tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 25, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
>> steven avery was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 198r5 and served 18 years in a wisconsin state prison system before he was exonerated in 2003. in 2005 shortly after filing a awsuit against the county that wrongly convicted him. avery became the prime suspect in the murder of teresa hall a new network's documentary chronicles his prosecution and eventual conviction, it is called, "making a murderer."
new york times calls it an, compulsive, unpredictable. here is the trailer from "making a murderer." >> steven avery spent 18 years in prison for something he did not do. >> 18 years. >> 18 years. >> dna came through indicating that he had not committed the crime. >> law enforcement officers realize that they had screwed up big time. >> we were getting ready to bring a lawsuit of $36 million to manitowoc county itself. and the sheriff and the da would be on the hook for those damages. they are not handing that kind of money over to steven avery. i told them to be careful, they are not even close to being finished with you. >> do we have a body or anything yet? >> we have steven avery in ustody though? >> everybody is listening. what do you want to say today? if convicted he'll spend the
rest of his life in prison. >> we found a key that was scrapped in dna. >> it is really strange. >> what is going on here? >> the last stop was at steven avery's home. >> everything i have heard him say has not been the truth. >> extraordinarily disturbing. >> we went through this 20 years ago and we're going through it again. >> good luck. you are probably the most dangerous individual ever to et foot in this courtroom. >> the truth always comes out. â charlie: joining me are the directors of making a murderer. i am pleased to have them at this table. for the first time. >> thank you, charlie. charlie: how did the start for both of you? >> back in november of 2005 graduate film students at we werecolumbia diversity of the
arts. steven avery appeared on the front page of the new york times the headline read "freed by d.n.a., now charged in new crime." we recognized steven as this potentially unique window into the system, as somebody who had been failed by the system in 1985. he now found himself back in 20 years later. charlie: when you look at it and looked at his conviction for the second time, -- >> he had really just been charged. in the murder of teresa halbach. as laura said this idea of this man failed for 18 years by the system, there had been opportunities for the system to correct itself and it hadn't and now he was stepping back in 20 years later nan that 20 years there had been advances in d.n.a. there had been legislative reforms. there was a lot of talk that, you know, wrongful convictions don't happen anymore. this is a thing of the past.
and we didn't have d.n.a. back then. you know, it was an opportunity to sort of test that theory. so at that point we decided to go into production and we went to wisconsin. we moved there. and then documented this new case, as it unfolded. the series gives you this opportunity to use what we like as 20/20 hindsight. it is very easy to look back at things. >> it is so easy and intriguing. everybody talks about it. when you went to make the film did you have a deal with netflix to do that? >> no. absolutely not. it was the two of us. corraling some family and friends and, you know. it was all self-funded. >> why do you think everybody is talking about this? what is it about this that we haven't said already? what makes it so compelling? >> well, i think for the most part people understand that the criminal justice system is
imperfect. i think what this series really demonstrates is, you know, what happens when it goes wrong? and the cases in the series are really a stark illustration of that. one of the major characters in the series was pulled into the system and became a co-defendant with steven in the halbach case. he was 16 years old at the time. and incredibly limited. his i.q. was somewhere in the range of 73. 67 to 73. and this was an individual who was interrogated alone by the investigators and just really out of his depth and had no prior experience with law enforcement. so i think that's one of the most troubling aspects of this story. and we hear quite a bit about that from people who have watched. >> do you two differ in any aspect of this in terms of how you read it? >> i think after a decade of
really working hand in hand, you know, i think we see it -- i think we recognize different things as we were experiencing it, but then, you know, going through that experience and going through all the footage and doing additional research and digging through primary source materials, i think we end up in the same place. >> do you think steven avery killed teresa? >> i don't really have a way of answering that because i have so many unanswered questions. the issue is that despite this being the largest criminal investigation in wisconsin's history apparently, i am still left with so many unanswered questions. >> so the answer is i don't know. > exactly. >> you just don't know. >> that's right. >> too many unanswered questions. >> i don't think the system is designed to offer certainty. one of the major takeaways for me with respect to our process
was you know part of our inquiry was to what extent can the system deliver on its promises of truth and justice? i came away from this process thinking the system can do a better job of delivering truth -- i'm sorry -- justice, which is a process. >> than truth? >> that's right. the nnot always count on system to reveal truth. there is so much ambiguity in these matters, they are extremely complex and there are so many ingredients that go into the prosecution of a case. one of the things we really wanted to do for our viewers was document the pretrial proceedings. what came before the trial phase so that viewers could understand and appreciate, you know, what basic rights defense attorneys are fighting for at that point. significant decisions the judge is making which determine what types of evidence the jury even gets to hear.
