Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With Former U.S. Secretary Of State John Kerry; Interview With "Women" Author And Photographer Annie Leibovitz; Interview With "The Phoenician Scheme" Director Wes Anderson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 28, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
JOHN KERRY, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: You know the old saying of peace at any cost? No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Peace or appeasement? The leaked peace plan and a question, is Trump selling out Ukraine? The frantic efforts to prevent that. We hear
from former U.S. Secretary of State and veteran negotiator John Kerry.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNIE LEIBOVITZ, AUTHOR, "WOMEN" AND PHOTOGRAPHER: I think as photographers, though, and as a portrait photographer, you should be able
to photograph everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "Women," volume 2, capturing the trailblazers. I asked the legendary photographer Annie Leibovitz about where she points her camera
and why.
Plus, a look back at my conversation with the award-winning director Wes Anderson about his distinctive filmmaking.
WES ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, "THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME": Every time I release a trailer for the next one, the first thing I hear is you can tell it was me
in the first 10 seconds.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
What a rollercoaster week it's been for diplomacy. True to form, President Trump's latest, quote, "peace plan" for Ukraine has set off alarms over a
proposal that sounded like Russia's maximalist demands. The same ones it's been making since invading Ukraine in 2022 for the second time. And the
leaks revealing just how much America is tipping the balance in the Kremlin's favor, with special envoy Steve Witkoff appearing to coach his
Russian counterpart on how to get the best deal out of President Trump.
Meanwhile, the earlier Trump peace plan for the Middle East seems to be going up in further rounds of Israeli strikes. Lebanon is reeling from
attacks on the heart of its capital, Beirut. And strikes have continued in Gaza despite the ceasefire. Palestinians, including children, living in
pools of water after heavy downpours with nothing more than flimsy coverings and torn-up tents. Life in the rubble or in makeshift camps and
shelters expose them to the brutal winter.
Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has negotiated with all the characters in these crises, including Putin and Netanyahu. And he's joining
me now here in the studio to talk about the prospect for peace.
So, Secretary of State, welcome back to the program.
JOHN KERRY, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Great to be here. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: This week has been really dominated by what on earth is the U.S. doing regards trying to bring a peace to Ukraine that looks heavily tilted
according to all the leaks towards Russia. So, you know, Trump, the president, says, oh, but this is nothing but, you know, normal statescraft.
I want to ask a statesman who's engaged in high-stakes negotiations. Is it? Is it normal?
KERRY: Well, it depends on who's doing it and how they approach in general. I would say this has proven to be fairly normal for how the Trump
administration chooses to do its diplomacy. I think just plunking something down and giving somebody, you know, sort of an ultimatum, you have to
decide this by Thursday, not a great way to begin.
And I think given the number of items in there that were obviously be extremely difficult for both Europe and for President Zelenskyy to accept,
also makes it a little more complicated. So, my hope would be -- I mean, I hope they're successful. Genuinely, we hugely hope they are successful.
This war must end. But President Putin has a set of very clear objectives.
And needless to say, in any kind of treaty or end of war, both sides will not get everything. And you have to find the sweet spot of where you can
land so that they're satisfied significantly enough that their people, their countries, will not rebel or feel that they somehow gave away the
store.
AMANPOUR: So, in terms of what the United States stands for, clearly, Putin launched an illegal aggression for no good reason. Ukraine posed zero
military threat or any other threat to Russia, right. And he's been trying it since 2014 with the annexation. You were, I think, Secretary of State
back then.
KERRY: Correct. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
KERRY: I was.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: Why do you think this administration and were you guys tempted to tilt the scales towards Putin to butter him up, to give him, to listen to
him always being the last person before he talks -- you know, Trump talks to Zelenskyy? What do you think Putin is getting out of this current
administration?
KERRY: Well, I don't think anybody can explain precisely why there appears to be this excessive sensitivity to President Putin. It's very hard to pin
down, though, whether there's some other thing that's out there that's hanging around that somehow affects President Trump.
The bottom line is that you say for no good reason in terms of the invasion. But obviously, you have to understand all of the participants.
And from Putin's perspective, he thinks he has a good reason.
AMANPOUR: Which is?
KERRY: Well, Ukraine, the attitude of he and Russia and the long relationship with Ukraine. He's never accepted that Khrushchev gave it
away. And there's a feeling there. Now, that doesn't excuse anything. You have to deal with that. And in order to get President Putin in a place
where he has a greater appetite for solving this, you almost certainly have to be prepared to be tougher.
And I think a lot of people feel that the absence of some of the sanctions, which could have been put in place, the absence of some of the, you know,
greater pressure on President Putin has changed what you can put on the table and then negotiate about. Obviously, there are huge implications here
for Europe also. You know, Russia continues to promulgate these episodes of invading airspace with drones and testing and, you know, back and forth
playing a dangerous game.
And Europe is concerned, as it should be. Europe has also stepped up here in a very significant way and I think deserves enormous credit. So, right
now, this strangely, a very big and important peace proposal is being cobbled together almost in public. And that seems to diminish the ability
to be able to put a united front clearly defined on the table and in front of President Putin.
