>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with mike morell, former deputy director of the cia and acting director talking about the threat from isis. >> zawahiri just owns them. because they wouldn't follow his orders. some people say incorrectly that zoo what heri disowned them because of their brutality, that's nonsense, al qaeda and pakistan is every bit as brutal as ice isis, look what they did to daniel pearl, for example, same thing that isis has done. no, it's over whether you are willing to listen zawahiri and take his orders or not. >> rose: we conclude with terri gilliam, film director. his new film "the zero theorem". >> i think it's that battle between the world we live in and our dreams. an they're both necessary. one is not necessarily right and the other wrong.

they're at war with each other and i think all my movies deal with that in one form or another. >> rose: mike morell an terri gilliam when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg.

a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: my morem-- mike morell is here, from 2010 to 2013 he was deputy director of the cia, twice served as acting director, yesterday president obama vowed to destroy ice nis syria and iraq. speaking in florida, he said that the united states would not take on the terrorists alone. he also promised a military audience that they would not return to direct combat in iraq. yesterday the house of representatives voted to authorize funds to arm the free syrian army. i'm pleased to have mike morell back at the tablement welcome. >> charlie, thank you, great to be here. >> rose: let me just go. give us the picture first of all these groups and why we have come to single out isis and the threat they pose.

>> at the moment there are a number of al qaeda groups in the world that pose a threat to the united states of america, to the homeland. al qaeda in yemen is at the top of the list. the last three attempted attacks on the homeland came out of yemen. christmas day bomber, 2009. printer cartridge plot, 2010 to bring down cargo planes. 2011, nonmetallic suicide vest to bring down aircraft. they're very dangerous. you still have al qaeda central leadership in pakistan. they have been degraded. they have been in some cases decimated. but they still pose a threat to the homeland. and now you have syria where you actually have two groups. you've got the first al qaeda group that was established there jabhat

al-nusra and they are tied, they are aline-- aligned closely with al qaeda in pakistan. and they pose --. >> rose: which is zawahiri. >> zawahiri, they pose a threat to the homeland. and you have isis. which has garnered everybody's attention because it has grabbed so much territory. it too poses a threat. but we, i think we have to look at these together. and we have to make sure that we're focused on all of them, and not just let isis grab all of our attention and grab all of our focus and grab all of our resources. because these others will bite fuss we do that. >> rose: is the administration focusing on all three of them? or four? >> i don't know. i think that-- i think that the strategy-- the president's strategy with regard to iraq and syria will also help us deal with al-nusra if successful. but as you and i have talked before, the weakness of that

strategy is on the syria side. the strength of the strategy on the iraq side. i know we can come back to that. i hope we're still focused on al qaeda in pakistan and al qaeda in yemen. i don't see as much u.s. activity there as i used to see. but we have to stay focused on them. >> rose: how much intelligence do we have? because many people believe that we didn't see the rise of isis and its capacity to take territory as fast as it did. >> right. so when i was there, when i was serving at the central intelligence agency, we were telling a story about the rising strategic threat of isis. as you know, isis is the direct descendant of aqi. when u.s. forces left iraq at the end of 2011 -- >> aqi is al qaeda in iraq, zarqawi's group, the graeb that was established right

after the u.s. invaded iraq. they were essentially-- they were not defeated but they were significantly degraded at the end of the 2011. when u.s. military forces left a couple things happened. one is the military pressure was taken off of aqi. and maliki moved in an thorian direction. >> the prime minister of iraq former prime minister of iraq and moved in a direction politically that all gwyn-- alienated the sunnies. and they rallied around aqi. so aqi started its rebirth then. and we reported that. then syria happens. and what happens with syria is that aqi moves across the border into syria, changes its name, rebrands itself as al qaeda in iraq and the lavant or syria. because it wants to say it's

playing in both places in its name so it rebrands itself. and in syria it gets even stronger. and it gets even stronger in syria for a couple of reasons. one, it's getting battlefield experience. nothing's more important than getting battlefield experience. by-- by having victories in syria, it draws attention. attention in the terrorism business is good because it means more money flows your way. so more money started flowing its way. >> and recruits. >> and recruits. and all these foreign fighters that were going there, the vast majority ended up with either al-nusra or with isis. so again growing strength. and then lastly, they got their hands on advanced conventional weapons from syrian arsenals. so their growing strength when they move across the border. they continue to grow in strength. we're telling that whole story. that's where we were when i left the picture. now my understanding based

on putting kind of piecesing to here and reading the open media and reading what senior officials are telling reporters on background is that we didn't do a very good job from an intelligence perspective. and seeing the tipping point. and what i mean by the tipping point is seeing when isis had reached the point that it made the decision to start grabbing all this territory inside of iraq. that we kind of missed that. and we also missed, i think, our understanding of the iraqi military and how brittle it was, and it's inability to stand up and fight. i think we missed those two things. >> what's the competition between al-nusra and isis? >> so there's -- >> because they were fighting each other a bit in syria. >> there's intense competition. and they have occasionally fought with each other and they're still occasionally fighting with each other. >> is it just for power or is it because they have different goals?

