tv Charlie Rose PBS December 1, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST
>> welcome to the program, charlie is away tonight traveling on assignmentment i'm jeff glor of cbs news. we begin with an update on the conflict in syria. and in the region with jim jevvrey and richard fontaine. >> the danger here is, in fact, with some degree of good faith a new administration will try to cut some kind of deal with russia in order to team up against isis perhaps with or without the a sad regime. that is very unlikely to lead to any sort of success, both because of russia but also because the continued civil war in syria drifen by a sad and the russian is derifing the forces that lead to extremism and isis, and so we should not be in a position where we are giving concessions to the russians only to have them be either unable to be. >> we continue by looking at
theranos with john carreyrou and michael siconolfi of the the wage wawj. >> she came out of stanford with this vision of trying to revolutionize medicine with blood testing that would be done on very small samples of blood, either priked from the arm, at first prked from the arm then priked from the finger and the test would be done quickly, off just this painless pin prik, and then you would be able to diagnose a bunch of conditions from that. and that was pretty transform tiff, if it was achievable, if the company could do it, it really meant big changes in medicine and in the laboratory testing industry. so the vision was a powerful one that a lot of people bought into. but again, the people who invested early knew they were facing a young lady who had just graduated and who might fail as
most entrepreneurs in silicon valley failed. >> we conclude with amy adams. she spoke to a.o. scott at the "new york times" about her two new films, arrival and nocturnal animals. >> i'm definitely hard on myself and work really hard but i'm so much more relaxed than i was when i started. i'm not sure if that is reflected in the work or the characters are just more relaxed. but i feel more relaxed. and i love the stories that i get to tell. an i feel really grateful. i'm in a really great spot as far as gratitude goes. and so i think i am able to approach things from a different point of view as opposed to feeling like i'm going to get found out. i think every actor talks about that feeling of getting found out. and now i'm sort of like well, if i get found out, well, it's been a nice run, i guess. >> syria, theranos and amy adams when at the continue. >> rose: fnding for charlie rose is provided by the following:
>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> good evening, charlie is traveling on assignment, i'm jeff glor of the cbs news, we begin with the battle over aleppo which has been described as oneu n official as a quote di sent into hell. earlier today the security council held an emergency meeting to discuss the humanitarian dises as ter there. civilians are fleeing by the thousands as the a sad regime continues to launch air strikes on eastern aleppo. the syrian president has vowed to take all of the city and its forces have made raped inroads since saturday. aleppo is the opposition's last urban stronghold. seizing it would signal a huge victory for the a sad regime. joining me now from washington is richard fontaine, is he
president of the center for new american security. also ambassador james jevvrey, he is a distinguished fellow at the washington institute for near east policy. i'm pleased to have both of them on this program. gentlemen, welcome to you. richard, if i could, let me start with you. at this moment where is aleppo? >> well, aleppo is in dire straits. the a sad regime in-- the assad regime in coordination with the russian air force and some of the iranian support on the ground has been launching a months and months long offensive that is coming to freuician. now parts of eastern aleppo where the opposition was have fallen. and people are fleeing the city or just trying to hunker down under these really intense air strikes that both are launching there. and so assad hopes to seal up or fall into his hands in the coming days or weeks. >> jim, is this the turning point? >> this is the turning point,
not just for the war in syria but for what is going on below the surface in the middle east which is an iranian grab by power enabled since last area by putin without very much pushback by the united states. and that is the underlying problem that has us all, and people in the region really scared right now. >> we can and they can properly credit russian influence for this? >> absolutely. >> richard, there's been a lot of talk about the new administration and what impact they have on this. i know that secretary kerry i think has been trying to broker some sort of last-minute deal before the current administration leaves. i'm not sure what interest the russian presidency has in making a deal now when they can just wait for the next administration to come in. but what does that incoming january administration mean? >> well, first on secretary is kerry's efforts, the motive is admirable but he has no real leverage to work with. and this is coming at a time
