♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." jeff: good evening, i'm jeff glor filling in for charlie rose, who is away today. we begin with politics. on friday, the trump administration announced it would discontinue public access to logs of visitors to the white house. meanwhile, protesters demanded that the president release his tax returns. that is ahead of tuesday's tax deadline. on the foreign policy front, tensions with north korea further escalated over the weekend. in the wake of pyongyang's failed missile test sunday. while visiting south korea vice , president pence warned the north koreans not to test president trump, citing the

recent u.s. strikes on syria and afghanistan. joining me from washington, david frum, senior editor at "the atlantic." his latest article is called "trump's plan to end europe." and philip rucker, white house bureau chief at "the washington post." julie hirschfeld davis from "the new york times," will join us momentarily. i am pleased to have all of them on this program. david, i want to start with asia, since it is top of mind today. vice president pence's visit in particular. what is the administration looking for? david: who can say? one of the things that is striking is it is usually the greater power that tries to de-escalate the situation. the united states has had a posture of recognizing north korea is in it for the money. they are not a strategic actor. the more you increase the apparent value of their nuisance, the more they will charge to have the nuisance go away.

the u.s. doesn't have credible military options. everybody knows that. the trump administration doesn't have much of an alliance structure. it began the administration by blowing up the transpacific all ourhip, something friends in the pacific are deeply vested in. it is hard to see much of a plan other than squinting and looking tough, and promising to do things your opponents know you are not going to do. jeff: philip, where does this administration want the conversation to go? phil: they want to apply pressure on china. there is a sense within the white house they would like to see china apply more pressure on north korea, not only militarily, but economically. try to pressure the north korean regime, try to de-escalate. i think trump is feeling good about their relationship he built with president xi trip a few weeks ago. he wants china to follow through with that and apply more pressure to north korea. jeff: julie, i guess these are

two separate questions, but where does the administration want this conversation to go and where do you think it can go? julie: you heard david talk about the challenge of making any substantive negotiations. i think president trump wants to show he can do these deal-building, relationship-building things. if they can get xi jinping to step forward and apply pressure where china had not been willing to before, that would be a win, a peaceful solution to the mounting threats, and a show of donald trump's ability to maneuver in the geopolitical sphere that we haven't seen from him before. it is important for them foreign policy-wise, but he also wants to show he's a strong president that can pull some of the strings. i think that's why we hear the white house leading so hard on the idea of china stepping up. jeff: there's confidence from

the white house that after a candidate was so critical of the country during the campaign, that the president now believes he has a relationship with xi that can get something done. phil: that's right. they feel the relationship is very strong. they think china will want to help the u.s. in terms of further fostering the friendship and come to the table in terms of applying pressure to north korea. there's another player here as well, and that is japan. shinzo abe, the prime minister of japan, developed a warm relationship with president trump over the last couple of months. the japanese are watching closely and would like to see china apply pressure. i think we are encouraged by what president trump was doing elsewhere in the world with the bombing in syria and last week in afghanistan. we saw him as a decisive leader willing to take action in a way president obama was not. that has encouraged the japanese.

david: can i file a mild protest against the discussion? jeff: this is where i was going to go with you. let me see if this answers your question. as far as the warming of relationships, i think the white house believes that the president can very quickly establish these nice friendships with foreign leaders, which -- is that naive of them to think? david: here is the protest i was going to file. i have total respect for the people working as a white house correspondent. but what happens if you cover the white house, you go to sean spicer or any other designated talkers you say, how is the , relationship with china? they say it is fabulous, a lot better than under obama. there are two problems. they don't know anything, and they lie all the time. jeff: don't pull any punches, david.

