Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Council on Foreign Relations President Emeritus and Centerview Partners Senior Counselor Richard Haass; Interview with "The Apprentice" Oscar-Nominated Actor Jeremy Strong; Interview with Parkland Shooting Survivor and "Death by Numbers" Writer and Subject Sam Fuentes; Interview with "Death by Numbers" Director and Producer Kim A. Snyder. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 12, 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)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: All countries, no matter where it comes from, all countries.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Trump goes after friends and foes alike. What will that mean for America's standing in the world?
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's rules. Roy Cohn's three rules of winning.
The first rule is the simplest. Attack, attack, attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "The Apprentice" tells the story of Trump's rise and the man behind it, lawyer Roy Cohn, played by actor Jeremy Strong. The superstar
joins me here in the studio fresh from his Oscar and BAFTA nominations.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAM FUENTES, PARKLAND SHOOTING SURVIVOR AND WRITER AND SUBJECT "DEATH BY NUMBERS": There's not really a day Where I'm not sort of thinking about
that day and all of my community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- surviving (INAUDIBLE) seven years on life after one of America's deadliest school shootings.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Today, President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin had a 90-minute phone call, making him the first American leader to speak with the Russian
leader and promised presidential visits since early in Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine three years ago. After that conversation, Trump then
spoke to Ukraine's President Zelenskyy.
Meantime, at NATO headquarters, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made clear the U.S. no longer wants to take the lead protecting Ukraine and poured
cold water on some of Kyiv's bottom lines for peace negotiations. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.
Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering. A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security
guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again. This must not be Minsk 3.0. That said, the United States does not I believe that NATO
membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, not even a month since Donald Trump stormed back into the White House with a raft of executive orders, here abroad, an America First
vision is coming into focus, where might makes right, which is also sticking it to America's allies as well as its adversaries. World leaders
are still grappling with Trump's shocking Gaza proposal, when he said he wants to own it, hold it, and cherish it. Here's the French president,
Emmanuel Macron, who dismissed it out of hand.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT: Now, the right answer is not a real estate operation. This is a political operation. Just because this is not a
free land, this is a place where 2 million people live and want to live. So, you cannot say to 2 million people, OK, now, guess what, you will move.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But Europe's far-right leaders are celebrating Trump's global shakeup, this just a year after vice president and Trump's presidential
rival Kamala Harris had warned that embracing autocrats would be dangerous, destabilizing, and shortsighted. So, is this a whole new world order? And
will America First be winner or loser?
Richard Haass served for years in senior positions at the State Department before heading up the Council on Foreign Relations. He joins me now from
New York. Welcome back to the program.
RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND SENIOR COUNSELOR, CENTERVIEW PARTNERS: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Can we start by talking about the news in which Trump announced that he has spoken to Vladimir Putin, and they've talked about exchanging
visits. I want to read you a little bit of Trump's own readout and how he posted it. He said, we've also agreed to have our respective teams start
negotiations immediately, and we'll begin by calling President Zelenskyy of Ukraine to inform him of the conversation, something which I'll be doing
right now. I've asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of the CIA John Ratcliffe, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Ambassador and
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to lead the negotiations, which I feel will be successful.
[13:05:00]
Right. So, he is the first American president to engage with Putin since the -- you know, since the invasion. I just want to know your views of all
of this, including the fact that he spoke to Putin first and not his ally, Zelenskyy, about this.
HAASS: Well, two signals from that, Christiane. One is that the phase in which Vladimir Putin was a pariah from the American perspective, that seems
to be over. And potentially -- emphasize were potentially good news is it obviously allows negotiations over Ukraine, it allows the nuclear arms
control negotiations to resume because the current agreements expire in less than a year and so forth. So, there's no shortage of things to talk
about.
The sequencing and the way it was packaged as though the two big leaders spoke and next we'll get to Vladimir Zelenskyy is unfortunate because it
does raise the specter of a deal being crafted over his head, reinforced a little bit by the comments of the new secretary of defense, who is
essentially saying what already are the American parameters. And to some extent, though, we can talk about it, to some, but not totally at variance
with Ukraine's preferences.
AMANPOUR: Well, let's talk about, because a lot of them are at variance. I mean, for instance, Zelenskyy has been given a lot of interviews. And his
latest is that he said, you know, he would be willing to give up certain territory. But, of course, he was talking about Kursk, which, as we know,
they took precisely for a negotiating process.
Anyway, the Russians, the Kremlin has completely, you know, dismissed that. And from all the past that we've heard from Putin and the Kremlin,
literally zero of Zelenskyy's proposals are acceptable. Do you think that Putin has shown any difference in terms of wanting the total surrender of
Ukraine?
HAASS: Actually, I don't think he's asking for and he's not getting the total surrender of Ukraine. I also think it's really essential for people
watching this to distinguish between a ceasefire and a peace treaty. And as I understand it, we're more likely talking about a ceasefire. So, even if
Ukraine signs onto a deal, that essentially reflects the current battlefield. It doesn't mean they give up their long-term claims, any more,
by the way, than Vladimir Putin would be asked to give up his fever dream of totally reintegrating Ukraine into a greater Russia.
