>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with the middle east and the sunni/shiah divide. kuwait cut diplomatic ties with iran. a decision to execute a prominent shiah cleric in response to the attack on the saudi embassy. talk about this is voni sauser. in washington webbedy sherman. she's a fellow at the harvard kennedy school. she held the role of deputy

united states with the u.s. leading negotiator in the nuclear deal with iran. also david sanger a national security correspondent and new york phillip gordon a senior fellow of the foreign relations and was former special assistant for the president and coordinator for the u.s. and north africa. i begin with phillip gordon. where are we? phillip: we're in a situation that's even more complicated than we were three or four days ago. charlie: because more people got involved or because no one seems to be backing them up? phillip: they face the split not -- between sunni and sigh shiah but iran. it's driving the conflict in yemen. it's driving the saudi poll san antonio oil. it's driving executions and so many other things in the region.

a prerequiz it is not to have a love fest but some form of tolerance. you have this process going on in vienna to get these guys at the table for the first time which led to some at least sliver of hope that you can bridge the gap and bring this to a terrible end and now with heer -- the burning of the place, it ends the hope of some diplomatic hope. first of all, that might overstate it with a lie. the gaps were already big. and we knew there was a problem. charlie: but there was some hope. phillip: there was some hope. it was still a long shot. i don't think this was by accident, charlie. it's not as if the saudis did this and are now saying, my goodness this has set back the diplomatic process.

i think you might conclude that they did it quite deliberately. it was a message to the united states and the other players, if you thought we were on the verge of looking for some concession, think again because you're not and you're going to have to choose sides. charlie: they were sending a message? phillip: a lot of messages. charlie: wendy, how do you think the iranians saw this? wendy: the real problem is that isil is benefiting the most from this rivalry. e have stephane who was in riyad today who has come out of that meeting who said they wanted to see if a peaceful resolution could come following the december agreement by the u.n. security council. i think iran has escalated this situation. iran is playing a destabilizing

role in the region. there's no doubt about that. but iran if they had a nuclear weapon would be an even worse actor. so even if the saudi weren't thrilled with the nuclear agreement, they did understand that iran as a nuclear weapon would have more of a deterrent and have more power. iran is in the mix of a very complex political process internally. they've got elections coming up in late february. both for their parliament and for what is called the council of experts who will decide the current successor to the supreme leader. there are hard liners of hard liners of iran. we think that they're a monolithic country. but they have real politics. there are more reformists than the hard liners even if there are hard liners of hard liners.

charlie: you can see that from the tone in this ayatollah vs. the tone from president rahani. wendy: he's about to implement the joint comprehensive point of action. they will ship out its stockpile. they will take centrifuges off line. it will allow the international atomic agency to monitor what's going on, make sure their program is a peaceful and program y peaceful never have a nuclear weapon. he thinks he will get the sanctions released which will carry him through this election so that the hard liners will give way in kehran. but the politics are difficult. the only slight sliver of hope t of this incredibly intense

situations. there's a lot of behind the scenes talks going on. they will meet with the council on saturday and see whether or not they take a step back or further accelerate the problems here but at the end of this month, stephane demistoro wants to bring everybody together to try to bring peace in syria and that's looking tough at the moment. charlie: i want to get the shiah/sunni understanding. david, you said u.s. finds itself in a bind. they confronted the fundamental contradictions in its increasingly intense relationship with saudi arabia. explain. david: the dynamic you just heard from phil and wendy is played out at a time when the saudis are quite concerned that the nuclear deal between the u.s., the european partners, russia, china and iran means there's some kind of fundamental

reassessment. they understand that many in the administration think that over the long-term iran might be a more natural ally than saudi arabia and the other members of the gulf council. the administrations has gone through great length to try to convince the saudis. president obama had the sauties nd the other nations to camp david in the fall. there was this big arms sale of relationships to help them build up their defenses. but fundamentally you have seen during the obama administration, i think a separation of the u.s. -saudi relationship. partly that's because with the united states pumping out as much oil as it does there's not that much dependency on the oil front, the economic front that there was. but there is a big dependency on

