tv Charlie Rose PBS June 29, 2012 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin with the significant day at the supreme court. and the coverage from cbs evening news with scott pelley. >> we continue with analysis of the decision by the court from lawrence tribe, constitutional law professor at harvard law school. >> chief justice roberts had a very broad vision in this case, not only of the affordable care act of which he was undoubtedly not a fan, not only of the taxing power, which is in the constitution, but probably not his favorite clause, but of the court and its role as chief justice i think he recognized he had the responsibility, seeing the court come into increasing public question to take a step that would reinforce public respect for the court and i think he must have had that in mind as he searched for a way to resolve this case. >> and the political ramifications from mark halperin, editor at large for time magazine. >> for governor romney there are people in wasngton today
saying this is horrible for him, he doesn't want to talk about healthcare, he want to talk about the economy, when guy out with governor romney and he talks about healthcare and appeal obama care he does it in the context of the economy and gets the most emotional response of pretty much anything he talks about, republicans now have the additional unexpected issue of the highlight and the focus on the tax increases, in obama care, and so i think governor romney will say as he has been saying this bill is too expensive, it is too bureaucratic and a bad idea. >> rose: we turn now to the new film the amazing spider-man and the qualification with the director marc webb and the film's two stars, andrew garfield and emma stone. >> i think he is created for everybody, i think peter parker what makes spider-man so accessible is i mean he is relatable, sea kid and the he has the same problems we all have, he has problems talking to girls, he has to do chores for aunt may, he is not a billionaire or an alien, sea kid
like all of us and there is an accessibility that goes across all of as they say all the quadrants. >> historic day at the supreme court, and a new spider-man when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. those farmers, those workers, those fishermen. for me it is really about building this extraordinary community, american express is passionate about the same thing, we are one of those partners that helps guide you, whether finding new customers or a new location for my next restaurant. we all come together, by restaurants, by partners, communities, amazing things happen, to me that is the membership effect.
>> rose: additional funding provided by these funders. >> and by bloomberg a provider of multimedia and news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: the entire country has been hearing about it, arguing about it, but fair to say, no one saw this coming. the conservative chief justice of the united states today single-handedly saved the most important domestic achievement of a liberal president, john roberts sided with the four liberal justices voting five to four to uphold nearly all of president obama's healthcare law, and leaving his
conservative colleagues to join the dissenting opinion. at the heart of the law is what is called the individual mandate, it requires americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. that was found constitutional, other parts of the law also stand. insurance companies cannot disqualify people who have a preexisting illness, they can't raise rates on the chronically sick and children can remain on their parent's plans until the age of 26. there was one setback for the law, the court said that congress cannot force the states to expand medicaid to cover more of the poor. we have a team of correspondents covering the story, our chief legal correspondent jan crawford is at the supreme court and, jan, it was a complicated decision today, the majority rejected the president's main argument, but still found a way to support his law. >> well, that's right, scott, for a lot of people the central question in this case was
whether or not congress could force you to buy a product. here insurance from a private company, and today the court said congress did have that kind of power. so while they upheld the law, they still imposed significant restrictions on what congress can do going forward. >> proponents cheered when they heard supreme court went too far when they said too. >> five of the justices chief justice john roberts and the court's four conservatives agreed congress could not order people to buy something like private health insurance, that was something congress had never before done. the obama administration had argued congress could require insurance as part of its broad power to regulate commerce. but roberts and the conservatives disagreed. >> roberts, under the government's logic that authorizes congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act. >> but that was only the first
part of roberts decision. outside the courtroom, the mood quickly changed when it became clear that a different line of the justices had concluded congress could require insurance by taxing people who didn't have it. as roberts explained, the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance, the federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. >> on that key last point roberts parted ways with conservatives and joined the court's liberals to uphold the bulk of the healthcare raw. the court based its decision on a theory that no lower court had accepted and supported the law was a long shot, congress had authority to pass the individual mandate as a result of its constitutional power to lay and collect taxes. the healthcare law goes to great lengths to call call the mandate a penalty, not a tax, but the justices said it functioned as one just the same and therefore it was constitutional.
