♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: "detroit" is the new film from kathryn bigelow. the film is set during the 1967 detroit riots in the killings of three unarmed black men at the algiers motel. "the l.a. times" calls it excruciating and necessary. here is a look at the trailer. >> i assume this is about what went on at the motel. >> what happened at the motel?

♪ >> you don't know, i will tell you. i was working security. tuesday night, we heard gunfire coming from the area near the algiers. the police was there. there was a lot of shooting. when i went in there, three kids had been killed. >> so they were killed right before you got there? you carry a .38, right? ♪ >> you carry a revolver? >> i do have a .38. >> you ever shoot anyone? >> i did not do it. >> here we go. >> in detroit, violence

continues. state police, the national guardsmen available. >> i am declaring a public state of emergency. >> it's a war zone out there. they are destroying the city. >> police! >> i'm going to assume you are all criminals. >> you don't talk about this to anyone, ever. you understand? ♪ >> change is coming! >> i told you what i saw. >> i am trying to help here. >> change is coming. >> what is the matter with you? >> change is coming! >> they are trying to kill us. >> change is coming! >> i need you to survive the night. ♪

>> melvin, you want to go home? what happened at the motel? charlie: joining me is the director, kathryn bigelow, the twoenwriter mark boal, and of the stars, john boyega and will poulter. i'm pleased to have all of you at this table. welcome. some of you i saw on previous occasions at this table. tell me how this came to be. >> this gentleman here sitting writer next toe me, whose work is extraordinary, came to me with a story set against the detroit riots, the detroit uprising in 1967. a true story, a true crime set in the algiers motel. and it was, simply put, an execution. and a portrait of police brutality and racial injustice

that was extremely moving, very timely, and very topical. about the same time he told me this story, the decision not to indict the officer involved in the michael brown shooting had taken place. i felt the story needed to be told. charlie: because it has lessons for today? kathryn: because it has lessons for today exactly. , charlie: had you been thinking about this? how long had you been thinking this is a story that ought to be told? >> we talked about it internally for a while and what pushed it into an actual script was a meeting i had in detroit with one of the survivors who had not told his story in about 50 years. the gentleman, named -- he is hearing his record of how he tried to survive this night and how his life completely changed. once i heard that, i knew it was

something i wanted to write. charlie: you still feel it in detroit today? it is still there as a part of something detroit will always know? kathryn: i think what you feel is two things. you feel a resiliency in the city and people. at the same time, a bit of a struggle with its history. i think that dichotomy is very much at play. a pretty inspiring place to visit. charlie: did the rise of black lives matter have any input in it? kathryn: i don't think we really discussed that. >> what do you mean by input? charlie: the issues raised by it. >> it's a good point. all of the stuff we have seen in the last five years that has become a focal point of conversation, black lives matter, but also a conversation

of policing. it is these events that are part of a continuum and part of a history that goes back. the film explores it but it predates the film. what was going on in the moment, we are all aware of it. it was we are alive and present. it was this recognition that all of these things were connected. charlie: you have a powerful performance. how did you inform yourself? you weren't born in america. john: no. i think number one is i am black. the black experience is a very real thing, a global thing. there is a reason why you mentioned black lives matter. when there is a rally in the u.s. for black lives matter, then there is a rally in the u.k.

there is a universal language when it comes to the black experience, systematic racism, all those things. for me there was not a difficulty in understanding the context of the story. specifically, this was about a particular man. charlie: describe him. john the first thing i noticed : speaking with him is he is an introvert. i tried to separate him from the circumstances of what happened that night. i feel if you connect them he may be misconstrued. he is very soft-spoken. a deep sense of responsibility of the people of his community. i relate to it because my father is the same way. sort of agape love for people he doesn't know, which i don't necessarily have. [laughter] i had to learn that.

charlie: describe the character. we saw that in the trailer. john: yes. he is a man trying to do good who is forced into a circumstance he was not prepared for. i got the opportunity to speak to melvin, which is great. i found he is stern in some respects but also a do-gooder. charlie: when there is a text based in part on real events, are you looking for a spirit, mannerisms, a voice? john: i look for spirit first because i feel you can embody a lot about a human being when you get his core his soul. ,also, i knew i would not be up to ask him every night what he would do in this particular circumstance. when you get the spirit in the beginning, the choices are guided by that.

