tv Charlie Rose PBS December 9, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
. >> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with brian moin han,-- moin han-- moynihan, the chairman and c.e.o. of bank of america. >> jpmorgan is more the institutional side and wells is more weighted towards the retail. what makes us unique is we have, one of the largest investment banks and capital-- we have the largest retail plat perform in the-- platform in the united states and business management, we go to war with those guys every day t is extremely competitive. at the end of the day we admire them as competitors. but we go to war to win against theming and we conclude with kenneth longer began, lobar began of manchester-by-the-sea. >> i like to deal with stories that are too big for people. >> rose: like grief. >> grief, the weight of other people's requirements.
the fact that the world never does what you want it to do, death. other people generally. institutional deficits, deficits with lawyers, deficits with doctors. deficits with the law. >> rose: moynihan and loner began next. -- longer began next. >> funding 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. brian moynihan is here, is he chairman and c.e.o. of bank of america it is the nation's second largest bank trailing
only jpmorgan chase. under his leadership the company has pivoted from the financial crisis following years of costly litigation. bank of america's success continued to hinge largely on the fate of the. is economy. incoming trump administration has signaled it will roll back some financial regulations and pursue a massive progrowth agenda. over the last month since the election, bank of america share price has risen more than 30%. i'm please todz have brian moynihan back at this table. welcome. >> thank you, charmie, it's great to be here again, thank you. >> rose: many things to talk about. so why is your stock price risen 30% since the election? >> well, i always say it's good management but nobody gives me credit. but i think, if you really think about t think about what the election sort of marks for people. you know, from a technical sense, interest rates will gup, an they've risen in anticipation of a better economy. >> rose: that should happen in this month. >> yeah. and i think you know, the fed has been signaling and we'll see it be sort of a surprise if it didn't, quite frankly.
rates going up. but mostly a view that maybe regulation even if it goes backwards it will stop going forward and will you have a more balanced discussion. that's good for the banks. ability of returned capital. and the third thing is just growth. by end of the day, capitalism succeeds and growth comes and the economy grows and the banks help facilitate that real economy so that is good for banking. and if you believe the u.s. is going to be particularly successful, bank of america is your price. >> rose: the rise in interest rates will certainly suffer a dramatic increase in your revenue. >> off the third quarter it was worth about 5 billion pretax of income a year, if rates moved up a hundred basis points so it is a significant amount of revenue increase. it's been a long time at low rates. and the business model does better in a little bit higher rate structure. from a consumer, company side, carlie, the rate structure is still very low and very accomodative to activity. just because they raise the fed funds rate maybe 25 basis points, it is going from 50 to 75, that is still very low in
historical con terks extremely low. >> rose: is the market place generally, not just your stock in response to the trump possibilities? >> i think if, talking to c.e.o.s of companies, both public and small companies an everything in between, if you think about last year at this time, people, the statistics weren't that different, the forward projection ject shun wasn't that different, the interest rate projections weren't that different, almost a glass half empty worried about whether people were trying to support them to do the growth they needed to do i think the election changed in the eyes of business, so if you see the different surveys of business owners and managers and small business owners and consumers, it's-- you don't have to guess at it. the facts are there in front of you. even-- it is, there is that enthusiasm so now it is glaz half full. everything that was going wrong you know the new secretary ofnk treasury nominee. >> i don't know him well
personally. i think mr. trump's pulling together his team and i think all of us in the industry and across industry are trying to interface and trying to be helpful. >> rose: what do you think of trump? >> honestly, i don't know him personally. i think if you back off what he represents is a belief that we've got to drive growth and drive this company's success. i think that obviously played well in the election cycle. so what is our job as a company, last time i was here we had this fellow to play king george in hamilton and remind me of the story i tell once in a while that says we've been around for a lot of elections as a company, some tough ones, that one in 1800 was pretty tough and our company was here. so our job is to make the company, the country successful, make the president successful. so we're going to work to try to make it happen. and i think there's a lot of work we can do. >> what will he do that you think will stimulate growth? is it tax reform, is changing, creating jobs, is it trade, is
it, what, is it the stimulus package he might get congress to pass which is a republican congress in both the house and the senate? >> so i think if you think of what people are pointing out to, and that enthusiasm, it's probably three basic tenants, tax reform which has two elements to it. lower rates and the repatriation of dollars from outside. that's one. the second element is regulatory balance, having a fair interchange across all industry for the cost benefit of regulation and smart, responsible regulation. and i would say the third is really, there is an enthusiasm and an idea that it's okay for-- it's okay for a company to be successionful because it's tied to adding workers and growing. and that's been something that has not been talked about that much rdz do you believe a four percent growth in the gdp is possible? >> you know, our experts are two
percent next year and getting from two to three, let's do that and we'll worry about three to four. >> rose: mr. mnuchin talks about that as a goal. >> i think it's good to have a strong goal. i think we incrementally have to make sure the two happens. last year at this time we had people predicting two, two and a quarter and tended up 1 point something high near two but didn't end up here. i think he is just to set the place to get there. this is a big economy. this $18 frl comi. you-- 18 trillion economy, five times, sick times bigger than germany. if that engine turns from two to three. that's a lot of activity, that is bigger than most economies in the world. so i done worry about what it could be. i worry about making sure it doesn't go backwards and goes 2350rd. >> rose: was the ttp a bad trade deal? >> i would say that i think history will tell us that. the interesting question when you think about tpa went through so the concept of a bilateral and stuff there is a lot more power in the executive branch under tpa than ever about trade.
