tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 6, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." evening. i have jeff glor filling in for charlie rose. we begin with politics. after delivering a well-received address to congress, president trump and his administration are mired in controversy again. on thursday, jeff sessions recused himself from any investigation into charges russia meddled in the 2016 election. this followed new revelations sessions met with the russian investment the u.s. in the lead up to the election. sessions addressed the situation at a news conference late yesterday afternoon. >> i have decided to recuse
myself from any existing or future investigation of any matter relating in any way with the campaigns for president of united states. this announcement should not be interpreted as confirmation of the existence of any ofestigation or suggestive the scope of any such investigation. jeff: several top democrats have called for sessions to resign. president trump has remained stoutly behind him. joining us from washington is eric lichtblau and karen tumulty. thank you for joining us. what is next on the sessions' front? is whatnk what is next has been going on along, which is the sort of drip of more and more reports of contacts of people in the president's circle with the russians or russian officials. what is surprising at this point
and perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that the white house is populated primarily with campaign aides and not seasoned washington hands is that the trump team seems to have not gotten its arms around what the facts are here. who had contacts, how many. if they don't, disappears like it could be headed toward some sort of outside, even a select -- either a select committee or some kind of outside investigation. there is talk on the hill, i don't not how far that would get, about the need for some kind of special prosecutor in this. unless the white house and president can get ahead of of all of these revelations, it is going to turn into something bigger. jeff: is that why they are not getting ahead of this?
you mentioned because they are not insiders. >> i think that is one explanation. impulse,, the first the first rule in the playbook on a campaign is if somebody hits you, you hit them back. people who have been around these sorts of issues from the perspective of having been in government for them know that the first thing you do is you get your facts straight. i think another problem here is the president's tendency to personalize what are big issues with big implications. and so, he has framed this in tweets, in his statements as some sort of beefing on the part of democrats over the fact they did not win the election, as opposed to an actual threat to the security of the country. he has not denounced the russians. he has not talked about getting to the bottom of this. he has not talked about how the united states should respond. jeff: another rule is if you
know there is something bad, you try to put it out on your own terms in the first place. if you don't know it in the first place, you cannot put that out to begin with. let's talk about the circle of russian contact. karen mentioned it is wider than just jeff sessions. how wide is that circle right now? >> we are learning more every day about trump campaign people who had contacts with russian officials. jeff sessions was the big one this week. mike flynn two weeks ago. he was fired for not being candid about his relations with the same ambassador during the transition. we are hearing more names. carter page, gordon. drip,en said, a drip, drip. that is the daily impact of all of this. it is notable mostly because of all the denials from the white
house, from trump himself, and his aides that there had been any contacts. they had been categorical in saying there were no contacts, this is fake news. this contractve coming out which jeff sessions explains as routine and nothing insidious. there is always the axiom in washington that the cover-up is worse than the crime. if they had been more forthright and if the white house had known these contacts have happened, they could have gotten ahead of it. now it looks like they are denying something that turned out to be true. jeff: we have seen the pictures all over the place. tell me about him. >> he is a longtime washington presence. he has been the ambassador to washington for nine or 10 years.
he is known for throwing excellent parties. and he knows how to work washington in terms of going to washington events, inviting prominent people, current ambassadors, future ambassadors from the u.s. to the embassy, also to the russian version of camp david outside maryland where he hosts some fabulous parties. the last few months with all of the talk about russia's meddling in the election has made him a persona non grata and has caused a chill with people being less willing to socialize or take meetings with them. jeff sessions has now found that out himself. jeff: i know the russians pushed back severely. what his subscribe role in job is?
rumors have long been out there that he is either a spy recruiter or gathering intelligence himself. let's face it. that is part of the ambassador's job, to learn as much as possible. you are right. the russians are pushing back against that. they are saying he is a top-notch diplomat, not a spy. again, this has been sort of the reputation he has had, especially in intelligence circles in washington. >> i don't think it matters whether he is a covert spy. he probably is not. he is outwardly gathering intelligence. he does not have to sneak around in shadows. he is meeting with prominent washington people and no doubt passing reports back to moscow that in-depth in the hands of
intelligence -- end up in the has of intelligence agencies that i just met with senator sessions, the key foreign-policy advisor for the republican nominee. whether he is officially a spy or not is almost irrelevant i think. jeff: to that point, part of his job is meeting with lawmakers, whatever side of the aisle they are on and whether that contact is inappropriate or not. >> the question we are all asking in washington is whether these contacts were evidence of something more sinister. was there collusion? that is the word the democrats keep using. was there just contact? which had been denied for a long time. or was there more active engagement during the election season? remember, the russians were actively hacking into the d.n.c. emails and john podesta's emails and giving those two wikileaks and doing serious harm to the election. was there anyone in the trump
campaign that knew about her was involved in that effort? that is the question. jeff: one meeting in particular was in the primary heat of the campaign, correct? >> yeah. but i really think had he been forthright about this in his confirmation hearing when he was under oath, had he been forthright about this, had he said i had this meeting in the course of my duties as a senator and we talked about foreign-policy, it might have caused a stir for a day or two. the real damage now is being done by the fact that he said there had been no contact. and then he had come back and tried to parse his sentence and claim he said something he did not which was there had been no communication about the campaign. that is not what he said. jeff: he has two issues.
