>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: the big story this week after months of negotiations the nuclear deal now heads to capitol hill for a review. joining me now, senator tim kaine, member of the committee and was one of the first call for congressional review of any deal. welcome. thanks for joining us. explain how the congressional process here will work.

sen. kaine: i was with senator corker and others of this review act that we passed 98-1 in the senate. when a deal is done that touches on the congressional sanctions congress has the ability to weigh in and approve or disapprove the deal with respect to the sanctions. now that the deal has been announced, the president wants to waive congressional sanctions for some time. the deal gets presented to congress and we take 60 days to review it, beginning in the senate foreign relations committee, the committee of jurisdiction. we have a set of hearings to prepare for this day educating ourselves about what is a good inspections regime, etc. over the next 60 days, we will have a new set of hearings between now and recess. there is a chance we will work more during recess, certainly

hearing from constituents, administration officials, allies around the globe, and others. then congress can act and we can do one of three things. we can pass approval which approves the presidential actions. we can pass a resolution of disapproval which, if not vetoed or if it's overridden that disapproves any relief under the congressional sanctions. or we can take no action and that's defined as an approval allowing the congressional sanctions relief to go forward. we have a lot of hearings. we will decide as a foreign relations committee and as a senate whether we will approve disapproval, or take no action. charlie: and the role of the house? sen. kaine: they will undertake the same steps. the reason for that, charlie, is this. if this were a treaty under the constitutional definition it

would take a vote in the senate a two thirds margin and the house would have nothing to do it. this is not a treaty legally requiring two thirds vote and that's a good thing because it would not be right to cut the house out. the congressional sanctions that have brought iran to the table were constructed by the house, too. both will be weighing in. i think a lot of people have just predicted the house, based on how it's composed and since it has a simple majority vote requirement, that so many will come out right away and say they are against it. i think the resolution of disapproval has a higher likelihood in the house. in the senate, we set up a 60-day review process for a reason. there is no reason to come out and immediately declare.

ask the tough questions and make the decision about whether this is in the best interest of america national security. charlie: there are lots of senators who have not announced what they're going to do. understandably they say they want to see the bill and hear the testimony. principal among them is senator chuck schumer who is said to be a crucial vote in all of this because of his leadership of the senate. sen. kaine: absolutely. let me tell you the dynamic that i see right now and then i would love to maybe talk about the substance, things i see that i like and questions i have. on the dynamic, i think it's important we take the time to dig into this and get it right. what was happening, and the reason we wrote the review act frankly congress was kind of blundering in writing threatening new sanctions in the middle of the negotiation which even is really leadership in military leadership said, hold on.

then it could blow up because of your bad faith rather than iranian action. the letter of 47 to the leader of iran -- there's a lot of things that are not the coming -- not becoming the body and our institutional role. we wrote this act to give us an expedited path -- 60 days is not long. those who were giving a snap judgment i think are doing the wrong thing. many issued a snap judgment that this is a historic mistake. later, they concluded the interim negotiation was actually significantly better than the status quo. charlie: clearly the president feels strongly about this, that

he has to make the case. you saw that in the way he introduced and announced it on tuesday or wednesday. you saw that yesterday when the president had his press conference. he seems to be very interested in explaining the deal. the president believes this is the deal, the only deal, that will prevent them from having a nuclear weapon other than military action. sen. kaine: he does believe that. let me state what i see in the deal that's positive and then tell you where i have questions. the positive, iran had nearly 20,000 centrifuges and they are disabling two thirds of them under this deal going to 6000. they had 10,000 kilograms of enriched uranium and they are degrading the enrichment

percentage and knocking the quantity down to 300. they are giving up 97% of their stockpile. they had a plutonium reactor in iraq that they stop that and they will completely moth ball and dismantle it. and they were not allowing the community any inspections to determine what they're doing under this deal they agreed to inspections for 10, 20 years. in some issues under this iaea wrote a call forever. if you look at where we were before diplomacy and after this deal, you see there is a significant change of the administration has been able to achieve. charlie, even the critics kind of acknowledge this. the critics who were saying two and half years ago that iran was within months of becoming a nuclear threshold state now they're complaining about the deal because they say under the deal iran might get a nuclear

weapon in year 15. even their criticism ackknowledges that the status quo ante. that is why i think the president feel so strongly about the deal. it has achieved these ends and no one else has advocated a plan that would have achieved those concessions. over to the flipside, this is why we have the review. this whole thing depends upon whether the verification regime -- the inspections regime -- gives us the ability to determine if iran is meeting your obligations or if they are cheating and trying to move toward nuclear breakout. they have a history of trying to cheat and hide things from the international community with respect to their nuclear program. you will probably see the main energy, the main spotlight in this 60 days are people's efforts to really try to determine whether the inspections regime is sufficient enough to catch cheating or move toward a nuclear breakout.

