tv Charlie Rose BLOOMBERG July 23, 2017 7:00am-8:00am EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. in an interview with "new york wednesday, president trump revealed he would not have named jeff sessions as attorney general if yet known he would have recused himself from the russian investigation. on thursday, sessions announced he would remain in his post as attorney general as long as appropriate. today marks six months since president trump took office.
joining me from washington, robert costa is a national political reporter for "the washington post," moderator of "washington week" on pbs, and i'm pleased to have him back on the program. welcome back. you.eat to join charlie: let's talk about jeff sessions and the fact he decided to stay on and what this split with the president means, and what can we read into it? >> it was a stunning and revealing moment to have the president sit down with peter baker and maggie haberman and michael schmidt of "the new york times" and talk of his frustration with his attorney general, which can be traced back to jeff sessions' decision to refuse himself from the russia investigation. ever since then, the president has been furious behind the scenes because he believes sessions recusal has left him personally and his administration vulnerable to attack from democrats, obama to
-- vulnerable to the special counsel now being run by bob mueller. and it has created a suffocating cloud around the white house where the rest of the agenda seems to get stalled, and he traces a lot of this back to sessions who he thought could be his man at the justice department. charlie: some are saying it was the firing of james comey that led to the appointment of bob mueller. and if he had not listened to the people urging him to fire comey, he would not have had the special prosecutor put in place by the deputy attorney general. >> that is exactly right. there is a lot of swirling factors that have led the president to this point. it is not just sessions recusing himself. it is the decision by the president to have a private conversation with the former fbi director that then prompted the special counsel. it prompted all the reshuffling within the investigative units in the justice department. my sources at the white house said the president believes he does not have an exit plan.
he has brought so many lawyers in. they are telling him to be more disciplined, to not weigh-in on the day by day developments. but the president feels he has to be his own defender. that came through in the times" interview. without sessions fighting his fight, without his lawyers being out there in an aggressive way, he thinks he has to be the spokesman and where you're at the same time. charlie: what happens to jeff sessions as attorney general? >> it is an intriguing drama within the trump administration. i've covered the now attorney general for a long time, back to his senate days. he was the ideological core for what trumpism became in 2015 and 2016, this populist, nationalist fusion of conservative politics and activism and anger. it is often credited to steve bannon. but in fact, attorney general sessions has been cultivating these kind of political themes for a long time. he was the first senator to endorse trump during the campaign. that is why he was first in line to be appointed attorney
general. he was important in the early days of this administration shaping the executive action on immigration, helping the president think through criminal justice policy. because of that recusal, you see trump and his personality come to the fore. he is so transactional, so determined to make decisions based on the public imagination of where he stands. if sessions was no longer helpful, he was out. we have not seen him be part of the inner circle ever since. charlie: did the president want him to resign? >> people inside the white house say the president made the decision to make these on the record claims, but they were quite shocked that he went on the record with these comments. they were interpreted as a push out the door, the sessions would wake up on thursday and safety cannot longer serve as attorney general.
in any other administration, this kind of dynamic, a president speaking out against his own attorney general would prompt a resignation. but the president dislikes confrontation, direct confrontation. we have seen this throughout his career. you see sessions isolated over at the justice department, not really sure how to interpret what happened in the "new york times" interview. this was not some strategic outburst. this was an outburst by the president in an interview. that is why he had sessions on thursday morning say i'm going to stay. we will see how long that lasts. charlie: how does this fit into the russian probe? hearings next week, some private, some open? >> a lot of questions remain about paul manafort, don jr., the son who had a meeting last summer with russian figures, and jared kushner, the son-in-law and senior adviser. they all promised they would like to speak to the senate intelligence committee. the question up in the air is whether these will be open
hearings, whether these would be closed hearings. it looks like it is going to be closed. we will see if it even happens. with don jr. and paul manafort, likely to be closed hearings. you see the senators now trying to move forward with their own investigation. mark warner, the ranking democrat from virginia, richard burr from north carolina, they want to show their constituencies progress in the investigation. that is why you see a flurry of activity on capitol hill. there is some progress on the capitol hill congressional investigation. the real story is bob mueller and the special counsel, what he is looking into. you see in the interview real news that the president is concerned mueller is looking into his personal finances and the trump organization. charlie: some speculate that has been the reason all along the
reason why donald trump did not want to reveal his income taxes. >> the question about russian money and how it has played into various trump ventures over the past few decades has been an unanswered question throughout this entire process. and clearly if you look at the president's remarks, he is skittish about the idea of his tax returns maybe being reviewed by mueller or at least elements of his finances being reviewed by investigators. because the president believes he can perhaps skate any kind of obstruction charge or about how he handled the investigation with comey and others. but if it becomes a broader investigation with a scope that goes back into the 1980's and 1990's when he was struggling with his finances and his businesses were in debt, some in bankruptcy, and how foreign investors played into his enterprises, that is a whole other front this white house is not eager to confront. charlie: we will be back in a moment.
