Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  WHUT  November 22, 2010 6:00am-7:00am EST

6:00 am
>> rose: welcome to our program. tonight we take another look at the deficit commission, this time congresswoman jan schakowsky and dean baker. >> the simpson bowles proposal begins to make cuts right away, and doesn't put any money right away into investments, which are actually deficit reducers because it puts more people to work when we invest in the economy. and secondly, i come from a very different philosophy at this problem which is that the middle class and lower income people have already sacrificed. >> in terms of social security overall, basically the program is fine. you know, we will have to do something. we've got these people running around, well, if we don't do anything in 27 years by the trustees, 29 years by the congressional budget office projections it faces short fall, yeah,
6:01 am
somewhere we will have to fix it. there is no urgency about that. you know, we aren't going to let it go off a cliff. it doesn't go off a cliff because even after those dates it could still pay roughly 80% of benefits even if we never did anything. >> rose: and we conclude with actor michael caine who has written his second memoir bringing his life up to date. >> coy have called it ain't over till its over. i could have called it the second act. because that's what happened to me, you know. you know, i got a script and i sent it back. i said the part's too small. the producer sent it back and said are you not supposed to read the lover, you're supposed to read the father. oh, shoot. and i-- you know, i was-- i think i was 56 or 57. so i really couldn't play these guys making love to young girls. >> rose: so you went and looked in the mirror. >> i went in the mirror and said you're the father, michael, bloody hell. >> rose: the deficit debate continues and actor michael caine when we continue.
6:02 am
>> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following: maybe you want school kids to have more exposure to the arts. maybe you want to provide meals for the needy. or maybe you want to help when the unexpected happens. whatever you want to do, members project from american express additional funding provided by additional funding provided by these funders:
6:03 am
captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: the debate over the debt has begun. in fact, there's been much debate about the proposal released last week by erskine bowles and alan simpson the co-chairman of the bipartisan deficit commission. they have been credited for starting a serious national conversation about the chall eck. they've also been criticized by some on the left for overlooking the interest of the middle and working class. joining me now, two people who have argued that view from chicago congresswoman jan schakowsky, she say member of the commission. she released her own plan this week that favors deep cuts at the pentagon and higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. from washington dean baker, codirector of the senator for economic and policy research. he has argued the co-chair should be complaining that
6:04 am
the deficit is too small rather than too large given the economic crisis. after having bouls and simpson on our program, i'm pleased to have baker and congresswoman schakowsky here to talk bay different look at where we are and where we ought to go. i begin with you because we took note of what you had said in your proposal. tell me what you think of what bowles and simpson said and what you are now saying? >>. >> well, i'm saying a number of things that are quite different. one, i think that we need to continue to help the economy grow for the next few years. the simpson bowles proposal begins to make cuts right away, and doesn't put any money right away into investments which are actually deficit reducers because it puts more people to work when we invest in the economy. and secondly, i come from a very different philosophy at this problem, which is that
6:05 am
the middle class and lower income people have already sacrificed. had nothing to do with creating the deficit. and therefore that the solutions that cut further into the middle class which has seen no increase in their wealth over the last practically two decades, that we ought to get the money and reduce the deficit from things like raising revenue, mainly on wealthier, the wealthier americans. we can make serious cuts in the defense budget. mine are only about 10% greater than the bowles hfer simpson plan, and that we can look at some of these tax expenditures. those are things like deductions in tax credits, again mostly skewed toward wealthy americans. and make some serious cuts there. by doing that, i am able to achieve primary budget balance. that means we can have a balanced budget by 2015,
6:06 am
primary means we don't count the interest on the debt. and we can do it in a progressive way if it doesn't hurt middle income people. >> rose: how would you characterize the work of the commission per se as a member? >> well, first of all, let me just also point out that the bowles hferp simpson proposal achieves debt reduction by cutting 75% from spending and raising only 25% of the answer from revenue, which i think is exactly lopsided. the commission even as we speak today, it's unclear to me how we get to a consensus where 14 out of 18 people actually vote for a proposal. i am still a bit mystified on how this whole thing gels in just a couple more weeks. because pretty much every one on the commission comes with a different point of view. i do think there are some
6:07 am
things that we could agree on and i think in general that the exercise has been constructive because, and i wanted to make the point as a progressive that even progressives think, maybe dean will argue against this, that down the road that the debt will be, could be unsustainable and that we ought to do something about it. >> rose: dean? >> well, first off i'm very glad to hear representative schakowsky,-- i agree with most of what she said. let me make a couple points. first off i think we have to be very clear about why we're in the situation we're. in and i know you introduced me saying i think the deficit should be larger. the point here is i think we're sitting in a context where we have 9.6% unemployment, 25 million people unemployed, underemployed or given up work all together because the collapse of an $8 trillion housing bubble. and it's a little amazing to me that here we have a real crisis today, people can't afford their homes being
6:08 am
