tv Amanpour Company PBS December 10, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PST
and szoe kazan. uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co." when bea tollman found a collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams, and those dreams were on the water. a river, specifically. multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels. today that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt, and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information, visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter. bernard and irene schwartz. sue and edgar wachenheim iii. the cheryl and philip milstein family. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. welcome to the program,
everyone. what a difference a week makes. last week, the financial world breathed a sigh of relief as the u.s. and china agreed to a 90-day truce in their trade war. but confusion arose about what had been agreed and president trump proclaim himself a tariff man. global stock markets have been predictably unpredictable and volatile. add to that, the united states has asked canada to extradite a top executive from the chinese telecom giant huawei. this complicates sky high tensions between the two countries fuels global growth. what is at stake and how did the united states get the rise of china so very wrong from the get-go. jamie metzel has worked in the clinton white house and the
senate in foreign policy and he joins me. welcome to the program. >> happy to be here. >> let's start by remembering this is the week former president bush 141 was laid to rest and china was an important part of foreign policy experience. put into context the kind of china president bush dealt with. >> well, china at that time weren't out from their experience of mao. so at that time the goal for the
united states was to integrate china into the global economy as quickly as possible and certainly china under deng recognized that that was what china needed as well and so there was this great moment of opportunity at the end of the cold war when people, leaders like president bush and others in the west thought the u.s. and china could really work together in a great way to build greater prosperity and peace and security for everybody but as you know, christiane, china's become more powerful and will that has led us into the situation we're in today. >> it's extraordinary to think given today's politics and trump's politics on china that when deng xiaoping came to the united states wearing a cowboy hat, going to nasa wearing an astronaut's helmet, it was the u.s. which fueled the growth of
china's economic giant, right? >> yeah. the u.s. felt that we were stakeholders in china's economic growth and to a certain extent that exists in some ways today so bringing china into the modern world and helping the development of china both as a strong economy but potentially as a future partner and certainly as a market, it was seen as something that was an inherent good at that time. >> and what did the west, if i could put it this way, get a little wrong about what economic empowerment and embracing capitalism would mean to china? did they think it would open it up in ways the west would recognize? >> absolutely. there was this idea that as societies developed there was a certain per capita income level, at that time i think it was around $6,000 or equivalent per person, when middle-class
society started demanding their right rights and forcing the change of political system so people thought that if the u.s. invested that growth, it was inevitable china would open up so certainly the advent of the internet made people feel more strongly that people in china around around the world would have access to information and what people got wrong was the ability of the chinese government to manage the kind of economic growth while maintaining its centralized political control and two was the -- that these technology systems, including the internet and information technology tools in many ways politically agnostic. that in certain environments they could feed openness but in other environments they could be used to repress or at least surveil a society in significant
ways. >> so again george bush as president was there during that awful night in 1989 where people did rise up. they did want a little more of that openness that they thought came with capitalism and the state cracked down with a ferocity people hadn't expected. that was the turning point. it was china putting the world on notice that we like your economic system, we don't like anything else about you. >> tiananmen square was a turning point for everybody, for the chinese, it was a turn away from this creeping openness and for the west there was a big choice and there were people of two minds so so the business community was for continued engagement with china, the human rights community was pushing for being tougher on human rights and for a while the business
community prevailed and the u.s. china relationship about business opportunities but later in the process the business community started to sour on china because they recognize that they were being robbed in many ways of their intellectual property, being forced to -- co were used to. >> which brings us to the present moment. president trump has put himself forth as the president who is going to deal with these issues that you have spoken about once and for all, whether they believe to be economically ripped off or intellectually ripped off, all of that stuff. so here we are. give us a reason, put into
context why stock markets have been plummeting after the g20 meeting between xi jinping and donald trump. >> let's talk about the jump because that happened first. >> the u.s. china economic relations and all the relations in china have been on a downward trend for some time even before president trump took office and then there was the imposition of these tariffs by the united states with the idea they would go up on january 1 unless china responded in ways that were not clearly articulated by the bush administration. >> the trump administration? >> sorry, my mistake, by the trump administration. that's caused uncertain any china and the united states and also around the world because the u.s. and chinese economies are integrated in many ways,