this will be a fascinating question as that plays through. i think the debate on tpp, i will let the experts have it i think the view of-- . >> rose: if the republicans had been in favor of free trade. >> absolutely. the business round table with which i'm a part of it. we are all trying to get trade passed because trade is generally good for america and generally goods to create jobs but it sort of get lost in the job relocation question and got derailed. >> rose: was its job relocation question, you know, are those people opposed tpp right in saying that trade deals hamper jobs, and the creation of job loss? >> i think you can get experts on both sides to come to that conclusion. the question is i think to think about trade-- to think about the globalization has occurred, you can't pull that back. so at the end of the day we have to be competitive as america and find the jobs that we're going
to win on a global basis and there are very defined places where we can win. we have to reposition people into those jobs. and that's along period of time. and so i, you know, can i get experts, can i read expert material that says it did have job loss on manufacturing content, expert material that says it dnt. i'm not sure which to believe but the real outcome is no matter what happens, you've got to be able to train people to do the jobs that will be available at the price we want people to earn in the united states which is higher than any place in the world. we have to have jobs that are valuable in that. i think that is where a lot of the training and thought process has to go is how do we find competitive jobs in the united states that will survive in the global economy against other people that are willing to have their populations work for less. >> how do we do that? >> i think it's training am i think it's capability. this is a great country. we're down to four percent unemployment level. it's not like we have an employment crisis in the next country. wage growth even though there is a lot of talk. >> this happened in ot bama administration. >> it did. and carried through. >> who was not perceived to be a
friend of business by definition. >> the question will play out and will be answered sometime 20 years from now, as always questions get answered is could it have gone faster or slower and did certain activities speed it up and slow it down. we will see that play out. the economy has been relatively solid in the united states. in the unemployment level is low. but if you ask people you say is the job quality what we want. and then you know, if we got the population going through responsible immigration policy and things like that, you can actually have the country grow faster. the unique thing about the united states is we have population growth and we are a big developed country. that population growth is slowed by half and maybe picking back up. and that gets into the complexity of immigration. the reality is we need more people than we are producing because we can employ them. if we can do that, we can make that happen. just we have to channel them into the right job. >> one of the interesting things about what's happening in the world is populism. let's started with brexit, for example, what impact does that have on decision making that you have to make about bank of
america. >> well, you know. >> rose: number of employees you might have in london or whatever it might be. >> there are technical issues at the eu, the brexit separates from the eu. we have to figure out how to operate as if there are two separate enterprises. but i would probably back off a little bit of that and think what does that really-- there are two things to think about. one is when you run a big company, the uncertainty of the election cycle, the unpredict able, polls being wrong consist inly, one after another, italy this week it became clear it might not go through but for a long team people said it will go through, don't worry. i think it's interesting as you watch the market reaction now, they are basically saying the unpredictable outcome is the predictable outcome. if you think about it, brexit, a couple of days down, right back, people said life will go on. u.s. election, italy election, the french first round and so i think as you think about this, you know, hopefully it will signal that governments are going to do what is in the best interest of their people and i
think people have to believe that in the political rhetoric that says the outcome is this, it is actually always much narrower. i think that will play out. when you run a big company you have to be prepared for the worst outcome. unfortunately it has been the unstable outcome has been true but not much happened. that is the interesting part. >> talk about regulation, i mean i just saw this in the one wage. banks to donald trump, don't kill dodd-frank. is that your attitude? >> well. >> the question is, what kind of regulation pullback would banks advocate? >> so i think when you read a headline like, that you know n a straight forward terms t is basically saying the regulation said we should have more capital so we don't have the instability and economic crisis, have more liquidity so we can survive. have everybody under the tent. in other words, if you remember back at the crisis there is a bunch of companies we were trying to work through, bear sterns, merrill lynch, outside attempts that we had to bring in. they are all inside and i think what we are saying is be careful
frk we don't have that in place, what you end up having is a dispergs of the industry and then it's hard to, for lack of a better term keep track of where the issues are and also give and take. and so a lot of the principals with dodd-frank were absolutely geared to the right way to address the issues at times. >> the question then, and the hard question is, is the insurance policy worth the potential growth, if you have more capitol. >> is dodd-frank restrict growth? >> let me-- i try to-- i get asked this question a lot. you are trying to explain it to a lot of people. the analogy and whether it is perfect or not, if you think of our company and how we have to have capital levels, let's say you and i are running a shirt business and we had ten factories. what dodd-frank, what the rules say dodd-frank plus the rules say about our shirt manufacturing company, the charlie rose, broin moynihan company is that we could only operate seven shirt factories. three we had to leave idol for that unusual time when there
