tv Charlie Rose PBS January 5, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
. >> rose: welcome to the program, we take a look at the new congress, bob costa of "the washington post" and carl hulse of "the new york times." >> there's pence, this conventional, conservative different kind of temperment, idea logical, and then there's trump who is disruptive in a lot of ways politically. not as ideaological as the vice president-elect. what the democrats are trying to do, hoyer, the house, schumer, and the senate is figure out is this a really conservative republican administration or can they play ball on something like infrastructure in the senate. >> country's founders, kim il-sung has been tave a
missile that could reach the united states because they view that as the ultimate protection against an adversary who they see has an overwhelming nuclear arsenal. so they say they are just sort of learning from us, the russians. chinese. they have been a fair distance away from that so far. most intelligence estimates that you hearsay that they could reach the united states within five years. >> rose: we conclude with isabelle huppert, the french actress starring starring in tws called things to come and elle. >> i love acting because i don't think i act. that is why i love acting. i think most of the time people think that acting is such an idea of what acting is. i might have a different idea. i mean for me acting is not acting. it's just being, you know. not trying to indicate, just trying to be. >> rose: bob casta carl hulse, david sanger and isabelle huppert when we continue.
nubbed funding for charlie rose is funded by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we begin this evening with this. the new congress convened on tuesday in a tumultuous first day. house republicans reversed their plan to strip the office of congressional ethics of its independence. reversal came after rebukes from democrats and from president-elect trump who questioned why lawmakers were making it a priority. the focus today shifted to repealing obama care. vice president-elect mike pence met with republicans to rally them for the fight. meanwhile president obama met with democrats to discuss their
strategy for presenting and preserving his signature legislative achievement. joining me now from washington is bob costa of "the washington post" and carl of "the new york times." i'm pleased to have both of them on this program. is there high anticipation because we're looking at a new president? we're looking at a congress that is controlled by republicans, as to how this whole thing might unfold? >> i think everybody is a little on edge, you know, on tippy toes trying to see and figure out how this is all going to play out. obviously the republicans got off to a terrible start in the house yesterday. and the democrats liked that a lot. that was encouraging to them. they're thinking well, maybe these guys can't handle it i mean everybody, you know, it's sort of like the boxers or maneuvering sort of checking each other out. but i think that it is going to be an extremely tumultuous time. the real business has started
today. the republicans are moving forward on their plan to repeal obama care. at the same time they're also finding out this isn't going to be so easy to replace obama care. the democrats are drawing the line. they calm out with their new slogan today. make america sick again. chuck schumer, the democratic 4r50eder now-- leader, great communicator, political strategist i think came up with that. so everybody is just sort of, you know, testing it out to see what is going to happen. but a lot of stuff is going to happen honestly over the next few months. >> rose: okay, bob, same general question, i want to say, before i get to the fight over obama care i want to talk also about this ethics committee and the reversal there. >> well, the ethics committee is run by the members in the u.s. house. and there's also this office of kojal ethics,-- an independent watchdog that keeps an eye on members of congress.
over the past faw years, i'm sure carl would agree, a lot of members have been frustrated with the oce, they think it's teu intrusive, they don't like how allegations can be floated. and they have to spend money to defend their name. so they wanted to gut it so on monday night representative goodlat of virginia proposed an amendment to a rules package that said we're going to really in essence get ready of-- rid of this office of congressional et ethics. in the ensuing 19 hours that whole amendment fell apart. republicans saw a huge public outcry. a lot of calls from constituents to the offices and the president-elect himself tweeted at 10-- at 10 a.m. on tuesday, and said he would-- he's not really encouraging of the idea of gutting this office. and so it all fell apart on this big day that was supposed to be about pomp and circumstances, the first day of the new session. >> rose: what do we expect from chuck schumer and the democrats beyond, we'll get to obama care in a moment. they have created a special sort of resistance war room.