[laughter] david: if you say to the chinese or japanese how is the relationship? you might get a different answer. i suspect the chinese have a much more pragmatic and instrumental view of their relationship with the trump administration. remember they tried to do the $400 million rescue of the jared kushner crumbled interest in the office building in new york. remember how they gave donald trump a lot of licenses in china -- or a lot of trademarks, that he's been seeking for decades without success. notice the huge increase of purchases of goods for ivanka trump from china, and the interest in ivanka trump. they recognize the family dynastic relationships, the way china is governed. the idea that have warm feelings toward donald trump, and they may flatter his view of himself, but one of the things strong

leaders don't do is bluff. what we have seen again and again in syria, afghanistan, and now in north korea, is politics based on bluff. jeff: we saw that, some would say with the health care debate, domestically as well. david, you can't discount the notion that the healthy interpersonal relationship can certainly help get something done. david: i totally discount it and reject it. the way you and i and most of us go through life is that we like people and therefore get along with them. the way it works between world leaders is they decide they need to get along and then develop a relationship. the relationship does not lead the analysis of interest. the relationship follows. if you don't understand that, then your feelings are going to be manipulated, which is something that does seem to have -- seem to happen to donald trump from time to time. china and japan have interest-based foreign policy.

so do the koreans. they have a lot at stake. the risk of a terrible war in their immediate neighborhood. they are a lot more concerned about getting things done than how they are perceived by state-controlled media, in the chinese case, and that japanese area, they are less vested in this view. jeff: where does the conversation go? david: there's going to be a lot of squinting, a lot of jawed looks across the dmz. a lot of leather jacket pictures. there's an aircraft carrier that will steam in, not do much, and go out. in a few weeks, the problem will look very similar to the way it looks today.

donald trump doesn't have any more leverage over china than president obama or president bush did. what he has done is signaled the deal is much more important to him than it was for president obama or president bush. as the ghostwriter of the book "the art of the deal," could have told him, if you look like you want something very badly you have to pay more for it. , jeff: julie, does the administration right now, notwithstanding some of david's thoughts on this, are they confident that the way to north korea conversation is going is the one they want to hear? julie: no, i don't think they are. there's a lot of anxiety behind the scenes about how this plays itself out. they are developing all of their options. we hear a lot of tough talk about the era of strategic patience being over and we are ready to move it to the next phase here. but the fact is, if they are not able to get china to step up, and even if they are able to persuade china to do something they haven't been willing to do

in the past, and apply more economic pressure to north korea it is not clear what their , endgame is going to be. we heard the national security adviser talk over the weekend about, we want to resolve this peacefully and in a way that doesn't involve the military, but if you look at their statements and was happening on the ground, it's not clear how they can do that. i don't think they have a clear sense of that right now. let's not forget as well, part of the play of putting pressure on china, this administration hasn't gotten much out of china. they talk a lot about this warm relationship, they are really good friends, they had chocolate cake, but we haven't seen any of the fruits of that. it remains to be seen. some people in the white house acknowledged this, that it remains to be seen how much can really, this out really looking

better rapport. jeff: philip, where do you think this goes next? phil: i don't know. i think julie hit it exactly right. there's not a clear end point inside the white house. there is much more anxiety jeff: philip, where do you think this goes next? phil: i don't know. i think julie hit it exactly right. behind the scenes than we see publicly in their comments and rhetoric, but i don't think they figured out where this goes. clearly, they want china to step up and they are trying to take it day by day, but there doesn't seem to be a grand strategy that lays out what will happen three months from now or six months from now. ♪ ♪

jeff: david, there's one sort of grand strategy in jest. we can move on to that and talk about it. the article is called "trump's plan to end europe." why? david: one thing we noticed was the extraordinary hostility towards the european union. it manifests itself in negative comments about nato before the election and the encouragement for britain to exit the european union. generally there hostility to the institution. some of it is just ignorance. when president trump says to angela merkel that they would like to negotiate a trade treaty with the germany i think he sincerely did not know that

germany and other eu states have moved to the level that you can no longer negotiate a -- an e.u. trade deal. many of the people around the administration do seem to see germany in particular, which is a major exporter, as a major economic competitor like china. they discount the value of the other important things in our relationship. they are hostile to it. they want to weaken it and break it up. you see that in the flirtation with people like nigel farage and marine le pen. she wants to break up the euro currency and lead france out of the union altogether. it is ominous. it is especially ominous when you remember that the highest priority of russian policy is to sever the ties between the u.s. and germany, and crack up europe altogether.

