Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone and welcome to “Amanpour and Company”. Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Russian propaganda hikes its military mic but videos go viral, revealing the disarray that even has Putin’s loyalists concerned. So,
what’s really going on? Pro-Kremlin analyst Andrey Kortunov joins me from Moscow. Plus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STANLEY TUCCI, HOST “SEARCHING FOR ITALY”: You can basically have about 10 ingredients and you have an Italian kitchen. And that’s, sort of, the
beauty of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Going beyond pizza and pasta, Oscar nominee Stanley Tucci gives me a taste of his delicious Emmy winning series, “Searching for Italy”.
And.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IMMY HUMES, AUTHOR, “THE ONLY WOMAN”: It’s the definition of patriarchy and seeing, you know, an all-male world when that one woman, sort of, enters
the male state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: From Marie Curie to Shirley Chisholm, award winning filmmaker Immy Humes spotlights the fearless pioneers who became the only woman in
the room.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
The deoccupation has begun. That’s how the Ukrainian leader of Luhansk describes his forces freeing the region from Russian control. Indeed, it’s
the first time since Putin’s invasion of February 24th that Ukraine’s troops have advance not far. This, as President Putin signs of on annexing
Luhansk and three other regions. Not only does that violate international law but so too did the forced referendums in occupied territories last
week.
And now, in what can only be described as Orwellian, Putin today described himself pleasantly surprised by the outcome of the vote that was conducted
often at gunpoint. A deliberate muddying of the facts has been Russia’s gameplan all along. It now brushes off talk of military setbacks by saying
it is regrouping. While widely circulated videos of Russian soldiers paint a very different picture. Correspondent Melissa Bell reports.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MELISSA BELL, CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military ones feared, now mocked.
No laughing, the officer says to her recruits. Lost your wives, girlfriends, mothers for period pads and tampons. Do you know what tampons
are for? You stick it in a bullet wound she says, it swells and closes the wound. Bring your own sleeping bag too, the men are told.
On television, the hundreds of thousands being mobilized by President Putin are well equipped. In reality there videos on social media tell a different
tale.
We were officially told that there would be no training before being sent to the combat zone, this recruit says. We had no shooting, no tactical
training, no theoretical training. Nothing.
Another officer addresses his recruits.
If you have hernias, plates in your head, I was told you’re fit for mobilization, he says. So, stop saying you can’t. I live on pills. So, if I
go, you’ll be doing your tasks like everyone else.
CNN cannot independently verify these widely circulated videos. Even the deputy prime minister of the Donetsk Peoples Republic, annexed Friday by
Russia couldn’t help but be honest as the city of Lyman fell to Ukrainian forces.
The situation on the Lyman front is bad. Let’s speak frankly, he tells a Russian propagandist. Everything is the same as everywhere else. Namely,
there are not enough people.
The sorry state has tainted the hallowed halls of Russian state television where careful skepticism about Putin’s war is increasingly tolerated. This
time, it’s the head of the state-owned RT Network.
If I had to gather trainloads of body armor socks and the rest for those already on the front lines, she asks, have these 300,000 been supplied with
all of that they need?
These recruits in the central city of Perm clearly haven’t. They lament being dropped by the side of the road late at night, saying they’ll have to
build a fire to stay warm.
The impact is plain to see. Ukraine recaptured more territory in the past month than Russia had gained in the past five.
Ukrainian intelligence well aware of the propaganda value regularly puts out intercepted calls between Russian soldiers and family back home.
There should be helicopters, planes, the woman says. There’s nothing, nothing, nothing says the soldier. What kind of army is this, she replies?
Just a TV show?
Putin’s army once feared, now in disarray.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Melissa Bell reporting there. So, what exactly is the thinking inside Russia as dissent and defeats mount? For much-needed perspective,
we’re turning now to Andrey Kortunov. He runs the Russian International Affairs Council, it’s a think tank with connections to the Russian foreign
ministry. And he’s joining me now from Moscow.
Andrey Kortunov, welcome back to the program.
ANDREY KORTUNOV, DIRECTOR GENERAL, RUSSIAN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: What do you make of that? I mean, here you have Russian soldiers, you know, Russian military bloggers who are with the soldiers. The head of
RT on Russian television, all basically saying a similar story that it’s not going well. How is that being received?
KORTUNOV: Well, I think that we have entered uncharted waters because the last time the country went through a mobilization was back in 1941, during
the second world war. And for the last 20 years, the overall direction of the Russian military buildup was the professional army. The perception was
that we would have a small, well-trained, highly mobile professional army. And, of course, mobilization is something very different. And for many
people, it is a very different perception of the conflict itself.
AMANPOUR: But — I guess what I want to ask you is — so, are you surprised then to see recruiting sergeants, like that woman said, use tampons to
staunch your wounds. That means they don’t have medical gear. Bring your own sleeping bags. That means they don’t have logistics and sleeping
arrangements. You know, build your own fires, not to mention we don’t have enough weapons and we’re losing territory.
What psychological impact —
KORTUNOV: Well —
AMANPOUR: — and real impact is that having, let’s say, on the defense ministry or even in the Kremlin?
KORTUNOV: Well, I — I’m not in position to talk about the moves in the Kremlin. But definitely, there are very mixed feelings about the
mobilization. There is a lot of confusion among people who are getting mobilized. Many people tried to escape the country. But of course, at the
same time we see significant numbers of volunteers who would like to be mobilized for a variety of reasons.
And as far as the territorial losses are concerned, my personal take is that in the Kremlin, these losses are perceived. Not as a strategic defeat
but as tactical failures. And I guess that the perception in the Russian leadership is that with this mobilization, the course of events on the
battlefield can be reversed. Can be changed in Russia’s favor.
