tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg January 6, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." thisie: we've again evening with the middle east and the tensions fueling the sunni-shia divide. kuwait became the fifth country to cut down diplomatic ties with iran. the fallout was linked to the decision to execute a prominent shia cleric last week. in response, there was an attack on the embassy in tehran on saturday. joining me is probably not serve nasr, wendy sherman,
who was a leading u.s. negotiator with iran. also, david singer, the you are times -- the new york times national security correspondent, and phil gordon. i am pleased to have all of them on this program. i begin with philip gordon. where are we? we are in a situation that is even more difficult than it was a few days ago. charlie: because more people have gotten involved, or because more people seem to be backing down? key too, because the these situations is the splits between saudi arabia and iran. that is driving the conflicts in syria, yemen, driving the policy the policyl, driving
on executions, and so many other things in the region. the prerequisite to deal with these conflicts is to have some form of tolerance. you have this process going on in vienna to get these guys at the table for the first time, which led to some sliver of hope that you could bridge the gap and bring this terrible war to an end, and with the execution of the shia cleric, the burning of the embassy, the rupture of democracy, it has set back any hope you might have had for any diplomatic cooperation. charlie: [indiscernible] that overstates -- thelip: that overstates problem, i don't want to -- and this was a by accident, charlie. it's not that the saudi's did this and are saying, my goodness, this is a setback to the diplomatic process, you have
to conclude that they did not do it properly, and to a degree it was a message to the united states and other players in this business, if you thought we were on the verge of compromising with iran and looking for a concession, think again, because we were not. i think they were sending a lot of messages. charlie: wendy, how do you think the iranians saw this? wendy: i would say that the real problem here is that i sold -- isil is benefiting the most from this rivalry. we have the you and all the way in rio today who has come out of that meeting and said that saudi arabia still wants to proceed -- the u.n. envoy in rio today who still s to see if a peaceful agreement can come. i think iran has escalated this situation. iran is playing a destabilizing
role in the region. there is no doubt about that. but if iran had a nuclear weapon, they would be an even worse factor in the region. even though the saudi's were not thrilled -- saudis were not thrilled with the nuclear agreement, they do understand that iran with a nuclear weapon would be more of a deterrent and have more power. iran is in the midst of a very processpolitical internally. they have elections coming up in --e february, both further both for their parliament and what is called the council of experts that will decide the successor to the current supreme leader, so they have a lot at stake. .here are hardliners in iran we tend to think of iran as a monolithic country, but they have real politics. none of them are particularly reformist in our terminology, far more reformist theyhardliners, even if
are hardliners of hardliners. charlie: you could see that in the tone from president rouhani. he has a loty, and at stake in this election. he is about to implement a joint conference plan of action, meaning iran will ship out its stockpile of enriched uranium, take centrifuges offline, allow atomic energynal agency to monitor and verify what is going on. they will make sure their program is peaceful and exclusively peaceful, and that they will never have a nuclear weapon. he thinks he will get sections relief which will carry him through this february 26 election so that the left hardline faction of the hardliners will give sway in to ran, but theh politics are very difficult. the only slivers of hope, there is a lot of behind the scenes
talk going on, i think people do want to deescalate the situation. we will have to look at the gcc meeting on saturday and see they take a step back or further accelerate the problems here, but at the end of he wants to bring everybody together to make peace in syria, and that is looking pretty tough. charlie: i want to get the semi-shia understanding, but first, david, you had a piece in the new york times today. the obama administration on monday confronted the fundamental contradiction in its increasingly tense relationship with saudi arabia. explain. david: charlie, the dynamic you have just heard from phil and wendy is played out at a time when the saudi's are quite concerned that the nuclear deal between the u.s., european partners, russia, china, and
iran means there is some kind of fundamental reassessment. the understand that many in administration think that over the long term, iran might be a more national -- natural ally with the united states then and the other members of the gulf council. the administration has gone to great lengths to convince the saudis that is the case. president obama asked the saudis and other arab nations to camp david back in the fall. there was a big arms sale. build upnship to help their defenses. but fundamentally, you have seen during the obama administration u.s.-saudin of the relationship, partly because with the united states pumping out as much oil as it does, there is not the kind of dependency on the oil front that there was. but there is a big dependency on the diplomatic front.
