Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic Accuses Trump of Sleepwalking into Autocracy; Filmmakers Tell the Behind-the-Scenes Story of Christopher Reeve on CNN. Aired 2-2:40p ET

Aired January 31, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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


[14:00:00]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST, AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR. Here's what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORM EISEN, FORMER UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE CZECH REPUBLIC: He promised to be a dictator on day one. He fulfilled that promise by trying

to rewrite the constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Stark warnings about sleepwalking into autocracy from former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic Norm Eisen, and expert Princeton

Professor Kim Lane Scheppele. Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think your hero is more ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: "Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story", the first authorized documentary that charts the actor's life and the accident that changed it.

I speak to directors Ian Bonhote and Peter Ettedgui. Welcome to the program, everyone, I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Donald Trump has been

testing presidential power to the limit in the couple of weeks he's been back in the White House.

But the courts and legislative branch have begun an immediate pushback and with some success. By Wednesday, just two days after ordering it, the White

House rescinded Trump's plan to freeze federal aid. This after a judge temporarily blocked another Trump order, which was to end birthright

citizenship.

This unprecedented power-grab is shaping up into a serious constitutional showdown, and it's challenging the strength of the Democratic Institutions

to Act as checks and balances. It's the kind of struggle my first guest tonight have observed closely outside America, and now are asking whether

America is, quote, "sleepwalking into autocracy".

Norm Eisen was U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic and served as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, and Princeton Professor Kim Lane

Scheppele worked as a researcher at the Hungarian Constitutional Court. So, they are both exceptionally well placed to discuss what we are faced with

right now.

So, let me both ask you first to you, Norm, do you believe still after the pushback that America is sleepwalking into an autocracy? I know that you

didn't think that the institutions were ready to, you know, to combat whatever might be illegal. Do you think they are ready to combat?

EISEN: Christiane, when Kim and I wrote that "New York Times" op-ed in the days before Donald Trump took office, we were concerned that all the signs

that we've seen around the world in places like Hungary, Turkey, where dictatorship, autocracy, authoritarianism is coming, were not being paid

attention to in America.

There was this strange numbness abroad. But this was the week as you point out that the alarm went off. In fact, like my alarm clock, which has a

snooze button, there have been two loud alarms that have woken people up. A court order, I was a part of the litigation saying that Donald Trump's

attempt to rewrite the constitution, that there is no birthright citizenship, that was slapped down by one of the groups who got a T.R.O.

And then this week, a second alarm bell with the court saying, no, Donald Trump, you can't freeze all federal spending. You don't have that power.

That's the power of Congress. So, I think these alarms are starting to wake up America to what has been a -- you can only call it a dictatorial

onslaught of Donald Trump's substituting his own views for the constitution and laws again and again and again in his first days in office.

AMANPOUR: So, you call it dictatorial. Before I get to you, Kim, I just want to press with Norm because you also were a counsel, as I said, to the

Judiciary Committee or the ethics counselor during the Trump impeachment process.

[14:05:00]

Clearly, you have a vested interest in all of this. And again, I just wonder whether you think that this time around, the body politic, the

citizens, et cetera, are as motivated as they were first-time around. Because when Trump, you know, got elected and then went -- there seemed to

be, as you coined, the both of you, an anticipatory obedience from all segments of civil society.

EISEN: Well, certainly, the second time around, it did seem that many of those, for example, in the mainstream media who had called him out

previously were anticipatorily obeying even before he demanded obedience. They were bending the knee. We saw that across media business, and there

was a quality of sleepwalking.

But I think people are seeing, Donald Trump claims he can rewrite the constitution. He's ignoring Congress, the laws Congress has passed. He's

devastating the lives of people across the country. And I think with this spending order, folks are waking up -- and I should tell you that I'm not a

visceral never-Trumper.

I actually helped with his first presidential transition on those same ethics issues that are my specialty. But I think you can -- he -- that you

can only say he promised to be a dictator on day one. He fulfilled that promise by trying to rewrite the constitution, and he's continued,

Christiane, you know this as somebody who follows these issues around the world. Dictatorial powers once assumed are seldom voluntarily relinquished.