charlie: many people say the thing they worry about is not the inspection of existing sites but they worry about the covert. sen. kaine: frankly, that's the worries. there are existing sites, the uranium sites. there was the heavy-water plutonium reactor under construction. all of us believe -- look, if iran were going to break to a weapon, they would not do it at the existing sites being inspected. they will do this in a covert program. it was very important, as the white house said, to try to cut off a path under all of these -- uranium, plutonium, but especially the covert path. the inspections regime, as it is described in the talking points, we are going to the agreement to see if it matches. this is an inspections regime that can go anywhere.

it will be the subject of a lot of analysis. no way will they go into iranian military facilities. if they kept that, the deal would have completely fallen apart because that's a nonstarter. now there is the possibility to do inspections anywhere but you have to give advance notice. if the iranians object, there's a committee -- basically the p5 plus one -- saying we agree or do not agree. what is being reported is that process from "we want to inspect" to going in could take as much as 24 days. we need to ask what that means. does that mean in 24 days they could clean up evidence that there was nuclear material and completely obscure? or will they say nuclear material leaves a footprint with a half-life, so if they were using materials and you got in 24 days later, you would

definitely know if they were doing something contrary to the agreement. these are the kinds of technical details we have to dig into on the committee. again, the good agreement is still not good enough is the inspections regime if it is not robust enough. that is where a lot of the focus will be. charlie: here's what it sounds like to me. you heard what the administration said. you are in the process of reading it. if it delivers what the administration says, you would be inclined to support it. sen. kaine: i will put one more caveat on it. you are close. when the april 2 framework was announced, it had many of these components and concessions of 98% enriched uranium and two thirds centrifuges. i said if there's a final deal that is an essential match of that framework and there is an inspections regime robust enough to make sure that those commitments can be verified,

yes, i think that can be in the best interests of american national security. there are two things i'm doing right now. i'm going through the 100 plus pages and appendices to see if the details match and i'm doing independent work, as are my colleagues, to determine whether the inspections regime is sufficient. those are the two questions i'm digging into. charlie: do you believe there are members of congress now inclined not to support this but seeing the evidence as described by the president -- because the president firmly believes this will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- do you believe that people are prepared to listen to the testimony, listen to the administration, listen to the experts, and vote for this? that's a possibility? sen. kaine: very good question. my answer is i sure hope so.

i would hate to think on a matter this important people made a snap judgment or pronouncement before they even read the deal and they are uninterested in the details. my one bit of evidence that gives me some hope that may be true is you saw a whole lot of members of congress come out against the interim negotiation when it started in november 2013. "iran got everything they wanted," "america lost." a lot of statements were made out of the gate who have subsequently said, you know what? actually the interim was significantly better than what he had before. we had a series of hearings in the foreign relations committee and i've asked every witness -- hawk, dove, everything in between -- has this in significantly better than the status quo ante before diplomacy started?

without exception everyone has said yes. charlie: because of the way the process was written, do you expect it to be an agreement that will go into effect? sen. kaine: it is appropriately deferential to the white house. remember the white house was taking the position "we don't want to have any congressional review" because these statutes themselves gave the president a unilateral ability to waive or suspend the sanctions. the president said, i don't need a vote of congress. well, those of us who thought that was wrong said you might not under the existing sanctions statue, but we will pass a new law that gives you the ability to conduct diplomacy to get the best deal you can but sets up an appropriate congressional review if you decide you want to waive or suspend. we put a hurdle in the president's place that was not

there before. if the president gets over that hurdle, the deal will go forward. down the road, remember what iran wants is for the sanctions to be eliminated -- not just waived or suspended. for that happen, congress has to affirmatively vote in both houses to dismantle the statute. there are some provisions in the deal that iran does not have to implement for some years down the road as they test the compliance of the p5 plus one with respect to sanctions relief. charlie: senator tim kaine from virginia, thank you so much. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: paul rudd is here, the star and cowriter of marvel's new feature "ant-man," following scott lange whose power comes in the form of a suit who can shrink him to microscopic size. here is the trailer. >> scott, i've been watching you for a while now. you're different.