>> i think, i was just on the house floor a few minutes ago outside the house floor. i talked to one of the democratic leaders, citizeny hoyer of maryland. the way he framed the way he looks at this new administration, there is pence, this conventional, conservative, different kind of temp-- temperment, idealogical and then there is trump who is disruptive in a lot of ways politically. not as idea logical as the vice president-elect. what democrats are trying to do, hoyer and pelosi and the house, schumer in the senate is figure out is this a really conservative republican administration or can they play ball on something like infrastructure in the senate. and a lot of this, democrats are trying to get ready for 2018, so you see schumer already as carl said, getting make america sick again out there. trying to get democrats excited in this post-obama, post-clinton era to protect the affordable care act, to protect president obama's legacy. but they do recognize that trump is a wildcard and maybe he will
put some things forward that a paul ryan, the house speaker, wouldn't necessarily do so, and mike pence wouldn't necessarily support. but trump, so indifferent, a populist from the outside, maybe they can work together on a few fronts. >> rose: are they more likely to come on those kinds of issues that they might find some common ground with immigrants on spending-- like infrastructure and that kind of thing than on foreign policy issues. >> i think foreign policy you see trump strained from the republican center-- straiking from the republican center, hawks like senator mccain are very unhappy with trump's coziness with russia. and on domestic issues you do see democrats pleasantly surprised by the willingness for trump republicans, trump-aligned republicans to spend more. senator rand paul of kentucky told me he doesn't even recognize his own party any more. he is a deficit hawk. he doesn't like the party, the gop seems to be moving in this direction of high spinedding on the military, an perhaps on infrastructure. >> rose: i assume mike pence because he is a man of the house and is now vice president which
means he will be, you know, a man of the senate, he is the president's representative in congress. >> i mean i think that pence is really going to play an important role here. he's friends with paul ryan 689 he knows mcconel. he knows how things work there. so you know, you saw him there today. he spoke at both leadership events for the republicans which was pretty unusual. dick cheney used to spend a lot of time on the hill but he didn't speak at their events. so mike pence is going to be their go-to guy. i just wanted to say something about chuck schumer. you asked about him earlier. chuck schumer sees himself as a great master strategist on political communications. so they're really going to work the message side of these things. and in some ways, you know, chuck schumer was disappointed he didn't become majority leader but he is the minority leader. on capitol hill sometimes it can be an easier job and you can be more effective in the minority cuz your job is really to tangle
things up. to create roadblocks. and i think they're going to be pretty good at that. we're going to see going into next week as these nominations start to come up for hearings how successful democrats can be at slowing them down. that is something they want to do right now. a little bit of payback for merric gar land. they don't want to be rolling over for trump. >> rose: how effective was the president on the hill today? >> from what i have heard, he was very effective. the members came out of there. they seemed pretty fired up. you know, he told them to try and hold their ground. it was probably a little bitter sweet too. this is his last meeting up there with the 2ke78 krats. i think that they feel that they've got a pretty good hand to play on obama care. they think that paul ryan was out today. and bob can address this as well saying you know, obama care is wrecking the health-care system. well, democrats are going to come back and say there's millions of people who are getting health insurance from this. and we're not wrecking the health-care system. and let's see what your
replacement is. you already hear rand paul who you mentioned earlier, you know, talking about hey, i don't want to move too quick here. he's got to stay where a lot of people, republican voters are depending on obama care. so i think the president got his point across. and the democrats seemed very united in trying to fight the republicans on this. >> rose: but will where is the country on this, bob? >> on obama care? >> well, such an appetite on the american right to get rid of the affordable care act. and you saw pence today, the vice president-elect working in the capitol base tomorrow plot out the next moves, to have executive action. the minute the president's inaugurated to start moving on this. but i think trump's tweets, the moment pence was actually meeting with house members were indicative of where a lot of the country may be. trump himself was saying as his vice presidents do in all of these meetings, saying maybe you should let the democrats own obama care. let's not rush too much to own
it ourselves. and that's trump political antenna up in the air. because where did he win. he won a lot of these rust belt states where social security remains something that is popular with voters across the board. and where health care in a place like kentucky, where they have connect and different states they have more health-care coverage. he recognizes the popularity. >> does the republicans have an alternative? >> well, that's-- so i think the most important thing you have to watch is this tom price, the georgia congressman up to be health and human services secretary. his confirmation fight is going to be a battleground. senator schumer has said he wants to make sure price has to answer about the future of obama care. republicans tell me what price is envisioning working with pence and trump is some kind of new system of tax credits where you get tax credits for health care. but none of it has been flushed-- fleshed out. house republicans have their own plan. if price can't make it through this confirmation with a coherent idea for the country
