tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 14, 2017 6:00pm-7:01pm EDT
♪announcer : from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." good evening, i'm robert costa's filling in for charlie rose. david brooks is here. he has been an op-ed columnist for the new york times since 2003.his writings spend the world of politics, culture, and social social issues. i am pleased that david brooks joining me today. david: good to be with you. listening -- wishing charlie the best. bob: where are we in this
moment, and president trump's first 100 days or so? david: we are added bit of a pivot. the one thing i give credit to him is for understanding the debate. you and i grew up in a world where it was the government versus small government. now the debate is open versus closed. those who had the headwinds pushing in the faces, they want closed trade and closed borders. we see that in this country. the dutch are about to have an election and the french, same set of issues in all these places.we are at a moment where we have gotten into political debate which creates not necessarily new alignments, but the parties take different positions. we are in the middle of that. bob: where are we in this realignment? when we see the health-care care debate, speaker ryan is taking a lead, he says he's working in court a nation with president trump. mainstreams, it is a
republican health care plan. it doesn't have the flashes of populism we imagined. is trump moving towards the gop orthodoxy he has rejected? david: my colleagues have written about this, he's more like jimmy carter and that you had a certain democratic party, then a democratic president with democratic house and senate and you would think they would get something done, but they were not quite the bill clinton democrats. they were in the middle. as a result, you get incoherence. 's incoherence. if you take the two power centers which are paul ryan and steve bannon, paul ryan grew up through empower america, which is pretty much the reagan republican worldview which is less government and more freedom. steve bannon represents the nationalist worldview, that the working-class people are getting hurt and let's give them
security. one wants to reduce government to enhance freedom and embrace risk, and the populaces -- populists want to tighten down security.e what's interesting is this introduces more risk into people's lives and takes away social support. as we sit here, we don't know how many people will be denied insurance. that is the trump base. what is odd to me about this health care plan is it is declaring war on the people who voted for the republican president by denying them security of insurance plans, by taking subsidies that would go to them and using it for tax cuts for the rich, and then increasing risk in their lives. i'm a guy who likes tax credits so people can buy insurance, but there's no question it increases risk. it puts the onus on family members to shop in the marketplace and their the deductibles.
i don't think the steve bannon wing of the party wants risk and wants to be in this world. the health care reveals the party that is neither here nor there. bob: so is steve bannon the soul isthe trump presidency, why speaker ryan driving the consensus? david: he has a coherent worldview and he knows who the people are, so he will defend them. mixture isnnon incoherent. in all why the bill is parts of the party, neither here nor there. that's why i think the ryan plan is taking over. they've been coming up with various plans for years. there's no functioning white house apparatus.
the administration has not even -- they have not even nominated people for the whole host of jobs. is thete house principles, then all these deputies. the deputies are not there throughout the administration. so then you go to the state thertment, the treasury, defense. the secretaries are probably just making coffee. you can't run a white house with this. bob: you wrote about how the health care proposal could cost -- cause disruption. you looked at the medicaid aspect. it phases out the medicaid by 2020. some of them even want to move that date up. trump said early on he wants to provide coverage for everybody and doesn't want this disruption. but dealing with the republican congress, it seems to be moving in that direction.what is the political consequence for the new president? david: for the whole party, it is going to be onerous.
the basic logic is this. republicans want to cut taxes. there is a net credit tax cut which would only be for people $250,000.r the more you cut taxes, the more you have to reduce benefits. -- basicve this a sick tenet. the tax cuts would bring down benefits where there's medicaid for the size of the tax cuts for people working on the middle and income voters. to me, it is better to have a market based approach at sufficient levels so it actually provides increased support for everybody, which is what the trump goes where. we understand capitalism is not basically working for people, but we are going to do it from market mechanisms. that seems to be the future of the republican party.