because the constitution permits such a tax it is not our role to forbid it or pass upon its wisdom or fairness, justices anton scalia, kennedy, thomas and alito issued an unusual joint dissent united in opposition and said the law should be invalidated in its entirety under any constitutional provision. in a 65 page dissent they repeatedly said the law exceeds federal power and accused the court of vast judicial overreaching to uphold the mandate as a tax and contrary to the specific words in the healthcare law. >> to say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpreter the a statute but to rewrite it. now justice kennedy read aloud parts of that dissent from the bench and going into this decision today many people thought if the court were going to uphold most of this law it would be justice kennedy providing a key decisive vote, but today justice kennedy was the conservative and it was john roberts giving that fifth vote
with the liberal toss-up told president signature achievement. >> rose: it was a historic day at the supreme court, the court reached its much anticipated decision on president obama's healthcare law in a five to four ruling the court uphold the major provisions possess the healthcare overhaul, including the mandate that requires most americans to purchase insurance. roberts offered a crucial fifth vote to uphold the law it has profound implications for the legacy of its court, it said it can mandate taxing powers to buy insurance. it was seen as a victory for president obama and democrats, legislative achievement of president obama's term here is the president speaking earlier today about the historic ruling. >> i know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all of this, about who won and who lost. it is how these things tend to be viewed here in washington but
that discussion completely misses the point. whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure of this law, and the supreme court's decision to uphold it. >> rose: republican presidential candidate mitt romney strowed to strike down the law if elected. >> if we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace obama compare, that is my mission, that is our work, and i am asking the people of america to join me, if you don't want the course president obama has put us on and you want instead a course the founders envisioned join me in this effort and help us, defeat obama care and help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too inthrough receive and is killing jobs across this great country. >> rose: questions remain over how the ruling will effect the 2012 presidential race, we talk about that later but first from cambridge, constitutional law professor larry tribe at hear
extraoinary law school one of the best known constitutional lawyers in country, i am pleased to have him here on this program this evening, welcome. >> you have watched the supreme court for a long time, characterize this day. >> well, i think it is a historic day, it is really the coming into its own over the roberts court, it is a great day not only for the millions of people who will be able to get health insurance as a result of the outcome of this decision, but it is a great day for those people who were really worried the court was teetering on the edge of the abyss, it lost a lot of credibility in the bush versus gore, it lost more credibility in citizens united, people were beginning to wonder whether this was just a political institution in black robes. and i continued to say that i thought that although i disagreed with some of its decisions, it was an institution that was playing a principal role, and a role at the heart of
politics and i think by upholding the affordable care act, the roberts court has made an enormous set of strides both in its own credibility and in having the united states join the other industrialized countries which have universal healthcare, i think it is a great day for the country, for the constitution, for the court and for john roberts personally. >> rose: okay. but suppose the court had said, we are striking down that provision, the individual mandate but we are upholding the constitutionality of the rest of it and separating that from the rest of the healthcare? >> well for one thing, when you read the joint opinion by justice scalia, alito, thomas and kennedy, you see that they were going to destroy the entire affordable care act, that is, they understandably said that it was not an easy judicial task to separate this one strand from the rest of the law. the obama administration had conceded if you get rid of this
mandate, which is the center piece of the law it is very hard to make the requirement that people with preexisting conditions and sick people be covered without discrimination. and when that goes, the dominos begin to fall, so the real choice was not between eliminating one little part of the law and coming out the way the court did. it was between the radical step of eliminating this entire complicated achievement which the united states had struggled for a century to accomplish, and coming out where the court ultimately did. i think seeing the choices in that stark way the chief justice recognized that both his legacy and the role of the court would be greatly jeopardized if the court were to take on this entire statute, and the chief justice really gave some clues,
the very first day of the oral argument that he was seeing it this way. i had written over a year ago that this is not a true mandate. it is a choice. people can either purchase health insurance or if they don't, they pay a higher tax so that they are not taking a free ride on the system. it was a conservative idea, it was an idea that had its origins in the republican party and the heritage foundation, an it was an idea that the chief justice seemed not so uncomfortable with when he asked questions on the first day about whether this was really a mandate at all. it was simply an adjustment in taxation. that is where he ended upcoming out and i think that was the judicious and the statesmanlike thing to do do to do. >> rose: you said this could be a big day on the evolution of chief roberts as a great chief justice. >> i think he could be, as with john marshall and i am not comparing john roberts to john marshall but as with john
marshal when he decided both marbury v madison and mccollough v maryland this is a case in which confrontation with the other branches was avoided, the court's ultimate role in revolving constitutional disputes was established and solidified and an important principle about the breadth of national legislative power, as when the court upheld the power in 1819 of congress to charter a national bank, all were established at the same time and i think what it takes in a great chief justice is to see moments like this as opportunities to both preserve and protect the court and the constitution without creating needless problems for the republican, republic and i think that is what greatness is in achieve justice. >> rose: was an argument presented to look at this individual mandate in this way? >> absolutely, it was not a central argument but the solicitor-general, though i think he got a bum rap for his
performance in the case, was very careful in his briefs to make clear that the court could, if it wanted to avoid a serious constitutional puzzle under the commerce clause, understand this simply as an adjustment to the federal income tax. and everyone realized if the law had been fully written that way from the beginning, then a court which had no trouble upholding the social security tax, medicare, medicaid, would have had to uphold this as well. it was only because congress went out of its way to involve the private insurance industry and to involve it in a way that used the tax code in order to incentivize people to purchase insurance that the opponents of the law were able to gin up a serious con, constitutional con situate to begin wit with. roberts said i won't take the bait.