particularly through these global supply chains. and so when presidents trump and xi met in buenos aires and they agreed that there was going to be a three-month pause where some kind of agreement could be negotiated and that china was going to do purchases of agricultural and energy resources from the united states immediately, that caused a momentary sigh of relief. but then traders and others and people around the world looked at the underlying issues and recognized, i believe, that the issues were in many ways structural. that it's not a big deal for china to buy more soybeans, to buy liquefied natural gas from the united states. in many ways that's a good deal for china because they need these agricultural products. if they buy a lot more product from the united states at the expense of american allies like
canada and australia and others, china gets the resources, u.s. allies feel they're being harmed by u.s. policy and china has its eyes firmly set on building the economy of the 21st century based on advanced technology so if china can buy off the united states with addressing the much easier issue of the deficits just by these kind of purchases that is a win for china but there are deeper structural issues that i hope the administration is focusing on, the theft of intellectual property, the lack of reciprocity, and to address those issues it's much deeper because for china they have bet the shop on building those for
the future. that's what china 2025 is about. so for them to change that, for them to recognize their economic growth to realize their goals isn't going to come from forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft and a state-run system which they now have but have to adapt to another system based on u.s. demands, that's a much more difficult path and i think the markets are reflecting that. >> okay, so some of the remedies president trump and his advisers have taken and believe will work are these tariffs, the whole tariff war, and of course the markets have plummeted, we are told, because investors are not reassured anymore that this trade war is over and a truce has been negotiated. so let us read a few of president trump's most recent tweet this is week. i am a tariff man. when people or countries come
into raid the great wealth of our nation, i want them to pay for the privilege of doing so. it will always be the best way to max out our economic power. we are right now taking in billions of dollars in tariffs, make america rich again then he says if there is a fair deal to be had with china he will sign on, make america great again. is donald trump correct his tariffs are the right way? he said tariffs are good, a tariff war can be easily won. is that the case as we stand right now today? >> it's certainly case i believe at least that china is raid america. the ipr, intellectual property theft by china from the united states -- from u.s. company is probably the greatest technology transfer and forced theft of national assets in the history of global economy so we shouldn't underplay how china has benefited from breaking the
quote/unquote rules of international trade and it's been very aggressive in doing so. but where the problem is in the response, so even if the prognosis of the problem is in some ways accurate the response doesn't make a lot of sense because tariffs aren't -- it's not just if we have a tariff, that's some kind of tax china pays and all that that money goes straight into the treasury. if the u.s. consider manufacturers, for example, are using parts that are made in china and those parts are more expensive because of the tariffs, it's not the chinese paying that. u.s. auto manufacturers are becoming less competitive. consumers are needing to pay those prices so it's not that it's a one-way easy thing. tariffs are a tool of coercion and so we need to recognize
that. but of all of the different ways the united states could pressure chi china, this is a very, very blunt instrument and the way that had been on the front burners which is to build a global alliance of countries that believe in the kinds of standards of free and fair and open trade that have laid the foundation for peace and prosperity in much of the world, if those countries could come together and exert pressure on china, whether it was through the transpacific partnership or the europe north america free trade agreement, that would have put more pressure. these tariffs are creating some pressure but this is a much better for china that the trump administration is doing it this way rather than in the other more multilateral way. >> well that message needs to get to his economic advisers because they are talking up a esident trump scored over
president xi in argentina. and not to put too fine a point on it but given the fact that the united states misinterpreted or failed to recognize what china could do in opening up its economy and was sort of caught on the back foot and millions of u.s. jobs have gone since that opening up. have you seen any evidence -- you keep saying it could pressure china, have you seen any evidence of china buckling or looking like it's moving towards bending? >> that's the thing. china will throw some bones to the trump administration. they will increase their purchase s of soybeans and liquefied natural gas. they will decrease their tariff on u.s. autos which was at at 15% then it went up to 40% in retaliation so maybe they'll go down to something lower than