about where trump wants to go in health care it will be a battle lost for republicans. >> paul ryan, tom price have been big advocates in the past of privatizing medicare. democrats see this as honestly the best issue that they could possibly have. they will beat them up on that. but the answer to your question, charlie, the republicans do not have a replacement. and it's going to be hard to replace with the standards they're setting right now. no one can go off. no one who currently has insurance can go off insurance. parent's insurance until they are 26. my own kids are on there. and no preexisting conditions. i mean it's going to be hard to come up with a proposal that costs less, has more choices and still does that. they know they're in for a rough time which is why they're delaying it. >> rose: well, in fact, the president lech has said at least in one interview that he would consider the no preexisting condition. >> yeah, but it's hard 20 do that, those things without the mechanisms that are already established in obamacare and the
foundation of bamacare, people always forget this. it was really a republican plan in an alternative to universal coverage. so you know, it is going to be tricky to find a way to replace it that's not obamacare. >> on that, thank you, karm, thank you, bob. >> thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. >> on january 1s, north korean leader kim yungun announced his country was making final presentations to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon. in response donald trump tweeted quote it won't happen. such a test would prefnlt one of the first big national security challenges for the trump administration. meanwhile the president-elect continues to question whether russia interfered in the u.s. elections. intelligence officials will brief congress in their investigation thursday ahead of a briefing with trump on friday in new york. joining me is david sanger, the chief washington correspondent for "the new york times." i'm pleased to you have once again, welcome.
when did we first start talking about hacking well, charlie, i think we talked about it starting in june or july in terms of the election. and of course years prior to that with what the chinese and russians iranians have been doing, right. and what the united states of course has done to other countries. but in terms of the election cycle, the first big development here was in june of 2016 when the dnc announced 2 had been hacked. what they didn't tell us, of course, was that they had been notified by the fbi in september of the previous year and didn't do much about did. >> rose: why did they not do anything about it? >> they have-- there were failures on many sides here. but the fbi went to a fairly junior person who had been the sien security expert, hired on the cheap by the dnc. he didn't at first believe he was talking to an fbi special agent. the fbi agent didn't escalate it
up. and the leadership of the dnc didn't actually become aware that they had been hacked until april. and of course by that time, the russians had been into john poddesta's email. a separate hacking incident and who knows where else. >> you say the russians had been into john poddesta. why does the president-elect ofg the united states seem to continue to resist. >> that's a really fascinating question. and i wish i knew the answer. is it 100 percent absolute secure case-- sure case that all these leaks came from the russian the. no, because once the russians were in it means somebody else could be in as well. but there is i think quite as per-- persuasive a case as we can seen on the record and off the record that it was a very well-known russian unit, part of the affiliated with the gru, the
russian intelligence, military intelligence agency. which is well-known in washington. it's not like these guys just showed up for the first time. they had been into the state department, they had been into the joint chiefs of staff emails. they had been into the white house, unclassified system and their techniques and tools are pretty familiar. could somebody have replicated each one of these techniques and tools. >> yeah, probably. but it sure would have been a lot of work. >> the possibilities as i understand, and have i been told that the they process the atrix has gotern much better. >> it has it's not perfect and when you think about attributing a cyberattack, you have to think about three big categories here. number one is can you trace the electrons and can you go back to the ip addresses where this came from. sometimes you can, and sometimes you can't. because people are good at putting up what is called false flags coming at you from a strange place. when "the new york times" got hacked by a chinese unit it
looked like the attack was coming from a university in the southern united states. that was just obviously a weigh station. the secretary thing you look at is the mossive-- motives and in the case of the russians, they haven't been terribly subtle. shut off power in the ukraine. done political operations in europe. and here as well. so the techniques are fairly similar but just because somebody has a motive doesn't necessarily mean they did it. the third part and this is the part that is going to be the hardest for american intelligence officials to talk about in public, is that the nsa has put in plans in in tens of hundreds of thousands of computer networks around the world. think of these as basically software bugs sitting in systems. and they can watch what is coming by. they can dot surveillance from that. they can also be used to launch a cyberattack and that's one of
