tv Charlie Rose PBS September 29, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin tonight with a war of words between north korea and united states. we talked to michael morrell and nick burns. >> i think the language of the president over the last eight or nine days confuses them. what we need to do based on mike's analysis, is to go back to what we did so effectively in the cold war. strategic deterrence. he's a despicable leader and probably evil in many ways but he's not a madman. we assume that he's rational. what eisenhower would have done at the podium last week or reagan or bill clinton would have said the following. the united states is not going to be the aggressor. we're not going to attack north korea but should they seek to attack, we will respond with overwhelming force. that's strategic deterrence. >> rose: we continue with the
bbc chief international correspondent lyse doucet. >> is it because we are now witnessing the most documented war ever. the first social media war you can call it. vietnam was the first television war where television brought back the casualties to the living room of america. everyone can watch the streaming on youtube, everything that happens in syria. and yet it seems to be a war of our time that all of the institutions, all of the great powers have proved to be unable or perhaps we should say unwilling to end this war. this war stops being being about syria a long time ago we conclude with alfred hitchcock's making of psycho, a conversation with alexandre philippe. >> it's quite frankly the ultimate cinematic trick. i fully believe this is something that hitchcock had been working towards his entire
life. i mean he saw an opportunity when he read the book by robert block, to have this sort of epic murder in the bathtub. and it's so fascinate to go me he took seven days to shoot this one scene. something that had never been done before and probably had not been done since. >> rose: nick burns, michael morrell, lyse doucet and alexandre philippe when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided 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. >> rose: tensions continue to escalate this week between president trump and his counterparts in both north korea and iran. in his first speech last week, president trump threatened to destroy north korea and called iran a rogue nation. >> the united states has great strength and patience. but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy north korea. rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. the iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the fault guise of a democracy. it has turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports
are vial, bloodshed and chaos. >> rose: over the weekend the president called kim yungun a madman. a professor of diplomacy of harvard's kennedy school, nick burns and michael morrell former deputy and director of the cia and host of the new cbs podcast intelligence matters. where are we in terms of both diplomacy and contingent planning. >> the fundamental problem is that the north koreans demonstrating the capability of
putting a u.s. city in nuclear attack. you have to have nuclear weapons, ability to get a nuclear yield out of exp capability to put a missile as far east as chicago or detroit. we don't know a hundred percent what the weight of the payload that they tested was so we don't know exactly how far they can deliver a no clear weapon. >> rose: as far as chicago. >> as far as chicago or detroit. we're not a hundred percent sure how much the payload or the deterrent on how far it can go. so check for sure on the weapon, close to a check on the missile and then the third piece, can you make a nuclear weapon small enough to fit in a missile.
the intelligence community thinks it can do that. the last piece is can you make it all work. can you make all of the electronics work under the intense vibration of take off and reentry and the heat and pressure. that we just don't know where they are. but the consensus view is we're getting very close to that to demonstrating that capability. the president has said, the president has said they will not be allowed to achieve that capability. so hence the fundamental problem we have, right. diplomacy is, i think, nick is the diplomat here but i think diplomacy is the right approach. i think putting pressure on them is the right approach. after 25 years of pressuring them, though, i'm not a hundred percent sure, in fact i'm uncertain that that is going to stop him from ultimately demonstrating that capability.
