tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 6, 2017 10:00pm-11:00pm EDT
new york city, this is "charlie rose." jeff: good evening. i am sitting in for charlie rose who is traveling. we begin with north korea. on tuesday, pyongyang announced that they tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile, one that analysts say can reach alaska. north korea's leader kim jong-un says the launch was a fourth of july gift to the united states. the trump administration said the u.s. would use the full range of capabilities at our disposal against the growing threat. but experts warn the options available to washington are few and risky. joining me now from washington, the foreign-policy and politics correspondent for "the washington post." and graham allison, the douglas dillon, professor of government at harvard. welcome to both of you. anne, let me start with you, and what has been discussed a great deal now in the lack of good options for the administration. anne: yeah, i mean, there really are basically no options that have not been tried before, unless you want to go the
military route, which trump has pointedly not taken off the table. but which is so, so fraught and so unlikely as to really be kind of functionally moot. any conventional strike against north korea risks either an overwhelming conventional response that would undoubtedly kill south korean civilians and could in danger really thousands if not millions of people, or north korea, since it does possess nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them at short range, could choose to use them against south korea, japan, u.s. ships, u.s. forces stationed elsewhere in asia. so, a military response by this administration is really, really risky, and so is something that trump's advisers would be warning him off of her beyond that, you have a variety of economic and diplomatic pressure tactics that have already been tried with really limited success for no success at all. jeff: what is the best option? graham: i think anne gave a reasonable description of them. i would be not so quick to discount the military option. i think that trump is new to the party. he tweeted from the first time he ever heard of this, "not going to happen." there is no question the u.s. can conduct a limited attack on the missile launching site and prevent further testing of icbm's. so, i do not believe that is off the table at all, even though i agree that it has highly uncertain consequences. jeff: there is a whole list of different military options you can take, but one of the complicating factors is that north korea is pretty good at moving all of this stuff around. graham: the main thing is that this is a chess game in which they get to move as well. so, a very limited attack would attack the launch sites, their only two, and prevent any icbm test. that is easy to do. the question is what would north korea do in response?
and most people believe north korea would respond by artillery shells against seoul that could kill one million people. and our response to that would likely produce the second korean war. now, somebody as usually regarded as serious as lindsey graham has said, that would be terrible. it would be a war on the korean peninsula but it would not allow north korea to have nuclear weapons to be able to attack us. that is clearly a topic that is up for discussion, even in the senate. jeff: and i think that, um, anne, general mattis is on the record saying how awful any sort of military conflict quickly becomes. anne: yeah, absolutely. mattis and secretary of state tillerson and other white house national security adviser h.r. mcmaster's are presumed to be arguing for greater sanctions, greater economic pressure on china. basically anything other than any kind of military strike, but graham's right, there is a limited strike option. and then it just becomes a set of calculations into which intelligence and lots of other factors would feed about what they think north korea leader would do if the, say, one or both of the launch sites were taken out. the first option is clearly going to be trying to get more
sanctions and trying to increase pressure on china to limit the amount of stuff that gets in around those sanctions. oftentimes with chinese knowledge, if not outright help. jim: the president has taken this unusual approach with china. a lot of the communications via tweet are suggesting he put on some sort of heavy move. just in recent days, and then he said well, it did not work but at least we tried. what is he trying to do with china? graham: i think it is pretty clear that from the meeting with xi at mar-a-lago, he is basically saying to the chinese, you can solve this problem. but if you don't solve this problem, we will, and we will do it by military means and you will not like that. so, basically he is trying to increase the leverage on china to get them to act. i think that anne's correct that
this is basically been the strategy followed by three previous administrations, and it has not worked because china is not going to risk the collapse of north korea. so, this is a situation in which what you would wish is that you get people, adults sitting down together saying, we have a joint problem here. north korea could drag the two of us into a war. let's think outside the box of the current options about something that we could do jointly. i think if they were starting to walk down that path, there are few things they might think about. but i think that is not a conversation that any of the american or chinese governments that i have seen over the last three administrations has been able to have. jeff: but if they were interesting in doing that, what with those options be? graham: they would start with the chinese proposition about -- freeze for freeze. if they could persuade north korea to freeze icbm tests, could we freeze military exercises with south korea?
