tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 22, 2017 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: we begin with the confirmation hearings for the supreme court nominee judge neil gorsuch. in the first day of questioning, judge gorsuch emphasized his judicial independence and he was asked by charles grassley if he would have any issues going after the president. >> that is a softball. mr. chairman, i have no difficulty ruling for or against any party, other than based on what the facts of the case require and i am heartened by the support i have received from
people who recognize that there is no such thing as a republican judge or a democratic judge. we just have judges. charlie: senators pressed him on a number of the fact -- divisive issues. joining me is emily from of the yale lawsuit -- school. she teaches lawyers how to write. it is something we all need across the board, and all disciplines. emily: indeed. thank you. charlie: how did neil gorsuch do? emily: i think he did well. he met the standard which we now hold nominees to. andeemed very assured didn't get any opponents any
ammunition against him, really. he was able to demonstrate great fluency in the law without specifics that would cause trouble for him. charlie: takeaways from the hearing? emily: there is a question of whether the democrats have the kind of ammo they need to vote against the judge, as opposed to a symbol of the trump administration or in the democrats view, the unwarranted, undeserved replacement for failed garland, obama's nomination. he is not giving a whole lot of obvious talking points. it will be interesting to see how that plays and i assume that the republicans feel good about this choice. charlie: he has the burden of proving he is independent. emily: he does, especially at this moment in trump's present a -- presidency given the investigation. but it is easy to assert one's independence the way judge
gorsuch did today. to the extent that he addressed questions, i think that he did that. charlie: here is what elizabeth warren wrote. anyone who believes in a neutral supreme court guided by equal justice for all should oppose this nomination. emily: right, so senator warren is responding to aspects of his record that suggest he is not a strong proponent of civil rights. against workers in cases and government requirements that companies provide contraception two female -- the female employees, and he has ruled in a very of religious minorities with majority rights at stake. there are concerns he has been that kind of judge and would be that kind of justice. charlie: he said that he is not an algorithm. hearing feel like each brings up its own little homily or phrase.
he also talked about presidence -- precedents being a family history for the supreme court. chief justice roberts sounded when he was having his confirmation hearing. charlie: where do you find him on the spectrum of the supreme court? emily: i think he will be significantly to the right. the political science analysis of his appellate court rulings suggest he will be with alito and perhaps to the right of roberts, in the place that scalia would have been in. and of course, this is scalia's former seat that gorsuch is being asked to fill. charlie: does he remind you of scalia in any way? emily: temperamentally, no. they are quite a contrast. scalia was provocative off in on the bench and gorsuch is gentle. -- seems very tempered, compose, has a gentle air about him. in terms of their view of the
law and there quite strict views quite strict views of interpreting the constitution. i think there is a resemblance. charlie: how does he resemble justice jackson? emily: he would argue that he believes in judicial restraint or modesty, which means he won't , as a supreme court justice, go out and grabbed the keys used to decide if they are not right in front of him. and it is true that as an appellate judge, he has looked at narrow grounds. if he follows that path, it would illustrate the kind of judicial restraint he talks about. charlie: justice white was another hero. emily: a former football hero. that is a rarity on the supreme court. safe pastvery justices for gorsuch to compare him to -- himself to. they are not highly conservative, but on the conservative side of the ledger. what you have are touchstones
from the past that signal to the republicans that he is what touchingd for without off a firestorm among liberals, or at least he will hope that. charlie: you suggest that he is to the right, he might have been, in part where justice scalia was. easy as far to the right as -- who else would be over there? scalia, -- >> justice thomas is on the right and there are issues where gorsuch would be in alignment with thomas more than roberts or alito. for example, the question of the power of the administrative state. we have had this rule since 1984 where courts differ to federal agencies to sort out ambiguous statute, when they are writing rules. judge gorsuch has questioned that precedent. if you were to take that view to
its logical endpoint on the supreme court, he would tear down a lot of authority federal agencies have to craft rules and regulations. so for example, the epa. at there a lot of rules career employees at the epa have crafted. if they are taken out of those powers, it gets sent back to congress to clarify as opposed to relying on the agency to interpret that. charlie: issues of war and peace? emily: when judge gorsuch was in the department of justice briefly, he signed onto and helped shape some of the bush administration's controversial policies. he supported, for example, a signing statement that president bush signed that retained his power to decide what is torture when congress was trying to take it away from him. on those kinds
