Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Haaretz Military Analyst Amos Harel; Interview with MSF Doctor Dr. Javid Abdelmoneim; Interview with "Nickel Boys" Director RaMell Ross; Interview with New York Times Reporter Karoun Demirjian. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 04, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I have no guarantees that the peace is going to hold.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Trump and Netanyahu face-to-face at the White House. A look at this critical meeting. What it means for the war and the world.
Then, death and despair in Sudan. I speak to a doctor on the ground about the innocent lives caught in a spiral of violence.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't remember?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Remember what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You really don't remember?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "Nickel Boys." Director RaMell Ross joins me on his Oscar nominated film chronicling teenagers navigating the horrors of the Jim Crow
South.
Plus, Elon Musk's two weeks in Washington. The New York Times reporter Karoun Demirjian talks to Hari Sreenivasan about the billionaire's attempts
to change the federal government.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
The future of the Israel-Hamas war hangs in the balance, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets President Trump at the White House today. It's a
high stakes moment with phase one of the ceasefire still holding, but no guarantee that phase two will be reached.
Trump, just back in the White House, appears to have major influence over Netanyahu, but how far that extends is still unknown. The U.S. president is
eager to see the war over, while Netanyahu, for various reasons, might be intent on continuing the fight.
Amos Harel is the military analyst for Haaretz, who in his latest piece for Foreign Affairs, asks the question, can Netanyahu survive without war? Amos
Harel, welcome back to the program from Tel Aviv. It is good to see you.
You say this may be the most important meeting between an Israeli prime minister and an American president in decades. Explain what's at stake
here.
AMOS HAREL, MILITARY ANALYST, HAARETZ: Almost everything. We're at in the midst of a 16-month war with Hamas, which started with the horrific events
of October 7th. We went through a war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. We swapped blows with Iran as well. Nothing has been resolved yet.
It's true that the fact that Trump was, in fact, elected president already helped move things along and had already pushed a ceasefire, which was an
agreement was signed on January 19th. And we're already, as you mentioned, in phase one of the ceasefire and the hostage deal, that's extremely
important, but nobody knows where this is heading.
We still don't know if we can reach a long-term ceasefire, a full-scale hostage deal, what would be the nature of the regime in Gaza after Hamas
was not exactly defeated, but after the relative Israeli military success against Hamas? So, there's a lot to be decided. I'm not sure everything
would be decided now, but there's a lot to be decided during the next few hours and the next few days.
GOLODRYGA: Well, if we are to take President Trump at his word, both now and during the campaign, it appears that he will pressure Prime Minister
Netanyahu to end this war, to make sure all of these hostages come home, in particular he's focused on bringing the American hostages as well. Now, to
make that happen, they would have to implement phase two and phase three of this deal.
How can we expect Prime Minister Netanyahu to respond if that demand is dictated by President Trump?
HAREL: What we saw in the last few weeks is that Netanyahu has a much harder time avoiding Trump than he did Biden. During president's Biden's
term, Netanyahu time after time misled Biden and delayed any kind of decision regarding the hostage deal. Once Trump was elected and once he
announced on December that this was the most important thing to push forward the hostage deal, it was quite clear that Netanyahu could not delay
Trump using the same old tricks.
Trump, from an Israeli perspective, is almost a force of nature right now. He gets things done. And right now, he's pushing ahead towards phase two of
the deal. This, of course, puts Netanyahu in a very difficult position, between a rock and a hard place, if you'd like.
[13:05:00]
Because on the one hand, there are Trump's demands, on the other hand, he has his far-right partners who keep demanding that Israel will go back to
war and are not enthusiastic at all regarding a possible hostage deal because it means both an Israeli withdrawal from all of the Gaza Strip and
also a release of thousands more Palestinian prisoners, many of them masterminds behind the terrible terrorist attacks in the last few decades.
GOLODRYGA: And yet, it's not necessarily a binary choice for Prime Minister Netanyahu because we know that the opposition in Israel, and the
White House knows this as well, has offered him a lifeline if he does go forward and go through with the implementation of the deal they will report
place any of those far-right members of his coalition who have threatened to leave.
So, this then leads to your question that you ask in the Foreign Affairs piece, can Netanyahu survive without a war?
HAREL: I would say never underestimate Netanyahu. He's been in power for ages. He's Israel's longest serving prime minister. And he will do anything
necessary in order to remain in power, because of all kinds of political problems he has, because of his criminal trial and so on.
So, he's invested in staying ahead and staying prime minister in the long run. And he will do what needs to be done from his perspective. And he has
already changed some of his views. Remember him talking about the Philadelphi Corridor and defining it as an important strategic asset that
would never be evacuated by Israeli forces. Well, the agreement now says that Israel would evacuate within a few weeks, and apparently, this is
what's going to happen.
The same happened with Netzarim Corridor, an area that Israel controlled for more than a year. It cut the Gaza Strip by half between the north and
the south. And last week, according to the deal reached by the Trump administration, Israeli forces withdrew, and that allowed hundreds of
thousands of Palestinian residents to go back to their towns and villages, much of them destroyed during the war in Northern Gaza Strip. So, Netanyahu
is willing to make all kinds of deals in order to stay.
