Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Former U.S. State Department Official Josh Paul; Interview with "Hard Truths" Director Mike Leigh; Interview with "Hard Truths" Actress Marianne Jean-Baptiste; Interview with" The Disengaged Teen" Co-Author Jenny Anderson; Interview with "The Disengaged Teen" Co- Author Rebecca Winthrop. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired January 24, 2025 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[13:00:00]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSH PAUL, FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Blinken didn't listen. Will Trump? Will Rubio? That's what we need to see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Back in the White House, the Trump administration pledges to be the most pro-Israel in history. I asked former State Department official

Josh Paul, who resigned over U.S. policy on Israel's war in Gaza.

Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why are you so angry? Why can't you enjoy life?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: -- "Hard Truths," the new critically acclaimed film by British director Mike Leigh. He joins me in the studio with star Marianne Jean-

Baptiste.

Also, ahead --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNY ANDERSON, CO-AUTHOR, "THE DISENGAGED TEEN": There's always been a gap between what kids do in school and what's happening in the real world,

that gap is a chasm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: -- "The Disengaged Teen." Michel Martin speaks to authors Jenny Anderson and Rebecca Winthrop about preparing young people for our changing

world.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. As week one of Trump 2.0 wraps up, a new era of American diplomacy begins. The

47th president lost no time in implementing his vision for the country and the world, with a flurry of executive orders on everything from climate to

immigration.

But inside the State Department, one former ambassador reportedly describes, quote, "deep despair" over Trump loyalists being promoted,

regardless of age or experience, with a wave of long serving senior diplomats either quitting or retiring.

As wars continue to rage in Ukraine and the Middle East, Marco Rubio was sworn in this week as secretary of state, giving an indication of what

Trump's stance on Israel might look like. Here he is at his confirmation hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm confident in saying that President Trump's administration will continue to be perhaps the most pro-

Israel administration in American history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: This all comes as a tenuous ceasefire in Gaza is holding between Israel and Hamas. After 14 months of war, the death toll stands at more

than 47,000.

Josh Paul was one of the first State Department officials in the Biden administration to resign over the direction of U.S. policy on that war. And

he's joining me now from Washington to discuss what this seismic shift now means for America's standing in the world.

Josh Paul, welcome back to our program. Can I first start by asking you to describe what people are seeing, and that is a wave of resignations,

retirements, you know, pushing certain diplomats out of the State Department. How much of that is changeover as usual, and how much of that

is ideological?

JOSH PAUL, FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes, thank you. And thank you for having me, Christiane. So, I think we do see a transition

with every incoming administration, a shift of course in policies that reflect the will of the incoming administration, the elected government of

the United States.

What has been different so far in the State Department is that on day one, the Trump administration asked a number of senior career diplomats to

resign, not just to step down from their appointments to certain roles within the State Department, but to leave entirely, and that is unusual.

You are losing thereby a tranche -- a generation of diplomatic experience.

And this is something we saw during the previous Trump administration as well, when there was a hollowing out, to some extent, of the State

Department and a significant loss of experience. In fact, in speaking with colleagues in the State Department my understanding is as much as 40

percent of the current workforce on the civil service side of the State Department are new since 2020.

And so, I think there will be a lot of people who are going through a transition to begin with for the first time. And a lot of questions being

asked, particularly in light of some of the policy directions President Trump seems to be setting of where are we all going.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, I want to ask you, because one of the things he did with his first executive orders was to suspend basically traditional foreign aid

assistance, American foreign assistance dollars while they, quote, "evaluate" whether those programs that get these assistance are aligned

with his ideological goals.

[13:05:00]

So, I want to ask you this because I want you to react to David Milne, who in foreign policy has said, state is populated by staff educated at elite

universities and military academies, professors to hold true to a bipartisan objectivity in a manner that triggers the partisan and has

crafted foreign policy initiatives pertaining to alliance building and free trade agreements that jar with Trump's America First beliefs.

So, is that a criticism of state or is it just showing why it antagonizes Trump?

PAUL: So, I think the notion that, you know, people who have been to good colleges and universities, first of all, are not qualified to serve

President Trump is absurd. Of course, his own nominee, for example, to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Elise Stefanik, went to Harvard.

I would also note that foreign policy and diplomacy take expertise. They take years of experience living and working overseas with other countries

in other cultures, that is something that does take time to build and accrue and is a benefit for the United States. It is a wonderful thing that

we have people who have committed their lives to building relationships around the world on behalf of the United States. And these are people who

are very committed to their service to the country, to the president, and to the Constitution. And I know that is the case across the board,

regardless of whatever their own personal ideology might be.

AMANPOUR: And, obviously, you remember back then, in Trump 1.0, deep state kind of was triggered by the State Department. It's where you first heard,

I think, that statement and that characterization by the Trump administration. So, I want to ask you what you think Marco Rubio will be

like as secretary of state.

He is effectively a mainstream traditional Republican. Is he, you think, going to be all in on Trump foreign policy or is there -- are there going

to be problems like with Rex Tillerson who eventually resigned?

PAUL: So, I think, first, we need to clarify what Trump foreign policy actually is. I think we have seen a contradiction coming out of the White

House, for example, between the president's inaugural address in which he said he wants to be a peacemaker, he wants to put an end to what he called

the continuing catalogue of crises overseas, and his direction for that matter to Marco Rubio to put American interests first contrasted with some

of the actions that he has taken on day one that you referred to, as well as some of the statements by, for example, U.S. ambassador to the U.N.,

incoming Elise Stefanik, or for that matter, Marco Rubio.

