tv Charlie Rose PBS March 15, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
welcome to the program. i'm jeff glor of cbs news filling in for charlie. we begin the program with the g.o.p. proposed health care act with max ehrenfreund and jim tankersley. >> republicans have had several strategies for how they're going to counterthis. the white house has tried to undermine the credibility of c.b.o. paul ryan talked about how this is not as bad a score as expected. there are a bunch of different reactions. they're reckoning with not just a particularly analysis of c.b.o. but a reality of lost coverage. >> glor: we continue with greg jaffe and greg jaffe and a look at the trump administration's drone policy. >> we see plump wanting to ac sole rate this fight and thinking this is an easy and
good way to do it. why not bring the c.i.a. back into it so you have both agencies working more closely on this fight? >> glor: we conclude with danny boyle, director of the the film, "t2 trainspotting." >> movies are about time. when we got in the editing, you realize what movies are. it's the ultimate art form is for the study of time. all you do in editing, you know this, you compress it, extend it, make it vanish, you stop it or start it again, and it's this control of time all the time, over the audience's two hours of time that they give you, that it's the perfect art form for it. >> glor: healthcare, drones and the trainspotting sequel when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following:
>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: good evening. i'm. >> jeff glor: filling in for charlie rose. we look at the g.o.p. health care bill. the congressional budget office released its assessment of the republican proposal known as the american health care act, said to reduce the federal budget by $3 billion but leave 24 million americans uncovered in the same period and said to replace the affordable care act. joining me is max ehrenfreund of "the washington post" and jim tankersley of vox. welcome to both of you and max,
let me start with you. the c.b.o. report here has now had more than 24 hours to marinate in washington. how's it sitting? >> well, it's not sitting especially well, to be quite honest. there are a number of moderate republican lawmakers whose votes will be very important for getting this bill passed who are worried about the fact that c.b.o. projects, as you said, some 24 million more americans could be uninsured at the end of the decade if it's enacted as planned. and that's definitely a concern for the republican leadership. on the other side, there are hard line republicans who are really concerned about the fact that, although the bill does decrease the deficit by about $337 billion over ten years, that that's probably not enough for them, and they would like to see greater reduction in government borrowing. >> glor: but, max, the white house knew the uninsured number would be a big number which is why they started pushing back
over the weekend. >> yeah, i think that's right. it wasn't necessarily a surprise some people will become uninsured if this bill is enacted. republicans said for a look time they want to reduce spending on federal healthcare, and health care isn't free so implies more persons will have to pay for themselves or go without. that was ant surprise. i think the c.b.o. setting it in black and white made the issue real for republicans. they're having to confront it publicly, they're being asked about it by reporters and constituents as well so they're investigate think about it in -- having to think about it in a way they didn't before. >> this is a challenge taking on the nonpartisan c.b.o., headed by a conservative economist, hand-picked by republicans. this would seem to be a tough row to hoe. >> it's a little bit like arguing with the refs in a basketball game. you can make cases in the margins at the they're doing things you would not have done, you would not have called the
fouls in that way but at the end of the day they are the arbiters of washington and have been for a long time. so republicans have had several strategies, it appears, for how to counter this. the white house has tried to undermine the cent of c.b.o. paul ryan talked about how this is not as bad of a score as he was expecting. there are a bunch of different reactions, but they all boil down to the fact is they are reckoning not so much with a particularly analysis from c.b.o. but with a reality of lost coverage. whether you think it's going to be 24 million or 20 million or however you want to slice it, whether other analyses the white house might produce. the white house might produce it's own, for example. they have to reckon with the role possibility, the very likelihood donald trump will not make good on his promise to insure more people not fur and that's the central problem they'll run into. >> glor: we should point out the c.b.o. has always had a tough time predicting the future. >> sure,ways all do.
