tv Charlie Rose PBS December 4, 2013 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
test test test for charlie rose. >> rose: welcome to the program. we begin stan druckenmiller, a billionaire investor who has been touring the country an universities trying to make an argument to create a movement among young people that would change entitlements and also taxes. >> i want to shine a light on this issue and i am desperately hoping the young people will start a movement. do i want to start the movement? i don't think i'm capable. do i think i canar tick tlat facts and have i seen them respond that somebody out there can start a movement? yes. in my opinion they were instrumental in getting gay marriage passed. they're moving the needle on the environment. this thing is very similar. >> rose: on both of of those issues you were on their side. on gay rights and the
environment. >> still am. >> rose: we conclude with guillermo del toro, the mexican filmmaker and author. >> i think that the way to understand the universe is by sort of codifying hit in the dichotomy of angels and demons. you can call them monsters, superheroes, whatever it is but we have to mythologize the universe in order to apprehend it. because if you don't -- it's like digesting concepts that are so large, so super or supra human that you need mythology to understand it. >> rose: stanley druckenmiller and guillermo del toro when we continue. captioning sponsored by rose communications
from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> almost one in every four children in the united states of america lives in a state of poverty. that's an outrage. one way to think about it: of the top 35 industrial countries in the world, we have the second highest poverty rate. >> rose: stan drugen miller is here. for 30 years he maintained one of the best investment track records on wall street. he orchestrated a campaign at colleges across the country to educate and mobilize action on entitlement reform and other government spending. he says without a major overhaul soon today's young people will be robbed of the future benefits and standard of living they
deserve. i am pleased to have stan druckenmiller at this table. welcome. >> good to see you. >> rose: can i just start with understanding you, you know, this remarkable record with duquesne and with quantum fund and george soros and the relationship you've had. you -- where are you in your life? >> rose: you mean what am i doing? >> yeah. >> i'm still moneying very actively. >> rose: for family or for -- >> for family and the family foundation. i go to work at about 6:00 and i come home at 6:00. i'm still in love with markets. the only thing that's changed is i'm not competing anymore so i'm not managing other people's money but i love markets and i love the intellectual challenge as much as i ever have. >> rose: is that what you love about markets? the intellectual challenge? >> yes, also, i'm -- i like -- >> rose: or you like being rich? >> not so much being riched but
i like to win. it's a competitive disease that i -- it gives me a thrill to win. >> rose: but does it give you a thrill also to win and to be better than someone else, which is winning. >> well, i don't know whether you're better than someone else but it gives me a thrill to have better results than someone else yes. >> rose: and where did you get that? that -- where does the competitive spirit come from? do you know? you can't remember when you didn't have it. >> i don't know. i remember being a brat when i was little. we used to play board games at our house and i really did not like to lose when i played board games. just something i was born with. it's somewhat of a curse but it also has its advantages in terms of pushing you to perform. >> rose: and therefore -- and with success widening your opportunities to do a range of things. >> rose: yes. yes. >> rose: but beyond that, what is it about markets that's magical for people who love the idea of what they not only
represent but the challenge they offer? >> yes. so i'd say there's two things. number one i love trying to put a puzzle together, visualize the future, and particularly if you have a different view than other people and if you do that right, security prices in the future will reflect that. and there's a great satisfaction to having solved that puzzle and the nice thing is you get your grades in the paper everyday. there's no subjectivety in the money management business. it's right there and if you're screwing up those numbers -- >> rose: it's in the paper everyday. >> and i love the objectivity of that. i always have. >> rose: george soros and the relationship the two of you had. you were there, turn guy when the great decision based on the devaluation of the pound happened. you bet right. >> yes. >> rose: and you bet a lot.
>> yes. >> rose: and you made a billion dollars plus. in one day. >> something like that, yes. >> rose: something like that. you know precisely. >> okay. true. >> rose: so who has -- who has -- i'll use the polite term. who has the -- who's the bigger nerd? you or george? >> oh, i'd say george -- >> rose: who has more ice water? >> george has more ice water than i do. i'd say if you look at our records, they're very comparable. when he ran quantum and i ran quantum they're almost within decimal points and i'd say george made more spectacular events and my record was a little more -- the vets were more consistent but the results were the same. >> rose: do you agree with him in that if you see an opportunity just go all in? >> oh, yeah, if there's one thing i learned from george and what made me a better money manager because of george it's exactly that. it's not whether you're right or
wrong, it's how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're wrong. so -- >> rose: and how confident you are that you're right. >> yes. but up until that point i had a very good record but it was only i was -- the george i learned how much you should press it when your confidence level is extremely high. i did find that out before i was there, don't get me wrong, but it was amazing to watch that man when we had something we really believed in to see the way he would -- he would size risk and reward. >> rose: and you cherish the fact that the relationship is one in which i asked you when you sat down, you know, we're friends, we have different lives but he once said, you know, not only a great money manager but you're also a partner. >> no, i'm -- i have very fond feelings for george. the best 12 years of my life.