AMANPOUR: You talked about the kind of pressure sanctions, et cetera, that should be brought to bear on Putin to make him feel the need to come to a
negotiation. I have recently been speaking to the former NATO secretary general who was secretary general in 2014 when you were in office.
Jens Stoltenberg has written a memoir, and he's very clear that he regrets that the United States, Europe, et cetera, didn't put enough pressure,
whether it was sanctions or military aid to Ukraine on Putin after the annexation of Crimea and the first invasion of the little green men into
eastern Ukraine. Do you accept that in retrospect that you should have done much more then?
KERRY: I think it is so easy to sit here and see a situation where a number of years later something happens and you say, oh, gosh, why didn't we do
this or that then? But I remember very clearly, as does President Obama and everybody in that administration, that we were trying, there was an initial
stage where already what had been happening in Donbas and Luhansk had been exacerbated and these, quote, "little green men" were running around in,
you know, nameless uniforms.
AMANPOUR: Otherwise known as Russian troops.
KERRY: Otherwise known as Russian troops. But because of a very different history with Crimea. And at that point, only a beginning of this process of
understanding Putin's full ambitions, sanctions were immediately put in place. They were tough sanctions. And there was a condemnation on a very
broad basis of what Putin had done, but not a sense that the invasion was imminent or about to happen. And in fact, that didn't build up into several
years later.
I think there was -- you know, as the initial evaluation of this new tactic was being done, there was some consideration to how do you put pressure,
but not start World War III.
AMANPOUR: Right. That's what everybody's saying, including Biden and then Trump and everybody. To be fair, Trump likes --
KERRY: Well, it's very real.
AMANPOUR: I know.
KERRY: To be fair, it's very real. Now, that said, everybody now understands exactly what the game plan is. Everybody understands the danger
of that game plan. Europe particularly has stakes in this. And so, I think it's much more clear that the risks are more meaningful, are more -- you
know, assumable in this situation. I think one has to be tougher. I think you have to make it crystal clear. He thinks he's going to win. He thinks
he is winning. And that equation has to be changed.
[13:10:00]
If you're going to get the full measure of what you want. That's why I think members of the United States Senate, Republican and Democrat, are
increasingly concerned about the direction this may be taking. You know, the old saying, no peace at any cost. No. And you have to be certain that
the long-term interests for real peace that can be held onto may take a little longer and may take a little longer and may take a little more pain.
AMANPOUR: Trump will always claim that -- I know it's under pressure, but he did send the Javelins that you all refuse to send to Ukraine. Lethal
weaponry. Let me ask you about something happy. You're here to receive an amazing honor from King Charles for the amazing work that you have done on
the climate and on negotiating, certainly, the Paris Climate Accord and all the work you've done as climate czar for President Biden, et cetera. Just
tell me about it. What was it like? What does it mean to you?
KERRY: Well, it was very, very, very meaningful, very special moment at Buckingham Palace with my family. And the king could not have been more
gracious and thoughtful. He was very funny in the terms of my kids who had a little conversation with him. And it was really just a very special
moment. I'm very grateful to his majesty for the honor. But equally, I am grateful for his majesty's leadership and vision that he has never stopped
expressing.
And I think more important than ever now is folks who are willing to still stand up and say, wait a minute, folks, this is not a matter of politics,
not a matter of ideology, it's a law of physics. And the physics are telling us you better respond to the challenge. And his majesty is
determined to keep working and working and doing it. So, I'm grateful for that and grateful, obviously, for the award.
AMANPOUR: Yes. The highest honor that a non-citizen, a non-U.K. citizen can achieve. So, congratulations on that.
KERRY: Thanks.
AMANPOUR: But it does come in the aftermath of the COP30 in Belem, which was pretty much just wrapping up when you got this award or just wrapped
up. And there's a sense of disappointment that a final statement or communique did not, you know, again set a proper vision for the transition
away from fossil fuels, didn't even mention it. And also, that the United States, by being absent, was unable to corral its vision, you know. And so,
the BRICS and the other nations kind of stampeded Europe, if you like, moving and aligning with the fossil fuel producers, many of which are BRIC
fossil fuel producers. So --
KERRY: Yes. I mean, it's fair to say that it was disappointing in terms of the breadth and obviously didn't do as much as many people hoped. That
said, we're at a very different moment now in the climate challenge. It's important to note that even with the difficulties that took place in Belem,
that the vast majority of the world, in fact, every leader in the rest of the world, is still supportive of the Paris Agreement. They're still moving
forward. Only one person in the world has pulled out of Paris, and that's President Trump.
So, the rest of the world understands that the hoax is not what's happening in terms of climate, the hoax is in saying to people that it is a hoax.
AMANPOUR: Which is what the president did at the U.N. this September. Yes.
KERRY: But what's important to note is, you know, there was a headline the other day, Bloomberg, who said, you know who believes in climate change?
