>> rose: wcome to the broaast, world leaders have gathered in copenhagen toiscuss climate change. we'll have an asssment of what they have ohave not done. >> i don't tnk this process with 200 countries is goi to work. but 's really betweenthe united stateand china. >> rose: the g-2 deal >> it's really a g-2 deal because europe would go along with us and japan would go alongwith us. but we do have to get both countries to agree. >> the reaty is that nobody rlly negotied for two years. i mean the document at e end fore copenhagen was 200 pages, where everybody's initial negiating deals were still there in brackets. so you can blame the u. but you also reallhave to blame everybody. >> i think you saw a l of these countries not accepting this as deadline and sort ofhinking that maybe th can push thi into theuture. and the loer they are obstinate, that theyush ba the more advantagefor them. >> the fact of the matteis also neither the presint nothe secretary of sta eathed a word about this issue tohemerican people during this entire year. noone word. no plan. nouidance. no expnation, no suggesons. and th isot leadership. >> rose: and fmmaker lee niels is here to talk about his movie "precious" which a distbing story that has gotten much prais and some award nominations. >> when we took it to sundance and i'meeing all ese white people respond and i go across the ocean to france and we get this 15, 20 minut standingvation. >> rose: at cannes. >> yh, charlie, it's like, you know, it's an outer bod experience becau you reallyidn't make it for that demographic. i didn't reaze that this movie was universal. that the theme of obesity and elitassee and abuse and self-esteem are universal. >> rose: and analysis of copenhagen,nd the movie of lee daniels when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose has been provided b the following. if you've had a co in the last 20 yrs, ( screams ) you'vead a hand in giving llege scholarships... and support to thousds ofur nation's... most proming students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-notenemonic ) captioning spoored by roseommunications from our stuos in new york city, this is charlie ro. >> rose: wor leaders gatheredn copenhagen today in the most ambitious effor to aress climate cnge since e997 kyoto protocol. agreement was announced at the end of today'salks butarlier reports indicate a limited accord with to deadline f a binding treaty. presidenobama spoke to reporters shortly before returning to washingt and here iwhat he said. >> this is goi to be a rst step. an there are gng to be those whore goingo look at the nationa cmitments lly them up and say you know theins dictateshat even more needs to be de. the challenge here was that for a lot of countrie, particularly those emerging countries, that are still in different stages of development, thiss going to be the first time in which even volunrily they offered up mitigation taets. ani think that it's important tossentially get that shift i orientation ving. that's what i think wl end up being most significant abouthis accord. >> rose: earlier the president addresd the summit and said the rld had waited lo enough to confront the threat of climate change. >> the queion then before us is no longer the nate of the challenge, the question is ou capacit to meet it. for while the rlity of climate changes notn doub, i have to b honest ashe world watches us today, i thk our ality to take collective action is in doubt right now. and it han in t balance. i belie we can actboldly, and decisively in the face of a common threat. th's why i come here toy, not to talk, but to act. >> rose: joining me w to talk aut these iues jamesansen of coluia univerty. he has studi climate ange for three decades. he is thauthor of book called storms of my grandchildren. also here jeffrey sachs of the earth institute at columbian washington. eien claussen of the p center forlobal climate change and david fenthal of "the washington post". i'm plsed to have all of th here. let me jt go around and get your assessmenof what has been plushed and what not and what are the consequees. well, notng has been accomplishedn terms o the kind of steps we nd in order to deal with climate change. i'm very disappointed at we don't have an internationaleader who will snd up and really tell us what the situation is and the kind of things we would need to do. instead whateasically ve is develedcountries who want to continue more or less biness as usual and deveping countries who are willing to go along with that if the developed countries will givthem some money. unfounately, our children and grandchildren are the losers ithis oposition. because we'recontinuing along with basicly business as usual, just as we did with the kyoto protocol. >> we have a broken process that's what witnessed in copenhagen because there we two yea to work on this. but nothing gotone until the last few days. then the ran out of te. so the rich countrs d not de honestly either with thelevel of their emissions as jim has just said. nor with the question of financing, financingor poorcountries to beable to take sustainable energy as their challee and also the need to he poor cntries face thelimate changes that's already occurring. bothf those issues, the extentfitigating or reducing the emissions and al the finanng were really knocked o in a serious y. the whole proce was very formalistic. it wasn't finding during these o-yeartepping tones to real result and so they came to copenhagenithout agreents, witut anything but formalizatn. and even so theycouldn't even produce the paper that the countrys agreed on in a vague way. only fiveountrys agreed after all before the esident left to return to washingt. this annound reement th stage wasonly the united