Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  August 19, 2015 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT

12:00 pm
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a 2016 presidential election and we talked to matt dowd an nbc analyst who was at the iowa state fair and has interesting observations of all the candidates. >> can we remake or remodel the american dream in a way that people can believe again. i think that is the over-arching dynamic in this. i think there's a lot of struggles and a lot of issues going on and all these sorts of things. the economy and all of that but i think that's really the big value or the big vision that people want presented and donald trump is doing it in an awkward way but he's probably come the closest to where the country i think is in how do we remake the american dream. >> rose: we continue this evening with a conversation with roger cohen a "new york times" columnist about the iran nuclear
12:01 pm
deal and the middle east. >> you can never get perfection. iran has mastered the nuclear field cycle. the question is what do you do about it. i think secretary kerry and the president have tried to come up with a deal that refences this capacity. and that in my view would be in israel's interest. >> rose: we conclude this evening with learning to drive a new film directed by isabel coixet and starring sir ben kingsley and patricia clarkson. >> when i was first attached to this project, i was ten years younger or nine years younger and nine years later i arrived to play this part and i thought oh, yes, now i'm ready now. i'm here. i know what this is. i have no more doubt. i have, i know exactly how this woman, what her life involves, what her life entails.
12:02 pm
and i understood it in a deep organic way. >> rose: matt dowd, roger cohen and a new movie called learning to drive. all >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> 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: we begin this evening with a look at the 2016 presidential election, donald trump's campaign for the republican nomination continues to surge. he earned 24% in a recent poll
12:03 pm
followed by jeb bush and ben carson. the presumptive democratic nominee hillary clinton remains under scrutiny for her e-mail while secretary state. he spent time talking with voters at the iowa state fair where they all were. he is an analyst for abc news and he joins me now from one of our favorite cities, austin, texas. welcome, sir. >> thanks charlie, great to be here. >> rose: so how was the iowa state fair. >> well you know i've been there multiple times both years ago in the capacity to help a candidate and now recently observing the candidate. it was quite an unbelievable situation, both with hillary there and with donald trump there who just added a complete, you know, circus atmosphere to it. but i was actually fascinated by what a bunch of his supporters had to say in the course of it. much different than i think many of us suspected or analyzed before. >> rose: what did they say? >> well there's less anger to them and much less anger to
12:04 pm
them. it's not ideology, it's not driven by issues. the only issue that's consistent is immigration. that's the most consistent issue across it. but it's basically a level of frustration and desire for somebody they think speaks their mind, somebody that they think is strong. in his sort of bombastity and bravado is an asset to these folks. they want to think of something big in the united states, big person, big power, big strength. for now they think donald trump best represents that. >> rose: can that think or what would happen to it to slow it down. >> well, what none of the other candidates i do will impede him at this point in time. the only thing that can prevent donald trump in my view from getting the republican nomination is his mouth, his own mouth. whether he says something over time that basically finally adds up to too much for the voters or he doesn't add enough meat to
12:05 pm
the bones. the supporters love him, adore him, want him but they worry about what he might say and they want him at some point in time, not necessarily right now charlie but at some point in time they want him to add meat to the bones. i think the other thing that will compound those things is time. we're not having the caucuses this week or next month. we're having them 170 days from now. so that's a lot of time to keep this huge bright fire work burning that donald trump is and a lot of that has the potential to dissipate over time. but the problem i think for the gop field right now is nobody is even in his atmosphere of ability to connect with people and the bright we he shines in every event he does. >> rose: and who is the most likely though they're not there. is it some other non-politician like ben carson or is it jeb bush, because jeb bush, if he ever gets his campaign rolling has the capacity because of the support he has from a broad base of the party and the economic
12:06 pm