And Donald Trump --

AMANPOUR: OK --

EISEN: Has continued that day, one attitude, day-after-day-after-day.

AMANPOUR: All right, so now, I want to turn to Kim, because, Norm, of course, you were ambassador to the Czech Republic. Kim, you have spent a

long time studying this, including a long time studying Hungary's constitutional court. And Hungary is the nation that set up as the prime

example of a democracy turning into an illiberal democracy using the law.

This is what you both write. "Autocracy is not built out of the whims of a leader, but becomes entrenched only when it has been certified by legalism

exploiting legal means to serve autocratic ends." So, Kim, explain what you -- if you can, in a -- in a concise way what Hungary did, what Orban did.

KIM LANE SCHEPPELE, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, PRINCETON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: Yes, well, what Viktor

Orban did is exactly what we now see Donald Trump doing, which is that he came into power with thousands of pages of laws that had been written by

private actors outside the system before he assumed power.

And so when he came into office, he began shoveling these laws through his compliant parliament, and the members of parliament didn't really know what

they were enacting. And so, by the time I think everybody figured it out, three years into Orban's regime, he had captured virtually all of the

independent institutions.

He had also rewritten the election law, and there was no way any opposition force had the toehold, the resources or the organization to actually ever

oust him from power. So, what we're seeing now in the U.S. is exactly this kind of thing. And I must say, you know, what's interesting is that people

still think that you lose democracies with tanks in the streets.

And what I keep saying is, no, you lose -- you lose your democracy when you have lawyers trying to undermine it by law. So, this is exactly the problem

that Norm identified. You can't rewrite the constitution in America with executive orders. Nonetheless, all this has to get litigated. And one of

the problems is that unless you can get some of the orders that we've seen already, where they stop everything in its tracks, the autocrats don't

actually care whether they win the legal battles in the end.

They care whether they win facts on the ground and the length of time it takes to litigate may often mean they capture facts on the ground before

the law makes them stop.

AMANPOUR: So, that's really interesting. I am telling you that I hate to go back to the Nazi era. I don't want to bring up Hitler. It turns a whole

number of people off, but I cannot help but be struck by what Joseph Goebbels said after they seized power -- as they were seizing power from a

democracy. He said, "the big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the means to its own destruction." And Kim, you saw that firsthand

in Hungary.

SCHEPPELE: Absolutely, exactly. Hungary, it was Poland, it was Turkey, it was even Russia, which we forget in the early days was all consolidation of

power by law. So, this is how it happens all over the world in Venezuela and in Ecuador, the leaders there rewrote the constitutions in their first

year. Orban did that too.

[14:10:00]

And so, what happens is that we have this idea, which is how democracy is supposed to function, a leader gets elected and then they change the law.

So, when the leader gets elected and changes the law, many people stand around and say, well, gee, you know, I kind of disagree with this leader,

but that's how democracies work.

And what they need to see is, you know, it's not just any law that these new autocrats are passing, it's laws that actually remove restraints on the

executive. And that's the danger signal we're seeing now in the United States. You know, Trump is claiming the power to stop all federal funding.

Does he have that power by law? Well, no.

But somebody is going to have to tell him no. And the question is whether Congress rises to the challenge, whether the courts rise to the challenge.

And frankly, the thing I'm alarmed about in the United States is that unlike in Trump's first term, we're not seeing people go to the streets.

We're not seeing a really mobilized constituency in the general public that's going to let the institutions know that the public sees what's

happening, and that's because we don't have focused leadership right now.

Same thing happened in Hungary, everybody objected, people did not go to the streets, and within three years, their democracy was over.

AMANPOUR: And you said it was one of the quickest collapses of democracy in recorded history. Norm, I want to ask you, because Orban made three

trips, not one, three to Mar-a-Lago and President Trump in the year leading up to his election. Also, Project 2025 envisions similar, a 180-day, you

know, trying to throw out and shift and change the U.S. constitutional, legal, legislative precedents.

