tv Charlie Rose PBS April 1, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program am we begin this evening with politics and we talk to chris matthews, matt dodd, kellyann conway and matt flegenheimer. >> what matters for hillary she has formed this marriage with the president, president obama. i think president obama is going to campaign as hard as he ever campaigned in his life for his legacy. will show up in october, maybe by september. will you see them campaigning together. the african-american vote will show up because of him. it will be an extraordinary effort, even if hillary is not a great politicians and she isn't. those two can hold the democratic party together and the republican party will probably be split and i think that will decide it. >> rose: we continue with helen miren, her new film is called "eye in the sky" i think of the movie almost like a quowrt room drama except the audience are the jury and we set the arguments up for the jury and they will leave the cinema
and they will discuss it. but i think it's an almost unanswerable question but it is a question that we ask our military to make for us all the time. >> rose: and we conclude this evening on the driving range with the world's number two golfer, jordan spieth. >> hit one. >> hit run much-- hit run. what iron was that? >> that was a seven. >> rose: it looks like my driver. >> that was-- that went a little bit over to the side. >> rose: oh my god, look at that. that's exactly where you wanted it. that's about three feet from the pin. politics, helen miren, jordan spieth when we continue.
funding for charlie rose is 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: we begin this evening with our continuing coverage of election 2016. donald trump met with republican national committee chairman today, the unexpected visit comes after he disavowed his pledge to support the party's nominee. the meeting also follows the fallout from his comments on wednesday that women should be punished for getting an abortion, and then the retraction. the campaigns are gearing up for wisconsin primary next tuesday.
a mar quet university poll released this week showed ted cruz leading trump by 10%. the same poll found bernie sanders has a narrow lead of 4% over hillary clinton. joining me from washington, chris math euses-- math ust host of hardball, matt do-wd. here in new york matt flelen heimer of "the new york times" and kellyann conway, a republican poll ster and leads a proted cruz superpac am i'm pleased to have all of them on the program this evening. i begin with chris matthews. take me back to how you saw this, the moment that you asked these questions, do you think he had thought about this question at all before, chris? >> well, it was a question from the audience, a young woman asked it about abortion rights. and i asked him the questions on my mind a long time. what do we do in terms of enforcement. i asked him should the womb punished who has an abortionment and he took awhile to answer it. and he said yes, there ought to be some punish am for the woman
am and i asked maybe just to keep it going, i said what about the guy voferred, there is always some guy involved, he said no, not him. and later of course they sort of retracted and a couple of hours later they fully retracted it. i thought that he made a very explosive statement at the time. i have never heard anyone on the prolife side of things say punish the woman. it's always the doctor or the person who performs the procedure, never the woman. i have never heard that before. >> rose: matt dowd, what did you think when you saw that? >> well, i think i thought the same thing that chris matthews thought, i was shocked that one, he answered that way. but two, probably more importantly, he was totally unprepared for the question at all. and i think that is sort of a foundation of this campaign that he has had over the course of the last nine months. he's done well. you about i think he's done well in spite of himself, not because of himself. this is just another rock in the backpack that makes him harder to get up the mountain top. i think it's problematic. have i to say one thing about this charlie that i find
interesting. there is, in trump's position, while sort of way out of the mainstream and way off the radar, there is a logical consistency in it, in, if you say that abortion should be criminalized and it should be illegal, then a natural question is the question that chris asked in the course of this. so it is a logical consistency in what trump said. how crazy it is, it is logically consistent. >> rose: okay kellyann, talk about that, you are strongly prolife, as i said, working with ted cruz or working for his pac. what did you think? beyond the politics and what it might mean for the campaign in wisconsin or the national campaign, as a prolifer. >> it was shocking for the following reason. chris matthews just hit it on the head. that the prolife community has worked very hard for decades to make sure that people understand we don't look upon the woman as a perpetrator. she's a victim. prolifeers believe there are two victims voferred. the woman involved in her unborn child it would take-- chris had to ask mr. trump that question four to five times.
