>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin with foreign policy and ian bremmer, the president and founder of eurasia, just back from japan. we talk about japan and china and the role of the united states in the world. >> obama is not the guy driving american foreign policy. he definitely will veto stuff he doesn't like, there's no question. and he definitely is averts to things that he thinks will get him stuck in moreas, that is very different from setting strategy. if you ask me right now do i believe the united states of america has a coherent foreign policy strategy, that it is able to articulate. and we have historically, the answer is no. >> rose: we conclude this evening with a conversation about a new movie called "prisoners" directed by denis villeneuve starring jake gyllenhaal. >> the directive-- difkts i met some had criminal pasts themselves. and i think i decided that

my detective had his own so when he would walk into a scene it was speaking of tension, already filled with tension in the past that he was ashamed of and trying to hide from, his own truth while trying to bring out the truth in somebody else. and i just found that inherently fascinating. >> needing to explore things i'm afraid of to understand them. i think prisoners was a beautiful exploration of violence, and our relationship with violence. >> rose: ian bremmer, jake gyllenhaal and denis villeneuve when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following: and american express: additional funding provided by these funders: and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services

worldwide. from captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: ian brehm certificate here. set president and founder of eurasia group a political risk consultancy. he also writes for "the new york times", "the financial times" and routers. he wrote the cover story of the current edition of the national interest. it is called a little red guide to modern china. it poses the question, china, superpower or superbust, i'm pleased to have ian bremmer back at this table, welcome. >> so how do you answer that question, superpower or superbust. >> i say that the level of uncertainty around that question is far greater than that of any major economy in the world. and fortunately they know it. >> and why is there uncertainty? >> because they have to restructure their economy in order to continue to grow. and it's dangerous. >> you know, you had jinping is very impressive, o powerful president much more

than we have seen in decades in china. but in addition to his engaging and real reform, one of the first things he's done coming out of this latest communist party plannery is create a national security council, unlike ours that is focused on intern security. because he knows that if you start to actually engage in economic reforms that loosen the control of the party over the economy, things can get dangerous. and he is not going to have a divided response from the party. >> rose: the thing they fear most is some attack on the control of the party. >> elite fracture is something they fear a great deal. they fear social discontent without any question. >> rose: and do they think that comes from one, making the economy less state-controlled, number one. number two, part of the economic reform is bring rural into urban? >> i think what they're doing on the social reforms builds legitimacy. and allowing all of these

rural pie grant workers to become legitimate and get social benefits, that really matters. s this's going to help them. and certainly some of the anti-corruption they're doing, whether or not it's a purge that's political or, you know, in a very selected way or if it really is trying to create more transparency for the party also provides some legitimacy. but nonetheless, they're making fundamental changes in the way the economy is working. we're talking about financial reforms that are actually loosening some capitol controls. we're talking about energy reforms that are going to make the state-owned enterprises have to run more efficiently. that's going to up set a lot of very entrenched, very wealthy chinese officials. it's not unconnected that they're squeezing all of the western journalists, particularly right now because they understand that this is going to create vulnerables for the party. >> rose: but on the other hand has he or has he simultaneously he hu jinping

consolidated his power within china but a relationship with the military, the red army. >> yeah. >> rose: that hu jintao never had. >> that's right. >> rose: and certainly if you look at the creation of this air defense identification zone, our newest favorite acronym, that clearly shows that this was the state apparatus, the diplomats were all completely in sync, this wasn't a rogue pla action to make life difficult for the japanese. this is what hu jinping is doing. >> rose: you just returned from japan. >> yeah. >> rose: what's their reaction to this? and what option does they think they have? >> they don't have option. japan is sort of like israel in this position, right. i mean they don't, they don't have options. they understand, i mean they are the big ally of the united states. the problem is that the japanese are much more concerned about china than the americans are. the israelies are much more concerned about the iranians than the americans are and that creates friction. they were not happy privately with biden's visit

to the reg oon. >> rose: what didn't they like. >> they didn't like that the americans were coordinating their talking positions in response. they didn't like that the americans while saying publicly that there is no space between the u.s. and the japanese position, the state department instructed american civil airlines to file their flight plans with the chinese government, after the japanese explicitly said don't. >> rose: but then they sent some b-52s in there, didn't they. >> which were unarmed on a training mission. and the americans told the chinese about that. and you also had the japanese telling the chinese we want you to roll this back. the americans said no such thing. and when biden was in china, the focus in public criticism was more on the journalses and talking about the americans and the chinese needing to have a relationship of trust. the japanese fear, and i think they're right to fear, that while america has a better relationship with japan. we like the japanese more,

that the obama administration believes china is more important. and that is dangerous for them. they worry about that. and i think they're right too, frankly. >> rose: right to worry that in fact there will be some-- so how will it play itself out if the obama administration for the rest of the term is more likely to favor the chinese as a more important relationship. >> well, it's likely to give the chinese more wiggle wroom to continue to escalate specifically on japan. >> rose: knowing they will not come down hard on japan's side. >> senior chinese officials told me clearly that they like a lot more the second term obama administration. >> rose: why? >> curt campbell is gone. >> rose: right. >> hill roe clinton's gone. those are the hard-liners. that is the pivot, those are the hawks. they like these guys, the biden who likes hu jinping goes over and glad hands him. >> rose: what about done olan's absence. >> he was more focused on asia. susan roist is to the. >> rose: do they like that or don't like that, done olan who was the pointman

