tv Charlie Rose PBS July 6, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> glor: welcome to the program, i'm jeff glor of cbs news filling in for charlie rose. we begin this evening with a look at north korea and talk to graham allison of harvard's kennedy school and anne gatheran of "the washington post." >> what most americans haven't really awakened to is over the last 20 years north korea has built nuclear weapons. so there is no debate about that. north korea has developed short range missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads against south korea, there is no debate in the intelligence community about that, north korea created medium range missiles that and now only a couple steps to take including the one yesterday that they are going to give it the ability to attack american cities with nuclear weapons. on the one hand, that seems completely nuts. on the other hand, bringing out a way to prevent it is also extremely difficult and we should recognize three
administrations have failed to do that. >> glor: we continue with a look ahead to the g-20 summit in hamburg, germany and president trump's meeting with russian president putin. we're joined by nicholas burns, former undersecretary of state for george w. bush. >> when you look at meetings like this, and this is the first meeting the two leaders will ever have had, the primary, i think focus should be establishing some kind of effective communications between them, so that in the future if there is a crisis or even on money dain issues, they can communicate effectively on behalf of their own two countries. but these summits are always grated by other countries in this case america's european allies and they will be watching to see if the white house spokesperson sean spicer says ukraine was raised. if president trump doesn't raise ukraine, there is going to be a liance because those countries are depending on us to support them on that issue. >> glor: we conclude with the director sofia coppola who
talked to stephanie zackarek about the new film, the beguiled. >> i try to think about the pef film and think about how i would make this film. and the premise to me was so kind of loaded and juicy but fun to look at things about men and women and dynamics between women but in this kind of over the top setting. >> glor: north korea, the g20 and sofia coppola when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications
from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> glor: dwood evening, i'm jeff glor sitting in for charlie rose who is traveling. we begin tonight with north korea. on tuesday pyongyang announced it tested a new intercontinental ballistic analysts say has the potential to reach alaska. north korea's leader kim jung-un was a fourth of july gift to the united states. the trump administration has said the u.s. would use the full range of capabilities at our disposal against the growing threat. but experts warn the options available to washington are few and risky. joining me now from washington anne gearan, foreign policy and politics correspondent for "the washington post." and from cambridge, graham allison, the douglas dillon professor of government at harvard. welcome to both of you. anne let me start with you, and what has been discussed a great deal now and the lack of good options for the administration.
>> yeah, i mean they're really are basically no options that haven't been tried before, unless you want to go the military route which trump has pointedly not taken off the table. but which is so, so frawt and so unlikely as to really be, you know, kind of functionally moot. any conventional strike against north korea risks either an overwhelming conventional response that would undoubtedly kill south korean civilians and could endanger really thousands if not millions of people. or north korea since it does possess nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them at short range could choose to use them against south korea, japan, u.s. ships at sea, u.s. forces stationed elsewhere in asia. so a military response by this administration is really, really
risky. and certainly something that trump's advisors would be warning him off of. and beyond that, you have a variety of economic and dip lo-- diplomatic pressure tactics that have already been tried with really limited success or no success at all. >> glor: graham, what's the best option? >> well, if you are choosing among lousy options i think anne gave a reasonable description of them. but i would be not quite so quick to discount the pill tear option. i think trump is new to the party. he tweeted from the first time he ever heard of this, not going to happen. and there's no question the u.s. can conduct a limited attack on the missile launching sites. and prevent further testing of icbm's. so i don't believe that's off the table at all. even though i agree, that it has highly uncertain consequences. >> glor: there is a whole list of different military options you can take, right, graham but one of the complicating factors here is that north korea is pretty good at moving all of this stuff around. >> i think the main thing is
that this is a chess game in which they get to move as well. so the very limited attack, would attack the launch sites. there are only two. and would prevent any icbm tests. that's easy to do. the question is what would north cor qua do in response. and most people believe north korea would respond at least by artillery shells against seoul that could kill up to a million people. and then our response to that would likely produce a second korean war. now somebody as usually regarded as you know serious as lindsey graham has said well, that would be terrible. it would be a war in the korean peninsula. but in any case it would not allow north korea to have nuclear weapons to be able to attack us. so that is clearly a tomorrowic that is up for discussion even in the senate. >> glor: and i think that anne, general mattis is on the record saying how awful any sort of military conflict quickly becomes. >> yeah, absolutely. i mean mattis and secretary of state tillerson and the white
house national security advisor hr mcmases-- mcmaster are presumed to be arguing for greater sanctions, greater economic pressure on china, basically anything other than any kind of military strike. but graham is right, there is a limited strike option and the, you know, then it just becomes a set of calculations into which intelligence and lots of other factors would feed, about what they think north korean leader would do if the say one, one or both of the launch sites were taken out. the first option is clearly going to be trying to get more sanctions and trying to increase pressure on china to limit the amount of stuff that gets in around the sanctions, oftentimes with chinese knowledge, if not outright help. >> glor: graham, the president has taken this unusual
approach with china. a lot of the communications via twitter suggesting that he put on some sort of heavy move, just in recent days. and then he said well, it didn't work what they did but at least we tried. what is he trying to do with china? >> well, i think it's pretty clear that from the meeting with xi at mar-a-lago to the last tweet he's basically saying to the chinese you can solve this problem. but if you don't solve this problem, we will solve this problem. and we'll do it by military means. and you won't like that. so basically he's trying to increase the leverage on china to get them to act. i think that anne correct though, that basically this has been the strategy followed by three previous administrations and it's not worked. because china is not going to risk the collapse of north korea. so this is a situation in which what you would wish is that it would get people, adults sitting down together saying we have a joint problem here. north korea could drag the two of us into a war.
