♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. in an interview with "the new york times," president trump wednesday, revealed he would not have named jeff sessions as attorney general if yet known he would have recused himself from the russian investigation. he told reporters, "i would have picked somebody else." on sessions announced he would thursday, remain in his post as attorney general as long as appropriate. today marks six months since president trump took office. joining me from washington, robert costa, a national political reporter for "the washington post," moderator of "washington week" on pbs, and i'm pleased to have him back on

the program. welcome back. robert: great to join you. charlie: le.t's talk about jeff sessions and the fact he decided to stay on and what this split with the president means, and what can we read into it? robert: it was a stunning and revealing moment at the same time, charlie to have the , president sit down with peter baker and maggie haberman and michael schmidt of "the new york times" and talk of his frustrations with his attorney general, which can be traced back to jeff sessions' decision recusese himself -- himself from the russia investigation. ever since then, the president has been furious behind the scenes because he believes that sessions' recusal has left him personally and his administration vulnerable to attack from democrats, obama to the special counsel now being run by bob mueller. and it has created a suffocating cloud around the white house

where the rest of the agenda seems to get stalled, and he traces a lot of this back to sessions who he thought could be , a man at the justice department. charlie: some are saying it was the firing of james comey that led to the appointment of bob mueller. and if he had not listened to the people urging him to fire comey, he would not have had the special prosecutor put in place by the deputy attorney general. robert: that is exactly right. there is a lot of swirling factors that have led the president to this point. it is not just sessions recusing himself. it is the decision by the president to have a private conversation with the former f.b.i. director that prompted the special counsel. it prompted all the reshuffling within the investigative units in the justice department. my sources at the white house they -- say the president believes he does not have an exit plan. he has brought so many lawyers in.

they are telling him to be more disciplined, to not weigh-in on the day by day developments. but the president feels he has to be his own defender. that came through in the interview. without sessions fighting his fight, without his lawyers being out there in an aggressive way, he thinks he has to be the spokesman and the warrior at the same time. charlie: what happens to jeff sessions as attorney general? robert: it is an intriguing drama within the trump administration. i've covered the now attorney general for a long time, that to -- back to his senate days. he was the ideological core for what trumpism became in 2015 and 2016, this populist, nationalist fusion of conservative politics and activism and anger. it is often credited to steve bannon. but in fact, attorney general sessions has been cultivating these kind of political themes for a long time. he was the first senator to endorse trump during the campaign. that is why he was first in line to be appointed attorney

general. he was important in the early days of this administration , shaping the executive action on immigration, helping the president think through criminal justice policy. because of that recusal, you see trump and his personality come to the fore. he is so transactional, so determined to make decisions based on the public imagination of where he stands. if sessions was no longer helpful, he was out. we have not seen him be part of the inner circle ever since. charlie: did the president want him to resign? >> people inside the white house say the president made the decision to make these on the record claims, but they were quite shocked that he went on the record with these comments. they were interpreted as a push out the door, the sessions would wake up on thursday and safety -- and say, i can no longer serve as attorney general. in any other administration, this kind of dynamic, a

president speaking out against his own cabinet member for attorney general would prompt a , resignation. but the president dislikes confrontation, direct confrontation. we have seen this throughout his career. you see sessions isolated over at the justice department, not really sure how to interpret what happened in the "new york times" interview. this was not some strategic outburst. this was an outburst by the president in an interview. that's why you had sessions on saying, "inning, fact, i'm going to stay." we will see how long that lasts. charlie: how does this fit into the russian probe? hearings next week, some private, some open? robert: there are a lot of questions remain about paul manafort, don jr., the son who had a meeting last summer with russian figures, and jared kushner, the son-in-law and senior adviser. they all promised they would like to speak to the senate intelligence committee. the question up in the air is whether these will be open hearings, whether these would be

closed hearings. it looks like it is going to be closed with kushner. we will see if it even happens. with don jr. and paul manafort, likely to be closed hearings. you see the senators now trying to move forward with their own investigation. mark warner, the ranking democrat from virginia, richard burr from north carolina, they want to show their voters and constituencies progress in the investigation. that is why you see a flurry of activity on capitol hill. as much as there is progress on the capitol hill congressional investigation, the real story is bob mueller and the special counsel, what he is looking into. you see in the interview real news that the president is concerned mueller is looking into his personal finances and the trump organization. charlie: some speculate that has been the reason all along the past two i don't did not want to reveal his income taxes.