>> rose: the language of the united nations have this impact. you make it seem to realize america is really angry and serious about this or b, it makes them more certain in their desire to do something to hurt the united states. >> i think the language of the president over the last eight or nine days confuses them. what we need to do based on mike's analysis is to go back to what we did so effectively in the cold war, strategic deterrence. he's a dispickable leader and he's probably evil in many ways but he's not a madman. we assume that he's rational. but eisenhower would have done at the podium last week or reagan or bill clinton would have been to have said the following. the united states is not going to be the aggressor. we're not going to attack north korea but should they seek to attack japan or south korea or american forces in asia, we will respond with overwhelming force. that's strategic deterrence. and that's what secretary matt
es is saying, that's what secretary tillerson is saying it's what general done ferred said this week in congressional testimony. it's what all our experts are saying but the president has come out with this shrill lambastic. it makes the leader to be somewhat of a victim. >> rose: -- force a u.n. security council rhesus lation. >> i think what the president has been able to do is move the chinese a little bit. you got to practice strategic deterrence. we have to envelope in a bear hug the south koreans and japanese. instead of saying as the president did two weeks ago i might cancel the free trade agreement with south korea. and third sangions. here let me say something positive about the trump administration. in the last week they've announced two sets of sanctions, secretarytorial and financial sanctions last week. this week sanctions against individual companies some of them chinese that have been
trading with the north koreans. this is what president bush and president obama did so effectively with the iranians. they increased the leverage on the pain, they raised the cost to the iranians, drove them to the negotiating table. that sanction piece is critical. and if the chinese central bank is serious and if they instruct all the other banks in china to shut down lending in korea. it's diplomatic, it's sanction. it's not making ourselves into the aggressor here that's a tactical mistake. >> rose: the president and the diplomatic front and the for koreans came to the administration and they said we're exactly where we're very very close. we'll freeze it if you eliminate all hostile actions against our country. would you take that deal. >> i wouldn't take it immediately. i would open negotiation on some kind of construct, some variation. what we really can't do right now is agree to a deal that says
if the north koreans freeze their nuclear development in place, we will freeze all american military activities. because what you want to do in negotiation drive up the economic pressure sanctions but you also want to have the military prepare and strike there. we have an alliance obligation with japan and south korea to defend them. some might be a fine nasty compromise but you don't agree at the beginning. >> they're not going to make that offer. they want the same kind of strict going into negotiation. what kim wants to do is go from here with this relationship. >> rose: do you know what we may know if we can shut them down in terms of a power
standpoint. >> with iran under the last decade try to use all the instruments, try to weaken him and coerce him to the negotiation table. i agree with mike. you have to have a rigorous cost benefit analysis of an american attack of choosing war with north korea. there are 30 millions south koreans in the metropolitan seoul area. >> 30 millions americans live there. >> the north koreans have a tremendous conventional capacity with artillery. you would have to assume in the first days or weeks of the war maybe hundreds of thousands of dead that's not an exaggeration. that's why you see serious people. general done ford, secretary mattis going up to the hill and speaking up and probably saying diplomacy is the way we go. we get back to rhetoric charlie. as the president gets out and
keeps punching kim jung-un, secretary tillerson they're the calming. >> rose: repeating, we don't want war with the north koreans. >> that's right. >> rose: we will not attack- >> we don't want to change the regime. >> that's with secretary tillerson -- >> rose: they believe that. >> the problem with the punching, there's two problems with the punching. one problem is that he does indeed fear incorrectly that the united states wants to get rid of him, his regime and wants to reunite the peninsula and he sees these weapons as the ultimate deterrence. when the president uses the language he's using, it reinforces in kim just the reason why he wants to have these weapons. the second is and this is very strange thing about north korea,
they use vict trowel but they are incredibly sensitive. one of the things you'll hear from the north koreans all the time is when south korea said something not nice about kim jong-un and north korea gets a back up. so this language not only reinforces their policy but it's dangerous because it forces them into a corner. >> the problem with the rentic is that it introduces into the mild of kim jong-un's advisors the doubt are the americans in a da fencive posture will they attack us only if we attack them. or is president trump serious, if he is cease he the rhetoric s destabilizing to strategic