>> rose: yes, he was careful was he not. >> he was a careful lawyer, a careful student and a careful lawyer i think thi it is apprope for the court to have been sloppy was wrong. it is not that i like everything about his opinion. he did join forces with the conservatives in raising questions about the breadth of the commerce power and the breadth of the power of congress to use its spending leverage to incentivize the states to act in different ways, and so there will be plenty of litigation that is spawned by this decision. the chief justice did not go as far as the obama administration asked him to go in upholding this law both under the commerce clause and under the taxing power, but i had argued as i think some others had about a year ago that he didn't really need to do that in order to uphold what congress had done. >> rose: what did you think of justice kennedy? >> well, i think those people
who see justice kennedy as a moderate would surely have been disappointed. he was, i thought, unfortunately willing to not only join justices scalia, alito and thomas but delivered his dissent from the bench. it was a dissent that was jointly written by all of them but the passionate commitment he has to states' rights was evident in the fact he was chosen to be the one who delivered the dissenting opinion from the bench. i think he made a terrible mistake. to have agreed with those justices who said that this law which clearly fix add massive national economic problem within congress's power to address, was unconstitutional, simply because it required people to purchase a product seemed to me to be wildly inconsistent with the history of the whole country. after all, george washington signed a law passed in 1796 that required all able-bodied males in the country to purchase fire
rms for the defense of the republic. the health of the nation is part of the defense of the republic. there was nothing dramatically unprecedented about making people purchase a product rather than take a free ride on the seasonal. it seems to me by not recognizing that, justice kennedy, along with those he joined didn't just make a minor error in judgment, he really made, you know, a terrible mistake. >> rose: do you believe that if scalia and the others had been able to buy the argument that this was a tax they would have bonn with justice roberts? >> i rather doubt it. i think from their point of view the taxing power, like the spending power, like the commerce power needs to be radically cut back, i mean, ever since the 1930s and the 1940s, the supreme court has treated each of these major sources of power, both individually and together, as affirming the
general authority of congress to cope with national problems as long as it doesn't violate the bill of rights or do anything that the states could not do to individuals. that has been a broad principle. it was affirmed in famous case about making farmers go on the open market to buy wheat that they could otherwise have grown for themselves. that decision was one that justice scalia, until this week, had accepted as good law, but this week he chose to publish a law that says that case, wick kerr versus fill burn was wrongly decided i think the justices that decided to cut back on congress's power would not be satisfied to cut it back under just one clause. i think it is their view that the whole new deal took a turn in a dramatically wrong direction and i think if they had a fifth vote they would enact that as the constitutional law of the united states. that is why one thing that is
underscotd by this decision is the enormous importance of whoever is named the next vacancy on the united states supreme court court, because the court is narrowly and closely divided five to four on whether congress is to have the kind of powers that it was recognized to have ever since the 1930s. >> rose: what did you think of what the court said about the medicaid expansion? >> well, i was distressed. i do think that the court avoided striking it down, but for the first time having a majority say that even when congress is not using its spending power as leverage over another program, there are serious limits to what congress can do, i think that is a very dangerous territory. because as justice kagan seem to recognize during the oral argument this is a huge bucket of money it is giving the states and should have the authority to tell the states how to spend that money. to say that congress is making an offer that the states can't
refuse, because the money is so attractive and the medicaid program is so huge, is essentially to denigrate the ability of the states to make a choice for themselves about whether to accept money or not accept it. this is not one of these offers, sort of your money or your life in which the states had any preexisting right to this money. so i think the underlying theory by which the court purported to limit the spending power is going to be very hard to carry out in a coherent way, but the bottom line is that the medicaid expansion survivors and i think that is terribly important. >> rose: so when you look at this at the end of the day, this essentially says that what the president wanted to do in the arena of healthcare will go forward? >> it says that and it says that whry president since theodore roosevelt, including conservative presidents like richard nixon, tried to do, will
