>>> HELLO, EVERYONE.

AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & CO." HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

BATTERED AND IN DARKNESS, RUSSIA TARGETS UKRAINE'S ENERGY SYSTEM IN A MASSIVE MISSILE AND DRONE ATTACK.

I SPEAK TO FORMER DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL EVELYN FARKAS FROM KYIV.

>>> AND -- >> THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS FOR OUR CONGRESS TO ACT AND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE U.S.

STANDS BEHIND UKRAINE AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT.

>> WITH U.S. MILITARY AID STILL IN LIMBO, WALTER ISAACSON DISCUSSES AMERICA'S SHIFTING POSITION ON GLOBAL POLITICS WITH PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.

>>> THEN, PUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION.

I ASK THE SON OF LEGENDARY AUTHOR GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ WHY HE RELEASED THE NOVEL "UNTIL AUGUST" AFTER HIS FATHER'S DEATH.

>>> ALSO AHEAD -- >> THERE IS SO MUCH IN EVERY SCENE OF A SHAKESPEARE PLAY WHICH IS RELEVANT TO LIFE, LIVING, HUMANITY.

>> KING OF THE STAGE.

WE LOOK BACK AT CHRISTIANE'S CONVERSATION WITH SIR IAN McKELLEN AS HE TAKES ON ONE OF SHAKESPEARE'S TOUGHEST ROLES.

♪ >>> "AMANPOUR & CO." IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS.

MARK J. BLECHNER.

THE FILOMEN M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION.

SETON J. MELVIN.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN.

COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M BIANNA GOLODRYGA IN NEW YORK, SITTING IN FOR CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR.

PUTIN TARGETS UKRAINE'S POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY SYSTEM IN ONE OF RUSSIA'S BIGGEST EVER MISSILE AND DRONE ATTACKS.

MOSCOW IS FINALLY CALLING THIS A STATE OF WAR AS WELL.

AT LEAST TEN REGIONS WERE HIT, LEAVING OVER 1 MILLION HOUSEHOLDS WITHOUT ELECTRICITY AND MORE THAN 1,000 MINOERS WER STRANDED UNDERGROUND.

REPORTS OF BLASTS NEAR ZAPORIZHZHIA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ACT AS A CLEAR REMINDER OF THE STAKES AT PLAY.

EU LEADERS HAVE AGREED IN PRINCIPLE TO SEND THE PROFITS OFF FROZEN RUSSIAN ASSETS, BUT $60 BILLION IS STILL CAUGHT UP IN U.S. CONGRESS.

MEANTIME, NATO HAS SENT ITS FIRST OFFICIAL MILITARY DELEGATION TO KYIV SINCE RUSSIA'S INVASION IN 2022.

EVELYN FARKAS IS A FORMER U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AND HEAD OF THE McCAIN INSTITUTE.

SHE JOINS ME NOW FROM KYIV, WHICH YESTERDAY WAS HIT BY RUSSIAN MISSILE STRIKES FOR THE FIRST TIME IN SIX WEEKS.

EVELYN FARKAS, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

I KNOW YOU'RE THERE AT THE KYIV SECURITY FORUM.

THE COUNTRY CONTINUES TO BE ATTACKED AT WAR HERE.

WHAT IS THE REACTION ON THE GROUND THERE?

WHAT IS THE MOOD?

>> YEAH, BIANNA.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE FEELING REALLY FRUSTRATED AND SUBDUED.

FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE THIS ATTACK ATTACK COMES AT A TIME WHEN THE UKRAINIANS ARE COUNTING THE DAYS UNTIL THEY CAN GET THE ASSISTANCE YOU MENTIONED FROM THE U.S. CONGRESS.

THEY'RE MOSTLY FOCUSED ON THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE BECAUSE TROOPS ON THE FRONT HAVE BEEN FEELING THE IMPACT OF NOT HAVING THE AMMUNITION.

THEN OF COURSE, HERE IN KYIV, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN UNDER ATTACK.

I WAS HERE IN OCTOBER WITH THE McCAIN INSTITUTE DELEGATION THAT I LED, AND THERE WERE NO ATTACKS.

THE RUSSIANS WERE BASICALLY HOARDING THEIR ATTACK CAPABILITY.

BUT THEY'RE ATTACKING NOW PROBABLY IN RETALIATION FOR UKRAINIAN ATTACKS AGAINST THEIR OIL REFINERIES.

>> I WANT TO GET BACK TO THE STRATEGY BEHIND SOME OF UKRAINE'S ATTACKS, SPECIFICALLY AGAINST THEIR OIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE THE U.S.

RESPONDED TODAY IN QUITE A CONTROVERSIAL MANNER, TELLING THEM THEY DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS A PRODUCTIVE RESPONSE TO RUSSIA IN THIS WAR.

LET'S PICK UP ON THAT LATER.

BUT WITH REGARDS TO THIS ATTACK RIGHT NOW, AS WE MENTIONED, MORE THAN A MILLION PEOPLE LEFT WITHOUT POWER.

UKRAINE'S AIR DEFENSE FORCES SAID THEY DESTROYED 92 OF THE 151 DRONES AND MISSILES FIRED FROM RUSSIA, BUT THEY FAILED TO SHOOT DOWN ANY OF THE 19 BALLISTIC MISSILES THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD NEED THE U.S.-DESIGNED PATRIOT AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM TO DO THAT.

AND PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY USED THIS AS A REAL-LIFE EXAMPLE OF WHY THAT AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM IS SO CRUCIAL FOR THE COUNTRY AS IT'S DEFENDING ITSELF NOW TWO YEARS INTO THE WAR.

HOW MUCH FRUSTRATION ARE YOU SENSING THERE AMONG UKRAINIANS AND EVEN OTHER EUROPEANS THAT THAT AID ISN'T GETTING THERE SOON ENOUGH?

>> YEAH.

BIANNA, YOU'RE MAKING A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION TALKING JUST ABOUT KYIV BECAUSE THEY HAVE A REALLY GOOD AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM HERE.

SO THE INJURY TO BUILDINGS AND TO PEOPLE -- AND NOPE DIED -- WAS BECAUSE OF DEBRIS, BECAUSE THE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS HERE WORKED.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.

THE AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS ACROSS UKRAINE, THERE AREN'T AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS THAT COVER THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, WHICH IS WHY THE ELECTRIC GRID WAS ATTACKED, UNFORTUNATELY SUCCESSFULLY HERE IN UKRAINE.

AND SO PEOPLE ARE NOW HAVING PROBLEMS WITH ELECTRICITY DISRUPTIONS.

CLEARLY THEY'RE FRUSTRATED.

NOW, THE UKRAINIANS ARE GRATEFUL BECAUSE USAID, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS HELPED THEM FORTIFY THEIR ELECTRICITY AND OTHER INSTALLATIONS THAT PROTECT CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE.

BUT THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH YOU CAN DO, AND REALLY WHAT THEY NEED ARE THESE STRONG AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS, THE PATRIOTS, AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO RETALIATE AGAINST THE RUSSIANS.

YOU KNOW, THE UKRAINIANS LIKELY KNOW WHERE THESE CRUISE MISSILES ARE COMING FROM, AND THEY COULD ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AT THE SOURCE IF WE GAVE THEM LONGER-RANGE MUNITIONS.

>> THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THAT RUSSIA HAS SPECIFICALLY GONE AFTER UKRAINE'S ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE, ZAPORIZHZHIA.

OBVIOUSLY IT'S HOPE TO THE LARGEST NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY IN ALL OF EUROPE, AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT POTENTIAL DAMAGE THERE.

TO MY EARLIER POINT, WITH THE U.S. NOW TELLING UKRAINE THAT THEY DON'T THINK THAT IT'S EFFECTIVE AND THEY'RE URGING UKRAINIANS TO HALT THEIR ATTACKS ON RUSSIA'S ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE'S REPORTS THAT THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE A SPIKE IN ENERGY PRICES AND OIL PRICES, PERHAPS LEADING UP TO THE U.S. ELECTION.

WHAT IS THE RESPONSE TO THAT REPORT BECAUSE IT JUST CAME OUT TODAY, AND AS AN EXPERT YOURSELF, WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON IT?

>> I SAW THAT REPORT, BIANNA.

IT IS DISCONCERTING BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS ISSUED KIND OF WARNINGS OR DIRECTIVES LIKE THIS TO THE UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WITH A FEAR OF ESCALATION OR PERHAPS, IN THIS CASE, A FEAR OF SOMETHING HAPPENING TO THE OIL PRICES ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY THAT WHEN WE RAISED THIS WITH EXPERTS, THEY SAID, WELL, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT OIL PRICES WOULD RISE NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF ATTACKS ON THESE REFINERIES.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHICH REFINERIES.

ARE THEY FOR DOMESTIC PRODUCTION?

BUT THE EXPORT PROBABLY WILL BE IMPACTED.