>> no, they have exactly the same goal. they share al qaeda's oddology of establishing a global caliphate. what happened was al-nusra was a syrian extremist group that established itself after the syrian civil war started. they were recognized by zawahiri in pakistan as the al qaeda group in syria. so then you had aqi who decides hey, i want to go join that fight. so they move across the border and zawahiri says to them no, no, your fight is in iraq. you stay over there. and they said no, we're doing our own thing here. we want to get in the game over here. so zawahiri disowns them because they wouldn't follow his orders. some people say incorrectly that zawahiri disowned them because of their brutality. that's nonsense. al qaeda in pakistan is

every bit as brutal in isis, look what they did to daniel pearl, for example, same thing that isis has done. no, it's over-- it's over-- it's over whether you are willing to listen zawahiri and take his orders or not. >> it is said that isis ambition to create the isltate now goes against the advice of zawahiri and before of osama bin laden. >> right. >> the others get out too far. >> so that's the other difference, right. the other difference is that al qaeda in pakistan's main focus is attacking the united states first, cutting off the head of the snake, as they call it, and then, and then second, getting rid of all the apostate leaders in the middle east that they feel are working at the behest of the united states and then establishing a caliphate. so isis is coming at this the back way. isis is saying let's grab

territory. let's establish our caliphate and then we'll go after the united states. so another example of not listening to zawahiri. >> rose: what is the ultimate fear we have of isis and these other groups? >> two aspects of isis, i think. one is attacking the united states. and i think with isis you have to worry about attacks today. and those attacks come in two forms. they come in young men in the united states who have been radicallized by the isis movement and who conduct attacks all on their own without any direction from isis. and second, our foreign fighters who have gone from the united states, canada or western europe, to syria and get directed by isis to come back and conduct an attack, so that's the threat today. over the longer term isis can become the kind of threat that al qaeda was on september 10th, 2001. over time they could put together that kind of operation if they have the

time and the space and the resources to do so. so that is the threat that they pose. al-nusra, al-nusra poses that same kind of threat today, but because-- but because they are-- they are more aligned with zawahiri anmore aligned with al qaeda in pakistan, they're actually to me more of a concern today in terms of attacking the homeland than isis is because they have that attack america first strategy of zawahiri. >> rose: so what is the president's strategy? >> so the president's strategy is to take their territory away. weaken them, and i believe, although this has not been said, but i believe based on bob orr from cbs's very good interview with john brennan,

cia direct,-- director, that is strategy is also to get rid of the leadership as we've done in other parts of the world. so take away their territory, get rid of their leadership, weaken them to the point where they can't hold territory, can't pose a threat. >> rose: so this is by drones or any other method you can. >> any other method. >> rose: find and kill. >> find, kill, capture. >> rose: find, kill, capture, would they rather kill them or capture? >> i would rather have them captured, why? because they can tell me things then. >> rose: when you look at the strategy the president brings us to today, where we are now, among the people you know and your own analysis, what has been the change in the president's mind-set? >> the change in his mind-set, i think, is that when-- when it moved so quickly to grab territory, it became obvious just how

significant a threat this was. so we talked about the threat to the homeland but we didn't talk about one other threat which was the threat to the regon as a whole. which is the threat to the whole stable of the region. >> and their definition of islamic state may not be where it is now between iraq and syria, in fact it's larger. in fact, i think we actually talked last time charlie about the correct translation of their name is the islamic state of iraq and greater syria. and their definition of greater syria is pretty of the entire lavant area. so when they think of their caliphate it's much broader than just iraq and syria. so the other concern here in addition to attacks on the homeland is the impact on the stability of the whole region. and sectarian war in the whole region. and the redrawing of all these lines in the middle east. and i think it was their very quick movement and success that got everybody's attention and said look, we have to do something about this. >> and the beheading caught

the public's anger. >> yeah k and the changed the public's attitude overnight. >> rather than being sucked into another conflict in the middle east, they began to say they cannot do this without a reprisal. >> right. which is actually a very interesting look at the question of does isis understand us or not. because if you were advising isis. >> rose: if they did they have miscalculated. >> they've miscalculated. if you were advising isis you would say don't do that. don't behead these people, let them go, right. if you do this you're going to ignite passions in the united states and britain. >> rose: at the same time fear is an essential part of their modus operandi. >> right. and this does induce fear. >> rose: what general dempsey said, if all that fails, we may need ground troops. >> right. >> rose: what do you assume he meant? and do you assume that the president expected him to say that? >> so i think general dempsey was misquoted.