he has the testimony and the written response. >> i was at the press conference yesterday and asked him directly, did the campaign or trump's name come up? he said i don't recall, which is never a good line in washington. he said these ambassadors gossip about politics. it was in the middle of the campaign but i don't specifically recall politics being discussed. that seemed like an evasive answer. >> especially at that time. in washington, people were discussing the election with strangers in some way. jeff: one can understand why the administration would push back against a potential special prosecutor. it happened with bill clinton. it resulted in his impeachment. what might the timeframe be or where are these wells going -- the swells going as far as any potential special prosecutor involved in the russian investigation? >> first of all, there is no law
now that allows the kind of independent counsels we saw during the clinton administration. it expired. it could not be thus sweeping, wide ranging, you don't know where this is going kind of investigations we saw in the late 1980's and 1990's. but it is just hard to say where it goes. if these kind of revelations keep coming on a daily and practically hourly basis, there is going to be something. by the way, that is not the only model we have. there is also the possibility the president himself might want to call for something, some sort of commission headed under bipartisan receptive leadership, the way ronald reagan did azarenka hunter was breaking -- iran-contra was breaking, the
way george bush did after 9/11 whenever growing questions about what happened to allow the attacks, what we could do to prevent them in the future. there is an argument that could be made that perhaps the president should step out here and say, look, we need to get to the bottom of whether this is a threat to our security and what we should do about it. jeff: for democrats now, russia is the first, second, and third point of attack? >> absolutely. they obviously thought jeff sessions recusing himself in the case was not enough. they called for his outright resignation. they called for an investigation into possible perjury in what he told the judiciary committee. they obviously can make some political hay out of this for quite a long time. having been on the defensive as long as they have, you clearly see them seizing that.
karen, this is a big story that has consumed much of the end of this week, a week that started relatively speaking on positive terms for the president after the speech on tuesday night. from your reporting and what you have seen, how a disappointment is there -- how much disappointment is there from the white house that the positive notes have soured? >> i think there is a great deal of frustration. not only from the white house but their republican allies on capitol hill because one of the antidotes to all of this is for the president to be seen governing. for the conversation in washington to switch from this to his policy agenda. and if so many of those initiatives were not running into trouble on capitol hill,
that might actually happen. that is what he was trying to do with his speech earlier this week. jeff: eric, what can we anticipate, whether this story or the tentacles that come from it over the weekend and into next week? >> i think there probably will be more revelations in the media as there have been all this week. next week, i think the focus will be on somewhat surprisingly on the confirmation hearing for the deputy attorney general, u.s. attorney general of maryland who will be overseeing this investigation now that sessions has recused himself. that will turn into an unexpected event over russia because that has landed in his lap and he is about to come up for confirmation. i think that will be the immediate focus and you will see ongoing calls from democrats and for some republicans
further action. republicans called for recusal which they got. i think the public in general just want answers. i think there is a lot of confusion out there and a lot of unanswered questions as to what really happened. you see people wanting, trying to get to the bottom that as best you can. jeff: the twitter countdown clock has been reset with the president's talk of democrats and what he considers their abstraction -- obstruction on his appointees? >> you know, i think that is true as well, although he now does finally have a cabinet. jeff: eric lichtblau and karen tumulty, we appreciate your time. ♪
clinton. thank you for being here. jeff: let me start with this. lacks coherentok narrative, it is because i could not find one. have you found one yet? >> i looked everywhere. i looked in all the places i usually leave my cellphone. the cold air to -- the coherent narrative was not there. that is not really true. we are in the midst of a worldwide populist rebellion, would be maybe putting too strong a term on it, with there is -- but there is a worldwide -- let's call it a rebellion. , putin ispart of it part of it. as i point out in the book, even the politics of australia. the politics of australia are so that the name of the
conservative party is the liberal party. but they have had five prime ministers in six years. so all over the world, there is some sort of discomfort with the elites, rebellion against the establishment going on manifesting itself in various different ways. here it manifested itself in a baffling man. who is now president. jeff: a big part of the rebellion is populism. a lot of the book is funny. you did take a more serious look at this populism at the end of the book. what do you make of it? >> it makes me extremely uncomfortable. it really does. up beingcan end williams jennings bryan, incompetent and kind of funny or it can end up the
way it did in many places between world war i and world war ii. it can wind up really ugly. i am hoping we are having -- history occurs first as strategy and again as comedy -- tragedy and again as comedy. i hope that is what is going on at the moment. but i am not laughing really hard. jeff: what do you make of the president at the moment right now? this speech to the joint session of congress got so much attention earlier this week. a lot of people said he appeared more presidential. youyou sense a shift or do sense a shift? >> well, you know, he's a good actor. one thing i talk about in the book is no journalist ever watched "the apprentice." that is not because we are smart and sophisticated. that is not because it was below us. it is because we are in the media.
