tv Charlie Rose PBS October 9, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with politics and a conversation with john dickerson, the "face the nation" moderator and cbs political director. >> john boehner's going to stay as speaker till they find a new one. so his retirement party is going to be pushed well into the future. >> rose: we conclude with aaron sorkin the screenwriter and danny boyle the director talking about their new movie "steve jobs." >> in many ways, it's very normal formal. it's the same characters repeating a similar kind of meeting. >> rose: right. so where his film is linear, usually, it loves momentum and forward motion, and i suppose that was the biggest challenge is to somehow harness this wonderful repetitive nature of what you are experiencing and yet make it feel like it was thrusting forward as well. >> rose: john dickerson, aaron
sorkin and danny boyle when we continue. >> rosenefunding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: american express. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with politics. representative kevin mccarthy abruptly dropped out of the running for speaker of the house today. >> the one thing i've always said to earn this majority we're serving, we should put this conference first.
i think there is something to be said for us to unite, we probably need a fresh face. i'll stay on as majority leader but the one thing i found in talking to everybody, if we are going to unite and with strong, we need a new face to help do that. >> rose: no date for another preliminary vote has been set. meanwhile, senate democrats vow to block all legislation pending action on proposed gun control measures. in presidential politics, the first democratic primary debate is scheduled for tuesday in nevada. joe biden is third in the polls. remains to be seen whether he will enter the race. joining me is john dickerson, host of "face the nation" on cbs and also the political dresht of cbs news, pleased to have him back at the table. also a political correspondent for slate magazine or column. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: how do you have time to do all this? >> i see what you do and i try to do half as much. >> rose: kevin mccarthy. last night i was talking to a member putting together votes
for mccarthy, and he said he'll get the vote of the majority of republicans, but when the house vote happens at the end of october he's not sure he can get 218 because to have the hell no caucus. also failed the freedom caucus members. they want a certain set of promises from kevin mccarthy about how he'll behave as speaker. last night they thought it would go forward but, lilt, mccarthy decided he couldn't succeed at the promises and promise he could deliver for the very conservative members of the house. it's not a fresh face, they need to find any kind of face. >> rose: anybody? ight now. >> rose: wasn't that part of why john boehner stepped down? >> exactly, and john boehner will stay as speaker till they find a new one. his retirement party will be pushed well into the future. but the fundamental question is
can this group of conservatives go along enough to find a new speaker that they like, and there is no one -- kevin mccarthy was the person in the wings. paul ryan is mentioned, his press release saying i have no interest in the job. >> rose: chairman of ways and means committee. >> p speed was so fast in terms of his statement after mccarthy announced he wasn't running and saying i'm not running either, he doesn't want the job. >> rose: he said i hope mccarthy will do it even though mccarthy said he was not. >> robert costa your friend at "the washington post" reports boehner even called ryan and said you should do it, you're the only one who can unite the party. but ryan knows how impossible the job is. it says how difficult the job is that paul ryan would rather wrestle with the tax code because it's zero than trying to put together a 218 majority. >> rose: so now john boehner will continue to be speaker of
the house and the republicans at some point will try to elect a new speaker? >> a new speaker. a couple of other thoughts are being kicked around but i talked to a couple of members today who don't think they're live possibilities. but one is to find retiring members and make them a speaker, and that would take the conference through 2016, through elections. the benefit to that is it puts all the tough votes and tough behavior on these people who are going to retire and allows -- you hear a lot of talk about tough votes. kevin mccarthy said i didn't want to run and force members to have tough votes. what he means is he doesn't want somebody to support him and get cal lopped for it by the grassroots. >> rose: were there any other reasons for this decision? >> there were rumors. when something happens this abruptly -- i was talking to somebody whipping votes for mccarthy last night and he said we planned for a four-hour
meeting to vote on speaker, after 15 minutes, it was over. he said, i guess we got a free lunch, but that was it. so anything that happens that's a shock, people are always looking around for what else is going on. the fact that mccarthy is staying on as majority leader, not resigning the seat, suggests it is what it is. >> rose: the >> rose: the republican party, are they shooting themselves, redefining themselves so that they're out of the main stream? john boehner said, and you and i talked about this on the morning show, said to you on "face the nation," said they knew they couldn't win yet continued to press the case knowing it was impossible and therefore causing problems for everybody. >> chaos. you're exactly right. boehner said there were false prophets in the party -- and this is an incredible charge of deep cynicism to say these 30 to 40 super conservative members
know you can't just take over the whole legislative system when you have filibusters in the senate and democratic president, you can't just shove conservative legislation through and they know that, but they whip up the grassroots and the grassroots gets angry and goes and punishes the members because they have unrealistic expectations and the ultra conservatives are fanning the unrealistic expectations. be that as may, that's where we are and whether where the state of play is. >> rose: the presidential race, where stands it now? >> on the republican side, donald trump is at the top. >> rose: is there any sense that he's beginning to lose some elevation? >> i think he's pretty much still there. what you do see in the polls he's had a little bit of a dip. ben carson, number two, has had a dip. carly fiorina has gone up and marco rubio has gone up. marco rubio is a really interesting case because he, a lot of the non-donald trump candidates, and ben carson is