deterrence and therefore deeply annoying. >> the chinese did something very interesting three on or four weeks ago during the height of the kim trump rhetoric. the chinese publicly two things. they said if the united states preemptively attacks north korea, we will fight on the side of north korea. then they turned around and they said, if north korea were to attack first, then north korea's on its own. that was a message of deterrence to both of us. it was the chinese being the adults in the room. very interesting. united states of america used to be the adult in the room. >> rose: is there some backchannel communication going on right now between somebody who is advising the north korean leader who speaks to the president. >> i don't know. i'm not in a position to know. >> rose: would you expect that. >> i would hope so. in a situation like this if you don't have a diplomatic relationship with the government and no one in the current government ever admits to meeting kim jong-un you need to
establish communication. i think secretary tillerson has been trying to do that. you saw charlie in the summer he was saying if there's a pause in some of these missile nuclear tests maybe we can graduate tillerson to the next level. kim jong-un didn't give him a chest, there was a flurry of tests of both varieties. i see them as adults. i think they are trying to move us towards negotiation. they understand this is a long term struggle with north korea. it's not going to be resolved this year or next. we do need to get to the negotiation table probably for a compromise which will be deeply unsatisfying to people who want to end this crises. if you can avoid a war, play for time, freeze the north koreans in place, that's not a bad outcome. >> here's a thing you have to worry about in a war scenario is that when i describe the three pieces, we know a lot about one,
mostly about the other and the one in the middle we don't know about. so at the end of the day we don't really know what their capabilities are today. kim jong-un fired an icbm with a nuclear weapon on it today, it might work. the former dni jim clapper, what he is saying publicly is we have to assume, right. for prudence requires that in military planning and diplomatic thinking we have to assume they might be able to attack us successful today with a nuclear weapon. going to war today not only risks definite war with south korea between north korea and south korea but maybe a nuclear strike on korea maybe a nuclear strike on japan and maybe a nuclear strike on the united states of america. that's how serious this is. >> rose: we talked to my previous guests ed sharron and asked him doubt we are going to war with the north koreans and you said no.
>> i said i thought the probability was quite low because we assume that kim is rational and will understand that his regime will be annihilated and he would too. >> i agree, i agree. some wars happen because they don't intend them to happen. wars happen because people miscalculate and slip into a war. when barack obama were president, if he were president right now the probability of war would be .0000001. today president trump is somewhere between one and two or three percent. >> rose: let me turn to iran because there was some rhetorical assault on the president. not only is the deal an embarrassment but he calls iran a corrupt regime and a rogue nation. why is he doing that? why was that necessary? what was the point. >> let me tee up the problem and
let my diplomat friend solve it for us. there's two buckets here, right. one is the iranian nuclear weapons program. the second is iranian misbehavior, maligned behavior in the region. their own conducting of terrorism, their support to terrorists, their support to ion surgents, regional influence, the desire that israel be wiped off the face of the planet, that whole set of issues, right. this first issue i believe that the jcpo nuclear deal has put that issue in a box for the next ten to 15 years. it's not perfect but it's pretty darn if because it's put them in a box for 10 to 15 years. as far as i know, the iranians are living up to almost the entirety of the agreement. a handful of small issues where they are not in compliance.
those are minor issues. so the president, right, has to make a decision about how to handle this first one and he also needs to make a decision on how to handle the second one, right. how do we deter the iranians from this misbehavior in the region. this is the second thing he has to decide to do and that has to be done against the following back drop. which is the most interesting internal politics inside iranian in a long long time. there is a real struggle internally that is playing out publicly between the hard liners and what i call the centrists maybe, call them moderate. i'm a centrist. it's a struggle over whether iran is going to remain a revolutionary nation or whether it's going to be a normal nation. it was fought publicly -- >> rose: i asked the foreign minister of iran that very question kissinger once posed do they want to be a nation or to they want to be a movement.
