tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg August 16, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the 2016 presidential election . donald trump is seeking to stabilize his campaign after weeks of stepping on his message. hillary clinton continues to widen her lead in key battleground states. trump's campaign manager is also under fire. the new york times reported he received $12.7 million for consulting with the ukrainian president.
paul manafort has denied the new york times report. ukrainian president. trump delivered an address focused on fighting islamic terrorism. mr. trump: the time is overdue to develop a new screening test. i call it extreme vetting. i call it extreme, extreme vetting. our country has enough problems. we don't need more. these are problems like we have never had before. charlie: we were taping this program before his speech. joining me now from orange county, california is hugh hewitt, host of a popular conservative radio program. also joining us from washington, d.c. dan balz, the chief , correspondent at the washington post. i am pleased to have both of them at this time. hugh, tell me. i am fascinated by how trump continues to get in the way of
his message. is that in his dna? hugh: he does, charlie. it is an inability to stay focused that has hurt him this month when he could have been reproducing. we were obvious he have to read what the reaction to the speeches tomorrow. i hope he doesn't step on his message. he gave a great speech in detroit and then made off hand comments about the second amendment and stepped on his message of economic renewal and massive tax cuts, and that was lost for the entire week. today, the home of the man who invented the penalty flag. it is in my backyard in the steel valley of ohio. he will try again to reset. if he stays on message, he can be very successful. for reasons we can talk about at length secretary clinton does , not have a great record when
it comes to stopping isis, but he has got to make sure she is the focus and not some sidebar he ignites. charlie: is it too late to do that, dan? dan: it is getting very late, there is no question about it. the whole he has dug is wide and deep. the poll average was six points plus. that is not a close election. look atleground states for him at this point. the electoral college forecast look bad for him at this point. you never say never in a campaign, but he is really running out of time. the problem is, politics is the game of addition, not subtraction. in all sorts of ways, he is blocking access to his candidacy to people and groups he needs to go after. it is because of what is hugh said. he creates these diversions from his real message. he carries out these fights, grievances, he continues to try
to litigate long after he needs to worry about them. so there is just a lot he needs to do. he can't be somebody other than who he is but he's got to find a , way to be who he is and stay on a message that is and focused on hillary clinton. charlie: you believe that is a winning message, dan? dan: i think it is a possibly winning message. we have talked about this before. we are in an environment where people are looking for change. they are not happy with the status quo. they are not happy with washington. they are not happy with the way the political system works. they think something dramatic needs to be done to shake it up. and donald trump, in many ways, is the candidate who is best positioned to do that. hillary clinton is an establishment candidate. she will carry on a continuation of policies that we have had for the last eight years. many people like those policies, many people don't, but he cannot be the candidate for change when he is talking about everything other than that.
charlie: that is exactly what you believe, isn't it, here? hugh? hugh: i was thinking when dan was talking, he did a piece for the post on sunday that summarized the crisis that exists. it is all unforced error. i believe donald trump had been 10 points ahead had he began to execute a purposeful, message driven, targeted at the underclass in america, the working class in america, the lower class in america who feel left behind. i have always said he is a tractor beam for those who are despairing. there is a hot book out there. "hillbilly elegy." charlie: we know about it, yes. hugh: it is about the working class and the dysfunction, almost sense of hopelessness that has absorbed communities and states donald trump needs to carry, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan. dan just alluded to this. it is possible still to energize and encourage that group of
people and say to the coal miners, i want to put you back to work. and to say to the automobile manufacturing plants which are empty in michigan, the steel plants that are closed in ohio we can repurpose those plans and plants and bring back jobs. it is very late in the day. it is not over. the debates still matter. but boy, it is late. as dan wrote yesterday, it is very late. charlie: is this his message or -- does hessage understand the disc content of those people you have been speaking about? hugh: i think he appropriated it. i think it's years in reality television brings him into touch with people who are eager to succeed. he is as much a populist figure
in the way that populist figures have been before. they are not of the people but they are very much in touch with the people. i would also point out, marco rubio is far ahead in florida. the republicans aren't getting blown out. there are organization structures in the states that trump can harness to his advantage if he chooses to do so , make some appointments and make some gestures in that way, but it is up to him. charlie: dan, do you agree? dan: i agree up to a point. i think hugh is right. in the senate races, the republicans are not getting blown out. at a time when the republicans are performing weakly in those states. hugh's point, there is a dissatisfied electorate out there, but trump's problem is, whether there are enough of those white blue-collar workers
to actually win the election. my hunch is that there are not. he has to go beyond that. if you look at the polling, the most important thing, there is a gap that has opened up between those with college degrees and those without college degrees. in the white community, donald trump does extremely well with those who do not have college degrees, but he is losing in many places among whites with college degrees. that is a departure from the way republican candidates have performed in the past. he doesn't have to win them overwhelmingly but he has to do better than he is doing. he has to do better with women than he is doing. he can't get blown out in some of these areas in the way that he is getting blown out now and still hope there is a reservoir of the disaffected white working class that can put him over the top. charlie: hugh?