a question about russian money and how it has played into various trump ventures over the past few decades has been an unanswered question throughout this entire process. and clearly, if you look at the president's remarks, he is skittish about the idea of his tax returns maybe being reviewed by mueller or at least elements of his finances being reviewed by investigators. because the president believes he can perhaps skate any kind of obstruction charge or about how he handled the investigation with comey and others. but if it becomes a broader investigation with a scope that goes back into the 1980's and 1990's when he was struggling with his finances and his businesses were in debt, some in bankruptcy, and how foreign investors played into his enterprises, that is a whole other front this white house is not eager to confront. charlie: lob pass stuff from "the washington post," thank you.

we will be right back. ♪ charlie: we continue this evening with senator john mccain rain cancer -- brain cancer diagnosis. lab results revealed a primary brain tumor was associated with the blood clot. let results later revealed that ioblastomaown as a gl had formed. mccain was previously diagnosed with invasive melanoma in 2000. doctor joins me to talk about the latest diagnosis. he is one of the leading oncologists in the country, and i'm pleased to have him here. what can you tell me, based on the reports you have seen and friends you know in the medical community, about the condition? glioblastoma is a very aggressive brain cancer. the first step is to take it out. leave no tumor behind. that was accomplished. that is a big step forward. we know if you get a patient

chemotherapy and radiation therapy together, they are going to live longer and it will delay the time until it comes back. unfortunately, it comes back in almost all cases. putting the two together will delay it coming back. charlie: is there a race for time? the forward progress in treating cancer and brain cancer is of velocity that you never know what might be possible six months from now, because of tests that are on the way. david: no doubt about it, so much is going on in this space now that it really is exciting. all of us in the field are jumping up and down. we can target genes. we can reactivate the immune system to attack the cancer itself. those are some of them on the market. most of them are what we call clinical trials being developed now. every time you make a decision in his care, the first question is, is it the right decision and does it preclude you from getting something down the pike that may be more exciting?

charlie: what are the prospects for most people who have this? is it a life term of a year or two years? i know you cannot make specific conclusions unless you know the patient. and even then, it is difficult. david: this disease unfortunately behaves very similarly in most patients. his course will be three or four weeks after surgery, he will start oral chemotherapy together with radiation therapy. that will last six weeks. radiation is monday through friday for about six weeks. there is a month off and then six months of taking an oral pill for chemotherapy. and then you stop and wait for it to recur. unfortunately, recurrence happens in almost all patients. at that point, we can try experimental therapies. there are therapies like at duke university, they can put the polio virus into the brain

cancer which makes it more foreign to the immune system and the immune system can attack the cancer. there are several cases reported to have had this there be with -- this therapy with dramatic responses in brain cancer that failed almost everything and they are alive years later. so there is hope for the first time in this disease. charlie: what causes this disease? david: it is luck of the draw, unfortunately. there are genetic associations if you have a familial history of a mutant gene, but in most cases, it is luck of the draw. the amazing thing about it is even though the margins were clear, he comes back in almost all cases. in the old days decades ago, , they took out half of the brain with this cancer and there was no better outcome than when they take out just the cancer itself, because these tentacles go throughout the brain. an amazing adaptive mechanism in this cancer. charlie: does brain cancer spread faster than most cancers or not? david: many cancers are limited to where they can spread. the brain is an area where they can keep invading.