states,a, india, azil and south afra. than theare going toive ito the other countries. take ior leave it, the president will be on t airplahome. >>ose: eileen, your assessment. >> well i'not quite clear as gloy as eitherim or jeff. not because i think is is going to solve the pblem beuse of course it won't. and because igree with jeff that the process has been really broken. i mean nobody negotiated anything for two years. d there we were i copenhen. but that said, lotof countries actuly put taets on the table. they're not legally binding. and there are big quesons about how big they are, and whether theyill be vefied. but we've actually never had that bore. so i would s a little progss. not what we need. but betr than where we were. >> david? >>. >> rose: . >> i think eileen' right there are two ways to look this. one way is to loo that thi is a success, at these countries, the united states, chin india, that th agreed signnything with obal warming on the top of it. with clite change on e top it. you bieved they were so far apart that they are signing the me piece of paper a success. no matter what tt piece of paper said. thats one way of looking at i if you were expecting something hier, something more ambitiou now the goal of sort of a kyoto success, a real lally binding treaty h been taken sort of off theable in the weeks past. bui think people came into this notiation phaps ill adviseablyhat this could produce sothing much me binding, much me of a landmark. ani think what you saw was this was a negotiation. who has power of negotiatio the person who h the power, the threato walk away. i think you saw lot of these countries not accepting th as a deadle and sort of thinkg that maybe they couldush this into the future anthe longerhey are on stin at, the longer they push back, thmore advantages this there could be in thisor them. >>ose: is this simply a prlem, as jim suggested, a real question of international leadersh and there was one prepared to do what w necessary? >> at this time or over e last two years to make a difference? >> it's not a matter of walking ay, no one can walk offhis planet, not safely. and i don't really view ithis way, if this is viewed as a negotiatn and a cliffhanger, it's e wronmodel. we'rtrying to figureout hoto save ourlves, sa the plet, ve our children. and this didn't it. the ole process was broken. in terms of really looki serisly at what th risks are and what the steps could be to actuay solve this, an then i'm concerned abo the poort countries becausehen i travel frequentlyn villages in africa or dia, there a already suffering om huge climate instability. and what was on the tab in rms of helping them? seetary of state clinton came and said we wl work towas a goa -- in the year 2020 of mobilizing from variety of sources, 100 billion f development needs. this is incredible aually to talk aut a goal ten ars from there, no atement about what the uned states is going to do, mechanism, nothing clear whatsoever. and th is supposed to pass for a serious discuion about the state of the rld. and it doe't. it doesn't,. >> re: what's the problem? >> well you know f we're going to solve the clite problem we've to mitite the emissions. and it's not right to say that we haven't had goals before. we've d the kyoto exple. we hadoals there. what did kyoto do? up until kyoto emissions were increing 1.5% per year. after the kto protocol they increased 3% a year. so as long as fossil fuels e the capest energy then their use is goin to continue. and even increase so we ve to face that. and that's at isnot being done in the united state congress, for example they want to have a cap and trade syem with offsets which allows you to actually avoi making reductions. what whave to do is put a price on carbon. >> rose: comg right to you, eileen, go ahead. >> yeah, i mean i, i really disagree with jim on this whole issue of a cap and trad ifhe offsets are real and rified, they are also reductions. i think the challenge i not to say no it's to make sure that e offse you havere real. >> that'not right. >> i don't know if i like -- well -- it right, actually. >> the goals, the requiremen of the science are on t carbon dioxide. you cannot offset it. it is on the fossil fuel emissions. the lifime of the c that you put in the atmospher from fossil fuel emiions is thousands of years. so you can't offset it wit something else. and in fact, every one knows that tho offsetsre sically imagine. they are preserving forests for exple. >> rose: i wanto give you chance to respond, eileen. >> i agree we have change our energy system. that's the number one priority. so the is no disagreemen there. but ihink quite honestly, if you redu meth ann that's a greenhouse gasoo. it's a shorte lifetime it actually can me the difference in in the short term. you can quaff set for methe and i don't think that means nothing. i mean thi it means something. actually i would alslike to go ck anday something about what the secretary of state hillary clinton did. i mean one of the difficulties with our stem of govnment is that the executive branch actuay doesn't make decions about money, theongress does. so when we have a congss that has been very slow to deal with these issues and in fact, in the senate, almost at a stand still at the mome, it'sery hard for -- for the preside or the secretary of state to go and promise money tha they may not be able to deler. >> i thinkthat's right. all good thingoes to the senate to die these days. and i think this is a serious problefor our nature but the fact of the matt is also, neither the president nothe secretary oftate breathed a word abouthis issue to the american people during this entire yea t one word. no plan. no gdance. no explanation no suggestions. and this is not leadership. you go the whole year and two days before the endf a conference y announce an empty number, thas not leadership. >> ros david? >> i wasoing to say i think one thing we're not understandeing this conferce was that there is actually sort of dualing moral frameworks. onthat dr. hansen is talking aut. the moral of the future that we all facthis threat in e future and need to take these drastic actions to prevent thingsrom happeng to our children and grandchildren. i think other countries come at it at a different moral framewor they look at the past.