the reasons that american intelligence is so worried about making it clear that they have a knowed in someone's system. because one day they may want to use it for their own purposes. >> do they have to get some sort of legal document to allow them to do that. >> if they do it in the united states they sure do. if they are droing it a abroad they just need the president's sightd. >> how long do you think it will last if they are testifying before these members of congress, the head of the intelligence committee and the leadership of the congress, how long do you think that will remain private? >> well, they are doing some public system first tomorrow in front of the senate armed services committee, john mccain has really been the one pushing. >> wants to make cyberespionage and cybersecurity one of the primary investigations of the armed services committee. >> that's right. and he's got pretty strong views about vladimir putin and russia and this fits into them. the oddity that we saw today was
that this morning the president-elect voak up, saw the headlines about julian assang, who had given an interview to fox news and. >> rose: to sean hannity. >> and he said that he did not obtain the material that he published, that wikileaks published from a state source or a russian source, something he has been fairly consistent on. now who you obtained it from and who actually went in and broke in and got it are not necessarily the same person. so it's not clear that mr. assange would necessarily know what the ultimate origin of this was. but what you saw the president-elect do was tweet out approvingly that julian a sang made the point that a-- assange that a 14 year old could have hacked into john poddesta's computer. which is probably true because mr. poddesta did not have two factor authentication on it. and so he was siding with a man
who the republican party was looking to extradite just a few years ago and maintained had lead to the deaths of americans by what he leaked in the state department and military cables. >> rose: so you have this famous meeting coming together, they are testifying in public and the armed services committee and again i seem in product to a select group of people in the kok. and then they come up here. i still don't know why the president was so resistant. what is it he believes other than the explanation that the cia was wrong before as it was in iraq and weapons of mass destruction. >> certainly the cia has been wrong before. >> as they acknowledge. >> as they acknowledge and the list goes well beyond iraq and weapons of mass destruction. just because they were wrong. >> but he had to have a reason to believe this too. >> he is not just doubting there. there is a positive reason.
>> so that's the big question here. is this, do we have a president-elect who starts from the fact base and says present all the facts to me and then i'm going to judge whether or not i think you have a con cluesive case. or do you have a president-elect who says this is what i believe, and then sects the evidence approvingly, you know, that he approves of and that that he doesn't. if event had a full briefing, i think he has had a briefing on the russian hack so far and clearly that hasn't impressed him, i'm not sure why he would select what julyan assange knows right now over what the cia knows. that doesn't mean that the cia, the nsa, the director of national intelligence are right. but i'm not sure i would have any more confidence in julian assange. >> let me turn to north korea. how close are they to having icbms. what does intelligence tell us. >> we know they have worked for a long time to build an icbm. and they have been very
successful at various points with short range and medium, and some medium range rockets. they have also had some spectacular failures. truly spectacular failures this is the history the american missile program. you can go back on youtube and find spectacular failures in the 1950s and 1960s as the army and air force tried to go figure this out. so its' hard science to begin with. what is particularly interesting in this case though is that their dream back to the days of the country's founder, kim il-sung has been to have a missile that could reach the united states because they view that as the ultimate protection against an adversary who they see has an overwhelming nuclear arsenal. so they say they are just sort of looming from us, the russians, the chinese. we have been a fair distance
away from that so far. most intelligence estimates that you hearsay that they could reach the united states within five years. but bob gates the former secretary of defense told me and others five years ago that he thought they were about five years away. so what was interesting about new year's day was that kim jungun said in the course of a prepared speech that we are in the final stages of presentation for a test of the icbm. so i went around to our intelligence sources and i said what's that mean. and they said, you know, got me, david. but they don't think it's highly eminent but they've been surprised before. my own view is there is value to kim jungun in keeping us guessing on. this and he takes a very big risk in actually setting off the launch. right now he has got the best of both worlds. we think he will soon be able to reach the united states.
and he doesn't have to go through the risk of having a spectacular failure. if he launches this thing and it fails, he looks pretty embarrassed. >> rose: if in fact it was unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon, that they could deliver, is it also unacceptable for north korea to have a nuclear weapon that they could deliver? >> i can't imagine an american president, any american president living with that possibility. >> so therefore what are that president's options? >> well, the options are not great. what was the difference between iran and the united states, i'm sorry. what was the difference between iran and the north korean case. in iran's case they didn't have nuclear weapons yet. and so focusing on keeping them from getting to that point made enormous amount of sense. and a combination of sanctions and sabotage that we've talked about before delayed the day and allowed a negotiated settlement. in north korea's case they have a nuclear weapon. there is no doubt about that.