on those kinds of issues, again, gorsuch comes across as being very conservative and a proponent of presidential power. charlie: the rights of defendants? emily: judge gorsuch is open to claims of the fourth amendment. there are people who say that there are violations of searches and seizures and gorsuch is interested in those claims. that is, again, a resemblance to justice scalia and an interpretation that gives people considerable freedom from police authority. -- a libertarian view. he has been quite strict about appeals from criminal defendants who say that they are innocent or say that their cases are missed tried. charlie: issues of gender inequality? emily: he ruled against the
government in a case that was trying to make sure women had brought access to contraception through the health care their employers provide. so i think a lot of women and pro-choice groups are concerned. -- concerned about him on those grounds. charlie: did he say anything that surprise you? emily: i should be able to come up with something, but i can't. he was as expected. charlie: and coached, probably. emily: absolutely. but to some degree, he is only partly responsible for the unsurprisingness. the hearings themselves are becoming so scripted. there are very few moves that nominees make. they speak with fluency on cases and how the laws developed, and then when pushed to say, how would you decide something, something that has happened in the past, they say they have to keep an open mind. i can't tip my hand. charlie: most of what we know is from decisions from the appeals court. emily: that is right and a case
of his that came up today, which i find quite revealing, is called the freezing trucker case, involving a trucker who was out on a cold night on the highway in his truck broke down. he called his company for help and the company said that he needed to wait for the repair folks. so the trucker waited and waited, and started to really worry that he was freezing. he called back at about 3:00 in the morning and the company gave him the choice. they said you can either stay with your truck or try to drive your load with your frozen brakes. an impossibility, right? the trucker finally gave up and went to a gas station for 10 minutes until the repair man came and he was fired. there is this sort of -- there is a narrow statutory question about whether his firing was proper or not. judge gorsuch ruled -- and he
was a dissenter -- this was a case on appeal and was decided by the department of labor. gorsuch's colleague sided with the trucker. judge gorsuch decided against the trucker. he said that he regretted the ruling -- not that he got it wrong, but that the law required him to side against the worker. i would argue that is a very narrow interpretation of the law. that he had a choice to make there. we see what he saw as a strict interpretation with the company over the trucker who had a very compelling problem. charlie: let me understand that. his compassion was with the trucker, but he ruled for the company? emily: that is what he said, that his compassion was with a trucker. if you dive into the case, you see that he had a choice. he could have ruled with the
trucker and he chose not to and it makes me wonder about values and equities that he was weighing in making his decision. charlie: do you think there was a legal basis to rule for the trucker? emily: i don't know what was in his mind, but i think it is clear there was a choice. he argued he did not have a choice and one thing about judge gorsuch, he is a writer. one of the best judges in terms of crafting and the quality of opinions i have ever read. way beyond my course. forget about my course. he is an excellent writer. you get caught up in the arguments. they seem inevitable. if you take a step back, you can see another argument that he is dismissing by making his argument seems strong. charlie: on the matter of what you teach, would you be advising law students that the best thing you can do is to study literature and writing as a
prelude to coming to law school? think it is enormously important to be a good communicator as a lawyer and that clarity of prose is undervalued in the legal profession. charlie: in every profession. emily: in every profession, but i would encourage people to become better, rather than worse writers. as they join the legal profession. charlie: often, these decisions become caught up in personal frailties. is there anything in terms of that we have heard that might endanger this nomination? emily: you know, really not very much. there are a couple of female students in colorado have complained that the way he talked about the way he described women joining companies and getting pregnant. it made them feel that he was suggesting that women go to companies to get benefits and
in essence, our strike -- trying to put one over on their employer. that cost a little ripple to speak, but a whole bunch of gorsuch.dents defended and as a teacher myself, and i have talked a course in law school, it is important to have in the classroom, to raise hypotheticals. to have a -- given the need for a free give-and-take in the classroom, i don't expect this to cause problems. charlie: you are the granddaughter of a great judge, david bazelon. emily: thank you. charlie: of course i knew about him. you did go to law school? emily: i did. charlie: and decided to teach but to teach something outside the strict disciplines of law? right, i really love the
privilege of asking questions, which journalism brings with it. so i hope i use my journalism background to ask questions. i decided that i wanted to do the thing that i felt like i loved the most and for me, that is reporting and getting to fulfill material city. and writing too, but i like the reporting part. everyone likes everything that writing the first draft. charlie: do you think he will be confirmed? emily: i do. i think so and if the democrats decide to filibuster this nomination, and they may not, but if they do, the republicans will feel like it is worth it to break the filibuster. i think that this nomination is the smartest move trump has made his taking office. charlie: thank you for coming. emily: thank you so much for having me. charlie: we will be right back. stay with us.
