tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg December 2, 2014 10:00pm-11:01pm EST
oil. oil prices have plunged to their lowest level in five years. earlier today, crude oil fell below $65 a barrel. opec's decision last week to not cut output continues to shake market through the weekend. new data also confirmed a slowdown in manufacturing activity in europe and china. joining me now from washington, daniel yergin is a leading energy scholar and author of "the quest: energy, security, and the remaking of the modern world." dan, thank you for doing this. what is going on? >> what is going on is a redefinition of the world oil market, where the most important thing that is happening has been this extraordinary growth in u.s. oil production and output, combined with what you just described, which is a weakening of the world economy, which has become apparent in the last few months. out of the blue, libya was suddenly putting quadruple the amount on the market. all those things together
finally toppled oil from this lofty price of $100 a barrel. >> where is it going? >> that is a probably $64 trillion question. we are in a whole new price range now. with the amount of supply coming into the market. the ranges could be quite wide as people are estimating. a lot depends on what is happening in the global economy. we are in a different world in terms of oil prices now. that will be evident at the gas pump. >> beyond the price they will pay for a gallon of gasoline and what that means to their own budget, which is inconsequential, what are the
other consquences of falling oil prices? >> for the u.s. economy, it is pretty positive, because it does mean more money in the pockets of motorists, which means more money in the cash registers of retailers. what is strange is that our oil imports have gone way down from the level they used to be at. we have had an unconventional gas revolution in the united states, which is reaching every state because of long supply chains. so that has been one of the most positive things since the 2008 downturn. that is going to be more tempered. but it is a boost to the u.s. economy and a boost to the other economies that import a lot of oil. those that export oil, particularly those that do not have any exchange resources, this is a big problem. >> specifically russia. >> yes. russia is not a petrol state, but it is very dependent upon oil and gas. oil is over 40% of mr. putin's budget. so it is important to the economy. they have built up reserves. remember when he came to power in the 1990's, one of the lessons was, we will not be
brought down by an oil price collapse. so they built up several hundred billion dollars of reserves. but it is an economy that is dependent upon imports, consumer goods, food. so this is a problem. they have been teetering on recession. they are probably in a recession now if not on the way. >> what does it mean for putin's future? >> he will not have that kind of maneuverability on the economic front that he has had. his basic bargain with people has been, "i will deliver you a better economy." he has delivered a better economy. "and you will let me run the show." but that bargain -- the popularity has been very high because of what is going on in ukraine. he has benefited enormously. but pressure will mount over the next year and this economy gets into a weaker position. >> why did opec make the decision?
prices are going down, you would think you limit supply and prices go back up. but they increase productions. >> opec is really an association of nations that have not much in common except they export oil. so you have the iranians clamoring for production cuts. we are used to seeing come out of opec. but the gulf countries, led by saudi arabia, said, "no way. let's let the market decide." we are not going to be left holding the bag. you will be able to benefit from that. i think it is a message -- it is two other things. one is a message to producers saying, we are not willing to give up market share.
it also has to do with the politics of the gulf. iraq, which is increasing production, which is almost a satellite of iran. they are sort of the shiite-oriented people that have taken power in yemen. they do not want to give up market share to iran or iraq. i think those issues were important for them as well. they basically said we will leave it to the market for now. >> what about japan? japan is in a recession even though its stock market has gone up. >> this is good news for japan in a number of ways. it imports basically all of its natural resources. the price coming down is a boost to its economy, industry, to its balance of payments. they had the terrible nuclear accident at fukushima, and as a result of that, they had been importing liquefied natural gas. that price has hinged on the price of oil.
the price of oil is going to come down, and the price of natural gas is going to come down. their electricity costs are coming down. china, which is kind of where you started, it was china 10 years ago getting in on a high growth track that really stimulated this whole bloom in commodity prices and oil. but now the premiere of china recently said we are moving from high to medium-high growth. and others, medium growth. so you do not have china as the kind of dynamo of commodity prices of oil. they import 60% of their oil. for them to have that come down, that could boost -- although they have a strong domestic oil industry, that would boost their economy. make the cost of shipping goods cheaper. >> tell me where we are in terms of becoming an oil-producing nation, and what impact that might have, especially when combined with what is happening in canada.
