♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: alexander leventhal is well known in the financial community. she is ceo of leventhal and company. she was diagnosed with tremors at the age of three. it is a nerve disorder that causes involuntary shaking and effects an estimated 10 million people. a new drug called high-intensity focused ultrasound using 1000 ultrasound waves directed at the area. on august 22, she became the second person in new york to undergo the procedure. we are here with her to discuss

the treatment, along with her doctor. he was a neurosurgeon at new york presbyterian. i am pleased to have both of them at this table for the first time. i must say, that alexander is a good friend of mine. welcome. guest: thank you very much. charlie: tell me about you. guest: i have had this since i was three it has been an issue in my career. i am in the financial services world and i need to have people trust me and feel confident about me in terms of doing business and having the hand tremor, which was very visible, really caused problems for me. inside me and it affected my confidence. charlie: what did you do? you lived with it for a long time. guest: i did. i lived with it for a long time. i tried various medications that either did not work or there was one that actually lowered my

blood pressure and i have lower blood pressure to begin with. so i went along trying to handle the daily tasks that are second nature for everybody else, picking up a cup of coffee, picking up sushi with chopsticks. it was a great embarrassment for me. i never wanted to talk about it before. charlie: what causes it? >> we don't know. the term essential tremors means a tremor when you move, and action tremor. you go to pick up a glass and you shake it and spill it all over yourself. charlie: how is it different from parkinson's disease? guest: it is different. we know there are cells in the opening of the brain that lead to various symptoms. in parkinson's disease, you have multiple symptoms and the tremors are different. parkinson's tremors are where ing are sitting there, tremor n

away. the essential tremor is isolated and it makes it difficult perform daily activities, but otherwise you are fairly normal. charlie: the treatment that she took and you administered, was developed where? guest: in israel. it is based on operation for you . you make a small hole in the skull and you go into the middle of a circuit that regulates coordination, which is where the problem is. we normally put in electrode in there that is attached to a battery and it has been effective. what they found in israel is that they could generate the ultrasound waves going through the skull are low-energy. they could create a helmet that has a thousand sources that all converge on the one spot. all of the beams of ultrasound energy are relatively safe as

they go through the brain come but they add up their energy at the spot so you can actually essentially, burn or take out that abnormally functioning spot and free up the rest of the brain to function normally. charlie: are there risks? guest: it is a new procedure, even though it is fda approved. even when you do anything inside the brain, there is a risk of bleeding. but so far it has been relatively safe. charlie: so far. guest: so far. it is a new procedure. we do not know if it will last as long as the traditional procedures because it has been a around for a short time. there is evidence that the effects could last for a year. but it is so new that we cannot say even 10 years, even though i am hopeful. these are some of the issues we are addressing and there are uniqueness to each patient, based on the shape of their head and the thickness of their skull.

charlie: do you have to go back for more treatments? guest: they only do one side at a time. i would love to be able to do both sides. it is great for demonstration purposes, because this is my tremor. this is my hand now. charlie: and what has it done for your spirit and your confidence, since you no longer have to live with this? guest: it has been amazing. as i said before, there are things that are second nature to everyone else, when each time i do it for the first time our second or third time, i am just amazed and a chuckle inside. i am drinking my coffee by myself. from a confidence perspective and as i mentioned before, the issues related to business, that has been a great difference for me as well. finally, i mentioned, i never wanted to talk about it. i was embarrassed. able to tell people about

this, and how often in one's life the somebody have the ability to potentially change other people's lives. i am so grateful and honored to have that opportunity. charlie: take a look at this. we have a clip of your hand before the surgery. guest: holding my cup with two hands. sometimes holding the wine glass by the stem, and the glass itself. charlie: this is you going to the high-intensity ultrasound treatment. >> right now she is inside the mri machine. you can see the bottom half of her face. her head is held in place because the ultrasound must be so precise that you do not want the head to move. so it is in place. what you saw a minute ago was the helmet that has those ultrasound beams. here we are working on the plane of the consul to deliver the ultrasound. charlie: you said it was noninvasive. guest: correct. charlie: take a look at the

