>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with president trump's plan for tax reform. joining me dennis berman and peter coy and damian paletta of the "washington post." >> it's drilling a hole in the bottom of the lifeboat. it's going to kill the revenue. now, as dennis said there may be offsets to it and yet the offsets you would think about such as spending cuts are hard to imagine. >> charlie: we continue with our series of conversations about president trump's first 100 days and this evening we look at foreign policy. join me katty kay of the bbc and ian bremmer of eurasia group. >> i think he's still embarrassing himself and making

statement don't comport with reality. >> obviously. >> but look, when he came in place and you spoke about it the expectation was domestic policy would be hard to move the needle much but foreign policy could be very volatile. there's been learning as katty suggested. there's no crises so far but the substantive issues he's handle in a way whether you like or not you can say it's been competent. >> charlie: we conclude with the director james ponsoldt with his film "the circle" starring emma watson and tom hanks. >> technology sort of can give a. to who we are for better or worse. i've heard people say it can amplify your humanity. whatever that means, and the aspirational qualities the terms people use connectedness. it's a pseudospiritual bent where it's us trying to make

better versions of ourselves through technology. >> charlie: the foreign policy and "the circle." funding for "charlie rose" is provided by the following: >> 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. >> charlie: we begin with the overhauling of the u.s. tax code. the proposed were dramatic and

call for lower rates for individual and business and one outline leaves key detail incomplete and represent the first move to begin negotiations with congress. joining me is dennis berman and peter coy of "business week" and damian paletta of wvpt wsht >> they introduced changes to the corporate tax rate the rate businesses play from 35% to 15% and also allow a lot of small businesses that pay through the individual income tax system to use the 15% rate as well. they think that will create more hiring and investing and more money to slosh around in the economy to create more revenue and then on the individual new york tax side they proposed eliminating the seven tax

brackets that exist and replacing them with three brackets and incentivize people to no longer itemize their deductions and a host of things they think will help the middle class and low-income people. >> charlie: do most think it will stimulate growth? >> people think if you cut taxes inevitably people and businesses will have more to invest but if you cut this much and leads to a cut in revenue one forecast was a $5.5 trillion drop in revenue in five years. will you create such a big hole in the deficit it harms income growth in the long term. that's the big debate we'll have. >> charlie: add to this, dennis. >> that one-page document was remarkable in its brevity. if i wrote a seventh grade it

may not pass mustard there but with a number of intentions. >> charlie: a number was rumored before. >> there was detail about the specifics. fresn for instance one thing is important to people who live in states like california and new york for instance -- >> charlie: where they pay a huge amount. >> at the end of the document which said we'll start doing a listening tour around america to hear what people have to say which seems sensible to me but in my mind was an overt admission like this is just the start of the negotiation and we know from following trump if you start you start at the extreme end. >> charlie: help me understand this. the president has said repeatedly in interviews we'll do health care next and then taxes and deregulation but the same time health care and then taxes and then we'll do infrastructure. >> the thought was the health

care would help pay for the taxes. clearly that's not happening anymore. it seems as though this tax plan is not going to achieve what trump said he wanted to achieve during the campaign. he said he wanted to actually help the middle class. this was going to be no absolute tax cut for the rich is what steve mnuchin said and there's a change in the standard reduction. the first $24,000 you earn could be tax-free which is nice. but compare that to the enormous cuts that will benefit the rich. getting rid of the estate tax entirely, by the way. >> a controversial point which is paid almost exclusively by the richest americans. they're getting rid -- the tax rate goes down to 35%. the biggest one is the i'd ya --

idea of passthrough businesses doctors and lawyers and there's several types of passthrough business would qualify -- right now they pay the personal income tax rate on whatever profits they're businesses make. instead of that they'll be able to pay the same low corporate tax rate. it creates an enormous incentive to restructure their businesses instead of paying themselves a salary they'd claim it all as business income and save enormous amounts of money. >> charlie: donald trump never said he was a deficit hawk. >> no, charlie, but he can vow and told the "washington post" he was going to eliminate the federal debt. not just reduce it but eliminate it within ten years. >> one of the things that's important to remember when you do tax reform there's winners and losers. i think the document only tells us about the winners. the things people will get.