& they say you america, the europe mean union produced all these emissions over th years. produced hardly any. you wants to shoder equal responsibity to deal withhe problem thatostly you created. ey see it in that conxt. and i think wt you have seen from this smit is that when push came to shove, they dn't give up that moral framework. they didn' jump on theand woingon is that we all face this common future, let's face it together. they are hangi on to that idea that their responsility should be le. >> davidi think that this is really a serisly poor way of preseing it if i could put bluntly. d the reason is there is an international law that governs this. we signed treaty. thu.n. framerk conventionn climate change in 19. we ratified in 1994. it's the governi law of th country. and the governing internatnal law. and it has ver specific reirements on all of this. to say that the po countries didn'tump on board d so forth is basicay an amerin view thatays fort what we signed forget the international law. forget the requiremes. forget artic i, article ii, article iii. this is what is wrg. nobody in thisountry even knows, by the way, that there is governingational law on this because our cotitution makes our ratified treaties part of our national law. the president ofhe united states never explainewe have obligations under the treaties. poor countri are looking at us and sang whaare you talking about. we neerbted this. this is -- youcan't just say wee all in this tother. you signed agreemes to coverhe extraull costs, by the way, of taking the mitigation actionsnder the treaty. is is part of the law. but we want to pretendhat none of that exis. pe the slate clean. you can'do th unless you are going to t anarch which is what we are ading towards, by the way. >> eileen, you sha that, do agree th what jeff just said? >> well, in part. i an there is no question that the framerk convenon is the l. and it puts specific obligationon people. but actuallydoes put obligations on the deloping world as well. t a significant asurs anwe certainly haven't doneur part here. but if you want to soe the problem, there are things that they need to do as well. and that's part of the l as wl. >> okay. let's get to thea-u.s. divion here. explain it to us. different than what china wants to do is prepared do and what the united ates is prepared to do. >> well, neither is prepared to do what is necessary. if yo look at the physical constrais, the geo phycs of theroblem, what you see is that wee got so much carbon in oil, smuch in gas, and so muchn coal. and then there's this potentl of unconventiol fossil fuels tar sands and oishale. in order to lve the problem we know we are going continue to use the oil & gas. we're going to runut of thatometime this century. t we're going to have to ase out the coal and prohib unconvential fossil fuels. but what are wedoing? the united states just gned an agreement with condition da, with rard to a pipeline toarry oil from the tar sands to the united stat. and china is burning more and more coal. and al countries around t world e burningmore and more coal. unss we address those things wita framewo that will he limb -- eliminate those, we cannot solve the problem. >> rose: oka but how do you address the poi that jeff made and everybody talks abt, the fference tween the developing wod andthe developed world. >> well, bothfthem have toecognize that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energywell's st keep using re. but it's i the interestsof chinas well as the united states to move on to the world, the cleaner rld beyondossil fuels. so wneed toegin to put a price on those carbon emissions so that the competition, the energy efficiency, renewable energies, nuclear power, the things that don't produce pollution can take over and become our energy urces. but asongs we subsidize in fossil fuels and don't make them pay forhe damage ey do to hum health a the environment a the future r our chrn and grandchildre we're just going contin to use those. they have to face that fundamentalact. >> i'm hearing all the same old guments i ha have be hearing about climate change for a long time. >> we're7 years aer signing the agreement to d something abouit. 17 years the senate hasn't voted one thing in those 17 years. thunited states has to the done anying in those 17 years. this is really the problem. it's not the w argumen it's just that the atmosphere continues tget filled with grehouse gases. and eeen said itorrectly, the treatysigned in 1992 puts oigations on all parties. it also puts financial obligations on jt one group of parti, to cover the full extra cost for the other parties. and it also puts oigations onust one group of countries th would be the high iome countries to cover the adaptatio needs of the vulnerable countries. it's absolutely explicit. it's all agrd. it's the law. we absolutely refus to read the words clear as cane to nor them, to explain them ando live up to them. and the rest of the world is sayi what are we talking out. you keep telng us to apply what wve agre but then you yourself ignor the clrest words psible. that'shere we reallyare rit now. that's w there a breakdn in the wld. because weant to have i our way oy our way. we