Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  Bloomberg  May 26, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT

10:00 pm
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with politics. the state department inspector general criticized hillary clinton's e-mail practices. the review said clinton violated government policies using a government account for official business. the investigation is ongoing. the news comes as clinton faces renewed personal attacks from donald trump and a primary fight with bernie sanders. joining me is a political correspondent for "the washington post." here in new york, mark halperin
10:01 pm
and john heilemann. they are the hosts of "with all due respect," and more. what does the report say, and how damaging is it for hillary clinton? anne: the report says she violated state department e-mail practices in a couple of regards. it says she failed to get approval for this system, private e-mail system ahead of time. and that that approval would not have in granted had the state department officials known all of its ramifications, because of security concerns. it also said the state department's sloppy handling of e-mail dated back to previous secretaries of state. that is something the clinton campaign is relying on in its defense.
10:02 pm
it makes clear, throughout an 83 page report, and i think scathing is not too harsh a that hillary here, clinton was by far the worst offender almost sloppy practices. -- on those sloppy practices. it also says she refused to sit for an interview. charlie: with the inspector general. and so did her aides? anne: exactly. other secretaries of state either sat for an interview or cooperated. she did not. you have to ask how damaging this is. this is quite damaging in that one of her chief defenses on this whole e-mail thing is when all was said and done, it would be proved, she has said, she never willfully did anything wrong and she was not trying to hide or avoid anything. this report strongly suggests
10:03 pm
that the system she set up was set up deliberately, if not to go around state department rules, to certainly accommodate her in a request that wouldn't have been granted otherwise. charlie: how damaging? mark: a lot of what this does is confirming what we already knew. she did things that were clearly not in the public interest, wrong and selfish, i think. sloppy. the heart of that is using private e-mail, a personal server, to conduct official government business where the record-keeping was lax. i think it is a political matter. there are couple of things that are quite damaging. the failure to cooperate is something donald trump will make a big deal of, and rightfully so. if the explanation is the secretary did not cooperate because they are under potential criminal investigation, that is
10:04 pm
standard, but they need to explain why they didn't cooperate. the second thing, there are suggestions she wasn't forthcoming about getting approval. if she wanted the convenience of using personal e-mail, the department should have signed off on it. steps should have been taken to make sure the system wasn't hacked. in the report, there is an account of the server being under assault by somebody and saying, don't send her sensitive material. you cannot get a private account , do all your official business that way, and not have the full support of the department. her critics will say, this was cavalier. is it the worst thing ever? is she a good person who did a bad thing? this is not the worst thing ever done. but it's really bad.
10:05 pm
anne is right, scathing is not too strong a word. charlie: and it plays into the hands of republican discussion. mark: her opponent calls her crooked hillary. the people around her should not have allowed her to do it. charlie: i am interested, john, and the fact that they say she didn't ask for permission because she knew it would be denied. john: they certainly suggest that. the arc ofk about the story, which is more than a year old, one of the things the clinton people and secretary clinton said was, this is not unusual. there have been many cabinet secretaries who have had personal e-mail accounts. that was always bogus. there have been other secretaries with personal e-mails, but none of them have done what she had done, which
10:06 pm
was to set up a home server and direct all of her official business to run through that server. that was the unprecedented thing. does, thishis report isn't about having a personal e-mail account, this is a whole system off-line. this is now like the official ruling of the state department that says, yes, this was actually unprecedented and outside the bounds of what we would consider proper behavior. brooke our rules, the administration's rules, and was undertaken in a way that was designed to not have people know about it in the sense people who would challenge her. there is a thing that talks about two members of the state department staff raising the question this might be a problem. and then being told by people within the department that this has been submitted for review and has been approved. they were told, don't worry about your concerns. this has been submitted for
10:07 pm
review and been approved. so please, you folks who are worried, back away. there is a story to be told and there will be more reporting as we figure out the details. but that suggests those who raised concerns with it, of whom there were some, were lied to. that raises interesting questions about not just the setting up of the server itself, but about the effort to conceal it. pretend as though it were approved for those who had concerns that turned out to be justified. charlie: do we assume the system at her house could have easily been compromised, and might have? anne: there have been considerations or concerns from the start that adequate security considerations weren't taken or could not be verified after the fact to have been taken.