the other one in this category, slow and steady runs the race. we won't do anything flamboyant and will continue to grow over time. the only people who have been able to do that are ben carson and marco rubio. the rest of them fell out of the race, scott walker, same with peri, jeb bush has seen himself go down. >> rose: will he go the distance because he has access to money, he said? >> jeb bush, of course, he has to say that. but he's in a tricky place. he has to do something to excite the voters, we've seen him falling in the polls, but also those funding his campaign. when you have to speak to the two different audiences sometimes it makes you act out. >> rose: and to the is florida and marco rubio, people who might be supporting him because they have a higher call on loyalty and say it's not going to be jeb bush this year, we'll shift to marco. >> shift to marco. hillary clinton is likely to be
the democratic nominee, if jeb bush is the republican nominee they can't make the charge we don't want the same old clinton or bush. >> rose: is marco rubio a fresh face, 20th century? >> it's of a different order than what you see in other candidates. it conveys at a gut level. he articulates and talks about the next generation. but even though you aren't listening to the specifics of the words, he is a different kind of candidate. but the down side is that also exacerbates one of his great weaknesses which he is a one-term senator with no executive experience which is the charge republicans have been making for seven years against barack obama. so it is inconsistent to have a person with no specific experience and only a one-term senator to give him a whole shooting match. the presidency is not a place
for on the job training. so that is the big -- >> rose: the argument against obama, they might be doing the very same thing for themselves. >> precisely. and also elevating rubio in part because he has an attractive candidacy as obama's were. they like the fact he conveys the sense of the future and movement and energy in the party. >> rose: is it likely this will somehow narrow down to two people, one will represent the establishment and one either the outside or the right? >> i think that's right. the question is when, whether march, april, farther down the road. we're in a year in which the standard has not been normal. we have nobody whose turn it was. we had 17 candidates at one point and donald trump who has been surviving all of these what were thought to be near-death experiences. so in that context it's hard to
say it's always been an establishment and nonestablishment, but i think the forces that look for something and the grassroots that look for a wholesale change in washington and the forces that support, say, the new trans-pacific partnership, the corporate forces, the establishment forces in the republican party are still looking for a candidate so i think the split exists. >> rose: john kasich, an interesting guy, how does he stand? >> well, he's interesting because he's making the case -- i think above all the others, politics matters, and how do you experience in politics matters? and he is quite forceful about it and argues, basically, that he's enough of an outsider being from ohio and also, you know, you can make, i think, the case that his effort is budget chairman inside the system was to be kind of revolutionary. i think the question is kasich is how does he break through and i think some people have to fall away before he can make the
leap. but he's shown a certain kind of energy that's why he's around than somebody like scott walker. >> rose: what about joe biden? >> i get on the phone with people who talk to him and have a relationship and they say, well, i think he's going to do it. then you talk to somebody else who's about at the same sort of source level and they say, no, i don't think he's going to do it. it's frustrating. he's keeping it close to the vest. basically, we have to wait for joe biden to make his decision. a lot of people throughout the process close to him say lewait till the last minute, that's his way, it's also because it's so emotional, not easy. >> rose: he said to me yesterday that if you wanted something for 40 years and you're looking at the best chance you've ever had -- whether it is or not is another question, but certainly better than before -- it's hard to
resist it. it's really hard to resist it. and if, in fact, you know, there is the pull of a son -- >> sure. >> rose: -- deceased son who wanted you to do it, if we understand the story of the son, is a powerful argument. >> absolutely, and i'll add more weight on that part of the scale which means the decision to turn it off means not only lowering the light on your son's request that you make a run, but it's also turning off your career. it's not just this is your best chance to get something, it's your last chance -- you're putting your career basically to bed. you could go on and do other things but you are permanently saying goodnight to a portion of your career. in a way, it's very, very powerful to have a bunch of people come to you and say please go do this. >> rose: the question i have is if he goes in with full enthusiasm and gets lots of
money, are the democrats and is hillary clinton in such a position that he could achieve it? is there a pathway for him to get the nomination when you look at the head start she has? additional question is, has she done things that so damage her that it gets more and more likely that he would be successful? >> i think if there's a pass, it would be an ugly pass. she won't go gently into the night. >> rose: nor is her husband. >> right, and she has a lot of support built in these states. i think also what happens -- and the people i talked to are close by say the day he gets in the race it flips, okay, so why are you running and what are you bringing to the race. his campaign i think will essentially be a character campaign which is i have been through these crucibles and i have the stuff to be a president.
