Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  July 14, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
>> frost: welcome to the program. i'm wildred frost filling in for charlie rose. we begin too,evening with foreign policy and talk with matthew barzun former u.s. ambassador to the u.k. and david miliband the president to have the international rescue committee. >> i think it's really important the russians know europe is more united than at the time of the brexit vote, that europe won't put up with intervenors and maintains -- it's really important. >> frost: we continue with jon wertheim, editor at sports illustrated and tense tense. joins us in london with the wimbledon tournament. >> the barometer is major titles won. roger federer has 18, going for 19, is in first place. i am a little sympathetic to some of the other generations
12:01 pm
who say if i knew this would be the barometer, i would have schlepped to australia every year. mcenroe played a few times so let's not give him a completely free pass. he never won but certainly didn't play the way players do today. i think it's a fun conversation but also think just objectively -- john mcenroe didn't win a major title after he turned 25, neither did be bjorn borg. roger fearedderrer won in 2003. there are other factors that speak to this. >> frost: conclude with writer, director and actress zoe lister-jones, she talked to josh horowitz of mtv news about her new film "band aid." >> my work generally xplorers pow -- explores power dynamics in modern relationships which is something i think i've wrestled
12:02 pm
with on a personal level but also i feel like the world at large has wrestled with for centuries and nobody has really been able to crack the code no mary -- no matter how many times people attempt to explore it on screen. >> when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: bank of america. life better connected. >> 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.
12:03 pm
frost:. >> frost: good evening. charlie is away. i'm wildred frost. we begin this evening with foreign policy. president trump arrived in france today for a two-day visit with france's new president emmanuel macron. following a tour of the military edifice, 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, recently stepped down from post as u.s. u.s. to the united kingdom and david miliband president of the international rescue committee and a former british foreign secretary. pleased to welcome them both to this table. president trump's visit to france. earlier today he held a press conference with emmanuel macron. the tone compared to the end of may a n.a.t.o. conference with the infamous strained handshake
12:04 pm
between the two. how do you think the president of the united states is viewed in europe at the moment. >> don't take it from me. you can look at the polls and they're clear that president trump's positions on a range of issues are in stark contrast of the center of european opinion. he stepped back from advocating more countries should leave the european union, but i think his decision with respect to the paris climate accord struck very, very hard. i think what you're seeing is president macron starting a startling pace in the first 60 days of his presidency, out there establishing himself with angela merkel as a joint leader of europe, as the spirit of hope in europe. a french minister said britain has chosen brexit, america has chosen retreat, france has chosen hope. there's a sense of boldness
12:05 pm
there. i think president macron sees an opportunity in this british retreat for him to establish himself, a hard power, france is meeting the 2% defense commitment, so he's not going to get a hit from president trump on that, and i think the story of the day in a way is partly why president trump agreed to go, a good thing he did, but also the entrepreneurship of president macron inviting him in the first place. >> frost: do you think there is a strange similar later between president macron and president trump? both political outsiders, not originally part of a traditional political party and now in quick succession leading their respective nations? >> well, president macron has broken the two main parties of french politics. so i don't immediately see the similarities. president macron made it a centerpiece of his president to strengthen multi-lateral institutions, above all the
12:06 pm
european union, very strongly committed to the united nations, president trump stepping away, really. i think one thing that will be interesting when the details come out of the meeting is from a french point of view, president trump and the administration have been saying about human rights and related issues has come down badly and i wonder how that's been taken on. >> mathew, in sense of a clear focus from president trump on bilateral rather than multi-lateral relations whether g20 or n.a.t.o., is that a mistake or can he as he's seemingly shown or started to show today achieve as much as the u.s. would want to achieve through simple bilateral relations? >> look, i think it's both and, certainly, i won't speak for the current president, the for my former boss barack obama, is a great example of how you do both and. david mentioned the climate accord. the progress in paris and getting all of those 196