none of us need to hear "you're fired" ever again. we all know what the state of the media is like so we had not watched him on "the apprentice." you realize alec baldwin has nothing on the donald trump that donald trump does. he is a good actor. whatever you call that, the state of the union, except you don't know what the state of the union is because you have only been there a week address. presidenting like a and doing a pretty good job of it. what that means, if anything, i don't know. jeff: you started to put together or put together the book. it is more a collection of what you observed during the campaign. obviously, that changed very quickly from week to week and day to day. in the end, you did endorse -- off the top, we said you are a diehard republican. the better term is libertarian and has been for a long time. >> i am a libertarian.
but it has been a long time since i have voted for anybody but a republican. jeff: you did endorse hillary clinton this time. you went three long discussion -- through a long discussion of how little you think of her yet you still ended up endorsing her. by the way, that has been the case for a long time as well. do you have regrets about that? >> no, i don't. one of ther -- things about libertarianism is the political attitude is supposed to be based on reason. there's something in the financial market called the volatility index. you can go into the commodities a prediction on how volatile markets will be. it is called the fear index. i thinkindex was, rationally, quite high with
trump. i just felt the man was opaque to me. i did not know what he was going to do. i disagree with hillary about practically everything. i think i said in mind or smith -- endorsement, dorothy and toto's house fell on her and i still endorse her. i knew what i was getting with her. years of we had eight barack obama, a kindred, more likable kindred spirit with hillary. we survived those eight years. we would survive another four. i think four would be all it would be because americans tend to shift parties after eight or at the next 12 years. i figured we lived through eight years of obama without terrible damage and we could live with four of hers.
with trump, might be ok, who knew? i was talking to a friend of mine in the commodities business about the volatility index. i said you have all of these greek letters and formulas about measuring volatility, measuring risk. he said let me tell you a secret. if you could measure risk, it would not be risk. jeff: that is very true. america does volatility very well, no matter where you come down. pretty much every candidate running in the last election cycle, maybe other than rand paul who did not last long. >> no, he did not. i did like rand. jeff: i wonder whether you see anyone in the future who you can get behind. >> yeah, actually, there were a couple of people i thought were fine.
i went to see jeb bush at a town hall meeting, really intimate, a little town, peterborough, new hampshire, close to where i live. there were only a couple of hundred people there. he was excellent, truly excellent. completely believable. went to another one in the same town with kasich. i thought he was very solid. i don't see either of those guys coming back for another try. marco rubio, aside from not looking old enough to drive, i saw him where i am sitting at the moment at saint and so -- saint anselm college in new hampshire. a very small crowd. he was very good. and then he had a contentious crowd and was very reasonable, patient, brief and yet substantive in the way he answered questions. i think he just needs a little more time, a little more aging
time. he was good. i heard him today on is jeff sessions a secret agent or whatever it was. rubio gave a good, measured reply about how we want the truth. we don't want artisan truth, we want the truth-truth. jeff: in the book, you talk about how it may be a long time, even though we don't with these controversies that have come up every single day, it has been an active time for punditry and everyone else over the past six weeks. you also say it will take a little while for this to play out. how long do you think and win might we be able to assess all that has happened in the last two years? >> when a new president comes into office, things are always some degree of a mess. there is extra partisanship that comes in. usually in the form of a honeymoon.