my three children were born. i learned a lot. it was an exciting time. we're still in touch. we're on different political sides -- >> rose: that's where i was going. there's been a buildup to that. >> it doesn't matter in terms of our friendship at all. >> rose: you're on totally different political sides, aren't you? >> yes, but the respect is there. maybe washington could learn something because we couldn't bt different politically but i think the mutual respect is there so -- >> rose: so define how you're different politically. >> i think george -- in traditional terms he would be considered more on the left. >> rose: right. >> and i would be considered more on the right, particularly on the non-social issues, on the economic issues. he's much more pro-regulation. he thinks markets go wild. i love free markets. i'm anti-regulations. >> rose: and are you-- beyond being on the right-- more libertarian?
>> i think that's probably fair, yes. i'm certainly not on the right on social issues and i'm certainly anti-crony capitalism. so i have some strange views in terms of being on the right that normal corporations may not particularly like. >> rose: there's a lot of you sitting on the corporation that you like. >> i'm sure everybody does. >> rose: that's where i want to go. what was surprising to me, i think to understand what you're arguing for is not necessarily predictable from where you come from politically. >> oh, no, that's absolutely true. in fact, i think one of the problems of getting this message threw-- which is so obvious to me, it's as often as the pound was and then some in terms of predictability, it has a longer
time frame, is that it has been associated with austerity and the right wing and i don't look at it that way at all. >> rose: nor did i when i heard it. >> i think in many ways the left wing should be more excited or as excited as the right wing. and that's what we found out on the road with the students. the kids at berkeley loved it, the kids at brown loved it. it's the same conclusion but it a different messaging. >> rose: i wanted to set this up so we have you explain what it is that you're on the road talking about and what is the central idea and why you're so passionate about it. but i wanted to understand where you come from politically from the right, maybe more libertarian and at the same time the enormous respect you have -- >> i'm an independent who would be considered center on social issues and probably somewhere to the right -- >> rose: what about with the present administration? >> well, i voted for him the first time. >> rose: what was your problem with health care.
>> my problem with health care -- we're talking about obamacare? >> rose: yes. >> i believe chd it was a once in a generation opportunity to separate this thing from the corporation and make the consumer of health care actually have choice and have skin in the game. i think one of the big problems with the health care system is we go to the doctor, we have no incentive to shop, we have no incentive to see what the costs are and as long as your corporation is paying the bills and you don't see that bill, that's the way it's going remain. i guess my biggest -- >> rose: so there's no intelligence at the decision point. >> right. there's none whatsoever. >> rose: or self-interest. >> right. we -- we have taken away the market, which you could use, very much so, to solve this problem. we've completely taken out of
the equation. i guess my problem with obamacare, the more i understand now, is it's all so dishonest. and by that i mean -- so we're taking young healthy people and making them buy plans with stuff in them they don't need to subsidize people with pre-conditions and older people. >> rose: and unless you do that, the system will not work. >> and i'm okay if you want to tax stan druckenmiller and you want to tell him "we're taxing you to support people with pre-existing conditions and sick people." i'm not okay with messing up all this marketing and making me have maternity and all kinds of stuff inform there as some kind of hidden scheme to make that subsidy. if we as a society want to choose to implement universal health care the way they want, let's at least be honest about
it and let's put a tax on all of us and say we choose to do this. >> rose: and you'd be willing to pay that kind of tax? >> would i be willing to pay for it? i'd feel better paying for it as a tax than mucking up the whole incentives within the health care system. would i be willing to pay for it? yes, i think i would. >> rose: so when you go around the college campuses and off central theory which i referred to in the introduction which is that you believe that it's terribly unfair what we are doing doing to young people today. that we're burdening them with circumstances that we didn't have so that they can take care of us. >> yes. >> rose: that's very simplified. so you explain. >> so the way our entitlement system works is it's not pay as you go. it was set up a long time ago so current workers pay for current
seniors. and because of the senior lobby versus young people-- because young people don't vote and they don't give money to parties, they have other things on their mind--. >> rose: and they're not organized. >> the seniors in our society have been taking an increasing share for the better part of 40 years from money allotted to youth investment. and this is somewhat alarming -- has been somewhat alarming but now is extremely alarming because the baby boom-- which took place from 1947 to 1967-- and that was 6 a years ago-- means the number of seniors is about to explode. so the share of the pie that has gone to the elderly is now about to be distributed to a lot more people. specifically we are creating 8,000 new seniors on the entitlement payrolls everyday now. that's because of the
