and are not able to grow crops. humanitarians can't reach them. there was an important g20 initiative around support for africa. if you compare the scale to the marshall plan after the second world war there is no , comparison. it takes american engagement to turn what could be a marginal initiative into something that is really going to power forward. that is where i think people around the world are asking the question. they are asking and western, china, and india -- where is america going to put its effort? is it only going to focus on the americant, or does put
first have there room for engagement abroad? wilfred: has the u.s. position on this issue changed since your boss left office? matthew: i think so, demonstrably. in my six months being home, it is great to be home, and i was in a little bit of a self-imposed media blackout. the first few weeks, i went back and read some great books and watched some great documentaries. late 1940,ded of gallup asked americans the brits , are getting blitzed. we are staying out of it. they say should we come to the , aid of britain against hitler? eight out of 10 americans say, "no, thank you." eight out of 10. that was the headline then. it is something we should keep in mind now. in the same poll, they asked about 50 questions. if push comes to shove and we
seven outke -- pick, of 10 said we would go with our friends, the brits. thank god we did. i have just wary of people overgeneralizing the american people. living in kentucky, it is a wonderful mix of republican, democrat, and independents. sometimes it is lost people can have contradictions within them. wilfred: david, what is your take of public opinion on this issue? david: i think it is polarized. people often say how hard is it to work for an n.g.o. at the time of backlash against refugees. i say, be careful. yes, in some quarters, there's fear of refugees. for every person the says we do not want refugees moving to our community, there is another part of the community saying we have heritage from abroad we , welcome people who are a victim of terror and want to make a new life. we run 26 offices around the u.s.
big towns, big cities, small towns. there is polarization. you see that from the polling as well. you see the extraordinary american generosity coming through. people do come around with the cookies when they move in. you also have fear and loathing. for me as someone who is not an , american, it is sad an issue that has been bipartisan for so long should now have this taint. america has been the leader in refugee resettlement for the last 60 years. even after 9/11, the bush administration insisted it will -- this is core to the american ideal it will be the place that , welcomes people from around the world who want to go through the vetting and make a new life. i think it is very important. if the trump administration goes through with its plan to reduce to less than 50,000 the number of refugees let in, that sends a terrible message around the world. i was in uganda last month. they have one million refugees
from south sudan. the average income is $952 per year. uganda is saying we will take them and look after them until they can go home. there is an important lesson there. wilfred: in terms of something i've seen you talk about recently, the level of the issue you feel is underestimated because the length of displacement people experience has risen sharply. david: that's a good point. the average refugees out of their own country now for 10 years. suddenly issues of employment , and education become absolutely central. the humanitarian sector does not invest in education. less than 2% of the global humanitarian budget goes to education. you have millions of kids displaced from their homes by conflict, become refugees, and they are not able to get education. one of the things we argue for is we need more aid but we also need a better aid system. i think it is important to say those together. wilfred: david, president macron has said he intends to keep an open dialogue with president
putin and has had meetings already. do you see the tone improving , whether it is europe and russia or the u.s. and russia either way? ,david: no, basically because , there are too many divided interests. --sia is interesting interested in dividing europe further. the european interest is in finding ways to stand up. there are members of the european union equally threatened by what they see as an aggressive russia. i think tone matters. but substance matters more. i think we are at a dangerous period, because the global system has been built over the had an american anger, but it also had other multilateral institutions like the european union. if you pull up the anchor, the boat starts rocking. that is the danger. it creates space. when the american anchor in the global system isn't there, when ,"ere is "unpredictability
someone in the administration wants to make unpredictability if you are a small country is a , good thing to have up your sleeve. if you are the world's anchor, predictability is very important because you are the benchmark against what everyone else establishes their behavior. especially with the russians, you do not want them testing you out. you want them to know well in advance what your own positions are. some of the difficulties of the previous administration were around the red lines. i think it is important the russians do know europe is not -- more unilateral than it was at the time of the brexit vote europe is not going to put up , with interference and is going to maintain its position on ukraine. that predictability from great powers is really important. matthew: at the risk of mixing maritime metaphors, i think ballast is a better one. i think a ballast in a ship can provide stability. i think anchor is not the right one. anchor is fixed in time and place.