I think we're talking about a ceasefire in place. I think the secretary of defense is more right than not in saying that it is fanciful to think that
Ukraine can re regain that territory through military means. A ceasefire would end the suffering, would allow Ukraine to be rebuilt.
What's really essential, I'd say, though, are two things. One is whether we get an American commitment, an open-ended commitment to provide Ukraine
with arms. And second of all, whether the Europeans are not only willing to provide some arms, but willing to provide some forces on the ground. If
you're not going to get a NATO commitment, the United States doesn't want that for any number of reasons. And could you get a European commitment or
at least a coalition of the willing, Poland, and maybe a few other countries, possibly the U.K. and France, willing to provide, if you will,
the substance of a security commitment.
AMANPOUR: So, what did you hear from Hegseth? I think he said security guarantees for Ukraine, but he obviously dismissed, completely took off the
table any thought about Ukraine joining NATO. But in terms of boots on the ground, he didn't commit to Americans being in peacekeeping roles at all.
HAASS: No, I think there's a division of labor here. Boots on the ground would not be NATO, would be selective European countries willing and able
to do it. And again, the big question is, and I hope this is forthcoming, that the United States would sign on to providing arms for an open-ended
period, essentially, as long as they were necessary.
If that's the outcome, not perfect, but not bad. And I think the whole idea of a permanent peace treaty, that's the sort of thing that I think actually
would have to wait until after Vladimir Putin passes from the scene. And we'll have to wait for the day when you have a Russian leader who's
interested in reintegrating Russia with Europe and the West.
One other thing that didn't, at least I hear today -- I heard -- I did not hear today, Christiane, is what's -- what would happen with sanctions. To
what extent would President Trump be prepared at this stage if you get a ceasefire to relax certain economic sanctions? To what extent would he hold
some in reserve for that second phase negotiation of a permanent peace?
AMANPOUR: Yes. And again, I didn't actually hear Hegseth say that they were committed to continuing to provide weapons. He did put it all on
Europe. So, that'll be interesting to pass in the days to come.
[13:10:00]
In terms of what -- you know, I know that Trump says things, everybody says, oh, this is a negotiating strategy, but how do you think Putin would
read this quote, which he said today, "They may make a deal, they may not make a deal. They, i.e., Ukraine may be Russian someday, or they may not be
Russian someday." What is that meant to say to anybody?
HAASS: That's unfortunate. There's no way to sugarcoat it. It's exactly what Putin wants to hear, because that reinforces his sense that any deal
is not the final deal, but is a waystation. Needless to say, that will unnerve Ukraine to some extent and it means they're going to have to look
more to Europe than to a United States led by Donald Trump.
AMANPOUR: So, let's talk about Europe because part of what Hegseth was saying, and as you've heard J. D. Vance and others, and Trump, I mean,
they've basically been lecturing Europe for the last several weeks in office saying, you basically have to do it. You have to be in charge of
your own security. We -- I mean, they kind of floated that the nuclear umbrella of the U.S. would remain, but nonetheless, it's up to you now,
period, end of story.
And with that comes sanction -- sorry, tariffs and all the rest of it. I mean, slapping 25 percent tariffs on allies and adversaries. And it appears
-- I mean, let me just read you what Simon Kuper of the of the fight -- of the FT said. He basically said, Trump is more respectful of his two fellow
apex predators, China and Russia. He placed lower initial tariffs on China than on Mexico and Canada, perhaps because China has sharper teeth.
How are you reading all of this right now?
HAASS: Let's break it into two parts. With Europe, I think the message is that Europe has to become more self-sufficient. It needs to spend more in
defense. And I'd actually add to that, that would probably be true of any American president. United States is going to be focused increasingly on
the Asia Pacific, to some extent also on the Middle East, maybe even more on the Western Hemisphere. The idea that the United States is going to have
this large reserve of forces available for Europe is increasingly a question.
I also think Europe needs to spend smarter. You can't even speak of a European defense. You could speak of a French defense, a German defense,
such as it is, or a British defense. You really need much more integration in European defense efforts. You have far more -- you have far too much
duplication or replication, not enough integrated defense. So, I think that's all reality.
And again, I think it would be true under any president, perhaps not as brutal as it is at times under this one. Your larger point about how Mr.
Trump sees the world and taking the tariffs as an example, I think it's a fair point.
What's missing is any sense that is informed American foreign policy for 80 years now that to be a friend comes with advantages, to be an ally infers
advantages. And what you see is everyone's treated equally. And since we tend to trade more with allies, we tend to invest more with allies there,
as a result, actually more vulnerable to America distancing itself or introducing tariffs or introducing sanctions.
So, I think again, both in the security sphere and in the economic sphere, we've entered an era and what's the presumption that being a friend or ally
of the United States gives you advantages or assurances or predictability, that's obviously no longer true.
AMANPOUR: So, let me just ask you to just hang the USAID piece onto that, because that was something that, you know, for 60 years, since John F.
Kennedy in 1961, was designed as soft power to actually increase America's security, safety, and all the rest of it by also being generous and kind to
people around the world.