you know, we have been criticized recently for not including all evidence in the series. and, you know, what i would say to that is this is a documentary. it's not playing out in real time. and of course we have to make editorial choices about the types of evidence that gets in. even a jury in a criminal case doesn't hear all of the evidence that either side would like to offer because the judge is making decisions at the pretrial stage about, you know, what types of evidence is reliable, what might tend to prejudice the jury. >> the 2007 trial lasted how long? >> it was just over five weeks, steven's trial. >> 200 hours. >> something around that. i guess that's how the math works out. >> so you have to decide what to exclude and what to inclued. >> sure. his trial i think in our series takes just over three hours including press conferences and out of court scenes so not even three hours of courtroom
footage. charlie: what is the biggest question you have now? having gone through all of his. >> i guess the major question i come away with is, you know, to what extent are we as a society going to step up and try to -- charlie: that's what i thought you'd say. in other words, what is it going to take to change the system? >> that's right. a big part of that is trying to recognize injustice as it's happening and to try to interrupt that. because, you know, if we don't do that, and if it leads to a wrongful conviction, that also necessarily leads to a wrongful acquittal, which means an innocent person is being locked away while the guilty person, you know, is left free. we see that in the first episode with steven avery and gregory allen who went on to attack women for 10 years while steven avery was in prison
serving gregory allen's term. charlie: right. >> so my biggest question is how can we come together on this? you know, because i see a lot of talk and response to this series. people taking sides, debating guilt and innocence. when, you know, that's actually not what this series is about. it's about failures within our system and why those are happening and how could we do better? and there is so much that we could unite about. or unite over about this. as laura mentioned, a wrongful conviction is a wrongful acquittal. i mean, you don't have to care about the person going to prison wrongly. you should care about, you know, the ill doer on your street. charlie: exactly. what happens now? do most people watch it all the way through? is it like they cannot resist once they start it? >> i've been hearing a lot of that. people in one day or over the course of two days. which, you know, frankly surprises me a little. we're asking a lot of our viewers t is a very dense
protagonist in arthur miller's "a view from the bridge" exploring the pursuit of the american dream, irrational love, and betrayal. the broadway production originated in london where it won an award for best revival. ben brantley of the "new york times" the powerful drama critic wrote, "mr. strong is the most powerful single performance you're likely to see this year." he also has a busy film career often playing characters. here is a look at some of his most haunting roles as villainous characters. >> they attacked us on land in 1998, by sea in 2000, and from the air in 2001. they murdered 3,000 of our citizens in cold blood. they have slaughtered our forward deploy and what the -- have we done about it, huh?
congratulations. my warmest welcome to his majesty's service. if you speak a word of what i'm about to show you, you will be executed for high treason. you will lie to your friends, your family, and everyone you meet about what it is you really do. >> i have returned from beyond the grave to fulfill england's destiny. and extend the boundaries of this great empire. listen to the rabble outside. listen to the fear. i will use that as a weapon to control them and then the world. traveling in beirut. it's dangerous to travel. he'll disappear. >> i want you to take him from his hotel, put him in the front of a car and run a truck into
him at 50 miles an hour. >> it's good to have you back in town. charlie: i am pleased to have mark strong at this table for the first time. it is a pleasure and welcome. >> thank you. i'm very happy to be here. charlie: tell me how this began for you. >> i got a call, having not done a play for about 12 years. charlie: i know. it surprised me because you began in theater. >> i did. i trained for the theater. i did a lot of theater in the beginning of my work with the royal shakespeare company, the national theater, all the theaters in london. charlie: so just one second. you hadn't been on stage for 12 years because you had so many interesting film roles or because you were pursuing a film career? or something else? >> i think i had done so much theater and it was the kind of genre i was very familiar with and i didn't really know about film. and contemporaries of mine were making films and doing films and it was a world i realized i could have access to.