What do you think is going to be the next steps? Because as Kim said, and others have told us, even rescinding the OMB thing doesn't mean to say that

they have relinquished it.

EISEN: Well, I think we're going to continue to see this furious assault on the constitution and laws by executive orders and executive power.

There's also been the wrongful firing of hundreds and impacts on thousands of federal civil servants, where Trump is trying to oust those individuals

wrongly and replace them with those who will execute his program of authoritarianism. Look for the court pushback, though.

I think, Christiane, the story of these first days of Trump's administration is, he's pushing to do what Orban and others have tried, but

there has been court pushback. The court are -- courts are stopping him again and again, I think you're going to see litigation from these

individuals who have been wrongly fired or demoted. More court pushback on him.

And while we have not seen the mass popular mobilization that was so important to the fact that Poland was eventually able to oust their

autocrat, whereas Hungary, Turkey has not been able to, I do think you're going to see the American people now. That's the next part of waking up.

They are seeing, hey, this guy tried to cut off all the services we rely on from government.

He's going to affect us -- working moms, kids in school, firefighters, police, we can't have that. So, I'm looking both for him to keep pushing,

but for the leaders and the American people to wake up, we saw strong congressional pushback. That's the story. We're at a crossroads. I have

confidence in our institutions and our people.

I think they're going to wake up and see that same mass popular mobilization, same as Mr. Netanyahu in Israel when he tried to pass his

autocratic laws, the country turned out in the streets. I think the same is going to happen here as well, not just at the grass-tops, the grassroots.

AMANPOUR: That's interesting. I just want to ask you quickly before finishing with Kim, you've talked about Poland pushing back, but also

Brazil. Bolsonaro was considered the Trump of the Tropics, right? But you know, now, with a Bolsonaro out of office, it appears that institutions as

it's been written are winning, that they won against Musk, for instance, who tried to challenge their judiciary. They've won in various ways. I

guess the question is, how difficult is it to reclaim democracy once it has been damaged?

EISEN: It's very difficult. And the American institutions can learn a thing or two from Brazil because unlike the approach we took, which did

lead to 34 criminal convictions of Donald Trump and one of the criminal cases against him, the Brazilian institutions have held strong.

[14:15:00]

They have -- particularly the Brazilian courts have been tough cutting edge of their rule of law system. So, we can learn a thing or two from Brazil.

And Poland teaches us after eight years, they ousted the autocrats, but they've done so much damage, it's very difficult for the successors to

succeed. Christiane, that's why I'm so glad, and I'm part of the litigation efforts here in the United States.

I'm so glad to see the courts pushing back early, and saying, no, Donald Trump, you can't do this. And that's waking the leaders up and the country

up. So, I'm hopeful. But we have a very tough road ahead to preserve these institutions. They must not be hollowed out because if they are, we will

not get them back.

AMANPOUR: And just to, you know, a reality check, the similar thing happened in the so-called Muslim ban when the court stopped it, but they

achieved it, the administration by other means. They went back and tried again and parts of it survived. I want to ask you, Kim, there is a Make

America Great Again by Donald Trump, and then there's make Europe great again by Orban and the Le Pens and the Melonis and all those people.

Orban and Le Pen, she's obviously the extreme far-right party leader in France, planned to hold a rally in Madrid next week, February 8th,

literally called make Europe great again. And Orban said that Trump's victory will encourage and set Europe on a similar path. We know that

Europe is already there in many regards. They have an anti-immigrant situation.

They're getting more protectionist about trade and all those -- all those concerns. What do you think, having studied Europe so much, Kim, what will

be the trend in Europe, do you think?

SCHEPPELE: Yes, well, I think we already saw in the European elections last June that the far-right is on the rise. And right now, Viktor Orban

had cobbled together after that election, the third largest party in the European parliament. And so, what you see are the European institutions

tilting rightward. And as Miss Von der Leyen at the European Commission has been relying even more on the far-right to back her in some areas of policy

that she's pushing.

So, at EU level, we don't have the pushback against national governments that we even had, however, minimally, when Hungary and Poland were going

down the autocratic path. So, there's a real problem here when you see that there are nationalist governments on the rise in many countries including

now big countries in Europe, which is a really different kind of dynamic.