when both the russians and the assad regime believe they're winning, not losing. so their appetite to stop fighting is going to be approximately zero. so i'm afraid that that is very unlikely to go anywhere. the next administration then will come into office having inherited an assad regime with russian support that is on the march, but without the man power necessary to retake the entire country, at least not without importing literally thousands of fighters from iran. and so there will be pockets of isis and pockets of the opposition outside major urban areas left. and the administration is going to have to make a very early decision about how to treat assad and how to treat the opposition, whether to continue to support the opposition and try to see the eventual departure of assad or not. >> so far the incoming administration and donald trump in particular have shown great skepticism toward the
opposition. >> absolutely. his focus has been on fighting isis. that's what his base is concerned about. it's an important goal. it's something we should do. in fact we should do it in a more aggressive manner than we are right now in mosul but it's not the most serious threat to us in the region. that threat comes from iran, backed by russia in an effort for iran to develop a regional-- and for russia as part of its overall effort to overthrow the post world war ii order. >> so an enormous amount has been made of the relationship or not or discussions or not between the president-elect and the russian president. i wonder about what you-- what you expect from the relationship between the next administration and iran. >> i would say that if president trump thinks he can cut a deal and split the world with vladimir putin, putin is going to disappoint him very, very quickly and if the president then doesn't pifout he will
preside over the biggest disaster in american foreign policy and boy that's saying a lot, since 1945, so those are the stakes right now. >> richard? >> yeah, and if i might just add to this, i think the danger here is that in fact with some degree of good faith, the new administration will try to cut some kind of deal with russia in order to team up against isis, perhaps with or without the assad regime that is very unlikely to lead to any sort of success both because of russia but also because the continued civil war in syria drifen by assad and the russians is derifing the forces that lead to extremism in isis. and so we should not be in a position where we are giving concessions to the russians only to have them be either unable to deliver or simply pocket them and disappoint us. >> in terms of the time frame for how long the eastern portion of aleppo might have left, where do you believe we're at? >> this is a question of weeks
before the assad forces particularly backed by iranian and hezbollah infantry and russian air attacks are being to overrun the place. there's no doubt there have momentum right now. they seized over a thrd of the city in the past five days. and i see the end very much in sight for aleppo. >> jim, if basha-- bashar all assad is able to survive and extend his administration indefinitely, what sort of a country does he preside over? >> he will be presiding over a country that will become an essential vassal state of iran. i sound like i keep harping on this but it is what everybody in the region tells us at the highest levels when we go out there. aleppo is gee graphically important as well because it links to the kurdish syrian areas in the north of the country and they link in turn to areas of iraq where iran is expanding its own influence. so you will have a corridor between iran and aleppo down to
damascus, becca valley into the hezbollah areas of lebanon and the mediterranean. this is a strategic game changer. iran and russia will prop assad up and continue to support him in fighting the insurgence, perhaps eventually fighting isis in order to preserve this geo strategic trump that they have. >> you bring up iraq as wellment how does this factor in. >> iraq is part of the overall campaign if the region. eye raj-- iraq is focused on fighting isis. for the moment that has unified everyone. iran, the various iraqi factions and the united states and the coalition. as soon as mosul is overrun by coalition forces that will take some time, there will be a reckoning in iraq where iran will try to play its hand and the united states will have to decide once again as in syria, as in yemen, as elsewhere, are we in this game, are we going to watch? >> richard what is next in mosul? >> well, the fighting there is likely to continue for several months. it's been-- become kind of a
bloc by bloc approach where the coalition forces are moving in. but the isis individuals who are hunkered down in the city would rather fight to the death than to flee out into the desert and be captured. in addition to a number of ied's and booby traps and things like that. so it is slow-going in terms of the fighting. i think it will fall to the coalition forces. and the big question becomes what is next. what is the day after look like. and the iraqi government is still mulling over plans for exactly how mosul will be governed. you have the iraqi security forces active there. you have shia militia, the upon lar mobilization forces that are deployed not too far to the west. you have a kurdish con tinning ent up there and you have american advisors. and you have turks in the area as well. and everybody wants to have a say in what comes next and it hasn't been sorted out precisely what does come next.