the diplomatic fund. and secretary kerry knows that getting the deal together in syria both parts of it, the cease fire and the broader political arrangement is a very long shot as phil said before depends on having the saudis and the iranians at the table. both of them working in roughly the same direction. and i think the saudis who have never believed that this was going to happen together basically were sending a very large message to the u.s. that said if you're not going to crack down on iranian expansionism in the region, we will. and i think that was a lot of of what was behind the execution of the shiah cleric. charlie: explain to us that -- what is the basic split between shiah and sunni. i mean, we know how they line up in terms of iran being shiah and saudi arabia and jordan and

others being essentially sunni and iraq being shiah. >> there are two different interpretations of islam. the roots go back long-term in history. in a region that cares a lot about religion it matters which sector you follow. but in the contemporary sense it's not about shiah/sunni. it's about saudi arabia and iran. it's the about sunni extremism which we see in isis which is highly intolerant of any interpretation other than what they put forward and that puts the shiite outside of islam. you have them evenly divided between shiah and sunni. and that makes sectarians very relevant between the rivalry between iran and saudi arabia. but let me put it this way. you know, this crisis was created by saudi arabia. i agree with phil. this was done very deliberately.

it came after an event. first of all, you had an madiican shiah victory in ra which stands for anti-shiah in the region. you had the first stage of the implementation of the nuclear -- as david said these are warring issues for saudi arabia. what i think is clear is that saudi arabia sees an advantage in playing the sectarian card. the larger game of the muslim world is on their side. if shiah identify as shiah and sunni identifies as sunni, saudi arabia wins. it limits iran's influence in the world. domestically they can tell their own population at a time of succession crisis, economic

prosperity that we are under siege with shiah and iranians and domestically in our eastern province and they're swaying the americans through the nuclear deal and doing a deal between isis an iraq. and saudi arabia can have a rally to the flag domestically and woo the sunnis in the region if it diversed y tension from fighting isis to fighting iran. this is a strategy of survival on the part of saudi arabia. it serves their interest. it doesn't serve the united states interest. charlie: does this show that we have less influence with the saudis than we thought we did? because they clearly knew that saudis were thinking about this, did they not? >> the united states government has said out right that they the warned the saudis about execution or potential execution of the cleric. not only were those ignored, charlie, but after the executions happened, the u.s.

embassy in riyad had a very difficult time getting an understanding are the saudis about who would have been executed. so this is not exactly a system in which communication is moving very smoothly with the united states. now, that could be because they were trying to keep the nust the dark. it could also be that these executions got caught up -- at least i don't now the answer to this. got caught up in those succession battles that phil was just preferring to. you've got a very different generation of saudi leaders coming up. wendy: the internal politics in iran and saudi arabia are very complex right now. they're all taking place in the context of a world economy that is shaping. normally when we have these middle east kind of plow-ups, crises, the price of oil skype rockets. that's not going to happen right now. demand is too low. china's economy is lowdown as we saw from the opening of our own

stock market. so the whole context for this particular act in this very, very tough play is different than it's been in the past. and so even though everyone's been very concerned that iran is going to make tons of money off of the nuclear deal, in fact in recent days they said well, their production of oil will only be able to meet the demands that are out there. we know that demand is low. same in saudi arabia where for the first time they're looking at their budget. they're looking at what they can give to the people in their country. so in both of these countries there is a need to rally the troops both the civilian and the military to the self-interest of that country. and we see that the larger con plecks is necessary. the united emirates called the ambassador but it did not end iranian relations because the trade goes through dubai. the only sliver of optimism here

is i think it's not in the self-interest of either iran or saudi arabia to have this go to the point of war, and they have both through channels tried to ask to help for help to get this to deescalate. whether that will occur given as we've pointed out there's shiah protest in bahrain and in other pars of the region remains to be seen. >> i'm not sure that the saudis are not sure of escalating this further. they've also shown in yemen that they're perfectly capable of pushing the boundaries and i think they have an attitude that they can throw a hand grenade and the united states will step in and iran's tail is in the door right now with the nuclear deal and it might not have as much room to maneuver. as i said it's to the saudi arabiaians advantage to rally the sunnis across the region to the flag. but to follow upon what david was saying, i actually don't

