Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with "The Tech Coup" Author and Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Fellow Marietje Schaake; Interview with "Liberation" Playwright Bess Wohl; Interview with "Liberation" Actress Kristolyn Lloyd; Interview with Brown University and Parkland School Shootings Survivor Zoe Weissman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 18, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN Anchor: Hello everyone and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.
Crunch time for Europe as leaders meet to decide whether to use frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine. We'll look at why it is so controversial.
And artificial intelligence, the race, a potential bubble, and serious ethical concerns. Digging into the issues with Marietje Schaake, former MEP
and author of "The Tech Coup."
Then, "Liberation," a hit play exploring women's rights, memory, and balancing the political and personal. Playwright Bess Wohl joins me
alongside one of its stars, Kristolyn Lloyd.
Plus, a now all too familiar American story, suffering not one but two school shootings. Zoe Weissman, survivor of both Brown and Parkland, speaks
to Michel Martin.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
A huge decision for Europe. Leaders are meeting in Brussels at a crucial two-day summit to discuss an unprecedented plan to use frozen Russian
assets to finance more support for Ukraine. This has been going on for some time now and it is finally decision time. It's setting up a clash between
member states with Belgium raising serious concerns given that it holds the lion's share of the frozen cash. Critics argue that it's legally
questionable and risks serious retaliation from Moscow.
But here's Polish prime minister and former E.U. Council President Donald Tusk speaking earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TUSK, POLISH PRIME MINISTER: Now, we have a simple choice, either money today or blood tomorrow. And I'm not talking about Ukraine only. I'm
talking about Europe. And this is our decision to make, and only ours. I think all European leaders have to finally rise to this occasion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And President Zelenskyy says that without this money, quote, "there will be a big problem for Ukraine." So, let's get into all of this
now. Correspondent Clare Sebastian is in Brussels with the latest.
So, Clare, we're talking about some $250 billion in frozen Russian assets. And this debate has been at the forefront now for a couple of years as this
war is entering its fourth year. Just walk us through the significance of these two days and why there is so much debate over whether or not this
money can be used to help finance this war for the next two years in Ukraine.
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, look, Bianna, this is a critical moment for Ukraine, for Europe, for the course of these ongoing U.S.-led
peace efforts that we're seeing. We are now quite a few hours into this summit. We think that the official debate on Ukraine funding has not
actually started yet among leaders. But we know that there's a commitment to do this, to make some kind of decision by the end of this summit. And we
know that a lot of work is happening behind the scenes to get there.
It is a very tricky issue. That is one of the reasons why we've seen this debate raging for so many months, if not years. You know, the issues that
Belgium has raised include the fact that they feel they would be disproportionately put at risk if this was agreed, partly because, you
know, almost 90 percent or around 90 percent of the assets that are immobilized in Europe are in Belgium at Euroclear, that depository. They
think they would be liable not only for the loan itself if it gets recalled, but also for legal costs surrounding that. And they're worried as
well about the credibility of the euro and Europe as an investment destination if this happens.
So, as of this morning, the Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever, speaking in the parliament here, said that he hadn't yet seen a document that meets
Belgium's requirements. But as I said, a lot of work has been happening behind the scenes.
And for Ukraine, and President Zelenskyy was here today, this is an immensely critical moment. They face two challenges right now. Number one
is that they really are looking into the barrel of a cash shortfall going into next year. The consensus among experts is that as of the second
quarter, Ukraine will struggle to meet some of its spending commitments, including for defense.
[13:05:00]
And President Zelenskyy said today that they would struggle to fund their drone program to the same extent. And you and I know just how critical that
is on the battlefield. So, there's the financial element for Ukraine, but there's also the geopolitical element, that they would be forced to go back
into another round of talks, their delegation with the U.S., which we expect will start tomorrow, without a clear plan for funding. Take a listen
to President Zelenskyy, who spoke here a little earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (voice-over): All these questions are intertwined. Money is needed so that Russia and other countries in the
world do not use these assets as leverage against us. We are more confident at the negotiating table if we have these assets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SEBASTIAN: So, yes, he says we'll be more confident at the negotiating table, which is a polite way of saying that they would be lacking in
leverage without this. So, as I said, a critical moment. It could be a very long night here in Brussels. But for Europe as well, you know, this isn't
just about supporting Ukraine. This is about proving that they can stand on their own and really commit to their own security.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and Moscow has seized upon this. And the fact that this has been such a wedge issue among European nations has actually filed
lawsuits about the legality of such a move. But what is the United States' position here? Because it's changed over the two administrations that
inherited this war, President Biden and, of course, now President Trump.
SEBASTIAN: Yes. Look, what we know at this point, and the U.S. has stayed relatively quiet, as we've approached this summit, but we know that the
first iteration of that 28-point peace plan did contain a clause that would involve the U.S. using a portion of these assets for joint investment
projects with Russia and profiting from them.