>> iraqi leadership gave some interviews this week where i think they indicated they suspect that the incoming administration will provide them more logistical support in their fight against isis. do you, richard, to you first, do you suspect that's the case as well? >> well, i certainly hope so. it's been hard to parse exactly what the new administration is going to do on any of these big questions of syria or isis or iraq. there are the statements that the president-elect made on the campaign trail. but you have to contrast this with some of the folks with extensive knowledge of the region and experience there who may be coming into some of the foreign policy positions of leadership. so it's unclear precisely what will be on offer to the iraqis. but certainly strengthening the iraqi security forces and having the united states be more politically relevant in iraq and not creeding the political influence to iran is going to be an important part of that successful strategy over the coming months. >> jim, the president-elect on the campaign thrail talked about seizing some soil production from iraq as payment for the
help that has been provided by the united states. is that a realistic scenario at all? >> no, and i don't think he thinks it is a realistic scen ar yovment he has as richard pointed out real decisions to make. i think he can make them and will make them concerning isis in iraq. this is easy to up our game there. make of how different candidates might affect both of the countries and the entire region that we are talking about here. >> most importantly, the president determines foreign policy, in part because he or she is the president, in part because many of the tools, economic and defense don't reside in the state department. secondly the most important thing is the president needs someone he can trust to be the secretary of state. beyond that, experience,
background, temperment, those are all important. but those first two characteristics really are to be focused on. >> we talked a lot about iran here. it's impossible to discuss the region without. but the president-elect as well has talked about the nuclear deal and enormous amount. what might you expect from the administration on that? >> well, the president-elect is suggested that he will walk away from the deal or tear it up, in some way. which at this point into the deal having already given the iranians a significant amount of sanctions relief, not just from the united states but also from our negotiating partners, we by walking away would be relieving iran of the continued nonprolive raise obligations that it's made in the course of the deal. and i suspect that when they take a look at this, they will look instead of starying up the deal, at better ways to insure there is enforcement in terms of the deal, very strict
enforcements, penalties for violations of the deal and also this bigger question that in some ways we've been talking about throughout this segment which is how do you deal with all the other nonnuclear mall ian activities that iran is engaged in in the region particularly in iraq and syria. what is the american policy to push back against those. >> jim, from what you have been able to gather, is there any sort of a trump sort of foreign policy doctrine? >> certainly it's to make america strong. there's a lot of support for that i think that is his instinct. secondly, to listen to military leaders once he finds military leader he's comfortable with, and he will. and thirdly, to fight terror and that certainly is something that we need to do. but how we fit into the far bigger problems are global security that we have been dealing with since the second world war, i don't see the outline of a trump policy so far. but there will be one, i'm sure, one or another sort.
>> reu67d, same question to you. >> jim is right. i think the president-elect is drawing a rather narrow view of america's national interest, protect against terrorism, so forth. but there are a number of forces that are connected to that. so in order to fight terrorism, the united states is going to have to do more than just target terrorists. it's going to have to be involved to some degree in the politics of the region. it's going to have some presence in the middle east and so forth. more broadly speaking, globally, the president-elect during the campaign sketched out a view of this sort of broader international order that showed america's getting a raw deal of some elements of this, bad trade deals. alliances where we pay too much in our allies enjoy too much protection. things like that, why do we have to step up instead of local forces around the world and so forth. you know, how he approaches america's set of responsibilities and then tries to turn those into benefits for the people who put him into
office i think will be the key foreign policy question for his administration. >> jim, how long does it typically take for the, we talk about the doctrine or philosophy, whatever it is, to play itself out in an incoming administration? >> first of all, it is shaped to some degree by the individuals picked if they have the president's confidence. secondly, it's shaped by events on the ground. the best example is how 9/11 shaped and changed george w. bush's worldview. and thirdly, it's based upon where the president eventually wants to bring this country at the end of his four or eight years. >> james jevvrey, ambassador james jevvrey and richard fontaine, president for the center for new american security, we appreciate both of yufer time tonight, thank you. >> thank you, thank you. >> elizabeth holmes set out to revolutionize the blood testing industry when she founded theranos in 2003 at the age of 19, by 2015 the biotech startup
was valued at $9 billion making her the world's youngest self-made billionaire. in just a few short months it all began to unravel. last fall an investigative report published in "the wall street journal" revealed significant cracks in theranos. calling into question the accuracy and legitimacy of the company's technology. since then the company has come under federal criminal probes, including whether it mislead investors. elizabeth holmes has also been banned from the blood testing industry for at least two years. joining me now are john carreyrou and michael siconolfi, they are both from "the wall street journal," the team that has covered this story from the beginning. i'm pleased to have both of them at this table, welcome, gentlemen. this has been 13, 13 months of reporting in the journal but longer than that, actually looking into theranos. so john, let me start with you. when did you first get an indication that something might be amiss? >> so there was a new yorker piece in december of 2014, a profile, a long profile of