You know, with Stefanik saying, for example, that she believes Israel has a biblical right to all of the West Bank and Gaza. And Marco Rubio talking

about this unconditional support for Israel. I think the question there is, is that putting America first and where is President Trump going to land on

this and other thorny issues? So, I don't think we can really say what role Marco Rubio will play until we know exactly what direction his boss is

going in.

AMANPOUR: So, let's -- because you've raised Israel and you were particularly, you know, central to a lot of the dissent around the previous

administration's policy on the current war and the crisis there, how do you think the Trump administration is going to take forward the current U.S.

policy?

PAUL: So, I think this is really one of the important questions right now, because the conflict -- the attacks by Israel on Gaza, the conflict in the

Middle East was one of the defining issues of the Biden administration, one of the defining failures of the Biden administration.

I think President Trump comes to office with he and his team having played an important role in getting to the ceasefire that we are at now. I think

the question needs to be asked of -- and the first test will be, does that ceasefire hold? Do we get to phase two of the planned ceasefire or do we

slip back into conflict? I think that the developments already in the West Bank, for example, with Israel's issuance of evacuation orders to

Palestinians in the West Bank is very concerning.

There is also, I think, a tension within the circles around President Trump, where, on the one hand, you have a growing number of Americans,

including in President Trump's base, and I would argue, as well, a common sense that says, we need to re-evaluate our policy towards Israel. This is

longer makes sense, if it ever did, to provide Israel with unconditional support. We need to start thinking about conditions that align Israel's

actions with American foreign policy, or is he going to listen to Elise Stefanik and Stephen Miller?

AMANPOUR: Stephen Miller clearly has, and historically has had, Trump's ears. So, that that is going to be a very interesting. But let's drill down

a little bit. ProPublica, the investigative magazine, the award-winning investigative magazine, has just written a report, a deeply reported one

called, "A Year of Empty Threats and a Smokescreen Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza."

[13:10:00]

And another line, "Time and again, Israel crossed the Biden administration red lines without changing course in a meaningful way."

So, I know that you agree with that because that's why you resigned. But do you think that's going to be -- that's just going to continue? And how do

you think and why do you think the Biden administration, for instance, allowed, from your perspective and ProPublica's perspective, the Leahy Act

not to be fully -- you know, fully respected?

PAUL: So, first of all, it wasn't, of course, just the Biden administration. The Leahy law has been on the books since 1997 and there

have been no administration since that time that has properly applied it to Israel. Israel being the exception, and under the Biden administration, a

whole process was created that was exceptional for Israel.

And so, I think what we face is actually a deep structural problem, a deep systemic problem within U.S. politics that is not going to shift, not going

to change overnight with any one president, with any one changed administration. This is something that I think Americans are going to have

to work at shifting for many election cycles and many years to come.

To be a part of that, to drive that change is why I and one of the others who resigned from the Biden administration, Tariq Habash, formed a new

policy. This is an organization that is dedicated to shifting American policies and politics so that they align with our interests and with our

values when it comes to U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine. And that's the organization that recently put out a report, not in America's

interest, outlining exactly why our current policy of unconditional support for Israel isn't in America's interest.

And so, I think that the Biden administration demonstrated time and time again its willingness to step aside from American law, to set aside U.S.

interests, to set aside, you know, U.S. statutes. I think that what they have done is set a very concerning precedent that we need to now wonder if

President Trump will follow that precedent of setting aside those laws and perhaps expand it, or if he will take a shift and really realign our

policies.

AMANPOUR: There doesn't seem to be anything that suggests historically that he will shift, because, as you say, every American administration has

had that policy. And actually, even before your generation, State Department negotiators during the peace process, some have said, we should

stop being Israel's lawyer and we need to go back to being honest brokers and think of our own national interest first. So, that's happened.

And just to, just to say what the Leahy Law is, it's meant to force foreign governments to hold their own -- you know, to be accountable and hold their

own accountable for violations like torture or extrajudicial killings, et cetera, in other words, uphold the rights when they use American weapons

U.S. believes, and in their May assessment, they found that while weapons may have been used in ways, quote, "inconsistent" with international law,

can't officially confirm it, and they also stopped short of saying Israel violated or the Israeli government didn't address the individual cases that

ProPublica has maintained.

But I -- this is a long way of saying in -- back in 2007, I interviewed the late President Carter and frankly asked him about this. And he said, and

I'm paraphrasing, no American congressman would vote to, let's say, withhold or attach conditions to American military aid or any aid and hope

to ever be re-elected.

So, my question to you is, do you think your new initiative has any teeth or any chance at all?

PAUL: Yes, I do, because I think, first of all, the tide is turning. We have the wind at our back. We have, first of all, a significant shift in

American public opinion about U.S. policy to Israel over the course, particularly over the last 15 months. And to be fair, that is not a

function of my organization, that is a function of Israel's own actions and how clearly it has demonstrated its disregard for human life and for

international law.

It is also a function of the increasing cost America is paying for its unconditional support to Israel. We are losing partnerships and allies. We

are seeing countries and people around the world accuse us of hypocrisy and express a preference, for example, in Southeast Asia. We've seen polls in

the last year, for the first time, expressing a preference for partnership with the People's Republic of China over the United States of America,

precisely because of our support for Israel in Gaza.

I think those factors, combined with an organized, informed, professional effort, can shift things in America. It will take time.