10:08 pm
because, as john and mark point out, it was set up separately and in parallel with the state department systems that come with all of that security architecture, all the stuff that goes around it. the fact that she was conducting regular business exclusively on a system not set up under the state department was suspect from the start. that is what the fbi investigation is about. this was the state department inspector general, which is looking at procedures. the fbi is looking at, were government secrets compromised? there were these two shoes to drop in the e-mail issue before the election, and maybe before the democratic convention in july. now we have one. the other is still to come. charlie: i put at the center of the table this idea.
10:09 pm
we are looking for in a president judgment. this reflects on judgment. anne: from the start, hillary clinton had said, i never did anything wrong. i never meant to do anything wrong. her explanation of what actually happened has changed a bit over time. i never did anything wrong. i never knowingly sent classified information and so forth, has not changed. i think what has changed, and we will look to see whether she makes further changes from here, is she has always claimed this was allowed, i didn't do anything the state department wasn't letting me do. this says the state department wouldn't have let you do it if they had known about it. that does speak to judgment. i expect in some ways she will have to address that. mark: it speaks to judgment, but i have been clear, i think what she did was irresponsible.
10:10 pm
but, let's put this in the context of other judgments she has made. it is not the biggest decision she has ever made. it will probably not turn out to be criminal. let's wait and see what we learn overall about the facts. charlie: the facts are that she did not seek permission because she knew it was going to be turned down? anne: one of the working theories has always been, she knew that doing it through the ordinary means, having a regular state department e-mail address, would subject her to open records law and for your requests. for someone who has been through as many congressional investigations, outside lawsuits, and media inquiries as she, the theory goes, she was saying from the start, let's design a system that will shield
10:11 pm
me from that, or that her aides were doing the same. we don't know that to be true at this point, but that has been one of the theories from the start. it appears that is what the state department inspector general was looking at as a possibility here. john: something about the politics, you have donald trump , who has christened hillary clinton "crooked hillary." there is an amount of exaggeration, hyperbole. but what many people and say, who are not partisan, is that this is another example of a pattern that has been true of both clintons, that they both play by their own rules. standard rules do not apply to them, because they believe they are virtuous and maybe even uniquely virtuous, they are allowed to cut corners here and there. those normal rules do not apply.
10:12 pm
that's not crooked hillary, but those two things rhyme. part of thet is mistrust of her. john: that's what i mean. trump makes this argument in an exaggerated way. but even from people who don't hate hillary and are not partisan, they hear crooked hillary and there is something that echoes, that they play by their own rules. in this case, i don't think it is crooked. i doubt there is going to be a criminal charge that comes out against her. but it does not echo. they play by their own rules. "crooked hillary." that is a powerful argument and narrative, a framing device that trump is going to adopt. charlie: is there are way she could have lessened the impact? anne: they have reacted after the fact and not seemed, from my perspective, to try to get out
10:13 pm
in front of it preemptively. she hasn't done big interviews ahead of expected revelations and that sort of thing. maybe they could have done some of that. maybe they didn't know exactly what the scope of this report would be until quite recently. certainly they would have gotten a copy before it was released publicly, which is supposed to be tomorrow. news organizations got it today. that says to me the clinton campaign would have had it a couple of days ahead of now. she is in california campaigning, doing a regular course of political business this week. the campaign hasn't so far said were shown that they expect to deviate from that path. mark: she already admitted it was a mistake. she said it was a mistake because i got in trouble for it. has not fully ever owned up
10:14 pm
to the national security implications, or the government accessing her information. charlie: and now for disclosure. mark: i don't think there is anything else in here she would have been inclined to admit to. i think they are hoping that they say, everybody does it, the state department has bad record-keeping, let's move on and talk about how we can warm record keeping. i think it is possible, if the investigation doesn't go anywhere, i'm not sure she suffers substantially more damage long-term. charlie: you although this better than i do. if the questions go to the
10:15 pm
heart of your fertility, that is the worst thing that can happen. mark: part of the narrative is people around her were state will tell you, if any of us were state department aides and the secretary said, i'm going to use a private e-mail system and not careful record-keeping, and i am going to take the records with me after i leave the office, all four of us would have said, no. charlie: i know you have to go. would you agree with that point? anne: yeah, clearly, after the fact it looks like she got bad advice here. what is still yet to be known is whether that was because of aids wanted it tond her come out a certain way, or she wanted it to come out a certain way. maybe some fundamental misunderstanding of what she was supposed to do at the outset. i think some of those questions may be answered in the fbi inquiry.