elizabeth holmes. and that piece both put her on my radar. she had gotten a fair amount of press, but i hadn't paid much attention until i saw that story. and in addition to putting her on my radar just in general, there were a couple of passages that i thought were strange in that piece. i had done an investigative reporting about health care for most of the past decade. and having a fairer amount of experience, there were some passages that seemed off to me. i probably wouldn't have done anything with that but a couple weeks later i got a tip. >> which passages, when she was talking about what? >> there was-- there were a couple sceptical passages in the piece about the regulatory sort of noman's land that this company was sort of charting, its path through. then there was also a paragraph in which the writer asked her
how the technology worked. and she sort of danced around the issue but then gave a sort of a ham handed description that seemed almost childish of, you know, a chemical experiment. and so those passages caught my eye but to be fair i might not have done anything with it if i hadn't had a tip f the tip hadn't come to me two or three weeks later. >> so talk about that tip. >> so this was a person, the best way to sum it up, a person who had talked to a person who had talked to a recently departed employee. and you know, the thrust of the message was things were not as they seemed at theranos, that beneet this glowing coverage in the press, there were serious problems and that someone ought to be looking too it. so i pulled on that string over the course of the following weeks and got back to the
primary source, the recently departed employee. and then built from there. >> just for context, i might add it took ten months from the time of that original tip to publish in the story. that's how long it took for john to unravel things. for context, john mentioned his expertise for health care. he knows health and science really well. but i think also what helped you, john, was the fact that you were looking at this with an outsider's lens. this was not someone who was part of silicon valley and the whole sort of ecosystem there. and i think it allowed you to sort of have a skepticism and freedom to be able to write about it that is sometimes difficult when are you in the midst of silicon valley. the outsider lens helped a lot. >> there were so many players that it would be difficult to cover talking for a day about all of it. but just about ten days or so ago you came out with the article on tyler schultz, the grandson of former secretary of state george schultz. tyler schultz left the company, he was a whistle-blower, in your
description, created controversy, big controversy inside his own family as well. he was one of the first people you spoke to about what was allegedly going on. >> he wasn't the first person i talked to, and he wasn't the first source. he perhaps was not the most important source. he was an important source, and an important corroborating source. and i learned of his existence from the first source. and figured i would try to reach out to him. so i looked him up on linkedin. and used this great function on linkedin, the inmailing function and set him an in-mail, essentially an email through linkedin. and didn't hear anything back for three weeks. and suddenly you know almost a mnt later i am at my desk in the middle of the afternoon, my phone rings.
i pick it up and it's hi, it's tyler. >> you wrote me. >> from a burner phone. >> from a burner phone. and he said he was gone from the company at that point. he had been gone from the company almost a year at that point, 11 months. >> as you're tracking this down then, when you approached your editors about what to do, and about what sort of help you needed, how did that team then coa less? >> it was, i describe the early goings as seeing if there is anything to this. really you know, let's see if really there is a story here at all, and let's try to understand the issues. and so i don't-- i don't think that we necessarily were convinced we had a story for quite some time, for many weeks.
gradually i think as i got people to talk to me and mostly off the record, unfortunately, because all these people were former employees and had signed nda's, there was no way i would get em this on the record. so i had to do a lot of corroborating, as we got to a certain level, a crit mall kaz of information from these ex-employees, we became convinced there was a piece, and an important one and one that touched on the public health. >> schultz said he felt pressure from his family and was followed by veggers hired by theranos. were you followed, do you believe at any point? was there any sort of-- i know you came under immense pressure from the company and others. but maybe you can talk about that process a little bit. >> i don't know if i was followed, if i were to find out that i was, it wouldn't surprise me. tyler and i met again in may of this year on the stanford campus.
and message was passed on to tyler via his grandfather within a few days of that meeting, that theranos was aware we had met again. >> can i ask you something about the pressure that john faced. the journal was threatened twice with lawsuits from theranos by david boys, one of the most high profile shall it-- in the nation. john's thowrs sources were threatened with litigation. theranos executives sought to have them recant and write statements that john had misquoted them. and in fact there was even one moment after one of john's stories, i think it was in the cafeteria of theranos where elizabeth holmes was talking about the story that john had done. and it was a fair amount of anger in the room. and suddenly a chant started. carreyrou, carreyrou. and then it grew to be f you