The stock market. And if you look at the stock market now, the index, which takes all your green energy under the S&P, compared to the S&P 500, it's
way ahead of it. It's moving much faster and better. The same thing for the NASDAQ 100. The same thing for the MSCI Global Index.
What does that tell you? It tells you the marketplace knows this transition has to happen. It's going to happen. It's slowed down a little bit. But
CEOs who have been canvassed and CFOs, chief financial officers, say that they are all going to continue to invest and continue to move in the
transition. And the transition now is moving to a point where the majority of the electricity that is new coming in the world.
85 percent, is renewable. Only 5 percent is nuclear and 10 percent is fossil fuel. So, there is a transition taking place, which is profitable.
And that profit motive is going to get more and more people seeing that there's money to be made. The marketplace has made a decision and that's
going to be external of the politics.
[13:15:00]
Now, it's better if you have a country's government helping to facilitate, maybe providing incentives. But we're not dependent on that. There -- you
know, we're seeing all kinds of new technologies, battery storage, geothermal, new nuclear. Nuclear, in fact, has enjoyed the largest
resurgence in years. And many places are now getting their power from clean energy from nuclear.
AMANPOUR: But this year was a revolution, actually, a huge sort of progress, because the majority for the first time of energy was produced by
renewables instead of coal.
KERRY: Correct. And you look at what China is doing, China has produced more renewables and deployed them than all of the rest of the world put
together. They're obviously saying this is the market. This is where the world is going. So, they're earning money. They're putting people to work.
They see a future there. And the question has to be asked, why are other people fighting and pushing back and not doing this?
You look at solar. Solar in one hour provides 10,000 times the energy to the world that people use in that same hour. That's free. It just comes at
us. We should be marshalling that more. And in Texas, in the United States, you're seeing more wind go up, more solar go up. And that's lowering prices
and helping them to balance --
AMANPOUR: Which is a red state. Yes.
KERRY: That's the future.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, really, really interesting.
KERRY: And the present.
AMANPOUR: And the present, yes. And you'd be surprised, actually, that a dealmaker, capitalist president of the United States, a businessman would
be willing to have the U.S. miss out on all of this. But let me just move to Israel and Gaza and the ceasefire, because you also did a lot of
negotiating with this current prime minister over the past.
Ceasefire, but no ceasefire, really. And apparently hardening of lines, a so-called yellow line inside Gaza. You know, there's not enough aid coming
into the Gazans on the other side. Where do you see this actually going? Because we also hear that Americans are heavily involved in planning what
Gaza is going to look like. The latest reports that they're considering compounds in the part of Gaza that the Israelis occupy right now. I guess
for Palestinians. What is this all saying to you?
KERRY: It underscores the difficulty of the alignment that you face in the Middle East right now. Despite all the hoopla, despite the proclamations,
all the high-sounding rhetoric, there is no real ceasefire, fully ceasefire that's being adhered to. And more importantly, there is no roadmap to
peace. There is nothing there that still speaks to Palestinian aspirations.
And most people who have dealt with this issue stand back from it a little and say, hey, wait a minute, folks, you have to understand the lay of the
land. The current government of Israel, every single member of the cabinet and the prime minister, while the prime minister hasn't said that, but
every single member of the cabinet, they don't support a Palestinian State in any way whatsoever.
AMANPOUR: Well, so is the prime minister said that.
KERRY: The prime minister has said that most recently. But previously, he had a different position. He said he was going to work towards that. Look,
in the aftermath of October 7th, I understand the dynamics. Everybody understands the dynamics of Israel have changed. October 7th changed. And
there are very few people who believe you can just plunk a Palestinian State next to Israel now and you get away with it, that it would be safe,
that it would be anything in terms of long-term security.
But you have to have a process that begins to build a different future and you can hold out aspirations for the longer-term. Now, on the Palestinian
side, you don't have the kind of leadership or capacity to be able to come together and say, oh, there's going to be a state, you know, tomorrow, next
month or next year, not even in five years. It's going to take time to build the capacity, time to have the education system begin to grow better
and kids growing up with better sense of possibilities and aspirations.
So, you have much to change now and to respond to emotionally in terms of what has happened in Israel and in the region. But there has to be a
roadmap to that. And I think Israel's true security will never be needs, will never be met until you have some reality to that roadmap.
It can't be militarized. It can't -- I mean, you can't have a -- you have to have a demilitarized entity, whatever it is. You have to have the
ability to achieve a genuine participation in the global community and the world. You have to grow year by year to prove to people this is different
and this is worthy of peace.
[13:20:00]
But to have nothing, to continue to have the bombs and deaths taking place, it really is almost a quiet status quo ante, and that's very dangerous.
AMANPOUR: On that note, Secretary of State, thank you for joining us. And still to come, I talk with the celebrated photographer Annie Leibovitz
about capturing the world's trailblazing women, volume two. That's just after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: We turn now to a legendary photographer known for her intimate portraits of some of the world's best-known faces. Annie Leibovitz has
amassed hundreds of front covers in her work for Rolling Stone magazine, Vanity Fair, Vogue, and many others.