And as you mentioned, his opposition, from the center or the center left, some members of this opposition are willing to give him some kind of
political help, at least short-term, in order for the deal to continue. And I'd make another point, which I find extremely important. The hostage deal
itself, and I know, Bianna, that you've been recently to Israel and follow this very carefully. This is -- the whole affair has shaken Israeli public
opinion completely. We're still shell shocked by the events of October 7th. And I think that there's a large majority of Israelis that not only support
a hostage deal, but are emotionally and ideologically invested in bringing those -- our brethren, if you'd like, back home.
There are still 79 Israeli hostages, most of them Israelis, hostages held by Hamas. And I think the public opinion is invested in that. If Netanyahu
now decides to make a sort of a U-turn and refuse to move forward with the deal, this would have crucial domestic implications as well.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, no doubt. No doubt. The country is united more than ever now after seeing these first hostages coming home, that they want to
continue until every single hostage is home, and that would involve the implementation of phase two and three.
Also notable during my time there was almost every single person I spoke with, whether at Hostage Square or family members of hostages, may direct
pleas not to Prime Minister Netanyahu, but to President Trump, saying he was the only one that could secure the release of their family members, of
the rest of the hostages and bring this war to an end.
But, Amos, where there may be some friction is what their ultimate goals are, I'm talking about Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump,
because it does appear that President Trump is looking several steps ahead at a normalization deal with Saudi -- between Saudi Arabia and Israel, as
well as a defense deal between Saudi Arabia and the United States, that would require not only a day after plan for Gaza, but also a plan for who
will be leading and in control of Gaza. Thus far, Prime Minister Netanyahu has not been willing to agree to any day after plan.
I know you've written about this. Many analysts actually blame him for that reason that we still see Hamas, may be very crippled, but still the ruling
party in Gaza now for so many months after this war began. Are his days of kicking the can down the road on that issue on the day after plan on who
will be leading in control of Gaza, are they numbered at this point?
[13:10:00]
HAREL: As long as President Trump is focused on moving forward with this regional deal, then it will be very, very hard for Netanyahu to delay
events or developments or to mislead Trump. And for the time being, this seems the curse of events.
I wouldn't underestimate Trump's personal motives here. The Nobel Peace Prize is something that has been on his mind for years. I think the list
closes in October. The prize itself -- the ceremony is on December. I'm sure that this is very important to the president. And Netanyahu is, of
course, perfectly aware of that.
And you're absolutely right about Netanyahu's refusal to discuss the day after. And yet, we've heard the president in recent days saying that Hamas
could not be part of the solution. So, the Americans as well are -- I'm not sure they know how, but they do want to push Hamas aside. The question is,
who would rule Gaza later?
But look at what's happening at the Rafah Crossing. And now, it's opened again after a long time, after months of months, where it was impossible to
cross from Gaza to Egypt. And Hamas is not in control there. It's actually our friends from the Palestinian Authority. They're hiding. They're
pretending to be somebody else. But there are 20 to 30 policemen who get their salaries from Ramallah, from the Palestinian Authority in the West
Bank, were there every morning to open the Rafah Crossing. This is extremely important.
And it means that all kinds of solutions could be found behind the scenes in spite of the fact that they do not exactly fit what Netanyahu has said
before.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that is notable, seeing who is there in Rafah and the P.A.'s involvement at this point. Also, Amos, the critical question of Iran
and whether they -- the United States and Israel are on the same page in terms of Iran's continued nuclear ambitions.
The New York Times is reporting that U.S. officials believe Iran is now exploring a, quote, "faster, cruder approach" to developing an atomic
weapon. We know that President Trump has been more of an isolationist this time around than he was during his first administration. And he has
repeated his desire to cut a deal, if not a tougher deal with Iran. That may not align where -- with where Prime Minister Netanyahu is on this
issue. Where do you see this debate going?
HAREL: Netanyahu has, for a long time, wished for a joint Israeli-American attack against the Iranian nuclear sites. And, in fact, I think this is
easier to do right now because Israel was quite successful last October at hitting Iran's aerial defense system. And I think that we have made quite a
lot of progress there. There's more of a possibility to hit Iranian targets, but this needs to be done with some kind of military cooperation
with America.
I don't think that the administration is interested in that. I think probably Trump would use the Israeli military threat to force another deal,
a different deal, which would demand more from Iran to force it on the Iranian regime.
So, this is where we are right now. We will see a lot of threats in the next few months, a lot of talk about possible Israeli strike. For the time
being, it's hard for me to imagine that Trump would actually allow Netanyahu to strike. It's more -- it seems more probable that a deal would
be struck before Israel hits any Iranian targets.
GOLODRYGA: Finally, Amos, I'd like to get you to respond to Trump's answer when asked if he would support a West Bank annexation. This was at Oval
Office question -- Q&A with reporters. And he said, I'm not going to talk about that. It's certainly a small country in terms of land. You see this
pen, he held up a pen, this wonderful pen. My desk is the Middle East.
HAREL: Beautiful.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, my beautiful pen. My desk is the Middle East and the top of the pen is Israel. That's not good. It's a pretty big difference. He
goes on and on to talk about the size of the pen and how small Israel is, but there's a lot of good, smart brain power. A rather confusing response.
I'm just wondering how you interpreted that.
HAREL: It's hard to interpret. I think you can see a basic sentiment, which is remains pro-Israeli for a long time. You can see that on Trump's
first term as well. But this response, I wouldn't judge by what Trump would think about a possible two-state solution later on.