stay with us ♪ charlie: we continue this evening with senator john mccain's brain cancer diagnosis. lab results revealed a primary brain tumor was associated with the blood clot. mccain was previously diagnosed with invasive melanoma in 2000. the doctor joins me to talk about the latest diagnosis. he is one of the leading oncologists in the country, and i'm pleased to have him here. what can you tell me, based on the reports you have seen and friends you know in the medical community, about the condition? >> it is a very aggressive brain cancer. the first step is to take it out and leave no tumor behind. that was accomplished. that is a big step forward. we know if you get a patient chemotherapy and radiation therapy together, they are going to live longer and it will delay
the time until it comes back. unfortunately, it comes back in almost all cases. putting the two together will delay it coming back. charlie: is there a race for time? the forward progress in treating cancer and brain cancer is of velocity that you never know what might be possible six months from now. >> no question about it. so much is going on in this space now that it really is exciting. all of us in the field are jumping up and down. we can target genes. we can reactivate the immune system to attack the cancer itself. those are some of them on the market. most are clinical trials being developed now. every time you make a decision in his care, the first question is, is it the right decision and does it preclude you from getting something down the pike that may be more exciting? charlie: what are the prospects
for most people who have this? is it a life term of a year or two years? i know you cannot make specific conclusions unless you know the patient. and even then, it is difficult. >> this disease unfortunately behaves very similarly in most patients. his course will be three or four weeks after surgery, he will start oral chemotherapy together with radiation therapy. that lasts six weeks. radiation is monday through friday for about six weeks. there is a month off and then six months of taking an oral pill for chemotherapy. and then you stop and wait for it to recur. unfortunately, recurrence happens in almost all patients. at that point, we can try experimental therapy.
at duke university, they can put the polio virus into the brain cancer which makes it more foreign to the immune system and the immune system can attack the cancer. there are several cases reported to have had this where there has been dramatic responses in brain cancer that failed almost everything and they are alive years later. so there is hope for the first time in this disease. charlie: what causes this disease? >> it is luck of the draw, unfortunately. there are genetic associations with a mutant gene. but in most cases, it is luck of the draw. the amazing thing about it is even though the margins were clear, he comes back in almost all cases. decades ago, they took out half of the brain with this cancer and there was no better outcome than when they take out just the cancer itself because these tentacles go throughout the brain. amazing adaptive mechanism in this cancer. charlie: does brain cancer spread faster than most cancers
or not? >> many cancers are limited to where they can spread. the brain is an area where they can keep invading. it is very hard to go in and do things because we need to brain to function. people can get very symptomatically grows one millimeter because it may push on the motor neuron sensory function. pancreatic cancer can grow very large before you are symptomatic. that may have been from the inflammation associated with the cancer. senator mccain had some issues speaking sentences. that may have been from the inflammation associated with the cancer. charlie: i think senator lindsey graham said he had been tired and feeling more fatigued over the last several weeks. is that a symptom as well? >> your body talks to you. it is not just the cancer. it causes inflammation. that pushes pressure on other areas of the brain. when they take it out, inflammation abates. and classically, patients feel better. charlie: i know everyone in america is hoping for the best for senator mccain and the
recognition of the fighting spirit he has exhibited in his public and private life. david, thank you for joining us. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪ ♪ charlie: o.j. simpson will soon be released from prison after serving nine years for kidnapping and armed robbery. the parole board voted unanimously to shorten his 33-year sentence in a hearing this afternoon. the former professional football player previously faced trial in 1995 for the murder of his ex-wife, nicole brown simpson, and the murder of her friend, ronald goldman. o.j. simpson was acquitted of those charges in the most-watched court case in history. here is the report from the "cbs evening news," this evening. >> mr. simpson, i vote to grant parole when eligible. and that will conclude this hearing. >> thank you. >> his relief was obvious. o.j. simpson, now 70, would soon
be free on parole. >> it was a serious crime and there was no excuse. >> the hearing lasted more than an hour as commissioners asked simpson how prison had changed him. >> are you humbled by this incarceration? >> oh yes, sure. >> while expressing regret, he insisted others brought guns. >> i am no danger to pull a gun on anybody. i never have in my life. i have never been accused of it in my life. >> one of the dealers robbed told the parole board simpson had served enough time. he's a him him good man. he made a mistake. >> he truly is remorseful.