for the obama administration, the pont man who made several trips over there is gone from this administration so the guy they've been dealing with, gone. >> truement but president focus on asia, gone. when did they announced adiz was when kerry was with the chinese foreign minister in geneva working the iranian issue which clearly is more of a priority for the u.s.. >> rose: biden got two hours with hu jinping. >> the chinese rolled out the red carpet. the chinese were very happy with where the u.s. is. the chinese announced they want to do a bilateral investment treaty with the u.s. they want to be involved in a multilateral trade and service as agreement. the chinese strategy here is not a bad relationship with the u.s. the chinese strategy is to drive a wedge between the u.s. and japan. and i think they've been somewhat successful. i think if hillary clinton were still secretary of state there is no adiz right now. >> rose: really? >> i believe that, yeah, i do. >> rose: they would have feared her influence to respond. >> they would have feared that the americans an japanese would have taken a completely a inlooed position and that would have undermined the chinese, yes.

>> rose: are they testing us? >> i think they're testing japan. >> rose: clearly they're testing japan. >> they're testing us a little am they want to see if there is flexibility. they see that american foreign policy is in decline right now. the american economy is not but they understand that after snowden and after syria and after the government shutdown, obama doesn't go to apec and the secretary term team, they see that the u.s.,-- . >> rose: because obama was not able to go to asia because of the government shutdown? >> well, they don't like tpp, the transpacific partnership. and there's no question that obama not going delayed that. the malaysians were very unhappy. the end noorbians were very unhappy that he-- indonesians were very unhappy that he didn't make that trip and the singaporeans asking a lot more from the u.s. are now more balanced between the u.s. and china. i would argue-- let's put it this way. the chinese believe that they've gained from obama not making that trip,

absolutely. >> rose: what do you think they want to do in the middle east? >> i think in the middle east, despite the fact that they have some of the largest unconventional reserves in energy in the world, they are well behind the u.s. in exploiting them so they desperately need more energy from the middle east. just two weeks ago they a puns noed they want another 800,000 barrels a day from iraq. massive increases, right. >> rose: are they getting. >> oh, yeah, they're going get it, they've got the money. they're going to become very, very quickly the dominant economic player in all of the major oil producers in the middle east. >> rose: because they provide the demand. >> they need it. the american demand is coming from western hemisphere. but that does not mean that ---- . >> rose: american supply is coming from the western hemisphere. >> absolutely. and so it is not in any way mean that the chinese are suddenly going to take the lead on the israeli palestine peace process or syria or any of that. but they are going to use that. >> rose: but the question is more interesting. do you think the pivot

articulated by ot bama administration were the right words to use and the right policy to follow? >> it's an interesting question. i think it was well articulated. now of course kerry never says pivot any more. he says rebalancing it is a little different. because the pivot you are moving your foot. seeing the-- saying the pivot clearly put the chinese on order that there was the potential for containment type strategy. whether or not you say that. but having said that i don't think it takes a genius to understand that america's overwhelming foreign policy interests going forward are not in the middle east. they're in asia. and the u.s. has to get that right. we need a good relationship with china. >> rose: it's not just china, it's also the other countries surrounding china including japan, southeast asia vietnam, south korea. >> all the countries. and the single u.s. achievement if we get it right for obama's foreign policy tenure in my view is actually tpp, not iran. iran's big, but tpp is big.

>> rose: explain that. >> the transpacific partnership would the largest multilateral trade deal that has been done in well over a decade. it would involve 40% of the world's economy, includes the u.s. and japan and would help to create liberallization, greater competitiveness and growth in this massive space. over time it would be something like the wtoo china doesn't join to begin with but without improve the standards to be a part of. >> rose: john kerry has things going on three fronts. israeli palestinian, iran, syria, it puts three things in play. what's the response to him? dealing with the russians, he's dealing with the iranians. he's dealing with netanyahu. >> i think the response is he is a very smart guy. he has an incredible work ethic. >> rose: and he seems to be operating without an agenda for himself other than success. i mean he's not looking to run for president. so therefore he's less cautious some argue. >> i think that he's

also-- . >> rose: some would deny that he is less cautious. >> he certainly would. she is certainly not happy with him and not happy with what she perceives to be the abandonment of the pivot and lack of diplomatic resources being deployed in asia. >> rose: secretary clinton is not happy with secretary kerry. >> i think that is pretty clear from seeing her public statements in her speeches, i think that's where we are right now. look, i think kerry has had mixed success on iran, clearly he's done a lot of lifting and it's been very favorable thus far. he's been able to develop a relationship with for-- he's been able to move the needle and has maintained the international coalition, that's impressive. on syria clearly he was undermined by lack of close coordination with obama. maybe lack of some trust from obama. kerry was not of course the first choice for secretary of state. on israel-palestine,. >> rose: susan rice wasness i'm a skeptic. >> rose: susan rice was the first choice i assume. >> of course. >> rose: on iran are you a skeptic. >> israel palestine i'm a skeptic. i don't think it moves and he is waiting time on a

