>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with politics. a report delivered to congress yesterday, the state department's inspector general criticized hillary clinton's e-mails, saying clinton violated government policies in using a private e-mail account as secretary of state. the next are asking why she did not seek permission to use it and why she refused to cooperate with the inspector general's investigation. clinton has refused to respond.

at a rally yesterday, donald trump capitalized on the news. mr. trump: she is as crooked as they come. she had a little bad news today, as you know. some reports came down that were not too good. not so good. the inspector general general's report, not good. charlie: the fbi's investigation continues. clinton said she would be willing to sit for an interview. the news also comes as bernie sanders closes in on hillary clinton's lead in california. joining us, a political reporter who focuses on clinton, and from washington, steven lee myers of the "times." let me begin with amy, where are we in day two of this story? amy: the clinton campaign faces a central challenge, her trust numbers. the latest new york times poll, 64% of registered voters said they do not trust hillary clinton, the same amount as donald trump. they are wondering, how do we overcome that? that challenge has collided with this new report that is in some ways very damning, and the most damning because it plays right into the narrative that donald

trump is trying to craft of her, as not being trustworthy. as finding ways to get around the rules. charlie: steven lee myers, what do you think? steven: i think a lot of people are still digesting the report. the report is one of several coming. a judicial watch, a conservative watch group is doing depositions now, seeking more information about why she created this private server. who knew about it, what were the security risks involved. on top of the fbi investigation, which is also coming down the pike. i think the inspector general's report is only the first in what is bound to be more controversy surrounding her use of the server. charlie: are you surprised by the response? you would think they would want to put this behind, but if you are answering in a way that makes people question your response, you are not putting it behind you. steven: i think all along for

the campaign, they have tried to play this down, saying this is something previous secretaries have done, specifically colin powell, using an e-mail account. but what the report did was undercut some of the justifications or explanations that they had made, that she herself has made, that this was not approved by the state department security records management officials. and she had not asked. if she had asked, it would not have been approved. the report into all the details make it clear that it created an awkward situation for people in the department to try to accommodate this server. not everybody knew about it. you see situations in which people are trying to figure out how to work around that. that added, i think, to some of these surprised that came out of this report. these were not things that we

knew, and it did suggest that there was more of an effort to avoid the scrutiny of the e-mails that would be expected of official records. charlie: do you believe, amy, that she knew it would not be approved? amy: there is a line in there that says that an aide expresses concern about the private server, and she says she is willing to get a second device or she is willing to get an official e-mail address, just as long as the personal never gets out. that line to me was particularly damming. it added to perceptions that she was keeping this private server to keep her correspondence private. as stephen said, other secretaries of state have done that. colin powell has done that, but

he is not running for president against an opponent trying to craft him as "crooked." also, they have tried to put this behind them. last summer, the e-mail dogged her campaign, and she issued an apology, saying sorry that people were confused. finally that looked like it was not cut it and she finally apologized almost a year later he it is still haunting her candidacy. charlie: is there division in the clinton campaign as to what to do? amy: i think they are trying to figure it out as they go. there is a lot of division in terms of how to confront trump, and how much you sort of play into him. but i think steven is right. they are trying to say that every secretary of state has done this, that it was not outside usual practice. charlie: you would think she would want to sit there and answer every question and sort of exhaust the thing. as the late geraldine ferraro did. amy: like the pretty in pink press conference over the cattle futures, right. remember, she did that. before she started running, she had that press conference at the united nations, which was an onslaught of questions about the e-mails, and she gave cautious legal responses. that press conference did not go over well. people said she looked defensive. obviously, we are still talking about it. it did not squelch the criticism.