AMANPOUR: OK. That’s what I was going to ask you because they say — I mean, one of the official words have come out today that actually this
isn’t about retreat or defeat. It’s about regrouping. And I’m talking about the, you know, the Luhansk, the episodes near Kherson, and all of the
ground that’s being liberated by the Ukrainians.
But how often can the Russian military, “Regroup”, when you’re hearing from the soldiers on the ground saying that we just don’t have enough manpower.
We just don’t have enough weaponry. And furthermore, your assessment pleas of the nature and professionalism of the civilians who have been
conscripted now. What can they do to reverse this?
KORTUNOV: Well, the Russian ministry of defense stated that all of these people will be retrained and equipped and armed. And that they will get to
the front line only after everything is accomplished. However, I think that we will definitely have some missteps. We’ll definitely see some problems
emerging because it’s a pretty large operation for Russia even if it is limited to 300,000 new men brought to the front line.
As I mentioned Russia has never done anything like that in this century. So, in a way, it’s a huge experiment. And of course, we don’t know the
outcomes.
AMANPOUR: Yes, it’s a huge experiment. I want to ask you whether you think, at this point, that Putin miscalculated. I’m just out now. Do you think?
KORTUNOV: Well, you know, I think that in military terms, the decision to launch this partial mobilization suggest that the Russian leadership
decided that in its initial plan has to be corrected or at least somehow recalibrated. It turned out that the Russian side needed more manpower in
order to change the course of the conflict to its favor.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, as you say, they’ve “Recalibrated”. Putin himself also had to say that the mobilization needs to be recalibrated because of
the amount of dissent that it just caused. We understand that according to an E.U. report, some 220,000 Russian civilians have fled the borders to
escape this mobilization.
Let me ask you this though because while there’s that kind of, I guess, vote of no confidence from some inside Russia, there are also some very
bombastic words from others. For instance, we’re going to play a soundbite from the vice chairman of the State Duma. He was on French television this
week saying that Russia can still take Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PYOTR TOLSTOY, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, RUSSIAN STATE DUMA (through translator): Of course, we consider the attack on Lyman or other small villages that today
Ukrainians claim they’re liberating. These are attacks on Russian territory. And it will have the most serious of consequences for the
current regime in Kyiv.
We are going to go much further, much farther than you think. Do not worry. Give it time and the Russian army will take Kyiv. I have no doubt about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Andrey Kortunov, you’ve watched this now for nearly, you know, seven or eight months. That’s Pyotr Tolstoy, as I said, vice chairman of
the State Duma. Do you think Russia still has Kyiv in its sights?
KORTUNOV: Well, you know, one of the issues here is that the Russian leadership has never specified the ultimate goals of the special military
operation. So, to put it bluntly, we do not know what the ultimate goals are. Whether they include Kyiv or they do not include Kyiv.
My personal take is that probably the Russian leadership would be quite satisfied with keeping what is — has already got. Namely, the two Donbas
regions, the Kherson region and part of Zaporizhzhia region. And of course, that would already mean a considerable territorial gain on the Russian
side. Kyiv is entirely different task. I think it would be a formidable task to perform.
AMANPOUR: Since you’ve just said that, I want to ask you about a comment you made earlier. You said to CNN recently that President Putin wants to
end this whole thing as fast as possible. So, based on what? Because even those regions that you’re talking about, which the rest of the world
clearly can see and Ukraine obviously knows, our illegally annexed. The sham referendums, as I said, some at gunpoint. On what basis could you see
President Putin wanting to and this as soon as possible?
KORTUNOV: Well, probably, the expectation is that both sides will deplete their capacity to fight and some ceasefire will follow this conflict. And
this ceasefire might mean, you know, defacto political settlement, though, no formal agreement is elected to be signed, of course.
So, I think that maybe the expectation is that winter will make it harder for the Ukrainian side to advance or even to defend. There might be various
military calculations behind it. But clearly, we should keep in mind that Putin cannot afford defeat, you know, he has to prevail even if the price
for prevailing will be escalation.
AMANPOUR: Well, when you say escalation, do you take seriously the president of your country, either overly or in a veiled manner suggesting
that they would go to the nuclear option? Do you take that seriously? Do you think he could —
KORTUNOV: Well, I think it’s very unlikely. You know, my take is that the nuclear dimension is likely to emerge if we see a more direct data
engagement into the conflict.
It is not really clear what can be achieved on the battlefield with tactical nuclear weapons, they’re not very handy on the battlefield. And on
top of that, of course, the use of nuclear weapons might alienate Russia’s partners from the global south. I think this use is not likely to be
supported by countries like China or India.
So, I don’t think that the danger of a direct military engagement of Russia on the territory of Ukraine is high. However, there is a certain red line
in terms of the NATO support of Ukraine. But we don’t know what exactly should NATO do in order to motivate the Russian leadership to consider the
use of nuclear weapons against the North Atlantic Alliance.
AMANPOUR: You mentioned — first of all, you just said, and I want to make it clear, that you do not believe that the threat or the likelihood of such
use is high. So, that’s — maybe we can breathe a little easier.
KORTUNOV: Well —
AMANPOUR: The other —
KORTUNOV: You know, I might be biased —
AMANPOUR: What?
KORTUNOV: Sorry. I might be biased but I think that it makes very little sense.
AMANPOUR: OK. You also mentioned the global south. Obviously, the countries you mentioned are themselves, nuclear powers. I want to ask you what you
believe and what the Kremlin believes. This business of China, in terms of President Xi saying that he had questions and concerns about the war when
they met in Uzbekistan. In addition, Prime Minister Modi who said that now is not the time. This is not the era of war.