And the EU has been sort of going along to get along because they see that these right-wing parties now have a tremendous amount of power at EU level

as well. Let me just say that Viktor Orban, you know, he's the Prime Minister of a tiny country, and you think maybe -- or Hungary will not have

that much power.

But Orban has invested a huge amount of Hungarian resources in creating a series of think-tanks and a bunch of outreach, both in the United States

where his Danube Institute was literally one of the partners writing Project 2025 here in the United States. And Orban also has a French

language think-tank, a German language think-tank that has been working with far-right leaders in Europe not only to figure out how they come to

power in elections.

But also to design these plans, that if these leaders are elected and hit the ground running, they will have lots and lots of laws to blitz everyone

with on day one. That's Orban's strategy --

AMANPOUR: Yes --

SCHEPPELE: And he has an infrastructure for helping other countries do it.

AMANPOUR: Yes --

SCHEPPELE: And we're now seeing exactly that playbook playing out in the United States.

AMANPOUR: Well, it's really important to hear these warnings and how you've tracked it from abroad. I want to ask, finally, because you

mentioned Kim, a big country. So, Norm, how dangerous is it when the unelected leader of the American government so-to-speak, Trump's wing-man,

Elon Musk says to Germany, a big country with a major history in this regard, that only the far-right AFD can save Germany now, appears in a

video link at one of their rallies.

EISEN: It's profoundly concerning, Christiane. You spoke earlier about the ominous echoes of history, and they are nowhere louder than in Germany. And

Elon Musk has been a prime purveyor of disinformation there in the United States, he's doing something similar in the U.K., and that's part of the

reason that we need to be extremely alert.

[14:20:00]

And in fact, I filed with partners the very first lawsuit of any kind against this new Trump administration because of alleged illegalities at

Musk's United States DOGE service, the new entity, the Department of Governmental Efficiency that seems to be involved in many of these legally

questionable activities.

You can't bring over from what works in the private sector into our rule of law system, where a different set of rules apply, like with having to

follow the constitution or the -- you can't cut all federal -- stop all federal spending. So, we should be very alert, aware, and when appropriate,

take legal action regarding the actions of Mr. Musk.

AMANPOUR: Well, this is an important conversation to start having. Norm Eisen, Kim Lane Scheppele, thank you both very much for being with us. And

next to an American tail of sky highs, devastating lows and unshakable resilience. It is the real life story of Christopher Reeve, the actor who

became a global icon playing "Superman", and an even bigger hero after a tragic riding accident left him paralyzed.

Twenty years after his death, A new documentary called "Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story" gets behind the scenes of his remarkable life and

his transformation from movie star to activist. Here's a clip from the trailer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, LATE ACTOR: John Houseman(ph) said Mr. Reeve is very important to become a serious classical actor unless, of course, they offer

you a load of money to do something else.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He convinced me when I first met him that he would fly.

REEVE: Doing things with my dad, it was all about activity and action, riding bikes, playing soccer, skiing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The film is nominated for a BAFTA here in the U.K., and the filmmakers Ian Bonhote and Peter Ettedgui came into the studio to talk

about making this first-ever authorized family movie.

Peter, Ian, welcome to the program. Can I just first ask you why this story -- you first, why did you choose Christopher Reeve as the subject of this

documentary?

PETER ETTEDGUI, CO-DIRECTOR, SUPER/MAN: THE CHRISTOPHER REEVE STORY: Well, I wish we'd been intelligent enough to actually choose it ourselves. It

came to us via an archive producer who had contacted Matthew and asked him if there would be --

AMANPOUR: Matthew being his son --

ETTEDGUI: Matthew --

AMANPOUR: His oldest son.

ETTEDGUI: Exactly, asking him if there'd be interest in personal archives being given to a film. And Matthew -- the family had been approached a

number of times, particularly to do fictional versions of Christopher's life. And they'd always said no, but this was actually the right time for

the family, they had just sold the family home in Bedford, New York, they had found all these boxes of their parents archives, and they kind of

thought, well, now is the right time.