i am sure they are wondering what the benefit was at those press conferences when they tried that. charlie: steven, what can she hope for in this? steven: because of the legal processes underway, the fbi investigation, a number of court hearings for additional information about the e-mails, i think the best she can hope for is that there are no more revelations about what was known and who knew it when. there are serious questions raised in the inspector general's report about adhering to federal law, to the guidelines for preserving records, for taking security precautions. there is an e-mail that went out under her name that they cite, talking about the risk of using your personal e-mail in conducting official business, even as she was continuing to do that throughout her tenure. i think the best that they can hope for at this point is that nothing more scarring comes out than what has already. charlie: i assume they would hope also that if the fbi report

comes out and she is testified, which obviously would bring a huge amount of attention, the fbi would come out with a report that would suggest that she did nothing that was damaging in terms of national security or the like. amy, help me out. amy: i would say one of her strongest points ever in this campaign was when she sat down for 13 hours of testimony in the benghazi hearing. so if pressed to answer questions publicly, i think that's actually a good format for her. it makes voters think she is being transparent. she is being bullied. she walked away from benghazi

the winner. steven: that was very much seen as a politicized hearing, even a partisan display, from both sides. the fbi investigation is going to be hard to portray that way, and it also won't be public. they won't put out a report, necessarily. they will make a recommendation to the department of justice on whether or not they believe any crimes were committed, and it will be up to the department of justice to decide whether to bring any cases. that could go any number of ways. some could be incredible nightmares for the campaign. but even the fact of an interview with an fbi in the middle of a presidential campaign certainly is not a good optic for the campaign, and i am sure they will hope that the fbi decides there were no crimes committed, and at this point we don't know what they are going to do. amy: steven makes a good point. so much of her response is that her republican adversaries are blowing this out of proportion to her hurt during a political season. so the report yesterday was

particularly damning because it was from her own state department. charlie: can bernie sanders win in california? amy: it was looking impossible until recently. new polling shows they are in a dead heat. i still think he is an underdog. the clinton campaign intended to shift all of its resources into the general election by this point, and they said yesterday that they would be going on air for ads in california. this was unheard of a few weeks ago when we thought that everything was going to be pushed to ohio, florida, pennsylvania. places where they are ready to take on donald trump. charlie: and what about trump and sanders in a debate? amy: that would be fine. trump said in his press conference that they would do it for charity. if they raised $10 million, they would do the debate. bernie is having money problems. i think they are looking for free media, and what could be more free media than debating trump? charlie: thank you, amy.

thank you, steven. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪ we begin the week with politics. hillary clinton's e-mail server is in the news. there had been more incidents of violence at donald trump rallies, and there may be one more debate before the california primaries, but it is not one that everybody expected. mike allen is here with that and more, the chief correspondent of politico. and the editor of the playbook blog. welcome. mike: thank you for having me. charlie: we know that donald trump has reached enough delegates. when will hillary clinton reach the same point? mike: this is the amazing reversal of fortune. remember when this process started? we thought there was one viable democrat and 17 republicans, and now she is having to go to the very end, bernie sanders pushing her, looking stronger, getting more coverage. last weekend, this "saturday night live" segment had bernie sanders and hillary clinton in a bar at closing time and sanders wouldn't leave.

that was a great set up. charlie: what is wrong with the clinton campaign? is it the candidate? mike: it needs excitement. there is such an excitement deficit between trump and her. the dilemma for sec. clinton is cautiousness, one thing missing from hillary clinton is her brand. you would assume that in these times, that is what people want, but it is not. you can remember me saying this fall to you, when we had the summer of trump and the fall of trump, i used to say, at any moment, something could happen in the world that would remind people that this is a real job. and then we had the attack in paris, and trump went up. so people want -- or at least a large number of voters want --

the two are tied in national polls, nothing any of us saw coming, and the white house did not see it coming. we were talking to them the other day. they were surprised by how quickly it has become a neck-and-neck race, and by how quickly republicans have closed ranks behind donald trump. charlie: you told me on the phone the other day, this foretells the next five months. mike: trump, making accusations against bill clinton that no one has. a picture of bill clinton with the cigar, telling the washington post that he is going to start looking to conspiracy theories. charlie: vince foster? mike: yes. that is a dilemma for the

clinton campaign, do you respond? if you do not, you are accused of making a swift boat mistake. but on the other side of that coin, you could spend the next five months talking about things you don't want to talk about, that you don't want to remind voters of. charlie: and you don't want to become donald trump. trying to attack him the same way he attacked them. marco rubio tried that, and it did not work for him. mike: when the egyptair plane went down, and donald trump right away tweeted that it was terrorism, at the time we did not know what it was. charlie: and still don't. mike: exactly. but then you saw hillary clinton talking about the plane and terrorism. how to look strong and not play