stories from the first month or so of obama, i seem to recall repeated reports of his walking on water and so on. but actually even george w. bush -- i can remember somebody saying something positive about dan quayle right at the beginning of george h.w. bush's. this is a little unusually negative. but the truth is the beginning of all administrations are a mess. we certainly have to give it 100 days. this is a particularly incoherent -- one of the things that bothers me about having donald trump as president is that it seems to be absolutely intellectually incoherent and ideologically incoherent. people are bothered about steve bannon as the ideological force behind the trump administration. there is no such thing as an
ideological force behind administration that has absolutely no ideology. maybe after 100 days, we get a of whether the office and institution sucked him in and make him behave in a more normal fashion. bannon hasu agree that view that is more ideological? >> he is ideological. but i am not seeing a man in trump that listens a lot. know, this is a pretty narcissistic personality. i have to say i have trouble figuring out -- it is like trump is looking so closely in the mirror that when we look at trump, we are looking at the back of the mirror. i don't feel like i have any sense of knowing this guy. you sort of know him because he
is the guy on the last stool in the bar between you and the men's room and you are inclined to hold it because you do not want to have to go past that guy. the guy that is sometimes funny, always loud. sometimes has a point. sometimes is really off the reservation. that is always going on. this is interesting because trump does not drink, so how he got the >> he's a pretty opaque character. >> you make a striking comment last line, the of the book, which i don't want to spoil. it is worth checking out. i want to return to this notion has beend some, which discussed, and populism. he's a individual freedom is about bringing things together. politics is about dividing things up. this is not a new concept. >> that is what makes --
>> it seems pretty important right now. well, the reason i am basically a libertarian, i'm a conservative, but my ideology is libertarian, because i worry about big government. and i think we have a perfect example here for everybody across the spectrum. i worry, you know, i watch liberals build a bigger and bigger government, and now, i'm watching them when somebody else has gotten behind the wheel of this monster truck government, turned it around and run them down with it. and they are all shocked and weepy. kiddieng, make it a car, shrink the size of the monster truck. theorst, it strikes you in shins. private individuals are a creative force and what politics
basically does is take the fruits of our creation and redistribute them, and i do not the that as some attack on welfare system. i mean, military spending is a form of redistribution, too. even infrastructure, which we are no doubt in need of in this country. it is a form of redistributing the fruits of individual enterprise, and we don't want none of that, but we just have to be careful about the size of the device we create to do that job. in boston, the project ended up costing a lot more. i spent a lot of time in boston and it took a lot longer than people expected but you would agree that some infrastructure reconstruction is needed. it is, although in the case of boston, i remember when they built the expressway that they then replaced.
i remember visiting friends who smarter than i was because they were going to a college in boston and not ohio. so i remember when nothing went up, and it should have never been built in the first place, you know. infrastructure is not just a simple good. it is what you build and where you build it and how well you budget maintenance of the thing, because really, it needs to be carefully analyzed. mediat do you make of the versus trump, whether it is real or not or manufactured to any theater, i mean, why in your estimation is the president sort of taking the approach he is, and what do you think the appropriate response should be from the media's side?
well, there is always in the media's relationship with the whole world, always an adversarial side. nobody wants to go to a play with no drama in it or see a movie with no tension in it. you know, it is part of our job to stir the pot. i always say about plays and movies, i will not go to see a play without a sword fight or a movie without a car chase. and so, part of media opposition to trump is simply the natural order of things. you can get serious about it and truth toe speaking power, and we are getting a little above ourselves because that is easy. jinping -- it is easy for me to speak truth to power as long as i am far enough away from the power. then, there is also an aspect
that has happened in the media that makes trump i think harder ,or media people to understand and then maybe he would have done a century ago. once upon a time, being like a newspaper reporter and even relatively recently, a blue colored trade. if you grew up like i did a shanty irish, and you did not want to get up early in the morning or lift heavy things, you could essentially be a newspaper reporter or a priest. [laughter] cop,mean, you could be a but then you would get shot at. or firemen, and that's dangerous. if you like to read and did not like to lift heavy things, it and then over the years, i blame mixon for this. nixon was at fault for a lot of
things. when watergate came along and all the presidents men, a whole a lot of people that should join the peace corps became newspaper reporters instead to save the world. [laughter] we have everink recovered from that problem. >> you have a couple young kids. one of them, you mentioned a , from times in the book their perspective, i know you have paid attention to that, what do you think that generation makes of what has happened here? >> it's interesting. my 19-year-old is at college, and i'm sure this has something to do with being 19. what she is most interested in ,s women's rights issues specifically abortion. i mean, she sees that as fundamental, and i think that has been a terrible mistake from the conservative side for quite
>> i am molly haskell, author of the book "steven spielberg: life in films," filling in for charlie rose. her work in the 1950's and 60's helped to pioneer the french new wave film movement. she is in new york for an art exhibition on east 56th street. bypecial event prevented rendezvous with french enema both a place -- french cinema will take place in honor of the work. i'm pleased to have her at this table for the first time. welcome. >> hello. molly: it is so great to see you. way. back a very long he told me ahead of time not to say how long, so i will not. your show is incredible. the first room i went into has a huge room of the ocean and then,
there is a film of the ocean waves rippling and a soundtrack, and something, almost like sand. it is a transporting moment. i wanted to do a presentation of the seaside. molly: you somehow managed to combine -- i mean, this goes back a long way, -- the documentary and the imaginary in one, but people would assume nobody wanted to leave. it needs a bigger room because people are just absolutely fixated. guest: because it is based on interpretation. molly: calm. calm, and we are in a world that is moving so much. films have so much action. , contemplating something we all know and love in a way, the seaside.