we don't know whose ox will get gored which is what happens when you do tax reform. those are the challenges questions they have to answer at some point. >> charlie: and he talked about bringing corporate money back home because it's sitting in banks around the world. what's he do and propose to do and announced for that? >> he's propose to have a tax holiday. hey, guys, a one-time deal bring your cash to the u.s. though it's in banks in new york city. give it from there and we'll give you a special one-time tax break and get those dollars to work. >> charlie: will we feel it? >> one thing to that point is there's no mechanism to enforce it be spent for say cláal goods or investment or employment. that to me is the main question from a business perspective, charlie. is the spending created by the tax cuts going to productive

capital uses or used to buyback shares and give back dividends in the way we've seen in the last decade in corporations across the money. >> charlie: and the price goes up. >> it's fascinating. microsoft share count in the last 17 years has gone down 25%. >> charlie: they buy back. >> they return the money to the shareholders. it's not creating more jobs and it's debatable and probably the answer's no. >> charlie: is it politically feasible? >> clearly this plan is not feasible. it's drilling a hole in the bottom of the lifeboat. it's just going to kill the revenue. now, as dennis said there may be offsets to it and yet the offsets such as spending cuts are hard to imagine. remember a month or so ago when trump said he was going to cut

$54 billion to offset defense. the howls of outrage. over $54 billion. that's a tiny amount of money compared to the revenue loss that would come from this. and in order to get it done he'd have to show it would not add to deficits beyond a ten-year window. if he can't get that he needs 60 votes in the senate. he doesn't have 60 votes. he's lucky to get all the republicans which is 52. >> remember when paul ryan was a deficit hawk? it seems like days gone by but under the current plan you have the gdp rising to 111%. >> charlie: if in fact trump had his wishes where would he get the revenue? >> from economic growth. >> charlie: that's a neutral political idea get economic growth to a higher level -- >> i think hillary clinton was wrong in her campaign because

she wouldn't even talk about economic growth. that's something with a base e ec -- basic appeal but it's an impressive goal at 3% growth. >> charlie: what would it do? >> more tax revenue to fill the hole but are businesses willing to spend the way before? probably not. >> charlie: thank you for coming. we'll be right back. foreign policy when we come back. we continue with a look at president trump's foreign policy as the administration near the 100-day milestone this saturday. and he surprised the world with the use of strikes over the use of chemical weapons and used economic policies to get president xi to help pressure north korea. the white house has put all options on the table as tensions

rise. then there's questions of ties between the trump campaign and russia which comply -- complicates relations with russia. much remains unknown with the iran nuclear deal and the paris climate accord and i'm thrilled to have katty kay and ian bremmer here. what can the president say on foreign policy and say this is what is a clear victory, win, achievement? >> i think the biggest achievement in a sense is that he has learned what he didn't know.

he has learned the world is more complicated than the policies he campaigned on. that's true partly domestically but more true when it comes to the international stage. the fact he sat down with president xi and was prepared to admit there was a learning curve. that has influenced much of what he's done and said on the foreign policy stage. he came in with a clear nationalist, populist america-first a deal and shifted. he is engaging to get results for america. rather than one specific thing he's done i would say the most important thing is the learning curve he's gone through and realized he's going through. >> and no agreement with that from a structural perspective but he got rid of the

trans-pacific partnership and got rid of it. bombed syria. >> charlie: he didn't have to get rid of it because it was never achieved. >> no, but america's allies in north america and south america and he comes in and says it's dead and kills it. very different than saying he'll make china a currency manipulator. didn't do that. something had he did, clearly the u.s.-russia deal on chemical weapons abrogated or put in place in 2013 the syrian government uses chemical weapons and he engaged in strikes and the most important meeting of his presidency so far with president xi jingping was treated with a level of dignity

and brought themselves time with north korea. they got the chinese already be prepared to respond with great pressure against the north koreans. there's a lot of places where trump's made mistakes in foreign policy in the way he's handled meetings and phone calls -- >> charlie: is this early trump or the last week or two as he reaches the 100 days and is he still making serious mistakes? >> i think he's still embarrassing himself occasionally but he is still making statement don't comport with reality -- >> obviously. >> but look when you came in place and you spoke about the run-up to the presidency is domestic policy will be hard to move the needle much but the foreign policy can be volatile. there's no crises so far but the substantive issues he's handled