carreyrou, so there were attacks that john was facing with frequent see. and to his credit, he brushed them off and was particular sticking to the story. but there were some real personal elements elements to tt john had to face. >> never mind the fact that the owner of your nup is an enormous investor of theranos. >> yes, we recently found that out. and i have to tell you, it is a point of pride for us. because the journalists are independent, that the journal exhibited in this was extraordinary. there was absolutely no interference of any kind at any point. the relevant editors handled the story from the get-go. i have to tell that you john and i had enormous support from the editor in chief to the great lauers that we've got to the vetters to the page one editors. we had enormous-- it was a team effort, enormous amount of support and never was anything but just you know keep going. >> we should say rupert murdoch not the only big name investor in theranos. elizabeth holmes was able to secure some enormous
contributions from some enormously popular and influential people at a very young age. >> yes. >> there are really two categories of investors. there is the people who came in early when she was-- she had just dropped out of stanford and she was a 19, 20 year old people like tim draper, the famous venture capitalist whose daughter was a childhood friend of elizabeth. he put in the first million. there was also larry el ison, larry elison came in in the first few years. don lucas who had groomed larry elison as a entrepreneur, and vp, all those people were there at the beginning. they knew what they were getting into. they knew this was essentially a kid with a great idea. and they knew that the company could either succeed or as most often is the case, fail. then there is another category of investors, the people without came in and ponied up most of the money. and that was in early-- stretching from early 2014 to early 2015. and that's really when you look
at how much money the company raised, that is when most of the money was raised. >> at just the wrong time. >> first 133 million dollars of the 725 million was raised between 2014 and 2015. >> just before-- before work began. >> the last chunk of it was raised in march 2015, two months after i had started looking into the company. >> so how was it based on your reporting that someone at that age, started the company at the age of 19, was able to raise plenty of money in her mid 20st, tens of millions if not hundreds 6 millions of dollars, then more money poured in when she was 29 or 30 years old work was it that she was able to say and do based on what you have been able to gleen to get that, to get that cash? >> well, she came out of stanford with this vision of you know trying to revolutionize medicine with blood testing that would be done on very small samples of blood, either priked
from the arm, at first priked from the arm then became priked from the finger. and the tests would be done quickly, off just this painless pin prik, and then you would be able to diagnose a bunch of conditions from that. and that was pretty transform tiff. if it was achievable, if the company could do it it, it really meant big changes in medicine and in the laboratory testing industry. so the vision was a powerful one that a lot of people bought into. but again, the people who invested early knew they were facing a young lady who had just graduated and who might fail as but you know, i think theicon wns in all of this in some ways in addition to the investors were the patients. so you had one of the colleagues chris weaver did a powerful story about the patients who had results that they couldn't rely on and it set them off into
various agonizing moments. i mean one in particular, a 60 year old woman ho had breast cancer, double mastectomy, she had a theranos test for an estrogen hormone. she gets the results back. they are off the charts high indicating it could be a rare tumor or maybe even a recurrence of the cancer. she of course freaks out. she talks to her doctor. they go to another blood lab. and for ten days she's agonizing over this, then she gets the results back a in fact the results were perfectly normal. a lot of these paties didn't hear for months that results were unreliable. as a matter of fact, after john's reporting and the centers for medicaid services stepped in, and sanctioned the company, that tense of mows of reports were deemed to be unreliably avoided or otherwise throneout. and so there was a lot of-- there is a human toll to this that i think is important
to note as well. >> we've seen the stories you've done on some of the patients who were misdiagnosed at times. did the patients then, do the patients complain at a state or federal level or was it mostly the folks inside the company who raised concerns? >> well, it was both. and those were two threads that i was pursuing during the ten-months leading up to the first story. one was the employees with major misgivings about what they were seeing, because precisely of the impact on the public health. and then at the other end in the phoenix area which is where the company launched most of its first set of testing sites, there were patients who were getting results that were alarming, one patient in particular had to go to the emergency room for four hours on the eve of thanksgiving. and you know, being put through health care, having to shoulder all these additional expenses and then learning when the hospital labs come back that nothing is wrong, but these
patients, they trust their doctor and so the patients, i think, for the most part were trying to figure out what was going on with their doctors. and then the doctors were beginning to suspect that something, something was badly wrong with the blood tests. i think that was just beginning to sort of coa less when i got there. i went to phoenix for a week and did some on the ground reporting there. >> where is she, what is she up to now. what is the-- what is her condition as best you can gather? >> she is still running theranos. a lot of people wonder why is she still running theranos given everything that has happenedment one very simple answer to that is she owns more than half of the equity of the company. so she is really in the driver's seat. the board of directors of theranos probably can't even unseat her if it wanted to do that. >> elizabeth holmes is theranos and theranos is elizabeth holmes. >> so to what extent is theranos technology being used? >> it's not being used at all in