demographics, and we're only producing 2,000 young adult workers to support them. that number goes to 11,000 by 2029. so you have a combination of too much pie going to one sector and now that sector growing dramatically relative to the sector that's going to support them which should set up a big fiscal problem some time in the next 20 to 40 years. i guess what's different about -- >> rose: probably not in the next 10 or 15. >> i don't think in the next 10 or 15. but let me tell you why i don't care if it's in the next 10 or 15. because everyday we wait is money that the next generation has to pay whether it's 10 or 15 or whether it's 20 or whether it's 30 or whether it's 40. if everyday you wait and the these obligations and these promises and these debts accumulate means that the next generation will pay that bill as
opposed to seniors today. so there's a terrible unfairness about what we're looking at today and as you probably know, one of the problems is we are allocating more and more resources toward transfer payments to seniors and away from things like head start, n.i.h. grants, investments in education. so you're also having the seed corn eating problem. >> rose: okay, so there are lots of things that come out of all this. number one, i hear you, you know? and i think other people recognize the problem we face, you know? but you're raising -- you're basically saying to young people "you've got to do something. you've got to get organized. otherwise you're going to face a crushing burden." >> yes, they're going to. >> rose: and you will have to pay more and they won't -- you'll have to pay more and you won't get out as much because people who are older are getting out what they were promised. >> yeah.
it's one of the things i bristle sat that i've read in some of these things that i'm anti-entitlement. >> rose: i'm going to get at that. >> i'm not anti-entitlement. i want youth today to enjoy the benefits of the social security net and the -- that retirees today enjoy. and if we continue to share the pie we t way we're doing it there's going to be nothing left for the youth of today. so it's not that i'm anti-entitlement, it's that i'm for sustainability of entitlements. >> rose: and for those who stand up to say "look, we've just got the let the baby boom generation get through the system and then we can figure all this out." >> well, that's where my day job comes in and that's where -- that is total nonsense. because what happens is that's the rat through the python theory. once the rat goes through the python you're fine. by the time the 20 or 30 years are up, the debt is so high that
the interest payments alone start to become bigger than the entitlements were during the 20 to 30 year period. >> rose: are you at all encouraged about the fact that the debt is going down? >> oh, none whatsoever. >> rose: you see that as temporary? you see that as small? you see that as -- what? >> that's tiny potatoes. that's a short term cyclical phenomenon that has nothing to do with entitlements. nothing. we are right on the front end of a demographic surge that is going to cause investment spending to go crazy. let me put in the perspective for you. so the next ten years -- and this is with the administration's optimistic budget. the growth -- the growth, not the spending. the growth in social security, medicare and medicaid is going to be $780 billion. the growth there spending on children is going to be $20 billion. okay? that's what you're looking at.
now, i don't know what kind of society you want, but this is just transfer payments to the elderly who, as i mentioned earlier, have already been increasing their share of the pie for the last 40 years. i think it's unfair most of all, and secondly it will set up an unsustainable situation down the load. we can't afford it. >> rose: here is the alternative argument, too, when you look at this issue. take larry summers, somebody whose intellect you have some respect for. he argues that all the talk about entitlement reform and understands down the road the fears that you are pointing to says what we need to do is create growth in the economy and the growth in the economy will take care of all the problems that stan is worried about. >> okay, so, a, it won't take care of all the problems i'm talking about. b, i'm very sympathetic -- >> rose: i'm simplifying that a little bit.
>> i'm sympathetic to what larry is saying, who i consider a friend. i hate to get too number-y here, stock? so 40 years ago -- and this is an argument larry would be very sympathetic to. 40 years ago we spent 32% of federal outlays on investment, government investment. that would include things like infrastructure, education, r&d. >> rose: science exploration. >> rose: and we spent about 30% on transfer payments to the elderly. >> we now spend 68% on transfer payments but investments are down to 15%. so i think to larry's point, what did we get out of the investment? well, we got the internet. we got g.p.s., we got the human genome. >> rose: so that's where you agree with him. >> i totally agree. and if you look at the sequester -- >> rose: that the investments are worthwhile and important and crucial to our future. >> yes, but we are cutting the investments so we can continue
to let transfer payments to the elderly grow at a very rapid rate. we cannot do both. >> rose: or we're cutting the investments because we do not have a realistic look at where taxes-- which you're prepared to have a real itselfic look at. yes? in other words, you're not coming here as a representative a view often expressed by the 30 members of congress, although you had reservations about the health fund, defunding the health care even though you expressed riz reservations about it. my point is you did not -- you thought they were silly, maybe to use your own words, to try to attach defunding to medicare to the debt ceiling. on the other hand, you'd be prepared to attach something else to raising the debt ceiling in order to have some sanity to address the problem you're talking about. am i right or wrong in interpreting that? >> i was 100% against tying obamacare to the government shutdown.