i just didn't know how. then i got a couple of roles that got me started if you like. once i was in the club it is very hard not to continue with that. and before i knew it 12 years had gone by. charlie: one role leads to another. >> quite. charlie: so what happened? you got a call finally and someone said i have an offer you can't refuse? >> yeah. well, david asked to see me and i went to talk to him and he sent me "a view from the bridge" which was in a pile of scripts i had been looking at and was head and shoulders above everything else i was reading. charlie: what was it that spoke to you? >> an interesting question. it is very hard to say why a character really speaks to you because it is instinctive and something i just felt. i kind of knew who this guy was. i knew how i wanted to play him. i knew from what i read what kind of a guy i thought he is. then i would -- i read about it. i'd never seen the play. i read it at university but then i looked into it. and i realized he's played one way but i read something a
little bit different. and so i thought i'd really like to have a go at that. charlie: you described this as a slow motion car crash. set up the play so we understand why it is a slow motion car crash. you're a guy who works on the docks in the late 1940's, early 1950's? >> yeah. early 1950's. he's a long shoreman. he is married and has his wife's sister's daughter who he has been bringing up since she was a baby. her niece. they live together in a tiny apartment and it's all been going pretty well when we meet them the girl is now 17, kind of on the cusp of womanhood, and we learn that two cicilian immigrants, cousins of his wife have been invited to come stay in the house because they've been brought in by the syndicate to work on the docks illegally. one of the young men and the girl fall in love with each other and all hell breaks loose. charlie: right. because he thinks somehow that she simply wants, that he wants
to marry her because he wants to get entry into the united states. >> yeah. well it is incredibly complicated. that's why miller's writing is so brilliant. there are a number of things going on. eddie's reason for not liking him is that he is just after his papers. but some people interpret the fact that he's jealous of the girl, that he's interested in the girl inappropriately. charlie: right. suggest that he's gay and all that. >> yeah. i mean, there are so many different levels on which you can play this. what is fantastic about the production we've done i think is that it releases it. it releases it from history. it releases arthur miller from just being a play wright we all think we know with convenient plays about the 1950's all done in a 1950's style and it is a very bare, stark production that american friends of mine have said it is the clearest version they've ever seen. charlie: this is the clearest version. i agree. it is staged in an interesting way, too. the stage is bare. a trademark of this director. >> yeah. charlie: and the two, the audience is on either side on the stage.
>> yes. charlie: you sit there in just a square. you're all barefooted. >> yeah. charlie: what is that about? >> an interesting question. we didn't start barefoot. we had shoes initially and then the director came in, i think the end of the first week and said i just want you all to get rid of your shoes. we couldn't understand why that was. i think in retrospect looking at it, it is something about the space that he created for us to perform in. it is a very pristine space. the floor is white. what goes on in that space is revealed by huge, monl ithic kind of stone edifice disappearing at the beginning and you reveal these people and the same thing comes in at the end and it means the arena or petri dish or boxing ring or whatever it is that he has created there, that stage, is where we perform and enact this play stroke story stroke ritual. i think not having shoes means it connects us to the ground. it makes the thing rather special. but it also does something very
special, which is it stops the need for the play to be real. we're not trying to persuade everybody that what they're seeing is real. you can see the audience on the stage. you can see we haven't got shoes on. charlie: it's -- >> it's about the words, the narrative, the characters not about the need to persuade everybody that what they're seeing is real. charlie: the other interesting hing is there is a lawyer. he is in a sense our guy. he tells us from the beginning. you know. and brantley in fact in his review said he was terrific. and it's essential to the play. >> sure. well, that is the slow motion car crash you were talking about. we're set on that course by the lawyer who basically appears and says, okay. here's the story. this is what's going to happen. then you watch it happen. and essentially that is the kind of ingredient of tragedy that you know the character, potential character has hubris the gods are going to be displeased, that it is not going to end well, but you watch what happens to make that
kind of cataclysmic event take place at the end of the play. charlie: in which there is life and death. >> yeah. charlie: you also ponder the question as to whether your character eddie carbone has something beyond just being a substitute father. >> yeah. charlie: i mean, it's partly physical because of the way she comes and jumps up into his -- on top of his legs and it's clearly she's very affectionate with him. >> it's been played that way, you know. there is a sexual interest in the girl. personally i think he's in love with her. he's infatuated by her. she's 17 years old now. i think he doesn't have the emotional ability to articulate how he feels or why he feels the way he does. he just loves cuddling her. he's been doing it since she was a baby. i have sons rather than daughters and i've asked a number of fathers who have daughters. you know, how do -- is there a point in your daughter's life where you suddenly become aware of her sexually?