don't let anyone tell you that you have nothing to offer. second chances don't come around all that often. i suggest you take a really close look at it. this is your chance to earn that look in your daughter's eyes, to become the hero she already thinks you are. it's not about saving our world. it's about saving theirs. scott, i need you to be the ant-man. >> huh.

one question -- is it too late to change the name? charlie: i'm pleased to have paul rudd back at the table. is the guy who created marvel comics still alive? paul: stan lee. yes, he's still alive and he's in the film. charlie: iron man, ant-man. paul: the avengers, thor captain america, hawkeye scarlet witch. charlie: are you a big fan of the comics? paul: i never grew up as a fan boy.

i had some comics, but i didn't really get into it too much. charlie: i'm exactly where you are, but i have grown to appreciate what they mean to our culture. paul: absolutely. also, the last couple of years i've played catch-up and i really see the appeal. charlie: is it black-and-white? paul: good versus evil, you know -- charlie: black-and-white. paul: the same thing as "star wars" and all of those epic tales. charlie: and interesting characters. tell me about this one. paul: i play a guy named scott lange whose been in prison and winds up stealing the ant-man suit. i'm not the original ant-man. the original ant-man is hank pym played by michael douglas. he creates a particle, the pym

particle, that enables a person to shrink. charlie: taking advantage of being able to shrink? paul: you are able to shrink but still retaining the strength of a human being. and also the ability to talk to ants. it sounds silly when i describe it. [laughter] charlie: yes, it does. talking to ants is important. paul: you would never guess that it was, and they are everywhere. so no matter what, you have an army at your beck and call. charlie: could you make them larger than life? there's also an adversary, a protagonist. paul: corey stoll. charlie: and he wants to take the ant suit and use it for nefarious ends? paul: he was hank's protégé and

he knew the dangers it could possess if it got into the wrong hands. he's gone off the rails a little bit and has developed a similar kind of serum and is trying to sell it to the highest possible bidder. he comes up with a yellow jacket suit. charlie: peyton reed says he's more like george clooney's character danny ocean. he's trying to create a new life for himself and find redemption after a life of crime. paul: that's right. the great motivation in his life is his daughter. he has to pay child support and he wants to go straight and narrow. it's hard to find work with his record, even though he's a very bright guy and he stole from a corporation to pay back the people they were stealing from

kind of a robin hood. charlie: you have no time off for the next five years. i read some of the things you have to do. [laughter] paul: what are they? please tell me. it depends on how this goes and i already shot some of "captain america 3." i don't it's really been done on this scale before the marvel universe. all of these movies do culminate in big things like "avengers 3." it's called the marvel cinematic universe. the mcu. charlie: are you doing other things other than the marvel cinematic universe? paul: i am, i have always tried to go back-and-forth between smaller, interesting things.

hopefully, over the next few years i will have some time to do other things. charlie: when a director says "get me paul rudd," what do they mean? paul: matt damon wasn't available. charlie: you get a writing credit. do you want to direct? paul: seth rogen and some of those guys, jason segel, a lot of the guys i've worked with in the past, it's something we are all very interested in. i could see directing down the road. charlie: what don't you do that you would like to do? paul: golf. charlie: you like golf? paul: i don't know. i don't play it. charlie: the people who play it seemed to be obsessed. paul: no matter where you go you can always do it. charlie: you've got a lifetime.

paul: i always feel it's like violin. is it too late? did i miss the boat? charlie: or like piano. paul: i look at a piano, guitar, violin and i say i know the sound it's capable of making, but it's just so frustrating. charlie: you can do drama, comedy, whatever they ask. can't you? paul: i would like to attempt to do whatever they asked. i do think drama and comedy are not that different. a lot of what i focus on his character and what's happening to the character. charlie: is that true for you? paul: but something like "anchorman," which is a cartoon you get a little bit more leeway. i'm not trying to play it where the character thinks what's going on is funny. people describe me as a comedian

but i've never done standup. i actually studied theater. this whole thing with a career in comedy came about around the time of "anchorman." when we were shooting "40-year-old virgin" early on steve and i would have conversations. he'd say i would hope the studio is not regretting the decision because i don't plan on playing this like a zany jim carrey-type performance. it's very different. i think that's why the production got shut down after the first week for a few days because they were concerned. charlie: because he was not jim carrey. paul: they said he seemed like a serial killer. we even put that in the movie later on. [laughter]