Do you think that Putin thinks that they were really raising concerns, or is this like, no — you know, a wink and a nudge for the public consumption
of the world, India and China, sort of being shown to maybe raise some questions with Putin but not really meaning it and supporting him still?
KORTUNOV: Well, I think that both China and India take a very cautious approach to the conflict. Especially if we are talking about China. China
might be ready to support Russia against the west because it has its own problems with the west. But it is not ready to support Russia against
Ukraine because Ukraine is also a major partner of China, a major trading partner. China invests in Ukraine. And China is also concerned about its
own separatism. So, I don’t think that China can go too far in supporting Russia.
As far as India is concerned, I think that India is trying very carefully to balance its relations with the west and its relations with Eurasian
countries including Russia. India is not likely to become a former ally of the United States. But I think the Eurasian dimension of the Indian foreign
policy will also be somewhat limited.
So, so far there is a delicate balance for both India and China. I think both countries hope that this conflict might end before too long. Both
would like to see a termination of the active phase of the military operation, at least if not a political settlement. But I don’t think that
either country might support a direct use of nuclear weapons no matter what particular power is going to do that.
AMANPOUR: Right. Mr. Kortunov, I want to know from you whether you think there are any cracks in the edifice around President Putin. You know, we
understand that he has empowered the head of Chechnya, you know, Ramzan Kadyrov. Put some pin on him and called him a general. Kadyrov is called
for using nukes, not right now. We understand the Wagner Group is getting more mobilized. What can you tell us about those personalities and whether
they’re really top of the mind for Putin?
KORTUNOV: You know, it’s not an easy question to answer. I can imagine that we see, sort of, consolidation of the top of the Russian political
establishment around the president because these people have no other options. They are under sanctions. They depend on the Russian leader quite
a lot.
Of course, if you look at large businesses and their leaders, they might have reservations about the military operation. But I don’t think that they
are in a position to go against Putin.
AMANPOUR: And finally, many analysts point out that Putin ever since — I mean, well, we know he wrote a huge 5,000-word treaties back in 2021 laying
out his justification for, you know, uniting all the so-called Slav areas of the former Soviet Union. Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, maybe some parts of
Kazakhstan.
And that he’s determined to do it, you know, come what may, militarily or otherwise. I mean, this goes back now 100 years. Not just since the
collapse of the Soviet Union. Do you think that that is still what he is thinking? That it’s still the Putin doctrine?
KORTUNOV: Well, my take is that President Putin is a very persistent person. You know, if he decides to do something, he usually sticks to his
decisions and it’s very difficult, if possible, to change his mind. And we do not know many cases when he would have time to step back or to somehow
change his perceptions or his views. So, I think it is unlikely to see that he would, somehow, dramatically change his positions on Ukraine, on Russia,
on history, on things like that.
AMANPOUR: All right. Andrey Kortunov, thank you. That is very valuable insight. Thanks a lot for joining us.
KORTUNOV: Thank you for inviting me.
AMANPOUR: So, all of us probably are craving some light in all of this darkness around us. Our next guest therefore is offering a tasty reprieve.
Stanley Tucci is back with his hit travel series, “Searching for Italy”. The Oscar nominee revels in its sumptuous cuisine and culture. And all of
it, a recipe for success. Because the series has won two Emmys and it returns with new episodes this Sunday on CNN.
When we spoke earlier this week, Tucci told me this show isn’t just palatable, it is also personal.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
AMANPOUR: Stanley Tucci, welcome to the program.
STANLEY TUCCI, HOST “SEARCHING FOR ITALY”: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, here we are, the second part of series two —
TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — airing on CNN. And you are going back in one episode to your home ancestral region Calabrese.
TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You say — and it’s incredible. It is the first time since you were back there since you were 12.
TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you went with your parents.
TUCCI: I went with my parents the first time and this last time, yes.
AMANPOUR: And how emotional was that for you and them, given the age of your parents?
TUCCI: It was very emotional. My — you know my dad is 92. My mother is 86. She — they never thought that they would go again and see those people
again. But we were able to make it happen. And luckily, they’re both fit. So, it was fine and we had a great time. It was very moving.
AMANPOUR: So, let’s get down to the — you know, you’re in a place where there’s no shortage of Tuccis.
TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Right?
TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: There’s a Tucci this and a Tucci that, and finally, this shows us where you and your parents are towards the beginning of this episode.
TUCCI: Yes.
S. TUCCI (voiceover): As it turns out, being a Tucci isn’t that remarkable over here. Over half of Marche’s population shares our last name.
S. TUCCI (on camera): Is this what you remember?
S. TUCCI (voiceover): Which turns out to be a problem as my dad wants to find his father’s house.
STANLEY TUCCI, SR., STANLEY TUCCI’S FATHER: My recollection, it was perfectly flat.
S. TUCCI (on camera): Yes.
S. TUCCI SR.: And there was a place with a huge —
S. TUCCI (on camera): Well, let’s — let’s go back.
S. TUCCI SR.: — a huge clock at the top.
S. TUCCI (on camera): This is the clock that you just said, right? You remember a flat area.
S. TUCCI SR.: Yes, yes. Flat area.
S. TUCCI (on camera): But do you remember where the house is?
S. TUCCI SR.: I think it was down here.
S. TUCCI (on camera): Watch your —
S. TUCCI SR.: What street is this?
S. TUCCI (on camera): — watch your step.
S. TUCCI SR.: Gennaro Tucci, yes.
AMANPOUR: I mean, it’s really cute. It’s a little Monty Pythonesque.