it would take a prolifer four to five seconds to answer it the way i just did. >> rose: because the woman is the victim. >> you're not going to criminal size-- criminalize her. and secondly to matt's point, voters have a reasonable expectation that their candidates have thoughabout policy, at least as deeply as they have. and there are many grass roots voters in the trenches who genuinely care about these issues and have thought them through and want a candidate who reflects their own point of view and hard work on these issues. i think for mr. trump, the reason his numbers are sliding overall but particularly among women is because suburban women, republican married women, these are baked and cake and before chris asked about abortion, it is also because they see him not willing to put in the work on these issues. and it's also that they now fear he can't do what the republicans want most of all which is win in november. if he can't beat hillary clinton then he's not a winner. >> rose: matt? >> what is so-- we have seen so many explosive statements from mr. trump and very few
retractions. this is something within a couple of hours that essentially he recanted. i think he knew he made a mistake. as kellyann says this run afoul of conservative doctrine, if you ask anyone in the prolife movement. he realized quickly or somebody told him quickly this is something he had to clean up. >> rose: chrisk backs to the point you made in terms of why wouldn't he at this stage have the kind of advice that would give him the policy substance necessary to handle these kinds of questions, whether it's about new clear arms or whether it's about relationship with other nations or weather it's about important personal issues in the country. >> well, i think that's an ongoing question. because the issue about using new clear weapons, for example, against isis in the middle east had been brought up before. before yesterday. so i simply said you won't take it off the table. what about europe. and he said well, i'm not taking it off the table there either. you would think that someone would have intervened with him
and said mr. trump, with all due respects, politicians in this country or any country don't talk about the use of new clear weapons. we just don't talk about it. even kennedy during the cuban missile crisis was a bit indirect about it. you don't say new clear weapons as if it is was a weapon with the rule engagement. you keep it quiet. i asked him why didn't you just say no comment. but he went ahead and said i'm not going to take it off the table even in europe which i think gets to the question why isn't he going before murder y aren't people grilling him behind the scene, like hillary clinton when she wins a debate, you can always tell, when she is loaded. when she is really prepped, under pressure, she has all the answers ready and you can tell they are form lated. they are not on the spot. and he tries to do it all on the spot because is he fairly gifted as a stage guy, a man on the stage. and i think he realized -- relies on his ability to answer questions on the spot. and i think quick on the uptake is one thing but there are certain things you have to master before you even get on
that stage. >> rose: matthew dowd, do we assume if, in fact, he loses in wisconsin that he cannot compile enough delegates necessary before cleveland? >> yeah, i think that's a pretty safe assumption. i think already it's hard for him to get to 1237 which is the majority. and i think if he loses wisconsin, he won't get to 1237, almost absolutely for sure. this is the problem in going to chris' point. this is the problem. if donald trump doesn't make the 1237, it's his own fault. if he finishes 100, 150, 200 delegates short it is his own fault because one, he hasn't grown as a candidate in the course of this, with a basis support that is very strong and two has not put together a professional campaign operation. this is a guy that makes decisions in the course of this campaign by the seat of his pants. and when you do that, your pants wear thin and you get exposed in the course of this. and that is what donald trump is happening. the reason why he doesn't have a professional organization doing murder boards and having debate prep and preparing him for interviews and doing briefings
is because he doesn't want that. if he wanted that, he would have that. here's a guy that does everything by gut, everything by intuition. it's brought him pretty far in this, but in order to get to the last stages of this, he has to be a professional candidate who is prepared and he has to have an organization that knows what they are doing. and he has neither right now. >> rose: what is ted cruz pathway to the nomination. >> he has two pathways to the nomination. the first would be to win the 1237 delegates outright and that is difficult to do. he has about an 85, he needs 85% of the remaining delegates. wisconsin helps towards that because it resets the race and it shows that it really is as ted wants it to be, a two-person race. i know kasich is still there in the background. but the trump-- it's no longer the establishment versus nonsteanlt, that's been decided. it's trump versus nontrump. and the nontrump share of the electorate is larger than the trump share of the electorate and it's where the growth opportunities lie. so if cruz can go into the convention in cleveland with a
sufficient number of delegates, 700, 800 delegates, he's the odds on favorite to become the nominee because mr. trump's behavior is making it less certain that people want to give him any free delegates. >> rose: how will cruz capitalize on this. >> he is doing some thingsno that we read in the paper, we can't talk to them. in louisiana they have gone away, even though he lost, he now has more delegates, every state has different rules and to their point, if you have professionals working on the delegate, work on the convention strategy and the ground game and data analytics that cruz have had, you have an infrastructure there to bol ter you when these uncertainties and-- present themselves. just teed there are several articles showing that in south carolina now all 50 of donald trump's delegates may be unbound from him because he's now violated the rnc's pledge to support the eventual nominee. soaf ree state has a different set of rules. >> is that what it was today. >> it could have been. i think mr. trump went to meet
the chairman also that he wants to coa less and union fie the party. that is becoming more difficult to do right now given the fact that i think he has had the worst 72 hours of his campaign. >> rose: do you think kasich will stay in. >> it looks like he will. wisconsin is the place he should win, he is struggling to come it third. he is at about 21, 20%. where is he today. he's here in new york. he's not in wisconsin locking for votes, he's in new york. if john kasich doesn't want to be called the spoiler he at least should, i think, he should justify why he's in this race in so far as is he trying to give it to cruz, is he trying to give it to trump. the one person who can help donald trump at the convention is john kaitionic. -- kasich, if he were try to per intaid his delegates to go to trump, that would anger many people in the party. >> rose: i ask all of you starting with matt, has this become trump versus anti-trump, that is the future of the republican party and therefore the future, and because of that, the future of this race for the nomination of the rep kean party.