so the president has made-- . >> rose: misquoted or misunderstood. >> misunderstood, misunderstood, very good. misunderstood. what the president has decided on the iraq side of the border is to support the iraqi military and the kurdish military with intelligence, with enablers, advise and assist special forces. and the decision right now is to put those individuals as sort of-- at sort of the brigade level, right. not going out on missions, at the command level. that's where the president has decided to put them at this point. those advisors are going to be very, very important to the iraqi military and kurdish peshmerga doing their job right. >> rose: what will they be telling them, teaching them, advising them. >> they'll be advising them on strategy and tactics, right, that's what they will be doing. at the same time supporting them with air strikes,

right? what general dempsey said was there may come a point where we have to not only have advisors at the command level, we may have to have advisors at the ground level. so they would be advising at the ground level but not fighting, not actually fighting themselves. right? and that's a big difference. when i think of combat troops on the ground i think of americans in battle. and what general dempsey was talking about was advisors at that lower level. not fighters. >> rose: but are they going to be on the firing line? >> they would be, they're at risk now simply by being there. would they be at greater risk, absolutely. do i think it makes sense to have them at that lower level, yes, absolutely. >> rose: everybody seems to believe you can to the do it with air power alone. therefore you've got to have ground troops. and the ground troops have to come from somewhere. >> right. >> rose: and so far we know that there are those from kurdish-- kurdi stan and so

far there is the anticipation in syria of the free syrian army. which have been languishing, is it fair to say, because they didn't get the support they wanted several years ago, and have some divisions and all of that. many people i know says that's not enough. do you think it's enough? >> on the iraq side, on the iraq side of the border you have the iraqi army and the kurdish peshmerga. you have u.s. advisors, and you have air strikes. >> rose: and you have the possibility of-- of sunni militias. >> yes. and you have a real opportunity, a real opportunity thanks to secretary kerry's very good work of having a plil cat-- political solution in iraq that has got everybody's buy-in, so on iraq you have all the pieces you need to retake territory. i'm confident on the iraq side that within a year, year and a half you're going to see major reversals for isis.

syria's side is completely different. >> rose: but do you think they'll get the sunni militias who are among those that we talked about earlier, who became disenchanted with the iraqi government? >> so i think there's a very good chance they will, the only reason i'm hesitating slightly is because the political piece is not completely formed yet. there's still a couple of key posts that people are fighting over. >> rose: and do they trust the united states? >> i think they do. i think they do. i think they actually, the sunnis in iraq actually see the united states as arguing on their behalf. with the shi'a government in baghdad. so then we flip to the syria side. where it's much harder to see somebody who's going to fight for us, right? the free syrian army is disorganized, it's largely infectionive. they have grown more ineffective over time. training and equipping them is going to be helpful but

charlie, it's not going to be as helpful as putting advisors with them. there's been no discussion about putting advisors with them. obviously because we have a much harder time protecting them in syria. and it seems to be we're talking about fewer air strikes in syria. there are reports this morning that the president is going to have to approve himself every air strike in syria, there has been 160 in iraq so far. >> rose: why is that? >> i don't know. i don't know. it's a very good question. >> rose: sounds like you don't believe it's the right way to go, to have the president approving air strikes. sounds like lyndon johnson and vietnam. >> i done know if it's accurate but that's the report this morning. so on the syria side, i'm a lot less confident that they're going to get this done. and the problem with that is, you have this strong hammer on the iraq side, and you have no anvil on the syria

side. so isis if pressed goes across the border into syria and just hangs out there. so the syria part of this is the-- is the-- is the weak, is the long-- . >> rose: it's also the essential part. >> it's the essential part. and i think to deal more effectively on the syria side, we have to do-- we have to do a significant number of air strikes to go after isis and al-nusra. we have to go after the leadership which means getting the intelligence we need to do that. and we need to think about putting advisors with the free syrian army because putting advisors with them will significantly strengthen them. and then we need to think about something else that nobody else is talking about. >> which is. >> rose: which is the guy who started this whole problem is assad. he's the one who created the instability in his own country that allowed

al-nusra and isis to become a problem in the first place. we need to talk about how do we get this guy out of there now, without weakening the syrian military, the syrian security services and the syrian intelligence services. >> rose: and getting the russians and iranians somehow to allow this to happen. >> right. >> rose: you can't do it without them. >> right unless you take him out kinetically, you target assad personally. but getting rid of assad-- . >> rose: are you an intelligence agent, how would you do that? >> how did we get bin laden, you know? how did we take much of al qaeda-- . >> rose: we would do that knowing that it might be known that we did it? >> sure. >> rose: we would have no problem with that, taking out assad? >> i wouldn't have a problem with it. and we would be heroes in the gulf, right? we would be heroes with our gulf allies. >> rose: -- what i'm saying is that a -- >> what did the russians do, you have to calculate the consequence. suppose special force goes in and take him out.