as far as the rationale for the candidacy, people will say you got in because you weren't hillary clinton, but what does your campaign mean? then it becomes a garden variety campaign. >> rose: he can argue things have been said or people made stands on issues i believed in. >> right. >> rose: the other interesting thing, if you watch her talk about a "no fly" zone or t.p.p., where she is creating more distance between her and the president, is she doing that because that's where she thinks the democratic nomination is or for some other reason or she believes it.
>> rose: because she needs the democratic left, that she thinks it will somehow lessen the appeal of bernie sanders and i'm as much of the reasonable left as he is? >> couple of things. that, labor wants to see her do this. >> rose: joe biden close to labor? >> yes, and close to the president and on board with t.p.p., but it puts biden in a tough spot because biden now has to basically promote this.
so she touchs a few bases with this, and also it's sort of -- it goes along with the theory it's okay to flip-flop if your flop puts you in the best political position. we'll see how it turns out. >> rose: i thought about asking this question all along, what is going to be the great debate in the campaign of 2016? will it be -- it's no longer evidently going to be about obamacare, i don't think so. some candidates will continue to say that's the first thing they'll do. for a while there, looked like it would be about foreign policy, then the republicans talked about domestic issues, immigration or whatever it might be, then we have syria which suggests foreign policy will play a bigger role. what's the debate going to be about? what's going to be the -- >> i think if we were to pick a date in the future and say what will the debate be on this day, the safest bet will be the debate will be what happened to the mostly clear.
the -- will be the middle class. there will be interjections of foreign policy. you never know when it will happen and it will seize the debate and we don't foe what it will be and where it will be from. foreign policy can take ove ovee debate but the thing will be about the question in the middle class and whether the economic system is tilted towards those with power and money. >> rose: that's appealing to joe biden. he believes he's of the middle class, he understands and has been fighting for the middle class and believes and thinks i am of the middle class -- >> he believes that and the obama strategist said he has a visceral connection of the middle class and say they see him and say he's one of us. hillary clinton, when she does her biography, she did not come from a big, fancy -- but she has to do the biography because the people do not make the instant connection with her as with him. so he doesn't have to spend two paragraphs talking about because
people get he is of them and that matters because when he's alone in the oval office the president will be on their side. that's one of the big debates, who's on your side at the end of the day. >> rose: interesting timing. thank you for coming. >> surely. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: steve jobs is one of the most influential minds in the past century, co-founded apple in 1976, revolutionized technology and continues to impact the lives of millions and billions of people. many attempted to shed light on jobs' professional and personal relationships since his death in 2011. the movie focuses on three pivotal product launches in jobs' career. here's the trailer for steve jobs. >> what if the computer was a
beautiful object, something you want to look at and have in your home? and what if it was in everyone's hand? >> the most tectonic shift in the status quo ever. >> i'm begging you to manage exec saysations -- expectations. >> have i ever let you down? only every time. you're worth millions and your daughter is on welfare. >> she's not my daughter! we'll know whether she looks like you. >> we'll know whether you're leonardo da vinci or just who. >> no one sees the world the way i do. >> everyone is waiting. what are people going to do with it? >> we're going to do that. you're entering contradictory
instructions, you're insubordinate. you make people miserable. >> you're no longer necessary to this company. >> i sat in the garage and invented the future. >> what you make isn't supposed to be the best part of you. >> i'm the only one who knows that this guy invented it. >> is there a plan? a plan will reveal itself to you when you're ready to see it. >> the comeback of the superstar. >> co-founder steve jobs -- steve jobs -- is returning to apple. >> the most significant event of the 20th century. the war, and this.