it is very hard to go in and do things because we need to brain to function. people can get very symptomatic when it grows one millimeter because it may push on the motor neuron function or sensory function. pancreatic cancer can grow very large before you are symptomatic. these cancers, slight changes can cause problems. just like we saw in senator mccain a week ago when he had some issues speaking sentences. that may have been from the inflammation associated with the cancer. , i thinkincluding senator lindsey graham said he had been tired and feeling more fatigued over the last several weeks. is that a symptom as well? david: your body talks to you. when the cancer is there it is , not just the cancer, but it causes inflammation. that pushes pressure on other areas of the brain. when they take it out, inflammation abates. and classically, patients feel better. charlie: i know everyone in

america is hoping for the best not only for senator mccain, but also in the recognition of the fighting spirit he has exhibited in his public and private life. david, thank you for joining us. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪ charlie: o.j. simpson will soon be released from prison after serving nine years for kidnapping and armed robbery. april board voted unanimously to shorten his 33 year sentence in a hearing held this afternoon. the former professional football player previously faced trial in 1995 for the murder of his ex-wife nicole brown simpson, and her friend ronald goldman. , o.j. simpson was acquitted of those charges in the most-watched court case in history. here is the report from the "cbs evening news," this evening. >> mr. simpson, i vote to grant parole when eligible. and that will conclude this hearing. >> thank you. reporter: his relief was

obvious. o.j. simpson, now 70, would soon be free on parole. >> it was a serious crime and there was no excuse. reporter: the hearing lasted more than an hour as commissioners asked simpson how prison had changed him. >> are you humbled by this incarceration? >> yes. sure. reporter: while expressing regret, he insisted others brought guns. the day in las vegas they robbed two memorabilia dealers of items simpson believed had been stolen from him. >> i am no danger to pull a gun on anybody. i never have in my life. i have never been accused of it in my life. reporter: one of the dealers robbed that day told the parole board simpson had served enough time. >> this is a good man. he made a mistake. >> he truly is remorseful. reporter: simpson's oldest daughter. >> we just want him to come home so we can move forward for us quietly. >> i am not a guy who has lived a criminal life. i am a pretty straight shooter.

reporter: but hanging over the hearing was the accusation in 1994 simpson brutally murdered his ex-wife nicole and her friend, ronald goldman. >> i have always thought i have been pretty good with people. i basically have spent a conflict-free life. >> one of the least self-aware moments i have ever heard. reporter: law professor laurie levinson. >> there are a lot of things you might say about o.j. simpson. you might even say the acquittal was fair. but to say he has led a conflict-free life? i don't think so. reporter: simpson will remain in prison until at least october 1. he says he wants to return to florida where he lived before his nevada conviction, but parole officials in both states must agree. charlie: joining me is rikki klieman, a legal analyst for cbs news and former prosecutor. i'm pleased to have her back on this program. tell me about o.j. simpson's parole. it was quite a long

hearing, indeed. i think it had a rocky start. the first question to o.j. simpson was when he went into that room in las vegas, nevada, back in 2007, what was he thinking? the obvious answer, if a lawyer had coached him and prepared him for that answer, was, i was not thinking at all. i should not have gone in. if i had thought, i would not have gone in. instead, o.j. simpson decided to tell his story. and it was relitigating the entire kidnapping and robbery case from simpson's perspective, which is, it is everyone else's fault but mine. i thought to myself this was not the way to begin. but eventually, he redeemed himself by expressing remorse, by expressing how sorry he was, not only to his victims but also to the people of the state of nevada. and explaining how he tried to

redeem himself by being a model prisoner. in addition, we not only heard from his lawyer, but we heard from his daughter, and we heard from one of the victims. charlie: who supported parole. rikki: the most important. he supported parole. but it was more significant than that. he was actually powerfully, emotionally moving in what was supposed to be a fact-based hearing. he talked about what indignity and fear he had suffered as a result of this event. he did not cast that to the side. but he talked about simpson being a good man and that it was not that he was there because he was o.j. simpson's friend for 27 years, he was there because it was the right thing to do. that this sentence was too long, that he himself had only wanted simpson to do one to three years. and he ended his testimony by