kerry knows that getting the deal together in syria, both parts of it, the cease-fire and the broader political arrangement, is a very long shot, and it depends on having the saudi's and iranians at the table, both of them working in roughly the same direction. i think the saudis who have never believed that this was going to happen basically were sending a very large message to the u.s. that said, if you are down ong to crack iranian expansionism in the region, we will, and i think that is a lot of what was behind the execution of the shia cleric. vali, what is the basic split between shia and sunni? we know had a lineup with iran being shia and saudi arabia and
jordan and others being essentially sunni, and iraq being shia. there are two different interpretations of islam. the interpretations go back in history. but in a region that goes back a lot in region, it matters what sector you follow. not about she has-sunni, this is about saudi , and also sunni extremism, which we have seen in isis, which is highly intolerant on any interpretation, other than the one they have put forward, and that puts the shiites outside the realm of islam. you have a middle east that is roughly divided evenly between shiites and sunnis. an --akes secretary is secretary and is in -- secra
etarianism very relevant. this came after a set of events. first, you have a shia victory defeating isis in the region -- defeating isis. you have the inclusion of iran and the vienna process, which was a first. you also have the first stage of the implementation of the nuclear deal. as david said, these are worrying issues for saudi arabia. what i think is clear is that saudi arabia sees an advantage in playing the secretary and card. if sunnis identify as sunni and she has identify as shia, saudi arabia wins against iran. it limits iran's reach in the region, its influence in the world. domestically, the saudi's can tell their own population at a time of succession crisis, low oil prices, economic austerity,
by she are under siege is and iranians in yemen, and domestically in our eastern province, and they are also swaying of americans -- swaying americans with the nuclear deal between isis and iraq. this is a strategy of survival on the part of saudi arabia. it serves their interest, it does not serve united states interest. mean we have this less a relationship with the saudi's than we thought they did. they clearly knew that saudi's were thinking about this, did they not? the united states government has warned out right s aboutey warned the saudi'
the potential execution of zimmer. not only was that warned, but after the executions happened, the u.s. embassy in riyadh had a difficult time getting an understanding from the saudi's about who had been executed. this is not exactly a system in which communication is moving very smoothly with the united states. that could be because they were trying to keep the u.s. in the dark. it could also be that these executions got caught up, and we , got know the answer caught up in the succession battles that phil was referring to. we have a very different relation of saudi leaders coming up. wendy: the internal politics in both these countries are very complex right now, and they are all taking place in the context of a world economy that is shaking. normally, when we have these middle eastern kinds of low ups, the -- crises, the price of oil skyrockets. that's not going to happen right now. demand is too low.
china's economy has slowed down. the whole context for this particular act and tough play is different than it has been in the past. though everyone has been concerned that iran will make tons of money off of the nuclear deal, in recent days they have said their production of oil will only be able to meet the demands that are out there, and we know that demand is very low. same in saudi arabia, where for the first time they are looking at their budget, looking at what they can give to the people in their country. these countries, there is a need to rally the troops, both the civilian and the military, to the self-interest of that country, and we see that the larger context is more propagated. hawkedted arab emirates back its ambassador, but it did not ann diplomatic relations, because a lot of trade goes through dubai.
the only sliver of optimism here is that i think it is not in the self-interest of either iran or saudi arabia to have this go to the point of war, and they have both tried to ask to help -- ask for help to get this to the escalate. whether that will occur -- there are no protests in bahrain and other parts of the region -- remains to be seen. sure that the saudis are interested in escalating this further. they have also shown in yemen that they are perfectly capable of pushing the boundaries, and i think they have an attitude that they can throw a hand grenade and the united states essentially will step in and iran's tale is in the door right now with the nuclear deal, and it might not have as much room to maneuver. it is saudi arabia's advantage right now to rally the sunnis within the kingdom to fight. what david was
saying, i don't think our policy approach with saudi arabia is appropriate for where the relationship is. our muscle memory and dealing with saudi arabia is to constantly try to reassure them. in fact, the word in washington is that we have to keep reassuring saudi arabia. but saudi's may take reassurance at the wrong signal. we even dated given without appropriate consultation with the u.s., started a major war that can prove to be catastrophic for the united states and the region, we basically adopted a policy of putting no pressure on them to come up with an exit strategy, it constantly saying we need to reassure them because we signed a nuclear deal with iran. we have reached a point where we need to get tough with the saudi's. -- saudis. we need to demand the saudis like we have demanded many other allies around the world that they can not torpedo our
policies, and we have expectations of them. wendy: that's why the people who benefit the most are isil. and why a bold and thorough strategy with lots of different prongs to it has to be carried out. i think that's what the president is trying to do. i think that is what is being advocated by others as well. that's really where the focus has to be, somehow or another, to get everybody in the region to pull in the same direction. we thought we were headed there in december, but we seem to be going a little bit off the rails now. a good: wendy makes point, there is a need for a big, bold strategy. but if you press american thecials on the record, administration was not willing to say anything yesterday that theeven mildly critical of
saudi's other then they hope that they will respect human rights and the future. in fact, they were more critical of the iranians for the outburst oft resulted in the burning the embassy. obviously, the u.s. is a lot of reasons to be concerned about the infringements of the .mbassy but they were more concerned that they were about the execution of bremmer. i think this issue that all three of my colleagues have raised is now firmly on the table. tradition, thee habit of reassuring the saudi's, underscore solidarity, be reluctant to raise differences. the reality is, over the past couple of years, we have had real differences on egypt, especially from a saudi view.