the americans say, no, we are not giving up anything. this is for defensive purposes, blah, blah. but the answer is yes. now we take the next step. i've certainly had conversations with high-level chinese, certainly when i was in beijing about my book. basically they say, wait a minute. do they have any affection for kim jong-un? not at all. they call him a brat. would they be happy to take them out if they could figure out a way to replace him? yes, they would. could we start working on that jointly together? maybe, maybe. i would say looking down the path, i do not believe there is a destination that at least i can see realistically that will involve the elimination of all north korean nuclear weapons. that would require something that i am not ready to look to, but certainly a cessation of the further advance that would give them the capability to deliver nuclear weapons against san francisco or los angeles.
i think is within reach. jeff: san francisco would be the likely first destination on the west coast? outside of alaska? graham: san francisco, seattle and l.a., yeah. jeff: is there any more leverage there about potentially increasing the number of military exercises in south korea? anne: yeah, sure. frankly, the u.s. has appear to tryhe u.s. has appeared to to do this in the last couple of months. any show of force off the korean peninsula makes the north koreans go nuts. and it ratchets up the pressure really on them to either do something to show their displeasure, or potentially to not to slow down and not launch as many missile test. so far, it appears to have had the opposite effect that one would think the trump administration intends. and the north koreans have only
increased the frequency of their tests. i think they're trying to show something to the frequency of those test that no amount of u.s. show of force off the coast is really likely to affect. and they're trying to demonstrate the technical advances that they have achieved over the last couple of years. they are moving more quickly, and more assuredly with fewer mistakes toward a credible nuclear deterrent against the united states. and people have predicted just a couple of years ago. they clearly want to show that and what they can get for it. jeff: can you talk about this missile a little bit? this was mostly a vertical launch, right? but in terms of the distance, it could -- anne: if you do the math and you work out what goes up must come down and stretch out the trajectory, you get something
that could potentially reach of alaska. not clear totally that it would. and from there, it is less of a technical feat to get something that could reach the large u.s. cities on the west coast. and from there, then, that task is to attach a viable small nuclear device that still does a lot of damage and make sure that it can survive reentry. all of those things are technical. all of those things are possible. and again, the north korean's have appear to be moving faster along that path than many people had thought they would. still not totally clear that they can get there. jeff: it is technical but chilling. graham: what most americans have not awakened to over the last 20 , years, north korea has built nuclear weapons. north korea has developed short range missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads against south korea.
there is no debating in the intelligence community about that. north korea has developed medium-range missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads against japan. and now it's got a couple more steps to take, including the one yesterday, that could give it the ability to attack american cities with nuclear weapons. on the one hand that seems completely nuts. on the other hand, figuring out a way to prevent it is also extremely difficult. we should recognize three administrations have failed to do that. and i served in the clinton administration. i was in favor, as was secretary of defense perry, in 1994 of attacking north korea then. clinton ultimately said no. i still think in retrospect that is what we should have done. but even at the time, of course, they do not have nuclear weapons at the time, this would prevent its having them, even at the time, we knew we were running the risk of triggering a second korean war. >> you think the u.s. should attack now?
>> now that they have nuclear weapons, i believe such attack would run too great a risk -- against south korea and japan. and then i think that would be a second korean war. i believe that would ultimately end in a war between the u.s. and china that could be ultimately catastrophic for both of us. i'm more in the position that i think secretary mattis has been testifying regularly that if we have a war on the korean peninsula, god forbid, it is going to be the bloodiest war that any americans have ever seen. back to the first korean war. we should remember in the first korean war, china entered the war and beat us back down the peninsula to the 30th parallel. and in that war, we lost 50,000 americans and the chinese lost several hundred thousand people. jeff: it can get apocalyptic to talk about, anne, but if not attack or some sort of military action that brings you back to the same question of sanctions, which have not worked.