think our policy approach with saudi arabia is appropriate for where the relationship is. our memory in dealing with saudi arabia is to constantly try to reassure them. in fact, the word in washington now a days is that we have to keep reassuring saudi arabia. saudis may take it as a wrong signal. when they invaded yemen without appropriate consultation with the u.s., starred a major war that proved to be catastrophic for the united states and the region, we basically adopted a policy of giving them the benefit of the doubt, putting no pressure on them to come up with an exit strategy and constantly saying we need to reassure them because we signed a nuclear deal with iran. we need to get tough with the saudis. and we actually have to assert what are the united states interest in iraq because of isis and to demand that the saudis like we demand on many other allies around the world that they cannot record policies and

we have such an expectation of them. wendy: that's why, indeed, the people who benefit the most here are isil and why a bold and thorough strategy with lots of different prongs to that strategy has to be carried out. i think that's what the president is trying to do. that's what's being advocated by others as whelm and that's really where the focus has to be some how or another to get people in the same direction. we thought we did it a few days ago in december but we seem to be going a little bit off the rails. david: wendy makes a good point that there is a need for a big bold strategy. when you press american officials on the record and wendy and phil's former colleagues the administration was not willing to say anything yesterday that was even mildly critical of the saudis other

than they hope they will respect human rights in the future. in fact, they were more critical of the iranians for the outbursts that resulted in the burn og of the embassy and obviously the u.s. has a lot of rrns to be quite concerned about the infringement of an embassy than they were with the execution of the cleric. wendy called it muscle memory. all you do is reassure the saudis. phillip: we have -- the issue is the tradition, the habit, the history of trying to -- reassure the saudis. underscore solidarity. be reluctant to raise differences. from real differences

egypt. they threw mubarak under the bus. we failed to do to get rid of assad. secret talks with iran, frees up assad. people mentioned both yemen and the execution of nimry. both of those are a saudi response. fine, you want to take your policies base and who you think is your national interest them and inform them about them? well, we're going to do the same. we're going to intervene in yemen and we'll give you 24-hours notice. we'll execute this cleric. we'll give you 24-hours notice. we have tried to double down on reassurance. camp david. supports in the world. defense equipment. but the message that came back to us today is that's not enough and it's not working. charlie: it seems to me just from observation and the experience that all of you have

is that you're looking about the country that's it's looking at its own survival. they know what a tight group of people the royal family controls the country. and a rich country, although less rich than it used to be. so survival is part of their policy as much as it is what is our foreign policy in the region. phillip: and when survival isn't fake, people are willing to do big and bold things. charlie: aren't we their best friend? phillip: of course, it's important. charlie: but they don't see the threat to the kingdom as primarily as some external invasion where the united states can protect them. that defense relationship, you now, already exists. saddam-like invision of kuwait. that's not the issue. the issue is they think their

survival is threat ed by iranian expansionism, the assad regime, massacring sunnis and leading them to ra calism and join -- radicalism and joining isis. those are all things, all the u.s. defense missile defenses in the world won't deal with. that gets to the question of reassurance. what would we have to do to reassure them on that score? charlie: let me just say that reassurance -- i think phil is absolutely right. i agree with wendy's point about how we should handle the saudis but the reality is, as david said in the beginning, many things are fundamentally against the saudis. the price of oil may not come back. the arab war has collapsed. the president has made a decision that it views its relationship with asia perhaps as more important than the middle east. they decided to distance itself

