March 7, 2019

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

Don’t ignore the military on climate change, Mr. President, so say dozens of former security officials in a letter to the White House. We hear from

one of the signatories, Retired Rear Admiral David.

Then, Hollywood stars, Julianne Moore and John Turturro, as the dating divorcee is looking for love in “Gloria Bell.”

Plus, are the titans of artificial intelligence shortchanging our future? Futurist Amy Webb talks about this with our Hari Sreenivasan.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

It’s clear that some of the Trump administration’s more maverick ideas and actions are sparking significant counter reactions. More than 50 former

military and intelligence officials have written to the president, criticizing a plan to counter the government’s own findings on climate

change.

The signatories which include rear admirals and major generals admonished the White House about its plan to establish an ad hoc group to scrutinize

federal reports, including the recent climate report, which warned that global warming will hammer the U.S. economy and kill thousands of American

citizens by the end of the century. The open letter also says U.S. National Security will be eroded if government scientists are subject to

politics.

Retired Rear Admiral David Titley was once a climate change skeptic but he signed the letter. He was chief. oceanographer for the Navy and ran its

task force on climate change and is now a board member of the Center of the Climate and Security, and he’s joining me from Richmond Virginia.

Rear Admiral Titley, welcome to the program

DAVID TITLEY, RETIRED REAR ADMIRAL, THE CENTER OF CLIMATE AND SECURITY: Thank you very much, Christiane. Great to be here.

AMANPOUR: So, look, this is quite a significant step. I mean, normally the military and security officials stay in lockstep, they — you know,

they serve their country and they don’t come out in dozens and dozens like you have to criticize and warn the administration. What was it that that

forced your hand, so to speak?

TITLEY: Well, really, you’re exactly right. This is really a nonpartisan issue. And what concerns so many of us who signed the letter is this is a

blatant attempt by the National Security Council to politicize the security aspect of climate change.

And if they are successful, it really puts a chill, no pun intended, into the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, our U.S. science

agencies and to even trying to talk or I would say speak truth to power about the risks of climate change to our security.

AMANPOUR: What do you mean specifically? I mean, I — we’ve all read but maybe we need to be reminded of the latest climate report that was, you

know, done by the federal agencies, I mean, it was the government’s own report and this is to push back from the administration. What specific

issues are you concerned that you say are being, you know, sort of influenced by political whims and ideology?

TITLEY: So, this has been an evolving story, as I’m sure many of your viewers know. Originally, about three weeks ago, the administration,

specifically the National Security Council, wanted to basically revisit and frankly, in their memo said in an adversarial sense the link between

climate change and security, which is being very well established.

Things have evolved since then. And now, it looks like the National Security Council wants to, in fact, open up really all of the peer reviewed

science, 150 years of peer reviewed science, and that’s just — frankly, it’s kind of kind of crazy that we think that, you know, three guys and two

beers are going to overturn an over a century of peer reviewed science peer reviewed by thousands of individuals by 80 countries and National Academies

of science. So, that’s sort of just wrong on the facts.

The risks of climate change, I really think of them in three ways. We are changing the very operating environments in which our forces are going to

have to be successful. And in fact, the commander of all U.S. forces in the European theater, General Scaparrotti was just testifying before

Congress about how the changes to climate in the Arctic are changing what Russia is able to do and that in turn, is changing what his command has to

plan.

The threats to our bases and to our training ranges, to our infrastructure, not only from rising seas and storm surge but also freshwater, too many hot

and humid days that impair training, wildfires and droughts and finally, there is a geostrategic impact on climate change where a climate impact

when combined with bad governance or poor governance or insufficient governance can keep an already unstable or fragile situation and frankly,

make it a catastrophe, a humanitarian catastrophe, you know, security catastrophe and I would argue that Syria is kind of a poster child for

that.

AMANPOUR: Well, I’m going to dig down at some — into some of that in a moment because whether it’s Syria or Central America where you see people

fleeing and there’s conflicts and — from Central America obviously coming to the United States and causing huge (INAUDIBLE) there with — at the

border.

But just to be clear, the latest climate report, you know, was findings from 13 departments, energy, defense, NASA, State Department, et cetera.

You are a rear admiral and you’ve talked directly to the threats to the navies. You know, give us some specifics of what you’re most concerned

about.

I know you talked about Russia and its ability to, you know, take advantage of melting ice, we’ve seen the leaders of the U.S. Naval base at Norfolk,

Virginia are very concerned about what will happen to their base if the seas rise. But from the from your perspective having been in the Navy and

having been around the world, what are some of the other risks of not taking this seriously?

TITLEY: Well, that the overall risk, Christiane, is the very operating environment in which we all work in which we live is changing, it’s

changing rapidly, it’s changing before our eyes. So, the very — sort of the highest level of concern that we have here for the Pentagon is this is

really about being ready, it’s about being ready for the future and whether that’s for an opening Arctic, whether that’s to make sure that our bases

and our training ranges can still be effective, whether that’s for preparing for future conflicts that we might not have had otherwise had

climate change, not being sort of that forcing function, that tipping point. So, we need to be ready.

For the Intelligence Community, it’s identifying risks, that’s really what they try to do, is they try to get ahead and they try to identify risks and

threats so that we can manage them, we have options, we have maneuver room, if you will. And if we cannot identify the threats and if the Pentagon is

hamstrung politically from being ready for a changing environment, that impairs our security, that imperils our security and this is why we had so

many distinguished, both civilians and retired military officers signed the letter you mentioned.