saying words to the effect, if you want me to come and pick you up when you are released, i will be there for you. it was when you saw simpson well up and you saw finally some really profound emotion and thankfulness for this friendship, and i think that was critical in what otherwise is simply a grid of factors. charlie: how important is being a model prisoner? rikki: very important. charlie: he was that. everybody agrees. rikki: yes. no disciplinary infractions for almost nine years. almost unheard of. charlie: remorse is important. rikki: critical. he did that. charlie: what else is important? rikki: what else is important is what activities he was doing in prison to show he was undergoing not only rehabilitation there, but that in fact if he were to be released that he would not be , a threat to others in society. we have the good and bad with that. let's start with the bad.

he was asked, requested back in 2013 at his last parole hearing, to do something about alcohol because he had been using alcohol the day of the kidnapping and burglary. he says today, i decided not to do that because i don't have a problem with alcohol. i went, this is really bad. then let's look at the good. he talked about the programs he did do and that the most important one to him, which he felt should be mandatory for all inmates, was a program about how you deal with violence. and it was a program about talking things down. and i think that program itself, in addition to taking vocational training for computer science so he could communicate with his children, but his realization that he needed to do this program, that he would then be

able to talk to people and not react. charlie: thank you. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: we begin this evening with part two of a two-part conversation with the foreign minister of iran, dr. zarif.

we talked about many things in terms of those issues that separate the united states from iran, and we have listened to how the foreign minister understands america. we continue to conversation now. this was before the election 2016. occasionally, i would hear someone say in five to 10 years, , the u.s. will be closer to run -- iran than it is to saudi arabia. dr. zarif: we are not competing for u.s. favor. charlie: i know that. i think the geopolitical world is changing. dr. zarif: i think the united states needs to reevaluate the achievements and failures of the united states in our region. and based on that reassessment, we will see the role and place of various countries in the region. we are not competing with saudi

arabia. we believe iran and saudi arabia should be a part of a regional dialogue. i wrote an op-ed in the "new york times" several years ago calling for a regional dialogue. i believe that is what is lacking in our region. we are ready for it. i believe as soon as our saudi neighbors are ready to engage in dialogue and resolving issues through dialogue, not through pressure because unfortunately this has become a habit of using the united states for pressure on different countries or to impose direct pressure. charlie: does this include israel? dr. zarif: i'm talking about our immediate neighbors in the persian gulf. i think it's not too modest, because all of the wars in recent years, from the iraqi invasion of iran to the iraqi invasion of kuwait, to u.s. operations to liberate kuwait

from iran, the u.s. operation against iraq, to al qaeda, to isis, to yemen. let's concentrate. let's not be too ambitious. let's concentrate on this region which has been a hotbed of extremism, violence, and war and conflict. and let's deal with this. we are ready to deal with it. we are ready to resolve the problems. we are ready to engage in dialogue. we are ready to engage in confidence building measures. and we believe others should not look for an enemy. there is no need for an enemy. we don't need an enemy. we already have enough enemies. charlie: you don't see the united states as an enemy? dr. zarif: i am talking about our immediate neighborhood. the united states can define its relations with iran at this time and for some time, the united states has defined its relations

with iran in terms of hostility. this is nothing new. it is not particular to this administration. unfortunately, the united states has followed a hostile policy towards iran and received a reciprocal reaction. charlie: those that include president obama? dr. zarif: president obama pursued a very hostile policy towards iran for many years. and then he came to the conclusion towards the end of his administration that he needed to find a negotiated way only with regards to the nuclear issue, while the united states continued the hostile policies on other issues. charlie: but it was iran also that insisted we don't want to talk about our behavior. we do not want to talk about -- you wanted the nuclear deal but did not want to be on the table iranian behavior, as the united states would define it, supporting extremism and terrorism. dr. zarif: we wanted to limit