essential tremor test before and after. guest: this is what we do during the procedure, you are drawing straight lines. at the end, this is her writing upside down, most of us might not even do that well on the other side upside down. she is drawing a circle upside down and doing a straight line upside down. you can see the improvement. charlie: is this a platform for the future? guest: i do. charlie: meaning? guest: i think that what we can do now is take all of the skills and knowledge that we have learned as surgeons and apply it to much less invasive type of technologies and this is what people want. so the idea that we can take out a certain part of the brain might be good for the essential tremor, for things like epilepsy. but what we can also do, what we have been experimenting with, is in a different way to open up the blood vessels that

lead to a certain area so we can just through a simple intravenous injection deliver things like gene therapy, which we have worked on for several decades. this way we can expand the diseases, like alzheimer's disease and depression, if we use this to deliver advanced therapies, rather than take out part of the brain. charlie: are there any downsides? guest: not really. for the first couple weeks i was wobbly and unbalanced. that has since subsided entirely. the other was, i had to relearn to use my hand, because i was so used to try to control -- charlie: you had to trust your hand again. guest: right. i compare it to a batter swung in three bats in practice and then using one. my hand would jerk as i would try to reach for something six inches away and i would go a foot away. that subsided as well. charlie: he would recommend it to anybody? guest: absolutely. charlie: we do not know what

causes it. we believe it is hereditary. guest: correct. we do know the area of the brain that is responsible. charlie: is it the same area of the brain responsible for parkinson's? >> no, it is different. the brain is composed of a variety of circuits and there are circuits that control movement that interact with one another but the particular circuit responsible for essential tremor is slightly different from the circuitry responsible for parkinson's. and our many circuits affecting parkinson's, depending on the symptoms. this is much more specific. charlie: what else do you think it might be applicable to? >> way we are using it now might be applicable to essential tremor. i think it will be applicable to epilepsy. if we can use this to open the so-called blood brain barrier, you know, the blood vessels have a way of preventing things in our bloodstream to protect the brain. you don't want every virus to

get into your brain, but that events us from getting important drugs, gene therapies, antibodies come all these new age therapies do not get in from the bloodstream well. we now have the ability with this and we approve and is in the laboratories, to be able to open up this barrier and allow these things to get from the blood into specific brain targets. now you have the opportunity to deliver new chemotherapy is ies. we have the opportunity to deliver things, as i said, for other diseases like alzheimer's. and many others. charlie: what else might cause tremors? >> tremor is a very big diagnosis. there is essential tremor, which means it is isolated. parkinson's disease is a very specific resting tremor. there are tremors that are the result of certain types of degenerative diseases. for example, there is a disease called hydrocephalus. that is a buildup of some spinal

fluid in the brain. that can cause tremors and be confused with this or parkinson's disease. people with liver problems can get tremors because of the toxic buildup in their bloodstream. charlie: congratulations. >> thank you. charlie: doctor. >> thanks very much. ♪ charlie: we continue with a look at the troubled biotech company. she came out of stanford with a vision of trying to revolutionize medicine with blood testing that would be done on very small samples of blood, either a trick from the arm or finger. and the test would be done quickly, often just this painless pin prick, then you could diagnose conditions from that. it was pretty transformative. if it was achievable, i think it

really meant a big change in medicine and in laboratory testing. the vision was a powerful one. again, the people investing early knew they were facing a young lady who just graduated and might fail, as many entrepreneurs in silicon valley fail. >> we conclude with amy adams. she spoke with "the new york times" about hurt two new films. >> i am much more relaxed than when i started. i'm not sure if that is reflected in the work, or if the characters are more relaxed. but i feel more relaxed. and a love the stories i get to tell and i feel really grateful. i am in a great spot as far as gratitude goes. i think i am able to approach things from a different point of view, instead of feeling like i will get found out.