It's coming up to the 20th anniversary of Christopher's passing. And so, that's how the ball got rolling. We were then introduced to the Reeves, and

for us, it was really a no-brainer as a subject for a -- for a feature film, for a feature documentary. We both knew quite a lot about his life we

adored -- well, I particularly grew up with his "Superman", you're a little bit younger. And yes, we were -- we just thought, this is a story --

AMANPOUR: So --

ETTEDGUI: We'll have to tell.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you then, you were younger, maybe you weren't a "Superman" fan, maybe you were, I don't know. But what was it about

"Superman"? Because that is what he's known for.

IAN BONHOTE, CO-DIRECTOR, "SUPER/MAN: THE CHRISTOPHER REEVE STORY: You know, it's very hard to turn down the opportunity to actually tell the

story of "Superman" and the behind-the-scene of "Superman". And Christopher's story, and especially after the accident, is a bit less known

from the people.

But it's not less extraordinary. So, for us, the interest was to actually play with the imagery and the fact that audiences will recognize and

remember "Superman" and what he meant for the -- for the general cultural consciousness. But at the same time, to be able to look into the disability

activism and all of the work is done.

And when we met the family, we discovered this extremely strong family from his first partner to Dana Reeve, his wife while he had the accident, his

three children, and that felt like a very human and international story.

AMANPOUR: And I thought family was obviously a dominant theme through the movie, even when he was a young, struggling actor, he kept trying to please

his father. They come from an upper middle class family. Tell me what we learn about his father when he learns that he is "Superman", that he's

been cast as "Superman".

ETTEDGUI: Well, his father, who was an academic and poet, immediately assumed that Christopher was talking about George Bernard Shaw's "Man and

Superman", not as Matthew says in the film, the comic book icon.

[14:25:00]

So, you know, that's -- and that was very typical of --

AMANPOUR: And then he got irritated --

ETTEDGUI: He got -- he kind of like was irritated. Why are you doing this?

AMANPOUR: Yes --

ETTEDGUI: And you know, and kind of disapproving of that kind of like American popular culture that Christopher was determined to embrace fully

in telling the story. But you're absolutely right. It's a sort of -- it's an interesting story about three generations of a family. You know, you

have the father and the son, and then the son trying not to repeat the same mistakes that his father made.

Broken home, little contact with -- kind of bad contact with the -- with the kids, trying not to repeat those mistakes and learning through his

story and through his own adversity.

AMANPOUR: And of course, he wasn't a great father by his own admission, and by his kids' admission during the early bits of the interview.

ETTEDGUI: Yes --

AMANPOUR: But then he does become and the family all gets together again when he has his accident. But before that, his own father, as we've just

said, didn't particularly approve of him being the comic man and rather than George Bernard Shaw, but nor did -- nor did his co-stars in the play

he was in before he got famous. Famously, William Hurt and Jeff Daniels, they were all -- and he got a call to go to London to audition for what?

"Superman".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The idea came rather than casting a well-known "Superman", we should go for an unknown and have stars around him.

RICHARD DONNER, DIRECTOR OF SUPERMAN: We had made a costume out of a blue leotard and Chris was sweating like a stuck pig. I took black shoe polish

and we blacked his whole head, and this skinny little kid did a scene with various ladies who were up for the part of Lois Lane.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, why are you here?

REEVE: Because I'm here to fight for truth, for justice in the American way.

(WHISTLES)

JEFF DANIELS, ACTOR: He flew Sunday night, screen tested in London on Monday, and then flew back Monday night, Bill said how did it go? Chris

said, I got it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Then the rest was history. What changed with Christopher Reeve once he got that role? I mean, he went from an unknown to stratospheric,

literally.

BONHOTE: Completely. I mean, literally, the -- I mean, there's two things which are extremely interesting is that, he took on the role of a

superhero. I think it's very -- we have to look back. Nowadays, superheroes are present on our big screens all across the world. At the time, it was

the first one to actually be adopted to the cinema, so that was very new for audiences.