priority that is not mercks. i honestly don't know why he's doing. i have spoken with former secretaries in the u.s. they don't know why he's doing it. i think that if i were advising kerry on what to do, you want to pick a couple countries that desperately need u.s. engage am, i would go south korea-japan. those are both allies, both countries that trust the u.s. the fact that their relationship right now is index orably broken. >> rose: top westerned back reb nell syria is forced to flee. >> yeah. >> rose: ef row day there is another story about what's happening to sort of the moderate rebels and the growth of the islamists. and almost taking over the opposition to assad. and then you see ryne crocker say maybe we should reengage with a. >> -- >> assad himself, counterterrorism and all the rest. >> rose: is that a doable idea. >> we are i guess engaging.

look, first of all, some of the rebels are-- some of the moderates are turning to extremists because you know you kill over 100,000 people in a war, and you have millions of refugees. you are going to create over a few years, you create a lot of extremists, right. so the ground is shifting without them leaving. syria is a classic situation where the enemy of our enemy is our enemy. that's not the way it's supposed to work in the middle east but it is the way it works right now. and i think that although it was incredibly unart "glee"-- unartfully done and the u.s. lost a lot of leadership, perception of leadership from its allies around the world in going the congress and to the going to congress and accepting the putin deal and all of this, the fact is that the outcome of where the u.s. is right now in syria, which is doing relatively little, standing on the sidelines, is-- . >> rose: but they are-- they are destroying the chemical weapons, are they not.

>> yeah, i think they are. but if you asked me would a syrian rather be killed by compel call weapons or conventional means, it's in the clear they have a strong view. and the country is not a country, right. the state has kind of fallen apart. >> rose: that's scary. >> of course it's scary. so if you asked me if i happy that many islamists in there-- whether i think the chemical weapons deal ultimate legets us to a much better place in syria, the answer is no. but the fact is that we don't care as much. the principles lesson-- . >> rose: we don't care as much because our economic future is in asia or we don't care as much because we don't fully appreciate the risk of what a larger war would mean. >> we don't care as much because of greater interests in asia, because the energy revolution means the middle east doesn't matter as much for our economy. because the growth in gap between rich and poor in the united states means that large numbers of americans actually think the globalization engagement doesn't benefit them.

because the brits refuse to support us on syria with their own unartful parliamentary support. how many reasons do you need why we are less interested. and of course the legacy of iraq an afghanistan. the principles lesson that i think, maybe even i fear, that americans have learned from the wars in iraq and afghanistan, long bloody and expensive, is that these countries matter a lot more to a lot of other people than they do to the united states. and i think that's informing a lot of what's happening right now in u.s. foreign policy in this part of the world. >> rose: how little they matter to us is expressed how? >> it's expressed in the way syria policy was articulated and ended up. >> rose: there's also this comment from you. you said that i think it was a, this was in foreign affairs. you wrote about a global crisis of legitimacy. >> yeah. >> rose: what is that? >> it's the notion that with a communications revolution, with billions of people with

the internet now as opposed to a few hundred million, with emerging markets becoming more important players, and middle classes becoming so much greater, economists see middle classes and they say places that i can sell, places that can grow the economy. political scienists see middle classes and they say folks that demand much more accountability from their leaders. but when you look at the leaders around the world today, and you look at the leaders around the emerging markets today, you don't see many that really inspire. you don't see many that are actually taking on true leadership. and that is certainly creating a crisis of confidence. it's creating a crisis of legitimacy, popular iterates are low for so many leaders around the world right now and they're not able to drive policies through. >> when people talk about a new world order, what is it. >> i call the g 0, i don't like that. >> rose: that is your book title. >> it is an absence, a vacuum, an absence of leadership it won't be there forever. what do we see the new world order? we seen american foreign policy that is relatively unarticulated. that doesn't have a doctrine

or strategy. you see american allies around the world wanting us desperately to articulate that strategy. you see the chinese-- . >> rose: what kind of strategy. >> how do we define our national interests around the world. >> okay, but before you go down that road, tell me the following. in whose writing are they wisely defining our role down the road? >> in the united states? >> yes. >> i think that hillary absolutely has-- . >> rose: hillary has defined. >> a doctrine. >> rose: a hillary doctrine about america's place in the world. >> we may not like it. i don't know what it is. >> i would have said it was economic state craft combined with the pivot to asia. >> rose: what impression is it foreign policy is run out of the white house and the pivot to asia was by the obama administration. and that a sense of where the world is, you look at me incredulous lousely. >> i don't think i agree with that. >> rose: the white house chose the tactics to negotiate with the iranians,

the iraqis, the iraqi about a troop state which was unsuggest zfls, about the iranians which has been unsuccessful so far. and about the afghanistan, the afghanies in terms of what to do there. these are white house decision. these are not diplomatic decisions. >> if you asked me ultimately if are you making a change in policy, is the white house going to have to give it the thumbs up or thumbs down, absolutely true. >> rose: you are saying the white house does not initiate so what is-- i'm saying it that i believe that the obama administration right from the top has had a very clear view that foreign policy is largely about risk aversion, tactics and maintaining u.s. capitol. that's not developing a doctrine. it's a very different view of u.s. foreign policy globally. nothing wrong with that in principles. but it worries, it concerns american allies all over the world. i mean not just far-flung. allies right on our borders. >> rose: when mubarak fell who was secretary of state? >> hillary clinton.