we just want him to come home so we can move forward for us quietly. >> i am not a guy who has lived a criminal life. i am a pretty straight shooter. >> hanging over the hearing was the accusation in 1994 simpson brutally murdered his ex-wife and her friend. >> i have always thought i have been pretty good with people. i basically have spent a conflict-free life. >> one of the least self-aware moments i have ever heard. >> the law professor. >> there are a lot of things you might say about o.j. simpson. you might even say the acquittal was fair. would you say he has led a conflict-free life? i don't think so. >> simpson will remain in prison until at least october 1. he says he wants to return to florida where he lived before his nevada conviction, but parole officials in both states must agree. charlie: joining me is a legal analyst for cbs news and former prosecutor. i'm pleased to have her back on this program. tell me about o.j. simpson's parole. >> it was a long hearing. i think it had a rocky start.
the first question to o.j. him and him him him simpson was when he went into that room in las vegas, nevada, back in 2007, what was he thinking? the obvious answer is a lawyer coached him, prepared him for that answer, was, i was not thinking at all. i should not have gone in. if i had thought, i would not have gone in. instead, o.j. simpson decided to tell his story. and it was relitigating the entire kidnapping and robbery case from simpson's perspective, which is, it is everyone else's fault but mine. i thought to myself, this was not the way to begin. but eventually, he redeemed himself by expressing remorse, by expressing how sorry he was, not only to his victims but also to the people of the state of nevada.
and explaining how he tried to redeem himself by being a model prisoner. in addition, we not only heard from his lawyer, but we heard him him him him him from his daughter, and we heard from one of the victims. charlie: who supported parole. >> the most important. he supported parole. but it was more significant than that. he was actually powerfully, emotionally moving in what was supposed to be a fact-based hearing. he talked about what indignity and fear he had suffered as a result of this event. he did not cast that to the side. but he talked about simpson being a good man and that it was not that he was there because he was o.j. simpson's friend for 27 him years, he was there because it was the right thing to do. that this sentence was too long, that he himself had only wanted simpson to do one to three years. and he ended his testimony by saying words to the effect, if
you want me to come and pick you up when you are released, i will be there for you. it was when you saw simpson well up and you saw finally some really profound emotion and thankfulness for this friendship, and i think that was critical in what otherwise is simply a grid of factors. charlie: how important is being a model prisoner? >> very important. that.e: it was that.ody agrees with >> very important. no disciplinary infractions for almost nine years. almost unheard of. charlie: remorse is important. he did that. >> he did that. charlie: what else is important? >> what else is important is what activities he was doing in prison to show he was undergoing rehabilitation there and if he
were to be released that he would not be a threat to others in society. we have the good and bad with that. let's start with the bad. he was asked, requested back in 2013 at his last parole hearing, to do something about alcohol because he had been using alcohol the day of the kidnapping and burglary. he says today, i decided not to do that because i don't have a problem with alcohol. i went, this is really bad. then let's look at the good. he talked about the programs he did do and that the most important one to him, which he felt should be mandatory for all inmates, was a program about how you deal with violence. and it was a program about talking things down. and i think that program itself, in addition to taking vocational training for computer science so he could communicate with his children, but his realization
himening with part two of a two-part conversation with the foreign minister of iran, dr. zarif. we talked about many things in terms of those issues that separate the united states from iran, and we have listened to how the foreign minister understands america. we continue the conversation now. ♪ charlie: this was before the election 2016. i've heard people say in five to 10 years, the u.s. will be closer to run than it is to saudi arabia. dr. zarif: we are not competing for u.s. favor. charlie: i know that. i think the geopolitical world is changing. dr. zarif: i think the united states needs to reevaluate the achievements and failures of the united states in our region. and based on that the assessment, we will see the role and place of various countries in the region. we are not competing with saudi arabia. we believe iran and saudi arabia