but health care is actually, to get a little bit nerdy about this, health care is particularly tricky to model and the c.b.o. was wrong about certain ways that individuals, companies and marketplaces would react to the affordable care act after it was passed. that said, c.b.o. did a better job than pretty much anybody in getting in the ballpark on that. so, again, i don't think we should treat 24 million as a hard, fast, the this is absolutely what's going to happen number, but we should consider that to be, you know, part of a range, a point in a range of possibilities, all of which look very bad for republicans as they try to push a bill that they say is going to improve access not restrict it. >> glor: max, as the push continues, paul ryan wants to do it quickly, the president wanted to do it quickly. right now it doesn't seem like it's going to happen quickly. >> no, i don't think so. there have also been requests from some in the senate, especially senator tom cotton, a republican, who asked the leadership in the house to slow things down and try to take
another crack at the baseball here to address some of the concerns that c.b.o. has raised. but i think jim's point is a good one. it's very difficult to see how republicans will be able to revise this bill to avoid the fact that, you know, millions of americans would become uninsured under the republican plan. it's part of what republicans are trying to do which is reduce the role of government in the healthcare sector, one of the most important sectors of the economy. when that happens, seems very likely that, you know, more people will be uninsured. >> glor: jim, who wins if a bill like this moves forward? >> there are a few big winners. obviously the wealthy are the biggest winner because there are a lot of tax cuts for them in this bill. one way you can look at it is this is a bill that reduces taxes mostly on the rich about $600 billion over a decade and more than th funds that by redug
spending on the poor. so if you're rich, you're going to pay lower taxes and you really didn't need government help buying healthcare anyway. the sneaky other winner in this, though, are upper middle class americans, people who made too much money -- if you're an individual from $50,000 to $75,000 a year, you weren't getting help from obamacare to buy health insurance. you actually will get help from this bill, c.b.o. pointed out in the score. so while that help will decline over time in terms of how far it goes to help you buy healthcare, it still is something in there for a group we didn't think would be a big winner in this plan. >> glor: max, sean spicer talked today about this being one of three prongs when it comes to getting the health care legislation through or repealed and replaced. what are the other prongs we're talking about? >> the two other prongs sean spicer are referring to is first
the possibility for regulatory action by the trump administration. not to change the law but to change the way at the the current law is implemented and try to move the health care system in a more market-oriented direction, that's what they are planning to do. the third prong is republicans are saying somehow they are going to come up with 60 votes in the senate and move a bipartisan bill that will address some of the more technical questions in health care relation that do not relate to the budget or deficit and are subject to a democratic filibuster. senator cotton pointed out it seems like republicans will not be able to get the 60 votes in the senate to pursue the third prong without a filibuster. on the second prong, we'll have to wait to see what the courts say because democras will seek to move back whatever trump is
doing through the judiciary. >> glor: and whether tom cotton on rand paul, was the white house expecting the senate resistance? >> that's a good question. i think they certainly should have been expecting it. certainly the intent of republicans in repealing the affordable care act, the kind of system that they wanted has been clear for a long time. rooms describe their plans in a white paper over the summer that speaker ryan and some of the colleagues in the house put together. so it's always been clear what republicans hope to do, and it's always been clear some republicans would not like that plan, this is not necessarily a plan that would easily unite the party. perhaps republicans spent a lot of time, especially president trump and his allies, saying this process of repeal will be easy and perhaps, to some derricks they started to believe their own rhetoric on that point, but it's justne been
true. >> glor: jim, can you talk about the dynamic right now between paul ryan who's trying to lead this and trying to convince folks in the senate to go along? both that relationship and the continuing and long and interesting relationship between the speaker and the president. >> the speaker of the house has not been a particularly attractive job in washington for quite a while now. we're seeing why at the moment. paul ryan is caught between several different political forces. on one hand you have the tom cottons and ted cruzs of the world who are very concerned this bill is not conservative enough, not doing enough to enact market-based solutions conservatives believe will help americans buy health care for themselves. on the other hand, you have senators and some moderate republicans who are worried about big coverage losses highlighted by c.b.o. and who will probably push for more ways