12:07 pm
countries to sign on was really spurred on by a bilateral deal between the united states and china, so if you do both well, you can get good results. >> and indeed, today, president trump did suggest there was a possibility in the future that the u.s. would return and that wasn't his base case. >> i think if i can chime in one second, tell me the thing david said about characterizing a french friend's comment about what the united states was doing. i think it's important to say that governors, mayors, companies in the united states aren't retreating, they're engaging, many are, in the case of climate, living up to the target set by that and doing it for good business reasons, good political reasons to protect the air and the water and the planet that they care a lot about. so 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's important we don't
12:08 pm
lose sight of the progress happening in other places. >> and, david, in terms of the g20 meeting at the weekend, you wrote going into it that the g20 was set up to address pressing growing problems and the refugee crisis was crying out for such leadership. did the refugee crisis receive that leadership? >> yes, and aid for africa is massively underfunded, familiarens threatening in africa, somalia, northeast nigeria and yemen isn't quite in africa, but the u.n. said it's the worst humanitarian catastrophe for 60 or 70 years, and what's interesting these familiarens are a product of political division and conflict. it's war producing the conditions that people don't have the access to food. they can't grow crops and there
12:09 pm
is a g20 initiative around them but if you compare to the scale of after the second world war there is no comparison, it taken engagement to turn into something powering forward. that's when i think people are asking the question around the world, in western europe, and also in china, india, where is america going to put its effort, is it only going to focus on its home front or does america first mean room for engagement abroad as well. >> frost: in your take as has the u.s. position changed in stark context since your boss left office? >> i think so, demonstrably. in my six months being home and trying to reacclimate, it's
12:10 pm
great to be home. i was in a self-imposed media blackout the first few weeks and went back and read great books and watched great documentaries and i was reminded this was late 1940 gallup asks americans, the brits are gettin getting blitz d america says shall we come to your aid and 8 out of 10 said no thank you. in that same poll they asked 50 questions, same group of people, if push comes to shove and we have to pick with cutting a separate piece with hitler or coming to the aid of our british friends, seven out of ten said we'll go with our friends, the brits, which thankfully we did. i'm wary of people overgeneralizing about the american people. i'm living in kentucky, it's a wonderful mix of republican, democrats, independents, and i think sometimes that is lost hat the same people can have two
12:11 pm
very different contradictions within them. >> frost: david what's your take on this issue, public opinion. >> i think it's polarized. how hard is it to lead an american gog at a time of backlash against refugees. i say be careful. there is some fear of refugees but for every person who says we don't want syrian refugees moving into our community, another part is saying, hang on, our heritage is from abroad, we welcome people who are victims of terror and want to make their new life. we run 26 offices around the u.s., big cities, small towns, and there is polarization, and you see that from the polling as well. you see the extraordinary american generosity coming through. people literally have people coming around from next door with the cookies and the brownies when they move in, and you also have fear and loathing. for me as someone who's obviously not an american,eth sad an issue that had been bipartisan for so long should
12:12 pm
have this taint of bipartisanship. america has been the leader in refugee reassessment for the last 50, 60 years. after 9/11 the bush administration insisted only a two-month pause. this is cause to the american idea it will be the place to welcome people around the world who want to go through the vetting and make a new life. if the trump administration goes through the plan to reduce to less than 50,000 the number of refugees that are let in, that sends a terrible message around the world. uganda has a million refugees. the average income is $962 per year, and the ugandans say we'll take these people, they're our brothers and sisters and we'll look after them till they go home. there is an important lesson there. >> david, the level of the issue you feel is sometimes underestimated because the length of displacement people experience has risen sharply. >> that's a good point.