AMANPOUR: But I do want to interrupt you because I want to ask in our last minute or two about the notion of people like yourself from within being

able to affect policy. You resigned, even though there is a dissent channel in the State Department, which I asked outgoing Secretary of State Blinken

about when I conducted his last interview. That was last week.

[13:15:00]

ANTONY BLINKEN, THEN-U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I more than respect, I deeply value the fact that we have people in this department and in our

system who have different views and speak up, speak out. We have something called a dissent channel in the State Department where if people object to

a policy we're pursuing, they can send me a a note, a memo a detailed brief. And it, and I see it. I read it. I respond to it. I've gotten, I

don't know, a couple of dozen when it comes to Gaza as well as other issues.

That is a cherished tradition in this department. I wanted to make sure that people feel that they can do that. And it's also affected our, our

thinking in many cases, including including our actions. How do you react to that, Josh Paul? Blinken didn't listen. Will Trump? Will Rubio? That's

what we need to see.

Well, that wraps that up. And I'm just going to quote one more from ProPublica on this level, "Some of the agency's top Middle East diplomats

complained in private that they were sidelined by Biden's National Security Council. The council also distributed a list of banned phrases, including

any version of, quote, 'State of Palestine' that didn't have the word future first. Two human rights officials said they were prevented from

pursuing evidence of abuses in Gaza and the West Bank."

Is that something you can confirm and corroborate?

PAUL: Yes, in fact, I have heard that lawyers have been asked not to make assessments of Israel's violations of international humanitarian law and

that policy officials have been asked to change their assessments of whether Israel, for example, is restricting humanitarian aid delivery.

This cannot continue. We need, at the very least, the facts in front of us. And I would close with actually something that President Clinton said after

his first meeting with Prime Minister -- now Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is the effing superpower here? Clinton, of course, said the full word. And

I think that's the question President Trump needs to be asking himself as he looks at U.S. foreign policy towards Israel, who is the superpower here,

and who should be directing the interest and the alignment with American interests and values? It is surely our own interests and values that should

be supreme here.

AMANPOUR: Josh Paul, thank you very much. And just want to say that anybody who wants to see the full article, as I said, it's in ProPublica,

and they have gone to Israel for their comments as well. You can see all of that.

And we turn now to a film that critics are raving about. It's called "Hard Truths," and it's a gritty, tragic comedy by the award-winning British

director Mike Leigh. It's set in modern-day London. Actress Marianne Jean- Baptiste gives a searing performance as Pansy, a sad, angry, and wounded woman who doesn't hide her raging emotions.

That dynamic is offset by her relationship with her supportive and joyful sister, Chantelle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You know I've got healthy shoes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I might spend the day lying in bed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She makes everything about her. She's rude, man.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I've been harassed by people all day. I'm sick to death of it. I just want it to all stop.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why are you so angry? Why can't you enjoy life?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You worry me, you know.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pansy, what's going on?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm so lonely.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are we going to do about it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Now, the last time Leigh teamed up with Jean-Baptiste was back in 1996. She was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in his

film "Secrets and Lies." And they both joined me on set here in London this week to talk about character-led dramas and Leigh's unique creative

process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Mike Leigh and Marianne Jean-Baptiste, welcome to the program.

MARIANNE JEAN-BAPTISTE, ACTRESS, "HARD TRUTHS": Thank you.

MIKE LEIGH, DIRECTOR, "HARD TRUTHS": Thank you. It's good to be here.

AMANPOUR: Here is another in your series of examining the human condition, for want of a better word. How do you pitch this when you want to go to

wherever you go to get the financing? There's no plot, there's no script, yet. You don't have it all done yet, and you want to just tell an ordinary

story about human beings. What do they say in the studios?

LEIGH: Well, first of all, the question is, what do I say? We say there's no squat with no script. Can't tell you what it's about. Can't tell you

about the casting. I can't tell you anything about it at all, and please don't interfere with it while we're making it.

So, it's very straightforward. Either they say, fantastic, great, here's the money, go away, make a film, or, as in the majority of cases, they tell

us to get lost and they don't want to know. So, I don't even -- in terms of your question, I don't even get as far as saying, it's about life or it's

about this woman or none of that because we do embark when we make the films and we made this film, "Hard Truths," no exception. We embark on a

journey of discovery as to what the film is by making it.

[13:20:00]

AMANPOUR: And I'm going to ask you about that journey because it is actually fascinating and unique in the film world. But, Marianne, and how

does the director pitch it to you? I mean, obviously, you've worked with Mike Leigh before.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Is it disconcerting, discombobulating the first time?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: I mean, the first time, it's like, wow. Do you know what I mean? I mean, once you've been through the process, you just get very

excited and hungry to do it again.

AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you first for a little bit of the plot of this one. I know there isn't a plot, but the storyline. And then, I want to get

into -- we've got some clips and the method, because the method I think is fascinating.

So, give me your pitch. What is it? What -- just what is the story about in your mind?

LEIGH: Well, it centers on a woman called Pansy, which is what Marianne plays. She's not happy. She's feels alone. She feels all sorts of things.

She's a complex character. She's a difficult person, but she herself is in pain. And that's all I'm going to say because it's far more complex than

that, you know. And it's about her relationship with her husband, which is not good, and with her son, which is not good. But central to it all is her

relationship with her sister.

AMANPOUR: Which is an amazing relationship actually. It's sort of the area of light to an extent. I mean, Marianne, when I was watching the movie, I

just said to myself this is a tour de force of misery. I mean, misery. I was like really, you know, panicked for you, and I didn't know where you

were -- where it was going to lead, and all the rest of it.