So, there has been some speculation around that, that the U.S. perhaps was not on board with this idea of Europe using the frozen assets to, you know,
finance a loan for Ukraine because they wanted to use them as part of a peace deal. We haven't heard much about that recently. Certainly, I think
it is, as I said, a critical moment for Zelenskyy that they have this clear plan for funding going in to the next round of talks. But we don't know if
the latest iteration of the peace plan contains anything specifically on that, Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Clare Sebastian in Brussels for us, a crucial two days there. Thank you so much. Well, we turn now to artificial
intelligence, which is transforming our economy and is just getting started. A.I. companies are being pumped with millions of dollars, billions
of dollars, and the race for dominance is on.
But as we know, there are very serious concerns with the technology as well. Just this week, disturbing deepfake images spread online claiming
that the Bondi Beach massacre was a false flag operation, the sort of misinformation the E.U. wants to clamp down on, but it faces a hostile
White House. We want to dig into some of these issues now.
Marietje Schaake is a former member of the European Parliament. She's currently a fellow at Stanford University's Institute for Human-Centered
A.I., and she joins me now from San Francisco. Marietje, it is good to see you.
So, just last week, the president issued an executive order blocking states here in America from instituting A.I. laws and instead pushing for a
federal single national framework. We should note that Congress hasn't passed yet. But it really is putting the United States and the E.U. once
again on different ends of the spectrum here in terms of their approach to A.I. and regulation. Is it just two different ideas fundamentally, or are
there differing views on how this technology should be used?
MARIETJE SCHAAKE, AUTHOR, "THE TECH COUP" AND FELLOW, INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN- CENTERED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, STANFORD: Well, it wasn't that long ago when governments from around the world, shortly after the breakthroughs in
generative A.I., all the chatbots that were put onto the markets, realized that this is very consequential technology and there are safety concerns,
rule of law concerns that they wanted to put safeguards in place for.
So, very few people around the world believe that no rules will render the best results for societies writ large. But under the Trump administration,
that is the direction that the United States is taking. And it's incredibly important for people all over the world because so many of the biggest and
most powerful A.I. companies are American.
GOLODRYGA: And Europe's approach to A.I. really can go back generations and is shaped by deep privacy scars. Why is it, in your view, that Europe
continues to prioritize defending privacy in ways that perhaps the United States just doesn't view as a priority?
SCHAAKE: Well, indeed, in Europe, there is a very deep, historically informed appreciation for the need to prevent the abuse of power. Abuse of
power by the state. You know, people remember vividly the intelligence services under the communist and Nazi regimes that also used technology to
spy on people, mass surveillance.
[13:10:00]
And that same sensitivity about needing to prevent absolute power without oversight, without checks and balances, is also felt towards tech
companies, but really towards all actors in society. The data protection rules that are in place in Europe apply to governments, hospitals, and also
tech companies. And I think it is a reflection of the respect for fundamental rights that is also enshrined in a charter in Europe. So, it is
an integral part of what Europeans consider the quality of life.
Now, of course, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be room for innovation. There's a lot of talk about how to make sure that rules can
also foster innovation. The A.I Act, the A.I law that is now being implemented in Europe, also is very much in place to make sure that
European A.I companies and all A.I companies really can thrive.
But on the basis of trust, and not just blind trust in what companies say is safe and is agreeable, but having those oversight mechanisms that are
very common in other industries. Think about medicine, think about cars, think about food. We actually have a long history in the U.S., in Europe,
and, you know, many parts of the world, where those rules are in place to make sure that consumers are protected, rights are protected, safety is
guaranteed.
And so, I think we're also in a phase where A.I is, you know, maturing also in relation to what a regulatory landscape looks like.
GOLODRYGA: Well, to the question of whether regulation is coming at the cost of innovation, critics are saying that Europe's rules are pushing A.I
talent and companies to the United States. In fact, Stanford's A.I index counts 40 notable U.S. models last year, just three in Europe. So, how does
the E.U. plan to stay competitive? I know you just went through acknowledgment that this could be a factor, but what are the actual
concrete plans to avoid it?
SCHAAKE: Well, I think it's important to understand what barriers exist in the European Union, and there's a lot of focus sometimes in a sort of
caricature matter of what regulation means. But regulation is very diverse. It can lead to different outcomes. So, one of the big obstacles that the
E.U. faces is, one, existing differences between its 27 member states that cost money for businesses to do well across borders.
But another important factor is access to capital. So, there's been a long- lasting debate about the need to have a capital markets union that would make it easier for startups, but particularly scale-ups, so when these
promising companies are beginning to grow, that they can actually find investment rounds on the European capital markets. And the irony is that in
order to have this easier access to capital, which would make Europe more competitive, we need regulation to harmonize those markets.
So, it's too simple to say regulation stifles innovation. It's a bit of a mantra that I hear a lot here in Silicon Valley too, but some regulations
have sparked innovation. Some may have led to obstacles for one or the other market player, but it's too simple to just state that regulation
stifles innovation.