thrown out on the street, can't raise their kids properly, and we're being told that if we don't do x, y and z about the budget deficit than 10, 15, 20 years down the road something bad's going to happen. that's a little backyard. these people are out of work not because they did anything wrong but because people like ben bernanke, alan greenspan, henry paulson, you know the whole list, didn't know what they were doing. so people should be very, very up set about that. now getting down the road it's actually, again, we've had an incredible misrepresentation. everyone around washington is saying how brave these people are. they have to the been very honest. because you could easily show, you go okay why, are we looking at a situation where even when the economy gets back on its feet, we're looking at large deficits. well, the answer is one word wore two words. i guess health care. we currently spend about twice as much per person as the average of other wealthy countries, canada, germany, england. we currently spend about twice as much, those projections to go to three and four times as much. and we pay for most of our
6:09 am
health care now through the public sector. if we don't fix health care we have an enormous economic plan on our hand the. gm has been in the news with the ipo. one of the reason they went bankrupt is because it paid health care for its workers. that was an enormous disadvantage in the international economy. if we don't fix health care we have enormous problem in the private sector. we also will have very big budget deficits. on the other hand, and i you can go on our web site and see them f we had the same per person health-care costs as pick your country, germany, canada, norway, whoever we want, we would not be looking at long-term budget deficits, we would be looking at long-term budget surplus. so we have seen the situation where the debate has been hijacked with people who have an agenda to cut back benefits, social security, medicare, other benefits that the middle class rely on. this is a middle class that have seen very little of the gains over the economic growth in the last three decades and totally misrepresented the situation sohey have now got a lot of support in the public that they basically scared to death with misinformation. >> rose: i had read that you
6:10 am
thought, in fact, what i said you said, which is the deficit could be larger. >> oh, no, i'm not disputing that. i think it is important to understand the context. i'm saying we need to stimulate the economy right now and the story is that the private sector won't do it i would be delighted if we had firms running out there investing in hiring people. but in the wake of the collapse of the housing bubble, they're not doing it. so the question is the public sector going to fill that gap or are we going to tell 25 million people too bat,-- bad we're not very smart running economic policy in washington. i don't think the latter answer is acceptable. >> rose: why aren't these corporations investing in america? >> they don't have demand. they don't see demand it is a very simple story. what you had here was an incredible plunge in demand. when the housing bubble collapsed, we saw a falloff in residential construction on the order of 450 billion a year. you had the end of the boom, enormous overbuilding. no one in their right mind is going to start a development. we also had a bubble in nonresidential real estate followed by a year and a half the bubble in residential real estate. the ult of that was enormous
6:11 am
overbuilding in most major areas of nonresidential, commercial, office spaces, hotels, enormous overbuilding. no one is going to build in those areas. also on top of that, people had $8 trillion in housing bubble wealth. most of that has disappeared. >> what that has meant is the consumption that was being driven by that bubble wealth has fallen back. now in the absence of demand businesses are not going to invest. you have enormous excess capacity in almost every sector of the economy. so it means it is a very limited amount that investors are going to invest. i have been kind of impressed how much investment we have seen. if you look at the sectors equipment and software, that has been growing at a double-digit rate. in fact b 15% over the last five quarters. so given how much of a downturn we've seen in demand from the private sector, the extent to which investment has held up, i think it's been impressive. >> demand is the key word. and that's when people have money in their pockets to actually go out and spend.
6:12 am
and right now in the congress we are weigh having a debate and the republicans are saying that if we don't give tax breaks to the wealthiest americans, we're going to stop the job creators. well, of course that's just backwards. what we need to be doing as dean said is putting, is stimulating the economy so people actually have money where they can go out and buy things and that is the reason that people, that the corporations will start to invest and expand their businesses. the very same people who are worried about the deficit are talk approximating about $700 billion worth of tax cuts and they're not really in favor of extending unemployment insurance. that's a huge debate right now. one of the most stimulative things that we can do for the economy is extend unemployment insurance benefits so people have some money to go out that they surely will spend right away. >> what's going to happen to extending unemployment
6:13 am
benefits? >> well w we just had a vote on it in the house. what we call a suspension vote that takes two-thirds and we lost that vote. i think it would be really a shame for us to end this lame duck session without extending unemployment insurance. this is not just because of the millions of people that will lose those benefits and have no discernible source of income that, since they've lost their jobs. but we need it for our economy. >> how would you create the demand? i mean do we need another stimulus program in your judgement. >> my judgement, absolutely. >> in your judgement. >> dean, i'm sure agree. >> absolutely i agree. and again basically stimulus is costless to us right now. the ode story and of course there is some truth to this the ode story is government is spending lots of money, it is pooling resources away from the private sector. if we were back in 0 viee, '07 when unemployment was four and a half, five percent, that's largely true. so if we were to go back to
6:14 am
those years and say okay, let's have a really big stimulus package that would push up interest rates, cut business investment that would slow private sector growth. you can't tell that story today. we have very low-interest rates if the government were to borrow and spend another 3, 4, $500 billion to boost the economy, you are very hard pressed to tell the story that somehow that is going to cut back investment in the private sector. we basically have this very big hole in the economy and you know, you could like government, you could hate it, it doesn't matter. nothing else will fill the gap. >> the other thing, charlie is when you look at the examples that they give of how they want to cut the deficit, asking senior citizens to pay more out of pocket for their health-care costs, with the assumption that they have to understand that is older americans have to understand how expensive these choices are and they have to make better choices about their health care. it is absolutely insulting and it's also really the wrong way to go.