And I guess, how do you inhabit that amount of misery for that long? I hear that rehearsals are in the region of 12 weeks, then -- or 14, then you've

got another six weeks of shooting.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Well, we're very disciplined about getting into character, and more importantly, coming out of character. So, it's not about, you

know, being a method actor per se and being like that the whole time.

But we also do a lot of work creating the character and all that stuff is built in, all of her anxiety, all of her fear, all of her disappointments,

her failures, all that is in there.

LEIGH: I mean, you know, Marianne is a consummate character actor, which is to say, she's versatile, she has a great sense of humor, she has a great

sense of life, and she's able to play all sorts of different characters.

And, you know, this is a character, she is not the character. And therefore, you're able to deal with the pain that you suffer, that she

suffers in character. But you're separate from that, aren't you?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: So, let's play the first clip that we have. And to your point about being sort of a disappointed woman, including with her husband and

only child, her son. This becomes, you know, plus the anger evident in this clip that we're going to play.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEAN-BAPTISTE: It's a scam. They're scamming people. Can't trust them. They want your phone number, your e-mail. I asked one of them, I said, why

do you want my postcode? I might as well just give you my front door key so you can bruck into my house, teeth out, my things, and kill my only child.

And nobody called the police on them. Police won't come anyway. They're too busy harassing black boys walking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, she's -- you know, she's been encountered on the street and she has this reaction. What's happening there? In terms of her, how she

reacts to people, she's a bit misanthropic or panicked and troubled. Plus, you see throughout the film that she does not have a solid relationship

with her husband and son.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Well, I just think that she's somebody who's terribly unhappy and views the world. She's an observant person, but her

observations are very subjective and judgmental. Do you know what I mean? We've all been to the supermarket and wanted to sort of creep past people

that were, you know, asking for donations or what have you, you know, because you're in a hurry or what have you. And we don't get irate about

it. Well, Pansy does because, you know, the whole world and people and things either upset her or scare her, you know?

AMANPOUR: You -- when I got to the end of the film, there's famously not a neat tied bow with an ending. So, we have to interpret what her troubles

are, essentially. Would you be able to describe it? I mean, what is her problem with her husband? She seems to have a lovely home. They have a

lovely home. Not very, you know, colorful or anything in terms of decoration, but very nice home. They seem to be a middle class family. He's

got a good job as a plumber. He's independent. The son apparently is a bit of a -- what is he? Is he, is he a loser? How do you see the son?

[13:25:00]

LEIGH: I don't -- it's hard to say. I'm reluctant to say. I mean, plainly the son is -- he's not stupid. He could have potential. When you live in a

world where a lot of kids aren't fulfilled and don't have somewhere to work to do, et cetera. So, he suffers from that.

But plainly, without being too explicit, because I don't like talking about the film in a way that will spoil it for people who are going to see it.

But obviously, you could argue that perhaps they're not -- you can see that they must possibly have not been the greatest parents in the world.

As to the end, as to what happens at the end of the film, I hand it over to you, the audience. It is not for me or for us to even to speculate on

whether this happens or that happens or something else. It's for you to worry about, concern yourselves about deal with or not deal with or forget

or whatever you want.

AMANPOUR: So, I did concern myself with it. For me, the end -- tell me if I'm wrong or right or maybe don't tell me, I'm not going to be a spoiler

either, but there's no closure. You don't know what's going to happen And I read that you said this to the to the New York Times, Mike Leigh. You said,

my instructions are very clear, don't try and be interesting. Don't try and make anything happen.

LEIGH: Yes. But that's a confusion, you know, very legitimately and understandably, conflating two quite separate things.

AMANPOUR: OK.

LEIGH: What -- when I say that, that's at the very beginning of our work process.

AMANPOUR: OK. I'll get to that in a minute.

LEIGH: Well, let's just deal with that because what I -- when I ask actors in the first place, to start to embody the characters that we're just in

the process of creating because the convention of improvising for many actors is to be interesting, to be funny, to be inventive. My instruction

is don't try and do any of those things, just be in character.

That's very, very -- that's a separate matter from what you're talking about, which is the condition of the characters at the end of the film.

AMANPOUR: I was actually, you know, trying to segue into another clip, but I get it. I'm being directed by Mike Leigh and I get it and I accept it,

and it's an honor.

But, Marianne, there is obviously a sub relationship, or maybe it's a key relationship, and that's between the character, Pansy, you, and the actress

and the character who plays your sister, Chantelle.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Oh, I'd say it's a key.

AMANPOUR: It's key.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: It's key.

AMANPOUR: It's key because it's the only hope. It's the only light. And it's great to see that she actually has a potential for a warm

relationship, whether she accepts it or not, you, your character. This clip is about her talking to her sister, you talking to the sister character

about the son, Moses, about her son.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Look at him.

MICHELE AUSTIN, ACTRESS, "HARD TRUTHS": Keep still.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: 22-year-old man, and he's still eating peanut butter and jam sandwiches. I'll talk to him until I'm tired. I say, Moses, what are

you doing with your life? Where do you see yourself in 25 years' time? I'm sick of it.

AUSTIN: Do you want me to talk to him?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: And say what?

AUSTIN: I don't know. See if I can help him.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: What, are you trying to insinuate yourself into my family?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Immediately, a nice convo gets a bit paranoid. But there's a little humor as well. That's not an unusual thing to hear a mother say

about a child.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: No, it's not. It's not at all.

AMANPOUR: What's that look?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Oh, it's just us.

LEIGH: We're just enjoying each other. I mean, we just like doing all this because it's --

AMANPOUR: What are you going to say?