might be enough demand i have to fill it we never want a shortage of shirts. so the question is what if it was two extra shirt factories instead of three. that difference for us, to put it into numbers would be $16 billion or $160 of lones we could make. so it doesn't mean you have no insurance, that would be too, you know, two out of nine or two out of seven, 30%, 25, 30%. but think about that. instead of having three idol factories for that once in a lifetime chance or once in a hundred years shall whatever, that i would be able to produce enough shirts to meet that demand, have i too have those three, that is $160 billion of loans, that would help growth. and so that's the debate, is the insurance policy set right. and then there is the eu78 plementation of regulation and work around. but if you think about it, the other thing i would say, charlie, think about that analogy and think about one other thing. the big banks and the large banks and the banking system is responsible for each other under the insurance process. so when a company fails, we all have to keep the fbi insurance
fund. so we have a stark interest to make to insure the place is well regulated. because it is our shareholders who pay if another bank goes down. the stability is really important to the system. so we're saying responsible regulation, that is why you don't hear this oh, let's go out and pull it all back. a lot of this was really right. we never disagree, we run the companies that way. the question is-- . >> rose: a lot of the regulation from dodd-frank. >> all the different stuff. >> you could actually see that in terms of, i talk to some banking executives who lobbied against dodd-frank but they are only lobbying against certain aspects of dodd-frank. they were perfectly happy to have certain aspects of dodd-frank. >> that is what i said, capital, liquidity, the stress stress tests are variable, what that says, we can test every year and then we test every quarter, whether these guys could survive a really bad outcome. really, really bad outcome and if they can, that gives-- a
system that will be there in times of stress. we are there to help the real economy. the comple is like anything else, the pend lum swings and how do you bring it back and how it is implemented and how many different rules that have two many interpretations are getting far away from what they were trying to stop. >> do you think there needs to be more regulation of shadow banking? >> well, that's the question of intent. one of the things we liked about dodd-frank is it put everybody under the tent, goldman sachs, gor man stanley, jpmorgan, bank of america, we're all in the same regulatory scheme. there might be nuances but same regulatory scheme. shadow banking by definition is outside that. and i think you know, i think the problem with that is it can do two thins. >> rose: explain what shadow banking is, hedge funds. >> hedge funds or nonregulated lenders or financial vehicles that do market lending. the problem with those things is they tend to come and go. and in times of stress, and that causes disruption so if it's very small, who cares.
as it gets bigger, it can have a bigger impact. so before the crisis and the mortgage market, most of the mortgage market was by companies that weren't regulatedded, countrywide being the leading one which we had to clean up. that ended up disrupting the whom business model. in the securities firm say 15eu78 thing. so i think when we say shadow banking we think there is too much going outside, and it needs to be brought back under the tent. that has to be done carefully because some of the reasons why it's out there is because the rules have to be amended to allow it to come back in. >> rose: donald trump campaigned as a voice for the people who did not have a voice. >> right. >> primarily. and he campaigned against the establishment. he did not campaign against wall street in the same way that bernie sanders campaigned against wall street. >> but what we see is he puts the government together, a lot of people, a lot of rich people and a lot of people from, a number of people from wall street, presh ree secretary and the commerce secretary nominee come from wall street. he seems to be appointing people
he knows. >> is that different than any other president that we ever had elected. it's their choice. they got the mandate from the people. they won. >> rose: so you say to everybody, let him appointment people that he feels can get the job that he promised he could do. >> right. >> rose: if he thinks wall street types, people with that experience are the best people to help him accomplish the objectives he promised his supporters he would deliver, then we have to hold him accountable to get the job done. >> the citizens. >> rose: are there people will hold him account fbl he doesn't achieve his goals. >> if you think about going back to the er8ee days, at some point they quit having the vice president the guy who finished second because that caused disruption, hard to run a government. i don't think this say new concept. any time you have had eight years of president obama and the democrats in the administration, before that eight years republican, every time it switches switches it there is hand-wringing about oh my god
whrorks is coming in. it works through, it works through. i think the system-- is that strong. >> rose: in 2008 when i talked to tim gietner, they would say the most important surprise for them was how fragile the system was. >> right, right. >> rose: the u.s. economic system. >> right. >> rose: and how close it came to puttering. have we eliminated that? >> well, two things. >> rose: regulation. >> tim was right it started in 06y t took years to get that fragility through. and that is what we have to always remember. what went wrong in 5 and 6 and really started happening in 6 when houses prices-- that lead to 8, that was kind of the end of the trail. but you know, it was pretty ugly there for awhile and corporate america quit funding at that point. and so but what happened with the fixes is the question, can you test that hypothesis with the system isn't this fragile. and fix it. that is what the stress tests do. you basically emulate a more
draconian element. and you show that the company's company through in our company's case and others, we come through with ties as much capital or as much capital as we startedded with before the crisis. so apparently you have twice or three times as much capital now. so that's what all this did. now the question is, you know, where do we stop and started going forward with it in trade, and have a better tradeoff between the growth. >> we have had these interesting things that have to do with politics and finance and which is climate. you had the president raise questions first of all about climate change. >> yes. >> as a candidate. then you had him say, in one or more interviews, he even thought there may be some connectivity between human activity and climate change. then he invited al gore to come in and see him and his daughter. >> right. >> then he appointed someone who was a huge opponent of epa to