>> rose: yes. >> who was secretary of defense. >> gates. >> rose: now they may have recommended a different policy. and some questioning of america certainly by the saudis and others began at that point in the arab spring, correct? >> yes. >> rose: the decision that-- the policy was decided by the white house, obviously. >> sure. >> rose: because look what happened. >> if you asked me if we had a secretary of state back then, who was having a lunch privately once a week with obama, with ideas they were bouncing off of each other, obama's background is not in foreign policy. his interest space wasn't there he gave some great speeches. it's just not what he does. nothing wrong with that, again, most american people overwhelmingly support that even if they do or don't like obama tax that is the direction they want him. >> because of the wars in asia, i mean the wars in iraq and afghanistan and again many others.

>> rose: the possibility of syria left them saying this is a, you know, this is a very slippery slope. >> right. in other words, obama left to his own devices, absent the policies that we saw from hill roe and others around her on asia would not have developed that doctrine it would have been much more akin to what we see right now. which is tactical. it's responsive, it's crisis management. it's risk aversion. again, very different articulation of what the u.s. is all about than the indince penceable nation that mad line allbyte talked about. >> rose: how is america different bus susan rice is at the national security council, chuck haig sell at defense and john kerry is at state. >> well, that's where we started. we started on asia. we started with the notion that the united states is balancing more in asia. the united states is focused much more on the middle east.

>> rose: because of the rival of these new people. >> israel-palestine, we would not have that effort. to say that obama is the person driving foreign policy and that therefore that's why we're now doing israel-palestine we weren't before, is clearly not true. that was senator kerry deciding when he came in as secretary of state this is what he wanted to prioritize and obama said okay. obama is not the guy driving american foreign policy. he definitely will veto stuff he doesn't like. there's no question. and he definitely is averse to things that he thinks will get him stuck in more ass that is very different from setting strategy. if you ask me right now do i believe the united states of america has a coherent foreign policy strategy a that it is able to articulate, and we have historically, the answer is no. and i think there are many reasons for that. many which are justifiable and legitimate. some of which are domestic, some which have to do with personalities, some are structural and global. but that is the case. and if you ask me do i

believe that jinping in china gets that and is responding to it in ways that are useful for his government, the answer is yes. i think that's interest. >> rose: okay, you know ehud barak well, he is one of the people you talk to. >> a little bit. >> he says putins had a strategy and we don't. >> putin has a strategy. >> putin does not have a domestic strategy. here's the point. >> rose: we're not talking about domestic. we're talking about foreign, he knows what he does. >> he doesment he knowless what he is doing for putin. >> rose: or to russia. >> not clear to me that the russian national interest has been properly articulated or pursued by vladimir putin. certainly he has had some great weeks on the international stage over the last few months. but if you asked me is eben fitting russia. what's he gotten. he's managed to keep a saad-- assad in place. is that good for russia? is that the guy-- he's got snowden now.

it's fun for putin. i think putin is engage-- enjoying himself right now. i don't think he's done much for the russian national interest. >> is the russian presence felt more today in the world than it was three years ago. >> yes, yes t is. >> but i'm not sure that that helps russia. >> that's my point. i mean russia is in such a difficult scenario. they balance their budget now when oil is something like 117 dollars. that was $32 back 10, 12 years ago. >> rose: the essence of what you are saying is american has no strategy, no policy and that on the world stage america is a failure? >> i'm-- i believe that the united states-- . >> rose: which part of my statement do you disagree withness i think the united states is not a failure at all. i think the u.s. is not in dlichblt i think that the u.s. economy is doing incredibly well i think the people, despite the fact that many americans aren't benefitting from it, the support of the desire, the desire of chinese to invest in the u.s. to our strength, there's no

question. it's not just energy, it's food, it's demographics, technology, all the stuff that you talk to c.e.o.s about constantly. but i do believe right now u.s. foreign policy is in decline. it may not be structural and forever. >> rose: u.s. foreign policy is in decline which means defined another way, america's influence in the world is in decline. >> the perception of american leadership and diplomacy around the world has taken a very significant beating in the last six months, yes. >> rose: and does this put you, you say that and would you cite as evidence, for example, you know, the statements by prince bandar in saudi arabia. >> absolutely. not joining the security council, not taking the seat was perceived by the saudis as a direct slap to the united states. whether we perceived it that way is another question. but certainly, so many countries around the world right now are having serious

