woody harrelson and director moreman. >> he's facing the consequences of his action. >> to me the core of who i am and dave brown has to do with his love for his family, my love for my family and he has maybe a skewed sense of showing affection and so forth but that's the core element to him and when things are unraveling for him and when things are going south with the family that's when it's most painful for him. >> charlie: susan rice, the ambassador, the director moreman and actor woodyq we continue. funding was provided by following: captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: susan rice is here. she is the u.s. ambassador to the united nations. part of her agenda this week is the escalating crisis in syria the government intensified forces in hams and beyond and the death toll ranged from 70 to 130 that's week-long assault shows no signs of slowing. the international community is trying to find a unified voice on stopping the violence. the russian president urged the government to negotiate with the government and they insist president asad must step down. i'm pleased to have ambassador rice back to talk about all this. it's been a busy week for you. >> indeed. >> charlie: tell me where we are. >> after russ and china made the decision to block a resolution of the security council that would have provided strong political backing to the arab league's plan to orchestrate a transition where eventually asad would step down and there would be the opportunity for democratic elections we're at a difficult point. it may just be tragically the space for a negotiated settlement is diminishing. this opportunity which was missed and defeated by russia and china on saturday by the arab league had the best chance to push them to a settlement and we've all been horrified to watch the violences intensified and has taken what has been a license to escalate the killing and countries around the world because 13 of 15 countries from around the world were in support of this are now consulting very carefully how to escalate the political pressure on asad and economic pressure and they'll be discussing whether to form a democratic syria contract group. whether to recognize the syrian national congress. the civilian opposition what sort of humanitarian action might be necessary. whether to request the united nations supplement or join in the now dormant monitor mission the league put in. whether to appoint a joint u.n. arab league special representative to try to negotiate a political solution. there's been calls for peace-keeping forces. all the options are actively under consideration. we as the united states are are determined to use maximum political and economic pressure to push asad out as quickly as possible and end the violence. >> charlie: if that fails and he is still in power and still killing his own people, what do you do then? >> well, charlie, i don't want to speculate about various different contingencies. obviously we're looking at a range of options but our focus because it's what the people of syria have request and what the arab league has sought is to try to find a peaceful political and economic means of dealing with this crisis. not every one of these circumstances are the same people often say why did the united states, nato intervene but not in syria. these are very different circumstances. in the first instance there was an event in libya that sought military intervention and there was a formal request and there were arab countries prepared to participate. nato was ready to go and an air campaign to protect civilians would have been effected. >> charlie: that's interesting. the first one that the forces in libya requested assist janjans syria doesn't want assistance. >> there's not been a broad call for international military intervention. >> charlie: they have not asked. >> there's not been that request in the very concerted way. more over to get next point the arab league itself has said explicitly and it's january 22 planned the security council almost endorsed for russia and china they explicitly did not seek foreign military intervention by the arabs or outsiders and the thrust has been in a wide deal of reasons with political pressure and why the united states from the earliest days have imposed sanctions and ratcheted them up and the united nations is looking to tougher sanctions in the coming days and the arab league had as part of their original package they adopted towards the end of last year economic as well as political pressure. >> charlie: it is my impression prime minister cutter some international forces should go in as a peace-keeping force. >> well, i spent a lot of time last week with the prime minister of qatar and the arab league specifically excluded the plan of foreign military intervention. subsequent to the russian and chinese veto of the intervention there's ideas of what might come next and one of the ideas we've heard not so much out of the prime minister but he may be thinking this but others close to the arab league is the question whether there to be a united nations peace-keeping. >> charlie: that's what he said. >> and with u.s. observers augmenting the monitoring presence which is eyes and ears on the ground the peace-keeping the sort they're describing would not be a military intervention forcibly inserted or with the protection of civilians. what they've been talking about is the kind of force that typically only comes with the consent of the government after a settlement is achieved and there's a disconnect with what they what is practical in the circumstances. there's one where there hasn't been a formal request to the security council and if and when they were we have to look at it carefully. separately that's secretary general announced the other day he'd been in conversation with the secretary general of the arab league and they discussed the possibility the arab observers and the arab league monitoring presence which had been on the ground and getting around a bit but is has now been suspended. >> charlie: there are interesting things about this and one, do you believe the president of syria having done what he has already done in terms of killing syrians, having crossed some boundary would be willing to accept any kind of negotiated settlement. >> charlie, he's got very stark choices. first of all, the economy is crumbling. they can't sell their oiln$&ñ a their currency is collapsing and you're hearing the same reports that even in damascus there are critical shortages that have emerged where months ago it would have been unheard of and there are defectors leaving not only the army but the regime and the opposition which has been until recently and still substantially peaceful to date in the face of the killing is more determined than ever to keep up their efforts. i said the other day in a different context it seems objectively when you look at the trajectories asad's days are number and that's our assessment. >> charlie: i've asked a number of people this including perimeter cutter, is there any discussion as to where he might go if he decides to abandon syria. >> i think there are some coutries that have had conversations with him saying if you choose to leave there is a place for you but getting into specifics is not something i can do. >> charlie: being in the region i would assume. there is also this and you as a student of history would understand this, back in the balkans said history will not judge you well if you do not act in the face of this kind of genocide and slaughter. at some point will they not ask the same question about syria. >> well, charlie, we are acting. we're acting with very aggressive and increasingly unified effort to squeeze this regime until it determines it must step down. not only one form of action. not every situation requires a military intervention or invasion and indeed as we demonstrated in libya there was the possibility in that unique circumstance of attacking civilians without putting a single american boot on the ground. kosovo was a different circumstance and bosnia was different. these are all different and in this instance it's not a question of international or american or western or arab inaction. i think the fault may lie, frankly, with those who blocked potentially the last best opportunity for a negotiated peaceful settlement and that's what sadly happened on saturday. >> charlie: why do you think the russians took the action they did? >> well, you interviewed my colleague ambassador jurkan and gave you better policy. i think many on the council can answer because we were only engaged last week and many of the concerns russia and china and other members of the council has raised is this going to be construed asók of force. we made it clear that's not what this is about. >> charlie: he made the comparison with the president of the united states and president mubark said we do not abandon our friends. >> i've heard him say that. that's not the way we look at it. the united states' view is we have friends, partners and allies but when the time comes they have used force on their own people and exceeded the bounds of mora morality and wis and we to stand up for a universal set of basic human rights and we will. that may be the difference. if the russian view point it's about individual leaders. from the americans view point it's about the people and our principles and our commitment to democracy and human rights. universal values which we think over the long term serve ours national interest. >> charlie: russia is one case, china is another. was there a difference in the way they approached this? >> yes. china was -- you might have noticed if you were watching the people mulling around the council before the vote, the chinese ambassador was surrounded at the 11th hour by a large group of arab ambassadors literally encircling him and urging him to vote and we might argue was china's interest not to align itself necessarily with russia in this case. china has -- china did not express the depth or degree of questions or concerns about the resolution. my impression on that thursday evening which i described in the resolution sending text to the capitol the chinese view was largely acceptable. my interpretation is that they took that decision more out of solidarity with russia than their own definition. >> charlie: suggestions if the russians had not vetoed it they might have not either. >> may not have. >> charlie: i think so too. do you think with respect to iran as well? >> here's the difference, in syria russia has a clear set of military intelligence, economic historical interests and ties. china doesn't.5+n given the dependence on the region for oil and energy has more at stake in saudi arabia that were in support of this resolution. china arguably took a decision that may have been counter to its -- at least it's narrowly defined economic interest on iran we all have interests. russia is an oil and gas producer itself is an importer of iranian oil and china is a major importer of iranian oil. they came at it from different points of view and as you know ultimately in june of 2010 we were able after many many many months of work to get the security council to pass a very tough historic sanctions resolution which has formed the foundation for eye much toughened theme against iran on oil and central bank and other ways. >> charlie: how is that working of the impact it's having on iran? >> i think the measures are in the cumulative impact starting with the security council resolution, 1929 is the number of the resolution back in june 2010. the subsequent steps the european union took at the time, our congress passed a strong piece of legislation in july. a month later, south korea, canada, australia imposed additional sanctions back in 2010. those are begun to bite and of course over the last couple of months the united states and the europeans have imposed another layer of sanctions now targeting the central bank and for the europeans the oil sector. all you need to do is ask the iranians. even ayatollah hamanis