resources he has. >> it's not jeb it's absolutely not jeb bush. i think jeb bush is on the verge, unless he does very well in the debate next month that's going to be held at the reagan library in september. it doesn't how much money he has it's going to be difficult to win the lookion. the voters the last person they will pick of the 17 is jeb bush when you talk to them. it is the potential being an outsider somebody like ben carson or carly fiorini or somebody like john kasik but in some views he's the governor of ohio. in some view he's view as a little bit of an outsider. i think if john casick meets it up and meets the voters in a strong more direct way he has the potential for it. right now these voters will not vote for jeb bush and they want an outsider. whether it's carson fiorina or
12:07 pm
say casey but it's not jeb. >> rose: suppose it is john casey and suppose his running mate is marco rubio. there you have ohio and florida. does that mean that the chance republicans against the presumptive nominee hillary clinton is greatly increased? >> then let's assume also adding to that that donald trump doesn't run as a third party and he behaves himself in the course of the general election. i think if somebody like john kasick and marco rubio was the presidential nominee they would be a huge advantage against hillary clinton in the general election. you point out the states, florida and ohio. the demographics, a latino that would be on the ticket. then you go look at the circumstances of the country right now and where hillary clinton stands. people don't trust her, they don't like her and they disapprove of the current president right now. in that circumstance with the right nominee, then i think the republicans are the odds on to
12:08 pm
win the whitehouse in the course of this. but they have to nominate the right nominee in the course of this. >> rose: could donald trump if he gets the nomination beat hillary clinton? >> i think it's really difficult. i mean it's always a possibility. i don't ever like under these circumstances never like to say never. it's a possibility but he's probably interestingly enough the least electable in the general election. >> rose: is immigration a bigger issue than you imagined in the republican party because of the way it's been used by donald trump. >> i think it's not surprising to me that immigration is a big issue but i think it really stands for something more than the issue. when you talk to the folks they wanted something done about the borders but it really stands for something about our country and in their way they think the country has been lost in some ways over the last ten years, 20 years really. this is a way of recapturing our country. immigration is really a telling issue for a bigger concern in the sense of where they think the country is and losing the
12:09 pm
country they thought they always wanted. and that's what immigration really stands for to them. >> rose: what do you think of bernie sanders. >> he's the opposite side of the trump coin for the democratic party. here's a guy that's viewed as an outsider taking on a very populous role, very dominant candidate hillary clinton in the course, i think bernie sanders could easily win iowa, could easily win new hampshire and complicate the process along the way. hillary clinton has odds to win the name nation but bernie sanders shows just like donald trump shows on the republican side that a candidate touches a way to convey a populous message connects really well in this country right now. >> rose: if hillary clinton lost iowa then lost new hampshire, would that bring in joe biden. >> i think joe biden, he's going to have to make a decision because the way you look at delegate slates charlie, he has to come in by the middle of october. he has to decide he's in this race in order to set up the
12:10 pm
process of this. i think if joe biden thinks that hillary clinton is probably going to lose iowa and new hampshire, he then figures out the play, i can make a play and win south carolina. because bernie sanders is very difficult in south carolina. that's what i think the calculation if joe biden wants to run is the calculation that bernie sanders is aiblght -- ao very well in the first states and come in and win the states then it would become a contest with joe biden as the more dominant the more establish on the other hand candidate in the course of those other primaries and bigger states along the way. >> rose: what's likely to be the defining issue or theme of this campaign in 2016? >> i actually think donald trump is closest to the idea, not the issues but the closest to i think there's a sense we have lost america's greatness in many voter's minds we've lost our sense of greatness both economically and domestically in the way we convey ourselves
12:11 pm