go forrd, it is something we have struggled for a century to do. it is not a perfect system, it is a foundation that needs to be built and the developed carefully, but it would have been a disaster, i think for the court to have said, go back to the drawing board, start over, that is what would have happened if chief justice roberts had not cast his lot with the four justice whose thought that this was clearly constitutional. >> rose: do you think that this clearly is a case where chief justice roberts was aware of all of that, you know, and went out to search for the legal justification he could hang it on? >> well, you know, it seems to me clear that chief justice roberts had a very broad vision in this case, not only of the affordable care act of which he was undoubtedly not a fan, not only of the taxing power, which is in the constitution, but probably not his favorite clause, but of the court and its role as chief justice i think he recognized he had the
responsibility, seeing the court come and do increasing public question, to take a step that would reinforce public respect for the court and i think he must have had that in mind as he searched for a way to resolve this case. >> rose: larry tribe, thank you so much. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: pleasure to have you. >> pleasure to be with you. >> we will be right back and talk about the political implications for the politics of 2012. stay with us. for a political take on the supreme court's decision we turn to mark halperin, editor at large for time magazine. welcome. >> nice to be here, charlie. >> rose: so tell me how you see this for the president and for mitt romney. >> well, i think the president may well be hurt by this decision, because it is going to energize people against him, the law is unpopular but it is a better for him than the law being struck down i thought his statement was strong he needs to definite defend the law he can't run from this, he said today this is, i knew it might hurt
him politically it could hurt him again but he needs to embrace it and continue to explain it in the context of the campaign why he thought thi it a good idea for the country. there was people in washington saying this is horrible for romney and doesn't want to talk about healthcare but economy, when romney talks about healthcare and his vow to appeal obama care he does it in terms of the economy, it gets the most emotional response than what he talks about, the unexpected issue of the focus zero on the tax increases in obama care so i think governor romney will say as he has been saying this bill is too expensive and too bureaucratic and a bad idea, there is a reality in in debate, the law is unpopular, there are elements of it more popular than not but the mandate and the law overall is unpopular and that gives romney an advantage, it may not win him an election but an advantage going forward. >> i think people don't know everything in the law and part
of that is it has not all been phased in before the election. can the president by explaining it make it more popar? now what makes that a hard thing to do is that despite the ruling, whatever the ruling was going to be, there are a lot of republicans including mitt romney who will talk about obama care in their commercials, on the campaign trail mtheir debates, there are very few democrats, nancy pelosi is an exception, saying obama is care, vote for democrats we will keep implementing the law that will make it harder for the president to do, i think it will be harder for president if premiums go up between now and election day, now, it is not necessarily a fair judgment for people to make because the law hasn't been implemented but if it doesn't seem obama care is controlling costs, premiums for employees and employers, i think it will make it harder for him but he must try and embrace the law and convince the public it is a good idea. >> rose: where was the campaign at this moment in your
judgment? the president gained some ground, i assume on immigration by willing to be out front as he was? >> i think he gained ground with his immigration announcement a few days back for three reasons, one it helped him with hispanic voters, two it showed him acting decisively and one of the big challenges for the president as he deals with a range of issues coming up is people want him to be a strong leader and be a decisive leader, he hasn't been able to do that on the economy when he can do it on other issues that is good for him. and finally it exposed governor romney not necessarily for every voter but some people paying close attention to the immigration debate at least as one who is not being very specific and that criticism i think hurts him in the short-term unless he starts to be more specific, again, at least with people paying close attention i think either guy can win at this point, i still think the president has got an advantage, if you look at all of the polls and we had a lot of national polls and state polls after the president's bad run and he is in there, he is ahead in most national polls by a