anne: yeah, sanctions and related economic pressure, which and there all roads lead to enter china. and all those things have been tried. clearly sanctions have not prevented the north koreans from developing nuclear weapons and a very successful ballistic missile program, despite the fact that the -- many of the sanctions specifically target components and technology that would go into those products. so, they are getting the stuff from somewhere. they are getting it despite sanctions. there's a black market for everything, and they clearly have figured out how to use it. so, if sanctions are not going to work or work well enough, if they are mostly for show, then really then it becomes a leverage and pressure campaign on china, which asks the basic question of what do you want least here? do you want a nuclear north korea with a potentially unstable leader, or do you want
the prospect of war or, you know, some kind of regime change that china does not manage? they don't want any of those things. it is going to be a hard conversation. jeff: the new south korean administration has talked a lot about trying to talk about this. is there anything there? graham: well, i think the conversation with moon, the new south korean president and trump, must've been an interesting one because trump is essentially threatening to fight a war on the territory of korea that moon is the president of to prevent north korea being able to do to the u.s. what the u.s. has allowed north korea to be able to do to south korea. so, that is not a very attractive proposition for him. he believes very much like the administration for whom we worked earlier that basically talking to north korea will be some way of dealing with the problem.
i think that he is likely to be no more successful than his predecessor was, but i think that is the argument -- and i think it's conceivable to me that moon will persuade trump that in any case he can try to see and i think if were able to have such a conversation, it is possible he could get kim jong-un to delay icbm tests. if kim jong-un thought the alternative was really going to be a war. but trying to make credible to kim jong-un that there could be a war, given how horrible that war could be, as anne said, that is hard to make credible to ourselves. so the option does not seem very attractive. if that option is not a option, why should kim jong-un not continue this testing program? it's worked for him in the past. a jeff: apologies. even if you delay there is still in the inexorable path toward
eventual accumulation of more nuclear devices for north korea. graham: every day north korea is producing more nuclear material for more nuclear bombs. jeff: this is not going in reverse, anne? anne: no, it's certainly not. it is pretty clear that the north korean leader's ultimate goal here is to have a weapon and the means to deliver it to the united states, not for immediate use but to use as a bargaining chip. he sees it as the ultimate leverage, a way he can force a president trump, assuming this all could be done within the lifespan a trump presidency, whoever the leader is, to say, all right, you know, checkmate. there's nothing you can do here. so give me a security guarantee that says i can stay in power. you will never try to effect regime change. and you'll leave me alone, and whatever else they can put on the table.
and that's why direct u.s.-north korean diplomacy now is in the minds of a lot of people, including some of trump's advisors, pretty far-fetched or shortsighted. i mean, they actually walk into that negotiation with a goal and a pretty good hand that the u.s. does not really have at this point. sure, we already have the means to blow up their country but we are not going to do it. so, the u.s. hand in that negotiation would be essentially to try to stop kim jong-un from doing something that he firmly believes will be in his ultimate benefit. that is a hard bargain for the u.s. to drive. jeff: thank you both very much. anne: thank you. ♪ jeff: this friday, leaders in
the world's largest economies will gather in hamburg, germany, for the annual g-20 summit. germany has placed at the top of the agenda financial regulation, women's economic empowerment, and ties with africa. several trump administration policies have put the u.s. at odds with other member countries on issues like trade, climate and immigration. the summit marks the first time president trump and russian president vladimir putin will
come face-to-face. joining me now from providence, rhode island, is nicholas burns. he was u.s. undersecretary for state for political affairs for george w. bush. and is currently professor at harvard's kennedy school of government. nick, thank you for being with us. what are you paying attention to the most? nick: i think this first meeting between president trump and president putin is going to be very challenging for president trump. you have in president proving someone who has been in power for 18 years, one of the world's most experienced leaders, highly intelligent, always prepared for these meetings as we know from , his kgb past. there are all sorts of challenges for president trump. i would pinpoint the continuing sanctions of u.s. on ukraine. very important united states support the europeans and our own policy on this. as you know, president trump has set several points during his presidency and during the
campaign he would like to live to those sanctions. but putin has done nothing to warned that. second and most important for president trump is the fact that putin launched a cyber attack on the american elections in 2016. there has been absolutely no response from president trump. no investigation by the trump administration. no pressure on the russian government. and the senate just voted to weeks ago by a 97-2 margin to put sanctions on russia over that hacking of our elections. president trump is trying to water down the bill right now. i think this is a real problem for him. if he is seen as too soft on president putin, there will be a problem back home in washington because republicans, not just democrats are gearing up to send russia a tough message. so, that, and other issues, is going to be important for this meeting. jeff: the white house has said that the ukraine will not be discussed and there is no guarantee the cyber attack will be discussed. what will be?