And I think if we listen to CEOs of A.I companies, if we listen to the world's leading scientists, there is no one that looks at A.I and says
there's no risk involved with this technology. They may differ in terms of what the most pressing risk is, but the idea that there should be
guardrails and independent oversight is actually very common. It's the U.S. under President Trump that takes a different approach. In the rest of the
world, regulation is a pretty normal thing to seek over risky products or services.
GOLODRYGA: Well, let's talk more about this executive order to block A.I laws in states specifically, and instead name a single national federal law
that we have already noted does not exist yet. Congress has not passed one. With the president issuing an executive order, something that he legally
can do and has the right and power to do as president, we know that whoever follows him, his successor, can easily roll back that executive order.
Just talk about what questions then come about as far as who regulates and who controls A.I in the United States and what these companies are doing in
response to this type of executive order when they know that it's limited to perhaps two or three years.
SCHAAKE: Well, we are talking at a moment where there is unprecedented collaboration and synergy between major A.I and tech companies in the U.S.
and the White House under President Trump.
[13:15:00]
I think it's a gamble that these tech companies are taking to tie their fates so strongly and so explicitly to this president, which, you know, is
controversial, certainly in Europe, where there's strong statements, trade wars, threats of imposing taxes on European companies if the E.U. continues
to regulate A.I and tech companies.
So, there's a lot of controversy and confrontation coming out of this administration, and the tech companies play a leading role in their
interests being pushed and also the platforms and investments being pushed around the world. So, we're seeing an unprecedented situation.
The approach by the White House thus far has been one of deregulation, rolling back some very nascent steps that were taken under the Biden
administration, and indeed now this executive order that seeks to ban states from passing laws. And I'm sure it will be challenged because it
touches on the very idea of federalism in the United States. So, it's a consequential decision that has much wider implications than just for A.I
companies.
But indeed, building laws on executive orders also make them vulnerable for a change when the administration changes. And, you know, I'm sure that the
tech companies will seek to influence whichever law is being made, whether it's on the national level, on the local level, on the state level, whether
it is an executive order or otherwise, because their market power also reflects a very strong lobbying power.
Now, it's clear that the doors of the White House are open. A lot of doors in Congress are also open, but there's also society. And we're seeing more
and more challenges in local communities with regard to data centers, for example, that are necessary for developing all these A.I models and
products. So, I think there will be a lot of political debate and even pushback against the executive order and against this massive room that A.I
companies are getting now in the United States, where there's also a price being paid by society writ large.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and we know most Americans for polling do want some sort of A.I guardrails that states were acting on that, and raises the question
of, what does that say about democracy when one executive order can come in and change all of that and take away states' rights on this particular
issue?
You also mentioned data centers, and that's raised continued concern about the environmental and the carbon footprint from these power-generating data
centers. Talk about that and how that is built in to both the economic models here in the United States and globally and some of the concerns that
it raises.
SCHAAKE: Well, indeed, so having these data centers is critical to run all these models, to train these models. This is where the servers are being
stored and cooled. But these are huge developments, huge buildings that need a lot of energy, often electricity and also water, to cool the server
plants. And there have been a lot of data centers developed, and there are a lot more in the pipeline, whereas electricity grids, water supplies can't
always cope.
And we see increasing pushback, not only against the economic gambles that these resource-intensive investments require, the loans that A.I companies
are taking to build these data centers and the question of whether they're going to have revenues that can pay off these loans, whether it is an
investment that will pay itself back that is worthwhile for the investors.
But there's also a gamble with what it means for local communities, for the power grids, for the trade-offs between the interests of big companies and
the billionaires running them, and local communities that sometimes face drought, that sometimes face scarcity to have access to the power grid
already.
So, you know, while we talk a lot about the cloud and about online realities in which A.I plays a role, these are the nuts and bolts of what
this model in the economy looks like, and the confrontations that we will see more of and that we also see politicians acting upon.
You know, there are now members of Congress who want to see a moratorium on the development of data centers. There are already such moratoria in some
European countries because the infrastructure and society just cannot cope with this massive growth and resource-intensive development by the A.I
companies.
GOLODRYGA: OK. And as much promise as this technology does bring, we see more and more concern about this technological advancement perhaps
impacting human jobs. And it's even now been reflective by the Federal Reserve Chair and concerns about companies for the moment freezing hiring
going forward and perhaps in the years to come replacing some jobs with A.I. And then there's the question of an A.I bubble.
[13:20:00]
Are we here? Are we close to one? Which concern do you think is more warranted, that we are reaching a point where humans need to be concerned
about their jobs and livelihood or perhaps from an investment standpoint are we over leveraged towards A.I.?
SCHAAKE: Well, I think both challenges come together in the fact that there's so much room, power, agency given to these A.I companies with so
few safeguards for society. So, you know jobs are not just a matter of which sector will see layoffs or less hires like computer scientists for
example, you know, the students that I teach at Stanford they worry about their futures, even though they're highly educated in a promising field. On
the investor side, of course, the risks are taken by the A.I companies but the price and the fallout of any bubble bursting will rip through the
economy.