AMANPOUR: So, I mean, again, I’m going to get into the war in Syria and what some people also say, you know, extremists can be recruited because of

climate change when there’s not enough water, when agriculture and villages lose their crops and their livestock, well then they are very vulnerable to

being recruited for a bit of money by the extremists, and we understand that is a lot of what happened in Syria and Iraq.

But I want to get back to why is it then here in the United States of America that this government’s own dire warning which talked about the

great impact to the U.S. economy and to U.S. lives within the next, you know, foreseeable future is being so deliberately attacked by the

administration to the point that, you know, you have this White House adviser, William Happer, you know, he is possibly going to play a key role.

I mean, this hasn’t actually fully been greenlit yet, I don’t know think this ad hoc challenge. But he, for instance, founded the CO2 Coalition

which says carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is good for the planet. I just want to play a little — it’s kind of like a PSA for this movement. Let’s

just play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What if there was something that can make plants grow bigger.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And something not to make the world greener.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All those plants could free the world.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What if it was invisible?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we would never run out of it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow, look at that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: CO2.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: CO2, who knew.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: CO2 is amazing. CO2 is essential. See for yourself at CO2Coalition.org.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I mean, you could be forgiven for thinking you’re living in a parallel universe when you see that but that is out there and it’s meant to

be helping educate children, as you saw clearly. What is your reaction to that and, you know, I don’t know what to ask you really?

TITLEY: Exactly. I mean, it’s like where to start. So, I guess the first thing I would say is, of course, we need some amount of carbon dioxide,

it’s absolutely true that plants use carbon dioxide and we need some amount of greenhouse gases to keep this planet habitable. Nobody argues that,

everybody understands that.

But just like you can have too much of a good thing. We need water for survival but too much water is fatal and it kills us. We need warmth for

survival but too much heat is fatal and it kills us. We do need some degree and a stable amount of greenhouse gases but ever-increasing amounts

by the billions of tons each year fundamentally alter our planet, it alters the very ecosystems. And when we have 8, 9, nearly 10 billion people on

this planet, life, if we do not control this, will be fundamentally different and we do not know how that will evolve over the coming decades

and centuries.

So, yes, of course you need some degree of CO2, right. I think your words of this is a parallel universe are correct. And this is why I’ve stated

that Dr. Happer is really a fringe figure, even within the climate to dial community and, you know, that’s a tough accolade to earn but I think he’s

had it.

AMANPOUR: And, you know, apparently — well, as I said he founded the CO2 Coalition but is received over a million dollars in funding from the energy

industry and some conservative lobbyists. So, there’s all that to unpick as well.

But, you know, let’s just talk about your own evolution. You were a skeptic about all of this and you’ve come on board and you know there’s a

lot of skepticism, mostly in the conservative community, whether it’s in the medical community or the religious community or whatever.

How do you think that they — what do you say to them from your own, you know, position of having been a skeptic and do you think that people are

going to put up with this thing, you know, the government’s own, you know, dire warnings on national security which are usually held very dear to

conservatives, very strong on national security? Can they be convinced?

TITLEY: So, I found, Christiane, that, you know, unfortunately, every person is somewhat different and, you know, if there was just one easy

solution, you know, we would snap our fingers or wave a wand and we would be done. But just individuals, you really have to listen to a person and

find out what are their concerns.

Many times — sometimes people do have — they just don’t understand the science, and that’s actually pretty easy to explain to people. I tell

folks that the basics of climate science has been known for well over a century, it was actually all figured out of the 19th century, and what we

have done in the intervening times is simply refined and increased greatly our confidence that the knowledge of people like Foriag (ph) and Tyndall

and Arenhus (ph) hoose was in fact correct.

But oftentimes, it’s not really about the science. This issue has unfortunately been seen as a proxy issue, for science it’s a proxy. The

real issues are ideology. There are some people who do not want the government to tell them what to do or how to do things. People are

concerned about the price of energy. And some people believe that if the United States takes action on this issue but if other countries don’t, then

they’re going to lose their jobs and let’s see if you’re some 40-something- year-old guy, you know, it’s tough to go and start again in midlife and get a job.

And I’ve found many times the issues are not the science but the — but people are concerned and afraid, frankly, about what the implications are.

So, I tell people, “The climate scientists are not going to solve this. This is really the social scientist and leadership which will help people

understand that we do have to attack this issue because the greater good of society is going to be the imperiled if we don’t.”

AMANPOUR: And just to not put too fine a point on it but to really illustrate your journey, you describe yourself as a bit of a — bit like a

reform smoker on this, that you’ve developed zeal for this position right now because of what happened to you back in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina.

We’ve got pictures of your house before and after. So, why don’t you narrate for us what happened to you.

TITLEY: OK. So, I’m not sure if you have the before picture but I was in one of my jobs in the Navy when I was in command of the Navy’s weather and

ocean prediction capabilities, we’re down on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, right on the Mississippi-Louisiana border. And my wife and I were able to

buy fairly modest house, about three houses up from the Mississippi.

And if you go to the after picture, this is what happens, I tell people, if you ever wonder what a 10-meter storm surge or a 25 to 30-foot storm surge

does coming up your street. And when I say we lost our house, we actually did quite literally lose our house. And to this day we still haven’t

really found it, it either went in the railway tracks or got sucked out into the ocean.

