>> from our studios, this is charlie rose. the affordable care act would reduce the deficit over a decade, but with the 24 million americans uninsured and it will complicate the efforts to repeal and replace the affordable care act. -- ing me now

let me start with you. to report has had 24 hours marinate in washington. how is it sitting? >> not well. a number of moderate republican lawmakers are worried about the morethat the cbo projects americans could be uninsured, if this is an active and this is a concern for the republican leadership. there are hard-line republicans who are concerned that the bill decreases the deficit, but that is probably not enough >> from and they are to see greater reduction our studios in new york city, this is "charlie house knew the uninsured number would be a

great number which is why they started pushing back over the weekend. >> not surprised that so many people are likely to become uninsured if this bill is enacted. republicans have been saying for a long time that they want to reduce federal spending on health care and health care isn't free. that implies more americans will have to pay more themselves or just go without. i do think that the cbo setting it down in black and white as made the issue more real for republicans. they are having to think about it in a way that perhaps they did not before. host: this is a challenging thing, taking on the cbo. this would seem to be a tough road to hoe. >> it's like arguing with the refs in a basketball game or you can make cases on the margins that they are doing things that you would not have done. at the end of the day, they are the arbiters in washington have been a long time.

republicans have had several strategies for how they will counter this. the white house trying to undermine the credibility. paul ryan talked about how this is not as bad of a score as they were expecting. they all boil down to -- the fact is they are reckoning not so much with particular analysis from cbo, but reality of lost coverage, whether you think it will be 24 million or 20 million or however you want to place it in the white house might produce its own. they have to reckon with the real possibility here, the likelihood donald trump will not make good on his promise to ensure more people, not fewer, and that is the central problem. >> the cbo has always had a very tough time predicting what is going to happen in the future. >> sure. as we all do. but, health care is actually -- health care is particularly tricky to model.

the cbo was wrong about the way individuals and marketplaces would react to the affordable care act after it was passed. cbo did a better job than pretty much anybody on getting on the ballpark in that. i don't think we should treat 24 million as a hard and fast. we should consider that to be part of a range, a point in a range of possibilities, all of which look very bad for republicans as they try to push a bill they say is going to improve access, not restricted. host: is that push continues, pile ryan wants to do it quickly, the president wants to do it quickly great right now it seems like it will not happen quickly. >> i don't think so. there have been requests from some in the senate, is ashley senator tom cotton, who have asked leadership in the house to slow things down and try to take

another crack at the baseball here to address some of the concerns that cbo has raised. jim's point is a good one, it's difficult to see how republicans will be able to revise the still to avoid the fact that millions of americans would become uninsured under the republican plan. it's part of what republicans are trying to do, which is reduce the role of government in the health-care sector, one of the most important sectors of the economy. it seems very likely that more people will be uninsured.

host: who wins, if a bill like this moves forward? >> there are a few big winners. the wealthy are the biggest winner. there's a lot of tax cuts for them in this bill. this is a bill that reduces taxes mostly on the rich by $600 billion over a decade and more than funds that by reducing spending on the poor. if you are rich, you will pay lower taxes and you did not need government help buying health care anyway. the sneaky other winner in this are upper-middle-class americans, people who made too much money -- if you are an individual from $50,000 to $75,000 a year, you were not getting help from obamacare to buy health insurance, but you are going to get help from this bill.. while that help will decline over time in terms of how far it goes to help you buy health care, there is still something in there for a group that i don't think we thought would be a big winner in this plan. >> sean spicer today talked about this being one of three prongs. when it comes to trying to get health care legislation through, repeal and replace. what are the other prongs we are talking about here? >> the two other prongs that sean spicer is referring to are first, the possibility for regulatory action by the trump administration.