And now, 25 years after the publication of her celebrated "Women" collection, she's back with Volume 2. From writers, actors, and musicians,
to CEOs, athletes, and politicians, Gloria Steinem, Venus Williams, Michelle Obama, and even myself, full disclosure. The original idea came
from her partner, the late Susan Sontag, public intellectual.
But it was recalling former first lady Hillary Clinton's famous rallying cry for women in Beijing, 1995, that spurred this one. Women's rights are
human rights, and human rights are women's rights, Hillary declared.
I met up with Leibovitz on her swing through London to discuss this impressive body of work.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Do you consider yourself a somebody who champions women?
LEIBOVITZ: Well, I champion us. I mean, I never, ever want to separate women from men. You know, men have their stories. We don't have enough
stories as women. We need to see ourselves. And when we put out that first book in 1999, it was a surprise to me.
AMANPOUR: Beginning just to what you just said, women don't have as many stories, men have plenty of stories. But in the first one, Sontag wrote,
portraits of women featured their beauty, portraits of men, their character.
So, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, one of the great, great novelists and writers of our time, you have her there, you photographed her several times. I
mean, you took the picture of her, it's quite long distance. She's sort of in the background of the picture almost, there's a whole library.
LEIBOVITZ: Oh, that one in the library.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
LEIBOVITZ: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And that's phenomenal. I want to write what she's written for you. The first time Annie photographed me more than 10 years ago at my
home, she sensed my discomfort right away and knew that it was not merely about my general awkwardness with being photographed. It was specifically
about my belly, which was newly postpartum, although I would probably still have worried even if it was. Annie's sanguine reaction was a relief. There
was no dismissiveness, no judgment.
LEIBOVITZ: Well, you just don't -- you know, it's so funny. I think she really sort of tied herself on to what Susan Sontag was writing about.
Susan did talk a lot about the gays and how women are looked at and men aren't looked at that way. But I think Chimamanda didn't have the
opportunity to read Gloria Steinem's because, you know, Gloria wrote hers.
[13:25:00]
She sent it over and it was kind of this very nice essay on me, you know, and I called her up and I said, Gloria, look, I thank you very much. That's
great. You know, we just really want to know what the hell is going on right now. Where are we? Write about yourself. Please write about yourself.
I -- and she has written about herself and she's a good writer. And she took it to task and I've been rereading that essay just to sort of have a
front in front of me because I'm just a photographer, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: You're not just a photographer.
LEIBOVITZ: No, I am.
AMANPOUR: No, you've shaped the way we see our cultural space.
LEIBOVITZ: No, I -- OK. I'm not, I'm not.
AMANPOUR: You're not just a photographer.
LEIBOVITZ: No, but --
AMANPOUR: But here's the thing --
LEIBOVITZ: I can't --
AMANPOUR: Gloria in 2006 --
LEIBOVITZ: OK. So, Gloria, I have, I -- wait, you have to --
AMANPOUR: I don't want to read this.
LEIBOVITZ: This is where -- no, I'm going to read it. No, you're going to - -
AMANPOUR: No, I'm going to read it.
LEIBOVITZ: No, I'm going to read it. Wait. OK. How we are seen, no doubt changes how we see ourselves. This is for us. I know many people now feel
our country is going backwards, but when you have lived a long life, which I am lucky to have done, you have a context of compared to what?
AMANPOUR: Yes.
LEIBOVITZ: We survived McCarthy. We survived Nixon. We can survive what feels like regression. A perspective that maybe only my age peers and I can
have, but being condescended to is progress. Previously we were just ignored. I remember --
AMANPOUR: I think that's really important actually for this moment with the rollback of DEI, with actually this administration removing women's
contributions from the Pentagon, from everywhere.
LEIBOVITZ: You know, it feels -- it is so oppressed back in the United States, back in America. It -- you can cut it with a knife. You can -- you
walk down the street. It's not the same as in -- and London feels, you know -- like people are like normal.
AMANPOUR: And I do think actually it's important to have Gloria's perspective there. And she said about you though --
LEIBOVITZ: I didn't finish it though.
AMANPOUR: (INAUDIBLE). She said you're the tallest and most authoritative, unsure person that I've ever seen. Why do you think that is? I mean, you
just said, oh, I'm only a photographer. Why do you -- you have been so awarded, rewarded, changed the way we look at public figures and non-public
figures. I mean, you just -- you're like right up there in the pantheon of our visual history. What makes you unsure?
LEIBOVITZ: I don't know.
AMANPOUR: All right. We'll move on.
LEIBOVITZ: No, no, no. I -- you know, someone just wrote about, wrote about it -- was writing about me for the introduction to the show in Spain. And
he saw it as a strength. He -- and it's the first time I looked at it and said, you know, that's interesting, you know, to see it as questioning
something, stepping back and not being sure, which falls into all those stories about failing is important.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
LEIBOVITZ: You know?
AMANPOUR: It is. And actually --
LEIBOVITZ: You know, as a mother, you know.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I do. I know all of that.