>> that seems to be i the divide t is this interesting question for the cruz campaign, kellyann, do you want to try to sort of harness that anti-trump energy or coop some of his supporters in the sense that they did earlier in the campaign, the anti-washington fer ver that has been central to his message. he sort of walked that line towards being sim pathetic to that and trying to make the case especially recently that the types of policies that trump would pursue are not consistent with conservative policies that ted are cruz has been supportive of for a very long time. >> let me turn to the democrats in wisconsin. >> yeah. >> what does it look like. >> it looks like sanders. it looks like sanders. >> what does that mean. >> i think it means a longer campaign. he's getting very aggressive. he's not softballing this thing at all with secretary clinton. he's running a very aggressive campaign against her. a negative campaign against her. in other words, a typical campaign. he's trying to win the nomination. and it's a very strange situation, charlie. he will turn 75 this september, this is obviously his last chance to be president. he's going for it.
and that's very uncomfortable for hillary clinton who is trying to avoid a fight with him. it is a very strange situation where one side wants to fight and hillary clinton is clinching, hoping not to have to fight because she wants all of his voters and all that young enthusiasm. and that puts him at an advantage for the next couple of weeks at least. >> rose: can donald trump put together a winning general election campaign, matt, looking at the way women are trending in terms of a series of things including the situation about abortion. can trump, looking at how he will play with hispanics, with young people, with african-americans, put together a winning coalition? >> i think a lot of people in the party are struggling to see that path. some of the numbers we've seen in national polling have suggested that between the comments this week, the attacks last week on heidi cruz, ted's wife, there has certainly been a greater recognition that his problems with women in a national election would really come to the fore. >> rose: as a woman, tell me what you think this is about. >> well, it's a big
disappointment if, in fact, we can't beat hillary clinton because she has such a problem among men. we could recast the whole gender gap, not as a conversation of the republican party's problem rty and hillary clinton'socratic problem with attracting men. many of them, particularly white men, dismiss, dislike and distrust her and don't want her to be could bander in chief and president. she has significant disadvantages in the fall because senator sanders has given her such a run, unless donald trump is the nominee. then all of that gets washed away. because hillary clinton can get 35% of the white male vote this november in a two-person race and still be the president. >> the only person beatk her is john kasich. >>ed it cruz is beating her in a few polls and keeps her under 50% in every poll. ted is much closer to hillary. he keeps her within the usual republican margin pong women. but my point is hillary is so damaged among men but it won't matter if you nominate someone for the republicans who is that much worse among women. i think it is still a long way to photograph but we're going to
have two weak frontrunners who have majority unfavourable ratings. that is pretty historic going into a fall campaign. >> rose: what are the history books going to say about this electoral season. >> i think the problem in this campaign is done all trump and ted cruz leading nom nai he-- nominee start at a disadvantage. trump as a touchdown town and cruz a field gowl goal towfnlt the only candidate that consistently beats hillary clinton is in third place, way distant third. is he the only one that starts out slightly ahead of hillary clinton in the course of this race it is an amazing situation to me that how vulnerable she is and how vulnerable the democrats are in the course of this race that the republican party is either going to nominate donald trump who is far behind or ted cruz who is decently behind in the course of this race. i think the history books are going to look at this race. i think this is actually an accelerator. i think when we look back, this is an accelerator to the breakdown of the two established parties. i think the republicans are well on their way to a breakdown and loss of them as a unifying
figure in the national scene. i think we are really on our way to that. it will be very hard to put that back together in the course of this. and i think the only thing that is keeping the democrats from going through the same process of breaking down as a national party is hillary clinton has her foot in the goor and keeps it together partly so in the course of this. so i think when we look back at this, in thiers ahead, we're going to see this year as the end result of this year is the breakdown of the two major parties as national entities. >> rose: chris. >> yeah, i think the most likely conclusion of all this is kellyann may win with cruz, although kasich is doing very well in pennsylvania. cowell win pennsylvania am but she's right. he's the alternative right now. but if this party snrits, if the republican party splits either because trump is the nominee or because he's not, that is a great opening for a third party for somebody, or some third candidate. but i think the big story on the democratic side is the party is not coming apart because of the following. it doesn't matter who hillary picks for vp, that is not so important what matter is she has formed this marriage, maybe a marriage of convenience with the president, with president obama.
i think president obama is going to campaign as hard as he has ever campaigned in his life for his legacy. he's going to show up in october, maybe by september. you're going to see them campaigning together. the african-american vote will show up because of him. it will be an extraordinary effort, even if hillary is not a great politician, and she isn't. but those two together i think can hold the democratic party together while the republican party will probably be split and i think that will decide it. >> rose: matt? >> i think chris is absolutely right about president obama bringing the full force of his campaign apparatus. there was a story from a colleague of mine a couple of weeks ago that he was already signaling the time for the primary season to wrap up was approaching and sort of making clear to senator sanders that hillary was on way to nomination. historically this will be seen as just a remarkable anomaly, potentially, and something that sets us on a path to real sort of reevaluation of the two parties. >> rose: are we looking at the possibility that the republican party will break up show? that this is as some promise during the campaign, that if
donald trump is nominated it will destroy the republican party? >> it's doubtful. and the reason is very simple. these are growing pains more than anything. in fact, i would say the democratic party has gone so far to the left it is an uncomfortable place for hillary clinton. her husband bill clinton reason on the democratic leadership council banner that group disband, that was the moderate mainstream democratic group. so the republican party has growing pains as it tries to figure out the populist/conservative axees that it must deal with. but i think historically, charlie, people will look back and say this was the election where elect ability was no longer the gold standard. this who can win, and for republicans that is i huge relieve we're always told so and is so can win, everybody else get out. this is the year the electricities, is up planted lech ability and both parties and their would-be frontrunners jeb bush and hillary clinton underestimated the insurgent outsider candidates in sanders and trump.