not to change the law, but to change the way the current law is implemented and try to move the health care system anymore -- direction, that is what they are planning to do. the third prong is, republicans are saying that somehow they are going to come up with 60 votes in the senate and move a bipartisan bill that will address some of the more technical questions in health care legislation that do not directly relate to the budget or the deficit and thus are subject to a democratic filibuster. senator cotton, who i mentioned earlier, had a good response to this trait he pointed out that it seems unlikely republicans will be able to get the 60 votes they need in the senate to pursue that third prong without a filibuster. on the second prong, we will have to wait and see what the courts say, which is likely that democrats will seek to move back against whatever the trump administration is doing through the judiciary. host: and whether it is tom

cotton or rand paul, was the white house expecting this senate resistance? >> that's a good question. they should have been expecting it. certainly the intense of republicans in repealing the affordable care act, the kind of system they wanted, has been clear for a long time. republicans describe their plans in a white paper over the summer that speaker ryan at some of his colleagues put together. it has been clear the what republicans have hoped to do -- it has always been clear that some republicans would not like that plan and this is not necessarily a plan that would unite the party. perhaps republicans have spent a lot of time -- president trump and his allies spent a lot of time saying, this process of repeal would be easy. to some degree they have started to believe their own rhetoric on that point. it's never been true. host: can you talk about the dynamic between paul ryan who is

trying to lead this, and try to convince folks in the senate to go along? both that relationship, and the continuing long and interesting relationship between the speaker and the president. >> the speaker of the house has not been a particularly attractive job in washington for quite a while now. you're seeing why. paul ryan is caught between several different political forces. on one hand you have the tom cotton's and ted cruz's of the world who are very concerned this will is not conservative enough, it's not doing enough to enact these market-based solutions that conservatives believe will help americans by health care for themselves. you have a whole bunch of senators in particular and some moderate republicans in the house who are worried about his big coverage losses that have been highlighted by cbo and who

probably push for more ways to guard against that coverage loss which then makes the conservative members even more upset. then you have the president who promised a bunch of things that are not possible to deliver all a once, given the bill that he is starting with. donald trump's big plans that everybody will pay less for health care and be covered, and you have two very different ways of looking at that in the house and senate, and paul ryan stopped trying to make all of that into a bill they can pass, and be something republicans can defend and be proud of going into future elections. host: do we have a sense of how similar this bill is to what paul ryan was dreaming of a few years ago? >> there are some big differences between this and what paul ryan is dreaming of. this is going through the reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster. what republicans really would like with the party base and

what paul ryan really believes in is an idea of really getting the government out of health care and creating more competition, allowing insurers to sell new products, and every american who wants to can afford health care to some degree, the idea of the market will solve the problem, this doesn't really do that anywhere near the extent paul ryan or other conservatives would like if they didn't have to run through the hoop to avoid a filibuster. host: jim talks about reconciliation and you wrote about the challenges that republicans have with reconciliation right now. >> that's right. in that respect, the cbo score that was published monday did have republicans an important reason to breathe a sigh of relief. if the cbo said the bill will increase the deficit, if this bill is going to force the government to borrow more money, it seems the bill would have been subject to a democratic filibuster in the senate and the whole project would have been ended at that point. you said the cbo said this bill

is likely to say the government some money, $30 billion a year or so. as a result of that, republicans can move ahead with their plan to avoid a filibuster but as we have been discussing, there are serious challenges. host: what happens next? >> a budget markup, a big hearing in the house on wednesday where they will keep moving this thing forward in the house. let's stop and appreciate how fast this bill is moving for something that doesn't appear to have a town of grassroots support and does not have a lot of interest groups or big players in washington behind it. it has the leadership in congress, and it appears the force of the presidency. eventually it will come to a floor vote and we will see the big challenges. can they keep enough of the freedom caucus to get it through their?

-- there? and then what happens? these are high hurdles, but they start with keeping it moving as quickly as they can towards some legislative outcome. host: and one of the president possibly selling points was the dealmaking campaign. what is his role right now? light or heavy touch behind the scenes? >> from what we understand, it is a light touch behind-the-scenes. when paul ryan went to wisconsin to announce that the last week, president trump did not go with him. i think some people in the white house -- it does seem as though some people in the white house are wary of associating trump to closely with a bill that could very well fail ultimately. we've heard trump is meeting with conservative lawmakers straight he's trying to get them

on board with this project. so far at least we're not sure if that effort will be successful on trump's part. we are not sure if he will be able to deliver on being the dealmaker he said he was during the campaign. >> he said now it's trump care. >> is right. today sean spicer said that trump did not want this bill to be called trump care, which raises the question of how seriously trump is supporting it publicly or behind-the-scenes. host: a few both very much. -- thank you both very much. >> thank you. ♪

host: continue this evening with a look at drone strikes. president trump has reportedly loosened restrictions for the changes give greater autonomy to the cia a pentagon to conduct counterterrorism operations. joining me is greg jaffe from "the washington post." gordon, let me start with you. what is new about this and why is the white house doing this? >> mr. trump visited the cia the first day after being inaugurated and got briefed. then soon thereabouts he