LEIGH: Laughing about it helps.

AMANPOUR: It does. OK. Good.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: We have a great sense of humor, the both of us.

LEIGH: Yes.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Pansy obviously doesn't.

LEIGH: Yes.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: So, in, you know, working and building the character, inevitably there will be some humor in it. You know, although it's not

played for laughs.

LEIGH: No, no, no. Life -- in terms of what the film is, although I suppose I could say this about all of my films in some way or another, life

is both comic and tragic.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Exactly.

LEIGH: That's how it comes out of the soil.

AMANPOUR: Now, I want to know, because you are legendary, and as you say, there may be misconceptions or the mythology about the improvisational

mandate that you bring to the set. So, I think some people would think, maybe even I thought that, you know, you get your cast, you bring them to a

lot of unknowns as you described. Turn on the cameras and you shoot forever until you get it right. But it's not like that, right?

[13:30:00]

LEIGH: It absolutely isn't. It's the other end of the spectrum from that. I mean there is a kind of filmmaking, which is perfectly legitimate for

those that do it, where it is about actors sort of ad libbing, improvising and, you know, the camera picking things up and following them around and

then the filmmakers go to the cutting room, the editing and make sense of it by sticking it all together. This is absolutely not that at all.

What -- you never on the screen see actors improvising or very, very rarely in certain moments, maybe out in the street in the real world, but very,

very -- it's hardly happens at all. We arrive at something very precise. I don't go away and write a script on paper or on my laptop, bring it back.

We script through rehearsal. We start with improvising and we only do that in the location, scene by scene, sequence by sequence, after a long period

of developing the characters and the premise of the film.

We script through rehearsal until it's very precise. We do that without the crew there, the film crew. The film crew joins us again, and we look at it

and decide how to shoot it and we shoot it. So, it is very, very distilled, very precise, and in that sense, for a bit for me to say, but it's kind of

classical cinema, really. It's not ad lib found cinema. It's not handheld and all that stuff.

AMANPOUR: And what does that feel for you as an actress when you are told that this is how it's going to be? I know you've worked with Mike Leigh

before, so you know, but maybe some of the others who hadn't.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Well, when you first sort of say, well, there's no script, there's no -- you don't know what it's going to be about, you don't know

what your character's going to be, understandably, you could be quite terrified, because it's like, well, where's it going? And, you know, you

can control stuff when you've got the script, you know, you can plan, you know how you're going to react and stuff.

But in this sense, you are really free because you don't know. So, all you're focused on is being in character and reacting naturally as you would

do in life.

LEIGH: As the character.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: As the character.

LEIGH: Not as the actor, as the character.

AMANPOUR: Is it true that as the actor and the character in "Secrets and Lies" when the actress Brenda Blethyn, who was your birth mother, a white

woman, met you for -- in the first scene that she met you, she was surprised?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Absolutely. I mean, Mike can tell you this story.

LEIGH: Yes, that's the improvisation.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Yes.

LEIGH: Which was a couple -- longer weeks and weeks or months before we shot the film on the scene on location. Yes, she -- we'd set it up and in

character, Marianne, had called her on the mobile, on the cell, and she had received this and she -- Brenda Blethyn -- Brenda, herself, the actress,

thought -- because she could only hear her London voice, she thought it was another actress who she knew was doing something in the film, she didn't

know what, she thought it was her.

AMANPOUR: As Hortense, you were an optometrist. And you had to go, essentially, and learn to be an optometrist, right?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Oh, yes.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Yes. Which is great. I mean, that's another great thing about working with him, because you get to go off and study something, you

know? And I love learning new things. I mean, I actually tried to be a pilot.

AMANPOUR: For this one?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: No, for that one. Because I'd worked with him before that. So, I knew I'd have to pick something for my character to do. And so, I

cheekily suggested that she's a pilot.

LEIGH: And I cheekily told her to forget it.

AMANPOUR: Why? Too exciting?

LEIGH: I didn't think it was appropriate for her.

AMANPOUR: Why not? There are plenty of women pilots.

LEIGH: I didn't say there were plenty of women pilots. I didn't think it was appropriate for her.

AMANPOUR: But that is funny. And then I've heard you say, you know, that is essentially what we see in the film is the tip of that iceberg of study

and character development.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: That's right.

AMANPOUR: The whole rest of it is underwater that we don't even know how much work you've done.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Yes. That's it.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

LEIGH: And that's important. I feel that when we do all that work and the preparation, including millions of miles of backstory and subtext and all

of that, we do all that so that when we get to that tip of that iceberg, as you call it, it's totally resonant and we don't have to worry about trying

to just talk into existence retrospectively because it's all there, the foundations are there.

AMANPOUR: Now, something I didn't know until I read about it, is that you are also a musician, a composer.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Yes.

AMANPOUR: And you've done a score together, one of the film scores, which is pretty intense. I mean, that's pretty amazing.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Yes. No, that was a lot of fun.

AMANPOUR: What does music give you?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Oh, it's just -- I love being creative. I love starting with nothing and ending up with something, going on some kind of journey.

[13:35:00]

LEIGH: It's important, not only that she composed the score for "Career Girls," but she sang some of it as well. She's a beautiful singer. She

won't tell you that herself, but she is.

AMANPOUR: Do you sing a cappella? Would you like to sing now?

JEAN-BAPTISTE: No, I wouldn't. No, thank you.