what will the russian does? >> there will be a lot of rhetoric, right, about u.s. intervention, lawless u.s. intervention but there's not much they can do. there's not much they can do. i don't believe. >> rose: is that a doable mission? >> i don't know. i don't know. but we need to be thinking about it. because what he's going to start doing, and what he's already doing is, in his mind, he's calculating two things, assad. he's saying the u.s. is going to go after ice nis my country and the u.s. is going to go after al-nusra, essentially, both al qaeda groups. >> rose: an we're going like them a lot. >> so i'm going to put all of my focus on the moderate opposition. so in recent days he's already picked up the pace of his military operations against the moderate opposition. and he's calculating that, you know, if this isis thing and this al-nusra thing gets serious enough, maybe the united states will come around and see me as a solution to the problem,

rather than the cause to the problem. >> rose: but you can't imagine the united states doing that, can you. >> no, no. >> rose: what i do know as people sitting at this table who you respect overall in terms of their foreign policy have said, we have to do that. we have to in a sense hold our nose and let assad be and go after isis and al-nusra. >> right. and you know why i don't like that? because you already have a guy who's killed thousands and thousands and thousands of his own people, displaced millions, a third of his population. a brutal dictator. and most importantly, he is in the pocket of the iranians. so assad wins. the iranians win. i don't want the iranians to be the hegemonic power in the middle east, the saudis and emirates. so if we shifted horses here, we would lose our friends in the gulf.

so-- . >> rose: we can't change our policy on assad. >> there's an alternative. there's an alternative to siding with assad against isis and there is what i am saying. there is an alternative to siding with isis with assad against isis, al-nusra, and that is getting rid of assad, putting in power a sunni who is going to take on those two groups and who is going to be our friend and not the friend of iran. we need to be thinking about that. i'm not saying it's easy but we need to be thinking about that as a policy. >> rose: the iranians are saying today, president rouhani said an interesting thing about the united states. he said, you know, they want to do this thing from the air but they don't want to take any risk. they don't want to take any risk, that's not acceptable to us. they don't have any people that they are risk. and they're asking to us do it, what dow page of that argument? >> does that have validity in the region? >> yes, i think it does. i mean i think our friends in the region would like to

see us do more. our friends in the region would like to see us have those advisors with those front line troops. they'd like to see us do more with the syrian moderate opposition. they would like u.s. boots on the ground in larger numbers. they are are good reasons why we're to the going it to do that at the moment. down the road, maybe. >> rose: in your judgement, are the saudi, the emirates doing enough? those sunni states that have either money or power or both. >> in this case, yes. >> rose: they're doing enough? >> i think so. >> rose: what are they doing? >> they have been providing money and weapons throughout this whole syrian civil war to the moderate opposition. some of those states-- . >> rose: then why is the moderated opposition better? >> because we haven't been doing enough. >> rose: we or they or both.

>> all of us. >> right. >> we haven't been doing enough. it's been too small in scope. you know, you've got nusra with 30,000 people, right? you've got the whole syrian army which is $100,000-- 100,000 people. you need to be training more than a few 100 guys at a time, right. the scope of it needs to be much, much larger. they have been in the lead, those moderate gulf states have been in the lead of trying to deal with this. and they've been wanting us to do more. >> so there is iran. what role will they play? >> so iran i worry will play the role of spoiler. so every time that-- that the coalition supporting the moderate opposition in syria has done more, the iranians have come in and doubled down on assad. they-- they are desperate. >> he usually has everybody they could find. and even their own people. >> so they've brought hezbollah into it. they've trained mill

ashe-- militias in iran and brought them to syria. very effective shi'a militias. and they brought their own guys and solamani is in damascus all the time advising assad what to do. they do not want to lose assad, why? because they believe that they need assad to have hezbollah. that's the channel that all the weapons go through to get to hezbollah. >> rose: from iran through syria to lebanon. >> right. and hezbollah is essentially a terrorist wing of the iranian government. so when. >> rose: so when you look at-- what do you think worries the president the most? >> i think-- i think, let me say what i think should worry him. if i'm not inside of his head. what-- . >> rose: if you find out who is, let me know. what i think should worry him is that, is that isis is the tip of the iceberg.