And we were absolutely, for a whole variety of reasons, some of the most fortunate people on the Mississippi Coast, for just a number of personal

reasons. But what concerns me about this is as the seas come up and as hurricanes, when they form, or typhoons or cyclones, when they form, the

evidence is increasing that they will be bigger and wetter and slower and stronger, and all of that leads to more destruction by water, not by wind

but by the water. And that will cause security issues if we cannot handle that.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, on the flip side of that, that’s too much water, too little water because of climate change in places like Syria and others

where they have massive droughts, has been blamed him impart for stocking the Syria war. I know you’ve looked at that quite carefully. Explain how

that might have sparked the war.

TITLEY: So, just very briefly, this is a decades-long story, it really starts with Assad coming into power, wanting to be self-sufficient in some

stable grains like barley. He achieves that and he achieves that in the 90s but at the expense of draining aquifers, draining surface water. Of

course, the Iraqi war comes along, it’s a non-climate event but it does put a million Iraqi refugees into the cities pressurizes, as your viewers know

so well, the existing tensions and it’s not like Assad’s really taking care of his people.

Fast forward to a decade ago, and we have one of the worst all-time droughts in Syria and of course, it’s already a dry region but this was an

exceptional drought and the science community can, with very high confidence, attribute the severity of that drought to the change in our

climate. And then you have three quarters of a million of Syrian farmers who have nothing, they just have nothing because their crops are totally

failed and they too come into the cities.

And as you mentioned earlier on in the program, you now have these millions and billions of both Syrian farmers and Iraqi refugees in the cities, the

government is not taking care of them, in fact, they’re fomenting tensions and ethnic hatreds and it becomes a breeding ground for extremists and it

becomes very easy to recruit for varying extreme ideologies because people are desperate, they want some shelter, they want safety, they want water,

they want food, and this is really the poster child, if you will, for how climate was one of the links —

AMANPOUR: OK.

TITLEY: — you know, chain of events that leads to this catastrophe.

AMANPOUR: All right. Well, you’ve really laid it out in dramatic technicolor there. Rear Admiral Titley, thank you for joining us.

And from the threat of climate change to the dangers of artificial intelligence. Later in the show our Hari Sreenivasan talks to the

futurist, Amy Webb.

But first now, we turn to a wonderful story about a divorcee in a boring job, who likes to belt out pop tunes as she’s driving and she likes to bop

on the disco stroll at night.

On paper, it is not a classic Hollywood romance. Take a quick look at this clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JULIANNE MOORE, ACTRESS, “GLORIA BELL”: I love you. It’s your mother.

HOLLAND TAYLOR, ACTRESS, “GLORIA BELL”: Life just goes by in a flash, like that.

MOORE: I know. You tell me the same thing every 10 years.

JOHN TURTURRO, ACTOR, “GLORIA BELL”: You come here a lot?

MOORE: Yes. No, not a lot. I mean, sometimes.

TURTURRO: What’s your name?

MOORE: Gloria.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: “Gloria Bell” is an English language remake of the Spanish romantic drama Gloria by the same Chilean director, Sebastian Lelio.

Actor John Turturro plays Julianne Moore’s shambling boyfriend. And I got to speak to both of these Hollywood supernovas when they joined me from New

York

Julianne Moore and John Turturro, welcome to the program.

TURTURRO: Thank you.

MOORE: Thank you for having us.

AMANPOUR: Well, it’s really a great pleasure. This is a mega heavyweight bit of star power we have on our program. And I want to ask you about this

amazing film, “Gloria Bell.” What made you — I know, Julianne, I think you were the sort of engine behind getting it remade. It was a film that

was done in Chile and the director, you persuaded him to do it again. Why? What about it attracted you?

MOORE: Well, saw — I mean, I saw his original film, the Chilean film and loved it and was so, so moved and so struck by the humanity of Sebastian’s

work. And we share a manager and so, I really, really wanted to get to meet him but there was sort of a misunderstanding.

We — he was living in Berlin and I met him in Paris and he had heard that I had no interest in remaking the film. And so, we had this — and with

this long, you know, meeting and at the very end of it he said, “Well, thank you so much. You know, I know that you’re not interested in making

this.” I said, “Oh, no, no, no. I said, I would only do it if you directed it.” And he said, “Oh, well, then I would only direct it if you

were in it.” And then suddenly we kind of found ourselves doing it.

But that being said, it’s so unusual to actually have a meeting and then have something come out of a meeting, right?

TURTURRO: Yes.

MOORE: You know, so the fact that it happened, it was really extraordinary.

AMANPOUR: And before we get into the story — the storyline, John, what about it made you want to join, you know, these two who are so passionate

about doing it? What was it that attracted you to this role in the film?

TURTURRO: Well, I actually saw that your original film and I loved it. You don’t see that many films about a woman of a certain age, you know,

trying to rediscover herself and no one’s paying attention to her, I just thought it was a beautiful film. And then I know Julianne a long time but

we never actually acted together.

MOORE: Yes.

TURTURRO: And I thought Sebastian was a — you know, he’s terrific director. And sometimes it’s really the company that you keep, not always,

you know, the role. And it was a tremendously creative experience.

AMANPOUR: So, actually, that’s really interesting, wanting to work with certain people. And I guess, you know, you’re both at a certain stage in

your career where you can actually make these decisions. How sort of empowering and liberating is that? Especially for you, Julianne, because,

I mean, women of a certain age, I think we’re all around the same age, the three of us, it’s not so obvious in Hollywood.

MOORE: Well — but why say certain age? I mean, I actually — I have to say, like I take — I want to comment on that because like why would you

say that because you wouldn’t say that about men, you know —

TURTURRO: Right.

