>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." look at we begin with a the 2016 presidential election, donald trump's campaign continues to surge, 24% in a recent poll of gop voters followed by jeb-ish and ben carson. ben carson.and matt dowd recently spent time talking with voters at the iowa state fair, where they all work. he is an analyst for abc news and he joins me now from one of our favorite cities, austin,

texas. welcome, sir. matt: thank you. charlie: how was the iowa state fair? have been their multiple times to help a candidate and now recently observing the candidates. it was quite an unbelievable situation with hillary there and donald trump there, who just added a complete circus atmosphere to it. was fascinated by what a bunch of his supporters had to say in the course of it. much different than i think many of us suspected or analyzed before. charlie: what did they say? matt: there's much less anger to them. it's not ideology. the only issue that is consistent is immigration. ands a level of frustration desire for somebody they think speaks their mind, somebody they think is strong. his bombast city and bravado, which many thought was a

liability, is an asset to these folks. they want to believe in something big in the united states, big person, big power, big strength. for now they think donald trump test represents that. -- best represents that. charlie: what would happen to slow it down? matt: what none of the other candidates will do will impede him at this point in time. the only thing that can prevent donald trump from getting the republican nomination is his own whether he says something over time that finally adds up to too much for the voters, or he does not add enough meat to the bone of his policies. support him, they worry about him, but they worry about what he might say and at some point in time they want him to add meat to the bones. the other thing that will compound those things is time. we are not having the caucuses

this week or next month. we are having them 170 days from now. there's a lot of time to keep this firework burning the donald trump is and a lot of that has the potential to dissipate over time. the problem for the gop is nobody is even in his atmosphere of ability to connect with people and the bright way he shines in every event he does. charlie: who is most likely? is it some other non-politician like ben carson or jeb bush? bush ever gets his campaign rolling. matt: it's not jeb. is on the verge --unless he does very well in the debate next month -- he's on the verge of it doesn't matter how much money he has to spend, it can be very difficult to win the nomination.

voters, the last person they would pick of the 17 is jeb bush when they talk to him. it could be an outsider like ben carson or carly fiorina, but it also could be someone like john kasich. the governor, he's of ohio, he is viewed as a little bit of an outsider. if john kasich could step it up and meet the voters in a stronger, more direct way, he has the potential for it area right now these voters will not vote for jeb bush and they wanted outsider, whether it is carson, fiorina, or someone like kasich, time will tell. charlie: suppose the nominee is john kasich and suppose his running mate is marco rubio. there you have ohio and florida. mean the chances, republicans against the presumptive nomination against hillary clinton is greatly

increased? matt: let's assume that donald trump does not run as a third-party and behaves himself in the course of the general election. if someone like john kasich is the nominee and marco rubio is the vice presidential nominee, they would be a huge advantage against somebody like hillary clinton in the general election. you can point out the demographics. you have marco rubio, a latino on the ticket. you go and look at the circumstances of the country right now and where hillary clinton stands. people don't trust her, they don't like her, and they disapprove of the current president. in that circumstance with the right nominee, and republicans are the odds on to win the white house. but they have to nominate the right nominee. beatie: kent donald trump hillary clinton? matt: it's really difficult. to say never.e it's a possibility but he's blebably the least electa

in the general election. immigration a bigger issue in the republican party because of the way it's been used by donald trump? surprising that immigration is a big issue but it stands for something more than the issue. when you talk to the folks, they have wanted something done about the borders. it stands for something about our country and in their way they think the country has been lost in some ways over the last 10 years or 20 years. this is a way of recapturing our country. immigration is a telling issue for a bigger concern and a sense of where they think the country is, and losing the country they thought they always wanted great that is what immigration really stands for to them. charlie: what do you make of bernie sanders? matt: is the opposite side of the trump coin for the democratic hearty. -- party. i think bernie sanders could

,asily when iowa -- win iowa new hampshire, and complicate the process along the way. i still think hillary clinton's odds on to win the nomination on thenie sanders shows republican side that a candidate -- a way to convey a populist message connects really well in this country right now. charlie: if hillary clinton last iowa, then lost new hampshire, with that bring in joe biden? matt: he is going to have to make a decision. by the middle in of october. he has to decide he's in this race to set up the process. if joe biden thinks hillary clinton will lose iowa and new makehire, he figures i can a play and win south carolina because bernie sanders is very difficult in south carolina. that is the calculation if joe biden wants to win, bernie sanders is able to do well in the first states.