the sense that the company has now shut down its blood draw sites. it had blood draw sites in about 45 stores. most of them in the phoenix area. made the decision-- sorry, in walgreen stores and made the decision. >> walgreen's has sued them. >> walgreen's now sued them. those blood draw sites have been shut down. what the company is pifouting to is trying to commercialize this new device called the mini lab. and it is hoping that if it can run studies showing that this device is reliable and accurate, that it can then persuade the fda to a plof it for sale and to then sell it to other labs and hospitals and doctors offices. that is the new business plan. but it's going to be an uphill climb because you know, running a trial, running a study is a costly thing and it's also a lengthy process. and they're only now beginning
to do the real val daition studies to try to prove 245 their mini lab is accurate and reliable. that work is starting now. the question is whether the company is going to have, you know, the staying power, the life expectancy to see that process through. >> cash is dwindle. they are not going to be able to raise any more money any time soon stsm a finnity period they can get things done and they have a lot of legal costs in the mean time. >> these big name investors then are still task etly backing the company or-- what is their situation at this point? >> some of them are trying to sell back their shares for symbolic dollar so that they can claim big tax losses. others are still backing the the company and then others are suing. wall greens is an investor, as a result of having loan theranos a lot of money and some of those loans are convertible into equity. a san francisco hedge fund
called partners fund management has sued as well it invested 96 million dollars in february 2014, it now wants that money back. >> walgreen's, one more note about that, they were an important lever in all of this. because john mentioned the 40 some stores that you could go to a walgreen pharmacy and get your blood drawn. but they had plans for a long, years long partnership where theran sos blood tester were going to be in thousands of walgreen's around the nation. so before this all came to light, that is what we were moving toward. and walgreen i think found out that they had been mislead or they believe they were mislead he nishally about the prospects. but even during the course of john's reporting, they were-- they claim in litigation now that they were not aware of the develop ams that were taking place. they were basically reading about it in the journal. in fact, in the suit that walgreen's filed they said that more than 11% of all walgreen's customers who had their blood drawn at theranos sites and
their pharmacies, you know, had unreliable sites, this prevoided, it was a pretty big number. >> you can imagine the number of people that would have been, if they had rolled out those blood draw sites throughout the 8,000 walgreen's across the country, i mean the potential for a real harmful errors would have grown expo tension nee. >> an extraordinary series of reportings from the team of "the wall street journal" on the theranos story, we thank you both for joining us, john carreyrou and michael siconolfi. >> thank you. >> good evening, i'm a.o. scott from "the new york times," in for charlie rose who is away on assignment. amy adams is here. she is is a five-time academy award nominated actress am and here is a look at some of her work. >> look. >> stop chasing me, he is 28
years old. why would you laugh at me? >> i want to know your name. tell me your name. >> are you wearing any makeup? cuz you could wear more if you wanted to. you are so tall, i'm fair. but i like to experiment with a lot of different looks. were you born in chicago? i was born right here, lived hear my whole life. my favorite animal is the merekat. they are so cute, i have got this little charm bracelet with merekats do you have lots of boyfriends, i bet you did. did you ever try out for tried out but i didn't make it. >> like a bug. you're beautiful. >> how many children do you have? >> she had six. >> what do you want to be when you tbroa up? >> you just don't like him.
you don't like it that he uses a ball point pen. you don't like it that he takes three lumps of sugar in his tea am you don't like it that he likes frosty the snowman and are you letting that convince you of something ternl, just terrible. >> well, i like frosty the snowman. and i think it would be nice if this school weren't run like a jail and i think it's a good thing that i love to teach history and that i might inspire my students to love it too. and if you judge that to mean that i am not fit to be a teacher, than so be it. >> you may think that boning a duck is an impossible feat and the whole procedure. >> nothing is impossible. >> it may take 45 minutes the first time because of fear. don't be afraid. >> no fear, julia. no fear. >> and this is where we are at. at the lowest level, do i we have to explain ourselves, for what, for what we do, we have to
graphel. the only way to defend ourselves is to attack. if we don't do that, we will lose every bat theal we are engaged in. we will never dominate our environment the way we should unless we attack. >> he doesn't love you, he loves mement and you know it. and i know it and he knows it. and it might be done now but it d we loved each other.as real. you scare him and you manipulate him. and you use your son. >> she's currently starring in two films now playing in theaters, arrival and nocturnal animal. this week she will receive a tri beutd at the gotham independent film awards for her acting career. i'm so pleased to have amy adams back at this table. welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> i done know where to begin, that body of work. they are some of my favorite movies right there. >> thank you. >> but let's start with the new ones with arrival. in which you
play, i don't want to give too much away. this is one of these movies that the plot is a very delicate thing you don't want to spoil. but you play a linguist who is-- is hired or kind of drafted into this project of-- these aliens have landed, they're hovering above the earth and you have to figure out their language. >> exactly, yes. desiefering an alien an language. >> so what attracted you to this one? this is an unusual kind of science fiction movie. this is not your typical alien invasion movie by any means. >> no, i think that is one of the things that i was attracted to when i first started reading it. it felt really different. in the first pages, as it opened. but you know, upon finishing it, which i always sound cagey when i'm talking about film, like i don't know what it's about. but when i finished reading it i had to go back and read it again. and that was compelling to me. and then meeting with denis, who