they said we want to be both. >> it can't be both, right. you both can't exist at the same time. this debate played out publicly on the debate stage between rouhani and the candidate. the iranian people voted and spoke overwhelmingly they want to go in a certain direction. so the question is trying to manage the nuclear issue, the president's got to make a decision on very very soon. and in managing this regional misbehavior, how do you do that in a way that doesn't strengthen the hard-liners and wakin the centrists. nick is going to tell us how to do all that. >> rose: you're talking about supporting terrorism. the charge is again the iranians. they are supporting, they are heavily involved against the saudis with client organizations in yemen, that's one. >> so iran itself conducts
terrorism around the world against israeli and jewish targets and against the targets of its neighbors, number one. >> rose: how does it do that. >> it has an apparatus -- >> rose: it's one thing to say -- i'm asking because the attempted -- >> -- of the saudi ambassador of the united states several years ago. >> rose: it was not carried out because it was interrupted. >> it was interrupted. there was an attack in europe several years ago that the iranians were involved in. so they're the only, i think it's fair to say they're the only state in the world that practices terrorism. that's one. two, they provide support to terrorist groups hezbollah and others. hezbollah could not exist without support from iran. support of ion surgents in the region trying to overthrow sunni
air regimes, their support for people like president assad is a whole other issue, right. so that's what i mean by this regional misbehavior. >> to use my construct of the two big problems i think president trump is right to try to push iranians back for a big struggle for power and he's wrong president trump trying to wiggle out of the iran nuclear deal. >> rose: why. >> there's a struggle for power. >> rose: there was a -- we said we support the saudis -- >> president trump is right to do that. >> put it this way, charlie. >> rose: why is he right? i thought president obama's tactic was a bit different. not saying full scale behind the saudi, but president obama's package was try to recognize that iran had legitimate interest in the region and trying to get the saudis to talk to them because the foreign minister said here at the table we can't get them to talk to them. >> it's hard to talk. >> rose: isn't that what the president want to do, mike,
obama, he wanted the saudis to talk to the iranians. >> but it's hard to do that when the iranians are launching military offensive with the rebels in rea men from baghdad to damascus to lebanon. it's as if the great show of iran is punching a big hole in the sunni state. this is an existential for jordan, for egypt and for israel. and of course as we all know israeli relations with these countries are the best ever because they have a common enemy. i think president trump is right and frankly despite my deep respect for president obama and support for him i don't think he's as effective on this. we've got to be sending military aid and acting politically in such a way we try to isolate -- i think we were right to do that.
on the other hand, and as you know, i was the point person on iran for the george w. bush administration o5-08, we spent our time sanctioning the iranians. we never got to the negotiating table. it would be a great mistake for president trump to walk away from the nuclear dear. >> rose: why shouldn't we be trying to have a better relationship with iranians so they can get pushed back wherever they adventurous and quote bad behavior that would come out of the nuclear deal. you thought the nuclear deal would also lead to some kind of betterment of relations because you could build on that. that hasn't happened. they've been more aggressive. people on the right will argue as soon as they release the sanctions the money that they were able to have coming into iran because the sanctions -- would immediately turn in part to their, to support their misbehavior. >> i supported the nucleic deal. president obama's deal because i thought if we could freeze them
for 10 to 15 years good for us strategic. they get sanctioned. we put restrictions on it. if we walk away from that deal they get sanctions released and all the sanctions are off but we lose big time. there are some people more realistic about the iranian who argued for the nuclear saying change their behavior in the middle east. we've seen nothing like that. >> rose: i don't know in they've said that. >> some of them said that and we've seen nothing like that and they are a threat to israel and the arab partners that we've had. >> rose: how should we treat iran? we view them as a hostile power to american interests so therefore anybody who is against iran is our friend. >> so i agree with nick a hundred percent here. so on the nuclear thing, on the nuclear issue, right, they are in compliance. stepping away their nuclear
program. it would create in a few months, it would create a no clear crises. they already have one with north korea, let's not start another one with iran so leave that alone. second, i agree that we need to find places in the middle east where we can push back on what the iranians are doing to raise the cost to them to deter them. but i think -- >> rose: give us an example of that where we can filed a place we can push back to deter the iranians. what would be the policy that would do that, the implementation of what policy. >> we're doing thereto right now as we speak. there are special forces on the ground in yemen put there by the trump administration to support what the saudis and the emirates are doing that. supporting our allies. that is a perfect example. we should be willing to do things like that to raise the