let's think outside the box of the current options, about something that we could do jointly. i think if they were starting to work down that path, there are a few things they might think about. but i think that's not a conversation that any of the american or chinese governments that i've seen over the last three administrations has been able to have. >> well but if they were interested in doing that, what would those options be. >> i think they would start with the chinese proposition that how about freeze for freeze. so if they could persuade north korea to freeze icbm tests, could we freeze current joint operations, military exercises with north-- with south korea. the americans always say no, no, no, we're not giving up anything. this is for defensive purposes, blah, blah, blah, but the answer is yes, you could imagine that. well, now you take the next step. i have certainly had conversations with very high level chinese, recently, when i was in beijing just last week about my new book. basically they say wait a
minute, do they have any affection for kim jung-un, not at all. they call him a brat. would they be happy to take him out if they could figure out a way to replace him, yes, they would. could we start working on that jointly together, maybe, maybe. so i would say looking down the path, i do not believe there's a destination that at least i can see realistic clea that would involve the elimination of all north korean nuclear weapons. that would require something that i have not been able to work my way through. but certainly a cessation of the further advance that will give them the cap ability-- capability to deliver nuclear weapons to san francisco or los angeles. i think is within reach. >> glor: and san francisco would be the likely first destination on the west coast, at least, outside of alaska. >> san francisco, seattle and l.a., yeah. >> and is there any more leverage there about potentially increasing the number of military exercises in south
korea? >> yeah, sure. i mean and frankly, the u.s. has appeared to try to do a bit of this in the last couple of months. any show of force off the korean peninsula makes the north koreans go nuts. and kind of ratchets up the pressure, really on them to either do something, to show their displeasure or potentially to not, you know, to slow down and not launch as many missile tests. so far it appears to have had the opposite effect that one would think the trump administration intends. and that north koreans have only increased the frequent see of their tests. i think they're trying to show something through the frequent see of those tests that no amount of u.s. show of force off the coast is really likely to affect. and that, they're trying to
demonstrate the technical advances that they have achieved over the last couple of years. they are moving more quickly and more assuredly with fewer mistakes toward a credible nuclear deterrent against the united states than people had predicted just a couple of years ago. and they clearly want to show that and they want to see what they can get for it. >> can you talk about this missile a little bit. this was mostly a vertical launch, right. but in terms of the distance, it could cover now or in the future. >> if you do the math and you work out what goes up, what must come down and stretch out the tra jectory, you get something that could potentially reach alaska. it's not clear totally that it would. and from there it, you know, it's less of a technical feat to get something that could reach the large u.s. cities on the west coast. and from there, then the task is to attach a viable small nuclear
device that still does a lot of damage. and make sure that it can survive reent vee. all of those things that technical, all those things are possible and again the north koreans have appeared to be moving faster along that path than many people had thought they would. still not totally clear that they can get there. >> it is tech-- it is chilling. >> it is chilling. what most americans haven't really awakened to, is over the last 20 years, north korea has built nuclear weapons, there is no debate about that. north korea has developed short range misiles that can deliver nuclear warheads against south korea. there is no debate in the intelllligence exeument about that. north korea has developed medium range missiles that can deliver nuclear weapon heads against japan, and now it's just got a couple move steps to take including the one yesterday that they're going to give it the ability to attack american cities, with nuclear weapons. on the one hand that steams completely nuts. on the other hand bringing out a
way to prevent it is also extremely difficult. and we should recognize three administrations have failed to do that. and i served in the clinton administration, i was in favor as was secretary of defense perry in 1994 of attacking north korea then. clinton ultimately said no. i still think in retrospect that is what we should is done am but even at the time, of course they didn't have nuclear weapons at the time. this would have prevented them having them. even at the time we new we were running a risk of triggering a second korean war. >> do you think the u.s. should attack now. >> i think now that they have nuclear weapons, i believe such an attack would run too great a risk of a use of nuclear weapons against south korea or japan. and then i-- i think that would be a second korean war. and i believe that would ultimately end in a war between the u.s. and china that could be ultimately catastrophic for both of us. so i am more in the position that i think secretary mattis