hugh: in 1968, there was volatility. i believe we are in an era of volatility. milwaukee could have gotten worse. hopefully it will remain calm. as california is entering fire season, so america is entering political fire season, there are these debates, the events in the middle east and crimea, where there are troops massing on both sides of the new russian-imposed border, syria where the genocide goes on, and indeed across u.s. and urban america, lots of stuff can happen. that is why i am reluctant to say, even if mid- rolls around september and donald trump is down by 10 points, i do not know of black swans whether there is not another one that would descend in the stretch run. charlie: there's also the risk that something could come out about hillary clinton because of the release of the e-mails.
the fbi interview of hillary. k hangseat question mar over her. dan: she has not been able to put that to rest. she has recently made it worse or brought it back to the forefront with her interpretation of what f fbi said as opposed to what , most people think he said. those revelations may and will continue to haunt her all the way to election day. the question is, are they clear-cut enough to change perceptions or are they in the area of murkiness so people who have already made up their minds stick with which side of the ledger they feel is talked about? that is a problem. we go back to donald trump constantly. the issue is, in one way or another, he is unable to keep the focus on hillary clinton.
in fact, he does the opposite. he draws attention from her weaknesses and vulnerabilities and brings it back on himself. when things happen to her, they become less of a story. charlie: you had an interview with donald trump. you said to him, as i remember, you said something like, i clearly understood what you meant when you talked about obama being a cofounder of isis. you meant the deal he made for american troops to leave iraq, and that had led to the resurgence because of how the shia government treated sunnis and all of that, and al qaeda came back. that is exactly what you thought he meant. dan: i was sincere. i believe the president lost the peace in 2011. by the precipitous withdrawal of
troops and secretary clinton's failure to negotiate an extension of the status of forces agreement. we have troops there today, so it never made sense, but we left. into that vacuum came the syrian civil war and troops flying the black flags. i thought he was ready to give us an argument. he said, no. in fact, as dan just alluded to, in that same interview, we talked about a nigerian lebanese billionaire whose money has a it comingdor around from the nigerian dictatorship and has had to pay $300 million to the nigerian government to avoid criminal charges in the past. there isn't e-mail from the clinton foundation, help us out. we need help for him with money.