whether you like it or not you can say it's been competent and also you have staff gone. they're moves tt make people who understand foreign policy in the u.s. more comfortable. >> charlie: and clearly he listens to tillerson. >> and bannon. and we now have trade moves against canada and we clearly have a more hawkish -- >> charlie: justified trade moves against canada? >> i think so. in the sense that anyone you talk to democrat or republican focussed on trade says there's big issues in terms of dairy farmers that need to be addressed that weren't being addressed. softlumber is not if you and if you were going to pick a fight

in the run-up to 100 days you don't want to pick on china because you're waiting on how north korea can play out and it can go badly. you pick on canada on an issue you know you have leverage on and can say i've done something for your base and at the same time it's not a disaster. so with all that i'm ok. >> charlie: nafta remains to be seen. >> you have two anonymous sources in the administration saying he is thinking about putting executive orders in that would withdraw you from nafta. that's not happening. that is stage craft in the run up to 100 days. it shows pressure on canada. there's in way they're doing it. >> i agree the chances of them doing it are unlikely and all the language suggested they want to renegotiate nafta rather than re-do it but it moved markets

the peso was down and share prices were off and it's a sort of slightly rationing to do it you're not intending to leak to the press that this was drawn up under the auspices of steve bannon. you're right. i think the personnel moves are on the national security side are probably one of the other big victories that we have a more normalized national security team in fact a respected national security team. general flynn was someone from the beginning who's appointment was curious to say the least. it shows there are odd things the administration can do. >> charlie: in a question about china, do we know what was achieved in that conversation in

palm beach other than two world leaders of the two perhaps most important and important nations in the world getting to know each other which is crucial to do. >> the chinese made offers investments in the united states the white house turned down and said the problem between us is too big. we're not going to take a few billion dollars as a way of solving this and making us look indebted to you. the other is the pressure on north korea. the white house went in and clearly said you have to put more pressure on north korea and if you don't we'll take retaliatory actions against chinese entities. whether they can do that is questionable but they seemed to have gotten something from the chinese in actions against north korea which is the biggest foreign policy challenge the president faces. >> they took the policy off the table which allowed the meeting

to be set up to begin with and trump took currency manipulation off the table and they're looking for market access -- >> charlie: he is no longer talking about currency manipulation. >> and looking into market access into china that's equivalent to what the chinese have in the united states. clearly the chinese are not prepare to move. that was not near xi jingping's speaking point but they are saying we expect you to take them seriously they're increasing their nuclear capabilities and their cyber attack capabilities. the chinese never thought trump would escalate and they realize trump might. >> charlie: do we understand that china appreciate and shares the united states' idea something has to be done about north korea having deliverable nuclear war heads? >> it sheds the idea something

has to be done but the outcome may be different from beijing's point of view than washington. it suits the chinese and they don't want the collapse of the north korea regime. >> charlie: they don't want a unified korea. >> and don't want a load of forces on their border. there's lots of reasons -- china and america seem to be cooperating on north korea at the moment but it would be a mistake for the administration to think they had identical purposes when it comes to the peninsula. >> first you'll have a south korean election and the outcome of that in a couple short weeks you'll have either a left-wing president or a center-right president. >> charlie: hostile to north korea? >> both of whole will be more attached to beijing and both will have challenges for the u.s. missile defense system and the rest. the second is wilbur ross is

clearly more hawkish, more economic nationalist on china than the markets would like. he now has 100 days to work to get more market access and come up with a better deal. i suspect at the end of the 100 days you will not have corporation though the koreans will try to bring it about and won't have a significant deal between u.s. and china that both think are acceptable on trade. if i were advising trump i'd say give them another 100 days because they'll have a leadership transition. but if they want to show you have an executive order on steel, maybe one on aluminum and there's a study and it shows they're getting unfair support, towards the end of this year is when i would expect it's going to be much harder on day 200 to say u.s.-china is on a reasonable path than now on day