hs been testifying regularly that if we have a war in the korean peninsula, god forbid t will be the bloodiest war that any americans have ever seen, back to the first korean war. and we should remember in the first korean war, china entered the war and beat us back down the peninsula to the 38th parallel where the war had begun. and in that war we lost 50,000 americans and the chinese lost several 100,000 people. >> glor: it can get apocalyptic to talk about, anne, but if not attack or some sort of military action, it brings you back to the same question of sanctions which haven't worked. >> yeah, i mean sanctions and related economic pressure which, an there all roads lead to and through china. and all those things have been tried, it clarily sanctions have not prevented the north koreans from developing a nuclear weapon and a very successful ballistic missile program. despite the fact that the
sanctions-- that many of the sanctions specifically target components and technology that would go into those products. so they're getting the stuff from somewhere. they're getting it despite sanctions. there's a black market for everything and they clearly have figured out how to use it. so if sanctions aren't going to work or work well enough, if they're mostly for show, then really then it becomes a leverage and pressure campaign on china which asks the basic question of what do you want least here. do you want a nuclear north korea, with a potentially unstable leader. or do you want the prospect of war or you know some kind of regime change that china doesn't manage. they don't want any of those things. so it's going to be a hard conversation. >> graham, the new south korean administration has talked a lot about trying to talk about this.
is there anything there? >> well, i think the conversation with moon, the new south korean president and trump must have been an interesting one because trump is essentially threatening to fight a war on the territory of korea that moon is the president of. to prevent north korea being able to do to the u.s. what the u.s. has already allowed north korea to be able to do to south korea. so that is not a very attractive proposition for him. he believes very much like the administration for whom he worked earlier that basically talking to north korea will be some way of dealing with the problem. i think that's likely to be no more successful than his predecessor was but i think that's the argument that will go on. and i think it's conceivable to me that moon will persuade trump that any case he can try to see and i think if he were able to have such a conversation, it's possible he could get kim
jung-un to delay icbm tests if kim jung-un thought the alternative was really going to be a war. but trying to make credible to kim jung-un that there could be a war, given how horrible that war could be, as anne said, that is hard to make credible to ourselves. so the option doesn't seem very attractive and if that option is not a real option, why should kim jung-un not continue his testing program, it worked for him in the past. >> glor: and even if you delay, apologiesk graham, even if you delay and there is still the inexorable path toward eventual nuclear accumulation of multiple devices for north korea, and ability to get it farther. >> one of the hard things to remember is that every day north korea is producing more nuclear material for more nuclear bombs. >> glor: this is gt to going to reverse. >> no, it's certainly not. it's pretty clear that north koreans leaders ultimate goal
here is to have a weapon in the means to deliver it to the united states, not for immediate use but to use as a bargaining chip. he sees it as the ultimate leverage, a way that he could force a president trump, assume assuming that this all could be done in the life span of a trump presidency, whoever the u.s. leader is, to say all right, you know, check mate. there's nothing you can do here so give me a security guarantee that says i can stay in power. will you never try to affect regime change, and you'll leave me alone and whatever else that they could put on the table. and that is why direct u.s. north korean diplomacy now is in the minds of a lot of people including some of trump's advisors, you know, pretty far fetched or short sighted. i mean they actually walk into that negotiation with a goal and
a pretty good hand that the u.s. doesn't really have at this point. sure, we already have the means to blow up their country but we're not going to do it. so the u.s. hand in that negotiation would be essentially to try to stop kim jung-un from doing something that he firmly believes will be in his ultimate benefit. that is a hard conversation and a hard bargain for the u.s. to drive. >> glor: ann gearan, and graham allison, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> glor: this friday leaders from the world's largest economies will gather in hamburg, germany for the annual g20 summit. as the host country germany has placed at the top of the agenda financial regulation, women's economic empowerment and ties with africa. several trump administration policies have put the u.s. at odds with other member countries on issues like trade, climate and immigration. the summit also marks the first time that president trump and russian president vladimir putin