when they allowed mubarak to fall. and the message was that the arab world was not as important as it was in terms of security and stability and the like. ultimately iran is still in a very hard line position but potentially that might change down the road. e saudis are on a wrong sort of strategic bend here. there are a lot of big things against them. we cannot basically reassure them that saudi arabia 20 years from now will be strategically important to the united states. all the signals they're getting from us reading, you know, david's colleagues in new york times, all indicate that the itself down the road will care less about saudi arabia that we don't see our values in line. we don't need their oil. we don't like the change and i don't think any measure of reassurance is going to help them. we actually have to prepare ourself for managing a harder landing if saudi arabia going

forward in this region. charlie: oh, that's true. we don't like a lot of things that the royal families does in saudi arabia. yet at the same time we have this deep fear it seems to me about iran's behavior. wendy: absolutely. and for good reason. iran is a very strong supporter of state sponsored terrorism. iran has american citizens in detention. they have destabilized the region by their action because of their particular self-interest. we thought that iran with a nuclear weapon would be even worse, which is why we work sod hard to get the joint comprehensive plan of action. but it didn't for one instant set aside all of the concerns about iran that are legitimate concern that saudi arabia has and all the other gulf state have. what we haven't talked about here in this discussion which is fascinating about how sidelined it's gotten already is what's happening in syria and about

what's happening in isil. as i said in the beginning and i want to repeat again, isil is what we have to be focused on. i think this is not in russia's interest for home to go between iran and saudi arabia because russia quite understands that iran and saudi arabia as phil said in beginning have to at least tolerate each other because it's in their self-interest that isil not take over not only iraq and syria but furrer into the middle east. so i think there's a lot of stake here. i think there's a lot more to play out here and there are a -- whose r who is's interest should be aligned and the question is will they understand they are. charlie: are they doing everything that they could do to get fellow sunnis engaged in iraq and in syria? phillip: i don't think so. what i would say about that is saudi arabia understands that

saudi arabia is a threat to saudi arabia. in many ways their a partner with us in the intelligence world -- harlie: even though it's sunni /sunni. phillip: isis threatens the kingdom. the problem is it's not their top priorities. the problem is we rank them differently. for the saudis iran is the top three. theand you get sad -- theand you get assad because of iran and then you get isis. so when they look at what they're doing, sure they want to fight against isis. they're more tolerant because they're fighting assad and they're fighting iran. and so that should be -- that's the problem is that it's just noss at the top of -- not at the top of the priority list. charlie: good and say what you had to say. then my question is are we seeing between the american foreign policy whether it's the

national security council or the state department or even the pentagon competing factions as to what we ought to be doing having to do with this crisis? -- >> let me follow-up on what phil said. i think it's true that saudi arabia is very worried about isis's threat to the kingdom. saudi arabia right now boasts the most number of pro-isis tweets in the world. and a large region sirpthetic to isis. but what it's doing in iraq and syria, isis is serving saudi -- a's regional strat strategy which is to defeat iran. there's an ambiguity in saudi arabia's policy. you cannot ramp up sectarian and sunni rejection of shiah without

sully playing into isis's narrative. and finally, wendy raised some very important issues about what the united states ought to do. i think one of the challenges is that in iraq the fight against isis requires the iraqi government which is a shiah government which is backed by iran to cooperate with the in this fight. e victory was an american-iraqi shiah that did that. demonstrations against saudi arabia demand that the saudi embassy be shut down and other al-malaki ons like their defense. it's questionable how a body can move on the gains in ramadi and ing some kind of a political

settlement and engage the sunnis that we're demanding of him when actually the sectarian risk is opening up further. david: on the point that phil was making about the different priorities. you saw how the saudis acted. last year they joined the bombing of isis in some degree in syria. as soon as they got involved in yemen, all of this military assets went in that direction. same thing for the uae. they haven't really been at the forefront of the military part of the battle. secretary kerry did get them involved in trying to organize the rebel groups, the sunni rebel groups in syria to negotiate with assad late they're month. but it's not clear that the saudis are putting much real energy into that. what they'll tell you privatey is they don't think it's going to work. that then gets you to your question, charlie which is is there a debate within the