to guard against that sort of coverage loss, which then makes the conservatives -- the more conservative members even more upset. then you have the president who has promised a bunch of things that are frankly not possible to deliver all at once given the bill that he is starting with. so you have donald trump's big plans that everyone's going to pay less for health care and everyone's going to be covered, and you have two different ways of looking at that in the house and senate, and paul ryan is stuck trying to make all of that into a bill that can pass and not just pass but be something republicans can defend and be proud of going into future elections. do we have a sense now jim of how similar this bill is to what paul ryan was dreaming of years ago? >> i think there is big differences. i think the real reasons for that is because this is going through that reconciliation process to try to avoid a filibuster. look, what republicans really would like, in particular what
the party base and what paul ryan as inherent of free market philosophy really believes in is the idea of really getting government out of ct, creating competition, allowing insurers to sell new and different proctors so every american can afford health care to some degree. the market will solve the problem. this bill doesn't do tat to the extent paul ryan or other conservatives would like if they didn't have to run through that hoop to avoid the filibuster. >> glor: jim talks about reconciliation and you wrote about the challenges republicans have with reconciliation right now. >> that's right. in that respect, the c.b.o. score published monday did give republicans an important reason to breathe a sigh of relief. if the c.b.o. had said, this bill is going to increase the deficit, if this bill is going to force the government to borrow more money, seems the
bill would have been subject to a democratic phil buster in the senate and basically the whole project would have been ended at that point. instead the c.b.o. said this bill is likely to save the government $30 billion a year or so and, as a result of that, republicans can move ahead with a plan to avoid a filibuster. but as we have been discussing, there are serious challenges. >> glor: what happens next? a budget markup, a big hearing in the house wednesday where they're going to keep moving this thing forward in the house. let's stop and appreciate just how fast this bill is moving for something that doesn't appear to have, from the outside, a ton of grassroots support and does not have a lot of interest groups or big players in washington behind it, but what it does have is the leadership in congress and, it appears, the force, to some degree, of the presidency. so it's going to keep moving through congress. eventually, it will come to a floor vote and then i think we'll see the really big
challenges. can they keep enough to have the freesm caucus, the most conservative members to get it through there? if they kick it through the senate, it will have to change dramatically to get through the senate. these are high hurdles, but they keep it moving as quickly as republicans can toward some sort of outcome. >> glor: one of the selling points was the dealmaking. how much of this -- what is his role right now? is it a light or heavy touch behind the scenes? >> from what we understand it's a light touch and very much behind the scenes. i note when speaker paul ryan went to his home state of wisconsin to announce the bill last week, president trump did not go with him and it was vice president pence. some people in the white house, i'm not sure, but seems as though perhaps some people in the white house are wary of associating trump too closely with a bill that could very well fail ultimately. so we heard that trump is
meeting with conservative lawmakers, he is trying to get them on board with this project, and, so far, at least, we're not sure if that effort will be successful on trump's part, we're not sure if he'll be able to deliver on being the dealmaker that he said he was during the campaign. >> glor: because it was tagged obamacare and president obama came to embrace that term eventually, but now he said it's trumpcare. >> that's right and today sean spicer the press secretary said trump did not want this bill to be called trumpcare which raises the question of how seriously trump is supporting it publicly or behind the scenes. >> glor: max ehrenfreund of "the washington post" and jim tankersley of vox. thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> glor: we continue this evening with a look at the new policy on drone strikes. president trump has reportedly loosened obama era restrictions
applicable to targeted killings outside active war zones. the changes give greater autonomy to the c.i.a. and the pentagon to conduct counterterrorism operations. joining me is greg jaffe of "the washington post" and gordon lubold of the "wall street journal." gordon, what is new about this and why is the white house doing this? >> mr. trump visited the c.i.a. the first day after being inaugurated and got briefed and then thing soon thereabouts provided essentially an informal authority to the c.i.a. to return to these -- to continue to conduct drone strikes, which they had heretofore not been doing under the obama administration in its later years. so what the authority is was to give the c.i.a. permission to conduct strikes, in particular in syria. we have some evidence that
suggests they've also done one in pakistan as well. then we saw in syria about four or five, three weeks ago, they targeted al quaida leader in northern syria. so that was kind of the first known example of the c.i.a.'s taking the authority since they got it from mr. trump. >> glor: but there has long been a feisty turf war between the c.i.a. and the pentagon over drone strikes. >> right. there's always been this bureaucratic squabbling over thissish uh shoe. under pressure from human rights groups and others, mr. obama settled on getting the hybrid solution where the c.i.a. and the dod work together to mount a strike. so it was basically the c.i.a. working, providing the intelligence, the analysis and then, at the last minute, allowing the dod to essentially pull the trigger,