MOORE: — and I don’t think there’s anything pejorative about any age, and that’s what’s kind of great about Gloria and Gloria Bell too, is that this

character could be anywhere or anyone, you know. So, what really is unique about it is that kind of intimate observation of as a person throughout

their life when nothing extraordinary happens, when it’s just like, you know, you get up, you go to work —

TURTURRO: Right.

MOORE: — you meet your friends, you go dancing, you meet a guy, you know, all that comes to — that kind of observation of someone’s life, that’s

what was really fascinating about it. And it could have been a man, you know, it could have been a younger woman, it could be whatever. But I do

think that — and also she’s someone — the trick that Sebastian has too is that she’s someone who’s sometimes a secondary character in the scene that

she’s playing.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

MOORE: So, we have a whole —

TURTURRO: Yes.

MOORE: — like lunch date with —

TURTURRO: Right.

MOORE: — Rita Wilson and I actually only have one line in it.

TURTURRO: Right.

MOORE: And so, everybody else is talking and Gloria is just listening but the camera stays on her in a weird sort of way. So, that’s what the trick,

is like how do you — this person who might be ordinarily a secondary character even in a scene is the one who’s a primary character in the film.

AMANPOUR: I mean, look, it’s complex and it’s subtle and it’s really interesting. I personally beg to differ, I don’t think it would be as

interesting if it was younger people, a younger — I think what’s really, really interesting is that you are, you know, middle aged in the film,

John, you’re middle age in the film, you’ve both gone through marital disruptions, you’ve been divorced for a long time. And you, your

character, Julianne, is Gloria, you go —

MOORE: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — through — you do this — you go out and you dance on your own and maybe get —

MOORE: Right.

AMANPOUR: — picked up and there’s nothing pejorative or sleazy or weird about it, and that, I think, is interesting because it’s not easy to do

that at any age, frankly.

MOORE: No, it isn’t.

TURTURRO: No.

MOORE: No.

TURTURRO: No.

MOORE: I mean, she’s remarkably brave. I think just the way that — what really struck me about this character is that she — the way she engages in

her life with her relationships, with her family members, with her friends, with her boyfriend, with the world. You know, the fact that she’s always

willing to try new things. And she’s — and sometimes she’ll little more than you’d recommend, right. You know, sometimes you’re like — as an

audience you’re like, “Oh, no. Don’t do that,” and then she does it the way that we all kind of do sometimes. So — yes.

AMANPOUR: So, let me just play the first clip that we have and it’s when, John, you — your character meets her character at the bar.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TURTURRO: So, are you always this happy?

MOORE: No. Well, you asked me and I laughed, that’s all. No. Some days I’m happy, some days I’m not.

TURTURRO: Like everyone.

MOORE: Like everyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: You know, watching that clip again, John, I really — given what you’ve all just been saying, I realize how ordinary the dialogue is. I

mean, that seems to be —

TURTURRO: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — very ordinary dialogue, it’s not highly stylized.

TURTURRO: No, no.

MOORE: Yes.

TURTURRO: There’s something kind of Jacovian (ph) about Sebastian’s approach —

MOORE: Yes.

TURTURRO: — because he’s really into the behavior and actually what occurs in the space between people —

MOORE: Right.

TURTURRO: — and what doesn’t occur. And I think that was what was the fascinating part of the experience.

MOORE: Yes.

TURTURRO: I mean, he asked us to do certain things, I think both of us was — can be strong willed and we just tried it whenever he did —

MOORE: Yes, yes.

TURTURRO: — because he’s so sensitive and smart and intelligent.

MOORE: And so, interested in nuance, you know.

TURTURRO: Right.

MOORE: He would ask for another take simply because he wanted to see like what else would happen, what if you dug a little bit deeper on something

that seemed really, really simple.

TURTURRO: Right.

MOORE: And it was interesting because you — I would get lost sometimes thinking like, “Well, I don’t know what I’m going for.” But in a way, what

happens is that you end up reverting to just being present, which is what you want to accomplish in a film like this.

AMANPOUR: It actually sounds like a lot of — I mean, fun in the real sort of professional craft way of fun. It sounds like you really had the luxury

of an amazing threesome, really. I mean, you two and Sebastian, who you both obviously respect so much and know so much.

Gloria is divorced for more than 10 years and she seems to be at ease, you — you’re busy belting out hits from the 80s as you’re driving. I wonder

how kind of revealing that was for you to be singing in front of the whole world. Was that kind of mortifying or did you enjoy it? I mean, you were

great.

MOORE: Thank you. I mean, you know, it’s — I think the dancing was the hardest part for me.

TURTURRO: Yes.

MOORE: John really is a dancer, you know. He loves to dance and he takes salsa lessons regularly. I am not a dancer. So, for me, that was the part

where I really had to try to free myself.

TURTURRO: That was fun, really. It was fun.

MOORE: It was fun. We had a good — we really had a good time.

TURTURRO: Yes.

MOORE: But actually, I was (INAUDIBLE) to have a partner like John every day, to go to work, to look forward to being with an actor, you know, of

his caliber. And he’s someone who is also interesting and fun to be with and that — oh, my God, that makes such a tremendous difference.

And so, to be able to dance with him and really try to communicate physically, you know, that was something new and really, it was exciting,

right, it was fun to do that.

TURTURRO: Well, she’s a great person to work with because, you know, she puts her attention on the other — on her partner and that’s just a

wonderful thing because when she do that, you’re longer thinking about yourself, you think about the other person —

MOORE: Right.