6:15 am
older americans are spending about 30% out of pocket for health care right now. that's about the amount of money they were spending when medicare was first enacted in 1965. it is simply not feesable to say that we should be balancing the budget, cutting the debt by putting more burden on the backs of older americans. the average retiree now makes about 18,000 colors a year total. that's with pension, private pensions and that's with savings and investments. 18,000 dollars a year. and those are the people who ought to pay for what dean is right, the growing cost of health care. the problem with the bowles-simpson plan is it doesn't look at health care as a whole. we can't just look at the public sector and medicare and medicaid or even military benefits or veteran's benefits. we have to look at the private sector as well and
6:16 am
curb those rising premiums and those rising costs. >> so you want more what, regulation? >> well, we did a lot of that in our health-care bill. the accountable health care, the accountable care act is projected by the congressional budget office to save 1.2 trillion dollars over the next two decades. and i think there are a number. i put a public option back on the table. i say that medicare should negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices. like the va does. that would bring down the costs. but to say that we are going to take it out on the backs of the beneficiaries i think is not only immoral, but i don't think that it's the best, you know, it's not the best way to go. it means that we are just shifting costs rather than actually controlling those costs. >> rose: do you believe that if, in fact, the president had adopted public option in
6:17 am
terms of health care as the way to go, whether it was public option, single payer, whatever the definition was but a public option that it would have been able to have gotten through the congress? >> you know, we certainly did that. we did it in the house. >> i know that, but that is a long way from a senate where you had a filibuster. >> exactly. exactly. and so i'm really not sure that we would have been able to get a single republican vote in the senate. i would have liked to have seen the president come out stronger. i think it would have been helpful with assuring the base that he's really, you know, firmly with us on that. but i'm not sure that it actually would have made a difference in the final vote. >> i would like to point out what i consider the warped logic. here we have this commission. we recognize that there are ways to control costs. public option being one, representative schakowsky talking about controlling drug cost. we spend over $300 billion a year on prescriptio
6:18 am
prescription-- prescription drugs, protect-- projected to spend over $450 billion by the end of the decade. >> there there is enormous potential for savings on what we spend on prescription drugs. we know where there are big potential savings but because there are political obstacles to get that, we say it is hard to fight the drug companies. it is hard to fight the insurance companies. we will go back to our seniors and say you have to pay more for medicare out of pocket and we're going to cut your social security that doesn't make sense to me. to my mind that is kind of an outrage. >> and the commission has said that they recognize that social security had absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. and in fact if it weren't for 29.5 trillion right now in the trust fund to go up to 4 trillion dollars, our debt numbers would look even worse than they are. but one of the things that i thought was really a consensus on the commission is that we would do nothing to raise the costs for
6:19 am
seniors, for people 55 years and older. and alan simpson scolding older americans saying nothing we do is going to affect you so what are you whining about? well, the truth of the matter is the proposal they put on the table to do 75 year solvency for medicare does hurt current beneficiaries because what it does is change the calculation for the cost-of-living adjustment. and lowers how much seniors, how much we would add to social security every year. well that again is really a backwards calculation. because the elderly, if you look at their real market basket, how much they spend on things, because it's so heavily tilted toward health care, they actually should, if we were being fair, we would instead give a greater-- to social security beneficiaries, not cut that. and the cheap actuary for social security shows that by raising the age of social
6:20 am
security and changing the cola calculation, we will be cutting significantly into social security as we move down the road. >> rose: dean what would you do about social security? >> now, in terms of skiringts overall, basically the program is fine. you know, we will have to do something. we have these people running around, well, if we don't do anything in 27 years by the trustees, 29 years by the congressional budget office projections it faces short fall, yeah. somewhere we will have to fix it. there is no urgency about that. we aren't going to let it go off a cliff. it doesn't go off a cliff because even after those dates it could still pay roughly 80% of benefits even if we never did anything. so my own view is that look, we have a long-term issue. we could deal with that. i would rather not do it today because there is so much misinformation spread by a lot of these people. you know, 60%, i just saw a poll recently, 60% of people under age 60 think they will get no benefit at all. i just don't think that is a good environment in which to decide the future of the program.