it becomes a contest with joe biden is the more dominance, more establishment oriented candidate in the course of other primaries in bigger states along the way. charlie: what is likely to be of defining issue or theme this campaign in 2016? matt: i think donald trump is closest to the idea, not the issues, but closest to -- there is a sense that we have lost america's greatness. we have lost our senseless, -- sense, and the way we convey ourselves internationally. of can wenation remake or remodel the american dream in a way that people can believe again -- that is the overarching dynamic in this. there's a lot of struggles and a lot of issues going on and all

these sorts of things, the economy and all of that, but i think that's really the big value or the big vision that people want presented. donald trump is doing it in an awkward, bulldogy way, but he has come closest to where the country is on how do we remake the american dream. charlie: his theme is make america great, i guess. matt: donald trump is the floyd mayweather of politics. has thehe brand, he hat, he has the entertainment value. i think donald trump, the biggest thing is can he be disciplined enough and can he put more substance on the bone , ande course of this time will the republican establishment over time permit that hein the state possibly could win, there's no question in my mind that there is now a possibility the donald trump could be the gop nominee. charlie: thank you. great to see you.

abc analyst from austin, texas. ♪

charlie: my friend roger cohen is here, columnist for "the new york times." his most recent column is called jews."nd americnan

i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. remind me, the title of the book, about your dad and your own history. roger: "ghosts of memory in a jewish family." charlie: give me the sense of what this debate which is ongoing with lots of pressure and lots of people trying to impact the debate, people from beyond the united states. know that prime minister netanyahu feels strongly about this and i take him at his word that he believes this is not good for israel, it is a threat to israel. you are seeing all kinds of pressure being used almost more than debate. roger: this is the most divisive issue in the american jewish community for a long time for it

even within families, you have fiery disagreements as to whether this deal is overall good for israel, good for the united states, good for the middle east, or it's not. on the one hand you have aipac lobbying heavily against the deal. on the others you have the much more liberal organization. it is in that context, and my column is partly about that, the prime minister netanyahu weighed the jewishin with community here and in essence said, this deal will give iran hundreds of bombs within years. wild hyperbole, that is not true. said the deal would allow iran to have its yellow cake and eat it. facile lines.se this deal is not perfect. in diplomacy you never get perfection. the naturaltered

fuel cycle. the question is what do you do about it right secretary kerry and the president have tried to that ringth a deal fences this capacity. that in my view would be in israel interest. charlie: why don't you think the prime minister sees it that way and a significant part of the israeli community as well as the american jewish community? republic haslamic said violent and unconscionable things about israel over many years. important for israel and people who love israel to take seriously people who say they want to destroy it? is important to take seriously that kind of unconscionable language. on the other hand, iran, the islamic republic, has survived

since the reagan revolution, since 1979, by showing itself in reality despite this vile rhetoric to be a fairly prudent power. the fact is that in recent years, iran has been able to install more and more centrifuges, get more and more enriched uranium, take its nuclear program which it says not very credibly is not aimed at a bomb, much further. rate put onective that has been president obama's diplomacy, which has ensured has gotten rid of much of its enriched uranium, cuts way back the number of centrifuges and instills a series of rigorous international inspections that did not exist previously. over the past two years since the first preliminary deal -- people say iran will cheat. over the past few years it did

not cheat. over this agreement there is nothing that says the united states or its allies cannot take any action that they deem appropriate, including military action, if iran reneged. the united states remains free on divisive issues like irani and support for hezbollah or hamas to continue to pressure iran to stop that behavior. roger: and are you better off with some framework that condemns the united states and to a difficult at hostile relationship for the next 15 years? are you better placed to be able to talk about these issues with that, or without that? this deal was not made by the united states, it was made by the united states, china, russia, germany, france, and

britain. those are not a small or unserious powers. charlie: without their support of the sanctions, would they have been effective as they were? roger: no. and if this deal is rejected, which is unlikely in the end, nor is it going to be approved in an ideal way, the sanctions regime would fall apart. china, russia would conclude that the united states is unserious about an agreement that has been two years in the making. when you look at the president's argument that there was no other way, and the people who criticize us have no other argument other than military force, is the president right about that? is there no other way that you could have wrought about an irani and rejection of nuclear power? -- iranian ejection of weaponize