nick: when you look at meetings like this and this is the very first meeting of the two leaders will ever have had. the primary i think focus should be establishing some kind of effective communications between them so that in the future if there is a crisis or even on monday and issues they can , communicate effectively on behalf of their own two countries. but these summits are always graded by other countries. in this case, america's european allies. and they will be watching to see if the white house spokesperson sean spicer says that ukraine was raised. if president trump does not raise ukraine, there is going to be a real problem in the nato allies because those countries are depending on us to support them on that issue. and likewise, if the president does not raise the russian interference in our elections, that is a real problem for him at home. so i do think he is boxed in here. i think he has painted such a rosy picture of his hope for relations with russia, i think
i'm duly naive, frankly, given his inexperience, if he does not raise these issues, it is going to hurt him politically and both internationally and nationally. jeff: he may be boxed in, but the north korean test, nick, does help the administration in that it gives him a clear and immediate discussion point for this conversation. nick: the north korea issue may come to dominate this g-20 meeting. this advance by north korea on their missile development is quite forbidding. it means, if they can miniaturize warhead in the next couple years, they could have the capacity of firing a nuclear weapon at alaska or hawaii or our western states. and i think president trump has said rightly that would be unacceptable. so, president trump will get the full support of europe and of japan. he may have a problem with
president putin and president xi jinping of china. they met in moscow recently and they decided they would offer their diplomatic mediation by offering to the north koreans that if the north korea froze its nuclear and icbm tests, the united states and south korea would it stand down on our military exercises. that is not a good deal for the united states. first of all, north korea may not meet its commitments. it never has in the past. but secondly, we have to be able to defend south korea. that has been the american obligations is the armistice in 1953. as you know, seoul, a metropolis of 10 million people, is just 40-50 miles south of the demilitarized zone. we have to be able to exercise with the south korean military, it is a heavily fortified region, to maintain that deterrent factor against north korea. so, i think president trump will have a problem with china and russia, but full sympathy from the europeans and this might be the first order issue of the summit. jeff: so, the meeting with putin
is going to be a formal bilateral discussion, not the casual -- can you talk about how that shapes the contours of the discussion and raises the stakes? nick: well, it makes it, in effect, a summit meeting. the two leaders are with the other leaders. they stand in the corner of the room and talk for 3-5 minutes. instead, this is going to be a full bilateral meeting. president trump, i presume h.r. mcmaster, rex tillerson, the secretary of state and others, and it means it has to be prepared. that it may go on for an hour or two. president trump will be seated opposite this opportunistic russian leader. it makes it a more challenging meeting but frankly, i think it is the right decision. you do not want to make the first meeting to be episodic. you want to be a serious meeting. we should want americans to
transmit some serious messages to deter the russians on the election front and on ukraine. so, i think they are right to hold this meeting the way they have arranged it. jeff: you think it is important for them to establish rapport? nick: rapport does not mean they will like each other. the test of the u.s. and russian leaders has always been, can they communicate effectively? both of us have, are among the most powerful nations on earth. both of us are adversaries to each other, and you see it as far back as president kennedy and nikita khrushchev, the way they were able to communicate to end the cuban missile crisis without a recourse to nuclear war. similar moments between all of our presidents and their russian counterparts, you have to be able to get on the phone and fully understand each other and communicate your message effectively. therefore, the signals you send about the strength of our country, the strength of our convictions, the signal president trump has to send, are very important in this first meeting. jeff: every president has a different approach to how they handle meetings like, a lot has
been talked about how the president likes to improvise. but every president comes into these things in a different way. nick: the white house is trying to play down expectations. i think they are right to do that. i do not see any openings for positive news. it will be well prepared. president trump will think through with his advisers, the issues he wants to raise, anticipate what putin's going to do. i think they will take this very seriously. this could be the most challenging meeting that president trump has had to date as president and foreign affairs and national security. jeff: we've talked about what the president or the u.s. should want out of this meeting. what does vladimir putin want? nick: putin wants respect. he has always wanted that from his american counterparts, but he want something much more tangible -- he wants the american to lift the sanctions over ukraine. and he does not want punitive american sanctions measures on the election issue. that is why the russians were so