the immediate discussion to the nuclear issues so as not to complicate it. iran has more grievances about u.s. behavior. how about the fact that the united states -- you and i have been at this table discussing the fact in 2003, if you remember, when i predicted the u.s. invasion of iraq would lead to more extremism in iraq. we have grievances. we have problems with u.s. behavior. but with the nuclear issue, we thought this was a burning issue that needed to be resolved. it should not be further complicated by adding extraneous elements. but even then we said if we can make progress on this issue to reduce the mutual lack of trust,

then we can build on this issue to move to other issues. that is why we said very clearly -- charlie: is that still possible? dr. zarif: unfortunately, the behavior by the united states , even during the obama administration, but particularly since the new administration, the stuff taking place and the statements from the white house. yesterday even to certify iran has complied, they made sure they put some new designations against iran at the same time so they would prevent iran from benefiting from the economic dividends on the nuclear deal. this has been consistent policy of this administration, even of previous administrations. this administration is more open in stating it. i am happy the rest of the international community is continuing to business with iran in spite of the intransigent rhetoric coming from washington. that is what is keeping the nuclear deal alive.

i believe the nuclear deal is alive because the rest of the world and iran want to keep it. because it is a multilateral agreement and it is being kept alive by people who are engaging with iran, and i believe the united states as someone who has studied the united states for a long time, i can tell you it is in the interest of the united states to revisit its policy, to reassess where it went wrong in its policy of play double -- of applying double standards to our region. the range of issues you said would be of concern in our behavior to the united states, we have similar concerns. in addition to that, we have a concern about the application of double standards on human rights. which of your allies in the

region have a record even close to iran? in terms of respect for human rights? charlie: it's hard for me because every time anyone knows you are going to be here, and i saw this with my colleague at cbs, they bring up one case after another, and the answer always is that is up to the , judiciary, not the government. that's the human rights question. dr. zarif: i give you that. let's make a comparison. iraq under saddam hussein was not been criticized for its human rights violations until it invaded kuwait. other governments in the region never had a ballot box, never had a vote, no representatives.

we had hardly any rights and nobody complains about their human rights. they are u.s. allies. are there any human rights sanctions against any of your arab allies? why are they imposed on iran? and sing with respect to saudi arabia, they do raise the question. dr. zarif: very nicely. but not a single saudi individual is designated by the u.s. -- and i'm not logged in be, because i think it is the wrong policy. it is right.ve but just to compare, not a single individual in saudi arabia where innocent human , and there'sheaded

no human rights violation designation from the u.s. the only question from geopolitics. i had to escape and come to the u.s. because of violations of human rights. charlie: let's assume the u.s. should speak out against -- and you are correct -- should speak out against human rights violations, not only with its allies, but also within his own country. dr. zarif: everybody can improve human rights. charlie: human rights ought to be the guy. regardless of whether they are friend or foe. dr. zarif: i agree. but human rights must be first and foremost a concern of each individual country for their own whereons, because that is iran,ive legitimacy, with for instance. it is where we derive security,

economic well-being and prosperity. we don't get it from outside. look at the reality of the ground. with all the sanctions, all the pressure, all the wars, all the containments. we are prospering. we are surviving. we're making progress. five in scientific articles in the field of nanotechnology. we are among the top 10 in many areas of science and technology. we achieve that by relying on our people. charlie: i would say to that, good for you. good for us, is but we get it, in spite of the fact that we are under restrictions. that tells you something about our relations with our own people. every country can improve its human rights record. charlie: including iran. dr. zarif: obviously including iran. that is why the president of iran has put out a charter of the rights of the citizens.