underestimated the will of the people to sub vert the will of the political class. >> rose: who-- somebody wanted a final word there. >> charlie, what i was going to say is my fear or my thought on this, of course, even if hill c.e.o.-- hillary clinton wins in the course of this which is likely if trump or cruz is the nominee, it's likely she wins, she will get elected when a majority of the country dislike and distrust her with that dynamic in the course of this, with a split senate and a split house of representatives in the course of this. i think the american public is going to get through this election. they're going to be forced a choice between two people they don't don't like and trust and likely to choose hillary clinton in the course of this. unless she dramically changes the way she is likely to govern in the course of this, i believe that the country is going to look at this, they're so frustrated with both political parties that in the aftermath of this, i think if there is no way either political party stays in
anyway as a dominant national presence like it's been for the last 80, a hundred years. >> the reason i think that's not true is inertia is the most powerful physical force in politics, unless overtaken by friks. and we've had some friks this year. but things at rest tend to stay at rest. for all the hue and crying of voters they always do the same thing. they re-elect incumbents at over 90% rate. if you are going for your second term as a president, you in the past however many years normally get it, with very few exceptions. so i think this is very healthy for the body politic. this is true direct dem october stee as are all these debates and townhalls and forums. but at the same time, i don't know that the electorate cares enough to form a third party and thinks that they have enough power and voice to do that. >> rose: i have to leave it there. thank you very much kellyann, thank you matt, thank you, chris, thank you, matt. again, congratulations, chris, be right back. stay with us. helen miren is here. she is an emmy, tony and academy award-winning act ree. in 2003 she became a dame of the british empire. how about that.
pauline kail once wrote of her probably no other actress can let you know as fast and economicically as she can that she is playing a distinguished and important woman. miren stars in "eye in the sky" she plays a high ranking british officer leading a mission to capture one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. here is a look at the trailer. >> this is colonel powell. she will walk you through the capture of asa susan danford. >> we have intelligence of meeting between damford and four and five on our most wanted list. >> we believe that they're connected to the recent suicide bombing in kenya. we have information that they will be in this house today. this is an operation to capture not kill. >> range, 20,000 feet. >> you have your orders, lieutenant. your job is to be the eye in the sky. >> yes, ma'am. >> have i to know if danford is
inside and who is with her. >> this changes things. what's happening suicide vest and a bunch of explosives. >> what is the plan, general. >> we have the ability to strike a target with considerable accuracy. >> i came here to witness the capture, not a targeted assassination. >> governance. >> we need to put a-- on that roof right now. >> give them the news-- gifn the new circumstances i think we should abort. >> number four and five on the kill list in your sight and are you putting the whole mission at least because of one collateral damage issue? >> minister?
>> we are not into this kill chain. i need legal clearance to strike. >> i'm the pilot kog manned for-- firing. >> there is a lot more at stake than you see in this image. >> if they kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war. if we kill one child they do. >> we've got two suicide bombers inside that house. and no one wants to take responsibility for pulling the trigger. >> we lost. >> we made a decision. >> ready. >> right now. >> three, two, wait. >> one. >> >> rose: i'm pleased to have helen miren back at this table. >> thank you, great to be back. >> rose: welcome dame, you and alan rickman. approximate it put the two of new a movie, you're off to a good start. >> we never met, of course in the movie. i finished well before alan
arrived. we talked to each other on the phone in the film but we never actually got-- . >> rose: did you know him. >> i knew him very well. i did a play with alan, i did anthony an cleopatra with him. and anyway i knew him very well from, you know, it's quite a tight community, the theater community, dramatic community in britain. so we all know each other. i knew alan very, very well. it is an incredible loss. but i do think that he would be very proud of this movie, to be his last movie. >> rose: why so? >> because i think that-- i think it's the kind of movie with the kind of issues that he was interested, he was very committed complitically. alan, he was very thoughtful. i think he would love a movie that doesn't take sides, that leaves the-- . >> rose: leaves the decision up to the viewer. >> leaves the decision up to the viewer and it says we're all in this together, you know. this is our responsibility. and i think he would appreciated that.
what i love is that the alan on the screen is the alan that i knew in real life, as opposed to the wonderful actor alan character actor who played those amazing extraordinary characters, here this is alan on the screen. >> rose: it is a great tribute. >> a great way to say good-bye to alan, yeah, yeah. >> rose: the movie is about the morality of sort of war, modern warfare. >> and all warfare, really. i think in warfare innocents are always killed. there is always collateral, if you like, damage. >> rose: and you can form all kinds of moral questions. >> yes. you think of the bombing its hiroshima, the terrible bombings of cologne, of dress den, the bombings of london and cough entry. >> rose: leningrad, so endless, endless history, the whole history of warfare on the human plant et has been one of innocent people dying.