S. TUCCI: Completely, yes. And we never — we don’t know if he found it or not. We don’t know.
AMANPOUR: But I did notice you stopped outside number 30.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Thinking that that might be it.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
Oh. there you go, dad.
AMANPOUR: But you didn’t go in.
S. TUCCI: We didn’t go in.
AMANPOUR: Or if you did.
S. TUCCI: No.
AMANPOUR: No? I would have bashed the door with the knocker. I would knock politely.
S. TUCCI: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: Why didn’t you go in?
S. TUCCI: I don’t know. I don’t know why. I think I just wanted to go eat, probably.
AMANPOUR: Go and eat and do another fabulous recipe. Tucci, what was the original Italian name. I mean, Tucci is the original last name. Stanley is
what?
S. TUCCI: Stanley is — was my grandfather’s name. So, Stanislao is what he was actually christened under. And then my father was named Stanley, and
I’m named Stanley. He was named Stanislao which is a Polish name because he was born around St. Stanislaus Day. That’s the only reason.
AMANPOUR: What about Calabria? Apart from it being your ancestral home in terms of “Searching for Italy” and its food, what about it stood out to
you?
S. TUCCI: It’s a very interesting region because it’s not visited very often by tourists. How many people do know that I went to Calabria, you
know, this summer. No. The only people who go to Calabria are people who have roots in Calabria. It’s a very poor part of Italy. It’s a very corrupt
part of Italy.
AMANPOUR: A lot of mafioso.
S. TUCCI: A lot of mafioso. So, you —
AMANPOUR: And you bring it up.
S. TUCCI: — have the Mafia, you have the Ndrangheta, and you have the Gamora. And those are the three different, sort of, bastions of crime. And
they’re very powerful. And they control a lot. As you drive through Calabria and even parts of Puglia, you see unfinished structures.
That money was funneled in from the E.U. but then funneled away. So, you would have half a structure. In fact, there’s even a —
AMANPOUR: So, it funneled away into the pocket of the mafia citizen there.
S. TUCCI: Into the pockets away from these new developments. So, you basically have a huge part of this region is unfinished structures.
AMANPOUR: And yet, you really do come away with such a sense of plenty, such a sense of bounty especially amongst families. And you got to extended
members of your family. And the next clip we’re going to play is when you’re having a, sort of, a family feast. So, let’s play it.
S. TUCCI (voiceover): This is a Tropiano (ph) family dish that is very similar to the baccala in tomato sauce that I grew up with.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): This is stockfish from Cittanova. We are famour for our stockfish. They say the water in Cittanova is very
good and that’s why the stockfish is good.
S. TUCCI (on camera): And my mother would make this with con baccala.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): With salted cod.
S. TUCCI (on camera): Si.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We tend to use stockfish here but we eat salted cod sometimes too.
Too salty?
S. TUCCI (on camera): Wow.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): It’s my homegrown tomatoes.
S. TUCCI (on camera): It’s so good.
AMANPOUR: So, there’s a lot of takeaways from there. First of all, all the talk about the different way that you make this pretty similar dish. What
was all that about then?
S. TUCCI: So, they’re stockfish which is dried cod fish. And then there’s baccala which is salted codfish. This is made with stockfish which
reconstituted in water over a period of almost three days. And then it’s cooked however you decide to cook it.
But, you know, Italians are very precious about their recipes. And they’re very distinctive. They’ll say, well, I use exactly this kind of fish, and I
use this kind of tomato, and I use this kind of oil, I use this kind of garlic. And it can only be this big and that. And it’s exhausting after a
while having been through the whole country. It’s fascinating but that’s also what makes them so similar.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and what I think is — well, first of all, I think your Italian has approved, has it? As you’ve been —
S. TUCCI: It’s starting a bit better, yes.
AMANPOUR: It has. It’s has.
S. TUCCI: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: You’re giving a bit more of your Italian self.
S. TUCCI: A little bit. yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: So, what I was struck by is that you mentioned that Calabria is not the richest part of Italy. And Puglia, perhaps, is even less rich than
Italy. I think the nickname was Puglia is the shame of Italy.
S. TUCCI: Yes. There was one Puglia and Basilicata. Basilicata, used to be part of Puglia. There was Matera, this incredible ancient town that was
known as the shame of Italy, yes.
AMANPOUR: And you — yet you go through all of these places and you go to restaurants and the butcher shop and this and that. And you see people
cooking, like for a king. But cooking from, maybe, what might have been — or might be today called the off-cut or the not-so, you know, refined.
Pasta, for instance, burnt wheat pasta. I was fascinated by that.
S. TUCCI: Yes, that’s interesting, yes. Yes, I mean, and that’s still — that is the basis of Italian cuisine in almost every single region. And of
course, that would change over the years. But for the most part, that’s what the majority of people ate. They ate the off-cuts of things. They ate
things that they grew seasonally.
And it’s a really — if you look at the Italian larder, it’s a really simple set of ingredients. You can basically have about 10 ingredients and
you have an Italian kitchen. And that’s, sort of, the beauty of it. But the range that they have within that — those 10 ingredients is kind of
astounding.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and the fact that they take, you know, whatever. I mean, the — I think there was a bit of liver and a bit of lung. I was a little
alarmed by the lung.
S. TUCCI: Uh-huh. There was lung, yes.
AMANPOUR: But then it’s wrapped and then it looks fantastic.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And it’s a delicacy.
S. TUCCI: Yes. They’ll use — they will use anything. Honestly, in the Jewish quarter of Rome and also in Venice, those were — the off-cuts were
used because that’s what was given to the Jews. In other parts, people were using those off-cuts because that was all they had. So, some of it had to
do with politics and religion. And some of it simply had to do with where you were.