said the sanctions are crippling and biting. they're no longer denying what cannot be denied, they have an effect. >> charlie: has it changed their policy at all? >> it's perhaps too soon to know because the real edge is in the bite of these sanctions is starting to take hold as we speak with their currency reserves plummeting and their ability to access the international banking system much diminished. the aim of the sanctions, of course charlie, is not to just punish but to change their calculation and behavior with their program. it's been a duel track policy of pressure and leaving the door open on the other. the iranians have been told on a number of occasions that it would be in their best interest and wise for them to take advantage of the opportunity to have a serious and urgent negotiation over their nuclear program. they ought to choose to do it. >> charlie: are you satisfied that the chinese and the russians have done enough with respect to iran? >> what they've done charlie is what they said they would do which in our judgment is not all they could do. they i a implemented to the let the security forces -- >> charlie: i am told, and you would know, that the saudis have said to the chinese we'll make up for imports of oil giving the chinese incentive to be part of the effort to stop iran from reaching a nuclear capability. >> i can't speak obviously for the saudis or what they said in private conferences with the chinese but let me say this, i think if you're china and look to iran to provide a substantial share of imported oil and see them with commerce in the strait and see iran struggling to access international financial markets and have difficulty accessing foreign exchange and you see the risk that iran's behavior may lead it into advertly or inadvertently to confrontation. you'll look for more secure sources of supply and i think china is very pragmatic and it wouldn't surprise me if they're in discussions with other major producers. >> charlie: i'm sure they are. we all thought there was a ticking clock with respect to iran in terms of when they might have a nuclear capability. it was self evident they were make progress in terms of how much uranium they had been able to act on and use their equipment they had. now there's ticking clock it seems which is their ability to be immune from a military attack and there's question and articles have been written suggesting the united states and israel may have a different assessment of that. >> charlie, the united states and israel and many many other coutries around the world are united in a clear conviction that it is empathetical for us for iran to gain a nuclear capability and the sanction we've been discussions, the prospect of potential negotiations the mounting pressure and isolation that iran is facing are all designed to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. now i'm not going to get into discussing intelligence matters but we're determined to prevent that from happening. the president has been exceedingly clear on that point. we hope and we're certainly working to try to exhaust all political and economic means of accomplishing that goal but he's been very clear that no options are off the table. i think that's the same point of view that israel has. how they make their own judgments about when they conclude the opportunity for political and economic measures has run its course, nobody can say for sure. >> charlie: did the president say clearly we cannot live with a nuclear-armed iran. we cannot. we cannot have a policy that allows them to have nuclear weapons because we don't believe containment will work. >> the president has been very clear we will not accept a nuclear weapon or weapons in iran. we ar we are determined to apply the pressure necessary and the diplomacy to apply that. i don't know how many different ways he and others can say that. it's been quite clear and he's been quite clear in making that judgment we're not taking options off the table. >> charlie: when you look at sanctions have you become because of what you have seen and because of both the financial pressure as well as other kinds of pressure that can be brought to bear has impact where there are examples you can look at and say it's because of sanctions policy has changed. >> you can look at many. let me come back to give you the historical examples. you can look at apartheid in south africa and zimbabwe, you can look at more recent cases. i think even in west africa where liberia and sierraleone had have sanctions and in libya the focus has been on what the protection of civilians of nato accomplish. had there not been the use of military force would have had over time an impact. multilateral sanctions take time. unilateral sanctions take time and what we're seeing with iran where the leaders are admitting for the first time, my gosh, they're hurting, nobody's denying that any more. >> charlie: the supreme leader -- >> and the president. the ambassador also said that and the sanctions are biting and the toughest among them are just beginning to take effect. i think we need to give this process time to see exactly how impactful they are. >> charlie: and realize you will resist this but how much time do you need and i don't want to ask the questions how many sirians have to die before you realize sanctions are not working fast enough. >> are we on syria or iran. >> charlie: we're back to syria. i'm sorry. >> look, there's no formula. too many sirians have already died. one civilian dying at the hands of his or her own government, you know, for simply protesting peacefully is one too many. it's unacceptable by any standard. the question is what are the most effective and available leavers to halt that and in none of these circumstances is there a magic wand where you can wave in the next day and it's all done. if its with that easy with we wouldn't have dictators killing around the world but in syria we have an increasingly united international community. it's not just united states, turkey or arab