>> rose: joining me is the film's writer aaron sorkin and director danny boyle. why are we all so fascinated about him? where do you put him in the pant john of remarkable people? >> it's difficult to assess because it's ongoing and so fresh. he's passed away just four years ago this week, and his legacy appears to be still growing. his vision is evolving more and more. the computer is becoming so personal, it's in people's bedrooms. >> rose: and watch. and might even end up inside us to some degree. so i think people are probably still assessing him. and i think that's why it was important to make a film about him, really, because we need to
keep these people in the forefront of our minds, really. the advances they've made in technology and convenience for the world. dreams of a computer for everyone means you have to remember the origins. you must remember the origins and the personalities involved. they are machines put they're full of disguised personality, of course. >> rose: and what's remarkable about him and perhaps an ultimate legacy is the company continues to grow, continues to innovate and people that he left to take the company when he knew he was going to be gone are running the company. >> yes. and to the original question that you ask why -- you know, why do we feel this way about him was really what got me involved in the first place. the film rights to the book were sold just a couple of weeks after he died, and the whole world eulogized this man, and i
felt like i had been out sick from school for a week and just missed something along the way. >> rose: what did you miss, you think? understanding who steve jobs was? >> i know who steve jobs was and i own the product. everything i've written, i've written on a mac. i have an iphone in my pocket now. i still listen to music on my ipad. i like the clicking wheel. but here's what i missed was that he managed to endow these products with personality, and people have a relationship with them that they don't with other products. they love their phones, they love their laptops, and one of the things that this movie movie explores was it explores a number of questions. one of them, is it possible that -- because steve was a
difficult man, a complicated man and by all counts he could be a difficult man to be around. >> rose: because he was a demanding perfectionist? >> yes, but danny boyle is a demanding perfectionist and no one would describe him as a difficult man to be around. i sat in rehearsal with him for a long time, sat in casting sessions with him, production meetings, and his way of -- believe me, he seeks perfection, too, and his way of coaxing it out of people is much different. >> rose: is that the primary thing -- and we'll get to this later but i want to establish other points -- was that the primary thing, knowing you and your writing this that interested you? >> there were a number of things that interested me, but the -- perhaps -- well, one of the things is steve's relationship with his daughter which is a
whole different kettle of fish, his relationship with lisa, who the first five or six years of her life he denied paternity and hair relationship continued to be difficult. so i'm also the father of a daughter, and i wanted to explore that. >> rose: adopted as some suggest -- >> and this movie suggests not by any means that anyone who has been adopted is going to have problems going forward with a poor parent. in his case, it took a toll on him that his need for what they keel in the business end-to-end control of a product, meaning it's not compatible with anything else, stemmed from not having control at this very crucial moment in his life. >> rose: you wanting to do art and not journalism, the point that interests you most was the
fact that that side of his percent that was an essential part of him, is that what attacked you and made him interesting to you, that someone who had done so much could also have this, in your judgment, contradictory -- >> it was the contradiction and the fact that it seemed to me that this man, deep down, felt flawed and unworthy of being liked, unworthy of being loved and to compensate for that, had the remarkable ability to infuse these products with lovability. >> rose: so you're saying here was a man who didn't feel loved but was able to give lovability by creating products people would love. >> right. >> rose: is that a contradiction? >> no, that's something i identify with because i've often