bus,rew mubarak under the that is their perception. we failed to enforce and do what was necessary to get rid of assad. think that is the context of what we are seeing now. andle mentioned both yemen the execution, both of those in a way are a saudi response. fine, you want to take your policies based on your natural -- national interest and inform them about it? we will do the same. we will intervene in yemen and give you 24 hours notice. we will execute this cleric and give you 24 hours notice. it sends a message, we have tried to double down on reassurance. camp david, supports on the yemen defensive movement. the message that came back to us in the past couple of days is that that is not enough and it is not working. charlie: it seems to me that you
are looking at a country that is thinking a lot about its own survival. it is looking at how unstable the region is an saying, could we be next? sense, survival is part of , as muchr thoughts are as foreign policy in the region. and when survival is at stake, people are willing to do big and bold things. is ate: if their survival stake, isn't the relationship with the united states important? it is, but course they don't see the threat to the kingdom as primarily some external invasion where the united states can protect them. that relationship already exists. the invasion of kuwait, we give them weapons, we are there, that is not the issue.
they think their survival is threatened from iranian expansionism, a ready and support for -- iranian expansionism, leading sunnis to joining isis, iran mingling with their shia population at home. that is what they want. that gets to the question of reassurance, what we have to do to reassure them? that let me just say reassurance is absolutely right, and i agree with wendy's point on how we should handle the saudi's, but the reality is, many things are now fundamentally against the saudis. the price of oil will not come back. the united states has made a decision on the -- under this itsident that it views relationship with asia as more important with the middle east. it decided to distance itself.
when it allowed mubarak to fall and when he started talking to iran, the message was that the board was not as important as it was in terms of security and stability. isimately, iran right now still in a very hard-line position, but potentially that might change down the road. -- saudis aree on on a wrong strategic bend. there are a lot of things against them. we cannot reassure them that saudi arabia 20 years from now will be strategically important to the united states. all the signals they are getting that the united will caren the road less about saudi arabia, that we don't see our values in line, we don't need their oil. i don't think any measure of reassurance is going to help them. we have to actually prepare ourselves to manage a harder
landing for saudi arabia going forward. charlie: all of that is true, we don't like a lot of things that the royal family does in saudi arabia, yet we have this deep fear of iran's behavior. wendy: absolutely. and for good reason. iran is a very strong supporter of state sponsored terrorism. iran has american citizens and attention. they have destabilized the region by their actions because of their particular self-interest. thought that iran with a nuclear weapon would be even worse, which is why we work so hard to get the joint comprehensive plan of action, but it did not for one instant set aside all of the concerns we have about iran that are legitimate concerns that saudi arabia has an the other gulf states have. what we have not talked about in this discussion, which is fascinating about how sidelines have gotten already, which is what is happening in syria, and
about what is happening in high school. .- in isil and i said at the beginning, i isil is what we have to keep focusing on. it is not in russia's interest for there to be a blowup between iran and saudi arabia, because russia understands that they have to at least tolerate each other because it is in their sil notterest that i take over iraq and syria, but further into the middle east. i think there is a lot at stake here, there is a lot more to play out, and there are a lot of actors whose interest should be outlined here. charlie: so are the saudi's fully on board -- saudis fully on board and the fight against isis? are they doing everything they could to get fellow sunnis engaged in iraq and syria?