but thus allowing that mission to be largely publicly accountable and transparent, and that was a place where mr. obama had pushed to have that happen. so now this is the beginning of what could be a reversal of that policy under mr. trump, who has clearly signaled he wants to accelerate the fight against islamic state and other groups. >> glor: and, greg, how easy or complicated is it going to be to change the drone rules? >> you know, i think it's relatively easy. there were presidential policy guidance, so guidance president obama set down that he was hoping to set a standard that would tie the hands of his successor a little bit, but there is no legal mandate that president trump has to follow those rules. >> glor: greg, so what was the obama administration worried about that the trump administration may not be worried about? >> i think the big thing president obama was worried about is you have this
incredibly powerful tool that allows you to launch strikes anywhere in the world at very low cost to u.s. personnel and very low cost to taxpayer dollars, so he wanted some set of rules that, particularly outside of active combat areas, that would set a threshhold for these strikes. you know, if you're going to use american power to kill somebody, wanted to make sure it was absolutely necessary. >> glor: president obama was not shy about using that power. >> no, he wasn't. in fact, he used it very heavily early in his administration. so it was around 2013 where he looks at it and thinks, gosh, the technology really has accelerated, his administration was using it quite heavily and felt like, hey, we need to put rules of the road in place to govern this. >> glor: can you talk about the technology acceleration and how much better the drone technology has become and how quickly it advances and how easy it can be for military to rely on this?
>> right, i mean, greg's right, it became almost an addictive tool for the obama administration which is to send troops into harm's way but you can do it antiseptically. the technology has gotten better. the number of drones, though under high demand by the military, are more plentiful and, you know, u.s. government has eyes in the sky in all these military commanders say they never have quite enough, but it is an effective way to conduct counterterrorism operations from the sky and without getting, you know, u.s. troops' feet wet in that sense. i think, you know, we see mr. trump wanting to accelerate this fight and thinking this is an easy and good way to do it. but why not bring the c.i.a. back into it so you have essentially both agencies kind of working more closely on this
fight. >> glor: gordon, can you talk more about how these decisions are made? >> well, you know, under the obama administration, the decisions were kept at a very high level. if you talk to military folks, sometimes they express frustration at what they'd perceive in some cases as micromanagement by the obama white house in terms of deciding whether a target shuld be vetted or, you know, to what degree a target should be vetted. in some cases, in the case of one target they had in libya, i think in 2015, it took, like, eight months to get the decision to green light that particular operation. so we're seeing, on the military side, mr. trump's interest in delegating a lot of the authority down anyway, and now we're seeing potentially the camel's nose in the tent with the c.i.a. the two agencies do have different vetting threshholds,
and the c.i.a.'s is higher, and this is not in terms of civilian casualties but just in term of deciding a certain target is the actual target they're after. the c.i.a.'s is higher than the military's for different reasons, but it's also kind of driven by the culture of both places being significantly different when it comes to doing this. so with the military -- what the military would tell you is using their drones, by the way, the c.i.a.'s use -- you know, these are military drones they're using, they can take sometimes months to decide and conclude on a target and execute that target, whereas the defense department, where the design is going to be more results-oriented, could maybe execute that target a lot sooner. so there is a disparity in the thresholds that's going to come into play as they decide how this new authority expands or
not. >> glor: so, greg, the c.i.a. would argue they are more effective at these strikes? >> yeah, that certainly was the argument that they made, particularly in pakistan, where they had been operating for a period of time. you know, you get to know the area and the terrain and the people. in yemen, for a while, both the c.i.a. and the military, i think, were taking drone strikes, and there was a per seemings, i think in the -- a perception, i think in the white house and elsewhere that the c.i.a. had become better at it because they had been doing it for longer. i think the military in some cases would push back on that notion. >> glor: greg, on the broader point here, sean spicer addressed i.s.i.s. in the briefing, at least yesterday, and a lot of this information is under wraps or hasn't been released because they say they don't want those - -- those the administration is fighting to figure out what's going on exactly. but beyond drone strikes, the