internationally and how we play with others internationally. i think that combination with a lot of sub things but that combination is can we remake or remodel the american dream in a way that people can believe again. i think that is the over arching dommic. there's a lot of struggles and issues going on and all these sorts of thing, the economy and all that. i think that's really the big value or the big vision that people want presented and donald trump is doing it in a sort of awkward bulldogy sort of way but he's probably come closest to where the country is on how do we remake the american dream. >> rose: his theme is make america great i guess. >> well as i said the other day to somebody, donald trump is the floyd may weather of politics. he has the brand he has the hats, he has the entertainment value. he has all of those sorts of things. i think donald trump the biggest thing is can he be disciplined enough and can he put more substance on the bone in the
12:12 pm
course of this time. and will the republican establishment over time permit him to win the states obviously that he possibly could win. there is no question in my mind that there is now a possibility that donald trump could be the gop nominee. >> rose: matt dowd thank you. great to see you a pressure. >> great to see you charlie, always a pleasure. >> rose: matt dowd analyst from austin, texas. we'll be right back. roger cohen is here. stay with us. >> rose: my friend roger cohen is here, he's a columnist for the "new york times." he focuses on international affairs and diplomacy. his most recent column is iran and american jews. the jewish community in the united states and the divisions it has caused. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: remind me one more time the title of the book about
12:13 pm
your dad and your own history. >> it's called the ghost from human streets ghosts of memory in the jewish family. >> rose: it's incredible. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: if you haven't had a chance to read it and understand from where roger comes. the give me the sense of this debate which is ongoing with lots of pressure and lots of people trying to impact the debate. people from beyond the united states. clearly we know that prime minister netanyahu feels strongly about this and i take him at his word he believes this is not good as a threat to israel. you're seeing all kinds of pressure being used almost more than debate. >> yes. well this is the most divisive issue in the american jewish community for a long time. and you have even within families fiery disagreements as to whether this deal is overall good for israel, good for the united states, good for the middle east or it's not. on the one hand, you have apac
12:14 pm
heavily against the deal. on the other you have the up start j street with a much smaller budget and liberal organization. on balance this deal is good. on that context and my column is about that, that prime minister netanyahu weighed in yet again with the jewish community here and in essence said this deal will give iran hundreds of bombs within years wild high purposably that's simply not true. have the yellow cake and eat it which is in my view, the line of reality. this deal is not perfect in diplomacy. you never get perfection. iran has marched the nuclear fuel cycle. the question is what do you do about it. i think secretary kerry and the president have tried to come up with a deal that refences this
12:15 pm
capacity. and that in my view would be in israel's interest. >> rose: why don't you think the prime minister sees it that way and the significant part of the israeli community as well as the american jewish community. >> look, the islamic republic charlie has said vial up conscionable things about israel over many years. it said -- >> rose: and i'm not making a clinical point but i mean hasn't the been important for israel and people who love israel to take seriously people who say they want to destroy it. >> it is important to take seriously that kind of unconscionable language. on the other hand, iran, the islamic republic has i would argue survived since the iranian revolution since 1979 to be a fairly prudent power.
12:16 pm
and the fact is that in recent years, iran has been able to install more and more centrifuges, get more and more enriched iranian yew -- uraniu, cuts way back the number of send centrifuges, installs things that exist. people say iran will cheat. well it may cheat, who knows. but the fact is over the past few years it did not cheat and in this agreement, charlie, there is nothing that says the united states or its allies cannot take any action they deem
12:17 pm
appropriate including military action if iran reneges and the united states remains on divisive issues like iranian support, to continue to pressure iran to stop that kind of behavior. >> rose: they said they would do that. >> absolutely. one fundamental question -- >> rose: to try to tie the two together would be -- >> are you better off with some kind of framework that condemns united states and iran to a relationship, a difficult hostile relationship, a relationship for the next 15 years. are you better placed to begin to be able to talk about those issues with that or without that. and if you're without that, look this deal wasn't made by the united states. it was made by the united states, china, russia, germany, france and britain. those are not small or unserious powers. >> rose: and without their support of the sanctions, would they have been effective if they were.