♪ charlie: the debates around the future of american health care took another contentious turn on tuesday. president trump addressed a group of house republicans enclosed door meetings and implored them to follow through on legislation to repeal and replace the affordable care act, coming on the heels of to win over conservatives, including a shift of medicaid cost to the state government. "even with these changes,
passage of the bill still remains unsure with rank-and-file opposition. for all of this, we turned to washington and al hunt of bloomberg you and bob hunt -- and bob of the "washington post." bob, you wrote about this. tell me where it is and the impact the president had. are all of the cards in terms of threats and promises in his hands? bob: after months of him focusing on executive orders and settling into the presidency, this is the first major legislative task. -- legislative test. i just stepped over here from the capitol and was meeting all day with senators and congressmen and they told me that the president plunged into these discussions, having meetings at the white house, coming to the capital to make a final plea to skittish house republicans to pass this bill, passed speaker ryan spill as planned. victory-- he wants it
more than any detail in this bill, he wants to win. charlie: he has to address the issues that are political for him. bob: exactly right and a lot of people inside the white house are uneasy about how health care is now leading the president's agenda. they worry about how this affects his court base. rural states,n blue-collar areas of the country, some of them on medicaid assisteance. you see people from states with poorer populations wondering if this is the right thing, in particular from the president who run on -- ran on fiery populism and not touching. charlie: what does this mean for the president? al: a loss, a defeat would be a
disaster. a victory would be bad politically, but a defeat would be much worse, charlie. i have to do something. failure is not an option. i think, if it was held right the bob has been on -- at capitol and i have been talking to people on the phone. it might not pass right now, but maybe by thursday night or when they hold the vote. they have done a lot of necessary gimmicks. the president has been an effective lobbyist. you mentioned medicaid for new york state and they said that medicaid would have a work requirement. tossume that doesn't apply nursing homes, so you and i will be ok eventually. there are other gimmicks in here. my favorite was on the tax credits, they instruct the senate to do this. senat does not take instructions very well.
i think they will achieve what is essential for them and they will move it to the senate. they may even be able to get a deal through the senate. and with trump's cabinet being. -- trump's lobbying. in the long run, i think this is a loser. bob told me 20 years ago that, which ever party owns health care, it will be a political loser. the democrats found that out and i think the republicans are about to find that out. charlie: bob, do you agree with what hell just said in terms of, it probably wouldn't pass today but by thursday, will pass? evening,f tuesday based on my own count at the capitol and talking to leadership, they are probably between 20 and 30 hard nos, meaning the bill as of right now would probably fail. andspeaker ryan's aids friends tell me he wants to bring it to the floor. he believes that the republican party has talked about repealing
and replacing the affordable care act and they have to move politically on this. as is why he wanted to move it first. they're making the case to members that if you don't loan -- vote now, this would disrupt all plans. charlie: do you believe that he should have done tax reform first, and then health care? bob: if you look at some of the president's allies, like pandit laura ingraham, and his friend who he hangs out with, the more populist side of the party says that he should have started with infrastructure and job creation and going along with speaker ryan, moved him in an ideological direction that wasn't part of why he won last year. 'sarlie: the president argument seems to be in part, a threat. caucus ande freedom i'm not sure what the reporting is of that. you can tell me. out: --
all: when the president visited the capital, he had a visit with mark meadows of the house freedom caucus and said, we may go after you. he said it in a joking way that a lot of people saw as a failed -- veiled threat. he wants them to know that he is an unpredictable president and he needs a win. if he has a threat out there, even if it is in a chuckle, he wanted to be out there. charlie: is he the kind of president that can say to them, i need you on this. can you help me on this restaurant everything is at stake? al: this is his first real legislative test and this has been -- he has been passionate about it. you have to give him credit for being effective. the reason they want to bring this up first is because republicans worry about his
popularity, his currency will be as great in a few months as it is right now among the republican base. so get it done now. i think the threat to run a primary against mark meadows is really an idle one. i cannot imagine someone voting against this bill because it didn't repeal obamacare sufficiently, or was obamacare 2.0. who are people undecided, in many of those republican districts, trump remains popular. his overall ratings are down, but he remains popular. i agree with some of the critics. i would imagine that steve bannon is not happy with this sequencing. because not only is this going to take some time, as is going to happen in the matter of the next month or so. the senate is going to be involved, this is tying up the house and the senate and it looks like infrastructure is off till next year. charlie: tom cotton says should