they have done five or six nuclear tests. the last one, what little we can tell to be pretty successful. >> it does mean it's small enough to put on a warhead. >> it doesn't mean the warhead could survive reentry on an icbm when you've got a lot of things that could go wrong. but it does mean that it's sort of too late to focus on the actual weapon. so you've got to focus on the means of delivery. and you've got to focus on the combination of whether you can actually make a weapon small. >> what is the red line? >> well, i would think that at the moment that kim jung unput a missile a few hundred miles off of the california coast, did something better than just reach guam, the united states will probably be motivated to do some pretty severe aks. the question is are you willing to act unilaterally. and we're almost back to the big question of the early bush years
about preem shun. are you willing to risk a very bloody conflict, one in which you could easily lose seoul because it is only 40 or 50 miles from the north korean border and the north koreans could attack it with conventional weapons very easily. are you willing to put that at risk in order to stop the hypothetical that north cor qula-- korea could do a nuclear weapon. >> rose: isn't it knew south korea could obliterate north korea pretty quickly. >> they could. but the first 48 hours could be really rougher. there is no way north korea would survive a prolonged conflict with the west that had south korea, the united states, perhaps japan all in involve. but the blaze of glory for 24 hours could be-- have extraordinarily high casualties. >> rose: which raises the big question, what is the nature of our-- defenses? because the president when i
talked in germany about this, i was raising the question in north korea and he said to me look, every time they make an attempt that fails, they learn something. but we don't forget that we also have nuclear shields. >> we do. >> rose: of some kind. >> we've got a few things. we've got some short range missile defenses including one we're trying to put in south korea called the fad system. but it's not there yet. and it was approved by president park who is right now undergoing an impeachment. and her successor if she doesn't survive that impeachment, seems unlikely she would, is perhaps not as likely to be as friendly as having that. so the system is just not there yet. we've got some pretty good systems that run off of the coast coast of south korea but that wouldn't help you much against an icbm if that came on. it's pretty effective against some short range missiles. and then we've got a missile defense system that is in alaska
and in california, about three dozen or a few more missiles whose reliability is not that great. and i don't think anybody wants to be fully depend ent on that. >> rose: it's unlikely that the chinese would risk a confrontation over the south china sea even though they have been putting, as i understand it, some weapons on those islands. >> that's right. you look at those islands and they are increasingly militarized. you see one way, you are beginning to see antiaircraft in place. but that may be more a show of force than any intent. in the north korean case, the question is how much does quim jung unthink about regime survival and what has kept us from another conflict, another korean war for so many years has been that you have had three leaders, grandson, father and son. who have been unwilling to push
the yeurnlted states or south korea so far that it would lead to an armed response that could di stable d destabilize the regime. so what have they done? in the old days minor actions going after the pueblo which was a u.s. intelligence ship in more modern times. attack, the cyberattack on sony pictures entertainment in response to their making a movie, a comedy that imagined an assassination of kim jung you know. but they haven't gone above that level that they think could bring about an armed response. and that is important to know because if you can keep them below that level, that is great. the problem is if they actually get an icbm that can reach the united states, then they could make a judgement in the future that the u.s. wouldn't dare to step in. >> rose: thank you, dave. >> thank you. >> great to be here, sanger from "the new york times," back in a moment, stay with us. >> isabelle huppert is here, she has appeared in over 100 films over the past four decades. a.o. scott of "the new york times" recently posed this
please todz have isabelle huppert back at this table. welcome. first of all, just-- there is something about you that all people who love film are fascinated. i mean it is the diversity of the roles. st the emotional quality that you bring to the betrayal stsm what? what is it? >> i think it's also all the great directors i have been working with. and the possibility i had to tell, you know, women's story. complete women's story. women's surviving, women's destiny. >> rose: i think that is it. >> i think 2s with a great privilege, that is what happened to me most of my film. >> rose: a great privilege to
work with a dreblger who was telling stories about women's survival. >> uh-huh. i think so. yeah. yeah, i was-- you know, most of the films i have been doing were evolving around a female central character that you follow throughout all sort of events. positive or negative. and just being true and being real and being sometimes nasty just because the situations are nasty, and yes, and being survival -- survivors. >> rose: and you look for those koond of roles. >> well, they look for me, actually. >> rose: that's right. they look for you. that's the point. that's the point. those roles look for you and you are the only person, i mean there are not many that you can think about. i know there are some but they are so identified with those
roles. and it is the years, st is the mult policity and the complexity of each of those roles. >> yes, they all have so multiple layers and and then if you choose to be either nice or a neses likable person nor they are unlikeable persons. the situations are sometimes likable. sometimes nonlikable. and that's what makes the individual is the project of situations where st historical, political, social logical. and i was also privileged to work with people like-- hand actor or who want to render, who have a vision of the world, no matter how good it is. no matter how bads it is. just how true it is, and how well it. is and i have been just interpretation of that vision, in most of my films. >> you love acting.