>> the u.s. was once the world's greatest oil exporter. then we became an importer and the largest importer of oil. but we had this change that really started with technological efforts in the 1980's. we did not see the impact until five or six years ago. what is happening is quite extraordinary. it caught opec by surprise. if you remember back to some of the times when i was on your show earlier, people talking about running out of oil, and oil, since 2008, u.s. oil production has increased by 80%,
a 4 million barrel a day increase. that is bigger than the output of every opec country except saudi arabia. what is happening is a big deal, and that is why it is redefining the oil market. we are not energy independent. we still import 27% of our oil. this is a big change. a boost to our economy. and it gives us, because we are going to export natural gas, it gives us influence in the world and world politics. a lot of people talk about u.s. decline, but i know that if you are in europe or asia, people see this as a new source of strength in the united states. >> they also see our economy as one of the strongest in the world. even though the levels of gdp growth are different between china and the united states. but when they look at the trends, they tend to think we are in a very good place. demographics are good and lots of other factors. >> right. we are the strongest economy in the world.
the brits, china, brazil in recession. back. the one its economy that is really growing is the united states. we have become the locomotive of the world economy. to the chinese, we are important because we are a big export market for them. >> the prognosis for this continuing, obviously, is dependent on what factors contribute to it. so what is contributing to it and what is the likelihood that they will be dominating factors in the future? >> this unconventional revolution in oil and gas has been one of the biggest benefits to our economy since 2008. but i think lower oil prices are the proverbial tax cut. it does not have to be approved by congress or the president. it goes in everybody's pocket. i think that it will be -- will continue to put us in a strong
position. >> daniel yergin, thank you. we will be right back. >> the national football league is plagued by controversy. domestic violence by some high-profile players, charges of team sanction, painkiller abuse, and severe brain injuries resulting from the game's violence. here to discuss this is demaurice smith, head of the players association. >> you met with commissioner goodell earlier this week about the whole question of personal conduct. how did the meeting go? >> i think it would be fair to say the players are losing patience. it has been several months since the commissioner said that everything is on the table. at the same time, it has been nearly a month , and they have not responded to a proposal from
the players on how to address the issue in a fair and constructive way. so a meeting where you come in hoping that everything is on the table and you get there and find out that virtually nothing is on the table should be frustrating to the players, and it is. >> so what did you do? >> the first question to the owners was, are they prepared to collectively bargain over personal conduct policy and a process to address these issues? they told us they were not. the players heard a little of the arguments of why they do not want to collectively bargain for those issues. and the players left. >> you walked out? >> we did. >> you have been critical of the commissioner on this issue. to say he has lost the confidence of players, it has
been mishandled. is it time for a new commissioner? >> i do not know if it is time for a new commissioner. they do not ask me for my vote. the commissioner is selected by the owners of the football league. it is our job to dispel any myths amongst our players and fans that there is some sort of person out there looking over the good of the national football league. that person is hired by the owners of the football league. but if i were the owners, we have seen a lockout period of the referees. a disaster from a public relations standpoint. over the last two years, we have had owners engaged in fraud. in new jersey, you had an owner whose company saw several of the vice presidents plead guilty to criminal actions. you had one owner who owned a home where a woman overdosed to death. this has not been a good run for us. our players deserve better.
our fans deserve better. i know sponsors were concerned about their brand and associating their brand with the national football league. that has to be a concern for them. our issue is we want to keep our players safe, but we know we are engaged in a great sport and great business. the last two years have not been run the best to make sure this was the best business in the world. >> you have criticized the commissioner for the adrian peterson case. he was the star running back convicted of striking his child. do you think the commissioner was especially tough on mr. peterson because he was characterized as not being tough on ray rice? >> i think we are in a process where you structure a response on the fly to respond to negative publicity or criticism.