will come face to face. joining me now from providence, rhode island is nicholas burns. he was u.s. undersecretary of state for political affairs for george w. bush and is currently a professor at harvard's kennedy school of government. nick, always good to see you. thank you for being with us. what are you paying attention to the most? >> oh, i think this first meeting between president trump and president putin is going to be very challenging for president trump. you have in president putin someone who has been in po-- power for 18 years, one of the world's most experienced leaders, highly intelligent, always prepared for these meetings and he is man i latif. we know that from his kgb past so there are all sorts of challenges here for president trump. i think the two that i would pinpoint are this. the continued american sanctions on russia over ukraine and its annexation of crimea. very important that the united states support the europeans and our own policy on this. as you know, president trump has at several points during his presidency and during the
campaign intim ated he would like to lift those sanctions but putin has done nothing to warrant that. and second and i think most important for president trump is the fact that putin launched a cyberattack on the american elections in 2016. there has been absolutely no response from president trmp, no investigation by the trump administration, no pressure on the russian government, and the senate just voted two weeks ago by a 97-2 margin to put sanctions on russia, over that hacking of our election. president trump is trying to water down that bill right now. i think this is a real pob-- problem for him. if he is seen as too soft and too weak on president putin, there is going to be a problem back home in washington because republicans in the senate, not just democrats are gearing up to send russia a tough message. so that and other issues, syria as well are going to be important for this meeting. >> but nick, the white house has already said the ukraine is not going to be discussed and there's no guarantee that the
cyberattack is going to be discussed. so the question is what will be? >> you know, when you look at meeghts like this, this is a very first meeting of the two leaders will ever have had, the primary i think focus should be establishing some kind of effective communications between them, so that in the future, if there is a crisis or even on money dain smoos, they can communicate effectively on behalf of their own two countries. but these summits are always grated-- graded by other countries, in this case america's european allies and they will be watching to see if the white house spokesperson sean spicer says that ukraine was raised. if president trump doesn't raise ukraine, there is going to be a real problem in the nato alliance because those countries are depending on us to support them on that issue. and likewise f the president doesn't raise the russia interference in our election, that is a real problem for him at home. so i do think he's boxed in here. i think he's painted such a rosy picture of his hope for relations with russia, i think
undually naive, frankly, given his inexperience, that if he doesn't raise these issues, it's going to hurt him politically internationally and nationally. >> glor: he may be boxed in a bit but the north korean test, nick, does help the administration, does it not, in that it gives them a clear and immediate discussion point for this conversation. >> i do think that the north korea issue may come to dominate this g20 meeting because this advance by north korea, technically, on their missile development is quite forbidding it means that if they can miniaturize a warhead in the next couple of years, they could have the capacity of firing a nuclear weapon at alaska, or hawaii or our western states. and i think president trump has said quite rightly that would be unacceptable. so president trump will get the full support of europe and of course of our ally japan on this issue. i think he may have a problem, however, with president putin and president xi jinping in
china. they met in moscow and they decided that they would offer their diplomatic mediation by offering to the north koreans that if north korea froaz its nuclear and icbm tests, the united states and south korea would then stand down on our military exercises. that's not a good deal for the united states. first of all, north korea may not meet its commitments, it never has in the past. but secondly, we have to be able to defend south korea. that has been the american obligation since the arm i cities in 1953. as you know, seoul, a met opolis of 10 million people is just four to 50 miles south of the demar ta-- demilitarized zone, we have to be able to exercise with the south korean military t is a heavily fortified region to maintain that deterrent factor against north korea. so i think president trump will have a problem with china and russia but full sympathy from the europeans. and this might be the first order of issue of the summit. >> glor: so the meeting with