she writes back this is the , ambassador. charlie: ambassador or former ambassador? hugh: i think it was the current ambassador that he offered to intervene with. the former ambassador now has it, i never got the call. they have done some repair. nonetheless, what donald trump ought to have done is not yell at the new york times or the washington post but speak , the name gilbert again and the trap for the media not to investigate himself or his press approach, which i have argued with him is counterproductive and not in the american tradition, but instead he put the attention back on himself, not on mrs. clinton. it is just a mistake. it is campaign 101 not executed well. charlie: one more time, why does he do it? hugh: if you are the star -- i'm beginning to think his greatest strength in the primaries, the
masterful use of television to make yourself a center of attention and every show, the 12 debates that we did, that same ability to make yourself the center of attention is not something he can turn off. it is a permanent on switch. that is what makes for great tv and wonderful primary runs. it does not make for a great general election campaign. charlie: you said, dan, trump had to expand rather than subtract. can she expand? does she have the potential to appeal to the economic insecurity and discontent that is part of -- go ahead. dan: she certainly has tried. i think from the start of her campaign, she has talked about about a principal focus will be to raise wages for all
americans. wage stagnation is an important issue. it has created some of the economic insecurity that we see in a lot of parts of the country. she has talked about an economy that works for everybody. she has not galvanized that issue. she certainly has not galvanized that constituency a lot of that , constituency, the white isking-class constituency donald trump, but she has the ability. if you look at the last few elections, the obama coalition to the degree she can reassemble that, is a coalition that get you over 50% and over 270 electoral votes. she has an easier way both to get to 50% in a head to head race or to get to 270 electoral votes. his path is very difficult. so of the problems he has right , one now is if you look at the polling nationally and a number of the battleground polls that have come out, her percentage is
about what she needs among democrats, 90%, 92%. his percentage among republicans is not close to that. in some cases, the high 70's to the low 80's. he needs to bring that 90% incan support of the order to be truly competitive. if you see that number moving up, not just creeping up, but moving up directly over the next few weeks, then this race will look more competitive. but until that happens she will , have the advantage. charlie: do you think donald trump has ronald reagan's charm? hugh: he does not have his charm. he does have even more training in the art of television. i believe there is a good chance that secretary clinton will not debate because her lead is so substantial it is not worth the risk. we saw him in the debates do this time and time again, via a
tax on moderators, candidates, speaking directly to camera. i don't see the upside debating him. reagan used those opportunities. i think donald trump will as well. that sheyou imagine wants to get away with that? dan: i don't think she wants to. they have already put out a statement the chairman of the , campaign, saying they will accept the terms of the debates commission. there will be the three debates that are already set in terms of the dates. they will abide by the formats. donald trump has not yet done that in an explicit way. there are indications he will dissipate but he has not , explicitly said he will show up on the three dates on the calendar at this point or will accept the terms under which these debates are held by the commission. the gap at this point is on trump's side. he believes he won the primary
season debates and is an effective debater. he dominated those stages when there were a number of people on the stage with him. a head-to-head debate with hillary clinton will be different, but he has demonstrated that he knows how to handle himself, so i think it would be on his interest to be on that stage for all of those debates. charlie: my guess is he knows that and everything he says or they are saying are simply negotiation. hugh: i agree with that. charlie: people close to him have said to me that the problem , or one of the problems with donald trump, is that everything is a transaction. this has become part of the conventional wisdom. he sees everything as a negotiation. whatever he says, goes back to how he spent his life, which is basically starting at one place
and hoping he will end up somewhere else. hugh: i think when we look back and dan writes his book about the campaign he is the , developer, and he has always been a developer. i have represented large land developers. everything is a negotiation. every rule is permeable. can be changed to a yes. every acre can be recaptured. so everything donald trump does is based on a lifetime of success in development. i am believing he is approaching the debates this way. trying to get a larger audience. trying to remove a rather dead hand of the omission on this because it is rather boring, and they ought to get rid of that town hall format. there is an element of negotiation. i still think hillary clinton 1972li richard nixon from and walk off and wave goodbye to these debates, because there is