It's interesting. I heard that Kennedy had been influenced by a book called "The Ugly American" that said that America was viewed as just an
imperialist power and that a lot of the world was actually, you know, being sucked into, at the time, the USSR sphere. And now, they were saying the
ugly American has risen its risen its head again, and China is the new rival who will benefit. What is your thought on that?
HAASS: Well, the last point is exactly right. We're going to create vacuums of support, new dependencies that the United States is unwilling to
meet, not unable to meet, but I'm willing to meet. And yes, China will be the principal beneficiary of that. It will also be a beneficiary of the
tariffs because countries will look to diversify their economic portfolio because dependence on the United States now has become a source of
vulnerability.
And I take your larger point. The United States has traditionally stood for something larger than a narrow self-interest in the world. We have had a
humanitarian dimension. That seems to be missing now. That's much more transactional and calculated, even though people like me would make the
case that some of what we do in the area, say, of health is in America's self-interest, because as we learned, say, with COVID-19, diseases that
start elsewhere don't respect borders.
[13:15:00]
So, there's a self-interest dimension of keeping the world healthy. All that seems to be gone as Elon Musk and others seem intent. What was his
phrase, Christiane? Feeding AID, the agency, into the wood chipper.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, it's been described as capricious and cruel, actually. There are actual people who are currently, you know, reporting
that they are, you know, starving or their health is in dire need. And it's actually really weird to watch the U.S. do that.
I want to know then, do you think this America First stuff and the evidence of the first few weeks will make America the winner or is it a lost
proposition?
HAASS: Well, it's hard to know where it's going to go, but the initial -- my initial take on it is not reassuring. You referenced Gaza. I think what
we're doing, that's a nonstarter. We'll see what we -- whether we're prepared to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran, maybe. We'll see what the
details are of any ceasefire with Ukraine, no clear signals whatsoever on where -- to what extent and where the United States is prepared to push
back against China and the South China Sea or say over Taiwan.
And then, there's a lot of talk about spheres of influence. You mentioned that quote before signaling that Ukraine may one day be part of Russia, the
missing signals about Asia, the talk about -- you know, the pressures on Panama, Canada as the 51st state, Greenland, and so forth. Well, this puts
in motion what you might call a world of three spheres of inputs. And that is a world, I would argue, that's much less free, and much less safe, and
much less prosperous.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. And lastly, on Gaza, I mean, it was really quite painful to see a strong Israeli and a strong U.S. ally, the king of Jordan, sit
there with President Trump as he said he was going to, essentially, keep Gaza and invited Jordanians and the Egyptians to take all the Palestinians
from there. It -- I mean, everybody has dismissed it, but what do you think that's about? And Sisi, the president of Egypt, has basically said, I'm not
going if this is still on the table. I'm not going to the White House.
HAASS: Look, it was a humiliating day for the -- an already challenged king of Jordan. President Sisi doesn't want to put himself in the same
position. I think the Trump plan is a nonstarter. I think it potentially inflames things, not just in Gaza, but also on the West Bank, because it
gives fuel to the notion of transfer and annexation.
So, actually, I think the Arabs would be smart. The Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudis, the UAE and others to basically put forward a plan
of their own. If you don't like the Trump proposal, I understand why they don't, to put forward an alternative and say, here's what we're prepared to
do economically and militarily in Gaza. We're willing to work with non- Hamas Palestinians, but here's what we need from Israel in the United States.
I think they would be wise, if you will, to reverse the conversation and say, United States, are you prepared, finally, this president to lean on
this Israeli government to kick -- to get them to come up with a day after policy, a scenario where Palestinians, if they meet certain conditions, can
take greater control over their own future?
So, actually I'll be -- I'm sitting here curious and interested whether the Arabs, if you will, switch the conversation to put pressure on Israel and
on the United States in turn to lean on Israel.
AMANPOUR: I wonder how curious you are about the person who's going to head the DNI. The Director of National Intelligence was just confirmed
today, rather controversially, Tulsi Gabbard, who has been accused of having pro-Putin and back then pro-Bashar Assad views and sympathies.
I just want to play for you what the former head of MI6 told me about this possibility when I interviewed him a few weeks ago here in London.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN SAWERS, FORMER BRITISH INTELLIGENCE CHIEF: To have someone who's a Director of National Intelligence, who basically takes a very pro-Russian
approach, well, that strikes me as very difficult. And it makes it difficult for America's partners as well. How do you deal with an
intelligence community where the most senior figure in it, or the cabinet member in it is basically sympathetic to our biggest enemy?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, how would you answer? How do you deal with that reality?
HAASS: It's always a pleasure to hear a British understatement. There's no easy way to deal with that reality, and it's the reason that so many people
I know, shall we say, did not see the logic or the attraction of this choice.
There are so many people this president could have chosen who were -- did not bring this baggage, who were more qualified. And I worry not just about
cooperation with allies, but I worry about the quality of the advice she's going to present to the president.
She's the one who's in charge of integrating the Intelligence Community and providing the daily briefs. So, it's an important job, and it's -- there's
no, there's -- you know, when one looks at her background and her track record, it's hard to feel confident.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: And very quickly, you know, there's a five I's, intelligence, of all the major English-speaking nations. Are they going to be willing to be
as open with their intelligence under this circumstance with the U.S.?