And so, I think both these examples about employment and about investment actually bring us to the question of how much risk and gamble do we want
tech companies and the billionaires behind them to take while the consequences the price the social unrest the concerns, the lack of trust,
the economic gambles are all for society to have to reckon with.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we do know that A.I and the A.I boom makes up a lion's share of all the economic growth that we have seen thus far in the past
year. We'll continue to cover this closely for sure as will you. Marietje Schaake, thank you so much. Appreciate the time.
SCHAAKE: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And do stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Next the women's liberation movement as seen on Broadway. A new critically acclaimed play is taking audiences back to the 1970s to explore
that crucial time for women. It's called "Liberation," a memory play about things I don't remember and it sees the narrator looking back at her
mother's activism and the complexities of social change. It was written by Bess Wohl who joins me now alongside Kristolyn Lloyd who plays Celeste in
the production.
Welcome both of you, Bess, Kristolyn. I have to say I loved, loved, loved this play. I cried, I laughed, I was so moved by some of the really
powerful moments in scenes and it was so fascinating that that I would go back and forth with all of those emotions within a one and a half or two-
minute frame. So, kudos to you on building this beautiful and dynamic play the way you did.
Bess, I do want to start by the timeline here, moving between 1970s and the present. Why was it important to tell the story from your perspective
across these two timelines?
BESS WOHL, PLAYWRIGHT, "LIBERATION": I really felt that I didn't want to make something that was just a history lesson or that was just historical
even though those parts of the play are important. I wanted to put the past in conversation with right now and really ask questions about where have we
been, where are we going, what has been gained, what has been lost, and make the play feel as immediate and alive as possible so that we're not
going back in time just for the sake of going back in time, we're going back in time to think about what's happening right now.
[13:25:00]
GOLODRYGA: And what was even more complex and ambitious on your part was not just taking the audience back in time but the fact that Lizzie, the
main character, was also going back and forth in time, from the present to the 1970s, and to learn more about her mother and some of the work that she
was doing and the characters that she was doing it with.
Let's take a look at a short exchange from the play. As I mentioned Lizzie's the main character, she's played masterfully by Susannah Flood,
and she's addressing the audience directly, setting up the story, sort of the way I just did. And she's been thinking about her mother's commitment
to equal rights even as those rights in the present day are being eroded. Let's play a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSANNAH FLOOD, ACTRESS, "LIBERATION": It's a memory play in a way. It's about my mother. It's for my mother who recently -- she's not here anymore.
So, yes. So, it's about her and her friends, her beautiful friends, and a thing -- this is important, a thing they tried very hard to do wrong, a
thing that they did that they did, that they unquestionably did. So, why does it somehow feel like it's all slipping away and how do we get it back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, what does Lizzie's mother's story mean for women today and what did women get wrong.
WOHL: Such a big question such a great question. I think what the play does is this theatrical trick of what if you could re-live your mom's life
or what if you could meet your mom before you were born. It's sort of a universal fantasy in a way. And Lizzie, by literally stepping into her
mother's shoes in the play, is looking at whether her mom regrets her life, whether her mom's happy with the choices she made and how a mother who was
so radical could have lived such a traditional life after she got married and had kids.
And by asking that question in the specific I'm also asking it on a larger level, how did a movement that was so radical land us in the moment that
we're in right now where, as you said, it feels like so much is being eroded and so much is slipping away.
GOLODRYGA: And without giving up too much of the play there is a bit of closure at the end between Lizzie and her mother and her mother sort of
addressing what Lizzie got wrong.
But, Kristolyn, I do want to ask you about what takes place for the most part during this play, and that is a meeting of consciousness,
consciousness raising group of different women from different backgrounds in the 1970s that come together and develop a bond, a bond that's uniquely
theirs on this one issue. But every other moment of their life is so completely different from each other's. What did you learn about these
consciousness groups?
KRISTOLYN LLOYD, ACTRESS, "LIBERATION": I learned how brave it was to be a part of them how high the risk was to show up to these groups every day and
to even hold these beliefs, these ideologies that women are humans, that they're real people who deserve equal rights.
The stakes for women in the '70s were so much higher. And every night trying to get that kind of visceral feeling in our bodies of there's war
happening outside of this gym, there's, you know, people who need this message. And I just walked away feeling so much respect for the second
feminist, you know, movement, the second wave of it and the sacrifices they made because it was a sacrifice to stand in this ideology and in these
beliefs and to show up to these groups and hold these conversations.
GOLODRYGA: And the show is really being praised for its ensemble. And, Kristolyn, your character Celeste -- you have a powerful portrayal of her.
I'm wondering what you brought to this character to make her your own.
LLOYD: What did I bring best?
WOHL: Oh, so much.
LLOYD: It's fine. No, I have to say that when I first auditioned for it there -- I remember going into the room and just doing it like it was me.
And Whitney, being the visionary that she is, gives so much breath in the rehearsal process. So --
GOLODRYGA: The director.