we believe excesses exist. we need to address those. we need to resolve them. this is our own priority and an issue of national security for us. because that is how we derive our legitimacy. from our people. so we have to respect them. pure and simple. this was one of the major topics during our election campaign. president rouhani's platform is clear. charlie: we have to do better on human rights? dr. zarif: much better. but there are others in our region who are far far behind. but the u.s. never complains about then. they are not designated by the u.s. they support terrorism. not a single one of them is designated. they are sending terrorists to your territories. to bee: we do have

careful about that. there were saudi's, but no one has proven they were sent by the saudi government. dr. zarif: has anybody proven anything about iran? a court in newat york condemned iran for participating in 9/11? us $11 billion for participating in 9/11. you want me to buy this? come on. go read the court documents. a court in new york awarded $11 billion to the victims of 911 against iran. you're telling me nobody has proven saudi arabia was behind it? that me tell you something you are familiar with. president trump banned citizens of six countries from coming to the united states. it included iran.

iranians in the u.s. are outstanding citizens. outstanding members of their own communities. charlie: they are. dr. zarif: good physicians, good scientists. say,ie: if you want me to and i have said it, that iranians have come to the u.s. and made huge contributions to who we are, they have. they have made a huge contribution. and so have immigrants from all over the world. that is one of the values that the united states stands for. do you agree? dr. zarif: i do. that is why it is mind-boggling havee to see that iranians been singled out as one of the bancountries in the travel by president trump.

that is an affront. charlie: does it therefore cause you to have great respect for the american system that courts had said it cannot happen? dr. zarif: but actually at the end, they allowed -- charlie: the courts have ruled again. the united states ruled against that. dr. zarif: and we applauded that. charlie: and most americans -- most americans believe that a ban on the basis of religion is an affront to what america stands for. dr. zarif: our nationality. i would agree. does president trump agree? charlie: i can't speak for president trump. [laughter] though, it is always a pleasure to have you here. dr. zarif: good to be here. thank you for the conversation. charlie: come back soon. thank you.

♪

whoooo. i enjoy the fresher things in life. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh. tripadvisor. the latest reviews.

the lowest prices. ♪ charlie: in a time when $200 million franchises dominate box office, many worry about the diminishing role of the director as a visionary. in the common niche genre, they are still the choice of film.

joining the are three of the top comedy so makers working today, judd apatow, director of the "40-year-old virgin" and "trainwreck" and the television series "freaks and geeks." michael showalter, writer of wet hot american summer and cocreator tbs series search party. and writer and director of rough night and the series brought city. i am pleased to have all of you at this table. i assume we are taught about directing and inspiring comedy. >> yes. i just like hearing you say the words wet hot american summer. charlie: let me start with you. what inspired you to do what you do. i only wanted to be a standup comedian. to payt watch movies attention to the angles. i never thought about the lenses and the framing. "seinfeld," and

then i met gary shandling and he taught me about story and about comedy coming from a very deep, honest place. watching him explore his own life and his own spiritual quest i got inspired to slowly , attempt figure out how i might do that. charlie: what inspired you? similarly, actually came from performing initially, and then nobody would cast me. there, then i went to study found that college, i figured i knew how to make things, so i started to make videos. i feel like i'm part of this digital generation. as soon as i was able to start making a few videos, i found it was a really satisfying to just make things, because i was able to control as much as possible.

comedy is the only thing i feel like i can understand what the target is and whether or not i'm hitting it. i'm really giving myself very few options. charlie: to know comedy, do you have to have a certain central thing at your own core? to get it? lucia: at least for me i always , try to go with my gut and think i'm relatively self-actualized know what extend my gut is telling me. so i try not to be too heady about it, and is badly way i think i can at least say that i know it is funny to me. charlie: and you? moments.a few aha when i saw "animal house," that was a big moment. i was in the fourth grade, maybe. i went to see it in the movie theater and was captivated by john belushi with not a single thing to connect me to him, but there was something about the energy and rawness of his

performance. >> i saw it with my mom. that's an awkward afternoon. >> i went and visited my sister. she was in college. she took me to see an improv group at the purple crown. i was blown away by that and said that's what i want to do when i go to college. when i went to college i joined , a sketch comedy troupe, not thinking it was going to be my career. i thought i would going to something like being a college teacher. here i am. charlie: is being a performer helpful for being behind the camera? >> i think so. you get a little idea of what it's like to be an actor. i think that's helpful to know what challenges the actors may be dealing with internally. you may be able to speak their language. charlie: you know where they are. charlie:>> yes. >> how lonely they are.