felt, if i write something that you like with characters that are affable, that perhaps you will look at that -- i've often felt i'm better on pape than in real life, in this situation right now -- >> rose: brilliant on pape burr not necessarily -- >> that anyone watching this interview a fan of "the west wing" can believe i am the guy who wrote it, that they were expecting something er? do you believe that? >> a part of me does. i have to say, since becoming a farther, i have kind of left that behind. >> rose: you're barter human being now? >> nothing makes me feel more like a man than being a phatter. >> rose: you're saying the movie i created is a movie in which i found things in steve jobs that i found in myself. >> you have to. >> rose: why? because if you're writing an ante hero, you can't judge the
character. you have to be that character's lawyer. >> rose: th's an interesting way to put it. here's what people closest to steve said to me, with some concern -- who knows what the truth is? >> right. >> rose: and this was somebody very close to them, and they worry if the audience knows the truth, because this is art, and that concerns them. >> yeah. i understand their concern. i do. i'm not going to combat them on that. i'm going to point out that you, charlie, and i have two different jobs. you're a journalist, and your job is to be objective, find facts. >> rose: right. my job is to be subjective and interpret things -- >> rose: i totally agree as long as -- >> yes, i understand we're talking about real people, many of whom are still alive. first of all, i think that the
people who are concerned should see the movie first. if they're concerned after that, then a conversation can begin. and this is not the only -- this movie is not the only material on steve jobs that's available to the public. there are books, there is a documentary out now. the santa fe opera company commissioned an opera. >> rose: do you think the documentary is a fair appraisal of steve jobs? >> i haven't been able to see it or the other movie about steve jobs. you can see it after the movie opens. >> rose: this is fascinating. he is such an interesting person. take us down the journey and what happened. how does this finally end up to be directed by danny boyle and screen played by aaron sorkin? >> so scott rings me up --
(laughter) >> he rings me up and said, you've been reading. >> rose: and you were slated to be the original director. >> and he directed aaron and scott's previous film. >> rose: right. social network. >> rose: right. so i said i would be delighted to read it and i read it. what aaron didn't quite answer why did he do this? it's because he could write the sum of this man's mind which i think is what the film is the sound of this man's mind. >> rose: what do you mean? the speed of thought, the contradictory nature of a man pushing to turn the world off its axis on to a different axis, really. how do you depict genius? when people write algorithms or
people making machines and saying how brilliant they, are it gives them glimpse through the medium of an actor and their tried is words, it gives you a little glimpse of the majesty and the destructiveness of the man's thought process, really. that's what i got from this, from reading it. >> rose: there's nobody who does dialogue the way he does and would be dispassengerring to say it's snappy. (laughter) >> rose: but, in fact, this is not a film where you had all the elements you had in slumdog, is it? >> well, i don't know. >> rose: visual elements from that? >> well, you kind of -- you know, as we all said, you have 185 pages dialogue, very little instruction on how to do it. there's no manual. >> rose: dialogue is a reflection of what's in your mind. >> absolutely. also, you've got this
extraordinary engine running in it which is that each three times you see him, he's 40 minutes out from one of his products. an industry presentation, the product presentation that he revolutionized and every c.e.o. that you interview has to be able to walk the boards. >> rose: the podium. all that kind of stuff. >> rose: i just went to one at apple, tim cook came out and did what steve does. steve did it uniquely well and you capture that. >> yes. >> rose: so the question is, back to your sense of citi of -e of steve, why did you choose the idea of three separate introductions of product to define steve jobs, in your mind? >> before i knew what i wanted to do, i knew what i didn't want to do, and that was write a biopic, the cradle to grave structure where you land on the character's greatest hits along the way are something audiences are familiar with.