charlie: did they change anything? paul: they changed some of his wardrobe. i think it was just not what they were expecting. then we got on the same page a little bit. there were a few days where we did not show up to set because it was very touch and go. he was playing the reality of it character and i relate to it. charlie: what are you doing on netflix? paul: there's eight episodes. there was a movie "wet hot american summer," and this is a prequel. charlie: what happened before? paul: what's going on with andy? this was a movie about, gosh, 15 years ago or so amy poehler and bradley cooper, his first movie,

elizabeth banks, a huge cast. it was not a hit at the time but it developed a cult following over the years. all of us have returned to do eight episodes. the movie took place on the last day of camp. charlie: amy, you, bradley? paul: elizabeth banks. janeane garofalo, jon hamm. charlie: jon hamm? where did you go to school in england? paul: i did a semester at the british american drama academy at oxford. i went to the american academy of dramatic arts, and after i graduated from there i did this program all just shakespeare. charlie: what would you do if

you wanted to be the greatest actor you could possibly be? would you go to certain kinds of schools? are schools important? is it more important just to get work? paul: that's exactly what i asked myself. i learned about this school, the american academy of dramatic arts. i saw all of the people who had graduated from there and i wanted to follow the route that all of the actors i admired went. it was classical theater, live in new york. and for me, it was just about trying to get as the opportunities as i could to work. charlie: what was the end goal? paul: to work on things. i wanted to have a career as an actor, make a living doing everything i love. i did not want to be famous to be famous.

charlie: did you want to be a star? paul: i loved movies. i really love performing on stage and dramatic plays. i think i just went into do it fora living. if i go into a silly dance people tell me i'm good. they laughed. i got approval. i think that just manifested itself into this career. charlie: did you watch other people, talk to directors? you have to create something in the end that's uniquely you. paul: we are all uniquely us. i remember reading a quote once from groucho marx. "don't try to work on who you are."

be yourself and the image will inform it. i see things that other actors do that just knock me out. how do they do it? part of what knocks me out is it's them that did it. charlie: the same way where people who do hamlet. most of them are reluctant to watch other hamlets because they don't want to be influenced. paul: i will see thunderbolt moments in movies where i actually remember, and it's not even so much entire performances but moments.

al pacino in "dog day afternoon," it is just so quick and little where he almost cries and brings it back. a moment of timothy spall in "secrets and lies." i remember these moments and they become important things that i think about when i'm working on movies. i don't try to imitate them. charlie: whose is a career that you admire? paul: daniel day lewis shows of every few years, does something incredible, then lives his life. he's my favorite. charlie: the power of the performances? paul: he's just so good. he's just so good. as far as who's done it right, i always go back to paul newman. he was a guy who gave so many towering performances in so many fantastic films and yet gave

more than he got. charlie: it's about living life. paul: he was very good at his job and he loved his job. i came here and i was picked up and driven here. wearing this suit that i did not pay for. i have someone put makeup on my face, and i'm here to talk about a movie i was in. it's important to remember 99% of the world does not care. [laughter] we need to remember that. put it in its place. when you look at that and see what it is you should do -- charlie: children help you realize that, too. paul: absolutely. i work with some hospitals and a couple of charities. it's the best. it's the best grounding thing.

not to mention i have two of my own. it really does hold up a mirror. charlie: "ant-man" opens in theaters july 17th. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: in 1971, a stanford

university professor gathered 24 student volunteers to partake in what became the infamous stanford prison experiment. they sought to understand the psychology of imprisonment by re-creating life in jail. it asked some of the most fundamental questions about human nature. are we inherently good or evil? the planned experiment was cut short after six days due to its damaging effect on the participants. the controversial study is now the subject of a feature film and here is the trailer for the film. >> would you rather be a guard or a prisoner? >> probably a guard. >> prisoner. >> prisoner. >> prisoner sounds like it would be less work. >> prisoner. >> why's that? >> nobody likes guards.

>> good afternoon. this will be an extension of my research into the effects prisons can have on human behavior. you will be pleased to know you have been chosen to be the prison guards, but under no circumstances whatsoever are you to physically assault the prisoners in any way. remember, just as you are watching the prisoners, my graduate staff and i will be watching you. >> gentlemen, we're going to have ourselves a lot of fun. >> rule number one, prsioners must remain silent. this is the exercise period. >> is it me or are they taking this entirely too seriously? >> give me 20 push-ups.