i think every actor talks about that feeling of getting found out. ♪

♪ >> elizabeth holmes said out to revolutionize the blood testing industry when she founded theranos at the age of 19. by 2015, the biotech startup was valued at $9 billion, making her the youngest self-made millionaire. in a few short months and began to unravel. last fall, an investigative

report published in the "wall street journal" revealed significant cracks in theranos. since then, the company has come under federal criminal probes, including whether it misled investors. elizabeth holmes has been banned from the blood testing industry for at least two years. joining me now are john carreyrou. i am pleased to have both at this table. if has been 13 months of reporting in the journal, but longer than that actually, looking into theranos. john, when did you first get an indication that something might be amiss? >> there was a "new yorker" piece in december of 2014, a long profile of elizabeth holmes. that piece both put on my radar. she had gotten a fair amount of press, but i had not paid much

attention until i saw that story. in addition to putting her on my radar, just in general, they are decoupled passages that i thought were strange. i had done investigative reporting in health care for the last decade. having a fair amount of experience, there were some passages that seemed off to me. i probably would not have done anything with that, but a couple of weeks later i got a tip. host: which passages? >> they were a couple of skeptical passages in the piece about the regulatory sort of no man's land, that this company was sort of charting, its path. then, there was also a paragraph in which the writer asked her how the technology worked. and she sort of danced around the issue, but then gave a

description that seemed almost childish, of you know, chemical experiments. and so, those passages caught my eye. to be fair, i might not have done anything with it if i had not gotten a tip two or three weeks later. hos talt: talk about that tip. john: this was a person who had talked to a person who had talked to a recently departed employee. the message was, things were not as they seem at theranos. the nice this glowing coverage in the press, there were serious problems and that somebody ought to be looking into it. i pulled on that string and i got back to the primary source, the recently departed employee, and then build from there. >> i might add, it took 10

months from the time of that original tip to publishing the story. that is how long it took for john to unravel things. it is interesting. and john mentioned this expertise in health care. he knows health and science really well. i think also what helped you, john, was the fact that you were looking at this with an outsiders lens. this was not somebody who is part of silicon valley and the ecosystem there. i think it allowed you to have a skepticism and a freedom to be able to write about it that sometimes you cannot when you are in the midst of silicon valley. host: there are so many layers to this story that it would be difficult to cover talking for a day about all of it. but just about 10 days or so ago you came out on the article of tyler scholz, the grandson of george scholz. he was a whistleblower and he left the country. he created big controversy within his own family as well. he was one of the first people

you spoke to about what was allegedly going on. john: he was not the first person i spoke with and he was not the first source. he perhaps was not the most important source. he was an important source and an important corroborating source. i learned of his existence from the first source. and i figured i would try to reach out to him. so, i looked him up on linkedin and used this great function on clintonn linkedin, the inmailing function. i did not hear anything back for three weeks. and suddenly, almost a month later, i am at my desk in the middle of the afternoon and my phone rings and i pick it up and it is tyler. >> a burner phone. john: a burner phone. host: and he said, he was gone

from the company at that point. he had been gone from the company almost a year at that point, 11 months. is your tracking this down then, when you approached your editors about what to do, and wh at help you needed, how did the team then coalesce? john: i described the early goings as seeing if there was anything to this. really, you know, let's see if really there is a story here at all and try to understand the issues. i don't think we were necessarily convinced we had a story for quite some time, for many weeks. gradually, i think, as i got people to talk to me and mostly off the record, unfortunately, because all these people were former employees that had signed

nondisclosure agreements, there was no reason i would get them on the record. i had to do a lot of cooperating . as we got to a certain level, the critical mass of information coming from these ex employees, convinced that this was something that touched on public health. said he wasscholz feeling pressure from his family and was followed by private investigators. were you follow that any point? i know that you came under immense pressure from the company and others, but maybe you can talk about that process. john: i do not know if i was followed. if i was to find out that i was, it would not surprise me. tyler and i met again in may on the stanford campus. and the message was passed on to tyler via his grandfather that within a few days of the meeting, that the company was aware we had met again. >> let me tell you about the

pressure that john faced. the "journal" was based twice with a lawsuit from theranos. john's sources were threatened with litigation. theranos executives sought to have them recant and write statements that john had misquoted them. in fact, there was one moment after one of his stories, i think it was the cafeteria at theranos, where elizabeth holmes was talking about story that john had done. there was a lot of anger in the room and a suddenly a chant started. carreyrou."e "f you they were attacks john was facing with frequency. to his credit, he brushed them off. but they were personal elements to this that john had to face. host: nevermind the fact that