phillip: i don't think so. saudi arabia is in many ways a partner with us in the intelligence realm. sunni-sunni,t is they are a partner, they work with us, and they understand it threatens them because isis threatens the kingdom. the problem is, it is not their top priority. we all have a lot of different adversaries and rivalries in the middle east, but the problem is we break them differently. for the saudis, iran is the top three, and then you get a soft -- assad because of iran, and then you get isis. if you look at what they are doing in syria and elsewhere. and elsewhere, sure, they want to fight against isis, but they are more tolerant of extremist groups because they are fighting assad and iran. that is the problem, it is just not at the top of their priority list. david and vali, go ahead and follow up on phil, then my question is, are we
seeing in the american foreign-policy, whether it is the national security council, state department, or pentagon, competing factions as to what we ought to be doing having to do with this crisis? vali: let me follow up on what phil said. i think it is true that saudi arabia is very worried about isis's threat to the kingdom. saudi arabia has the greatest number of pro-isis tweets in the world, and a large number of its population is sympathetic to isis. saudi arabia does not want isis in the kingdom. but when it comes to what isis is doing in iraq and syria, isis is actually serving saudi arabia's regional strategy, which is to roll back shia gains, defeats iran's proxies. a set of ambiguity in saudi arabia's policy towards isis. second terror -- secondly, you cannot wrap up sunni extremism
without actually playing into isis's narrative. finally, with the raised some on whatortant issues the united states ought to do. i think one of the challenges is that in iraq, the fight against isis requires that iraqi government, which is a shia government backed by iran, to cooperate with the united states in this fight. the victory and ramadi was an american-a iraqi-shia alliance that achieved it. now there are demonstrations against saudi arabia demanding the saudi embassy be shut down, and other politicians are satcheting up as saudi retaliate. i think iraq is in a very weak point. they canstionable how move on the gains of ramadi and
bring something of a settlement and engage the sunnis in iraq in a partnership that we are demanding of them, when actually the secretary and rift is opening further. on the point that phil and vali were making about the different priorities, you saw s act, but as' soon as they got involved in all the human -- yemen, assets went in the same direction, so they haven't really been at the forefront of the military part of the battle. secretary kerry did get them involved in trying to organize the rebel groups and syria to go negotiate with assad later this month, but it is not clear that are putting much energy into that. what they will tell you privately is, they don't think it is going to work. that then gets you to your question, charley, which is, is
there debate within the administration? there certainly was. you have heard this and the differences between what secretary clinton has said she advocated, including safe stones, no-fly zones. that debate has never really been resolved in the administration, and it is coming back. it may be teed up late at this point to change that strategy, but i think that -- too late at this point to change that strategy, but i think the administration has not stopped arguing within itself will stop -- itself. saudi nightmare is what has hinted at in that article. it is decided, after all, we can do that are business with iran. that is what they are most of late of -- most afraid of in the nuclear deal. the real concern is that this is more than it was said it was. that couldw is that become a self-fulfilling prophecy. if they write us off and start doing things that alienate
european public opinion, the then you do get people starting to question that alliance with saudi arabia. i think they have to be careful. i don't think it is the case that we are now courting iran in some way, there are all sorts of reasons why for the first vehicle future, we will continue to have a troubled relationship with iran. charlie: wendy, are you the nuclearth how has taken place over the last month? have the iranians lived up to most of what we have expected of them? and i am notears, inside the administration anymore, but it appears that iran is taking all the steps that are required. we will only know that when the iaea verifies that all those steps have been taken and tells all of us that they have indeed
done that, that they have shipped out anything over 300 kilograms of low enriched uranium, they have -- they would not collate dismantling, they would say setting aside their dismantling but their centrifuges, and taking the other steps, putting verification monitors in place that are onerous on them. it appears everything is moving forward. we have not talked about the missile concerns that we have. clearly, you are seeing the hardliners played out again by announcing a new missile site that is underground. these are all sectional activities, i fully expect the extensions will be brought to bear -- that sanctions will be brought to bear. we have to call them on things and section them for them.
on the novel "the price of salt." kate blanchette and rooney mara star. here is the trailer for the film. ♪ >> dearest, there are no accidents and no explanation i offer. >> i like that at. -- that hat. you think resolutions because you are young, but you will understand this one day. how many times have you been in love? >> you are always the most beautiful woman in the room. >> red velvet. carol. >> tell me you know what you are doing. >> i never did. >> and then it changed. >> she stole my wife.