putin is going to be a formal bilateral discussion, not the casual-- you can talk about how that shapes the contours of the discussion and raises the stakes? >> well, it makes it in effect a summit meeting. a polliside is what it sounds like, the two leaders are we are other leaders, they stand in the corner and talk for three to five minutes, instead this will be a full bilateral meeting, president trump, mr mcmaster, rex tillerson, the secretary of state and others. and it means it has to be prepared. that it may go on for an hour or two. president trump will be seated opposite this opportunistic russian leader, it raises the stakes t makes it a more challenging meetingment but frankly i think it is the right decision by the trump administration. you don't want the first meeting to be episodic. you want it to be a serious meeting. we should be wanting, we americans it transmit some serious messages to deter the russians both on the election
front and on ukraine. so i think they're right to hold this meeting the way they arranged it. >> you think it's important for them to establish a rapport? >> well, rapport doesn't mean that they will like each other. the test of the u.s. and russian leaders has always been can they communicate effectively. both of us have, are among the most powerful nations on earth. both of us are adversaries to each other. and you see as far back as president ken deand crush chef, the way they were able to communicate to end the cuban missile crisis without a recourse to nuclear war. similar moments between all of our presidents and their russian counterparts, you have to be able to get on the phone and fully understand each other and communicate your message effectively. therefore the signals you send about the strength of our country, about the strength of our convictions that signal president trump has to send are very important in this first meeting. >> glor: and nick, every president has a different approach to how they handle
meetings. a lot has been talked about how the president likes to improvise but every president comes in these things in a different way. >> well, the white house is try tok play down expectations for this meeting. i think they're right to do that. i done see any openings for positive news in this meeting. but it's going to be well prepared. president trump will think through i'm sure with his advisors the issues he wants to raise. anticipate what putin is going to do. and so i think they'll take this very seriously. in many ways, jeff, this could be the most challenging meeting that president trump has had to date as president in foreign affairs and national scooter within we have talked about what the president or u.s. should want or might want out of this meeting. what is vladimir putin want out of it? >> putin wants respect. he has always wanted that from his american counterparts but he wants something much more tangible. he wants the americans to lift the sanctions over ukraine. and he doesn't want meun punitive american angst, that is
why the russians i think were so delighted with president trump's vic rein november. because of course we now know they intervened on president trump's behalf against the campaign, of secretary clinton. i'm not saying they intervened with the participation of president trump but if you look at the intelligence community report, the russian design was to help president trump, candidate trump, not candidate clinton. and so the russians thought given what candidate trump said during the campaign that they may have an american counterpart who would see his way to lift sanctions. and they know president trump has mused about that possibility. but frackly the most interesting development in washington that i have seen, jeff, in recent weeks has been that republicans are beginning to stand up on foreign policy to president trump. i testified last week before the senate select committee on intelligence on russia. the hacking of our elections.
and i was quite surprised by the extent of republican opposition to what president trump has not done on the interference issue. the republicans want to see a stronger policy. they want to see sanctions on russia. they voted for that. they intend to have the house of representatives go along as well. i think this is the risk for president trump that he so far apart from his own party on this issue, he risks having the weakest policy toward russia of any president in 7-- 70 years and that is a dangerous point for him politically. >> nick, so much of the talk has been on the meeting with putin. but there are other important parts of this summit. including the relationship with germany and that relationship with angela merkel has been uneven at best so far. what do you think the u.s. might do to work on that. and do you think the president is interested in working on that? >> well, i hope he is. the united states is not in a good position with our nato
allies. president trump has been very ambivalent about nato. he has been quite critical of the your mean union. he tends to talk about germany more as an economic competitor or trade balance than as the nato ally. combined with his decision on climate clang to withdraw the united states from the paris agreement, relations with europe are at a tough point. he has an opportunity to in effect, i will use a word from the past, reset our relationship with europe, and he really ought to do that. because there is every indication that chancellor merkel, her party will be returned to power in the september election. she is in many ways seen by the european public as the leader of the west. that was always what europeans perceives american president to be. she now because she's been tough on russia. because she stood up for the european union, because she's been very strong on nato, she now is perceived to be the leading western leader and i think it behooves president trump to have a better relationship with her.