AMANPOUR: Well, in the Puglia, I’m talking about politics, you mentioned that Mussolini had a — you know, in the politics, even before the war,
really affected that place. The so-called land reforms and the rest. Canop — turned it into a disaster because of its free-stage, recession, and the
lot.
S. TUCCI: Yes, he was — he said basically we’re going to take land away from the land owners, the wealthy, and we’re going to distribute that land
equally. Unfortunately, what they did was they took away the, sort of, not very good land. Land that wasn’t really very arable and they gave it to
these people and then they had to figure out a way how to grow something. How to make something work. But ultimately it didn’t really work.
AMANPOUR: There’s a cute guy in there called Veto (ph) in your Puglia episode.
S. TUCCI: Uh-huh.
AMANPOUR: And tell me about because he created a blue cheese which is kind of unusual.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But he was inspired by?
S. TUCCI: He was inspired — well, he said he was — he was really an interesting guy. He said he was inspired by the sea, yes. But then he —
AMANPOUR: Not just the sea. The Pacific of California.
S. TUCCI: The Pacific because he went to California —
AMANPOUR: Right.
S. TUCCI: — State of California as a young guy. And he said he loved surfing. So, he thought, I’ll come home and I’ll make a blue cheese. I
don’t know if this is a true story or not but it’s nice.
VETO (PH), MADE BLUE CHEESE OUT OF GOAT MILK: This was my first blue cheese I did in Puglia.
S. TUCCI: And he — it was really interesting because he made a blue goat cheese which now you have.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
S. TUCCI: But in — you know, again, in Italy, they’re very specific and dogmatic about what kind of cheese you make with what. Can a blue cheese be
made with goat? Absolutely not. But he did. You know, and his family was very upset. Now, they’re very happy.
AMANPOUR: And he has the world’s first — apparently, the world’s first cheese bar.
S. TUCCI: Yes, he has a cheese bar.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
S. TUCCI: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: And — I mean, you know, the way you’re talking, it’s quite different from other, maybe foodie shows which have a much bigger, more
differentiated canvas. You — the — it’s really very intense, as you say, a very, sort of — as you say, using almost all the same ingredients but
developing something completely different depending on what region.
S. TUCCI: Yes. I mean, that’s the thing. That’s why I wanted to make this series it’s because this is an idea that I had, like, 15 years ago when I –
– and to me, every time when people talk about Italian food, they would say, you know, pizza and pasta and whatever. But if you go up to Lombardi
or you go to Valle d’Aosta or you go to Pimonte, you’re going to have a completely different thing on your plate than you’re going to have in
Naples, or in Rome, or in Florence, or in Emilia-Romagna.
It’s all going to be distinctly different. A lot of the ingredients will be a similar. But the way they’re put to use is different. However, there are
certain things that won’t be in Lombardi. You won’t see a tomato. Everyone would think —
AMANPOUR: I can’t believe that.
S. TUCCI: — oh, I’ll just have tomato sauce. And they’re like, no, we don’t have tomatoes.
AMANPOUR: I can’t believe that.
S. TUCCI: Yes, it’s weird. Like it’s so weird but it makes sense because of the geography and because of the influx of invaders and who occupied those
regions for extended periods of time.
AMANPOUR: You’ve had a big relationship with food throughout your life. Your book is called “Taste”.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And in certain films, you have been, you know, surrounded by food. I mean, “Julie and Julia” —
S. TUCCI: “Julie and Julia”.
AMANPOUR: — right?
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: How do you stay slim —
S. TUCCI: Well, I —
AMANPOUR: — eat — after eating all of that stuff?
S. TUCCI: I exercise a lot.
AMANPOUR: OK.
S. TUCCI: I mean, I exercise six days a week. I’m blessed with a high metabolism. And because I went through radiation treatments, my metabolism
has increased. I wouldn’t recommend that.
AMANPOUR: No.
S. TUCCI: But that’s — that is part of it. But also, when you’re eating on film, I’ll taste, but I won’t eat. You can’t.
AMANPOUR: Right, you can’t. No, no, you can’t.
S. TUCCI: You can’t really eat that entire bowl of — you can’t do it.
AMANPOUR: You mentioned oral cancer. You mentioned the radiation. How did that affect your taste? Did you lose your taste?
S. TUCCI: Oh, gosh, yes. I lost — not only did I lost my taste, but everything tasted like, you know, what. And it took six months to start to
be able to eat normally again. I had a feeding tube for six months. And I still — I can taste now. I can taste everything now. But I still can’t eat
everything. I can’t just, sort of, dive into a piece of steak. I can’t just grab a sandwich and, sort of, eat it. There’s a lot — there are a lot of
repercussions, saliva and all of that stuff.
AMANPOUR: So, does this series, how does it affect you? Is it something — is it like a life giver or is it a burden?
S. TUCCI: It’s a little bit of both. And for — when I first started, I was barely recovered. I was only, like, a year out of treatment. A little more.
And it was hard. It was really, really, really hard. But over the years, we’ve been doing this for almost, like, three years now and it’s getting
easier. It’s getting easier.
But it is, to me, it’s a gift because I can taste all these things now. And to be able to go and visit all this people. Visit all these places and
experience that and then give it to people. Show people how wonderful it is. The beauty of Italy and the complexity of Italy and the darkness of
Italy.
AMANPOUR: And also, it seems to me anyway, watching you — I mean, I know all these things are hard and there’s a lot of hard work. But it looks like
a very happy job, right?
S. TUCCI: It is.
AMANPOUR: Is it happier than acting or how does it compare to acting?