I WOULD SAY TO THIS, WE KNOW THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT -- WELL, IT'S REPORTED THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WASN'T VERY HAPPY WHEN THE UKRAINIANS STARTED CLEARING THE BLACK SEA CORRIDOR, SO USING THEIR WEAPONRY TO ESSENTIALLY TAKE OUT RUSSIAN NAVAL SHIPS, AND THEY DID THIS WITH GREAT EFFECT.

INITIALLY THERE IS REPORTING THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WASN'T HAPPY ABOUT THAT, BUT THE UKRAINIANS PROCEEDED, AND IT'S BEEN A SPECTACULAR SUCCESS.

THEY ARE NOW LOOKING AT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR COMING IN THROUGH THAT CORRIDOR BECAUSE THEY'RE TRADING GRAIN, IRON ORE, STEEL LIKE NORMAL, LIKE DURING PEACE TIME.

SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY BE UNHAPPY OR UNCOMFORTABLE, BUT THE UKRAINIANS ESSENTIALLY CAN CONTINUE BECAUSE THIS IS A WAY TO IMPACT THE MONEY FLOW TO THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT UNDOUBTEDLY.

>> YEAH, AND THERE'S A LOT OF FRUSTRATION WITHIN UKRAINE THAT THERE ISN'T MORE -- >> WHICH THE WAY, I SHOULD SAY IT ALSO IMPACTS THE MILITARY BECAUSE THESE OILS GO -- THE FUEL GOES ALSO TO FUEL, PUN INTENDED, THE MILITARY EFFORT AGAINST UKRAINE.

>> YEAH, RUSSIA COMPLETELY IN WARTIME FOOTING AT THIS POINT, AND ITS ECONOMY HAS WITHSTOOD WHAT MANY EXPERTS WOULD HAVE ALREADY EXPECTED TO SEE A RECESSION IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS IN -- ARE YOU HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING ME, EVELYN?

I THINK WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH EVELYN.

YEAH.

WE'LL TRY TO GET HER BACK.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT, AND WE'LL COME BACK TO HER IF WE CAN GET A RECONNECTION THERE.

>>> LET'S TURN NOW TO A DAY OF U.S.

DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO PUSH FOR PEACE IN GAZA, DEALT A BLOW BY THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL ONCE AGAIN WHO FAILED TO PASS A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN IMMEDIATE CEASE-FIRE.

IT WAS A SHIFT AFTER MONTHS OF VETOING OTHER RESOLUTIONS, SUGGESTING A DEPARTURE FROM PREVIOUS POLICY.

THE PROSPECT OF ANOTHER TRUMP PRESIDENCY CASTS A SHADOW ROVER UKRAINE'S FUTURE ON THE BATTLEFIELD.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO DISCUSS HOW SHIFTING U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IS RESONATING IN WASHINGTON AND BEYOND.

>> THANK YOU, BIANNA.

MICHAEL FROMAN, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> THIS WEEK, CONGRESS HAS STILL BEEN WRESTLING WITH UKRAINE AID.

NOW THERE'S AN IDEA THAT MAYBE IT SHOULD BE A LOAN THAT'S PERHAPS WAIVABLE.

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO YOU THAT THEY SETTLE IT, AND IS THIS IDEA OF DOING IT AS A LOAN -- DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> WELL, I THINK IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL THAT THEY SETTLE.

THAT'S PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, THAT UKRAINE KNOWS THAT THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE THERE, THAT RUSSIA KNOWS THAT SUPPORT IS GOING TO BE THERE.

I THINK IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER FOR IT TO BE A GRANT AS IT HAS BEEN BEFORE, BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS FOR CONGRESS TO ACT AND TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE U.S.

STANDS BEHIND UKRAINE AT THIS CRITICAL MOMENT.

>> EVEN IF THIS HAPPENS, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A FOREVER THING.

CERTAINLY IF DONALD TRUMP IS ELECTED, BUT EVEN NOW, IT LOOKS UNLIKELY THAT THEY'LL CONTINUE TO DO AID YEAR AFTER YEAR.

ISN'T IT TIME TO HAVE SOME PEACE PROCESS THAT WOULD TRY TO AT LEAST GET US TO A TRUCE OR A STANDSTILL, OR WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING?

>> I THINK ULTIMATELY EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET THERE.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS DO YOU GET THERE WITH UKRAINIANS COMING TO THE TABLE FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH OR FROM A POSITION OF WEAKNESS?

IF CONGRESS DOES NOT ACT, THEY'LL BE COMING TO THE TABLE FROM A POSITION OF WEAKNESS.

IF CONGRESS DOES ACT AND THEY HAVE THE WHEREWITHAL TO GET THROUGH THIS YEAR, TO TRY AND MAKE AS MANY GAINS AS THEY CAN ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND, VERY IMPORTANTLY, TO AVOID PROBLEMS ON THE BATTLEFIELD, PREVENT RUSSIA FROM MAKING GAINS ON THE BATTLEFIELD, THEN THERE'S AT LEAST SOME HOPE THAT WHEN THE PARTIES DECIDE THAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE, THAT THERE WILL BE A DECENT OUTCOME.

I THINK THE RISK RIGHT NOW IS WITHOUT SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS, UKRAINE WOULD BE FORCED TO THE TABLE IN A WAY THAT'S VERY MUCH DISADVANTAGEOUS.

>> IF YOU DO GET TO THE TABLE, WHAT DO YOU THINK AN OUTCOME COULD BE?

>> THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY HARD SET OF ISSUES.

THERE'S A WHOLE RANGE.

IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE RUSSIA GIVING UP TERRITORY THAT IT HAS GAINED, AND IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THE UKRAINIANS ACCEPTING THAT AS A LONG-TERM PROPOSITION.

I THINK ONE IDEA THAT HAS BEEN PUT OUT THERE IS SOMETHING NOT UNLIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE KOREAN PENINSULA AT THE END OF THE KOREAN WAR, WHERE THERE WAS A TRUCE BUT NOT A FINAL PEACE SETTLEMENT, AND THERE WAS A SERIES OF COMPROMISES AND SECURITY GUARANTEES THAT ALLOWED BOTH SIDES TO FIND IT ACCEPTABLE.

THE UKRAINIANS WILL NOT BE HAPPY ABOUT THAT.

GIVING UP BOTH EASTERN UKRAINE AND CRIMEA EVEN IN THE SHORT RUN IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE PREPARED TO DO.

BUT I THINK WHAT WILL BE DETERMINING THIS IS HOW MUCH PROGRESS THERE IS ON THE GROUND AND HOW MUCH THE RUSSIANS FEEL THE NEED TO MAKE A COMPROMISE.

ONE THING THAT COULD CHANGE THE DYNAMIC, WALTER, IS THAT IF -- I THINK PRESIDENT PUTIN BELIEVES THAT TIME IS ON HIS SIDE, BOTH BECAUSE RUSSIA HAS DUG IN SOME VERY STRONG DEFENSIVE POSITIONS IN EASTERN UKRAINE, AND BECAUSE FRANKLY HE'S WAITING TO SEE WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE U.S. ELECTION IS AND WHETHER THE SUPPORT WILL BE THERE FROM CONGRESS IN THE MEANTIME.

I THINK ONE THING THAT COULD CHANGE THAT IS IF PRESIDENT PUTIN FELT HE WAS LOSING SOME CONTROL OVER CRIMEA, WHICH IS OF COURSE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO HIM AND TO RUSSIA AND HIS IMAGE OF RUSSIA.

AND IF THE WHEREWITHAL THAT WE PROVIDE UKRAINE GIVES HIM THE CAPABILITY OF SHAKING SOME OF THAT SECURITY AROUND CRIMEA, THEN THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BRING PARTIES TO THE TABLE EARLIER.

>> ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU HAS AGREED, AT THE REQUEST OF PRESIDENT BIDEN, TO SEND A DELEGATION TO WASHINGTON TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO DO A MILITARY OPERATION IN RAFAH AND HOW TO DO IT.

WHAT DO YOU HOPE COMES OUT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS?

>> I THINK HOPEFULLY IT WILL TURN THE TEMPERATURE DOWN A BIT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL.

THE U.S. IS NOW ISRAEL'S REALLY IF NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF SUPPORT, CERTAINLY THE STRONGEST REMAINING SOURCE OF SUPPORT.

AND WE'VE SEEN THAT FRAY WITH SENATOR SCHUMER'S SPEECH AND THE GENERAL TENSION BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION AND PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU.

SO HOPEFULLY TURN DOWN THE TEMPERATURE.

I MEAN THAT HAS TO BE RELATED TO ACTUALLY SUBSTANTIVE PROGRESS ON THE UNDERLYING ISSUES, WHICH IS ON THE ONE HAND, OF COURSE, ISRAEL HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF.

ISRAEL HAS THE RIGHT TO TRY AND ELIMINATE HAMAS AS A SECURITY THREAT ON ITS BORDER.