should be a part of a regional dialogue. i wrote an op-ed in the "new york times" several years ago calling for a regional dialogue. charlie: i remember. >> i believe that is what is lacking in our region. we are ready for it. i believe as soon as our saudi neighbors are ready to engage in dialogue and resolving issues through dialogue, not through pressure because unfortunately this has become a habit of using the united states for pressure on different countries or to impose direct pressure. charlie: does this include israel? dr. zarif: i'm talking about our immediate neighbors in the persian gulf. and i don'thim him
think it's too modest, because in recent years, from the iraqi invasion of iran to the iraqi invasion of kuwait, to u.s. operations to liberate kuwait from iran, the u.s. operation against iraq, to al qaeda, to daesh to isis, to yemen. let's concentrate. let's not be too ambitious. let's concentrate on this region which has been a hotbed of extremism, violence, and war and conflict. and let's deal with this. we are ready to deal with it. we are ready to resolve the problems. we are ready to engage in dialogue. we are ready to engage in confidence building measures. and we believe others should not look for an enemy. there is no need for an enemy. we don't need an enemy. we already have enough enemies. charlie: you don't see the united states as an enemy? dr. zarif: talking about our immediate neighborhood. the united states can define its relations with iran at this time and for some time, the united states has defined its relations with iran in terms of hostility.
this is nothing new. it is not particular to this administration. unfortunately, the united states has followed a hostile policy towards iran and received a reciprocal reaction. charlie: what about president obama? dr. zarif: president obama pursued a very hostile policy towards iran for many years. and then he came to the conclusion towards the end of his administration that he needed to find a negotiated way only with regards to the nuclear issue, while the united states continued the hostile policies on other issues. charlie: iran insisted we don't want to talk about our behavior. we do not want to talk about -- you wanted the nuclear deal but did not want to be on the table iranian behavior, as the united states would define it, supporting extremism and terrorism.
dr. zarif: we wanted to limit the immediate discussion to the nuclear issues so as not to complicate it. but it was not in an issue about behavior because iran has more grievances about u.s. behavior. how about the fact that the united states -- you and i have been at this table discussing the fact in 2003, if you remember, when i predicted the u.s. invasion of iraq would lead to more extremism in iraq. now, we are -- we have grievances. we have problems with u.s. behavior. but with the nuclear issue, we thought this was a burning issue that needed to be resolved. it should not be further complicated by adding extraneous elements. but even then we said if we can make progress on this issue to reduce the mutual lack of trust, then we can build on this issue
to move to other issues. that is why we said very clearly -- charlie: is that still possible? dr. zarif: unfortunately, the behavior by the united states even during the obama administration but particularly since the new administration, the stuff taking place and the statements from the white house. yesterday even to certify iran has complied, they made sure they put some new designations against iran at the same time so they would prevent iran from benefiting from the economic dividends on the nuclear deal. this has been consistent policy of thisistent policy administration, even of previous administrations. this administration is more open in stating it. i am happy the rest of the international community is continuing to business with iran despite the rhetoric coming from washington. that is what is keeping the
nuclear deal alive. i believe the nuclear deal is alive because the rest of the world and iran want to keep it. because it is a multilateral agreement and it is being kept alive by people who are engaging with iran, and i believe the united states as someone who has studied the united states for a long time, i can tell you it is in the interest of the united states to revisit its policy, to reassess where it went wrong in its policy of applying double standards to our region. the range of issues you said would be of concern in our behavior to the united states, we have similar concerns. in addition to that, we have a concern about the application of double standards on human rights.