overall strategy, what more do we know or have we learned from the first month-plus if office for the new administration? >> you know, i think, so far, we haven't seen page changes. you know, it's still very much what they called in the obama administration and what the military calls a by, with and through strategy. nerd we're not going to commit large numbers of u.s. troops, we're going to work through indigenous allies on the ground. that's been done in iraq and syria. i think you see a small change in that commanders are being allowed to take more risk in terms of pushing u.s. advisors further forward on the battle field, a little bit more artillery support from the ground, but just not major shifts. >> gordon, if we see more troops on the ground, where would it be? >> i think largely what a lot of the commanders are going to say that they need more advisors. we know in afghanistan that they would like more advisors, and that that is probably going to be likely true in iraq and
syria. potentially more combat forces. greg's right there's more openness to exposing the military who are deployed at these places more risk. so you may have a higher number of special forces, say, go into syria. we're already eeseeing other numbers of conventional forces going in there because i think that you can't overhaul this whole strategy, it's going to stay the way it really was under obama, but you can tweak it by adding more troops here and there and just kind of turning it up a little bit. but i think mr. trump's probably learning that, you know, there is not a magic bullet to kind of make this thing happen a lot quicker than it was already. >> glor: the notion of advisors, it's always been an interesting term, right? >> well right, because you could drive a truck through the definition of what an advisor
does and you can also, you know, advisors up to now were supposed to stay far away from actual combat and they had this kind of weird term of art of, you know, one terrain feature behind the front line. this has been blurred anyway even under mr. obama, and it's hard because a lot of journalists like us can't get in and in bed with these guys to see what they're actually doing. it was already blurry. i think it's going to become blurrier. the question will be whether the trump administration wants to be more open about what it is the troops are doing. i think he understands -- i think mr. trump would like to keep most of what the military does under wraps. i don't think we're going to have an embedded media program or whatever. it's going to be hard to assess what they're doing, but definitely the advising can be a euphemism for almost actual combat for the u.s. troops.
>> glor: already making it harder to assess what the state department is doing and indications that is happening on the military side as well. greg jaffe and gordon lubold, thank you both very much. >> thank you. s. >> glor: danny boyle is here. he's directed such acclaimed films as 28 days later, 127 hours, and steve jobs. he won the academy award for slumdog millionaire in 2009. boyle first made a name for himself as film maker request "trainspotting," following a group of heroin addicts living in squall lore in scotland. after 20 years, boyle and cast reunited for the sequel. here's the trailer for "t2 trainspotting." ( door clicks shut )
you're an addict. so be addicted. just be addicted to something else. >> take a deep breath and choose life. ( screeching tires ) ( shouting ) >> glor: i'm so happy to have danny boyle at this table. welcome. >> thanks, jeff. >> glor: so a lot of time there is a pressure after such big hits like "trainspotting" to do the sequel right away. >> i don't have any memory of it. >> glor: of them wanting you do. >> of anybody expressing an interest in it. you would expect commerce to step in. pay the actors a little bit more and everybody would be happy to. i don't remember the pressure at that time.
i think there was so much astonishment that it worked not just in britain but also globally as well that it transferred because it was so specific. i think people were frozen, tear minds frozen in stoppishment. it was only -- he published the sequel seven years later, that took the characters ten years on, and we tried. we were adapting that to try to see if that could be the sequel. >> glor: tough subject matter. yeah, and the book's not a great book like the original book in my mind and we didn't do a very good job adapting it and i knew people would be disappointed if we put that out. it would have felt like a cheap rehash of what we had done originally. and the original ace was being very, very original and it would be to besmirch it to follow it with something highly
repetitive. so we left it. when the 20-year anniversary loomed on the horizon, we sat down at a table like this, the two writers myself and the producers, and we talked about it and something a bit more personal and a bit more painful, really, about men aging over time, really. and they indulge themselves as much as was ever possible to imagine someone indulging themselves on the edges of society, and then to be caught in what it means to move from that boy hood to manhood, really, and the film is a study of masculinity over that time period. >> glor: it's reflective and it's sad because what's happened to them over these 20 years has not necessarily been wild success. >> no, it isn't. they feel like they have been treading water at best. and spud, for instance, has remained the addict, on and off
in rehab, back on, back addicted. and sick boy is in an ever decreasing circle of scams, really. and rinsen had a crisis in amsterdam with money and he's forced back with this medical crisis. >> and took off with all the money at the end of the movie and everyone's upset with him still over this. you and -- ewan macgregor. >> yes, he's still running on a treadmill after 20 years. there's a wall he's hit very hard and he's forced to return where he comes from, and to friends who appear to have just been in status until he gets back, and the ferocious bagby has been understandably in jail for 20 years given how violent he is. but he comes out of jail, of course, and they all eventually meet to relive the past in one sense, or to take revenge on it,