[13:30:00]
LLOYD: Yes, Whitney White our director. So, I really channeled a lot of revolutionary figures that I looked up to. I mean CCH Pounder was one of my
biggest influences. She's an actress. But then, you know, I also looked at people like James Baldwin and Eartha Kitt who was blacklisted. And so,
bringing in a lot of that energy the intellectualism to it I would say that that's something that I was able to show up with.
GOLODRYGA: And Celeste is the only black woman in this group, but in the scene we're about to show our audience. She has a confrontation with
Joanne, I have to say, if I had a favorite character, Joanne may have been my favorite character. But there were so many to choose from. Celeste,
you're right up there too with -- Kristolyn.
LLOYD: No, it's fine. Kayla's incredible. It's a joy to do this scene with her.
GOLODRYGA: I'd like to show our audience though a scene of these two black women from the same community with completely different life stories and
their connection and their interaction in this moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAYLA DAVION, ACTRESS, "LIBERATION": They don't care.
LLOYD: You are way out of line.
DAVION: They will go climb the ladder. They will go right. They're novels. And while they make it big, who is going to be cleaning their house?
LLOYD: Not me.
DAVION: Who is going to be watching their children? Their rise depends on keeping us down.
LLOYD: That that is why we are pushing for universal child care, unionizing domestic workers, welfare, reform.
DAVION: And you call me when we get all that.
LLOYD: We got Roe.
DAVION: We didn't get anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Wow, that that one hits home especially now. Bess, this really cuts to the heart of criticism of the women's movement then. And Joanne, I
believe, is the mother of four boys and comes in to this group by happenstance because, as we noted, it takes place in an auditorium and
she's a gymnasium and she's constantly looking for the backpack that her basketball playing sons leave behind. And thus, this exchange ensues.
And in a powerful moment was when she notes, Joanne, that it's almost a luxury for some women to have these types of meetings at 6:00 p.m. when she
says other women are at home having to take care of their children and raise their families. Just talk about the tension that lies between them.
WOHL: Yes, that was something that I personally as a mom really related to. You know, being invited to things and being like, how am I possibly
going to get to that, I have children? So, when Joanne says, you make a women's group that women can't come to, I think there's something really
true in that. And I wanted to show the difference in perspective between Kristolyn's character, Celeste, who doesn't have kids and Joanne, played by
Kayla Davion, who comes at it from a totally different angle.
And part of this was about showing the seams and the complexities and the fractures within the movement and not trying to pretend that it was all one
point of view, because like any great movement there is an incredible range of approaches and desires and objectives and that all comes into the play
and provides a lot of conflict. And also, I should say provides a lot of humor. I mean, the scene that you just showed between Kristolyn and Kayla
is also one of the funniest scenes in the play, I think. And what's so brilliant about these actors is they're able to go from humor to pain in
just a heartbeat and keep the audience really on their toes throughout the play.
GOLODRYGA: Exactly, that was the point I was making in the introduction. I actually thought that one of the funniest moments, there were several, but
it also involved Joanne when Lizzie comes back from present day to then have to reenact her mother meeting her father and telling the audience, I
can't play this moment myself.
And so, she says to Joanne, can you do it? Joanne's like, why am I here otherwise? Like sure I'll do it. Like what is my character here? What is my
role here? But that perhaps raises questions about blind spots from a casting standpoint too, that it looks like you're trying to address as
well. Tell me about that. Just, am I reading too much into the fact that even as you have two black women in this show when she says that line why
am I here? How do you interpret that? What was the interpretation you were hoping for?
WOHL: I think that's absolutely right. I'm asking questions about how the very play is constructed, not just how the movement was made but how the
play itself is made and trying to hold myself accountable as a writer for centering a white woman in this play and what that means and whether that's
OK or not in terms of the storytelling.
[13:35:00]
And I think the play's asking that question and grappling with that question hopefully in an honest authentic way. One thing that Whitney
White, our genius director, did was keep Susannah Flood, the narrator character, on stage the whole time. So, you're sort of constantly seeing
things through her eyes and you're asking, what does it mean for her to be in the center of the play? What does it mean for her to be on the periphery
of the play? And as the play's narrator, can she ever honestly de-center herself? And what might that look like? So, I'm definitely asking questions
both about how movements are made and about how theater is made.
GOLODRYGA: And, Kristolyn, would you agree with that raw assessment?
LLOYD: Absolutely. I mean, it was one of the things that I loved when I read the play. I loved the very first monologue my character has. But when
I got to that scene with Joanne and Celeste, my thoughts were, this writer knows what she's doing, and I went now, do I want to play Joanne? I was
like, wait a minute. But it was it was captivating and I think that Bess does something that a lot of writers with her complexion aren't able to do
which is to step aside and to possibly listen and let these two characters teach.
GOLODRYGA: And there are painful choices that what you expose that so many women feel are unfortunately or unfairly choices women are forced to make
that men aren't. You know, even if you fall in love then you have to decide, am I giving up one part of my life to pursue another? And what I
loved about your character, Kristolyn, is that Celeste is so tough, so tough, so tough until we get to that raw moment.