AMANPOUR: Not falling into that trap. And just finally, you know, it was said that, you know, when you started, it was pre-Margaret Thatcher and

through Margaret Thatcher and beyond. And your films were quite political in terms of being a reflection of what was happening in society. Yes?

LEIGH: I think some films were more obviously political. I've not made any film, with the exception possibly of "Peterloo," which was in any obvious

sense overtly political.

AMANPOUR: OK. Let's say a commentary on society.

LEIGH: Yes, well, they're all that.

AMANPOUR: Yes. Do you feel that in the news, sort of, I don't know, Europe is changing, there's a lot of movement to the right, America has just moved

to the right in a big way with Donald Trump again, but maybe, you know, double down now? Do you feel that there's a particular place for a voice

like yours right now?

LEIGH: I don't think that -- I honestly think that there's no more or less a place for the kind of filmmakers or artists of any kind that I -- who

would resonate with what I care about. Because we're talking about the human condition.

So, really, I mean, sure everything that happens informs one's view of the world. But no, it's not -- it isn't -- it's not journalism. No disrespect

to journalism. And it's not, in that sense, local, it's universal. I think without wanting to be pompous. And therefore, I feel that it won't be

saying the same sort of things across the board.

AMANPOUR: And for you, is there another film in the --

LEIGH: Yes, we're going to make a film before too long. Don't ask me what it's about, because I'm not going to tell you.

AMANPOUR: And maybe you don't know yet.

LEIGH: Well, I don't really, actually, to be honest.

AMANPOUR: All right. Mike Leigh, Marianne Jean-Baptiste, thank you so much for coming in.

LEIGH: Thank you.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Thank you.

LEIGH: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And congratulations.

LEIGH: Thank you.

JEAN-BAPTISTE: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And "Hard Truths" is out now in the United States. It releases here in the U.K. next week. Now, are we preparing young people for our

rapidly changing world? In an age of advanced artificial intelligence, climate change and populism, our next guests say that we are not teaching

children the skills that they need, not only to stay engaged, but for the reality of later life.

Authors Jenny Anderson and Rebecca Winthrop joined Michel Martin to explain some of the examples and solutions they lay out in their new book. "The

Disengaged Teen."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Jenny Anderson, Rebecca Winthrop, thank you both so much for speaking with us.

JENNY ANDERSON, CO-AUTHOR, "THE DISENGAGED TEEN": Thanks for having us.

REBECCA WINTHROP, CO-AUTHOR, "THE DISENGAGED TEEN": Thank you.

MARTIN: And so, Jenny, you've been in education, you've been a journalist focused on education and the learning experience. You've done a lot of

other things, but that's what have been your prime -- one of your primary interests.

Rebecca Winthrop, you are an education policy expert. You've written a new book where you talk about the disengagement crisis among teens. Rebecca,

why don't you start and tell us, why do you say that there's a disengagement crisis? Like, what is that? And why do you say that there is

one?

WINTHROP: Student engagement is actually incredibly important for how kids can learn, and it's essential to learning well, and it means that kids

don't just behaviorally show up to school, it means that they cognitively engage and they really start deeply learning about the subjects that

they're being taught in class.

It also means that they're interested in what they're learning. Because actually, how you feel about school has a lot to do with how well you do.

And what we know is that there has been a student disengagement crisis for a long time. The last couple decades, U.S. census says that only a third of

kids are highly engaged in school. But today, the consequences of being deeply disengaged are much higher than they were before.

MARTIN: People complain about teenagers from time immemorial, right? And how many, you know, movies have we seen that are about, you know, bored

kids and the teacher who comes in to save them, right? So, is this something new? I mean, is there something new about the fact that a lot of

kids don't like school?

ANDERSON: The genre of the disaffected teen is a long and storied one. There's a reason we all love the "Breakfast Club." It was a great movie,

right? So, you are correct in noting that it is not new. The consequences of it have changed dramatically. The skills that kids need on the other

side of school are much different than what they were even 20 years ago.

You know, 20 years ago, you had a college degree, maybe an internship or two, you were probably set up. Today, you need a whole different set of

skills to be able to navigate a world of generative A.I. to be able to navigate polarization, to be able to navigate everything that we see in the

world today.

And another thing that's really changed that's incredibly important is there's always been a gap between what kids do in school and what's

happening in the real world, that gap is a chasm. And kids know it. They feel it. They see it through their phones 24/7. They see the world changing

and they're studying trigonometry and they're wondering why am I doing this?

[13:40:00]

And we're asking them to work hard and put in a lot of energy to do something that doesn't feel like it's preparing them for the future. And

they feel that and it feeds into the anxiety. And then, you layer on top of that, the 24/7 distraction machine, which is social media, and you kind of

have like a much grimmer portrait of how kids feel during their days.

MARTIN: So, the second question I have is, is this an American problem or is this something that you're seeing in countries beyond the United States?

WINTHROP: This is definitely a problem that we're seeing certainly across high income countries, where kids are increasingly less interested in going

to school. There is a big fallout on attendance from COVID. But there's a lot of kids who are in school physically, are attending and have dropped

out of learning.

And just as you said, Michel, it was OK a couple decades to go -- decades ago, you could coast through school, get the basic academic requirements

that most employers were looking for literacy, numeracy, good at math skills. But today, employers are looking for much deeper skills. They're

looking for collaborative problem solving, creative thinking, strong interpersonal conflict resolution skills.

And all of those things, you can't really coast through school and get them. And this is why the disengagement problem is really important. And we

do see this across a lot of the high-income world.

MARTIN: I do want to ask a couple more questions about the why. I think a lot of people look at COVID. I mean, COVID was a worldwide phenomenon.