12:13 pm
the average refugee is out of their country for ten years. so suddenly issues of education and employment have been become central. the sector i work in the humanitarian sector doesn't invest in the education. less than 2% of the global humanitarian budget goes to education. so you've got millions of kids who are displaced by conflict become refugees and they're not able to get education. so one of the things we argue for is yes we need more aid but we need a better aid system and i think it's important to say the two together. >> david, president macron said he intends to keep an open dialogue with president putin in the two bilateral meetings already. do you see the tone improving? >> no, basically because there are too many divided interests. russian interests isn't dividing europe further. european interests are finding ways to stand up for its own territory because members of the european union are deeply threatened by what they see as
12:14 pm
an aggressive russia. so i think the tone matters but substance matters much more, and i think that we're at a very, very dangerous period because the global system being built over the last 75 years had an american anchor, but it also had other multi-lateral institutions like the european union. i'm not a voting person but if you pull up the anchor the -- i'm not a boating person but if you pull up the anchor the boat rocks. when the american anchor of the global system isn't there and there is "unpredictability," someone in the administration wants to make a virtue of unpredictability, if you're a small, weak country, that's a good thing to have up your sleeve. if you're the world's anchor, predictability is important because you're the benchmark from which everyone else establishes their behavior. i think especially with the russians, you don't want them testing you out and you want them to know well in add vanities what your positions
12:15 pm
are. some of the red lines the previous administration had were around that. i think it's important the russians do know that is more united than at the time of the brexit vote, that europe is not going to put up with interference, will maintain position on ukraine, sanctions and other issues and that predictability from great powers is really important, i think. >> at the risk of mixing maritime met forest, i think ballast is a better one because i think a ballast in the ship that provides stability to all the points you make. i think anchor is fixed in time and place, and i think the reality of our world sitting here in 2017, isn't 70 years ago, and a lot of things have changed. so sometimes i think -- i certainly saw this on my last job, people want ago certain kind of american leadership from the good old days and i think the kinds of leadership needs to change. i think president obama was a wonderful example. i probably would say that and really believed it of how to manage change and provide
12:16 pm
stability through change. >> i like the ballast idea but it's got to be, without getting too deep in it, the ballast becomes a dead weight, and the agility you're speaking to i think is really important, but the commitment has got to be there as well, and to go back to the other part of the conversation, the multi-lateral and bilateral have to reinforce each other and it will be a great pity p the u.s. administration only sees the international system as one of bilateral transactions. it can't be. eth got to be a system that's got its integrity. >> charlie's sailing viewers will be enjoying the show particularly. one area that has been progressed in the short term have been the iraqi forces recapturing mosul and a 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 in refugees, or is it just a small start?
12:17 pm
>> not yet, i would say in answer to your question, not yet groundbreaking. we've got about 1200 people on the ground inside syria another several hundred in iraq, more in jordan and lebanon, and i was in mosul in march of this year, on the outskirts of mosul where some of the people were fleeing, and two things struck me very strongly. the first is the people coming out of mosul, they are traumatized. they've lived for two and a half years under tyrannical rule in fear of death and the level of trauma, you can see the physical bombardment, but the mental bombardment has been equally big. the second thing that's really important is if there isn't serious politics that sunni communities in the middle east can buy into, if there aren't credible legitimate representatives of sunni communities, if sunni communities feel ostracized or under pressure from shia militias and others and there isn't a political route for them
12:18 pm
to defend themselves, especially true in iraq but also in syria, then i'm afraid there is going to be fertile ground for i.s.i.s. 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 to build on, an that's why it's not yet a landmark. it will only be a landmark when there is a credible sharing of legitimate, political power. >> in terms of some of the course force how we got to this position in the first place, your former boss, tony blair, the former british prime minister, refused to admit outright that the war was a mistake and the cause for the situation. is that something you admit that you think snifts. >> i think it certainly was a mistake, first of all because of the fact the weapons were not there -- the weapons of mass destruction were not there, but for other reasons. i think strategically it did not take efficient account of, for example, the position of iran and how the deposition of saddam hussein would strengthen the irani position. and second it was a military
12:19 pm
mistake because the war in afghanistan was not yet finished and i think that it's wrong to believe that everything that's happened in iraq over the last 15 years is the result of the invasion, but it's hard to explain anything in iraq without some recognition of the tumult caused not just by the war because remember the war was won fast but the building of the peace was a terrible failure in iraq and we're paying the consequences today. >> frost: mathew i want to focus on some of your memories in the united kingdom and first of all focus on your view of what difference it makes to have a separate head of state as head of government the u.k. has and specifically your memories of her majesty the queen? >> it was just happy memories on that front. one of the things serving in your wonderful country and because you do have a different head of government and head of state is that i was more reminded of how we in this country -- so we project on to