S. TUCCI: Well, you don’t have to memorize lines, that’s nice. And you don’t —
AMANPOUR: You just ad lib your way through.
S. TUCCI: You just, sort of, make it up.
AMANPOUR: Simple series, yes.
S. TUCCI: Yes, you know, in two languages, sort of. Yes, in some ways it is really happy. It’s — the thing that’s grueling about it, I suppose, is
that yes, there’s a structure. But there’s a lot — there’s so much travel. I mean, I’m not one to talk to you about traveling. But you know, you leave
your family for chunks of time.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
S. TUCCI: And you can’t get back because you’re shooting. You have like one day off. There’s no way you’re coming back. But it really is, in the end,
it’s incredibly joyful.
AMANPOUR: Joyful, exactly.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Talking about films, you — recent series has dropped.
S. TUCCI: Uh-huh.
AMANPOUR: We’re in the middle of it now, “Inside Man”.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Where you play, I mean, this is my shorthand, a variation on Hannibal Lecter
You’re a criminal on death row.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you’re helping an investigative journalist.
S. TUCCI: Yes, it’s really interesting. It’s a really interesting series. Steven Moffat wrote it who wrote “Sherlock” and “Dr. Who” at one point and
“Dracula” —
AMANPOUR: And actually, “Dr. Who” is in it.
S. TUCCI: Yes, one of the old “Dr. Whos”.
AMANPOUR: The old — David —
S. TUCCI: Not that old but yes.
AMANPOUR: No, not that old.
S. TUCCI: David Tennant is in it. And it was so beautifully written, very funny, very dark. And I thought, I’ve always wanted to work with those
guys. And they offered it to me and Paul McGuigan, the director, he’s a wonderful Scottish director I worked with a long time ago. And it was just
— that was joyful.
Everyone is a murderer. You just have to meet the right person.
It was complicated and it was hard. I had to rehearse it like a play because it’s endless dialogue. But that was a great challenge at the same
time.
AMANPOUR: And your role is to help the journalist figure out and solve crimes, right?
S. TUCCI: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
S. TUCCI: He’s on death row for murdering someone. And he’s not a serial killer. It was a one-off. But he was a criminologist also, like, a top
criminologist which makes him a good —
AMANPOUR: Good resource.
S. TUCCI: Yes, yes, yes. Fun.
AMANPOUR: Life in the dark.
S. TUCCI: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Stanley Tucci, thank you so much.
S. TUCCI: Thank you. Thank you.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
AMANPOUR: Well, that interlude is over. You can watch the series on CNN as we said.
And now we’re going to turn to Iran where authorities are cracking down on protesters but only excessive and lethal force, but also by trying to shut
them off from the oxygen of the internet, that’s according to Human Rights Watch. As women there raise their voices and protest for their rights, we
are reminded about the general absence of a female presence in most positions of power.
In her new book, “The Only Woman”, Oscar nominated director Immy Humes compiles historical images of singular women surrounded by men. A simple
but powerful premise. The pages showcase women from 20 countries. Proving how common it was to be the only female in the room. Immy Humes explores
this phenomenon with Michel Martin.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Immy Humes, thank you so much for talking with us.
IMMY HUMES, AUTHOR, “THE ONLY WOMAN”: Thank you so much. I’m really honored and excited to be here.
MARTIN: How did this project appear to you? I have to say that, you know, it’s sort of shocking to think of because some of these images in the book
are very well-known. Obviously, some of them are not. But I’m sure that a lot of us have looked at these pictures a million times and never, you
know, honed in on the fact that there was only one woman there and there’s often only one woman there. So, how did this come to you?
HUMMES: Well, it’s funny because now — I mean, there was an actual moment where I started to get out obsessed. But in retrospect, I can see it
brewing like for a lifetime, weirdly. But there was this one particular photo that got me, kind of, fixated. And it was because I was working on a
film project and it was a biography of a filmmaker — of a woman filmmaker named Shirley Clarke who’s this radical amazing filmmaker from the 60s.
And she was often described as the only woman filmmaker of her day, you know. I found this picture of her surrounded by men. Her cast, her crew,
her investors, and she’s celebrating. And it crystalized so much about her career. And, you know, the good and the bad. You know, in other words, she
was this renegade, like, you know, iconic class out there in front braking all these barriers. But it became a very, very hard road for her.
So, I started, sort of, like, just staring at this picture. And then I realized that it was reminding me of something. And it was just what you
said which are, you know, there are these other pictures that are kind of stored in our memory banks, or at least for my generation. I don’t know.
But you know, there is — of our, you know, of our cultural heritage.
And I realized there was one — particularly, I was like, wait, wait. And I went and found the second picture in the book which is this famous photo, a
black and white phot for “Life Magazine” of all the most famous painters in the ’50s in Ne York. All the abstract expressionists, you know, Jackson
Pollack, and De Kooning, and Rothko. And they’re all these famous guys.
And then there’s this one woman. And she’s like seated way up top in this very strange position. And it’s a very memorable photo because of her. But
everybody about that photo is always like, well, who is she? You know, it’s like they’re all of these amazing names in the history of art. And then
there’s this woman who nobody has ever heard of, you know. As somehow, I found them compelling.
I kind of relate to the woman in every case. I’m like, oh, there she is. And then I’m like, how was she feeling? What was she thinking? You know,
what was it like for her?
MARTIN: I think this is probably the earliest damage that you have found for the book. It’s from 1862. You know, the — some of the early days of
photography. And it’s titled “Mrs. Fairfax”.
HUMMES: Yes, this is a really important photograph in the history of photography and the history of the civil war. It’s a rare photograph and
this one sentence which is that, even though black women had large holes in the civil war, they’re very often or they’re almost always not in the
picture.