It's quite clear that everybody, not only the Israelis, but everybody around Trump is doubtful whether a two-state solution is possible under the
current circumstances. And especially after we saw the atrocities of October 7th, Israelis are much more doubtful about this possible outcome.
I assume the president shares some of the same sentiment, it doesn't mean that he would support Israeli annexation or anything like that. We'll see
what kind of deals will be closed behind the scenes. It doesn't seem to me, at least, to be in the cards right now, although some far-right Israeli
politicians are already hoping for that.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Amos Harel, always great to see you and hear your analysis. Appreciate it.
HAREL: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you. Well, next, we turn to Sudan, where conditions amidst the ongoing civil war between warring generals are going from bad to
worse. Over the weekend, an attack by the Rapid Support Forces on an open- air market killed more than 50 people, according to health authorities. The RSF has denied responsibility. Now, it adds to the tens of thousands of
people who have been killed in the conflict, with multiple reports of war crimes and atrocities, and the U.S. accusing the RSF of genocide.
Dr. Javid Abdelmoneim is a physician with Doctors Without Borders, or MSF, and spent part of his childhood in Sudan. He joined me from Omdurman.
Doctor, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us. We've been covering this war now for nearly two years. The humanitarian toll is just
devastating. At least 20,000 people have been killed, over 3 million people have fled the country, have been displaced to neighboring countries. The
U.N. figure is about 30 million people, over half of the population will require assistance this year alone.
I know you've covered many war zones, worked in many war zones. How does this one in particular compare?
DR. JAVID ABDELMONEIM, MSF DOCTOR: Bianna, thank you for having me. Yes, I've worked in many places, and it's very hard to compare and contrast. I
think what's worth saying about Sudan, and this is my second time here since the beginning of the war, is quite how large the needs are and how
much of them are unmet.
The scale of the needs in Sudan across the board, with outbreaks and diseases, with casualties and violence of war, with malnutrition, with
maternal health, with total breakdown in the health system and beyond is something that's almost unimaginable. You have to imagine that -- know that
Sudan is a huge country and there has been a total war, north, south, east, west, and displaced multiple millions, as you've said. And to match those
needs to what has actually been provided in terms of care and access is something that you -- that is not possible.
So, we are here working as an agency as MSF on both sides of the lines. Many organizations have not found the way to work in both sides and under
RSF and Sudan Armed Forces' territories. Access to Sudan is very difficult, has always been difficult. My own experience is that it is, how can I put
it, the most tiring place I've worked because it's not easy even to move cargo around. You need permits for everything. You need permissions from
multiple agencies and authorities.
These bureaucratic hurdles that you have to jump through alone are exhausting and require resource and are -- and is too much for many
agencies to overcome and has created a barrier for us to really do as much as we want to do.
GOLODRYGA: Who is controlling the bureaucratic hurdles that you say are so difficult to overcome?
DR. ABDELMONEIM: You have two groups that are controlling territories in Sudan. Now, the war is between the Rapid Support Forces, the RSF, and the
Sudanese Armed Forces, the SAF. So, SAF and RSF --
GOLODRYGA: So, it's both sides? Right?
DR. ABDELMONEIM: Indeed.
GOLODRYGA: So, it's both sides.
DR. ABDELMONEIM: Both sides.
GOLODRYGA: We should make clear that you're feeling pushback here and impeding you doing the work that you were there wanting to do, needing to
do, and that is tending to the most vulnerable. Is that correct?
DR. ABDELMONEIM: Absolutely. If I can give you an example, if I wanted to move supplies rapidly from one side of the country to another, you have to
apply for permits, or even waiting for visas for members of staff can take five to eight weeks in Nairobi to come in, or even to move staff across the
country.
One example is that my international colleagues in my MSF team here in Khartoum were all expelled at the beginning of December. I was able to stay
as a Sudanese national with my Sudanese colleagues here, but to lose a substantial portion of the project leadership can set you back. These were
to do with bureaucracies, as far as I'm concerned. They weren't to do with any major transgression in anything that we'd done. We're working here
under humanitarian law and seeking to give care.
GOLODRYGA: There was a significant market strike just over the weekend, can you walk us through the devastating impact of that strike in some of
the civilians, perhaps? I don't know if you tended to them, but the casualties as a result.
[13:20:00]
DR. ABDELMONEIM: Yes, I did tend to that strike. And in fact, there was another one today. On Saturday -- we're working to support the emergency
room in a now hospital here in Omdurman, where the population is almost living as normal, but you hear the sounds of war over us. There are front
lines to the east, south, and west of us, to the east across the river.
On Saturday, a strike -- two strikes landed very, very near our base and then actually at the hospital, which is just five minutes away here --
sorry, at a market just a few minutes away. Very quickly, there was a mass casualty into the hospital. Four of my doctor colleagues, including myself,
two nurses and two pharmacists at the MSF team there, we went to support the ministry of health staff that are working in that emergency room. There
were more than 40 killed. The hospital alone received 103 injuries. The federal ministry of health says, I've got the figures here, 158 people were
injured and 54 were killed.
To give you an example, there were children, there were head injuries, there were amputated limbs, there were penetrating shrapnel. I tended to a
man who had injuries that could not be saved. What this shows is that civilians are bearing the brunt of the war. This was an attack on a
marketplace. Today, the attack happened very near the hospital and actually killed a volunteer.