the current republicans, whether rand paul, ted cruz -- the main problem in their mind is too much government. i would ask them, where have you been for the last 18 months? bob: you keep writing about how the republican party has to meet the moment, but it seems like whenever i'm at the capital talking to members of the house runningte, they've been against the health care law since it was enacted and they still feel compelled to just repeal and replace and not really think through the full moment politically. david: there is a saying that intellectual progress rides in a hearse, meaning people don't change their minds, they just die off and somebody new has to come along. there is something in that. the republican orthodoxy has been so baked in that people go along with what they've been saying all along. it is hard to change their minds midlife. i do think you have to look back and say, "what just happened in american politics?" my basic rule about trump is he
is the wrong answer to the right question. the question is, is capitalism working for people? 's social fabric has decayed to a degree we are unfamiliar with, at least at the bottom levels -- income levels of society. there is a guy we both know, grover norquist, who used to be an advocate for the leave us alone coalition. they all believe government should leave us alone. that's not working anymore, because the social fabric is too afraid. too many families are broken up. opiate addiction is to rampant. you can't just leave people alone anymore. republicans have to adjust and say i have my method to help people, and it's not going to be what the democrats want, but it will help people to solidify the social fabric and access to the job market. bob: do you think republicans and the president made a mistake by beginning with health care reform?king to tax
they did not start with infrastructure. they didn't start with some of the more populist items. david: right. i would have started with infrastructure. bipartisan support is so important in an early administration. and also, have you looked around at american history for the last 20 years? pretty much every administration has ended up bitten on the rear. administration after administration, the first selection of policy is a product of hubris. george w. bush decided the first in his second term was social security privatization reform. that was a big mistake. it muddy the water for bipartisanship. i would say frankly the same thing of obama. he did the stimulus package first. but if he said, what political moment are we in? what i'm worried about is inequality. every program i'm focused on
will go after working class voters in michigan and pennsylvania and ohio. if he had done that, democrats would not have lost the house, the senate, or the white house. instead, he did health care, which was a legitimate problem, but given the moment was a secondary problem. bob: you wrote recently that the presidents address to congress was trumpism at its best. what has been trumpism at its worst? behavior, his indications of surveillance at the tower. david: there are so many wordss -- worsts. 's character is hidden at his worst here it the speech -- at his worst. the speech with him at his best because his character was to the side. but a thing that i think his worst is the legitimization of
institutions. withnd a lot of time people who work and federal agencies. i went to the congressional budget office and was there and met all the economists. they work really hard. our intelligence agencies, they work really hard. most of them are not big political thinkers. they believe in what they are doing and they are trying to serve the country. they just want your direction. they are not super ideological partisans. what trump is doing is de legitimizing. all the basic institutions of government -- if people lose faith, i don't care what your agenda is, you can't get anything done. you have to have basic faith in
institutions. one of the reasons our country is great is that we have a basically functioning government. basically noncurrent compared to around the world -- non-corrupt compared to other countries around the world. bob: legitimacy is so important. if you look at most republicans who ran, they wanted to take an ax to the federal government and cut agencies. and associatesmp talk about that has de -legitimized it. they talk about the government community in an almost conspiratorial tone. david: it is paranoia. republicans have always wanted to cut the size of federal government. but if you ask people in previous administrations, very conservative people, what do you think of the career people you worked with, career bureaucrats? they would say that they were surprisingly good. that's always my experience when i sit in a meeting off the record. i always say that these people
are impressive and they are not meeting -- making a lot of money. maybe they have job security, but they also believe in their country. you can have more of them or less of them, but to say they say thatd, to president obama meant obamacare depaul part -- to fall apart, to say that the cia and intelligence agencies are malevolently out to get somebody, it is inaccurate. it is a form of corrosive cynicism that tears at the social fabric. bob: you have written about how the president has gone after the core tenets of the republican party including the hawkish consensus on foreign policy. how has the president revealed himself so far on foreign policy? david: i would say he's threatening the liberal world order. this has been an article of faith in the party, and both parties. the main thread is either communism or fascism, or authoritarianism. people who don't play by the rules. create aave to do is
world order based on nato, the eu, nato alliances. they found technocratic, but it is a world playing by the rules. we will not pick and choose what rules we play by. we will cooperate and all play by the rules. some of the rules are that you don't invade your neighbors. that order has held us together. i think that order has been one of the great historical achievements, and was led by the u.s. embodies is a different mentality. the people who created the world order, george marshall, dwight eisenhower, they thought it was not versus the world it was us, amplifying our powered by collaborating with the world. nato was an expansion of american power. trump has a much more zero-sum worldview.