provided informal authority to the cia to return to these -- to continue to conduct joint strikes, which they had heretofore not been doing under the obama administration, at least in his later years. what the authority was was to give the cia permission to conduct strikes in particular in syria. we have some evidence to suggest they have also done one in pakistan as well. then we saw in syria about four or 5, 3 weeks ago they targeted an al qaeda leader in northern syria. that was the first known example of the cia's taking this authority since they got it from mr. trump. >> there has long been this turf war between the cia and pentagon

over drone strikes. >> right. there's always been this bureaucratic squabbling over this issue. under pressure from human rights groups and others, obama had kind of settled on getting a hybrid solution where the cia and dod work together to mount a strike. it was basically the cia

providing intelligence and analysis and at the last minute, allowing the dod to pull the trigger. but thus allowing that mission to be largely, publicly accountable and transparent. that was a place where mr. obama pushed to have that happen. this is the beginning of what could be a reversal of that policy under mr. trump, who clearly signaled he wants to accelerate the fight against islamic state and other groups. chemical how easy or complicated is it going to be to change the drone rules?

host: president obama was not shy about using that power. >> no, he wasn't. he has used it very heavily early in his administration until around 2013, when he looks at it and thinks, the technology is really accelerated, his administration was using it quite heavily, and felt like we need to get some rules of the road. >> can you talk about technology acceleration at how much better the drone technology has he come and how quickly it advances and how easy it can be for the military to rely on this? >> he came home with an addictive tool for the obama administration. you can do this sort of antiseptic way. the technology has gotten better, the number of drones, though they are still under high demand by the military, or more plentiful. the u.s. government has eyes in the sky. it is an effective way to conduct counterterrorism operations from the sky, and without getting u.s. troops' feet wet in that sense.

we see mr. trump money to accelerate the fight and thinking, this is an easy and good way to do it, so why not bring the cia back into it so you have essentially both agencies kind of working more closely on a site. host: can you talk about how these decisions are made? >> under the obama administration, decisions were kept at a very high level. you talk to military folks, sometimes they express frustration at what they would perceive as micromanagement by the obama white house in terms of determining whether a target should be vetted. in some cases, in the case of one target they had in libya, in

2015 it took eight months to get the decision to greenlight that particular operation. we seeing on the military side, mr. trump's interest in delegating a lot of that authority down anyway, and now we are seeing potentially camel's nose in the tent with the cia. the two agencies have different vetting thresholds, and the cia's is higher. this is not in terms of civilian casualties, but deciding a certain target is the actual target thereafter. cia's is higher than the military's, for different reasons. it's also just kind of driven by

the culture of both places being significantly different when it comes to doing this. what the military would tell you is, using their drones, the cia's use -- these are military drones they are using, they would take sometimes months to decide and conclude on a target and execute that target, whereas the defense department, which is designed to be more results-oriented or whatever, could maybe execute that target a lot sooner. there is a disparity in the thresholds that will come into play as they decide how this new authority expands or not. host: the cia would argue they are more effective at these strikes. >> yeah, that was the argument they made, particularly in pakistan where they have been operating for some time could you get to know the area and the terrain and the people. in yemen for a while, the cia and military were taking drone strikes. there was a perception in the

white house and elsewhere that the cia had become better at it because they had been doing it for longer. >> the broader point that sean spicer addressed, isis, and the briefing at least yesterday, and a lot of this information is kept under wraps or hasn't been released because they say they don't want -- the administration is fighting to figure out what is going on here. beyond drone strikes, the overall strategy, what more do we know or have we learned from the first month plus in office for the new administration? >> so far we haven't seen major changes. it is what they called in the obama administration -- we not going to commit large numbers of u.s. troops to direct combat. we are going to work through indigenous allies on the ground. that is largely what has been done in iraq and syria. you see a small change in that

-- commanders are being allowed to take more risks in terms of pushing advisors further on the battlefield. a little bit more artillery support from the ground. just not major shifts. host: if we see more troops on the ground, where would it be? >> largely what a lot of the commanders will say is that they need more advisors. we know from afghanistan that they would like more advisors and that probably will be likely true in iraq and syria. there's more openness to exposing the military which are deployed at these places, more risk. you will have a higher number of special forces say going into syria, we're seeing other numbers of conventional versus going in there. you can't overall -- this whole strategy will stay the way it

really was under obama, but you can tweak it by adding more troops here and there and just turning it up a bit. trump is probably learning there's not a magic bullet to make these things happen. host: the notion of advisors, it's always been an interesting term, right? >> right. you can drive a truck through the definition of what an advisor does. advisors up to now were supposed to stay far away from actual combat, and we had this weird term of -- rain feature behind the front line. this has been blurred anyway, under mr. obama, and it was always hard because a lot of journalists can't get in and in bed with these guys to see what they are actually doing.