administration? and there certainly was. you've heard this just in the differences between secretary linton has said that she advocated with safe zones and the no-fly zones. that hasn't been resolved and it's coming back again. it may be too late to change that strategy. but i think partly it's that the administration never stopped arguing within itself. charlie: last word. that saudi nightmare is europe and the united states decided they could do better business with iran. obviously they don't want to see iran get a nuclear weapon. but their real concern was that this was more than we said it was. this was the first step toward the long and beautiful relationship and the risk now is that that could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. if they start doing things that

alienate public opinion and the u.s. -- then you do get people starting to question that alliance with saudi arabia. i think they do have to be careful about bringing about -- i don't think it's the case about coordinating iran and there are other sorts of reasons why for the foreseeable future we're going to continue to have a hugely troubled relationship with iran. charlie: can i just ask one last question. wendy: sure. charlie: are you satisfied with how the nuclear deal has taken place over the last month? have the iranians lived up to what we experted of them? wednesdayy: it appears -- wendy: it anears iran is taking steps that is required. we will only know that when the international atomic energy tells us all of us that they

have done that. they shipped out anything below 300 milligrams. they would not call it dismantling. they would say setting aside their centrifuges and taking some of the other steps, putting the monitoring measures in place them. quite owner es on we haven't talked about the ballistic missile or the missile concerns. clearly you're seeing the hard liners play that again by announcing a new missile sight and these are all sanctionable activities. i fully expect that sanctions would be brought to bear. there are a lot of legalities. it doesn't mean that iran will do that. they violated the missile sanctions and resolutions immunity. we have to call them on it. and we have to sanction them for it. charlie: thank you, webbedy.

sherman also in washington. and david in washington and phillip gordon with me here. thank you all very much. the story continues. back in a moment. stay with us.

♪ is in the new

filmed. cate blanchett and rudy morrow star in it. here's the trailer for the film. >> dearest, there are no accidents and no explanation i offer will satisfy you. i like the hat. you seek resolutions because you're young. but you will understand this one day. >> how many times have you been in love? >> you're always the most beautiful woman in the room. >> carol. tell me you know what you're doing. , i want it t is

changed. >> she's still my wife. i love her. >> i can't help you with that. >> it shouldn't be like this. >> i know. >> if he can't have me, i can't see my daughter. >> everything comes full circle. >> we gave each other the most breath takings of gifts. joining me now is the film director todd haynes. i'm pleased to have him here at this table for the first time. welcome.

>> thanks so much. charlie: tell me how you found this property in the story? todd: this one unluke most of my other films sort of found me. it's the only film that i had written myself or sort of developed myself. but i heard about it. i got wind of it from sandy powell the costume designer which i worked with twice before. and i knew -- and i know elizabeth karlson the producer. this is the most hands-on producer for carosm and she's been dwoling it for many years. there were producers on it before elizabeth came on. phyllis nodge the screen writer had been attached to it for almost 15 years. it came to me when my schedule opened up. i worked with cate previously. and they said todd, we think christine vashayn is a very dear

friend of elizabeth. they said do you think todd would like to take a look? and i did. the no ve.ad my most formative relationship with gay women. so i took the script and the novel and i went to the oregon coast -- i live in portland these days. i and read her adaptation and the amazing novel and i was hooked. harlie: tell me about patricia hysmith who wrote the novel. >> this is the only novel that alls outside the crime -- that

she's known of. charlie: it's set in the 1950's. >> it's the second novel that she wrote after "strangers in the train" that she sole to alfred hitchcock. and this novel is the most personal, you know, material that she ever really approached in her writing. and she was on a roll. she was very successful. random house had published "strangers on a train." and she wrote this and none of of the major publishers would touch it. charlie: too controversial. todd: too controversial and she was headed for a serious mainstream career. and this would have been a major challenge to that. and so she was sort of recommended that -- by a small publisher that did lesbian

fiction. and they wanted to do it. and they said you should do it under a pseudonym. and she did. it's called "the price of salt" the novel that it's based on. it really stands outside the sort of tradition of lesbian fiction in that it doesn't end punitively with a punishment, with ay yes sense, with a heterosexual corrective ending tarium or ag or a san suicide for a book set in that time. so yes, so it became a beloved peace of the fiction for years. patricia went on to continue to write pro-litically. all the ripley books among many other great books. yeah. in the 1980's before she died they published "the price of