they tend to glaze over at that point and it is a very difficult question to answer. it is in that arena -- charlie: you have to define what that means. >> well, quite. it is that arena that there is a grown man in the house who as a young girl on the cusp of womanhood. she loves cuddling him, she is practicing her sexuality in a safe environment. he is stroking her leg. everybody in the theater including his wife can see it inappropriate. the only who people in the whole building who don't realize it is the two of them. it was originally called an italian tragedy, this play, so the italian element is very strong. the idea that eddie wants respect and needs his name at the end of the play which a lot protagonists do but he is an italian catholic who promised a dying woman, catherine, the mother of the girl, that he is going to take care of her. into their lives comes this boy that he cannot quantify. he works on the blocks with
guys who don't really speak to each other. his friend lewis says to him at one point, one of my favorite lines, i mean what the hell you know? and andy replies sure. that's how men talk to each other on the docks. they don't come talking about buying records and jackets and blue motorcycles and all the plans this young boy has. are you okay? i'm okay. you? yeah. yeah. see ya later. they literally don't really speak with each other. this boy, this articulate boy arrives in their house. has an interest in the girl. charlie: he is an illegal immigrant and they're giving refuge to him. >> sure. charlie: to keep anybody from knowing. >> and this guy is not right. he's not right for the girl. he is not what he promised her dying mother. you know, that she would end, the kind of guy she would end up with. so it might as well be a martian this guy. charlie: so he could have, back to this affection he feels for her, it could be he very well,
he never felt that kind of sexual attraction and if he just simply wants to take care of her, be protective of her. or it could be that he does feel it but knows it is a bridge too far. he knows he can't do that and be faithful to the dying promise he made. >> or he feels it but can't articulate it or even understand it. so what's interesting is i don't play in my mind, and the actor has to make the choice i think how you're going to play it, whether you are interested in her or not inappropriately. charlie: you don't make that choice. >> the choice i've made for myself, he is aware that she's interesting to other men. he says, i don't like the looks they're giving you in the candy store with them new high heels on the sidewalk, clack, clack, clack. so he is aware others are looking. charlie: that's the line? >> yeah, wonderful. but he is not looking. what he is seeing is their response. i genuinely think again coming to that thing of fathers and daughters, i think a father can
see another male's interest in his daughter but not necessarily feel that particular feeling himself. and that's where, the arena i think eddie occupies. charlie: yeah. what is it you want your performance to achieve? is it the ambivalence? >> well, miller's writing has the ambivalence. my job is to play my own truth. so what i want to achieve in my performance is playing the truth of eddie carbone as i see him. charlie: the difference in a play rite and an actor. how are the roles? >> there is a difference. because i play a particular way. other people, friends of mine who have come to see the play have said to me, you are interested in her aren't you? i said no i'm not. so they're per receiving something that i'm not playing. so there is a level that exists which is the writing, which is miller, asking you as an audience to see what you think about the situation.