and we ought to want to see the united states in a position of influence with our largest trade partner, that is the eu. our largest investor, that is the eu and our largest collection cl of american allies in the world, that is the nato alliance. >> glor: isn't it fundamentally that president trump and merkel and macron just have different visions, politically? >> i president trump has a different vision. because going back to harry tru man, every american president has supported the european project, what has become the eu and of course supported nato it has been the ambivalence that president trump has shown as president that has really rattled the europeans. and you have seen that chancellor merkel and president macron have had to fill that void in europe which is not necessarily a bad thing to see the europeans take greater responsibility but the americans are a factor in european security as well as in economics. so our president needs to have a good working relationship with bovment he has that opportunity in hamburg and i think in a very defendant political move,
president macron has invited president trump to be the honored guest at the july 14th bastille day parade in paris, as if to give another attempt for-- macron and trump to establish a better relationship. i think that was a useful outreach to president trump. >> glor: macron seems wise beyond his years in some of these circumstances, doesn't he? >> well, he does. he has taken europe by storm. people had barely heard about hem a year ago. he won this big electoral victory in france. evan quished opponents from the left and right, pawr even lapen, he is riding a wave of popularity. he is very close to merkel am you are beginning to see a return to the strong german-french connection that has always been at the core of what the european union's strength has been. so that is positive for the united states to see this. and therefore our president should want to have good relations with both of those eading pool titions. >> glor: nick, from an american standpoint what is the best case scenario for this summit and what is the worst
case? >> the best case scenario is that president trump communicates a very tough series of messages to president putin. and is able to make up some of the distance that has opened between the united states and western europe. i think if those things can happen, the trump administration can be proud of the meeting. the worst case obviously would be if china and russia began to withdraw support from the united states from our rightfully tough line on north korea, and if president trump does not send the correct message, the right tough message to russia on crimea and ukraine as well as the russian hacking of our elections, i think it considerably weakens the united states in western europe with our nato allies. and i think it weakens the president back home in washington. >> glor: nick burns, as always, thank you so much. >> thank you, jeff. >> good evening, i'm stephanie zackarek of time magazine
filling in for charlie rose. i'm here with sofia coppola, an ak cad-- academy award-winning filmmaker whose film her new film the beguiled is based on a 1966 novel by thomas cullinan previously made into a film by don seagal in 19716789 colin farrell starred as an injured union soldier whos is taken in to heel at an all girl's boarding school in the south run by nicole kidman. the beguiled premiered last month at the cannes film festival where sofia coppola was awarded the prize for best director. here is a look at the trailers. >> i feel protection over our school, and we pray that we will be kept from harm throughout the night. >> amen. >> .
>> is he dead? >> no, get him insight. >> quick. >> you are a most unwelcome visiter and we do not propose to entertain you. >> you will find i'm easily amused. >> you won't be here long enough for that. >> how did you end up in this place. >> why are you so interested in me? >> i admire your strength. >> i'm just trying to give them what they need to survive in these times. >> if you could have anything in the world what would it be? >> to be taken far away from here. >> come with me. >> he seems to be a sensitive person. >> does he? >> it seems the enemy is not what we believe. i hope you like apple pie. >> is that my recipe?
>> thank you, thank you. >> now the thomas cullinan novel that this is based on came out 50 years ago. and was pretty much forgotten. and then this novel was made into a film by don siegel in 1971 starring clint eastwood. and that film is very different from yours. it is kind of tawdry, and seedy. it's fun in its own way but what lead you to make a film from this material? >> yeah, i would never think to remake a film that's already been made. but my friend, the production designer had told me about the don siegel film of the beguiled which i didn't know about people that really know fims, it is kind of a classic b movie but i didn't know the film. and when i saw it, it just, you know, the idea that he would make this movie from this very kind of macho man's point of view of the soldier going too a southern girl's school and and what happens. and the fact that it was about a group of woman, made me think i
would just-- it stayed in my mind. and i was curious about how could you tell that same story but from the woman characters point of view and what it might have been like for them, really isolated during the civil war. so i tracked down the book, that is out of print. and that is each chapter is written from a different, one of the women character's point of view. so i started to think about-- i tried to forget the previous film and think about how i would make this story. and the premise to me was so kind of loaded and juicy, but fun to look at things about men and women and dynamics between women but in this kind of over the top setting. >> and this is the first time that you have worked with nicole kidman. when were you writing the script, did you have, did you have her in mind or were you thinking, you wanted somebody, this character is very repressed and, you know, a little uptight
and actually in the don siegel film, she is a little over the top. and the way nicole plays her, she is much more subdued. >> yeah, i want-- i wanted to make the character as human and relays-- relatable even in this extreme situation. and i felt in the don siegel film they are pretty crazy and pretty out there. and i wanted the head mistress to still be dignified and be attractive. and you know even though they are all different ages and stages of their lives. and extreme things do happen in this story but i wanted them to not just be crazy, but that you could try to understand how they might be-- to do the things that they have done. and i pictured nicole kidman when i was writing it, i always loved her as an actress. i think she just has such strength and poise to be this southern lady that, you know, i could see that she was raised to be throwing balls and now the
party soafer, no one is there at the wartime and she has to be strong and keep all these girls surviving on this kind of abandoned plan taition. >> also i think she brings so much humor in this kind of, in a twisted way which i wanted it to have humor but then still be connected with emotional depth. >> yeah, absolutely. that moment with her this in the bloody night gown, is a very intense, kind of funny in a twisted way. why don't we look at another clip. >> is your leg paining you? >> some. >> well, i hear numbness would be more grave. >> indeed. >> there is some brady if you wish. >> that would be a pleasure. >> it's not being offered for your pleasure, only for your comfort. >> yes, ma'am. >> i must remind you corporal, are you not a guest here. you are a most unwelcome visiter and we do not propose to entertain you. >> i wouldn't expect it, ma'am.