THE QUESTION IS AT THIS POINT ON THE VERGE OF GOING INTO RAFAH, WILL THERE BE A STRONG HUMANITARIAN ELEMENT TO THAT OPERATION?

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MILLION OR SO GAZANS WHO ARE BEING ASKED TO GO BACK TO THE NORTH, WHO ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE.

BACK IN THE NORTH, 70% OF THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN DAMAGED, SO WHAT ARE THEY GOING BACK TO, AND WILL THERE BE A HOUSING COMPONENT TO THAT?

CAN WE GET HUMANITARIAN AID INTO GAZA IN A MEANINGFUL WAY?

THAT MEANS BEYOND AIR DROPS, BEYOND BUILDING A PORT INTO THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

REALLY OPENING UP THE ROADS BOTH FROM EGYPT AND POTENTIALLY FROM THE NORTH, FROM ISRAEL, FOR SIGNIFICANT TRUCK TRAFFIC TO BRING IN THE FOOD AND THE OTHER HUMANITARIAN SUPPLIES THAT ARE SO DESPERATELY NEEDED.

AND OF COURSE WE'RE NOT TALKING AS MUCH AS WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE HOSTAGES.

HOW DO WE GET THE 100 OR SO HOSTAGES THAT REMAIN IN GAZA UNDER HAMAS CONTROL OUT AND SAFELY HOME?

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT AIRPORT AID BECAUSE I DON'T GET IT.

I MEAN THERE'S A FAMINE.

THERE IS WIDESPREAD, DEEP HUNGER IN GAZA.

WHY WOULD THE U.S. AND ISRAEL NOT WANT TO TRY TO GET HUMANITARIAN AID IN AS FAST AS POSSIBLE?

>> IT'S VERY MUCH IN SOME OF THE U.S. INTEREST AND ISRAEL'S INTEREST TO DO SO.

I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT THE TRUCKS THAT HAVE COME TO THE BORDER, TO THE RAFAH CROSSING, HAVE BEEN TURNED AWAY SOMETIMES FOR HAVING -- THERE ARE REPORTS OF SURGICAL SCISSORS OR OTHER THINGS DEEMED TO BE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

PART OF THIS OPERATION, PART OF THE NEAR-TERM FOCUS NEEDS TO BE WORKING WITH EGYPT TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER COMES INTO GAZA AT THIS POINT IS NOT STRENGTHENING HAMAS, NOT GIVING HAMAS TOOLS AND WEAPONS TO BE USED AGAINST THE ISRAELIS, NOT ALLOWING THEM TO REPLENISH THEIR STRENGTH.

AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS FOR DOING THAT, BUT DOING EFFICIENTLY SO WE CAN GET HUMANITARIAN AID BACK INTO GAZA.

BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A REAL PLAN, WALTER.

I THINK ONE OF THE THING ISRAEL'S BEEN CRITICIZED FOR IS AS THEY'VE GONE INTO GAZA AND CERTAINLY AS THEY PREPARE TO GO INTO RAFAH SPECIFICALLY, THERE HASN'T BEEN ENOUGH ATTENTION FOR HOW TO ENSURE THAT THE PALESTINIANS THERE WILL BE CARED FOR AS THEY HAVE TO DISPLACE THEMSELVES AGAIN TO GET OUT OF HARM'S WAY.

AND MAKING THE HUMANITARIAN ELEMENT A KEY PART OF THE OVERALL OPERATION HAS GOT TO BE PART OF THIS.

>> WHAT DO YOU SEE AS AN EVENTUAL OUTCOME FOR GAZA?

>> LOOK, I THINK IT'S A REALLY DIFFICULT QUESTION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND, IT NEEDS TO BE A SITUATION WHERE ISRAEL IS SECURE.

ISRAEL IS NOT GOING TO LIVE WITH A GAZA THAT IS A SOURCE OF INSECURITY FOR IT GOING FORWARD.

THERE'S NO INTEREST IN ALLOWING OR ENCOURAGING THE PALESTINIANS IN GAZA TO MOVE ELSEWHERE.

SO THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ENORMOUS REBUILDING EFFORT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, A SECURITY EFFORT THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MAKING GAZA A LIVABLE, SUSTAINABLE PLACE OVER TIME.

THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THE INVOLVEMENT OF NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL, BUT SAUDI ARABIA, OTHER ARAB NATIONS, EGYPT, WHO CAN PLAY A ROLE IN HELPING TO SECURE GAZA AND ENSURE THAT IT'S GOT THE INVESTMENT NECESSARY TO SURVIVE.

THE OTHER BIG ISSUE, WALTER, IS WHO'S GOING TO RULE GAZA?

WHAT'S THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN GAZA?

AND THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY HAS VERY LITTLE CREDIBILITY AMONG PALESTINIANS.

HAMAS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO GOVERN GAZA BY ISRAEL.

AND THERE'S NOT BEEN THE KIND OF INVESTMENT, PARTICULARLY BY THE ARAB NATIONS OVER THE YEARS, IN SUPPORTING AND CULTIVATING A STRONG PALESTINIAN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CONTROL BOTH OF GAZA AND THE WEST BANK.

AND SO THAT IS THE NEXT STEP, I THINK, THAT IT MAY TAKE YEARS FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, BUT THERE'S NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT TO BEGIN TO INVEST IN THAT.

>> YOU'RE SITTING IN THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS BUILDING.

WOOD PANELED, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A CENTURY OR SO.

ON THE WALLS OF THAT BUILDING IS SORT OF THE GREAT ELDER STATESMAN OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WHO WORK TOGETHER IN A NONPARTISAN WAY.

THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BROKEN DOWN IN THIS COUNTRY.

TELL ME WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF THAT, AND WHAT DO YOU DO AT THE COUNCIL NOW THAT THIS NONPARTISAN CONSENSUS NO LONGER EXISTS?

>> I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT.

I MEAN IT USED TO BE THERE WAS A PHRAS PHRASE, AND THERE WAS A BROAD CONSENSUS OF THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE WORLD, AROUND THE OPEN LIBERAL MARKET-BASED ECONOMIES, AROUND DEMOCRACY.

ALL OF THIS IS VERY MUCH AT RISK RIGHT NOW.

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD OVERSTATE IT.

THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF REPUBLICANS AND A LOT OF DEMOCRATS WHO AGREE ON SOME FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THAT, OF INTERNATIONALISM, OF THE U.S.

PLAYING A CONSTRUCTIVE ROLE IN THE WORLD.

THEY MAY DISAGREE OVER SOME OF THE TACTICS AND HOW FAR TO GO, HOW LONG TO COMMIT.

BUT I THINK THE ROLE OF THE U.S. AS A VERY CRITICAL NATION AND ITS LEADERSHIP ON SO MANY ISSUES IS RECOGNIZED BY MANY.

HAVING SAID THAT, THERE'S BEEN A LONG TRADITION IN THE UNITED STATES OF ISOLATIONISM, AND WE NOW SEE IT IN ELEMENTS OF BOTH PARTIES, BUT PARTICULARLY IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

THE COUNCIL WAS FOUNDED OVER A CENTURY AGO PRECISELY TO ADDRESS THE RISK OF ISOLATIONISM AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SO CLOSELY TIED TO WHAT GOES ON AROUND THE WORLD THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE U.S. TO BE ENGAGED AND TO SHOW LEADERSHIP.

AND THOSE VERY SAME DYNAMICS ARE PRESENT TODAY, AND WE'RE VERY MUCH ACTIVE IN TRYING TO BRING TOGETHER REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, BROAD COALITIONS, TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES AND TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE U.S. SHOULD EXERCISE THAT LEADERSHIP.

>> IS THERE SOMETHING WE GOT WRONG IN THAT GLOBALISM CONSENSUS, AND THERE'S SOME RATIONALE TO THE BACKLASH THAT'S HAPPENING NOT ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES BUT AROUND THE WORLD?

>> SO, LOOK, I THINK IF WE LOOK BACK OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES, THE OPENING UP OF ECONOMIES, THE INTEGRATION OF THEM HAS HAD ENORMOUS POSITIVE IMPACTS IN GENERAL.

IT'S LIFTED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS, IF NOT BILLIONS OUT OF ABJECT POVERTY.

IT'S ALLOWED REALLY ALL THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS TO BE IMPROVED.

IT HAS BROUGHT NATIONS CLOSER TOGETHER IN A NUMBER OF RESPECTS.

I THINK WHAT WAS CLEAR, THOUGH, IS THAT THE BENEFITS OF THAT INTEGRATION HAVE NOT BEEN BROADLY AND EQUALLY SHARED.

AND SO THAT BETWEEN NATIONS AND WITHIN NATIONS, THERE WERE WINNERS AND LOSERS.

AND THE IMPACTS ON THOSE WHO WERE LEFT BEHIND WERE NOT FULLY ADDRESSED.

JUST TAKE THE UNITED STATES AS AN EXAMPLE.