no upside for her. charlie: usa today says young voters are fleeing ronald trap. donald trump. it shows clinton beating them, 56%-25%. in the democratic primary battle with bernie sanders, she have appeal to the young voters, but now against a truck, she does. hugh: if i can sum it up, millennials don't like mean people. bernie sanders was perceived, it is not an age thing, they don't like mean people. donald trump has been perceived as being mean, and millennials free from that. i think that is the long and short of it. i don't know if dan agrees with that. dan: i do agree. we did a long piece. there were a number of us talking to young voters. we found two things. one, they are not wild about this choice. they don't find either of these
candidates particularly inspiring. on the other hand, they find donald trump a lot scarier and a lot less appealing than hillary clinton. our reporting bears out the polling, which is that they are going to go in big numbers for hillary clinton. i think the issue for her as it has been all along is is whether she can generate the kind of it is he is him that brings out the big turnout that barack obama was able to do. in terms of percentages, she will do handsomely with that group of voters. charlie: when i talk to people in the clinton campaign, i asked them what they worry about and they say turnout. dan: i think that is right. i think that is the issue. she has not been an inspiring candidate. bernie sanders did as well as he did because he was able to inspire people. he had an authenticity about his message, and she struggled with that. he had a clarity of his message, he iss donald trump when
on message, that she does lack. it is very hard to boil down her speech into something simple and say here is what the clinton campaign is about, other than competence and incremental progress based on where we are today versus where we were. the issue for her is inspiring people. for a lot of democrats, donald trump is a figure who inspires them to want to vote against him and vote for her. in so much of the polling we have looked at this year on both , sides, there are as many or more people voting because they are voting against the opponent rather than because they are enthusiastically voting for the nominee of their party. that is an issue for her weather with young voters or latinos or african americans. she has got to make sure the energy is there. charlie: do except that both of them are the least popular to run for the
presidency? hugh: the voter misery index, which i borrowed from ronald reagan, they are running away with the voter misery index. they are the least liked batman and robin of politics ever. charlie: i was waiting for you to connect this to literature or film and you connected it to the olympics. what is your take on trump and putin? hugh: i believe that vladimir putin is so far ahead of most americans of both parties when it comes to playing the grand game, the great game. i remember interviewing vice president cheney and asking about putin. he said, when i looked in his eyes, i saw a kgb colonel. so the kgb colonel has russian doll within russian doll within russian doll, and if people think he wants trump to win, he probably wants hillary to win.
most of all, he is playing a european chess game and winning everywhere. he is winning in crimea. he is winning in moldova. most of all, he is winning in estonia. putin is winning. what he was to do to american politics is interfere and metal. we are to be concerned about that. i just don't know what we know his game plan and i would be the last person to presume to say that i have any idea what this kgb expert is up to. charlie: bob gates said he saw a stone cold killer. dan, what is your take on paul manafort and today's new york times story? dan: it is a damaging story, although to be fair, he has denied it. he said, i have never taken any cash. i have never taken off the books payments. i never worked for the government of ukraine or russia. we know he operated there. we know the history of that. we know that american consultants are in a lot of places overseas.
the question is on which side are you operating and for what candidate are you operating? this is one of those issues that will be out there surrounding him, in particular because of the way donald trump seemingly has related to vladimir putin. vladimir putin said nice things about him, and donald trump's mo is it people say nice things about him, he says nice things about them. it has created the impression of a coziness. i take hugh's point. i have no idea what putin's real game is and would not pretend to suggest that i do, but donald trump and paul manafort have gotten themselves wrapped into a situation in which they have to explain or deny or try to put this to rest. it is pretty hard when these kinds of stories keep coming out. hugh: there was an old roman ruler. he was julius caesar before
caesar. i have said this on air before, on his tomb is the saying, no friend has done me a favor nor enemy an injury which i have not repaid in full. donald trump ask in the same way. if you say nice things about him he likes you. , i brought a potential debate moderator to him since she did so well in one of the debates. he said, no, she does not say nice things about me. she is off the list. i don't think hillary clinton would be accepting her. that is donald trump. that is his mo. it is very personal politics with him. charlie: and then there is the income tax returns. [laughter] hugh: i asked him in february, would you release them. 2015, he said he would. he said he would go back, what is the norm? we talked as though it was a