100. >> the bottom line of north korea is for them the nuclear and conventional arsenal is an existential issue. he sees his country's survival dependent on that. >> >> charlie: you have sanctions on russia and trump came in refusing to say anything bad about russia and putin. >> we don't know had he said anything bad about putin. he's talked about russia but as far as my memory serves me he's not said anything about putin specifically. even since the syria attack. >> charlie: he still has hopes they can work together? >> tillerson went to moscow. putin didn't say he'd meet with him and at the last minute he did. clearly the message has been sent they'd lake to continue to see if there's an ability to

engage. i think the nature of the politics in the united states at this point with the ongoing investigation into a number of the people around trump and their conflicts of interests make it virtually impossible to get a deal done between the u.s. and russia. >> charlie: where do the investigations stand now? >> the last 24 hours has been jaso jason chaffitz said we need an accurate account when it came national security clearance. they gave him the forms and he filled in the forms and they took them at face value. how the white house's security processes work will come under

scrutiny. and there's no proof anybody chose to trump coordinate with the russians to affect the outcome -- >> charlie: there's no evidence anybody close to trump cooperated with the russians with trump's knowledge or jared kushner's knowledge. we still don't know if mr. page or mr. manafort affected that but ever times the white house appears obstructionist and said we'll not release documents to the intelligence committees it gives people who suspect there might be something there more reason to think the white house is hiding something. >> charlie: people will be sena intelligence committee i would suspect? >> they've been slow-rolling it in the house and senate so far.

>> you've had senator burr saying he won't give immunity to general flynn. on the account of general flynn they won't give immunity. these are not going to go away are the investigations nor are the fbi's investigation which we know are investigating. this will hang over the white house way beyond the 100-day mark and some things they're doing have not help it go away. >> charlie: they're trying to slow it down. >> or are they trying to do something and this is just a reflection of president trump has said he wanted a better relationship for president putin and having some admiration for president putin and not letting it go. it's not clear if as the trying to hide anything but the behavior has not been totally transparent. >> they clearly -- all they see

is downside by releasing the taxes. yes, people people that are suspiciou suspicious will be suspicious and they have the ability to say fake news and you saw from the secretary of treasure. >> you can't say that when there's top republicans -- >> secretary of treasury mnuchin said we said before and making it clear under no circumstances will we release the taxes. if i were advising the trump administration i'd say that's a winning strategy compared to letting them all out. i think on the case of spicer today also saying it's too much what you're asking for. it's too difficult to give all of the phone records of everyone that flynn has talked to. it's unreasonable for him to say that and yet it's probably a good strategy with trump being quite popular among republicans. you can say in a country of rule and law and democracy he

shouldn't be doing it but you can say that about the conflict of interests that jared and evan ivanka have with their businesses but he won't be able to make traction with russia. the danger is not so much there's a smoking gun we'll find out about in six months that goes to trump. i think the danger to the extend putin can cause problems for trump he's likely to. if there's information that can be linked -- we know they leaked information on the dnc. i expect the information will start coming out. you'll see some of that that will get ugly. >> charlie: then we have erdogan in turkey winning that look enhancing and achieving more power. what role does the want to play and how does that effect the united states? >> well, of course interesting that as with putin trump has the

idea that erdogan is a good guy to be cozying up to. >> charlie: he called him up and congratulated him. >> thi after criticizing the west. >> the only western leader to call him and congratulations. he does have some fascination with strong powerful leaders. >> he stole the referendum. he won by a point and a half. it's clear from observers there were all sort of shenanigans around the ballots and furthermore the media and the willingness to organize opposition rallies and the rest, none of that was allowed. you now have opposition parties in turkey saying this was not acceptable. we want to go to the tribunal

and until that happens it's going to be ugly. >> charlie: we talked about north korea and a lot depends on what the chinese are repaired o to -- prepared to do and a strike is not an affective alternative. turning to the iranian deal trump said he would withdraw from thee deal and hasn't talked about it much. has he change his mind? >> i think it's been another part of the administration's learning curve but we're a the worst america's ever signed. the understanding has been during the course of the last 100 days that it's a deal he would like to renegotiate if

that were possible with the p5 plus germany but it's not clear he can do that because there are other countries involved but he rode back from the idea of playing america straight out of it. >> charlie: lots of people includhis own administration have suggested they're add hearing to the dealer complying to the deal. on the other hand, the question is what are you prepared to do about iranian behavior and he's been prepared to put additional sanctions on them due to their missile tests and they're on the support of hezbollah and jihadists. this is an administration taking a tougher position towards iran, the saudis, emiratis and many like trump more than russia.