wanto make up what the targets need to be. we want to make up wt the ig needs to be well. want tsay it our way. they aeed withfive countries. got on the airplane and flu home this isot going to solve thproblem. >> what is going to happen now, david. >> well, original the thought had been thawe would wait six months or a year and the same group would comeogether again and somehow miraculously make an reement and get over these problemthat have estimeied them now. i believe inhe agreement that was signed today tt sort of deadline, the next six months, the next year is of the table and we arejust gog try to do the best we can for the next couple of years. i think the a deadline in ace by 2016. but at sense of okay there a next step and here is whether it going to be an here is when it i going to be, made a little bit fuzzieby this agreement that wasigned today. i assume we wi bealking, the different cotries will talking about these same issues. but as you said, the arguments are clr, nobody is coming up with w arguments here. the nse of a deadline or an urgency tt would bring people to put the aument aside or drop thr negotiating positis, i'm not sure that day's agreent creates that,f it didn'exist in their minds ready. >> i thinkwhat david is saying isery important and very weird in a way. because the presumptio ming into two wes was that we would ve a kind of political agement and then negotie a fal text this he have seen dropped that, the id of a final text. the id that ian copenhagen -in cophagen next year or in mexico city next yeawould be the ocess. now we are ia disarray. maybe in the next feways something could clarified but think they probably unraveled the process in muchorse way than imagined right n. i think ty have abandoned what was t procesand have replaced it with nothing. and that could be the most worrisome outcome of all. >> not entirel clear beuse as i underandt the planning with some number of heads of state is still meeting so i d't think weill know if there is a decision abt a&-lelly bindi think the more importa point he is that unless the u.s. takes some actio, legiatively, preferably, because you cano some thingsnder the clean air act but it's not as fast or as clean or, i think, as ambitious, but unless we actuly pass some legislation, it is pretty clear that nothg else will happen globally. cause we won't be in a positi to negotiate ything. rose: and you expect that to happen or not? >> well, i thi it's possible. if the administration really engages in a serious way. if we can try to cobble togeth 60 votes in the sena which is enoously challenging as evebody kns. >> rose: the president in campaign in 2008 campaigned across ts country talking about changend yes, we can. and it's ti to move forward on education. time to move forward to fix the they ecomy and time to mo forward on climate change. and now you're saying wt? >> i thinke're a dippointed that he hasnot taken an initiative on this. he hasn't sa much of anything, in a sense, analogous to what happened with hlth care. he's letting the sene. 's letting the congress discuss it without providing guance as to what he is willing to accept. but i think at's -- that is whatasbeen missing. we need some leadership on this. >> mbe the president is the on bully pulpit tha can provide it. >> i think that's right. >> it may turn out tbe too te because now of course even the senate consideration of legislation is put off until xt spring opinions the house cap and trade bills. >> exactly and now we he all the murmuring that that is too clo to the neff election and so it cou be that the don't take this up next year. i do believe tt there is another good option and that is the environmental protection agcy root. d i at this point think that thawould be as strong as this very wk and in a way messed upap d trade legislation that th lobbyis have already sunk eir teeth into. so if the environmental protection agency rely we after it and saidou can't have power plantsike this d automobes are going to have to go through generational change toec tris -- electric vehicle on a clean grid and so forth quo this under the clean air ac then ithink that maybe the way we're going to go. >> there was one thing positi in copengen. and that was agore and john kerry each said something whh i took as very posite. al gore said i woulde bett to have a price on carbon than to have a cap d trade. nd that's the firstime he has really said at very clearly. although he, i know, talking privately to h that he lieves that. >> rose: tt everybody believes ia carbon t ratherhan cap andrade. >> a carbon tabut i prefer to call it a nontax because if you give th money back to theublic as a divend or as a payroll tax duction, then there is no net tax. and so that's been the problethat people call it a tax. and then people, that is a death sign. >> rose: eileen you were going to say? >> yeah, mn first of a, i capnd trade system does put a ice on carbon. i means that's -- tha is often true >> yeah, it is a tax, it a tax. p and trade iseallyap and tax. >> well, it depends owhat yodo with some of the proceedings from the auction. >> and wt are they doing with them. >> they are givi them to th polluters. the other thing i would say that i mean maybe th is because i'm in waington and i deal wi this all the tim but the odds of th senate and the -- in ts case would have to behe house asell,assing either carbonax or a cap and dividend are probably less than 20%. i would say close to 0. >> i think if we had a good decision of th, i think it possible. we may finally get the kind of discussions congress that we nd to have. so i think the is a chance that it could happen. and john kerrsaid it wasn'tlear that maybe the cap and ade wasn't the be way. i think there a gd chance w canave