10:16 pm
it will depend on how much of that becomes public. i also wanted to make one very quick point on trustworthiness. remember when the e-mail ring first blew up more than a year ago, donald trump was not a for -sure political force on the republican side. this issue still damaged her trustworthiness ratings. this has been a problem and question from the start, absent donald trump. anne, thank you so much for joining us. a couple of questions before you guys go. what do you expect her to say now? here is what someone said. while opponents are sure to misrepresent this report, in reality, the documents show how consistent her practices were with other secretaries and senior officials who also used personal e-mail. is that true?
10:17 pm
mark: colin powell did. there are at least three differences. one, it was a different age. the reliance on e-mail was nothing like what it was. he was not a big person in terms of e-mailing compared to hillary. second, as john said, it was a private server. i believe secretary powell used aol. that is a different beast, for all the obvious reasons. charlie: did he use it for official business? mark: yeah, he did. i don't think he used any government e-mails. the third thing is, she is running for president. john: yeah. i think it will try to, what the statement is and what they will say, basically that. they will try to push through and make the points mark made before. the report has a lot of language about how screwed up the record-keeping is. they will seize on the things that are favorable to them and downplay those that are not.
10:18 pm
i think it is the case, she is likely to go and be interviewed by the fbi. when that happens -- charlie: she said she would do that. john: she says she is willing to. she has offered to do that. when she goes and does that, unless it is done under the cloak of secrecy, that is going to be a circus, when she goes and sits with them. that is the main event still here. there eye is politically is on the prize. if there is no criminal charge , they will be able to stand up and say, this is all just government e-mail gibberish. don't worry about this. i will say, again, add this one little thing. hillary clinton has this big task ahead of her between now and the convention, which is to unify the democratic party. we have seen donald trump doing
10:19 pm
a staggeringly successful job at uniting a supposedly fractured party behind him. everyone is falling in line. she is not the head of a unified party right now. there are millions of sanders voters who are out there who need to be brought in. a lot of those voters are suspicious. they don't trust her. they think she is corrupt, just like donald trump does. and the job she faces in terms of getting those people into her tent and getting them behind her is complicated not just by bernie sanders staying in the race, but issues like this. for a lot of your voters who think he is corrupt, they hear this, too. they live in this world where this is going to be a big news story over the next couple of months, at a minimum. doesn't help her with that cause any more than with taking on trump. mark: it gives trump the ability to talk about this with the backing of barack obama's inspector general. again, it has to be put in proportion. it is not the worst thing anyone
10:20 pm
done, but it showed bad judgment. it shows she was supported by people who helped her engage in something she shouldn't have done. and she has been too cavalier about it. she never wants to admit weakness, error, a failure to exercise good judgment, because she knows she will be attacked more and more. the more she reveals, the more she will be attacked. but this is going to be a problem for her for the foreseeable future. charlie: is an honor to have you here. mark: thank you, charlie. charlie: back in a moment, julian barnes. stay with us. ♪
10:21 pm
10:22 pm
10:23 pm
♪ charlie: julian barnes is here. the "new york times" has said of his writing, if there is a single theme running through barnes' work, it is the elusiveness of truth. the subjectivity of memory. the relativity of all knowledge. he was awarded the booker prize for 2011. his new novel is called "the noise of time." it is a fictionalized account of composer shostakovich's life under stalin. great to see you. let's talk about serious stuff.
10:24 pm
you grew up in leicester. what does it mean to you? julian: it's incredible. my football club, soccer as you call it, after 65 years of support from me, and never having won anything, finally won the premiership. it's not even david and goliath, it's bigger than that. it has various sort of comic sidebars to it. a lot of festivity has been going on in leicester. it has been famous for two things. the first is the bones of king richard iii were discovered under a municipal carpark. the second is the city won the premiership. there are going to be lots of books about this event.