cost. we should in order to know disrupt this political debate that's happening in iran do as much of this with our allies as we possibly can. when we do it by ourself, we become the something hard-liners -- >> rose: your argument is what we need to do is abandon all those people who want to isolate iran. >> we banded together. we balancedded together to isolate them so let's ban them -- >> another place is syria. we have american special forces on the ground. it's a dynamic situation where the whole country the eastern half is up for grabs. basic control of the syrian base and the syrian government. >> rose: there was a piece on the front page assad in full
control. >> assad has survived. he's in control. he's stronger than he's been in many years. in the six and-a-half years since the civil war began on a line from de must cuss all the way to aleppo there's control. the province just to the north is under siege right now and the eastern part of the country is up for grabs. >> rose: with the russians now about facebook. >> yes. >> rose: and a range of other things that it's clear was a policy of the russian government to disrupt the american -- >> so i think we've learned -- >> rose: this is apart from what happened in terms of the hacking. >> right. i think we've learned two really important things in the last 24, 48, 72 hours. one, is that the russian propaganda in the united states,
their influence operations went well beyond just the election. that they were playing deeper in u.s. society, they were playing in the whole black lives matter issue for example, trying to divide americans on race. that's one thing we learned. the second thing we've learned is that they're still doing it today. today. so within a few hours of president trump and the nfl scumming with each other, the russians were playing on that issue. they were trying to divide america on that issue. they have not stopped. they are still doing it today. >> rose: how are they doing it? >> so they have, they have fake accounts, starting to be uncovered. but they have fake accountants and they use these things called bots which are robots, they have robots sending out these tweets
and facebook societies on social media to get their message across. >> -- have not defended the country against these actions mike just described. any other president in our lifetime would have formed a bipartisan commission to investigate and to find out the extent of the problem, to raise our defenses. it does get to the credibility of 2018, 2020 elections and it goes beyond it. the fact that the president this week denies there's a problem means that congress needs to exercise its constitutional responsibility and basically take this matter into its own hands as they did with the russia sanctions. >> rose: hillary clinton on this program on monday night was calling for a bipartisan investigative committee. >> she's right, it has to
happen. who has power in foreign affairs. congress has to take it if the president's not wil the united s general assembly. in his speech to the general assembly he focused on a new access of evil, venezuela, iran and north korea. followed that up by announcing executive orders strifnlt thing the sanctions aim and halting north korea's nuclear program. joining me with the reaction of the president and the un general assembly this week is lyse doucet who is a bbc chief international correspondent and she well knows outside of my own pbs news she's my favorite correspondent. it's great to have you here. >> it's great to be on your program. it seems to be the program everyone wants to be on. >> rose: just talk about the role for you at the bbc, as the
chief international correspondent. are you on one plane after another from one hot spot to another. >> i always say it's an salution people will say you and say wow i see you every day, you're in places. and i see you every day on tv and i said it's not possible because i'm not on tv every day and sometimes for long periods i'm off tv. any role at bbc is covering the main stories of the day. you also cover the main stories of the day and in the last sick years it's often taken me to places like syria, to iraq, to the gaza strip. the measure of our time that many of the main stories of the way are not historic collectios although we have those as well but these are terrifying wars of our time. >> rose: six years with enormous devastation to the country, to its people, the ve you seen anything like that
in all of your international coverage. >> you know is one thing about this, is i because we are now witnessing the most documented war ever. the first social media war you can call it the vietnam war was the first television war where it brought the distant war and combat casualties into the living room of america. everyone can watch the streaming on youtube, everything that happens in syria. and yet it seems to be a war of our time that all of the institutions, all of the great powers have proved to be unable or perhaps we should say unwilling to end this war. the war stopped being about syria a long time ago. there are so many powers with so many interests and so many -- these are proxies, they are worried about the kurds, how they are worried about iran's influence. iran is there because it's