trump's game is a difficult needle to thread, and they have not yet cracked that code. charlie: i have friends of mine who are politically savvy saying if there was a major terrorism event in this country, it would play into trump's hands. mike: it no question. politics of fear. he is going to play the security model. this will be his message at the convention. he will talk about being a family man. and interestingly it enough mike: yeah, great kids. family man, pragmatic businessman, and he will appeal to security models. -- moms. he will project strength. charlie: you but i thought we said that was hillary clinton. careful, serious, with a big resume. has been there. when she ran against obama, "who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 a.m.?" mike: exactly. secretary clinton has history, demographics, and resume on her side. that missing ingredient is the emotional connection. that's how we vote.

i sometimes think of life as a student council election. back in the lunch room, you didn't vote for the kid with the better platform, you voted for someone because you like them. that's how elections are. charlie: when you look at elections today, do you find that more and more people are saying, yes, yes, donald trump can win? mike: i have said a while, he had a 30% chance. that is rising. we saw in the polls that have him basically tied, we see it in so many republicans who are fighting a way to endorse him, or they say they will support him, but not endorse him, or vice versa, but so many republicans are coming around. we are seeing hillary clinton

does not yet have a blueprint for firing back. if we were to flash forward and donald trump wins, mainly for demographic reasons and map reasons, seems unlikely. the political staff says donald trump would need to win seven in 10 of white dudes, including democrats. charlie: and at the same time, they point out that hillary clinton has a long way to go to win bernie sanders supporters. there are exit polls that say they feel strongly against her, even to the point of some saying they will vote for donald trump. mike: i think this will be a big story, bernie bros going to trump. it is the middle finger vote. people on the outside of mercury tainted, they do not like what they are hearing, they do not trust the system. after the convention, they are going to be taking a look at

donald trump. union members, not union leaders, but union members, distrust the clintons because of trade and nafta. some democrats will pull the lever for donald trump. it complicates the math. that's why the math is so screwy this time. the rust belt, blue-collar states that you can usually count on going for democrats, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania, those are in play. but some classic red states, like georgia and arizona, with expanding hispanic populations, those he can lose.

so the chessboard has moved. charlie: thank you for coming. mike: happy memorial day. ♪

charlie: we now turn to asia. earlier this week, the president visited vietnam, where he lifted a decade-old arms embargo. he then headed to the g-7 summit in japan. he plans to make it an historic visit to hiroshima on friday. joining me is david sanger of the new york times.

he recently returned from traveling with the president. i am pleased to have him back on this program. thank you for doing this. i think you just got off the plane as we taped this. thank you for coming by. give me an overview of this trip. put it in context. part of it is legacy building, part of it is reminding americans that he is constantly talking about the importance of asia. david: that's right. the two big parts of this trip are the vietnam side, which was what he did the beginning part of the week. which was the first time he had gone to vietnam and was important, because he is trying to wrap vietnam into the overall strategy of the asian pivot. that has been drawing out countries like myanmar, vietnam. where we had diplomatic relationship of 25 years. but we have not really deepened

the relationship. to try to get vietnam, the philippines, others in the region to participate in this effort to jointly contain the chinese without making the chinese view it as containment. it is not an easy trick. as you can imagine. because on the one hand, he is trying to engage the chinese, saying we understand we need to work as partners and so forth, and yet he is using facts that the chinese have been so aggressive in the south china sea to help draw in asian nations that have not been traditional allies, that have been very reluctant partners. if you look around the region, he ended up lifting the arms embargo on vietnam, which has been in place since the 1960's. he is hoping that he will have some access to the big port during the vietnam war. he is negotiating with the philippines about getting access to bases that we are throwing out 20 to 25 years ago when i was a correspondent in asia. we never thought we would have access to it again. he's already got a deal with the

australians having access to darwin. what he is hoping to do is keep american forces engaged in new places around the south china sea where they are constantly going to be in china's space. charlie: is there a specific message to the chinese that if you go this far, we will respond, both the united states and its allies?