HAASS: My guess is they'll do some testing. They'll do some exploring and they'll see whether things are protected. And if not, I think you'll see a
narrowing of the aperture. Again, if I may do my example of American understatement.
AMANPOUR: Well, on that understated note, Richard Haass, thank you very much in these very turbulent times.
Now, Donald Trump's controversial policy moves are reverberating around the world, as we said, but how did he become the man he is today? "The
Apprentice," a film, seeks to answer that question. It charts Trump's rise in the 1970s New York under the tutelage of the notorious lawyer and fixer
Roy Cohn, played by the actor Jeremy Strong. Here's a bit from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEREMY STRONG, ACTOR, "THE APPRENTICE": Roy Cohn, nice to meet you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Roy Cohn? You're brutal.
STRONG: Guilty as charged.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you always win?
STRONG: There's rules. The first rule is attack, attack, attack.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's going to be the finest building in the city, maybe the country. In the world.
STRONG: Rule two, admit nothing, deny everything.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's never been anything like this, at this magnitude, this quality. Oh, cheese balls over here.
STRONG: What are you doing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You want one?
STRONG: No, it looks totally --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, after the film was shown at the Cannes Film Festival last year, Trump's lawyers sent the filmmakers a cease-and-desist letter in an
attempt to block the release. And Trump has attacked the film as a, quote, "politically disgusting hatchet job." But despite the backlash, the
struggle for financing and for distribution, "The Apprentice" has done very well indeed with audiences, critics, and in this awards season, with stars
Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong both receiving Oscar and BAFTA nominations.
Jeremy Strong, who plays Trump's monstrous mentor, the lawyer Roy Cohn, is joining me here now in London. Welcome to the program.
JEREMY STRONG, OSCAR-NOMINATED ACTOR, "THE APPRENTICE": Thank you. I'm honored to be here. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Well, it's great to have you. I mean, it's such a timely film, obviously. I mean, it was done last year. I guess you didn't know -- nobody
knew who was going to win the presidential elections when it came out. When you see it now, since the election, what do you think of it?
STRONG: I think it's taken on a whole other sort of harrowing resonance. And it's a film that explores the sort of embryonic stages of, Donald
Trump's worldview, I would say, and the influence, the malign influence of Roy Cohn, who sort of inculcated in him an ideology in a playbook that is
encoded in everything that he does now.
And, you know, film can sort of send a transponder and bounce it off the past to speak more vividly to the present, which I think this film does.
But seeing it now, to me, it's about a very living danger. So, I find it troubling to see the film now.
AMANPOUR: And I'm going to play a clip. We have a few that you guys have given us, and it's -- this first one is the kind of genesis of the Trump-
Roy Cohn relationship. So, he's defending Trump against charges of committing racist practices in his apartment buildings when he was a young
real estater by blocking black tenants. Now, that's something the real Donald Trump has steadfastly denied, but he settled with the prosecutors at
the time. Here's the clip of that scene.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STRONG: Objection the Civil Rights Division did not file a lawsuit. Frankly, it compiled a 48-page press release as far as I can tell. Now, the
government has failed to spell out one single fact concerning alleged discriminatory practices against blacks by the Trumps. I motion to have
this case dismissed on summary judgment.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overruled. Counselor, continue.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, your honor. Agent Green, what led you to believe that you were denied a lease at Trump Properties based on your
race?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, not only did the newspaper advertise --
STRONG: That's Walter, DOJ. He runs the show.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I saw three Caucasian couples approved before.
STRONG: Objection. Speculation.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Cohn --
STRONG: How can you say for sure they were Caucasian?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Cohn. Please allow Agent Green to answer the question.
STRONG: I've seen Puerto Ricans whiter than my tush after a long winter.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Honor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, there's no doubt that Roy Cohn was a larger-than-life character, and some even called him charismatic. I mean, he was incredibly
powerful. He was a very powerful lawyer and a defender of the McCarthyite senator. And then, he was very instrumental with Trump. What about Roy Cohn
when you were playing that role? What were you thinking? What was -- who was he?
[13:25:00]
STRONG: Well, in a way, you're not really thinking anything when you're doing it, but you've spent months and months and months doing a deep dive
into the character, into the person and trying to understand their psyche and their -- what drives them.
And you know, I would say that Cohn stood for a kind of aggressiveness. He stood for a kind of brute force, dissimulation, and misinformation. In a
lot of ways, I see him as one of the progenitors of fake news. His relationship to the truth was very malleable, and he had a flagrant
disregard for the truth.
AMANPOUR: And we're going to get into that a bit because he kind of had to lie about his own condition. We'll get into that a bit.
STRONG: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But I want to ask you first, there's another clip that we have, essentially what Cohn taught Donald Trump.
STRONG: Great.
AMANPOUR: Talking about how he shaped him become the ascendant figure that he is today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STRONG: You want to know how to win? I'm going to let you in a little secret. There's rules. Roy Cohn's three rules of winning.