12:18 pm
>> no. and if this deal is rejected which i think is unlikely in the end and will be approved in a moment tuesday accord, the sanctions regime would fall apart because china and russia would conclude the united states is unserious about an agreement that has been two years in the making. >> rose: when you look at the president's argument for what it is that there was no other way and that the people who criticizes has no other argument other than military force. is the president right about that? is there no other way that you could have brought about an iranian rejection of nuclear power, weaponnized nuclear power. >> i don't think complete dismantlement which is initially
12:19 pm
what prime minister netanyahu pushed for. i don't think complete dismantlement was ever on the table. iran is proud of the nuclear technology its developed. it says it's not for use for a bomb, it says as a signatory of the iaea, of course it has a right to develop this technology. and i think if you argued for complete dismantlement in effect, you're arguing for war. look iranians remember that for a long time, their oil was not controlled by themselves, it was controlled by the united states and britain. and when the prime minister came along in the 1950's and said hey, we actually think this oil should be ours, we instituted a coup. the nuclear technology is a little like oil 60 years ago. it's something that iran feels that it has a right to develop. and of course it looks around, it sees a nuclear a israel and
12:20 pm
pakistan, sees a nuclear on russia, nuclear on india. it's not a neighborhood where everybody is without nuclear weapons, much to the contrary. so i think the best way, yes i mean iran is not any of those countries and we need to stop iran developing a nuclear weapon. there is no question about that. and if necessary, we need to use military force to stop them. >> rose: do you believe the president would new nuclear force if in fact he thought they were by one means or the utmost likely covert come very close to a nuclear weapon. >> i believe not only this president, president obama but any subsequent president that i can imagine. if the islamic republic is still in place and if it is still using the kind of language that it has used about israel and is still supporting hezbollah and hamas in the way that it has, if that islamic republic was still in place and we had uncontro
12:21 pm
vert prove they were going to make a weapon, i believe any president would use force. what this deal achieves, i think, is to put that deal hopefully forever. but at least for 15 years. a lot of things can happen. >> rose: if they used nuclear weapons today it would only delay, it would not necessarily -- >> if they used force today, what would happen? iran would race for bomb. it would throw out international inspectors, it would tear up its agreement with the iaea and at most it might put back the program for a couple years. i think it's close to a no brainer. plus they've been at war in afghanistan and iraq. in between lies a country called iran. do we really want to be at war across a sway of 2500 miles and convince the muslims of the world we have nothing against them. i don't think that's going to play very well. >> rose: could the united
12:22 pm
states have negotiated a better deal? is there any reason any argument that suggests we had more leverage than we exercise, and we should have exercised it. do you see any merit in the argument this administration was too quick to make the deal? >> look, in de moment -- diplomacy it's a question what do you want, with a do they want and what can we agree we both want. i wasn't in there, neither of us was in there sitting at the table. i think our president is tough and i think secretary kerry is tough. and i think what we have, you might wish that if there's a suspect site, we could get in there faster than the maximum 24 days that is now permitted. >> rose: i don't know how they calculate -- >> on iran's missile program, maybe we could wish for mere. but i really believe that over
12:23 pm
two years of negotiation with a very very serious diplomats in the room, this is about, this is a compromise that gets us over 20% rich uranium goals. the vast majority -- >> rose: i don't want to -- what those critics of the deal say after ten years, he'll have an opportunity because a lot, this is the ten year deal or 12 years, and even though the president says certain things will remain in effect, we'll argue that the iranians will have a chance after ten years to go forward without sanctions and the impediments. >> i don't know, charlie. we didn't know -- in 2001 we didn't know arab spring will erupt. anyone who says -- the supreme
12:24 pm
leader is well into his 70's. there's no succession plan. you can make a very cogent argument, the likelihood is through more contacts with the west which is what the vast majority of the population of iran craves, most young iranians are propro western. the only top economy in the world that's not integrated with the global economy you can make a co-gent argument that the likelihood is over the next 15 years you could see some softening of the regime. as this new generation rises to power, an iran is more to our liking, can i prove that, can anybody prove that? no, we cannot. but i think that is a reasonable bet. if iran goes in the other direction again, all options are open. >> rose: let me turn to a point in which the united states and iran agree. it is the rise of isis. it is a very dangerous phenomenon. mainly because it's with respect
12:25 pm
to the iranians and because of the impact it might have in iran, in iraq, another shi'a state, the majority of shi'as. the united states and iran are on the same page something ought to be done but neither of them want to work together necessarily. but tell me how you see the possibilities of a coalition against isis today with the overlay of the shi'a/sunni conflict. >> i think isis is a terrible threat to the west. we've already seen the bombings and the attacks in paris, brussels and elsewhere. these vial beheadings mass rates of this medievalist literal interpretation of certain verses of the koran. and the united states is weary. we've been at war in iraq, we've been at war in afghanistan. we are looking for allies in the
12:26 pm