but there is the level -- charlie: he is actually asking the audience, knowing that they will be anyway. what do you think? >> that in a nutshell i think is the purpose of theater. when i was lucky enough to win the olivier award at home i hadn't prepared a speech. i was just happy to be there. i didn't really think of it in those terms. my name came up and i went up and collected the award and hadn't genuinely thought about what to say. a week before a young boy had come around with his mother to the stage door and by the way lots of people used to come to the stage door to want to talk about the play. this boy was obviously very bored with his mother talking. what is the point of theater he said? what is the point of theater? and i couldn't answer him in the moment but i thought about it and i think that's the nub of the issue. why are we still going into a room, switching the lights off, watching a bunch of people pretending to be other people, live, and still coming away
talking about it? and what we need from life experiences is the ability to sit there and judge ourselves against what we're seeing so people are going, would i behave like eddie? does he make the right choice? what is he thinking? what is she doing? why is she behaving like that? in doing that, we're asking ourselves, what it means to be human. charlie: you said, "there is a purpose to theater. theater has been around a couple thousand years because it has value." and the value is it makes you think and feel and ask yourself questions. about what you just saw. >> yeah. absolutely. and the purpose of art, all creativity really isn't it to take us out of our every day lives to stop us worrying about e-mails and bills and the stuff of life, the rat race? you know, just survival. isn't art and painting, music, novel, everything, to take us somewhere else and make us think about something else? charlie: but is your role in terms of an individual aracter to make them
understood? to help us understand the way you portrayed him we know who eddie carbone is. we know what drives him. if we're listening and watching carefully. >> absolutely. absolutely. and having played a lot of an ins, that is interesting dilemma because villains aren't supposed to be likeable. charlie: every actor plays villains and they say you have to find something that makes them interesting. >> you have to make them understood. if you can unthe motivation after bad guy he becomes more accessible than someone who is downright evil. miller said about eddie, we should weep no tears for eddie. that is ironic because a lot of people are in tears at the end of the play. they find it very moving and really feel for what happened. i asked the other day, are you feeling for catherine, for her loss, or for eddie and his mistakes? they said both. charlie: yeah. >> it is incredibly emotional this journey that you go on
with us all. and the fact that at the end there are people who are incredibly moved by it. charlie: this is two hours without intermission. >> yes. you are almost in every scene. how hard is it to do that? mark: once you are in it, it grabs you by the throat. every single night, every single performance. every single performance has a point where i think, we are in the middle of it again. charlie: have all of your aspirations for acting been fulfilled? mark: not yet. charlie: characters or just professional achievement? mark: with every new play and
every new job and every new group of actors and new director, you learn something new. just when you think you know how to do it, you challenge yourself with something else. charlie: you did television and then you said no more television. mark: what happens in the u.k., once you are in the theater, people offer you other plays. that is kind of what happened to me. i spent 10 years doing theater and about 10 years doing television and the movies came calling. i was suddenly in the movie club. you don't tend to move very much in the beginning. after this, i would love to do a movie, and then i would love to do another play.
i see myself as a character actor. what i love about theater is the transformation. getting as far away for myself as i can. anything that moves me away from myself. when i started acting, those were the parts i gravitated to, something that would make you different. i do not know how i would play myself and be a hero and a lover. the u.k. and america have very different attitudes. you revere the guy who can throw a punch, kiss the girl, win the day. our tradition is not so focused on the hero or the leading man. charlie: tell me the best lesson you ever got about acting. what has been the thing you have held onto that made you as good as you are? mark: that is a lovely compliment. i see that my job is to believe,
create truth. when you watch people and you believe they are connected to what they are doing and you believe what they are doing, it is fascinating. think of documentaries when people are interviewed about real-life events, it is riveting. if you can create that in fiction and make it believable, that is the best thing. there are a lot of practical things as well. in drama school, we had a teacher who said, imagine yourself at the front of the stage, don't look here. you need to be looking out there. charlie: in this role, how did you prepare for this? mark: i felt him instinctively. i went down to red hook and had a look. amazing.