europe is stronger than russia. russia's gdp is the size of italy. europe separate, no country is as strong as russia. jeff: we have certainly seen remarkable revolutions from the president in just the past two days on multiple issues. should we not expect there might be one on europe as well? david: to my embarrassment, one of the revolutions happened on the very day the article was released. that was the date donald trump said he changed his mind nato is , no longer obsolete. it was once dead, it is no longer dead anymore. i'm sure he's very mercurial and impulsive. he has thin attachments to things. there are certain harms that once done cannot be undone. remember in 2011, and the united states defaulted on obligations, when you take the possibility from zero to not zero, that is an irrevocable event. when you think the u.s. might not honor its nato commitment, that is something you can't

unsay. the registration is projecting less hostility toward the european union as an institution, but the animus of the president is still visible. the people around him also have their animuses. when you look at the relationships they choose to they chooseh whom to have them, the fact that nigel farage gets warmer treatment then angela merkel, people notice that. people begin thinking they need a plan for their security in europe, on the premise that the united states is no longer a reliable partner. jeff: but is it possible those who show the same animus who would rather meet with nigel farage are being pushed to the side in the white house now? david: well, one of them is in the oval office. he's there for the duration. jeff: where is steve bannon right now?

phil: unlike the "saturday night live" portrayal, steve bannon is at work, he still has his job, he remains a strategist, although his portfolio is smaller and his influence has been greatly diminished. he continues to advise the president. he continues to be a part of meetings and strategy discussions, but he doesn't have the singular power he had in the early weeks of the presidency when people would refer to him as the shadow president, if you will. the person who has more power now is jared kushner, who has been able to kind of consolidate some influence in the white house. he is overseeing a lot of issues directly, including the relationship with china. very involved in foreign policy as well as economic issues. i don't think he's going anywhere. basically, if you want to exist with some portfolio and influence in trump's circle, you have to learn to coexist with jared kushner. that has been the problem with steve bannon. jeff: david, i am loathe to bring you such a loaded question here, but how can you comment to

the office expecting these issues are not going to be as hard as you think they were? is a combination of ignorance and arrogance, it is a terrible problem. there is a strong narrative line that has developed. i understand it and am sympathetic to it. i was in a coffee shop a few days after the election and someone came up to me, recognized me from childhood, and said, "tell me everything is going to be ok." a lot of us who cover politics have an impulse to give an answer to that person that will make them feel better. we greatest story where steve bannon is the source of all the anomalies and irregularities in the white house. if only something would happen to him, and if someone nicer like jared kushner would take over, things would be better. they are not going to be ok. with jared kushner, you get a different set of problems. obviously, he's less

ideological, he's not connected to breitbart. but he doesn't know anything. even more than that, the problems of public integrity that have stock to this white house become worse the more power the kushner family has. it was the kushner family that negotiated this $400 million payout from a chinese state influenced bank. although that deal had to be dropped after pressure from congress, presumably every day people in the kushner family are thinking about similar kinds of transactions. having the affairs of the u.s. the hands of people who don't know anything about them -- they are not children. that is half your life on this planet, but they haven't bothered to learn anything. their idea of research is to go to amazon.com and google the titles of books. reportedly, if true. and the book you pick is one that nobody interested in the field would recommend you to

read, and the advisor you select on that basis is someone with no concern about these issues, this is in its own way as troubling as anything you have with steve bannon. it may be more familiar and less shocking to the prejudices of people who cover politics, but it is really alarming all the same. jeff: let me push back for a minute. i'm not sure there's a narrative that if steve bannon is out, everything will be ok. there are clearly people who want his influence marginalized, and it has been. with regard to jared kushner, saying he doesn't know anything, i'm not speaking on his behalf, but really he has accumulated some level of trust and confidence inside the white house to obtain positions that he has with the president. if we then appreciate that jared kushner is in the spot he's in, and because the president takes