defending its interests. russia is there defending its ally. there's an air base there. everybody has something it wants from syria. unfortunately, if you trill down it's not about the welfare of the syrians. i said at the beginning the faith of one man has mastered more of the faith of 22 million people saying he must stay or go. here we are approaching the 7th year of what started as a peaceful uprising. the president outside of the power is on the run and the up six, the mainstream opposition has lost any territorial foot holes that could challenge president assad. >> rose: they have credibility though with the syrian people? >> the syrian people. more than half of syria's pre war population is either displaced inside syria dead or refugee abroad. that is syria today. so much so that many fear that it has been an existential crises for syria. syria as they knew it no longer
exists. you sit with syrians and you can say they don't want to say it, they want to believe that something called syria still exists and i think we all have to say itst. what we're looking now is period in which the country seems to be in a partition with jordan and america having influence in the south, the turks having influence in the north, the russians and the iranians having influence where president assad's forces prevail. so it's not a partition but there are definitely tensions pulling it apart. there are people who are trying to pull it back together. i think there are many narratives about syria. there's nothing which is plaque and white about syria. there's a kaleidoscope of interesting and the kaleidoscope is the right image because the kaleidoscope is constantly changing. their allegiance that deals with russia towards the end of last year which ended in an negotiated solution to one of the most strategic battles which was for the northern city of
aleppo. i know you did quite a lot of reporting on that. look at the region. isn't it in anyone's interest most of all syrians that we have another country which totally collapses. and i think in the last few years even saudi arabia would say we do not want the state to come out in syria. it is not in our interest for president assad to precipitously go and -- >> rose: some kind of transition though isn't it. >> they want to transition. what people would say even though the west has now, you know very well indeed that foreign policy for countries have to be first about their domestic interest. so president obama in the latter part of his second term, pride trump has decided that national interest for the united states of america is in the fight against so-called islamic state. you and i have the responsibility to protect about war crimes being committed on a daily basis the world has to stand up for moral values but the hard reality is that they are willing to put their aircraft into the sky to fight
against so-called islamic state. regardless. as a threat to the world. they accepted that president assad isn't about to go. he's not going to go voluntarily and he's not going to be toppled militarily. it's with great difficulty and right now the negotiations are not going anywhere. let's say if there is to be a future for syria, there has to be a change of leadership. that has to come from within syria itself but i have to say following the negotiations over the past couple years, the syrians and the syrian government allegation have never really indicated that they're ready to go for a political transition. the words they use in damascus and it sounds ridiculous to say e ministry of agriculture ifal you come, you can take care of social housing. we're not giving you defense, interior finance. you have to come to us. if you defeat us on the battlefield why can you defeat us on the negotiating table. i think what the world powers,
trans, britain and i think even russia understands because russia and iran and china, the biggest supporters of president assad, they're the ones who are going to get the big contract. that's what they talk about in syria now. they don't want to go into nation. they have neither the money nor the interest. the foreign policy is saying right we've got some money but if you want this money you have to engage in a political transition. the president outside of his supporters buy it that's where the syrian crises is now. >> rose: of the crises, another conflict is between saudi arabia and iran. it's seen in yemen. it's seen in syria. to a degree. where does this sort of battle between shi'a and sunni, between iran and its allies and between saudi arabia and its allies, the
emirates and iranians. >> the main sunni power in the region -- >> rose: president trump soon after he was elected went to riyadh. >> yes, he did. >> rose: and this was reflected in his u.n. speech against iran. >> the lead table of nations. north korea isn't the first one and to use his words the murderous regime of iran is the second one. but i think most people would say charlie that it's not, it's not essentially a religious fight it's a political fight. it's between the saudi arabia and iran. it's a battle for influence across the region. saudi arabia does feel threatened by what they see they still see it despite iranians repeated denial that they want to exploit the revolution of 19 the. iran under sanctions became the prevailing power in iraq.