run e, approximate a. >> right. >> this guy is going to be-- mr. trump is going to be harder for us to figure out, i think. if you think about it but let's step back. if you think about corporate america, an whether it was comp 21 was a crowning thing, we all have-- . >> rose: this is the paris agreement. >> we all have a program, 125 billion dollars against environmental initiatives in our company, as part of our sustainable platform, we call it, which has a lot more than that, we went from 25 to 50 to 125 billionk green bonds. that's how the buildings we have and the lead platinum certification, how we lower our requirements. how we have reduced our-- our financing new energies to help the cycle change from old energy sources to new energy sources. we can't stop the stuff they want. we believe in the science of bank of america. we're pushing. >> rose: you believe in science at the bank of america. >> we believe climate
change-- we cleef in climate change is happening. we believe we have to get off fossil fuels but you need time to make it happen or else-- we can't turn off all the light in building. >> rose: google just announced that by 2017, they will be able to use all terch tiff sources of energy wrongs we're 2020. >> rose: you made the same decision. >> three years later. >> rose: doesn't that show a commitment by corporate america. >> absolutely. >> rose: of belief that climb at change is real. >> yeah. >> rose: and that everybody has to be involved. >> right. and by the way, if you go across corporate america, that is my point. we have all made those decisions. the debate-- . >> rose: climate change is real. >> that we're all making, exactly. we all have initiatives. the question, charlie, quite frankly is what is the length of that arc. mr. gore and i have sat and talked about it. some people believe that arc is tomorrow morning and get off it tomorrow, some people believe you have to do it-- our view is we have to help finance it because there is a trillion dollars a year financing demand to bring us from where we are to where we want to be.
>> rose: to create alternative fuels, energy sources. >> the question for us as american society is we can't be-- i don't know the right word, arrogant or selfish as well as other developed countries, saying we got leer this way. and you in africa are not going to get a power grid because we dnt believe you can do it we have to figure out ways to finance their progress without following our path. and so you know, look, we don't change how rerun bank of america through election cycles. so we have-- this program, our environmental program goes back to my pred desser's predecessor and we will continue to drive it and work-- . >> rose: who was that. >> that was hugh to ken, to me, so it has been made, doubled and redoubled and now three and a half times, whatever the math would be. so if you think about that. i done think i'm different from a lot of c.e.o.s. we are driving this, it is just a question of being told exactly the pace to do it or figure out how to help and figure the right strategies that can actually get done that is where we worked a lot with the u.n. and others on
trying to finance, think being what the financing needs were to accomplish this purpose. and spend a a lot of time. it is a huge deman. it is going to take the world to do. this you can't just snap your fingers and we all go to alternative-- . >> rose: you have to make a decision to go forward. >> you have to make a decision to drive it, that is what we have done, that is what i think most companies have done. >> rose: could what happened at wells fargo happen at bank of america. >> we run the business to really not-- rewe run the business to get depth of wallet and balance. we have 10% less checking accounts as we did 8, 9 years ago. they are more important, more primary and it is just a different model now. we obviously have been asked this question a lot and we've had to do a lot of work. and the regulators are looking at all the banks. and so but it's really comes back to the way we serve our purpose. we don't sell to sell. we actually really focus on depth of relationship 6789 and a lot of people say that but we actually, that's what we focus on. so when we get-- we don't just
try to get market share. we want charlie rose's basic checking account where all the pun goes through, we want his credit card is he going to use, his auto loan and we work and work and work at that. and so that, we don't have sales goals to sell, we have sales goals integrated in that relationship thing and balance them with customer satisfaction and other goals. you know, we haven't found anything. >> if you look at the high-tech world, there is apple and there is amazon and there is facebook and there is google and there is microsoft. you look at the world of big banks there is jpmorgan, wells fargo. and there is bank of america. how are they different? >> yeah, the weighting of the business models is different. we're probably between jp say little more weighted. the institutional side of the house. and wells is more weighted toward the retail side of the house. what makes us unique is we have in one of the largest investment banking capital markets capability, we have the largest retail platform and largest wealth management business, that
is what makes our business model unique. we go to war with those guys every day t is extremely competitive. at the end of the day we admire them as competitors but we go to war to win against them. and but you know, our business model is a little bit more, a little bit more hybrid between capitol markets and trading and things, and wealth management and retail where each are different. >> is merchant management-- it is illegal. >> it is illegal. >> going back to when the bank of america fought a company-- in 2003 and 4, shortly thereafter, that was the first person that pushed above 10%, and there was a law passed that said you can't acquire, if you are above 10%. so we're above 10%. you can grow organically and we're up to 14% or something like that but you can't acquire. one of the nice things have i in my life, i can't make any acquisitions with anybody that has a deposit franchise in the united states. my predecessors, all the