>> rose: that is defunding obamacare. yes. >> that argument was decided and as much as i didn't like the conclusion, i have never been for defunding obamacare once it was voted for and certainly linking it to government -- to the government shutdown. insane. >> rose: are there circumstances in which you would think a government shutdown is satisfactory if, in fact, for example, say we'll shut down the government rather than raise the debt ceiling. >> if i thought there was a big enough carrot-- and to me that would be entitlement -- serious entitlement reform-- at the end of the road i would be willing to flirt with a government shutdown. there was no big carrot at the end of the road. both parties agreed. the one thing we weren't going to do is cut growth in payments to seniors. we weren't even talking about entitlements. we were talking about other things. well, basically we're talking
about obamacare. >> rose: well, the president has said-- whether you believe him or not-- that they're certainly prepared -- that's what the budget process is about right now is that they're prepared to look at some changes in entitlement reform in contrast to changing the tax structure and the spending -- >> the president says a lot of things. the first thing that set me on my media tour and the college tour was the president when the budget battle started back in the beginning of last year stated on television the one thing we are not going to do is balance this on the back of seniors. that was his initial position and, by the way, i haven't heard a lot different from republicans. >> rose: how do you want to balance it on the back of seniors? >> okay, so in this is where my role as a philanthropist and my day job work. we're cutting n.i.h. grants,
we're cutting head start in harlem but we're not even touching this other stuff? >> rose: so that brings know this point. how would you touch the other stuff? >> okay. so -- >> rose: that's the point. >> yes. now i'm going to give you an answer but -- >> rose: i think that's also larry's point to a degree. >> rose: i'm going to give you an answer but the first thing i want to say is the first thing i've been trying to do is identify the problem. i don't have a monopoly on the truth. so i have my own opinions and i have some suggestions but i really think the answer to your question needs to be fought out in the political arena. if you're asking me for what my suggestions would be, the first thing we'd have to do is the really low-hanging fruit. you can means test to a greater extent medicare. you can certainly means test social security. we haven't even done that. >> rose: so people like you who don't needed me care would not get medicare.
>> correct. i would look at it philosophically. this was an insurance safety net we paid into 40 or 50 years, we bought fire insurance, the fire didn't happen, let's give the insurance to the people that need it. but that's not a whole lot of money. i guess where i also differ even from the republicans is i would not exempt people over 55. when i looked at the share of the pie that the current seniors have got in the last 40 years, the chain weighted c.p.i., that wouldn't go far enough. i would freeze the thing. freeze it in terms of social security. now, i will say 30 or 40% of the people really need social security-- and this is where the means testing comes in-- they should be provided for. i do not want to see seniors in poverty. i also don't want to see -- >> rose: you don't want to see seniors without medical care and without all the things they had a social contract to receive. >> yes. and they're receiving it.
then you get into the the elephant in the room, which is the health care system. and here it gets very complicated but let me just say that the first thing you have to do is put incentives at the consumption level and it's already happening to some extent through more co-payments. and that should start to push down the cost. the second thing is i think the extent that we have malpractice in this country is causing a lot of testing to be done that don't need to be done c.y.a. policies for hospitals, and so forth. but then you get into very controversial issues. like the end of life. if you have a terminally ill patient who has a 0% chance of living more than two months and it's going to cost a million dollars to keep them alive for two months, how much should that family pay versus society? i give you a horrible story. when i talk to the university of north carolina, a crying mother came up to me because her
93-year-old mother had just been put into a hospice and she was getting thousands of dollars which she didn't want for the mother in the hospice but her seven-year-old daughter couldn't get the money for an operation she needed and the woman was literally crying. the just position of the 93-year-old mother who had probably two or three months to live getting thousands and thousands of dollars but there was no funding for the seven. this is why i say stan druckenmiller can't do this but it's a conversation and we're not having it. we're saying okay, as long as we can keep them alive, let's keep them alive. >> rose: in order to understand where you are-- and this is why some of this is surprising-- we obviously have capital gains tax and we have ordinary income. you basically want to see the capital gains tax rise to the rate of the ordinary income. >> i think there's a different way to grow the economy. >> rose: i also want to know what your conservative friends think of this.