There have been attacks on civilian infrastructure around the country. Earlier last month, there was an attack on the Merowe Dam, which is a
hydroelectric dam that cut electricity for two weeks across all of Khartoum State and many others and it also cut the water supply.
It's a grinding war against civilians here. And access for health care workers, access for agencies is very difficult.
GOLODRYGA: And we know it's crippled the country's health system as well. If I can ask you to respond, I'm not sure if you've even been able to
follow the dizzying headlines out of the U.S. here with the Trump administration and some of the changes being implemented, most notably, I
think, as it would impact your work, is the freezing of USAID.
Up until last week, the U.S. was the largest source of money for the volunteer run kitchens there in Sudan. They fed over 800,000 people. Since
then, I know that these soup kitchens, some of them have been shut down altogether. Just talk about the impact of moves like this and what it means
when you don't have this type of aid coming in from the United States.
DR. ABDELMONEIM: The impact has been felt already. I'm ashamed to say, I think this is an extraordinary act on behalf of the United States to
withdraw in this way and it's effectively a death sentence.
I have, in the last four or five days, been receiving requests for support to be able to jump in. We're independent to the MSF. We don't take U.S.
government money, but we can't jump in to fill the United States, and nobody can.
WHO has been -- has also had to withdraw some support. I know of three agencies that have come to me in the last week to say we can't now support
those three primary health centers. We can't now support the food in and now (ph). We can't now support that entire network of community midwives,
can you help? I wish I could. We can't do everything.
It is devastating and very real impact, in a situation where already the response has not been enough. I really fear for the next few months,
especially, Bianna, as we're entering -- we will enter into the hunger gap, the lean season through to May and rates of malnutrition across the
country, especially in Darfur, though, but across the country are 7 percent to 35 percent in children and pregnant and lactating women. And if we don't
already from now have a huge ramping up of food nationwide, we will see extraordinary levels of death in the next three months.
And to ramp up, that's not going to be done without USAID, if I could just do it bluntly. It's devastating.
GOLODRYGA: It's devastating given that already half of the country is suffering from severe hunger as well and you talk about the impact on the
most vulnerable, especially children. Doctor, we'll have to leave it there. I know this is a personal mission of yours as well, not just a professional
one. You're of Sudanese heritage. So, this was something that I know is extra meaningful for you and probably extra heartbreaking to be there. But
thank you for all the work that you are doing there on the ground, providing assistance to those in need of it most. We appreciate your time.
DR. ABDELMONEIM: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Oscar campaigning is well underway, and among the hopefuls is a powerful adaptation of an acclaimed novel. The "Nickel Boys"
won author Colson Whitehead the Pulitzer Prize in 2020, and has now been adapted for the big screen by RaMell Ross and Joslyn Barnes.
[13:25:00]
It tells the story of two black boys in the 1960s, Elwood and Turner, who are sent to a reform school where students are regularly abused and beaten.
It's inspired by true events. And the film takes a bold approach to the material, shooting everything from the perspectives of Elwood and Turner.
Here's a clip from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hang back on it. It's a long time ago.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello. Where'd you come from? My mother's watch.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The deck of marked cards. My big toenail.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's all you got?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Really got nothing left to lose.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't remember?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Remember what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You really don't remember?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: It's received rapturous reviews and is nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Co-writer and
director RaMell Ross joins me now. RaMell, congratulations on all of the acclaim thus far and the nominations. Well deserved. Welcome to the
program.
For those who didn't read the book --
RAMELL ROSS, DIRECTOR, "NICKEL BOYS": Thanks for having me.
GOLODRYGA: -- or see the movie yet, walk us through who the "Nickel Boys" are and the school that it was loosely based on, the Nickel Academy loosely
based on the Arthur Dozier School for Boys in Florida.
ROSS: Yes, the "Nickel Boys" are two -- well, Elwood and Turner are the main characters of "Nickel Boys," -- "The Nickel Boys," which is Colson
Whitehead's novel. And it's based on the Dozier School for Boys, which was a reform school that closed around 2011. It was founded in the 1900s. And
you know, bodies began to be exhumed in about 2013. And they realized over the course of, you know, the investigation which was led by Dr. Aaron
Kimberly, who also wrote this amazing book, where their bones -- we carry their bones, which was kind of the basis for Colson's story, that kids have
been murdered and kids have gone missing over the course of the years. And so, Colson turned this into mythology, essentially by writing his novel.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, an investigation found more than 100 boys had died on school grounds. I actually want to show our viewers an excerpt from a
report on the Dozier School. This is a survivor named Cecil Gardner. He's speaking to a local Florida news channel about a dedication memorial to the
survivors back in 2023. Let's play a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CECIL GARDNER, DOZIER SCHOOL SURVIVOR: Being here is really hurtful and I can't really even look at the memorial, the statue, because it brings back
so much horrible memories.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Did you feel a responsibility to the survivors, RaMell, to tell their story in this film?
ROSS: It's a good question. You know, I think the film's form emerges from that responsibility. I think, you know, we get -- Joslyn Barnes and I get
this novel and we're like, let's go to the source material. And we go to the Dozier School for Boys and check that information out. And you realize
that -- like this is a chance to not only cement their story in sort of cinema history, but also try to touch their inner life of many of the young
kids who whose lives were cut short, essentially.