to nuclear power -- rejection of weaponized nuclear power? roger: i don't support complete dismantlement. i don't think complete dismantlement was ever on the table. iran is proud of the nuclear technology. it says it's not for use as a bomb, it is not as a signatory of the iaea. it has a right to develop this typology -- technology. if you are good for dismantlement you are arguing for war. iranians remember for a long time that oil was not controlled by themselves, it was controlled by the united states and britain. when the prime minister came along in the 1950's and said, we think this oil should be ours, we instituted a coup. the nuclear technology is a little light oil 60 years ago. it is something that iran feels

that it has a right to develop. it looks around and sees nuclear around israel, pakistan, india. it is not in a neighborhood where everybody is without nuclear weapons. iran is not any of those countries and we need to stop it ran developing a nuclear weapon. there is no question about that. if necessary we need to use military force to stop them. charlie: the president would use nuclear force if he felt they going to come close to a nuclear weapon? not only does president, but any subsequent president that i can imagine, if the islamic republic is still in face -- place and still using the kind of language it has used about israel and is still masporting hezbollah and ha

in the way it has, if that islamic republic was still in place and we had incontrovertible proof that they nucleart to make a weapon, i believe that any president would use force. what this deal achieves is to put that off hopefully forever, but at least 15 years. charlie: even if they use military weapons today it would just delay. roger: what would happen? iran would race for a bomb. it would tear up its agreements with the iaea. at most it might put back the program for a couple years. it is close to a no-brainer. plus, we have been at war in afghanistan and iraq. do we want to have been at war across a swathe of 2500 miles

and then try to convince the muslims of the world that we have nothing against them? i do not think that will play very well. charlie: could the united states have negotiated a better deal? is there any argument that suggests that somehow we had more leverage than we exercised and we should have exercised it? in any of any merit those arguments, that this administration was too quick to make the deal? in diplomacy it's a question of what the you want, what do they want, and what can we agree that we both want. i wasn't in there and neither of us were sitting at the table. toughk our president is and i think secretary kerry is tough. you might wish if there is a suspect site we can get in there faster than the maximum 24 days

that is now. on a ran's nuclear program, maybe we could have wished for more. but i believe over two years of negotiation, with a very serious -- very serious diplomats in the room, this is a compromise that gets us a lot. all the 20% enriched uranium goes -- the vast majority of the centrifuges. saylie: critics of the deal after 10 years they will have an opportunity because this is a 10 year deal or 12 years and even though the president says certain things remain in effect, others will argue the iranians will then have a chance after 10 years to go forward without sanctions and without impediments. roger: i don't know. in 1979 we did not know the berlin wall would fall 10 years later. the arabe did not know

spring would've rubbed in 2011. anybody who says they know what -- thell look like supreme leader is well into his 70's. there is no succession plan. you can make a cogent argument that the likelihood is through more contact with the west, which is what the vast majority of the population of iran craves, most young iranians are pro-western, that with a relationship where iran, the only top 20 economy in the world is not integrated with the global economy, you can make a cogent argument that the likelihood is over the next 15 years you can see some softening of the regime and as this new generation rises to power, an iran that is more to our liking. can i prove that? can anybody prove that? no. i think that is a reasonable bet. if iran goes in the other direction, all options are open. charlie: tell me how you see the

possibilities of a coalition against isis today with the overlay of the shia-sunni conflict. isis is a terrible threat to the west. we have already seen the bombings and the attacks in paris, brussels, to lose, everywhere else. mass vile beheadings, rapes, this medievalist interpretation of certain verses of the koran. the united states is weary. we have been at war in iraq, in afghanistan. we are looking for allies in the region to take on isis. fervent isisost members see their main mission as attacking and defeating the shia, defeating iran. withhas a common interest

us in fighting isis. it does not want isis to take over iraq. i don't have any illusions that this will transform itself into an alliance between the united states and iran to fight isis, but i think the two countries can help each other. that is a plausible scenario. deale context of a nuclear , in that context that becomes more likely. and with that be a good thing? yes. but there is so much mistrust built up over 36 years since the revolution between the united states and iran. these things will not happen overnight. but is it possible there will be a u.s. embassy in tehran and an iranian embassy in washington 10, 15 years from now? charlie: there is one in havana now. you get the feeling there is something at play. roger: i think everybody agrees