And how important was it for you to show audiences that you too have that emotion and you too have that vulnerability even in the toughest of
characters?
LLOYD: I think, you know, what we see in Celeste's toughness is a need for anonymity in this group. Some sort of agency, because she is the only and
because not -- the women in the group aren't going to be able to understand her perspective fully.
So, when we do get to that moment where she completely lets it all down, I think it surprises her as well, which I think adds a bit of excitement to
the moment as well. I -- yes, I'm -- it's a challenge every night to stay fresh and to remember that this is a story that I'm telling for caregivers
out there who are in the audience and who are watching, and I'm so grateful to get to be able to tell this story about her.
GOLODRYGA: You both do it so brilliantly. And, Bess, I know you worked on this for 15 years and there's something about the timing of it now, 2025.
You think we would have been five steps ahead. I don't know how many steps ahead we are from 1970 honestly. So, it leaves audiences with a lot of
questions but also a lot of time for laughs as well and it's a fantastic play. So, well done both of you. Thank you so much. Bess Wohl, Kristolyn
Lloyd, really appreciate the time. And you can see the play right now on Broadway.
We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, it's been six days since a shooting at Brown University that killed two students and injured nine others. It's a tragedy that no
one should have to face even once, yet alone twice.
[13:40:00]
And yet, mass shootings have become commonplace in America where there are more firearms than people. There have been over 390 mass shootings so far
this year. As a child, Zoe Weissman survived the 2018 Parkland school shooting and then relived that trauma again this past weekend as she hid in
her dorm room at Brown. She speaks to Michel Martin about why this is becoming a shared experience for far too many young Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Zoe Weissman, thank you so much for talking with us.
ZOE WEISSMAN, SURVIVOR, BROWN UNIVERSITY AND PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTINGS: Thank you.
MARTIN: How are you doing today?
WEISSMAN: You know, I'm definitely doing better now that I'm home. It was a very long weekend and I think that it's kind of setting in for a lot of
my classmates. Unfortunately, this is something I've been through before, so I do think it's a bit easier for me to cope with. So, I'm mostly feeling
the anger right now.
MARTIN: It's so crazy that we're even having this conversation where you can say, I've been through this before. And just to remind that you're a
sophomore at Brown, but you also lived through the shooting in Parkland, Florida, where 17 students and teachers were killed and obviously the
entire community is traumatized. And then, this weekend, you know, living through this again, do you remember where you were when you heard what was
happening this weekend at Brown?
WEISSMAN: Yes. So, thankfully, I was in my dorm. I'm very fortunate that that's where I was. I was in my room. I would say my dorm is probably like
a five-minute walk from Barus and Holley, where the shooting occurred. I was thinking of possibly going to a library within the next half hour. And
then I got a call from my friend who was in a dorm that's closer to Barus and Holley. And she asked me if I was in that building. And the way she
said it, she sounded very distraught. And so, that's -- my brain went to, there was a shooting.
And so, I said, I'm in my dorm, but what happened? Like, was there a shooter? And she didn't respond to me. And I could kind of tell she was
like, hesitating to say the words. And I was like, you need to tell me because like, I need to know what's going on. And she said, well, people
just ran in here and said there was someone shooting in Barus and Holley.
And so, at first, I didn't really know what to think because -- you know, because I think my generation's pretty paranoid about all of this,
rightfully so. I was like, it could be a false alarm. It could be like some confusion. And then I would say a minute or two after I got off the phone
with her, I got the text and call alerts from the school and that's when it really set in.
MARTIN: The fact that you said when your friend first called you and that's kind of where your mind was there a shooting. I mean, wow.
WEISSMAN: Right.
MARTIN: That's where your mind first went.
WEISSMAN: Yes.
MARTIN: Does that strike you in any way?
WEISSMAN: Yes. I -- you know, I've been -- I think it's a combination of the fact that I do have PTSD from Parkland. So, like my brain will go there
for things that rationally speaking, it's not probable, but at the same time, if your friend at school calls you upset asking where you are, I do
think that. Unfortunately, it's not entirely irrational to assume that there's an active shooter and I think that's indicative of the type of
country we're living in right now.
MARTIN: Do you remember what -- like what steps did you take once you realized what was going on?
WEISSMAN: Yes. So, once the school sent out the alert, we were all automatically on lockdown. And so, that just basically meant that I
couldn't leave my room or the building that I was in. And so, for me, thankfully that just looked like me staying in my dorm, but unfortunately
for a lot of my friends who were in academic buildings, that meant having to all gather into one common area and wait for the police to evacuate
them, which is a much more frightening experience.
And so, I was in my dorm from the shooting happened a little after 4:00 p.m. until 6 a.m. the next morning is when the shelter in place lifted.
MARTIN: Did you feel that university handled this OK? Like, how do you feel about the way they communicated with you and, and all of that?