family so seriously he's not , going anywhere. in your estimation if you are , prescribing something for this white house beyond what is in this article are you telling the , president to limit his portfolio? david: i would say that if jared kushner were a truly public spirited person, what he would do to stay in the white house is he has to separate himself fully from his business interests. and he would say to the president that you need an a-team here. i would like to run a staffing process. or instead of giving your china , portfolio to me, bring in people who actually know about these issues before november of last year. you have the whole world of talent available to you. let's run a proper staffing process and bring proper people into the white house and let's get the state department staffed. there are no deputies. all of us know the bureaucratic

process in the white house depends on deputies meetings. the next level down prepares issues for the principles. you can't have deputies meetings if you do not have deputies. we are a third of the way through the president's first year, no deputies. jeff: that is partially by design, correct? it is partly the way the president works. david: partly by design. i've been tweeting about the easter egg roll monday. seems trivial. remember the brown m&ms, the david lee roth story, if those are present, you know that contract,not read the girders will follow they will crush people. the easter egg role is, the biggest event. if you mess it up it tells you your staff process is broken.

they completely messed it up because they are too disorganized and too arrogant and too unprepared to run and easter egg roll, and now they want us to follow them into a military conflict in northeast asia? jeff: julie, is part of this -- again, we are biting off a lot -- is part of that that they just have to get to the staffing level? clearly, state department staffing issues right now. how much more does the white house want to do, and how quickly do you think they are moving on that? julie: i don't want to make too much of the egg roll, although i did do a lot of reporting on it. [laughter] it is an indication of not just a lack of planning and lack of organization -- they got a slow start and did not realize how big of an undertaking it would be, but also an allergy to organization and staffing and process, which is what makes government run. we heard steve bannon talk about the deconstruction of the administrative state, and

there has been a lot of discussion about whether this is an accident or by design that they have not filled these vital, second positions under the cabinet level that are needed to make government go. i honestly think it's a combination of both. i think it is more just a chronically late start and lack of planning, and a real sort of distaste for the kind of process oriented thinking you have to do to figure out, who are the people we need in place? who is the a-team for this particular function, how do we get things going? i don't think you recover from that quickly. this administration was about two months behind where it needed to be in terms of getting senior people in key roles that needed to be confirmed by the senate when they started. it is going to take them months, if not years, to recover from that.

it is difficult to make progress on the policy side and handle some of these thorny issues if you don't have those bodies in place. you need the deputies committees and the process in order to make government go, and this is not something we know that is a priority for donald trump or anyone around him. jeff: philip, is the deep state, administrative state narrative one that is still being pushed? have they backed off on that? phil: it is still being pushed to some extent, although the main champion internally had been steve bannon, and he has less power than he once did. just to piggyback on what julie was saying, the other problem hampering visibility to staff of the government is the incredible demand for personal loyalty from the president and the white house in the people who filled in administration positions. if they were to just leave it up

to the cabinet secretaries to select who their deputies would be and it assistant secretaries would be, i think we would have many more nominees in the senate right now moving through toward confirmation. a lot of things are being basically choked through the internal trump process, because president trump, jared kushner, other officials in the white house want to review every hire, and make sure these people are loyal to the president, and they are the right people. that takes a lot of time. david: there's another problem that falls from that. if you're staffing process is like this -- question one, you -- do you have a strong personal loyalty to donald trump? you can get a lot of people to say yes to that. question number two, have you paid all your taxes on time? can you pass a security clearance? those circles cannot overlap. the problem is that people who like donald trump are not the kind of people you would have normally have working in a white house or government.

the people who normally would and that people who tend not to approve of donald trump. jeff: in your estimation, is the administration winning any of these battles right now? david: there was a period that many people felt was weird, bizarre, that donald trump was president of the u.s. just out of sheer repetition he's president every day. , we have to get used to that idea. he is winning there. he's being covered in a more normal kind of way. he's been saved sometimes against himself from some of his own worst instincts, like making michael flynn the national security adviser. but domestically and abroad, the situation becomes more terrifying every day. we have a complete implosion of the republican domestic agenda. by the way, the bush tax cut passed both houses of congress by the end of may in president