and what i mean by that is if you think back, charlie, to september 10th, 2001, al qaeda was at one place in 1 place only on the planet, afghanistan. today al qaeda is-- al qaeda islamic extremists are in northern nigeria, mali, more tanya, niger -- niger, across all of north africa, from morocco, algeria, tunesia, in libya where they are in huge huge numbers n egypt where they are back for the first time in 25 years. down into east africa, in somalia and increasingly in kenya. across the gulf into yemen. up into syria and iraq, and still in south asia and pakistan, afghanistan. >> rose: that's a lot of front. >> and bangladesh now, they just announced a new cell in bangladesh. so i think what-- . >> rose: not to mention asia. >> right.

well, they've done a pretty good job in combatting-- but the asians have done a pretty good job of rooting it out. so why i say tip of the iceberg, i think in that huge geographic area that i just talked about, you're going to see isis like problems pop up over the next five years, ten years, 15 years, 20 years. >> rose: there is the greatest foreign policy challenge to the united states to date. >> i think so. >> rose: not russia, not china. >> i break down national security in to threats to the united states, and challenges. the greatest threat to the united states without a doubt in my mind is islamic fundamentalism. the greatest challenge to the united states is how do we deal with a rising china. how do we come to terms with a rising power in east asia when we are the status quo power. when we need to have a good relationship with this country both for economic

reasons and for national security reasons. greatest threat, greatest challenge. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> it's always great to be here. >> rose: mike morell, back in a moment. stay with us. terry gilliam is here. hes been called one of the great cinematic-- of our time, a director responsible for movies such as braz im-- brazil and 12 monday keerx his new project is set in a futuristic london, following a computer genius who is given a project aimed at discovering the meaning of life. here is the trailer for "the zero theorem". >> how's it hanging. >> sorry. >> all right. >> you seem tense. >> there's very little that brings us joy. >> you're a tough nut to crack. and of course i don't know nut in the pejorative sense. >> what seems to be the problem? >> we are dying. >> no, we're not. >> he is not. >> not, not, not. >> zero theorem.

>> i give him two weeks. >> 100%. >> the zero thereem is you know -- i think i have a friend who might be able to help. >> you're a pretty intense guy. >> so tell me, how did it all start? >> dow have any idea what the zero theorem is all about? >> everything adds up to nothing. >> exactly, what's the point of anything? >> we always wanted to feel different. unique. >> you have made a very big mistake.

why would you want to prove that all is for nothing? >> we know quite clearly that we only had to answer yes and the boys would give us a reason for being. >> rose: i'm pleased to have terry gilliam back at this table, welcome. >> nice to be back. >> rose: you have said about this movie, it is a glimpse of the world i think we're living in now. that's the world we're living in now. >> uh-huh. people just need the eyes to see. >> rose: yes. >> it's kind of like, i remember when i first started watching felini movies especially dulce vita and things like that, i thought they were fantasies. they were extreme versions of something that was not even very close to reality. then i went to italy and discovered he was a documentary filmmaker. that's a documentary filmmaker at work you just watched. >> rose: oh my gosh, you have to convince me of that. but tell me more what you

said, what is the creative ago here, to show us what? >> it's odd. i'm not sure. i mean it's very hard-- this is difficult. basically trying to raise questions, i suppose. get people to look at the world slightly differently. i think i've been trying to do that from the beginning, is just say here's another window into the world. look at it. >> rose: do you like technology? >> i use it a lot. i mean-- . >> rose: but do you like-- i don't like. >> i don't like the worship of it. i think it has become-- . >> rose: maybe its salvation of us all because it will find the answer to all the things, because those machines will take us where -- >> that's what we seem to believe. they're very he is duckive. >> rose: and biochemistry, biomedicine. >> they're very he is duckive things. my computer has now taken me over. i am a victim of my computer because it has access to to much information. most of it i don't need but with an inquiring mind i can avoid doing real work by just exploring endlessly. >> rose: it takes you

everywhere. >> yes. >> rose: to all kinds of knowledge. >> yes. and just a lot of-- . >> rose: interesting facts, whatever else. >> and gossip is what it mainly is. it has replaced the garden fence. and now we just talk nonstop. i think it's also, what it has also done is given each of us our own little cinema screen where we are the star,4ue center. >> personalizes everything. >> yeah. because i was in france promoting and i said if des cart was alive now we say je suis-- tweet therefore i am. and i-- there was andy warhol with 15 minutes of fame. now we have a 15 megabytes of fame. >> rose: tell me about this movie and casting it bus christoph waltz is unbelievable. >> es-- i mean, well, everything i have seen him in has been wonderful. >> rose: he's never had a bad conversation -- >> he's very smart. he's great to work with. what is intriguing in this film, he's never off camera.