i think the reality of our world in 2017 is it is not 70 years ago. a lot of things have changed. sometimes i see people wanting a certain kind of american leadership from the good old days. i think the kind of leadership needs to change. president obama was a wonderful example, i really believed it, of how to manage change and provide stability through change. david: i like the ballast idea, but it becomes a dead weight. [laughter] the agility you are speaking to is really important. but the commitment has got to be there as well. that is where the multilateral and bilateral have got to reinforce each other. it will be a great pity if the u.s. administration only sees the international system as one of bilateral transactions. it cannot be. it has to be a system that has its integrity. wilfred: charlie's sailing
viewers will be enjoying this show particularly. one area there has been progress in the short term, certain areas at least iraqi forces , recapturing mosul and the cease-fire of the last few days starting to be established in syria. is that a groundbreaking change for that region in terms of progress, particularly in terms of what you look at the refugees , or is it just a small start? david: not yet. it is not yet groundbreaking. we have about 1200 people on the ground in syria. we have another several hundred in iraq. more in jordan and lebanon. i was in mosul in march of this year when some people were fleeing. two things struck me very strongly. the first is that the people coming out of mosul are traumatized. they have lived for two and half years under tyrannical rule in fear of death. the level of trauma, physical
bombardment, but the mental bombardment has been equally big. the second thing that is really important is if there is not serious politics that sunni communities in the middle east can buy into, if sunni communities feel ostracized or under pressure from shia militias and others, and there is not a political route to defend themselves in iraq and syria, i am afraid there is going to be fertile ground for isis 2.0 or isis 4.0 to build on. that is why it is not a landmark. it will be a landmark when there is a credible sharing of power. wilfred: in terms of how we got to this position in the first place, your former boss, tony blair, has refused to admit outright the war was a mistake and cause for the situation.
is that something you do admit? david: i think it was certainly a mistake. it was a mistake because of the fact the weapons of mass destruction were not there. it was also a mistake because strategically it did not take into sufficient account the position of iran. the physician that saddam hussein would strengthen the rainy and. secondary, i would say it was a military mistake because the war in afghanistan was not finished. i think it is wrong to believe everything that has happened in iraq over the last 15 years is as a result of the invasion. but it is hard to explain anything in iraq without some recognition of the tumult caused not just by the war but the building of the piece was a terrible failure. wilfred: i wanted to
switch focus to memories of your time in the united kingdom and ask your view on what difference it makes of having a separate head of state to head of government as the u.k. has and specifically your memories of her majesty, the queen. matthew: happy memories on that front. in your wonderful country, you have a different head of government and state. i was more reminded of how we in this country project onto our president aspects of both. and that is why you see the reaction of people who did not like my former boss and people who do not like the current president, they bring more to than in just policy disagreements. it gets to identity and lots of emotion.
that is why i think it is really importantly never forget people always say, what do you think? it is important we ask how people feel too because that is a big motivator for all of us in our democracies. i got into trouble because i said out loud something you don't say to her majesty. i messed up. i think there may be double jeopardy. i don't think i will get in trouble for saying it again since i messed up once. there was this wonderful moment during my presentation of credentials. i used to work in the internet industry. we talked about technology. i commented because i came in with a top hat and coat, unusual for an american, all these people snapping pictures. the queen said they always used to have cameras to take a picture, but now it is really different. they have these phones and they always stay over their eyes. she said i miss seeing their eyes. that really struck me.
looking at that, you could think this is a one-way thing. the head of state and people snapping pictures. but there is a two-way connection happening and that connection matters. that really stuck with me. wilfred: that is a wonderful memory. david, the leader of your former party, jeremy corbyn -- member of thell a lower party. be careful. you will get me into trouble. [laughter] wilfred: questioning the relevance of the monarchy, would it be a mistake to get rid of the monarchy? david: of course. the remarkable thing about the queen is how she has become this extraordinary figure of respect across every conceivable spectrum of british life. i would be amazed if anyone seriously entertained it. matthew: it reminds me of when i was getting briefed to present my credentials to the queen. this nice gentleman was telling me what would happen when. i was sitting with my wife. he said we like to tell all
republicans. i must have sat up the way you we acted you were referred to as a former member. he said i do not mean that kind of republican. i mean you people from republics. [laughter] it was hilarious. we do not think of ourselves as americans as from a republic. wilfred: in terms of possible future heads of state you have , spoken finally of your former boss' wife, michelle obama. well of your former boss' wife, michelle obama. if she chose to run, would you choose to help her? matthew: i have no inside knowledge. i think she has ruled it out and so has your wonderful husband. i will add my voice to the chorus of people who think that would be a fantastic idea. wilfred: david, you're still a member of the labour party. you might reenter british politics again? david: some people choose local parties because of what they believe in and not a career move. one thing that -- i don't know whether you want to comment on this -- but there is a danger
for the u.k. in the discussion we have had is that we become the country that gets talked about for its monarchy and weddings and funerals and is not part of the international system. we both saw the power the u.k. has in being part of the european union with meetings a year after the brexit referendum. the brexit negotiations are running into terrible trouble. i think it is important for a global audience that can pick up this show to hear from us as representatives that the u.k. needs to play a part in global structures if it is to remain more than an object of friendship. it needs to be an object of partnership. it seems that is what is at issue in the serious stakes in the next 18 months when brexit gets negotiated. wilfred: matthew a closing , thought. is the united kingdom and united states' relationship weaker than it was between david cameron and barack obama? matthew: i don't.