a discussion this next spring. >> kmarm, i was going to add one mo thing in here. i think, you he seen in the last couplof monthin the senate is that th sense of sort of the impending crisi or climate changeas not in many ces changed what motivates senators. that makes senators act. senators a because of politics, beuse of self-interest,nd the inrest of their states, th has not been absorbed as a crisis in a way tt chans that for some of them what we have sn in the last two wee, the sam applies to countriesthere are some yess he who have absorbedhe idea that climate change is this threatnd requireshem to act in some waythat is not inheir self-interest peaps right away. would be in their interest in the mium and long-term. not al countries thinkhat way. a lot of countries still respond to self-interest, to economic gai, and they still view this not a obal cause but as a negotiation, something wre they by staking out the most extreme position they n get the most for theelves. >> i would think about china inhis case. the wathat china has conducted self during this last week. you have seen a t of expressions of outrage from them, various things the u.s. government has sa. today there were repor had that the premier was so angered by president obama's speech whi didn't mention china -- china byame but ferred to their concerns about monitoring, that he retired them to a hotel room for a few hours an sent subordinates in his placement althoughe and oa did meet later. ihink their tone d their sort o stubbornness about some of these isss shows at they view this not in the same way europe doesnd peaps not in the sameay president obama does, as a global cause where theost important thing is f us all to actogether. think they are seeing this as a matter o eserving their own lf-interest. >> i find thisan odd perspective. you don't doubt that, do u. >> no, becau i think tha there ar also -- >> the aiculate that thselves. >> i thi they are actually ing a lot more than we ar doing. >> rose: fair engh. >> i tnk you leave an impression that 're the tough on and they are the lagers. >> rose:ut are they doing more on emission standards or doing more onhe search for alternative energy sources. what they are doing is king a fast traition to -- from a very high carbonconomy to lower rb economy than weare. >> rose: but a they making the kinds of changes you think th ought to make in terms of oneeasurement, one meic emissi standards. i do think so. >> rose: they are ing as far ashey ought to go on emission standardstoday. >> they're going farth than we are ing so that is what i was saying, thathat kind of view, tt we are taking iteriously, they're not i think actually is upside down. i think they' going faher and fasterhan the united states ofmerica. and that is tour great disadvantage >> re: we'll come back. >> it would be to ou advantage. we've gin up our leadership in so of these technologies, or we're in the process. china is going to pass us if we don't get off t dime. >> it's not that i don't think they are acting on the subject. i think ey are doing alot onhe subject. but i think from their perspeive why agree to do mething. why tie your hds if you don't have to. if they see thiss an opportunity, thewill follow it. but i thinwhat you have seen in the last week an unwillingness them is to rt of commit to the same kind of coitments that other countries have. even if they arg to do it anyway. they jt don't want to have eir hands tied. >>itnesses commit to the same kind of things th the united states is wling to commit t >> well, the we at the beginning of this, bore the netiations even stard, they talked about a carbon srt of aoal where they would connue to let their economy gr, put he mention was not grow as much as they would have. they made at, which is a lot folks said that was the so of change they would have made anyway. these are ings that were ready in place. ey are not commting to anything beyond what they sort of wanto do. and i thinkhey realize their positi in these negotiatio, allows them to a little bit of eedom, to be -- stubborn age not to make agreements. they sort of hold one of the strongt bgaining sitions and you saw them hold o to that this who time. >> don't fget. >> ihink iseally wrong on all counts. first theyre moving faer on nucar, owind, on solar, on electric vehicles. they're e ones that are jumping ahead in these technologies. >>ow about coal. >> they are a coal ecomy trying t get out of coal. so they start almost tirely coal and they are making ve large vestments right now in these alternative low-carbon sources. so that is t first point. cond under the l the law of thenternational land and the law o our land, there is a difference beeen china which is about one fifth the per-capita income lel of the united states and the rich counies, thenitedtates and europe. there is a difference. so to say that there not operating in good faith, they say youe not honong the treaty that y signed, ratied and have done nothinabout. and that's -- i think that is an important perspective that america need to derstand of how we're viewed fm the rest ofhe world. >> rose: here is what i he you ying. i hear you sayi jeffrey sas says look, we didn't get any nd of serious agreemt in copenhagen. and the blame is wi the uned states and presint obama's leadership. are yosaying that. >> i sayin first of all e process was absoluly broken. that'sumber one. second, i would pu the blame in theenate where it is not sinc ratifying the treatythe united stes senate is thearrier. third, i think that president obama tactically and strategically couldave shed harder in this couny, not in the last day copenhagen but during this year. >> rose: let me peat the question. if the united states had had a different attitude