salt" and that's when it was republished as "carol." charlie: cate was attached. todd: yes they had already gone to cate. so it was a no-brainer for her. charlie: what was the attraction for her? todd: i think she just felt -- you know, this was a beautiful piece of writing this novel. it really reminds you -- it reminded me many in ways that i hadn't been reminded in years what it is to be falling in love with somebody, to be in the dark, to not know where you stand, to be reading the signs, you know, that the other person is giving you and trying to di certain your fate or whether this is going to happen. and so i think there's just something beyond the fact that this is a lesbian love story set

at this specific time. it reminds you of being in love and that vulnerability of that position. and so i know that all those things were factors for cate. charlie: so cate was in and then rooney. todd: and then i cast rooney. charlie: because? todd: well, i -- i've been an admirer of rooney's work since pretty much the gipping. i think i've seen most of her major roles and films. she's just such a -- i always felt she had this ability to underplay and to know -- she just seemed to understand the scale of the medium of film in a way i found remarkable of someone her age. i think it takes tremendous confidence and intelligence to know how little can actually -- how little a gesture can convey

an emotion and can convey an audience' interest. she just had -- and yet she was playing a bold body characters and "the girl with the dragon tattoo." "girl with ad like dragon tattoo." todd: this project came to her before i was attached and she passed. and she says she wasn't in a head space for it. and that was a huge emotional and intense experience for her. and then i think, you know, films need sort of certain conditions, i guess to feel like they're viable and then so i became the director attached and cate was attached. charles: this book is told from teresa's standpoint. todd: it is.

charlie: and this is told from both of their perspectives. todd: it is. i felt like their point of view is an organizing principle for how to approach it. i still feel like you're rooted n terez's experience more than carol's and that you were introduced to carol very much through the, you know, the perceptions of terez and the distortions and the -- and the, you no, anxiety of being in the presence of this older, quite formidable woman and not knowing, you know, what it means, what -- charlie: was it innocence for her? todd for terez? charlie: yeah. or age difference or difference of life experience? todd: i think it's all of it. i think it's all of that. what was so remarkable about the novel is that, you know, it

reminds you of the instability that one feels when you're to a ing to attach desire certain person. and that kind of tunnel that you enter where you don't know what anything needs and yet everything is a sign to be decoded. but what's so lovely about the novel is you always feel like you're inventing love. charlie: which is true about all relationships. todd: but in this case they also kind of were because it was one of the least, i think represented forms of love. charlie: because she goes from being a sales delork a -- clerk to a photographer and quite a good photographer working for the "new york times." so she becomes a much more interesting character. todd: she becomes a person that

kind of is focused. at first she's unco lated. she has a boyfriend. she accepts the -- the amorous attention of another guy. and then she's immediately interested in this older woman and not knowing what that means. there's not even a word for it. so she's kind of all over the place. and she says i can't take pictures of people initially. and even this that's a process where she gets comfortsable putting the human subject in her work, in her frames. the only way to get better is to challenge yourself,

and that's what we're doing at xfinity. we are challenging ourselves to improve every aspect of your experience. and this includes our commitment to being on time. every time. that's why if we're ever late for an appointment, we'll credit your account $20.

it's our promise to you. we're doing everything we can to give you the best experience possible. because we should fit into your life. not the other way around. ♪ charlie: this is where the two of them -- this clip two where the two of them have lunch together. ere it is. > thank you. >> bon appetite. what do you do on sunday? >> nothing in particular. what do you do? >> nothing lately. if you would like to come visit me some time, you're welcome to. at least it's a pretty country

around where i live. would you like to come visit me this sunday? >> yes. strange girl, you are. > why? charlie: how do actors sflunes shooting a scene like that? talk both cate and rooney about it as being a good mem referee: the -- a good memory of the shoot. we had almost a day. it's a long scene. it's an important scene. and it's really just three angles, three on seach of the actors. but it meant we could all focus, one location.