delighted with president trump's victory in november. because, of course, we now know they intervened on president trump's behalf against the campaign of secretary clinton. i am not saying the intervened with the participation of president trump, but if you look in the intelligence community report, the russian design was to help candidate trump, not candidate clinton. so, the russians thought, given what candidate trump said during the campaign, that they may have an american counterpart who would see his way to lift sanctions. and we know president trump has mused about that possibility. frankly, the most interesting development in washington i have seen in recent weeks has been that republicans are beginning to stand up on foreign policy to president trump. i testified last week before the senate select committee on intelligence on russia, the hacking of our elections. and i was quite surprised by the extent of republican opposition
to what president trump has not done on the interference issue. the republicans want to see a stronger policy. they want to see sanctions on russia. they voted for that, they intend to have a house of representatives go along, as well. this is the risk for president trump that he is so far apart from his own party on this issue, he risks having the weakest policy toward russia of any president in 70 years, and that's a dangerous point for him politically. jeff: so much of the talk has been on the meeting with putin, but there are other important parts of this summit. including the relationship with germany. that relationship with angela merkel has been uneven at best so far. what do you think the u.s. might do to work on that, and do you think the president is interested in working on that? nicholas: i hope he is. the united states is not in a good position with our nato allies. president trump has been very
ambivalent about nato. he's been quite critical of the european union. he tends to talk about germany more as an economic competitor, our trade balance, than as a nato ally. combined with his decision on climate change, to withdraw the u.s. from the paris agreement, relations with europe are at a tough point. he has an opportunity to reset our relationship with europe, and he really ought to do that. there is every indication that chancellor merkel, her party will be returned to power in the september elections. she is, in many ways, seen by september elections. the european public as the leader of the west. that was always what europeans perceived the american president to be. she now, because she has been tough on russia, because she stood up for the european union, because she's been very strong on nato, she now is perceived to be the leading western leader. i think it behooves president trump to have a better relationship with her, and we ought to want to see the united states in a position of
influence with our largest trade partner, the e.u., i largest investor, the e.u. and our , largest collection of american allies in the world, the nato alliance. jeff: isn't it just fundamentally that president trump and markel and macron just have different visions politically? nicholas: i think president trump has a different vision. going back to harry truman, every american president has supported the european project, what has become the e.u. and of , course supported nato. it's been the ambivalence that president trump has shown as president that has really rattled the europeans. and you've seen the chancellor and president macron have had to fill that void in europe, which is not necessarily a bad thing to see europeans take greater responsibility, but the americans are a factor in european security, as well as in economics. so, our president needs to have a good working relationship with both. he has that opportunity in hamburg.
in a deft, political move, president macron has invited president trump to be the honored guest at the july 14 bastille day parade in paris as , if to give another attempt at macron and trump to establish a better relationship. i think that was a useful outreach to president trump. jeff: macron seems wise beyond his years in some of these circumstances, doesn't he? nicholas: he does. he has taken europe by storm. people had barely heard about him a year ago. he won this big electoral victory in france. he vanquished opponents from the left and the right, marine le pen. he is riding a wave of popularity. he's very close to merkel. you are beginning to see a return to the strong german-french connection. that's always been at the core of what the european union's strength has been. that's positive for the united states to see this. therefore, our president should want to have good relations with both of those leading politicians. jeff: from an american standpoint, what is the best-case scenario and what is
the worst-case scenario for the summit? nicholas: the best-case scenario is that president trump communicates tough messages to president putin and is able to make up the distance that has opened between the united states and western europe. if those things can happen, the trump administration can be proud of the meeting. the worst-case would be if china and russia began to withdraw support from the united states, from our rightfully tough line on north korea, and if president trump does not send the correct message, the right, tough message to russia on crimea and ukraine, as well as the russian hacking of our election, i think it considerably weakens the united states and western europe with our nato allies, and i think it weakens the president back home in washington. jeff: as always, thank you so much. nicholas: thank you. ♪ these days families want to be connected 24/7.