10:25 pm
there is one book from the point of view of richard iii. richard iii telling the story of ye foxes beating manchester united. charlie: you are talking to yourself. i have not always been a blister o supporter. there was a time before i could read or knew how to tune the wireless. from the moment i became sportingly sentient, i have been a fox. i did initially support a second team. from the grittier end of glasgow. but that was because my infant mind believed they were called patrick thistle, and my middle name is patrick. i eventually stopped supporting thistle.
10:26 pm
when i was about 40, of course i still instinctively checked the results in my sunday newspaper. but apart from this dalliance, i have been entirely monogamous. julian: i think that is part of most fan's lives. you get inducted into supporting a team at a young age. i simply don't understand people who say, i am supporting x this season, but i'm thinking of supporting y next season. it's like people who only want to support winners. i think the most important thing about a fan is the suffering and loss and pain. i always say about supporting leicester city, it is a good way for preparing to support england, because they don't often win. charlie: you know what they say about the chicago cubs here. you know the story of the former editor of the economist and now of bloomberg.
10:27 pm
julian: tell me. he has for 30 years laid down a big bet. on leicester city. 30 years, every time, he bets whatever. this year, he didn't. julian: [laughs] it wouldif he did, have returned like, $100,000. julian: the odds were 5000 to one. with six weeks to go, when the team was having a bit of a wobble, the bookmakers said, if they were to win it, you get 10,000 pounds. how about 4000 pounds now? it is very tempting. a lot of people took that. someone with the money, but people stuck it out to the end and got the big payoff. charlie: "the noise of time," shostakovich. a man who suffered more. julian: probably more than any
10:28 pm
other composer in the history of western art did he suffer and the presence of power in his life. charlie: you tell the story of sleeping by the elevator. standing by the elevator. in fear that the secret police would come for him and he didn't want his family to know. julian: that's right. he had a wife and tiny girl baby at the time. they would have known he would have been taken away, but he didn't want the door broken down. he didn't want the predecessor to the kgb thumping into the apartment. who knows, they might have taken his daughter away. political sinners often had their children reeducated given a false name and put in an orphanage. he had this terror that his daughter might grow up not knowing his father had composed a note of music.
10:29 pm
charlie: what story are you telling here? julian: i am telling the story of the collision of art and power. who wins and two loses. who wins in the short-term, how the artist fights back. and i hope, by the time you get to the end, who wins in the long-term. in the long-term, the artist as -- the artist to has not been killed wins out. we remember the name of mozart. we don't remember who the archduke of whatever was at the time. all those patrons of beethoven's. charlie: what is the level of the humiliation of shostakovich? julian: it comes in different ways and forms. it is very sapping. what we have to remember, under the soviet union, all art was
10:30 pm
controlled to the tiniest degree by the state. if you were a composer, you couldn't even buy manuscript paper unless you were a member of the union of composers. your music had to be vetted by a committee of musical bureaucrats. if it didn't pass, you didn't get paid. there was a daily petty interference with what you wrote. and then of course, when the higher echelons got interested, anything could happen to you. his first successful opera, lady macbeth, was a world hit in 1935. it premiered at the met, it played in cleveland, south america. as a result, stalin got interested and went to see it. from that point, his life changed. he was always somewhat in danger until stalin died. after that, he was safer. charlie: but after stalin heard the music, he allowed him to
10:31 pm
travel? julian: within the soviet union. he was the poster boy of soviet music. his first symphony came out when he was 19. it was premiered around the world. they knew they had talent there. talent could not just be let to go its own way. it had to be directed. serco which, if properly directed, could write real soviet music. they didn't think he should write operas. that's sort of snobby stuff. they thought he should write film music, and he did write a lot of film music. charlie: did things change when khrushchev came to power? julian: yes, that's certainly true. to use the phrase, power became vegetarian, which is a wonderful
10:32 pm
word, rather than carnivorous. vegetables instead of being like man-eating tigers. yes. but there was still different sorts of pressure. they wanted to corral you into their way of thinking, and they wanted you to represent them. charlie: did he have to denounce stravinsky? julian: he did denounce stravinsky. what happened was, you were given speeches to read. either you looked at them before, or you didn't. this verye, if he got long speech to read, he thought, i will read the first page and then i will set down. he read the first page and sat down. the american translator read the english version, and he sort of vitally followed it. -- idkly followed it. he found himself denouncing himself, denouncing prokofiev and stravinsky.