if they are doing well, we are doing badly. therefore, we have to make them do badly. then we will do well. that would never have occurred to dwight eisenhower because that distinction did not exist. what i think he's ending up doing is weakening american power because he's getting us .ut of these institutions bob: how deeply is --invested is worldview?nt and his is this from steve bannon or do you think the president itself is committed to this? david: i don't know for sure, but i have heard people in his real estate business say that every deal is zero-sum. if one side of the deal does well, the other side does badly. it's not like a lot of other businesses were we can both do well. i think that pervades his thinking. bob: what is the relationship with russia and vladimir putin
stand in your view? david: to me the crucial fact is what does russia have on him? why are we talking about russia so much? russia is a significant country, but it has not dominated american foreign-policy for the last 15 years. suddenly, everything is russia, russia. paul manafort was a guy, formulae a figure in the republican party with strong russia ties. suddenly he becomes chief staff of the trump campaign. how did that happen? bob: and they changed the platform to make it more pro-russia. david: why is russia so dominant? i want to know why. it could be at a time when he was post bankruptcy, he couldn't find anyone to invest, and there were a lot of russian tires. we just don't know because we don't know the tax returns.
your column about the faustian bargain republicans have made. they will get health care and tax credit -- tax cuts as long as they go along with the russians and trump plan. david: they go along because they see opportunities for their agenda. they go along because trump has 85% approval in republican voters. that's fine. the problem is there's baggage. so much in terms of character and foreign policy. be -- look at it bunch of republicans who i think are behaving well. i'm probably to their left on a lot of issues. i don't have republican voters voting for me to keep their job. but i would say they are trying to improve trump, they are trying to respect him, trying to move him. they are being brave enough to criticize him. some like the expected once, lindsey graham, john mccain, susan collins, some that are
outstanding human beings do it out of conscience because they are good senators and people, but even some that i tend to do -- disagreement. ted cruz is behaving anyway i find responsible. he's not just a showman, he's trying to move things substantively. marco rubio has been doing a good job. he's tough on russia but he's trying to be helpful. this is something we see all the time in american politics.this goes back to the iraq war. there were some people critical in order to be contrarian, but some people are critical in order to be helpful. that is one of the nicer things to see. bob: what about speaker ryan and leader mcconnell? david: they are in a tougher position. i guess i wish paul ryan had said, we have a party that has a
lot of different factions. like it or not, i have to pick one. they did with tax credits in the health care bill. it seems to me he has not settled upon a top to bottom philosophy of where we are as a country and what we need in the way that steve bannon does have a top to bottom policy. say,ld like him to "there's a new situation facing my people." the government has to be a little different than it was when i was working in washington in the 1980's. i'm not sure he's got and yet. , butvery respectable there's not coherence. you are out there in different states and towns giving talks or teaching, how are working-class americans of
both parties reacting to the first two or three months of the trump presidency? is there something they want to succeed, or are they alarmed? david: i'm a little hesitant to speak on behalf ofdavid: them, but i would say i see a lot of people who want him to succeed. even a lot of people didn't vote for him. they don't want to give up on this presidency. they would like to see some success. i feel that i see a lot of realism. how many times have we heard someone in a coffee shop or a say, "i wish that i would put away his twitter." people are very good at disaggregating the nonsense, the circus park, from what they hope from him. i see a lot of realism that we
knew what we were getting in this package. i'm looking to see how it shakes out. the people who were pro-trump are still pro-trump. bob: the president later this week will go to nashville, and he will be paying some kind of tribute to andrew jackson. this comes back to the bannon influence. what do you make of the continued association the white house is making with andrew jackson? david: i guess donald is no jackson to me. he wasn't the greatest thing either. nationalism we see is much closer to the nationalism and the rest of the world. that is not a typical american nationalism. nationalism is the simple folk of the company have wisdom.ty, virtue, and it is very backward looking and historicist.