that's why at comcast we're continuing to make our services more reliable than ever. like technology that can update itself. an advanced fiber-network infrustructure. new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most. stephanie: good evening.
taken in to heal at an all-girls boarding school in the south, run by nicole kidman. "the beguiled" premiered last month at the cannes film festival, where sofia coppola was awarded best director. here's a look at the trailer. ♪ >> we ask your protection over our school. we pray that we will be kept from harm throughout the night. >> amen. ♪ >> sh. >> miss marta! >> is he dead? >> no. get him inside. quick. you're a most unwelcome visitor, and we do not propose to entertain you. >> you'll find i'm easily amused. >> you won't be here long enough for that. >> how did you end up in this place? >> why are you so interested in me? >> i admire your strength. >> i'm just trying to give them
what they need to survive in these times. >> if you could have anything in the world, what would it be? >> to be taken far away from here. >> come with me. >> he seems to be a sensitive person. >> does he? >> john. >> it seems the enemy is not what we believed. >> i hope you like apple pie. >> is that my recipe? >> it is. [gasps] >> i need rags. i need chloroform. go to the smokehouse. get it now. >> bring me the anatomy books.
>> shall i get you anything? >> get me the key. >> you know i can't. [scream] >> what have you done to me? ♪ stephanie: i am pleased to welcome sofia coppola back to this table. welcome. sofia: thank you. stephanie: the novel that this is based on came out 50 years ago and was pretty much forgotten. then this novel was made into a
film in 1971, starring clint eastwood. that film is very different from yours. it's kind of tawdry, seedy. it's fun in its own way. what led you to make a film from this material? sofia: i would never think to remake a film that's already been made, but my friend, the production designer, had told me about the film, "the beguiled," which i didn't know about. people that really know film know it as a kind of classic b movie. the idea that he would make this movie from a very macho man's point of view, the soldier going into the southern girls' school, and what happens -- the fact that it was about a group of women made me think. it stayed in my mind. i was curious about how you could tell that same story, but from the women characters' point of view and what it might have been like for them, really isolated during the civil war. so, i tracked down a book that is out of print. it's a pulpy 1960's idea also. each chapter is written from a different one of the women
characters' points of view. i tried to forget about the film and just think about how i would make this story. the premise was loaded and juicy with fun, to look at things about men and women, the dynamics between women, in this over-the-top setting. stephanie: this is the first time you have worked with nicole kidman. when you were writing the script, did you have her in mind? you wanted somebody -- this character is very repressed. a little uptight. and actually in the don siegel film, she is a little over the top. the way nicole plays her, she is much more subdued. sofia: i wanted to make the characters human and relatable, even in this extreme situation. in the don siegel film, they are pretty crazy.
they're pretty out there. i wanted a headmistress to still be dignified and be attractive. even though they are all different ages, different stages of their life. extreme things do happen in the story. i wanted them to not just be crazy. you could try to understand how they might be driven to do the things that they have done. i pictured nicole kidman when i was writing. i've always loved her as an actor. she has such strength and poise, to be this southern lady that i could see she was raised to be throwing balls and now the party's over. it's wartime. she has to be strong and keep all these girls surviving on this kind of abandoned plantation. also, she brings a sense of twisted humor. i wanted to have humor, but be connected with emotional depth. stephanie: that moment with her
in the bloody nightgown, kind of funny in a twisted way. why don't we look at another clip? >> is your leg paining you? >> some. >> i hear numbness would be more grave. >> indeed. >> there is some brandy if you wish. >> that would be a pleasure. >> it's not being offered for your pleasure, only for your comfort. >> yes, ma'am. >> i must remind you, you are not a guest here. you are a most unwelcome visitor, and we do not propose to entertain you. >> i wouldn't expect it, ma'am, although you will find i'm easily amused. stephanie: can you tell me a little bit more about the casting of this film? several of the actresses you have worked with before. kirsten dunst has been in three of your movies. also, elle fanning, who was so lovely in "somewhere." people tend to want to work with you repeatedly.