i think it is strong. david touched on an important point. there's a funny metric the state department has. it is called vivid nights. it is the measure of how many official visitors come through the capital. when i was sweden, it was not a big number. i think we had 24,000 official visit nights per year coming through london. david: i very nice house helps as well. [laughter] matthew: it speaks to the depth of just the official government relationship. forget the two heads of government and how they might get along. it is the intelligence services. it is our militaries. it is all of these things. that is just official government business. then you layer on the economic ties and social and cultural ties. those things are real and strong and they exist in the millions. and they are the ballast for this relationship.
sculpture, and photography. a new exhibition at the museum of modern are in new york brings together more than 250 of these works. the retrospective was organized by leah dickerman. the curator of painting and sculpture at the museum of modern art. she joins me to talk about robert rauschenberg, one of the artists i've had the great pleasure to have known. when you think about him and his art, and someone having this on this exhibit among friends, bringing in all the other great artists, like jasper johns. leah: and john cage and trisha brown, the list of people he collaborated with is so fundamental to what we think of in terms of culture today.
that is how we approached the project. we wanted to show he is an artist who made work in dialogue with other people, and together they laid the foundation for the art of our moment in time. charlie: what do you hope we will experience, feel, sense as we walk through this exhibition? thing is i've always been a bit skeptical about the idea of individual genius, that you go off, sit by yourself, think by yourself, and you have ideas alone visited by a female muse. that's not really it works great that's not the way it works in science or technological innovation. that is not the way it works in art. we wanted to suggest that through rauschenberg's career, you can celebrate creativity in conversation. of course, he collaborates more than almost anyone else. he is always pulling people into his projects and finding a way to create new works with someone else. we want people to feel that openness as well.
charlie: where did that come from? leah: he is certainly a sociable character. everyone speaks about his gregariousness. i think too he learned when he went to black mountain college, north carolina which was an , open, experimental place. there was dancing and poetry and music, all at the same time. he liked that kind of collaborative approach to making art across disciplines. i don't think he ever left that, never left that behind. charlie: some remarkable people came through that great institution. leah: yes. he studied with joseph albers. his teaching had an extraordinary impact on him. he had students gather material, all kinds of material, cigarette butts, leaves, scraps of cardboard, and put them together in new collage combinations.
he called them combinations, too. rauschenberg learned that from albers. he met cage and cunningham a little bit before, but he worked with them together to create performance work. modern dancing. charlie: he was close to jasper johns? leah: there were partners from 1954 through 1961. they were together in a creative and romantic partnership, and each other in a incredible ways. it is one of those artistic duos that in working together, they left the rest of the world behind. they gave each other permission to do things and to try things. rauschenberg once wrote that i would give him an idea and he would have to give me too. one, they would play a game of thinking out loud and critiquing each other's work. in the show, you have jasper
johns' painted bronze, and "untitled," and you have rauschenberg work in the same vein. you can see they are contemplating cans and consuming them. charlie: why did they split? leah: i can tell you the answer -- can't tell you the answer about that. charlie: no one has written about that? leah: now, i don't know the answer to that but i know they formativencredible, impact upon each other, among the greatest partnerships of our time. charlie: who else did he have a great collaboration with? leah: his first was with an artist who became his wife. they met in paris and they went to black mountain together. i think in many ways, she taught him how to work with someone else. they made great blueprints together.
i think that was a young and formative relationship and one of the things that trained him in the idea of dialogue and partnership. he had a multiyear collaborative relationship with cunningham, while he worked making sets, costumes, but more than that, as well. i think he learned from cunningham and cage about how to think about making art. that relationship was fundamental, as well. charlie: let me take a look at some of the images we have. this is "untitled" from 1950. leah: this is a work they made right after coming back from the time at black mountain college. they made it in a new york walk up apartment with ordinary blueprint paper like you would use at an architectural firm. they would pose on the paper and expose the light. they would have to wash out the developer in the sink.