i didn't know what i wanted to do till i ran across a piece of information, and the research on this was walter's book and looking at a lot of youtube clips, but primarily me spending time with all the real people represented by characters in the movie and a few dozen others who are and talk to them. and i ran across just a piece of unimportant information, seemingly, that, at the 84 mac launch, minutes before the launch, they couldn't get the macintosh to say hello and it was very important to steve that this computer be the first to introduce itself, he wanted it to say hello and he wanted people to know this was a friendly thing and wanted people to like it. that's when i got the idea. i'm most comfortable as a playwright. i kind of fake my way through movies and television shows, but most comfortable as a
playwright. >> rose: and a few good men was written when you were, like, 20. >> right. as such, i like claustrophobic spaces and compressed periods of time, especially when there's a ticking clock. i also like behind the scenes at theaters and these launches happened in grand palaces like symphony hall. >> rose: you want to know what going on behind. >> right. so i thought, what if instead of the traditional biopic format, the entire movie was all just three scenes that took place in realtime, realtime when 340 minutes in the audience is the same as for a character on scene, all taking place in the moments leading up to a product launch? frankly, i didn't think it was something the studio would let me do, but they were very enthusiastic about it. this is when amy pascal was the chairwoman of sony at the time which was the studio, but i did
know if you build the screenplay entirely out of dialogue like this, you are going to need a visual master -- i don't see anything visually at all. to me, everything is aural. danny, on the other hand, is a visual genius. he also -- particularly because he comes from the theater -- is a director who gets out of great actors great performances. this is exactly who you need to do this, and i guess what i'm trying to say is, without danny, it's 185 pieces of paper with snappy dialogue. (laughter) >> rose: you liked that, did you? all right, stay with me on this point. >> okay. >> rose: here's what else you do, which i'm not as admiring
of -- you go to people to get more information, and then you fall in love with those who are the most interesting and who tell you the best stories, and they make it to the piece. jeff daniels, john sculley. you go to florida and see john sculley. john sculley who played an important part in steve's life. but i'm of the opinion that all that the beginnings are simply were building blocks for what happened after he came back and all the things he did in terms of one thing after the other. sculley was long gone by then. >> yes. >> rose: but you fell in love with him, liked hundred, and, therefore, he plays a commanding place in this. >> i do like john sculley very much, there's no doubt about that, but that's not what i fell in love with. i fell in love with the conflict between steve and john sculley
just as i fell in love with the conflict between steve and woz and steve and his daughter lisa. >> rose: conflict is what you love. >> of course, there has to be points of friction for there to be any kind of story. this not being a biography of steve jobs, it doesn't matter to me that the iphone came later or john sculley was not around later. there was a fantastic conflict between steve and sculley that i wanted to dramatize. >> rose: but the biggest conflict is not between steve and sculley or anyone else, the biggest conflict is between steve and steve. that's the conflict. >> well, yeah. i think that we see that in this movie, but i just disagree with now that i like some people, don't like others, and some people make it into the movie and others don't.
that's not how it works. >> rose: you're reading about your -- you know, how much you found fascinating sculley's story. >> i find sculley's story fascinating. i'm crazy about lee, johnny, pixar, none of those things are in the movie. >> rose: we should not judge you by some value in terms of people and the role they played in steve's believe like johnny, for example. >> of course. >> rose: a spiritual partner for him in the biggest sense of the way? >> charlie, steve's wife is not in this movie. >> rose: i know. three of steve's children are not in the movie. the word "pixar" is not mentioned in the movie. >> rose: by the way, i don't think a movie maker or writer should be judged on what they didn't do, they should be judged on the story they told. >> if you line up ten writers
and ask them to write a story about steve jobs you will get ten different movies and possibly all will be good. we are on the way to proving that. i think ours is the sixth movie about steve jobs. so just four more. >> rose: what was the biggest challenge for you? was it figuring out how to visualize a remarkable look inside steve jobs' mind? >> it's very formal in many ways, it's the same characters repeat ago similar kind of meeting 40 minutes before a launch. so where film is linear usually, loves momentum and forward motion, and i suppose that was the biggest challenge was to somehow harness the wonderful, repetitive nature of what you were experiencing and yet make it feel like it was thrusting forward as well and we did that by separating and making as distinctive as possible the three spaces, the way they were
shot, and making it feel like you were -- there were depth charges being laid throughout which would eventually resonate and give you something to progress to and that's what i think you were hinting at about seeing steve versus steve because, in the final part, when he has achieved everything he sets out to do -- the imac is going to be success, the products are perfect, the computer will make computers cool and desirable and personal -- and that's his greatest crisis in a way, certainly in relationship with his daughter lisa in our film. >> rose: lisa was there because it touched a sense of your own daughter you said. >> yeah. well, lisa was there -- it did does my own sense of my own daughter, but lisa was there because surely that was the most important conflict. that who cares about, you know, did the apple 2 get more credit,
or if there's this going on. that's the emotional center of the movie and i don't think it's a spoiler to say, you know, steve taking a step toward her is the emotional climax of the movie. >> rose: here's what you have said about him -- he was complicated and brilliant, deeply flawed, dreamed big but he galvanized those around him. he thought kindness and genius were binary. >> yeah. in fact, he thought kindness was a form of vanity, and he would scold other c.e.o.s, he would scold his good friend larry, for instance. if someone told him, you know, basically, why do you have to be so mean to these people?