and then there's kathryn bigelow. [laughter] if i'm going off course, she can easily point me in the right direction. and the words. charlie: how about the character you play? will: for me, the first step in approaching a project like this was educating myself, where i lacked some critical knowledge. i wasn't aware of the rebellion in detroit. i think i lacked some knowledge generally speaking when it came to the specifics of race relations in america. we have our own kind of complex racial history in the u.k., but i really did not know about the state of affairs in america at that time. learning the surface level information was important to me.

i think delving deep into the topic of race and racial history wasn't necessary, because at that point, i was looking to embrace ignorance by playing a racist. that is what you do. you form your opinion on a lack of information or misinformation. going in slightly ignorant was actually helpful in that respect. i kind of intensified that ignorance in the most aggressive and unapologetic way that i could because i think kathryn and i were in agreement about the fact his character needed to be exposed rather than be developed with any sort of intention to incite empathy or any real compassion. charlie: do you do the research in terms of understanding the facts of the story?

and you do the research understanding the look of the story? is that too easy? kathryn: no, no. i don't want to speak for mark but he wrote the story ended a -- and did a significant amount of research. i had to do research as well to truly understand and unpack motivations and understand the characters. in so doing, you also get a visual tapestry of what might be possible in terms of how it will look and unfold. mark if i can jump in, one of : the things that was so startling to me when i went back to look at this is that there was a pretty richly documented record of this incident. the police department had done an investigation and talked to a lot of people. the transcripts of those conversations were available. charlie: what does that give you? it gives me context,

texture, detail. sometimes there are direct quotes from what people actually said, so it gives me mannerisms of speech. it gives me a lot. there was also department of justice investigation. after the racial strife, there was the kerner commission. there was a lot of discussion on this issue in the 1960's. what is so remarkable is you think this is relevant to today, and a couple of days ago the president of the united states makes remarks in front of a police group where he jokes about police brutality. charlie: he said later it was a joke. mark: either way, it is sort of shocking how little we have learned. charlie: how much participation in terms of resource did you get from the police officers involved? mark: two of them had passed away.

on the police side, it was the written record which was quite extensive. for the people that survived, the victims, i was able to speak to the man who john portrays. and a couple of other people who had been there that night. the historical stuff is great, but to speak to somebody who can bring it to life for you was really the turning point. kathryn: the character of julie, the real julie was on the set every day giving all of us a degree of specificity. it was extraordinary. she survived it. charlie: able to give you specificity and if she thought you were under the wrong assumption, to correct that? kathryn: i invited back, and rarely did she. i was hoping that would happen. she was a strong supporter and a

real inspiration to all of us on the set. charlie: clearly from the trailer and seeing the movie, there is a sense of fast-moving events. a lot of close-up photography. give me a sense of how you wanted to make the film so it would portray how you want it to draw the audience in? kathryn: i think in our early discussions about it, i knew it sort of needed to be immersive. it was more inviting active engagement with the screen as opposed to a passive one between the viewer and the screen. you are at the center of action that has the potential to create empathy and also invite a dialogue about what you have just experienced. it becomes almost experiential, not unlike how we handled "hurt locker" where you are given an opportunity to witness a day in the life of a bomb tech.

charlie: so you took us inside his skin. kathryn: to view in his -- took you in his skin, and in this case, sadly, the outcome is you are humanizing an unthinkable situation i assume for most people. so doing, you can, i suppose, walk away with a bit more information and enable an informed response.

charlie: this is a clip where will is rounding up the guests at the motel. here it is. >> let's not be stupid in this situation. we still have a crime scene here, and you are all suspects. each and every one of you. don't look at me! turn around! face the wall! >> [sobbing] >> was he the one doing the shooting? huh? somebody better start getting honest with me. i want that gun! >> we looked around.