bush's first year. donald trump, we are almost to the end of april, and we have no idea what it looks like. abroad we are staring at crisis upon crisis without any kind of plan or working internal governmental processes. it is very dangerous. donald trump may feel like a winner. i am sure he is a much richer man today than he was on election day but the rest of us , are losers. jeff: do people close to him who had been in that environment and who can have a steadying hand, maybe the vice president, does that help? david: i don't think the record of donald trump's long career in the public eye suggests that other people get to steady him. when people try, he turns on them. one of the distinctive things about his life in business and the white house is the need to inflict petty humiliations on anyone who looks like they know what they are doing. jeff: philip, that being said,

the tweeting has backed off a little bit in terms of aggressiveness? phil: a little bit. you see more of what you would call presidential tweets -- "happy easter." messages like that. jeff: never mind the easter egg roll discussion we just had. phil: there have been fewer kind of truly provocative tweets than i think we saw earlier in the presidency, but that is not to say he is still not doing it. i think yesterday he was talking about the tax day protesters. today, he talked about the fake news media. he is still going back to his favorite hobby horses, but his tweets are not necessarily landing with the same explosive, controversial change the news narrative type of impact we saw. jeff: julie, the tax protests and requests have not gone away, especially on the eve of the tax deadline. julie: now you have democrats on

capitol hill seized on this -- if you want us to sign on any tax plan, you have to show us your tax return. on a number of fronts, it is not going away. particularly because there are lawsuits about donald trump's potential conflicts of interest, a major piece of which will be discovery in which these groups that are suing would like to see a return of the lawsuit. that may happen. we have seen shifting explanations from the white house about why it is not forthcoming. first it was the audit, and then the president is always automatically audited and that has not stopped the other presidents in the past four decades. the first explanation is the authentic one which is donald trump and genuinely feels he would not have won the election if people cared about his tax returns so why should he do it , now that he is president?

that is what he tweeted yesterday. something along the lines of the election is over, let's move on from the tax return. i don't think people are going to, but i don't think the position of the white house is going to change. david: they must not. i say this without knowledge, but true intuition, but i think the reason why the tax returns were suppressed before because they would show how less rich donald trump was then they believe he was. and then the reason now they , will show how much more rich he has been on election day. jeff: you think suppression can take place -- whatever word to use for it -- that that can take place for years without more coming to the fore? david: i don't predict here. if the democrats take one or both houses of congress in 2018, things may get more difficult for donald trump. the presumption in the courts of

secrecy of tax returns is quite strong. it would be a bold judge who would allow discovery of tax returns. i defer to those who report to it more closely. that is something that could happen. jeff: david frum from "the atlantic." julie hirschfeld, who covers the white house for "the new york times." phillip rucker, white house bureau chief at "the washington post." david, we should mention, the article is called "trump's plan to end europe." we appreciate all of your time. thank you. ♪

did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business.

charlie: carrie coon is here. she stars in the acclaimed hbo drama "the leftovers". the final season will begin airing on sunday, april 16. she plays nora durst, a woman who lost her husband and two children in an unexplained phenomenon when 2% of the world's population disappeared. "new york magazine" named coon the best actress on television in 2016. here is a look at some of her work. >> i get it. i felt the same as you. i -- i felt responsible for losing my children. i thought it was my fault. but, i moved past it. i evolved. because that's pathetic.

terrible things happen in this world and the only comfort we get is we didn't cause them. i'm sorry, but erica, this had nothing to do with you. >> did they depart or did they die? >> what? >> your children. you said you lost them. did they depart or did they die? >> they departed. >> what were the last words they said to you? to the best of your recollection.

charlie: coon will star in this season of the emmy award-winning series "fargo." i am pleased to have her here at this table for the first time. welcome. carrie: thank you so much. charlie: "the leftovers" is about dealing with grief? carrie: yes, it is, very much. nora is the ambassador of grief in her town. she is a statistical anomaly the , only person who has lost that many people. i find that though the show seems to deal with supernatural circumstances, it feels very real to me. charlie: dealing with loss and departure and all of that? carrie: absolutely. charlie: it happens to everybody. carrie: most certainly it does.