that the dismemberment -- as antlement of syria, country, 4 million plus refugees -- [indiscernible] legacy ofoking at the the obama presidency, this will be one of the negatives on the foreign policy side. i think going forward, if russia and the united states can begin to work together and there is a way to move the assad regime out , that would be -- there are lots of areas in iraq and afghanistan where iran can be helpful. and in syria. whether it will be remains to be seen. iran is divided between the hardline faction of the revolutionary guard and the population in general, which i think generally wants stronger

contact with the west. and probably many would like over time to see the system of government and iran at least think on all those fronts having a deal is better than not having a deal. the deal is not perfect. charlie: you are talking about the nuclear deal? i'm more interested -- let's assume the deal passes. defection need a 25% forongressional democrats that to be an override of the president's veto. a republican dominated house and senate is going to vote a resolution of disapproval. but in a way that is pain-free. they can do that without serious consequences for american diplomacy in the world because it will be vetoed and there aren't enough votes, despite all

this lobbying, for an override. does this fight change the relationship between this administration and the administration in israel for the remainder of this president's term? think it changes it fundamentally because i think the alliance is strong, very strong, and that will not change. i also think that relations between the president and prime minister netanyahu are bad. they have been bad for a long time. this may make these relations marginally worse. i think the president is exasperated by this habit of prime minister netanyahu -- we see it in the webcasts to the jewish community, this habit of trying to go around the president, and during the last election it was clear that prime minister netanyahu favored mitt romney.

have are elements that confuted to this mistrust between the president and prime minister. charlie: if he's not going to take an action that does anything to lessen the military power of israel -- roger: on the contrary. people in the military establishment. is there any way the president could take out some sense of disdain for the way the prime minister has acted? roger: the only way is a way that is being quietly talked about, is for the accord that the united states had in mind for an israeli-palestinian peace during the last intense round of negotiations was secretary kerry, with a territorial line running at the 90/67 divide. for that to be published in some

form and then contained in a resolution in the united nations security council, that the united states would not veto. in other words, that israel would realize that if it carries on on the current course of expanding settlements, on the whole not being serious about a peace with the palestinians and the palestinian leadership is israelat fault too, if continues down that path it may no longer be able to rely on the veto of anything in the united nations deemed to israel's interests, as those interests are defined by netanyahu. that is the one area where the president could have leverage. in office he might be prepared to use it. give someou do indication there is some thought about that because you have seen what other western nations have done with respect to the

palestinians. roger: that is the one idea bubbling beneath the surface. charlie: you have said in a column, germany's debt to europe can never be repaid. one. the real and deepest that obviously has to do with the holocaust. are withdications respect to germany and europe and germany and greece are what? i just wanted to remind people that in the end, the is about war and peace. it grew out of the ruins of 90/45 -- 1945. it is important that this time of fragility in the european union, that it be remembered what happened in europe and with the european union has been able to overcome by creating a borderless europe. there is even an implication for

what we have been talking about today, because of the holocaust, it is absolutely vital that the jewish people in israel, that we be assured that israel can defend itself in any circumstances. the question with this deal, this iran nuclear deal, is this a way to reduce the threat to israel, because the nuclear know-how that iranians have anyway is going to be put in a place where i cannot be used for the development of a bomb. -- it cannot be used for the development of a bomb. iran is a country with a lot of potential, and we should explore the potential. charlie: thank you for coming. you went to london to live. and now you have come back. what happened?

you didn't like the british? roger: i grew up in london. i like london fine. thisme is new york at point. i had to come back. charlie: roger cohen writing for "the new york times." we will be right back. ♪ ♪

(ee-e-e-oh-mum-oh-weh) (hush my darling...)

(don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) (hush my darling...) man snoring (don't fear my darling...) (the lion sleeps tonight.) woman snoring take the roar out of snore. yet another innovation only at a sleep number store. charlie: "learning to drive" is

a story of an unlikely friendship between two new yorkers. the screenplay is based on a 2002 "new yorker" magazine essay. here is the trailer for the film. >> joining me for today's topic, critic wendy shields. >> always a pleasure. every seven years it comes over him. he gets restless and does something juvenile. [indiscernible] >> it's about time you started driving. >> where do they find these skanks? >> teach yourself to see

everything. you can't always trust people to behave properly. >> ain't that the truth. >> what does a woman like for a gift? >> i don't know. candy, flowers? she is from ivillage. my sister picked her out for me. >> i would like something to take my mind off my mind. >> that is why a do yoga -- id o y do yoga. >> i do ambien. >> when a man marries a woman, they become one spirit. why do you teach driving? >> for a better job i would have to take off my turban, shave off my beard. this is how i know who i am. cook.r learned to