12:20 pm
our president aspects of both, and that's why you see the reaction of people who really didn't like my former boss and people now who really don't like their current president are concerned about it. they bring more to that than just policy disagreements. i mean, they really bring it identity and emotion, and i think it's important we never forget people say what tuning, and what do you think? it's really important we ask how people feel, too, because that's a big motivator for all of us in our democracies at the ballot box. i got into trouble once because i said out loud you're not supposed to reveal anything you say to her majesty. >> a shaft of lightning will hit you, if you're not careful. >> i messed up and i think there is maybe doubl double jeopardy. there was a moment during my
12:21 pm
official presentations of credentials, we were doing all that, and i used to work in the internet industry so we talked about technology. i commented because i came in with a top hat and a coach which is unusual for an american. >> and a brit. i said, all these people snapping pictures. the queen said, oh, yes, they always used to have cameras so they would take a picture, but now it's really different, they have these phones and they always stay over their eyes, and she said, i miss seeing their eyes. i miss seeing their eyes. and that really struck me that looking at that, you could think, oh, this is a one-way thing, you know, the head of state and people snapping pictures, but there's a two-way connection happening and that connection matters and that really stuck with me. >> it's a wonderful memory that. david, just very quickly, the leader of your former parties jeremy corbin -- >> it's still my party. you will make front page news if
12:22 pm
you're not careful with that. >> he said stepping away from this questioning, would it be a mistake to get rid of the monarchy? >> the remarkable thing about the queen, i think, is how she has become this extraordinary figure of respect across every conceivable spectrum of british life. so i would be amazed if anyone -- >> 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 and i was sitting there with my wife brook. he said, we'd like to tell all republicans. i must have sat up funny, kind of the way you reacted when you referred to the former member of labor. he said i don't mean that kind of republican, i mean you people from republics. ( laughter ) >> as future heads of state, you
12:23 pm
spoke of michelle obama, if she chose to run would you help her? >> i have no inside knowledge of this. i think she has ruled it out and so has her wonderful husband but i will add my voice to the chorus of people who think that would be a fantastic idea. >> frost: david, you're still a member of the labor party, because there is a future in british politics. >> because of what i believe in. some people join political parties because of what they believe in not as a career move. there is a danger for the u.k. in the discussion that we've just had which is we've become the country that gets talked about for its monarchy and for its weddings and funerals, and is not part of the international system. we both saw the power that the u.k. had from being part of the european union. we're meeting a year after the brexit referendum. the brexit negotiations are running into terrible trouble.
12:24 pm
i think it's important for a global audience that can now pick up this show to hear from me as an elected foreign minister, mathew as a representative of his country, that the u.k. needs to play a part in these global structures if it's to remain more than an object of friendship. it needs to be an object of partnership, and it seems to me that's at issue in serious stakes in months when brexit gets negotiated. >> frost: is the united kingdom and the united states' relationship weaker than in the days of barack obama? >> i don't. we have this funny metric in the state department called visit nights and it's a measure of how many official government visitors come through a given capitol. when i was in sweden, it wasn't a big number. i think we had 24,000 official visit nights per year coming
12:25 pm
through london. >> a very nice house. but, no, it speaks to the depth and breadth of just the official government relationship. forget for a moment our two heads of government, who they might be and how they might get along, it's the intelligence services, it is our militaries, and it's all of these things, an that's just official government business. then you layer on to that your world, on your show the check ties and the social and cultural ties, and those things are real and they're strong and they exist in the hundreds of thousands and millions, and they are the ballast, to reuse that metaphor, for this relationship. >> frost: we are out of time. it's a pleasure. mr. ambassador, david, thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. you. >> frost: one of tennis' wros prestigious tournaments wimbledon is drawing to a conclusion. the men's semifinals are tomorrow. sam sakes on maren in today's
12:26 pm
match to be followed by roger federer. federer turns 36 next month, the oldest wimbledon semifinalist since ken who reached 39 in 1974. saturday venus williams ( applause ) garbin. at 37 williams reached the final of two out of the first three grand slams of 2017. joining me is jon wertheim, executive editor at sports illustrated and tense tense panelist. welcome. >> how are you. thanks. >> frost: very well indeed. looks like a great tournament back home. let's start with the real story which is the success of sam quarry the first american in years to get to this stage. gauge his level of success to reach the semifinals.