GOLODRYGA: As we mentioned, the heart of the story is really the relationship between these two boys at Nickel Academy, Elwood Curtis and
Jack Turner. Elwood is sort of an idealist, an optimist, a great student, deep thinker, committed to nonviolence, really the preachings of Martin
Luther King Jr. And Turner is the more cynical one. He views Elwood as a bit naive, telling him out there and in here, it's the same. Also, shout
out to my hometown of Houston, which is also his hometown as well. He calls that a real city, unlike the country.
Tell me about these young men and the relationship that unfolds between the two of them.
ROSS: Yes, it's quite beautiful. The way we shot the film is point of view, which means that the audience sort of is the character, conceptually
at least. And, you know, with that, you're -- we're giving, I guess, sentience in a way, which is also what we call the camera, sort of sentient
camera to both of the main characters, Elwood and Turner. And so, they can only see each other in the film. And that itself is a way to explore what
it means to be seen, what it means to be understood and to have, you know, your life validated by another person's -- yes, another person's gaze and
another person's attention.
[13:30:00]
And Colson, in writing the book, kind of said that he was Elwood and Turner, and the conversation was between himself. And so, I kind of took
that as an invitation for me to also be Elwood and Turner, and let that conversation be one, that's just as much theoretical as it is visual.
GOLODRYGA: It doesn't look like any other movie I've seen before, and it's quite an ambitious approach. I'm wondering, for you, as someone who's never
directed a feature film or written a screenplay, what made you decide to take a risk like this? Obviously, it proved to be wildly successful with
all of the reviews coming in, but you could see it going the other way.
ROSS: Yes, yes, for sure. I think -- well, honestly, I think the risk was mainly for, you know, plan B and Orion Films and Anonymous Content and
Louverture Films for sort of, you know, putting the money and the energy behind it. This process in the form of the film is kind of at the end of my
art practice. I've been photographing in Hale County, Alabama and making films there for about 15 years.
And so, to me, it seemed natural. And just an extension of the last film. I made, "Hale County This Morning This Evening" to make the camera in Oregon,
to kind of like bring it into the body and let it be an extension of consciousness to align, of course, the viewers' subjectivity with the
subjectivity of the characters.
And, you know, I had an amazing director of photography, Jomo Fray, who helped develop the idea. And sort of with our brains, you know, we were
capable of, yes, truly sort of experimenting with vision.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and watching it, I'm like, damn it, I just want to see what Elwood looks like. And then you catch a glimpse of him. And it's
through, you know, an iron, right, or photographs that he's taking with his girlfriend. It is it is a unique way to tell the story through their lens.
But clearly, you pull the viewer in because they're there and they want to see who this person is telling his story.
Another character who has such an integral part in this film obviously is Elwood's Nana. And I want to play a scene who raised him played beautifully
by Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor. I want to play a scene of his Nana coming to the academy to see him, not able to see Elwood, actually sees Turner, and what
transpires is a beautiful moment between these two characters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AUNJANUE ELLIS-TAYLOR, ACTRESS, "NICKEL BOYS": Would you please? Would you please?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, ma'am.
ELLIS-TAYLOR: I came all this way. It's a crime that they won't let me see him. It's a crime. What kind of place is this that they won't let me see
him?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK, the camera then zooms to the hem of her dress and what follows is a beautiful embrace between the two. What does that scene mean
for you?
ROSS: Wow. It means everything really. Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor who plays Hattie is a phenom of an actor. And you know, I think one thing she does in
this scene and in many others is she sort of transfers the love gaze, the black love gaze sort of through the lens and into the eyes of the audience.
And if you think about the way that cinema normally deals with like, quote/unquote, "black love" is that you see two characters in love and you
see like a mother and a son looking at each other. But to be able to share in that for, you know, the black community and for the community at large,
I think is something quite special.
And in this scene specifically, she came to give Elwood a hug and some love, and she couldn't because they wouldn't let her see him. So, she gives
it to Turner anyway, and like what a gesture.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it was a beautiful moment. Another moment, RaMell, that stood out to me, and that went walking away from the film I kept thinking
about, was when Nana was cutting the cake that she had baked for Elwood. I've never seen so much attention go into cutting a cake, so much purpose.
And it's notable. You know, we don't see the trial. We don't see details of, you know, Elwood's time in the justice system. But we see and hear from
these characters their own injustice in their family story through scenes like this, you know, an innocent, you know, cake being cut, really tells an
in-depth story about the injustice, not only obviously that we're about to see committed against Elwood, but a lineage of the family. What made you
decide to -- yes.
ROSS: Yes, there's something --
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
[13:35:00]
ROSS: Yes. No, there's something about, you know, the coping mechanisms that people have in general that they learn and they build to deal with the
situations that are going on in her life. And I think in writing this screenplay, Joslyn Barnes and I wanted to have some sort of ritual that had
a kind of -- it was implied that she went to deal with things that seem to be happening over and over in her life.
And I think Aunjanue does an incredible thing, embodying the role in this moment, because I think as a director and, you know, as an artist, and, you
know, we -- everyone that is making this film, like, we build the set, and we build the technical elements of this. But like, what you're seeing when
she's doing these things, like she's embodying a type of behavior that is just kind of so lived and so generationally powerful. And, man, I'm kind of
like flashing back to the scene right now. I'm glad you mentioned it.