>> i do. >> you love it. >> i do. i love acting because i don't think i act. that's why i love acting. i think most of the time people think that acting is a certain idea where acting is. i might have a different idea. i mean for me acting is not acting, just more being, you know. not trying to indicate, just trying to be. it's very organic. >> so how do you do that, that's my point? >> i concentrate. it's a lot of con ten-- concentration. also forget being a certain righted around you and just being emerged into the present time. i think that's what movie making is about. digging the present moment, the present time. that's why you can't anticipate acting. you you can think about it. you can dream about it, but you can't anticipate about it,
preparing or-- because it's about-- it's there, you know. it's here and now like some philosopher said. >> rose: do you live the roles after you leave them. >> i don't. i don't even as i do them, actually. >> rose: you don't. >> not really. >> rose: so you get to the stage or you get to the shoot and you brk. >> the other. and the other become me. >> rose: and the other becomes you. >> yeah. yeah. >> rose: so the merger of you and the character. >> absolutely, uh-huh. and it's a great pleasure. it's very pleasurable. that's why, no matter what you do, whether you do very painful situations, very emotional situations, very dramatic situations, it is very exciting and the there is a pleasure in doing it. the pleasure of doing it is not the same as the spectator, you know. >> rose: is this the best time for you? >> a hundred films but here you have two films that people are
noticing in america. that's pleasing. >> it very pleasing. very pleasing. yeah, last night i was awarded through the new york film critic circle for both fims. and i was-- i was amazed actually. no, really, i was-- i felt so grateful. those are two french-speaking films. and when your work is being acknowledged like it was, like it is, in a different country from europe, it feels also like that's what you make films for, you know, just to put down the borders and to create circulation between people, people countries. it's very, very re warding. >> rose: let's talk about the two movies. tell me about the-- your character in elle. >> she's a multiple character.
she is many, many persons in one person. and that is why, this is why also the character was so-- i wouldn't say fascinating but so interesting. because she's very complete. she has such multiple layers as any individual has multiple layers. everybody is either-- not either but you know, let's say a mother or a daughter or a son or a father or a man or woman of power. a lover. a wife. and that's what she is. and so she's really everything, you know. she is sometimes strong, sometimes weak, sometimes happy, sometimes unhappy. she's always brave, i think, and always fearless. that is what makes me like her. >> rose: and is the film about her revenge? or something else?
>> i think brtd. the film is about her revenge. she sernlg has a plan but the film is also about a quest, something that she wants to seek through that revenge, through that. >> rose: what is that? >> well, it's likely to everybody to make his own intermings. >> rose: of what she is looking for. >> yeah, what she is looking for. >> rose: what she needs. >> you have many gaps in the film, it's likely but to fill up those gaps. i think the film gives you information, not explanations. it doesn't really explain. it just informs you. and then you know, if is like a mosaic. gradually you have a woman's life, you know, with whether she comes from, what tragedy initiated her childhood, obviously. she's the daughter of a serial kilter. >> she's the daughter of a serial killer.