coutries but latin and asia saying it has to stop and but for russia and china we would have had a resolution passed from 13 coutries from all over the world saying on behalf of the international community in effect there has to be a negotiated solution where power is transferred and a democratic syria emerges. that was the mission. >> charlie: is there evidence the russians and chinese have suffered because they took the veto they did. suffered in a sense of being ostracized or anything. is there a price to pay for what they did? >> i think so. i think if you look the reaction in the arab world where both coutries i think have historically prided themselves on strong relations, if you look at what the reaction has been on the streets like tripoli and elsewhere, except when foreign minister comes to damascus the reaction on the street is not positive. now that's not the purpose. the purpose is to support the people of syria and to end the killing. i think one of the consequences of the decision that was taken second time they vetoed, not the first was that countries and people are asking themselves why. why, they weren't vetoing the use of force. they weren't vetoing sanctions. they were vetoing what would have provided political support to a process that was to lead to a democratic transition and that's hard to understand. >> charlie: would we support that kind of agreement on the part of asad if he basically said, i'm happy to negotiate being a partner in some kind of coalition with some kind of democratic force. >> i don't want to get guessing at whatever permeatationses can come and if you read the resolution what's significant is was to include the broad spectrum of syrian society to negotiate the timetable for elections and a transition to democracy. it's no use us sitting here and saying it ought to be this way, that way or another way. the point is they have to commit to a negotiated solution. -- >> charlie: are there preconditions to a solution. >> we don't have preconditions. the opposition is saying as long as they're shooting at us we're not sitting down with asad which is understandable. >> charlie: they're at least 50% of negotiation. >> that's what's puzzling about the russian initiative they reiterated in damascus. what they put forward may be acceptable with asad and hasn't gained traction with the opposition. >> charlie: there any sense there is an effort by russia to reassert itself on the world stage. >> russia is already a major player in the world stage. >> charlie: it has -- >> it's a major player. again, i prefer to let russian and russian colleagues speak for themselves but it is a significant player and has been and on many issues we've been able to find common ground. on this one for the moment we remain far apart. >> charlie: are the turks a player because they're close to the united nations and know the relationship between the prime minister and president obama and they talk frequently and the turks have been wanting a role in the region. are they playing -- are they doing something? do they offer possibilities here? >> the turks made very clear from early on once the asad killing machine got into full gear he had to go which was a dramatic turnabout and it came only after they had made repeated efforts to influence asad to stop. the turks are very active. they're very much in the middle of the international discussion about how to end the violence and how to affect an immediate transition in syria. the foreign minister of turkey will be coming to washington in the next few days we'll be meeting with him and have a further discussion, a continued discussion about how to increase the pressure. turkey is well positioned giving a shared border and given its importance in the region to expert -- >> charlie: and given the previous relationship with syria. this is a curiosity for me and not necessarily relevant to any of this but that's doctrine of sovereignty has less meaning today if in fact a nation is killing its own people? >> charlie, you're probably as familiar as i am with this new doctrine called the responsibility to protect. it doesn't override the notion of sovereignty. what it has said and it's been embraced by the u.n. general assembly and security council and other though it remains controversial is when a government is unwilling or unable to protect its people or effecting the violence and diplomacy and sanctions and other measures have failed there is as a last resort case by case to contemplate intervention to protect civilians. now, it's not enshrined in international law. it doesn't mean the end of the sovereign state by any means but there's been a number of instances where i think we can talk about cote de voir and other times when the international community and the security council was willing to take decisions that arguably subordinated the sovereignty to a commitment to protect civilians under stream duress. >> charlie: it's always a pleasure to see you. >> great to be back. >> charlie: thank you very much. the rampant scandal of the 1990s remains one of the most documented police misconduct and many were implicated for crimes including unprovoked beatings and rampart is a new movie set against the backdrop of the scandal and shows the mindset of the abuse of power and it's been called a vivid often mesmerizing portrait of a man rotting from the inside out. here's a trailer for the film. ? i am not eye racist. the fact is i hate all people ee equally. >> you could just stop beating people up. have you seen anything unusual lately. >> you are the most beautiful woman i've ever seen in this bar. >> you have to stay. >> what? >> i can prove that it was dirty just like i can prove you dirty. >> you can't just walk in the house like you still live here. you were a dirty cop and you dirtied us all up by default. >> have you thought about retirement. >> if you force me to retire i'll have my own show on fox news and you'll be my first guest. >> so you have thought about it. >> the laws change, people change but not you. why