I THINK THIS, BY THE WAY, CUTS ACROSS BOTH DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS.

WE NEVER PAIRED OUR FOCUS ON INTEGRATING THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WITH SUFFICIENT DOMESTIC POLICY TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE WHO WOULD BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED IN THE SHORT OR THE MEDIUM TERM.

AND WE SAW THE IMPACT OF THIS ON COMMUNITIES AS FACTORIES CLOSED, AS MANUFACTURING SHRUNK, AND AS THERE WERE NO -- THERE WASN'T SUFFICIENT SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND PROGRAMS TO HELP PEOPLE REALLY DEVELOP AND TRANSITION TO NEW INDUSTRIES, AND THOSE NEW INDUSTRIES TO BE INVESTED IN COMMUNITIES TO TAKE UP THE SLACK.

AND THAT, I THINK, HAS LED TO POPULISM AND PROTECTIONISM, SOME NATIVISM, NATIONALISM AS WELL.

AND WE SEE THAT NOT JUST IN THE UNITED STATES.

WE SEE IT IN SOME OTHER COUNTRIES AS WELL, BUT WE SEE IT PARTICULARLY IN OUR POLITICS.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP WOULD MEAN FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY?

>> WHEN I TRAVEL AROUND THE WORLD, THE CONCERNS I HEAR ARE ABOUT AMERICAN ISOLATIONISM AND ABOUT OUR POLITICAL DYSFUNCTIONALITY.

THOSE ARE THE TWO MAJOR RISKS THAT THE REST OF THE WORLD SEES WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE UNITED STATES.

WE HAVE DYSFUNCTIONALITY RIGHT NOW.

WITNESS CONGRESS NOT BEING ABLE TO ACT ON THE AID.

BUT I THINK WHEN THE WORLD LOOKS AT THE CHOICE IT WILL FACE IN NOVEMBER, THEY VIEW PRESIDENT TRUMP AS BEING MORE ISOLATIONIST, AND THAT VERY MUCH SCARES THEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT POLICY PRESIDENT BIDEN WOULD PURSUE IN A SECOND TERM NOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP IF HE WERE TO BE RE-ELECTED.

BUT I THINK THE BROAD CONSENSUS IS IT'S LIKELY TO BE MORE ISOLATIONIST, LESS FOCUSED ON ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS, AND THAT WILL HAVE RAMIFICATIONS MORE BROADLY FOR HOW OUR POLICY IS IMPLEMENTED AROUND THE WORLD.

>> CAN YOU UNDERSTAND, THOUGH, THE APPEAL THAT THAT HAS IN SOME PARTS OF AMERICA?

AND TO THE EXTENT YOU THINK IT'S WRONG, WHAT CAN YOU DO TO COUNTER IT?

>> SO I THINK -- I DO UNDERSTAND THE APPEAL.

AS I SAID, IT'S NOT NEW.

ISOLATIONISM HAS BEEN HERE REALLY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC.

IT WAS MENTIONED AT GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS ABOUT ENTANGLING ALLIANCES AND HIS WORDING ABOUT THAT.

WE CERTAINLY SAW IT EARLIER IN THE 20th CENTURY BETWEEN WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II.

BUT I THINK THE 20th CENTURY AND PRESIDENT BIDEN MADE REFERENCE TO THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STATE OF THE UNION.

THE 20th CENTURY HOLDS OUT SOME VERY IMPORTANT LESSONS FOR US, WHICH IS BY WITHDRAWING FROM THE WORLD, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THINGS AREN'T GOING TO HAPPEN OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS THAT AFFECT US.

AND I THINK RIGHT NOW, LET'S JUST FOCUS ON UKRAINE.

THE UKRAINE WAR IS VERY IMPORTANT ABOUT THE UKRAINIANS AND THEIR NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS, BUT IT'S MUCH BIGGER AND BROADER THAN THAT.

IT'S ABOUT WHETHER COUNTRIES CAN CHALLENGE THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ORDER AND STABILITY.

THAT IS, THE AGREEMENT NOT TO USE FORCE TO CHANGE BORDERS.

AND I THINK A LOT OF COUNTRIES ARE LOOKING AT UKRAINE, WHETHER IT'S CHINA AND ITS FOCUS ON TAIWAN, OR COUNTRIES ALL ACROSS OTHER REGIONS OF THE WORLD WHO SAY, WELL, LOOK, IF WE CAN REDRESS OUR GRIEVANCES AROUND WHERE BORDERS ARE DRAWN, THAT BECOMES THE NEW NORMAL, WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE AN OUTBREAK OF A LOT OF CONFLICTS AND A LOT OF WARS.

AND THAT HAS AN IMPLICATION FOR US HERE AT HOME.

THE SAME THING OBVIOUSLY ON THE ECONOMIC ISSUES.

I UNDERSTAND FREE TRADE IS NOT IN FASHION RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S BEEN A BIG REACTION AGAINST IT.

BUT WHEN PEOPLE BEGIN TO SEE WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF GOODS AND AFFORDABLE PRICE AND PARTICULARLY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE SPENDING A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF THEIR DISPOSABLE INCOME ON IMPORTS, WHICH TENDS TO BE PEOPLE AT THE LOWER LEVELS OF INCOME.

THEY'LL BEGIN TO SEE THEY DON'T LIKE INFLATION.

THEY DON'T LIKE HIGH COST OF LIVING.

HOW DO WE STRIKE THAT BALANCE?

HOW DO WE MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES?

I THINK WE NEED TO DO A MUCH BETTER JOB.

BY WE, I MEAN PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE IN INSTITUTIONS, PEOPLE IN EDUCATION, OF JUST MAKING CLEAR WHAT'S AT STAKE.

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

WHY DOES UKRAINE MATTER TO SOMEBODY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNTRY?

AND IS IT BECAUSE IF WE'RE NOT SUPPORTING UKRAINIANS, WE MAY FIND OURSELVES SENDING OUR OWN SOLDIERS TO WAR IN ONE PLACE OR ANOTHER?

IS IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO DISRUPT THE SUPPLY OF FOOD AND FERTILIZER AND OTHER GOODS IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT COULD HAVE AN IMPLICATION BACK HERE AT HOME, INCLUDING AT THE GROCERY STORE?

HOW DO WE MAKE THOSE ISSUES RELEVANT TO PEOPLE AT HOME AND THEN MAKING CLEAR, AS I SAID, WHAT THE TRADE-OFFS ARE OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US.

>> MICHAEL FROMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>>> I WANT TO GO BACK NOW TO EVELYN FARKAS FROM THE McCAIN INSTITUTE, WHO IS JOINING US IN KYIV.

I THINK WE'VE RE-ESTABLISHED CONNECTION THERE, EVELYN, AND I'M SORRY ABOUT THE DISRUPTION EARLIER.

BUT I WANT TO PICK UP BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE YOU WERE ABLE TO LISTEN TO THE TAIL END OF THAT CONVERSATION WITH WALTER ISAACSON AND MIKE FROMAN.

AND THE CONVERSATION REALLY CENTERED ON U.S.

POLITICS HERE, THE UPCOMING ELECTION, WHAT ANOTHER TRUMP PRESIDENCY COULD MEAN, AND THAT'S BEING VIEWED VERY CLOSELY FROM WHERE YOU ARE.

I MEAN THERE'S $60 BILLION IN AID THAT'S STILL BEING HELD UP, THAT UKRAINE URGENTLY NEEDS, AND SOME STALWART REPUBLICAN SUPPORTERS OF UKRAINE, INCLUDING SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, WERE JUST THERE PROMOTING A NEW PLAN FROM DONALD TRUMP, ESSENTIALLY SAYING THEY WILL LOAN MONEY AND LOAN AID TO UKRAINE.

HOW IS THAT ALL BEING RECEIVED WHERE YOU ARE?

>> I THINK THAT THEY DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S A LOAN OR WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE.

THEY JUST REALLY NEED THE ASSISTANCE.

I MEAN THIS IS LITERALLY LIFE OR DEATH, AND THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, TROOPS ON THE BATTLEFIELD, YOU KNOW, WAITING SO THAT THEY HAVE MORE AMMUNITION.

THE RATIO, WE'RE TOLD, BETWEEN THE RUSSIANS AND THE UKRAINIANS IN TERMS OF FIREPOWER IS 10 TO 1.

ANOTHER ANALYSIS SAYS 7 TO 1, MEANING THAT USUALLY FOCUSES ON THE ARTILLERY.

BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.

IT MEANS THEY HAVE TO HOLD THEIR AMMUNITION, AND THEY'RE BEING SHOT AT, AND HOLD THEIR ARTILLERY BEFORE THEY CAN REACT.

AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY VERY DANGEROUS FOR THEM.

SO THEY ARE WAITING.

THEY DON'T CARE WHAT SHAPE IT COMES IN.