really, by is bagby's preoccupation. >> glor: they weren't role 340dles back then. do you want them to be now? >> no, i wouldn't apply that phrase to them. i think we look to them for an almost alternative view and i think that was the success of the first film is these were voices from the margins that had such a distinctive point of view and sense of humor that they were attractive despite their circumstances and some of the things they were going through which none of us would wish upon our enemies, really. today, they feel -- they're washed up more really because, although they try to, it's no longer possible for them to end leslie try and repeat the glorious of the past as they see them. i don't think you could see them as role models now, but they certainly look like what we recognize, probably the extreme
side, but you recognize them as your friends, the violent one, the chaotic one, the clown spud. i'm sure that's one of the reasons it appealed to people so much and it didn't make any apology for what it was doing, saying and looking at. it didn't condone it nor did it apologize for it. >> glor: the more things change, the more things stay the same for these guys. >> old cliches. cliches are cliches because they're often true. >> glor: the name "t2", that's gotten attention. people think terminator two, right? >> indeed. >> glor: james cameron and all that. you didn't just want to call it trainspotting. this went through all numbers of development in term of the title. >> we wouldn't call it
trainspotting at all originally. it seems perverse, but it was important to nourishing the film on its own so it didn't feel like it was going to be a sequel. of course it is. you're bringing back the same four actors to play the same four characters, so it's necessarily so. n identity and to cherish andits nourish that before getting into the inevitable. when it did get on its own feet and worked out its relationship with the original film in more detail, we admitted to the studio, okay, we will call it, but we want to call it not quite trainspotting, we want to call it "t2". why? everyone is going to go on the james cameron film. we said, no, it's because -- if we ask the characters what would you call the sequel if you were going to be in it, they would say you should became it after the great sequel terminator two. so we called it "t2 trainspotting."
it is a tribute to james cameron. that is one of the greatest sequel of all the time. we've never bettered the liquid robots, so hats off to james cameron, but it's also to slightly annoy him, because the characters are perverse and all that. >> glor: you're trolling him a bit. >> in the nice possible way. >> glor: did you talk to james cameron about it? >> no, it's not a really declared name for a film. everybody says "t2" for it, so we thought we would have a joke. both films are full of that irre rains. it's part of their dna to behave in a disrespectful way to those who have gone before them, really. >> glor: so all come back, or some never left, but they all come back to edenburgho and they are trying to figure out how to make money and haven't been
successful for two dekids. >> their nature is to scam if they can, which is to kind of con people out of money, steal money, either from individuals' wallets and you see them stealing credit cards and pin numbers from people, or from the european union. so they applied for funding for one of their projects to theine uniotheeuropean union and they . >> glor: you mentioned the european union, and the film was being shot as brexit was playing out, and now there is talk of another scottish referendum. this takes place in scotland. there are some themes of nationalism here. i'm just wondering how topically you wanted to try to be and how much you were thinking about that as you were making it. >> obviously, some people do choose to make films that they wish to be topical. i find that very difficult because they take so long to make movies that if you want to
be -- it's a serious risk if you want to be topical if that's the reason for your film. i mean, people do read things into them. ours is based more on how the characters behave rather than kind of a world view about how we might have about politics, particularly. it would be impossible. we shot while the brexit vote was happening. we all voted on the one of the days we filmed. and even more complicatedly, scotland, unlike the united kingdom, voted to leave europe, scotland, contrarily, voted 62% to stay in europe. i think it led to just yesterday the first minister of scotland, she triggered the next referendum, the legal process by which there will be a second referendum about whether scotland remains in the united kingdom, which it was asked previously a couple of years ago and it just decided to stay in
the united kingdom. now the question will be, whether it's on the ballot paper, on the referendum paper or not, is do you wish to be part of europe still, because the rest of the united kingdom is withdrawing from it, and i think scotland will choose to stay in europe rather the u.k. i'm english, and i know the scottish never had any great fondness for the english. they've always been at war with them. they have an affinity with the french, rather than english. mary queen of scott used to keep her army in scotland to attack the english so there is history there. >> glor: you are dealing with guys 20 and 22 years ago who were up and coming actors. a number have become directors themselves. >> yeah. >> glor: so they're wise about the game. >> that's true. >> glor: they might have their own opinions on things. >> yeah. >> glor: does that make things easier or more complicated for you? >> it's pay be a lot easier.