charlie: they are lonely? >> i think so. i try not to act, because it doesn't go well. when people ask me to do a little quick thing, when you are by yourself and waiting for anyone to walk over and say it's not going terribly. you are very nervous and needy while you are doing it. charlie: and you don't want to ask, how am i doing? >> you just sit there and wait for someone. some people don't tell you. they show they are happy by not talking to you. it's scary. >> i think of it as they are kind of like stop people, our athletes -- stunt people, or athletes. you are there to catch them when they fall. they just need help because i'm going to turn myself inside out. you need to tell me if that was ok. it's good to know how vulnerable it can be when they are doing that. kumail had to really be emotional.

momentseliving all this in his life when his girlfriend's life was at risk. like: they are kind of baseball players running from third, and you are like, go home! it's ok! charlie: take a look at this. this is from "the big sick," where they meet at the bar after she has interrupted his standup set. here it is. hi. >> we saw you perform. >> now that the niceties are out of the way, i have to tell you when you yelled at me, it really threw me off and you really shouldn't heckle comedians, it's so rude. >> i didn't heckle you. hooed you.

it is supported. >> that's a common misconception. yelling anything at a comedian is considered heckling. heckling doesn't have to be negative. >> if i yelled out your amazing in bed, that would be a heckle. >> yes, it would be an accurate heckle. >> wow. >> you scared my friend off now. charlie: what do we say about that as comedy? >> i think it follows in the tradition of trying to be as truthful as possible. that's life. i feel like in life anything is so awkward and weird. you don't need it to be much broader to be funny. charlie: what broad generalizations can we make about making comedy, whether it is sketch comedy or standup. broad generalizations about who

is drawn to it, who does well at it. >> i have been talking to people, now that the movie is coming out. a lot of people -- stuff in the movie, we see comedians backstage talking to each other, bantering. there's a competitiveness but there is camaraderie. i always felt like comedians, like musicians, there is a shared vocabulary. there is a way they talk to each other that is not something you learn, is who we are. it's the same way if you get five musicians together it's a chance they will start to jam. and people who weren't musicians want to leave. charlie: you started doing stuff for youtube. lucia: i did. i was doing improv in new york but i was making in lot of sketch videos for the internet. charlie: how did they find you? lucia: youtube.com.

generally when we began, i make videos with my partner and we basically were able to find a weird little niche. you wanted to make things that had a hook to them, that were quick. and that people would want to share not just because it was relatable, but there was something about it, something about society or culture, especially pop culture that put a spotlight on it. it's been interesting adapting that into tv and film because it doesn't always adapt that easily. realizing the medium is the message has really informed the way we write and the way we produce things. charlie: people who have caught on on youtube, you can leap forward. amazingly fast. in a sort of meteoric way. lucia: absolutely. people feel like they are watching a unique voice or somebody who has some sort of auteur vision even

if on youtube you have a sense that person might still have that singular vision of matter what the or matters. charlie: does everybody who do comedy wishing to do some serious stuff? and as everybody who do serious stuff which they can do comedy? my impression is, people who do comedy want to show they can do serious stuff, but people who are serious wish they could do comedy but can't. >> comedy always has an drama, butg of someone coming from drama never always has an underpinning of comedy. billy wilder made some of the funniest movies of all time. i think if you are deadly serious person it is hard. >> they say people are funny in their bones. like will ferrell is funny he , can't help it. it is just spilling out of him. i think there are things with it just can't help it. i wasn't even joking and people think you are being serious. charlie: which do you prefer?