WEISSMAN: Yes, I'm actually pretty proud of how the university responded to this. I think, you know, there's only so much university can do to
prepare for something like this when we live in a country where gun violence is so prevalent. So, I do think security wise, I've always felt
pretty safe at the school. Obviously, that was something I thought about when I was looking at colleges because of my history. And so, I do think
that the school has a really good balance of having security features without making us feel like we're in a prison.
The one thing that I do think that they're going to improve on now is adding more cameras to Barus and Holley. It is one of the oldest -- older
buildings on campus and the engineering research center, which was built onto the building is newer. And so, that area of the building has cameras,
but Barus and Holley apparently doesn't, which I wasn't aware of. And so, I know that they're going to fix that immediately. But besides that, I've
always felt very safe at the school. And I also think that the response emotionally and mentally was really good from the school providing us
resources.
[13:45:00]
I do think there was some confusion in regards to the police response on campus, but that's more so because there's a lot of different factors
having to communicate with one another being the administration, the Brown Police Department, the Providence Police Department, the FBI. And so, I
think that's where a lot of the confusion overnight came from.
MARTIN: How do you think -- living through Parkland, you were 12, how do you think that that affected, you know, who you are now and how you see
things?
WEISSMAN: Yes. So, I was in a position at the middle school where I got stuck outside. And so, I was exposed to the gunshots and things like that.
And so, I was one of the few middle schoolers that had one of those more direct experiences because, thankfully, most people were able to get
inside.
And so, after that experience, I did develop PTSD from it, as I think a lot of people in Parkland did, even people who were inside my middle school
during the shooting. And so, I've kind of had to learn how to adapt to my new normal. I'm definitely very hypervigilant, kind of almost paranoid of
my surroundings, always subconsciously preparing for things. But I've gotten to a place over the past seven, almost eight years where I'm able to
still, you know, live my life and enjoy myself and kind of put that in the background of my head so that it's not something that's always, you know,
consuming my everyday life.
MARTIN: When you went to college, did you think to yourself, that's -- I mean, you did, as you've just told U.S., you thought of what's the security
plan? Like, does this place feel safe? Like, how would I -- where would I go? So, you went through that mental process in your mind, but did you
honestly think you'd live through this again?
WEISSMAN: Yes, I think that for the most part, I did not think that this would be something I'd ever experience again. I thought, you know, naively
that statistically speaking, I had already been through it before and that almost gave me a sense of protection from it occurring again. But at the
same time, I knew that that was more so like something I was telling myself to keep myself, you know, calm because I have friends already that have
been through two mass shootings. I know people through my activism that were at the Oxford High School in Michigan and then went on to Michigan
State University where there was a mass shooting there.
I have friends from Parkland who go to Florida State University, which is one of the biggest schools in the state where a lot of people from my town
go. And there was a mass shooting there as well. And so, I knew that was a possibility. But again, even someone like myself who's been through it
before, you still believe that, oh, it can't happen to me until it does.
MARTIN: So, you got involved with gun safety activism after Parkland a lot of young people did. In fact, like there were, you know, enormous
demonstrations. Do you think it's making a difference?
WEISSMAN: Yes, I think that. So, I was and still I'm a part of March for Our Lives, which is the movement that came out of the shooting in Parkland.
And I think that, practically speaking, there were a lot of red flag laws that got passed after we started really speaking up about things, so
policy-wise. And then we were also a really big part of the bipartisan gun violence prevention bill that got passed in 2022.
But I think on a cultural level, we had more of an impact in the sense that we were one of the first student-led movements to really advocate for an
issue that was impacting our generation in a unique way. But also, we kind of brought the issue back to the forefront. I think for the past few
decades, ever since Columbine, it's kind of become an accepted facet of everyday life. And I think the movement after Parkland kind of brought back
this idea that we don't have to accept that as our normal.
And so, that's something that I kind of want to reinvigorate after this. You know, the timing's a little unique because we were about to go on
winter break. And so, now winter break just started prematurely. But it's my goal to make sure that I am able to use this moment to advocate for my
community so that no one has to go through this again and that I don't have to share this experience with more people.
MARTIN: Do you think that people broadly defined understand the degree to which exposure to gun violence is a feature of your youth? Do you think
that people get how much of a generational issue this is?
WEISSMAN: Yes. I mean, I do understand that to an extent if you're not in my generation, it can be really hard to understand the impact this has had
on us. You know, I'm the same age as a lot of the kids were who were killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. I was in first grade when that happened. And I
remember my school practicing lockdown drills in the aftermath of that.
And so, it's something that's been so deeply ingrained into our youth and our childhood that is kind of hard for people who are older than us to
understand because it is a relatively new phenomenon in the sense that it's kind of been a predominant issue for the past few decades in regards to
school shootings.
But at the same time, I feel like I have the responsibility to really demonstrate just how much gun violence can have a ripple effect in
communities because obviously people understand when people are killed, people are injured. But for example, my community of Parkland, majority of
people were not shot or killed. And yet, this is still something that affects my community every single day. I go into restaurants and I see
signs about the shooting. I -- you know, it's something that's kind of always on the forefront of our minds and that's something that's hard to
understand if you haven't been through it.