it is wonderful to look back to manhattan. charlie: he wanted her to be a secretary. mark: i went to red hook and looked and there are the buildings and it brought it into focus. charlie: thank you for coming, pleasure to have you. "a view from the bridge" will be on until how long? mark: february 23. charlie: you heard it here, another five weeks. ♪
charlie: "king charles iii" is a history play from mike bartlett. his abilities as a ruler are challenged by parliament and his own family as he attempts to assert more power than his predecessor. ben brantley calls the play "flat-out brilliant." joining me now are the stars. i am pleased to have them here at this table for the first time. everyone is talking about this. what is it about the royal family?
i do a morning television show. what is it? why do we like royalty? tim: it is increasingly unreal in the modern world. if you are in london and you happen to see the horse guards, it is like a fairy show. it is fantastic. charlie: the drama and what has happened to the royal family is so fascinating. tim: the whole of the diana saga was lived out in public. i feel this is terribly sensitive because it came to such a desperate end.
but you could not have made that story up. charlie: you play such an interesting figure. how would you describe her relationship to her husband? margot: devoted. in the play, she is clearly a wife who loves her husband and i am sure that is true in real life. the motor engine for maybe all the unraveling of the charles-diana marriage. that love affair, that began between charles and camilla when they were young, through her separate marriage, his separate marriage. i do see why people are fascinated by the royal family. what you have in the royals is a
family like and unlike your own. it is the epitome of blended family. it is interesting to watch that playing itself out on a big public stage, a big magazine and the social media outlets. charlie: was charles perceived differently in america? there is not a great sense of him here. >> that is kind of what i feel. charlie: no sense of the role he plays.
>> very influential in terms of drawing in england. charlie: what is it about him? tim: i only met him once. this is a man who knows how to talk to actors. people tell me he has been learning russian or arabic because he feels the axis of power in the world is changing. charlie: he spends a moment every day of his life thinking, how will i prepare for the moment when it comes to me? we have to talk about the queen.
it seems everybody -- does she have anybody who does not like her? oliver: i don't think anyone could begrudge the way she has undertaken her duties over such an extended period of time. if you disagree with her position or some of her views, she has undertaken her duties with such consistent dignity and devotion. over such a considerable period of time. maybe she feels she is god's anointed representative. the world was an extraordinarily different place when elizabeth became the queen. homosexuality was illegal. the trade union movement was
huge. modern life has changed so extraordinarily under her reign. she has been such a firm fixture. when she does finally go, it will be interesting to see what will happen because the next monarch will be the first of a new age. charlie: prime ministers come and go, parties come and go, but the queen stays. >> the royal family was important to the country, gave them a sense of support and dignity and they visited the areas that had been blitzed and tried to become involved. she was like one of our family.
oliver: the queen and the monarch, they have to be a figurehead for the entire nation. times change underneath them. they have to represent the country. the queen very rarely expresses opinions. the monarch has to represent her country when homosexuality is illegal. and she has to represent her country when homosexuality is legal. if she had expressed her opinion at one point, she would have tied herself in a knot.
margot: diana wanted to enlarge that notion into the queen of hearts thing. that is a big area i would be interested in what william does -- the real prince william. not you, i am looking at you. you are his representative. the fact he chose his mother's engagement ring. the fact he reveres and loves his mother. it would be very interesting to see what he does introduce because yes, she is an icon, diana, but very airbrushed out of recent history. very much the queen, the tight royal family on the balcony. i would say she was the joker in the pack for them in terms of
wanting the continuity. charlie: a lot of this is about the king. king charles. how do we imagine that? what has the playwright done for us? >> he has taken a whole bunch of very commonly held perceptions of who these people are and created a situation of making charles king and when you read the play to begin with, you think, this is quite amusing and clever for about 10 minutes. that is when you think something needs to happen and that is when charles has the first scene with the prime minister and you find out charles is interested in defending the freedom of the press. and then you think, this is a play. charlie: american theater audiences have an appreciation because of what happened on broadway with helen mirren.