doubts about the u.s. you hear these questions, i hear these questions. i hear them from canada. i hear them from indonesia, i hear them from the emirates. i hear them from turkey. >> rose: and the questions are about america's willingness to lead to engage, and to take risks. >> america's commitment to them. america's commitment internationally. you know, america's articulation of its strategy national interest. these are foreign ministers i'm talking about, these are heads of state. these are significant folks so even if you and i sit around this table and think you know what, the white house is creating a coherent strategy internationally and it does make sense, the fact is that if it's not being effectively perceived by all these other countries, we still have a problem. i don't believe it's just a communication issue. when bush put karen hughes in place as assistant secretary for public diplomacy, the idea was if we could just explain ourselves. these countries don't know what we really mean f we just told them what we really meant, then it would

be okay. i don't buy that. >> rose: nor do i. >> and i also don't believe when cheney criticizes obama as not being exceptionalists, i think obama is an exceptionalist, i just think he has issues with taking on international leadership. i don't think he wants to do that. doesn't see the advantage for him. certainly doesn't see it domestically. if i were advising obama on syria, and if i was a domestic political advisor, i would have told him probably right at the end, take the putin deal. but if i as a foreign policy advisor. >> rose: which putin deal. >> the putin deal on syria. but if i were a foreign policy advisor there is no way i would have done that. >> rose: so if you were domestic policy advisor meaning or political advisor meaning you were interested in the president and his ratings and position being where the american people were, would you have said take the russian deal. >> vis-a-vis the republican, vis-a-vis elections coming, all that, take it, take it. but i think that has caused significant damage. >> rose: so therefore if i would ask you this question, this is my last question.

>> okay. >> rose: if i were to ask you this question, what ought to be the great debate about america today in its relationships around the world, you would say the debate is about what is america's role in the world today. >> that's right. i think we have to have the debate. we are not remotely close or prepared to having it at this point. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> my pleasure. >> rose: "prisoners" is a dark psychological thriller by denis villeneuve, it stars jake gyllenhaal who plays a detective investigating the case of two missing girls. hugh jackman plays a desperate parent who takes matters into his own hands. violence, revenge, the question of torture are just some of this movie's themes. variety calls it a spellbinding sensationally effective thriller with a complex moral center. here is the trailer for "prisoners" >> happy thanksgiving. >> hello. >> happy thanksgiving.

>> i can take-- to our house. >> where a hat please, you're just getting over a cold. >> where are your sisters. >> i can't find them. >> hanna, joy. >> i checked the entire house, they're not here. >> they went outside, it's starting to rain, i think. >> there is this rv and they were playing on t we thought there was someone inside. >> you wait here. >> i couldn't find them. >> the 11-- 911. >> detective locatie. >> they are children, deckive. >> i'm going to find your daughters. >> call to report an rv at a rest stop off route 46. >> show me your hands where did you put those girls, where are they? >> what you have got. >> we didn't find anything this thing's clean.

>> -- we're letting him against, the police said they're letting him go today. >> why don't you send someone to arrest this guy. >> he has an iq of a ten-year-old there is no way he could steel two girls and make them disappear. >> considering all possibilities. >> i done think you are. >> just let me do my job. >> four days have passed sinceana and joy were last seen by their families. >> chief's knocking on doors. >> mine if i take a look around. >> why don't you tell me his name. >> he said he took them. >> de say he was with anybody. >> we found something. >> every day i keep wondering why i'm not there, me, not you. not you! but me! >> someone has to make him talk or they're going to die five days, we run out of time. >> we don't even know if it's him.

>> he knows where this guy is. >> why aren't you telling me? why! >> you have to think, the girls are still out there. >> one of the films stars, i am pleased to have them. welcome. pleasure to see you. >> just tell us how this movie came into being. what was it that attracted you to the story. >> physically it's just that when i read this i was amazed and profoundly disturbed about what it was saying about our society today. and myself i am very afraid of violence and i think it allows me to explore things i'm afraid of to try to under tan them and i think prisoners was a beautiful exploration of violence. and our relationship with violence. and then i fell in love with it. i had the same kind of

approach that the producer wanted the movie to be. and hugh jackman, i had a meeting here in new york with hugh jackman and we just got along quickly. because i think he felt really comfortable about the way i wanted to approach violence in the movie. my responsibility toward the violence, the way i wanted to depict it. >> see that's easy to get hugh, what's really difficult is to get jake gyllenhaal, that's a hard one. >> it's a tough one, and then you have a burden on your shoulder. >> a thick line, a big hook. >> rose: so you saw the script. did you say i got to do this or did you have reservations? >> i actually, we were making -- denis and pri making another film, we were in the middle of making that film. which was an extraordinary experience. it was an incredible collaboration artistically. we would sort of discover things as we went and we

would finish the day off, go have dinner, get a little drunk and then discuss more, wake up the next morning. it would evolve the scenes or the situations in the movie that we were working on am and he came to me one day, i thought at first it was a little bit of a joke. he says i'm doing this next movie with hugh jackman and would love for you to play a part in it. and really truly it was the relationship that we had made on that movie and his, how i do say, just his garnering of trust over that period of time that made me say i just want to continue to work with this guy. that was the initial impression and response is had was i just want to work with him again. then i read the script and i was blown away by just the puzzle of the whole thing. and he really wanted me to play the narrator in a way, of the whole piece which the deckive often is. >> rose: right. >> and he said i really want to find a real character in there. and since we had been doing that on-- i said i would love to. >> rose: tell me the story "of prisoners. >> rose: yes. >> basically it is the story of two families that are struggling with something