>> okay. so first of all -- >> rose: your wealthy conservative friends. >> let's go back to larry summers. >> rose: all right. >> i think taking the capital gains rate and the dividend rates to ordinary income while you simultaneously lower corporate tax rates to 0 would make the economy grow dramatically and revenues to the government would actually -- >> rose: and that puts you where larry is. >> -- would actually increase. but he likes to do it through spending, i like to do it through tax reform in that regard. >> rose: so you -- capital gains would go to the level of ordinary income. you reduce the corporate income tax to 0. >> yes. >> rose: you would assume there wouldn't be double taxation as some people like to argue. you would pay tax on corporate profits because you'd be a shareholder, right? >> yes, corporations have presented -- it's like living things to people. they're not. corporations are owned by shareholders. if you tax the shareholder you're taxing the ultimate -- >> rose: at ordinary income rates.
>> yes. and they're clipping coupons, they're not hiring people, they're not engaging in spending. >> rose: and corporations are doing that. >> and take their trite 0. by the way all this money they talk about overseas, if the corporations take that money and buy back stock and issue dividends, that money comes back at a 40% rate. they're not even bringing it back to the 35% rate. >> rose: can you think this has a chance in hell of being politically viable? first question. second question, is the reason you're sitting at this table going to campus is is because you want to create some kind of political action that might result in it having a chance in hell? >> the second question: i want to shine a light on this issue and i am desperately hoping the young people will start a movement. do i want to start the movement? i don't think i'm capable. do i think i can articulate the
facts and have i seen them respond that somebody out there could start a movement in yes. in my opinion they were instrumental in getting marriage passed. they're moving the needle on the environment. this thing is very similar to the environment, by the way. >> rose: on both of those issues you were on their side. >> yes. >> rose: on the gay rights and the environment. >> still am. >> rose: okay. >> i'm trying to lay out a set of facts and hoping that when they look at those facts they will start to put political pressure and consider this issue as important as they do the environment and the gay rights. >> rose: do you think you'll find more receptivety in the republican party or the democratic party? >> in the youth? >> rose: yes. >> i know what i'll see, which is enthusiasm on both sides. when jeff ken and i have gone -- not only have we spoken an hour, they've asked questions for a half hour and there are 40 hands when we leave and it doesn't matter whether we're at berkeley
brown, u.s.c. or north carolina or right or left. they're all there. >> rose: explain who jeff canada is. you both went to bowdoin college. secondly he runs -- >> rose: jeff canada runs the harlem children's zone. i have been chairman of the harlem children's zone since its founding. >> rose: and they do what? >> good question. there's 100 square blocks up in harlem. they take children basically from birth all the way through college threw a bunch of what i would call social antibiotics at them, education, baby college, pre-k, try and get them through college so we can bryk the cycle of intergenerational poverty up there. and as you know, charlie -- >> rose: inter-- i didn't hear the word. >> intergenerational poverty. and as you know there's a bunch of pilot programs, some inspired by the president, to try to copy that model around the country. that's what jeff canada does. he runs that. >> rose: and you have been his big supporter from -- since the
two of you -- >> rose: i was on the -- i was on his pre-board -- his pre-organization which was the breedland and when he founded the harlem children's zone i became the chairman and have been at his side throughout. you don't have to do much. >> rose: okay, i understand what you're doing in terms of washington -- i mean in terms of young people in campuses and also looking to create a movement that has some other -- has the kind of legs that seems -- has some success in the environmental world. when you go to washington and carry your message, what kind of response do you get there? whoever. whether it's a finance committee whether it's -- >> i went to washington -- >> rose: -- rand paul, paul ryan. >> i went to washington in 1994 and argued to raise the retirement age in 2007 because that's when i knew the
demographics -- 2011. i had very little success. i haven't even gone to washington this time because it's my view until the young people show them that they're concerned on this issue the people in washington will not give a damn about this. >> rose: do you think that we -- i mean, government is dysfunctional, obviously, in terms of being able to do some things to address problems as it ought to be. do you think we can overcome that? is this in a sense where people say they can be dysfunctional in washington but we're going create something whether it's this kind of issue for you or other people in which we're going to affect elections and we're going to affect the public mind. >> rose: i know we will overcome it, but i don't know what the timeline on that is. we have these phases in america where crazy things happen economically and politically. and what's going on in washington now will not be sustained. i don't know when it ends. we all pray it ends some time