-- embed with these guys to see what they are actually doing. i think mr. trump would like to keep most of what the military does under wraps. i don't think we will have an embedded program. it's going to be hard to assessed what they are doing. host: thank you both very much. ♪

♪ >> danny boyle is here. he has directed such acclaimed films as 20 hours later and steve jobs. he won the academy award for best writer in 2009 for "slum dog millionaire." boyle first made a name for himself as a filmmaker with his cult film trainspotting. it followed a group of heroin addicts following train tracks in scotland. now 20 years after the original film, boyle and the cast have reunited for a highly anticipated sequel. here is the trailer for tw trainspotting. ♪

>> missed you, man. >> i missed you too. >> choose your future. >> what did you wish to do differently? >> choose life. >> 20 years have just flown by, yeah? ♪ >> on the very first hit, you blocked it. heroin? n't take >> not for 20 years. >> you are an addict.

just be addicted to something else. ♪ >> take a deep breath and choose life. ♪ host: i'm so happy to have danny boyle at this table. welcome. so there is -- a lot of times there is a pressure after such big hits like "trainspotting" to do the sequel right away. danny: yes. >> this did not happen right away. danny: i don't have any memory of it. of anybody expressing an interest in it. usually columnist would say it can we dopected hit, that more, pay the actors more, everybody would be happy to do it again, yeah? i don't remember any of that pressure at the time. i think there was so much astonishment that it had worked, and not just in britain, but

also globally as well it , transferred. it is so specific, i think people were just frozen, their minds were frozen. i said, why not? it will never happen again. an irving she took the original , book, he published the sequel seven years later which was the "10 years later" sequel. they took the characters 10 years on, and we tried. we had a go at adapting that to try and see if that could be the sequel. host: tough subject matter. danny: yeah, and it was also the , book is not a great book like the original book, in my mind, and we did not do a great job adapting yet. i knew the people would be very disappointed if we put that out. it would feel like quite a cheap rehash of what we had done originally. the original is thought of as being very very original. , it would be to besmirch it, to follow it with something that was highly repetitive. so we we left it. , it was only when the 20 years later, the 20-year anniversary loomed on the horizon, that we

sat down around a table very like this in edinburgh. myself and the screenwriters the , two producers. we talked about it, and something a bit more personal emerged, a bit more painful about men aging over time. and what men, because they had indulged themselves as much as you could ever imagine someone indulging themselves on the edges of society, then to be caught in what it means to move from that boyhood to that manhood, really. and the film is really a study of male, of masculinity over that time period. >> it is reflective, and is said, because what has happened to them over these 20 years is not necessarily wild success. danny: no, it isn't. they feel like they have been treading water, at best. and but for instance has remained an attic, on and off, addicted. sick boy is in an ever

decreasing circle of scams. and rents in has had this crisis in amsterdam or he has led to with their money, and he is forced back by this crisis, really. host: mark took off with all the money at the end of the original movie. everyone is still upset with him over this. danny: yeah, so he runs away. >> this is you and mcgregor. danny: 20 years later he is , still running, but on a treadmill now. the wall is hit very hard and he is forced to return to where he comes from, and two friends who appeared to have just been in status until he gets back, beg him, and he may have been understandably in jail for 20 years, given the way it has been. but he comes out of jail, and they all eventually meet to relive the past in one sense, or to take revenge on it. models were not role

back then, for sure. do you want them to be role models now? danny: no. i don't think you can apply that phrase to them anyway. no, i don't think so. i think we look to them for kind of almost an alternative view. that was the success of the first film, these were voices from the margins that had such a distinctive point of view and such a coruscating sense of humor that we are attracted -- attractive despite their circumstances, despite the things they were going through which none of us would wish on our enemies, really. today now they feel they are washed up more really, because no longer possible for them to -- although they tried to -- for them to endlessly try to repeat the glories of the past as they see them. i don't think you can see them as role models now, but they certainly look like people that we recognize, probably from the more extreme sides of our experience or our friends, but you recognize them as people you have probably had in your own circle of friends. there is a violent one who will always be fighting. there's the chaotic one.