although you will find i'm easily amused. >> can you tell me a little bit more about the casting of this film? because several of these actresses you have, withouted with before, kirsten durns who has been in three of your movies, and also elle fanning who was so lovely in somewhere, people tend to want to work with you repeatedly. how has your relationship changed with these actresses over time. >> kirsten and i first met swhen she was 16 on my first film, virgin suicides and we stayed in touch and we did marie antoinette together. he's has been like a little sister to me and it is great to see here now as a young woman and working together at a different phase in her life. and i thought of her for the teacher when i first started thinking about the story because i love working with her. and i thought the character is so different than her personality. she is to bubbly and full of life. and not repressed at all.
and playing this very buttoned up repressed school teacher and she brought a lot of heart, i think to the film and vulnerability. but played a character opposite of her. and elle fanning i have worked with since she was 11 so now she is old enough now to play the oldest student and play this kind of tell tres teen-- temp tres teen girl who is kind of oozing sexuality in a situation where there is no men around. and she cracks me up in the part. she brings, she is really funny in it. but it was fun because the last time she was 11. so to have her play a part so different from herself, a different phase and then nicole, was the first time i worked with her. and then we met a lot of great young actresses for the students. so i was really happy to get to work again with kirsten and elle and then the new cast for me. and then colin farrell was the final element to our cast. >> well, that was my next
questionment because he really is a key member of this, the whole equation. and in the don siegel film, i hate to keep going back to that. but it is clint eastwood. and he is definitely a villain but is he also kind of weirdly, he is the hero of the film because is he quite used to it and he is magazine nammic. but in your movie, the setup is a little different. colin farrell is really key because you have sympathy for that character even though he is sort of a bad guy. >> yeah. >> so how did you fine your way to him. >> yeah, because the story is really from the women character's point of view, i u know, can we trust him.g about and i'm not sure, and he's mysterious. i didn't want too black or white that he is a good guy or not. and also to make him human that he can have moments of being sim pathetic but is maybe not really to be trusted.
i wanted to, yeah, find an actor that could relate, he's so charming, colin farrell and charismatic and how coalso relate, you know, from a 12 year old so to a woman in her 40st so he could adapt to eve each of them. i thought he did a good job to interact with all the different women. i like the title, the beguiled. you don't know who is the beguiled and how kind of it plays with the back and forth. in the original film it is sort of a fan's fantasy turned nightmare. this one has elements of that but it is more kind of what happens in this kind of loaded situation. >> you can tell me a little bit about the filming. i understand that you filmed on a plan taition in louis louis. i believe it was the same one with beyonce made lemonade s that right. >> yes, that was a top coincidence. we shot in a real plan taition called madewood about an hour and a half outside of new orleans and shot the interiors in a house in town.
and i think it brings so much to the film to be able to shoot in a real location like that with just an inincredible oaktrees and spanish moss and this home that is so beautiful and has such a dark history and the atmosphere was so unique and it brings a lot that you could hopefully see on film. my art department did a lot of work to make it feel delap taited and with nature taking over and the weeds. so we had to create all of that. and i hope it brings this atmosphere to the film. >> how about the sound design. i seem to remember, there isn't-- you used a lot of pop mus nik your other film. in this one not so much it has its own score but which is lovely but i was also very listening to the sounds of birds and the crickets and cicadas. >> this one, we didn't have a strong musical score. i wanted to really focus the emphasis on the tension of the story.
and the place and to feel the heat of the south and so my-- we worked to make the cicadd as and the sound of nature around them and to feel their isolation in this house with the canons in the distance, the war kind of in the background. but they're kit off in this house. and so i wanted to have a very minimal and stark cor and really feel the sense of the place. >> it really builds a lot of tension, the sound of the insects. >> oh, good. yeah, i think music usually relieves, helps and to not have that. it does make the audience more sense. and aware of every little sound around around them. >> it wasn't very brave of you to run. >> well, maybe not, but it was smart, i sthi think. >> because you are. >> now have i met you. >> you don't even know me.