soon, maybe the next five or ten years. i happen -- i have great hope that maybe the right president could bring them together. i don't know what's going to end it but it will end and the united states will be fine in this regard. >> rose: so we started talking about george soros and he's on the left and you're somewhere on the right but on social issue are in the center. what does george say about your ideas? >> i haven't talked to him about it. >> rose: why not? >> haven't gotten around to it. both his sons came to me and they really like it. >> rose: come on. you're smarter than this. why haven't you talked to him about it? >> i probably will in the next -- this is pretty new for me, charlie. i didn't even know i was going to do this. it will probably happen in the next month or two. i don't know how he'll think about it. i have been very pleasantly surprised by the reception i've gotten from the intellectual left on this issue when i got to
sit down with them and explain my case to them. the stuff that's been written about objecting to what i'm saying, i'm not saying. so i don't want to speak for george, there will be a time in the next few months where i will sit down with him and see what he thinks about it. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: guillermo del toro is here. he is the mexican director and author best known for making fantasy and horror into an art form. he once said on this program "if
images in my notebooks for each project and for some project i have that not made. so people can see not just the sleek pre-production art that you put in a "making of" art book. they can see my process. like the pale unanimous "pan's labyrinth." it was an idea 10 years before pan's labyrinth. then it evolved. >> rose: let me see your notebook. this feels like it's classic. >> it is. i bought them in '98 in a tour of venice with meara sorvino doing "mimic" and i found this guy that that did these notebooks by hand ai bought seven of them and filled three of them. i think a couple are going to stay vacant. can i show you one that i love? >> rose: yes, please. >> i think you may like this one. this is one of the -- >> rose: describe this to me. >> it's the girl in "the main
flash back of "pacific rim." it's a moment that started the whole movie for me when i understood that the girl as a kid had lost her heart and i symbolized it with a little red shoe in her hand and that's when i understood the movie. this is one of the first images i drew of "pacific rim." not a giant robot be but a little girl with a red shoe. >> rose: and what are you writing here? >> i write ideas. i can be writing about several projects at once. i can be writing a piece of dialogue that i heard somewhere. i can be writing about a novel that i read, a movie that i saw, a piece of music. it's really -- they've been for many, many years quite -- >> rose: in spanish? >> spanish and english. >> rose: but mostly spanish, snow >> depends on the project. and what i like is i keep my pen in my pocket. i keep the little book and it's sort of a low tech --
>> rose: yes, it's very low tech. (laughs) >> but as i said, the stuff that has a rubber band is stuff that i already did and -- i mean, i like the sort of 1940s -- >> rose: what's the nature of a monoer? >> a monster by definition is solve i involved or extra out of nature. so the fact is you can make the monster in natural forms when you have to magnify them a way. and the nature of a monster is something that represents something. it can represent a concept-- like the vampiretor dragon. or it can be simply a force of nature like the giant monsters in "pacific rim" and japanese movies that represent the force of nature. or in the case of godzilla, the power of destruction of nuclear energy. things like that. >> rose: could you make a nice little sweet him? a love story?
>> i'm doing it but it has ghosts and murder. >> rose: i know! but can we do it without ghosts and murdered? >> when we talk about it, one day i will love to do "the heart is a lonely hunter." the carson mcculler -- it has no supernatural but it spoke to me in my youth on a very personal level. but i haven't -- i'm still busy with monsters right now. >> rose: i know. can you explain it to me, though other than the fact that you're influenced by bradbury and ackerman and you had an unhappy childhood, whatever. >> i think whenever you're born with sensibility and intelligence you're going to have an unhappy childhood. to some degree you're not going to fit in the outdoor sportsman world. you're going to channel it somewhere. and as i kid i was 70 years old. i was a hypochondriac. i read the family medicine