and you kind of see -- i am sure that is one of the reasons why it appealed to people so much. unapologetic as well, he did not make any apology for what it was doing, saying looking at and their behavior. , it did not condone it or apologize for it. host: the more things change, the more they stay the same for those guys. danny: those kind of things which sound like old cliches. cliches are cliches because they are often true. >> they are often true. host: the name "t2," this has gotten a lot of attention. i'm curious about the genesis of this. because when people think "t2," they think of "terminator 2." danny: indeed. >> james cameron and all of that stuff. you did not just want to call it "trainspotting"? this went through all number of developments in terms of the title. danny: yes, it did. we originally, we did not call it "trainspotting" at all. it seems perverse, but it was

important to nourishing the film on its own so it did not feel like it was going to be a sequel. of course it is a sequel. you are bringing back for actors to play the same for characters, but you wanted it to identify and tourist -- and cherish and nourish that before giving in to the inevitable. doing that and getting on its feet, we looked at the relationship with the original film in detail we admitted to , the studio, we will call it, but we want to call it, not quite "trainspotting," you want to call it "t2." they said why? everybody that goes on line will go to the james cameron films your they will balk for a james cameron dvd. ask the no, if we characters themselves what they would call the sequel if you are going to be in it? they would say, you should name it after that really great sequel, "terminator 2." so we called it t2, and it is a tribute to james cameron. that is one of the greatest sequels of all time. there has never been -- we've

never bettered the liquid robots. no one has. it was hats off to james cameron, but it was slightly annoying as well. the characters are contrary like that. >> you are trolling him a little bit. danny: in the nicest possible way. host: apparently it's a nickname -- danny: apparently it's a nickname, not a legally declared name for the film. everybody lethally says -- lazily says t2, but it is not a real name. it is part of their dna to behave in a disrespectful way to those who have gone before them, really. >> so all the guys come back, or some had never left, they come back to edinburgh and are trying to figure out the next way to make money, to make a living, to do whatever way they can. and they just, and various ways haven't been successful for 2 , decades. danny: they scam. their nature is to scam, to con

people out of money, either from individual's wallets and you see them stealing credit cards from people and and pin numbers for people, or from the european union. they apply from funding from one of the projects, and they get it , astonishingly. it can't be that easy, surely, but at this stage in the movie, they do. host: you mentioned the european union, and this movie -- the film was being shot as brexit was playing out. and now there's talk of another scottish referendum, this takes place in scotland. there are some there are some , themes of nationalism here. i am just wondering how topical you wanted to be and how much you were thinking about that as you were making it. danny: some people do choose to make films they want to be topical. i find that difficult because it takes so long to make movies, it is a serious risk, if you want to be topical, if that's the reason for your film.

i mean people do read things , into them. i was raising more on how the characters behave rather than a worldview we might have about politics particularly. it would be impossible. we shot while the brexit vote was happening. it literally -- we all voted on the day that we filmed, one of the days we filmed. ,nd even more complicatedly scotland unlike the united , kingdom, voted to leave europe, scotland voted to stay in europe 62%. i think it has led to just yesterday i think nicola , sturgeon, the first minister of scotland, she triggered the next referendum, the legal process by which there will be a second referendum about whether scotland remains in the united kingdom. it was asked previously a couple years ago, and it just decided to stay in the united kingdom. now the question will be whether it's on the ballot paper or not, on the referendum paper or not,

is do you wish to be part of , europe still? the rest of the united kingdom is withdrawing from it. and i think scotland will choose to stay in europe rather than to stay in the u.k. i don't think that the scottish -- i mean i'm english, and the , scottish have never had really great fondness for the english anyway. they have always been at war's with them. ifhave seen many times, and anything, they have an affinity with the french rather than the english. mary queen of scots used to keep her armies in scotland ready to attack the english. there is history there. host: you are dealing with guys 20, 21, 22 years ago who were young up-and-coming actors. ,a number of them now have become directors their cells, so they are wiser about the game, they might have their own opinions on things. does that make things easier or more complicated for you? danny: weirdly, it made it a lot easier. it is not so much the directing experience. n mcgregor and bobby