i'm nice to these people. he would say -- he would find danny -- danny's method of kindness and support of the actors and the designers and the technicians who are doing this to be a form of vanity, that he would say, you want to be liked more than you want this movie to be good. >> rose: and danny would say, you can do both. >> danny would say, you can do both. i would say i'm in no position to say because i am not a genius so i have no idea, but i would say -- >> rose: but you're occasionally kind? >> i am kind. but that at those times when i have been in -- you know, played a leadership role, even just the head of morale for the team, that you get the best work out of somebody by noticing their work. you know, if you tell them --
>> rose: criticism is significant and important because that's how you learn. >> it is. but you don't want to scare people, you don't want to be difficult to be around. by the way, if it is bynary, okay, unless you're curing cancer, choose decency. if all you're doing is making a phone, choose decency. >> rose: i guess someone would say if you can find a cure for cancer, i don't care if you're kind or not. >> yes. >> rose: you described the film as a portrait, they come out of real life but the film is abtraction, takes events, some real, some imagined, and pushes them around three acts. six characters turn up three times 40 minutes before each product is launch and just bang on each other. >> sounds like you.
>> rose: it is you! oh, man. wait, wait! >> rose: that's not real life. it is a heightened version of real life. >> yeah. bu>> rose: but in part, that's what movies do. >> it is. you train the actors, they rehearse so that they can deliver. the speed of thought that aaron writes and the rhythm which is super real, unfortunately, we can't -- we would love to speak like that all the time and you go as fast as humanly possible, but occasionally they have to breathe. in editing, you take out that breath like that, so they're even quicker. it's weird, the audience doesn't mind it. that's unreal. nobody can speak like that, but they don't mind it because there is something electrifying and mesmerizing about it to see the speed of thought exercised. >> rose: you write the dialogue for the speed of
thought. >> absolutely, and it becomes an action movie with words is what you do. because suddenly the velocity is not blowing up buildings, it's actually people's train of thought. >> rose: someone else said the jobs of steve jobs is a more self aware and vulnerable but he's still recognizable, thaw thennic and specializes in the layered look, a controlled smoothness beneath where engines churn. finally, you never forget they're there. pepulled it off as an android with dark secrets. his product could pass as an apple future product. why michael fassbender? >> we weren't really looking for somebody to look like him. he wasn't a huge star, but i remember thinking, i have rarely seen an actor so uncompromising in their choices and what they do and how they go about it.
you don't sense any easy way into his work. he doesn't do likability for the sake of it to ease people into it. he chooses the products, goes on this journey and is clearly built from the inside, and he's asking you to join him and that felt very -- and the fee rowsty with which he then expresses those choices and the intensity of his glare, the glare he places on his characters, i thought i saw jobs. he's very jobs-y. >> rose: he's very steve jobs. not an imitation. >> and he's funny. there's a bit of cary grant in michael fassbender. >> rose: and we all love cary grant. >> we all love that. and there are some things that an actor can't fake. an actor can't fake smart and funny. michael's got those things.
danny was talking about this in his description. michael's willingness to risk not being loved by the audience is unusual for a movie star. reminds me last year tom hanks did a great movie, katherine phillips, and he did something in that movie that very few movie stars would ever do, he coward. when the somali pirates pointed a machine gun at him, he went like that. you wouldn't see clint eastwood or harrison ford doing that, they would be stoic and in the final scene, he cried. michael has the same sense of i'm going to play this honestly and is not worried about the audience isn't going to like him. as a result, the audience is with him ever step of the way. >> rose: talk about kate winslet. (laughter)
>> you get a fassbender, you get a winslet. he's more than a match. agreed to work under him and facilitate and eventually what's wonderful about the scheme, she's the worker making what he's doing possible and realizes she's complicit in the way he behaved towards his daughter who needs him most. >> rose: and she's the one person who could stand up to him. >> she's not mentioned much but when she is she pierces to the heart of him. she's very, very clear and analytical about him and clearly knew him very well. >> rose: here's another example you. went to meet her and fell in love with her and therefore she gets a big role in this film. >> that's exactly what happens. i met with her. i discovered that she was the
one who -- there was more than one person who could stand up to him, but she -- i loved the way in which she did it, and she also said this to me about lisa, that, you know, back when steve was denying paternity and he had taken a blood test that showed that there was a 94.5% chance that he was the father, steve came up with some crazy algorithm that showed 26% or 28% of american men could be the father, and she said to him and said to me, steve, i don't care if you're the father or not, there is a little girl who thinks you're her father. what are you going to do about that? that's a point of friction, a great point of friction that fits right into the story we're telling. so joanna didn't make it into the movie because i liked her.