that it is the peasants, being corrupted by outside forces. that's not how americans have defined their nationalism. you have written for years about how you would like to see the politics move toward national greatness and the idea of american greatness, but you are seeing there's a difference between john mccain style, the republican of a few years ago, and what trump is doing? david: the first thing to say is to defend nationalism. it can be used in good ways or bad ways. wewe don't have nationalism, get this disenchanted, amoral style politics. you have to have a unifying national idea.that the american ideal is not based on looking to the past. it was based on a forward view of the future.
it was eschatology, the belief of the end of times. whether it was alexander hamilton,- alexander or john f. kennedy, or ronald reagan, the definition of america is what we were shooting toward in the future. we saw the president as a vantage point to the future. one of the things foreigners notice, they come to a valley but theyt farmland, keep going west because they assume there is something even better on the other side. spirit, the american that it was future looking, not backwards. we were not tied to the past. that created a culture in which we moved more. we started companies more. we created industries more, because it was always dynamic moving forward. at the same time you have this backward looking nationalism of steve bannon and maybe trump,
and we have also begun a culture where we move less. entrepreneurial rates are down. we become less dynamic and i think we become less american. bob: how are the democrats responding to all these swirling forces? david: they are a little off to decide right now. the fight is within the republican party. i think they have not yet found their voice either. along are furthest the progressives that have a coherent worldview. what you don't have on the left, which i think i'm waiting for, is a group of people who are going to say, "ok, this guy donald trump is for closed borders, no diversity." so we are going to be for open borders, ethnic diversity, social mores, globalization. we will embrace global
capitalism because we believe in dynamism. we will make it work. we haven't seen that. we haven't seen a modernization which clinton paradigm, would be pro-open, pro-globalization, but in a functioning way. i'm waiting for that person to emerge. hillary clinton could have been that person if she had said she was for tp p and for trade. quite getuldn't herself there because it would have caused a fracture. bob: no one on either party seems to want to make that kind of pitch. i was wondering to myself, what happened to this country that david wrote about not too long ago? it was so about the ascendant america, embracing technology and globalization. now if you even talking those terms politically democrat or republican,, you are the past. the spirit is totally different. ie post world war spirit,
read that book in the 1990's are around 2000, silicon valley was booming. we had just won the cold war. the american model looked like it was on the march. i guess what i would say is the 21st century happened. it started on 9/11. it has been marked by 16 or 17 straight years where the number of democracies in the world has gone down. the number of authoritarian governance has gone up. the number of ethnic nationalism has written. you have people trying to build walls. around the country, build walls in europe, religious fanaticism in the middle east, terrorism throughout the world. it has been an ugly start to this century. as a result, the spirit of hope and optimism and the spirit that history marches toward progress has been lost.