we did not find a gun. >> that does not mean it is not here. go find it! charlie: only about that scene. -- tell me about that. kathryn: during the 1967 rebellion, there was the threat of snipers. there was a muzzle flash presumably that came from this particular building they are in. those i spent time with in preproduction talk specifically about hearing and seeing the muzzle flash. he, along with the national guard detail descended on the , house with detroit officers and state police to find the origin of the sniper fire. that is what is happening right there. what will poulter is doing with the other two officers is clearing floor by floor and room by room that entire building looking for the gun responsible for the sniper fire. that is kind of the engine of the early moments in the annex.

charlie: tell me about your own acting training and what has given you the most tools to work with. >> at nine years old, i decided i wanted to act. i got a scholarship to the local theater group where i had to do contemporary dance and ballet in order to do acting. it came as a deal package, so i had to do all of it. charlie: ballet is probably good for motion, isn't it? john i can still boogie down. : after that, i went to pursue drama school seriously. i dropped out of university i , went to identity and met my agent. that training was intense. charlie: how long have you been doing it? john i have been doing it : professionally six years i think it will be. six years. charlie: what did you learn from this role in this film?

john: "detroit" gave me purpose. i like to do movies that have a big commentary on the world once in a while. i like to have fun most of the time. sometimes my mind draws me toward projects that have serious context. it changed me in a sense because now i am having to tell my agent i do not want to ever be below this creative standard that was in "detroit." i never want to go below that because i was exposed to a side of myself creatively. charlie: she got things out of you you might not have it even known yourself. john: yes, 100%. charlie: did you feel some sense of urgency that we find the rawest part of racism and show it? kathryn: i don't want to speak for mark, but i think what was

most important was the truth and honesty of the story and tell it with as much integrity as possible. mark: that is a good question. i am not sure i would phrase it exactly like that. the way i thought about it was a very frank and unvarnished portrayal. you put it so eloquently at a panel the other day. that racism is, on one level, it is a system of lies. without trying to put a psychological framework around it or -- without trying to shade it too much, because if something is a lie, it is a lie. that is very black and white. i was thinking about that in the writing with the characters. it would have been easy, or not easy, but possible to draw the way -- not to say

it is not nuanced but it is a , lie and he believes a lie. there's something about the starkness of that. why not just go there? charlie: he does not believe he is a racist, does he? have you thought about that? will: he thinks he is right. he is wrong and he believes he is right. that makes him racist. charlie: where did you get the voice? l: i done no. i think i looked at a number of different -- what is frightening is you don't even have to look at performances. you can actually look close to home and see inspiration, and that is the unfortunate thing. i think the relevance of this film bears two recent cases of police brutality or force is harrowingly strong and it is also relevant.

to see people with a similar mindset 50 years on still operating with the same degree of confidence and still causing such damage to communities, upholding these systems that continue to deprive people of social justice, it is real life. charlie: some of this is in the trailer. let me show this again. this is questioning carl greene, played by anthony mackie/ . >> served for eight years, two deployments honorable discharge. , >> is that fake? >> no, sir. >> is that your girl? >> i just met her. >> what's his name? >> i don't know. >> his name is carl greene. you just said what is his name. you are lucky i have not broken your neck yet. >> i see what you are trying to do. i am not going to cause any trouble.

i'm not going to lie down for you either. charlie: what are you thinking? kathryn: i really enjoy working with anthony and will. [laughter] i like being in that room and being around this incredible talent. charlie: there is a moment in a director's life where the actors take it beyond what you might have imagined. kathryn: absolutely. it's magic. that happened like every day on the set. charlie: how does a director get that? there are moments when you take it beyond. what is her role? john: for me, the best directors know how to collaborate. the best directors know the balance between technical and art because there are many things to concentrate on. there is a balance they hold. also, it is guidance with notes. as an actor, you are within

yourself when the cameras are rolling. you are thinking about yourself. the director guides you to come back to the character and story. that's what she does very well. will: kathryn with barry creates uniquely realistic environment. it was astonishing to be on the set and feel genuinely immersed in that world. it reduces the acting challenge for you. also as young actors, to be , given the freedom to do what felt natural, in many ways that was a catchphrase of kathryn's on-set. i was fully prepared to put and bein kathryn's hands micromanaged over the cadence of my lines and every expression. often, she would bless me with just something as simple as "do what feels natural. do whatever feels right."