12:27 pm
>> first american male. sam -- no, men's and women's tennis are separate entities. sam has been out for a decade and his performance up and down. last week he beat novak djokovic. he's done one round at least better this year to beat defending champion andy murray. it has been a bright spot for the american mean's game. >> frost: he faced long matches, already. how do you think he'll face up? >> he's won three five-set matches. big serve on the grass. i don't think physical fatigue
12:28 pm
and durability will be the issue. he's never beaten chillch who has ranked higher, i think chillch is the favorite. on this surface with two rounds left, we've sure seen our upsets. the first match will be more competitive than the second, ironically. >> frost: quarry's success, does it high light the failure of tennis, what's gone wrong in the men's game for u.s. tennis. >> globalization has gone wrong for u.s. men's tennis. when we're using our basis of comparison to eras when they didn't play tennis all over the world like now. a lot is proportion ratios and the u.s. men have not had the success of prior generations. even 20 years ago you had ago gassy, pete sampras and almost
12:29 pm
am embarrassment of riches. proportionate to where they're playing elsewhere in the world i don't think the u.s. men are hurting but compared to prior eras there's not the representation there was. there are encouraging junior players coming up, maybe it will change, but the errase of mcenroe, you didn't have players from serbia in the top five. i think some is about globalization. >> some countries gain as opposed to america's decline. that said, the extraordinary success in the women's game from the williams sisters hides a familiar phenomenon because only 10 women in the top 100 of the female game. >> i think it's a different analysis because in the united states tennis ranks much more highly among female sports. you don't have the lure of the n.f.l., you don't have the lure of major league baseball. i think it's easier for tennis
12:30 pm
to recruit athletic and talented and young and gritty girls than it is boys. again, the representation isn't where it used to be. then again, u.s. tennis on the women's side is doing well. the williams sister are extraordinary, but even taking them out of the equation, the u.s. is better represented in the higher echelon and top 100 than the men. >> frost: today venus knocking out a brit. tell us the level of achievement for venus to reeve at age 37. >> extraordinary. she played this event the first time 20 years ago and this is the ninth time she has reached the finals. she's tone this by beating veteran players, younger players. in the previous round of the quarter finals she beat the 20-year-old who won the french open. today she beat a british player who's ranked higher. this has been an extraordinary story. 37 years old. the cutoff for the seniors tour
12:31 pm
is 35. venus is two years eligible for seniors tennis and playing in her second final of the year. the other side of the net was her sister. while her sister is profoundly pregnant, i think venus is favored to win this. 17 years after she won it the first time. extraordinary story. >> frost: what is the latest on serena? do we expect her to come back in full force? when will that be, how soon after the birth? >> that is an excellent question. i spoke with her yesterday by phone and she was coy when i asked her that. i do think that she will return. i think the question of when is yet to be determined. this is obviously her first pregnancy. the child will be born around labor day. so late august, early september. i think people are optimistically hoping she might
12:32 pm
be able to come back phon the australian open which, again, she won this year. i think she has every intention of coming back. we had a player return from maternity leave and do quite well. so there's a precedent. i think the question of when remains to be seen. >> frost: we haven't talked enough about roger federer. are you surprised at the level of his game, missing the french and delivering now it seems at wimbledon? >> i'm really not. this is a man who is a few weeks from turning 36 years old. some of this is about this extraordinary talent level he has and he's brought that to bear here. some of that is about a guy who has been very savvy about his scheduling. as you mentioned, he wins the australian open at 35, beats rival nadal. his first major title in five years, then takes off the clay
12:33 pm
season to peak at this event. it's rare a player would win one major and skip the next one by choice. it certainly seems to be payingtive depends. he's looking extraordinary, the surface is to his liking. he went 60 days without a competitive match so his body and emotionally he could repair. it's a satchy decision. he's 36 years old and only six sets away from winning this tournament for the eighth time. >> on this show talking to charlie last week, john mcenroe joked light hearted will you with charlie that in his day the french and australian open albeit majors weren't as important as the others and therefore he didn't play them as often or indeed never played in the australian open and hurts his records in terms of the long-term relative to the players of today. he said it light heartedly but is there some truth in that? how do you compare the mcen rows to the federers over time?