molly: it is a quiet ocean, isn't it? it is a soundtrack actually from that particular ocean or...? guest: we all know what is the feeling being near the sea when it is calm. [wind sounds]. the piece is called seaside. molly: i can't believe it. it is absolutely mesmerizing. in the next room, you had something that reminded me of one of your colleagues in the early days of filmmaking. the picture, 1967 photograph, and you every created it as a drama. guest: i have always been interested in images. the frame of image, but also what is an image?
it is a snapshot. you come and see people, and then -- molly: family. >> maybe people you never met, that you see somewhere. and i'm always questioning, who are they? how do they happen to be together at the same place? how do they know each other? did they know each other? so i made a kind of screenplay that could be possible. molly: it's wonderful. guest: is always using my meditation, but asking the imagination, but asking the people to wake up their own imagination, because each imagining is a mystery, even things that we know that it is, ok. molly: you gave local actors and gave them a script? guest: no, no. it is people, i like them to come into my art project. molly: just ordinary people? guest: my neighbor. this one is the plumber of my village and his mother and another woman.
i said, would you like to come into my dream, becoming a film? and they say yes, and i told him what i felt, and they became what i was feeling, and i have done that very often, but this is not a documentary. when i do a documentary, i respect their own life, their own world, and that is what i have been doing. recently, you know, i just finished a feature, documentary , the artist jr, and we did together a trip in france in some villages, some small villages, and we met people, and together, we asked them to speak about what they feel, what they think, and we made some big images of them and i make them, their worlds -- molly: value? guest: value their worlds. i make them the star. molly: that was the first one
of a you scavenged, sort scavenged discovery of caps off things that nobody pays any attention to. guest: nobody listens to. the same way i did a work on the widows. nobody listens to widows. and when i did that, we went to villages where people were in ang, a girl was serving bar, people working in a factory . there is a lot of danger. be withhese people to us, and we build some strange things. in the harbor, we used the legoiner to make like a construction. we tell them we want to be active with them. molly: they collaborate? they collaborate, they get involved. they like to feel like they have the right to the artists's with us, because we are not a category and such. molly: you've always had this decentralized sense of film, something not just
handed down and imposed on people, but something they bring to you him even in something like vagabond, that wonderful film you may. >> that the fiction. molly: the ideamolly: of young and you have different people giving different perspective on it. >> real people. what i'mt you see showing right now, i'm very excited because some of these people have been reenacting. no actors at all. i said, look at that image. and theo imitate it woman acting looking like the picture. and they played the game with us. photographs only
vacation, something everyone has taken and they wonder, try to remember what was going on before and after and -- have unknown people together. molly: they were not a family at all. does it make a family, a history. county believe something happened between this one and this one? ithink i have my imagination would not say working, but alive all the time. molly: even in something like creature," where the people in the village become imaginary people. you have a sense of no boundaries between the real and the imaginary kind of. agnes: that's right. reality is so difficult, so world is anhe whole incredible, difficult reality. if we can reinvent reality, make
it more sensible, more your us, so it makes sense that we meet people, that we share with them ,omething, stories of a motion spectacles, something. having fun together. molly: you realize with the politics now that a lot of people feel less out, they feel there are people with an artistic center in the world and other people who are just nobodies. and are not nobodies, you have always known that. is veryrench cinema strong and has become more known at the time, new wave, but now, we have a lot of directors and women directors. a lot of them came here with the french cinema today. molly: i met you when you came up at 1965, and it was "le ," the story of a pop
singer who is waiting for a diagnosis because she may have socer, and it was a film -- many french films are women walking, beautiful male directors and girls on the cusp of womanhood, and they are there for the pleasure of a male who is looking. agnes: you make it too much. molly: don't you think french cinema has a lot of those, kind of women walking? agnes: what is the sense of a woman? yours is a is it -- woman with sensibility. agnes: i was trying to do a practical way of doing cinema, more than telling that story than another one, trying to make the cinema be like the other arts. painting has moved. literature has moved. cinema was still telling stories like coming from a book or play. molly: writing? the film to start