how has your relationship changed with these actresses over time? sofia: kirsten, i met when she was 16, on my first film, "virgin suicides." we stayed in touch. we did "marie antoinette" together. we have a history together, she has been like a little sister to me. a is great to see her as young woman, and working with her at a different phase in her life. i thought of her for the teacher when i first started thinking about the story, because i love working with her. the character is so different than her personality. she is so bubbly and full of life and not repressed at all, then playing this very buttoned up, repressed schoolteacher. she brought a lot of heart, i think, to the film and vulnerability. and elle fanning, i worked with when she was 11. she's old enough now to play the oldest student. she plays this kind of temptress teen girl who's kind of oozing
sexuality in a situation where there are no men around. she cracks me up in the part. she's really funny. to have her play a part so different from herself, a different phase -- then nicole, it was the first time i worked with her. we met a lot of great young actresses for the students. i was really happy to get to work again with kirsten, elle, and then a new cast for me. and then colin farrell was the final element to our cast. stephanie: that was my next question, because he really is a key member of this, the whole equation. and in the don siegel film, i hate to keep going back to that, but that was clint eastwood. he was definitely a villain, but he was also kind of weirdly sympathetic, a hero of the film, because he is clint eastwood and he is magnetic.
in your movie, the setup is a little different. colin farrell is really key, because you have sympathy for that character, even though he is sort of a bad guy. so, how did you find your way to him? sofia: yeah, because the story is really from the women characters' point of view, i wanted you to be wondering about him the same way those characters might be. can we trust him? i'm not sure. i didn't not -- i do not want it too black and white. i wanted to make him human, that he could have moments of being sympathetic, but maybe he is not really to be trusted. i wanted to find an actor that could relate. he is so charming, colin farrell, and charismatic. and how he can also relate to 12-year-old women or 40's. i thought he did such a good job to interact with all of the different women. i like the title, "the
beguiled." you don't know who is the beguiled. how it plays back-and-forth. in the original film, it is a man's fantasy turned nightmare, which this one has elements of, but it's more about what happens in this kind of loaded situation. stephanie: can you tell me a little bit about the filming? i understand you filmed on a plantation in louisiana. i believe it was the same one where beyonce made "lemonade." sofia: that was a coincidence. we shot on a real plantation about an hour and a half outside of new orleans and then we shot the interiors at a house in town. i think it brings so much to the film to be able to shoot in the real location like that, with the incredible oak trees and spanish moss and this home that is so beautiful but has such a dark history. the atmosphere was unique to it. it brings a lot that you can hopefully see on film.
my art department did a lot to make it feel dilapidated and with nature taking over, the weeds. we had to create all of that. i hope it brings this atmosphere to the film. stephanie: how about the sound design? i seem to remember you use a lot of pop music in your other films. in this one, not so much. it has its own score, which is lovely, but i was also very -- i was listening to the sounds of the birds, the crickets, the cicadas. sofia: this one, we didn't have a strong musical score. i wanted to really focus the emphasis on the tension of the story and the place and to feel the heat of the south. so, my sound designer, we worked with him to make the cicadas and the sounds of nature around them, to feel their isolation in this house, the cannons in the distance, the war in the background.
they are cut off in this house. so, i wanted to have a very minimal and stark score and really feel the place. stephanie: it built a lot of tension, the sound of the insects. sofia: oh, good. i think the music usually helps. it does make the audience more tense not to have that, aware of every little sound around them. >> it wasn't very brave of you to run. >> maybe not, but it was smart, i think. >> because -- >> now i've met you. >> you don't know me. >> i know your name. >> what else have you been told about me? >> nothing beside your name. it's a lovely name. >> i hope the girls weren't telling stories. >> what do you care what they say about you? >> i don't.