12:34 pm
>> it's a great question. it's a barroom discussion and now the barometer for greatness is major titles one. roger federer has 18, going for 19, in first place. i am a little sympathetic to some of the other generations who said if i knew this would be the barometer i would have gone to australia every year. >> martina makes that point. mcenroe played a few times. he certainly didn't play every year the way players to today. you know, i think it's one of these fun conversations, but i also think that just objectively, i mean, john mcenroe didn't win a major title after he turned 25 neither did be bjorn borg. roger federer won for the first time in 2003 and here we are 14 years later. so there are offsetting factors that speak well of the current generation of nadal, federer and novak djokovic. but it's a fun bar. i don't know if we'll solve it
12:35 pm
here. ates fun sports debate. >> fun whether in a bar on this great platform. your prediction of winners of the men's and women's singles. >> i think roger federer will win the men's and crazily enough i think will be the younger of the two winners. i think venus, 37, wins on the women's side. >> frost: jon, thank you for joining us. pleasure to speak to you. >> pleasure. >> horowitz: i'm josh horowitz filling in for charlie rose. zoe lister-jones is here, writer, director, producer and star in the new film "band aid," about a constantly fighting couple who tries to save their marriage by song. dives into the messy business of creation. the trailer. >> it's one dish. one dish. you happen to be quite the dish nazi, i might add. when did you -- everything is like, this is not clean -- >> super offensive because i
12:36 pm
come from a long line of holocaust survivors. >> how could there be a long line of holocaust survivors? i was thinking -- >> do you want to -- no, i was thinking we order papa john's. >> the sensation i get from sex and eating pizza is interchangeable for me at this point. >> these issues may seem trivial, they need to be addressed. >> where do you think we go from here? >> i don't know. what if we turned all our fights into songs? let's start a band. >> great neighbor. hi, dave. i was in a band myself. what was it called? it was called myself, a solo percussive group. you know -- >> uh-huh. let's make a list, our top ten fights of all time. dishes is big, obviously. >> i think you can be a little judgmental. >> you being laysy. 're uptight. distracted. play a song.
12:37 pm
♪ this wasn't meant to be a dude ♪ ♪ that you can aggravate ♪ you get so rude ♪ you've got to change your attitude ♪ ♪ . >> dave? unreal. i can't relate to the lyrics at all. >> i loved it. this is it. looks like you two are up. embarrassing. that's what every husband wishes their wife would do. >> i spent my childhood trying to save my parents' marriage, i don't want to spend my adulthood trying to save yours. >> we're just too broken to fix. couples fight. how can i tell you? it's how you navigate it that makes a difference. >> i just want to create something. >> you look beautiful.
12:38 pm
never seen you two like this. i like writing songs with you. >> can i have some ranch. oh, that's a sweet bite. that's a tom petty bite. >> horowitz: pleased to have zoe lister-jones at this table for the first time. good to see you. >> thank you. >> horowitz: congratulations on the full. >> thank you. >> horowitz: i want you to know, first after all, i want to get in the intro you've been in four different "law and order" series, but i feel like it would have been a disservice to this film to mention that, but that's a badge of honor, too. >> i currently hold the egot of the criminal procedural drama. >> horowitz: i would think this is more significant moment for your career. >> just slightly. >> horowitz: this is your directing debut, though you've co-written at least three films with your husband. >> four features co-written and produced. >> horowitz: talk to me a little bit about was this the
12:39 pm
game plan and the goal to get to this point? how did this evolve for you? >> i think probably deep in my subconscious this was always the goal but i don't know that i understood that until just like a few years ago. i have always loved writing and screen writing and producing and i think, in making those previous features with my husband, that was kind of, like, all leading up to this moment, but i don't know that i was aware that those were the stepping stones i was taking. and then, when i wrote this film, independent of my husband, i think once i finished the screenplay i was, like, oh, and i think i also want to take the helm of the director. >> horowitz: i've seen your previous works, they very much belong on a shelf with this one, it would seem. it could also be called the trilogy dealing with similar themes. is that safe to say?
12:40 pm
do you see a progression in that you're wrestling with in those three films in particular? >> yeah, i mean, i think that my work generally explores power dynamics in modern relationships which i think is something that has -- that i've wrestled with on a personal level but also i feel like just like the world at large has wrestled with for centuries and nobody has really been able to crack the code, no matter how many times people attempt to explore it on screen, and, so, yeah, i do think that it has sort of evolved that exploration into this film, ultimately. >> horowitz: talk to me about the music. the music is great in the film. i've seen you guys co-star in the film performing live and you are awesome in the film and performing. this has become a real group.
12:41 pm
>> yes, totally. in "band aid" we play all the music live, and that to me was really important from a directorial standpoint because i feel like as a viewer whenever i see performance portrayed on screen and it's not live, it takes me out of the moment in the story and. >> frost: like, for this story, especially the imperfections were so much a part of the narrative in terms of the performance, so we had to practice as a real band, adam and i and fred who plays our drummer, leading up to the film. it was really fun because i think without even really realizing it, we were becoming a band before production and theni after production we've played a bunch of gigs and we recorded an album. our band was called the dirty dishes, the dirty dishes ep is available for download. >> horowitz: you're multiplatform now. you're everywhere. >> yeah. you have to be. >> horowitz: it's 2017.