david: the message is little more subtle. each of these countries recognized a need to have a relationship with china. the trade relationship they have with china is bigger than the trade relationship they have with the u.s., in many cases, and it's part of why the president spent so much time making the case for the transpacific partnership, although the case needs to be made with congress. more so than the 11 asian nations the u.s. has negotiated with. charlie: it is fair to say that vietnam and some of these countries have welcomed this because they are wary of chinese intentions over the long run. david: that's right. the trick here is to use the chinese aggressiveness to playoff the insecurities of these countries and make sure that they recognize it is the united states with who they have the best long-term possibilities. what's running against this is the domestic politics here.

the new york times they read, they watch your show and cnn and all that, and they see donald trump talking about how relationships in the region, including the american troop presence, should be based on whether or not these countries are financially contributing. you could argue what's missing from the trump argument right now is the case that the u.s. itself has in the region, and for its own reasons being a presence. these countries are nervous that the asian pivot that the president has talked about may go away on january 20, 2017. charlie: what do they think in asia when they hear mr. trump say he is not against japan having a nuclear weapon? david: he said that in the

interview that maggie and i did with him, and he also said that about south korea. he did not then repeat that in his foreign-policy speech. you have not heard him talk about it since. he came to it after i asked him in the course of that interview, if you are going to pull back from the pacific, both of these countries are going to get more nervous that are nuclear umbrella no longer covers it, that we would not be willing to come to their defense against china or north korea. and so would you have any objection if they build their own nuclear weapons, which the right wings of both countries are arguing for. after a pause, he said no, i would not have any problem with that. i find it interesting that he has not repeated it since. would he want countries part of the nonproliferation treaty to break that treaty? charlie: also, the president

said on friday that he would go to hiroshima. david: it is going to be a fascinating trip. when i lived in japan, no american official, even the u.s. ambassador in japan, would go to hiroshima during the commemoration of the bombing on august 6, and the later bombing in nagasaki. you have seen president obama being willing to do some things that traditionally american presidents have not done. he has been to myanmar twice, a place no president had gone before. he is willing to reach out to the iranians in a way that others have not before. charlie: cuba. david: cuba, for sure. and now you're seeing him say, look, we can take on directly the fact that we bombed hiroshima and nagasaki. the question, in watching his

talk on hiroshima, is twofold. first, we know he is going to avoid an apology. he has said there are no apologies for what the u.s. did, but there are still two completely opposite interpretations of history that go around the hiroshima bombing. if you walk into that museum that is outside the surviving dome that the president is visiting, you get a vision of history where the japanese are walking around hiroshima, there is no context to the war, and suddenly the bomb is dropped. if you talk to americans about this, if you look at the exhibits in the smithsonian around that came up in the 50th anniversary and survived to some degree, what you get is a version in which the decision to drop the bomb ended up ending the war and saved tens of thousands if not hundred s of thousands of american lives.

both of these, there are people who believe that there are reasons the japanese surrendered had more to do with the fear that as soon as russia entered the japanese side of the war, they would be able to do that, they would be invaded by the russians in the north and the u.s. from the south, and that may have had more to do with it. but certainly there is a version of events which i kind of subscribe to that the decision to bomb in hiroshima probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives. charlie: there is also the question of the prime minister of japan. he reminded the president when they were standing together that there was great anger in japan over an early incident in which a subcontractor had killed a japanese woman, a young japanese

woman. that still is part of the conversation and debate about whether there ought to be an american president in okinawa. >> there has been a long-running set of issues in okinawa. one that you alluded to, that there have been extraordinarily tragic encounters between some of the american servicemen and local okinawans. several many back in the 1980's and 1990's, more in recent times. i do not know that they are happening in any other place at a greater rate, but it certainly happens. the second issue is that the americans have said we will reduce our presence in okinawa, but you have to then come up with an alternative location for