john: i want to say, that for me, what was shocking is i have never experienced that when the camera has been rolling. i have only experienced that on stage. on stage, the director can't guide you or stopping. i had never experienced it on film until this. strange. i wish every project was like this. [laughter] charlie: it's all uphill from here. [laughter] what did the people in detroit say? kathryn: i think the response has been terrific. especially the people who, we just had a premier there, and it has been overwhelming. the response has been incredible. especially people who actually lived during the 1967 uprising. thatie: is there a sense they thanked somebody for telling their story? even though there has been an investigation and lots of things written? film is a powerful chronicle of

emotion. kathryn: that is certainly the message that has come back to me, that this has been in the dark for 50 years and it is time it be out there. i'm sorry. mark: i was going to say the city has been revisiting and commemorating the 50th anniversary for the last couple of months. the film came in the context of that. it didn't come out of the blue. obviously, everybody knows there's a lot going on in detroit right now in terms of attempts to revitalize it. for the detroiters who lived through 1967 and for the ir children who are incredibly , loyal to the city and stayed thin, lookingand

back at this dark period of history, there is the pride of place that comes with the commemoration. that's what i felt. charlie: there also is a sense that it is our history and you want to own your history whether it is bad or good. you want to understand it because you feel the deepness of the roots in a place that shapes you. yes? mark: i am from new york city. i am not from detroit. i did not encounter this when we were working. but definitely when the movie came out there was a sense of ,, you guys are not really from here. there are lots of reactions that fall in that category. i think when people saw the movie, the quality of the film speaks for itself. charlie: you said humanizing the complex tragedy of algiers can create empathy.

empathy is different from sympathy, a more active engagement. and from that comes may be the start of justice. thank you for making that film. thank you for writing it. thank you for being at this table. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: a new film opening on netflix explores russia's long-running doping program. it began however with a different premise. the original intention was to expose the failures of drug testing athletes by taking performance-enhancing drugs and avoiding detection while participating in an amateur cycling race. they embarked under the supervision of the former director of russia's anti-doping center. the story took a dramatic turn as the scope and details of russia's doping program began to emerge. here is a look at the film's trailer. >> we start asking questions and you answer. yes or no. were you the mastermind that cheated the olympics? >> yes. >> today, the world anti-doping agency suspended russia's sports drug testing lab.

>> 99% of russian athletes are guilty of doping. >> it is worse than we thought. >> if this is true, it is an unimaginable level of criminality. >> they facilitate one of the most elaborate doping ploys in sports history. >> every sport. was putin aware of the existence of a russian doping system? >> yes. crew, --s can all the all be proved, it is quite mind blowing. >> the new york times is breaking tomorrow. >> it has the potential of affecting the credibility of all sports.

why would i watch an event that is fixed? >> are you in any danger? >> yes. >> i need to escape. >> putin calls the claim .he slander of a turncoat ver >> two people connected with the russian doping program are already dead. >> there never was anti-doping in russia, ever. >> you are recording. charlie: it premieres on netflix on august 4. joining me is the films direct and producers. thisid you get involved in subject? >> i was interested because i have been a lifelong cyclist. i was intrigued by the lance

armstrong story. i looked at a guy who has still to this day passed 500 anti-doping controls. the only way they help is through criminal investigation. i looked into what was wrong with the anti-doping system that they could not catch the most tested athlete on planet earth. i decided i would embark on this kind of investigative mission, first to explore the flaws in the anti-doping system, and second, to see exactly what these drugs did and whether or not i could in fact, could evade positive attention myself. charlie: did you know dan at that time? guest: i did not. charlie: how did you two come together? guest: i put together the 25 minute piece and dan seized this piece and calls me up the next day and basically says "what do you need to finish the movie?" and that began what has now been

