tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 16, 2017 7:00am-8:00am EDT
♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> good evening. charlie is away. i am wilfred frost. we begin with foreign policy. president trump arrived in france for a visit with emmanuel macron. the two presidents held their first official bilateral meeting. today also marks the one-year anniversary of theresa may becoming britain's prime minister and the day the united states reached its refugee camp. joining me is matthew barzun. he recently stepped down from his post as u.s. ambassador to the united kingdom and david miliband, the former british
foreign secretary. i'm pleased to welcome both to this table. president trump's visit to france. earlier today, he held a press conference with emmanuel macron. the tone compared to their initial meeting at the nato conference with the infamous strained handshake did point today to signs of improvement. how do you think the president is viewed in europe at the moment? >> you can look at the polls and they are pretty clear that president trump's positions on a range of issues are a stark contrast to the center ground of european opinion. he stepped back from advocating that more countries should leave the european union. but i think his decision with respect to the paris climate accord struck very hard. i think what you are seeing is
president macron setting a startling pace in the first 60 or so days of his presidency. he is out there establishing himself with angela merkel as a joint leader of europe, the real spirit of hope in europe at the moment. the french minister said britain has chosen brexit. america has chosen retreat. france has chosen hope. there is a real sense of boldness. i think he sees an opportunity in this british retreat for him to establish himself to be a hard power. he is not going to get hit from president trump on meeting the obligation. the story of the day is partly why president trump agreed to go but also the entrepreneurship of president macron inviting him in the first place. >> do you think there is a strange similarity between president macron and president trump? both political outsiders. both not originally part of a traditional local party. and now in quick succession leading their respective
nations. >> president macron has broken the two main parties of french politics. both are down to 30 seats each. i don't see immediate similarities. president macron is strongly committed to the united nations. president trump stepping away. one thing that will be interesting when the details come out of their meeting is from a french point of view what president trump and the administration have been saying about a range of issues with respect to human rights. i wonder how that has been taken on. >> matthew, in terms of a clear sense on bilateral relations rather than multilateral relations, is that a mistake? can he achieve as much as the u.s. would want to achieve through simple bilateral relations?
>> i think it is both. i will not speak for the current president. my former boss, barack obama, was a great example of how you do both. david mentioned the climate accord. if progress in paris getting all those countries to sign on was spurred on by a bilateral deal between the united states and china. if you do both well, you can get good results. >> today, president trump did suggest there was a possibility in the future the u.s. would return. that was not his best case. >> if i could jump in on something david said characterizing the french friend's comment about what the united states is doing. i think it is important to say governors, mayors, companies in the united states are not retreating. they are engaging in many of
them, in terms of climate, are living up to the targets and doing it for good business and political reasons, to protect the air, water, and land they care a lot about. i think we spend so much time on shows like this and everywhere else talking about the current administration. with good reason, i think it is important we do not lose sight of progress happening in other places. >> in terms of the g20 meeting, he wrote going into it the g20 was set up to address pressing problems and the refugee crisis was crying out for leadership. did the refugee crisis receive that leadership? >> in a limited form.
there was an important german initiative in respect to aid for africa. it is massively underfunded. there are four famines threatened in africa at the moment. for the first time, the u.n. has said it is the worst catastrophe in 40 or 50 years. these famines are not because of lack of food but political division and conflict. war is producing the conditions that mean people do not have access to food and are not able to grow crops. there was an important g20 initiative around support for africa. if you compare the scale to the marshall plan, there is no comparison. it takes american engagement to turn what could be a marginal initiative into something that is really going to power forward. that is where i think people around the world are asking the question -- where is america
going to put its effort? is it only going to focus on the home front and put america first or is there room for engagement abroad? >> has the u.s. position on this issue changed since your boss left office? >> i think so, demonstrably. it is great to be home. i have been living with a self-imposed media blackout. the first few weeks, i went back and read some great books and watched some great documentaries. i was reminded, in late 1940, the brits are getting blitzed. we are staying out of it. should we come to the aid of britain against hitler? eight out of 10 americans say, "no, thank you." 10.t out of
that was the headline then. it is something we should keep in mind now. they asked the same people if we have to pick between coming to a separate peace with hitler or coming to the aid of our british friends, seven out of 10 said yes. living in kentucky, it is a wonderful mix of republican, democrat, and independents. sometimes it is lost people can have contradictions within them. >> is your take on public opinion on this issue? >> i think it is polarized. people often say how hard is it to work for an n.g.o. at the time of backlash against refugees. in some quarters, there's fear of refugees.