region to take on isis. of the most fervent isis members see their main mission as attacking and defeating the shi'a, ie defeating iran. so iran has a common interest -- >> rose: with iraq. >> yes. iran has a common interest with us in fighting isis. it doesn't want isis as you just said to take over iraq. i don't have any illusions this is going to transform itself into an alliance between the united states and iran to fight isis but i think the two countries can help each other. that is a plausible scenario. and i think in the context of a nuclear deal which rightly starts just to the nuclear dossier, in that context that becomes more likely and would that be a good thing? yes it would be a good thing. but there's so much mistrust built up between the united states and iran that these kinds of things are not going to
12:27 pm
happen over night. is it possible there will be a u.s. embassy in trash and one in washington. >> rose: there's one in havana. >> why not. >> rose: the president's gone out of his way to give credit to russia for the iranian deal. he's spoken about their contribution to this. russia has also spoken to the idea of looking for some change in some way to get out of the mess in syria, even though they have been supportive of assad. the iranians have been even more supportive of assad but you get a feeling that something's at play. what do you think that is. >> well, i think everybody agrees that the dismemberment of syria which is what has happened, it ceased -- >> rose: 150,000 plus. >> anybody looking at the legacy of the obama presidency, this is going to be one of the
12:28 pm
negatives, big negatives on the northern policy side and i don't want to get into what might have been done before. but i think going forward, if russia and the united states can begin to work together and there's a way to move the assad regime gradually out, obviously that would be. there are lots on of areas in iraq and afghanistan where iran can be helpful. and in syria. whether it will be remains to be seen. as you know iran's very divided between the hard line faction of the revolutionary guard and the population in general, which i think generally wants stronger contacts with the west. >> rose: with the west. >> yes. and probably many would like over time to see the system of government in iran at least evolve. and i think on all those fronts, having a deal is better than not having a deal. a good deal is not perfect.
12:29 pm
>> rose: you're talking about a nuclear deal. >> yes. >> rose: i'm more interest in terms of the possibility, let's assume the deal passes one way or the other. >> which i think is a reasonable assumption. you need a 25% defection of congressional democrats for that to be an override of the president's veto. i think the republican-dominated house and senate will disapprove. in a way that's pain free. they can do that without serious consequences for american diplomacy in the world because it will be vetoed and there aren't enough votes, i don't believe. despite all this levying for an override. >> rose: is there a change between this administration and the administration in israel for the re remainder of this presidy
12:30 pm
term. >> i don't think it changes it fundamentally charlie because i think the alliance is strong, very strong and that won't change. i also think that relations between the president and prime minister netanyahu are bad. they've been bad for a long time and this may make those relations marginally worse and i think the president is exasperated by this habit of prime minister netanyahu and we've seen it to the webcast in the jewish community this habit of trying to go around the president and during the last election it was clear that prime minister netanyahu favored mitt romney. so there were a lot of elements to this mistrust between the president and the prime minister. >> rose: suppose the president wanted to make, he's not going to take an action that does anything to lessen the military power of israel.
12:31 pm
>> on the contrary. >> rose: on the contrary. and israel's including netanyahu giving him credit for that. they do. and people in the military establishment. but is there any way that the president could take out his, some sense of disdain for the way the prime minister's acted. >> i think the only way is a way that's being quietly talked about is for the accord had the united states had in mind in the palestinian peace during last intense rounds of negotiations with secretary kerry with the territorial line running at the 1967 divide. for that to be published in some form and then contained in a resolution, in the united nations security council, that the united states would not veto. in other words israel would realize if it carries on in the current course of expanding settlements on the whole not being serious about a piece with
12:32 pm
the pal stainians and the palestinian leadership is plenty at fault too. if israel continues down that path it may no longer be able to rely on the consistent u.s. veto in the united nations of anything deemed to be against israel's interests as those interests are defined by netanyahu. so i think that's the one area where the president could have leverage and it's conceivable his last year in office might be prepared to use it. >> rose: i think you may be right. i don't know what the president is thinking but you do give some indication there's some thought about that because you've seen what other western nations have done with respect to palestinians. >> yes. that's one idea bubbling beneath the surface. >> rose: there is finally this. you said in a column, germany's debt to you're can never be repaid. it is the real and deepest one.
12:33 pm
that obviously has to do with the -- and the implications are with respect to germany and you're and germany and greece are what? >> well, i just wanted to remind people that in the end, the european union is about war and peace. it grew out of of the ruins of5 and it's important in the europe and what happened in europe and the european union have been able to overcome by creating a borderless europe. there's an implication we've been talking about today because of the holocaust, it is absolutely vital that the jewish people in israel, that we be assured that israel can defend itself in any circumstances.