6:21 am
but what i would like to see over longer term, if you compare the united states to other wealthy countries we give a much lower replacement rate, much lower share of people's working wage and retirement. i would like to see us go the other way, particularly for those at the bottom. and we could, again, i'll give senator bowles and i mean senator simpson and mr. bowles some credit. they do propose to increase benefits at the bottom. that is something i would very much like to see. because itcoes very little money and it can make a very big difference for moderate income people to raise those benefits say by 15, 20% it will make a difference in their lives. >> i think it is important to note on social security how modest a benefit it is. the average benefit for a retiree from social security is 14,000 dollars a year. for women it's 12,000 dollars a year. but that represents a significant part of retirement income. about two-third its of americans rely on social security for more than half of their income and fully a
6:22 am
quarter, that's it. social security and nothing more. a 60-year-old or 40 or 50-year-old, if they want to worry about retirement, they should worry about a define pension plan from their employer because those are the things that are going by the wayside. those are disappearing. social security has never missed a check and if we do it right it will never miss a check. >> here is what peter orszag said in "the new york times" on his column. on social security in particular the reaction from the left seems off to me. if you look at the specific social security proposals in the co-chair's set of include a change that makes the benefits formula more progressive. they include a change that makes the payroll tax more progressive. they include changes that make the index used to measure cost-of-living increases more accurate. most importantly the proposals don't include private accounts as part of social security which four or five years ago had been the single most important thing the progressives were fighting against. the proposal offers an opportunity to lock that in because in 10 or 15 or 20
6:23 am
years assuming there is not a reform now, those issues may well be back on the table. private accounts as part of social security are definitely dead for now. i don't fully understand why the left is not eager to lock in that victory? dean? >> let's look at an example -- >> locking in cuts if you accept this proposal, and they are big cuts and peter is being a little disingenuous, it is a lower cost of living ajustment. i would be happy to have an argument about the accuracy but representative schakowsky was exactly right. the bureau of labor statistics has an index measuring the cost-of-living for the elderly and it shows it increases more rapidly than the cost-of-living adjustments. pet certificate speaking disingenuous. we talking about serious cuts when he says it makes it more progressive. we do have some increase at the bottom and that is great. but what they are talk being cutting benefits for affluent elderly i get a kick out of it. the tax kodd you are a flunted if you had getting 2 a 50,000, or a million a year, when it is affluent elderly it is 45 or 50,000
6:24 am
aier in their lifetime. schoolteachers, firefighters, factory workers, these are not people that we think of as elderly. most of these people have accumulated very little during their working lifetime. they took a big hit with the collapse of the housing bubble, for most middle income people their major asset was their home. and they just saw that equity or much of that equity disappear. i am not, you know, i will take my chances 10 or 15 years from now. we will have a lot more people who are already getting social security at that point. i will roll the dice and we'll see about privatization at that point. >> you know, and the chief actuary for social security computed has a whole chart. but if someone retires at, that makes $43,000 a year in 2015, by 2050 his social security benefits under the proposal would be down about 15%. and so that's a significant cut. >> what kind of leadership would both of you like to see on the part of president
6:25 am
obama on this issue? >> well, i would hope that the president, well, first of all t is unclear what the commission is going to actually do. i think that if there are cuts to social security and medicare i would like to see the president say this is not the path that we're going to take to reduce the-- either the deficit or the long-term debt. if he sees that we're going to do 75% from cuts to programs, and only 25% from raising revenue, i would hope that he would say this is not the path that we're going to take. >> do you believe, i mean, back to the point about 14 votes. i think they are suggesting bowles and simpson that they see a way maybe to get there. you don't see a way to get there, do you, having sat on the commission. >> nobody, i'm not saying-- it depends what we mean by a proposal. there may be a number of things. dean said some of the things that are good about the
6:26 am
proposingality what they say about social security and you know, some of the elements. so there may be some things that we can agree on. if we have to come up with a whole comprehensive plan, they really overhaul the whole tax code. i don't see that we're going to get to 14. so you know, we can trim our sales and i think come up with some kind of a constructive proposal that may just at least point us in the right direction. >> dean, what was the mid-term elections, the results, how do you read them? >> with well, there has been a lot of debt on this i think is clear. people aren't happy about the economy. they aren't happy about the jobless situation, there is little prospect the economy is going to turn around at least in any big way any time soon. and that's always the main issue that people vote on. they ask how are things in their lives. and for tens of millions of people, they are out of work. some of their family is out of work. they are worried about losing their job. no one is seeing pay increases. i think the debt is overwhelming. a lot of people did answer the deficit, i should point
6:27 am