for players and the union, the we live is that space in between some sort of misconduct by a player and what it means about discipline. the space in between those things has to be a space that is transparent and a process that both you and i have confidence in. so when a player engages in misconduct, there needs to be a transparent and fair process that leads to discipline. i would argue if the process is unclear, if it is inconsistent, if the process is one where our players and fans scratch their heads at commissioner's press conference and wonder if they are making it up and go along -- >> let me ask you about one more case, and that is greg hardy. he had due process, he was found
guilty. the charlotte observer described it -- the trial that he flung a young woman from bed, dragged her by the hair to another room, put his hands around her throat, and threatened to kill her. should the union represent someone like that? >> i was a prosecutor in this city for 10 years. i tried more homicide cases, more violent crime cases, than i bet anybody in the family of the national football league. i do not tolerate violence for anyone. in the same way that every homicide trial that i prosecuted in this city, that there was a good defense lawyer on the other side, that was their job, that was our process. do i believe we have to have a process to handle discipline in the national football league that is as transparent and fair as the criminal justice process? yes. in greg hardy's situation, he has the right to appeal to a jury trial. once the league makes a decision about fair process, the players do not have a problem with a fair process.
what they have a problem with is -- take the adrian peterson case. would you feel comfortable if a person who calls roger goodell his boss is the person who is going to weigh in and make a decision about whether the commissioner or anybody who works with him engages in misconduct? >> charles barkley, the basketball player, weighs in on this, as he does a lot of things. and he says that you and roger goodell should sit down and agree that striking a woman is unacceptable. first time that anyone is found guilty of that, they ought to be suspended, and then banned for life. >> charles is a friend of mine. he is always outspoken. the one thing i think we would all agree on is the issue of due process. what happens, what can both parties decide to do when due process is applied?
would want is let's know what the rules are out front. i would love to reach an agreement with roger goodell. but here is the one thing that will not happen. it is not a situation where we are supposed to hug it out and figure out if there is something we can live with. this is a union that defends its players, that has an ownership that has an interest in the brand of the national football league. somewhere in between that space, we can reach an agreement about what to do in all of these cases, like we have done with drug policy, like we have done with on-field discipline and shares of revenue. we have a collective bargaining agreement that is about 500 pages. torturous. that is your holiday gift to me. we have a collective bargaining agreement where we had sat down and we have fought over everything. the result is we have a business that will do in excess of $10 billion in revenue this year. fans love our game. i do not understand why the national football league is not willing to collectively bargain over discipline like everything else. >> the dea raided several teams a few weeks ago. there was widespread suspicion members are being given very serious painkillers to stay in the game. toradol, a drug used for horses. is this going on?
>> two years ago, this union sent a memo to all our players about our concerns about toradol. we also raised concerns about a particular doctor in san diego that we had concerns about, because that dr. had not only been found liable for non-practice, but his license was being reviewed by the state of california. we had been at the forefront of this issue for two years. the fact we are now in a place where dea agents are raiding teams on game day is a place where this league should not be. when we raise a concern two years ago that a team doctor is referring our players to a wikipedia page about toradol instead of giving each and every one of our players informed consent about what the drugs are and what they could do to you, that would be a bad place to be. >> there have been some tragic stories.