it is a fascinating relationship. i remember tony blair talking about when he first came in to see queen elizabeth. how good a father was prince charles to prince william? oliver: when i was chatting to them on the phone yesterday -- [laughter] i am surprised to discover, because it is not a popular view in the press, i do not think it is media friendly, the two boys have a terrific relationship with their father. people like to imagine they were their mother's children and
their mother was cruelly ripped from them and their father is this cold and attached bumbling guy who cares more about architecture that his family. i do not think that is true. from all the impressions i've got, they are a super close family. charles has been a terrifically supportive and loving father. they love and adore him. charlie: he is the only person they really have. oliver: the drama belongs on the stage and in the tabloids. the reality is, they love him and he loves them and they are in a unique position. i am british, i was brought up british and i do not know any other way. they do not know anything else.
charlie: what influence does camilla have on him today? margot: i don't know about influence so much as i always think of her as an enabler, a source of confidence for him. i always feel, and when i look at the interaction between charles and his own parents, there is a little boy who has never felt quite adored by his dad. i think he was never quite mothered in the way that little
boys need to be. camilla is a great -- a mothering figure in the way that a maternal thing -- men can be maternal. putting him first. the unconditional love thing, that is what i mean. he is not judged. >> i think she was pretty good for his relationship with the boys. margot: i think the play is very accurate -- i do not think she could influence him as far as his interests or policy. the play takes the issue of conflict being the press. i think charles will have difficulty. the environment is a huge thing for him. suppose fracking rights come up. he would find it very hard -- >> if you take a side -- could
be tricky. margot: i do not think she would have the first clue. charlie: kate and camilla are two outsiders to the family from very different backgrounds but invested in getting things their own way. lydia: kate has a very middle-class story and her grandmother had almost a replica buggy to replicate the ones in the paper. they grew up with a fantasy. the memorabilia and all of that.
she is invested in what the queen means to the common people. when things start to get shaky, i picture a curtain with a 50th anniversary memorabilia plate and what that means to england. charlie: by all appearances, she has done a terrific job. lydia: "by all appearances" is the best way to say it. charlie: how would king charles be different from queen elizabeth? tim: that is what is brilliant about the play. it moves into that wedge. he says he wants to be hands-on.
we have the black spider letters. he writes a lot of letters lobbying for his position. this has caused some stress. as the prime minister says to me in the play, you are not elected. you cannot do this. i think he will want to be involved. if he has come to see the play, he might be careful about how he does that. charlie: has he seen it? tim: i think it would be a horrible evening for the monarch. it would be an uncomfortable evening. he has had plenty of chances to see it. charlie: in terms of somebody videotaping and? tim: i don't know.
charlie: what do you want us to come away with? tim: he is pictured as a man of principle. charlie: ambition denied or delayed? tim: "my life has been a lingering for the throne." just hanging around waiting. he could be in his 80's by the time he comes to be king, charlie. charlie: would you have liked -- can you imagine, would you have found any satisfaction in that kind of life? lydia: to me, it seems like a
nightmare. i wrote on instagram, if you play kate long enough, do squatters rights kick in? my friend said, you get to come home in three weeks and kate never gets to come home. charlie: i think that would be -- my sense is that william, he can do a lot of things. oliver: i have huge admiration for him. i have developed a huge sense of respect for the monarchy. and for william, particularly. you are 14 or 15 years old and your mother dies in this horrific accident. the grace with which he handled
it -- he was a rescue pilot, he pilots an air ambulance in norfolk. i do not know anyone else who i would want to represent me as my monarch. i cannot imagine a better person. i will happily stand behind that guy. charlie: don't you want to see this now? here is the playbook. thank you. great to have you here. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
injury: asian stocks have reversed the two day rebound as oil slips back below $30 per barrel. we are seeing losses across the region after korean gdp retreated. the correlation between shares and oil prices is at its highest since 2015. the malaysian prime minister has been cleared of corruption in the case ordered closed. this follows the discovery of hundreds of millions of dollars in an account. the cash came from the saudi royal family in $470 million has been interred.