>> oh, i know your name, miss edwina. >> what else have you been told about me? >> nothing besides your name, it's a lovely name. >> i hope the girls weren't tellining stories. >> what do you care what they say about you. >> i don't. i just didn't want you to get the wrong impression. >> than you do care what i think about you? >> you're a stranger here, that's all. >> i want to ask you a few questions about your upbringing. most people know that you have a famous fore, francis ford coppola. an my understanding is that he would take you with him when he was working on films, you know, different places around the world where he was shooting. how do you think that shaped you as a human being, as a filmmaker? >> yeah, i was lucky that my parents took us on location whenever my dad did a film so i
ended up living in many different places and my parents would put me in a local school. so i went to chinese school in the philippines, to school in tulsa, oklahoma, in new york city. and you know, so many dirve places, when i wasn't living where we were based in the napa valley. and i feel like, i mean i was exposed, i got to visit him on set a lot. so i got to learn about film making from just being on set and watchingment and also, i think, i realize that being a new kid in school made me have to learn how to fit in and could understand the group dynamics and i think i learned something from that when i am looking at stories or working with aracters, that comes from always kind of being like an army brat sitting in in a new situation. >> okay. you have a reputation for being very calm on set. people tend to say that you're very quiet. you get the job done.
you get what you want. but i know bill murray who was your star in lost in translation calls you the vell set hammer. >> i'm proud of that title. >> but you know, we all know that really crazy things can happen on a movie set and things can come up. either there is something you need on a certain day that isn't there. or maybe your actors are a little off their game. so how do you deal with crises like that when they come up. >> i think you just have to keep it together because you know, everyone is looking to you and if you are losing it it is not going to make anyone feel confident. so i just, we have to figure it out. and yeah, i guess it was this idea of directors being hot heads and yelling and breaking things. i think i got pie calm demeanor from my mother who has that personality and but i thought when there is a crisis you just have to sol of it and it's not going to help to panic. so i try to keep it together. >> i think more people could
probably learn from you. >> and you have been making film now for almost 20 years, since 1999 was your first feature. and i recall when that film came out. there were a lot of people who, i will come out and say it, they couldn't believe how good it was. and the attitude from from people, these were things that i actually read and some people actually said to me, oh, obviously her father must have helped her. he must have done the editing or he must have done the casting or he must have-- how have you dealt with that, that kind of criticism over the years. >> yeah, i mean at the time it didn't really bother me because i knew that it came from me and that i worked hard so i wasn't incure about it. but looking back, i think also to say, you know to say that to a woman oh a man must have helped did your husband help you did your father help you, that is what st. so i just keep doing my thing
and it doesn't bother me because i know that you know, what my work comes from me and i think it has its own personality and identity and i'm happy with people when they connect to it. and now i feel like i have been doing it for awhile now, people take me seriously or at least enough people do that i can get plie work done. >> it has changed. but it's been interesting to watch it over this period of time. i am glad that that happened because it took long enough. >> thank you. >> you know obviously we learn things from our parents even when they are not filmmakers. what do you think, what are the most important things that your parents both your mother and your father passed along to you. >> i feel like they both just have integrity and really cared about the arts and something they taught us always to be an artest and that that was
something valuable in life. and so i was always wanting to be an artist and i got-- i of course i think i remember my dad always telling me it is important to have character, as a little kid. i was always like what does that meanment vus that idea of having depth and character and so i feel like so much of the culture about family being important, i thought you know from my parents, without didn't want our family to be broken up with work so the priority was the family and to take us always on location, so that is something that is important to me with pie daughters to make sure that they visit me on set and understand what i am doing. so of course i got so much from my parents. >> that's one thing too, i think, maybe generationally it is a little bit different now. but you knee, a lot of times parents would just have their kids around, even if they were having a cocktail party or whatever. kids were just there and they would be kind of quietly
observing. do you think that that helped you kind of grow into the person and the filmmaker that you have become. >> definitely. i mean i loved it. and i feel so lucky that they always just brought us everywhere. usually you think that these weren't at kid's table.bring a my dad liked having his kids around so we were always incorporated. i got to sit there and talk to the greats, other collaborators of my father. and they always included us. and just being around all these interesting people, i think, definitely made a big impression on me. >> and your mother, to two girls. would you want them to be filmmakers some day, maybe. >> i never thought about that. i just want them to do what they want to do and am always excited when they have interests outside of the film business. so i'm not grooming them to be in the film business but i hope whatever they want to do, they do what they love.
>> the following kqed production was produced in high definition. [ ♪music ] >> yes, check, please! people. >> it's all about licking your plate. >> the food is just fabulous. >> i should be in psychoanalysis for the amount of money i spend in restaurants. >> i had a horrible experience. >> i don't even think we were at the same restaurant. >> leslie: and everybody, i'm sure, saved room for those desserts