it's not so much their directing experience, because you and mcgregor and bobbie carlisle made directing movies. where you benefit from is their storytellers. directors have one or two films in years, actors can tell four or five stories in a calendar year. you realize they have short cuts and know how to help you. it's unspoken, automatic sometimes. i did notice it in comparison to when we made the first one when we were stumbling around not knowing what we were doing and we kind of got away with it. if you're lucky you get away with it in the early days, we all know that experience, seat of your pants, but now they're much more skilled. but they're impatient because they have the performance ready and they want to give it and they don't want to be delayed by
crews and delayed lighting and things like that. me and the crew had to be on top marks really in order to capture the performer because they're itching to give them, you know. >> glor: i'm curious about how you push these guys since they are comfortable in these proles. are you still trying to put them in places where they're not comfortable? >> a little bit sometimes. they're very brave actors and certainly the first film and this film, they're not like small performances. they're quite big and declared performances. they're always happy to have a look at the extremes of the way to perform the character. so you can make suggestions like that. all a actors, when they think they're overdoing it, they will pull back. >> glor: but it could be too easy for them with these roles, right, because these characters just existed now for 20 years,
right? >> although they were nervous i think about going back to them. >> glor: they were? yeah. officially. would they be able to be rinsen and bagby again? you don't know until they do it, of course. but the script was excellent and that gave a lot of confidence. you feel an obligation you're not going to dishonor the past both in terms of the original film but also in the town edinboro because it played such a huge part in all our careers. so the obligation is not an ongoing nervousness about can i do it, it's will we all do it well enough to make sure that we make something that's worthy to stand beside the original, you know? >> glor: welsh, you mentioned he wrote the sequel that came out a little less than ten years after his original book. he also wrote a prequel to
trainspotting. >> yes. >> glor: has there been any talk of doing that in any way? >> he's very interesting. he visits these characters and other characters associated with them multiple times in multiple ukesbooks and he's done a book scagboys about their younger lives. there is been talk about television series. he's also written an extraordinary book about just bagby called the blade artist which is the most recent work he's published. a wonderful book. very interesting. very compact and thriller-like. and i know bobby carlisle would love to do that, but that might i merge out of. this it's not really a character spinoff like in the marvel universe butteth the trainspotting version of that. >> glor: bagby is still the toughest? >> yeah, but don't people like him as well? >> glor: you think?
not like him like him, but he's funny. you laugh. you have a good laugh and -- >> glor: funny, but -- you never want to be caught alone with him in a bar. >> glor: yeah. but he's very tender in the end. did you find that? >> glor: he was, after being untender for a long time. i think it can be difficult to watch him because i mean they're all self-destructive in a way. but he can be self-destructive and violent -- >> he's actually the most destructive of all of them, yes. >> glor: yes. he's a very interesting actor, bobby. he can access that in a terrifying why, and yet he's a sweetheart. interestingly, he doesn't go home to his family when he's performing bagby because he thinks it's still in his clothes -- this is how he expresses it -- that there might be elements of it still around him that he's not aware of and that he'll brush against his children in some way.