little, he is ahead in the battleground states this most cases or even, he hasn't collapsed by any means, even after a bad run but he is not at 50 percent so there are two questions that will run all the way through, the battle to define mitt romney, and can barack obama get to 50 percent? he is not there yet and the normal rules of an incumbent it is difficult to go from 45 to 50, because people already know you, and if they were going to be for you they would be for you already, be by defining mitt romney if he he does it on his own term and a superior get on the ground and get the vote effort can get him there but he has the economy over hang and that's why he has to get the focus on mitt romney and not his record. >> rose: do they see the electorate different, these two candidates? >> well, i mean, to some extent, they do, in the sense that they have got different groups they are going to excel in, the president will excel with women and the romney will excel with women, obama nonwhite voters and
romney will excel with white voters, but you hear talks this is a base election. >> rose: right. >> it is not really about the center. it is both and always both and so i think the way they see the election most differently is the president both out of necessity and out of technical competence is thinking about the electorate in a microwave, how do we appeal to hispanics and single women, how do we appeal to blue collar workers with a targeted message governor romney again someone out,? what out of necessity he doesn't have a ground game built up over four years, it is a macro message, i can reach every group by simply saying, do you want four more years of the obama economy or go in a different direction? so you see that in the rhetoric and you see that in the tactics the campaigns use every day and the advertising and the surrogates, one is microand one is macro and that's easily the biggest difference between how they see the election and relating to the electorate.
>> rose: mark halperin, editor at large, time magazine, political analyst for msnbc, when we come back the director and cast of spider-man. 2012 the marks the an verse identify spider-man, created by stan lee and steve debt co in 1962 and made into a movie series by sam ramey 40 years later and the classic character is being rebooted with a new intirption by director marc webb. here is the trailer for the amazing spider-man. >> this life is not an easy one. i have maiden miss. i have made enemies, powerful enemies. but those i love are in danger but the one thing that has haunted me, my entire life is
finding the truth about my parents. you are a wanted man peter parker. >> you don't believe what the police are saying do, you? >> my dad says 500 men are looking for you. >> 500? >> that seems a bit excessive. >> if you are going to steal cars, talk to a car thief. who are you? >> tell us a little bit about yourself, mr. parker? what did your father do? >> i never knew my father. my parents left when i was young. >> peter one day you will understand. >> if you wanted the truth about
film's two stars, andrew garfield and emma stone, i am pleased to have them here at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> so, bring it on, rose. >> here it goes. when you got the assignment, knowing that the series before had made like $1.4 billion and counting. >> yes. right. >> rose: what did you say? you know, that is a good question. you asked the right question. it was -- it was intimidating but those numbers are abstract, really, i mean it is hard to calculate that, and i think it was just -- it was terrifying and exhilarating and all the things that you would imagine it would be, but you can't really think about that on a day-to-dy basis you have to think about the story and putting it together because as soon as it happened we had a start date and work on the script and work on the cast and it really became
breaking it down to tiny little tasks. >> rose: so you simply were challenged and didn't think about it? >> intimidated, terrified is more the word. we were just on the empire state building or at the top of not the observatory there but the 103rd story where there is a little pony wall and there is a sense offe terror you get but there is also compilation and a feeling of, you know, strange things of curiosity and a combination of a lot of things. i think that sense of terror and that sense of excitement go hand in hand nature and that is what it is like you have to excuse yourself from that and get yourself to the rudimentary basics of making a movie. >> rose: so what did they say to you? because the idea is this spider-man is more somehow real, more -- >> well, yeah, they didn't really come. >> rose: human? >> i mean i i if you look at spider-man, it is different than harry potter, 50 years of comics, a lot of different
inflect shls of the character and a lot of different writers and illustrators to come along and parts of the story it was genuinely interested in peter parker parents which is the starting point and that moment for me defined the movie and the character was the moment he was left behind by his parent when he was seven years old which to me is more important than the spider bite even. so i started with that and then there is the weapon stacey saga whicwhich in comics is one of te most interesting and at the times controversial piece of comic lower, and all of marvel and especially spider-man as you know there is the lizard and in terms of toe malady i wanted to -- tone is a very difficult thing to discuss because it means different things to different people but i would say, i was trying to find something, you know, more naturalistic and grounded both physically and emotionally. >> rose: how do you see peter, andrew? >> well,. >> rose: and do what your director told you.