your owner of the newspaper was an investor in theranos. i have to tell you, it is a point of pride for us. journalists taken point of pride. there was some slickly no interference of any kind at any point. the editors handled the story from the get-go. i have to tell you that john and i had a lot of support from the editor in chief to the great lawyers, to the page one editors, this was a team editor. there was an enormous amount of support and never was anything but just keep going. host: rupert murdoch is not the only big-name investor in theranos. elizabeth holmes was able to secure some enormous contributions from some enormously popular and influential people at a very young age. >> yes, there are really two

categories of investors. there are the people that came in early after she had just dropped out of stanford as a 19-year-old or 20-year-old, people like tim draper, the venture capitalist. the first million. and larry ellison came in in the first three years. don lucas who had groomed ellison. all of those people were there at the beginning. and they knew what they were getting into and that this was essentially a kid with a great idea. and they knew that the company could either succeed or fail. then there is another category of investors, the people who came in and ponied up most of the money, stretching from early 2014 to 2015. when you look at when the money was raised, that is when it was raised. >> at just the wrong time. >> $330 million was raised

between 2014 and 2015. host: just before -- >> the last chunk of it was raised in march of 2015, two month's after i started looking into the company. host: how was it based on your reporting that somebody at that age, elizabeth holmes founded the company at the age of 19, was able to raise plenty of than in her mid-20's, more money poured in when she was 29 years old. what was it that she was able to say and to do based on what you've been able to find, to get that cash? john: she came out of stanford with a vision to revolutionize medicine with blood testing that would be done on a very small samples of blood, either pricked from the arm, then the finger. the tests would be done quickly off of just a painless prick.

and then you could diagnose a bunch of conditions from that. it was pretty transformative, if it was achievable. and if the company could do it. it meant big changes in medicine and in laboratory testing industry. so the vision was a powerful one that a lot of people bought into. but again, the people investing they werewq dealing with a young lady that might fail. michael: i think the ponds in pawns where the patients. one of our writers did a story about the patients that had results they could not rely on and it set them off on a very agonizing moments. one in particular is a 60-year-old woman that had

breast cancer, double mastectomy. she had a test for an estrogen hormone. she got results back and they are off the charts high, indicating it could be a rare tumor or a reoccurrence of cancer. she freaks out and talks to her doctor, they go to another lab and for 10 days she is agonizing over this and the results come back and they are perfectly normal. a lot of these patients did not hear for months that results were unreliable. as a matter of fact, after john's reporting in the center for medicaid services stepped in and sanctioned the company, that tens of thousands of reports were deemed to be unreliable or thrown out. there was a lot of -- there was a human toll that is important to note as well. host: we have seen some of the stories on patients that were

mixed this diagnosed. misdiagnosed. where was a mostly people inside the company that raised concerns? >> it was both. those were two threads i was pursuing during the 10 months up to the first story. one was employees with misgivings with what they were seeing because of the impact on public health. and on the other end, where the company launched most of their testing sites, there were patients getting results that were alarming. one patient in particular had to go to the emergency room for four hours on the eve of thanksgiving. being put through health care, having to shoulder these initial expenses and then learning with the hospital labs coming back that nothing is wrong. but these patients trusted their doctors and so the patients i think, for the most part, were trying to figure out what was

going on with their doctors. the doctors were beginning to suspect something was wrong with the blood tests. i think that was just beginning to sort of coalesce when i got there. i went to phoenix for a week and did some on the ground reporting. host: what is she up to now? condition, as best you can gather? john: she is still running theranos. many people are wondering why. given everything that has happened. one very simple answer to that is she owns more than half of the equity of the company. she is really in the driver seat. the board probably cannot even unseat her if they wanted to. host: elizabeth holmes is there iseranos and theranos elizabeth holmes. to what extent is theranos being used? >> it is not being used at all

in the sense that they have shut down their blood draw sites, most of them in phoenix. in the walgreens stores. host: walgreens is suing them. john: walgreens is suing them. what the company is pivoting to is trying to commercialize this new device called the mini lab. it is hoping that if it can run studies showing this device is reliable and accurate that it can then persuade the fda to approve it for sale, and to then sell it to labs, and hospitals, and doctors offices. that is the new business plan. but it will be an uphill climb, because running a trial or a study is a costly thing and it is a lengthy process. they are only now beginning to do the real validation studies to try to prove that the minilab is accurate and reliable. the work is starting now.