And so, people, not only they fell in love with the actor's good looking, intelligent person, but on top of it, he represented perfection, justice,

the American way, et cetera. So, all those elements made it a special people -- a special person in people's minds. But yes, from, you know, 24

years old, suddenly 23, 24 years old being making quite a lot of money and the film almost made half a billion dollars in the Box Office. So --

AMANPOUR: At that time?

BONHOTE: At that time. So, I think that sort of numbers just place you -- I mean, he became -- he suddenly crashed all the famous people's party. He

was, you know, taking pictures from Andy Warhol, et cetera. But a lot of the -- his peers and this -- let's call it the serious actor, thought he

had sold out. So, I think he always had that fight between embracing the commercial success and what he brought, not only financial stability or

anything like this, but more choices and more opportunities.

But at the same time, he always chased the role that would actually confirm that he was a great actor, and Jeff Daniels says it very well in the film.

He's just -- that he constantly wanted to find out if he was a great actor, but I'm not sure he found out.

AMANPOUR: Because he didn't have a chance. I mean, it wasn't a long period of superstardom he had before he then had that terrible, life-changing,

nearly fatal horse-riding accident when he became a quadriplegic. I mean, he was completely paralyzed, except for his head, et cetera. He was on a

ventilator and all the rest of it. How did he react to that?

ETTEDGUI: Well, initially, he was in despair and he -- you know, he was feeling that he should -- the life support should be switched off. That was

his initial sort of reaction. And I think at first, it was Dana, who really gave him the courage to continue. She said, you know, you're still you and

I love you.

And that's almost like the most pivotal moment in our film and in his story, because I think from that moment on, he realized that life was going

to be much more about really being who he was, rather than trying to be "Superman" or play other roles.

AMANPOUR: Yes, that is actually very poignant, because when there's a scene when that all takes place, and that's when you see him actually

getting a whole second chance at life, and the life became the activist for those with similar disabilities. I want to play a little clip of him --

well, I'm going to play a little clip of him when he was at the Democratic National Convention for Clinton in 1996. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR AND ACTIVIST: America does not let its needy citizens fend for themselves.

AMANPOUR: I wonder what -- this is just sort of an aside -- what he might have thought now while this current administration is essentially freezing

all sorts of research and medical study and the rest, you know, pending review of who knows what. I wonder what he might have thought of that. Do

you ever think of that?

IAN BONHOTE, FILM DIRECTOR: Chris was not someone to spend too much time in despair or inaction, so he would have just taken action right now. And he

would have been demonstrating, he would have thought out there talking to people. He thought we stronger together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REEVE: Help is on the way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BONHOTE: That's something he felt. And, you know, the film really explored the fact that he tried to galvanized the science world. And just, you know,

disability in general was always a world that people tried not to look in. Breaking you back in policies that were one of the scientific world which

was hardly explored.

So, why he wanted people, he wanted the money to come to that, and he wanted all the greatest mind out there to be galvanized to actually do more

research. So, I really truly believe that even in some of potentially the issues right now and the conflict and the disagreement within people. He

would have been probably a bridge between people and tried to get people to talk.

I'm not saying people would have talked, but, you know, I don't think he would have completely embraced some of the decision being made, let alone

the decision about identity and gender and all the rest of it, but because he was

a very open-minded person. But I think he would have not blocked himself. He would have tried to carry on the conversation.

AMANPOUR: And that's why I want to bring in this sound bite of his own while he's, you know, obviously after he was paralyzed. About what it meant

because we were talking about being a hero and a superhero. And this is what he says, you know, how he changed his views about what heroism was all

about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REEVE: When the first Superman movie came out, the most frequently asked question was, what is a hero? My answer was that a hero is someone who

committed to courageous action without considering the consequences. And now my definition is completely different. I think a hero is an ordinary

individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Again, it might seem like a normal observation now, but back then and from him, that was -- that was a pretty incredible observation that he

was enduring, that he was carrying on, and we see in the film all the difficulties and the fears that his, you know, his breathing apparatus

might break or fall off. His children were worried what would happen if he was alone and there was an electricity, you know, blockage or whatever, and

he would die without anybody knowing.