GOLODRYGA: I loved that scene. And I went back and watched it. I don't know. It was a beautiful scene and there was so much storytelling and what
would think, you know, was a mundane moment. And yet, there was so much more to it there.
Let me ask you about Colson Whitehead's involvement. When you reached out to him and told him you were taking on this project and then, ultimately,
his reaction to the film itself.
ROSS: Well, I was fortunate to be asked to -- for this adaption. And Colson had seen how "County This Morning This Evening." And him and Plan B
with Dede Gardner and Jeremy Kleiner, they -- and Brad Pitt, of course, they reached out to me and asked if I'd like to take a look for adaption.
And so, we went through the whole process of writing and figuring things out. And then kind of finally, after we knew we were going into production,
I sent Colson this really long e-mail that just tells him how, you know, special, of course, he is and how much his novel means to the world. And,
you know, also I wanted to be a writer and all of these, you know, personal things.
And in true Colson fashion, he writes back like, good luck, you know, can't wait to see the film. Kind of, you got it. And I was like, man, I
appreciate that. I appreciate that. Kind of giving me the freedom --
GOLODRYGA: Well, the confidence. Yes.
ROSS: -- to -- yes. Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Well, congratulations to you, RaMell Ross, in addition to directing and producing award nominated films. I take it you're still
flying as well? You took up that hobby, too.
ROSS: Yes, I am. I am. I have -- I should get my license midsummer. I'm like, you know, three-fourths of the way there. But yes, what a thing it
is. What a thing of free will to be in the air and to have that much control over one's directionality, up, down, left, right in every angle.
It's wild.
GOLODRYGA: Congratulations on all of your success. And thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us today.
ROSS: Thank you, Bianna. Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you. Well, now, as we heard earlier in the show, USAID funds groups around the world, providing critical support. It also acts as
a key soft power tool to promote American interests overseas. President Trump and Elon Musk are now moving to dismantle the agency in a
controversial cost cutting move that sparked protests outside USAID headquarters on Monday.
So, where does all of this leave USAID's thousands of employees and beneficiaries? New York Times reporter Karoun Demirjian joins Hari
Sreenivasan to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Karoun Demirjian, thanks so much for joining us. This has been a tumultuous day or
two for the USAID, right? And we had, on Monday, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, essentially said that he is now taking over as the head of the
agency, this comes after Elon Musk launches sort of operations. And we're going to get into all of that.
I guess, first, for people, especially our overseas viewers, just a quick background on what the USAID is, what its function is?
KAROUN DEMIRJIAN, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Right, well, USAID, which stands for the U.S. Agency for International Development, has been the lead
government operation that has been doing humanitarian assistance and development work around the globe.
It takes its foreign policy guidance -- or it took its foreign policy guidance from the State Department for decades. It was established in 1961.
But otherwise, mostly functioned independently in handing out these grants and running these programs with partner organizations around the world.
This move by Rubio on Monday effectively is taking away that independence that they had, subsuming USAID under the auspices of state and saying the
secretary of state is going to function as the administrator of the developmental aid program.
Now, the United States would not be the only country in the world where, you know, the foreign office basically controls development and
humanitarian assistance, but it's a very big change to the system. And Congress is saying it's an illegal move because they created this agency
for development and they are still funding it as a unique entity.
SREENIVASAN: And what kind of aid are we talking about?
[13:40:00]
DEMIRJIAN: We're talking about everything from health programs, to economic development programs, to, you know, infectious diseases and food
insecurity. And all these things are happening in corners of the world that include many conflict areas where, you know, the funneling of U.S. money,
which is oftentimes the most significant pot of money to come in as development assistance in these areas, is really important for maintaining
stability and for creating -- you know, maintaining alliances, even in part of the worlds where we have a lot of adversaries and do not have a great
footprint or diplomatic relationship.
So, that ability to be able to extend the reach of the United States and its helpful hand to corners of the world has been seen as a really
important diplomatic tool, even if it's kind of functioned as a parallel organization to what the State Department does.
SREENIVASAN: You know, often Americans are woefully misguided when they are asked how much do we give in foreign aid, right? I mean, the estimates
were like, oh, I think we give about a quarter of our budget to the rest of the world. I mean, how much in money terms are we talking about that USAID
actually distributes?
DEMIRJIAN: I believe that we said that in fiscal 2023 it was about $38 billion dollars, but that amounts to far less than 1 percent of the annual
budget of the federal government. I mean, it pales in comparison to the size of, let's say, the defense budget, which is approaching a trillion
dollars, is over $850 billion dollars. And we're talking about a couple tens of billions here that goes into this foreign aid and development
assistance, humanitarian aid pool. So, it's not, comparatively speaking, very much money at all.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, now we have an understanding of what USAID does and why it's important. What happened in really rapid succession to USAID? What
were the kinds of orders, e-mails that they were getting? What happened to basically the offices on Monday?
DEMIRJIAN: So, the dissolution of USAID is really a story of a rapid decline over about the span of a week. About a week ago is when deputies
and representatives of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, which is this task force that the president created to find
cuts, to cut back on the federal budget, basically, in the hopes of balancing it. They entered USAID. It was, all of a sudden, senior staff
started to be put on administrative leave. And fear started to take hold among the workforce there.
You saw then as the week progressed that contractors found that they could no longer log into their e-mail accounts or access any of the systems. Then
we also saw that, you know, in the last couple days that, you know, the direct civil servants started to lose access to the systems as well. And
all of this together started to just basically feel like an inevitable end, an endgame that was not going to be good for USAID.