the question is, whether the company will have a life expectancy to see the process through. >> the cash is dwindling. they are not going to be able to raise more money anytime soon, so there is a finite period. and they have many legal costs in the meantime. host: so, are these big-name investors possibly backing the company? what is their situation at this point? >> some of them are trying to sell back their shares for symbolic dollars so they can claim big tetax losses. others are still backing the company. and others are suing. walgreens, as an investor, as a result of having lost a lot of and a sanugh loans, francisco hedge fund sued as well. they had invested $96 million in

february of 2014 and they now want that money back. >> walgreens is important in all of this. john mentioned the 40 some stores that you could go to a walgreens pharmacy and get your blood drawn. but they had plans for a y long partnership. the four this came to light, that is what we were moving towards. walgreens found out that they were misled initially about the prospects, but even during the course of john's reporting, they claimed in litigation that they were not aware of the developments that were taking place. they were reading about it in the "journal. in the suit walgreens fouled, they said more than 11% -- in the suit walgreens filed, they said more than 11% of all customers who had blood drawn from the facilities, they had

unreliable results. john: you can imagine the number of people, if they had rolled out those blood drawing sites, the potential for a real harmful errors, it would have grown at financially. reportingxtraordinary series from the "wall street journal." we thank you both for joining us, john carreyrou and michael siconolfi. ♪

♪ host: good evening. i am in for charlie rose, who is away on assignment. amy adams is here. she is a five-time academy award nominated actress. here is a look at some of her work. >> stop teasing me. you are 28 years old. why would you lie to me? i want to know your name. please tell me your name. >> are you wearing any makeup? you could wear more if you wanted to. you are so tall. unfair. but i like to experiment with a lot of different looks. were you born in chicago? i was born right here. i have lived here my whole life. my favorite animal is the meerkat. they are so cute. i have this little charm police it.celet with meerkats on

you have lots of boyfriends? i bet you did. ever try out for cheerleading? >> like a bug. so beautiful. how many children do you have? >> she had six. >> what do you want to be when you grow up? >> you just don't like him. you don't like that he uses a ballpoint pen. you do not like that it takes three lumps of sugar in his tea. you like that he likes frosty the snowman and you're letting him convince you that mean something terrible. well, i like frosty the snowman. and i think it would be nice if this school was not run like a jail. i want to inspire my students

and if you judge that to mean i'm not fit to be a teacher, then so be it. >> you may think that owning a duck is an impossible feat. >> nothing is impossible. >> 45 minutes the first time because of fear. don't be afraid. >> no fear, julia. no fear. >> and this is where we are at. at the lowest level, to have to explain ourselves. for what? for what we do we have to grovel. the only way to defend ourselves is to attack. if we don't do that, we will lose every battle we are engaged in. we will never dominate our environment the way that we should unless we attack. >> he does not love you, he loves me. you know it and i know and he knows it. it might be done now, but it was beautiful and it was real. it was beautiful and it was real. you scare him and you manipulate him and you use your son.

host: she is currently starring in two films, playing in theaters. this week a mode you will receive a tribute at the gotham independent film awards. i am pleased to have amy adams back at the table. welcome. amy: thank you. host: i don't know where to begin, those are all some of my favorite movies. but let's start with the new ones, with "arrival," in which you play, i don't want to give too much away the plot is a very difficult thing. but you play a linguist who is hired, or kind of drafted, into this project of, aliens have landed and are hovering above the earth, and you have to figure out their language. amy: exactly. deciphering an alien language. host: what attracted you to this? this is an unusual science-fiction story.