he is the movie. that character, an it's so different from anything he's done before. it's a very-- almost didn't recognize him when you see him up there. >> rose: i didn't for a moment. >> and that's exactly right. he is something completely different. what intrigued me about him was here is an actor who had worked a jobbing actor for years, moved, succeeded, he was 52 years old. there is so much information, some of frustration and anger. bitterness, wisdom, all in there. >> rose: all that he can now call on. >> and working with him is just a joy. we would argue about things all the time because he's very-- i'm more contrary than he is. >> rose: what would you argue about? politics, art. >> no, the character. everything. >> rose: oh, i see. >> we argue about everything, outside of it, but when we're working we're arguing about the character. he says why is the character-- . >> rose: his character. >> his character, why he is referring to himself as we all the time. and he-- and i said well, it's in the script. and he wouldn't accept that

as an answer. so he got a vienese sci trust to explain people who are alone a lot start doing just that. >> rose: what about the name he had, cohen. >> it is cohen left. now through the whole making of the film i said this san odd name and i never got an answer from pat rushin who wrote the script what this was. and i finally discovered about two weeks ago there was a canadian blog that had seen the fill number canada, it's basically playing with the word coalef which is he cleeseas tee, which is hebrew for ecclesiastes, and strangely enough, the day i discovered that, i was writing a preface to this autobiography that comes out next year t was going to begin with the vanity of vanities all of the vanities which is the beginning of ecclesiastes, and i thought is extraordinary. so ecclesiastes is about that, about the vanity of all the ridiculous things people strife for and trying to find out what is life worth living. >> take a look at this.

this is when he is on the streets of a very futuristic london. here it is. >> every one is getting rich except you. -- >>.

>> what did we just see? >> the reason to be alone. >> i mean the world out there that just is hammering us all the time, demanding, suggesting, offering us solutions buy three fly toilet paper and your life has meaning, it's all of that. it's kind of my reaction to the world and why i want to pull back from what's out there. and just arriving in new york. it's overwhelming i find. maybe i'm just getting old. but there's something in, the insistence of everything, shouting, shouting, shouting. >> rose: is there a kind of-- is there an arc or an evolution in your work? are you -- >> my wife says i keep making the same movie, i just change the costumes. >> rose: is she right? >> there's a point. there's a point. i think all these movies in one way or another have to

do with the individual fighting, the larger world also imagination versus, you know, reality as it's proclaimed by its media. because i think reality is something we have to create every day of our lives, and you have to fight against reality, effectively the media is telling is reality. it's trying to get people to think. and i think it's that battle between the world we live in and our dreams. they're both necessary. not, one is not necessarily right and the other wrong. they're just at war with each other. and i think all my movies are-- from one another. >> rose: have you livered the life of a filmmaker that you wanted to live? you have done it on your terms? >> i have done it on my terms. it may not be the life i wanted to live. because maybe i would have liked to make more films. bigger films. but i've had control of everything i did. >> you wouldn't do it any other way?

>> i don't know how to do if any other way? the mental makeup to take orders from people that i don't admire. i'd like to -- >> the movie that you want to make that somehow if you just had the money you would make it but you can't do it because it costs enough so that people that you have to sell the idea to are no not-- convinced that it would be a commercial success? >> and art is not enough? >> no, no, i don't think i do art. i just try to make interesting movies that greets an audience. and i don't agree with the idea that there is an audience, there is an audience for each movie. but when you deal with hollywood-- there's this audience, it's not true. and dealing with hollywood, you've got to be able to pitch. and i pitch to a certain degree with energy. but not necessarily the kind of simple structure that they want. and i've always relied on the fact that i have succeeded or at times they expected to justify my continuing to make the

films. >> rose: what happened to monty python in june? >> oh, it's very weird. it's almost like it didn't happen. it was an anomaly it was, we played the 02 arena in london which was like 16,000 people in the audience. it went out in cinemas all over the world. it was a huge success. it was extraordinary feeling because you're on stage as mike palen said at one point, god this must be what it feels like to be a dictator. and i mean, this enormous stadium we played at t didn't feel big because the audience loved us so much. it felt absolutely intimate it was like just a bunch of friends gathering together. and it was-- at the beginning it was a bit, everybody was tense. but by the end it was joyous. we just had a great time. >> rose: whose idea? >> it was, it wasn't some of an idea as it was a desperate need to plug a