say wonderful, wonderful filmmaker. such a compassionate man, very soft spokeen. he has had a wonderful way of speaking about his intention and what he wanted to do and the story he was going to tell. it felt really different and really special, i wanted to be a part of it. >> talk a little bit about the character. because there is sort of a lot going on. she is a scientist, but there is a kind of, an interesting emotional dimension to the story, if you can say figure without giving away the secret. >> absolutely. there is a-- you know, i'm playing somebody who is, has sort of a heavyweight on her shoulders of an emotional experience in her life. and that's sort of the journey we take the audience on. with her, this is where i start to sound like i don't know what my character is doing, you know, because i don't want to give anything away. but after you see the film you
will understand that there is, it was interesting preparing for the role because i really wanted it to work on the first viewing but also to hold up on the second. and so that is the tricky thing is creating an emotional life that could not you know, didn't play the hand too quickly, but at the same time, if you went back and watched it, it would still hold up it was pretty tricky preparing. >> yeah. >> that's what i wanted to ask you about right now. we have to almost-- in code. >> i know, it's so funny. >> but there's sometng about your character that the first time you see the movie, you will assume to be true. and then you will discover isn't. >> isn't. >> and that is crucial to the emotional, to the sort of the emotional temper ture, emotional reality that the character is living in. so you kind of, it's fascinating to-- i wonder how you did that so that it could play both ways. >> yeah, i mean you just have to prepare a character and that has
her own life experiences, her own weight outside of what the audience believes is happening. and at the same time, understanding that the character, louis, is going through this at the same time the audience is. so what she is learning, she is learning it with the audience. and so once you realize that it's a different experience. it was tricky. it was tricky. and again denis was really great about sort of taking the temperature all the time about where we were emotionally. and was one of the things we had a lot of conversations about is sort of how we could create this sense of emotional truth while at the same time having to play these two realities. >> yeah. >> well, let's look at a clip where you first introduce yourself tho to these, i guess they're called the o pods, seven feet.
>> what is that? is that a new symbol, i can't tell. >> dr. banks? what are you doing? are you insane. >> they need to see me. >> taking off her hazmat, are you okays, you risk con tame nation. >> they need to see me. >> she's walking towards the screen. within mow that's a proper introduction. >> that's such an amazing scene because at this point, as you were saying, the audience is going along with the character. and learning what there is to learn.
and nobody knows, are these creatures do they mean us harm. what do they want. >> yeah, what is their purpose? >> and how do they communicate. and i think that here the quality that your character has that's so crucial to the movie is this empathy that she realizes that well, whoever they are, whatever they are, you can't just talk to them from behind a screen, you have to show. >> exactly. >> find some connection. >> in speaking with, in sort of learning about linguists, one of the things i had assumed that they were more translators. but really so many of them do field work and go into these communities to try to preserve indigenous languages and that was something i found fascinating. and having to become an very empathetic person, being not able to make judgements to stay open to receiving the information from people. so although it it seems highly intellectual and that can seem sort of cold at times tment is
this wonderful warm science by the way because it deals with socialio logical studies and throw po logical studsees and there are so many-- and that kind of gave me a place to start about how she would approach it, compassionately. >> yeah. well, it's interesting. so many of the times when you see scientists in the movies, they are physicists or engineers. and linguisticsk i'm not sure i can think of another movie where the hero is a linguist. >> yay, linguists. >> yeah. >> and this movie also is unusual, i think as a science fiction movie because it isn't ultimately about the technology as much as about the kind of feeling, the emotion, the sort of. >> it's very tonal and you know, not in a way that i think keeps it from being accessible. and it still creates suspense all of that wonderful, those wonderful elements you want in a
science fiction movie but it is a much more quiet film that than that. when we shot it, it was the most calm, quiet sense that i have ever been on. which is strange for a science fiction movie. but it was calm. like i said, denis is so compassionate so that calmness sort of translates but then it's filled with these wonderful sounds and the wonderful music. >> yeah. >> by jo hand, jo hanson which i love saying. >> and i wonder too, given that it is, itself, there is a lot of technology, let's say, that went into making the movie. and producing these affects. and yet the acting is so intimate and so quiet, and so kind of not always wall but it feels like a very different kind of piece in that way. and i was wonder when i see performances like this, you know, and kind of the
authenticity of feelings, that you managed to sumon, how you do it when you are, you know, where you are not interacting with another person or another actor. >> but with a screen. >> yeah. >> with a screen, with a screen. i don't know, it's one of those-- i think our job as actors is to create that which isn't there. and whether that's a relationship with jeremy, i have him to work off of. but still we're creating a relationship between two characters that really don't exist except on the page. and so i kind of feel like it's an extension of that. and so the relationships that i create with them and the wonder and the sense of a-w, and the fear, all of these things existing at the same time. it feels real to me when i'm doing it. one of those, you you feel kind of crazy but it feels very real. >> as you were talking about, you are-- i was thinking about