brent mcneil cannot remember the score of the super bowl. the league has started to address the issue of brain injuries. there is a settlement pending. is this a sufficient response so far? >> the response will never be sufficient. i hope roger would agree that we should never be satisfied about where we are. has the league taken some steps in the past two years, mostly at the urging of our union, to make changes? yes. we started the fight for neutral sideline concussion experts two years ago. the league resisted it until the end. it seems to me that we ultimately always get there, to use your word, belatedly. we have a team of doctors at work on the side of the union that constantly pushes the envelope to keep players safe. i'm happy to say that process is working. do we need to do better? yes. do we need to arrive at a place
where we are satisfied? we should never be satisfied when it comes to the health and safety of players. >> i grew up on football. an essential appeal of the game is violence. people love it when the quarterback is sacked violently. is there anything to be done to reduce the violence while keeping the appeal? >> every year, when we make
changes in the rules, they are changes designed to improve health and safety. a lot of the players we grew up watching could use closed arms. they could pull players down from the back of their helmet. there were leg whips. shots to the head. all that has changed. we have made drastic changes in the amount of contact that our players have during practice. >> what more could be done? >> if i had my wish list, the national football league should say, if you get hurt playing this game, we will cover all of your injuries that result from injuries in the game. we fight for workers' compensation like every player, but last year, the entire new orleans saints team finished practice, got on a bus, drove to baton rouge, in order to confront a legislature who was
hearing a bill sponsored by the owner of the new orleans saints to cut workers compensation rights. >> i'm going to quote the president of the united states that said if he had sons, he would have reservations about them playing football. lebron james, who once was a great football player, said he does not want his son playing football. i know your son is a lacrosse player. if he said he wanted to play football, what would you say? >> we have had a conversation, and i told him, if that's what you want to do, that is fine. but here's what we will insist on. we will insist on a coach knowing the right way to coach players to keep them safe. you as an athlete need to know that you need to take responsibility for your body.
you cannot cede responsibility to someone else. you have the right to the best medical care in the world. if something happens, we know i will be able to take care of your medical costs. after that it is an individual decision. i have read about players who would let their sons play football. i have heard it. i think that is a decision every parent has to make. >> thank you so much. we will be back in just a moment.
>> movies have always been connected with time, but never as much as this one directed by richard linklater, filled with the same actors over the course of 12 years. it follows the maturation of a boy in texas from first grade to freshman year at college. to watch this movie is to watch in a true moving way your own life before your eyes. here is the trailer for "boyhood." ♪ >> stop.
behind the movie, richard linklater. welcome. >> thank you for having me. >> people are saying this is your crowning achievement. but someone said, or you may have said, that this was not just a masterpiece, but a miracle. was it a miracle to be able to do this? >> it maybe borders on a miracle that we got through it. it is an undertaking to demand twelve years of the cast and hope that it all works out. >> no one knew it would work. >> i think we know why no one has done it before. most directors are control freaks, and you are collaborating with the unknown each are. we want to control the element to tell our stories. this was admitting you could not control everything. it is like life, we have a general plan. but you cannot say what is going to happen. >> it came from being a father? >> a father and a son.
i wanted to make a movie about childhood. my daughter was about seven when i started thinking about this. she was nine when we started filming. but having a kid, you cannot help but relive your childhood. your relationship with your parents changes. my parents made this decision that i'm now, and you appreciate them in a new way. i was looking for a vehicle to tell a story about growing up and parenting. it took me a while to crack the code and come up with this structure to house my ideas. >> your daughter, who plays mason's sister, is 20. >> 21. a senior in college. ellar was seven, and she was nine. >> tell me about ellar. >> biggest single decision for this movie, maybe that i will ever make.