another three years between a conversation and us sitting here. charlie: how did you get involved? said: dan called me and you love biking. this is a guy that is trying to show the doping system does not work. it is really interesting. you should go watch the races and see how they go. when i went to europe and i saw how he did racing, what i realized was that this is really interesting, but the more interesting piece is how so many people had evaded doping for so long. it created this dynamic where brian said "let's go find out exactly how the russians are doing it." and that was super fascinating. charlie: when did you find out you had a massive program by the russians with accusations that president vladimir putin knew? >> it was kind of a slow burn and then a very fast burn. there was a period to november 2015. in this time, i am working with

gregory. he is advising me how to dope. dr. gregory. he is at the time running the third-largest anti-doping laboratory in the world, which is the moscow lab, which had overseen all the testing for the sochi olympics, but was also overseeing testing of all russian athletes across all sports and all international athletes coming to russia to compete. so i began working with gregory. shortly thereafter there is an investigation launched based on this television documentary. that is basically december 2014 to november 2015 and during this year, gregory is under investigation, but i keep going on with my film and gregory is helping to advise me. november 2015, a report comes out based on this investigation and it is now alleging that gregory is essentially the mastermind of the state-sponsored doping program. at the time, it is still only mandated -- the investigation is

only onto track and field. this creates a series of events. the lab is shut down. gregory is forced to resign. russia is suspended from world track and field. gregory is basically telling me that he is going to be killed by the russian government, and i helped facilitate his escape from moscow to los angeles, and then, over the next few months, i learned the full size and scope. charlie: once he was in los angeles and free to tell you? guest: yes, and that is when i learned the size and scope of this spectacular conspiracy to cheat the olympics that had been placed for essentially all of modern sport, but specifically what they did at the sochi games , which was an unimaginable fraud.

charlie: the accusation against the russian president? >> when you look at how russian sport is set up, unlike the u.s., where it is all private, in russia, it is controlled by the ministry. charlie: the sports ministry? guest: yes, the sports ministry in russia. all russian athletes are essentially being paid by the russian government to compete. so everything under russia is under ministry umbrella, and gregory is running the anti-doping lab, which is really the anti-anti-doping lab, and the guy that is his boss, his russian ministry, the sports minister of russia, his best friend is vladimir putin, who he grew up with, the chain of command was essentially gregory to him to putin. this was not six degrees of separation. this was two degrees of separation. charlie: what happens to the head of the minister of sports?

guest: the minister of sport, when this entire scandal gets revealed, putin elevates him to the deputy prime minister of russia, essentially the vice president of russia, and has never accepted any responsibility for the state-sponsored doping program. and the guy below him, the deputy vice minister of sport, is forced to resign, and is now under criminal investigation. charlie: what is it that makes this so compelling? guest: this film started out as one thing. that was interesting enough. brian thought the anti-doping system was not working and in fact a fraud. he wanted to set out to test that by taking the drugs himself and seeing if he could get through all the tests looking clean. it grew to be 100 times bigger than we imagined when not only was all that true, but he became friends with dr. gregory and through saving him and bringing

him from russia to the united states when his life was in danger, we learned what the russians had been doing, which was gaming the system for 40 years and reaching a crescendo at sochi, at which they collected clean urine from every russian athlete in sochi before the games, kept it in a secret kgb vault and when any of those athletes got a medal, and they would be drug tested, found a way to break an unbreakable system and dump dirty urine so it could never be tested and replace it with clean urine, gaming the entire system. it was an incredibly brazen fraud that said not only can you get by the system in small ways, but you can crack it open in a gigantic way. charlie: who has confirmed the story of gregory about what happened? guest: after we go to the new this is 2016,,

they are forced to launch another investigation into the claims put forward in the new york times. i helped to facilitate a meeting, and richard mclaren was the head of that investigation, independently, and this investigation went on between may 2016 through december of this year. the investigation found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that every single thing gregory said and put forward is true. it corroborated all the evidence. charlie: this is the investigation by the new york times? guest: no, the new york times broke the story based on all the evidence we brought to them. then the world anti-doping agency led an investigation because they were able to actually get the samples from sochi that were being held by the ioc and test them to see if they had been tampered with.