LEIBOVITZ: Yes.
AMANPOUR: I'm talking about as a mother.
LEIBOVITZ: And also, the book is really for our daughters.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's really interesting because I love what Chimamanda said about how you, you know, no judgment postpartum. But what I love is
the Rihanna picture also, because that harks back to your famous Demi Moore picture. Why did you do that again?
LEIBOVITZ: She is -- she's just phenomenal. I mean, she's so smart, so brilliant, such -- and she loves fashion. And, you know, she took that Demi
Moore picture and blew it out of water. I mean, she just -- you know -- you know, she -- you know -- and so, there she is pregnant with her first baby
that was done for a fashion shoot for Vogue, you know, in Paris. And then the second baby, she's at the Super Bowl. And the third baby, she's
announcing it, you know, at the Met Gala. So, she's just out there, you know, and, you know, she's just being dragged behind a car. I mean, I just
think she's amazing.
AMANPOUR: What about Michelle Obama? I just thought that picture was phenomenal. She's always been an icon, but this is quite something. How
different to the portrait you made for the cover of Vogue, for instance, when they first got in?
LEIBOVITZ: No, no, no, we shot many, many times.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I know.
LEIBOVITZ: And the very last one, she was just -- it was so painful. I could tell that she was -- couldn't wait to get out of there on some level.
And so, I asked her, she was one of the first -- I mean, I didn't do too many new shoots for this second --
AMANPOUR: But this is a new one, the Obama one.
LEIBOVITZ: This is brand-new.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. It's brilliant.
LEIBOVITZ: And I asked her if she would sit and, you know, she agreed right away. And then we got a call from her office saying, can Michelle Obama
wear jeans? And I said, sure, you know. And then she showed up.
But what's interesting about the little clip that she puts on her little, you know, Instagram is that you see her preparing to get into that moment
and they actually have her, you know, putting her head back like that. And honestly, you know, I've said this before, but her assistant was standing
next to me and she said, there's my first lady. And I was like --
[13:00:00]
AMANPOUR: So, I also thought it interesting given, given all these portraits, you've said in a masterclass video, you don't believe that it's
the photographer's job to put their subjects at ease. Tell me about that. Because you must have some pretty --
LEIBOVITZ: I think it goes along with everything else. I just don't think I do anything special. I mean, I really come -- I really do come from -- I
mean, I thought it was journalism. It was never journalism. It was, you know, reportage. It was personal reportage. I learned Cartier-Bresson,
Robert Frank. The camera --
AMANPOUR: When we first met in --
LEIBOVITZ: Yes.
AMANPOUR: When you came for photojournalism or reportage during the siege.
LEIBOVITZ: It wasn't all reportage. You know, we did -- I did -- I felt a little -- I felt I couldn't compete with the great war photographers that
were there, you know, risking their lives. And, you know, it was unbelievable, but no I enjoy reportage. I don't think I can go back
completely. You know, I mean, I love what I'm doing with the portraits.
I was taught at the San Francisco Art Institute. I was -- went into the painting major, took a night class of photography, much more exciting,
very, you know, move -- you know, move fast. You know, you're a young person, you know, it's -- the painting was -- you know, I was a bad
painter. And I started working for Rolling Stone before I graduated, but I learned Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, you know, were my idols. And we
learned to frame within a 35-millimeter frame. So, I -- you know, you, you learn to take the whole frame and use everything you have there.
It's so interesting being alive this long and being able to work in photography and being -- having the opportunity to try so many different
ways to take pictures. In the very first book are a set of pictures that to me were, you know, transformable. I mean, to me is in so many ways, they're
the showgirls, which are two pictures. And it totally broke up this whole idea that you're not going to get it in one frame necessarily.
And also, I'm a huge fan of the photo story. Tina Brown asked me to work on an issue on women. And I thought about -- I had made a small list and I
thought about Showgirls in Las Vegas. And I went out to photograph them. Met them at night in their costumes. And then they came into the studio the
next day. This woman came in -- this is really true. This woman, Susan McNamara came in. I said, can I help you? I couldn't recognize her because
she came in out of her costume and out of her makeup. And I was just sort of -- I mean, I still don't know what to make of it, quite honestly.
And so, I photographed her as herself and then photographed her in those clothes and went back to New York. I said, Susan, let's do the book. It was
really -- there was something --
AMANPOUR: That was what clicked for you?\
LEIBOVITZ: Clicked.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
LEIBOVITZ: OK. OK.
AMANPOUR: Oh, my God.
LEIBOVITZ: Oh, my God.
AMANPOUR: Oh, such a fun. Listen, I have to ask you because it is such an extraordinary picture and it does define a lot of your oeuvre. And that is
the John and Yoko.
LEIBOVITZ: Yes.
AMANPOUR: You know, tell me about that because he was naked. She wasn't. And of course, it was taken a few hours before he was assassinated.
LEIBOVITZ: Yes. I still have an emotional image to me because it changes with time. I mean, especially like after he died -- after he was killed,
you know, and then some time passed, you look at it and you see, it really is -- it turns from a story of love to a goodbye. You know, so that's
interesting about photography, how over time the stories sort of change in the imagery.