>> look, go back to the beginning -- you say what's he accomplished and the support of authoritarianism. he also has a good relationship with abe. he said look, i'm your buddy. i'm a major head of state. it focuses on the strong military. didn't hit him on the economic side. >> he's the person he had the worst visit with, angela merkel and has since called her to talk about russia and korea and i think he's part of the learning curve of realizing you do need your allies and the world is

more complicated than you thought it was reflected in the call this week with angela merkel. >> charlie: the chinese national interest in palm beach said trump listened and listened and listened and listened to xi. >> it reminded me of when trump went to the oval office and met with obama and you found he understood and i think xi jingping coming to mar-a-lago and all that and the idea he can act like a responsible adult when it's required is something we should appreciate. >> i've talked to diplomats that dealt with this white house and i've heard the italian visit is that it feels like a more normal white house to deal with. people going in and out in

comparison to how it felt 97 days ago whatever it is. there's been a noticeable change. >> charlie: from the campaign rhetoric. >> from how they found it in the first month. there's a distinct difference. there's still a major issue in staffing. it's not enough personnel in the state department but in terms of the dealings it feels more normal. >> charlie: great to see you. thank you for coming. back in a moment. stay with us. james ponsoldt is here the writer and director of the new film "the circle" from the novel. emma watson stars as a newly-hired employees and soon discovers the dark side of the

corporation and the benevolent founder tom hanks. here's a look at the trailer. >> i am a believer in the perfectibility of human beings. at the circle we can realize our potential. when we are our best selves we can cure any disease and end hunger. imagine the human rights implications. the possibilities are endless. >> your payment is $78.13 and the bill was for $78.31. >> thank you. >> you got the job at the circle. >> have a drink, have a good time and stay excited. you're at the circle. >> how are you? >> i'm in training. >> you'll get the hang of it. you're doing fine. >> you should come visit me at work some time. >> they might think i'm there to clean the toilets. >> everybody likes you. >> you're work's been exemplary. >> sorry, my dad had an episode

and i was home helping out. >> is that related to his m.s. >> i thought would make sense for your folks to come to the health plan. >> we care about everybody you care about. mae's only been with us a few months but has made quite an impression. so mae, do you think you behave better or worse when you are being watched? we have cameras in place all over the world right now. >> we used to go on adventures and have fun and see things and now it's all filtered through this. does this seem ok to you? >> this is not what i had in mind. >> things need to change. >> everything is being recorded, broadcast, stored, analyzed.

they use it how they see fit no matter what it cost. >> knowing is good. but knowing everything is better. so mae is there anything you want to tell us? >> charlie: i'm pleased to have james ponsoldt at the table for the first time. >> thank you. >> charlie: give us a sense of what it's saying about high-tech companies. >> it's an adaptition of john eggers novel. it's the journey of a woman stuck in a dead of end job still living with her parent and gets her chance to work at a tech company that would have consumed all of its competitors and it's a story about transforming for her from a dream job to something of a religion to a glass prison of celebrity when she becomes the public face of the company. >> charlie: so she goes from

step to step to step. from great love or enthusiasm to something less than that. >> in many ways she's a surrogate for us and the audience and our own relationship and technology and she's under a magnifying glass. >> charlie: what was dave egger trying to tell us? >> he was trying to write a satire and it's a darkly funny book and asking a lot of questions about the world we created that recognizes all the wonderful things. >> charlie: the notion we can solve everything and be perfect. >> who doesn't like the idea of us going to the moon and curing cancer and understanding the mind. we like all these things but why do these companies have to monitor us and monetize it. why is that part of the transaction. >> charlie: why do they have to be all-knowing.