>> you address me as mr. correctional officer. >> this might be an interesting two weeks after all. >> why don't you make up your bunk? >> i did, mr. correctional officer. >> what are you doing? >> what was that? >> you're not supposed to hit them. >> should we step in? >> no, let the guards figure it out, see how it goes. >> they won't let you go. this is real. they won't let us leave. >> those are not prisoners. those are not subjects. they are boys and you're harming them. >> let me out of here! i want out! i want out! >> you thought you were going to get some playtime in the yard? you thought that's what this was going to be? >> i had no idea it would turn out this way.

charlie: joining me now is dr. philip zimbardo, billy crudup who plays the doctor in the film and the director kyle alvarez. how much does the film in your judgment mirror reality? dr. zimbardo: it mirrors the experiment almost entirely. physically it's identical. they sent a crew down to the stanford basement. the only thing that's added as they raged at the sets of they could lift the ceiling of the back doors off so the camera could code down and look into the cell. the actual experiences were identical to what happened in the study, with the exception of the squeezing six days into two hours. there were a lot of things even more dramatic they could not fit in. charlie: what did you hope to prove, establish, or discover?

dr. zimbardo: to what extent is our sense of moral conscience, morality, something fixed and permeable regardless of the situation? or is it modifiable or even corruptible when we put in unfamiliar situations? charlie: is the answer that it is modifiable? dr. zimbardo: modifiable and in some people incorruptible if you give them power, unlimited power validated in a particular sense. charlie: what's happening? given the ability to have unlimited power, it will be corruptible? is it simply human nature that you lose your moral principles if you are unrestrained? dr. zimbardo: also if you are in a setting where that becomes an acceptable way to function. we're looking at extremes but it's no different than people who become managers, play roles in mental hospitals.

our guards are mirrored in high school teachers, mental hospitals, summer camps. it's not everybody. in all the research i've done, the majority of people who step across that line from good to evil. charlie: why'd you limit it to six days? dr. zimbardo: it was out of control. a prisoner had an emotional breakdown every day. they knew it was an experiment. day after day, the guards were becoming ever more sadistic and brutal. the reason i ended it, and this is not in the film, i invited my girlfriend down who's a psychologist. we had started to live together. she was going to be a professor at berkeley. she saw the abuse that happened every night at 10:00 p.m. when the guards took the prisoners to

the toilet, the last toilet run with bags over their head. i look up and for me it's check-out on the toilet run. i have now become the prison superintendent. i could see suffering and had no effect. she starts tearing up. we have this big argument as she runs out. we are having this argument by the fountain and she just says i don't understand how you could see the suffering i see and not be upset. they are boys and you are responsible. if this is the real you, i don't think i want to continue this relationship. at this point i said, oh my god. charlie: how did you find the movie you wanted to make? kyle: it had been kicked around but you had heard about the script people loved that were

just unfilmable or never got made, and this was just one of them. when i had the opportunity to read it and they were looking for a director to bring it back up again, i have been familiar with the experiment but on a very surface level. to the degree that i have never taken a psychology class before. i knew it was at stanford. when i read the script, i thought a lot of it must have in embellished. i do the research and all of it really happened, including down to the scenes you're describing with your girlfriend at the time, now wife, bringing all of that into the movie. i wanted to create a film with that experience where you don't believe and just sort of question how much could really happen. i think it is just so profound and it has stayed within our culture for so long, to try to make a film that had that

justice area and we do not need to embellish around it. we have to make it cinema. charlie: was it the story or the character that interested you the most? billy: you're part of this piece that is socially relevant. if you are not generating your own material, you count on the people who are generating it to kind of curate your life. what he said before about his own experience in the process of losing himself, that was incredibly intriguing to me. a person who is a trained psychologist, a phd, someone capable of understanding how the human mind works is lost in the situation he created for others

is fascinating to begin to investigate. charlie: the challenge as an actor? billy: how do you portray and manifest that level of confusion, that level of blindness? watching the destruction of the psychology of these young boys and not registering the humanity. without becoming nefarious without becoming a villian showing the humanity and all of our abilities to be cruel at times. i think that's a worthy endeavor. charlie: this is where you are questioning, laying down the rules of the experiment for the volunteer guards. here it is. >> i am dr. zimbardo, and welcome to orientation. you will be pleased to know that you all have been chosen to be the prison guards in this study.