carlyle have both made movies. i think they were delighted not to have the responsibility for the directing and they could think about their character. what you benefit from is their experience as storytellers, the four of them. they have done so many. directors do maybe one film every two years. actors can maybe tell four or five different stories in a calendar year. that a knowize shortcuts, and they know how to help you in a way -- it is automatic sometimes. i did notice it particularly in comparison to when we made the first one, when we were all pretty much stumbling around not knowing what we were doing, and we kind of got away with it. if you are lucky, you get away with it in the early days. we all know about experience and the seat of our pants and that kind of stuff. now a day, not much more skilled, but they are impatient because they have the performance ready, and they want to give it, and they don't want to be delayed by cruise and long -- crews and lighting and things

like that. me and the crew, we had to really be on top marks to capture the performances from them, because they are itching to give them. >> i'm curious how you push these guys now. because they are comfortable in these roles, are you trying to put them in places where they are not comfortable? danny: a little bit sometimes. you do have to -- they are very brave actors. the first film in this film, they are not like mumble core social realist performances. they are quite big. they are quite declared performances. they are always happy to have a look at the extremes of the way to perform the character. so you can make suggestions like that. all actors have an automatic sense theye, if they are overdoing it, they will pull back. a good actor, anyway. sequelh, he wrote the that came out a little less than 10 years after his original book. he also wrote a prequel to "trainspotting." has there been any talk of doing

that in any way? danny: he's very interesting. he visits these characters and other characters associated with them. multiple times in multiple books, and he has done a book about their lives -- their younger lives. there has been talk about a newvision series in the television world, extended storytelling, 10 hours and maybe multiple series. he has written an extraordinary book about just begby called "the blade artist," the most recent work he has published. and that is a wonderful book. not written like his other work, very compact and thriller like. i know bobby carlyle would love to do that. not really a character spinoff like in the marvel universe. but it is sort of the , trainspotting version of that. danny: "bagby" is still the toughest one to watch. danny: yeah. but don't people like him as well? i may not -- not like him, like

him, but he's funny. you laugh, you have a good laugh. >> funny, but -- danny: you never want to be caught alone with him in a bar. it's very tender at the end. didn't you find that? host: he was. after being un-tender for a long time. think it isst, i very difficult to watch him because he is -- they are all self-destructive in a way. but he can be self-destructive and violence. danny: he is actually the most destructive of all of them. yeah. he's an interesting actor. he can access that in a terrifying way and yet is a sweetheart. but interestingly, he doesn't go home to his family when he is performing "bagby." because he thinks in some way, he doesn't want it -- he thinks he is still in his clothes, how he expresses it, there might be elements still around him that he can't, that he's not aware of and he will brush against his children in some way.

so the always stays in a hotel when he is doing baby. you can do the hotel with him? host: for the sake of the family, i think we have a "bagby" clip. ♪

>> don't stop. ♪ host: another example of "bagby" willing to put himself in danger to hurt someone else. you -- it did surprise me that you did this a little bit. danny: did it? >> only because you jumped around so successfully into different genres and never sort packed really have been into one movie or film, right? oneso to return to the characters it seems like you , would almost -- like your wanderlust would want to carry you somewhere else and you would not want to go back necessarily?

danny: it became the biggest challenge of all. once you broached the idea, could you return to it? and make something decent that would stand beside it? so it wasn't like you were going to repeat something you knew you could do or were familiar with. studios often want to hire you because they think you can do a certain genre. they think, oh, you are good at that, get him to do that. it wasn't that. it was, could we move it on? in 20 years, such an extraordinary time span. because it is the perfect time span for that telescope of time, where, depending on which way you look on the telescope, it's either almost out of reach or on top of you still. and movies this is one of the , things i learned doing it. it was wonderful to do it. was, movies are about time. i have never -- when we got in the editing, you realize that movies are, and it's the ultimate art form, is

for the study of time. all you know in editing, and you do this you compress time or you , extend it or you make it vanish or you stop it or you start it again. and is this control of time, over time, over the audiences two hours of time that they give you that it is the perfect art form for it. you can literally, and if audiences have an image of a favorite film, and for some people, "trainspotting" is an affectionate feeling. they have locked those actors in time. i have done this with films. i know the actors make other films and they are aging, but i have that image of them there. then you can go back to that image and just say no, they are not mythologized. they are us. they are just like us, the y answer time like we all do. men especially deny it for so long and so often and so vigorously. we try to kind of keep our backs turned to it. but you realize ultimately, time doesn't care about you.