for every person the says we do not want refugees moving to our community, there is another part of the community saying we welcome people who are a victim of terror and want to make a new life. we run 26 offices around the u.s. there is polarization. you see that from the polling as well. you see the extraordinary american generosity coming through. people do come around with the cookies when they move in. you also have fear and loathing. as someone who is not an american, it is sad an issue that has been bipartisan for so long should now have this taint. america has been the leader in refugee resettlement for the last 60 years. even after 9/11, the bush administration insisted it will be the place that welcomes people from around the world who want to go through the vetting and make a new life. i think it is very important. if the trump administration goes through with its plan to reduce to less than 50,000 the number of refugees let in, that sends a terrible message around the world.
uganda has one million refugees from south sudan. the average salary is $952 per year. uganda is saying we will take them and look after them until they can go home. there is an important lesson there. >> in terms of something i've seen you talk about recently, the level of the issue you feel is underestimated because the length of displacement people experience has risen sharply. is that right? yes. the average refugees out of the country for 10 years. issues of employment and education become essential. the humanitarian sector does not invest in education. less than 2% of the global humanitarian budget goes to education. you have millions of kids displaced from their homes by conflict and they are not able to get education. one of the things we argue for is we need more aid but we also need a better aid system. i think it is important to say those together. >> president macron has said he intends to keep an open dialogue with president putin and has had meetings already. do you see the tone improving either way? >> no, because there are too
many divided interests. the european interest is in finding ways to stand up. there are members of the european union equally -- who are deeply threatened by what they see as aggressive russia. i think tone matters. but substance matters more. i think we are at a dangerous time because the global system has been built over the last sunday five years and had an american anchor. but it also had other multilateral institutions like the european union. i'm not a boating person, but if you pull up the anchor, the boat starts rocking. that is the danger. it creates space. when the american anchor in the global space is not there, when there is unpredictability, if
you are a small country is a good thing to have up your sleeve. if you are the world's anchor, then actually predictability is very important because you are the benchmark against what everyone else establishes their behavior. especially with the russians, you do not want them testing you out. you want them to know in advance what your own positions are. some of the difficulties of the previous administration were around the. i think it is important the russians do know europe is not going to put up with interference and is going to maintain its position on ukraine. that predictability from great powers is really important. >> at the risk of mixing maritime metaphors, i think ballast is a better one. i think a ballast in a ship can provide stability. i think anchor is not the right one. anchor is fixed in time and place. i think the reality of our world
sitting here in 2017, is not like it was not 70 years ago. a lot of things have changed. sometimes i see people wanting a certain kind of american leadership from the good old days. i think the kind of leadership needs to change. president obama was a wonderful example of how to manage change and provide stability through change. >> i like the ballast idea, but it becomes a dead weight. the agility you are speaking to is really important. but the commitment has got to be there as well. that is where the multilateral and bilateral have got to reinforce each other. it will be a great pity if the u.s. administration only sees the international system as one of bilateral transactions. it cannot be. it has to be a system that has its integrity. >> charlie's sailing viewers will be enjoying this show particularly.
[laughter] >> iraqi forces recapturing mosul and the cease-fire of the last few days starting to be established in syria. is that a groundbreaking change for that region in terms of progress, particularly in terms of what you look at the refugees or is it just a small start? >> i mean, not yet. it is not yet groundbreaking. we have about 1200 people on the ground in syria. we have another several hundred in iraq. more in jordan and lebanon. i was in mosul in march of this year when some people were fleeing. two things struck me very strongly. the people coming out of mosul are traumatized. i mean, they have lived for two and half years under tyrannical rule in fear of death.