between that process plus what was 1666 documents of evidence that led straight back to the ministry, this report found, without a question about, beyond reasonable doubt, that not only was this true, but the extent of this fraud goes back further than they can even imagine. we brought forward evidence of beijing in 2008, of london in 2012, of multiple championships that were held in russia around the world since that time, and of course, sochi. when they went and examined these bottles, they literally found the scratches of how the kgb, the fsb, broke into these bottles. they found spectacular levels of salt content in the urine samples, because grigory was adding salt into the herein -- these clean urine samples to match the gravity.

they corroborated everything that grigory brought forward as undeniable truth. charlie: where is the russian sports program today? guest: right now, what has happened, to start with, there was a little bit of luck here. we started to make a movie about brian doping in the system. and then the relationship with grigory rodchenkov, we discovered what happened. the russians used the sochi games as a way to pump up putin's popularity, which in the two weeks after sochi, he ended -- attacking the ukraine. this was used as a political motive to be able to use the sports system as a way to enhance russia's political agenda. guest: that is right. and where the russians are now is there are two separate investigations by the ioc of the russians to determine whether or

not they should be allowed to participate in the february winter olympics in south korea. charlie: so there isn't serious question about whether they will be allowed to participate? guest: we still do not know. one thing that has been obvious is that the ioc does not want anything to happen to russia. the ioc has made clear that if they could, they would sweep this completely under the rug. charlie: how would they do that? guest: the world anti-doping association is their arm that punishes countries and athletes if they are doping. when we expose all this in the new york times, president thomas falk of the ioc said "we are going to let the world anti-doping association decide what should happen to the russians." they came back and said "in the real olympics -- real olympics, every russian athlete should be banned because of what russia did hear." the ioc said "sorry, we are not going to do that."

only the track and field athletes were banned. nobody wants to expose duping and sports. why? because it is bad for business. if you are the ioc, you don't want audiences to think these athletes are cheating. what they really want is spectacular athletic feats supported by doping with a system that looks like they are fighting doping, but in fact, does not really catch anyone. this is not in anyone's interest. it is in the interest of audiences and clean athletes everywhere who want a level playing field. charlie: what do you hope the consequence of the film is, david?

david: there is a couple of thoughts. one is from a storytelling point of view, the courage that brian and his team did by exposing an international incident that was supposed to be around sports and ended up leading to some pretty nasty politics. charlie: political considerations? david: absolutely, including a country being attacked and people being murdered. that story needs to be told. it takes kurds to tell that story. this started as a story about sports and ended up being about the manipulation and politics. we got lucky that this happens to be geopolitically very live right now. the movie played on january 20 at sundance. at the time we were playing the movie, within one hour of the movie being played at sundance, our current president was sworn in. we have seen over the last six month how the relationship with russia has led to an enormous amount of consequence with the united states. in a way, telling this story led to something that was very relevant as to how we look at how we handle the world right now. guest: what is most interesting about this film? right now, in america, what is most interesting about this movie is that it shows the extent the russians are willing to go to project soft power in

the world, the way they are willing to manipulate, july, to deceive, -- to lie, to deceive, and to create fraud in the world of international sports. imagine what they are willing to do on issues of hard power. charlie: why did rodchenkov do this? without him, you have no story. guest: without him, i have no story. to answer that question, i think first, you have to look at the bravery that he put forward to tell the story. when he came to the united states, he could have kept his mouth shut, but instead, he took a third rate risks to bring this story forward. if he had not, none of this would have come forward. he knew he was going to be a dead man in russia. he could have come to the united states and probably stayed quiet, figured out a way to get a silent, went to canada,

whatever. he decided he was going to bring this story forward. the reason why is that sochi, for him, broke his back. his career was actually as a scientist, and part of that, working under the ministry, was to figure out how to get around the doping test. what he did at sochi was an outright fraud and he was upset at the ministry. he told them this had to stop. after sochi, not only did it not stop, it continued into this woman world championships, into the junior athletics world championships, collegiate, where they were doing this with the collegiate athletes. then they had put the system in place for next year's world cup, which is still being held in moscow next summer. this was not going to stop. this was going to continue. grigory had reached -- as he said -- its logical conclusion, and he wanted to bring the story to the world. charlie: take a look at this, clip number two.