So, you ended up with, you know, staffers finding out by e-mail, if they even had access to their e-mail anymore, that the offices were closed and
they shouldn't show up to work. You had near altercations as some people tried to get into the office and a small subset did. You had the security
chiefs over the weekend being let go and put on suspended leave as well because they tried to deny Elon Musk's representatives access to classified
spaces where they were saying, you don't have the security clearance to get in here.
So, it's been a clash of -- and test of wills between, you know, whether the people tasked by Trump and Musk to make cuts are going to succeed, or
whether the agency would be able to hold on. And it seems that, right now, at least, the agency has -- those workers have lost that battle, and USAID
has been moved into state, and it's not clear, you know, what of any programs that it ran may actually survive this organizational transition.
I mean, look, there's been a waiver across the government for what are supposed to be lifesaving programs. There was a freeze that went out over
all these programs. There is now that waiver. There is a court order that says that you have to, you know, keep the money flowing because it's a
subject of a lawsuit right now.
But overall, it -- you know, we're in a position of massive transition right now, and it's not clear, at the end of the day, what programs are
going to survive under this new regime.
SREENIVASAN: While there is this confusion on what is legal and what is not legal, whether or not it can be subsumed under the State Department,
whether the agency can be completely cut off altogether, the work is stopping. Is that accurate?
DEMIRJIAN: So, it's a mixed bag, really. The work has stopped for the most part. Look, we were in an era where initially there was an executive order
put out of like, don't put out any more of the grants and the disbursements that are on the schedule. A bunch of states sued because of the freezes
that were happening across the government grants.
Now, there is a temporary restraining order and the administration has said, OK, for anything that is like an ongoing or an in the pipeline award,
you know, we still have to send that out because we're in this freeze right now because there's this court case going on. So, that's one. And you know,
it's not clear what that's going to mean for the whole USAID budget, which is now under the State Department, right?
[13:45:00]
It's also a question of -- there was this waiver that was put out to say -- because there was a backlash of like, look, if we stop funding you know,
HIV programs or certain very, very acute food programs, we are going to cause potentially death and definitely a lot of human suffering. And so,
there was this waiver that was put out before all of the last steps of the dissolution of USAID happened over the weekend to say, OK, if it's a
lifesaving program where there's like a direct tangible impact on keeping people alive, then we can keep those programs going. But it's been kind of
-- you know, there's been confusion.
SREENIVASAN: One of the areas that we have been seeing USAID active in the recent months is the conflict in Gaza and what has happened, say, for
example, to projects on the ground there?
DEMIRJIAN: We have -- that's right, there's a -- there -- that has been visible. It's also been, and is, a critical component to keeping the
ceasefire going. The flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the United States being one of the major backers of that, and a guarantor of the
ceasefire as well, that's critical to keeping that humming along and not descending back into a war.
Look, at this point, the Gaza mission, which is based in Jerusalem, has faced the same hits as many of the other missions across the globe in
conflict areas. They've lost their contractors. Some direct staff are having difficulty. I mean, look, there's been a push over the last several
hours even to be able to try to get access back for some of these people, to bring people back online. So, this is all a very much living in real-
time sort of transitional situation.
But the staffing of that office, like every other office has taken a hit, and that can affect the capacity because there's now more work to be done
by fewer people that have to make it happen. And so, everybody is very nervous about what that might look like and will that actually affect how
much aid is able to get to the Palestinians in Gaza?
SREENIVASAN: One of the concerns that President Trump has expressed repeatedly is that we need other countries to step up to the plate and fill
the gap. We can't be everything to everyone all the time. Now, is there any indication that turning off the spigot as quickly as turning off USAID will
automatically generate that response? Is there anything historically to say, well, this is what happens when we back away?
DEMIRJIAN: Well, Hari, you're testing my historical knowledge on that one, but I would just say that, look, this is -- the sort of shock to the
international system is probably not going to see an immediate opening of everybody else's Treasury Departments to just spill money into completely
make up that shortfall. That's just kind of unrealistic.
Government budgets don't work that way. Our government budgeting process doesn't work that way. We see the way that Congress bickers over every
penny that they spend in many ways. So, it's a -- look, a lot of people have expressed this concern that even if you can recover, either because
the United States decides that, you know what, we think all these programs are great, we're just going to run them out of state now. It's just
organizationally different, but the money will start flying again. Everybody can get up and running, or because other countries stepped into
the breach and they fill it with whatever they're doing.
That it will take too much time to be able to actually make that happen smoothly. That the contractors, the NGOs that will have to shut down, the
staff that they will have to lay off, the lapse in actually providing some assistance to people will mean that you will lose the -- you know, the
know-how of people who had to do this. You will lose the organizational experience. And you have to build it from the ground up, and you'll lose
the trust of the populations that are served.
You know, because, again, if you have a gap of several weeks or several months until you can get things going again, that's enough time for things
to fall apart, and bringing things back up online from that sort of a back foot position takes more time, more effort, and more rebuilding of that,
you know, handshake relationship with the people that are being served, and sometimes the governments that are very potentially hostile to the idea of,
you know, Americans or others coming in and have to kind of get that diplomatic ability to come back in, up and running.