The first rule is the simplest. Attack, attack, attack.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Civil Rights. Cats (ph).
STRONG: I hope the pot -- your stomachs got real money, because after I get you fired, you're sure going to need it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Excuse me?
STRONG: Unless you drop your baseless litigation, I am countersuing the Justice Department for $100 million. You are going to ruin the day that you
ever filed this --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who is this?
STRONG: It's Roy Cohn, calling on behalf of my client, Donald J. Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, it's brutal, but he was very successful.
STRONG: He was effective, and he was, I would argue, a great lawyer.
AMANPOUR: What are the three lessons? That one was attack, attack, attack.
STRONG: The three lessons, which are sort of distilled in the film, are always attack, deny everything, and never admit defeat. And when you really
internalize that and take that in as -- you know, as I did, and I think when you see the film, you can't help but understand it, it becomes like a
dog whistle that you hear sort of underneath everything that's happening now. I really think it -- I think you can't overstate the influence of Cohn
on --
AMANPOUR: Do you think it's a film more about Cohn than Trump?
STRONG: Well, I would say it's a film about the relationship. I mean, it's a Frankenstein film, in a sense. And it's about the creation of, you know,
sort of Dr. Frankenstein in Mary Shelley. I would say it's as much about him as it is about the monster.
AMANPOUR: Before I get into a little bit more about the story, what went through your minds? How did you, I don't know, get over this fact that
after the -- you know, the debut in Cannes, then there was the cease and desist from Trump. It was postponed on air in the United States. It didn't
get a wide distribution. Financing was difficult.
STRONG: Yes. I mean, it's been a sort of Sisyphean. battle the whole time. I mean, there was a sort of -- there were sort of tacit threats of
repercussion to anyone who touched the film or was involved with the film. I think all of us making it were aware that we were sort of touching the
third rail.
But I also think -- I mean, I was outside in the studio here and there's a CNN sign on the wall and it says, go there, and if that's not the role of
film and storytelling, if you don't go there I don't know what the point of doing --
AMANPOUR: Yes, very good point.
STRONG: -- making art is. So, the film goes there at a time where I think that's more necessary than ever. Attempts to tell the truth about something
and speaking truth to power in this moment is critical. And so, I think that created a lot of fear in the motion picture business.
So, the movie has had a sort of arduous thorny road to this moment. And Sebastian, who's really remarkable in the film, who plays Trump. And it's a
really utterly fearless performance. Transformational performance. So, I -- you know, I'm very -- it's very gratifying and validating to be recognized
by the BAFTAs and by the academy.
AMANPOUR: So, I was going to say, you know, an industry that was afraid and didn't want to really touch it, and there's a lot of fear that's going
around right now. You know, people talk about, you know, anticipatory obedience to all the Trump edicts and things. And yet, it has had this
recognition. How do you compute?
Well, I think it's had a recognition from the creative community.
AMANPOUR: Yes. But -- yes. OK.
[13:30:00]
STRONG: And -- you know, and I think you and I probably both were affected or inspired by certain kinds of courageous films that spoke to the world
we're in. And I think, you know, I've thought a lot about the advice to the players, you know, our roles to hold the mirror up to nature and show the
very age and body of the time, its form and pressure.
So, I think that the film attempts to show the age and body of this time, its formation and the pressures that have led us to where we are now. But I
also think it's a cautionary tale. You know, I've been taking my kids around London and there's the famous Churchill in 1948, that those -- that
failed to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And I think in America, especially, it's a country that has historical amnesia. And this
film is an attempt to remind people of what we're dealing with here.
AMANPOUR: You're obviously incredibly intense. You take your craft incredibly seriously. It's not just acting, if I can say that. You prepare
incredibly for it. You famously say you're not a method actor, but you do really do a deep dive into your characters. Tell me about that, and what's
the difference between the deep dive and the method?
STRONG: It's almost hard to talk about, but I guess I take the responsibility very seriously. I'm an immersive actor. And you know, it's
really just about committing to it. It's about going there. And so, in my understanding, method acting is a sort of -- is a term that refers to
Strasberg and a certain kind of acting that uses sense memory work and all this stuff that I don't really believe in or understand. My only method is
to follow my instincts.
But, you know, like most great actors, the actors that I admire and have sort of emulated and been inspired by, are commensurately committed to what
they do and put themselves sort of, you know, out there.
AMANPOUR: You have played some pretty unsavory characters in your, you know, opus, whether it's in "Succession," whether it's, you know, in some
of the other things that you've done. You became famous for a take on Machiavellian characters, I think, who are ripped from real-life. But you
did -- you're doing something different now, right? You're -- the next film is going to be about something -- somebody more joyful?
STRONG: Yes.
AMANPOUR: The mentor and the producer for Bruce Springsteen.
STRONG: Well, you know what it is? I guess what I'm so interested in, and this film as well, because we're in this age where everything is so kind of
hyperpolarized. We either deify people or we demonize people. As an actor, you're looking at it purely humanistically. You know, Shakespeare writes in
"Lear" that you have to see feelingly. So, we try to empathically study and enter into a life and a subject, and encapsulate that and embody it, as
best you can. So, I don't judge the characters as despicable or monstrous or saintly.