not vote for this bill and that it will do damage to the political future. bob costa, is he right about that? i spoke to senator cotton today and he has many reservations. he thinks this process is moving too quickly. he thinks speaker ryan is not thinking enough about the senate. trump has bought in, for now, you ryan's argument that have to love health care now. it was telling to watch him in louisville or he says i cannot wait to move on to trade and other issues. he is not deeply interested in health care issue, from what i am told at the discussions at the oval office. right, a lot of senate republicans are more moderate than house. the center -- senate is generally more moderate. she told me she thinks that this process could take months.
to 1993,ew a parallel when the house passed a big budget bill. the bill got to the senate and the senate kill it right away. some of those house democrats paid a price in the next election for voting for that unpopular tax. that is the fear, the idea that the senate will take care of it and ultimately will work the whole thing out, they are going to be voting for some stuff that could come back to haunt them. charlie: where are the democrats on this? out: they are opposed. his is easy. on this one, the three states -- this one is easy. the three states that have had the biggest drop in the uninsured over the last year's are west virginia, arkansas, and kentucky. this is not good for the trump base and i don't think joe manchin will have any trouble opposing this bill as it now stands. charlie: turning to the budget
-- and i will come back to health care. there are issues that raise carear questions in health , which is, the people who are suffering most from the budget are people who were part of the core constituency of candidate trump. yes? bob: -- al: i cannot quite figure out what make all they need and donald trump have in common. -- mick mulvaney donald trump have in common. this doesn't look like a donald trump budget. there is more defense and more immigration enforcement. but some of the other cuts, i cannot believe that the bannon wing of the white house are crazy about. : steve bannon has spoke about this, the deconstruction of the administrative state. spendingking about the in these departments. as the white house looks at its agenda, which is to raise
military spending by 54 billion dollars, they have to offset that and they are taking ask to the state department, to hud, to the epa, to everything. charlie: are they doing it because of ideology or because they need to deal with the increase in dispense -- defense spending or do these issues come together at this time? bob: it is a reflection of what they want to do politically. most people in washington and the white house do not believe that the trump budget will pass or will have heavy support within the congressional ranks. charlie: and that includes republicans. bob: that includes the congressional majority. they see this budget as a statement of how they want to rattle washington. charlie: there was an article in your paper over the weekend suggesting the factions were at night. bob: that was my story. charlie: your story. it was a very good story all of us were talking about. what has been the reaction from the white house on a story
suggesting that there were -- are factions. the new yorkers and the bannonites? bob: what do you think, charlie? [laughter] charlie: but they are not calling me up this -- to like during the course of my reporting, it was like pulling off the scabs. this is the dynamic that of ended the white house so long for the first few months of his presidency we have been talking about banning versus -- forget about that conventional wisdom. competingting -- players, former executive at goldman sachs, close friends working with ivanka trump, trump's daughter, jared kushner they areviser --
polished, worldly, connected to the wall street community. there seen as a different type of operative within the white house because of their business background. they are moderate when it comes to politics. because of their rise in power there seen as a different type of-- and they have the preside's ear. any kind of divisions faded away as they see powell and cohen is real rivals. charlie: what did you think? >> i thought it was a terrific piece. it had not occurred to a lot of us in washington. i don't know. bob does. it's always a mistake to underestimate. he has a worldview. some of us may think it's pretty dark. but it's a view that was attractive to donald trump in the campaign. , i have ago south least a suspicion that mr. nick
may be more persuasive in that environment that gary cohn. charlie: the question, is the more persuasive than jared kushner. >> may be more persuasive in .hat environment that gary thatb when i read stories -- jared kushner is on bannon's side. i see jared kushner is on that side. kushner managed to get pretty good press. from what i can tell, maybe it is the president's son-in-law. he has not deeply offended either side. charlie: maybe it's because he's a shrewd political insider. >> he is straight he's a k.g. player in the white house. we got the scene in a story which i thought -- i heard for multiple people in the white house. psychologist for these two warring factions, the new yorkers and populists. throughout the day as they complain about the others, and he tries to mediate. this is kushner's role.