This is the case of — it’s a camp of union officers, of northern officers. All in their, you know, uniforms. And then, you know, in a different pose
is a black woman, who is the cook for the union camp. And it’s written in handwriting, I think by the general in question, Mrs. Fairfax, chief cook
and bottle washer. And that photograph was given to another general. And it was right after a victory. They were all looking pretty good. It was near
the beginning of the war. So, it’s kind of a mystery right away.
MARTIN: Well, there are so many things that stand out to me of, obviously, knowing the history of the United States as we do that the fact that he
gave her the honor of being called missis. The fact that he addressed her by her last name. The fact that he knew her name that, you know, she wasn’t
aunty or, you know, whoever.
HUMMES: We can assume from what he wrote that there was some respect that he’s giving her. But on the other hand, we only have his voice. You know,
his voice. And it’s such a damn shame, of course. You know, you — it just magnifies the silence to see here there. And, you know, and wonder whether
she was safe with them and whether she was honored and working, you know, take care of these — they look very well fed. You know, or whether she was
vulnerable. It is impossible to know.
MARTIN: Immy, you said in another interview that this book is a study of power.
HUMMES: Uh-huh.
MARTIN: What did you mean by that?
HUMMES: Well, all of these photographs by definition, they’re group portraits and they’re all pictures of public life, right, by definition.
They’re, you know, they’re groups of men. So, they’re institutions, they’re schools, they’re professional associations, they’re — you name it. It’s
like, you know, life in the public sphere. Women had been, of course, you know, kept in the domestic sphere for centuries.
So, these are — these — the pictures all show that one moment when a woman gets in there. So, that is, you know, as living in — it’s the
definition of patriarchy as seeing, you know, an all-male world when that one woman sort of enters the male stage. And so, in that sense it’s a study
of power. I hope that’s fair, you know. The power in the public world had been all male with tiny exceptions. And those pictures capture some of
those exceptions.
MARTIN: And you know, gosh, let’s just — speaking of power, of course, Shirley Chisholm in 1972. She was the first black woman elected to the U.S.
Congress on the set of “Meet the Press”. It was fascinating to me how many of the black women in the – in your collection stood out. Not just because
they were women but also because they were black in spaces that many times there weren’t expected to be in.
And then Gloria Richardson, this sort — iconic photo from 1963 from the era of one of the waves of civil right activism where she’s kind of —
famously, kind of, pushing aside this national guardsman. And you’re thinking, whoa.
HUMMES: Side eye to the bayonet.
MARTIN: Side eye to the bayonet.
HUMMES: Yes.
MARTIN: And then there’s Ieshia Evans in 2016 at another protester — There’s another photograph that became iconic of the period. And it was
just — it was interesting how many of these women putting their bodies where they weren’t expected to be or where they weren’t supposed to be. And
then the marathoner —
HUMMES: Yes.
MARTIN: — like, the — what gets me about that picture of the marathoner is like rage on the faces of these —
HUMMES: It was a race official because the Boston Marathon in 1967 was only open to men. And it was just not contested. And she registered with her
initials. So, there was nothing underhanded about it. She just sent in her money and got her number. And it was her initials. And she just sort of did
it. So, she was legal and everything, so to speak.
But this race official got wise, like, not that long into the race and saw her and just lost it. And really went and then tried to grab her — like,
grab her number off. He wanted to get her number off and grab her and take her out of the race.
MARTIN: It was fascinating when you said — the way you just — the way you wrote about it. You were saying, he was like, get out of my race. What? You
know, my race. And you can sense so much, just the rage on his face because she’s — what is she running on woman. I mean, that’s not enough.
HUMMES: (INAUDIBLE) running all women, those were her words because I quote her. You know, she’s still alive. She’s an amazing person. She just wrote
me a little note actually. And she was really beautiful. And she said, at the time I wasn’t thinking of myself as being the only woman. I was
thinking of myself as a runner. And now, it’s these things that you only see in retrospect that you can only with a lot of distance of time. She
said, now, the fact that I was the only woman, of course, is what really — you know, is important. And we see it now.
MARTIN: So, this is one of those where the — it’s Elizabeth — later, Elizabeth Roboz Einstein, but at this moment, Elizabeth Roboz, she’s a
biochemist at Denver, Colorado. This picture was taken in 1946. They — the — for those who are not aware of the American Society of Sugar Beet
Technologists, tried to make extracting sugar from the lowly beetroot, an efficient sustainable and profitable process. And at their 1946 assembly,
you write, their numbers included exactly one woman. And you — I was like, where is she? And I’m now — you know.
HUMMES: You know, sort of pictures of public life were of interest to me. Where there was just, you know, a sea of men and one woman, that’s the only
rule. No cropping, that’s another rule. But so, they’re different. There are a lot of one where they are trailblazers and heroines and pioneers.
Like Elizabeth Roboz, either unknown at the time or, you know, somebody like Madam Curie who’s in here, too. You know, who’s just obviously the
symbol of female achievement, right.
But there are other categories too. Like Mrs. Fairfax, you know, where she is in there because she’s doing a job, you know. She’s doing a job of cook
or there’s another — there’s a nurse. And then there’s also a naked model for an art studio in Paris. And you start to see that there are these
different categories of ways that, like, women could enter male space.
MARTIN: Well, also, there were women who were both. Women who were celebrities and, sort of, like, iconic figures and trailblazers but who are
also doing a job. Sometimes a job that they had not expected to be doing. Like Katharine Graham, the late publisher of “The Washington Post” during
this incredibly pivotal period of its history where — this is a picture of her with her fellow newspaper publishers. And she sort of stands out like
this bright penny.