AND THEY'RE QUITE CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT DRAG OUT.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN, AND THOSE OF US AMERICANS HERE MEETING WITH THE UKRAINIANS AND AT THE CONFERENCE -- THERE WAS A PANEL ON THE UNITED STATES -- WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE THEM ANY FIRM ASSURANCES.

MY HOPE IS THAT IT WILL BE DONE BEFORE THE NEXT CONGRESSIONAL RECESS BECAUSE I HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WORKING IN CONGRESS, AND I KNOW HOW THEY TEND TO OPERATE AND THAT THERE IS A TENDENCY TO PUT HARD VOTES RIGHT BEFORE A RECESS, TAKE THE VOTE, AND LEAVE TOWN.

SO MAYBE THAT WILL HAPPEN, BUT HOPEFULLY THEY'LL DO IT SOONER.

WE CAN ONLY HOPE, AS I SAY.

I MEAN THE SPEAKER CAN TAKE ACTION RIGHT NOW, AND THERE WERE A LOT OF STRONG WORDS FROM THE DAIS FOR THE SPEAKER.

YOU KNOW, LET YOUR PEOPLE VOTE WAS SOMETHING AMBASSADOR MIKE McFAUL SAID.

BUT THERE WERE UKRAINIANS WHO WERE CLEARLY CALLING OUT OUR SPEAKER, SAYING, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WITH VERY SHARP LANGUAGE THAT HE SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING.

>> YEAH, BECAUSE THE VOTES WERE THERE IF HE BROUGHT IT UP FOR A VOTE.

HE OBVIOUSLY WAS LISTENING TO DONALD TRUMP AND NOT DOING SO, AND THAT COULD VERY WELL HAPPEN AS YOU NOTED IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

BUT THE AID AND THE WEAPONS WON'T BE IN UKRAINE OVERNIGHT ONCE IT IS PASSED.

YOU HAVE TO PROCURE THE WEAPONS.

THAT TAKES TIME.

AS YOU NOTED, THERE IS A DISADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF WHERE RUSSIA IS IN ITS WARTIME FOOTING, COMPLETELY FOCUSED ITS ECONOMY NOW ON MILITARY AND ITS WAR.

PUTIN JUST WINNING, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, RE-ELECTION WITH 88% TURNOUT AND APPROVAL THERE, UNPRECEDENTED TURNOUT TOO.

SO HE CAN SIT THERE AND SAY THAT HE HAS THE SUPPORT OF HIS FULL COUNTRY GOING INTO THIS WAR.

DO YOU SEE ANY CHANGES AMONG UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS FOLLOWING WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THIS ELECTION IN THAT IT PERHAPS HAS EMBOLDENED VLADIMIR PUTIN EVEN MORE.

HE'S CALLING THIS WHAT IT IS, A WAR.

>> RIGHT.

I MEAN IT'S A SHAM ELECTION, AND I GUESS THE SILVER LINING MIGHT BE THAT PUTIN IS NOW EMBOLDENED TO DO THINGS THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY BACKFIRE ON HIM, EVEN MILITARILY.

BUT OF COURSE, THE UKRAINIANS AREN'T WISHING FOR THAT, BUT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT PUTIN IS FEELING EMBOLDENED, THAT AN OFFENSIVE IS LIKELY IN THE SPRING OR THE SUMMER.

SO IF HE DOES UNDERTAKE AN OFFENSIVE AND THE UKRAINIANS HAVE THE TIME TO DIG IN, THE DEFENSES, AND THEY GET THE RIGHT WEAPONRY FROM US AS WELL TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, THEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PUTIN WILL HAVE OVERREACHED IF HE DOES ACTUALLY LAUNCH AN OFFENSIVE.

WITH REGARD TO THE ELECTIONS, OF COURSE THEY CALL THEM SHAM ELECTIONS.

THEY ARE SHAM ELECTIONS.

AND THEY, YOU KNOW, ARE DETERMINED TO CONTINUE TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE DEFENDING DEMOCRACY, THAT PUTIN IS ATTACKING CIVILIANS PURPOSELY, ATTACKING CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE.

THIS IS NOT A NORMAL WAR, AND I THINK THAT BEARS REPEATING, AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.

ONE OTHER QUICK THING BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED KIND OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AUTOCRACIES AND DEMOCRACIES.

WHILE THE EUROPEANS ARE REALLY STEPPING UP AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET ABOUT $800 MILLION WORTH OF AMMUNITION TO THE UKRAINIANS QUICKLY.

THE CZECH GOVERNMENT IS RUNNING THIS INITIATIVE.

IN THE MEANTIME, THE NORTH KOREANS, WE KNOW, HAVE PROVIDED OVER A MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF AMMUNITION TO THE RUSSIANS, YOU KNOW, IN TWO MINUTES.

>> YEAH.

>> SO THERE IS CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENCE.

>> YEAH, AND THAT IS NOTED.

I MEAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY STRAIGHT UP TOLD EU LEADERS THAT IT WAS, QUOTE, HUMILIATING FOR EUROPE THAT UKRAINE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH ARTILLERY LARGELY BECAUSE EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE ARTILLERY THAT OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE NORTH KOREA, LIKE PERHAPS IRAN ARE PROVIDING RUSSIA AT THE MOMENT.

EVELYN FARKAS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

THANKS FOR WAITING TO COME BACK.

>> THANK YOU, BIANNA.

>>> WELL, WE TURN NOW TO A MAJOR LITERARY MOMENT.

TEN YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH, THE ICONIC AUTHOR GABRIEL GARCIA MARQUEZ FINAL NOVEL HAS BEEN RELEASED BUT IT HASN'T COME WITHOUT CONTROVERSY.

"UNTIL AUGUST" WAS WRITTEN WHEN THE NOBLE LAUREATE HAD DEMENTIA AND IN HIS FINAL YEARS OF LIFE.

JUST BEFORE HIS DEATH, HE ASKED HIS SONS TO DESTROY THE MANUSCRIPT, BELIEVING IT UNWORTHY OF HIS BODY OF WORK.

INSTEAD, THEY SAW THE BEAUTY IN IT AND DEFYING HIS WISHES, HAVE SHARED IT WITH THE WORLD.

ONE OF THOSE SONS, RODRIGO GARCIA, JOINS ME FROM MEXICO CITY.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

IT'S REALLY GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

SO THIS BOOK WAS FIRST PUBLISHED ON MARCH 6th IN SPANISH AND THEN RELEASED ABOUT A WEEK LATER IN ENGLISH.

JUST WALK US THROUGH THE PROCESS OF YOU AND YOUR BROTHER CHOOSING TO DEFY YOUR FATHER'S WISHES AND SAY, NO, THIS IS A BOOK THAT'S WORTHY FOR THE WORLD TO SEE, WRITTEN BY YOUR BELOVED FATHER.

>> HI.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

YOU KNOW, MY DAD WORKED ON THIS FOR 10, 12, MAYBE EVEN LONGER, WHICH WAS UNLIKE HIM.

I THINK THE TIME IT TOOK HIM TO WORK ON A NOVEL THAT IS ESSENTIALLY 110, 120 PAGES, WAS SYMPTOMATIC WITH HIS ALZHEIMER'S AND LOSS OF MEMORY AND LOSS OF HIS CAPABILITIES.

IN THE END, I THINK AFTER MUCH BACK AND FORTH, AND NOT AT THE VERY END, BUT, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO THE END, HE SAID THE BOOK DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

THE BOOK SHOULD BE DESTROYED.

BUT HE NEVER DESTROYED IT, WHICH WAS RARE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE ONLY -- HE FINISHED EVERY BOOK HE STARTED, OR IF HE WASN'T HAPPY WITH IT, HE WOULD DESTROY IT.

THERE ARE NO UNFINISHED BOOKS.

THERE ARE NO UNPUBLISHED BOOKS EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE.

WE PUT THE BOOK AWAY AFTER HE DIED.

IT'S AT THE RANSOM CENTER IN TEXAS.

AND AFTER A FEW YEARS, IT WAS SCANNED, AND IT WAS AVAILABLE FOR, YOU KNOW, SCHOLARS AND STUDENTS OF MY FATHER'S WORK.

SO ESSENTIALLY IT WAS BEING READ ALREADY, AND SOME PEOPLE TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF A PAGE OR TWO OR COPIED A PAGE OR TWO BY HAND IN ORDER TO REPRODUCE IT.

SO WE STARTED THINKING, WELL, IF PEOPLE ARE READING IT, WE SHOULD READ IT AGAIN AND CONSIDER PUBLISHING IT.

AND WHEN WE READ IT, WE FOUND THAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS MUCH BETTER THAN HE COULD PROBABLY JUDGE AT THE END OF HIS LIFE.

I MEAN IT IS UNFINISHED.

IT'S NOT AS POLISHED AS HIS GREAT BOOKS, AND THAT BAR IS HIGH OF COURSE.

YOU KNOW, 100 YEARS OF SOLITUDE AND LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA.