>> she is. so she has a certain relationship to violence. so whether she's z attracted to that violence, whether she is wants to understand what that violence comes from, from, in any human being because that's what she comes from. whether she wants to you know, just take revenge. >> the daughter of violence becomes a victim of violence. >> well, she's never really seen, actually. because that's what is really. >> to be a victim you have to see yourself as a victim. >> sometimes. you are a victim no matter what, you know. but she has this ainltd in that story in particular to, for that one situation to acknowledge her as neither as a victim nor as a classical avenger following a kind of male pattern, taking the gun and shooting the guy. she is more, you know, she makes her own way. >> like she's on a exploration. >> yes, and that's how exactly i
took it. >> as an exploration. >> as an exploration is a really nice word. i used to say like an experience, you know, the movie is-- it was an experience for me as an actress too. i was really following what she was following in a way, in the sense that shall. >> you were discovering and exploring yourself. >> absolutely. >> as she was. >> uh-huh. >> well, i think that's most of the time that is what acting is about, you know, as you do a role you explore some situations and some behavior and you do it together with your own. >> part of the quality of acting is understanding your own exploration of the character. >> absolutely. >> as the character's life proceeds from a to z. >> uh-huh, yeah. and it. >> we're not giving too much away to say she has a relationship with her rapist. >> no, that happens. and-- . >> rose: was that just the plan?
>> or more? >> well, i think that she. >> was there attraction. >> attraction? a sense of revenge too. >> of course revenge. >> but she doesn't name it that clearly. >> did they enjoy the revenge, so to speak, beyond. >> at least she did not-- i shi she enjoyed the revenge and well, i don't want to reveal the ends. that would be unfair for those who haven't seen the film yet. but i think the ending of the film, that is what gives to the film its integrity, i would say, because the film has a great integrity. >> what is the integrity. >> the integrity is the sense that, you know, in is something of a kind of existential quest in this, in the way things happen for her. and there is an integrity in the film, a sense in the way that-- handled the story. you know. it's a nonemotional character.
if the character was emotional, i think the movie would be really kind of creepy. >> does the contribution that the director makes the most important contribution in the easyity room, on the set, or in the text? >> a little bit of everything. obviously the editing is a crucial moment in the making. >> it differs with different directors. >> yes. >> some are better in the editing room than they are on the set. >> but it's also about the way, i think, it has a lot to do with how much a direct certificate able just to watch his actors live. and i mean a director is a first spectator to his own film, i think. he is not only making the film. >> rose: es he's the first viewer. >> yeah, he's the first viewer and he has to be constantly to be the one without does it and the one who watches it.
and to watch it means to be, that means to be active and passive at the same time. because as you watch it, you let things happen. >> okay. did he help, did paul help you understand how to interpret this character or based on what you have already said to me, had you not interpreted her, you simply were exploring who she was. >> well, i think-- we never had any discussion about that character. >> you have a note, never sat down and said he wouldn't say to you how do you see her. >> no, i would have been very embarrassed. i mean that wasn't really in the script, a question to ask how do i see her. >> that would be. u-- that would be indiscreet.ow it would be insulting. embarrassing. >> it would be embarrassing. it would be disturbing. >> i feel like please, don't ask me. don't ask me. >> because i am the best and
that is who i am. an actress and i will. >> no, just well, yes, i am in a way and i'm not. i mean just because i think it would be the worst thing to do for a director to ask her, an actress or actor how would you see. i think it's, you know, doing movies is also kind of unconscious and mysterious process. you have to let things happen. and also the movie has a life of its own. also. sometimes you don't-- you are being told by the film itself. you know, it's very organic. the film has its own movement. >> rose: the movie tells you stuff. >> yes, of course. it's all about trust, you know, and sin a ma is such a strong-- a strong strength, i was going say.
but you know, it goes by itself, you know? and at some point you just have to be, to be lead. >> rose: you have said a couple of things. one you said you did not understand her when you first saw this text. which makes sense in terms of everything else you said. i assume that's rather appealing, to read a character you don't quite understanding because that makes it even more interesting for you as an actress. >> yes, you know, robert bris ill gave me this award last night. he quoted this line from-- who said that you, when do you things, you don't know what you do. and this is inspir aitionz when you don't know what you do. and i really believe in that you don't have to know. >> why you are doing it. >> no. no, you just-- you know, it's a different kind of knowledge, you know. but you don't have to know by giving explanations. >> rose: here is what you said about her in "new york times" magazine.