>> it helps them market to us and make us better consumers. >> charlie: when you made the adaptation what is the idea? >> it's the idea of characters and plots and i think to literally adapt the book would have made a ten-hour miniseries. for me it was focussing on the central journey of the protagonist. her hopes, wants, needs, fears and focussing on those things that focuses more on the character than the company. >> charlie: did you right the screen play on speck? >> i did and dave and i worked together on it after that. he was a wonderful collaborator from the beginning. dave's real urging when i first started was to not be blindly or

literally adherent to the become and said his favorite adaptations were the ones that adapted the book but with their own sense of invention and understand they're different mediums. >> charlie: is it satire or terror? >> it has a dark sense of humor and a character study. it has a thriller but perhaps of the '70s conspiracy variety. >> charlie: it seems today's headlines are more appropriate than when it was written. >> when the book came out people compared it to wellian and strangely that's what happened in the world whether with revelations of us being surveilled or elections. >> charlie: or fake news. >> and objective reality and who creates it for us. >> charlie: who plays god and who doesn't.

>> what god do you worship. >> charlie: how about casting? >> we were incredibly fortunate to have emma watson as our lead. that's someone i've loved. i've seen all the harry potter films and for the people who are roughly her age they're someone they've grown up with and admired choices she made since then and the films she's made and she's a political figure. she's a voice of her generation and speaks her mind. she's a wonderful collaborator. otherwise tom hanks was a draee to have. >> charlie: >> is had he a dream? >> he's my favorite actor of all time. "big" was the first movie i watched over and over again i think i was 10 and i had to keep watching it. he is america's most trusted person. one of our favorite actors. all those things and he's aware of that imagine and he's able to

play a role like this which i think there's a different version of the film where he'd be a mustache-twirling villain but he is sincere in his desire to change the world and democratize the world with a sense of social justice and make all information available to everyone equally but there's the point of him being a fundamentalist. >> charlie: these are good ideas but wants to be the messiah who brings them to us. >> i think his character at a different generation would have been at the forefront of any protest movement and believes in technology's ability to bring it to us. it just happens he's at the forefront of a company making a lot of money which makes all the idealism and utopiasm muddy.

>> charlie: and the sense you're all powerful too. >> i'm not a technophobe but there's a sense i've gotten visiting my friends -- it reminds me of being at be an undergraduate student protest and there's something idealistic a cynic could say naively that lacks experience but if you're a company that has billions of dollars you can impose your will on the world for better or worse. >> charlie: there's the threat right there. look at this. this is when emma watson meets them for the first time. >> we want to talk to you about an idea but before we do is there anything you want to tell us? >> that i've been here before. >> therein lies the things that

get you in trouble. the things we hide. i've been here before and now that i know your secret do you feel better or worse? >> better. >> i'm a believer in the perfectibility of human beings. when we're our best selves the possibilities are endless. there's not a problem we cannot solve. we can cure any disease and we can end hunger. without secrets and the hording of knowledge and information we can realize our potential. >> >> charlie: when you looked at this and an idea you're being seen what's the impact of that on you? >> that's a great question. one could argue some of the characters in this film it makes you your best self.

when we've seen ideas put into practice i hear of germany during the cold war where they had the biggest collection of data on the society at that point in time and when one person out of three would be talking one would be an informant and it made them their best selves. >> charlie: it's like the lives of others. >> i love that film. >> charlie: in terms of making the film and was there a sense of -- what were the risks you were trying to avoid? >> i think in films that are slightly speculative with technology fetishize the gadgets when they should focus on the

psyc psychology of people. >> charlie: you saw yourself as mae. >> absolutely. i always approach a film of not wanting to judge the character. i want to at least give a great opportunity for them to articulate themselves and want to empathize them and understand them and in the case of mae it was easy. while it's easy to me see myself in the parts of her that are idealistic and change the world for the better it's part of her that is desperately afraid of not making her mark on the world. of feeling she's not connected enough to the people around her. the idea to be known. a sense of existential loneliness she think may be cured by being connected more and more. those parts of her are human and i think if people are honest with themselves -- >> are these opinions about