>> rose: have i been told by national security officials in the unit-- united states of where was a certain person and had they had him in his sights and they had said to me, yes, and i said why didn't you kill him. and he said because the family was there. >> yes. >> rose: and then they said though, depending on what the level of power of the person, they would be prepared under certain circumstances to order a hit because it was so important. >> yes. >> rose: to stop them. >> and that is the situation we have in this film. you know, we're not saying every single drone strike would take this shape. but in a drone strike that we are showing in the movie would absolutely take the shot. >> rose: because you will be saving lives because he can order all kinds of assassinations and terrorist acts? >> well, more that in the case of our movie, it is those suicide bombers who are going off to bomb a shopping mall.
so either they kill them here or they, if they get out, and now they're out in the public, now they cannot target them, then they are going to go and set off a bomb and kill far more people. so that's the issue, basically in the film. >> rose: do you know what decision helen miren would make. >> do you know, i don't. >> rose: you really don't? >> i really don't. and i think-- and i think very few of us do. i mean i hope it's a discussion that people will have when they leave the movie. it's very, i think, of the movie, almost like a court room drama except the audience are the jury and we sit, we set the arguments up for the jury and they will leave the cinema and they will discuss it. but i think it's an almost unanswerable question. but it is a question that we ask our military to make for us all the time. >> rose: and the president has to make these kinds of decisions. people had no idea, some have said to me in sper viewing
presidenta buyographers and also president, nothing in the end really prepares you for the kind of decisions you make in the white house. >> yeah. >> rose: or in the creme lynn. >> yeah. >> rose: or in other places. >> yeah. >> rose: and you have to have shall-- yes, absolutely. it's why they all look so gray. >> yeah. >> rose: here is what gaffein hood said about it he said it doesn't take a-- it doesn't profes to have the perfect answer but it sure gives you an emotional, viseral sense of what it's like to be in the shoes of very many different people involved in this warfare. >> yes. >> rose: puts you in the shoes. >> yes. and it tis the warfare of the future. it's what we are all going to have to get used to as the way wars will be operated from now on. >> rose: i think most americans when they hear that they have shot, that some drone has killed the number two or number one financial expert in isis they say well done, mate. >> of course, absolutely. and so they should,
incidentally. and in the recent drone strike there was an issue whether there had been clarlt, i hate that phrase, collateral damage, it's a horrible phrase. but whether other people who were completely innocent just going about their business had also been killed. it was kept very quiet as it always is, you know. but i love the line that alan has at the end of it, never-- never tell a soldier that he doesn't know the price of warr. because they are the ones who do know. they are the ones who have to confront it. and we can silt happily in our-- watching batman and superman and not have to think about these issues. >> rose: tell me this, who is colonel powell. >> well, colonel powell is a woman who came into the military, originally the role was written for a man, incidentally. >> rose: that's a good thing. >> yes, and gavin very astutely realized that if there was a man
in that role it could easily be not dismissed but thought of as a man's movie, men doing macho things about, in war, you know. but making it into a woman which is legitimate that there are women commanders now adays, of that level. really opens the discussion up to all of us. we're all in this together. we can't just say oh it's men getting on with war, sort of thing. it opens the moral issues up in a more potent way. >> rose: how is she different from both the characters you have played and from other officers. >> well, honestly, you know, an interesting character to play. someone who had obviously gone into the military at a young, you know, at a time, probably in the 70s when it was much more difficult for women to enter the military. and then to survive in it and to thrive in it and to become a colonel within the system. so you know, all of that was an
interesting thing to think about and talk about, research. but the movie is not about that. that is not what the movie is about. the movie is about this operation and the tension and the-- . >> rose: are you saying that, because that is the way it is or because you want to sell the movie. >> no, i'm saying because that is the way it is. >> rose: because sometimes people come to the table as you know and say they want to make damn sure that i understand, you know, that this is both a dramatic movie but also a movie that is exciting and interesting and funny and all that. >> of course we do. that happening to be true, but yes, of course they do. but no, honestly, you know, you do movies because oh, what a great roll, head hopper, oh, fantastic role, you know, great, great costumes. woman in gold, what a wonderful story, again, of a really interesting character to play. with eye in the sky, when i read
the script, i didn't sort of care about the character. i really cared about-- the story. and the way-- . >> rose: the questions raised by the story. >> the way the story was told which is very, very original. it's rare, i think now adays, to see a movie that you think, i actually haven't seen a movie like that before. it's quite original. >> rose: but gavin hood said also look, the themes and ideas of the movie should be discussed by all of us regardless of gender. >> yes, i think that's absolutely true. and i think that is what he has done. he has heightened the conversation by casting a woman in the role. i lucked out but i think really that was the intention. >> rose: here is your character trying to obtain legal clearance for the drone strike. here it is. >> the i need legal clearance right now. >> from the reaper. >> yes. >> it is no longer a capture situation. >> no. we have two suicide vests with explosives inside that house. so you can clear me to a higher
cde? harold, this is a very time sensitive target. do i have authority to strike. >> the rules of engagement you are operating under only allow for a low collateral damage. >> yes, yes and my weapons only invoke low as explosives in that house will bring it to a potentially high. >> if you know this rethere it is incumbent for you to take them into account. i can't see a potential legal objection. >> we have two suicide bombers and three very high value individuals inside that house. >> and you want them off your list, i understand that. the rule ofs of engage am are you operating under are a capture, not a kill scenario. ma'am, i think it would be wise to refer up. >> are you telling me that or just debating with me? >> refer up. i am telling you. >> rose. >> refer up. but i think it's a good-- . >> rose: can we get a higher. >> i think it's about democracy as well, the film. you know, i had no idea that this sort of chain of command
took place. >> rose: does she change in this movie? >> the character. >> rose: yeah. >> no, no. >> rose: she was there already she wants to strike. >> she wants to strike and that's an operation and in a month's time maybe there will be another operation. and she might want to make similar decisions or you know, so no. i don't think-- i don't think she changes. i think she has an idea in her mind of what it means to be in the military, what your target is, what your intention is. and she is following it through. >> rose: i get the impression you really like this movie. >> i do like this movie. i do. i really wanted to do this movie. there was a potential conflict with another film and i said if there is a conflict, that's the film i want to do although it was a much smaller movie, smaller budget and all the rest of it. but more of a risk, if you like. bur st was-- the movie that i thought had real excite pog tension. >> rose: do you choose often based on what it is that-- how do you choose is the question?