the troops to be based within japan. while the japanese have promised to do that and laid out plans for it, they have not gone ahead with them. there's great tension with in japan between the people of okinawa, which feel they are taking on the biggest urban of having the troops there, the historic burden that comes back from the fact that japan itself had been freed of the american occupation, and the fact that there is also always rivalry between the japanese islands and the okinawans, where the main islands do not want to take on this u.s. presence. there are all kind of environmental issues that come up, as well, including the

survivability of the reefs around okinawa's airbases are extended. charlie: and the final point, should the japanese prime minister have made this case while standing with the american president? >> whether he needed to make it in public, i don't know, but certainly, this is a long-running issue. the case was made to george h.w. bush, bill clinton, george w. bush. so i do not really see the issue of whether or not this was an effort by prime minister abe to embarrass president obama. it has been one of the main sources of discussion between the united states and japan for decades. charlie: i am not sure any what would suggest it was an effort to embarrass president obama. the question is, was that the right for to do it? >> yeah, it may not have been, domesticas his own

politics on these issues. i think had he not brought it , up, it probably would have been difficult for him. i think the harder part for him to navigate is, what does he have to do after the president visit hiroshima? no japanese rime has gone to pearl harbor. if you go off the hiroshima coast to an island that basically has the equivalent of the japanese annapolis, there is a wonderful small museum there to the memory of what they call the heroes of pearl harbor. those would be the japanese airmen who went over and were shot down and never came back. so there was a mythology that the japanese have about pearl harbor. and one of the interesting questions is, after the president is done doing what he does at hiroshima, is it time

for japanese prime minister to then show up at pearl harbor and explain that in a historical context, as well? charlie: such as it is with wars , there are winners and losers clearly the united states is troubled by north korea. was it a subject there, and if so, how did it play out? >> north korea is usually a bilateral subject between the u.s. and japan and the u.s. and south korea. the most interesting thing that is happening in the next few weeks is that there is going to be a joint training drill for training with north korea that has japan and south korea and the u.s. all together in it. since the japanese and the south koreans have a very difficult time talking to each other, working on this question, that itself sends a message to the north koreans. we reported a story i did a few weeks ago that the north koreans have, according to american and south korean

intelligence, have finally mastered the technology of putting a nuclear weapon on a short and intermediate range missile. they have not tested this yet, but the intelligence agencies believe they know how to do this. they do not yet, they believe, know how to put it on a long-range whistle that could reach the united states. but if it can reach american forces in south korea, american forces in japan, if it can reach about any city in japan and south korea, that seems to raise the stakes considerably, at a time when we're worried about the stability of kim jong-un. and i would say that if there has been a single area in which president obama has made no progress and is probably leaving the situation worse than he asia, it is on the north korean side.

while the u.s. was able to negotiate with the iranians, it has never gotten a conversation going with the north koreans. i'm not sure there is any chance that will happen between now and that time. charlie: thank you for stepping off a plane and coming in to see us. get some sleep. we look forward to seeing you soon. david singer and washington. we will be right back. ♪

charlie: our guest received her first oscar nomination at the age of 13 for her performance in "atonement." earlier this year, she received an oscar nomination for "brooklyn." she has grown from henning kennelly intelligent child actor to a screen performer of force and sensitivity. she is making her broadway debut the revival of arthur miller's "the crucible." she plays abigail williams who feels mad paranoia in the midst of the salem witch trials. i am pleased to have her at this table for the first time. welcome. tell me about abigail. >> she is very complicated, i have to say. it is funny, because it has been something that has been on my mind for the last two years, because i signed up about two years ago. charlie: what does that mean?

>> i'm excessively thinking about it nine -- night and day and dream about it and cannot sleep. it is my first time on stage, so i was terrified. charlie: but you're comfortable now? >> yeah, i think, no matter what, because it is the very first production i am involved initially, i had never been on stage before, so i will always have nerves when i go on stage. i will never be completely comfortable. charlie: but you always wanted stage when you are about 21? >> i wanted to wait until i was 21. because i did not train, and even though i don't think you need to be a good actor necessarily, i think the theater, the technical side of