>> aaahhh! go! another example of bagby willing to put himself in danger to hurt others. you -- it did surprise me that you did this a little bit. >> did it? >> glor: only because you jumped around so successfully into different genres and never sort of really been pegged into one movie or one film, right? and, so, you are the same characters. i don't know. seems like almost like your wander rust would want to carry you somewhere else and you wouldn't want to go back
necessarily. >> it became the biggest challenge of all, could you return to it and make something does don't stand beside it? so it's not like you were going to repeat something you knew you could do or were familiar with. studios want to hire you because they think you can do a certain genre. so it wasn't really that fitting. it was could we move beyond. 20 years is such an extraordinary time span because it's the perfect time span for that telescope of time when depending on which way you look down the telescope, it's almost either out of reach or on top of you still, and in movies, this is one of the things that i learned doing it, and i was so -- it was so wonderful to do it, was move wher -- movies aret time. when we get into the editing,
you realize what movies is. it's the ultimate art form of the study of time. you know this in editing, you compress time or you extend it or you make it vanish or you stop it or you start it again, and it's this control of time over time, over the audience's two hours of time that they give you, that it's the perfect art form for, and you can literally -- an audience, if they have an image of a favorite film and trainspotting, they have a very affectionate image of it, they have locked those actors in time. i've done this with films. and i know actors have made other films and they're aging here, but i have that image of them there, and you can go back to that image and say, no, they're not mythologized. it's time, it's for all of us. the men deny it for so long and so often and so vigorously, we try to keep our backs turned to it, but you realize ultimately,
time doesn't care about you and you have to make your peace with it somehow. so i couldn't think of it. there was nothing more than i wanted to do more than it once we began working on it in that way, yeah. >> glor: you mention the studios opened how they want to push you and you've always resisted that because i think you don't want the stories to go a certain way or you want them to go the way you think you can tell that story the best way. and you're a hollywood guy. you made a couple of hollywood movies, a couple of american films. >> yeah. >> glor: but you would rather keep the budget a little lower and keep the independence than take the bigger money and get told what the do. >> yeah, i mean, we make the films for a limited budget. it's still a lot of money because it's usually somewhere south of $20 million. it is a huge amount of money in anybody's life. >> glor: but compared to the other "t2" -- >> but he's a genius at handling
bigger budgets as well. just a personal preference, and i love watching the bigger budget movies, especially james cameron ones, but it's obvious, if a studio gives you $15 million, they're going to be worried, but not as worried as a guy they're giving $200 million to. so you think there's a bit coming there, we'll keep them off our back as much as possible. they're not the great evil ones. you want to work with them and you work with really great people in the studios as well. but, obviously, the financial concerns, if you ease them as long as possible, it gives you freedom to express yourself in the way you want to. and it's provocations like the first trainspotting film, and there is elements in this which are really tough choices you make which in a mainstream film that cost $100 million you probablyouldn't be wise to include. >> probably not, once you see
"t2". the music, as was the case in the first one, is thundering and prominent, and this is just a move ie, it's a sound track. >> yeah. >> glor: what kind of care in this election goes into figuring out what makes it in? >> oh, everything. i'm a product of music. so many of us are. the post-war music. by that i mean pop music, really. it's kind of a liquid architecture that runs through our lives backward and forward and defined us and is sneered at often by high culture as low culture, but actually for me it's all culture. these characters in the first movie and this movie, the music is as important to them as their dialogue, as the scenarios in the scenes. it stands beside them as an equal character in the film
really and it sets off different emotions in people which is the most extraordinary things about it, especially with this, because we try to trigger it a number of times. the muscle memory you have to have the first mov movie, you hr chords you recognize from the first movie. we didn't want to repeat the music, so they have been reemerging or remixed, but they do trigger emotions in you, which in movie terms it's wonderful to do that because it's not a conscious thing you're in control of with music. it affects you in different ways to do with your own memories, often to do with those tracks or you complement or contradict a scene you're watching. so that one, you had frankie goes to hollywood, which is a great gay anthem, really. and there is a character in it, bagby, who he's taking a considerable amount of viagra before that scene happens and
you're not able to show it on television you have to go to the movie. he's excited by fighting rather than the way he would conventionally challenge it. so you can have tremendous fun with the choice of music as well and trigger lovely connections with people for who pop culture is our culture. for us all. we live through music. and the younger generation, you look for -- i mean, you look for beyonce. you look for how important it is in their lives. you look at my girls, the importance of that music in their lives, it's huge, really. it deserves to be cherished as true culture, even if it's only three minutes long. >> a pleasure to see on screen. lovely to have you here. danny boyle. >> cheers, man. rose: fo for more about this
woman: it kind was, like, the bang that set off the night. man: that is the funkiest restaurant. man 2: the honey-walnut prawns will make your insides smile. woman 2: more tortillas, please. man 3: what is comfort food if it isn't gluten and grease? braff: i love crème brûlée. sobel: the octopus should've been, like, quadropus because it was really small. sbrocco: and, you know, when you split something, all the calories evaporate and then there's none. man: that's right. yeah.