12:34 pm
and the question with this deal is, this iran nuclear deal, is this a way of a time to rules the threat to israel. because the nuclear know how the iranians have anyway is going to be put in a place where it cannot be used for the development of a bomb. and people are going to differ on that. my own belief is that that is the outcome of these negotiations and should therefore be backed and approved. i also think iran is a country with a lot of potential. and we should explore that potential. >> rose: thank you for coming. good to see you. >> thank you. >> rose: you went to london to live. and you've come back. what happened this? didn't you like the british. >> i grew up in london. i like london fine. but i became -- >> rose: you missed us. >> yes. my home is in new york, charlie. i had to come back. >> rose: thank you roger. roger cohen writing for the "new york times." thank you.
12:35 pm
we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: the film learning to drive is a story of an unlikely friendship between two new yorkers. a writer who has lost her sense of direction and the driving instructor who helps her find it. the screen play is based on a 2002 new yorker magazine essay. here is the trailer for the film. >> and joining me for today's topic the critic wendy shields. >> always a pleasure. i heard about you in class. wanting sex. every seven years it comes over him. he gets restless, he does something juvenile. >> i'm not going home with you wendy. >> he bought a motorcycle and decided to give an adult tress one. >> it's time you started driving. >> i used to have a husbands who drove. >> you just like them young, you
12:36 pm
could mold them however they like, teach them tricks. awe. >> you can see everything. the driver's biggest problem is everyone else. you can't always trust people to behave properly. >> ain't that the truth. >> wendy what's a woman like for a gift. >> i don't know, candy, flowers. >> this is where i grew up. >> now you're married maybe a double date in chinatown. why do you want to drive. >> to go somewhere else. i want something to take my mind off my mind. >> that's why i do yoga, meditate. >> i do ambien. i don't know what i believe. why do you teach driving. >> for a better job i have to take off my turban shave off my beard but this is power, i know who i am. >> why didn't i ever think i
12:37 pm
could write. everything and everybody around me. >> i never -- cook for me half the work fend -- between us soi make my own food. >> learning to drive. >> i think it's time to discuss road rage. it doesn't matter what is going on in your life out there. that's all there is, your life right now. >> rose: joining me now is isabel coixet, the director's and the film's two stars, surben kingsley and patricia clarkson. where did this start. you were at the film festival. my impression is you've known about this for a while. >> oh yes. nine years. i saw the, i read the essay in
12:38 pm
the new yorker. i read it and i was captivated by it, it resonated with me, it stayed with me. and then just serendipitously someone came to me and said they're making a movie about this. i thought oh my god, i know this, i know this story. i love this story, i love wendy. so i became attached. >> rose: a character you like. >> yes. and i became attached. and nine years later. we got the film made nine years later with these extraordinary people. >> rose: you went in at what point. >> i read it a while ago. in fact i read it shortly after a film i've done and i still have the residue of this house of sand and fog. we spoke of this here. this was the place of the immigrant coming to america
12:39 pm
under unfortunate circumstances. they were exiled to certain regime changes in their countries. and i felt that it was a little too, i wrote to explain this to you. it was a little too close to something i was trying to let go of. and then -- >> rose: what was that. >> some kind of angst, some stone of sadness that was not quite dissolved then. then in happier times, my darling wife daniella i thank for that, in happier times the script came to me and i felt more capable of breathing something into it that was life rather than endure. >> rose: before we turn to the director, is it about friendship, is it about independence, is it about new life? what is it? the story of you playing a
12:40 pm
driver. she is recently divorced. you happened to be in the car when this happens and the two of you connect and you come up with the idea of driving lessons. >> i, through a set of circumstances, personal circumstances decide to learn to drive at 50. >> rose: well your husband as you saw had been driving for you. >> it's a very common occurrence in new york. these powerful people, these people at the top of their game but they never learn to drive which is a very tri state area. when you learn to drive in a far away place in vermont. >> rose: so is it friendship or relationship. >> charlie, when i'm offered a wonderful piece of work as this is, i rarely love to reduce it