mother would cook for me. then there was half a world between us. >> learning to drive. >> that's a scary thought. >> it's time to discuss road rage. it doesn't matter what is going on in your life out there. when you are at the wheel of a car, that is all there is. your life right now. joining me now is the director and the film's star. how did this start? at the 2014 toronto film festival. my impression is you have known about this for a while. >> yes. nine years of my life. i read the essay. it.s captivated by it resonated with me and stayed

with me. serendipitously someone came to me and said, they are making a movie about this. i said, oh my god. i know this story. i love this story. i love wendy. i became attached, and nine film later, we got the made with these two extraordinary people. >> you were in at what point? >> i read it a while ago. i read it shortly after a film i had done and i still had the residue of this character "house of sand and fog." that was the plight of the immigrant coming to america under unfortunate circumstances, both the romney and darvon -- b exiled due towere

regime changes in our countries. it was a little too close to something i was trying to let go of. charlie: what was that? angst, sadness that was not quite dissolved. my darlingpier times for that.la, i think in happier times the script came to me and i felt more capable of reading something into it that was life enhancing rather than [indiscernible] charlie: is this about friendship? is it about independence? what is it? you playing a driver. she is recently divorced or you happen to be in the car when this happens.

the two of you connect and you come up with the idea of driving lessons. through a set of personal circumstances decide to learn to drive at 50. charlie: husband had been driving for you. >> which is a common occurrence in new york, these powerful people at the top of their game but they have never learned to drive, which is a very tri-state area situation. it is stunning how many people don't drive in this town. wendy decides to learn to drive. she wants to see her daughter in a faraway place, vermont. offered a wonderful piece of work as this is, i really love to reduce it down to some metaphor that i can carry in my pocket. and for me, it is the myth of

the internal very man. you get onto his little fairy on one bank of the river, -- ferry on one bank of the river, you disembark on the other bank and somehow your molecules have been rearranged. you are not sure how or why, but the ferry man is left you with something. it's more than a journey from one bank to another. there is something life enhancing about either his silence, his stillness, the way he maneuvers the boat across the water. he's taking you to the new. charlie: the last time she was .ere, you and i riffed together it's good to see you again. >> good to see you too. charlie: how did you get into this film? the "newia gave me

yorker" story. i was living the same thing. i was in the middle of a breakup from a partner of many years. i did not know how to drive. i love the story, and the story teach me something very simple, this is not the end of the world, ok, he is sleeping with another woman, what are we going to do. >> one thing that stayed with me is appreciation of what we have. , andhat we have to look up we forget to take in the good things we have and we forget to look around us and that is why the driving metaphor, of course -- charlie: you work into this post-9/11 america, and we see the sense of discrimination that can exist in a time of fear. >> yes. >> ironically it was the sikh

taxi drivers after 9/11 who turned off all their meters and asked passersby where do you want to go, it will help you find your loved one. extraordinary. it is a consistent sikh behavior. charlie: did you look into that because you were preparing for this role? >> no. when i was filming gandhi, i had a sikh bodyguard driver. he was my ferry man. all through the trauma and difficulty and joy of that extraordinary experience in india, he was there, my constant, my driver, back of his head. i was sitting in the back of his ambassador car. and seeing his turban gently sway from side to side. after the hardest day shooting, glorious day, as i manage to get back into his car he drove through this massive crowd,

looked at my face in the rearview mirror and said, well done, sir. that's all he said. this is what he brought every day to the set. to see him was very moving. to see him in this beautiful turban and is incredibly graceful, calm, powerful man. i have often thought in life, i need [indiscernible] i need a dark one, -- i need a [indiscernible] please. to help us get to the next place. there's also this, the arranged marriage idea. irony in theovely film, a desperate attempt to by her her marriage sister, by her close relatives

so that just as in the west are close relatives like to match make, so in the punjab, closer relatives like to match make. charlie: some make the argument that family knows you better than you know yourself, and you should entrust some of that to them. >> perhaps wendy's sister could ascribe to the same argument. [indiscernible] [laughter] charlie: let's take a look at this scene. this is darwin giving wendy a driving lesson. eyes at the middle of the lane. your peripheral vision sees all the rest. >> osama! i thought we killed you! >> shut up. does that happen to you often? pushery day, people try to your buttons. you don't engage with them, especially when you drive.