TURTURRO: — and the interesting things occur.

AMANPOUR: And it certainly did, I mean, throughout the film. As I say, Gloria’s character is much freer, has much more abandon, is much more open

to experiences and kind of knows what she wants. Your character, Arnold — you know, it’s funny because I don’t know how you would describe him but —

TURTURRO: I won’t describe him. I won’t describe him.

MOORE: He’s going to be a mystery.

TURTURRO: No, a lot of the ladies on the set informed me that there were lots of men like Arnold.

MOORE: There are a lot of Arnolds out there.

AMANPOUR: Well, let’s play a clip that reveals Arnold in all his glorious complexity. So, you’re taking him as Gloria to your family and this is

what happens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOORE: How could you be so rude, Arnold?

TURTURRO: For what?

MOORE: I was introducing you to my family, I brought you to my son’s birthday party and you had —

TURTURRO: If you were me —

MOORE: — the nerve to just disappear?

TURTURRO: — you would have done the same thing. It wasn’t an easy situation.

MOORE: Really?

TURTURRO: I searched for your eyes again and again. I didn’t exist. We were in love.

MOORE: Oh, please.

TURTURRO: We were in love.

MOORE: He didn’t —

TURTURRO: How many times did he have to say that?

MOORE: He was — he’s wrong. He was —

TURTURRO: It made me sick. I threw up. I don’t know how you could do something like that to me. And the girls called. So —

MOORE: Grow a pair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Oh, that is a pretty big putdown, grow a pair. So, obviously —

MOORE: Grow a pair.

AMANPOUR: — that comes after you’ve taken him to dinner, your ex-husband is there with his new wife and he’s busy —

MOORE: Right.

AMANPOUR: — you know, telling how much you were in love and all this. And you, Arnold, get all bent out of shape and run away, sort of —

MOORE: Exactly.

AMANPOUR: You get kind of cowardly.

TURTURRO: I (INAUDIBLE). So many events. So, yes.

MOORE: But it’s true, he does, you know, and then she feels humiliated because her kids are there and they’re like, “Who is this guy, mom,” and,

you know, it’s — yes.

AMANPOUR: So, what is the message then? In the end, what is the message of the film?

MOORE: I — I don’t know. You know, I think that Sebastian said a wonderful thing the other day where he said he goes to films and wants to

feel inspired to live. And I think that that’s what this movie does because it really is a movie about people and their relationships to one

another and what they care about, what they love, and how they feel.

And so you watch it and you have all of these big feelings of, you know, of kind of grief and then joy which is what we have, you know. I mean that’s

what life is. And so you leave thinking, yes, this is what I care about. I care about, you know, what I do. I care about the people that I love and

I’m going to engage in it.

TURTURRO: It goes on.

MOORE: Yes, she goes on.

TURTURRO: Like I said, you know, you fail —

MOORE: That’s right.

TURTURRO: You try again.

MOORE: You go on.

TURTURRO: Try again, feel better, you know. And I think that’s in the movie.

MOORE: Yes, exactly.

AMANPOUR: It really is amazing because it does connect on so many visceral levels and it’s very very accessible. So it’s an amazing story.

Look, I euphemistically said a moment ago, you know, women of a certain age. I’m very proud of being of a certain age and having a new chapter.

MOORE: Right.

AMANPOUR: I just wonder as a woman, and I will ask John as well from his perspective, you know, Judy, the more accomplished you get, the more awards

that you get, the more critical acclaim that you get, do you also get more equal pay? Do you get more power over deciding what you can — what you

want to star in, what you want to —

MOORE: Well —

AMANPOUR: — have directed, et cetera, projects?

MOORE: Those are separate issues.

AMANPOUR: Yes, I know.

MOORE: I mean they are separate issues because it’s like I do have a lot of creative control in terms of the thing, the choices that I make but with

the movie like Gloria Bell, that’s a movie that’s paid for very little money. So it’s not — so what you’re paid is kind of — is moot. I mean

it really doesn’t amount to much at the end of the day.

And in terms of economic power that’s equal to men my age, probably not. Then also I don’t do a lot of studio movies. So it’s very, very

challenging.

But I think that when we talk about salary parity, this is something that’s not endemic. Just Hollywood, we’re talking about parity across all

businesses, just in terms of opportunity and pay. So yes, obviously, it’s still in process but I do think that there has been great progress made in

the last year.

AMANPOUR: And you support Jennifer Lawrence’s campaign on this and the other women who’ve —

MOORE: Yes.

AMANPOUR: — campaigned on this. John, where do you come on this?

MOORE: Jennifer Lawrence is a big star, yes.

TURTURRO: Well, I think if you’re in a movie and you have the same size roles, you should get the same amount of money. And I think it’s

interesting for also for men to be in films that the focus is not on the man, it’s on the woman.

And I think that’s an interesting experience. And I think it’s good for young men to see because you need to be introduced to the other world and

they’re from a young age.

And I mean I can remember watching so many films, women films with my mom, whether they were Bette Davis or Barbara Stanwyck. And I always found

those films just as interesting as a film with Burt Lancaster or somebody.

AMANPOUR: That’s really important. Actually, it’s a really interesting observation. And I heard other male actors say that but I think that’s

really interesting. And you, of course, you’ve — I mean you have this amazing career of all these characters pas that you’ve played in so many

landmark films. I mean Spike Lee’s films and endless others.