12:41 pm
down to some metaphor or myth that i can sort of carry in my pocket. for me, it's a myth of the eternal ferry man. you get on to the ferry on one bank of the river, he ferries you across the river and somehow your molecules have been arranged. you're not sure or how or why but he thought you. the ferry man left you with something. it's more than a journey from one bank to another. there's something life-enhancing about his silence, his stillness, the way he maneuvers the boat across the water. he's absolutely taking to the new, are yes. >> rose: the last time she was here, you and i did, we rift together indeed for a wonderful film. it's good to see you again. >> good to see you too. >> rose: how did you get into this. >> when we were shooting,
12:42 pm
patricia gave me the new yorker story. and you know, i was living the same thing. i was, you know, i was in the middle of a break up. from my partner of many years. then i didn't know how to drive. and i have to say i loved the story and also the story teach me something, you know, something very simple, something, you know, this is not the end of the world. okay, you know, he's living with another woman. what are we going to do. >> it taught me something that stayed with me. appreciation. >> rose: of? >> that we have to look up and forget to take in the good things we have and we forget to look around us and therefore the whole driving metaphor of course. >> rose: you work into this one post 9/11 america and we see the sense of discrimination that
12:43 pm
can exist at a time of fear. >> yes. >> ironically it was the sikh taxi drivers who turned off all their leaders and very distraught, why do you want to go, i'll help you find your loved one. but consistent with sikh behavior. >> rose: did you look into that because you were prepared for this role or did you know that. >> charlie, when i was filming gandhi, i had a sikh body guard driver. and i, he was my ferry man. all through the trauma of difficulty and joy of that extraordinary experience in india, he was there, my constant, my driver the back of his head because i was sitting in the back of the ambassador car and i would see him gently sway side to side. after the hardest day shooting,
12:44 pm
glorious day as i managed to get back into his car he drove through this massive crowd, looked at my face in the rearview mirror and said well done sir. >> rose: well done. >> that's all he . and that stayed in my heart forever. >> this is what sir ben brought every day to the set, to see him was very moving. >> rose: in the context. >> well to see him in these beautiful turban and this incredibly graceful calm powerful man. i often thought in life as patty, i need a darwin, please. >> rose: we all need one. >> absolutely, we do. >> rose: there's also this, the arranged marriage idea. >> yes. >> it was a lovely irony in the
12:45 pm
film there's a desperate attempt to arrange her marriage by her close relatives so that just as in the west our close relatives like to match make so in the punjab some relatives like to match make. >> rose: sometimes your family knows you better than yourself and you should trust some of that to hem. >> perhaps wendy's sister could subscribe to the same argument. >> rose: let's look at the scene here. this is darwin giving wendy a driving lesson. here it is. >> i'm in the middle of the lake. >> whoa whoa whoa. i thought we killed you. >> does that happen to you often? >> every day, people try to push a button. you don't engage with them
12:46 pm
especially when you drive. don't lean on the horn. >> i don't understand why men have to do that, they have their balls in your face. >> i think it's time to discuss road rage. >> don't you think when, you know, when that happened when some guy in the accident scene, i mean he took the turban why e doesn't react. to me the most admirable thing that the grace that he just take it and i doesn't let this thing affect him. and that's for me is a big lesson. >> he's a warrior, he's such a beautiful internal. >> wendy is teaching him lots of things too. >> rose: what is wendy teaching him.
12:47 pm
>> you know, there is another world, there is a world of love. and i think the possibility of love she offered for him is going to stay with him and help him to be with jasmyne. i think at the end of the day and someone said to me last night at the premier this is a profound film about adult friendship too real. >> rose: male female. >> male female friendship, real friendship. and just, and the limitations that that has. >> rose: you saw this and then you get to make this and you said you needed the ten years in between to be able to play wendy. because you had to face some adverse -- >> i don't know, there's a lot of life, a lot of changes in my life, a lot of loss and love and ups and down and adversities.