out almost no one answered that as your first answer so if you pressed them they would say the deficit. but the reality is very few people, those of us sitting in washington have our nose in books but frankly for the vast majority of the people if the deficit were twice as high or half as high they would still say they are worried about the deficit. it is a really big number. almost no one has a sense of how big that is. so when things are going bad, the idea that the government is running too big a deficit that is something people seize on. but i think the bottom line is people want to see progress in the economy. and they have a right to be up set. 9.6% unemployment say really, really bad situation. >> do you think also there was an issue of sort of unfairness that somehow people were looking at their own situation and saying you know, somehow this is not, the way things are going is not fair for me. >> in 2008, 40%, we won by 40%. people who said that they were doing worse off now than they were four years ago. this time, we lost 29% of people who gave the same
6:28 am
answer about two years ago that they are doing worse than they were. that is almost a 70% swing. so it is, it is the economy stupid. it's their own personal economy. that they are not doing well. but i also think that they do feel that the banks were bailed out. wall street is still giving out big bonuses. that you know, that there is an unfairness that's built into this too. >> what ought to be the debate in the country today. much has been said that this commission and the simpson bowles proposal has started the debate. what ought to be the debate? as you see it. >> well, i think first of all we have to talk about how to get the economy really moving. and so i think it would be a serious mistake if we overfocus this, at this moment. on the deficit or the debt. that while we have to talk about are jobs. how are we going to get people works. and that is why i think that we need to be spending
6:29 am
money. we need to be making those investments. that's how i hope we can shift the debate right now. >> what should be the debate? >> yeah, representative schakowsky is exactly right. we have to get the economy going again. and the point is, this is what president obama should say. because it happens to be true. that if we get the economy going again, we have no short term deficit problem to-- problem to speak ofment if he with got the deficit going, got the economy down do more normal levels, 4.5, 5%, whatever we would get it too, we would not have a big deficit problem. over the longer-term it is health care. we wall know it is very hard to fix health care, i understand and i appreciate the health-care reform act it is a very good first step. we almost certainly will have to go further. let's be honest about it and say is a health-care problem. it's not a spending problem. it's not a deficit problem, more generally. it's health care. and we will need more revenue and representative schakowsky mentioned the right place to look. wall street. even the international monetary fund is recommending taxes on wall street. i was kind of amazed you had senator searchson get out and say we har uponed every
6:30 am
whale. they missed a really big one because they had no tax what so ever on wall street and you can get a lot of money there because that is where it is. >> rose: on that, thank you very much, dean, thank you very much congresswoman schakowsky. >> thank you. >> rose: . >> thanks for having me on. >> rose: sir michael caine is here. at 77 he's lead an extraordinary life. he's appeared in more than 100 films. he's won two academy awards. here is a look at some of his most notable roles. >> do you know i'm beginning to think she was beautiful. after all, it ain't through the eyes that you feel beauty, it's how the heart hungers for something that makes it beautiful. >> the real life policeman are not as stupid as we are sometimes portrayed by-- like yourself. we may not have the or orchid houses or-- or our-- but
6:31 am
we are reasonably effective for all that. >> put your foot out that i may kiss your big toe. >> you may kiss my right arm. >> not royal, holy. you're a diety, remember. peachy. >> no billy he's a man like you and me. can break wind at both end its simultaneous which i'm willing to bet is more than any god can do. >> do you really think you can get him to walk again. >> i will have him running, jumping, shoving, screaming or my name isn't dr. he mille. >> this clever pyrotechnical pile of self-conscious illusion is worthless, talentless. there is more poetry in the telephone directory and probably more insight. >> are you in love with someone else. >> my god what is this?
6:32 am
the guess tapo, no. >> well, what, what are you not telling me. >> what kind of interrogation-- supposing i said yes, i am disenchanted. i am in love with someone else. >> are you? >> no. but you keep asking these awful questions. my god, it's like you want me to say yes. >> you know how to help these women. how you cannot feel obligated to help them when they can't get help anywhere else. one, it's illegal. two i didn't ask how to do t you just showed me. >> what else could i have shown you. the only thing i can teach you is what i know. and in any life you have to be of use. >> from the london office, mr. symmens. >> he says the paper has conducted a review of the foreign desk. he wants you based in london. >> how many stories have we given them? >> this year?
6:33 am
three. >> maybe i should go out there. >> where, sir? >> send a cable to stemmings. understand your current concern. stop. am working on a story of major proportions. stop. suggest i remain in saigon until completed. stop. >> which story is that, sir? >> i don't know. >> rose: despite great success there was actually a time some 18 years ago when michael caine thought his life as an actor was coming to an answered. that moment of doubt serves as depar ture point for his second auto guyography called the el fant to hollywood. pleased to have him back at this table. welcome sir michael. >> yeah. >> rose: so i have this list. this come right from you. zulu. >> yeah. >> rose: why is that on your list of favorite films.
6:34 am
>> that is the first time i ever had a leading, a part that you would notice at all in a movie. >> rose: my very first big break. an introduction to the world of movies. >> yeah. >> rose: the emerers file. >> the first time i was above the title. >> rose: what did he say. >> he said harry-- the producer said to me, michael, it's not in your contract but i'm going to put you above the title. so i said thank you so much, harry. he said well, if i don't think you're a star, who the else is going to. >> rose: then there came alphie which was the biggest film of your career. >> that was the first full-time release of a movie in america and the first time i was ever nominated for an academy award. >> rose: then sleuth. >> i was nominated for an academy award again that is why that was important. >> rose: you and lord olivier. >> yeah. >> rose: why is he the greatest actor in the world. >> because he says so.