>> you know, i don't know. i mean you know, there is always slightly different reasons. i mean one of the things i look at is is my character on the last page of the script. if it is, it's a good. >> rose: you don't want to be killed off. >> or if you killed-- off, early that is not so bad but if are you killed in a really dramatic way, that's also good. >> rose: if you are going to kill me, kill me with. >> with great drama. >> style. >> but if that's not the issue, then it's very much who is the director is. you know. >> rose: is it a good script. >> if it's a good script. >> rose: if you like the story. >> yes. >> is it a character you can inhabit. >> this was always a great script it didn't need any drafts because often scripts go through two or three or four or five drafts. >> rose: i never understood how they came out with a singular narrative if several people had parts writing the script. >> yes, it's a process.
>> rose: it is. >> but this one was the perfect thing. have i had a few scripts like that. friday was like that. the wife cook, the thief and his lover was like that. but mostly scripts go through, you know, many sort of-- they develop and change. >> rose: is there anything you want to do that you have not done? >> well, work wise. >> rose: yes, workwise first. >> yes, it's a lot, yes. but i don't know what they are, what it is. >> oh, you don't. >> it's the thing that takes me by surprise. >> you can't say gee, i wanted to do this shakespearean character or chekhov character. >> have i to have a bit of a hunkering to do some chekhov because my russian background, being half russian. and i've never-- . >> rose: pray tell, which character? >> i love the cherry orchard, it is a wonderful play and-- it is interesting. people are going through a process of sort of redefining
chekhov which is quite-- which is interesting. >> rose: how are they redefining. >> they're trying to take it out of the 19th century russian thing. which is what it is all about. 19th century russia. but it is-- they are eternal plays. they are great classic plays. so they will survive being, you know, looked at in a new way. >> rose: you'll take a role rarlsd of how small or large it is if you really like it and they pay you appropriately? >> yeah, even if they don't pay me appropriately. >> rose: you do. >> yeah, yeah, sure. >> rose: cuz you want to work all the time. >> not all the time but you know, i am still lucky. i'm still working. is that incredible. you know? >> rose: look at why are you looking at me like that. >> sorry, charlie. but you know, it's an incredible pleasure. our i will work as long as people ask me to work. >> rose: tell me this, what is it you love about acting? >> what i love about acting is honestly, truthfully is watching other people act. >> rose: do you?
>> i do. either in the theater or in films and being inspired and excited again by the process. you know, we're story tellers. it is a very, very ancient human craft, you know, being a story teller. >> rose: do you feel yourself still growing in your talent? >> well, i hope so. >> rose: because you have different experiences, your brain has changed from where it was five years ago in terms of just it's a new experience so therefore it's different. >> yes, i'm sure, yes, absolutely. and one is certainlily completely a different person, sort of you know, 30 years ago. but yes, i don't know, it's incredible fun doing what i do. >> rose: when is the last time you really sought a role and said this is for me, i want this, call up the director and say how about me. >> i don't know. because i suspect my agent has done that with me, with me not knowing. i don't usually find out about
things, you know. and if i do i'm too-- i'm too-- i will be embarrassed. >> rose: what do you do when you're not acting? >> i garden and-- . >> rose: do you really. >> yes, i do, i love guardening. i guarden when i'm acting, actually fsm i am away somewhere for a long time i make a little garden around my caravan. >> rose: little flowers. >> big flowers. >> rose: big flowers. >> yes. >> rose: are you good at this? >> yes, i am. i am quite good. i don't have a green thumb but i love it. something i love to do. and. >> rose: you do or do not have a green thumb. >> i don't have a green thumb, no. i'm always battling my mistakes in guardening terms. >> rose: so i asked you about whether there are any great roles, you said chekhov, in terms of your personal life, things you wanted to do, places you wanted to go. >> i do want to go to the far east. you travel all the time. >> i do. >> i am so glad i've been to china and i would love to go back. >> rose: but how about vietnam. >> burma, vietnam, cam bodia, those places, yes.