he is asking a kind of question, how can you make a mark of paper that is not a stroke of a brush. how can you figure out other ways of creating images? charlie: and this was one. the next is "erased." leah: this is a collaboration of a different kind. may be a little reluctant. with de kooning and jasper johns. rauschenberg asked himself the question of how could you make a , drawing by erasing? he started with his own works. he decided that doesn't really count if it wasn't art. so, he went to the most charismatic artist at the time, de kooning. of jack daniels and knocked on his door. i love that about rauschenberg, others have their oedipal relationships at a distance but he goes in the commodore. -- on the door. de kooning agreed to give him a
drawing that rauschenberg could erase. he sorted through the files and gave him one that he would find very difficult to erase. full of oily pastels and crowns. according to rauschenberg, he spent weeks erasing it. he used many erasers and then did nothing with it, he put it in a drawer. two years later when jasper johns was in his life, it was johns that persuaded him to exhibit it. johns made the label at the bottom. charlie: this is called "automobile tire print." again, 1953. rauschenberg and cage. leah: in this case, they are living in fulton street. he calls his friend, the composer john cage, and asked him to bring his model a ford. he lays out 20 sheets of typewriter paper on the ground .
they are glued together. he has cage drive through a pool of ink, and then very straight along the paper to create this image. he left later that cage was both printer and press. charlie: the next is called "charlene." this is 1954. he left later thatleah: this isy image. it gives you a sense of what rauschenberg's revolution was. as he's working, he wants to create a kind of art that lets the world in. first, he put scraps of paper in comics, but soon enough it's a lightbulb in, reflectors, a mirror, all the stuff of the world. i think he is saying that if you want to make art about the real world, it has to include the real world. charlie: next is "bed." 1954. 1955. leah: this is taking the idea a step farther. as all this stuff is coming into his work, he soon he is making
work out of a quilt and pillow. there are strokes of pencil on the pillow likely made by another partner and friend working in his studio at that moment in time. suddenly, these things that are ordinary objects have an turned into a painting. it makes you ask questions about what is a painting, what are its terms? it suggests a kind of intimacy, a place in which you live. it reconfigures the idea of painting as it had been known before, which kept the world out. ♪
♪ josh: i'm josh horowitz of mtb news filling in for charlie rose. zoe lister-jones is here. he is the writer, director and producer of the film "band aid." it follows a couple that turns their arguments into songs. the los angeles times calls "band aid," a charming and profoundly lifting film. here's the trailer. >> it's one dish. >> one dish. >> you happen to be quite the dish zani. -- nazi. super offensive. i come from a long line of holocaust survivors. >> how can there be a long line of holocaust survivors? >> i'm thinking --
>> did you want to -- >> i was thinking we order papa john's. sexhe sensation i get from and from pizza are interchangeable at this point. >> these issues may seem trivial but they need to be addressed. >> what he think we go from here? what if we turned all our fights into songs? let's start a band. >> i'm great, neighbor. >> hi, dave. >> i'm in a band myself. it was called myself. it was a solo percussion group. >> let's make a list. our top 10 fights of all time. dishes is big, obviously. >> don't you think you can be a little judgmental? >> you being lazy. >> europe type. -- you are up tight. >> you're distracted. this what it means to be a dude ♪ >> ♪ you get so angry and so
rude ♪ >> unreal. >> i can't relate to the lyrics at all. but i loved it. >> this is it. >> that's embarrassing. >> that is what every husband wishes their wife would do. >> as a child, i try to save my parent's marriage, and i don't want to spend my adulthood trying to save yours. >> couples fight. what can i tell you? it is how you navigate it that makes the difference. >> you look beautiful. >> i have never seen you two like this. >> i like writing songs with you. >> can i have some ranch?
josh: i am pleased to have zoe lister-jones at the table for the first time. good to see you. congratulations on the film. zoe: thank you. josh: i want you to know, first of all, the fact that you have also been in four different "law and order" series. [laughter] i would say this is probably a more significant moment for your career. zoe: thank you. i currently hold the egot of the criminal procedural. josh: this is your directing debut. you have cowritten at least three films with your husband. zoe: yes. talk to me a little bit about, was this the game plan was that the goal? , how do this evolve? zoe: i think probably in my subconscious, this was always the goal, but i don't know i understood that until a few years ago.