fate accomplish. i don't think he would be looking at september, 2016 that he would actually have two to release them. he is not going to release them. that is not happening. it probably doesn't matter to 99.9% of the american public. what matters to them is, our friend matt dowd has said this, who understands me better? the american voter goes in and says, who gets me? who cares about me? in this election, they are looking at both of these candidates and i think, i don't think either of them give a rat's patootie for my life right now, and that is the problem. charlie: will he be forced to release them or, in the end, it is about reporters think
understands me? dan: on the tax returns, i think he has made a calculation. hugh is correct. he doesn't have to release them and most people won't care. i think the issue is what is , there he doesn't want to release? the second is, what does that tell us about what kind of presidency he would operate? would he operate under the norms we expect of a president in terms of transparency or would he not? i think that is a question that goes beyond the issue of the tax returns. charlie: you agree with that, hugh? he obviously has something to hide, does he not? what is your speculation about what he might have to hide? is it some relationship with somebody? how much money reported or how many charitable the directions he took? hugh: i hesitate to speculate, only because i have been underwhelmed by everyone's tax returns. mitt romney was reluctant to release them, and it came out that he made a lot of money and some of it was an offshore
account, so i have no idea what some people perceive as their vulnerability. they paid too little. they paid too much. they don't given us to charity. they have associations which are unsavory or people don't understand. i have never figured it out. i don't think it really does matter. i think donald trump is in control of his own ability to close the gap and develop some momentum. it will not be the tax returns, it will be his ability to sit down with people like you, charlie, people like me and dan and communicate warmth and , caring. not just the oligarch, the men man of power. fdr was all of that but he also had a bedside manner that was , if you and engaging will. a radio side manner which was charming and engaging. i have seen that in donald trump. i have seen him do that. i have talked to him when he has done that. if he can flip on that switch as opposed to the, i am going to keep these reporters out switch, i think he does much better. charlie: thank you so much, hugh
charlie: i am pleased to have natalie portman back at this table. the obvious question is, why this film. first of all, it is in hebrew. second, when you started being interested in it, you were too young to play the character. natalie: when i read the book, it was when it came out in translation 10 years ago. it was moving to me immediately. i saw the film in front of me, which is testament to the author's writing. i wanted to direct it but i didn't think of playing the part because i was 26. it took me so long to make the film. i aged into being able to play the role. charlie: you really wanted to
just direct but then people said -- natalie: you are crazy. a film in hebrew. you have no known actors. how do you expect us to give you money for this? that also helped, for me to be in it. charlie: what was it about this? natalie: the language is so beautiful in the book. it really deals with the time i have heard about so much in my own family. i was born in israel. my grandparents on my father's side moved to what was british mandate palestine from eastern europe as refugees. when you imagine something your whole life, that sort of creates a visual repertory for what you can create. charlie: was he excited about the film being made? natalie: he was incredibly generous.
it was always hard for him. he said from the beginning, this is my story. it is me, it is my name, it is me as a child. it is my mother. it is my writing, my book. it is so personal. beware, i'm going to be emotional. but he was incredibly supportive and loving with the film. by extension, with me. he said from the beginning, make it your own. don't try to film the book. charlie: that is the woman you played. natalie: it is moving to watch him talk about it. he's such a heart and mind and soul all at once. having to tell his mother's story, having to tell himself his mother's story, was formative.
charlie: she lived in a fantasy world. natalie: he describes it as slavic melancholy. a tragic romanticism that she grew up in. the equation of sadness with beauty. makes living with disappointed dreams that much more difficult. yeah, it is beautiful to see sort of his evolution as a writer in this gap she leaves for him. charlie: the interesting thing too, your story of israel is the story of dreams and at the same time reality. natalie: absolutely. her experience as an immigrant. her experience as a mother and a wife, having these expectations that are unfulfilled by the new
country, the husband, her position in society. charlie: she was an early feminist. natalie: i don't know if she would define herself as that, but for sure i think there was frustration. and you see that, with the zionist dreams, there are many zionisms. there were hundreds of zionism. there was a religious zionism. a secular, utopian socialism. none of those dreams have turned out the way the dreamers dreamed. how you deal with the disappointed dream sort of depends on your mental health, i think. charlie: this hebrew language was crucial for you. natalie: it was really important. it is one of the most magical things to me, if not the most magical thing about this time.