this is not your typical alien invasion movie. amy: i think that is one of the things i was attracted to, it felt really different. but upon finishing it, which i always sound cagey when i am talking about it. but when i finished reading it i had to go back and read it again. that was compelling to me. and meeting with the wonderful filmmaker, such a compassionate man, very soft-spoken. he has a wonderful way of speaking about his intentions and what he wanted to do and the story he was wanting to tell. it felt really different and special. i wanted to be a part of it. host: talk about the character. she is, there is a lot going on. she is a scientist, but there is

a kind of interesting emotional dimension to the story. if you can say anything without giving anything away. amy: absolutely. i am playing somebody who is sort of a heavyweight on her shoulders of an emotional experience on her life and that is the journey we take the audience on with her. this is starting to sound my say don't know what my character is doing, but i don't want to give anything away. but after you have seen the film, you will understand. ingwas interest preparing for the role because they wanted it to work on the first viewing, but hold up on the second. that was the interesting thing. i did not play the hand too quickly, but at the same time, if you came back and watched it, it would still hold up. it was pretty tricky preparing. host: we have to almost speak in code. amy: i know, it is so funny.

host: but there is something about your character that the first time you see the movie, you will assume to be true. and then you will assume isn't. amy: isn't. host: that is crucial to the emotional, the sort of emotional temperature or emotional reality the character is living in. it is fascinating, i mean, i wonder how you did that so it could play both ways. amy: yeah, you just have to prepare a character that has her own life experiences and her own weight outside of what the audience believes is happening. and at the same time, understanding that the character is going through this the same time the audience is. so, what she is learning, she is learning it with the audience. once you realize that, it is a different experience. it was tricky. it was tricky. again, the filmmaker was great about taking the temperature all the time about where we were emotionally and one of the

things we had a lot of conversations about is how we could create this sense of emotional truth while at the same time, having to play these two realities. host: let's look at a clip where you first introduce yourself to these -- i guess they are called the heptapods. they have seven feet. heptapods.the >> louise? >> i am louise. >> what is that? is that a new symbol? i can't tell. >> dr. briggs. what are you doing? >> i need to see in there. >> are you ok? >> there is a risk of contamination. >> i need them to see me. >> dr. grace. >> she is walking towards the screen.

[suspenseful music] [heavy breathing] >> now, that is a proper introduction. host: that is an amazing scene, because at this point, the audience is going along with the character and learning what there is to learn. nobody knows these creatures, do they mean us harm? what do they want? amy: yeah, what is their purpose? host: and how do they communicate? and here, the quality your character has that is so crucial to the movie is empathy. she realizes, whoever they are, whatever they are, you can't just talk to them from behind a screen. you have to somehow find some connection. amy: exactly. and speaking with and learning

thet linguists, one of things i assumed was they were more translators. but really, so many of them do fieldwork and go into these communities to preserve indigenous languages. that is something i found fascinating. and having to become a very empathetic person, having to not make judgments in order to stay open to receiving the information from people. although it seems highly intellectual and cold at times, it is this wonderful warm science in a way because it deals with sociological studies and anthropological studies and there are so many elements to it. gave me a place to start as to how she would approach it compassionately. host: it is interesting. so many of the times when you see scientists in movies they are physicists or engineers. and linguists, i am not sure if i can think of another movie where they are heroes. amy: yeah.

host: and this movie is also unusual as a science fiction movie because it is not ultimately about the technology as much as about the feeling, the emotion, the sort of the -- amy: it is very tonal. not in a way that i think keeps it from being accessible. and it still create suspense. there are wonderful elements you want in a science fiction movie, but it is a much more quiet film than that. when we shot it was the most calm, quiet film i have ever been on, which is strange for a science fiction movie. but it was calm. film maker is so compassionate. that feeling translates. but it is filled with these wonderful sounds and wonderful music by johan johanson. which i love saying. host: and also, i wonder too,

given that it is itself, there is a lot of technology that went into making the movie and producing these effects and yet, the acting is so intimate and so quiet, and so kind of, not always calm, but it feels like a very different kind of piece in that way. i always wonder when i see performances like this, and the kind of authenticity of feelings that you manage to summon, how y ou do it, when you are, you know, in a setting like that, for you are not interacting with another person or actor? amy: with a screen. [laughter] amy: i do not know. it is one of those, i think it is our job as actors to create that which is not there, and the relationship that i have with