AMANPOUR: So, it's not difficult living with those unsavory characters?
STRONG: Well, it takes you to aspects of yourself that I would argue are contained in all of us. And part of, I think, what's happened now, it's a
disavowal of certain parts of ourselves and our society and the shadow of it is rising up.
AMANPOUR: I do want to play -- because you also have a capability to make fun of yourself. And there was this famous ad for Dunkin Donuts at the
Super Bowl, the biggest audience ever. And here you are being method in an ad alongside Ben and Casey Affleck. Here we go.
STRONG: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASEY AFFLECK, ACTOR: Jeremy is a method actor.
BEN AFFLECK, ACTOR: What is that?
C. AFFLECK: He's not coming out until he's ready. The acting method, from the book.
B. AFFLECK: There's a book?
C. AFFLECK: He's preparing. He's doing his research.
B. AFFLECK: I never did no research on nothing. Look where I'm at.
C. AFFLECK: Exactly.
B. AFFLECK: We're big time now.
C. AFFLECK: You ruined it.
B. AFFLECK: Do I ruin it or do you have a breakfast named after you? What are you doing in there?
STRONG: We're doing a Dunkin Donuts commercial, right?
B. AFFLECK: Right.
STRONG: I'm just trying to find the character. Acting 101. Who, what, when, where, how. So, I'm just trying to talk to the beans, immerse myself
in the beans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It's funny.
STRONG: It's amazing to me that I'm on your show having shown a clip from the Dunkin Donuts commercial. Well --
AMANPOUR: Well, it's too funny.
[13:35:00]
STRONG: -- it was a way of saying that you can take what you do extremely seriously and not take yourself all that seriously. That was actually a
quote from, Louis Kahn talked about listening to the bricks when -- you know, when he was building a structure.
AMANPOUR: What was -- oops, golly, there goes my iPad. What was all that brown stuff?
STRONG: Coffee. You know, I was immersing myself --
AMANPOUR: Real coffee?
STRONG: -- in coffee grounds.
AMANPOUR: OK.
STRONG: Like a French press.
AMANPOUR: The stuff we throw away.
STRONG: But it was just a -- you know, just to sort of have a laugh at myself and this idea of --
AMANPOUR: And we've got 20 seconds. There's a photo we have of you waiting outside -- because in 1993, you know, you wanted to see the stars and all
the rest of it. I mean, it's a full circle moment.
STRONG: You know I was sort of slightly cringed when my agents wanted to show this and then I have young children and I guess my thought was, I hope
they never stop being that open.
AMANPOUR: Nicely done. Thank you, Jeremy Strong.
STRONG: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: And good luck to you.
STRONG: It's so nice to talk to you. Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: Good luck. So, we turn now to a story of survival, strength, and activism. This week marks seven years since the Parkland School shooting,
when 17 students and staff were killed by a former student. It ignited a wave of protests and bipartisan legislation. It's the subject of a new
documentary, "Death by Numbers," and it's nominated for an Oscar, which looks at the journey of one survivor, Sam Fuentes.
For the last five years, gun violence has been the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S. And school shootings have seen stark
increases over that time. There have been four this year already. Sam Fuentes and the film's director, Kim A. Snyder, joined Hari Sreenivasan
against the reality of a Trump executive order which is aimed at rolling back gun control measures.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Sam Fuentes and Kim Snyder, thanks so much for joining us.
Sam, you are a survivor of a horrific day in American history that unfortunately is too common, and it was the shooting at Stoneman Douglas
High School in Parkland, Florida. And I wondered, you know, you in this film are somebody who is not just speaking as a survivor, but really almost
as a voice of a generation here that has been impacted so devastatingly be by gun violence. And I'm wondering first, I guess, how are you doing now?
SAM FUENTES, PARKLAND SHOOTING SURVIVOR AND WRITER AND SUBJECT "DEATH BY NUMBERS": What a thoughtful question. I think, especially as the
anniversary approaches, it's always tough, you know, I think, especially with the symptoms of PTSD, like, even in my everyday life, it still impacts
me. There's not really a day where I'm not sort of thinking about that day and all of my community and how tough it is for them.
And -- but overall, I think because I'm very much engaged with my own trauma and I've worked through it a lot through therapy and even through
just like written word, that's been very empowering for me overall.
SREENIVASAN: You know, your words are kind of a frame for this whole film. I mean, whether it's your journal entries or however it is that you chose
to express yourself, is that -- was that part of this, I guess, trajectory of healing?
FUENTES: I think so. For my own personal experience, I think I've been writing my entire life and it's always been something of a coping
mechanism, it's an outlet for escapism. And so, I think in terms of my own healing, writing has always been by my side, and for it to not be included
in the story would be very odd, actually, because "Death by Numbers" was actually conceived through a larger piece of work that I wrote by the same
name.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FUENTES: I think being able to directly address him is just another form of justice, because he affected my life and not just a literal physical
way, but in a psychological and mental and emotional way that will be everlasting. And I don't -- I didn't get to choose that. So, if I get to
choose anything, it will be this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: Kim, how did you figure out to tell this story at this time and then really, how did Sam's work everything kind of integrate together
into this film?