i'm not sure she decides anything. it's by instinker, intuition. it's almost blind. >> uh-huh. >> rose: that's her. >> that's a lot of people, i think. >> rose: and that's you. >> and it might be you too. it's very human. >> rose: how is she different from the other character in things to come? >> she is different because the events are very different. those are two completely different stories. >> rose: different family members. >> different family members, and things to come. inelle i run a video game company, so i have lots of people that i-- . >> rose: you manage. >> that i manage. and or i try. in various ways. and in things to come i am a philosophy teacher so i manage my young students too, you know. i believe in what i do. i believe in transmission. i believe in the world, the
great quawment of the fill sm that you show certain people, a certain intellectual sicialgs. she is a philosophy teacher. but philosophy in the film is never abstract. philosophy is a way, is to watch the world scenlly torque catch the beauty of the world, to give birth also to a new person through the events she goes through. because her mother dies, and she finds herself being the new person. and this is through her understanding of the world. this is through her not only her intelligence, but. >> her husband leaves her, her mother dies. >> and her children leave her too. >> she has something that happens to her career too. >> and her publisher, you know, doesn't want to publish her book any more, yes. because they want to rejuvenate the, you know, the collection of books, you know. >> rose: yeah.
>> and with this, you know, moarnd tendency to make it younger and to make it more accessible. >> rose: here is what you said about her, talking as you did earlier to me. philosophy is more like a project of life. it leads to natalie's sensitivity to beauty, her sensitivity, of course to intelligence, or to ideas. it gives joy to her and a few quotes from philosophical texts that run during the film. it makes you think about very simple things like do we need people or how can we be happy. that's what philosophy most of the time in the sirch elest conception of the world is about. >> uh-huh. >> rose: so you have a deep interest yourself in philosophy. a lot of fill os fear-- philosophers anyway, in pairs, paris is full of them. >> well, everywhere. >> rose: i know. >> but yes. >> rose: but are you philosophical. >> what? >> rose: you are a philosophical person. you ask yourself about meaning. >> i think everybody has, you know, asks himself questions, what am i doing here. where am i going.
>> rose: but you seem to be more deeper quis. >> well, i seem but i'm not. >> rose: you're not what. >> well, i'm not this thinking person. >> rose: you're not. >> not really. i wish sometimes. >> rose: that you were more of a thinking person. >> yeah, because in the film you see someone who is confronted by that i at some point she says i am completely fulfilled by my-- to life. i think it's beautiful. it's nice. >> rose: more than fulfilled by my-- are you more than fulfilled by your acting life? >> well, but my acting life has a lot to do with my thinking life, you know. >> rose: you said i am an actress from the roots of my layer to the tips of my toes. i know exactly what it means to suffer for a character. to hate a character, to love a character. although as an actor it is completely different. you don't suffer the same way that the spectator suffers.
when you suffer as an actress you don't suffer. you have pleasure. > i think yeah, it's two different jobs. i know it because i am-- . >> rose: the plesh-- pleasure is, is suffering like the character? >> no, pleasure is just-- . >> rose: getting it right. >> doing it. it is nice to cry, it's nice to shout. it's really nies to suffer as a character, not as a person, but as a character, it's really nice. and it's nothing to do with, you know, people sometimes think that, you know, but identification and that you take the suffering from the character. i don't think so. >> rose: what do you do? >> well, do i it and i have pleasure doing it when i'm on stage i have pleasure. >> you have pleasure doing it because st a mark of the talent that you have. >> well, even if i-- did it
badly i would still have the pleasure. >> rose: no, you wouldn't. >> if you did it badly you wouldn't get much pleasure from it, would you? cuz you would know, no, would you know. i can't imagine that you. >> i'm not sure i >> maybe i better not know, otherwise-- . >> rose: don't you know, don't you know when you nailed it. when it's beyond? >> it's not really something i ask myself, you know. i don't think that shall-- you know, when you do a movie or you work every day, you know, you don't wonder, am i good, am i bad. >> rose: what do you wonder? >> i think you just feel that you are the right place every day. and that's my feeling. you know, i feel legitimate when i do it. >> rose: but you felt like that for a long time. >> yeah, i guess ever since i started being an actress. >> rose: congratulations. >> thank you. >> rose: to have these two
films out there, and to receive the recognize anythings. >> it's great. >> rose: thank you. isabelle huppert, thank you for joining us. cease see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.