>don't lean on the horn. i don't understand why men have to do that, wagner balls in your face -- wag their balls in your face. >> is time to discuss road rage. >> -- it's time to discuss road rage. >> when some guy in the accident scene -- why he doesn't react. i said, for me the most admirable thing is the grace with, he take it and he doesn't let this thing affect him. for me that is a big lesson. >> he is such a beautiful internal warrior. charlie: what is wendy teaching him? >> there is another world, there is a world of love. i think the possibility of love she opens for him, it's going to

stay with him and it's going to help him to be with jasmine. i think at the end of the day -- >> i think at the end of the day , this is such a profound film about adult friendship, true, real. charlie: and mail-female. >> friendship, real friendship. and the limitations that has. charlie: you saw this and 10 years later you get to make this and you said you needed the 10 years in between to be able to play wendy. adversity,face some disappointment? >> a lot of changes in my life, a lot of loss and love and ups .nd downs and adversities there were these packages i could carry on my back as i traveled through wendy.

when i was first attached to this project, i was 10 years younger, nine years younger. nine years later i arrived to play this part. now.ught, yes, i'm ready i'm here. i know what this is. i have no more doubt. exactly what her life entails. it in a deep, organic way, in a way i didn't. charlie: what have you made, eight movies? 12 now? >> i know. charlie: it impresses or depresses? >> impresses. when i seession is all the films i want to do and maybe not able to do. charlie: why not? >> life is short.

i'm planning to direct even with a walker and no teeth. and i'm going to say, action. charlie: how long did it take to make this movie? >> the actors shoot five weeks. charlie: some movies it takes long just to get to the shoot. do it 10 yearsto ago, nine years ago. but you know -- charlie: have you grown in the last 10 years? >> not at all. i'm trying to avoid to grow up. charlie: is there a common theme to the films you like to make? >> my main thing is -- intimacy. is what happens when two people are alone, what happens there, what is going on, what kind of links -- links a very, very different people. charlie: this is a scene in which star talks to wendy about his own life -- darwin talks to

wendy about his own life. >> here is your reward? >> a masters? >> i was a university professor like my father. >> why do you teach driving? >> for a better job i would have to take off my turban, shave off my beard. people think i look dangerous. but this is how i know who im and here it is too easy to forget. >> do you ever get back and visit? >> i can never go home to india. it's part of political asylum. i could not get to see my dead before he passed away last year. i missed my mother's funeral too. but i was in prison there. >> why? >> there is no justice for sikhs. >> how long were you in prison? >> long time. charlie: why does it take us so long to learn so much about the people we care about?

she's having to polite out of him, yes -- pull it out of hi m, yes? >> yes. charlie: this is wendy bonding with her daughter. thank you for helping, but i think you have to get back on the road. >> i don't think i'm going to go back. >> what? >> i love farming, but i was mainly there to be with this guy and suddenly he decided to go back to dartmouth, so i'm all alone and all my friends are gone. i'm just so embarrassed. can i just stay here with you? >> i would love that. that.d so love

but you can't. if you moving here it would be in the spirit of failure and that is deadly. you have to see this through. you have to go back to vermont and harvest your -- off. what is funny when you see these scenes -- i immediately thought about a moment we did it. all i can see is the lollipop melting. and you are like, this lollipop is melting. it's very beautiful. goes for a well with your dress. >> i had the popsicle in my hand. we had to have 47 popsicles because they kept melting. charlie: you learn to drive when you were older. >> yes. i learned to drive in l.a. i know how to drive and not how to park.

our next time together is going to be learning how to park. she is the operator. she is right there with you. charlie: wonderful feeling. >> it's a beautiful feeling. it gives you solace. she's right there for you. it is like you are seeing things like, oh my god, penis. you live with the camera, you move away. charlie: are you taking the summer off? >> going to take a break. i just finished the play. i'm in the middle of this. big press junket for our film and then i'm going to lie in bed. charlie: when you are in a play you bradley cooper, are

seeing up close what it means to be famous today? >> yes. you see it every day, and how well he handles it, it's beautiful to watch. he has such grace. how he navigates every day is astonishing. charlie: and you, my dear? >> i'm going to do a film called canalookshop" based on a of the, it is set in england in 1959 and it's about a woman opening of a bookshop in a tiny village. charlie: "learning to drive" hits the theaters august 21, friday. thank you for joining us. see you next time you're at -- time. ♪