>> i like comedy, i like when comedies make you feel something. i've worked on a lot of sillier comedies that i am proud of. i did some parity movies. --parody movies. i love the big silly stuff. when you feel the crowd get emotional within a comedy if you , can make them cry it always feels like something special. charlie: any difference in directing for film versus television? lucia: for me, it was definitely thinking about the audience and a group of one or two or three people watching in their living room versus a crowd of 400 people and the way they can react to something. they need to laugh at something together. i learned a lot about the natural rhythm of comedy.

it changed a little bit from tv to film. it's more about the audience. that's something also i learned, which is carrying a little more about the audience. charlie: do you all want to direct stuff you write? >> i have done that. this film is something that i directed something that kumail and emily wrote. you find things in it that are personal. charlie: did they come to you .> no, i begged judd charlie: you to say i need a job. or do you say on the most gifted person in the world, if he don't hire me to do this than this will be a disaster, believe me. >> kind of, but not as bluntly put. you say i passionately believe in this movie. >> he manipulated me. [laughter] knowing all the nice

things you say about us, you like doing everything. you want to be an owner and a player. you really want to. >> every project is different. i saw mike's movie that sally field starred in. i remember watching and thinking it was great. i love the tone. it was so funny and real. started talking about doing this, i thought, i can do it, and then i found out ail ands friends with kum emily. then i'm happy not to do it. if i think it can work without me, i'm happy not to do it. judd was really passionate, hands-on, really involved at every stage, which for someone as busy --

charlie: was that good for you or not? >> it was great you have someone . it was amazing. you have someone who has a lot of experience and success. you listen. it helps when we talk about the movie thing. the process of screening the movie and getting the feedback from the audience. i feel like he has a lot of expertise about understanding how to tweak the edit to make -- for me, that was a really amazing thing to go through. movie, getting feedback, and learning how to take what you know and apply it to editing. >> when you are doing tv, it's funny that you never have to go through that. we have a show on netflix. we just added it, we are done, just check it on tv. we don't know where the laughs are or whether people are watching or not. it is very pure. but when you are doing a movie for hundreds of people, you need

to make them make noise. it is a communal experience. so you listen you go, i think , the laugh is supposed to be here but we are not getting a laugh at all. you talk about adjustments you can make until the whole movie has a musical rhythm and interaction with the crowd, they are laughing and responding in a way you want them to. i don't know if it is better or not. sometimes i wonder if my first cut of "knocked up" was better before started tweaking it for the audience. charlie: who is your favorite person to work with? >> of course, my wife. we have a fun time collaborating. we have been talking at home for years about what's possible. i had a great time with adam sandler, he's an old friend. everybody. steve carell. my wife is about to make a movie with steve carell. i'm just jealous. i want to hang around and pretend i'm a part of it. charlie: why did you go back to stand -- stand up?

>> i got bored of being in editing rooms with sweaty men for years. people get stale but they are not in touch in the audience. they don't know what's funny. they don't know what people are thinking about. i think it is really helpful to just understand what you do if you are by yourself. -- if you are by yourself, it's harder. i will be at the wilbur in boston on the 24th, if you are looking to promote that. charlie: we just did. thank you. thank you for joining us. ♪ see you next time. ♪

whoooo. i enjoy the fresher things in life. fresh towels. fresh soaps. and of course, tripadvisor's freshest, lowest prices. so if you're anything like me... ...you'll want to check tripadvisor. we now instantly compare prices from over 200 booking sites... ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. go on, try something fresh. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices.

alisa: i am alisa parenti in washington and you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with the check of your first word news. sarah huckabee sanders will succeed sean spicer next month as white house press secretary. spicer resigned today posting on twitter it had been an honor to serve the president and country. his resignation came shortly after president trump hired financier anthony scaramucci as communications director. president trump is shaking up his legal staff. john dowd will be the lead attorney on the team dealing with special prosecutor robert mueller's russia investigation. dowd is denying reports the president wants to highlight potential conflict of interest on the special counsel's team. iran's deputy foreign minister a