Obviously, a lot of people were hit -- you know, some people were hit harder than others. What age you are, whether you had access to vaccines,

what, you know, policies that your school system undertook to address it.

Is COVID at the root of this, or is there something else?

ANDERSON: COVID is absolutely not at the root of this. COVID made everything dramatically worse. It had devastating, devastating impacts on

kids learning. But disengagement has been a long -- has been around way longer than COVID and way longer than smartphones, which is another

conversation that's being had. But kids have been disengaged for a really long time.

And to your question of why don't we care more about this? Like, yes. Why don't we -- I want to reiterate that right back to you, why don't we care

more about this? I covered finance for a long time and we care a lot about financial markets and we invest a lot, of sort, of time and money and media

attention on it, and we don't in learning. And I think it's a good question and I think it's hopefully something that we can focus more on.

The quality of kids learning experiences in school affects what they learn, how they learn, how they develop as humans, how they can communicate with

others, how employable they are, what kind of humans they become, and we do seem to have a general apathy or almost acceptance that I guess kids are

just going to hate school and that's OK. And that is not OK. Like how they feel about school affects how they learn in school and what kind of

learners and humans they will be. So, I do think we need to care more.

MARTIN: I know that you interviewed a really broad cross section of people, you know, for this book. But this does -- I mean, I'm just going to

be honest, there's an element of where I think people might hear this as kind of middle class anxiety, right? How would you respond to that?

WINTHROP: Yes. I would say, I would argue that this is an equity issue because kids across the socioeconomic spectrum are disengaged in roughly

the same numbers, but the impacts of being disengaged are disproportionately felt for low-income kids.

This is because when kids start disengaging, it's a long continuum. They start showing up in school, but checking out, they get farther behind, they

might start -- stop doing their homework, then they start skipping school, et cetera, et cetera. Kids with parents who are -- have resources

intervene, they get tutors, they change schools, they get family rallying around them. But poor kids don't get second chances. And so, the impacts of

disengagement are much more felt for low-income kids.

MARTIN: Now, we've talked about disengagement and we can sort of see it and showing up in, as you said, you know, checking out poor grades,

absenteeism, just not showing up. What does engagement look like?

ANDERSON: So, engagement is how kids think, feel, act, and initiate what they're learning. So, a lot of it is invisible. And this is the challenge

for parents, right? We see the behaviors. That is one component of engagement. Emotional engagement is how they feel about what they're

learning. Cognitive engagement is whether they're digging into their learning. And agentic engagement, which is kind of the holy grail, is

whether they are taking actions on behalf of their learning to sort of really make it theirs to ask a question because they don't understand.

I mean, think of the bravery it requires in learning, right? To raise your hand and admit that you don't understand something, but that is the stuff

that is going to work, right? That's what makes it -- it brings it back to you. I want to do this assignment this way. I really care about this thing.

I have identified this as a subject I care about, and so I want to learn more.

[13:45:00]

All of that initiative really drives deeper learning. And we were -- you know, a bunch of teachers said to us, wow, I always thought engagement was

when kids just showed up and did the work and they were quiet. And that is not the case. Of course, we need, you know, behavior management in

classrooms. But engagement is a much more active process.

And so, parents actually have a unique role they can play. Teachers are challenged because they have to keep order in a classroom, right, with a

lot of kids. At home, you want to be asking those active questions and getting kids engaged and digging in and curious. We can talk about that.

But that is what engagement looks like. And you know, when you see it, because kids bubble over, right? And when you ask a kid, how was school

today? And they say, fine, that's maybe when you need to worry a little bit more.

MARTIN: I'm hearing you talk, and now, what I'm thinking about is I'm thinking about, you know, fancy private schools. What do you say to people

who say, well, gee, as a society, we can't afford that, you know, in public schools or big schools, we can't afford everybody to have a wiggle cushion.

Teacher cannot keep track of 35 kids and make sure that everybody's on track, nor can we -- and this is the other thing that comes up when you

talk about engagement, no -- you can you say that giving kids, you know, agency doesn't mean letting them do whatever they want, you know, the

education has to be fun. You know, a lot of parents will be like, it wasn't fun for me there.

WINTHROP: There is a myth out there that we certainly found in our research is not true that if you give kids a little bit of agency, they're

going to, you know, go off the rails. We actually found that you can do quite a bit to boost engagement as a classroom teacher in any type of

school. This -- there's 20 years of research on this that compares classrooms to classroom in public schools when teachers shift slightly how

they talk to kids with more respect, more options.

You know, for example, 3 options for homework, asking them, hey, we're studying photosynthesis today. Do you guys have any questions about it? And

I'll start the lecture there. Little shifts without changing curriculum, without changing the discipline, you know, strategies of the school make a

big difference for student engagement.

MARTIN: Why does it make such a big difference?

WINTHROP: So, when teachers give kids options to think a little bit about where they want to start a discussion, it means -- think about it for a

moment, it means they have to reflect, think about the topic, see what is curious or interesting to them and then put a question out there. That very

process, which is one minute, two minutes, all of a sudden locks them in to the topic, much more than when a student shows up and they're in passive

mode, just ready to receive information. That is one example of a switch in teacher practice. It makes a big difference. And there are a variety of

other things.

Another one is when teachers give explanatory rationales is what it's called in the literature. Basically, explain why you're assigning

something. So, saying, hey, read this, it's going to be on the test on Friday, is not an explanatory rationale. An explanatory rationale is, I'm

assigning you this text because I really want you to learn how the author weaves in story through, you know, historical settings. I'm making this up.