15%. they will make some nominal, some head fakes saying they're going to address issues of ipr theft -- intellectual property theft -- as they've done this week. but the real question is will they make the deep structural changes that will make china less of a toxic player in the international system? and china can't do that without a tremendous amount of pain at home and right now if you're president xi, you'd much rather face the wrath of donald trump than face the wrath of some kind of unforeseen problem in your domestic political context inside of china. >> i want to go back to this idea of political openness. remember when the internet first emerged, president clinton was in office and this is what he said about what it would mean for china and openness. >> when china joins the wto, by
2005 it will eliminate tariffs on information technology products, making the tools of communication cheaper, better, and more widely available. we know how much the internet has changed america and we are already an open society. imagine how much it could change china. there's no question china has been trying to crack down on the internet. good luck. [ laughter ] that's like trying to nail jell-o to the wall. >> whoops. there was a big miscalculation. >> exactly, exactly. that was what a lot of people thought and it was just wrong and the choke in many ways is on us that the chinese internet rather -- certainly people in china have a lot more access. the internet has been used to brick people into the modern world but it's not in many ways
a force of political freedom or liberation. as a matter of fact, it's the opposite. china is not only keeping foreign information out but these i.t. systems are being used as powerful and effective tools of domestic control and china is now going to be moving towards this social credit system where everything you do in the digital and real world is measured in a score and your ability to get a loan or start a business or be on a dating site will all be impacted by how you -- by your social credit score so we got that wrong and the other thing that is critical to this is we are moving toward a world where there are two competitive ecosystems that are competing with each other to determine not just the future of the global economy but where the world -- the u.s. and the chinese -- and where the chinese are very focused on using technology and other means to
build their world and to try to build the world around them in their image, the united states, rather than recognizing that we are in many ways in the fight of our life to build a better future for ourselves and for everybody, we have a president who is pitting americans against each other and that's really dangerous, spesespecially now. >> when we talk about the internet, they control it yet use it freely to conduct hundreds of billions of dollars banknorth of econom worth of economic activity. they could don't without the internet without the economic activity. so i want to ask you whether or not that you're alarmed that for decades the most powerful country in the world with the best technology, the best human intelligence has simply got china wrong. >> and because we had a lot of hope that the more they learned about us, the more they had access to our systems, to our
technologi technologies, the more they would like to be like us. we had that experience because we had many countries we interacted with in the past who were inside of our security umbrella whether germany or japan or korea, taiwan or others, that was what happened but china was in many ways very different animal. like russia, it saw itself as a great civilization with its own tradition and history. but to reject everything else. it's amazing, this is this whole idea of the end of history. that was wrong. and now we need to recognize that we are fighting for history. we're fighting to build the kind of future that we would like to live in and that is the huge challenge for us all of us. certainly for everyone in the united states.
>> jamie metzl, thank you for wrapping up the u.s./china week. >> my pleasure. while the u.s. and china tussle over trade, they are at least in sync on one thing, and this is pollution both countries saw their carbon emissions rise in 2018 resulting in global emissions hitting an all-time high but efforts to combat climate change are facing challenges everywhere. nowhere is this clearer than in france right now where the government abandoned its plans for a tax hike after weeks of civil unrest. but despite this concession, the french government anticipate this is weekend bringing more protests and with it more violence. the so-called yellow-jacket protest may have begun with the fuel tax but now it's about a wrath of grievances over inequality and i believe justnj the blame being laid personally
at emmanuel macron's door. the president has deliberately cultivated a secertain mystique around his office but he faces criticism he's too removed from the concerns of ordinary french people. one of france's top journaliss s has covered france's politics and she serves as a spokeswoman during macron's presidential run. she joined me from paris to discuss what might happen and what's at stake this weekend. welcome to the program. >> thank you, it's a pleasure. >> i'm glad to be speaking to you were because you were his spokesman in the runup to the election and you have been a long time journalist in france and the united states so mr. macron and his government have backed down after four weeks of protest and in the face of for weekend. they have scrapped the fuel tax. are you surprised by that?
>> we are surprised but it was inevitable. you had to do it because in france at this moment this is what people are calling an historical crisis. nobody knows what's going to happen on saturday. the climate is extremely tense. i have been with you on the road and i can tell you that it's the same atmosphere before a big explosion. this is extremely tension. the police were saying they fear for the worst on saturday and you cannot take this thing for granted like oh, my god, this is again the french, they're striking. this time this is very differ t different. >> tell me what you mean by it's very different and you use the word explosive and bracing for the worst. you are an insider, at least you have been, so this is serious.