KIM A. SNYDER, DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER, "DEATH BY NUMBERS": Sure. Well, it emanated in a sense. I've been in this space with a long-time producer,
Maria Cuomo Cole, and I had done a film called "Newtown" back in -- it got released in 2016 about that horrific day we all can't forget of the kids at
Sandy Hook. And we became immersed in that space and some happenstance landed us to tell the story of Sam and her classmates as the story of
activism that grew up in response to her shooting.
[13:40:00]
And then, there was this next story that we -- I couldn't let go of that really was about Sam moving through the trial of her shooter and trying to
reclaim her power in confronting him. And that was a story I felt hadn't been told and that was important both in terms of really raising awareness
about youth trauma in our country and the fallout for our youth and also, in her bravery in just standing up to hate, that goes for me beyond guns or
even are the borders of our own scourge of idiosyncratic, horrible gun violence in the United States.
SREENIVASAN: You know, if it's not too difficult for you, and perhaps we can do a little bit of justice to not thinking about this shooting as just
a set of numbers, can you tell me a little bit about maybe one of the friends that you lost and you still think about?
FUENTES: Of course. So, a friend of mine who I'd known since English of -- English freshman year, which was Nick Dworet, who was unfortunately killed
beside me in my Holocaust Studies class. He was excellent. I mean, he was smart, handsome, who is one of our best swimmers at our school, arguably in
the state. You know, we always said that he was going to make it to the Olympics.
And something about him always just made you laugh and made you feel comfortable. He was the kind of person where he was outgoing and
charismatic, but didn't have an ego about it. And I miss him all the time. And I know his parents miss him all the time. His family misses him all the
time. And there's not a day that goes by that we're not thinking about, you know, the legacy of the 17 people that we lost.
SREENIVASAN: Kim, I want to ask your active choice to include so much of the trial in this film, including the decision to blur out the shooter's
face every time the audience might see him. Why did you do those things?
SNYDER: That was a collective decision between Sam and myself. We were definitely collaborators on all of these things. And we thought it was
important to be in keeping with something a lot of survivor communities have called no notoriety, that we know there's evidence of copycatting.
We don't want to glorify it these shooters, as Sam pointed out so boldly in her statement to him that he would never get the fame he was seeking, you
know, rather than actually blurring, there is this idea of X-ing, you know, derived from the idea of Sam's journal, her thoughts. And it was important
that we not give him that notoriety, but we did make a choice at the very end when she finally takes the agency to finally look him at the -- in the
eye herself, that that is the one time that we decided she gets to decide when he should be stared down and called out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FUENTES: I assure you, you will not be famous for this. I assure you that our people will be accounted for, they'll grow and heal despite you. You
have no power anymore. You have no future. You have nothing.
The people that you kill will have a legacy much more important than you. And the people who nearly killed will live their lives, though with much
difficulty, with a compassion and a dignity in ways you will only dream.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SREENIVASAN: I mean, it was an incredibly powerful statement and I wonder what it was like to prepare it, to deliver it, did it help get that out off
your chest?
FUENTES: I think, overall, it's one of those ultimatums that I'll look back in my life, which is, do I confront the person who committed this
terrible atrocity and speak my truth to power or do I live for the rest of my life knowing I didn't do that?
And so, I think with this one opportunity, the decision was really obvious to me. And I knew that people like him wanted fear, he wanted rage, he
wanted you to completely lose control in his presence. He wanted to know that you still feared him. And I know, to a certain degree, and forgive me
for phrasing it this way, but they get off on stuff like that.
[13:45:00]
And even though I knew it would be frightening and I was frightened and just sort of mortified altogether, I knew that I had to approach it in a
way that was with restraint and with respect and with dignity because he wanted to see me suffer, and he wanted to continue that sort of reign of
terror. And I knew that confronting him was a lot larger than myself, it was a lot -- it was for my community, it was for everything that we had
lost, it was for even just a larger declaration of pointing him out for the person he was, and speaking truth about him, I think he represents sort of
this larger issue at play.
And that's why I knew that despite the fear and despite the sort of anxiety that I had surrounding this day, I needed to do it, and I think that's what
sort of kept me calm was I knew I had my whole community behind me. And it's one of those things that I think, when I look back in my life, I can
say with great confidence that I did the right thing.
SREENIVASAN: The shooter did not get the death penalty. He was sentenced to life behind bars. And I wonder, did you have any initial response? How
you felt about it then? Has that changed over time?
FUENTES: It's still something that I feel very uncertain about. I knew that as far as a position in the film, the death sentence was sort of never
really important to us because I understood and was also feeling that I don't think that either sentence would have brought closure and complete
and absolute justice for our community.
Grief and trauma are incredibly divisive and everyone has a unique sort of experience and interpretation of their own loss. And I think the trial
overall was very cruel and very unusual in the sense that it retraumatized our entire community and took up so much time and so many resources and was
just also, in general, a lot of the conduct was a disgrace. So, the sentence wasn't really so important to me at the end of the day.