they revived the language, which i don't think has happened in the history of the world. a language that was essentially dead -- charlie: was revived. natalie: it is beautiful it became the new language. when the first girl said to the first boy, i love you. charlie: he was surprised it became an international bestseller. natalie: he thought it would be particular a corner in jerusalem that would read it because it is so specific. but of course -- charlie: has he seen the film? natalie: he has and he was incredibly loving about it. which was very meaningful to me. more than anything, i revere him. charlie: why does she commit suicide?
reality didn't match the vision? natalie: it is a mystery. he gave me very few guidelines, don't try to answer it. people have asked me permission before to make the film, but they would always adapt the screenplay and make it like, she had a lover that died and she thought about him. they would try to give some explanation. he says, who knows the answers. i think there is a, there is many things you could say but ultimately no one knows. i think, i tried to show in the film the different you know pressures of living and a place that is extremely violent. of having lost everything in the place you came from as a refugee from annihilation in europe.
having this romantic outlook in the world not matched by reality. charlie: israel had an early female prime minister. tell me about your feeling. when you were three, you moved to the u.s. with your family. but you were born there and experienced it very early. have you continued to go back? is israel living and breathing and crucial to your own being? natalie: i go back regularly. my dad's side of the family continues to live there. it has been a big part of my life. the way i see the world.
i am not israeli. i'm not totally american. i feel american. i obviously have citizenship and have lived most of my life here. but i have this sort of outsider status because i am also born out of the country and immigrated here. it is definitely a major influence on me. charlie: you related to her stories. natalie: absolutely because that whole mythology of where we came from, it is wildly similar when you hear the kinds of stories that are told and repeated. i don't know, maybe it is the family thing in general. you hear the same stories over and over again. charlie: you have also sent and been vocal about the politics of israel.
do you worry about its survival? natalie: i think we are certainly in a critical point where, yeah, things need -- decisions need to be made to create a better future for everyone living there. charlie: some people think the possibility of a two state solution is shrinking daily. natalie: it is understandable and difficult. how many years can people be hurt, i'm talking about on both sides, and still reconcile? we see it on an individual basis if you think about collective emotions in an individual way. there is not a whole lot of desire to reconcile after that long of being hurt. but it is also kind of the only way forward.
charlie: how do they think is going to end? after all these years, until the people say, we can't continue this? natalie: right, exactly. charlie: everybody tries. every single new president tries to do what he can or perhaps she can to do some thing about it. each year, we send george mitchell and then john kerry. it continues. some critics call this a love letter to israel. do you see it that way? natalie: it is really funny it came out that way. not that it came out that way but is perceived that way. it is very much, to me, a family story and an individual story. there is the backdrop which is the state. if anything, i find myself critical, the same way i am, a good citizen is a critical
on directing? natalie: a bit. mostly in the editing process, i went to director friends. that was really my first time in that process. otherwise, it has been over 20 years i have been acting. been lucky enough to work with a lot of wonderful directors. charlie: did you always know you are going to direct? natalie: i don't know it that i knew very early. for the past 15 years, since i turned 20, i was thinking i wanted to direct. and especially, we all bemoan the lack of female directors. you can't complain about it and then not do it. luckily, if you have the opportunity and the desire and the vision.
charlie: i can imagine, someone at age 20 might think the would want to direct, and then you are there with somebody who is a master, you would be wanting to watching and asking some questions even if you are sickly mply an actress or actor. natalie: i mean specifically this project, saying, what should i do? yes, absolutely. every time i am set, i talked to dp's too. why they are choosing the camera and lens. if it is film, what kind of film and why. how directors choose their color pallets. making music decisions. all of those were really helpful because that is not what you get involved in much as an actor. charlie: what was the most challenging part? natalie: music was very challenging.