>> it's extremely serious. yesterday a spokesperson for wa saying they fear for violence. i'm very surprised coming from the united states being french but also being american i'm surprised by what they say the conflict is. people are protesting against taxes but now they're also protesting personally speaking against president macron. there's a real personalization. this movement which does not have a leader. all over france and in paris when you talk to the people they say we mate macron we don't want him, he these resign. in a demonstration saturday mixed with a lot of violence, you heard that, please macron resign and that's what carries.
yesterday evening on a news program in france there was a leader who was asking the people to march on the champs-elysees. you have to remember something. france has a history of revolution and this is not like in the united states. here in the past 200 years when people are not happy, they're going to the streets to protest and sometimes unfortunately it's extremely violent. >> i am still extraordinarily bemused because i have covered france a lot. i have watched presidents back down in the past and i'm trying to figure out what makes this one so much different. let me read to you what some of these people have been telling cnn. one man said we want the fortune tax to be reinstated. the government's evaluation is not good enough. we need measures now, we can't
wait any longer or it will be a civil war. another says the moratorium on gas prices is useless. people want a referendum on macron. and another person who said he supports the movement, i've been at the last two protests because i sympathize, i can understand why they will continue to protest this saturday so they can get more concessions. so he's given a concession, he backed down on the fuel tax, it's out of the picture for the next year, it's out of the 2019 budget, now it's the wealth tax. >> what do people want with the so-called wealth tax? >> they want jobs. they want an increase in their salaries. you have to realize that here most people in france are making $1500 a month. they want something else. they want to be heard their income inequality and here in
france they cannot make it. that's what the people are saying, when you speak to women who are over 50, who are models, their industries are saying we cannot make it at the end of the month. we need to shop for food and we have in our hands a wallet but we don't have money. there's a lot of poverty in france. i know that when you come to paris it's always this beautiful city. the french accent, the good food. this is cliche. this is over. there's a terrible economic crisis in france. president emmanuel macron wanted to come to reform. it was not done by francois hollande or czar cok nicolas sa jacques chirac. then he backed up several times
he created what is called the jupiter effect. but people in the streets wanted him to be with them, he did not do that and when he tried it was not sometimes the best way to do it. he's paying for his communication mistake. he's paying for his image of a person who wants to do something but doesn't understand what's happening in the streets for people who are suffering and christiane, the middle-class is suffering. the democracy in many countries is upset. that's what's happening in france. there's a clash of two societies that the moment and in france it's not donald trump but it's almost a revolution.
>> these are incredibly apocalyptic views and very strange because president emmanuel macron, he said to me when i got his first interview after he was elected, he said i have to work to reform this country for my people. i have 10% unemployment, i have 25% unemployment amongst youth, i must make these reforms so they can benefit from the money. that's why he scrapped the wealth tax as it was before and kept it on property because he thought, he said, if i remove the tax on stocks then french will invest in france and not in foreign stocks and when i asked him will you back down like so many other presidents when there's burning in the streets, he said no. let me play you this little bit. will you, like other french presidents i've asked, back off if protests get too strong? >> no, i will deliver.
why? because i was clear during my campaign about the reform. i explained these reforms. i presented the reform during weeks and weeks and i was elected in these reforms. i believe in democracy and democracy isn't in the street. >> he said and democracy isn't in the street and he has a po t point. he's also said he believes his reforms would take 18 to 24 months to bear fruit. >> yes. and when people are suffering looking for food they cannot wait anymore. that's the paradox of this presidency. i want to tell you that i worked with candidate macron. he really wanted to reform. he wanted to bring hope and change in this country. he wanted to do something different for europe and after one year in power you have
something which which never happened in the past 20 years in france and as someone who believed in democracy i think he understands there's a disconnection between the french working class which didn't see anything change in their wallet and which cannot take it anymore and he has to back up because otherwise he's going to have a moral responsibility of seeing people dying in the streets. it's not me who's talking. it's the people all over pauris. i came here, i took a cab and the cab driver was telling me i don't know what to tell my kids, i'm not going to go out on saturday because there are going to be dead people. all over paris, your poor, your rich, your middle-class, people are extremely scared about the threat of violence on saturday. it's not a joke, it's very
serious and president emmanuel macron knows that and he had this week to give something because not just paris but many cities in france. at this moment i spoke with someone in the south of france and there was a guillotine which was built, a replica of a guillotine which was built which is a symbol of we want to kill the king and that's serious when it's happening to a democracy president macron is clever. he understands that at this moment he has to back up because he has to avoid the war. >> so back up you mean back down. let me ask you this. there have been suggestions that bad actors are stirring up this pot. whether it's bots, whether it's the social media invaders as
we've seen in other elections, this whole thing has been revved up on social media. we hear anecdotally that many members of the french political elite, the establish parties that macron turned upside down with his own movement are loving this. they like to see him fail. how much of that do you believe? >> i would like to tell you two things, christiane. you and me, we have been in an a war zone. i was at the arc detree yum arc triomphe. and we've seen all over paris
people displaying what they called symbols of capitalism. then the regular people but at the beginning i personally strongly believed it was the far left and far right movement extremely well organized. but the second thing, the political leaders with what's happening, maybe two weeks ago but not now. marine le pen is watching. she doesn't appear a lot on tv, when she does she use very simplistic words ark . as you mentioned, president macron does not have real democratic opposition.