they see it in yemen -- >> rose: they were bound by religion there. in terms of shi'a has power in iraq -- >> it is about shi'a but when you get down to it it is about power, it is about access to the government, access to power in the government, access to money, access to position, access to determining the future course of a country. and the saudis now are trying to get more involved in iraq because they want to challenge iran on its, in its years of influence. i think that's where you see it because it's interesting. when you speak to senior saudis they will say our battle in syria is less about pretty, that's officially why they're there. that is the biggest fault line, one of the biggest fault
biggest. the one between qatar, saudi arabia -- >> rose: why did the saudis at some point just say enough is enough, we believe that they are supporting people who are opposed to us and we believe they are supporting terrorists. >> iran or qatar. >> rose: that's what the saudis are saying about can qatar. they got and demands and most of them boiled down to some sense of me stop supporting. we can't take this. stop supporting revolution against us and against our allies. yes or no? you tell me. you're there. what is it at the heart of this country. >> i think it comes down to power again. in their eyes qatar from its inception has been a maverick. they punch above their weight. when you listen to the qatarys
they say we should be able to perform our own independence. we're a very small nation but we have big ambitions and we're very very wealthy. >> rose: and we play all sides. >> yes. let's be honest, they posted about the taliban. the united states want them to do that. they also gave refuge to hamas. the americans were very aware of that as well. but they also give refuge to radical clerics and condemn themannics, condemn the saudis so they see it as a direct threat. i think in this battle there are rights and wrongs on both sides. >> rose: how will it end. >> it will take a long time. president trump has said this is so easy, this is a deal i can do. one of the gulf ministers we saw this week said oh the west, the united states and the european
sent many, squabble between families can't you just get along because your political unity is being affected. your financial unity is being affected. one stable part of an unstable region. why would you do this and they say it's much deeper for us. it is true they feel threatened by qatar. take the one phrase that president trump used time and again in his speech. they are a sovereign nation. brotherhood is not -- >> rose: the egyptians, yes. >> the egyptians and the saudis don't like it. the emirates don't like it. again they see it as a threat. but it's going, president trump got the emir of qatar and the crown prince of saudi arabia to talk to each other. apparently the call didn't go that badly -- the way they both, it just set off sparks again
because they then presented it as being different. >> rose: thank you for coming. great to have you here. >> good to see you, charlie. >> rose: lyse doucet, chief international correspondent for the bbc. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: alfred hitchcock film psycho was haled an immediate classic after its release in is the on. the violent murder shot across world. roger e butter wrote in is the the that the is an removes the suggesting situation and artistry are more important than graphic details. alexandre philippe talks about its profound on sent ma. here's the trailer. >> i once made a move that tended to cause people to scream
and yell. some people took it seriously. >> it is actually the first time in the history of movies what you say -- >> when a moment of violence is so suggestive so unlike anything you've seen. >> murder was now going to be an acceptable part of entertainment. >> psycho felt it happened to you. you can be naked alone in a shower and someone is together to come in and just stab you. >> it has to be done impressionistically, the head, the feet, the hand. >> he has broken the audience, filmmaker and audience and the audience cannot wait to see more.
>> rose: i'm pleased to have alexandre philippe at this table for the first time, welcome. >> thank you so much. >> rose: where is you? was it an obsession with hitchcock or obsession with this particular scene or what this. >> it is very much an obsession with mr. hitchcock and his work. i remember being five, six years old and his movies were around. my father i think was watching hitchcock movies and columbo so i'm really versed in both. and growing up watching his movies over and over again -- >> rose: growing up in switzerland. >> in switzerland, in geneva and there was a point where i think i started wondering why do i keep going back to these movies. obviously they are extremely entertaining and also something he's doing so becoming a s become a endless source ofock inspiration for me. >> rose: why is it that this psycho has this kind of impact
on audiences. >> well i think there are so many reasons first of all i think psycho broke a number of taboos and it changed very profoundly cinema certainly but also the way that we watch movies. back in the day, people were walking in and out of theatres and this idea that you had to line up to wait for a movie to begin was brand new. it was part of the marketing of you know of the movie. and of course he did that because he didn't want people to walk in the middle of the shower scene. i think you look at the shower scene and it's quite frankly the ultimate cinematic trick. i fully believe that this is something that hitchcock had been working towards his entire life. i mean he saw, he saw an opportunity when he read the book by robert block to have this sort of epic murder in the bathtub. and it's so fascinating to me it