everybody things we are going in the bad direction. bob: let's talk about the ethnic nationalism. a lot of republicans i speak to don't ever want to broach that topic, but then you see congressmen like steve king of alluded tweeted that he in a sense to ethnic nationalism, even white nationalism. it is there. it is out and open on the republican side. what are we to make of all this with indy trump it's there, clearly. i would differentiate between racism and nationalism. you can be probably pro-american and not be racist. andthere is a lot of racism is clearly a lot of fear which drives fear of the other, and a sense of contamination. that's will have these elections. there you have a party and candidate who is explicitly
saying we need fewer people like that. we've got to preserve our ethnic purity.our cultural america has never really believed in that because we've always been a pretty ethnically and culturally diverse nation. you're beginning to see this of ethnictyle nationalism exist here is people want to preserve a country the looks like themselves of ethnic , and on the one hand -- it is revolutionary that we have gone from a country where a large swaths of it were white. get that this is a radical social experiment. as we become a more diverse country, i think we became a
safer country. we becoming more interesting culture. we have become a more tolerant culture. what interests me about trump's worldview is how fear driven it get that this is a radical is, how the assumption of the crime rates soaring when crime rates are falling prey to assumption that opportunity is plummeting and everyone is getting screwed. a lot of good things are happening in this country. it's fear and enforcement. what strikes me about the trump worldview is it is fear-based, and the remedy is always intimidation. it's never compassion. it is the start, angry view of the world which manifests itself in a net-net nationalist form. >> as we all navigate this new environment, you wrote recently that thinking about politics in the age of trump means relying less on the knowledge of political science, and more on the probing's of dh lawrence, david foster wallace, and carl john. explain what that means.
>> i'm about to get extremely charlie rose on us. i do think things have deteriorated in some ways. the social fabric has deteriorated. we are just less close to one another across class, within our communities, our social capital is down. inare more isolated fundamental ways. and to me, that happened for philosophical reasons. we made mistakes. here's where the charlie rose moment comes. that's because we chose the wrong philosophers. we chosewe made mistakes. here's where the charlie rose moment comes. -- when we should have chosen martin uber. buber wrote a book -- she sees us as a bunch of relationships. too idealistic when we
should be more communitarian. benson, we are motivated by pleasure and pain. victor frankel felt we were motivated by a search for meaning, to want to live good lives. has become society too economic, to social sciencey and utilitarian and not enough moralistic. we chose rene to cart when we should have chosen saint augustin. rene deckard that we should think with our heads. we have become too cognitive when we should be more emotional. into shells of and that has cut down on intimacy. it has devastating social effects. is to behavior -- its idea is to drive behavior. host: david brooks. guest: thank you.
host: good evening. i'm stephanie's eric filling in for charlie rose. personal shopper is a new film. the film marks the second collaboration between him and kristen stewart. stewart became the first american actress to win the award, france's equivalent for the oscar, for her work in that film. she plays a woman determined to connect with her recently deceased twin brother from the afterlife. here is a look at the trailer.
i had a sign. >> are you sure? [inaudible] i don't know. >> i'm just going to drop these bags for you, ok? >> he was murdered. >> what are you doing at her place? i'm lost. i can't tell whether or not i'm going crazy. is it you, or is it just me? i'm pleased to have our guests at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you.
this is the second film you have made together. can you tell us what made you want to work with kristen stewart in the first place and what made you decide to work with her now? guest: i hardly knew kristen. i just loved her work, i've always loved her work. how much we would connect and how it would work between us was a question for both of us. i think the reason i kept on working with her and helped to keep working with her after that the wayper is we connected on the set, what i do, i realized she was certainly one of the great actresses i had the privilege to work with.