companies we put together had to think about what was next. i just think about how do i do a great job for the customers, shareholders in the communities it frankly saves us a lot of energy. >> rose: what is your five year plan so to speak. >> our five year plan is to continue, if you think about t three broad group of customers. on the consumer side is to driver the digital world whatever name you want to use. and we have to drive that. and then just keep-- just drive the transformation of how people live. from physical to digital. and in the wealth management side it's to drive the new asset management style, things like artificial intelligence, drive that. again we have to lower the cost of investing. on the institutional side it's really to maintain our position as a top tier player and capitol markets. but quite frankly, that business, they do a great job but we don't try to grow it for its own sake it really
interfaces well with our businesses, what will people say about bank america if we get it right is the progress we continue to make on the consumer and wealth management side, and continue to transform the business model it is pretty a i mas what the team has done in the last six or seven years. >> who has the largest footprint overseas. >> in terms of u.s. bank sms. >> yeah. >> as a percentage maybe city and as a size maybe jaib p-w so if you think about city having more, their u.s. retail presence is smaller but i think jp is the biggest around the world. and we're, you know, overseas we're probably third or fourth in a given product category which is fine, it's good. we will continue to try to grow. >> if you look at the global economy, where are we. obviously we had flubbing yait-- fluctuating oil prices. and energy became a factor. we had a slowdown in china, that became a factor. we had the rise of populism thark became a-- became a
factor. what is driving global economy? >> you just laid out an interesting year sns the last time i talked to i, all that happened. none of us predicted, really. so you start from two braisk things. one is we have a tremendous research team that a woman runs for us, just tremendous, number one, five, six years in a row. that is a dine stee compared to the duke basketball program. but she does a great job. they picked three, a little over three percent for gdp growth in the world and about two percent for the u.s. you have to start with the u.s. to some degree because it is so big. >> gdp around the world 3%. >> over 3%, 3.2. >> what about china, 6, 7. >> probably in the 6s. but think about china, china is always hard to figure out what it means. but our people say china will be okay it will have ebbs and flows it is in a massive transformation that it is hard to imagine outside. and but they think it's okay. and india gets a little-- you
have people backing off on india, last year we talked about india being a place people were going to. >> why is that. >> is he still trying to make changes and sometimes it disrupts economic growth for, you know, with the cash, cash and currency. the changes he made. but i think there is a great prospects in india. it continues to develop and i think he's a lead thary is very disciplined about we're going to go there and keeps driving the country. but i think if you say where are the worries in the world, they are the same as last year, will europe pull it together w all the different things, with the situation in the last week. and then i think the worry of china because the impact on china and the u.s. not an issue as much as it is reverberating through the other economies, we buy a lot from china f the dollar goes up, the chinese currency goes down, we can buy more but we send stuff but not as much. europe is much more depend ent on exports so that you have to watch the reverberation.
>> and then the rest of the asia obviously plays off china. but i think our experts and i believe it will kind of bump along but if you think about the u.s., what we're seeing in the u.s. is spending is accelerating this year so if you think about 14, 15, 16, you've seen the rate of spending go up and you're sealing it accelerate during 16 again. that's good news because the consumers in america spend two thirds of the economy is going in 9 right direction and if you see that play out in the world when you had one big economy pushing the right direction, that is a good anchor to win ward for the rest of the world, and that's been really what happened in the last year. the u.s. even though it didn't grow as much as we want, because it kept growing, the bumps, that parade of interest as you wake up there, all came through in a way nobody predicted but didn't knock anybody off course because the u.s. plug add long that is a testimony to, you know, the power of the capitalism in the u.s. plus the policies have been
very accomodative to growth. >> how would you assess barack obama's management of the economy. >> you know, i think he-- i think he came in at the most difficult times. >> he could not have been more difficult. >> the tail end. bush administration was no cup of tea. they had to make decisions, they had to do unprecedented things in the last part of 08ee. and i think they solved the problems they had to solve. at the end of the day they created a stimulus which people argued great measure whether-- you just need to do stuff to show were you going to try. and by the way, if you think about the u.s. relative to the rest of the world, think about, this think where we are today. think between the banking system here, and the banking system in italy. it's ten years later. what is going on. i think they made the right choices, forced recapitalization, we are lucky we had the capital markets and enthusiasm and capitalism which is nice that they came in and invested. one to restructure enterprises and frankly, you know, lucky you had management teams and ent
prices that said we have to hunker down and get ourselves in shape fast. under the pun sishment of shareholder regimes. you know, we will give you, i woke up one day and we kept talking about capital siss, remember, we don't have to have this capital 20rbgs 19 thsmght is 2014 and 15 that we already have shall-- people say why an you here today, saying it isn't true, in europe they are still making it there. i think mr. obama and president obama and the administration did the right thing, split the thing on the course and push add long. i think when we look back, this say decent time corks it have grown faster, that is a great debate and probably played out a little bit. not mr. obama, he was finished but that debate will be played out and somebody will tell us a story in a couple of years, ten years of what happened but the reality is given the tough times, they did a marvelous job of getting the country settled back down, getting the economy settled back down and providing the current leadership. the question now is what policy need for different time and that is the debate going on.