BUT WE THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY ENJOYABLE PIECE AND THAT HIS READERS WOULD ENJOY LISTENING TO HIS VOICE ONE LAST TIME.

SO WE DISOBEYED, THE WAY CHILDREN SOMETIMES DO.

>> AND YOU NOTE HIS OTHER WORKS, THAT HE WOULD DO AWAY WITH, RIGHT?

THAT HE WOULDN'T KEEP THEM IF HE WASN'T HAPPY WITH THE WORK.

AND YET HE HAD A FOLDER WITH THE FIFTH MANUSCRIPT LABELED GREAT, OKAY, FINAL, AND HE EVEN PUBLISHED CHAPTERS.

I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND READING PERHAPS A COUPLE OF LINES FOR US?

>> YEAH.

THIS IS FROM CHAPTER ONE, THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK.

HE RETURNED TO THE ISLAND ON FRIDAY, AUGUST 16th ON THE 3:00 FERRY.

SHE WAS WEARING JEANS, A PLAID SHIRT, PLAIN FLAT SHOES WITHOUT SOCKS, CARRYING A SATIN PARASOL AND A HANDBAG, AND HER ONLY LUGGAGE WAS A BEACH BAG.

IN THE ROW OF TAXIS AT THE DOCK, SHE WENT STRAIGHT TO AN OLD MODEL CORRODED BY THE SEA AIR.

THE DRIVER WELCOMED HER WARMLY AND TOOK HER JOLTING ACROSS THE DESTITUTE VILLAGE WITH HIS MUD WALLED SHACKS, PALM THATCHED ROOFS AND STREETS OF BURNING SAND BESIDE A SEA IN FLAMES.

>> THIS BOOK IS A DEPARTURE FROM HIS PREVIOUS WRITING STYLES.

FOR THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE A FEMALE PROTAGONIST, A WOMAN IN HER 40s BY THE NAME OF ANNA, WHO PURSUES LOVE AFFAIRS EVERY YEAR WHEN SHE GOES TO VISIT HER MOTHER'S GRAVE, DESPITE HAVING A FAMILY OF HER OWN AND A STABLE MARRIAGE.

WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT YOUR FATHER WENT DOWN THIS PATH AND CHOSE THIS SPECIFIC TOPIC TO WRITE ABOUT?

>> NO.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS A FAIRLY OLD IDEA.

I REMEMBER HEARING -- YOU KNOW, HE NEVER SPOKE TO US IN DETAIL ABOUT HIS WRITING, BUT HE WOULD GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF AN IDEA.

AND THIS I REMEMBER HEARING EASILY, YOU KNOW, 15, 20 YEARS BEFORE HE DIED, THE STORY OF A WOMAN WHO WOULD VISIT HER MOTHER'S GRAVE YEARLY, WITHOUT GOING INTO MORE DETAILS.

AND ALTHOUGH IT'S TRUE THAT HE ONLY HAS ONE OR TWO SHORT STORIES WITH WOMEN IN THE CENTER, YOU KNOW, HE IS WELL KNOWN FOR HAVING VERY STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS, AND I THINK 100 YEARS OF SOLITUDE AND LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA, THEY'RE ALL FULL OF STRONG WOMEN.

BUT, YES, THIS WAS UNUSUAL AND ALSO THE SETTING IS MORE CONTEMPORARY.

HIS BOOKS SEEMED TO EXIST ALWAYS IN A KIND OF TIME OUT OF TIME IN SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE COLOMBIA.

BUT THIS WAS NOT SPECIFIC ABOUT PLACE BUT SPECIFIC ABOUT TIME AND MORE CONTEMPORARY.

SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD ADDITION TO HIS CANON, EVEN THOUGH LIKE MY BROTHER AND I SAID IN THE PROLOGUE, WE'RE AWARE THAT IT'S NOT AS POLISHED A BOOK AS I'M SURE HE WOULD HAVE LIKED.

>> AS YOU SAID, THE BAR IS VERY HIGH, COMPARING IT TO HIS OTHER WORKS.

IT'S A HIGH-CLASS PROBLEM TO HAVE.

THAT NOTWITHSTANDING, IT'S NOT THE ONLY BOOK BY AN ACCOMPLISHED AUTHOR THAT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED POSTHUMOUSLY AND WHEN THERE HAD BEEN INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN NOT TO DO SO.

FRANZ KAFKA COMES TO MIND.

I'M WONDERING, THOUGH, IF YOU AND YOUR BROTHER WERE PREPARED TO GET SORT OF THE CRITICISM OR QUESTIONING OF YOUR DECISION TO DO SO, AND WERE YOU WORRIED AT ALL THAT THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORK ITSELF?

>> WELL, LET ME SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES FOR A GREAT HEADLINE.

YOU KNOW, SONS BETRAY FAMOUS FATHER.

BUT THE TRUTH IS THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY ARTICLES AND SO MANY REVIEWS THAT SAY, LIKE WE SAID IN THE PROLOGUE, THIS IS NOT ONE OF HIS GREAT BOOKS, BUT IT'S TOTALLY WORTH READING, AND THERE'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, IMNUMEROUS ARTICLES THAT SAY I'M VERY THANKFUL THAT THIS WAS PUBLISHED.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE CONTROVERSY, OF COURSE, ALWAYS TAKES THE FOREGROUND.

I WOULDN'T SAY ON THE WHOLE THAT WE'VE TAKEN A BEATING.

AND IF WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

YOU KNOW, WE FEEL A LITTLE BETTER BY THE FACT THAT MY DAD ALWAYS CLEAR, WHEN I'M DAD, DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.

HE SAID THAT ALWAYS ABOUT EVERYTHING.

>> I SAW THAT.

>> WE HAVE THAT, YES, AT LEAST.

>> BY THE WAY, YOU HAVE EACH OTHER.

THIS IS A DECISION THAT YOU BOTH CAME TO, YOU KNOW, TOGETHER.

SO YOU HAVE THAT AS WELL.

I WONDER IF YOU THINK THAT YOU WOULD HAVE COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION IF YOU WEREN'T AS CONVINCED THAT THE REAL SETBACK THAT HE FACED FROM HIS DEMENTIA HADN'T REALLY STARTED WHEN HE HAD BEEN WORKING THROUGH THE MAJORITY OF THIS BOOK.

>> IF HE HAD BEEN EVEN, YOU KNOW, 80% THERE, HE WOULD HAVE EITHER FINISHED THIS BOOK, PURSUING PERFECTION LIKE HE ALWAYS DID, OR HE WOULD HAVE DESTROYED IT.

HE NEVER LEFT UNFINISHED WORK.

SO THE FACT THAT THE BOOK IS NOT ONLY UNFINISHED BUT ABANDONED AND FORGOTTEN, YOU KNOW, GAVE US GREAT CONFIDENCE THAT IT WASN'T, YOU KNOW, THE GREAT WRITER AT HIS BEST SAYING, THIS MUST BE DESTROYED BECAUSE THAT GREAT WRITER WOULD HAVE DESTROYED IT LIKE HE DESTROYED EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS NEVER PUBLISHED.

>> THIS APRIL WILL MARK TEN YEARS SINCE YOUR FATHER'S PASSING.

"UNTIL AUGUST" NOW WILL BE KNOWN AS HIS FINAL PIECE OF WORK.

HOW DO YOU WANT HIS FOLLOWERS, HIS FANS, MAYBE EVEN FIRST-TIME READERS TO REFLECT UPON HIM AS YOU COME UPON THIS TEN-YEAR MARK?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M STILL SURPRISED, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN I GO TO COLOMBIA, SOMETIMES WHEN HIS NAME COMES UP IN ANY CONTEXT, YOU KNOW, HOW HIS REPUTATION AS A GREAT WRITER HAS NOT WANED AT ALL, EVEN WITH YOUNGER READERS.

AND CERTAINLY WHENEVER I -- YOU KNOW, I OFTEN SEE YOUNGER -- AND BY YOUNGER, I MEAN ANY WRITERS UNDER 50, 40, 30 EVEN -- YOU KNOW, LIST GREAT BOOKS, THEY WILL VERY FREQUENTLY LIST 100 YEARS AND LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA.

SO I THINK HIS REPUTATION IS STILL VERY GOOD, FINDING NEW READERS ALL THE TIME.

HE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SAY, LIKE HE DID SAY TO US, YOU KNOW, WHEN BOOKS ARE A CLASSIC 200 OR 300 YEARS LATER, WE WILL SEE.

WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE THIS INTERVIEW IN 100 YEARS AND LOOK AT IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, HE KNEW THAT LIFE AND TIME WERE VERY CAPRICIOUS AND WHETHER OR NOT 100 YEARS OF SOLITUDE WAS A MASTERPIECE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE A COUPLE CENTURIES AWAY FROM THAT.

>> FINAL SECONDS WE HAVE, LOOKING BACK, I KNOW YOU TOUCHED ON IT IN YOUR MEMOIR ABOUT YOUR PARENTS AS WELL.