i love her. >> i can't help you with that. >> it should not be like this. >> i came to see my daughter. >> everything comes full circle. we gave each other the most breathtaking of gifts. charlie: "carol" is nominated for five golden globes, including best director and best drama. joining me is the film's director, todd haynes. welcome. and congratulations.
todd: thank you. charlie: tell me how you found the property of the story. todd: this one, unlike most of my other films, found me. it is the only film i have not written and developed myself, but i had heard about it, i got wind of it from sandy powell, a costume designer. know elizabeth carlson extremely well, the producer, the most hands-on producer for "carol," and she had been developing it for many years. there were producers on it before elizabeth came on. the screenwriter had been attached for a most 15 years. years.st 15 it came to me when my schedule opened up. kate blanchette -- cate blachett was already attached.
liz said, do you think todd would take a look? and i did. and i did not know the novel. has close,e who formidable relationships with gay women. i did not know the book, to their dismay. i took the script and the novel and went to the organ coast -- i live in portland these days -- and i read this amazing novel. tell me about patricia highsmith, who wrote it. novel, and i hardly consider myself a next work on onlymith, but this is the novel that falls outside the
crime genre that she is known for. novel she wrote after "strangers on a train." she sold it -- strangers on a train." she sold it to hitchcock and her only 20's -- early 20's. she was on a roll. she was very successful. publishedse had "strangers on a train," and she wrote this, and of the major publishers would touch it. charlie: it was controversial. todd: very controversial, and she was headed for a serious, mainstream career, and this would have been a major challenge to that. of recommended by a small publisher that did
lesbian fiction, and they wanted to do it. underaid she should do it a pseudonym, and she did. it is called "the price of salt," the novel that it is based on. it stands outside the tradition of lesbian fiction in that it does not and being punitive -- pudoes not and bang -- end with ay, heterosexual-corrective ending or something, or a suicide. charlie: for a film set in that time -- todd: for a book set in that time. yeah, it became a beloved piece of lesbian fiction for years. patricia highsmith continued to write prolifically. all the ripley books, among many other great books. 1980's beforee she died, they published "the
price of salt," and i think that is when it was republished as "carol." charlie: cate was already attached? todd: she was. so it was a no-brainer, of course. what was your attraction to her? piecethis was a beautiful of writing, the novel. it really reminds you, reminded , maybe in ways i had not been reminded of in years, what it feels like to be falling in love with somebody, to be in the dark, to not know where you stand, to be reading the signs that the other person is giving you and trying to discern your fate, whether this is going to happen. think there is something
beyond the fact that this is a lesbian love story. being in love of and the vulnerability of that position. i know that all of those things were factors for cate. charlie: so cate was in and rooney -- todd: i cast rooney after i got on board. charlie: because? admirer ofe been an her work from pretty much the beginning. i have seen most of her major roles and films. ability tos .nderplay she just seemed to understand filmcale of the medium of in a way i found remarkable for somebody her age. i think it is a mix of her confidence -- it takes a mix of confidence and intelligence to how little a gesture can
convey emotion, can attach an audience's interest to what you are doing as a character. and she was playing these bold characters. charlie: she's come a long way from "girl with the dragon tattoo." todd: exactly. i thought, what if she played somebody ordinary? -- project came to her before i was attached, and she passed. she said she was not in the headspace for it, and that was a huge emotional and intense experience for her. films need certain conditions to iel like they are viable, so was the director attached, and cate was attached.
charlie: and this is told from both characters' perspectives. point of viewhat was the principal of which to approach ite -- was the principle on which to approach it, because you are introduced --carol very much are the very much through the her lover. of being in the presence of this older, quite formidable woman means. knowing what it was it innocent for her ? wasn't just age difference, or difference of life experience? todd: i think it was all of that. the is so remarkable about
novel is that it reminds you of feelsstability that one when you are beginning to attach desire to a certain person. that kind of tunnel that you what where you don't know it means, and everything is assigned to be decoded, but what is so lovely about the novel is that it feels like you are inventing love. but in this case, they kind of it was one of the least representative forms of love. and she goes from being a sales clerk to a photographer, a good photographer working for "the new york times," so she becomes more interesting.
todd: she becomes a person in focus. at first, she has a boyfriend, accepts the amorous attention of another guy, and then she is immediately interested in this older woman, not knowing what that means, so she is kind of all over the place, and she says, i can take pictures of people, initially, and even that is -- can't take pictures of people, initially, and that is the project of putting a human subject in her works, frames. ♪
♪ charlie: take a look at this, this is where the two of them have lunch together. here it is. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> enjoy. >> i'm starved. bon appetit. what do you do on sundays? >> nothing in particular, what do you do? >> nothing lately. maybe you'd like to come visit me sometime. you are welcome too.