12:42 pm
come on, guys. >> the album cover is in millennialle pink, so we're trying to cover our bases. >> horowitz: we talk about collaborating with your husband on previous work. is there anything more awkward working on a romantic drama, not working with your husband on a romantic drama? >> yeah, on this one i hired an all female crew, so that also was not awkward because my husband is incredibly supportive of this project and is an executive producer on it, but i had to draw pretty distinct boundaries in terms of what executive producers were allowed to come to set. >> horowitz: that was a sly way to ensure that literally i'm sorry you can't be on set because of this decision. >> yeah, i did have to have that conversation. and he was, you know, obviously incredibly excited about the prospect of me working with an all-female crew.
12:43 pm
so it wasn't an awkward conversation, but it was a new sort of era in our creative lives together. >> horowitz: sure. so let's talk about that aspect. is it something you take pride in? i'm sure there have been all male crews in the past that are just called crews. >> yeah. >> horowitz: what is the breakdown in your experience, roughly, what a male-female on a crew? >> on a crew, i would say, generally speaking, there are two to three women on a crew of, you know, 40 people. >> horowitz: right. again, that's like on a -- that's not counting, like, the hair and makeup. probably that adds to it. >> horowitz: sure. but the numbers are staggeringly small. i think i did go through the amount of productions i have been in as an actress which is just over 40 and the number of female d.p.s i've worked with which is three. that's percentage-wise over the
12:44 pm
course of my career, you can kind of see how drastic the underrepresentation is of women behind the camera. so i think it was, for me, important to try and subvert that, but i think i also was just excited on a personal level to see what it would feel like to make a movie with all women. >> horowitz: what was the anticipated hope and the actuality? >> my expectations were very high and it exceeded my expectations. everyone should do this. it's a pretty magical thing, and it's so rare to experience that even some of the women i hired were skeptical. i think it was really cool to see on our first day on set just what that felt like and to see the sort of perception of what we were doing shift so
12:45 pm
concretely, and i think that it definitely added to a sense of electricity on set because i think every woman on that set has been the only woman on a set, so to be amongst so many female peers and to have so much creative autonomy in that way and to not be the minority and to not be afraid to, you know, use your voice, i think, was really exciting. >> horowitz: that last aspect is the curious part. we've talked about this before, but the fact that when you're in the significant minority, there is a power dynamic shift where maybe you're less apto speak up and be collaborative and make your voice heard. have you experienced that just from your vantage point on a set where you felt like it's not my place to speak, for whatever reason? >> yeah, i mean, i think actors are in a slightly different boat. there is obviously genderties patriots and inequities with actors, too.
12:46 pm
>> horowitz: we haven't solved that just to be clear. >> still working on that. i think in any facet of life, i think women are raised to take up as little space as possible, and, you know, there's been a lot of, like, jokes and sketches around women apologizing before giving an opinion, but that's a very real thing, and i thought it was really interesting to be in a creative space where nobody needed to apologize. >> horowitz: what's great about what you've done is it's a tangible thing to do. there is a great discussion going on. if you look at the narrative around summer movies now, there are good stories going around. wonder woman is a huge success. sophia won best director at cam. you're a success. but it's the tangible things, like the things i just mentioned, that are hopefully moving in the right direction and make the stakes a little less important so that if a wonder woman fails, it means we don't have to wait ten more
12:47 pm
years for another opportunity like that. >> yeah, i know. i do think that -- yeah, the pressure is to much greater for a woman to succeed when she's the only one doing that thing, and it's so great to see someone like patty jenkins succeed on that scale and break so many barriers. but, yeah, i mean, i think it has been an exciting summer for sure for women behind the camera. "band aid" opened the same week as wonder woman, so it was really cool to be in the conversation with that film in whatever ways we could be. but i do think it's interesting, i think the dialogue around gender disparities in hollywood is, like, really big right now. there's a lot of talk about it. but, again, it is how to turn that dialogue into action and how we can really continue to shift the paradigm. >> horowitz: this film, i think anyone who sees it and is a fan of film sees echoes of
12:48 pm
woody allen. i saw husbands and wives recently after i had seen your film and i saw great echoes. both in terms of theme and honesty which i think is a hallmark of the greatest films of this genre but also from a stylistic point of view, there's a rawness to it. is it fair to say those are some inspirations? what's your approach from that aspect? >> yeah, i would say that's the perfect compliment is it's a love child of woody allen and caspian eddies. love child was big for me. i knew going into making this fellum because it is a relationship comedy that i wanted to, i guess, just like shift what that looks like generally in this country. i think, so often, there is sort of a formula for the aesthetic
12:49 pm
around a relationship comedy especially an indy relationship comedy and i thought the verite aesthetic, when it comes to more break and dramatic works like those of casaveddies would be a comedy and how it would translate and as an actor i was exited to experience that. we shot with two hand-held cameras. there is urgency to performance. you have photographers following you around and i wanted the viewer to almost feel voyeuristic, and there are scenes in the film that do veer into dramatic territory where i think i did really want it to feel like you were watching something that maybe you shouldn't be. >> horowitz: exactly.