i am very specific about music and i had music i would play all the time while i was writing and directing. when you put it on the image and the emotion is the same, it doubles up and it is too much. the music that works is counterintuitive. it is not what you think is the emotion. that was really surprising and challenging. charlie: where did you film it? natalie: almost entirely in jerusalem and a little bit in the desert outside and also the north. some of the more dream sequences. charlie: mostly israeli actors? natalie: almost all except for me, i am part. also a few palestinian or arab-israeli. charlie: when will it open in israel?
natalie: it opened last summer. very nicely received which was great. charlie: did they see it as a story of the founding? and of their favorite novel? natalie: a national treasure. yeah, i think both for sure. it was really interesting how moved people were. there is a scene when the u.n. vote to approve the creation of the state of israel happens. when we were shooting it, everyone was just like, because it is a story, it is sort of the
equivalent, not the equivalent but you know, where people remember where they were with jfk or the man on the moon. that is the story everyone has heard. charlie: the radio of the u.n. vote. natalie: that is what we have heard from our grandparents or parents. to be there and re-create that, everyone was emotional. charlie: you had the opportunity to talk to people who participated in that. natalie: he was the most amazing person to describe it. he said there was this collective scream that sounded like the voices of everyone who had ever died. everyone who was living, just screaming out. because it was, obviously this incredible tragic joy of having lost everything but now finally having their own place. that his father said to him,
which is in the film, now that we have a jewish state, you will never bleed again for being jewish. which of course is a tragic thing to thing now. charlie: you wonder whether israel would be a different place if it hadn't constantly had to live with the struggle it has had, for better or worse. you wonder about the palestinians, if they had had a homeland and place. and had been able to coexist. might have created something really wonderful. natalie: it is certainly a tragedy for both peoples but hopefully not over. hopefully something possible to change. charlie: what is the charity?
natalie: it is a group that tries to get both children in the developing world and the developed world into a new place. in the developing world, the y build schools that have wells and latrines and health care. small business loans for the mothers of the children who go there, all in one village so they create this sustainable school model. in the developed world, they get young kids to raise money for the schools and then go help build them. they support kids feeling empowered they can do something to change the world. it is a wonderful group that i have been lucky enough to be a small participant in that it really gets kids helping other
kids. charlie: how do you think making this film has changed you? natalie: when i started, i wasn't used to expressing my opinion in a clear way. expressing what i wanted. jill soloway, who is the creator of "transparent," a woman i admire, had this speech last year about how she thinks part of the reason there are not so many female directors is she has said directing is about desire. we are not comfortable with female desire. you have to say, i want that. i want that. it was hard for me when they would say, what color should we make this wall in the house? do you think the length of the skirt is right?
what kind of filter do you want to put on the lens? when you are the leader, they want you to say, i want this. i like that. that is not good. you have to be clear and direct. i knew what i wanted, i just didn't know how to express it. within a week, i was very comfortable. it was interesting to see, at 31 when i directed it, i still hadn't developed that in myself. it definitely helped me develop that clarity and comfort with saying what i want. my family has been really wonderful about it and supportive. it is sort of a piece of our story, too. charlie: thank you for coming. "a tale of love and darkness" opens on friday, august 19.
mark: you're watching bloomberg west. let's begin with a check of your first word news. the fbi gave congress classified records from its investigation into hillary clinton's use of a private e-mail server. her campaign says it wants the documents shared publicly. abc news reports that beginning wednesday republican presidential nominee donald trump will attend national security briefings. in march, president obama signed a law requiring the white house to start preparing for a new president six months before the november election with at least three outside groups elected to help with the transition. the united nations says it is concerned about the safety of civilians, including thousands of children in the syrian city of aleppo.