the level of trauma, physical trauma and mental bombardment. the second thing that is really important is if there is not serious politics that sunni communities in the middle east can buy into, if sunni communities feel ostracized or under pressure from shia militias and others and there is not a political route to defend themselves in iraq and syria, i am afraid there is going to be fertile ground for isis 2.0 or isis 4.0 to build on. that is why it is not a landmark. it will be a landmark when there is a credible sharing of power. >> in terms of how we got to this position in the first place, your former boss, tony blair, has refused to admit outright the war was a mistake and cause for the situation. is that something you do admit? >> i think it was certainly a mistake. it was a mistake because of the fact the weapons of mass
destruction were not there. it was also a mistake because strategically it did not take into account the position of iran. i am afraid to say it was a military mistake because the war in afghanistan was not finished. i think it is wrong to believe everything that has happened in iraq over the last 15 years is as a result of the invasion. but it is hard to explain anything in iraq without some recognition of the tumult caused not just by the war but the building of the piece was a terrible failure. >> i wanted to switch focus to memories of your time in the united kingdom and ask your view on what difference it makes of having a separate head of state to head of government as the u.k. has and specifically your
memories of her majesty, the queen. >> happy memories on that front. i mean one of the things, serving in your wonderful country, you have a different head of government and state. i was more reminded of how we in this country project onto our president aspects of both. and that is why you see the reaction of people who did not like my former boss and people who do not like the current president, they bring more to that in just policy disagreements. it gets to identity and lots of emotion. that is why i think it is really importantly never forget people always say, what do you think? it is important we ask how
people feel too because that is a big motivator for all of us in our democracies. i got into trouble because i said out loud something you don't say to her majesty. i messed up. i think there may be double jeopardy. i don't think i will get in trouble for saying it again since i messed up once. there was this wonderful moment during my presentation of credentials. i used to work in the internet industry. we talked about technology. i commented because i came in with a top hat and coat, unusual for an american, all these people snapping pictures. the queen said they always used to have cameras to take a picture, but now it is really different. they have these phones and they always stay over their eyes. she said i miss seeing their eyes.
eyes." seeing their and that really struck me. looking at that, you could think this is a one-way thing. the head of state and people snapping pictures. but there is a two-way connection happening and that connection matters. that really stuck with me. >> that is a wonderful memory. david, the leader of your former party -- >> it is not my former party. >> questioning the relevance of the monarchy, would it be a mistake to get rid of the monarchy? >> the remarkable thing about the queen is how she has become this extraordinary figure of respect across every conceivable spectrum of british life. i would be amazed if anyone seriously entertained it.
>> it reminds me of when i was getting briefed to present my credentials to the queen. this nice gentleman was telling me what would happen when. i was sitting with my wife. he said we like to tell all republicans. i must have set up the way you we acted you were referred to as a former member. he said i do not mean that kind of republican. i mean you people from republics. it was hilarious. we do not think of ourselves as americans as from a republic. >> you have spoken finally of your former boss' wife, michelle obama. if she chose to run, would you choose to help her? as aat something you see future?ity in the >> i have no inside knowledge. i think she has ruled it out and so has your wonderful husband. i will add my voice to the chorus of people who think that would be a fantastic idea. >> david, you're still a member of the labour party. you might reenter british politics again? >> some people choose local parties because of what they believe in and not a career move. there is a danger for the u.k. in the discussion we have had is that we become the country that
gets talked about for its monarchy and weddings and funerals and is not part of the international system. we both saw the power the u.k. has in being part of the european union with meetings a year after the brexit referendum. the brexit negotiations are running into terrible trouble. i think it is important for a global leader to hear from an elected representative that the u.k. needs to play a part in global structures if it is to remain more than an object of friendship. it needs to be an object of partnership. it seems that is what is at issue in the serious stakes in the next 18 months when brexit gets negotiated. >> a closing thought. is the united kingdom and united states' relationship weaker than it was between david cameron and barack obama?
>> i don't, i think it's strong and david touched on an important point. there's a funny metric the state department has. it is the measure of how many official visitors come through the capital. when i was sweden, it was not a big number. i think we had 24,000 official visit nights per year coming through london. it speaks to the depth of just the official government relationship. forget the two heads of government and how they might get along. it is the intelligence services. it is our militaries. it is all of these things. that is just official government business. then you layer on the economic ties and social and cultural ties. those things are real and strong and they exist in the millions. and they are the ballast for this relationship. >> we are out of time.