>> thank you for coming. >> my pleasure. >> good to be here again, brian moynihan, bank of america. back in a moment, stay with us. kenneth lonergan is here, his newest film manchester-by-the-sea stars kacey affleck, lead chandler a man who returns to his hometown to look after his nephew after the death of his older brother. manchester-by-the-sea has been named best film of the year by the national board of review. here is a look. >> i don't understand. >> which part are you having trouble with. >> i can't be the guardian. >> well,. >> i mean i can't. >> narmly i assumed joe had discussed all this with you.
>> no. he didn't. no. >> i-- have i to say i'm some what taken aback. >> he can't live with me, i live in one room. with. >> but joe has provided for patrick's upkeep, food, clothe, et cetera, and the house and the boat are owned outright. >> i can't comeum from boston to-- until he turns 18. >> i think the idea was you would relocate. >> relocate to where, here? >> well, as you can see, your brother worked everything out extremely carefully. >> but. >> i'm fleetion pleased to have kenneth lonergan back at this table. when you watch that, what do you see what do your eyes see. >> i see kacey and just, how lost he s how surprised he is, and how just all the turmoil inside of him. and last josh hamilton who plays the scene is one of may breast best friends and has been in many of my plays.
i just love actors. just the way, just all the little things that are happening moment to moment. you can't take in what is happening. and josh is totally thrown because he thought it would be fairly routine. and that is the kind of thing ta makes scenes work for me. ann the costume designer is a very good fill friend of mine. she kept saying i keep seeing kacey's eyes, this is the first scene we shot, first day of shooting, this scene. and it was, i thought we were on to a really good start. >> off to a good start, i thought. >> every good director i know loves actors. can you be a good director and not love actors? >> i think so. i think it depends on what your interest is. i don't know that hitchcock famously didn't seem-- he said he didn't t is unclear whether he did or not. >> rose: he was a great director. >> an stanley kubrick i think saw actors a little less interested in delving into the depths of the performance but
very interested in human beings. so i think it just depends. but i think most directors are very interested in the actors primarily. >> rose: is it different in directing stage versus film? >> into, it is the same process with different tools am you want o get the actors to a place where they are comfortable, where they are spontaneous, within-- with an artificial guide lines. and on a set you have multiple takes, changing the camera angle, changing the angles of the camera and you have a big crew looking at you and in a play you have to do the same thing over and over again and still do it in a fresh way but you have a roomful of people watching you and reacting and there is just different things to cope with. >> do they become part of a different set every day in the theater because they're different. >> yes i. >> i once saw christopher walken interviewed and he said at the bottom of every cast list should say the audience because they are there. you don't want to play just too them but you would be false if
you ignored the fact that there are 200, 500 people in the room. >> it is hard to quantity fie, you take them in in some way and their energy and different responses forms that night's performance and its' always different because the audience is always different. >> rose: if you are a good stage actor, should you be a good film actor? >> i think it is easier to go from stage to fim than film to stage. i don't think that used to be the case when film was newer am but i think now that there have so many actors that get comfortable in front of a camera, and are minimal, and quiet and can interact on a small level, it is a little hard sometimes to control a whole performance throughout a two hour play. your voice has to be louder, you have to be turned outward, you have to not feel false doing that. and there is dock the same thing every night but keeping it fresh. >> how do they do that? >> i don't know. >> i don't know. they work very hard.
>> sne work very hard. >> you never thought about acting? >> only for fun and only, i have such a narrow range. have i no-- i can-- i used it act in high school and i like acting and i am in each one of pay films in a very small part. but i can't-- i can either do it or i can't do it depending on the part. even if i help a friend with his or her audition f i'm reading the other part, some i don't know how to read and some i do. and have i no technique to get me to the ones i don't know how to read. >> rose: the best actors have a technique to get them. >> they get the part and some of the parts are like them right away and some don't. and they have many ways to get to where they need to to go. >> rose: how about kacey in this case. >> well, i think kacey related to the part right away. but had a lot of questions. that was one of the fun things about working with him. he had a lot of questions. >> rose: you told someone film comment. he has a million questions look a relentless detisk.
he wants to know everything he possibly could so he has a foundation from which to perform a scene. you know he is bringing everything he's las to it by being the guy and i'm bringing everything can i think of to help him from when i was predicting to be the guy when i was writing it. so i think i have at least one version of the character that is useful for the act tore hear about but at some point i step back and he has to become the person. and that point there is a wol gang of other things that are keasy's and kacey's alone that koment into place. >> it really is about an actor's craft right there. >> absolutely. z an when i try to act f st is not coming from me, my own voice and self gets in the way. i think for really good actors, when they are trying to act in a part that is not like them, they are able to show use themselves to become this other character. i can do that in my imagination but i don't have-- but if i'm not the one speaking, talking and being looked at t is a lot
easier for me. >> what do you like about manchester-by-the-sea as a movie? >> i like the tremendous effort the characters are making to do the right thing by each other even though they are carrying this ternl emotional burden around. casee's character is so striken by what has happened to him and he is still every step of the way, doesn't want to just take cares of his nephew but take care of him properly. he doesn'tt out wanting to have a personal relationship with him. he just wants to get him set up, the premise of the movie is that casey brother dies and is given guardianship of his nephew which he doesn't want. but that part is very obvious in the story. but what is not so obvious sometimes is how he refuses to just send the kid away. like he could easily send him to relatives in minnesota. he could send him back to his mother who very troubled and problematic but is sticking it out as best he can despite the fact that he is in terrible dur res by what happened to him
earlier in the story. >> things are a little bit up in the air. >> i can take care of it as far as the general maintenance is concerned tbhaw motor will go at some point. >> i'm taking care of it. >> there is no allotment for a new motor. unless you know someone that wants to buy it. >> wait a second, i'm not selling it. >> we're going to be in boston anyway. >> what? >> since when are we supposed to northbound boston. >> just take it easy. >> whatever you decide, he's going to bleed you dry sitting here. >> we don't know exactly what we're doing. >> he can always stay with us, if he wants to come up weekendness. >> do you want to be his guardian? >> well. >> he dnt want to be my guardian. >> we're trying to lose some kids at this point. >> we're trying to. >> jesus christ. >> i know that. >> he's welcome any time. >> i understand. i know, thank you. >> so when lee left manchester, what was his state of mind? >> devastated.