ark -- and that's why it's scay here because you don't have a strong opening to president macron. we all are worried about what will happen. >> it's obviously one that demands public intervention by political leaders to call for calm and we have not seen that yet so they bear a lot of responsibility but let me get back to you and knowing macron so well, a while ago you interviewed him when he was minister of the economy under the hollande government in 2015. and you asked him who is macron and he said i feel fully part of the left, it's a deep conviction but what does it mean being part of the left? it's to be a party member. do you consider that political parties are identifiable? i'm from the left to the extent that the values i hold are those
of emancipation, work, social mobility, redistribution and the protection of individuals. ark and when i asked you after his election you said this is true democracy. he is a democratic revolutionary. who is macron? >> he's a depth who is trying to reform the country which is very difficult to reform. he's a democrat who tried to do something who, in my personal opinion, didn't realize that people are suffering in this country and there were probably some missteps in terms of communicating with the real people. >> we don't know what will happen over the weekend and we hope for the best because we don't want to see violence but i wonder what it will mean for his ability to govern. this is what a political analyst told me this week about the rest of his rule.
>> there are people in france who believe seriously that the presidency of emmanuel macron has already failed. ie he may remain president but will be incapacitated to pursue further reforms because he failed to perceive the seriousness of the suffering and anger and by failing to perceive that he acted too late, he did too little and it's over. >> that's a dramatic obituary to a political career. >> yes, and i'm not going to go there because it's fashionable at this moment among intellectuals to say with jubilation it's over. it's not over. he has been elected. it's a democracy and that's why it's serious. we don't know what will happen
on saturday. there's a sentence in politics, people are saying that in politi politics, winter is an eternity, maybe the president will speak to the nation, maybe he won't speak, we don't know but at this moment the president has been elected in a democracy it's not over but it's a very, very troubled time for him and people don't know if he will go on and transform the country as he wanted to transform the country. >> just to point out that dominique said he voted for him twice and wants him to succeed but he's concerned. so if you were still advising now president macron at this particularly volatile time what
would you say rand you much n touch? >> i would say listen to the people, explain to them what you want to do. be a human being. . peek wi speak with your heart to people. i remember when president macron was elected, in your opinion the louvre, we were together. it was president macron won against marine le pen but people forgot that two weeks prior to to this final day of the election there was a first run, president macron was at 21%, marine le pen, the far right and the far left all together were up 45% and that's the figure we have to remember. when president macron arrived in paris, the past was already
divided and it will be very difficult sometimes to reform the democracy in the world we live in which is so divided by the extreme. >> indeed. and it's shocking because people believed that france might escape this terrible toxic division that is plaguing our western democracies right now. we hope for the best and we thank you very much for being with us with your unique perspective. thank you for joining us from paris. >> thank you so much. our next guest has film making in her blood. she's the daughter of two screenwriters and the granddaughter of two-time oscar-winning director elia kazan. zoe kazan shines in front of and behind the camera. she's best known for her role in "the big sick." here's a clip. >> are you judging pakistan's next top model? >> you know how we have arranged marriage in this culture? >> oh, my god, i'm so stupid.