encyclopedia in my house and diagnosed myself with every disease known to man. >> rose: well you know -- you were interested in monsters. >> always. when i used to go to a church -- i was raised catholic. i would be looking for the gargoyles and the teeth. >> rose: that appealed to me, too. the idea of the gargoyles. >> it's in all of us. i think the way we understand the universe is by codifying hit in the dichotomy of angels and demons. you can call them monsters or superheroes but we have to mythologize the universe in order to apprehend it. it's like digesting concepts that are so large so super or supra human that you need mythology to apprehend them. to understand them. >> rose: do you remember the first show we did when we looked at the new creative artists in mexico? >> yes. >> rose: you've been in very different directions, haven't you? >> we have. at the same time we have all remained very close. like alfonso --
>> rose: you read each other's scripts? >> yeah. alfonso and alejandro both came to the editing of "pacific rim." i was in the editing of "gravity." >> rose: you were? >>. >> the whole process. and we got together to watch alejandro's movie, give him a critique and idea, we all read the screenplays. we are perhaps even closer now than we were when we did the first interview. >> rose: but you're doing very different things. >> very different things. >> rose: but you collaborate even though it's different? >> >> alfonso came up with the final line of pacific rim and if you remember i came up with the final kiss of -- >> rose: yes, i know. >> it's a constant retro -- >> rose: what's the final line of pacific rim? >> it's when he says "you're holding me too tight." the guy looks like he's dead and he says "you're holding me too tight." and alejandro is the same. he came in and took eight minutes out of a film with me. >> rose: took it out. >> yeah. >> rose: was it hard for you to
take it out? >> no, no, whatever these guys come in it's like visiting the doctor. you don't want to stay dressed, you don't want to look fine. you want him to poke you around and tell you what's wrong. >> rose: so what's "bleak house >> "bleak house is in 2006 i was hanging one of my paintings in the kitchen in the house and my wife said to me "you can't hang that. that's too weird for the kids." >> rose: even your wife thinks you're weird. >> oh, yes. and my daughters. and then i said "you know what? i'm going to buy my own house. i'll live with you guys but everyday i'm going -- >> rose: you can go to my house. >> yeah. and i bought -- now it's two homes. it's 10,000 square feet. thousands and thousands of books. books that are from the 1800s -- >> rose: and that picture i showed you -- >> there's a few pictures of that. >> rose: this may appeal to a lot of men and women. how does this work? >> well, i think it's fantastic marriage idea. the. >> rose: it has appeal.
>> it that has appeal because then -- you know, one of the greatest fights in a marriage is for space and it doesn't matter if it's two-bedroom apartment, one room. as long as you know it's yours. and you can do whatever -- and the irony is when you look at the house i do the cleaning, everything. it's perfectly organized. it's not a hoarder's -- >> rose: she would not be embarrassed if she saw it? >> no, no, she likes it. >> rose: you allow her to come? >> oh, yeah, she comes over. she likes it. the daughters are a little less keen to visit. >> rose: and she has the home where you live? to -- >> oh, yeah, every morning i kiss them all, i leave for the day. we have dinner, watch t.v., go to bed. i spend eight hours on my own. >> rose: just like going to the office for you. >> it is my office except my office in the house is a room where it rains 24 hours, seven days a week. i call it the rain room. it's a room that has artificial
rain and artificial window looking out into a thunderstorm. >> rose: (laughs) what's that about? >> i like thunderstorms and i live in california. i had to create one. >> rose: (laughs) you should have gone to seattle. >> i could have. but i like the weather. i just like the thunderstorms when i want it. >> rose: let's look at the people you've created. let's start with "pan's labyrinth." pale man. >> the pale man came from the idea that i thought i needed to create an ogre, a child-eating creature that was the ultimate sort of nightmare for a kid. and i came up with the idea of this emaciated figure and then i removed the face from the figure and i gave him eyes on the hands because i thought -- >> rose: so where'd you get that? the eyeballs in the palms? >> the first thing a did displaces in a drawing is the eyes when they are creating monsters. gives the monster four, five
eyes, whatever. >> rose: they change the eyes first? >> because one of the eyes is the soul and that's one of the first things you attack. and it happened by accident because i was removing the face, then i told my wife -- we were having dinner. (laughs) this is a dinner conversation with my wife and i. i say do i give him eyes on the palms or do i give him wooden hands that he can screw on and they're on a platter. she says i like the eyes. >> rose: i do, too. let's look at the reapers in "blade 2" the unhinged jaws. >> same thing here. when they open the jaw opens like a snake. it disengages the jaw. i think what you do with the human face is you break it down into elements and then if you play with an element it becomes a very -- one single element, it becomes a very scary image. i'm hopeless. >> rose: (laughs) you are hopeless!