>> peter parker has a history and i think the wonderful thing about taking on the next chapter of the legacy of stanley, what stanley gave us is that you have a very, very solid point to start from, which was the first comics and you have a lot of freedom to play. because there has to be new, it has to be unique and it has to be personal, otherwise why? so for me, he was always a kid who had a heroic impulse before he was a hero and felt stronger on the inside than he was on the outside. and wanted to do what was right but didn't have the authority, all, nor the power to do anything about it and then he got that rare superhero and the rare kid that, rare person that when he gets power he doesn't let it corrupt him and actually uses it positively, so he is just a good kid, really,
ultimately, and every man. >> rose: but he is in search of things everybody wants to know. >> right. >> rose: about tell me who i am and where i fit and who are my parent? >> absolutely. absolutely. and as marc was saying it is completely besides the fact he was abandoned and defines his relationships and ultimately leads to him being a father, the fact he was left by his father and the went searching for his father, creating a hole in him that he is desperate to gill, he has to fill it himself ultimately and there is no accident he becomes a father to a whole city, beautiful, because he has that empathy for being an underdog and unsupported. it is kind of a beautiful journey so when they called you about playing gwen, did you say i have been waiting for your call? thank you for calling? >> i met lora zylka one of our
producers and talked to mary jane before they wrote the script and they came back around months later and said i would be awe additioning for gwen or asked if i would audition for gwen, i didn't know anything about that saga because i didn't grow up reading comic books so when i went and read and learned the story, i don't know if you know her whole history, but it is stunning, and so incredibly tric and just wild. and it blew me away and i thought, all right. well, if they are going to -- if they are going to do this, this movie is probably going to be pretty, pretty incredible. >> rose: and if you are a young actress and you know this back story it gives you a lot to work with. >> it gives you so much to work with and i think ga with win is, gwen is aware of her fatality, peter is in the face of death so even know how it ends up as an actor, because a lot of people ask, you know, knowing how she
goes, does that affect performance? and i think she is just always surrounded by death, but, yeah, it was fascinating. >> rose: and define the relationship. >> undefinable. magic, first love, teenage -- >> rose: magic first. >> magic first. magic, period, first love, period. >> rose: ah. >> just, you know, there is a great facilitate at this book you should take a look at, to know what, you know and we all know -- >> rose: teenagers in love? >> it is just tongue on tongue and lights, just crawl all over each other. >> rose: you know this book? >> oh, a little bit, yes. >> thinking about being an adolescent which is a big part of the dna of spider-man there is a kid in there and all of the emotions you are experiencing at that time are apocalyptic, they made the teenagers and not the
psychics anymore, they were the heroes and the kids, they gave them the power, and, you know, you, it, what it allows us to do is you explore all of those feelings we all identify with, and you blow it up over a huge landscape, you know, like going over to your girlfriend's house and her dad actually has a fun and is actually looking for you and that terror you feel is made that much more exaggerated dramatic and sort of fits the emotional landscape of what it means to be a kid. i think what we are trying to do here is the find something naturalistic and these are things that don't necessarily mean a lot until you get into the context but there was -- i remember when we were i casting and i remember andrew the first time i saw andrew there was at that scene not in the film and making a phone call to oscar, most actors additioning picked up the phone and, you know, they dance and they would find an emotional alliance, andrew started moving in places like he picked up the phone and then he sort of turned around and waved
for the camera which is a very strange thing to do in an audition and he sort of began to embody this person and his movement extended beyond here and even just on a simple scene like a phone call and half of the audition he was facing away from the camera against the wall, it was so magical, it felt very real and very naturalistic as i told a story, my sister-in-law is a psychologist and talks act how to communicate with patients and of course there is verbal communication, but what you can deduce, how you can read somebody is through nonverbal communication and that is what happens inbetween and i think andrew and emma are both experts at this sort of nonverbal kind of communication, and the twitches, the looks. >> rose: nonverbal communication, it is simply, it is different than body language? >> it is all that, it is a part of it the, it is what you begin to deduce is the intention underneath the lies. >> rose: were you conscious of all of this or simply say this