took seven days to shoot this one scene, something has never been done before and probably has not been done since. >> rose: this is what your movie is about. >> yes. the movie focuses very narrowly on the shower seen. i'm a believer of looking at details. in a way looking at the shower scene is a way for me to investigate hitchcock and his craft and of course to talk about cinema. the scene is, i've been working now three years on it and i feel i'm just scratching the surface. i'm getting to the point where i'm understanding it. i could be working on that scene for the rest of my life and never understand it. >> rose: this is janet leigh double calling her an addition of hitchcock. here it is. >> i was the the years old. i was a pin up model. i was working with a
photographer and he said that universal or ui as it was called then are looking for somebody to pose in film. so i called and made an appointment. i went and spoke with mr. hitchcock and basically had to strip down. got dressed again and then was interviewed by janet leigh and i had to strip down for her too. just to my under pant but anyway my body was very similar to hers. so i got hired. i had to report for make up i don't know one or two days layer. there's the red light flashing and no admittance and all of this and i thought oh, here they are expecting a stripper. i was not quite completely nude. i had what was called a crotch
pad. during filming, it would come loose. i told hitchcock why don't we take this thing off and he said no, no. the whole time he wore black tie white shirt. i was hired for two or three days and wound up working for seven. >> rose: what did you learn about hitchcock. >> oh my goodness. i mean, i don't even know where to begin. for me it was really sort of an investigation into his process. for instance, you know, he sort of gives you little clues i think along the way. the trailer that we just watched a little bit of, the six minute extended trailer he did for psycho where he's walking around the property showing you things and essentially giving you clues about psycho. there's one point he programs the painting which is in norman bates' office and that is the painting norman removes from the wall to peak through the hole and watch miriam.
he says this painting has great significance because, and then he pauses and walks away and says let's go along to cabin number one. to me it's a signify fire that hitchcock wants you to figure out why he is actually using this painting. i went to great lengths to try and figure out why this particular painting and in fact when i realized there were hundreds of investigators of susan yelledders, why did he use this particular version of the painting. this is where you realize that i think hitchcock was so precise in his film making that every detail actually mans something. the same with the investigation that we did with the found of the knife striking the flesh which he used a very specific kind of melon called the casaba. i ordered a special variety because some of these melons are special orders and you can't
just order one, you have to order a case. i think we had about the to melens on the set and we stabbed them all and roared each melon very quickly trying to figure out why did he pick the casaba versus any other melon. i'm not going to give it away. >> rose: how did this influence cinema forever after. >> well i think the influence is profound both, and you can certainly argue both positively and negatively. i mean in terms of tech new england. it really created a brand new language. i mean i think as walter merch says in my film people were not used to watching movies in this particular way. the sort of fast editing, not only that but the different point of views. the scene is edited in a way that you're both miriam and you're also killer. so it's really something that people in is the on were not used to seeing, and sure enough
the reaction was extremely powerful. but i'm sorry i just lost my train of thought. >> rose: how did this influence him. >> right. so, you know, on the other hand you're looking at a scene that i think is really quite problematic because it is quite frankly the first true slasher scene where you have a woman alone vulnerable naked in the shower being brutally killed. with a knife. so i think it opened a possibility, i think of violence in cinema that we really quite frankly have not recovered from. so, you know, here we are appear years -- a, years later and
we're still fascinated with it. he said i'm really quite surprised about the reaction. psycho was a bug joke. of course this is hitchcock being hitchcock. i fully believe that this is -- the idea that horrible things can happen to good people at any time the for no good reason is a really upsetting thing. he does it again in birds. psycho and bird have a lot of companion pieces. they make them companion pieces on the front. but nobody knows why the birds attack or you know it's never
sheila: wewe haven't made a burger in years. you guys haven't cooked a burger since the 1960s? yes. you weren't born then, i know. we've been hearing that burgers have really evolved. we're not in kansas anymore. that's a big burger. i'm a big girl. ha ha! marilynn: what did you think of the barber brothers? ohh, they were so cute! you know, "cute" is your favorite word. yay! man: there we go. sheila: bruce, where have you taken us today? bruce: have you ever heard of a dosa? is there any chance that we could see how dosa are made in your kitchen? i'm doing it! be honest with me. yeah? how did i do on my first try? first try is ok, good. marilynn, voice-over: the way you were flirting with that chef at the restaurant, he probably thinks he's part of the family now. well, in my heart, he is. marilynn: we're the brass sisters. we have over 130 years...