on human rights. which of your allies in the region have a record even close to iran? iraq?e: to >> to iran. in terms of respect for human rights? charlie: it is hard for me - it's hard for me because any time anyone knows you are going to be here, and i saw this with my colleague at cbs, the answer always is that is up to the judiciary, not the government. let'sive you that but make a comparison.
we had hardly any rights and nobody complains about their human rights. they do raise the question. i don't believe it is right policy. not a single individual in saudi arabia while innocent human beings are being beheaded are on the human rights designation list in the united states. the only question from geopolitics. charlie: let's assume the united states should speak out against human rights violations not only with its allies but within its own country. dr. zarif: everybody can improve human rights. charlie: regardless of whether they are friend or foe. dr. zarif: human rights must be first and foremost a concern of each individual country for their own citizens you that is where readers look -- we read derive economic prosperity.
i had to escape and come to the united states. the unitedt's assume states should speak out and you are right, it shouldst eke out against human rights violations not only with its allies but within its own country. >> everybody could improve. charlie: human rights ought to be the guide. regardless whether it is friend or foe. >> i agree. but with human rights it must be fort and foremost first each country for its own citizens. we derive our security.
this is where we derive our economic well-being and prosperity. with all the sanctions, with all the pressure, with all of the war, with all of the containments. we are prospered. we are surviving. we are making progress. need top in the areas of science and technology. we are among the top three in many areas of science and technology. we achieve that by relying on our people. charlie: i would say to that, good for you. dr. zarif: it is good for us but we get it despite the fact that we are on the restrictions. that tells you something about our relations with our own people. every country can improve its human rights record. charlie: you including iran bank.
charlie: including iran. iran.luding obviously, that is why the president of iran has put out a charter of the rights of the citizens. we believe excesses exist. we need to address those excesses. this is our own priority and an issue of national security for us. that is how we derive our legitimacy, from our people. pure and simple. this was one of the major topics of the campaign. we have to be very clear on that. charlie: we have to do better on human rights? dr. zarif: much better. there are obviously regions who are far far behind. the united states never complains about them. they are not designated by the united states. they are sending terrorists through the territory. charlie: you do have to be careful about that but no one
has proven they were sent by the saudi government. anybody proven iran?ng about know a court in new york condemned iran for participating in 9/11. fined $11 billion for participating in 9/11. you want me to buy this? a court in new york awarded $11 billion to the victims of 911 against iraq. you're telling me nobody has proven saudi arabia was behind it. familiar withot it. something you you
are familiar with. banned citizens of six countries from coming to the united states. iranians are outstanding citizens. good physicians, good scientists. charlie: iranians had come to the united states and made huge contributions. they made a huge contribution. and so have immigrants. that's one of the values that the united states stands for. do you agree with that? dr. zarif: yeah, i do. why it iss mind-boggling for me that iranians have been singled out as one of the six countries in the travel ban. that is an affront.
the entireo society. charlie: does it cause you to have great respect for the american system that courts had said it cannot happen? and the united states ruled against that. dr. zarif: and we applauded that. at the end of the day, that decision. charlie: most americans believe that a ban on the basis of religion is an affront to what america stands for. dr. zarif: i would agree with that. does president trump agree? charlie: i can't speak for president trump. it is always a pleasure to have you here. come back soon. >> thanks.
charlie: many worry about diminishing role of the director as the visionary in the comedy genre. three of the top comedy show makers working today, judd apatow, director of "the 40-year-old virgin" and "trainwreck" and the television series "freaks and geeks." michael showalter, writer of "one hot american summer" and cocreator tbs series "search party." and the writer and director of and "broad city." i am pleased to have all of you at this table. i assume we are taught about directing and inspiring comedy. judd: i like hearing you say the words wet hot american summer. charlie: what inspired you to do what you do? >> i only wanted to be a standup comedian when i was a kid. i didn't watch movies the pay attention to the angles. never thought about the lenses and the framing. i just liked seinfeld and leno. then i met gary shandling and he
taught me about story and about cominga lot about comedy a very deep honest place and watching him explore his own life and his own spiritual quests, i got inspired to slowly attempt figure out how i might do that. charlie: what inspired you? >> i came from performing initially and nobody would cast me. i went from there to study a film in college and i figured i knew how to make things so i started to make videos. i felt like i'm a part of this digital generation. as soon as i was able to start making a few videos i found it was very satisfying to just make things because i was able to control as much as possible and comedy was the only you like i could understand what the target is.