6:35 am
no, because-- . >> rose: or because he thought so. >> no, it's because he can do anything. codo anything, you know, i mean he does movies, theatre, classics, modern. >> rose: so you can. >> comedy. >> rose: so you can. >> yeah but i-- no, i can't do shakespeare. >> rose: . >> really. >> i have done shakespeare, i played horatio to christopher plumber's hamlet but its he not that i can't do shakespeare, i don't want to do shakespeare. i'm a very natural actor and getting mixed up with eye am big pen tammitiers. >> rose: you just don't want to do it. >> i don't want to, to hell with it. >> rose: it's too hard. >> it's hard, it very hard. no, what it is, i have spent my entire life trying to become as natural an actor as possible. >> rose: was olivier that too or not. >> not, no, no, he wasn't natural. he always had a theatrical air which was roughly. in absolute he was great like that wz what was that great line he had with does tin hoffman which they were talking about acting in that
6:36 am
film and he said hoffman was trying to get into the role an he said have you tried acting. >> have you tried acting, yeah. noel coward said one too, working with a method actor who was going around-- and he said don't just do something, stand there. >> rose: then one of my favorites, my two favorites the man who would be king is one of them. >> yeah. >> rose: you and was this the first one with you and sean connery. >> it was the first movie but we had appeared in, on television in requiem for heavyweight. we were in together in that. and the time before that we were together on social security. no it's true. it is called the labor exchange. >> rose: standing in line. >> and the last time i was on social security in line-- . >> rose: unemployment. >> one employment benefit you call it here. last time i was in line for unemployment benefit, sean was too guys in front of me.
6:37 am
(laughter) >> rose: but that was a great movie. >> oh, i loved that movie. >> rose: you call him your great and long time friend. >> i do, indeed. i rang him two weeks ago. >> rose: where was he in bermuda, bahamas. >> it was in the bahamas. he was 80. >> rose: is that right? >> yeah, he was 80 and he had not been well. he hadn't been well. >> rose: is he playing golf because he liked to play golf. >> he has to play golf. he lives on the course. i think they take-- the lease away if you don't play twice a week. >> rose: that's a nice island he lives on. >> oh t is wonderful, i love nassau. >> rose: this is directed by john huston. >> who i love dearly. >> rose: he was a great man. >> very funny how i got that point. my wife and i go occasionally on honeymoons to paris and we went on a honeymoon to pairs. as you do, you know. and we were in a hotel, very luck -- -- luxurious hotel. we had been out very late at night, we had eaten and danced in 3:00 in the morning.
6:38 am
11:00 in the morning the phone goes. we're still half asleep. and i said hello and this voice said michael caine. and i said yes this is john huston here. and i went come on who is it. because,, you know-- i said who is this, it is john huston. i said no, come on, come on. >> he says, michael, it's john huston, i want to talk to you about a movie called man who would be king. and i went oh, and i said it is john huston, he has a movie. i said yes, john. he said could you come and see me. i said yes, john, any time, when. he said now, he said i'm in the bar next door. i went down there, he was in the bar. what is the name of the hotel. >> 11 a.m.. >> yeah. and he said the part, he said he was going to originally cast sean's part was clark cable and my part peter-- humphrey bogart and humphrey bogart is my favorite actor of all, of anybody. and i couldn't believe it. it was like a miracle for
6:39 am
me. >> rose: so why humphrey bogart your favorite? >> because he never let on that he was acting. you always believed he was the person he was. and that's-- it's one of my things about movie acting. like i have this theory with movie acting like if you are sitting in a theatre watching me in a movie and you say to your friend, isn't that michael caine a wonderful actor, i have failed. you should be saying i wonder what is going to happen to charlie smith. >> rose: the character. >> yeah, the character. and he was like that. he was such a good actor he made it look easy. he made it look easy. i sometimes try and make it look difficult and get an award or something like that but most of the time i make it look too easy. >> rose: i didn't know you in this, the italian job because they made an italian job sequel. >> i was in the first one which was famous in america, everywhere in the world except america. >> rose: didn't didn't do as well here. >> it hardly got-- it is a fun picture.
6:40 am
>> rose: shot in italy. >> shot in italy. >> rose: about a robbery. >> way robbery and we had all minies. we had-- . >> rose: that's right. >> we were chasing around in minies. and it's a very, very famous picture all over the world. there is a thing disney in paris which is italian job ministunt thing. >> rose: right. >> but in america i came to america to publicize it and they showed me the poster. and it was a naked woman. and i said but there aren't any naked women in it. they said well we have to get the people in. i said well for a start, mothers are not going to bring-- it's for kids. mothers are not going to bring their children to see naked women and men who come to see naked women are go tokai little bit disappointed. >> rose: i will run through these, get carter which was-- people you knew in your life. >> yeah. i actually knew, i based it on one guy who i knew, who was a killer. i mean he was never convicted but we all know, he was folklore.
6:41 am
blamey, yeah. and i based this character on him. without telling him, of course. and then he met me in a club one night and he came over to me and he said i saw that film get carter. and it was very successful movie. i said what did he think of it he said biggest load of crap i've ever seen in my life. so i said oh, really. i agreed with him, of course on everything. why dow say that. he said you weren't married, michael. you had no responsibilities. he said, we've got responsibilities. we've got kids, family, everything. he said that's why we do what we do. you, we're professionals. you, you are just running around, screwing all the birds, no wife, no responsibility. >> rose: you said it was about honor too. >> it was about honor. the thing was that the man, put his niece in a porno movie and that to him was a big stain on the family. sow went after him. >> rose: also the quiet american, my second favorite. >> well, the quiet american
6:42 am
is one of my all-time favourites of my own. for me, i am very self-critical and my own review of that was from ply own point of view was socially it got us far away from my own background which was a london times correspondent in the far east it was actual graham green himself, you know. and i saw the picture. i only saw the correspondent and i never saw me. so i was happy with that. >> rose: you said it was your best work. >> yeah. >> rose: educating rita which we saw. >> which is again exactly the same sort of thing. professor of english literature in a university. >> i'm like the gang guy for the projects. >> rose: and then hanna an her sisters working with woody allen. >> that was great. >> why is he one of your fate rit directors. what is it about woody that makes him. >> for start it is the dialogue he has written for you. >> rose: it is pretty good.