In my youth, starting to work for Rolling Stone, I had talked Jann Wenner into letting me go and photograph John Lennon in New York when he was doing
the interviews. And, you know, I flew youth fair and stayed with friends and John and Yoko couldn't have been nicer. They were very warm. They were
just -- it turned out -- Yoko told me later that they were so surprised that Jann picked an unknown photographer, you know, to come and take their
picture. That's why they were so, so nice.
But it really set the bar for me as far as, you know, how people should treat each other during these shoots, no matter who they were, because I,
of course, admire him so much.
So, it was over 10 years and we were -- Rolling Stone was doing a cover. I was told before I went out to shoot that day that they really just wanted a
picture of John by himself. You know, no one really liked Yoko that much. You know, there was still that kind of myth that she broke up the Beatles.
[13:35:00]
So, you know, I went over to see them at the Dakota and I -- you know, I say to John, hey, they really just want me to shoot you. You know, it's
like he said, well, we're going to have to do something really, really good. We're going to have to do something special.
And I was thinking, you know, on their other double fantasy album, they're kissing and it's like romance was not that alive in 1980. And it was
beautiful to see them kissing each other. And so, I imagined them in an embrace and they just -- you know, I put them on the floor in their
apartment and John -- you know, I imagined them both nude, which really wasn't so unusual for both of them. And since, you know, two versions, they
had posed nude before.
Anyway, at the last moment, Yoko didn't really want to take her clothes off. And I was a little perturbed. I mean, she -- but I didn't know it
would be what it was, but she kept her clothes on and John's nude and he's clinging to her. And in those days, before you shot film, you would shoot a
Polaroid. So, we pulled the Polaroid. And it's -- usually, the Polaroid was always the picture. And then you would go take pictures and, you know, it
was never as good as the Polaroid. We pulled the Polaroid and John looked at it and he said, oh, that's really my relationship. That's really -- he
was very happy with it. And so, we took several more frames.
And then, you know, I went away and I got a call from Jann that night and he said that, you know, John was shot. So, sorry. So, we -- so I went over
to the hospital and waited to hear a final, you know, result that he had been killed.
But I went into -- you know, to Rolling Stone's offices a day or two later and they were mocking up a single picture of his head. And, you know, and I
went into Jann's office. I said, Jann, I promised John that they would both be on the cover. So -- and he did, he changed it. He changed it to both of
them on the cover.
AMANPOUR: And it wouldn't have been half as good had it not been the two of them, right?
LEIBOVITZ: No, because I think all the -- all of our sights and energy in that shoot went to doing that photograph. And it didn't take long. I mean,
it wasn't belabored, we just did a few frames. And so, I think I've always been on the side of the subject, you know, I mean, I'm like -- that's why
I'm a bad journalist.
I like doing that. You know, I like seeing the best of people, if I can. And I also -- I do have a hard time when I have to photograph someone I
don't necessarily like, you know, it's not -- I'm not really good at that. You know, but I think as photographers though, and as a portrait
photographer, you should be able to photograph everybody. You really should.
AMANPOUR: Timothy Chalamet, why has that caused such a hullabaloo?
LEIBOVITZ: I don't know.
AMANPOUR: The one on the photo Vogue.
LEIBOVITZ: I had breakfast with Anna and I said --
AMANPOUR: Anna Wintour.
LEIBOVITZ: Anna Wintour, you know, and she said, I love the cover. I love the pictures. I don't read anything. We're just going forward. Timothy
Chalamet was amazing. He -- you know, when we talked before we started working, he said, I'll do anything you want to do. Let's do it. And I
thought he looked so intelligent and so interesting in this kind of -- and I chose the city.
AMANPOUR: So, we're talking about this odd city in the Nevada desert.
LEIBOVITZ: Right. Michael Heizer. And it was -- honestly, it was the hardest thing I've ever done because Michael said, no, I don't want anyone
wearing Gucci shoes in front of something I've worked 50 years on. And I spent some time -- I really felt like in our times right now, the city sort
of exemplified a lot, and Michael worked on this for 50 years. And so, he was like, no.
So, I worked on it. And it was hard because I was in the middle. I was trying to not hurt the city or Michael Heizer's work. And I was trying to
be -- to work with Timothy and come up with something that was really different, you know, and interesting. And he was totally -- he was amazing.
Because it was like 110 degrees. No -- there wasn't a cloud in the sky. I mean, it was really, really hard.
[13:40:00]
But I love what we finally did. I'm proud of the work actually. I'm really proud of the work. It's so different. And I love Anna for just doing
something totally -- you know, I mean, I --
AMANPOUR: Out of this world.
LEIBOVITZ: Yes, out of this world. And you know, Timothy was supposed to be the little prince, but I couldn't really tell him he was a little prince.
And I let all the fashion go in on the cover and the inside was kind of very low-key if not no fashion. It was just -- it was really kind of an
experiment, you know, of sorts.