i just didn't want you to get the wrong impression. >> then you do care what i think about you. >> you're a stranger here. that's all. stephanie: i'm going to ask you a few questions about your upbringing. i think most people know you have a famous father, francis ford coppola. my understanding is that he would take you with him when he was working on films, you know, different places around the world where he was shooting. how do you think that shaped you as a human being, as a filmmaker? sofia: yeah, i was lucky that my parents took us on location whenever my dad did a film. i ended up living in many different places. i went to chinese school in the philippines. i went to school in oklahoma, new york city, so many different places, when i wasn't living where we were based in the napa valley. i feel like -- i was exposed -- i got to visit him on set a lot.
i got to learn about filmmaking from just being on set and watching. and also, i think, being a new kid in school made me have to learn how to fit in, and i can understand the group dynamics. i think i learned something from that when i'm looking at stories or working with characters. it comes from kind of being an army brat, working in a new situation. stephanie: you have a reputation for being calm on the set. people say you are very quiet. you get the job done. you get what you want. i know bill murray, who was your star in "lost in translation," calls you "the velvet hammer." sofia: i'm proud of that title. stephanie: we all know that really crazy things can happen on a movie set. either there is something that you need on a certain day that isn't there, or maybe your actors are a little off their game. how do you deal with crises like
that when they come up? sofia: i think you just have to keep it together because everyone is looking to you. if you are losing it, that's not going to make anyone feel confident. you just have to figure it out. i guess there's this idea of directors being hotheads and yelling and breaking things, but i think i got my calm demeanor from my mother. i always thought, when there's a crisis, you just have to solve it. it's not going to help to panic so i try to keep it together. stephanie: you have been making films now for almost 20 years, since 1999, your first feature. i recall when that film came out, there were a lot of people who -- i'm going to come right out and say it -- who couldn't believe how good it was. and the attitude from people -- these were things that i actually read and some people actually sent to me. oh, obviously, her father must have helped her. he must have done the editing, or he must have done the
casting. how have you dealt with that kind of criticism over the years? sofia: at the time, it really didn't bother me because i knew it came from me and that i worked hard, so i wasn't insecure about it. looking back, i think, also to say that to a woman, oh, a man must have helped. did your husband help you, did your father help you? that is what it is. i just keep doing my thing. it doesn't bother me, because i know what my work -- i know my work comes from me. it has its own personality and identity. and now, i feel like, i've been doing it for a while now, i feel like people take me seriously or at least enough people do that i can get my work done. stephanie: we learn things from our parents, even when they are not filmmakers. what do you think -- what are the most important things that your parents, both your mother and your father, passed along to you, as a filmmaker, as a person? sofia: i feel like they both just have integrity and really
cared about the arts, and that's something they tried to always -- to be an artist. that that was something valuable in life, so i was always wanting to be an artist. i don't know. of course, i remember my dad always telling me i was a character. what does that mean? just this idea of having depth and character. so much of their culture, about family being important, i got from my parents, who did not want our family to be broken up. the priority was the family, to take us always on location. that is something that is important to me with my daughters, to make sure that they are with me on set and understand what i'm doing. stephanie: that is one thing, too, i think maybe
generationally, that's a little bit different now. do you think that helped you kind of grow into the person and the filmmaker that you have become? sofia: definitely. i loved it. i feel so lucky they always brought us everywhere. usually these weren't places you would bring a kid. we were always incorporated. i got to sit there and talk to great cinematographers or other collaborators with my father, and they always included us. just being around all these interesting people, i think definitely made a big impression on me. stephanie: and you're a mother of two girls. would you want them to be film makers someday? sofia: i've never thought about it. i want them to do what they want to do. i'm always excited when they have interests outside of the film business. i'm not grooming them to be in the film business. i hope whatever they do, they do what they love. stephanie: thank you so much for being here. ♪ alisa: you are watching
"bloomberg technology." president trump and the first lady have arrived in germany. ahead of the g20 summit. chancellor angela merkel who is playing host in her hometown of hamburg also met with trump. the priorities of the g-20 include climate change, immigration and trade. trump seems that odds with the majority of european leaders. police and protesters have been battling in the streets of hamburg. german police fought back protesters with water cannons. germany's second-biggest city brought in reinforcements to assist local police.