i think we complement each other, we are very different but somehow, kristen brings me a lot and i try to bring her as much as i can in return. host: your character plays a woman who is grieving and she's trying to accept the loss of her brother. the character, did you draw on any personal experiences, or did you just use imagination, which is a great actress tool? how personal was it for you? i've had tastes of, relatively speaking, crippling anxiety that wasn't really rooted in anything other than grand questions that are stymieing. i think in retrospect, all of those times in my life were kick loss.d by some sort of
definitely insignificant compared to the loss of a twin brother, but i knew that feeling. even feeling sick sometimes, if you have a really bad flu, anything that reminds you of mortality and what there is in life to actually hold and grasp and know for certain, and that is very little. when you are reminded of that, it's difficult to function in a normal kind of like, flippant default setting, which is how we exist typically. and the only way to get through life that is productive. i knew that feeling, but that -- the depth to that debilitating feeling affects her, i have not come close. but i can sympathize. host: it seems this performance, this role, it must have been
written as a circle that wasn't quite closed. i think your performance really closes the circle. can you talk about writing the role? olivier: it's pretty much the way i always right. screenplayste open as opposed to locked screenplays. there is something so boring to making movies if everything is finalized, and the screenwriting level. of course it is scary, it is dangerous, and you have to do extra convincing when you try to sell that to your finances. i'm convinced that filmmaking happens on the set. the screenplays, just like a travel line. it's something i'm convinced tht filmmaking happens on the set. that let you use it to project yourself into something that is much more
complex, much more lively. i think in that sense, filmmaking is like a magnet. film should constantly be open, like windows open, doors open, so you can channel everything into the same energy that we create the film, which ultimately -- it's pretty much about the screenplay. at the screenplay being more like a back mode. -- background. you gradually give flesh and blood to it. host: you have been working a long time, even though you are very young, you started working as a child, basically. you have worked in a lot of different types of movies. the "twilight" movies made you famous. this is a different way from working great how do you compare it to other types of movies you have made?
at any point were you scared about the things that olivier was asking you to do or looking? filmen: even on a larger that requires more finality in terms of what the result is going to end up being, like more always tryation, i and forget those things and allow other people to worry about them because it's funny, when he was saying about keeping it's and windows open, really the only way to do something that doesn't feel like an impression or imitation of life. i don't want to imitate life. i want to interpret it and allow someone to capture it. also about the windows and things, it is clearly what
"personal shopper" is about. if you think you know everything in terms things, it is clearly t "personal shopper" is about. if you think you know everything in terms of the larger questions, you are closing yourself off to so much that life can offer you. and then you really just live in the immediacy of everyday practicality, which is to a certain extent boring and empty. even on a big movie, there's a certain job that an actor has to tell a story and hit certain emotional marks. to be honest with you, i don't do very well in a position. i don't thrive. like even on a larger -- on a movie like "twilight," the moments that were written in the book or screenplay that everyon- on a movie like may be were deeply attached to, i always felt like i miss them up. -- messed them up. the moments that just happened to bubble of onset the maybe wasn't such a huge moment in the script or the book, those were the things that surprised me with the things that were always like, i think we just got to it.
i think that is actually servicing the story in a better way than if i had cried at the right moment when he said the thing to me about the thing. that's how i like to work as well. host: olivier, many of your -- you are very open to the fact that we rely on technology, we need technology, we live with technology. you are also kind of wary of it. can you talk a little bit about how that plays out? olivier: when i was making a ivie like "demon lover," think that technology, modern means of communication were not as much inscribed inside our culture. at that point, maybe i had ideas about it right now i have like zero ideas about it. i can accept it as a fact, no other way to do it.