at least it is a pretty country around where i live. would you like to come visit me this sunday? >> yes. are.range girl you why? ♪ how do actors influence shooting a scene like that? both cate and when he talked about this seen as being a good memory of the shoot, tight, fast. we were running around a lot. we spent a day on this scene. almost a day. it needed that attention. it is a long, important scene. it is really just three angles, three sizes on each of the actors, but it meant we can all focus, can all be in one
location. we shot it in cincinnati, ohio. we could all be there and look at the details and silences. you are mentioning how we hold on certain shots. when the topic changes. usually, i think people want to cut. my editors and i felt, no, once you start cutting too much, you can never go back. you need to establish a different pace with the audience , in some ways putting the audience in a state of anxiety. is soe: for me, it interesting, because whatever is happening in your face is not just what i am saying, it is you responding to it. it is a combination of those kinds of things.
show this clip. this is one carol is arguing with her husband. i'm going to get some coffee. good luck, carol. [indiscernible] >> i can't do that. >> yes you can. >> what are you going to do? are you going to stay here? what are you going to do, carol? >> stop it. you wonder why he stayed there so long, except you know, because for some reason she is the only person he is fixated on. todd: on what a great woman she is, and nobody believes that she is real -- that this is real. world, and his
anyone's world, really. the novel is interesting because terry's -- therese's boyfriend, richard, is a painter. so there are characters with artistic ambitions that might put them closer to a french village, bohemia, whatever. of thefirst draft script, she said i made them more ordinary. she wants to be a , not an artist photographer. it meant that everyone was less prepared for what they are about to encounter, what is about to unfold. why does carol continue to say what a strange girl she is? she is soink because available, and i think because they are both these people who almost illogically are stepping out of their respective lives and -- charlie: but this is not the
first time for carol. why is she surprised by the availability of terror as -- therese? todd: because i think it speaks to who therese is. charlie: more than who carol is. todd: i think that is true, but no one really knows the rules. you don't know if terror as -- if therese is a lesbian or of carol -- therese says of her boyfriend, i don't mean people like that, i just me a girl and a girl who fall in love, or a boy and a boy who fall in love. she imagines a relationship for which there is no model in the story. charlie: this is something i have thought about, it is how difficult lives are for people. it is just not easy.
to have these relationships that are so conflicted because of her love for a child. andthe times, the 1950's, what is acceptable. many people are not living a life that is truly authentic. todd: exactly. people say to cate, i love how you play strong women. she kind of bristles, because there is something about -- i'm not interested in playing strong women, i am interested in whoing conflicted women are, as you say, for whom nothing is easy. charlie: you wanted to make a different kind of film about a lesbian love affair than what else might have been made. was there a sense of not wanting to do what hollywood normally does? todd: i felt that a lot it was ofng true to this whole idea
the kind of isolation that love puts people in, and that was only furthered by the historical condition when this was taking place. who seems so suave and well put together as a character, and tough, is a somewhat neurotic, not happy person. she would be happier if this relationship was untethered from all the complexity. todd: she is neurotic, and she is not really found what she wants. and she is so well put together from the outside, and we think she is so figured out. charlie: a formidable person who knows who she is. todd: exactly, but she is conflicted. and that is why she reevaluates this girl. charlie: what teams are you drawn to now? or do you know it when you see it? todd: i sort of know it when i
see it. of projects inr different stages. for the first time, i have thatd myself up to stuff is out there. i have been very single-minded as a director through most of my career. i do my thing -- charlie: and you are prepared to accept a call from somebody who says, i like your stuff, come make this film for me. proud ofm, and i am myself because "carol" was my first outing in that regard. it is a project that came to me, and i feel like i applied my interpretation to it. charlie: congratulations. todd: thank you so much. charlie: thank you for joining us, see you next time. ♪
john: i'm john heilemann. mark: and i'm mark halperin. "with all due respect" to north korea, your latest claim is kim jong un-believable. ♪ mark: on our playlist tonight, "you have a friend in me." but first, "o, canada," the tune donald trump is sort of humming about ted cruz. in an interview with the washington post, the paper asked him about the white house eligibility of cruz, who was born not in the u.s., the land of our neighbors to the north.