would make this interesting if i did this? >> no, i never think, hopefully i never thought, i don't know how to do that, i like, i mean, i think with movies, you know, the idea is to actually catch the magic and the space between there is magical and you have an opportunity to find out what that place is, and it is like free falling, it feels like free falling, but obviously there was something about being a teenager that i think we both wanted to capture and that is massively physical and majority of that is physical but i think in a movie like this, you know, dialogue is secondary, working on the hawkins script is different or working on miller, even like miller dialogue is kind of secondary as well. >> in death of a salesman. >> rose: yes, i believe what happens underneath or what is moving you go speak is everything. you just need to feel the need to speak. and the lines are never enough anyway, especially in something
like this, where first love, where everything is communicated without words it is important to try to capture. >> rose: who is on your list of people you most would like to emulate, satisfy, seek their approval, follow their career? >> the person i admire the career of the most is diane keaton. >> rose: because? >> because she found a way to do it all and to do it all her way, she doesn't seem -- she doesn't remind me of anybody else and seems authentic to me and she doesn't seem very nervous and i can empathize with that. i love her in comedy and i love her in the godfather and i love her in, you know, looking for mr. goodbar i think she can do it all. >> rose: sometimes she seems stylized but that in her is authentic. >> that in her is authentic, yes she puts it all together her self and that makes me be more
myself. i don't want to be like her but inspires me to do be what is my path is. >> it has been a huge wonderful thing to know andrew. >> rose: yes. >> that has been a huge comfort and something that has helped me understand days and the ever changing nature of this. it has been a joy to meet karen crow, and lauren michaels, people that have been enthusiastic, i love fans, i love people that are fans by nature, and that love movies and love stories by nature, learning from them and getting to be around them has been -- has reminded me why i want to do these things. >> rose: the personal relationship enhances professional life? >> yeah, yeah, i think empathy
and understanding of the difficulties and the land mines and valuing what is to be valued. you have to be reminded and sometimes you need someone on the outside to remind you, and, yeah, i think it means the world, you know, and there are certain people that you meet on the way that are little beacons of -- >> keep going that way, keep going that way. >> rose: as you know they have experienced it or they have the same kind of -- >> this. >> there is something instinctive you get a bit of, oh, that is where i am supposed to -- that's the room i am supposed to be -- >> like cat's cradle where they talk about your groups where you meet people in your group and that is what gwen's reading at the beginning of spider-man, i love that book so much and meeting along the way or the
moments of recognition, you are on -- you think like i do. >> rose: people will like the work and like the character and like the stories but what else do you hope they get? >> i think there is a theme that whether or not they are aware of it consciously it is something i was very interested in exploring i think we all have a missing piece. >> rose: yeah. >> and, you know, peter was torn away from his parents at a very young age and that caused a void in him and dr. connors has a missing arm and literal embodiment of that theme and that is what motivates us, that is what -- the missing piece is what drives us forward and we get up in the morning and we check our blackberries and iphones and we do drugs, and that's which we go to church, we are trying to fill something and how we choose to fill that void is how we define ourselves. >> rose: positively or negatively. >> yes, exactly it is how you define your character and that is what helped me empathize with all of the different forces in
the movie, either captain stacey or the lizard or gwen, or parker, there is something we need that gets us up in the morning and that is what my axis was, whether or not people understand that i can't control that or they feel that or con accept july lies it, i just talk about it in interviews occasionally. >> rose: is there a missing piece for you in terms of emma stone. >> in my life? >> rose: yes i mean the reason you are who you are is because of a missing piece? you made a powerpoint presentation to your parents so you could go out west as a very young person and pursue a career that you desperately wanted. >> yes. >> or let's say a craft, beyond a career you simply had to act for whatever reason. >> yeah. i -- i think that that is a wonderful question, one i have been exploring this year.
in a very major way. and in wanting to know why i am the way i am and why i do what i do. absolutely, i think there are, of course, was a bit of a missing piece thing. there was wanting to feel -- i was incredibly anxious when i was a kid. i had panic attacks as a kid and i think i felt like i had value, i had something to give, it made me feel so joyous to be able to make people laugh and so i started doing improv and sketch comedy when i was 11 and then a couple of years later i made that presentation to try to do it professionally but i think, yeah, i couldn't leave the house, you know, yeah. so, absolutely. >> rose: missing piece? >> yeah.