i liked all the people very much. >> rose: you're being facetious. >> of course. but you make it into the story if there is a point of friction that fits with the others and kind of works. like i said, you could write a whole new story using a whole new group of people, and probably illuminate something else about steve jobs. >> rose: so here's my question -- at the end of the day, whatever euphemism you want to use -- and someone comes to you and says, so you made this movie. did you in all honesty, as far as you were concerned, cap -- capture steve jobs? does your "art" capture steve jobs? >> not knowing steve jobs at all, having never met him, i spoke with him on the phone very briefly three times, so it doesn't even show up on the
meter of knowing him, i wouldn't know if i captured steve jobs. i would be very surprised if i did because -- >> rose: surprised if you did? yes, because people -- actual people -- you, danny -- are difficult, if not impossible to capture. the properties of people and the properties of characters have almost nothing to do with each other. >> rose: properties of people and the properties of characters have almost nothing to do with each other? >> people don't speak in dialogue. people's lives don't lay out in a series of scenes that form a narrative art. characters are entirely different, and characters are something that storytellers use to tell a story. they're a tool. >> rose: and if it is art, you have no responsibility to truth. >> no, no, that's not true at
all. >> rose: that is not true or -- >> yes, there is responsibility to truth. it's not the same responsibility as journalism. >> rose: as fact. ight. i would not, in this movie just because it would make good storytelling, say that steve jobs was an alcoholic just because it's helpful storytelling and i'm an artist and i get to go -- get to do whatever i want. there is an internal compass that you have of what's right and wrong. by the way, if your internal compass is broken, the studio has a legal department that will help you out with your internal compass. they won't let you say steve jobs is an alcoholic, to use that as an example. when people who do know steve jobs -- you mentioned earlier, you know, some of the people who were bothered when steve
wozniak, when they say, yes, these guys absolutely captured him -- >> rose: people who were there for the long journey. >> sure they were. >> rose: not in the last ten years. >> in the last ten years are not part of this movie. woz was close to sieve, andy hertzfeld, joanna hoffman. not just those people, but people hoer down the good chain. they say, i worked there for eleven years, 14 years, you really got it. that makes he feel good. that wasn't the goal.
again, not to sound pretentious, but it's the difference between a painting and a photograph. >> rose: thank you. thanks very much. steve jobs opens nationwide friday october 23. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications
steves: for a more lively way to enjoy paris and cap an exciting day, steve and i have hired a car and a driver for a blitz of the city's best nighttime views. and this isn't just any car and driver. this company employs a fleet of historic deux chevaux cars, and they're driven by local students. man: the different districts are like a snail, going around the island, the city. steves: the french raise flood lighting to an art form. and with a city as beautiful as paris, it's no wonder. les invalides, with its golden dome marking napoleon's tomb, is magnifique. the naughty blades of the moulin rouge keep turning, and its red lights tempt lost souls in pigalle. just to be out and about at this hour,
♪ >> announcer: this is "nightly business report," with tyler mathisen and sue herera. alcoa's earnings numbers miss big, starting what many think will be one of the ugliest earnings seasons in years. chaos on capitol hill. without warning kevin mccarthy drops out of the speaker's race, raising questions about what happens next, just as congress faces tough budget deadlines. and tech tie-up. are two well-known companies working on one of the biggest takeovers in tech industry history? all that and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursday, october 8th. good evening, everybody. and welcome back. a disappointing start to earnings season. alcoa, which unofficially kicked off third quarter results, reported a big earnings and