that choice was made based on the exemplary qualities that you all demonstrated during your interviews. good for you. this experiment will be an extension on my research on to the effect that prisons can have on human behavior. it's summer and the school is almost empty, so we should have near complete privacy for this. as you will soon see, we have cleared out some of the teachers' offices and converted them into prison cells. the hallway will serve as the prison yard. remember, just as you're watching the prisoners, my graduate staff and i will be watching you. so under no circumstances whatsoever are you to hit, physically assault the prisoners in any way. you will all be given sunglasses

and uniforms to give them a sense of singular authority. they will not be able to leave except under established reasons. and from here forward, you should never refer to this as a study or experiment again. charlie: the limitations of the experiment. what were they? dr. zimbardo: it was clear after the first day i had to enforce no physical abuse. i had to make it explicit. the guards had symbols of power, billy clubs, handcuffs. if you touch the prisoner with your club, it's the same as hitting them. if you abuse that, we take you

out of the study, but i did not limit psychological abuse. that is what the guards slip into. the more subtle thing is they created an environment of learned helplessness. a guard would tell a joke, the prisoner would laugh, they would punish them. the prisoners did not know what to do, so they ended up doing nothing. charlie: the best part of what you discovered, the passiveness. dr. zimbardo: it was zombie-like. the other thing that happened was prisoners who could not deal with the guards' abuse began to have breakdowns. none of the prisoners gave them support. when the prisoner left, they vanished. nobody ever talked about it. it was a really strange kind of anonymity that was created. we tried to make them individuated by having numbers instead of names, but in their minds they furthered that. they lost respect for each other

as well as for themselves. charlie: is there natural instinct to be in favor of the prisoners? kyle: the audience? you read the material the first time and you feel bad for the prisoners. you read it again and start learning about it and to me some of the most interesting exit interviews were the guards saying now i'm aware of what i am capable of doing. i know i'm capable of causing this harm that i did not know i had the ability to do. to me, trying to create a film that of course has sympathy for the prisoners, but a certain amount of empathy for the guards go through as well is a challenging thing to ask of the audience. charlie: where are you? in most performances you tend to

get a great review. is it building towards anything that is an ambition for you? billy: this is the pinnacle of my ambition, to be in formidable material that asks a lot of the audience, is provocative, and gives me opportunity to exercise things i had not had a chance to do before. i'm not terribly smart, so to play a smart guy was exercising something new. there's complexity in dr. zimbardo at this moment with heightened stakes, an attempt to try to quantify and become an academic around what's becoming a very emotional experience. it was hard to compartmentalize all those things. i have not had the opportunity to do that. i have played a lot of

complicated characters. charlie: you have compared what happened there to the kinds of psychological impact you see in this experience at abu ghraib. dr. zimbardo: in 2008, that was such a stain on america's image abroad, where a bunch of army reservists and military police on the night shift at abu ghraib abused prisoners for three months. we know that because they took pictures. charlie: they took their own selfies. dr. zimbardo: there are thousands, and we saw not even the worst. what happened was the lawyer for one of the guards contacted me essentially saying those pictures are like your prison study. guards putting bags over the head, would you like to be an expert witness for my client.

and i said, no, he's guilty. what he did was horrific. but he said if i did i would have access to all of the investigative reports, and i could not resist. i got to know everything there was to know about abu ghraib. i read all 300 pages. i have chapters in my book about it, the lucifer effect. i was able to say at his court-martial the trial as chip frederick said he's guilty as charged, but the situational defense should mitigate the severity of the sentence. they wanted to give him 15 years hard time, and they reduced it to eight and reduced then to four years. so he's guilty, but what i showed was every single one of the nine guards on the night shift did these terrible things. not a single guard on the day shift.

how come? military intelligence said we want your guards on the night shift to take off the gloves, to use that euphemism, to prepare prisoners for interrogation. then they will give actionable intelligence, that's the phrase. in three months, no military intelligence officer ever went down to the dungeon. they say do whatever you want. no surveillance. no oversight. day by day, they did worse and worse things. it was created evil. let's pile them up naked in a pyramid. they did that and take a picture. the next night, let's have a masturbation contest. each night got more and more extreme, until finally it was exposed. charlie: back to the film, what do you hope viewers walk away from? kyle: i did not want a film positioning itself telling you what it's about. the conversations that can be

had around the experiment are so broad that it can mean so much to so many people. i did not want to make a didactic film showing you where to look. i wanted to make an objective film that shows this is what happened these six days. watch it. we learn very little back story so i hope and engages conversation and i hope it leads people to the source materials the book, the documentary. also i hope it works as enema -- as cinema and entertainment quote unquote. billy: july 17 in new york and los angeles. kyle: and the week afterwards elsewhere. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

emily: joining me today on studio 1.0