is that? >> go home and pack a bag. save it for the jury. >> i told her everything. >> oh, yeah, the women and the booze. >> i'll never let you go. no man who ever shoots another man is -- >> it you learn that with the first man you killed. >> your either lying to me or withholding. >> the only thing is that a camera caught you doing police work. >> charlie: joining me now, woody harrelson and oren moreman. good to have you. welcome to the table. >> thank you. >> charlie: you know where this came from. tell me the story you're telling. >> the story -- >> charlie: about the man rotting from the inside out. >> it's a story about one man played by this man, woody harrelson a cop who's been in the depart and he's rotten and done a lot of things and figured out his world and going through life with the king of the hill attitude and assigned to the rampart district and while everything's changing around him he' he's refusing to change and will go down and he's got a sweet wives, sisters, they live in the compound and he thinks as long as he'll have the dirty streets where he does his thing and the paradise he's created with this harem and the daughters with the sisters nothing can go wrong but everything goes wrong once he gets caught on tape beating up a motorist and the movie's a character study of a man facing the consequences of his actions. >> charlie: his values are in conflict with his actions. >> i think he lost his values a long time ago. his whole understanding of policing is that you do bad things to bad people therefore you're good. therefore you should be commended and actually you're doing the people's dirty work. the work people don't want to see but ultimate support in their quiet way. >> charlie: you're an actor and i assume one role is not different from any other role but when we think of you we think a sweet hippy like character. maybe we got that imagine some where. i know from all the conversations we've had from everything from a whole range of issues have nothing to do with movies. there is in a sense within you the spirit of a what? hippy? >> happy hippy from hawaii. triple h, yeah. >> so he says. >> charlie: exactly. so he wants us to believe. so tell me who you think dave brown is? >> well, i mean -- >> charlie: who you want us to believe. >> i think that dave brown is a guy who started off wanting to be a good cop and had all the right intentns and got kind of through ned beatty's character and through other temptations he got tempted into this lifestyle where he would get temptatio te and rationalized it as doing bad things to bad people and ended up with his own nirvana living in between the two sisters both of whom he was once married to and each have a daughter by him and that so him is his wonde wol little nest and starts to unravel but he never feels it's has a fault. >> charlie: where is he headed. he could be headed to an early grave, incarceration. >> charlie: what you do want to create as the back story of his life. >> james elroy wrote the original. >> charlie: but you added. >> but he definitely created the character. >> charlie: as an james elroy character. >> yes, after i came on as director it started focussing more on the family and while his world of policing is a specific world he think he can keep the worlds separated and it's one when one starts bleeding into another and as it starts spiraling we started looking at him as a family man than a policeman and investigating the emotional world of he can lose his job, his pension, his stripes but when he starts losing the respect of his daughters and relationship with his daughters is when he comes undone. >> charlie: were you on the same page about what film can be about? >> yeah. i think it's a rare thing to have the kind of connection i had with oren on the messenger and with ben foster and laurence ingli and we were lucky to get to work again together so quickly and in doing "rampart," i have to say he's one of my best friends, oren and we have developed such a trust for each other and i know even when i'm being bad he's not going let me be bad even if the take won't work he won't use the take so he gives you the ability to try anything or go for it and you know you're safe with him. >> charlie: he pushes you to do your work but makes sure your worse is not -- >> it is that but it's also like i don't want to do any but my best for oren because i can't let him down. >> charlie: this is a scene with sigourney weaver who plays an assistant d.a. >> every shooting testimony contains inconsistencies or you wouldn't have a job. no man who ever kills another man is exactly cogent in the moment plans the contact with the enemy. >> did you learn that with the first man you killed. >> i learned that serving my country in the crusade for liberty and justice turned puppet show for politicians known that's vietnam war. >> can we not go to the vietnam war today. >> why are you looking to hang me. why are you setting me up. answer my question of all the truly rotten cops why are you after the one guy who gets it. >> the one cop who gets it? are you [bleep] kidding me. let me remind you several years ago you killed an allegedly killed an alleged serial rapist and she spend nine years in an sane asylum and killed herself. don't come in here whining. you have a lot of nerve. >> charlie: i was thinking that's a damn good performance. >> i'll take it. >> charlie: sigourney pretty good there too. >> these she's great. >> charlie: that was good dialog. that's smart dialog of people speaking from their own sense of what's happening in the moment. take a look at. i want to see this one again and this is you talking to your daughter. >> how's high school. >> sucks. full of candy [bleep] like me. how's it going at home? >> she's angry. says something every day about what her daughter has to go through. you're a classic racist. a bigot. a sexist, a womanizer, maybe you don't like yourself. >> how long did it take you to are rehearse that? >> charlie: david karr or writer from the new york times described