I guess I just want to ask you as well since we’re talking about these issues, there was a lot of recognition for black movies this year, whether

it was at the Oscars, the BAFTAs, the Golden Globes. That was good. It wasn’t OscarSoWhite anymore. Spike Lee finally got an Oscar but not for

Director or for Best Film. I just wonder what your thoughts were as you watched that, John, having been directed by him.

TURTURRO: Well, Spike is a dear friend. I’ve known for over 30 years. So I was very pleased that he was acknowledged because he certainly hasn’t

been in the past.

And once again, it’s like when you open the doors to something, you have to keep building on it. When the doors opened up for a while, you thought

there was going to be more opportunities in the early ’90s and it wasn’t.

And he also took a lot of flak. He likes to talk but he took a lot of flak from white critics. I’m just glad to see him have success and be embraced

because you want to be able to continue. That’s what we do.

MOORE: Yes.

TURTURRO: What we do is we want to be able to go on and not just be acknowledged but [13:35:00] be able to do more things. Because I think

sometimes in our business, people can actually improve.

MOORE: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Yes, I hope so.

TURTURRO: Actually better.

AMANPOUR: Well, why not?

MOORE: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Do you think that Blakkklansman should have won Best Picture?

TURTURRO: Do I feel like —

AMANPOUR: Yes.

TURTURRO: — Blackkklansman should have won? Well, I certainly — I would say I would — I preferred it to the film that did win. So I’ll say —

AMANPOUR: I know it’s hard to talk about but —

TURTURRO: I don’t know. I think the words are very strange. Because I mean, Julianna got an Oscar but she also was great in a lot of other

movies. And when she was in Far From Heaven, that’s something that’s like embedded in my mind, her performance in that film.

So do I think the film she got an Oscar for was better than that? I can’t — it’s not sports.

MOORE: Exactly. Exactly. That’s right.

TURTURRO: It’s not sports. It’s opinion.

AMANPOUR: Julianne, interestingly, you were what we might call an army brat. You grew up in Europe. Your father was I believe a military judge.

Your mother was a psychiatric social worker. And you’ve been in France and Germany and many other countries.

How did that inform your, not just your upbringing, but your aesthetic when it came to film? In France, I mean it’s surrounded by the great, great

directors there.

MOORE: It was interesting because I — well, first of all, I think as an actor, you learn — by moving around, you learn that behavior is not

concrete, that it’s mutable. So this idea that you are how you behave which can — which that I think people feel sometimes that if you live in

the same place, this is how we are. You learn that that’s just — that doesn’t matter.

But then I think being exposed to different cultures and film and aesthetics, it was — it actually first happened in the movie theater where

I lived in Alaska when I was 10-years-old and they got a different movie in every week. And because we had nothing to do in the wintertime, I saw

whatever was there.

I remember seeing a Cassavetes film called Minnie and Moskowitz and I saw A Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovich at 10. I didn’t know what was happening

but I just —

TURTURRO: It’s a good book.

MOORE: Right. Yes, it was a crazy movie that I didn’t understand by I saw it. And then I think with the European film too, yes, suddenly you see

these different world views.

And so you — the first movie actually that I saw that made me realize that there was a director present and that things could be different was Robert

Altman’s 3 Women. And I was like wow, who was that? Who is that person? What are they saying? Why is it different?

And that was the first time I thought that’s why I wanted to — I want to work with somebody who makes movies like that.

AMANPOUR: And then both of you, I’d like you to comment actually on something you said, Julianne. But it’s really interesting as a personal

and a professional sort of maxim. You quoted Flaubert and you do this quite regularly. You say be regular and orderly in your life so that you

may be violent and original in your work.

TURTURRO: I agree with her.

MOORE: Yes, that works for me.

TURTURRO: I wholeheartedly agree with her.

MOORE: Yes. Yes.

TURTURRO: I really do. I think that people who are grounded sometimes can be really, really free in their work because they need to do that. People

who are crazy in their personal life, sometimes they monitor their behavior. So I’ve seen that a lot.

MOORE: And I also think that —

TURTURRO: She’s a good example.

MOORE: I think that your imagination can’t hurt you. Feelings can’t hurt you. What we’re doing on the set, we are pretending, we are creating an

imaginary world. And so if you know who you are and you know what the boundaries are in your real life, and then in your imaginary life, you’re

really able to do almost anything.

And when you’re with another actor who knows that, I think there’s — that you can accomplish a lot because you know what’s there.

TURTURRO: That’s right.

MOORE: And that’s why I love. I mean honestly, it really does come down to doing a lot of pretending. Right.

TURTURRO: That’s right.

AMANPOUR: So just finally then, what keeps each of you grounded? John, what keeps you grounded? Is it your marriage? Is it your family? Is it –

–

TURTURRO: Certainly, my wife keeps me going and my kids, my friends and just being a citizen and part of the world. And that’s what you are and to

keep learning, I think.

AMANPOUR: And Julianne, what’s your secret of remaining grounded?

MOORE: I think John and I are very similar. We have similar lives. I’ve been married for a long time. I have two wonderful children, a great

family life, and great friends, and interests in my community, and activism. And yes, just being a person.

I feel I’m fortunate that I have this regular life I can rely on and this imaginary life that I can tend to. It’s — yes, it’s been a

great life.

AMANPOUR: It really has got some really amazing original performances out of you both so it’s phenomenal. Thank you for everything that you’ve given

us. Julianne Moore, John Turturro, thank you.

TURTURRO: Thank you.