it is a much weaker part of the performance. and what you deliver every night. and to not know how to breathe or project or even just make a line work in 100 different ways, you would be a bit lost in a play. so i did not want to do it when i was too young. charlie: very interesting -- make a line work in 100 different ways. >> yet, which you can do. charlie: can you give me an example? >> i think really, the first line that i have with paris, when i'm saying to him, what i think the rumor of witchcraft is all about, that you have to go down and deny it yourself. that is something that can be played in so many different ways. so the way that the director wanted me to do this was someone

who is very self-assured. she was only 16, 17, and she is kind of wise for her years. and she stands on her own quite well. there are so many different scenarios within the play where i come face-to-face with one of the main male characters, and talk them down. that is the type of young girl she is, so with a line like that, you can play a self-possessed young girl, or someone who is nervous or anxious. even though quite a strong foundation has been laid, no mike, what, every single a reading of a simple line like that will be completely different. charlie: is there any similarity between this character and the character from "atonement"?

>> yes. it is similar, i have to say. i feel like abigail is an older version, if she had been let away more as she got older. i think they are both incredibly intelligent young women. charlie: who knew what they were doing? >> i do not think they did. i think abigail has more of an idea of the repercussions of her actions and her words. i think maybe briney chose not sheee the truth, because was young and there was confusion involved. and her motivation to do what she did. i think with abigail, she has more of a clear sort of focus. she knows what she wants. or so she thinks she wants john

proctor, and that is her motivation. i think briney was scared and confused, the only thing that the girl could have relied on was her imagination because she did not have anyone else. >> did you talk t charlie: did you talk to the author of "atonement"? >> yes. he is amazing. it is not very often that you have the author of the books that are being adapted for film be supportive of the film adaption. charlie: and you did that with "brooklyn"? very lucky with that, as well. i have been very lucky. you do not always get that. it is their baby and their work, and a book is so incredibly different when it comes to the journey that a reader takes

versus an audience member. but ian came on set a few times and i remember i showed him around the set, and i showed him how cameras work, things like that, even though i am sure he knew how cameras worked, but he is lovely. charlie: this is arthur miller on this program talking about "the crucible" in 2002. >> i think the play is dealing with the disintegration of a society. it is a play about paranoia, hysteria. and i imagine that people are reacting to it because they feel similar things now, namely that an attack can come from anywhere, which is what happened in salem. that they were not quite sure why. they were not sure what they would do or what they should do. it is all up in the air. and in this play, that is the way it is.

it is a play about a town that is simply exploding in fear. >> it has a lot in common with shakepeare's plays. doesanything the theater very well. it fuels the whole society. it takes a microcosm. it is possible to put a whole society on stage that is .ttractive to the other theater predicted when a group of people on stage, expands through whole society this is what shakespeare does, and goes from the top to the bottom. also what arthur does in this , way is to go from scenes of great intimacy between two people to scenes which involve the entire society on stage. the epic scale of it, the language is, of course, shakespearean. arthur has steeped himself in

shakespeare and in the transcripts of the trial and in the king james bible which came out about 70 years before these people. their language would be very informed by that. it is a language of muscularity and energy. after the first run through sitting at the force of the play, arthur said this is a young man's play. i could not write this now. because of the sheer energy and muscularity of the play. charlie: what informed you in terms of your performance? >> it really was a process, and because of the way it works, it is specific to the production. you probably never will work like ivo again.

it is very gradual. we do not have a very clear idea of what we were doing on the first day. i had just gone over the play an awful lot. all i really had was the text. it is so true what richard says. there is a muscularity, a real poetry to the text. it is so far removed from how we speak now that it is like you are doing shakespeare. so you really do disappear into that world as soon as you commit yourself to the text. but it was a number of different elements that came together. the costume, the look of the character, and all of us going over the text over and over again for weeks. charlie: this is what you told "new york magazine" -- you are surrounded by this community with rules for everything.