>> but happy about it. you know after 40 something you start realizing that you are all about specificity. you become who you are. and then you just distill that and distill that and distill that. style is specificity and reputation. >> rose: he also said a glimpse into the world proves that horror is nothing other than reality. >> and it's true. but reality i think filtered through imagination. because even hitchcock knew that you needed -- even though he was working in a realistic fabric, except perhaps in "the birds" which as close as he got to science fiction or horror, really you need a dethat i will is extraordinary to trigger. so you need the filter -- like the lady vanishes. he needs the lady vanishing to guarantee an adventure will
occur. >> rose: you have said that horror has been given a bad reputation and it isn't really considered real art. >> yes, i think now is coming to a place where i think that what i want is buried enough that people know that no matter what size of movie or genre or variation or genre i'm doing it's sincere and from my heart. from the beginning it was hard to start certainly with "kronos" the first movie saying i'm going to make an art movie with a vampire or i'm going to make an art movie with a ghost. that's why it's so satisfactory to see them, for example, now on the criterion collection. >> rose: tell me about that. >> at some point -- we started with "kronos" and quickly followed by "devil's magnum" and they're so beautiful, the presentations, we spend weeks polishing them and for them to
take a place in that collection which is some of the best films ever made is very satisfactory and beautiful. >> rose: the penguin series, what's that? >> i was asked by penguin, the publishers to cure rate a collection of horror titles and write a new introduction because the genre is ultimately -- the fantastic general have very well storied and if you look back you are going to stumble upon oscar wilde and henry james and charles dickens and i wanted to show through this collection some of the best examples of the genre, mary shelley and so forth. but i also -- we were also introduce or reintroducing an author that is very neglected ray rawson with a title called "hunter castle" that was out of print for a long, long time and i wanted to reintroduce the audience toe that and iy very good introduction i think as a primer for people buying that
collection for the first time. >> rose: you look around and probably see everything you can possibly see because it provides a kind of -- it provides an experiential quality to you as a creative person. >> i remember a quote by jerry lewis that said "a director reads everything he can and watches everything he can." you can be reading an article for a magazine and you should always be voracious on that and be curious because you don't know where the next great idea is going to come from. so i watch t.v. all the time. i watch movies all the time. >> rose: and you know what else you do if you do that? you can put ideas together. you can connect the dots so there's something here and there. and through your eyes you make it unique because you see how the two connect. >> the novel is a collection -- it's like kid -- when you're a kid and you're given a great plower or insect and you press them in the book. that's what this is. i'm collecting them from all over the world. >> rose: frankenstein was the
book that influenced you to host? >> perhaps. i think "frankenstein" is my autobiography. a very strange creature born in a world that he doesn't quite understand. >> rose: yes, i agree. i was thinking about whether you and alfonso and -- you guys might make a film together like the coen brothers work together. rather than just collaborating and looking on the editing process. you can make a great mexican film. >> or we can create a great story of murder because we would murder each other. >> rose: (laughs) >> i think beauty of collaborating is that every time i visit his editing room it's his editing room. but if we have our editing room -- >> rose: wouldn't work? >> directors are like piranhas. you don't put three in the same project. they can visit the tank but not -- there's only one director. brothers can do it. alfonso did it beautifully on
the screen "gravity" with his son. >> rose: what are you working on the future? >> a gothic romance story with jessica chastain. >> rose: i love her. >> it's a period piece, r-rated movie so it's -- and for the first time-- this is funny because normally i do my adult concerns i do them in my spanish language movies and my teenager child concerns i do them in the american movie. like "hell boy" and "pa terrific rim." this is the first time i'm doing an adult theme movie with adult concerns there an t english language. so it will be interesting for me. >> rose: so if you look forward to 3-d and all of the kind of imagery you can create now, what's the future of film making? where do you think it's going? >> i think that the future of film making is a big assessment
division with very small stories going into a different delivery system and it can be a marriage between cable, video consoles and internet and the bigger stories at the center. >> rose: i think you're right. it seems to me that with the story today is how it will be distributed in the means of distribution and that will change everything. >> rose: and whether it's streaming or whatever it might be. and because of the video world today you can really send it worldwide at one time. >> rose: >> you're right about distributions. right now we are on the threshold with someone coming to an alternative to distribution that will change it. because right now that's why pirating is holding, distribution is still being done in the same basic way that was done in the beginning. that's what needs to change. >> rose: great to have you here.
>> a pleasure always. >> rose: the book is my notebooks, collections, and other obsessions" my notebooks, collections, and other obsessions." you can buy that in the bookstore. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org explore new worlds and new ideas
through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. dr. joel fuhrman is a board-certified physician whose groundbreaking work has been acclaimed as a medical breakthrough for weight loss, disease reversal and prevention. the american diet today has 62% of calories from processed foods. how many of you would like a promise that you don't have to have a heart attack when you get older? he's a new york times bestselling author and a widely published nutritional researcher. and i see people putting this into practice every day, transforming their lives. never forget that your health is your greatest wealth.