said the artist's job is to be a witness to his time in history. for six decades, he served his role working across media including painting and photography. a new exhibition brings together more than 250 of these works. the retrospective was organized by the curator of painting and sculpture at the museum of modern art who joins me to talk about robert rauschenberg, one of the artists i've had the great pleasure to have known. when you think about him and his art and someone having this kind of retrospective or exhibit among friends within the other great artists like jasper johns. >> and john cage and trisha brown, the list of people he collaborated with is so fundamental to what we think of in terms of culture today. that is how we approached the project. we wanted to show he is an artist who made work in dialogue with other people, and together
they laid the foundation for the art of our moment in time. charlie: what do you hope we will experience as we walk through this exhibition? >> a lot of things. one thing is i have always been skeptical about the idea of individual genius, that you go off and sit and think by yourself and have ideas alone visited by a female muse. that is not the way it works. that is not the way it works in science. that is not the way it works with technological innovation. that is not the way it works in art. we wanted to suggest that through rauschenberg's career, you can celebrate creativity in conversation. of course, he collaborates more than almost anyone else. he is always pulling people into
his projects and finding a way to create new works with someone else. we want people to feel that openness as well. charlie: where did that come from? >> he is certainly a sociable character. everyone speaks about his gregariousness. i think too he learned when he went to black mountain college, which was an open, experimental place. there was dancing and poetry and music, all at the same time. he liked that kind of collaborative approach to making art across disciplines. i don't think he ever left that, never left that behind. charlie: some remarkable people came through that great institution. >> he studied with joseph albers. his teaching had an extraordinary impact on him. he had students gather material, all kinds of material, cigarette butts, leaves, scraps of cardboard, and put them together in new collage combinations. he called them combinations,
too. and so rauschenberg learned that from albers. he met cage and cunningham a little bit before, but he worked with them together to create performance work. charlie: he was close to jasper johns? leah: there were partners from 1954 through 1961. they were together in a creative and romantic partnership you'd a push each other in many ways. in working together, they left the rest of the world behind. they had permission to try things. rauschenberg once wrote that i would give him an idea and he would have to give me one too. they would play a game of thinking out loud and critiquing each other's work. in the show, you have jasper johns' painted bronze, and
you have rauschenberg work in the same vein. charlie: why did they split? leah: i can tell you the answer -- can't tell you about that. charlie: no one has written about that? leah: no, but i know they had an incredible formative impact. partnerships of our time. charlie: who ultimately did he have a great collaborative relationship with? leah: his first was with an artist who became his wife. they met in paris and they went
to black mountain together. i think in many ways, she taught him how to work with someone else. they made great blueprints together. i think that was a young and formative relationship and one of the things that trained him in the idea of dialogue and partnership. he had a multiyear collaborative relationship with cunningham, while he worked making sets, costumes, but more than that, as well. i think he learned from both cunningham and cage about how to think about making art. that was fundamental, as well. charlie: i want to take a look at some of the images we have. this is "untitled" from 1950. leah: this is a work they made right after coming back from the time at black mountain college. they made it in a new york walk-up apartment with ordinary blueprint paper like you would use at an architectural firm.
they would pose on the paper and expose the light. they would have to wash out the developer in the sink. he is asking a kind of question, how can you make a mark of paper that is not a stroke of a brush. out otheru figure ways of making images? and this is one of them. charlie: the next is "erased." leah: this is a collaboration of a different kind. de kooning and jasper johns. the question was asked, how could you make a drawing by erasing? he went to the most charismatic artist at the time, de kooning. jackht a bottle of daniels. knocked on his door.
i love that about rauschenberg, others have their oedipal relationships at a distance but he goes in the commodore. de kooning agreed to give him a drawing that rauschenberg could erase. he sorted through the files and gave him one that he would find very difficult to erase. according to rauschenberg, he spent weeks erasing it. he used many erasers and then did nothing with it, he put it in a drawer. two years later when jasper johns was in his life, it was johns that persuaded him to exhibit it. johns made the label at the bottom. --" --\ charlie: this is called "automobile tire print." rauschenberg and cage. leah: they are living in fulton street. he calls his friend, the composer john cage, and asked him to bring his model a ford. he lays out 20 sheets of
typewriter paper on the ground glued together. he has cage drive the ford through a pool of ink and a very straight along the paper to create this image. he laughed later that kage was printer and press. charlie: the next is called "charlene." leah: this is an extraordinary image. begin to an idea of what rauschenberg's revolution was. he wants to create art that lets the world in. first he put scraps of paper and comics, but soon enough it's a lightbulb in, reflectors, a mirror, all the stuff of the world. i think he is saying that if you want to make art about the real world, it has to include the real world. charlie: next is "bed." 1955.
leah: this is taking the idea a step farther. as all of this is coming into his work, he soon he is making work out of a quilt and pillow. there are strokes on the pillow likely made by another friend. another firend working with him in his studio at that time. suddenly these things that are ordinary objects have an turned into a painting. it makes you ask questions about what is a painting, what are its terms? it suggests a kind of intimacy, a place in which you live. it reconfigures the idea of painting as it had been known before which kept the world out. ♪
♪ josh: i am filling in for charlie. i have the writer, director and producer of the film "band aid." it follows a couple that turns their arguments into songs. the los angeles times calls it a profoundly affecting film that dives into the messy lives. here is the trailer. >> it's one dish. >> one dish. >> you are the dish nazi. >> that is super offensive. i come from a long line of holocaust survivors. >> how could there be a long line of holocaust survivors. >> did you want to --
>> i was thinking we order papa john's. >> these issues may seem trivial but they need to be addressed. >> word you think we go from here? >> i don't know? >> what if we turn our fights into songs? let's start a band. >> i'm in a band myself. it was a solo percussion group. >> let's make a list. our top 10 fights of all time. >> that the dishes are a big one, obviously. >> don't you think you can be a little judgmental? >> you being lazy. distracted. ♪ lazy attitude.