he stays out of the press, talking to his father-in-law constantly, but has worked with bannon. these gary cohn in a favorable way. >> what about other members of this administration? what about the secretary of defense? at treasury?uchin what about some of the people deputy financee secretary, deputy secretary of the treasury? people, some of them seem to have served in other governments like bush 43. >> that's true. the cabinet in general, all these members, his cabinet officials are trying to build rapport with the president. with this president, the personal relationship is so critical. trying what tillerson is to do. he has been talking to the president almost every day. i told he's in touch with tiara tillerson.
you have defense secretary mattis, he has a lot of respect from the president, still trying to build that personal relationship. mnuchin and sessions, they probably have the closest relationship with the president. >> i think the secretary of state has had a horrible week. at least since he has come back from asia -- i cannot understand how after what many consider the insult of angela merkel when she was here, why is he not going to a nato meeting? this.e: let me understand where was he going to be during the meeting? >> i can't figure out where he's going. at some point he's going to russia. wherever he's going, it's hard to make a case there is a more important priority than the nat o. >> we wish we could ask
questions. covering the state department is like covering a black box. he brought one reporter on his trip to asia and he's not really communicating with the press at all since the coming secretary of state. -- and: and show is shows no inclination that he feels it necessary. he doesn't feel like it's necessary for him at this time. >> it is somewhat stunning. secretary of state is, communicating a message and talking with reporters, it's unusual. charlie: what is your evaluation of the job he did on his most recent trip to asia? >> there's a lot of chatter in the white house about possible action against north korea or how to handle north korea as it becomes more bellicose in its weapons development. charlie: these are all things he said. >> that rex tillerson talked about. he hasn't been out there in a full way. >> and don't think we have a real fix. what were his meetings really like in beijing? did they make any progress
there, or north korea or other matters? usually when you spend some time with the chinese, it takes a while before the real story emerges. charlie: as your friend jim you areid to me, if secretary of state you want to make sure you have a good relationship with the president. he certainly did. charlie: thank you both. this has been labeled the great big week in washington. we have a confirmation of the supreme court justice, the testimony of an fbi director in congress, and we have a vote on obamacare.ment if you are a political junkie, this has been one heck of a week. it's only tuesday, as we were reminded. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, charlie. charlie: will be right back. stay with us. ♪
binge dvr'd shows while painting your toes. on demand laughs during long bubble baths. tv everywhere is awesome. the all-new xfinity stream app. xfinity. the future of awesome. chastain issica here. she's a two-time academy award nominee. her new film, "the zookeepers wife," tells a little-known story. ran theher husband renowned warsaw zoo in the early 20th century. during the naiz occupation of poland, the couple used their zoo to smuggle jews out of the ghetto, saving lives in the
♪ >> you look and their eyes and you knew exactly what was in their heart. ♪. ♪ charlie: i'm pleased to have jessica chastain here. jesssica: it's good to be back. charlie: did you know about this story? jessica: i had no idea about the story until i read the script. from there i went to the novel. antonina's on journals. charlie: it is a story of courage, compassion, what? jessica: all of the above. it shows another way that someone can be a hero. in our film industry we celebrate the heroes who use violence and aggression and
fight. she uses love and compassion as her weapon. charlie: and saves hundreds of lives. jessica: she sacrifices her safety, the safety of her children. not only does she save lives, but she fostered hope and created a space of love with music and art to bring happiness into those people's lives. >charlie: she loves animals. jessica: she lived alongside animals. they would go in and out of her house and her bed. her children grew up with animal brothers and sisters. it explores what does it mean to be in a cage. the warsaw ghetto. also, what does it mean to possess and own another living creature. antonina knew that was not something that makes society healthy. charlie: so she decided to make