corporation ey have had an agreement in copenhagen. >> if, firstof all, two yes ago if we had had a government which wed't ve then, that s -- that even recognize this problem, of course we would have saved our ti. george bush wasted t world's timefor eight years so let's rememr that fact. then president obama came in, this yea did not really speak to this wi aplan to the americanpeople or to the world. and then expted something to happen i copenhagen which did not happen. so yes, i think at leas our best shot would have been plan of actio presented to the world for negoation, to the u. people for negotiatn, rather than saying to the senate, try something. >> and you think a deal could have beemade? go aad. >> i agree that we wer in a -- we had eight years of denial wch certainly put us out the picture. i think the president's style clear not to write a bill which is what has happenedn health care, and is unlikelto be the y he proceeds this issue. as somody said before, i mean he's sortof leaving up to the cgress. and that's difficult cause thsenate hasn't really moved. but i thk it's also woh pointi out that other countries ren't willing to negotiation anything either. w i don't expect thatthey wh have put their best offer forward becauswe didn't he anything to put on the tle either. it was a provision target and son. but therealityis that nody reallyegotiated for two year mean the documents at the endefore copenhagen s 200 pages, where everydy's initial netiating positions were still the in braets. >> that's correct. >> so you can blame th u. but u know you ao really ve to blame everybody. >> it a brokenrocess in which -- in which the largest economy in the world d not lead. >> when is it goi to be too late? >> well, 'reetting very close passing tipping points. but i think for oneointf optism, i think that what is really needed, i dot think this proce with 200 countries is going to work but it's really between the unit statesanda. >> the g-2 deal. >> yeah, it's really a g-2 deal because europe would go ong with us and japan would go along with us. but we dhave toet both countries to agree you've got to put a pri on carbon. and it's to china's benefit to do that. because they don'twant to go dowa path where they beme dependent on an addiction to fossil fuethe way we have been. >> rose: they don't want to go down a path in which the economic groh in which they lieve is the best hope they have to he wlim nature sessi tensions within the own society. absolutely. >> re: thank you, thank you, thank you all. copenhagen is abo to be story. and we wil continue to look at the developing storie. back ia moment. stay with us. >> lee danielsis here. he is bestnown as the produce ir provocive films including monitor's ball and theoodsman. he made osca history with monsters balbecoming the first rican-american produce tore win a best picture nonation. he is dicted a new fture calledprecious based on the novel push by safe. he washington post" cls it the most painful, poetic and probeably beautiful film of the yr. here is aook >> my name is -- i wt to be on th cover oa magazine i wish i had a lightkinned boyfriend with real ni hair. but first i want on a bet video. >> y're a dumby,idn't nody want you, dot nobody need you. schoolin't going to help none. take your ass down to the welfare. >> y're 16. you're still in junior high school and you' pregnant with your secretarchild. what is the rst thing that am coulds to your mind when you think about it all. yore going have to talk to somedy if you want your check, sweetie. >> pple tell me -- >> precious, i'm hgry. you an on puttingome food in that frying n? >> my favoriteolors purp. i sing well and i'm here because i like to teach. >> i'm joae, my favorit color islorescent beige and i'm here to ge myed. >> something dow well. >>othing. >>verybody's good at something is. >> precious, you going to stand up the and look down at me likeou with a woman. you don't know what real women do. real wome srifice. now get about that. get down here. >> can we ta about the abus in yo household. >> i know what am talking abou >> you can sit tre and judge and you write them notes on your padabout who you think i am. >> nobody love m >> peopldo love you, precio. >> please,on't lie to me. nobody's done nothing fo me. they wheat me, make me feel rthless. >> your babyoves you. >> i love you. >> rose: the fill has been ninatedor three golden globe awards. i'm pleased to have lee danis back at this tablement welce and congratutions. >> thank y, sir. thank you, charlie. >> rose: oprah's connected, tyler rry is connected, you're connect. sedn a big novel. how did this come about? >> i read the book 13 years ago. an it -- i was blo away. it just knocked me off m feet. it le me with my mouth staggered. and i stalked the writer. i was desperate fothe writer. i knewhis movie had to come to -- that this book had to bece a moviet was li a spirit that consumed me. >> ros and how did you find the writer? >> sapphire who i found out s on your show re in '96 when she was avoiding me, she didn't want the mov. she didn want the book turned in a movie. she felthat if, in fact, if ifact i made a bad movie, that some kind of way it would affect her bk. and it wasn't unl she embraced that regardless of whether the film was od or bad, that it would not affe her great piece of literature, or she was tired me stalking her, that she decided to give me the rights. >> rose: and you gotprah and tyler invved. >> after the film w completed. >> rose: so you went and made t film and they got connected to it. >> did. i raised t financing d --. >> rose: wt is the story here. >> the sto is that of a 16-year-old african-america girl, 350 pounds, that is prnant by her father f the second time. and she is illiterat anshe's