jeremy, i have him to work off of. but we are creating relationship between two characters that does not exist, except on the page. i feel like it is an extension of that. and the relationship i create with them and the wonder and the sense of awe and the fear, all of these things existing at the same time, it feels real to me when i am doing it. you feel kind of crazy, but it feels real. host: as you were talking about your protagonist thinking about the sort of little greatest hits montage we started out with, and that takes us back now more than 10 years, and i wonder if you're changedch to it has in that time? or if you feel differently about it? amy: i feel a lot different than i did. when i started, i had a similar approach, as far as the technical, you know, technical approach. but i feel calmer. -- i feel really

open and sort of willing to do have a sorthat can of subtle interior life and trust that that is enough. i am very calm in that. it is a strange thing. i am definitely hard on myself and i work really hard, but i am much more relaxed. i am not sure if that is reflected in the work or if the characters are just more relaxed, but i feel more relaxed. i love the stories i get to tell and i feel really grateful. i am in a really great spot, as far as gratitude goes. i think i am able to approach things from a different point of view, as opposed to feeling i am going to get found out. [laughter] host: i think every actor talks about that feeling of getting found out. amy: now i am like, well, if i get found out, it has been a nice run, i guess. but all the same, i still have a very similar approach, as far as

wanting to make it as real as possible and trying to come even when i did "enchanted," i wanted it to feel like somebody you knew, even though clearly, you could not be. she had to be believable. host: that is an interesting segue to the other movie that you are certainly keeping busy with. "nocturnal animals." it has very little in common with "arrival," but on the other hand, there is a kind of mood of quiet and melancholy around a lot of it. certainly around your character. there is, there are a lot of plot twists, but also emotional twists, where the feelings that seem to be in play turned to be out a little different than what you thought. amy: absolutely. host: tell us little bit about this.

two moviesicated, inside of a movie. amy: i saw both movies back to back. i someone on a thursday and one on a friday. i was struck that they are such different movies and different characters. i was like, oh, i wonder why i was struck by these two nonlinear approaches to storytelling. stuff does not come around like that too often in a shot them back-to-back. but with "nocturnal animals," again, i was so attracted to the subtlety of storytelling. as far as my character susan, her, the way i was going to have to communicate seemed somewhat impossible and very challenging. so, of course, i was like, let's do it. but tom ford had a wonderful way of talking about how he intended to move through past and present and fiction and reality and sort andsing music and light story and how he was going to do that. but again, both the characters

do have a sense of melancholy, for very different reasons. i don't know, maybe this is my melancholy period. as an actor, if you like a go through periods as an artist. this is my melancholy periods. host: when the audience meets her and she is drawn back to these memories through, i think it happens early enough, that it is not a spoiler. she gets a novel that her now former husband has written. well, he may or may not have dedicated it to her. it is a very interesting and complicated gesture, sending this book to her. amy: absolutely. and it is a very dark and violent story. it makes her examine his intentions and makes her examine her choices. , it: and some of the most have to say some of the most powerful and interesting scenes in the movie are just the reading. amy: thank you.

tom left the camera running for a really long time and he created this wonderful insecurity, which i believe you use anything happening in the moment. there are moments when i'm really struggling because it is like 13 minutes and he has just left the camera rolling with no direction. and it was such a wonderful -- like, i never get those opportunities as an actress to sit with myself, feeling exposed and revealed in that way. and that would happen in "arrival" as well, these really long takes, very intimate. i saw it as a wonderful gift to get to explore that. oft of those depths feeling exposed and vulnerable as an actor. i know they are there, but many times you have dialogue or another character to lean on and in both the films at times, i did not have anybody. so, it was a great exercise in a

way. host: now that you say that, it is really true. there are a lot of moments when it is just you and in a way, the audience has to connect to you. amy: it is interesting, both of the films, i forget who told me, you breathe a lot. i am alone a lot and there is a lot of breath. when i was doing it i would constantly remind myself, minutes on a take what it was just me staring at nothing, i would just breathe and you know, that's the key to creating life, is breath. host: thank you for coming here and breathing. it has been wonderful. amy: thank you. ♪

>> it is noon here in hong kong. standard chartered has been ordered to institute staff disciplinary action amid investigation. singapore imposed fines on the bank for breaches of money laundering laws. there is no evidence of willful misconduct. donald trump has launched a in the to her -- tour midwest. time tothis is no downsize dreams.