>> unreal. >> i can't relate to the lyrics at all. but i love it. >> this is it. >> that is what every husband wishes their wife would do. >> as a child, i try to save my parents marriage, and now i'm trying to save yours. >> couples fight. what can i tell you? it is how you navigate it that makes the difference. >> i have never seen you two like this. >> i like writing songs with you. >> can i have some ranch?
>> oh, that is a sweet bite. >> that is a tom petty by. -- right. -- josh: i am pleased to have her at this table for the first time. hello. congratulations on the film. zoe: thank you. josh: i wanted to get into the intro that you have also been in four different "law and order" series. i would say this is probably a more significant moment for your career. this is your directing debut. but you have directed films with your husband. zoe: yes. josh: was that the goal? to get to this point? how did this evolve? zoe: i think probably in my
subconscious, this was always the goal, but i don't know i understood that until a few years ago. i have always loved writing and screenwriting and producing, and i think in making the previous features with my husband, that was kind of like all leading to this moment. i don't know that i was aware that those were the steppingstones i was taking. when i wrote this film independent of my husband, once i finished the screenplay, i was like, i think i also want to be the director. when i wrote this film josh: i have seen your previous work. they very much be long on a shelf with this one. it could almost be called a trilogy, dealing with similar things. is that safe to say? do you see a progression in what you are wrestling with in those three films in particular? zoe: i think my work generally explores power dynamics in
modern relationships, which i think is something that i have wrestled with on a personal level but also i feel like the world at large has wrestled with four centuries, and nobody has been able to crack the code no matter how many people attempt to explore it on screen. so yes, i do think it has sort of evolved that expiration into this film ultimately. josh: talk to me a little bit about the music. the music is great in the film appeared you and your costar perform live. and you are awesome in the film and in actuality. this is a real group in a sense. it becomes kind of a real group. zoe: totally. in the movie, we play all the music live.
that to me was important from a directorial standpoint, because i feel like as a viewer when i see a performance portrayed on screen and it is not live, it takes me out of the moment and story. i felt like or this story especially, the imperfections or so much a part of the narrative eared we had to practice as a real band. whog with fred armisen, plays our drummer. without even realizing it, we were becoming a band before production, and after production, we have played gigs and we recorded an album. the band is called the dirty dishes. the album is for download. josh: you are multi platform now. zoe: yes, you have to be. the album cover is in millennial pink, so we are covering all our bases. [laughter] josh: we talked about collaborating with your husband on previous work.
is the only thing more awkward than working with your husband on a romantic comedy not working with your husband on a romantic comedy? zoe: my husband is incredibly supportive of this project and an executive producer, but i had to draw distinct boundaries in terms of what executive producers were allowed. josh: a way to ensure that literally, you cannot be on set. zoe: yeah. i mean, i had to have that conversation. he was, obviously, incredibly excited about the prospect of meat working with an all-female crew.
it wasn't an awkward conversation but it was a new era. josh: is that something you take pride in? i'm sure there have been all-male crews in the past, they are just called crews. [laughter] josh: what is the breakdown in your experience of male and female on a crew? zoe: i mean, on a crew, i would say generally speaking, there are two to three women on a crew of 40 people. again -- that is not counting hair and makeup, that probably adds to it. the numbers are staggeringly small. i actually did go through the amount of production i have been in as an actress, just over 40, and the number of female vp's i've worked with, which were three. you can see how drastic the underrepresentation is of women behind the camera. i think it was for me, important to subvert that, it also was just exciting to me. luckily it exceeded my expectations. they were very high. no, everyone should do it. it is a magical thing. i think it is so rare to experience that even some of the women i hired were skeptical
about it. i think it was really cool to see on our first day on set just what that felt like and see the perception of what we were doing shift so concretely. it added to a sense of electricity on set, because i think every woman on the set has been the only woman on a set. to be amongst so many female
peers and have so much creative autonomy in that way and not be the minority and not be afraid to use your voice i think was exciting. josh: that last aspect is the curious part. butalked about this before, the fact that when you are in the significant minority, there is a power dynamic shift where maybe you are less apt to speak up and be collaborative. have you experienced that from your vantage point on a set where you felt like, it is not my place to speak, for whatever reason? zoe: i think actors are in a slightly different boat. there obviously gender disparities and inequities with the actors, too. josh: we is not solved that one. zoe: we are working on it. in any facet of life, i think
women are raised to take up as little space as possible. there has been a lot of jokes and sketches around women apologizing for giving an opinion, but that is a real thing. i thought it was really interesting to be in a creative space where nobody felt the need to apologize. josh: there is a great discussion going on. if you look at the narrative around movies now, there are great discussions going on. wonder woman is a success, sophia coppola at cannes, you are a success. these things are hopefully going to make the stakes less important so that if wonder woman fails, we don't have to wait 10 more years for another opportunity.