SREENIVASAN: Kim, this is not your first film about school shootings. I mean, this is a topic that you talk about a lot. I mean, I did an interview
four years ago about "Us Kids" also focused on the response after this horrible attack.
I'm unfortunately one of the reporters that went and sat in the living room of some of the survivors of the Newtown shooting. And I thought -- at that
time, I thought, this is definitely a line too far. Something will happen in this country, right? And here I am, and there were 39 school shootings
last year. And I don't think they're going to stop this year. And I wonder how -- as you continue to work in this, as you continue to try to tell
these painful stories, what does this background in America make you think?
SNYDER: Well, as you said, it's, on one hand, incredibly demoralizing. My relationships with some of those same families have endured for over a
decade now, and they're very close. And I think once you become close, you can't relent. You just sort of can't turn your back on joining forces
because they don't relent and they're so courageous. The communities that I have observed, like those in Newtown, in Sam's community, the youth that
rose up, are -- you know, we now see it in Uvalde, they're so determined not to relent in the honor of -- in honor of those slain. And sadly, that
club that no one wants to belong to just grows bigger and bigger.
So, on one hand, it's incredibly demoralizing, especially in these last weeks. We just came back from Sundance and, you know, it's a time where a
lot of the work of Sam and her colleagues, the age has now -- the work that they did to get, the age raised to 21 has now been revoked. We see some
real disappointing movements in that way.
But at the other -- on the other hand, since that time of Newtown I always say that the voices of new messengers have gotten stronger. I have a
teacher friend in Newtown who survived that, who started a whole new group, Teachers United Against Gun Violence.
[13:50:00]
We've seen law enforcement step up, we've seen doctors who felt they would have been fired back then, who -- younger doctors who are not keeping
quiet, we see clergy, that gives me some heart, and it's mostly the youth, because they are not -- one of Sam's colleagues, David Hogg, was just voted
-- just elected as a vice chair of the DNC. I have faith that they will not relent and they have a lot of years.
So, my pessimism and optimism is like any movement, I have faith in them that something will take hold. And I think, right now, the biggest hope
short-term is behavioral changes and stories like this and voices like Sam. The best I can do is to continue to believe that they pierce through the
numbness. We can't stop reminding people, we can't just accept it, and we can't become a society just that accepts that this is the number one killer
of youth. We -- I would to them to do better.
SREENIVASAN: Sam, just the other day online, I saw someone that essentially used what happened at your school as, in his own brain,
justification for why there should be more guns in schools in the hands of teachers and everyone else. And I know that you have now engaged in this
topic for quite some time. What do you see as any sort of a solution? What are steps that this country can take to try to decrease the volume of these
tragedies?
FUENTES: It's a great question. I absolutely believe that a lot of preventative action, you know, in the most obvious sense can be seen
through legislation. But I know that in the next coming years, we're going to see a lot of these gun laws on mostly state levels, but also, on federal
levels, sort of be rolled back on.
I think bills and legislation are also -- are obviously what everyone thinks is the first sort of action that we can take. This looks like
universal background checks. This looks like raising the age from 18 to 21, which was something we actually saw in the State of Florida and we're
rolling back on. Red flag laws, safe storage laws, things of that sort of nature saves lives.
But what I -- need to make very clear is that gun violence sort of is an umbrella and impacts America in so many different ways. 60 percent of it is
suicide, which is to say that because it is a multifaceted issue, we have to sort of approach it in sort of various different strategies and angles.
And so, in addition to, you know, like, laws are important, but having like safe reporting systems, you know, in schools and such is also important for
kids to see an issue and can report children is huge. Having, you know, resources like mental health services and counselors and afterschool
programs to sort of keep violence and out of schools and the visibility of the health and the wellbeing of our communities is also huge.
That's -- we see this through a lot of grassroots roots efforts with, you know, cities that have programs that sort of invest in de-escalations of
violence as well as providing, you know, resources to communities that more -- are more prone or targeted to gun violence.
We have to advocate for laws on, you know, the big front, the federal -- on federal hill on our state laws, but we also have to be mindful of our own
communities and engage in conversations with our neighbors as well as, you know, support programs that, you know, keep the visibility of our people up
and the wellbeing of them up so that there's less reasons to turn to violence in the first place.
SREENIVASAN: Filmmaker Kim Snyder and writer and survivor Sam Fuentes, the film is called "Death by Numbers," thank you both for joining us.
SNYDER: Thank you so much for having us.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, it's one of the highest honors in the music world. This year's nominees for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame have
been announced. Amongst them Mariah Carey, Oasis, and Cyndi Lauper. The 71- year-old star is currently here in the U.K. on her farewell tour. When we spoke ahead of the U.S. leg, she explained why now is the right time to
take one final feminist bow.
[13:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CYNDI LAUPER, MUSICIAN: I don't know how we, who occupy half of the globe, have become second class citizens and don't have the health care that we
need or the autonomy over our own bodies. Kind of creepy to me, but I'm hoping with this tour, I can bring people together. I can contribute and
help and make things a little better instead of the separation and the big divide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, important, especially now, all those months later, with women and other minorities on the defensive again.
That's 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.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