MOORE: Thank you for what you give us. My gosh, thank you.

TURTURRO: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Such a generous pair. And we now turn back to the future where artificial intelligence is re-weaving the fabric of our society.

And our next guest says that we need to change patterns. Amy Webb is the founder of The Future Today Institute. Her new book “The Big Nine, How the

Tech Titans and their Thinking Machines Could Walk Humanity” warns of a world with little choice and no control where wars are fought by computer

code. She sat down with our Hari Sreenivasan.

HARI SREENIVASAN, CONTRIBUTOR: You say in the book The Big Nine, this is nine companies that are pretty much in charge of most of the AI that’s

interacting with us today. In the United States, you call it the G MAFIA, an acronym for Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, IBM, Amazon, right?

Those companies here and you say that really the concern that you have is that they’re all operating with market pressures and commercial realities.

Why is that a problem?

AMY WEBB, FOUNDER, THE FUTURE TODAY INSTITUTE: The challenge with A.I. is that you have a relatively small group of people in a handful of companies

in the United States building out these systems. And unfortunately, they don’t have the luxury of taking time to do risk modeling, an assessment to

think about guardrails to sandbox and test things to make sure that they are safe or that they’re not going to evolve in ways that we haven’t yet

seen, right?

SREENIVASAN: Their business models have been actually rewarded for the opposite.

WEBB: That’s right.

SREENIVASAN: Right. So go ahead. What was it, run fast, break things?

WEBB: Run fast and break things.

SREENIVASAN: But in the case of A.I., you’re saying this is much more dangerous than just the Internet stuff that we’re talking about now.

WEBB: I mean I would say so. And they’re publicly held companies so they have a responsibility to their shareholders. And unfortunately, our

shareholders have less and less patience.

A couple of weeks ago Google had an — as part of its earnings call, had to disclose its R&D spend which was high like the — it was very big and it

meant that some of the margins in other places were going to be smaller and investors freaked out.

Well, it’s not like the United States government has a giant pool of money funding basic science and technology research. We did years ago but we

don’t have that now, which means that in the United States, the entire future of A.I. is being built by essentially six companies who have a

responsibility to their shareholders, who don’t have the luxury to say let us keep our heads down and work on this without the expectation that

there’s going to be a product at the end of it.

And on top of all of that, there’s been no strategic direction under our current administration on A.I. We have no national strategy. We have no

point of view. And A.I. is not a tech trend. A.I. is the next era of computing into which everything else is tied.

So we have a situation in which there’s an antagonistic relationship between our Congresspeople and regulators and what’s happening in the

Valley with Wall Street, for the most part, calling the shots. It’s a dangerous situation. During a time in which in China, the three

predominant A.I. companies, the BAT, BIDU, Ali Baba, and Tencent are pretty much operating as public companies in lockstep with Beijing.

And let’s not — so like — then you have to connect all of the other dots. Well, Xi Jinping, because of some changed regulations in China is

effectively now president for life. And he is a smart guy, a smart guy who is good at aligning other leaders around him.

SREENIVASAN: The companies that are working in China right now, are they part of a larger geopolitical strategy that China has?

WEBB: That’s a good question. Nothing on paper would affirm that. However, from my vantage point, that is exactly what’s happening.

So BIDU, Ali Baba, and Tencent, each focus on different aspects of A.I. Ali Baba is similar to Amazon. BIDU is similar to Google. And what does

all of this have to do with people, why should anybody care outside of China?

There’s the belt and road initiative. This is a diplomatic effort. China’s trading debt for infrastructure so it’s going in and building roads

and building bridges. So that’s interesting and there’s about 60 countries now that are part of this initiative. But it’s also a deeply

funded digital initiative.

So in addition to bridges and roads, China’s also laying fiber. It’s putting small cells all over the place to build 5G networks. And it’s also

exporting some of its A.I. and some of its data collection techniques. But it’s China, which means that you are very much playing by the rules of the

government.

SREENIVASAN: This being playing by the rules, there’s really almost a large scale experiment going on with the Social Credit System. What is it?

WEBB: Sure. So the Social Credit Score System is a way of collecting data to track how people are performing in society. So as an easy example,

there’s a couple of provinces where this technology has been tested.

If you jaywalk when the light is red, across the street, there are smart cameras that line the streets everywhere, you are automatically recognized.

Your face is thrown up on a digital billboard so that everybody else can see that you’ve just broken the law.

SREENIVASAN: You’re the jaywalker?

WEBB: That’s right.

SREENIVASAN: Public shaming.

WEBB: Public shaming, so that’s a piece of it. You’re asked to report to a local police precinct. Usually, there’s a — it could be a fine levied.

And social networks are used to tell your employer, your family members that you have gone against the grain of society and you’ve broken the law.

SREENIVASAN: This is happening now.

WEBB: That’s happening now.

SREENIVASAN: This is like a fight goes core that we wouldn’t understand when we get a mortgage. But this is much more related to every other part

of your life.

WEBB: That’s right. So if you have a bad credit score, you’re going to have a hard time getting a car, you’re going to have a hard time getting a

mortgage. People may pass judgment on you, right. You may have a hard time getting certain kinds of jobs.

This is like that for every aspect of your life. So if you have a low score, your kids aren’t getting into the right schools. Now, again, you

may ask yourself that’s fascinating. I don’t live in China so why do I care about this?

This technology and this concept is already being exported. If you’re an authoritarian ruler —

SREENIVASAN: And you want to keep people in line.