hole. we lost a court case and it was a big, big expensive thing. and aaron has always been trying to get us to do a stage show, so eric said what about this. and we said, okay, it's good it won't take us too much time. we get together. do one show. that show sold out i think was in 47 seconds. this is crazy. >> rose: on the internet. >> yeah. and then we penciled in a few more. and we ended up doing ten. and we could have done, gone on and on. >> rose: and you didn't because you made the amount of money you needed to make and that was it or because -- >> we wanted to get back into our own lives, own careers. it was interesting. suddenly you return to 30 years ago. and i had always liked the fact that python had quit while we were ahead. we went out wile we were still good. and it's very strange, you suddenly are back with your mates and we always see each other, it's not like we're separated in anyway but the old relationships when it

comes to work are coming back, an it's very odd. >> rose: but i was told by one of the members, i had forgotten who told me this, was the reason you stopped was that you didn't think you had it in you to make more of them at the level you had made them. that you thought they were so good, and you couldn't-- you were stretched to making that good and sustain it that good. you said let's stop while we're on top. >> it was basically that, is what it was. people were pulling in different directions. that was going on. and it was just like the same chemistry wasn't-- it wasn't work the same way because when the chemistry worked it was wonderful stuff. and i thought i would-- you know, meaning of life went out and it wasn't quite the same as previously it was like we had gone back to sketch format as opposed to life of bryan which felt much more narrative. and it was like, this is good it was some of the best stuff we've done and some of

the worst stuff we have done. okay, run for it. >> what is it about opera that attracts you to direct it? >> this is like, i don't-- i think it's a job like quality in my life. when life is getting interesting and enjoyable, it has i have to do something to punish myself. if god won't do it, i have to do it. and i did it one a few years ago. i did the-- i have never done opera before. i have to the done theatre before. this is all new. i don't particularly like opera because the images of the-- let's somebody simple. a 55-year-old fat woman pretending to be a young 18-year-old virgin, i can't, my suspense of disbelief is to the great enough to deal with this no matter how beautiful the music is. so i have got-- when people have been trying to get me to do opera for about 20 years. and the english national opera company caught me in a moment when i was just not sure what i was doing. and i love the fact that-- had

hadn't succeeded with the opera it wasn't really an opera. it was an assembly of 8 sim fonic pieces he had strung together so it gave me a lot of room to play. and fortunately it was a huge success. it got great critical reviews, it won prizes. full every night. so foolishly i said okay, i'll do another one because i love ber lirx os. i said i would do another opera that doesn't work. i only take operas that don't work. because at least it gives me a chance, i don't have to fight all the great versions that have been done prior. so i can be did -- and this chelini has worked out to be a huge success as well. it's frustrating. you do something and basically only like 20,000 people see it. and i've always been, wanted to be a populist as opposed to -- >> but that's changed, hasn't it? isn't there ways to broadcast it around the world? >> they've done that in both cases. it's gone out on television but it's not the same experience. when it was being recorded for tv i was sitting up in

another room watching the monster. and at the halfway point i just laughed. i said i can't watch this. >> how is it to do it outside? >> we have never been outside. all these things have been inside. outside -- >> its opera outside. >> no, no, no. >> you can't do that. >> i was-- years ago. >> did you do that because you need the containment of the sound? >> i think there's-- no, i could do it outside if i-- years ago they wanted me to do paliacci in verona at the huge opera theatre there. and the problem is the opera starts while the sun is still setting. and it's got to be black before we start. it's got to be. it's like this, you come to a black space, the focus is so-- you can control it. >> why did i design it this way. >> it's perfect. there's nothing out there. >> there is not even camera people. >> no, it's great. it's total-- total focus is

on you. >> it's brilliant. >> of all the things you do what are you best at? >> i don't know. i really don't. i think -- >> is it film, is it opera? >> is it sketches. >> i honestly done know any more, i really don't know what i'm good at. i keep thinking i don't really know how to do anything. >> maybe you've found it. >> maybe. but it's a bit late, isn't it? >> and well then that's the question. do you think most creative artists get, do their best when they're very young? >> i think there's a point when you really-- you've got energy. all the things i do except for drawing acquire energy. films are still the thing i like the most. because i love the process. it's not the control, it's like the experience, the shape of the experience. unlike theatre, opera, where you rehearse for a couple months, then you've got a few weeks on stage. and then you don't know what you've done until the audience arrive whether it works or not. which makes me very nervous. with film you have time to prepare it, think about it,

dream it. and then, then i love looking for locations. i love finding the actors. i love the process. then the shooting becomes, that's the painful part of the process because time is a dictator, bomb bomb. and you're up against everything. moments happen every day that make it worthwhile, magic happens. an acker will come and do something you didn't expect. it's like oh, that's wonderful. a whole new way of looking at it. and then after all of that, you've got six month notice editing room to calmly look at it, change it, move it around. it's like at that point you have got the pieces of the jigsaw. now let's put them in hopefully the right order. "the zero theorem" is the perfect example. we semi wrote the movie in the editing room. i was pulling scene as part, cutting them in half, took three scenes off the end, -- like it and that is the moment that i really love because it just may the editor and we're playing within the limitations of what we created during the shoot.