used by her ther, physically, emotionally and menlly. and vbally. and she is tryg to learn how to read. >> rose: any good ne? >> any good news. >> rose: yeah. >> the good news is that she finds herself, she finds frnds. and she learns to love herself. >> rose: and she has a -- and se leas how to read >> rose: in 1996 talking about pu, here it isid you have an oprtunity to sell this book t hollywood and decline? >> yes, i hav >> rose: why? >> well, ithink that i want it to -- i wanted it to be a powerfu book. i didn't for mylf i didn't see how could be trsferred from the print meum to movie medium without being prostitut or diluted or -- stimentalized. >>ose: no director you had confidence in would be -- >> i dn't -- i -- -- all of it recent so i haven't had a chance to researc directors. but no, i didn't -- i wasn't eager -- i never even thought of a movie, you know what mean. and one of the reasonshat i wrote th book is me of the sreotypes that precious break through are so vas tt put in a vual medium they might impact th even more, you know. so here i think she breaks out of being this statistic and being a welfare recipient and beinpoor and being fat anall that am d it seems like in a movie might box her in and i nted her to -- i wanted hero be free a in that book shegets free. and i don't know what would happen in a movie. >> ros . >> that's spooky. wow, powerful. it's accurate. it's what ihought. >> rose: so yoset out to make the mov. >> yeah. >> rose: and where did you find your actors. >> you alway suer nch me. because i didn't -- -- i knew that itxisted but i hadn't seen it. that is powerful. i thought i wa hallinating that. >> rose: you had never sn it opinions no, no. i had been told bthe studio that she d done it. >> re: anyway you got this movie made, and it is an importt movie and lotsof people like it lot. and thectress is wha what i her nameness gaur aye. >> re: and where did she is ce from. >> out of the blue, an angel sent her to me. i interviewed 400 gls and i stoppedounting at 400. and she came i and she she was as good, i mean i had about 20irls onold. and charlie as i was inrviewing these girls, i would findhem at the mcdonald's, i would fd them on the train. i would goi would nd them on the street. theswere the real girls, a lot of tm had been sexually abused. a lot them had aids. a lot of them were borderlining on t illiterate. and they were threal priouss of the world gabby came in, open call. and she gave a magnificent oddician and the after the oddician i saithank you very much. looking at the audition, she comes in. i said thank youery much, great aution. she startsalking like ts white girl from the valley. e was not the- she was not the girl. she was not precious, it w clear. and so it struck me likwow, if i were to have cast the real precious i would have been exploitingthat girl. like i would have been -- it uld not have been right. so gabbie is ae to articulate it in a way at a thespian even though she is not a trained actor, would. and doe >> rose: and sheas a god send because? >> because she came in a the last minute it was really t was like we were cast, eryone was ct in thovie with the exception of preous. how can you have the mov without precious. but i would have ct, i think, i would have been forced to exploit e of those gis i think because inevitably t show has to go on. rose: roll tape this is a scene from ecious inhe assroom where she is with her teacher, mrsraine. >> i want to you state your name, where u were born, your favorite color, something you do wl and why you are here >> my ne is claris precious jes. i go byrecious. i ve in rlem. i like yellow. and i have problems at my otr school. so i come here >> something you do well? nothing. >> everybody good at something. >> well, i could cook a nevereally talked in class before. >> how does that makyou fe >>here. rose: any reservations about making thimovie or choices you were making a l? i mean were you convinced this had to be made and you had to me it and youad the right stufto do it? i dot mean your talent but the elemts? >> right. in hindsight now looking back,, i don't know that i could go through it agn. you know, i don know that i would have the balls to ma a movie about a 400 pond, you know, blac woman arning how to read. you know, but in the moment, it w -- it consumed me. itas everything tha i waed to do. >> rose:nd now you have nonations. >> i't that nice? m really happy for my talent >> rose: when d you know it was -- it hadhat capacity, that potentia >> well, you still don know because -- yo still don't know b you sti question as an artist you stilquestion. but i knew that we weren't going to dvd whens lk the red carpet, getting my award at sdance and oprah called. i said i think we're going to hit theatr or two. rose: we'll get this int e house. >> yes, definitely. >> ros so you knew then at leas oprah called and sd what? >> well, i'm walking up the red carpetccepting my award for best picture at the sundance and the phone rings. and why am i -- arlie, the phone is on. why am i havin-- why do i ha my phone on. why am i answering my phone. it's unknown, unknown means either are you an investo willing invest in indendent cinema or you are a movie st caing to be in . so i answer. >> re: you are either famous or rich. >> i'm answering and wal up there and she says this is oprah. said i'm getting an ard. she said why are you answering your phone? and i said ion't know. and we reed to call ch other later an we spoke later d she said ything th i can do to help you, le, on this, an it mea a lot toe. it really is -- sti meant a lot to me. >> rose: what has she done. >> she ranthe bell, yo know, you know. >> rose: she caning a bell >> she rang the bell. she did the oprah thing. rose: . >> and ter pry