can you imagine a world in which we end up together? >> i don't know. >> this year, the actress and writer starred in the latest cohen brothers extrav ban da, the ballard of buster scruggs and she wrote the film "wildlife" with paul dano. she said she wants to tiptoe into her grandfather's footsteps as a director. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> your film, "the ballad of buster scruggs" won best screenplay at the venice film festival. >> it's a qcohen brother's movi and it's an anthology western film. it's sort of six stories told like they're chapters in a book and they're only thematically
joined and joined by their setting which is the old west and i'm -- i play a kind of woman going west in one of those chapters and it was originally conceived as a six-part series. >> it wasn't. this is a misconception. >> tell me what i learned wrong on the internet. >> truly. i think because it's such an odd format it's one movie but six stories so when it was first reported it was reported as a mini series but it was never that. it was the very strange form that it is. >> tell me about your chapter? >> i play a woman named alice long, she is going west with her brother who is a very controlling person and she's sorts of never had to have a mind of her own and then something bad happens and she's cast on her own and sort of
having having to survive. >> my brother and i are setting off in the morning for oregon. >> oregon. oh, you have people out there or -- >> just scoop from her plate, mrs. halladay, grandma turner is quite done. >> i'm to be married. or at least i'm -- maybe, to gilbert's associate. >> he's well fixed out there. >> you're not certain whether you're going to be married? has the gentleman not proposed? >> he -- well, he -- >> well, he will propose once they meet each other, i'm sure alice will pass muster. i'm joining him in a business opportunity and he's declared himself ready to marry when he finds a suitable match and alice can be very soeciable and attractive when she has a mind to be. >> that face reminds me of every woman who has been told to smile. >> yeah, i think you're right, i'm trying. >> there's a history there.
>> do you consider this a feminist character? >> oh, my gosh, i don't know, i think -- i will say i've never been on a set that felt more gender neutral than the cohen brother's set. it felt like gender didn't matter there at all which is extraordinarily unusual in any workplace let alone a movie set even though i was the only woman in my chapter and there are very few women in the piece. i think they write women really well. you can see they're coming at things from a humanist stand poi point. i'm trying to bring that emphasis to any rule i play. but i don't think she's a person who has any idea about anything that can be remotely construed as feminism. it's the late, mid-1800s and first wave feminism hasn't come around yet. i guess what struck me is that this is a character who is very
much hemmed in by her circumstances. then as you said something bad happens and in some ways it liberates her. i think of her like a pet bird inside of a cage and then the cage door opens and she doesn't know how to go out of that open door. she's figuring it out and feeling the wind in her feathers and creeping towards that open doorway. it's an interesting journey to watch someone take. she's a committed person. i don't think we see timid people at the center of movies that often. and she's in the very early stages of figuring out she has a mind and a will of her own. >> you graf talted towards roles like this before. women who are finding their place in the world. you're writing those role into existence for other people. you have a film out, wildlife, that you co-wrote with your
partner. first tell me what the film is about. >> wildlife which i wrote with my boyfriend paul dano, and he directed, is based on a novel by richard ford about a family in 1960 in montana and it's a coming of auj stoge story. the mother played by carey mulligan always provided the mother role for her family, the wife and mother role and her husband played by jake gyllenhaal hasn't held up his end of the bargain in terms of a 1960s ideal of a man, in terms of providing for his family and he feels disappointed in himself and can't pick himself back up and you watch their marriage fall apart through the eyes of their teenaged son. >> paul was committed to this story. >> he was. >> but he needed you to get it done. >> i guess so.
i think it reminded him of his family in in many different ways but he's never written anything and i wrote this movie "ruby sparks" that we acted in together in 2012 so i knew more about how to do it than he did and, yeah, helped him -- we ended up writing it together. >> you put the structure on it. >> it's hard to say, one of the beautiful things we worked on for three years together and it's hard for me to say what he wrote and what i wrote and what comes from the book and when richard ford wrote the novel, he complimented paul on something that came straight from the book. he was like i love that line oh, yeah, you wrote it. so i feel like that's a sign of a fruitful collaboration.
>> tell me more about the character of carey mulligan. >> she plays a character named jeanette. she's in her mid-30s and she had a child young and carrie keeps describing her as someone suddenly having regret about her life, looking at her choices and realizing her life has calcified around them and feeling like he'd have different choices for herself. she's not well equipped in terms of her tools to individuate. so she's making some maybe poor choices or question choices for herself and her son bears witness to that. >> well? how'd you like this particular getup? >> that's nice.