when tom wrote the book, it was a bit of a rumination on 9/11. it was about collective grieving. what happens to an entire group of people when they are grieving together. we see so many instances of that in our world unfortunately now where communities are traumatized and people deal collectively. he was very prescient in that way. it always felt like a really truthful examination of what it was to be in grief. charlie: was this the first move from the theater to film for you? carrie: it was. i did guest star spots on commercial work. we shot the pilot of "the bookedrs," and then i "gone girl," so i shot that and that started filming before i started the rest of the season of "the leftovers are could i had a lot of feature school before getting back to tv. charlie: a lot to learn from. carrie: the best. charlie: and there was a question whether he would be directing that or not.

carrie: ben spent a lot of time geeking out behind the camera with david and having a lot of conversations about the decisions he was making. charlie: he is one of those actors that can prove he can direct. was the transition difficult or not? carrie: from theater to tv? it is difficult. one of the benefits is the market is smaller. i had the opportunity to do a lot of commercial auditions. i really learned to be on camera by going to terrible in name commercial auditions for years so i felt like i was ready. it is more about your face than your whole body, is the biggest difference. in the theater, you tell the whole story from beginning to end. in tv and film, they tell it out of order and they knock on your door 2:00 and say cry now. a.m. charlie: you can do it as well and have another shot. in film, you can try again and again. multiple takes.

carrie: you have the opportunity to blow it out in that moment and not worry about having to repeat it the next day which is really lovely. you also don't get the kind of dreaming time before you shoot something that you get in the theater. the immediacy i come to respect because it is very challenging the first time. i think very differently about those tv actors that make 22 episodes a year. it is a miracle anything is ever good. charlie: are there nights where you think uf pushed it to a level that is much better than the previous night or previous week? you wish that somebody somewhere caught this. carrie: most certainly. it is so ephemeral, the theater. the audience is a character in the play. on a drunk saturday night, they are not the best audience, scene partner.

you do wish you can preserve it. charlie: there is a great story about laurence olivier. backstage after some brilliant performance some other actor came out and said larry, larry, that was amazing. that was wonderful. how did you do it? he said, i wish i knew. carrie: there is something very elusive about the art. even in tv it seems like the , camera knows, your body knows when the camera is on you and your body helps you respond. once the camera turns around -- charlie: the body knows? carrie: yes. when you are doing a scene, you have to shoot both actors. you are off-camera for part of it. i always feel like my body knows when it is my coverage, right? charlie: you can feel the camera's presence. of.ie: it can become a sort it opens the space for you emotionally. because when they turn it around to the other actor, you cannot really re-create the experience for them entirely. there is always something held back from the other actor.

you want to give them as much as you can to give you an authentic response in the scene but there , is something very elusive where the body seems to know. charlie: which do you prefer? carrie: i think i will always appreciate the theater. my husband is a playwright. charlie: and a damn good one. carrie: i have to agree with you there. charlie: he won a pulitzer or something. carrie: he did. maybe a couple of tonys. charlie: he can also act. carrie: he is one of the best actors i have ever seen. he's an astonishing -- i met him in a play. he's incredible. the other thing about the theater is you are the arbiter of taste. you are the one determining what it is working. in tv and film, you are waiting for someone else to tell you. the audience tells you and the other actors, but the director tells you when you are done on tv and film. you are the arbiter, knowing

your own taste level. i love telling the story from beginning to end. that is what stories are. charlie: when you have done what you have done, do you stop -- how do you grow? do you stop taking lessons? is it simply learning by doing and being involved? carrie: i think so. for any other young actor, you are never going to be able to learn to act in the classroom. you have to be on stage. i think the stage is a wonderful training ground for tv and film because you learn how to repeat a performance. i think a lot of times young actors think of tv and film as that quick one-off take that you get. it is true you only have to do it well one time really, but they neglect the fact you might have to have a catharsis on screen and do it 12 times which is very unnatural. your body has had an experience and then you have to stuff it back in and do it again. you learn how to do that in the theater. charlie: sometimes actors can

read a book and see a part and say to themselves, i would love to be that person, that role speaks to me. did that happen here? carrie: most definitely. i had read tom perrotta's book years before it became a tv series. i remember having an affinity for nora in the book. when it came time to audition, when i went into tape i thought , nobody else can do this but me. luckily, they agreed. they don't always. charlie: how does she deal with grief? carrie: what i love about damon's writing is that anyone who has experienced grief in real life knows it is not linear. you don't go through the steps neatly. you regress. you go two steps forward, one step back.