they discuss the growing concerns about russian knowledge. here it is. >> there is a top-level decision, you know who i mean, and the big boss, vladimir putin thinks, to show the best result in sochi. we must show others who we are. we could make him do one month. but it was decided to use them during sochi. >> through the competition, so they could be at the very top level? >> right. >> vladimir putin? >> instead of using the science, the science you developed to get

around the system, you abandoned the science? >> most important, yes. >> ladies and gentlemen, let me be clear that 126 sessions with the international olympic committee is open. charlie: talk to me about what you did in wanting to go through this experiment yourself. guest: i wanted to go through it for many reasons. as an athlete, and i competed as a cyclist from the time i was 13 until i was 20, and wanted to be a pro. i had this curiosity my whole life of what exactly do these drugs do? would they make me a better athlete? what i possibly have been a champion? i had that curiosity. the second part of that curiosity was what decision does an athlete competing on a world level, at the best of his sport,

have to make whether they are going to use a substance or not use a substance if the system itself does not work? that was the driving force behind my desire to do what i wanted to do. charlie: did you talk to lance armstrong? guest: i met him 2.5 years ago, before my movie took this pivot. at the time, i showed him the same 25 minute piece that i showed dan. lance was very excited about it because it was showing that he was a needle in a haystack rather than the haystack itself. and i had always viewed lance as essentially a needle in a haystack rather than the haystack he had been put up as essentially. charlie: you wanted to say everybody does it? guest: yeah. charlie: what will this accomplish? guest: the major piece that this will show is that russia's manipulation of a system that

started out with athletes internally. the ioc externally. and now, the potential of opening up our eyes to how they can impact the u.s. and other countries. charlie: how the government can use that to enhance a political strategy? guest: sure. sports is just an analogy of other parts of our lives. in and of itself, the story of sports was interesting. it is interesting. the reason this story has become such a phenomenon is because it leaves us to rethink how the russians or other country can manipulate the political system. how easy it was for them to manipulate political gain by using the sochi games to justify it. another example of how it has played out over the last six month with the united rates government. that story has to get cold, -- told, charlie. guest: there are two impacts. one is to show what the russian government is willing to do simply on soft power, to manipulate and undercut international systems.

and if you think they are willing to do that just in sports, imagine what they are willing to do in politics. guest: and not only that, but in january, january 7 when the cia, nsa, and fbi released their declassified report into the election hacking, they listed seven reasons. reason number three that they listed why our election was hacked with what they perceived with putin's revenge or america's involvement in the doping scandal and the release of the panama neighbors. what they meant about that is that vladimir putin thought because rodchenkov had come to the united states and the story broke in the new york times and the department of justice and fbi launched an investigation into the scandal that the u.s. was behind this. they list this as one of the seven reasons our election got hacked, and consequently, the new york times broke on may 12. the hack of the dnc and clinton was one month later. almost 30 days to the date.

guest: the other impact significantly is the world of sports. the only way to have integrity in the world of sports is for athletes, clean athletes, to get up and say "we will not accept an olympics that has so much doping." and we hope that the film shows exactly how corrupt the system is and serves as a rallying cry for athletes to change. most athletes are clean. there is an organization now called fair sport started by one of our producers that wants to support whistleblowers coming out and telling the truth about doping in sport. if clean athletes stand up, we think that can make a change in this film can help inspire that. charlie: thank you. "icarus" opens on netflix and in theaters on august 4. thank you for joining us. see you next time.

♪ got you outnumbered.

the dinosaurs' extinction... don't listen to them. not appropriate. now i'm mashing these potatoes with my stick of butter... why don't you sit over here. find your awesome with the xfinity stream app. included with xfinity tv. more to stream to every screen.

alisa: i am alisa parenti in washington and you are watching "bloomberg technology." president trump and secretary of state rex tillerson held an hour-long phone call to discuss north korea and mr. tillerson's weekend trip to manila. the u.n. unanimously approved new sanctions on north korea over the nuclear and ballistic missile program. pyongyang has ruled out talks and says the u.s. will pay dearly. the pentagon has sent new guidance to the armed services on drones. the policy was approved in july. additional public information is