6:43 am
>> there you are. and he leaves awe loan like all great directors until you sort of screw up a little bit. but-- . >> rose: that ever happen with you. >> what. >> rose: screwed up a little bit. >> i did. i was doing-- he was with mia far owe at that time. they were lovers. >> right. >> and we shot our home, i was married to mia far owe in the movie. and our home was her flat. so now here i am in her bed, you know, because i'm her husband. we're shooting the scene. and i looked up and on the other side was her ex-husband who had come to see his son. and i just had these sort of two lovers. i'm in the bed here and the only thing coy think of was i said what is the next line. >> rose: you got an oscar for that. >> yeah, i got an oscar. that was my first oscar. >> rose: what was the second one. >> the cider house rules. >> rose: which i'm coming to. the cider house rules, perhaps a character that is
6:44 am
even less like me but you got the second actor. what is the rule, the less the character is like you the more likely you will get an oscar. >> i would says so, because you are giving a performance. if you come on and play yourself-- i have never played myself actually. >> rose: why not. >> i don't know who i am. no, me, i'm a very boring old family man. you wouldn't want to see a picture about me. >> rose: why should i want to read a book about you. >> because i went out and did all these things. dow understand what i am saying. >> rose: yes, i do. harry browne was the one i saw last, you were last year talking about harry browne. >> yeah. >> rose: first time director daniel barber shout as you say on my home patch. >> right on my home patch. that is where the title from this came from because i was finishing this book and doing harry browne and i cover like projects in a place called the el fant castlez. and they shot it exactly where i came from. so i was standing there,
6:45 am
sort of full circle. >> rose: this was a projects that had been taken over by -- >> drug gangs, yeah, yeah. and there is a lot of that. >> rose: a good friend of yours -- >> all that stuff. >> rose: i want to talk about the book. let me go to your top ten favorite movies because always love lists. top ten lists especially. number ten going from ten to 1, tell no one with kristen scott thomas. >> yeah. >> rose: treasure of the sierra mad re with humphrey bogart. "gone with the wind" with, all that jazz. mall tease falcon, some like it hot. charade. >> yeah. >> rose: i'm surprised it is that high even though i loved it. >> it is a terribly underestimated movie. >> rose: because? >> well, because it was so classy. and i mean, can you imagine they had a scene, carey grant and oddry hepburn had this rowe and she eventually said, you know what is wrong with you, don't you. he said what. she said nothing.
6:46 am
and he goes oh this is fantastic, you know. >> rose: everybody always says who is going to be the next carry grant and there has never been. >> i know. >> rose: even carey grant. >> no, i mean when i first read it i was walking along the hotel corridor and it was a big star. i was unknown. and i saw him. and i thought i've goto say something. and i was trying to think much something to say, very nervous so i said you're carey grant. he said i know. >> rose: and there was a time when john wayne walked in. >> i was in a hotel. i was in a beverly hills hotel and i was stuck tre for a week waiting to be introduced to heel wood by shirley mcclain who had taken me there to be in a movie called gambit. i used to sit in the leeb looking for films files and a -- >> why were you looking for film stars. >> it is interesting. i wanted to say hello. i had nothing else to do. you know. and john wayne came in.
6:47 am
he came in, straight from location, smoth erred in crap like in a big cowboy hat like hondo or something like that and he landed in a helicopter in the gardens which he wasn't supposed to do. blew all the flowers out and he came in and i'm sitting there, right by the registry where the rents come. in and he is going bloody hell, john wayne, fantastic. and then he looked at me and he went what's your name. i said michael caine. he said are you in that movie called alphie. >> i said yeah. >> he said you're go tokai big star, kid. but take some advice, talk low, talk low, talk slow and don't say too much. and never wear sued shoes. i said why would i wear suede shoes. he said because when are you famous you will be paging a pee and the guys next door to you and will recognize you, turn and go -- did -- michael caine and will pee all over your shoes.
6:48 am
never wear suede shoes. and also the thing about him was you never called him john. you call me duke or mr. wayne. >> is that what he said. >> yeah. call me duke. de a thing, made me laugh there was a big charity thing. and you sort of, millionaires gave 100,000 for someone to go up. and someone gave 100 thousand dollars for-- for john wayne to go up and do the sal il qui from hamle hamlet-- soliloquy from hamlet. and they said john we've got $100,000 for you-- duke to read this. so he said okay, $100,000 for the children's charity. and he goes up and he says to be or not to be. that is the question. who wrote this, anyway? he brought the house down. >> rose: you swear that's true. >> it's true, oh i yeah, listen, i konts make this up. >> rose: then charade then on the waterfront, number three.