WEBB: And you want to keep people in line, this is a pretty nifty way of making that happen.

SREENIVASAN: So you create the incentives and disincentives to figure out how you want to steer the population.

WEBB: That’s right. And if it’s the case that eventually all of these people and all of these countries have some kind of social credit score,

isn’t it also plausible that the companies where they work will be granted some type of corporate credit score for the purpose of determining trade

values and taxes and tariffs and things like that.

So if that’s what’s happening, and we are not a part of that process as China creates a new world order using artificial intelligence, isn’t it

plausible that as Americans we won’t have a Social Credit Score, the companies that we own or work for won’t have a corporate credit score, it

may be impossible for us to do business in any of those countries.

SREENIVASAN: Unless we opt into this.

WEBB: Unless we opt in.

SREENIVASAN: You seem less concerned about the terminator scenario about robots coming around and deciding that we’re inefficient than you are about

essentially an erosion of humanity. Because as you start talking about A.I. making choices, sort of what are the values that those choices are

based on when they’re machines.

WEBB: So I’m a pragmatist. This is — this does not mean that I’m not concerned a little bit about a weaponized version of A.I. But the

pragmatist in me is much more concerned about what’s happening now.

And what’s happening now is that we are surrounded by systems that make millions of decisions on our behalf every day all day long. And the point

of this is to optimize our lives. The challenge with A.I. optimizing our lives is that the people who built the systems to make — those people made

determinations about what optimal is.

And the people working on these systems, quite frankly, don’t really look like or represent everybody. And if you’re — if you don’t share the same

world view as a critical mass of people, if you don’t have the same experiences, if, if, if, if, how can these systems that are designed to

make optimal decisions for us all possibly reflect our own individualistic values? They can’t.

Think of all of the different things in our lives that we are losing the ability to have any modicum of control over. All of us now are

being nudged. Every time we send an e-mail or a text message, you see at the bottom of your phone —

SREENIVASAN: Suggested response.

WEBB: Suggested responses. My husband is a perfect example. So a couple of days ago, I texted my husband something. And he texted me something

back and it was like a set phrase that I’ve literally, we’ve been married for 10 years, never once heard him say this. And it irritated me because I

felt like he wasn’t communicating with me in a personal way.

SREENIVASAN: You weren’t even worth an actual response.

WEBB: That’s right. And —

SREENIVASAN: It was just a button because it was so easy.

WEBB: That’s totally right. So when he came home — so we have dinner that night and I was like, hey, like remember that text message from

earlier —

SREENIVASAN: I wrote you back.

WEBB: Exactly. And I said did you type the response or did you just click the button? And he was like, well, I clicked the button. It meant the

same thing.

But the problem is it doesn’t mean — I mean it literally means the same thing but it isn’t like mean the same thing. And I think we don’t

recognize just how much of our lives are already being optimized by a handful of people working in Silicon Valley.

In ways that over time — this may seem insignificant now but over time, I think they have the potential to change the fabric of society and how we

relate to each other.

SREENIVASAN: You say in the book you have one optimistic one. The best case scenario, you have a pragmatic one and you have kind of a not so great

one. Considering where we’re at today, what is the more likely one that’s going to happen?

WEBB: What I think is likely is somewhere between the pragmatic and the catastrophic scenarios in which we slowly lose control over the ability to

make decisions. We see more and more consolidation. We have less choice ironically.

We find that we are being nudged continuously. And being nudged by our technology continuously not only makes us miserable but we also start to

forget that we have some agency and how to do things that sort of encourages a mental laziness that spills over into other areas of life.

And slowly but surely, China builds an arsenal of code as it deploys this new kind of diplomacy. And we find that the world is divided in new and

quite uncomfortable ways. And we’re looking at future wars fought in code rather than combat.

And we know when the first shots have been fired, when our lights start flickering intermittently, we get locked out of our smart microwaves. And

we find that our lives are difficult because somebody has decided to restrict them. I mean that — I think what people have in their heads is

some kind of event horizon where the machines wake up and then they come to kill us all.

That would certainly be horrible. But so would living in a world where we’re in a country like America which is built on individual freedoms, we

find that we are bound by restrictions in all of these different ways. And systems are making decisions about us and for us in ways that are

completely unintelligible.

That to me would be in a way worse. A single event horizon, a single bomb that drops, that destroys – obviously, that’s bad. But isn’t it almost

worse to live through generations of transition away from freedom where we are right now to resolute control? To me, that’s worse.

OK. So it’s — I know. I know. It’s — so — but there — my point with all of this is I know the catastrophic scenario is bleak and I know that it

has scared a lot of people who read early versions of it. But my purpose for doing this is to change our developmental path. So there is —

SREENIVASAN: And we have agency now that we could do something about it to get off that track.

WEBB: That’s right. So if we stop thinking about artificial intelligence as a great way to make money fast, right, or some kind of amorphous way to

ensure our human longevity far into the — like — or sci-fi or whatever it is, if we can get down to brass tacks and again like start making smarter

decisions in a collaborative way, I think we have a real opportunity to make good on some of those promises.

But the way to do that is to treat artificial intelligence as a public good. It’s something we all have a stake in like the air, right. And for

some — to be something that we all — we reap the rewards and benefits from but we also protect.

SREENIVASAN: Amy Webb, thanks for joining us.

WEBB: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Final note of optimism there from Amy Webb.

That’s it for our program tonight.

Thanks for watching Amanpour and Company on PBS and join us again tomorrow.

END