this -- they take all the animals out, because someone she knew before is going to use them in a nazi experiment. jessica: she has been told they are going to kill all of her animals for meat, for the nazis. a friend of the family who is now the head of zoologist for all the zoos under the nazis, a he says, i'mman -- going to save your animals. i'm going to take them to my zoo in berlin at least they will be alive and protected. charlie: he also has a thing for her. jessica: yes. [laughter] you discover that in a novel and little bit because she talks about how he has a crush on her, and his writing about antonina, he really admired her work with animals and he admired her greatly. the film expands on that. charlie: did they have you
because it is a story of animals, or story of a woman's courage and commitment to people beyond her own life? jessica: hopefully all of the above. antonina is a great inspiration for me of how i strive to live my life. so many people ask, what would i have done back then. whatevery answer is, you are doing now is probably what you would have done back then. charlie: i've asked so many people who have shown great they simply say, i did not even think about being brave are not brave. i simply did what i should have done. exactly. your duty to humankind and society and community. she knew that. i think she knew that for being around so many animals and taking care of them, and healing them. she knew she had to do that for human animals as well. charlie: look at this clip.
is it daniel pearls? jessica: great actor. a way out of this, my friend. that's why i've come. you need to listen to me now, you need to trust me. i could take your place. you know you can trust my word on this. when the war is over, i can return them to you. [inaudible] a terrible thought, i know. any personal nightmare for me. forces are very weak. i expected to be over very soon. -- expect it to be over very soon. i can secure the future no matter what might come. and we can do that together. we can save your animals together. what do you think? of course we must do it.
your animals will be fine. i give you my word. charlie: how did she use that relationship to her advantage? jessica: because he's in charge of all the zoos, he can help them. and certain point antonina her husband have an idea that they can smuggle jews out of the warsaw ghetto by collecting trash, if they turn their zoo into a pig farm once they have lost all the animals, they can use the trash from the ghetto to feed the pigs. listen, we have this great idea. would you allow us to do this? probably because of his admiration for her, he does allow them to do that. under his nose, that starts the whole -- charlie: that's how they get them to the zoo. jessica: in the beginning. eventually they are able to smuggle them out to the labor bureau.
hes interesting because really loves animals, and he wanted to bring back this and that'sbison, what he spent his life's work doing. he wasn't able to do it. alsos a big hunter, but he really was into it -- the whole not see idea of finding the perfect species -- nazi idea of finding the perfect species, the strongest, biggest animals. he had a very complicated view because he did -- the bison he warsaw now live as wild animals in the forest. charlie: here is a scene from you watching the animals leave the warsaw zoo. here it is. ♪
her parents were killed when night coming home from dinner. they were asked to show their hands. when they did not have calluses on their hands, they were shot. that is how one determined difference between a member of the intelligentsia and a laborer. from that moment on, her life was very dark. she fled violence. she found her sanctuary in difference between a member of warsaw as a young woman. anyway, antonina -- she was a refugee. she created this space of love and she was able to heal herself with animals. so when shet power, was able to smuggle in jewswarsd hide them there and create this safe place, sanctuary for them, she knew as the animals had healed her that they would also be helpful in healing the people. charlie: what are you looking for, when you read the diaries and you are looking for insight into a character? jessica: anything the character says about themselves is so helpful.