DO YOU THINK YOUR FATHER WAS TOO HARD ON HIMSELF?

>> HE WAS AS HARD ON HIMSELF AS GREAT ARTISTS ARE.

YOU KNOW, THEY ARE PERFECTIONISTS.

HE WAS OF COURSE NEVER A PERFECTIONIST TO THE POINT THAT IT PARALYZED HIM.

BUT, YEAH, HE HARDLY EVER SHOWED WORK IN PROGRESS.

HE DID WORK ON THIS IN PROGRESS WITH THE EDITOR WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THIS EDITION, I THINK BECAUSE HE WAS STRUGGLING WITH HIS MEMORY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, HE WAS NO MORE OF A PERFECTIONIST THAN ANY OTHER GREAT AND EVEN NOT SO GREAT ARTIST, YOU KNOW.

IT CAN'T BE HELPED.

>> RODRIGO GARCIA, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR SHARING YOUR FATHER WITH US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> WE TURN NEXT TO A BOLD REINVENTION OF SHAKESPEARE AND ONE OF THE UK'S GREATEST ACTING TALENTS.

IAN McKELLEN HAS TAKEN ON THE ICONIC ROLE OF FALSTAFF IN A IN ADAPTITION OF HENRY IV.

IT'S ABOUT TO START ITS RUN IN THE WEST END AND THIS WEEK ANNOUNCED IT WILL ALSO TOUR AROUND ENGLAND.

TODAY WE REVISIT A CONVERSATION CHRISTIANE AND McKELLEN HAD IN 2018 AT THE DUKE OF YORK THEATRE WHERE HE WAS PLAYING KING LEAR AT THE TIME.

CHRISTIANE STARTED BY ASKING HIM WHAT LIES BEHIND THE ENDURING ATTRACTION OF SHAKESPEARE.

>> THERE IS SO MUCH IN EVERY SCENE OF A SHAKESPEARE PLAY WHICH IS RELEVANT TO LIFE, LIVING, HUMANITY.

>> MM-HMM.

>> OF COURSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE OUTDATED NOW LIKE KINGS AND QUEENS, BUT THERE ARE PRESIDENTS WHO DO HAVE POWER AND THEY'RE TYRANTS, AND SHAKESPEARE'S VERY, VERY INTERESTED IN PEOPLE WHO HAVE POWER, AND HE WANTS TO TELL YOU WHAT THEY'RE REALLY LIKE AND WHAT A DANGEROUS THING IT IS TO HAVE TOO MUCH POWER.

AND KING LEAR IS SUCH A MAN.

HE'S A VERY FOOLISH MAN.

HE MAKES SOME SILLY MISTAKES.

HE'S NOT A CRUEL MAN.

I MEAN HE HASN'T KILLED PEOPLE AS FAR AS WE CAN SEE.

BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH HIS DAUGHTERS.

WE DON'T HEAR ABOUT A MRS. LEAR.

BUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE COME SEE THIS AND SAY, YOU WERE EXACTLY LIKE MY GRANDDAD WHEN HE WAS DYING.

HE WENT A BIT DOTTY TOO.

OR AN AMERICAN CAME ALONG AND SAID IT'S ALL ABOUT TRUMP, ISN'T IT?

I DON'T GET THAT AT ALL, BUT AN AUDIENCE BRINGS TO IT THEIR OWN LIFE, AND THEY MEASURE THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE, FAMILY EXPERIENCE, POLITICS, WHATEVER THEIR INTEREST IS, AND MATCH IT AGAINST THE EXPERIENCE OF THE CHARACTERS THAT THEY'RE SEEING ACT OUT THEIR STORY.

THAT'S THE WAY IN WHICH YOU ENGAGE.

AND SHAKESPEARE REMAINS PERSISTENTLY MODERN, CONTEMPORARY, AND THAT WAS HIS GENIUS, THAT HE KNEW MORE ABOUT US AND THE OTHER PERSON WHOEVER LIVED, WHETHER WE WERE A SERVANT OR A DICTATOR, WHETHER A MAN OR A WOMAN, WHATEVER WE HAPPENED TO BE.

HE KNEW.

>> HONESTLY, IT IS INCREDIBLE YOU SHOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE EVERYBODY NOW IS FEELING IN A STATE OF HEIGHTENED POLITICAL ANXIETY.

THERE'S SO MUCH ANXIETY AROUND THE WORLD.

AN AUTHOR, WHO'S ASSOCIATED ALSO WITH HARVARD UNIVERSITY, STEPHEN GREENBLATT, HAS WRITTEN A PIECE OF WORK CALLED "THE TYRANT AND HIS ENABLERS", AND HE PROFILES RICHARD III.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY A VERY THINLY DISGUISED ATTEMPT TO MAKE RICHARD III INTO DONALD TRUMP AS THE MODERN RICHARD III.

YOU HAVE PLAYED RICHARD III, NOTABLY IN THE, YOU KNOW, ICONIC FILM VERSION OF IT.

DO YOU SEE THAT?

>> NO.

>> AT ALL?

>> I DON'T, BUT I WOULDN'T CONTRADICT SOMEBODY ELSE WHO DID.

THEY ARE BOTH KINGS.

WHAT DOES CONNECT THEM, I SUPPOSE, IS AN INNATE INADEQUACY.

RICHARD III HAD A DREADFUL MOTHER IN THAT SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A CHILD WHO WAS PHYSICALLY DEFORMED AND SAYS TO HIS FACE LATER IN LIFE, I'VE ALWAYS HATED YOU FROM THE MOMENT I CONCEIVED YOU AND FROM THE MOMENT YOU WERE BORN.

I'VE HATED YOU.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY THAT TO YOUR BABY AND EXPECT HIM TO GROW UP TO BE A NORMAL, LOVING PERSON.

HE'S DISCOVERED HATE AT A VERY EARLY AGE.

WHAT IT IS IN TRUMP'S BACKGROUND WHICH MAKES LYING SO EASY, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT I WOULD MAKE THAT CONNECTION THAT YOU COULD DELVE INTO THE BACKSTORY OF A PRESIDENT OR A KING AND FIND THAT THAT WAS THE MOST RELEVANT SOURCE OF TRUTH ABOUT THEM.

TRUMP HAS THE WHOLE WORLD AT HIS FEET, AND HE CONTACTS THEM THROUGH TELEVISION.

HE'S A TELEVISION PERFORMER, AND HE LEARNT FROM THAT HOW TO GET PEOPLE'S ATTENTION, AND HE SUCCEEDED.

HE RIVETS OUR ATTENTION AS WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND.

AND MY FEAR IS THAT IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, EVENTUALLY WE WILL BECOME SYMPATHETIC AND SAY, WELL, BLESS HIM.

MAYBE HE'S RIGHT.

AND AN AFFECTION GROWS.

>> I'M GETTING BACK TO YOU AS AN ACTOR THEN.

DO YOU DO IT FOR FUN, OR DO YOU EQUALLY RESPECT THE MOVIE PROFESSION, THE MOVIE CRAFT AS YOU DO THE ONSTAGE THEATER CRAFT?

BECAUSE YOU HAVE GONE GLOBAL AND STRATOSPHERIC IN YOUR RENOWN BY PLAYING MOVIES, BY PLAYING GANDALF, BY PLAYING MAGNETO IN X-MEN.

>> I WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST ACTOR TO CARICATURE OUR BUSINESSES.

YOU DO FILMS FOR MONEY.

YOU DO TELEVISION FOR FAME.

BUT THE REAL THING IS ACTING IN THE THEATER.

WHAT'S REAL ABOUT IT IS THE PRESENCE OF THE AUDIENCE OF COURSE.

SO IT'S A SHARED EXPERIENCE.

IF THERE'S NO AUDIENCE, THERE'S NO PLAY.

IF THERE'S NO AUDIENCE, THERE'S STILL THE FILM.

IT JUST ROLLS ON.

IT'S DEAD IN A SENSE.

THE AUDIENCE CANNOT AFFECT THE OUTCOME.

BUT IN THE THEATER, YES, THEY CAN STOP A PERFORMANCE WITH APPLAUSE.

THEY CAN MAKE THEIR EXPERIENCE AUDIBLE TO THE ACTORS, WHICH WE RELISH.

I WANT MY BREATH, WHICH STARTS DOWN THERE, TO PASS ACROSS THE VERY INTIMATE PARTS OF ONE'S BODY, OUT ALONG THROUGH THE AIRWAVES, MEASURABLE, AND ON TO THE EARDRUM OF THE AUDIENCE.

AND THERE IS A DIRECT COMMUNICATION.

THAT IS LIFE.

THAT'S PEOPLE MEETING EACH OTHER, AND IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TO YOU IF YOU'RE ACTING FOR THE CAMERA.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS SO MANY PEOPLE APPRECIATE ABOUT YOU, APART FROM YOUR ACTING, IS YOUR ACTIVISM, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN BRAVE ENOUGH TO COME OUT AS GAY.