it feels truthful in that exploration and we see characters backslide into emotional territory they seem to have already covered. as an actor it is nice because whenever you are repeating an emotion, you want a reason to do that. you don't want to just region to your bag of tricks and cry again. you want to have circumstances that support by the character is back in this place. it is usually unfinished business. charlie: who is her boyfriend in this case? carrie: kevin garvey. he is the sheriff in the town. in the book, he is the mayor. emotion, you want a reason to do i think they meet each other in really honest places. they are very honest with each other. our characters get into trouble whenever they migrate away from that. whenever they start pretending, their relationship goes off the rails a little bit. charlie: here is you with him. carrie: great. >> hey. what are you doing home? >> i just came home to change a shirt. sick of me already?

>> i have to go to st. louis for work for a couple of nights. >> i'm going to miss you. >> i'll miss you too. you mind if i borrow this? i need something to read on the plane. >> really? >> you don't want me to take it? >> no, matt said there is only one copy. >> maybe matt should have gone to kinko's. >> you busting my balls? >> can holy balls be busted? >> i'd love for you to take it. >> we are on the same page about this, right? it's ridiculous? >> ridiculous. >> kiss the lips of kevin, and oh, it was good. charlie: it looks like a good relationship to me. carrie: we really had great chemistry from the beginning, me and justin. i love the characters. they start their relationship in

honesty and call each other on their tricks, and that is healthy. charlie: how was the second season different from the first season? carrie: we start in a very hopeful place, creating a family. we have sort of moved past the content of the book, which was centralized on the grief. season three there is quite a bit of momentum. i think the show was very character driven the first two seasons. season three is very plot driven. we know these people and they are moving forward quickly. we only had eight episodes to finish the series so we needed to move quickly. charlie: and then there is "fargo." carrie: yeah. charlie: who is gloria? carrie: a very practical, very midwestern woman -- my people. i am from the midwest. we do not suffer full's and we are quite practical. she's got a lot of perspicacity. she sees the truth. charlie: there is a word i have not heard in a while. carrie: thanks. i like to read books. she is very clear thinking and

no one listens to her. partly because she is a woman and in a male-dominated profession. we meet her at a very low point in her life where she may be losing her job, her precinct is being absorbed by the county. she is getting a divorce her , husband left her for a man. charlie: her husband left her for a man. carrie: yes he has. , quite a shock for gloria. she is raising a 12-year-old boy on her own. and then there is a murderer and she is responsible for that. she just does not have the patience for everyone. charlie: besides the midwest, what else does it share with "the leftovers?" carrie: apparently, i am very enigmatic. she keeps her cards close, she does not ask for help very easily. i think -- i also think she has a wry sense of humor which i think nora shares. charlie: she was demoted from

being police chief? carrie: she was. they have a police station that is the library plus a police station, with one other cop working with her. the county rolls in and says this is inappropriate. we need to get you guys into ship shape. we have this great east coast sheriff who busts in and takes over. very disconcerting. charlie: how large is the town? carrie: a very tiny town. we shot it in a tiny town in canada. it is eden prairie, minnesota. and eden valley. both towns feature prominently, it is confusing. charlie: "gone girl." it taught you what? carrie: i had my first scene. we had some exteriors, getting in and out of cars and stuff. that is what american film is all about. in and out of doors and cars. he said, i need you to look up in this particular way because i am not getting enough screen direction.