But I think also we should talk about his wife, Dana, Dana Reeve, who really was heroic. I mean, she was incredible the way she stuck with him.

Then you deliver a gut punch towards the end of the film. Tell us -- tell us what happens to Dana.

PETER ETTEDGUI, FILM PRODUCER: She's diagnosed with lung cancer, having never smoked in her life. And, you know, it's awful to say it, but I think

-- well, Will says in the film, Dana and Christopher's son -- he says, you know, something in herself died when Christopher died. And I think

honestly, I think that was -- I think, you know, she'd given so much to Christopher and to caring for him and to caring for the family, and I think

she was just absolutely wrecked after he -- after he died.

So, yes, she dies, sort of -- she passes away 18 months later, leaving Will as an orphan.

AMANPOUR: He's 13 years old.

ETTEDGUI: He's 13 years old.

AMANPOUR: Now we have to say a correspondent at ABC News.

ETTEDGUI: Absolutely. Yes. Yes. And has a cameo role in the new Superman film as well.

AMANPOUR: Does he? Interesting. And the other kids, all of the siblings are now in charge of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation. So, the legacy

continues in terms of fighting for that research and the resources for people.

But one thing I also thought you explored very sensitively was the idea of male friendship and the solid relationship -- they called each other

brothers -- between himself and Robin Williams. And you talk to other stars. You talk to Glenn Close very movingly, Whoopi Goldberg, Susan

Sarandon. All of them -- all of them had acted with him and become friends.

But I was struck by everything that Robin Williams did for him, including buying a massive generator to make sure that if there was ever electricity

cut, it wouldn't affect the power to his -- to his technical treatment. But Glenn said that she was sure that if Christopher Reeve was still alive,

maybe Robin Williams would still be alive. How did -- when she said that to you, how did you feel?

[14:35:32]

BONHOTE: Like a lot of people when they see it in the film, it's -- first, it's a bit of a shock because you just never know. But at the same time

what we felt is that Glenn knew them both very well and she was very close to both of them. So, she would have seen the struggles that, you know, one

physical and in Robin's case mental struggle. But you know, they were family. It's sort of extended chosen family as we are. You know, we don't

always choose our family. But in that case, they were really, as you said, like brothers.

And I think we really wanted to show as well, how important it is to count on your friends. When you're in a certain -- that level of disability, that

level of injury that Chris had, not only his salary was decent -- and he made some money, but the money ran out really fast. Insurance ran out

really fast. And that's one of the things he thought to try to raise awareness about that. But he had some of his successful and wealthy friends

still being able to step in to help. And we really wanted to honor that.

AMANPOUR: And finally, you know, it's 20 years as you said, Chris would have been -- Christopher Reeve would have been 72 years old now. What do

you want the legacy of this film to be?

ETTEDGUI: Well, I think what we've seen as we've screened it over the past year starting at the Sundance Film Festival is, you know, a response --

first of all, the emotional response that people feel. You know, you sense a real connection with people coming out of this film between each other.

They've just been through an extraordinarily tragic, but also uplifting I think journey. So, I think that's very important.

We believe in documentaries in cinema, and we've had the great luck through Warner Brothers to have a global cinema release and that's fantastic. But I

think also what Christopher's story really represents is this idea that we are all connected and that we don't let the needy fend for themselves, that

we show compassion to our family, to our neighbors, to people who need our help. And Christopher's story really does represent that.

The other thing that -- in terms of being, as you said, a quadriplegic and on a vent, and that type of figure with that level of injury is very rarely

seen in the public sphere. And Christopher's mission was to put himself out there, not because he wanted to be a star again, but because he wanted to

show people this is something that can happen to anyone, even Superman. And I think that that is the -- a very important part of this legacy.

AMANPOUR: Peter, Ian, thank you both very much indeed.

BONHOTE: Thank you.

ETTEDGUI: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story airs Sunday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time on CNN. That's it for now. And if you ever miss our show,

you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. 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)

END