So, those small shifts actually make a big difference for kids.

MARTIN: Jenny, you wanted to talk about the role that parents can play in this. Could you talk more about that?

ANDERSON: Yes, they can play a tremendous role. They don't need a PhD. They don't need to be a teacher. And they don't need a lot of time because

we don't have time. We are all busy trying to get the laundry done, food on the table and get the work done and really just get to tomorrow.

This is very much -- as Rebecca was explaining, this is very much a shift in the teenage years in perspective. So, it's a lot about sort of less

instructional, more invitational. Don't make the plan for them. Don't solve the problem for them. Don't do their homework for them. You know, don't sit

there and nag them to do their homework, help them make a plan to do their homework.

So, really, the two key issues that we drive in on for parents is the quality of discussion. Discussion is to adolescents, what cuddles are to

infants, necessary for brain development. It is how a brain in the adolescent year is actually forming connections.

And teachers, as we've said, are, you know, a little hamstrung in the classroom. They get a lot of kids they have to look after, a lot of

curriculum standards they need to meet, a lot of things they have to do in that classroom.

[13:50:00]

Parents have the luxury of knowing the kid that's sitting in there house, and they know them for a long time, and they do have the time, you know,

and that time might be just the dinner table, to have that discussion, to dig in, to know what they're studying, to talk about what they're doing in

school, to validate the work they're doing at school, right?

Oh, I know you dissected a frog in science today. Tell me about that. Did it make you feel sick? Was it gross? Did you see the ovaries? What did

those look like? You know, you weren't communicating through that, the learning matters, that what they do all day matters, right? So, discussion

and interest. Interest is the canvas on which kids are developing skills.

MARTIN: Rebecca, I want to go back to the kind of the initial premise here, which is the teenagers, right? This is tough on teenagers. You can

have some data in the book where you suggest that, you know, third graders still love school, by and large. Why does it change over the course of

time? Why is it that by the time a lot of kids get to be teenagers so many of them say that school feels like a prison or they hate it or they don't

like to read, what happens there?

WINTHROP: Yes, it is a really big concern to me, to Jenny, that in third grade 75 percent of kids love school and by 10th grade, it's flipped 25

percent of kids love school. And what is happening is this shift really picks up when kids enter middle school. When they're primed to try to

figure out how to stand out to fit in, they're trying to find their unique gifts and their place in their tribe. They're also primed to try to make

meaning of the world, to try to make sense of it.

And school serves up a range of very siloed discipline -- different disciplines and multiple classes. They don't have one teacher to connect

with. So, a lot of kids lose a sense of belonging. They don't see the connection of what they're learning to the real world, which is very

important for adolescent development. They want to understand how things fit together. And they start thinking it's pointless, even though it's not

pointless, obviously.

So, we have a really big role to play as family members to try to connect those dots for them. That's another thing we can do of, hey, yes, you know.

There's a reason you're learning the Pythagorean theorem. Here's how I use it at work, or somebody else uses it at work, et cetera.

MARTIN: Is it possible that they're right? It's just bad. School is like prison. A lot of what they're being taught has no relevance to them. What

if that's just true? ANDERSON: No, a lot of it is true. I mean, we actually spent -- we've just spent three years talking to teens and listening to them, and a lot of what

you are saying is true. We need to do better at a system level to make the experience of school more engaging.

I mean, think about what adolescence is. You're literally trying to separate from your caregivers, find your own tribe, find a mate. That is

the sort of biological imperative. And you are meant to be exploring to do those things. You need to be doing things other than sitting in a chair and

absorbing, you know, knowledge from someone sitting in front of a classroom. It doesn't make sense to how we learn and in particular how

adolescents learn. So, we need to balance.

Knowledge is incredibly important. We're not anti-knowledge. We're not anti-schools. But we need to better balance what they're doing and how they

apply it, giving them opportunity. And a lot of schools do this, by the way. There are schools all over the United States that are -- have

redesigned their day. So, the kids can spend hours in the classroom doing the learning and then they go out and they apply it, right.

I will be a big picture learning. There are schools all over the U.S. that let kids go do projects that are community oriented, that are real

problems. You watch a teenager solving a real problem and that kid is on fire, that is -- they know that is not what they're doing in that classroom

every day. They're just doing what everyone else is doing. They feel anonymous. They feel unseen and they feel that they're not being prepared.

So, we just need to give them more opportunities to get out of the classroom and do those things. And that -- it does exist. It is happening.

It's just happening at the margins and we need to make it more of the mainstream. But to your point, yes, absolutely. We should listen to them

when they say a lot of their day sucks and it feels like prison because it's true.

MARTIN: Rebecca, before we let you go, since you're the policy person here, is anybody listening to you? I mean, are people hearing what you're

hearing, seeing what you're seeing? Is anybody listening?

WINTHROP: There is a very strong coalition of nonprofits, often, and innovative school leaders and district leaders who are really interested in

tackling the disengagement crisis and giving students an education experience that lets them train to be the author of their own lives, giving

them some choice, helping them make decisions. But unfortunately, those are the minority.

[13:55:00]

And what we are hoping is that this book will help parents not only help their kid at home, but also increase the demand from parents, from

community members, from the public to help innovative school leaders be the model and spread this approach across the country.

MARTIN: Rebecca Winthrop, Jenny Anderson, thank you so much for talking with us.

ANDERSON: Thank you so much for having us.

WINTHROP: Thank you for having us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can

always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.

Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END