we shot it in cincinnati in ohio. we could be there and really look at the details and the silences, you know? and the awkward -- you were mentioning how we hold on certain shots. when the topic changes, usually i think people want to cut. when you have great actors like that you want to show all the moment. and my editor alfonso and i felt like, no, if you start cutting too much, you can never go back. you need to establish -- exactly , and a different patience of the audience and a different sort of way -- really somewhat putting the audience into a state of anxiety. charlie: for me it's so interesting because it's not -- whatever's happening in your face as i talk now, it's not just what i'm saying. it's how you're responding to it. it's a combination of those kinds of things. show this clip. cate when carol,

blanchett is arguing with her husband. >> i am cold. >> i'm going to give you coffee. >> i'm not drunk. >> you can still come. let's go back to bed. >> i can want do this. >> yes, you can. >> what are you going to do? what are you going to do? you're going stay with abby? you're going to stay with shop girl in there? what are you going to do, huh? what do you have planned? >> stop it. >> you want men like me. >> you wonder why they stay there so long. for some reason she's the only person he's fix sated on what a great woman she is. todd: what a great woman she is. and no one believes that this is real. there's no examples for it. it's not in his world. it's not in anyone's world

really. the novel's interesting because terez is an aspiring stage designer and her boyfriend richard is an aspiring painter although she kind of sees through that. there are already these characters with artistic ambitions and it would get them the bohemian village. everyone was left prepared for what they're about to encounter, you know, what's about to unfold. they don't really have references. charlie: why does carol continue to say what a strange girl she is? >> i think because they're available. these two people are stepping out of their respective lives and -- charlie: but this is not the

first time for carol. todd: no, it's not. charlie: why is she surprised about the availability of terez? > it speaks to who terez is. i think no one really knows the rules. this is outside -- you don't ally know -- is terest a lesbian? is carol. she says to her boyfriend -- no, i don't need people like that. i just need a girl and the girl to fall in love. she wants to imagine a relationship for which there is no model, you know, in the story. charlie: this is my admiring cate so much. it is how difficult lives are for people. it's just not easy. absolutely. they have these relationships that are so conflicted because

of her love for a child, you know? and the times, the 1950's -- how many people are living a life that's not truly authentic. todd: exactly. when people say that cate sometimes in press conferences. i love how you play strong women. she kind of bristles because there's something about, you no, what, i'm not interested in playing strong women. i'm interested in playing onflicted women or people, you know, who are as you say nothing is easy. charlie: you wanted to make a different kind of film about a lesbian love affair then say what else might have been made. is there a sense that i don't want to do what hollywood normally does here? todd: i felt that a lot of it is being true to this whole idea of the kind of isolation that love

puts people in and that was only furthered by the historic condition of when this is taking place. but carol who seems so suave and well put together and tough is a somewhat neurotic, not happy person, you know? you can feel -- charlie: she could be happy in this relationship and was unfettered by all the complexity. she's neurotic. todd: she's neurotic. and she's so well put together from the outside. we think she's so figured it out -- but she's conflicted. and that's why she re-evaluates the value of this girl. charlie: so what are you drawn to now? todd: i sort of know it when i see it. i have a cluster of projects that are in different stages. charlie: and so you will do

something that has finances and you're ready to do it? todd: yeah, and for the first time i've opened myself up to stuff that's out there. i've been very single-minded -- i do my thing and i do it -- charlie: or accept a call from someone who said i like your style. todd: i'm so glad i did because "carol" was a project that came to me and them i felt i applied my interpretation to it. charlie: con grang -- congratulations. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ >> it's noon here in hong kong and over in singapore. i'mry schad salamat. another horrid day. trading with them with only $640 billion wiped away in 1:15. they may not sell more than 1% of the holdings for the next three months in the hopes of restoring some calm. and the unease is spreading. the futures sinking has been taking place in china. down 1% for the s&p 500. shares were tumbling making the biggest cut since august