even more than the diaries, what i was so lucky -- i went to the warsaw zoo before we started shooting. the village is still there, the basement where they hid everyone. i met with antonina's daughter. i got to talk with her about her mother and how she saw her mother. she told me things like, her whole life she never saw her mother where a pair of pants. she was very feminine. if your mother was an animal, what kind of animal which he be? she said, a cat. nicknamed her which means little cat right all these things were so helpful in creating the femininity of antonina, this woman in 1939. and also the arc that antonina goes through. which means little cat right all these things were so helpful in creating the femininity ofshe's very shy. as oftentimes in war when the men leave and the women are left to get jobs or be the heads of the household, she in a way
comes into herself. theye end of the story, come together as equals and the love is even stronger. charlie: what was your breakout film? jessica: probably "the tree of life." can film festival. brad pitt, sean penn. not bad dates. --rlie: one jessica: when of the greatest still makers to walk the earth. -- one of the greatest filmmakers to walk the earth. -- why are you working so hard? jessica: i love these stories. growing up, i was always searching for female characters, representations of women in media that would inspire me. we can rule up thinking, when we are very young, you can do anything you want to do. we are not, because
represented in the media or because we don't have female politicians are very many ceo's a fortune 500 companies are film directors, we are taught it's not possible for us. i want to create representation in the media. it is quite i played commander melissa lewis in "the martian." i want to see the depiction and what is possible, and step forward in their lives and not be told that because of their gender, they are limited. charlie: with pay equity. jessica: and pay equity. the more confidence girls have, the more they will not just be grateful for getting the more they will not just be grateful for getting paid, but speak up and ask for what they deserve. charlie: and you are doing that now. jessica: i'm definitely doing it. [laughter] i'm definitely doing it. watch out. charlie: do you miss broadway? jessica: i do and i don't. i do miss broadway.
the next time i go back, i have to see a comedy. the last time i was there, it was so dark. and a lot of the films i do are dramas. i am just craving some laughter. charlie: so you are searching for a comedic part. jessica: maybe something old-fashioned. some neil simon. charlie: but you work so hard because a, you love it. work so hard because it doesn't feel like work. i don't feel like i work a day in my life. that's a danger. if you feel like you are not working, you are really giving yourself time to rest. charlie: i wrote a note basically saying work so hard be behold to feel like that, know you are one of the lucky ones to do exactly what you love. jessica: exactly. was a littlent i girl, once i realized this was what i was going to do with my life, it just was so easy going forward because i had this dream, i had this goal.
school people i was in with, it took them so long to find a passion. many people never really found a passion in life. charlie: undefined selling to do that is typically to do. jessica: and its work for them. . think that's why i'm so busy it feels like something bigger than myself. to be in this film with nikki carl, a great female filmmaker -- charlie: screenwriter is female. protagonist straight we have female centre court measures's, camera operators, production designers. there are so many incredible women on the film. to be involved in it and tell antonina's story, it felt bigger than my life. charlie: is good good? jessica: women can direct action films and men can direct romance. filmmaking has no gender. the problem is when you have 90% of the film only from a
caucasian male point of view. you don't have diversity in storytelling. and you are only getting one side of life. beingeat thing about human is learning about people who are different than you. charlie: you got a little bit of that with "moonlight." jessica: an incredible film. that was my favorite film of last year. i'm so happy. charlie: because of the diversity aspect of it, because it told a simple story. jessica: i remember when "broke back mountain" was up for the oscar and it lost. i thought, how can this movie not win best picture? is the academy so old-fashioned? "moonlight" won this year, i thought, we are moving to a great place. charlie: " thank you. jessica: thank you. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪
as we just talked about there, there's a bit of a risk factor coming back into the markets. there was a lot of talk on tuesday into wednesday that it might be the start of a correction, a healthy correction, maybe 5% or he does not happening at the moment, u.s. futures are getting good quite decently at the moment. we are actually seeing this very interesting dynamic between where currencies are going and equities are going. it's good to take a step back at the moment and really look at dollar-yen. when you look across the currency state, the most pronounced move in the past 24 hours has been the dollar-yen breaking the low-key support levels. you are looking at the core relation between dollar-yen, and that pair and the topics index. we all know, yen