the character of a vending machine of his own brand of injus injustice. he called the city a jungle and himself one of its soldiers. all of this is of the same notion. >> yeah. >> charlie: so do you have in playing the character what do you have to find? people will say often you have to find a peg to hang on to find a reason to want to watch him. >> i felt my main thing was to believe i could be a cop but then passed that, once i was into the character i think a big part of embracing him was to -- have you to kind of like him. i had to find a way to like him. >> charlie: how did you find a way to like him? i really connected with -- to me the core of who i am and the core of dave brown has to do with his love for his family. my love for my family and he has some skewed sense of showing affection and so forth but like i think that's the core element to him and i also think that's what when things are are unraveling for him and when things are going south with the family that's when it's most painful for him. >> charlie: roll tape. one last scene dave brown talking to linda, a woman he met at a bar played by robbyn rite. >> tell me you're in the a lawyer. >> okay, i'm not a lawyer. >> are you selling something, art, insurance, pharmaceuticals. >> real estate. >> great. >> yep, i'm in from phoenix. my 87-year-old husband and he's taking a six-hour nap. how's that? >> perfect. i am looking to refinance. anyway, thank you for talking to me. >> yeah, well, i figure i'll be safe because everybody's watching your every move. >> now they're watching you. >> maybe i like being watched. >> i'm watching you. you are the most beautiful woman i've ever seen, in this bar. >> charlie: you like that scene didn't you. you liked that line didn't you. >> mostly because his line. >> charlie: you came up with that? oh. >> that was of the moment. but like i love working with her. i just think she's one of the great actresses. >> charlie: so do i. you get confirmation here. and i love the fact she's working so much now. we just said she was here not long ago. she's in australia making a film now. >> she's in a knew phase of her life and career. >> charlie: doing all the things we wanted to see her do and knew she could do. my guess is you'll see her taking increasingly more prominent role. >> she's doing great work and moving from one movie to another and showing what a great actress she is. >> charlie: in getting ready for the role you went out with the cops in l.a. didn't you and got a feeling for what it was like to be with them and i let you in fact to talk to some of the guys -- >> yeah, they'd pull over and tell the guys to put their hands on their head and they'd be facing up against the fence or something and then they'd be frisked and make sure everything's cool and then say we have someone who wants to talk to you and i'd get out of car and say, hey. >> charlie: could they tell it was woody harrellson. >> i know several times they would look over and be like, what? this is not -- this doesn't seem right. >> charlie: doesn't compute. >> i got to meet a lot of cool cops and to tell you the truth met a lot of cool gangbangers. >> charlie: these were guys high up in the gangs that could turn around and kill you in a second. >> they could tell you, that guy's a killer and you just hay great conversation. >> charlie: about weather, sports, whatever. >> it was really an incredible eye-opening experience and gave me a lot of respect for cops and made me feel like a lot of the guys i met and particularly the guys i got to hang out with, bob and jerry, they respect and then there are some who are not great people but i think that's a small percentage. >> charlie: bad apples. >> yeah. >> charlie: okay. finally, this is a movie about a character and also about the abuse of power. tell me what that means to you. >> this particular cop because he's been in the department for so long created a world for himself he roams the streets of l.a. and people do what he wants them to do and there's no one stopping him on a street level. >> charlie: no accountability. >> he is someone who's been to war and like a lot of l.a. cops is a veteran. he was in vietnam and treats the rampart division as an occupation. he's basically a soldier occupying that part of l.a. and everything about his actions and how he carries himself is theatrical and he has a uniform and the gun and living out a certain fantasy of power and certain fantasy of machismo and the movie is populated by women. there are women all over that signify the future to the female force is going to get rid of the dave browns of the world because there has to be a change. something coming to replace that kind of patriarchal attitude about enforcing power and playing that game. some kind of sweeping force that takes over and for us it's women. >> i never thought about it. this film is sort of a push towards matriarchy. >> we should do more interviews. >> charlie: and speaking of that think hbo is making a movie of the book "game change" and it's about the mccain campaign and you play a principle character. >> steve schmitt. >> charlie: his political strategist now frequently on television as an analyst. >> i actually quite liked him. to play a cop i thought was quite a stretch for this particular hippy but then to play a republican, now -- i did quite like him. he was a pretty interesting guy and he one of mccain's senior advisor and came up with the idea of sarah palin. >> charlie: when you head home to maui. do you live on the beach? >> no, like 4,000 feet up. >> charlie: what's the appeal for you? >> maui? to me it's heaven. i'm in the ocean all the time. i mean, every day. all of our produce is like -- we grow a lot of our produce and have every kind of fruit tree. my kids live a very safe happy life and the people are amazing there. i mean, maui, that's my nirvana. >> charlie: that's your nirvana. great to have you here. >> thank you. great to be here. >> charlie: great to see you. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org