i mean i don't know how much of the story you want to give away on the show. >> rose: not too much. >> but he left town because of an unspeakable tragedy and his life is essentially destroyed an i think if it were up to him he would just go. but his brother is not well, con guess hiv-- con guess tiff heart failure which is a chronic deteriorating condition. and requires help taking care of his kid and just generally help. so he generally needs help. so he goes about an hour and a half away to be on hand if needed. nd he goes into a monday as particular existence in quincy which is a town south of boston. >> rose: then he gets the note to come back. >> then he comes back, and it is implied in the story and in the screenplay that he comes back periodically when joe has to be hospitalized and discusses. he comes back to take care of the kid when there is no one else to do it sew has been in touch but he has detached himself completely from the family and town that he grew up in. >> rose: what kind of stories do you like to tell? >> i like to stel stories about people who are dealing with things that are too big for
them. >> rose: like grief. >> grief, the weight of other people's' requirements. the fact that the world never does what you want it to do. death. other people generally. institutional deficits, deficits with lawyers, deficits with doctors, deficits with the law. deficits just getting through life. >> sounds like you want the characters to be in trouble. >> yeah, well, it makes for drama and comedy, so-- it's a little hard to imagine enjoying a movie where everyone is sitting around happily for an hour and a half. >> this is 2016. >> yeah. >> your last time was 2005. >> yeah. >> you have been working on theater, in between. >> yes. well, the film margaret my last film wasn't really completed until 2012 because of deficits and procedural problems with the editing and the stud why and all that.
but yes, so i did, i wrote and directed a play in 2009 called the starry messenger that matthew broderick did. i wrote and directed a play called medieval, in 2011 and last year i wrote a play which neil directed at the attic theater company. have i been pretty busy in the theater and writing there and working up to direct this along. >> is it your goal to simply continue to go back and fortd between theater and film. >> i don't see why not. i really like them both quite a a bit. they are very different. they are very challenging, they are very rewarding. when it goes well, it is just recall exciting and gratifying. it's great to sit with an audience and watch everyone kind of participating. >> is it different for to you stit alone in a screening room and see a film versus watching it with an audience. >> yes, it's completely different. >> you can feel their own. >> you feel what is happening with the audience. you also want, immediately
pretend you're in the audience and you have all these criticisms you didn't have before. and when it goes well, you can feel it is going well, you feel good about it you sea it from other people's point of view the moment they walk in the room. >> what is the most satisfying thing about directing film? >> i guess just when you feel like you've more or less successfully put all the elements together, you've got the shots come out the way you want. anything, there are so many things to do. there is the filming, the e sound design, the music, the, cast. whenever any of those elements come together and make the scene sing that's really a good feeling. >> rose: and when it doesn't sing? >> then it's very upsetting. and you just kind of, it's a nagging feeling that you just have to fix it. and it doesn't ever quite go away. there are little, there is ten minutes worth
just overdo it and. >> like you say-- that shot is too long, that, that is the wrong take, and then-- at some point you stop hearing that f st a symphony it's like trying to fix it note by note instead of hearing the sound and writing down what you hear. >> rose: take a look at. this it is another scene, here it is with michelle williams swlg. >> z i done have anything big to say. >> okay. >> just i know you've been around. >> just to get patrick settled in. >> it seems like he's doing pretty good, huh, considering i think he is, yeah. >> i guess you don't know this but i-- i really kept in touch with joe. >> i know did you. >> oh, okay, i didn't know. >> you can stay if you want. >> could we ever have lunch?