6:49 am
then number two is the third man in. and number one is casa blanca. >> i love it. it is humphrey, bogart is in a couple. mall tease. >> rose: and casa blanca. >> i think "casablanca" is incredible. and if you think of quotes, it's more quotes from that film than, like, she said-- dow remember pairs. he said yes, the germans wore gray and you wore blue. great line. >> rose: let me tell you what you said about this book. you described this as the story of a man who thought it was all, i mention this in my introduction. you thought it was all over with. >> yeah, i did. >> rose: and found out it wasn't. >> yeah. >> rose: that is what this book is about. >> i could have called it ain't over till its over. i could have called it the second act. because that is what happened to me. you know. you know, i got a script and i sent back. i said the part is too
6:50 am
small. the producer sent it back and said are you not supposed to read the lover. you're supposed to read the father. oh, chute. and i-- you know, i was-- i think i was 56 or 57. so i really couldn't play these guys making love to young girls. >> rose: so you went and looked in the mirror. >> i looked in the mirror and i went you're the father, michael, bloody hell. and i goofed off and i gave up. i was down, i goofed off to miami in the winter. i had an apartment there i had a restaurant there and hi a friend there, jack nicholson who was there, and jack talked me into doing a movie called blood and wine and i enjoyed it so much. >> rose: you gave him credit. >> yeah, i mean he was the won. he is the greatest guy, jack. >> rose: he is the greatest what guy. he is a friend. >> he is a friend-- i have known jack for 40 years but i never worked with him. but working with him and just making a movie was so fantastic. i went back to work. i started looking for scripts again. >> rose: roll tape this is a
6:51 am
scene from blood and wine from 1996. >> time to pack. >> where is it? >> what? >> the necklace, alex. >> it will make a move soon, dick. >> he told me, he already did. >> you talk to jason? >> with you think you can cut me out. try a little family endeavor, you and ms. burrito. >> what did he say, dick. let me improve your concentration. -- concentration this is an acupuncture point. where is it? >> which refuse to die in a prison clinic.
6:52 am
>> rose: so the movie resurrected your career. >> it did, yeah, yeah. and it was just, and what happened was after all that time, you know, i suddenly went back 18, 19, 20 years. and that why i wrote the second part. because it just doesn't apply, it's not just about above stars and ackers. how many people in the world sort of gave it up, said it's over. and i have had the better time in the last 20 than hi in the first 25 also. >> rose: because you didn't feel the need to be. >> exactly. i didn't have to work. i didn't have to do anything. and i just went out and did exactly what i wanted to do. >> rose: so everything you have done in the last 15 year asks because you wanted it do it for one reason or the other. >> for one reason or the other t is everything i want to do. >> rose: what is the next one are you doing. >> i'm doing mysterious island two. by jules vern that is why i got a beard. and i'm doing, i'm a recent grandfather two years ago.
6:53 am
and i love being a grandfather. and this is the first time i'm going to play a grandfather. and it's the first time i have ever done a movie in 3-d. and it's great for my grandchildren because i ride around on a giant bumble bee. so my grandchildren. >> rose: they will love you. >> nobody's grandpa can top that, you know, my grandpa road around on a giant bumble bee. and well, i like the script as well. you know, but apart from all that. >> rose: so how you have changed in terms of how you approach the craft if at all? >> i-- i have changed in as much as i don't need, i never made any money until i was 29. you know. and i was always broke. and i was always doing another picture. i lived in england with very high taxes and i was always doing some crap picture to make, pay the taxes before i went to prison. and now i don't have to do that. i would sit there and
6:54 am
someone asked me the other day, will you retire. but you don't retire from the movies. the movies retire you. >> rose: they decide. >> they decide on it. and so i sit there. and then what i call it is i quote from the godfather, you have to make me an you ever i can't refuse it has nothing to do with money, believe me. but it's just a movie that i really, really want to do. and i will do it. >> rose: now you have written novels. >> i'm going to write. i haven't written a novel yet. the reason for that-- . >> rose: you have written two autobiographyes. >> i have. the my first autobiography, i was writing it and i was very good friends with circumstance douglas and he just published a very successful biography. and he said to me one day, he said we were having dinner. >> rose: what made it good, he was so damn honest that is why it was good. >> exactly. that's why that is good. >> he slept with all those women. i didn't. >> rose: but there no vindictiveness about this book at all. if you are not looking to
6:55 am
settle scores. >> i tell yu that is. my mother was a very wise lady and she said to me, if you dislike someone or they do something bad to you or something, she said the worst thing you can do is ignore-- ignore them. and so -- >> it will drive them crazy. if you do something bad to me, nothing happens. are you just gone. are you dead. nothing, no reference. >> rose: so mike sell not calling you. >> he's not returning your calls. >> the check is not in the post. >> rose: the elephant to hollywood, michael caine, thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: great to see you. >> great to see you.
6:56 am
>> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. and american express. additiona funding provided by these funders: and by bloomberg a procedurer of multimedia news and information services worldwide.
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am