she is a teenager becoming a sexual creature, but she is still a child in some ways. >> is that what i said? again, fear is the driving force in this play. no matter what production you see, the one thing that should be apparent is that there is such an air of fear in this community. no matter what, even with what is going on now in america and in europe, fear drives people to do things they would not do. charlie: you mean in the politics? >> totally. and even, to be honest, just in personal relationships, i think between people. when you feel like you are being attacked, more often than not, unless you are a hero like john or a heroine like elizabeth, you will shift the blame or you will panic and you will move the attention onto someone else, and that is what is constantly happening in this play. one thing that really fascinated me, these young girls

that are the ones that instigate the sort of attack on these incrediblyy are emotional because they are going through a very physical and very emotional shift in their lives, the biggest they will probably ever go through. they are discovering sex for the first time. i think, with abigail in particular she behaves in an course, but i don't blame her for reacting in the way she does. she has had her innocence taken from her by this man, and he promised her many things when they were together, regardless of how long the affair lasted for. being a young girl, his idea of romanticism is probably still alive and well, ran with that in

really took that to mean that they were committed to one another. when that is taken away from her, it is almost like her main purpose has been taken away from her. suddenly, she is like all the other children in the community again. when she had him, she was something else, something higher than the rest of them. so she starts to panic. charlie: so her meaning in life is taken away. >> yeah. charlie let's talk a little bit : of things about you. your parents came here to pursue acting. your father came here to pursue it. >> he actually didn't. he became an actor over here. he was discovered in a bar that he worked at. charlie: because of the way he looked? mean, he is a very good-looking man, but he is very

funny and charismatic. irish people, in general, are entertainers. charlie: did you want to be like him? is that what you got into acting -- is that what got you into acting? >> i did not grow up with the notion of wanting to be an actor. charlie: you went back to ireland when you were three years old. >> he became an actor in new york, and when i was three, we moved back onto ireland, and he continued to work. i think when i was about maybe seven or something, he was doing this short film in dublin somewhere. they needed a kid to dress up as a clown, of course, or like half crown, half human, something very avant-garde. they needed a kid to do it. it is so funny, the kazaa was never the type of kid to dress up or use face painter anything like that. the only person i pretended to be was jean butler from riverdance.

i always wanted to be like her. other than that, i never did anything like that. i was not enthusiastic about it. he persuaded me to do it. because they needed a kid. but as soon as i got onto the film set, i just felt really at home straightaway. charlie: how old were you when you did "atonement"? >> i was 12. i was lucky. there was a shift happening. i was suddenly put into this world of, you know, incredible people, people who are really wonderful and brilliant about what they do. serious subject matter, yet, we were having fun and still getting the work done. forthis deep, deep love acting and being on a film set, a kind of blossomed from there, i think. charlie: i want to ask a

question. why do you think you have been so successful at such a young age? is there an answer to that? >> a lot of it has to do with luck. i really do think that. charlie: opportunity? >> yeah, i think you have to be happy at what you do, i suppose. hopefully i am. and also, another thing that a lot of people do not really mention is that you need to the respectful of the other people you are working with eventually, -- that you are working with because eventually, if you are disrespectful to the people around you, that word of mouth gets passed on to other people. people talk, and you won't be hired again. i'm very lucky that i had terrific parents, one of whom was very experienced when it came to films and new the etiquette and how to prepare and

all that sort of stuff. and my mother, i was able to sort of soak up all the goodness of being around these wonderful people. but i also wasn't ruined by it at an early age. i was still kept innocent, and one thing that she said when i was a kid, someone was going to tea on theup of set, and she stopped them. everything has been terrific. where do you want to go? >> i just want to keep working, really. i love film, i really do. the acting itself is obviously the reason why i love what i do so much. it is a huge part of me. acting on stage versus acting on film is completely different. charlie: and more satisfying?

they are both equally satisfying for different reasons. you get an intimacy on a film set that you do not get as much in theater. at the same time, when you are on stage with someone -- even with you and i right now, no one else is here with you and me, and you do not get that space on a film set. there are lots of other people there, cameras everywhere. that puts some people off. but i have grown up with that, so i love working in that environment. charlie: wishing you much success. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

carol: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." this week's issue online and on news stands now, the republican national committee identity crisis. david: redefining insider trading. carol: and kelly slater finding his perfect wave. david: all of that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." ♪ david: we are here with the editor-in-chief of "bloomberg businessweek." a great issue this week. carol: you guys talk about mr. fix-it in the auto industry. now he has to fix mitsubishi.