10:33 pm
stravinsky in exile in california. and whom shostakovich thought was the greatest composer of the 20th century. he revered him, and here he was having to denounce him. charlie: did you decide in your mind, i want to explore the collision of power and art? or did you say i want to look at shostakovich's life and see what it means? julian: both. the novelist picks up where the biographer and historian has to stop, where the known facts stop. we would take you further into the person, to their heart. that is what we do. charlie: did you feel any pressure after the booker prize to produce something as good or better? julian: no, i didn't. i was lucky enough to win the prize when i was in my 60's. had i won in my 30's, it might
10:34 pm
have put more pressure on me. but i have written 20 books. i know what i am and what i do. charlie: and you know your audience. julian: i do and i don't. it is nice that different books find different readers. some books work in some places and others in other places. i tend not to write the same sort of book. though it shares themes, as you said, of memory and truth. it is a very different locale from the book that won the booker price. charlie: here is what some of the critics have said. this comes from "the sunday times." somber, poignant. blooming with intelligence and flair, this elegantly composed fictionalized meditation offers a fresh glance on a musical genius's collisions and collisions with power. julian: thank you for reading that.
10:35 pm
charlie: well, they said it, so i didn't make it up. idea is that -- the idea is that we can hardly imagine what it is like. the sacrifices this great musician had to make. julian: i think that is certainly true. charlie: and it is too easy to say, i might have done differently in defense of my art. julian: that is one of the themes of the book. it is easy when we look at a different regime in a different time to say, he should have done this or that. or, i would have been different. we all imagine we would behave better if our countries were invaded. but your country and my country have not been invaded for a long time. sorry about the white house and all that. but you know, the rebuilding was good, too. we always think under tyranny,
10:36 pm
we would suddenly become heroes. the only part of the united kingdom that has been invaded in recent times is the channel islands in the second world war. the people there behaved exactly as everyone on the continent. they gave up their dues, they collaborated, and some were brave and some were not. we are all likely to be as brave or cowardly as anyone else. but the additional point, if you are living under a regime like stalin's -- it is all very well to say he should have been a hero. if you did that, you are also condemning your entire family and friends and associates to death camps. so, unless you wanted to be dead and you wanted your family to be taken away, you had to collude. charlie: heroes. who are they for you? whose life and work have been
10:37 pm
most meaningful in your own sense of your life? julian: well, one of my great heroes is pflueger. one of the things he said was, no monsters, no heroes. things. one of his and this is something your great writer edith wharton agreed with. it is the days of monsters and heroes and gods who have disappeared. after those two died, the monsters came back in the 20th century, and we cannot live without monsters, unfortunately. i think my heroes, some of them would be literary and artistic. some of them would occasionally be political and military. charlie: shostakoch? julian: he was a hero because he was also a coward. he is a paradox.
10:38 pm
charlie: he was a hero who recognized his cowardice and did not condemn it? julian: i wouldn't condemn for a moment. to condemn it, you would have to think you were morally superior. i don't think anyone should claim that. the other point he makes, ruefully and ironically, courage is easy. you just have to do the one thing. whereas, being a coward is a lifetime commitment. in a way, being a coward requires a sort of courage. charlie: the book is called "the noise of time." julian barnes, always good to have you here. julian: my pleasure. charlie: back in a moment. ♪
10:39 pm
10:40 pm
10:41 pm
charlie: jessica lange is here. she is a two time oscar recipient. she earned critical praise for her performances on "american war story" from 2011 to 2015. she is opening to broaden -- she is returning to broadway for the first time in more than a decade. she stars in a revival of eugene o'neill's classic drama "long day's journey into night." "the hollywood reporter" calls her performance "transfixing." the role has earned lange her first tony nomination. i am pleased to have her back at the stable. after 11 years, you go back to broadway. jessica: yeah.