Again, in conflict areas, I've had people tell me that, look, when the communities trust the aid workers, then the people who are warring are more
likely to let those aid workers function. And if there's a lapse in that, or if some -- for some reason, you know, the aid agencies are seen as
unreliable, it becomes much more difficult for them to start up operations and get going again.
SREENIVASAN: What are the employees that you've spoken to saying about, especially what's happened in the last couple of days, whether their access
has been denied and now, there's a new group of people who really haven't been vetted by Congress, who aren't necessarily political appointees, but
have access to all of their information?
DEMIRJIAN: Yes. I mean, look, the USAID employees are not supposed to be talking right now, but those who have been informing us of what's going on,
it's a mixed bag. Some of them are very afraid of what this means for themselves and for the world. Some of them are very irate right now because
they're saying, look, we're just civil servants, you know, and here's Elon Musk and people calling us evil and saying we're a criminal organization
that's doing terrible things. So, it's a mixed bag.
[13:50:00]
Obviously, people who do that work really believe in it. They are, you know -- there's a workforce in D.C. -- there's a workforce around the globe
where a lot of people are kind of stranded right now because they can't even -- they don't even know if they're going to be able to get their
travel back to the United States funded, or what their status is right now, because they can't access any of their systems. And they were contractors -
- are now more than contractors, direct hires too.
So, it's a lot of confusion, a lot of anger, and a lot of, you know, preliminary grief, I guess, because I think that everybody right now, given
the experience that they've had over the last week, does not have a lot of confidence that the changeover to the State Department and the leadership
of Marco Rubio is going to save the programs that they are afraid now are going to be permanently on the chopping block. And, you know, they are
concerned about what radiating effects that has for the United States and for the people that they have been working for years and years to support
as well.
You know, people in the field have close relationships with the communities they serve. People in D.C. are doing support work for those programs and
there's a lot of fear, just generally speaking, for themselves and for the work and the lack of -- what the lack of work will actually mean globally.
SREENIVASAN: Has there been any response from the corners of Congress, even -- you know, there are Republicans who support humanitarian aid and
the work the USAID has done?
DEMIRJIAN: Yes. Look, I mean, Secretary of State Rubio was just a couple weeks ago, one of those Republicans in Congress that had a fairly good
track record of understanding the importance of foreign aid. The most backlash you've heard from lawmakers has been from Democrats. They are
furious. They are upset. They are saying, this is illegal, this is a power grab. We created the USAID, we continue to fund it as a unique entity. You
can't just say it doesn't exist anymore or subsume it within state. And frankly, that they've gotten some support from that, from outsiders as
well.
The Republicans are in a really awkward spot. Not all of them are back in Washington, D.C. yet, or were back in Washington, D.C. at the point in time
it started to happen. And they have been more or less quiet about what they think, because it's a really awkward spot for them to be in between the
president that they supported and this position that they've taken of, you know, thinking that Rubio will be able to do a good job and believing that,
you know, OK, we have to clean up any sort of problems that there are across the government, including in USAID, and then kind of staring what
might be a full chop of the entire program and then all of its budgets.
And so, I think they are trying to wait and see what happens because they are in a politically very, very strange position.
SREENIVASAN: There's, of course, the humanitarian assistance that we can all kind of understand in the wake of a disaster or something like that.
But I think there's also a kind of a consequence in that this is a part of American soft power, that we are in places that other countries are not.
When we leave what happens?
DEMIRJIAN: You know, that is the big question right now, right? There are international organizations that also do work in various parts of the
world, but also remember that let's take health assistance for one example, right? The United States has disassociated itself from the WHO. So, that
means that the international organization now has less money to go into those parts of the world where maybe the United States is going to be
pulling back.
Other countries have other sorts of, you know, benevolent aid sorts of programs. But again, the United States has a huge budget. And the other
thing that is important to realize that a lot of people are raising as a concern right now is that think about the other countries in the world that
have the financial ability to be able to reach out into various corners of the globe to wield influence or to just give assistance and try to make
alliances, those are countries that the United States considers adversaries for the most part.
China has a big reach into these areas. Russia as well has reached parts of, you know, the underdeveloped world to try to have influence in those
areas. And the complaint and the criticism of this move from mostly Democrats, but lots of aid workers and others as well, has been if the
United States pulls back, other people are going to fill that void. And it's going to be people that -- you know, countries that we already have an
issue with.
And so, if we pull back on this soft power, on these ways of, you know, doing positive influence by helping people and lifting communities up, that
the idea is going to be, you know, China moves in and all of a sudden we start to be in retreat and we start to lose our footprint in the world,
lose our alliances, lose our ability to influence people in countries where maybe we don't have the most perfect diplomatic relationship, but we're
hoping for a turnaround, and that sort of ground up sort of influence is gone and potentially lost to others who would wish the United States
various degrees of harm, potentially.
SREENIVASAN: Karoun Demirjian, reporter of the New York Times, thanks so much for joining us.
DEMIRJIAN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a new movie theater in the heart of the Amazon. This weekend, the Inhaa-be community opened the doors to Northern Brazil's
first indigenous cinema. Locals gathered for the inaugural screening of eight indigenous short films.
Project coordinator Thais Kokomo (ph) welcomed the move as a celebration of local art and talent. And quote, "an opportunity to be protagonists of our
own history." I love that.
[13:55:00]
Well, that is it for now. 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.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