>> i had to dress like this all the time when i was younger. i'd stand behind the bull shoots of the rodeo and hope some cowboy would approve of me. it made my father very mad. they called us shoot beauties. isn't that an impressive thing to know about your mother? that she was a shoot beauty? >> you had a q&a where an audience member stood up and complained that that character was not likable and it made me wonder why audiences so often demand that a female character in particular be likable. >> yeah, i find it strange. i find it strange i have to say sympathetic or likeable is a rubric that we judge characters by at all. like is hamlet likable, i don't know. is he sympathetic? may maybe. one of the things about drama is you can't make dramas about
people behaving correctly. like if everyone is doing everything right now need a plane crash to happen or something to make drama. i do think that there is a greater onus on women than men to seem likable on screen. that is true in our culture as well. look at what happened during the 2016 election and the fact that hillary clinton was considered unlikable and donald trump was considered likable seems very strange to me even in an apolitical way considering what their personalities seem to be and i think we have very different standards for women then men. this audience member took umbrage with the fact that she is exposing her child to some unsavory business but jake gyllenhaal's character, jerry, abandons his wife and child and leaves them entirely and abdicates his parental responsibilities entirely. so the fact that he wasn't holding him to task for that but
was hold her to task for her parenting choices seemed odd to me. although not odd within the context of our society. >> what has been behind the camera taught you about being in front of the camera? >> oh, my god, so much. so much. >> one thing it taught me is to say yes when the director gives me notes. i used to lead with my opinions on set much more aggressively than now. i've learned sometimes they're giving you the note to bring out a color in your scene partner or because they need -- because of what the camera is doing for you to pace it up and also just -- i think as an actor often when you're going into audition rooms you can take it personally when you're rejected and being on the
other side of the table taught me often it has nothing to do with your talent. it has to do with who you are as a person, the essence you bring to the table. sometimes people can be the best actor in the world and they're the wrong animal for the part. it's an inneffable thing, not logical and that has taken -- it's helped me take pressure off myself. >> its strikes me that you have a lot to say and yet you are a notoriously private person. >> yeah. >> where is the line for you? >> oh, man, that's a good question and i feel it. well, i feel it push and pull between the writing and acting side where i feel like as a writer i want to really express something deeply private and personal and i don't see another reason to write if you're not writing from a deep place. but as an act orr when you know
too much about the actor, it interferes with your ability to see them as a different person so i find nyse a way trying to protect some part of myself in order to keep it private. in order to retain the ability to transform myself. i feel like i'm constantly negotiating where that line is and every other day i'm like i'm going to quit twitter. as most people on twitter, i think. i know i would be much happier. >> which title do you want to add next? >> i'd like to direct, i think, i haven't done that yet. watching paul put this movie together and being part of that, making wildlife with an incredible learning experience for me, i was in the editing room with him like three days a week, two days a week for most of their process and i loved this is the editing room.
just that alone wanted me to make a movie someday. but not yet. >> why not yet? >> because i have a two-month-old baby. wrote wildlife for fly years together and then it took another two years to get it made so it was a lot of pushing a rock up a hill. >> you birthed a lot of creative projects and a baby. >> yes, indeed, all at once. >> ambitious. >> yeah. we didn't plan it that way. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. thanks for having me. >> that's it for our program tonight. thank you for watching "amanpour & company" on pbs and join us again next time. uniworld is a proud sponsor of "amanpour & co." when bea tollman found a collection of boutique hotels, she had bigger dreams, and those dreams were on the water.
a river, specifically. multiple rivers that would one day be home to uniworld river cruises and their floating boutique hotels.r floating today that dream sets sail in europe, asia, india, egypt, and more. bookings available through your travel agent. for more information, visit uniworld.com. >> additional support has been provided by rosalind p. walter. bernard and irene schwartz. sue and edgar wachenheim iii. the cheryl and philip milstein family. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.
. this is "nightly business report" with bill griffeth and sue herera. what a reversal. av falling more than 500 points, the dow finished higher. is there a way do protect your portfolio from what feels like never ending volatility. jumping ship. there have been a lot of sellers in this market but it's who is doing the selling that may signal how long this volatility will last. lessons learned. ten years since bernie madoff confessed to orchestrating the largest ponzi scheme ever. what has changed? those stories and more on "nightly business report" for monday, december 10th. and we do bid you a good evening, er