the sort of the little greatest hits montage that we started out with. and that takes us back now more than ten years. >> and i, i wonder if your sense of it or your approach to it has changed in that time or if you feel differently about it. >> i feel a lot different than i did. i mean when i started, i had a similar approach as far as sort of technical, you know, approach. but i feel calmer. i don't feel-- i feel really open and sort of willing to do characters that can have sort of a subtle interior life and just trust that that is enough, you know? i am very calm in that, you know. it's a strange thing, mi definitely hard on myself and i work really hard but i'm just so much more relaxed than i was when i started. i'm not sure if that is reflected in the work or if the
characters are just more relaxed but i feel more relaxed. and i love the stories that i get to tell. and i feel really grateful. i'm in a really great spot as far as gratitude goes. and so i think i am able to approach things from a different point of view as opposed to feeling like i'm going to get found out. i think every actor talks about that feeling of getting found out. and now i'm sort of like well, if i get found out, it's been a nice run, i guess. but all the same, i still have a very similar approach as far as wanting to make it as real as possible and trying to even in like, even when i did enchanted i wanted it to feel like somebody you knew, even though it clearly couldn't be. she had to be believable. >> yeah. >> well, that is an interesting segue to the other movie, that you are certainly keeping busessee, tom ford's nocturnal animals it has very little, i would say, in common with arrival but there is, on the
other hand there is a kind of a mood of quiet and mel an alcohollee around a lot of it, certainly around your character. and there is, there are a lot of plot twists but also kind of what i would think of as sort of emotional twists where the feelings that are-- that seem to be in play turn out to be a little different than what you thought. tell us a little bit t is a very complicated, sorts of two movies inside of a movie. >> it's funny. i saw both movies back to back. i saw one on a thursday and one on a friday. i was kind of stuck that they are such different movies and characters. not that the characters have similarities but i was like i wonder why i was struck by two sort of nonlinear approaches to storytelling. it doesn't come around like that that often. and i shot them back to back. but with nocturnal animals, again, i was so attracted to the
subtlety of storytelling. as far as my character susan, her, the way that i was going to have to communicate seemed some what impossible and very challenging, so of course i was like let's do it but tom ford again had a wonderful way of talking about, you know, how he intended to move through past and present and fiction and reality and sorlt of using music and light and story. and how i was going to do that. but again both the characters have a sense of mel an alcohollee for different reasons, maybe this is my melanalcoholy period. >> when the audience meets her and when she is kind of drawn back into these memories through i think it happens early enough that it is not-- she gets a novel that her now former
husband has written that well, may or may not. >> dedicated to her and it's a very interesting and complicated gesture, sending this book. >> absolutely. and it's a very dark and violent story. and it makes her examine his intentions and makes her examine her choices. >> and some of the most, i have to say some of the most powerful and interesting scenes in the movie are just you reading which is quite a. >> it was-- tom left the camera running for a really long time it created this wonderful insecurity which i believe you use anything that is happening in the moment. and so there are moments where i'm really struggling because it's like 13 minutes and he's just left the camera rolling with no direction. and it was such a wonderful-- like i never get those opportunities as an actress to sort of sit with myself feeling exposed and revealed in that way.
and that would happen in arrival as well, these really, really long takes, very intimate. and i saw it as a real wonderful gift to get to explore that, sort of the, those depths of feeling exposed and vulnerable as an actor. i know they are there but a lot of times you have dialogue or another character to lean on. and then in both the films at time i didn't have anybody. and so it was a great exercise in a way. >> it's true, now that you say that, it is really true, there are a lot of moments where it is just you. and in a way all of the work, everything that the audience has to connect you to the film is what are you doing. >> it's interesting, both of the films, i forget who told me, you breathe a lot of these films. there is a lot of breathe. ing it i would constantlyi was remind myself like minute six on a tape where it is yus me
stairing at nothing, i would just breathe and just, you know, that's the key to creating life is breathe, you know. >> well, do you it splendidly. >> thanks, i breathe well. >> and thank you for coming here and breathing. >> thank you, thanks for filling in. >> it's been wonderful. >> nice talking to you. >> nocturnal animals and arrival with both in theaters now. and i'm so glad that they have brought amy adams to this table again. thank you. >> thank you. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
♪ this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. i think we can absolutely get to sustained 3 to 4% gdp. and that is absolutely critical for the country. >> it's also not true that all jobs are created equal. a guy who used to work in the steel mill now flipping hamburgers, he knows it's not the same. economic team. donald trump names his top money men who have plans to reshape the economy, redo trade and reimagine the tax code. november gains. stocks limp into the month, but finished with a roar. as the major indexes mark a number of milestones. sudden surge. opec does something it hasn't done since 2008, and oil prices soar. those stories tonight on