>> you mean us, you and me. >> yeah. >> they're great. >> rose: you love it. >> i love them. i lev them. they're just so great. they're so, i don't know how they do it incredible feeling, incredible emotional life. and it just looks like two real people having a really, really difficult discussion. >> rose: what goes in your head when are you cutting that scene. two people in conversation. >> it's so dpli kateed that you have to just-- complicated that you have to do it in an instinct, four or pfeiffer stakes on either side, two shots, two cameras going at the same time and there is no performance issues. sometimes you just will start with a certain take that you like and build from there. >> rose: so you get one place that starts it. >> and once you have that in place, then you can-- but you some what have to feel your way through, my easyitier and i, jennifer lane, this was not that hard of a scene to easyity because the performances were so
good in all the takes but we want the editing to be up to the level of the performances. and i think you just follow the path of what is happening in the situation as best you can. for instance, you, we can see her say do you want to have lunch or not. and i think it's very important to see it because you see her make that decision, her head turns up, and she kind of blurts it out. and you must see his reaction because the wind just goes out of him and he has this beautiful reaction. so those are two shots you want. you put them in the machine and then are you off and running a little bit. it's interesting, wherever you put the camera changes the feeling of the conversation a little bit. and it's amazing what you can do, how many different ways you can do it. in a way, you can't do it, you have to follow some insphing. the other funny thing about editing is you are in the editing room and you put together a few shots and will you both think we held on him too long there. rose: know.e room will agree
>> but it feels right to cut a little sooner or later. and i don't know what that is. i don't know know if it is akin to a musical sense. >> rose: i think st music and experience. or a sense of-- i mean i don't think are you born with it necessarily, although, have i been in editing rooms with people who you just knew how their instinctive sense was so strong. >> yeah. and it's so important. i mean i guess it's also where, what the story-- if you maybe could go back and say okay, this is the story of a girl who builds up to ask her ex-husband to have lunch. and then after that happens t becomes a story of a man who is talking to someone in a way he can't bear and he has to get out of the conversation. and the next shot it becomes a different-- i think there must be a narrative in the editing that you done think through intellectually but that are you following as are you following the conversation and the behavior against the two characters. >> is he so damaged that he is scared of reconciliation.
>> he can't talk to her, it is too painful. he has lost her, he has lost everything. and he can't-- he's barely getting through the day just talking to other people. and she's at the center of his dispress and she-- she is not-- they still care for each other but the relationship is over. >> rose: did you ever want to make a comedy. >> yeah, i would like to make a comedy. this movie believe it or not has a lot of laughs in it. and i like humor just as much as anything else. and i like to put humaner in everything i do. that scene we just saw was pretty mel an alcohollee but there is a lot of humor, casee is funny, lukas is funny. >> affleck said, keny never writes without some humor, is he funny. he sees the human situationses, it doesn't undermine the drama it might make the tragedy felt
even more. >> i think so. i hope so. i think you know, my goal, my goal is to have it seem like it could be real or that it is real and if it's going to feel really, it's going to have humor in it it certainly does-- and very strange places. there are no joke sounds and they are pretty grim but i find in ordinary life, anyway, they don't last for long and they don't extend, you know, you and i might northbound a no joke zone but someone backstage is not in the same zone. >> no. >> this soundses like a stupid question. are you surprised by the response to the film? within i am a little. >> rose: it has gotten a huge response. >> i'm a little because i was worried. it is a film about grief. i also think it is a film about how much people care about each other through grief and something that everyone has experienced. in that way i'm gratified people like it i'm a little surprised.
you never know what people think about what you do. >> rose: when you wrap, in terms of putting it to bed, not in terms of finishing shooting, do you have expectations but not certainty? >> honestly, the firs time i screened this movie, i had no idea. i screened it for about 20 friends in a small screening room. no one had seen it besides may self and editor and hi no idea if it was a compleess or almost finished. and at that point you really need other people to look at it so you can look at it a fresh through their eyes, even if you don't get a lot of comments, which i don't like a lot of comments. i like a couple of comnts from people that i ask. but from whom i ask comments. but just when i saw it put together and there were 20 people sitting there, i thought gee, we're pretty close. and i just didn't know. i don't know why that is. it is like kind of like working on a painting. you step closer to the canvas then you have to step back and step close an step back. and you can get confused,
especially when are you up close but then you step back oh no, no, that is totally wrong there. i have to go back and fix that. after a while you are like you know whack the whole thing is pretty good, i think i'm done. >> rose: i'm always amazed at painters that say they work all day and get up the next morning and paint it all over. they look at it the next day and it's like-- no. >> you have so many things to worry about. you have your mood, you are worried that maybe you are worried it is too goofy or too serious or too long or too short. and these are-- you can't tell except over time whether these are genuine concerns that are coming from the nature of the material, whatever that is or your anxiety about something else or about i brought new to see the movie for the firs time i would be thinking this seems boring, charlie is probably board right now and you might be really enjoying it. so i have to not act on that right away. you have to-- i can only function by kind of going back and forth, back and forth. >> rose: much success to you. >> thank you so much.
a pleasure to be here. >> rose: manchester-by-the-sea is the film. thank you for joining us, see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes vilsity us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
a kqed television production. >> it's sort of like old fisherman's wharf. it reminds me of old san francisco. >> and you'd be a little bit like jean valjean, with the teeth, whatever. >> and worth the calories, the cholesterol, and the heart attack you might have. >> it's like an adventure, you know? you gotta put on your miner's helmet. >> it reminds me of oatmeal with a touch of wet dog. >> i did. inhaled it. >> p