when you are casting a movie, that is a big enough decision. but you have to jump into the future and say, what kind of person are you going to grow up to be? it was not traditional casting. i just spent time with him and tried to sense who he was. >> do people become a different person? >> there is nothing we could have done. >> because of factors beyond your capacity. >> you cannot contract a kid to do anything anyway, which is good. it was a long commitment. my hope is that it would be a fun thing for him to do artistically. it was a special thing in his life, all of our lives. he never wavered. he was there every year. part of the biggest joy of the whole process was seeing him come into his own. my daughter lorelei, too. as they got older, i am working with them in the same way as
patricia or even. -- ethan. >> with ethan hawk, you already had collaboration. >> long-term. it is special. it is just artistic. someone who sees the world and has similar energies and enthusiasms. i love the way ethan thinks. he brings all of himself to everything. this film required that. we are going to see you going from your 30's to your 40's. so much of the movie is the kid's point of view. it is how you see your parents
age. how a kid sees his parents is very different from first grade to high school. >> what is the transformation? >> mason? i saw the whole film and the emergence of self. it begs the question, are we the same person in first grade as we are when we graduate from high school? how much are we the same? you can break it down to biological. is it nature, nurture? it is a mystery. i do not think anyone will completely figure out how we get to where we are. >> genetic? >> i think we can look at our lives and see that there was one moment that determined, but that was in hindsight.
but the narrative thrust of the film is really a mother's -- a very passionate woman, doing what she thinks is the best for her kids. >> take a look at this. this the first clip we will show you. this is where ethan tells his kids to talk to him. >> talk to me. samantha, how was your week? i do not know. it was kind of tough. remember that sculpture i was working on? it was a unicorn, and the form broke off, and it is now a zebra. mason, how was your week? kind of tough. joe stole some cigarettes and wanted me to smoke them, but i said no. >> your questions are hard to answer. >> what is so hard to answer about what sculpture are you making? i didn't know you were interested in abstract art.
>> i am not. they make us do it. >> why is it all on us? how was your week? do you have a girlfriend? what have you been up to? >> i see your point. it should just be more natural. ok. that is what we will do, starting now. >> you were saying about that scene? >> it is funny to see a father willing himself consciously to be as good a father as he can be. but it is a portrait of bumbling through that. i do not think anyone knows what they're doing. you're just doing your best. you sense they really do love their kids and want to be connected to them.
>> you have described ethan in this as your news. >> well, this film was very personal. it was about my own parents and my own life. it became an important portrait for all of us. >> you never considered using different actors for different ages? >> i think you can only do that if there is a big enough age gap. for years, three years, it is too close. i had kind of given up on this idea until i got the idea to film a little bit every year. i do not think you can get away with that. >> you have said this is about motherhood as much as it is about boyhood. patricia arquette becomes crucial. >> i admire her so much as an actress. she gives everything. i met her once, and she was a mom when she was young, around 20. i cannot imagine doing this with a woman who was not a mom. she had to draw on her own history.
>> a big part of this, the director and the actor get drawn in. this is another clip where you will see her at work. >> goodbye yard, goodbye mailbox. goodbye house. i will never hate mommy as much for making this move. >> why don't you say goodbye to that attitude? we are not taking it in the car. >> such a great line. you wrote all of it? >> it was all scripted. the way i work is i have a strong outline, and i have a script. but i spend a lot of rehearsal-intensive time. a movie like this, it is about the believability of these
little moments. it is not about getting words right. a lot of that comes out of the rehearsal process. so we do a lot of rewriting with the actors. >> and reversals? >> very rehearsal intensive. >> did you get that from other directors? >> it is kind of what i need is a filmmaker, to figure out what the scene is trying to say. also figuring out how i'm going to shoot the scene. everyone is different. you have your own personality. for me to get a believable performance, i want to spend as much time and talk as much as possible to the actors and create an environment where they can do their best work. >> and collaborate. >> i want them to own their characters. i let patricia and ethan named their characters. it is a big decision. so we actually thought about it. >> who has influenced you? in terms of the filmmaker you have become. >> that is one of those big mysterious questions. i think there are different categories. there are films and filmmakers out make you want to make films,
but those are not the kind of filmmakers -- i remember when i was starting out, you realize you start making films that are kind of like this. you are in touch with the stories you want to tell. so, there is a big gap between the ones that made me love film and the ones that are closer to the kinds of films i do, i think. there is a big spectrum there. but if you love films, you kind of love them all. i love all films. >> it is an ensemble situation. >> i was at the museum of modern art, and they were doing a roger altman retrospective. the greatest when it comes to an ensemble. such a unique style of storytelling. i think he is very influential.