i have always loved writing and screenwriting and producing, and i think in making the previous features with my husband, that was kind of like all leading to this moment. i don't know that i was aware that those were the steppingstones i was taking. when i wrote this film independent of my husband, once i finished the screenplay, i was like, i think i also want to be the director. josh: it should be said for those who haven't seen it, and i've seen your previous works, and particular they very much belong on a shelf with this one. it could almost be called a trilogy, dealing with similar themes. is that safe to say? do you see a progression in what you are wrestling with in those three films in particular? zoe: yeah, i mean, i think that my work generally explores power
dynamics in modern relationships, which i think is something that i have wrestled with on a personal level but also i feel like the world at large has wrestled with four -- for centuries, and nobody has been able to crack the code no matter how many people attempt to explore it on screen. so yes, i do think it has sort of evolved that expiration into -- exploration into this film ultimately. josh: talk to me a little bit about the music. the music is great in the film . i have seen you and adam pelley, your costar in the film, perform live. and you are awesome in the film and in actuality. this is a real group in a sense. it has become kind of a real group. zoe: totally. in the movie, we play all the music live.
that was really important from a directorial standpoint. i feel like as a viewer when i see a performance portrayed on screen and it is not live, it takes the ad of the moment and -- out of the moment and story. i felt like or this story especially, the imperfections or so much a part of the narrative . we had to practice as a real band. fred are missing, he placed the drummer also, leading up to the stone. we had to practice. without even realizing it, we were becoming a band before production, and after production, we have played gigs and we recorded an album. the band is called the dirty dishes. the dirty dishes ep the album is for download. josh: you are multi platform now. zoe: yes, you have to be. in this day and age. the album cover is in millennial pink, so we are covering all our bases. [laughter] josh: we talked about collaborating with your husband on some of the previous work. is the only thing more awkward than working with your husband
d -- drameic drama dy, not working with your husband on a romantic dramedy? zoe: [laughter] on this one, i worked with an all-female crew, and my husband is incredibly supportive of this project and an executive producer, but i had to draw distinct boundaries in terms of what executive producers were allowed. toh: that is a sly way ensure that literally, you can't be unset. -- on set. [laughter] zoe: yeah. i had to have that conversation. he was, obviously, incredibly excited about the prospect of me working with an all-female crew. so it wasn't an awkward was a newon, but it sort of era in our creative lives together. josh: is that something you take pride in?
i'm sure there have been all-male crews in the past, they are just called crews. [laughter] what is the typical breakdown, and your experience, percentagewise of male and , female on a crew? zoe: on a crew, i would say generally speaking, there are two to three women on a crew of 40 people. again -- that is not counting hair and makeup, that probably adds to it. the numbers are staggeringly small. i actually did go through the amount of productions i have been in as an actress, just over 40, and the number of female dp 's i've worked with, which were three. you can see how drastic the underrepresentation is of women behind the camera. i think it was for me, important to subvert that, it also was
just exciting to me. i was excited to see what it would feel like. josh: what was the anticipated hope and what was the actual result? did it differ in terms of your expectations? zoe: luckily, it exceeded my expectations. [laughter] everyone should do it. it's a pretty magical thing. i think it is so rare to experience that even some of the women i hired were skeptical about it. i think it was really cool to see on our first day on set just what that felt like and see the perception of what we were doing shift so concretely. i think it definitely added to a sense of electricity on set, because i think every woman on the set has been the only woman on a set. to be amongst so many female
peers and have so much creative autonomy in that way and not be the minority and not be afraid to use your voice i think was exciting. josh: that last aspect is the curious part. -- we haveis before, talked about this before, but when you are in the significant minority, there is a power dynamic shift where maybe you are less apt to speak up and be collaborative and make your voice heard. have you experienced that from your vantage point on a set where you felt like, it is not my place to speak, for whatever reason? zoe: i think actors are in a slightly different boat. there obviously gender disparities with the actors, too. josh: we is not solved that one. [laughter] zoe: still working on that. in any facet of life, i think women are raised to take up as little space as possible.