zoe: yeah, i know. i know. i do think that is -- yes, the pressure is so much greater for a woman to succeed and she is the only one doing that thing. it is great to see someone like patty jenkins succeed on that scale and break so many their barriers. it has been a good summer for women behind the camera. "band aid" opened the same weekend as "wonder woman." i think it is interesting, the dialogue around gender disparity in hollywood is really big, there is a lot of talk, but it is about how to turn that into action and how we can continue to shift the paradigm. josh: this film, i think anyone who sees it and is a fan of film, sees echoes of woody allen or cassavetes. i saw some great echoes. in terms of a theme and honesty, what is think is a hallmark of some of the greatest films of this genre, but also a stylistic
point of view, there is a verite, a rawness. zoe: i would say that is the perfect complement, that it is a love child of allen and cassavetes. we watched "husband and wives" a lot to prepare for it. i wanted to, i guess, shift what that looks like generally in this country. i think there is often a formula for the aesthetic around relationship comedy, especially indie relationship comedy. i just thought the verite aesthetic, when it comes to much more bleak and dramatic work
like cassavetes would be amazing to apply to a comedy and see how it would translate. and as an actor, i was excited to do that. itshot with two cameras and handheld. there was an urgency to performance because you have cinematographers following you around. i really wanted, i wanted the viewer to almost feel voyeuristic. there are some scenes that veer into dramatic territory where i think i did wanted to feel like you were watching something that maybe he should not be. josh: exactly. your film career, your best roles have probably been once you have written or cowritten for yourself. >> oh, thanks.
[laughter] >> that is a sad function, i guess, of where we are at, but also a curiosity. is that part of the impetus in creating works, especially for feature films? while there has been some reporting stuff, i am sure, especially on the tv side, that only film side this is what you have to do to get it done to make yourself feel artistically rewarded? zoe: yes. i think in an actor in the film space, that is 100% true. i've had to carve out opportunities for myself as a response to them not being handed to me. [laughter] zoe: i think the film landscape has changed and continues to evolve. even in the indie world, the number of viable actresses to be leading ladies continues to be smaller and smaller.
to some extent, that is a sheep mentality. who is the it girl of the moment? but i think it's also about who is financable. in the early days of independent so making it was not as big of a question. i think that has been a big part of why i have created work in addition to the purity of the artistic expression. it is to give myself those opportunities. josh: are those worth making? zoe: i have been very fortunate in at least the last five years to work pretty consistently in television. josh: right. which just from a livelihood standpoint, that allows me to make my own work. but in the hiatus when i'm not working, there is a search for homework and meaningful film work. i am very much an actor for hire simultaneously. i don't think it is a question
or any sort of conflict, it is just about finding material that feels like it is inspiring and challenging. josh: i think most people, again, who are fans of the film medium, it is an interesting time. there was an article that was in the washington journal, "the end of the feature film." zoe: oh my god. josh: yes, i felt the same way. the content, there is less of a differentiation. "game of thrones" episodes are 90 minutes now. brad pitt films are made by netflix to go straight to television. did you grow up with a love of film? what is your take on the shifting paradigm and do you have more optimism than i do that film will succeed? just give me something.
give me some hope. [laughter] zoe: you know, i think obviously it is a strange time for filmmaking because there is so much content, especially on television, especially on streaming. it allows viewers to jump from drastically different mediums and genres. from the comfort of your own couch. to me, the eager question is -- the bigger question is what will happen to the cinema going audience, because i think they are a dying breed. to put movies in theaters that are not tentpoles, and i think that is where films are most struggling right now. i don't have an answer for you, but i will say that we can be