12:50 pm
in your film career, your best roles probably have been the ones you've written or co-written for yourself. >> okay. >> horowitz: i mean, that's a sad function, i guess, of where we're at but it's also a curiosity. is that part of the impetus in creating work, especially for futuring films, in that while there's been rewarding things i'm sure, is this what you have to get down to to make yourself feel artistically rewarded? >> yeah, i think as an actor in the film space, i've had to carve out opportunities for myself as a response thi respont being handed to me. >> horowitz: right. but i think the film landscape changed and continues to, obviously, but that even in the indy world, the number of actresses that are viable to be leading ladies continues to be smaller and smaller.
12:51 pm
the some extent, that is a sheet mentality. it's who's the hot person, not physically hot but, who is the sort of it girl of the moment, but i think it's also about who is financeable, which in, like, the earlier days of indy filmmaking wasn't as big of a question. so, yeah, i think that as a writer and producer and now director that's been a big part of why i've created work h addition to just, you know, the purity of the artistic expression it is to give myself those opportunities. >> horowitz: are those bargains worst making and is that something you've confronted thus far in terms of negotiating your place in the landscape? >> well, i think i have been very fortunate in at least the last foov years to work pretty consistently in television. >> horowitz: right. which from a livelihood standpoint allows me to make my own work, but in those hiatuses
12:52 pm
when i'm not on television, there is a search for meaningful film work, so i'm very much an actor for hire simultaneously. i don't think -- it's not really, like, a question or any sort of conflict. i think it's just about finding material that feels like it is inspiring and challenging. >> horowitz: i think most people that are particular fans of the film medium, it's an interesting time, to say the least. there was an article in the "wall street journal," the end of the feature film. >> oh, my god. >> horowitz: makes me feel the same way. i think we're all wrestling with that in the content it's perceived which a younger generation, there is less of differentiation. "game of thrones" episodes are 90 minutes made for $0 million each. netflix movies are made for $60 million and go straight to
12:53 pm
television. did you grow up with a love of phillip? what is your take on this shifting par time and do you have more optimism than i to that film will succeed? give me something. i'm asking for hope. >> sure, sure. you know, i think, obviously, it is a strange time for filmmaking because eng there is so much content, especially on television and especially on streaming, and it allows viewers to jump from drastically different, like, mediums and genres, like, you know from the comfort of their own couch. so to me the bigger question is what will happen to the cinema-going audience? because i think that is a dying breed, and to put films out into theaters that aren't tent poll movies and that don't have huge
12:54 pm
muscle bind their advertising campaigns is, i think, where film and filmmakers are probably struggling most now. but i don't have an answer for you, but i will say that we can be hopeful that because there are so many now different roads that filmmakers can take in terms of where their film might land, i think that's probably a good thing. it's more -- >> horowitz: actually getting into the actual theater, the last stage is more difficult. you can get creative more than ever, perhaps. >> yeah, i think it's the ritual of seeing a film as it was intended to be seen on a big screen is sort of becoming antiquated. >> horowitz: are you ready to do this again, thinking about the next one some. >> i am, yeah, i'm really
12:55 pm
excited to do it again and working on the next screenplay. >> horowitz: excellent. always good to see you, zoe. thank you so much for being here. >> thank you so much for having me. >> horowitz: see you next time. thanks for watching. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at and captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh
12:56 pm
>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: bank of america. life better connected. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ calories, calories, calories! >> wow, it rocked my world! >> it just kind of reminded me of boot camp. >> i don't know what you had, but this is great! >> it almost f


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on