so i like having a border, a finity area to work within, whether it's budget, time, or whatever. because without it i, you know, the explosion is diluted. >> dow love the arcade fire experiments. >> that was fun, that was great. because-- . >> rose: they came to you. >> they came to me and i've always loved their take on it i had never been a rock groupie so here say chance to be a rock groupie and tag along with them to several shows. and it was-- it was a joy. i actually, it's like working with people. i love working with people. you're talented, especially people with more and different talents than i do. because let's see if we can pull this together and make something. and the arcade fire was very strange. we went out and madison square garden and i was supposedly directing. i wasn't directing it. i can't do that. so the pro guy who is-- cut, five and four, to three, two. and i was given four cameras

to play with which i was-- it was outrage usly funny. but the show went out and it was a great show and everybody was happy. >> what did you think of breaking bad? >> oh, yeah -- >> just you. >> i was against all of it. i was get netflix, i was against all of it. people kept telling me about breaking bad. and last november my wife was away. and i signed on for netflix. the first month was free. and i was going to do the whole thing for free. and i got through almost four series. i binged. >> yes. >> because i couldn't stop it. it was so brilliant. and to me it's the best thing i've seen in a long time because okay, it's imperfect, it's up and down defending-- depending, but the totality of it, and the premise was so utterly brilliant and the cast was great. i just loved it. >> and you finished it. >> i finished it christmas day while the family was downstairs watching-- i went

upstairs and got through the last series because they were watching something i didn't want to watch. i think it was frozen, i was like oh, come on. and now i've just finished the version of the killing. have you watched that. >> oh, yeah. >> it's so good. it's so, because the writing in all of these things is so excellent and it's not doing what holly wood seems to have to do now, the structure has to be by the numbers. >> for people like you it's a god send, isn't it? >> i don't know. i don't know. >> you can create in a whole new different way. >> but you're not confined by time. >> that's my problem. i need to be confined by time. that's the problem. >> that's right. you need an hour and a half, or somebody to fell you an hour and a half an no more. >> imagine looking at one of my old scripts that richard la graferb and i-- wrote after fisher king. and we're seeing if we can expand it to like an eight part series. i don't know. it's-- but it's something to play with. maybe that's the thing.

>> have you worked with anybody who has more talent than robin williams? >> oh, his was so unique. yeah, i mean he's a very unique talent. i mean, i-- strange enough i had to watch fisher king last week because a blue ray version is coming out and i had to look at it technically. and i wasn't certain because i miss robin so much. but watching it, it was wonderful. and he's alive. he's alive and he's just robin and the thing about that film, that character he's playing is as much, probably all of robin, almost, in one character. the joy, the nightmares, all in there. and it's-- and i really felt, i felt so good coming out because robin's still with us. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you. oh, this table. >> rose: been there done that its zero theorem opens in theatres on friday september 19th.

>> that would be this friday. >> right. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. zero theorem. all very hush hush. >> hand picking talent to crunch it sin before i was hired. nobody lasts. it's a guarantees burnout project. i worked it for about three beaks when i was a fresh hot shot out of school. after that i couldn't concentrate, that is why management made me a supervisor. you might know i'm short of a fourth scoop. >> that's why it shows you, nothing left to lose. well, the tech boys should be around at your place about now change the locks, the standard at home workforce security. i have got my money on you. you'll be proving that theorem in no time. >> what exactly will we be proving? >>. >> that management is getting desperate. if you ever wonder when all

the stuff gets crunched winsd up? voila! >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us yen line at pbs.org and charlie roast.com. -- charlie rose.com captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

. >> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coke told-- coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. american express. and charles schwab. additional funding provided by:. >> and by bloomberg, provider of:

>> announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ >> must have soup! >> the pancake is to die for! [ laughs ] >> it was a gut-bomb, but i liked it. >> good. i actually fantasize, in private moments, about the food i had. >> i didn't like it. >> you didn't like it? oh, okay. >> dining here makes me feel rich. >> and what about dessert? pecan pie, sweet potato pie.