plenty. yes. >> rose: more? >> well -- >> rose: it is interesting to him and what is interesting to me and you and whether you talk about it or not it is interesting to him, it is in a great quest is who are we and who do we want to be? and what do we care about? and understanding that, because if you can do that, i think you can have a much -- a more engaged life. >> absolutely. and it takes -- it is really hard work to first identify what it is that has been driving you and whether it is a healthy thing that is driving you and what you actually do care about and it comes back to the beacons and those beacons of truth in your life, like for instance,
mike, who i spoke to mike on the phone for five minutes, and i didn't need convincing about coming on that journey, going on that journey. >> rose: what did he say? >> get out of la and we will have a really lovely time and heal ourselves in new york, if you want. it was something along those lines, it was very simple and -- >> rose: as if he understood who you were and where your moment was? >> yeah, h but he was just being himself and speaking from his point of view, which was, i don't like laf i like new york. i think you would be happier here if you are like me. it turns out i was and it was if -- it was like a life changing artistic six months i had with him and phil and linda and all the rest. and that meant something to me. that filled, because that was coming from the right, the right place and a slog, i knew it would be a slog, like a mountai
to climb every night but in terms of my missing piece, yeah, of course, i think, i think we all do, i think especially, i don't know, it is a big. >> rose: a big conversation. are you different -- we should be talking about hair. >> yes, ask me about my haircut. >> rose: your favorite color. growing up in england did that make a difference in terms of how you approached these questions and how you approached being an actor? >> my dad is american, so, no, but i definitely -- we are coming off the end of three weeks now of this, of all of, this we are coming up on three weeks of hair questions, and was the suit itchy, and when you --
>> it is not nourishing, so you want -- you just try to remember what is real and what is true and what is nourishing so to talk, i feel like i think we all feel, a little bit hesitant to actually -- and does it matter? you know, does it matter who we are? doesn't it matter what this -- >> rose:. >> i think if you define that it loses its power in a way. if -- i mean, it is good to reflect and not like the psychology hour, but there is a fear that you will lose some sort of motivation if that happens i feel like. >> i always have that fear but i think the people i am so drawn to in my life are those people that have looked at themselves and are true to themselves. >> and have a sense of completeness. >> and there is a positive reason, i think, yeah. >> rose: this is where peter interacts with connors for the
first time, here it is. >> i love to fix myself. i want to create a world without weakness. >> anyone care to venture a guess as to how? >> yes. >> promising. >> the solution i am thinking of is more radical. >> genetics. >> a person gets parkinson when the brain cells that produce dopamine start to disappear, but the zebra fish has the ability to regenerate cells on command. some how give this ability, she cured herself. yeah, you just have to get that on your neck. >> he is one of the best and brightest.
>> are you sure about that? >> rose: so do you like that scene? >> do we like that scene? >> i like that scene. i like that scene a lot because it establishes, it starts to establish the dynamic between peter and gwen. >> rose: yes, exactly. >> and it is a new thing, gwen this is assertive and really smart and first in her class and that is a different kind of dynamic we have seen in a spider-man before, i love old romantic, love as rivals. >> and creates a kind of chemistry that sort of fuels -- >> yes, it is a big engine in the movie that chemistry and dynamic between the two of them. >> rose: i noticed 2012 is the 50th anniversary of the spider-man, what is the secret that makes spider-man, spider-man. >> we all asked ourselves, i think there is peter parker and the relatability of peter parker
and the suit, there is something primitive that draws you to it and i think the fact there is a kid underneath it makes it very, a very attractive thing for children, and then there is the wish fulfillment, this idea of flying through the air and like many super heroes he is releasing some sort of internal animal and fallen i have and admire that and we get to combine that with our , you know, our id and ego fuse, and perfectly in super heroes and i think that is something we all aspire to. >> it is a symbol of protection as well, it is hard to identify, but i do get this sense of warmth when i think about that suit, i always have since i have been three and it makes you save. >> rose: it makes you invulnerable. >> absolutely, because he exists some where and this is me when i was growing up, anyway .. so if i really need him he will be
there, kind of thing. that is the feeling. >> rose: i thank all of you, it is great to meet you. thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you. great to have you here. spider-man comes out on tuesday, july 3rd, tuesday, july 3rd. if that movie reflects the sense of the quality of these three people, then they have got nothing to worry about. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org