12:48 pm
it all came with these packages i could carry on my back as i traveled through wendy. and i arrived, when i was first attached to this project, i was ten years younger or nine years younger and nine years later i arrived to play this part. and i thought oh, yes, now i'm ready now. i'm here. i know what this is. i have no more doubt, i have, i know exactly how this woman, what her life involves, what her life entails. and i understood it in a deep organic way, in a way i didn't. >> rose: is there a common theme? what do you make, eight movies? >> 12. >> rose: 12? >> i know. it impressed me. >> rose: impresses or depresses. >> no, impresses. my depression is when i see all the films i have to, i want to
12:49 pm
do and maybe i'm not able to do. >> rose: why not? >> you know, life is short. but do you know what, i plan, i'm planning to direct even with a walker and no kids and i'm going to say action. >> rose: how long did it take you to make this movie. >> five weeks. >> rose: that's not bad. >> that's not bad. >> rose: in some movies it takes long just to get to the shoot. >> i have to take like patricia, i was ready to do it ten years ago, nine years ago. but you know. >> rose: you've grown in the last ten years. >> no. not at all. i'm trying to avoid to grow up. >> rose: is there a common theme to the films that you make to make? about relationships, number one. >> to me, my main thing, it's intimacy. it's really intimacy. >> rose: intimacy. >> it's what happens when two people are alone. what happens there. what's going on.
12:50 pm
what kind of links link very different people. i love that. >> rose: take a look at this. this is a scene where darwin talks to wendy about his own life. >> there is your reward. >> do you have a masters. >> i was university professor like my father. >> why do you teach driving. >> for a better job i would have to take off my turban, shave of my beard. people think i look dangerous but this is how i know who i am. >> do you ever get visits. >> i ask never go home to india. part of a political you asylum. i couldn't see my dad before he passed away last year and my mom's funeral too. but then i was in prison there. >> why? >> there is no justice for
12:51 pm
sheikhs. >> how long were you in prison. >> long time. >> rose: why do you take so long to learn so much about the people we care about? she's having to pull it out of him. one more scene before we go. this is wendy bonding with her daughter played by the beautiful grace gummer. >> so much stuff. >> believe me i threw out tons. thank you for helping but i think you have to get back on the road. you have a long drive. >> i don't think i'm going to go back. >> what this. >> i love farming but i mainly was there to be with this guy and now suddenly he's decided to go back to dartmouth so i'm all alone and all my friends are gone. i'm so embarrassed.
12:52 pm
can i stay here with you. >> i'd love that. i would so love that. but you can't because if you move in here, it would be in the spirit of failure. you have to see this thing through. you have to go back to vermont and harvest your ass off. >> it's funny when you see these scenes, no? i really thought about the moment we did it. all i can see is that the lollipop melting. and you're like this lollipop is melting, why you give. it's very beautiful. >> rose: you saw the initial scene. >> yes, i had a popsicles in my hand and we had to have 47 pops
12:53 pm
kulz. >> rose: you learned how to drive. >> i learned how to drive in l.a. but never to park. >> rose: this is about relationships. >> believe me charlie, she's behind the camera, she's the operator so she's just right, it's the most intimate work you'll ever do. she's just right there with you are. >> in the popsicle. >> it's a beautiful feeling. it gives you solace. she's right there for you. >> it's kind of difficult because you're there, you're seeing things like oh my god, penis and you take the camera away. >> rose: are you taking off the summer. >> i'm going to finish the play, i'm in the middle of this, big
12:54 pm
press junket for a film and i'm going to lie in bed. >> rose: when you're in a play with bradley cooper, are you seeing up close what it means to be famous today. >> yes. you see it every day. and how well he handles it is, it's beautiful to watch. he has such grace. how he navigates every day is astonishing. >> rose: and you my dear? >> i'm going to do a film called the book shop. it's a journal novel and it's set in england in 1959 and it's about a woman opening a little book shop in a tiny villaraigosa. >> tiny village. >> rose: thank you. august 21st, friday. learning to drive. thank you for joining us, see
12:55 pm
you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh
12:56 pm
12:57 pm
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
a kqed television production. ♪ >> it's sort of like old fisherman's wharf. it reminds me of old san francisco. >> and you'd be a little bit like jean valjean, with the teeth, whatever. >> and worth the calories, the cholesterol, and the heart attack you might have. >> it's like an adventure, you know. you've got to put on your miner's helmet. >> it reminds me of oatmeal with a touch of wet dog. >> i did. inhaled it. >> people when they say sommelier or something.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on