AMANPOUR: Annie, thank you very much.
LEIBOVITZ: OK.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And coming up after a break, he's the man behind "The Grand Budapest Hotel" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox." We take a look back at my
conversation with the award-winning director Wes Anderson.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Next to celebrating a movie director who attained cult status for his offbeat films painted in glorious technicolor. London's Design Museum
is now showcasing Wes Anderson's distinctive personal archive, charting the evolution of his films from "Rushmore" to "The Grand Budapest Hotel" to his
latest "The Phoenician Scheme." Just after that film released this past spring, I spoke to Wes Anderson from New York.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Wes Anderson, welcome to our program.
ANDERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, I know you've done a load of films. I'm not sure which this one is but people have now come to describe your films as sort of
Andersonian, Anderson-esque. Do you accept that? Do you see that there is a vision and a visual and an aesthetic?
ANDERSON: I have to say I do. I think -- you know, and I -- don't know how many movies I've -- I think I've done 11 or 12 or something like that. You
know for me every -- when I make a new film, I'm thinking of it as a clean slate, a fresh start, new characters, new story. To me, it's a completely
different thing.
But every time I release a trailer for the next one, the first thing I hear is you could tell it was me in the first 10 seconds and I've had to accept
that that is simply true.
AMANPOUR: Is it good or bad?
ANDERSON: I think, you know, it's not exactly -- well, I think it's more like a handwriting or something. It's just -- you know, my -- I can't
change my handwriting. It's just the way it comes out when I move my hand across -- when I move my pencil across the paper.
And I don't -- you know, I -- even though I'm trying to make decisions to do something different every time and surprise myself and anyone else, I
sort of accept that I have a certain kind of voice that happens to be quickly identifiable.
AMANPOUR: Yes. You also have often quite a lot of the same characters, right? I mean, you go back to people like Tom Hanks and others. I'm just
saying Tom Hanks because I just kind of recognize him, but there are many others. Why do you do that? I'm really fascinated by that.
[13:45:00]
ANDERSON: Well, I always liked -- from the -- from when I first started making films, which is a very long time ago, I like the idea of having a
sort of stock company, like a theater troupe. I always thought of Bergman, you know, who had these group of actors or someone like -- well -- you know
like it like Powell and Pressburger in England. There are there are actors who appear and reappear. I always like that. And I love the start and the
end of the story being a kind of reunion.
The other thing is over the years I've gotten to know and work with a good number of my very favorite actors. So, there's something to be said for I
already know my -- so many of my favorites. I go back to them and see if I can lure them in again.
AMANPOUR: In "The Phoenician Scheme," you also have Scarlett Johansson, Jeffrey Wright, et cetera. You've worked with all of them before. Let's
just talk quickly about the plot. So, it is a father- daughter story. It's quite complicated, filled with all sorts of unpredictable twists and turns.
But at the heart of it is, as I say, a father and a daughter building a relationship. And this larger-than-life father has all sons except for this
one daughter. And at one point he says, you are going to be my heir. So, I'm going to play this clip and then we'll talk about it.
The father is Zsazsa Korda played -- yes, as we know by Benicio del Toro. And we'll talk about the daughter Mia in a second. Let's play this clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENICIO DEL TORO, ACTOR, "THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME": I have appointed you sole heir to my estate, which you may come into sooner rather than later. I'm
provisionally manager of my affairs after the event of my actual demise on a trial basis.
MIA THREAPLETON, ACTRESS, "THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME": Why?
DEL TORO: Why, what?
THREAPLETON: Why sooner rather than later, since you survived again? And why am I a sole heir to your estate? You have eight sons I last count.
DEL TORO: Nine sons.
THREAPLETON: Nine sons. What about them?
DEL TORO: They're not my heirs.
THREAPLETON: Why not?
DEL TORO: I have my reasons.
THREAPLETON: Which are what?
DEL TORO: My reasons. I'm not saying. I am saying, I'm not saying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It's so Wes Anderson. Of course, I was wrong. I said Mia, but she's Liesl in the film. But she's Mia Threapleton in real-life. And her
mother just happens to be Kate Winslet. Were you -- how did you know that she was such a good actress? Had she had, you know, a body of work?
ANDERSON: I saw her audition a little -- you know, a little QuickTime on my laptop among a thousand other auditions for this role. And she was -- it
was -- you know, we'd given them -- each actress auditioning we'd given them a scene we'd prepared, a sort of scene that's something like what's in
the movie to play the character.
And she made -- it seemed like she was -- it seemed like a documentary. It seemed like just documentary footage, totally authentic. And I didn't know
her -- any family connection. I didn't know anything about her at all. I just saw this little clip. But I basically watched it and thought, I think
we may be able to shut down our search right now. I think we might have her.
And when I introduced her to Benicio del Toro, the two of them together had something just a chemical instantly that I saw that, well, let's film that.
AMANPOUR: So, am I right? Is it a father-daughter story? What is your vision about this film?