ON RADIO 3 IN 1988, YOU CAME OUT, AND IT WAS A QUESTION BY THE RADIO INTERVIEWER, WHO SAID, DID YOU WANT TO SEE ARTICLE OR CLAUSE 28 DISAPPEAR.

AND THAT CLAUSE WAS A PREVENTION, A BAN ON SCHOOLS, I BELIEVE, PROMOTING OR EXPLAINING, YOU KNOW, HOMOSEXUALITY, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID.

>> SO YOU WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE CLAUSE 28 DISAPPEAR ALTOGETHER?

>> OH, YES, I CERTAINLY WOULD, YES.

I THINK IT'S OFFENSIVE TO ANYONE WHO'S, LIKE MYSELF, HOMOSEXUAL.

>> ISN'T IT INTERESTING I USE THE WORD HOMOSEXUAL?

GAY, I WOULD SAY.

I WAS LEARNING HOW TO BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS, I SUPPOSE.

HADN'T QUITE GOT THE LANGUAGE.

BUT I WAS 49.

WHAT'S BRAVE ABOUT COMING OUT AT 49?

I SUPPOSE AT A TIME WHEN MUCH ACTIVITY FOR GAY PEOPLE WAS ILLEGAL IN THE COUNTRY, THE EXPECTATION WAS THAT YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR JOB OR THE RESPECT OF OTHERS, INCLUDING FRIENDS AND FAMILY IF YOU CAME OUT.

NONE OF THAT HAPPENED TO ME.

MY FILM CAREER TOOK OFF WHEN I CAME OUT.

>> BUT HOLLYWOOD IS NOT NECESSARILY KNOWN FOR BEING AT THE SHARP EDGE OF CHANGE.

AGAIN, THIS IS MAYBE A LONG TIME AGO, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY KNOWN FOR THEIR SOCIAL COMMENTARY, ARE THEY?

THEY ONLY RECENTLY DISCOVERED THERE WERE BLACK PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.

HOLLYWOOD HAS MISTREATED WOMEN THROUGHOUT HISTORY, AND GAY MEN DON'T EXIST.

>> THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THAT WAS TRUE, AND THEN HOLLYWOOD WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF TELLING A FANTASY ABOUT THE WORLD, NOT THE REAL WORLD.

YOU KNOW, I VISIT SCHOOLS QUITE A LOT.

I'M VERY LUCKY TO DO THAT.

AND I'M ALLOWED TO GO IN, QUITE CONTEMPORARY TO THAT DREADFUL SECTION 28 THAT WE GOT RID OF.

IT IS NOW AGAINST THE LAW IN BRITISH SCHOOLS TO DISCRIMINATE ON GROUNDS OF SEXUALITY.

SO SUDDENLY SCHOOLS ARE NOW HAVING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS TO BE GAY AND UNDERSTAND IT.

THAT'S GOOD BECAUSE THERE ARE GAY TEACHERS.

THERE ARE GAY PARENTS.

THERE ARE GAY CHILDREN.

THERE ARE GAY GOVERNMENTS, AND THERE ARE GAY VISITORS LIKE ME.

>> I WANT TO PICK UP ON WHAT YOU SAID.

YOU VISIT SCHOOLS.

YOU'VE ALSO BEEN TO OXFORD.

MY PRODUCER, BEN, WHO IS HERE AND WHO HELPED ME WITH THIS RESEARCH, WAS AT ONE OF YOUR SPEECHES, AND HE RECALLS A YOUNG MAN STANDING UP.

HE WANTED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, AND HE JUST CAME OUT TO YOU.

>> OH, YOU MAKE ME CRY, YES.

YES, HE CAME OUT.

HE WAS LIKE A REVIVALIST, YOU KNOW, BILLY GRAHAM, COME FORWARD AND YOU'LL BE SAVED.

I SUPPOSE I'D BE SPEAKING SO POSITIVELY ABOUT MY OWN EXPERIENCE FOR BEING AN OPENLY GAY MAN THAT HE FELT THIS WAS THE MOMENT FOR HIM TO JOIN IN.

AND, YES, HE CAME OUT, AND OF COURSE RECEIVED HUGE RECEPTION.

>> YOU'RE THE FIRST OPENLY GAY MAN TO BE KNIGHTED BY THE QUEEN.

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND, I'M SORRY.

>> THE FIRST WAS ANGUS WILSON, THE NOVELIST.

>> BUT MAYBE YOU WERE THE FIRST OPENLY GAY FAMOUS PERSON.

>> WELL, THAT WAS A SIGN OF THE TIMES.

MY CAREER AS AN ACTOR, WHICH IT WAS THOUGHT TO BE WORTHY OF A KNIGHTHOOD COULD NOT BE IMPEDED BY THE FACT I HAD SAID I WAS GAY.

AND I'LL TELL YOU A STORY.

IT'S RATHER LONG, SO YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO INCLUDE IT.

BUT I WAS PLAYING RICHARD III IN PARIS, HAVING BREAKFAST, CROISSANT, COFFEE IN MY SINGLE BED.

WE WERE WAITING FOR PRIME MINISTER THATCHER TO EMERGE.

THE PHONE RANG, AND THEY SAID THIS IS DOWNING STREET.

I SAID, YES, ISN'T IT FUN, ASSUMING IT WAS A MEMBER OF THE COMPANY.

I SAID WHY DON'T YOU COME DOWN?

HE SAID, NO, NO, THIS IS DOWNING STREET.

OH, I'M SORRY.

YES, THE PRIME MINISTER HAS BEEN TRYING TO GET A HOLD OF YOU BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO KNOW IF YOU WOULD ACCEPT A KNIGHT HOOD FROM THE QUEEN.

I SAID, OH, YES.

ALL RIGHT.

I'LL THINK ABOUT IT.

AND I PUT THE PHONE DOWN, AND AS I DID THAT, THE DOOR OF DOWNING STREET OPENED AND OUT CAME MRS. THATCHER, FAMOUSLY CRYING.

AND I THOUGHT, MY GOD, SHE'S BEEN WAITING BEHIND THAT DOOR TO KNOW WHETHER I'M GOING TO ACCEPT A KNIGHTHOOD BEFORE ACTUALLY RESIGNING FROM BEING PRIME MINISTER.

SO THE VERY, VERY LAST THING SHE DID WAS TO GIVE ME A KNIGHTHOOD.

AND OF COURSE SHE WAS A SUPPORTER OF SECTION 28, BUT THERE WAS AN INDICATION TO ME THE WORLD ACTUALLY WAS CHANGING.

>> THAT IS INCREDIBLE.

>> AND SHE COULD NOT CONTROL IT.

>> LET US WRAP UP WITH A LITTLE SHAKESPEARE.

WHAT ARE YOU THINKING NOW AS YOU'VE JUST OPENED KING LEAR HERE IN LONDON, IN THE THEATER WHERE YOU DID YOUR FIRST EVER PERFORMANCE?

WHAT DO YOU FEEL ALL THESE YEARS LATER?

>> IT USED TO BE DOING A MATINEE OF EIGHT SHOW A WEEK, I WOULD PEEP THROUGH THE CURTAIN TO LOOK AT THE AUDIENCE, JUST TO REMIND MYSELF WHY WE WERE THERE.

WE'RE DOING IT FOR THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER SEEN THE PLAY BEFORE.

THEY NEED TO HEAR IT AFRESH.

THE FACT THAT I'VE DONE IT A SCORE OF TIMES IS IRRELEVANT.

I MUST MAKE IT FRESH.

IT MUST BE LIVE.

AND USUALLY MY EYE WOULD CHANCE ON A KID OF 14 OR 15.

WHY WERE THEY THERE?

WHO HAD BROUGHT THEM?

DID THEY COME ON THEIR OWN AS I USED TO?

IT IS FOR THEM I DO IT.

FOR THE ALERT 14-YEAR-OLD.

AND I WAS REWARDED THE OTHER NIGHT COMING OUT TO THE DUKE OF YORK THEATRE, AND THERE WAS SUCH A LITTLE BOY.

I THINK HE BROUGHT HIS PARENTS.

I THINK HE WANTED TO SEE GANDALF, BUT HE SAW KING LEAR.

>> THEY'RE NOT THAT DIFFERENT.

>> THEY'RE BOTH OLD.

SO, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE IT'S A THRILL TO PLAY TO OLD PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF, PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN MANY KING LEARS, AND FEEL THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOT IT.

THEY STILL WANT MORE.

BUT THEN TO CAPTURE THE MIND AND THE HEART AND AFFECT THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON AND THAT THEY DISCOVER LIVE THEATER EARLY ON, I THINK THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME THE MOST EXCITEMENT.

>> WELL, AND YOU GIVE THAT EXCITEMENT BACK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> SIR IAN McKELLEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.

>>> THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW EACH NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WATCHING "AMANPOUR & CO." ON PBS.

JOIN US AGAIN NEXT TIME.

♪