[13:50:00]
MARTIN: And now, here's the big question, why do you think this keeps happening?
WEISSMAN: Yes, I think the only common denominator that we're seeing across all of these acts of gun violence is access to guns. We're the only
country in the world where guns outnumber people. There's more guns in circulation in America than there are Americans. So, that means over 300
million guns are in this country.
And because of how lax federal regulations are, even in states like Rhode Island that have amazing gun laws on the books, there's only so much that
states can do in order to protect against how relaxed the federal regulations are around guns. Not only can people cross state lines and go
buy firearms in states with more relaxed laws, but there's also things like the universal background check system that are run federally. And so, those
are systems that states don't really have a say over. And also, private sales are not regulated. You know, there's an issue of ghost guns as well.
And so, we don't know the specifics about the specific shooting, but I will say that I think the only common denominator that we're seeing across all
these acts, motivations may be different, whether that be suicide, domestic violence, gang violence, everyday gun violence, or mass shootings. Those
ideologies are different. Those motivations are different. The people are wildly different. But the one thing they have in common is people having
access to guns when they shouldn't. And so, I think that the issue ultimately comes down to needing to pass comprehensive federal gun violence
prevention laws.
MARTIN: But I'm curious, given all the work that you did over the years with -- around your activism, do you have a theory about why it is that we
are willing to tolerate this level of gun violence?
WEISSMAN: I think that, first and foremost, the fact that we have gun rights enshrined in our country's constitution is something we don't see in
any other developed country and is something that the interpretation of has kind of led to the free flow of guns in this country. I think that the
Second Amendment should be interpreted as a means of defending against a tyrannical government in the form of militias, not necessarily the ability
for any everyday American to have a weapon of mass destruction that didn't exist 300 years ago.
But at the same time, regardless of how you interpret the Second Amendment, it's a fact that we are one of the only countries in the world that has
that right enshrined within our constitution. And I think that's led to this culture where guns are kind of almost worshipped in a sense, where
guns are seen as more valuable than human lives.
And then I also think on a political level, at the end of the day, it does come down to corporate greed and money. We see gun lobby groups like the
NSSF and the National Rifle Association have lined the pockets of politicians with their blood money. They've spent tens of millions of
dollars every single legislative year to ensure that their bottom line, the bottom line of gun manufacturers stays the same.
And so, I think you see this combination of politicians prioritizing money over people and also people kind of having this really warped understanding
of the importance of guns in our country, something that we don't really see in other nations because they don't have that right enshrined in their
constitution.
MARTIN: Do you ever see this changing to the point where you take -- I don't know if you plan to have kids, but if you take your daughter on her
college tour, the first thing you think about won't have to be a security plan? Do you ever see this changing?
WEISSMAN: Yes, I do want to have kids. And so, it's something I think about a lot, especially for, I have a younger sister who's going to be
going to college next year. And so, that is something I think about. And it's really easy to get very hopeless, especially with the fact that I've
been doing this for seven years and I have seen little to no progress.
The fact that when I speak out in times like this, instead of, I get a lot of support, but I also get a lot of hate. And oftentimes for things I can't
control, like the fact that I'm a queer person, the fact that I'm Jewish. And so, those things can really make it seem like I have no hope in
humanity. But then I think about the amount of people who have sent me so many supportive messages.
And I think that the real change is going to come when people in my generation are able to actually secure positions of power. We see people
like Representative Max Frost, who I've been in touch with and was actually the previous director of March for Our Lives. He's an amazing example of
how my generation is going to be able to really shape the political landscape in this country.
And I think until this country realizes that we're going to be the group that's really having a say soon, I think that that is going to be the point
at which we really are able to turn the tide in regards to gun violence.
MARTIN: Do you mind if I ask, are you planning to go back to school?
WEISSMAN: Yes, I am. And I -- you know, I still do feel safe at Brown. And I do think part of that is because my definition of safety has been
fundamentally different than other people for the past seven years. I'm kind of at a baseline of hypervigilance.
But I will say that I think a majority of my classmates are really excited to get back. Brown is a very uniquely happy and warm and supportive
environment, especially in the world of Ivy League institutions that are kind of considered cutthroat and competitive. I've never once felt that at
Brown. And I think I can say that for almost everyone at the school. I'm already excited to go back after break and take my classes and be with my
community, not only to grieve together, but also to make sure that we have real impacts.
[13:55:00]
Another great thing about Brown is we're very politically active when it comes to international, national and local issues. And so, I think that
that's going to be something that will really bring us together and motivate us to create change.
MARTIN: Zoe Weissman, thank you so much for talking with us.
WEISSMAN: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, a discovery for the ages. More than 200 million years ago, dinosaurs roamed in an area in what is now the Italian Alps,
leaving behind thousands of footprints, unseen until now. A wildlife photographer happened upon them by accident, and the science world is
thankful he did. The site is now one of the world's oldest and largest known collections, a finding so significant that one paleontologist said
this time reality really surpasses fantasy. Amazing.
All right. Well, that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