ANDERSON: Well, you know I think there's something like when you're -- you know, when you're when you're putting together a work of journalism, you're
gathering all your facts and information and impressions and observations and ordering them into something that's a story, and I think the same thing
happens when you write a fictional movie except you're -- there's no fact- checker and you use your imagination and you don't really know where it's all coming from.
I'd find I don't know exactly my intentions for the story It sort of reveals itself as it goes along to me. And that's how it happens for me
anyway. And this movie I thought was a movie about a businessman and his grand venture that he's undertaking and this sort of brutality of this of
this this very rich man, Benicio, but somehow the story led us in another direction and there was a layer to this character that I sort of hadn't
anticipated and it became, I think, the center of the movie is entirely what you described, it's a father-daughter story, and his business plan
that is wildly complex is almost a ritual for him to get back together with her. They've been estranged for many years.
AMANPOUR: And I -- you know, I've omitted to mention because in that scene, of course, she is wearing a nun's habit. She's a novice. She wants to be a
nun. And I assume that's because they're estranged. So, tell us why.
[13:50:00]
ANDERSON: There's a sort of biblical motif throughout this film, you know. This character, he keeps getting killed. You know, he's -- he had --
there's the series of almost successful assassination attempts. And he's confronting his own death again and again. And it begins to change him.
And so, anyway, there's a there's a sort of biblical element to the whole - - to the film and part of that is his daughter who -- who's been in a Swiss convent all this time. She's deeply -- she's a devout girl, which he is
not, he is an atheist. But anyway, they're there their beliefs and their own spiritual perspectives are a big part of the story that unfolds.
AMANPOUR: I want to play another clip because the clips are really fun. So, in this scene Bjorn, a Swedish tutor played by Michael Cera, he makes an
unfortunate discovery on Zsa-zsa's private plane. Here's the clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL CERA, ACTOR, "THE PHOENICIAN SCHEME": Is this supposed to be here? It was under the lunch trolley.
THREAPLETON: Oh, dear.
DEL TORO: How much time does it say?
CERA: 18 minutes.
DEL TORO: Perfectly fine. We land in 10. Myself, I feel very safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Wes, my head is all over the place today. I've just flown on the red eye. So, I said Swedish. He's Norwegian. It's cool. He's in control.
He's sort of thing --
ANDERSON: Same thing.
AMANPOUR: Don't tell them that. Yes. Anyway, that's a really cool scene. I want to ask you though you talked about, you know, some of the motif and
the relationships. And I noticed that the film is dedicated to your father- in-law, to the memory of your father-in-law for Fouad Malouf. Is he an inspiration for Zsa-zsa? And also, is confronting this sort of near death
by Zsa-zsa all the time, is it the way you are sort of exploring death?
ANDERSON: Well, I think the answer to the second question is probably yes. I think -- you know, I mean, I -- you know, I'm 56 and I had the number of
friends who died in the last 15 years, it's just they're one after another and including both parents. So, it's on my mind.
AMANPOUR: It was also dedicated to your father-in-law who -- the memory of your father-in-law --
ANDERSON: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: -- who also is deceased obviously.
ANDERSON: Yes. And he -- Fouad, my wife's father, Fouad, he -- you know, he's not -- the character in the movie is a -- at least at the start of the
movie he's someone who was who presents himself as completely without ethics and he's ruthless. And Fouad was not like that. He was gentle. He
was wise. He was an engineer and a businessman but he was intimidating, the instant you laid eyes on him. He was a good person to walk into a
restaurant with because every -- it changed the mood. You got special attention, just because they were scared of him.
And his personality somehow started to go more and more into this character because I loved him and I looked up to him and I enjoyed him from the first
10 seconds after I met him. And he died -- I guess it's about two years -- two and a half years ago. But anyway, he was this very special person. And
somehow, by the end of it, I thought this movie I have to dedicate it to Fouad because he's the inspiration.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you finally, how have your animated movies influenced your live-action films? What's the sort of process?
ANDERSON: Yes. Well, I -- you know, I made an animated Roald Dahl, "Fantastic Mr. Fox" in 2005 or '07 or something like that. And I've never
done anything like that before. We made it in England. And I had a whole new group of collaborators and I saw this process of how the movie is
prepared. How you prepare for the animators to do their work. It's quite careful. And it changed my way of working in live-action, too because I
kind of saw how I could make, I think, fewer mistakes. How I could be a little more meticulously prepared for a movie shoot, which is a giant thing
in a way.
And so, I -- you know, for me it made it more fun to make movies using some of those techniques and it also -- you know, I think it -- I mean, there
are side effects, which I don't know if I fully totally understand. I think it changed things about control in my movies maybe as well.
[13:55:00]
But anyway, I think every time -- for me every time I make a movie I gain some new collaborators who will come with me somewhere and I pick up some
new sort of methods and techniques that we'll see if we use again.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Amazing. Thank you very much Wes Anderson. It's great to talk to you. "The Phoenician Scheme."
ANDERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Christiane. Thank you so much. My pleasure to be here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: That's it for now. If you ever miss our show you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