i would love, india, i have never been to india. and alaska you know, how beautiful, amazing alaska must be. so there are so many places i want to go to. even just here in the america, you know. america is a very beautiful country. >> rose: take a look at this, another scene, colonel powell asking alan rickman, the great alan rickman who plays lieutenant general ben son to switch the mission from capture to kill. >> we need to put a hell fire on that roof right now. >> i told you, it is a capture, not a kill. give me a capture option. >> we no longer have a capture option. any action on the ground will lead to an armed con front traition which we will not be able to can tain. >> they're watching. even with a vest, we need their approval for a strike. >> just tell them we have-- that alone shid justify using a hell fire. the vests just a bonus. >> they want her a life.
>> they cannot have her alive. frank, i have tracked for six years, this is the closest i have ever got. so we need to expand our rules of engagement right now to protect the civilian population, the hell fire through that roof is our most effective option. >> we have to know that we're legally in the clear. >> so moving for plea to see alan, it's so great to see him and so incredibly sad. we also him much, much too early. so sorry. >> rose: no, no, no. >> yeah. >> rose: it was an interesting career he had. >> yes, yes, fantastic, a great career. spanning theater. >> rose: people felt like they knew him even though he had such a diversity. >> yes, he did. women absolutely loved him. talk about sex appeal, he had incredible sex appeal, you know, he just was one of those people that women just on the screen,
you know, just absolutely adored him on the screen. and then of course he played against that playing all those weird got type character that he played in the harry potter, snaip, was it snaip? >> rose: yes. >> he kept it very, very quiet from everybody. even very close friends didn't know. i went to his memorial and it was very-- . >> rose: who spoke. >> a lot of people spoke. emma thompson spoke, lindsay duncan spoke, i should remember everybody, there was such a lot of people there. >> rose: what is next for you? >> well, i finished this film with will. and then i'm not quite clear sure. there might be a project that i'm sort of talking about right now but i can't talk right now about it. sorry about that. you know, before everyone an all the rest of it, you can't really-- you can't talk about it. >> rose: is the queen over?
>> yes, i've taken the crown off, put it in a box, and it is in the back of my cup board to be taken out occasionally in fond memories and then it will be put back in the box again, yes. >> rose: what do we know about her sense of your performances? i don't know, is that the royal "we" charlie? >> rose: no. >> we wa, doe do we know? what do i know? i know very little except i have been the generously invited to various functions at the palace. >> rose: that's what i meant. >> oh, gossipy. >> rose: you have been invited to the palace. >> but with many, many-- with many other people, not just me and the queen, you know, far from it. >> rose: it is lovely to see you my dear. >> you too, charlie. thank you for having hee. >> rose: this say terrific movie, eye in the sky opens nationwide tomorrow. >> tomorrow, great. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. age we conclude
this even on the driving range with the world's number two golfer jordan spieth. >> one of the things that i love about watching su that whatever it is that you do which is a lot of that, after when you-- let's assume after you drive, the first iron you're going to hit into the green or par five. >> a lot of waggles. >> rose: yeah. >> it's a waggle, it's like this to me, it seems like. what is that about? >> i just keep moving, instead of just standing stiff and then getting into a swing. i always like to kind of had it-- i always like to kind of keep it moving. >> rose: same grip you've always had? >> yup. we try and here and there i will try and space my hands out. throughout the year t is weird. i start getting the tendency that they start getting closer and closer together which is a little weak. weaker meaning clubs' a little weaker which means further right. not weaker as in strengthwise
but it's a golf term. but yeah, same grip. >> rose: the further-- the more it's over here, it the weaker it is. >> the more here and here it is stronger but when it gets close together it weakens a little bit in order to keep it on. but it's something we will kind of mess around with at the beginning of the year and whatever is comfortable, if i'm hitting the right ball flights then we just go with it. >> rose: you have one swing going back. >> ideally, right now no right now i've got a couple. >> rose: what are the couple. >> right now i'm trying to-- i'm really trying to load, so what that means is with this, this right side, as i take my back swing, i want to try and keep it very, very stable and keep this going back instead of going like this. so as i take this back, my waste shifts into this leg but this whole leg right here should hold really steady and then let my body kind of go over the top of it. it gives me a full and complete back swing.
>> rose: people say that the top of your back swing you're quiet. >> yeah. ideally. and that's what i am trying to do by lengthening it. it gives me more time to set there, be a little quiet and transition and then it just gives me a nice movement to the ball. >> rose: everybody who loves the game and who wants to be better, there's always a conversation about getting your hips around. are you conscience of that. >> no, not at all. >> rose: that was a long time ago, when you were 13. >> when i was nine maybe. yeah. i don't think anything about going through the ball or where the hands, you know. for me, all my stuff is in the back swing, the trigger, you know, a consistent down swing playing to produce the ball flight that i want, whether i want to work it right to left or left to right and what height i want to put on it. >> rose: show us, hit one. >> hit one. 7 what eastern was that.