and whether or not i am hitting it. i'm really only giving myself a few options. charlie: do you have to have a certain natural at your own core? to get it? lucia: for me i always try to go with my gut and think i'm relatively self-actualized know what extend my gut is telling me. i try not to be too heady about it. in that way i can say i think i know what is funny to me. and i really use that as my north star. charlie: and you? michael: i had a few moments when i saw animal house. i was in fourth grade. i went to see it in the movie theater and was captivated by
john belushi with not a single thing to connect me to him, but there was something about the energy and wrongness of his performance. with my mom. >> i went and visited my sister. she took me to see an improv group at the purple crown. i was blown away by that and said that's what i want to do when i go to college. then i joined a sketch comedy troupe, not thinking it was going to be my career. i thought i would going to something like being a college teacher. and then, here i am. charlie: is being a performer helpful for being behind the camera? michael: you can get a little idea of what it's like to be an actor. i think that's helpful to know what challenges the actors may be dealing with internally. you may be able to speak their language.
can reach them because you know where they are. >> lonely. >> i try not to act because it doesn't go well. when people ask me to do a little quick thing, when you are by yourself and waiting for anyone to walk over and say it's not going terribly and you are very nervous and needy while you are doing it. charlie: you don't want to ask "how am i doing?" iudd: they show they are happy by not talking to you and that is scary. michael: they are kind of like stunned people or athletes, they are throwing themselves into it. you are there to catch them when they fall. they need help because i'm going to turn myself inside out right now and you need to tell me if that was ok. it's good to know how vulnerable they can be when they are doing that. judd: i thought about that all
the time. he was reliving these moments from his life, his girlfriend's life was at risk. after most takes he would turn to michael. and he'd be like "is that ok?" lucia: they are like baseball players running from third and you are like go home. they are going their hardest. charlie: take a look at this. this is from "the big sick." this is where kamal and emily at the bar after she has interrupted his standup set. >> hello. >> we saw you perform. >> now that the niceties are out of the way, i have to tell you when you yelled at me, it really threw me off and you really shouldn't heckle comedians, it's so rude. >> i didn't heckle you. you.t woo-hoo'd
it i was supportive. >> that's a common misconception. yelling anything at a comedian is considered heckling. heckling doesn't have to be negative. >> if i yelled out -- you're amazing in bed, that would be a heckle. >> it would be an accurate heckle. >> you scared my friend off now. charlie: what do we say about that as comedy? judd: i think it follows in the tradition of trying to be as truthful as possible. that's life. it's not torqued up. that's life. i feel like in life anything is so awkward and weird. you don't need it to be much broader to be funny. charlie: what broad generalizations can we make about making comedy, whether it is sketch comedy or standup. who does well at it.