10:42 pm
no, i mean, there are certain roles that, even though you understand it is going to be exhausting, physically overwhelming, and everything, it is that thing of, as an actor, you just want the chance to play that part. charlie: why is mary that kind of part? jessica: i played this part in london 16 years ago. i have always wanted to revisit it. at this point in my life, it is the greatest part i could possibly play. i think it is one of the best roles in american drama. what it does is it offers you everything as an actor you want to do. it is physical, it is emotional. it covers everything from a to
10:43 pm
c. -- a to z. charlie: tell us who mary is. jessica: she is married to an actor, james tyrone. this is all based closely on eugene o'neill's family, his mother and father and brother, and himself. she is addicted to morphine and has been -- in reality, his mother was addicted for 25 years, which is a long time to sustain a habit like that. this is one summer's day in their life and covers tremendous ground in that one day. charlie: is it fair to say when you are inside a great playwright's words, it makes all the difference. jessica: oh, are you kidding? no matter how hard the play is,
10:44 pm
no matter how exhaustive you are, there is something that transports you. it is truly like, i always liken it to when you step out on stage, it is like stepping onto a fast-moving train. it has this power behind it that carries you along and builds. the words, that is the thing of getting lost in the poetry of this man's genius. it really is. charlie: you are talking about four hours. jessica: yeah. charlie: that is incredible. jessica: yeah. i mean, sometimes, i have to admit, i am out there on stage and i look over and think, are we still here? i wouldn't have it any other way. i love doing it. i love being on stage. and it is a wonderful production.
10:45 pm
i think it is the first time in new york where i have felt cradled in this terrific production. charlie: cradled in this terrific production. jessica: yeah. two forays into successful,e not nor did i feel they were realized. this is wonderful. we had a tremendous director who really understood what this play was about and how to keep it moving. i am on stage with some of the best actors i have ever worked with in my life. there is that wonderful thing that happens when you are on stage, and for a moment you begin to drift. all you have to do is, i look at gabriel and he is looking at me. charlie: gabriel burns?
10:46 pm
jessica: yes. and suddenly, it is all there and again. it is marvelous. that is what is magical. when theater works, i don't think there's anything in the world like it. charlie: you know why this works when the others did not work as well, in your mind? jessica: the other two plays i did, one was "streetcar named desire" and the other was "glass menagerie." you can't fault the plays. as we know, the plays work. but the productions were not right. for whatever reasons. you could feel it. it wasn't well directed or it wasn't well -- i never fault actors, because we are all just there trying to find our way through the forest. they just didn't come together.
10:47 pm
charlie: you were also working, and i did a long interview with him, louis ck. jessica: oh, yes. he is so great. i just adore him. a little bit of eugene o'neill. charlie: that's where i'm going. jessica: i figured. you don't have to look far with any genre of theater to see where the motherload was. all the family plays in the last 60 years or more. a lot of that comes from this play. charlie: he is a very talented guy. jessica: yeah, he is wonderful, a wonderful writer, a wonderful director. wonderful actor. it was a joy working with him. i hope i can work with him again sometime. charlie: do you hope to do "american horror story?"
10:48 pm
jessica: no. i had four seasons, and each year was a marvelous character. everything changed from one year to another, which made it interesting for me. but no, i think -- sometimes you come to the end of something. it has had its natural -- charlie: but people loved you in that. loved you. jessica: i know. it is funny. charlie: ryan murphy convinced you. jessica: it was interesting. i had never met him before. out of the blue, i got a phone call from him. i immediately, i don't know, had some deep trust in what he was talking about. i usually don't.
10:49 pm
there was some kind of exchange of whatever it was, energy, even on the phone. i thought, i would like to work with this man. i find him very interesting. jessica: what else do you think about doing now? you are back on stage. you are nominated for a tony. having your best theatrical experience by far. jessica: and playing for me, i think the greatest role for a woman. you have to be of a certain age to play it, but i am. i don't know. once i get through with this, i want time to lie in the hammock and look at the lake, listen to the birds. i can do that very easily, i do that very well. charlie: are you writing at all?