horrible which is they are lousing-- losing both of them one of their daughters. one of their daughter. and both fathers they try to make one of the main respect talk because the police doesn't have enough clues to-- . >> rose: there is your violence. >> exactly. >> rose: but it's interesting about it ask that it's not only the violence but it is the fact that you have here because they think the kid, children are kidnapped, and they still be alive so there is a sense of a race against time. >> exactly. it is important it is not a revenge movie t is to the about revenge, itsee to the about vengence, it's about struggling with the massive pressure and those characters doesn't trust their own institutions. they don't trust the police. and they decide to take justice in their own hands. and try to make the

investigation move forward by themselves. >> rose: because they believe it's not moving fast and they know. >> exactly. >> rose: if it's after a week, it's less likely that they will be fon alive, after a month -- >> 72 hours. i mean there is a time frame every basically hour that goes by over the first few days, you know, different, it becomes harder and harder to find the suspect and rescue particularly in this case children that are involved. you know, one of the things that hugh jackman did a lot of research on was, and actually did some improvisation in the movie with me in particular, was this period of time that passes when an abduction first happens. you know, if it's not found within the first 24 hours. and he says it in the movie. he says to me as a threat, almost. but there is an inherent tension as soon as these girls are abducted in the film, that in my opinion narratively carries the whole movically. >> rose: mine too. >> because are you just constantly, it's just tension at every moment just

based on that pure fact which is enough to carry anything, really. >> rose: before we talk about that, tell me about your character, detective, how did you see him? >> what was your -- >> well hi done a lot of research in law enforcement. i spent six months making a movie called end of watch which is about two police officers, two movies before this, before i did this movie. and so i had spent six months with law enforcement, lapd and sheriff's department in los angeles, spending, you know, five nights a week with them on the streets, different sets of partners. so i went through extensive training already as in law enforcement. but as a deckive i had not done any work. i knew a few guys who were deckives. and i made relationships with them. but the first thing that i did was contact a guy that i know who is a sheriff in breakenridge colorado who was with the lapd for 15 years and then retired to colorado, well, not retired.

he's still working as a sheriff. he's in colorado now. and we started talking. he does a lot of detective work so we started talking. and i was fascinated by, in the script, the character was sort of narrative implement is what i would say, as deckives often are. they are the ones to ask the questions, be the eyes of the audience and so forth. and this guy i was interested in him being a question mark himself. because most law enforcement-- . >> rose: question mark because he seems like a haunted man or what? >> there were two reasons for it. i mean one, yeah, i think any great detective has to be infatuated with the criminal mind in order to probe it. and then at the same time want to bring it to justice. so really love the people that he's working to try and find or solve the case for. you know, so i, there's that and then i think most detectives i met some of them actually had criminal pasts themselves. and i think that i decided that deckive oakey had his own. so that when he would walk into a scene, it was

speaking of tension, already filled with tension in the past that he was ashamed of and trying to hide from. his own truth while trying to bring out the truth in somebody else. and i just found that inherently fascinating. >> the "l.a. times" said detective locate is one of the more complicated police presents on the big screen recently moving beyond the convention of the typical screen gumshoe, locate is a man brehming with confidence but boiling with rage as firmly convinced of the need for justice as he is frustrated by his inability to bring it about. >> that was the-- that's the interesting thing about playing a deckive. if you do enough research f you spend enough time, people will do the job for real. you know, i think you get the sense that what is driving them is individual for each-- it is like we can make generalizations about a doctor but each person came to that job for a specific reason. and i and denis found those specific reasons for locatey. and i think because of that it kind of pushes away the

generic and we get in the specificity of an actual human being. >> he should say it is a brilliant performance by hugh, i mean stunningly. you feel literally feel his-- how on edge he is. and it rages within him and at the same time a sense that if i don't get my daughter, no one will. so it's and i will forever be doomed to guilt if i don't do it. >> yes. >> hugh was very, very inspired by this in the first place. and i felt that he was, for him it was a challenge. it was, i felt it was a way to get out of his comfort zone. and t explore new dimensions of the spectrum of his talent, of his acting, spectrum. so it was very d, the provision were very exciting to see him working on set. it was very generoused, totally committed and the chemistry was fantastic. at one point i took the decision, i never work, we

are, we approach cinema with one camera, usually. we don't like to work with several cameras but with those two guys we decided to work with two cameras in order to be able to capture their fantastic tennis game when they were playing against each other it was for me, because the rule was that once the scene was nailed, they were going, they were free to improvision-- impro advice and get out of the frame of the scene in order to create chaos and poetry in front of the camera. >> this is where they are talking to even other. here it is. >> my son already told that you the guy was inside the rv just watching, right. >> we haven't found any physical evidence inside the rv or his aunt's house whether he-- where he lives. >> nothing. >> alex jones, unfortunately has the iq of a ten-year-old. there is no way that someone with the iq of a ten-year-old could abduct two girls if broad daylight