technology or human ambition. >> both. i think technology can give a platform to who we are for better or worse. i heard people say it can amplify your humanity, whatever that means and the aspirational caught of terms people use, connectiveness and i think it is us trying to make better versions of ourselves through technology. >> charlie: what's the transition? what's the journey from coming in and recognizing there is something about the place where you don't accept it and accept it and fully in. is the transition simply being -- what? >> i think for mae she's gotten a dream job. i don't know anyone in 2017 wouldn't want to work at a company like this. people i went to school with at peace corps would work at a place like thing with health care for you and your family and

free concerts and free food and the best and smartest minds coming in. everybody would want that and so mae has lucked out and won the lottery in that regard. there's a doctrine of a pseudospiritual event and there's a group think and pressure to share more. >> charlie: and do they pull her away from previous relationships, friendships and family. >> i think she does it to herself. to some degree, yes. why would you want to leave when life is that great at work. that's one of the great ironies of surveillance and privacy. we assumed in entertainment we watch it will be government surveilling us and taking our information. instead we've been complicit and happily giving up our private information for the ease of modern living. >> charlie: in writing this did you simply go to dave's book or seek outrsions with people living in the world that

you're writing? >> the primary source was dave's book but i talked to tons of friends at these companies and i visited them. there's a scene in the film when mae goes for her interview with seeming questions and how do you explain what you do to your grandmother who doesn't use technology. it's the thought process and the seeming easy of the questions. >> charlie: and tell us about the world view of the circle and the tom hanks character. >> at the beginning mae is

afraid of unfulfilled potential. she meets someone with limitless potential and if we share everything we can meet it communally. that's what he believes it should be shared and distributed. >> charlie: it helps you realize your potential. >> it's a disruptive motion. i think born of the best desires. i think mae by the end of the film she's both adopted that mind set and taken it perhaps to the next level because she doesn't quite have the memory that we all have or that we're all haunted by of being able to live a completely private unsurveilled life. she knows a different existence and her children will know a different life. >> what's her moment of awakening? >> she makes a mistake. she's challenged by a friends of hers who is a 25-year-old who

works with his hands and sort of a hipster that makes deer antler chandeliers. he's not living an atenable existence but calling her out on someone not being honest with herself and goes out and makes a big mistake and is arrested and almost dies and makes a big leap. she'll lose her job and becomes a guinea pig to wear a camera and share everything all the time. >> charlie: this is mae broadcasting her life to millions of people. >> hello. >> good morning, everyone. the sun is shining and i definitely need my coffee. we are in my third week of

transparency and we're up to 2,807,000 viewers. wow. did i tell you guys i'm not a morning person? ok, among all those viewers are -- hi, mom, hi, dad. >> hi, mae. >> say hello to everyone. >> hello, circle. >> we match. >> we do. very stylish. >> i love you guys. see you later. >> love you, bye. >> charlie: are you fascinating by great write ers, first of all. you also does david foster wallace and the challenge there was -- >> the challenge there and he spoke with you and in the case of adapting the book i think

there was a desire to get things right. we had david lipsky who was a strang stranger to david foster wallace was someone he admired and probably from a case of insecurity feared him a little bit. and david foster wallace understood the exact game being played because he wrote the same profile. it was two people performing for each other and one was younger than the other but perhaps wanted the life the other person had. >> charlie: i get more comments on that interview. of the interviews i've did in in 25 years one of the top five maybe because of what he meant to people and maybe because he

did so few interviews. >> having watched that interview 50 times probably what strikes me is you guys seem to get along so well and at a certain point he just starts talking about movies. he's talking about shine reviewing a film and there seems to be a recognition am i about to critique the movie, oh, hell and then becomes conscious and apologizes and you seem to admire the quite of his mind that is wonderful to watch. >> charlie: much success. >> thank you very much. >> charlie: thank you for joining us. see you next time. >> that's where the rest of it will be. >> the rest of what? >> the rest of it all. it's just the start. the plan is to have everything recorded, seen, broadcast, stored, analyzed available to the circle in any way.

you did your part. every breath, all of it stored. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.

-many of us are trying to find ways to build a more sustainable world for our future generations. we are concerned that our planet's well being isn't as secure as it once seemed. but on every continent, there are new environmentalists who are committed to change. whether it is an individual, a small group or a grassroots organization, they make personal sacrifices that most of us couldn't even imagine. -my husband and i bought this land