and you have to make your peace with it somehow. so i could not think of it. there was nothing i wanted to do more than it once we began working on it. >> you mentioned studios and how they want to push you a certain way. you've always resisted that. you don't i think you don't what , the stories to go a certain way or you want them to go the way you think you can tell that story the best way. you are a hollywood guy. you made a couple hollywood movies, a couple american films. but is mostly you'd rather keep , the budget a little lower and keep the independence than take the bigger money and get told what to do. danny: yeah. you, i mean we make the films , for a limited budget. it is still a lot of money because it is near $20 million, a huge amount of money. host: compared to the other "t2." danny: but he's a genius at handling bigger budgets as well.

but i don't, and this is a personal preference, and i love watching the bigger budget movies, especially james cameron ones, but it's obvious, if a studio gives you $50 million, they are going to be worried, but not as worried as the guy they are giving $200 million to. so you are inevitably think, there's a bit of cunning there. we will keep them off our back for as much as possible. it is not a question of they are , not the great evil one . you want to work with them and you work with really good people in the studios as well. but obviously the financial concerns, if you ease them for as long as possible, it gives you freedom to express yourself in the way you want to do. and also, and it is provocations like the first trainspotting film, and there are elements within this that are really tough choices that you make, which, in a mainstream film cost $100 million, you probably would not be wise to include. you know? host: probably not. [laughter] .> once you see t2

the music, as was the case in the first one, is thundering and prominent. this is just a movie, it's a soundtrack. so is it, when you, how much what kind of care, and this , selection goes into figuring out what makes it in? danny: it's everything. i'm a product of music. like i mean, so many of us are. the pulse war, music. and by that i mean pop music, really is a kind of liquid architecture that runs through our lives, backward and forward, and it is smeared us often by high culture as low culture, but actually for me it's all culture. and these characters, in the first movie, the music is as important to them as the dialogue, the scenarios in the scenes. it stands beside them as an equal character in the film

really. it sets off different emotions in people, which is one of the extraordinary things about it. especially with this, because we tried to trigger a number of times that muscle memory you have of the first movie. you hear chords that he recognized from that first movie, and it has been reimagined. we did not just want to copy, repeat the music from the first film, so they happen reimagined or remixed. but they do trigger emotions in you which are in movie terms, it's wonderful to do that because that is not a conscious thing you're in control of with music. in effects you in different ways, to do with your own memories to do with those , tracks, or you complement or contradict a scene you are watching. you know? so that one, you had you had frankie goes to hollywood, which is a great gay anthem, really. there's a character in it, bagby, who is taking a

considerable amount of viagra before that scene happens. you clearly see that his blood loss is excited by the fighting with vincent rather than the way he would conventionally challenge, as you think. so you can have tremendous fun with the choice of music as well, and trigger lovely connections with people. for him, pop-culture is our culture. for us all we live through , music. you look for -- and the younger generation. you don't look at rihanna, but look at the onset, how important ,t is in their lives -- beyonce how important it is in their lives, girls really, and it deserves to be cherished as true culture even if it is only 3 minutes long. host: a pleasure to see on screen a pleasure to have you , here, danny boyle. thanks so much. danny: cheers. ♪

>> it is almost 11:00 in hong kong. shery: welcome to bloomberg markets: asia. ♪ david: the boj maintains policy with the fed making as much anticipated rate hike. shery: the pboc takes a move, reversing rates but says don't over think what that means. david: president trump offers to setbacks, lawmakers find out evidence of -- find no evidence of water tapping -- wiretapping.

shery: we have the latest from tokyo. david: we will be recap the boj, no surprise. they have maintained their policies. rates, you'll target 0% for the 10 year, policy balance -.1%, the vote 7-2. we will be rushing out the details -- fleshing out the details. hopefully we get more. shery: also the jcb holdings. people were expecting if they were going to say anything about , theasing the number of amount of those jgb purchases they do carry out, nothing has changed on that either. also the boj economic assessment, unchanged from the last meeting, and the fact the economy continues to moderate. we are seeing recovery. let's get the details and flesh this out with the global