and then somehow make them disappear. >> well, maybe he want on his own. how codrive an rv if he has an iq of a ten-year-old. >> we're considering all pont. >> i don't think are you considering all possibilities. >> i hear what you are saying. >> sir, sir. >> stop for a second. >> i need to you calm down, mr. doferment i understand this is incredibly hard time. but i have every uniform police officer in this state looking forana. >> i don't understand why any of this mean, they said he ran. they said he tried to get away. i don't understand why he would try to run away. >> i hear what you are saying. i'm not crossing anybody off my list. just let me do my sdwrob. >> you were trying to keep him under control there. >> yeah, i mean i think what you see the emotional versus the analytical in that situation. it's really as law enforcement, you have to follow the rules. and those rules actually have lead to solving many crimes. and with any experience, you know that. there is also a completely

justifiable emotional response that he's having in that. and something that's very hard for me to contain is that i understand somewhere, not empathetically but i understand that he is really tried at this moment. and i want to be there for a there a way but it is impossible to do that because it would affect the case and at the same time he might be the person who did it for me. i say i'm not crossing anybody off my list. and there are a couple takes where i said to him very specifically, good performance, basically. you know, with not saying those lines himself but good performance, but you could also be the person. so i-- you know, that was important, i know denis and i talked a lot about this. it was important to establish these everybody being a suspect. for me in particular, but hopefully for the audience. and even locatey himself. even the detective himself. so yeah, that was always at play, denis said often that this movie is about the institution versus the individual. and then this moment it was like i'm representing the

institution and hugh jackman's character is representing the individual. and it really is emotional verse analytical. and if they work together as you often say, we could probably solve things either quicker or even get them solved. >> what is interesting in this scene as well is that, and you don't talk about it, is the arrogance of the policeman, where we feel from a father point of view that this young cop, a bit arrogant with the way he's trying to handle the situation. it can't:make a father lose his temp. and that is tension that i love. because i think that your character is struggling with the fatherhood figure, you know. and that is something that, this tension was very alive in the scene where i was putting both actors together. >> rose: i mean did you-- you clearly did not want us to focus to somehow come to some early conclusion as to who the guilty person was who had been kidnapping the kids, and wanted to us in a sense go up blind alleys and

the rest of it. >> that was the beauty of the screenplay. it was really, the screenplay was really written like a maze. but again for me t was not this tension was so well constructed i just had to follow it. what interested me was the way the characters were dealing with those decisions, those choices they were making in contact with that violence. >> because it's the kidnapping of children were there places that you thought i've got to make sure i don't go beyond here on this? did you self-censor yourself. >> specifically i had a lot of talk with hugh jackman about this. we felt a strong responsibility because when you deal with so sensitive subject matter, and are you making at the same time entertainment, you know, it's like for me, i was trying to really to be authentic and faithful and respectful in contact with such a drama. and to make it-- for me

entertainment is a thing but it has to be meaningful it has to say something about our society today. it cannot just be entertainment for the sake of entertainment, you understand what i mean. >> i do, i do. and in selecting, first of all, doing enemy and then is it -- >> it's enemy, just enemy. >> in doing enemy, steve mcqueen was here who works with the same actors a number of times. is that something you like to do because he find somebody that somehow represents an you know --. >> i'm trapped. >> get me out of here. >> honestly, the beauty of cinema -- >> no but the butte -- beauty of cinema. >> no, no, i am deeply inspired by that man. and i think jake is a fall tan particular actor, seriously.

i love the beauty of the rip in cinemament i love a team working, and working to the. >> rose: the ensemble. >> but i'm talking about the whole full am crew, there is something so beautiful about all those people working together creating a higher intelligence, intelligence and trying to create poetry together. and to answer to your question i love to build relationship in time and jake is an actor that i am much more better director when i work with jake. >> rose: there you go. again, will you see jake in this scene where he hunts down a suspect played by paul dano. >> where are those girls? where are those girls! hey, give me a flashlight. >> sir. >> show me where those girl are, are they in the woods, did you put them in the bloods-- woods? where did you put those girls? dow hear me?

>> no, he's high on something. >> get in the car. put him in the car. walk. >> go. >> hey, call psp and tell them to bring their scent dogs and seem off the whole area, the entrance, all of it. >> you, come with me. >> rose: what did roger do. >> a lot, a lot. >> what didn't he bring to this. >> exactly. >> i was deeply influenced by roger as i was making this fill. for me it was like going back to film school it was the first time i had to work with a master, someone who has a kind of, genius, he hates when i say that. >> rose: now are you watching all this is aing some day i'm going to direct some stuff too, or do you even think about that far ahead. >> because you seem to be a student of all this. >> i am a student of all of it. i think it's-- i mean the process of making film is extraordinary. i mean an i think yes, the answer to that question is