HUMMES: Yes.
MARTIN: And during this iconic period of its history, during the Watergate era when journalists were investigating the Watergate Scandal, she was
subjected to — people forget this now but tremendous, you know, verbal abuse and threats from people in the government. Something that she, as a
young woman, hadn’t been really prepared for but she rose to the occasion.
HUMMES: Exactly. She’s a tremendous example. My — what I was just saying was sort of a long-winded way. I mean, back to the position of women in the
groups because there were all different kinds of positions. There’s Katharine Graham and others who were put right up front, you know, or
Shirley Clarke who’s like, the center of the circle.
Very often those single woman is given — in the photograph is given a kind of a special place by the men. And then the painters we saw her way up top.
She calls herself the feather in the cap of the picture, you know. They’re very, sort of, outstanding positions that mark their positions as a woman.
But then there are others where she’s absolutely hidden or even literally hidden in a few. Where you can just see, like, a tiny bit of her. And they
— but all of the positions, I think, are sort of significant. You know, they all speak to what’s going on.
MARTIN: One of the things that I also appreciated about the variety of the pictures is that these were not all women whose lives ended in triumph. I
mean, some of them were — yes, the marathoner, she did finish the race because it isn’t clear from looking at that picture if she’s going to
finish the race because clearly, they are trying to take her out.
But the scuba diver, for example, I mean, some of the stories were very disturbing —
HUMMES: Well, she’s magnificent.
MARTIN: — to see, sort of, the effort made to thwart these women’s ambitions. And that was very sad and I think worth remembering.
HUMMES: Well, yes. I mean, part of it is realizing, sort of, in a kind of new way or in a visceral way how difficult it is for firsts very often.
Firsts, seconds, thirds. But for those pioneers who are entering a space socially when they’re a minority in the space or the only — the only
because this is a study of only-ness.
You know, we know that it’s hard on people but we have a lot of examples here. For Andrea — for the woman who, you know, is the first deep sea
diver of the army. It was a rough road tow. They made it hard for her.
And same with many others in the book where the first is not followed for decades by the second.
MARTIN: Talk more about what some of the feelings that these images evoke for you. And obviously, they’re going to evoke different thing for
different people depending on what your own life experiences have been. Whether you’ve been that only one in the room or whether you’ve never been.
And you wonder what that’s like. I’m just interested in what your own — what it brings up for you.
HUMMES: Every one of these brings up tremendously different feelings for me. Now, I know their stories much better than when I first found them. But
Iesha Evans, Benazir Bhutto, I mean these are — each one, to me, they’re very powerful photos that evoke a really deep range of feelings. And I also
— you know, I find them visually interesting but also the stories are arresting.
Here’s Khan and all of the most celebrated, you know, artistic cinema directors, not very long ago I mean, 2007. And look, it’s not the men’s
room line, right? It’s, you know, it’s what — these are the guys. And then there happens to be one. A single, single one who is deigned champion who,
for decades, was the only one. The only woman allowed in that club. So, to me, yes. This looks — I mean, it’s sort of infuriating, actually but it
also looks fairly silly.
MARTIN: Here’s one, Amy Geraldine, known as Dina Stock. She was an undergraduate at Oxford. This is from your book, a joint meeting of the
West African students’ union and the West African National Secretariat, that was a Pan-African as a movement founded by Kwame Nkrumah, the future
leader of Ghana who’s seated at the far-right front — on the same on the front row in the far right. And what was she doing there? She — what did
she, like, help organize this meeting or she —
HUMMES: I think she dedicated her life to the cause of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism. She was very serious for her entire life. And she led a
fascinating life. Very adventurous and interesting life. She never married, never had kids, and went around the world and served. Taught and was an
organizer and wrote.
And here I think she’s serving as — I mean, it looks like it, right? She – – as some kind of a host. And it’s very interesting how it all looks to me. She’s got her hat on. And, you know, she’s got this sort of prim look
hosting all of these very important men in suits. And I find all of the photos fascinating but this one is very special.
MARTIN: So — now that you’ve put all this together, it’s interesting, it’s one of those things that once you’ve seen it you can’t unsee it. The images
run from 1862 to 2020. So, not exactly ancient history. But if we — if you were to start in 2021, what do you think? Do you you’d have — you’d still
have a book?
HUMMES: Oh, yes. You see them in the news every week. I was going to say every day but maybe every week. And, I mean, also in different cultures, in
different professions, some corners of our world are still deeply male. You really — it’s really not hard to find them. They leap out at me now. But
certainly, in politics, in international politics. I mean, the queen was a great example of an only woman. But you know, you see them all the time. In
entertainment still there’s often, you know, the one woman in the band or they come out.
MARTIN: Immy Humes, thank you so much for talking with us about this. And thanks so much for putting this together.
HUMMES: Thank you. I really had a great time talking to you. Thanks.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
AMANPOUR: What a reveal. And finally tonight, Bond. James Bond. 60 years ago today, the first movie, “Dr. No” premiered on the big screen. The
film’s most iconic moment came when a certain bond girl was introduced. Ursula Andress made quite a splash as Honey Rider. And she became part of
cinematic history and we like to think she had agency there. The songs that featured in the film are also iconic. Like Shirley Bassey singing
“Goldfinger” for the opening credits.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
AMANPOUR: A concert featuring six decades of these Bond songs airs tonight on Amazon Prime. That is it for now. And if you ever miss our show, you can
find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. On your screen now is a QR code. All you need to do is pick up your phone, and scan
it with your camera. You can also find it at cnn.com/podcasts and on all major platforms, just search AMANPOUR.
And remember, you can always catch us online, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.