from cinema, from the inspiration that he is very real life and then from real life, inventing a shape of touching people. i do not want them -- i'm against the film in which -- molly: no drama. agnes: will he kill her, is he behind the door? but i like to work on something which is sensible, in which may be the people watching the film get to feel what is presented, what is proposed. doing the life of a photographer and then a filmmaker and then i switch with an old filmmaker to a young visual artist, and in the last 10 years, i have been doing using oldibitions photographs, mixing them with video, trying to r
reconcile the beaches. molly: you would find a picture of two young boys and then you find they are now augment and you bring them to that. i mean, that is the way -- agnes: i met them when they were young. this is a long time ago. his love for share movies, love for experimentation, adventure, because trying to invent cinema, and you do work by a reading, understanding, sharing what you know and understood about cinema, sharing it with people who go to movies. your husband,w some critics husband, and we both had marriages in which love and movies were intertwined, and we had a tremendous rapport on that level and you made a
ques.rful movie about ja have you heard about "la la land?" it is very much attribute. about then he speaks film, he pays a tribute to him himself. he changes his life and decides to become that filmmaker, and you know what we did when he came to paris and wrote us and said can i come over to your place? , he was the courtyard touched, like a kid. i said ok, come on, and he said it has been so important in my life. i would say, what a nice boy. the effect that you and your fellow new wave directors had in the 1960's and early
1970's on american filmmaking is indescribable and you must know that. i remember when you came over with "le bonheur" and mike nichols came. your english is not as great as it is now -- was not as great as it is now. leftou were part of the group. you had that distinction that was you and chris and jacques. were on the left side of politics and we lived on the left side of the river, which was very strange. molly: it is strange when you think about it. they were just movie maniacs, and the ones that would come up and were influenced by american films. agnes: it was a time of very incredible -- molly: creativity. agnes: like spring, like flowers opening. molly: it is almost like you have had 10 careers.
you kept going with the same curiosity and creativity now for all these years, going in whatever direction drew you. agnes: i'm lucky to have kept that desire to experiment something. had the experience to put the seaside on the floor. [laughter] agnes: so people forget they are in new york and they have to go -- molly: you go up in this tiny little elevator and suddenly the room opens up. agnes: that is what we mean. so i'm here in an exhibition and that makes me very happy because i see people coming. people who love films and art and young people. molly: they were. what is going to happen with the rendezvous? what happened on march 10, what is that? ines: they asked me to -- renoirresent a film --
then i would speak about my work. because i come to new york, they grabbed me and say to do this and this and this. next time, i won't tell anyone that i'm coming. was a delight for me to see you again. molly: you're just an inspiration. i was flagging and i went to the show and i thought, my god, if she can do it, it's just wonderful. on a think so, but i'm just soaking up yours, and i cannot wait to see what you do next. so great to see you. agnes: what i said yesterday, it is the last part of my life, and so much good -- so many good things happen to me. i work, i do a lot, but there is an answer to that. the answer -- molly: the content and the
people you're making films with. your collaborators. the energy comes back and forth between you and then, it is a glorious thing. agnes: the energy can be shared and the emotion, jokes, spirits. i think -- molly: the humor, too. i think people do not talk quite as much about your humor. even in the photographs, there is a sly humor, and you are very funny person. agnes: yes, well, i'm glad you got what i'm trying to propose, and it works sometimes. molly: congratulations. agnes: thank you, molly. it was beautiful to see you. ♪
>> caution is the word as asia-pacific markets begin to open. traders are assessing the likelihood of a fed hike next week. anchor: president trump changes his controversial travel ban. six muslim majority countries are now on the list. anchor: the big australian lenders are back in the spotlight of lawmakers get tough on thinking conduct. >> china's new finance minister make his debut facing debt backwards well this year by the value of germany's gdp alone. >>