yechlt i think working with someone like him,'s laws me too that process. he's not threatened by it. >> rose: same thing with roger, the cinematographer. >> roger as an actor and just as someone who loves fill, being in his frame is an extraordinary lesson. because he is obviously telling a story as most great cinematographers are and he is helping him tell his story. but what he's doing is when you talk about clues, that entire scene we just saw is in silhouette, most of it. and the only moments where you get clues that maybe you should pay attention to is when that light kind of shines on my face a little bit or shines on paul dano's face. you get moments, some things are hidden, some things aren't. and there a puzzle being played with light in this edge tire fill, throughout the whole film. i mean to know the story like i do, i mean i know exactly who does it the whole time when. even more so than if it was my fifth time as a normal audience member watching it. i foe exactly because i was there. but to see the wock that

roger does, to deflect and to reflect, i mean i know those are all lighting terms in a way, but what he does is mind blowing. he makes you a better actor. and i don't even know how that's -- like a possibility, i mean it's possibly due to light but it's just amazing from one section of move yeaux making you can do that, you really can. >> rose: there is a lot of rain in this movie, a lot of mood. >> it's montreal's fault. >> rose: did you want to make weather an element of the film. >> yeah, the thing si wanted with roger to create that kind of clause tro phobic environment where we feel that the weather and the frame and the camera are putting pressure on the shoulder of each character to increase tension. >> rose: can we take about torture now. >> yes, of course. >> rose: hugh jackman takes it into his own hands. and there is-- the torture scene, there was one, i mean you don't just take it and take one blow, you extend

it. you want us to feel almost what the character is feeling. >> as i said before i hate violence. and when i shoot it, when i agree to shoot t i want to show the impact of it, the uglyness of violence. and from the victim's point of view. and very often in cinema violence is deticket-- depicted as a show, as excitement. but i want to show the impact, the uglyness. that is the way we tried to approach it and i must say, there is the lo of suggestion in prisoners, most of the violence you don't see t you just feel it but we had to go graphic one or two times. and i believe then that we have to, how can i say, the courage to go all the way, even if honestly i hate that. >> rose: so here you r and you have great actors. you have great script. so what the hell did you do? >> survived. >> rose: no, you're right. it was a chance.

and i was keeping things to myself that if it was my only american movie that this would have been a fantastic experience. because it was, yeah, i was very lucky. i was spoiled. >> rose: what did you want him to do. i mean he's your director. what do you want from him? >> i, the thing about denis that is extraordinary is that oftentimes, first of all, i always think as i watch directors, the hiring process is probably the hardest part as a director. and it is what makes in a lot of ways, it's 50% of the job, in that way i can see. and it is a skill that is honed over a lot of experience. and so yeah, i think 50% of his job is just hiring the people which he did incredibly well. and i think it's also an amazing manipulation, alsoment because to feel safe as an actor to get this group of actors to be in this movie, particularly you know to get people to play

what they have to play which is violent people, sometimes insane people, people that they would found dispicible as human beings themselves, you have to tell them that the space will be safe. and not only tell them that but create that safe space. and smart ackers will know, even on initial meeting whether or not that space will actually be, whether that will be a truth, you know. and he has this amazing way. and he also has this thing where he never says no to an idea. sometimes will. he will say no, and that's very paternal in a way am but then he feels like he will always let an idea wane into nothingness over time. he trusts that if the idea is not right for the movie t will sort of fade and die. and that is a beautiful feeling because you never feel like you're being stopped. your instincts are not being stopped. i think he does that with everybody. and i think he is an extraordinary visual sense. like i would see these shots when we made enemy, you know, we let me roam free as an actor and the shot would always be beautiful. and the context and ter

tension of the scene would always be there. that is inexplicable. i don't even know how somebody has that ability. but it's just that he knows the story he wants to tell. and he is sure of it. and the hiring and then the telling of it, is just like little taps here and there until you know he's in the editing room and he has to cut it all out and make the movie he wants. >> this is the best time of your life because you've been on theatre. you're back in movies, this is a movie that is going to get a lot of attention. >> dow feel like-- that's exactly. >> that, i can't even-- i couldn't even explain it better myself, yes, that's the feeling. no, yeah, it feels wonderful. and he, denis was the beginning of this time in my life where he said come over to canada for a little bit. come and do some exploring of like the psyche and the craziness and the stuff we have inside of ourselves. and i was game and ready and

since i followed that, i feel like my life has flourished. you know, and so yeah during this time now it feels really good. i feel, i feel very-- i feel very happy as an artist about the choices and the people that i'm working with. really blessed. >> it's great to see you, thank you for coming. >> thank you very much. >> pleasure to meet you. >> thank you. >> the film is called prisoners.

>> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. and american express. additional funding provided by these funders.

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you in part by. >> the street.com. up to the minute stock market news and in depth analysis. our quant rating service provides objective independent ratings daily on over 4300 stocks. learn more at the street.com/nbr. when to sell? that's what many investors did and with gains of 25% this year, more of you may wonder how do i know when and what to dump from my portfolio? >> another mortgage mess, foreclosures are falling but just as things are looking up, there may be another housing crisis right around the corner. >> and phone calls on flights, the fcc will now consider rules to end a ban on in flight