because i'm pre-digital and digital at the same time, i have a perspective of time. in that sense how ultimately the way we communicate, the way we explore the internet, or the way our smartphones are hardwired in changed thehave human experience. they have changed the human identity. it's not so much that i'm interested in gadgets. the thing is that i'm interested in how they are transforming human beings. it's really something that i realized when i was writing "personal shopper," i think if you want to describe a modern character, you also have to deal with the way that human being does communicate or use social media or not social media, whatever, because those end up
being defining element in the psychology, maybe we should use another word now. like some kind of external psychology to individuals today, through means of communication. i don't think it has acknowledged how deep it goes. the: how would you approach more mysterious elements of the character you are playing in this role, where you have the phone in your hand, you are texting all the time, you are very comfortable with it. but then at a certain point you start receiving these messages on the phone that appeared to be perhaps from your deceased brother, or from a person playing a prank or a malevolent spirit. how did you approach that? think there is a concrete answer on who that
person actually is that i'm texting. i'm only aware of that as an approaching the story is a screenplay i have read. i know how everything plays out. if i were to wipe that from my , the person or spirit or entity on whatever that she is speaking to is this ever evolving thing. i think that speaks to the definition of reality prayed if you believe it, then it's true. there are times when she's talking to herself. i think it is an internal dialogue. whenhen there are times she assumes that it's another character within the movie, which it's hard to describe because i don't know if people have seen this while watching .his interview
it's weird because your phone gives you the ability to live quite presently all the time but at the same time, depending on how you use it, it does the opposite of that. costar with a phone as a was kind of cool because at any moment, it's a shape shifting costar. it's almost like there were multiple people i was interacting with. it's really self reflective, and ase a little maddening, just texting people can be. you can speak to someone and think you are having one conversation, and the other people can be having an entirely different experience. we can -- that can be happening between us right now verbally . it's more so when you are not in front of somebody. it allows you to tailspin. that's it. but the onege,
thing i was worried about is that it would not be very engaging cinematically, that he might be boring or something. those scenes for me had the most tension. reallyhose secenes worked. it's interesting to me to hear that you know who was texting. i love thehe movie, movie, and i'm still talking to other people who have seen it hwo say -- who say, we don't think it's a person that is texting. we think it is a spirit. you have the answer, olivier. you came up with the idea. olivier: you witness to a car people whoyou ask 10 was there, what happened, you will have 10 versions. actually reality is only one version because it's obvious, it's very easy to connect the dots. i think the human perception and
basedy you process don't on your own preconceptions in a certain way is very interesting. i think it has to do with the fact that i never feel like i'm making movies for an audience. making movies for individuals, for a lot of individuals hopefully. i know every single person is going to observe the film in a different way. and i'm not trying to resist that. is aboutfilmmaking resisting that, establishing clearly and just controlling your audience. i hate the notion of controlling i'm trying toreat make a movie that is certainly narrative, but also some kind of poetic or green light that mention.
i want the film to be open to interpretation. i want the audience to daydream about this. so whatever they are imagining is valid. .t totally valid that's how your relationship with any given work of art functions. when you are looking at a painting, you can say 30 seconds, five minutes, an hour .n front of the same painting your days can travel in strange different ways inside the canvas. will have averybody completely different analysis of what's going on in that canvas. has to be acknowledged. movies are very much like that. i have easy answers for everything in the film. i'm not sure they are that interesting. "clouds,"y like it
the character kristen plays, she does appear at some point. she disappears because it's much more interesting if she disappears. she could also get on the bus and go away. it's a quick shot, it's done, it's finished. she has her suitcase. and the bus just drives off, and why not? if she just disappears, he remains a question mark and she echoes through the film. that's how i function. host: there is one moment in the film i want to ask you about. it happens late in the film. your character has stayed overnight at a friend's house. maureen comes downstairs and goes to the kitchen and there is an electric teakettle on the counter. i notice that maureen caps on the side of her hand to see if it is hot -- taps on the side of her hand to see if it is hot.
i'm watching a performer and i noticed something like that, my first thought is, does she know she's doing it? did you know -- or was it automatic? how much is instinct and how much is craft? it's pretty much all instinct. wantat point i knew -- i downstairs thinking i'm alone in the house. and i see that there's a kettle before i see there is somebody sitting outside. the whole thing is like yes, i would like some tea. my thing is, she's always wondering who's around and who's watching. that was -- how long has he been there, has he been inside? that's all. host: thank you so much for being here, oliier, and kristen. "personal shopper" opens in theaters friday, march 10.
♪ >> asia-pacific markets expected to follow wall street down as investors look ahead to the fed decision. >> oil under pressure as saudi arabia ranges outlooks. some say the kingdom is losing patience with several producers. >> theresa may will trigger exit this month. but the european union might make her wait for talks. an annual policy meeting wraps up. beijing is tied on its list of