too, he is just really beenike --. >> rose: a lot o muscle behind this film. >> yeah. >> rose: you, tyler perry, oprah, you don't think the was anybod else cable or better to do this film. >> i d't know. i knew it lived in me. i knewhat she livedin me, you know. >> rose: becau of the color or race -- >> no. >> rose: experienc poetic soul >> ptic soul and experience. i think that preciou is univsal. we've been around thworld with the film. and i found that you know, i thoughit was specifically, i starteout making th film for myother because my mom was like,er and her church folk, you know, why cat you make movies like tyr perry. y you got to be making the woodsman, why you got be king monster's balls. >> re: i like your mother. >> and so i love her too. and so i --. >> rose:here is she. >> s's in philadelphia. and i said to her, okay, so i, push was really dedicad tohe world that i grew up in. and my lifexperience. and sow when we took it to sundance - sundance and i seeing all thesehite people respond and go across the oceanto france d we g this huge 15, 20 minute standing ovatn. >> rose: atannes is,. >>harlie, it's like, you know t is an outer body experience because you really dn't make it for that dographic, i didn't realize at this movieas unersal. that the themes o obesity, and illiteracy and abuse a self-esteem are universal. at's wha is ultimely up. >> rose:hat's what the moe, in the end that is what has enabled ito capte an audience. >> yeah, just by --. >> rose:o ahead. >> just by telling the truth, you kn. i found that what i thought was so private, isn't. >> rose: there is another scene with leny kravitz, role tape. >> you bng me something, i don't like fruit, i like mcdona's. >> i don'tat mcdonald's. send of all you don't need be eating mcdonald's eier. not healthy. >> i like mcdonald's. we all like mcdond's, right. >> we like mcdonald's too. >> wel i tell y what. when you get up out of here, you go with your lite frnds and go tocdonald's and get as much mcdonald's as you wantment but right now u're going to take your of -- take care of yr health.1o >> are you a doctor, are y a doctor. >> am adoctor. >> yeah. >> i am a nurse's aid. >> oh, that's funny. >> you'r a man. >> you he never seen a male nur. >> no. >> not looking like you do. >> i am a male nurse. i nse joh mcfaden. >> are you married? do y have a gifriend. >> shut up. >> no, i got to go. i got too. >> no, that's all right that's all rig. >> h, can i get a kiss too. >> good afteoon, ladies. >> b nurse john. >> fst role lenny kravitz ever played. >> ptty good, isn't he. >> yes. we nailed it. i'm really ppy for him. but in the end this is a movie that somehow touch people's soul because it had iversal questions and issues and experiences. and even if you had not, didn't know that experience you understood the pain of it and the consequces of it. >> i think so, yes. i think that precious is -- ght is a might that many people g through. anshe overcomes, you know, so what she is hiv. she knowhow to readnd she's gotten her chiren back and she's od. >> let's look at one more scene. here iis, roll te. >> i woulday her on the de of me on the plow. and there was pink and it d little whiteriting it a it had her name because she was preciousment and i would lay my baby on at pillow. and carl would b laying o the otr side. and then we would start ing it and he reached over, and he touched my baby. and i said carl, whatre you doing. and he tol me to shut up -- to shut myat ass and it s good for her. >> and what did yodo then. >> i shut my fat ass up. and i don't wa yo to sit there and judge me. >> youhut up and you l him abe your daughter. >> iid not want him to abuse my daughte >> b awe lawed him to a hurt her. >> iidn't want him too nothg to her. i wanted him to mak love to me. that was my man. tell me about that. >> it was a moment, you know when everythinaligns and magic happens. m portion nique is -- we became one on the set, you know. i look at the documentary footage in the making of and i'm grting as were -- and she'srunting back and i have n idea what i'm sailg saying to her am and we're talking itongue. and th mara were talking inongue and it was just a moment. ani hope to experience it again. i don't know that i wi. >> rose: talking in tongue. >> i'm directing her i tongue. and she's -- and mara. >> this is on tape, sobody making a mov about the movie. >> yeah. >>t'sntense. >> this is the movie "preous" the audacityf precious is a sto if "the new york times" magine. if says director leedaniels movie prious chronicl thes life of a harlem group in the inner city. is ameca ready for her story. and then theres this from my friendly daniels. people reaso much io precious, dael says. at the end it's just this girl and she's tryingto live. i know this chick, y know hebut we just choose not to know her. will you now know her. thank you, lee. >> you're welcome, charlie. >> rose: thank youor joining us. see you next te. captioning sponsored by rose communicaons captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.or ♪ if you've had coke in the last years, ( screams ) you've h a hand in giving coege scholarships... and support to tusands of o nation's... most promisi students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mmonic )
Related Keywords
United States , New York , Japan , India , Copenhagen , Køavn , Denmark , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , China , Mexico City , Distrito Federal , Mexico , Hollywood , California , Kyoto , France , Washington , District Of Columbia , America , American , John Kerry , Lenny Kravitz , Lee Danis , Ros David , Jeffrey Sachs , Lee Daniels , George Bush , Lee Niels , Al Gore , Hillary Clinton , Tyler Perry Oprah ,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.