michael: i've been talking to a lot of people. i think comedians, we see a lot of comedians backstage talking to each other. bantering. there's a competitiveness but there is camaraderie. i always felt like comedians, there is a shared vocabulary. there is a way they talk to each other that is not something you learn, is who we are. it's the same way if you get five musicians together it's a chance they will start to jam. and people who weren't musicians want to leave. charlie: you are doing some in for youtube. lucia: i was doing improv in new york but i was making in lot of sketch videos for the internet. charlie: how did they find you? lucia: youtube.com. -- but also, generally when we began, i make videos with my
partner and we basically were able to find a weird little niche. which we basically, we wanted to make things that had a hook to them, that were quick. because people would want to show them that there was something about it, something about society or culture, especially pop culture would put a spotlight on it. it has been interesting adapting that into tv and film because it does not always it up that easily. is azing the medium message has really inform the way we write and the way we produce things. charlie: people who have caught on on youtube, you can leap forward. amazingly fast. in a sort of meteor way. lucia: absolutely. people feel like they are watching a unique voice or somebody who has some sort of vision even if on youtube you
have a sense that person might still have that singular vision of matter what the or matters. charlie: does everybody who do comedy wishing to do some serious stuff? does everybody who do serious stuff wish that they can do comedy? my impression is people who are serious wish they could do comedy but can't. judd: comedy always has an underpinning of comedy but that comedy always has an underpinning of drama, but drama doesn't have an underpinning of comedy. billy wilder made some of the funniest movies of all time. i think if you are deadly serious person it is hard. michael: they say people are funny in their bones. will ferrell is funny and has -- in his bones, he
can't help it. it is just spilling out of him. i think there are things with it just can't help it. i wasn't even joking and people think you are serious. charlie: the which do you prefer? judd: i like comedy, i like when comedies make you feel something. i've worked on a lot of sillier comedies that i am proud of. i did some parity movies. like "walk hard." i love the big silly stuff. but there are moments when you feel the crowd get emotional within a comedy, if you can make them cry it always feels like something special. charlie: any difference in directing for film versus television? lucia: for me it was definitely thinking about the audience and a group of one or two or three people watching in their living room versus a crowd of 400 people and the way they can react to something. they need to laugh at something together.
and so for me, i learned a lot about the timing and the natural rhythm of comedy. it's always about the audience more than the writing and directing. that was something else i learned, caring a little bit more about the audience. charlie: do you want to direct stuff you write? yeah, you find things in it that feel personal so you feel like you are there. i begged judd to hire me. charlie: you say i need a job? or do you say on the most gifted person in the world, if he don't hire me to do this than this will be a disaster, believe me. kind of.yeah, that but not as bluntly put.
you say i passionately believe in this movie. judd: you manipulated me. charlie: it seems to me knowing the nice things you say about us that you like doing everything. you want to be and owner and a player. judd: every project is different. i saw mike's movie. "hello my name is doris" which sally field starred in. funny and thee tone. it is so real that as soon as we talked about doing this i thought i could do this and have known them for a long time area then i'm happy not to do it. if i think it will work without me, i am happy to sit home.
>> judd was really passionate, hands-on, really involved. at every stage, which for someone as busy -- it was great. it was amazing. you have someone who has a lot of experience and success. it helps we talked about the movie thing. the process of screening the movie and getting the feedback from the audience. and i feel like judd has a lot to tweakise about how the edit to make the audience. you could speak to that but for me it was an amazing to go through, getting feedback and knowing how to take what you have learned and apply it to the edit. judd: tv, it's fun you never have to go through that. "love" onshow called netflix.
we just edit it, we are done. it's very pure, it's just your opinion of watching your show. when you are doing a movie, for hundreds of people, you need them to make noise so it is a communal experience. you listen. so you go, i think the laugh is supposed to be here but we are not getting a laugh at all. you talk about adjustments you can make until the whole movie has a musical rhythm and and interaction with the crowd with their laughing and responding in a way you want them to. i don't know if it is better or not. sometimes i wonder if my first cut of "knocked up" was better before started tweaking it for the audience. charlie: who is your favorite person to work with? judd: my wife. leslie mann. we have a fun time collaborating inwe have a fun time collaborating and talking about things at home for years, what is possible. i had a great time with adam sandler.
everybody. steve carell. my wife is about to make a movie with steve carell. i'm just jealous. i want to pretend i am part of it. charlie: why did you go back to stand up? judd: i was just a sweaty man for years and years. people get stale but they are not in touch in the audience. they don't know what is funny. i think it is really helpful to just understand what you do if you are by yourself. if you are looking to promote that. charlie: we just did. thank you. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." oliver: we are inside the magazine's headquarters in new york. carol: what may be the most powerful media company you never heard of? oliver: the new face of pimco plans to do less talking and more investing. carol: not giving up on globalization. oliver: all that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ oliver: we are here with editor in chief megan murphy. let's talk about the business