i did not know what screen direction. charlie: what is it? carrie: it is about the angle -- i still do not really know -- it is about the angle of where you are looking in the other person's perspective and the camera. we had a very prescriptive way i was supposed to pick up this magazine and look up and use my chin. i was utterly confused. it was interesting because had i known what he was asking, i would have done it. he said you can't do it. the next day i said, i do not understand the vocabulary. you need to tell me the vocabulary and then i can do it. from that moment on, he became a great teacher. come look at this monitor, see what i am doing? this is why i need you to glide out on your right foot. it was astonishing. he is such a perfectionist and so am i. as long as you are not a crazy person, you will get along great with him because he wants to make the best he can. and so dwight. charlie: are you satisfied? carrie: never. you will never be satisfied you , only see your mistakes. charlie: do you watch them? carrie: i do, it is important to

watch. you learn a lot about yourself by watching yourself on camera. you have to get past the vanity and watch the acting to learn about your habits. charlie: what do you learn when you see yourself? carrie: one thing i learned, my first season playing nora or watching "gone girl," is how much work i was doing to make sound. how hard my mouth was working to make words. the next time i went back on stage, i had a woman, gigi come in and work with me on how to have more ease in my speaking so i could be simpler on camera. i think that is an example. charlie: here is gloria having dinner with her family. >> something special for the clean plate club. >> i told you i don't like strawberries. >> more for me, then. so, the thinking is absorb a local precinct into a larger county force.

>> they renew jack shit. >> i would still be the highest ranking officer. >> not chief. >> right. what'd you get there? >> like i said, it's a stupid -- remember the time we went camping? >> don't forget, you are at your dad's this weekend. he and dale will take you to the symphony. >> is dale my other dad now? >> no, he and your dad have not been together that long. but if they got married. >> not legal. ?s it, two men >> if they did, you know how my stepfather dated my mom when my dad passed? dale would become your stepfather. i think. i do not actually know how it works. >> i know how it works in the bible. >> another beer, pops? >> now you're speaking english. carrie: we don't get to reveal

much to you, do we? charlie: chicago training. "steppenwolf," is it as good as it gets for a young actor? carrie: i think chicago is as good as it gets. charlie: second city. carrie: we have great comedy scenes, certainly. what i think is most dominant is the ensemble and the young companies are emulating this model. it is about telling a story and listening. it is not about an aria, about one person standing out from the group. i think chicago actors carry that mentality with them when they go forward. we are good listeners and we try to be part of the ensemble. charlie: a lot of television in chicago too. stephen colbert and so many people from chicago. carrie: most definitely. allison coleman was a chicago-based comedian. i think there is a work ethic about the midwest. we learn hard work actually pays off. in a city like chicago it does. ,charlie: does it help to have

broad shoulders? carrie: the windy city. our politics, not our weather. i love it there. tracy just opened a play their at the steppenwolf. we lived there still and will always be part of that theater community. it is much more forgiving for women to be in the theater, anyway. charlie: sergio garcia was there last night. if you are not a golf fan. carrie: i do not watch a lot of golf, i confess. charlie: he just won the masters. he is a big deal. i would ask him, i might ask him as i do with athletes, what is it you need to add to your game? i said that to tiger woods, in fact. how do you say that to an actress? what do you need to add to your game? carrie: what do you need to add to your game? i'm a former athlete so i respond to that metaphor you are using because i always think of acting very much like -- it is the same kind of field vision, the same kind of focus. it is the same kind of, state of mind i think. it is very zeroed in.

charlie: focus, focus, focus. carrie: it is a kind of focus. i think, like any profession, you are always evaluating your strengths and weaknesses and learning from that. for me, for example, i'd like to have a chance to lean into some of that comedy. charlie: i knew that. so many people say that. carrie: hollywood doesn't have a lot of imagination. charlie: so many very good actors that are primarily in drama -- carrie: i'm funny. can't you tell? charlie: i can. thank you for coming. carrie: my pleasure. i really appreciate it. charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪ reporter: i'm alisa parenti.

you are watching "bloomberg technology." voters in georgia today are going to the polls to choose a new member of congress. kevin cirilli sat down with the rnc chair at the rnc headquarters today, and asked if this election could predict what could happen nationally in 2018. >> there are so many unique characteristics to each of these special elections. you can't model turnout. it is harder to to predict who is staying attention and coming out to vote in these elections. you have to take each of these special elections on an individual basis. reporter: you don't think this is an indicator of 2018? >> i don't. i don't think you can predict