>> a lot of people have taken notice of the last scene. emotional. there are a couple of emotional "last" scenes. >> a couple of scenes. there is one with the mom where he leaves for college, and that is a gutwrenching scene that was inevitable. it was in the outline, but we could not have shot it at year one. we had to live through all these years where they get to this place where they are saying goodbye. i remember leaving for college, my mom was very quiet, sitting alone at a table. so that was the image in the movie. i needed more dialogue. i needed to make a literal. so for the year preceding it. i would ask what it was like when they went off to college. and ethan's mom, there were a couple lines that she had said that found their way in their.
-- there. one of my producers had taken her daughter to college, and i put some of those lines in there. but it ends up kind of an emotional purge on patricia's part. you see the gap between mother and son. she can totally relate to him. but parenting is often a one-way emotional street. >> the entire movie is on film? >> yes, we shot on film. we are one of a dying breed. when we started in 2002, the high-definition mediums were changing a lot. i thought film would be a stable gauge. but we got the goodies of digital. you do a digital intermediate. so i was able to do things in post. you can correct things. >> how long did you take with the first scene? >> well, it was the first year, but i got to look at it for 12 years in the editing room. there were still things i was
editing from year one, 11 years later. such a fascinating process. >> all the rethinking of your movie. >> it is kind of like a time sculpture. it almost did not feel like a movie. >> can you imagine doing this again? >> i do not think it would be 12 years again, but storytelling, i am always looking -- i am obsessed with cinema narrative and what stories can be told in this medium that can and cannot be told in other mediums, how to use cinema to tell another kind of story. maybe something similar. certainly. i think this opens the gate in a certain way to my own thinking. again, it is wildly impractical. >> if you had to do it over again, would you do it? >> absolutely. it was a wonderful project. for everyone who worked on it, the cast and crew, the 400 people who worked on it all these years, you could see the
momentum build. people say, people will lose interest. it went the other way. they felt more invested as time when by. when we were shooting the last shot of the movie, the emotions of the crew and the cast, i will never experience anything like it again. the last scene in the movie is the last thing we shot, and the sun was going down, overlooking the rio grande. it was incredible. 12 years on a project. it was one of those big life things. but the movie built to that. just beautiful. poetic. kind of what the movie was attempting to do, magnify these little moments. to make them worthy of inclusion in a movie. the movie ends up a movie about that. >> you live in austin.
>> yes. >> not austin, north carolina. austin, texas. which is a cultural center in its own way. can you make a case that, whatever it is that makes you want to be in austin rather than los angeles is what makes you make the film that you do? >> i wonder. i do not think it is so much geography as how your mind. >> a difference in culture though, isn't it? >> maybe. i like to be in a place -- they have called our industry a great dream industry.
but, if you get too close to the industry, parts of l.a. and anywhere near the studio stystem, it kind of thwarts dreaming and is more about the business. i prefer to spend my time dreaming about stories. >> what part of you wants to go out and develop something entirely different than what someone would expect from you, just to say you might not think i have this muscle, but i do? >> i think i have done a lot of different films over the years. now that i have made mid-veteran status. you step outside of that, you are kind of honest. but i just wrapped my 19th film. so i think people have given me a certain latitude. maybe you will do something interesting with that. >> is time fascinating for you? >> time and cinema have always been an obsession, i think. the time element of my films are largely structural devices. when you approach a story, often there are characters, plot devices -- i think i have largely dropped conventional notions of plot and replace them with time. whether it is real time or a notion of time. in this film, it is very much about the passage of time. to me, that becomes the story. it often does not make sense on
paper, but i always actually instinctually felt that an audience would get it because that is the way our lives unfold. that is the way we process time. moment by moment. intimate, small moments. occasionally, there will be a plot twist. but our lives are really a narrative unfolding. it is really populated with characters and an overarching story that we are still trying to make sense out of. i think that is where the human storytelling impulse comes from, to try and understand the world and our relations. it is largely fictional. we are concocting it as we go.