10:50 pm
no diary, though memoirs? jessica: no, no, no. no, no, why do you say no? look at the life you live. jessica: i know, it is interesting, but maybe it is only interesting to me. i don't see how i could actually -- charlie: what would be the problem? what it simply be, these are your stories? jessica: because a lot of it is very personal. you know, obviously there are many things i would never talk about in print. charlie: what is the biggest passion for you outside of acting? jessica: photography. i have been photographing now for probably going on 20 years. charlie: there is a story right there. that's a chapter. jessica: black and white
10:51 pm
photography, analog, no digital, still darkroom processing and printing. charlie: the do-it-yourself? now in: i used to, but new york city, i don't have access to a darkroom. charlie: you could get access. jessica: i thought i could. charlie: is it digital? jessica: no, no digital. i still have my rolls of film. charlie: is it primarily portraits? jessica: no ya. charlie: landscapes? jessica: a lot has been just, i have photographed a lot in mexico over the years because there is something very accessible. basically, if i had to describe myself, it would be a street photographer. charlie: a lot of people have done it very well. jessica: yeah, some of the greats. absolutely. charlie: do know the work of sally mann? jessica: yes.
10:52 pm
not well, but yes, of course. charlie: she is extraordinary. beyond that of a was about children, photographing her family. was about herat children, photographing her family. photographing her husband in decline. jessica: i didn't see those photos. charlie: on purpose? jessica: i think that was just one area of her work i missed. charlie: are you constantly learning? is the growth of a photographer not the technique, but the eye, seeing things and finding things differently? jessica: now, when i raise my camera to take a shot, there is this thing in the back of my mind that says, you have taken that shot before. you will never print it. charlie: i have seen it before.
10:53 pm
jessica: i have seen the contexts. there is that discernment you start to have. up in-depth not -- you end not taking it, or if you do, it is just because, you know. it is like a -- you start to hone in more and more, whereas in the beginning, you are shooting everything that you can. as the years go by, you know what is going to interest you and what you are actually going to -- but still, this is like the mystery of photography which i think is so fascinating. there is still the time when you can shoot a roll of film and you think, i'm very curious about what i shot, those frames. and then you look at the contact sheet and say, it wasn't what i thought it was going to be. and then, a couple rows down, you will see a shot and barely
10:54 pm
remember taking it, and that is the one. it is like, what happened? charlie: what happens to the photographs? do you put them on exhibitions? jessica: i have had quite a few recently in museums in europe. now i am working on a project that hopefully within the next year i will finish. charlie: can you tell me about it? jessica: it is basically highway 61 revisited. bless you, bob dylan. charlie: i have friends who say they don't go a day in a life without listening or reading something from dylan. jessica: i could sing every lyric he ever wrote. i couldn't sing it, but i could recite it.
10:55 pm
since i first heard him back as a kid in minnesota, i just -- that was it. one of those transformative artists in my life. charlie: where did this artistic connection happen? in the womb? jessica: i don't know. i was raised in northern minnesota. we had no theater there. it wasn't like we were listening to music in the house. but i don't know. i remember as a little girl with my mother, we would watch old movies on tv. maybe the film thing came there, or else it was just purely that escapism, that thing of the imagination?
10:56 pm
but i do remember as a little girl, like, staying home from school because i wasn't well and lying on the couch, and doing melanie and scarlet. melanie's death scene. playing both parts to myself. somewhere, there must have been some early germination of this thing of make-believe. charlie: some nurturing of the imagination. jessica: yeah, that childlike thing of attend, make-believe, pretend, make-believe, into the next step, which was acting. charlie: "long day's journey into night" is running at the american airlines theater until june 26. as we said, jessica has been nominated for her first tony award for best performance by a leading actress in a play. jessica: thank you, lovely to see you. ♪
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
10:59 pm
11:00 pm
mark: i'm mark crumpton, you're watching "bloomberg west." the republican presidential nomination is in hand for billionaire donald trump. on the horizon, a selection of a running mate. mr. trump spoke today in bismarck, north dakota. mr. trump: we're looking for absolute confidence. i fully expect we will have many women involved, i have had it with the campaign, many women involved and i think you're going to see that. you're going to see that very strongly. mark: mr. trump also said he is willing to debate democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders with the money raised going to charity. the republican-controlled


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on