>> that was a seven. >> rose: looks like my driver. >> that was-- z that went a little bit over to the side. that's better. >> rose: oh my god, look at that. that's exactly where you wanted it. that's about three feet from the pin. what is your seven normally. >> i normally hit this around 180 yards. yeah, my irons are typically spaced about ten yards apart. in carry distance and then you know, you try and space everything out to where you don't have an uncomfortable number where you have to try and-- . >> rose: if i shifted down to a four. >> yeah, four, it's going to come out lower and go further. so on this range, this will fly-- . >> rose: bang into the net. >> yeah, it will hit into the
net. >> rose: it's a joy to behold. >> what happens if it goes over there, right into the river. >> rose: right into the river. >> off thety it will go up in the air. but yeah, i mean, you want to, as you come down, you know, there's just ways that you can hit it higher, lower, for me to hit it higher, you try and get this club to deliver with the higher effective loft. so you try and use the loft that is on this club. >> rose: how do you do that? >> by getting the clubhead there before your hand. so if you are hitting it lower, your hands are going to get there and that-- most of the time. >> your hands should northbound front of the club head. >> the hands should be-- yeah, they should be slightly leading. now when i'm saying to hit it higher, you want the club to get there earlier. you want to get it there earlier than a stock shot.
now i mean if you looked on cameras, it's a milli second earlier. but the effective loss changes and it gets the ball way up in the air. but the hands are still in front of the club. it's just, they're closer to 90 degrees. so this will go out. now i'm using aty so i'm cheating. >> rose: right. >> should go a lot higher here. >> rose: you were about what, about-- seven when you stopped thinking about things like don't move your head. >> yeah, well, you know, stuff like that though, a lot of times if you just need, if you feel like everything is is good in your swing and want something to think about, going back to think being something basic, whether it is your shoulder align am, or it's your head, something real basic when everything is on is enough to be your one trigger. and that's ideal. but as far as impact position or through the hips, that stuff
never want to think about, and you want it to be subconscience. >> if you were hitting a ball, take that ball. if you were hitting that ball blind, close your eyes. >> close my eyes. >> watch out. >> should have enough muscle memory. >> you do, that's my point. rr look at that, blind. >> now the strike wasn't as good because my eye wasn't on the ball. which raises my question, how much of your sense of club head in contact with ball is in your mind. is that 90% of your sense of concentration? >> you are doing what great golf was doing at your level, you were really manipulating the ball. that is the genius of your game. >> sure. >> having to do with whatever you wanted to do and what to avoid and all of those kinds of things. but are you actually, i said to
you before, i got this actually from reading something tiger had said. is the idea of knowing exactly where your clubhead is, are you think being that moment of impact? >> yeah, that's the-- when you have the one trigger going back to set it and then when i say, so you get an easy transition for your down swing to produce the flight you want. that's controlling that club face so like you know, when you get, pretend there's no water on the left side and you have to hit it over towards that water on the right. what i will do is you line up more towards the center and you can manipulate the club in order to spin the golf ball in that direction. so what i do by that is you do the same ideally you don't change much in your back swing. and then as you start down, for me to work it left to right into there, in order to spin it, you cut across it. you hilt to the left. in order for it to go right. and for i'm trying to think of the easiest way to explain it.
but yes, as you start your down swing down, you're knowing exactly where that club, the angle of the club face is as it rotates down in the ball to get it to cut across it with a little bit of an open face and get that ball spinning in that direction. and so hopefully something like this-- or not. >> so here's my final question. so you want to hit the ball over the fence. >> yeah. >> so how are you going to do that? >> hit more clubs. >> rose: what do you need to do that? >> i can't tell exactly where it's landing but i will just hit a three-wood. >> the point is to sail over the fence. >> sure. this should have a chance we're good, right? okay.
>> rose: hello, boat. who is that fool trying to hit us with a golf ball. >> i don't know. >> rose: do one more what is going on. >> it's got to be out there, right. i think it made it, yeah. >> rose: let me just ask you one small question. of all the things that you have contained in your golf game, what is it the most important thing that makes you number one? that gives the you season you had last year that makes you the number one player in the world. >> confidence in putting. confidence in my putting. confidence in my alignment, confidence in the ability to-- confidence in my own ability to make the big putt
when it matters. and you only do that by actually seeing big putts when they matter. so first after you see a couple of go, in big tournaments, you have that visualization and you believe that you can do it. and a lot of times at our level when it just comes down to mill meters, that's all it takes is just a little bit of belief that puts that nice confidence on it. >> rose: yeah. >> it was fun. >> rose: enjoyed it. >> a lot of fun. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online apbs.org and charlie rose.com.
this is "nightly business report." with tyler mathisen and sue herera. turbulent quarter, ugly start, a calm finish, but there was one sector that stood out during the past three months for all the wrong reons. labor shift. net job growth in the past decade has come from contracting gigs. and that's changing a lot more than just how we work. coming soon. what one movie theater is doing to win you back. all that and more tonight on "nightly businesreport" for thursday, marc good evening and welcome. sue herera is off tonight. ball games are never won in the first quarter but they can be lost there. and for the first half of this year's first quarter it sure