it makes sense in retrospective. there are not a lot of plot twists in our lives. what is the plot twist in your life? it is largely artificial. >> and certainly not planned for most of us. >> you never know. >> it is the age-old question, would you change that? not necessarily, because the fact that it happened brought you to where you are today. if it had been different, you might not be the person you are. >> it takes a brave person to admit, especially in the political or real world where there are repercussions, to admit that you would not change anything. really? you do not regret a war or a shooting? most artists would say, i would not change anything.
>> regret the road not taken, too. >> it is like an unknown parallel world you do not want to get into. >> there is a documentary about you. did you have anything to do with that? >> no. >> what do you think about it? >> it is kind of impossible. it is a little embarrassing and a little flattering. i do not know. i guess it's just where i am. >> if you wanted to make a documentary about something, what would it be? >> i do approach the world like a novelist or documentary filmmaker. i keep files on all these things i will never do. my interests are out there. i have been thinking about a documentary about just the notions of belief, changing minds. the science of it. not really my field. i am a storyteller. my interests kind of get me thinking. >> you are also a baseball player. >> yeah, college baseball. >> and then had an irregular heartbeat?
>> i had that experience, in my sophomore year at college. suddenly i couldn't run anymore. >> how tough was that for you? >> it hit me at a point in my life where i was ready to move on, as much as sports had kind of been a part of my life, i was always writing, taking a playwriting class. i was kind of an english major type of person. kind of unusual for a lot of athletes, i think. but i was thinking in the outfield, i want more reading time. it was not dramatic. i never looked back. i never thought twice. i just started closing down the library every night and writing plays. but i do feel sorry -- there is something tragic about sports when a career ends early. it is kind of sad. you see a lot of grown men who are not sure what to do.
>> their entire life so focused on making it in the big leagues. >> as long as you're wearing a sports uniform, you are still a boy. i do not care how old you are, you are still kind of a kid. you do not grow up until you quit playing sports. >> probably the reason they want to play sports for the rest of their life. >> it is just fun. >> any of the great classic novels you would like to tackle? >> not really. >> not an american novel? nothing by f. scott fitzgerald? >> there are periods in history, writers' lives i would like to touch on. i've been working on a thing for years, there's something i like to do about the transcendentalists. thoreau, emerson. there might be something there. they do not make good movies.
>> why is that? >> i do not know. some things are just more literary that should stay there. >> another genre is biopics. you have stephen hawking, alan turing. james brown. >> little moments of someone's life, we are fascinated with big characters in history. to take you back to those times is always fascinating. it is a hard storytelling genre to pull off. you can take a very wonderful life and make a mediocre movie. >> what about the movies you made with ethan, "after sunset" and "before sunrise"? what is that about for you? >> it is a depiction of connection between two people over 18 years. >> was that the idea from the beginning?
>> yeah, based on personal experience. like so many of my films, they do not feel like a film. the plot never kicks in. it is about something small, a moment between two people that share a connection. i want to do a movie about that. you do not make a movie about a feeling. but i think i can. i think that way. i think that is a story. >> and movies are that way, feelings like that, jealousy, ambition, fear. >> how we relate to each other. to me, that is the essence of -- i want to tell stories about real lives. >> take a look at this, where mason asks his father about magic in the world. >> there is no real magic in the world, right?
>> what do you mean? >> like, elves and stuff. people just made that up. >> i do not know. what makes you think that elves are more magical than a whale? what if i told you that underneath the ocean, there was this giant sea mammal that uses sonar and sings songs and was so big that its heart was the size of a car and you could crawl through its arteries? you would think that is pretty magical, right? >> yeah. but right this second, there is no elves in the world, right? >> technically, no elves. >> boyhood is much talk about.