there has been a lot of jokes and sketches around women apologizing before giving an opinion, but that is a real thing. i thought it was really interesting to be in a creative space where nobody really needed to apologize. josh: what's great is that this is a tangible thing to do. there is a great discussion going on. if you look at the narrative around summer movies now, there's great discussions going on. "wonder woman" is a success, sofia coppola at cannes, you are a success. these things are hopefully going to make the stakes less important so that if wonder woman fails, we don't have to wait 10 more years for another opportunity. zoe: i know. i do think that is -- yes, the pressure is so much greater for a woman to succeed and she is -- when she's the only one doing
that thing. it is so great to see someone like patty jenkins succeed on that scale and break so many barriers. it has been an exciting summer for sure for women behind the camera. "band aid" opened the same weekend as "wonder woman." it was really cool to be in conversation with that film. in whatever ways we could be. i think it is interesting, the dialogue around gender disparity in hollywood is really big, there is a lot of talk, but it is about how to turn that into action and how we can continue to shift the paradigm. josh: this film, i think anyone who sees it and is a fan of film, sees echoes of woody allen or cassavetes. it's kind of a love child of those two. i saw some great echoes.
in terms of theme and honesty, which i think is a hallmark of some of the greatest films of this genre, but also a stylistic point of view, there is a verite, a rawness. is it fair to say those are some inspirations? what's your approach? zoe: yes, i would say that's the perfect complement, a love child of woody allen and cassavetes. "husbands and wives," was a really big influence for me. my sig. -- cinematographer and i watched "husband and wives" a lot to prepare for it. because it is a relationship comedy i wanted to, i guess, , shift what that looks like generally in this country. i think there is often a formula for the aesthetic around relationship comedy, especially indie relationship comedy. i just thought the verite aesthetic, when it comes to much
more bleak and dramatic work s like those of cassavetes would be amazing to apply to a comedy and see how it would translate. and as an actor, i was excited to experience that. we shot with two cameras. it was all handheld. there was an urgency to performance because you have cinematographers following you around. i wanted the viewer to almost feel voyeuristic. there are some scenes that veer into dramatic territory where i think i did wanted to feel like you were watching something that maybe you shouldn't be. josh: exactly. [laughter] particularly in your film career, your best roles have probably been the ones you have written or cowritten for yourself. zoe: thanks. that is a sad function of
but also ae at, curiosity. is that part of the impetus in creating works, especially for feature films? while there has been some reporting stuff, i am sure, especially on the tv side, that only film side this is what you have to do to get it done to make yourself feel artistically rewarded? zoe: yes. i think as an actor in the film space, that is 100% true. i've had to carve out opportunities for myself as a response to them not being handed to me. [laughter] but i think that the film landscape has really changed and continues to evolve. even in the indie world, the number of viable actresses to be leading ladies continues to be smaller and smaller. two -- to some extent, that is a cheap mentality.
who is the hot girl, the it girl of the moment? but i think it's also about who is financable. in the early days of independent filmmaking it was not as big of , a question. i think as a writer and a director, that has been a big part of why i have created work in addition to the purity of the artistic expression. josh: are those kind of bargains worth making? is that something you have confronted those far in terms of negotiating your place in the landscape? zoe: well, i think i've been very fortunate in at least the last five years to work pretty consistently in television. just from a livelihood standpoint, that allows me to make my own work. when i'm notuses on a film, there is a search for homework and meaningful film
work. i am very much an actor for hire simultaneously. i don't think it is a question or any sort of conflict, it is just about finding material that feels like it is inspiring and challenging.work. josh: i think most people, again, who are fans of the film medium, it is an interesting time to say the least. there was an article that was talking about the end of the feature film. zoe: oh my god. [laughter] josh: yes, i felt the same way. but it is something we are wrestling with. content, as it is perceived, especially by the younger generation now there is less of , a differentiation. "game of thrones" episodes are 90 minutes now. they are made for $20 million each. brad pitt films are made by netflix are $60 million and go straight to television. did you grow up with a love of film? what is your take on the shifting paradigm and do you have more optimism than i do that film will succeed?
just give me something. i'm asking for some hope. [laughter] zoe: you know, i think obviously it is a strange time for filmmaking because there is so much content, especially on television, especially on streaming. it allows viewers to jump from drastically different mediums and genres from the comfort of your own couch. to me, the bigger question is what will happen to the cinema going audience, because i think that is a dying breed. out into theaters that aren't tentpole movies, that do not have huge muscle behind advertising campaigns, is i think where film and filmmakers are probably struggling most now. i don't have an answer for you,
alisa: i am alisa parenti in washington and you are watching "bloomberg technology." president and mrs. trump have arrived back in the united states following a trip to france where the president helped commemorate the 100th anniversary of the u.s.' entry into world war i. the french president invited mr. trump to take part in france's bastille day celebrations. the legal fight goes on over the trump administration's proposed travel ban. the justice department will appeal a decision by a federal judge in white which weakened the travel ban. attorney general sessions is taking the issue back to the high court. israel's government says a holy site that wa