tv Charlie Rose PBS October 7, 2014 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with jeffrey toobin of cnn on the new supreme court term. >> in a surprise to many people, including me, i must say, the supreme court today denied-- in other words, refused to hear five cases where circuit courts of appeal had held that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. so in fact, the decision today brings to 30 the number of states that will have same-sex marriage. but it does not issue a ruling for all 50 states about whether there is a right to same-sex marriage. >> we continue with aaron kessler of "the new york times" and leslie scism of "the wall street journal" talking about the aug case in washington. >> there's no one from aug that's necessarily on mr. greenberg's sidement you have a few of his old friends from the company and what not. but aig itself is not a
party to this suit. and they don't really agree with what he is doing. so you sort of have this strange triangle, aig, the government, mr. greenburg himself and the shareholders. >> rose: we conclude this evening with the new film "gone girl" we have the director david finch and the stars ben affleck and rosamund pike. also the arthur gillian flynn. >> what these guys put together was a really interesting challenge, and a really interesting and unusual protagonist it is not a conventional protagonist. hollywood has an obsession of likability. if you read studio notes, the guy is not likable enough. we are not invested-- vested with him enough. so to make somebody likable the theory goes you have to, like, adhere to these six or seven articles of behavior. and this movie, this book and movie seem to totally want to abandon that. >> i certainly started the story with that idea of, you know, what-- how honest are we ever in relationships. you know, i like that idea that we are kind of emotional conartists when we start in on, you know, any
sort of meeting that we're presenting our best self forward. and i like that idea that you know, this was, you know, a murder mystery but marriage was a mystery, you know, to solve the murder, you have to solve the marriage and figure out who these two people really were. >> the opening of the supreme court, the aig case, and the movie gone girl when we continue. >> funding for charl yee rose is provided by the following: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications
from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. october and the u.s. supreme court today opens its 2014, 2015 term. it declined to rule on the issue of gay marriage. that decision clears the way for gay couples to wed in five states and has banned same-sex marriage. they also announced that there would be hearing some other important cases. joining me now from washington, cnn chief legal analyst jeffrey toobin. so tell me about the new supreme court term, we are here on the first monday in october. >> well, what we know is what it will not include. is the final climactic battle over whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. in a surprise to many people, including me, i must say, the supreme court today denied serbary, in other words, refused to hear five cases where circuit courts of appeals had held that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. so in fact, the decision today brings to 30 the
number of states that will have same-sex marriage. but it does not issue a ruling for all 50 states about whether there is a right to same-sex marriage. so they're kicking the can down the road a little farther. but the direction seems to be clear. >> rose: and they're looking for the perfect case before they hear? >> i don't think that's-- that's it so much as they're looking to see, first of all, is there a conflict between appellate court rulings on issues. so far every appellate court that has decided this case has decided it the same way. and said there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. now the interesting question is, there are a couple of more conservative circuits out there, including the 6th circuit which is based in cincinnati where those panels may say there is not a right to same-sex marriage. so it could come back to the supreme court as early as this term, to address this question. but it seems to me the justices want to let this
percolate for a little while longer before they address it. >> and tell me about elonis versus u.s. >> this is a rap music, case, right? or this is-- it's such a bizarre case. you know, it is yet another example of how technology changes the law. there is a couple that was romantically involved. and the man, they had a big fight. and the man posted a bunch of really terrible things on facebook that were at a very least malevolent and offensive, and possibly-- and seemingly threatening. he was prosecuted for making terrorist-- terroristic threats, including citing some rap music. and the question is, are those statements on facebook protected by the first amendment. it's a pretty hard case. >> rose: the other case is hold versus hob b's in which
the justices will decide whether a muslim prison inmate may grow a half inch beard which is against prison regulations. >> right. you know, this is-- there have been related cases involving religious accommodation of prisoners. how much do you have to accommodate. you know, is there a right to kosher or halal food in prison. and the courts have basically said yes. there, you know, related cases of in the military, can you force someone to not to wear a yalmlke because it's not military regulation. this case, you know, poses the interest in prison discipline and security versus religious expressionment but it seems to me the beard is a pretty easy case, that they will allow the beard to be worn. >> finally, this. is this year likely to significantly define the legacy of chief justice rob
erth -- roberts? >> i think it's a little earlier-- early yet to say that. but-to-things to keep an eye on here that are related. one is race discrimination. this is a court, the conservative majority, and here anthony kennedy is very much with his fellow conservatives, really has a great distaste for any sort of consideration of race. affirm of difficult action, racial preferences and admissions. and there's a case involving housing discrimination which gives them another opportunity to say, we are not going to recognize anything other than direct discrimination. i am not hiring you. i'm not allowing you to rent a house because you are black. that any sort of statistical proof, they don't like. and in a similar way, on voting rights, any sort of consideration of race in voting rights is something
that's clearly distasteful. and there's a case out of alabama that i think the conservatives will use to further narrow the traditional civil right as genda. so those are two, i think, very much worth keeping an eye on. >> thanks for joining us. pleasure to have you. >> all right, charlie. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. >> there is more high legal drama in washington. it concerns the government's 2008 bailout of aig. global financial services powerhouse was rescued at the height of the economic crisis since 2011, aig former c.e.o. hank greenburg has taken aggressive aim at the terms of that rescue. his lawsuit argued that the government cheated shareholders out of $40 billion. the trial began last week and continues this week with david boyd, greenburg's lawyer said to grill a list of star witnesses am these include former federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. hank paulson, former president of the new york fed, tim gtener who later became treasury secretary
under president obama. i'm joined by aaron kessler of "the new york times" and leslie discuss. of "the wall street journal." -- scism of "the wall street journal." give me the significance of this trial beyond the-- the suit which is to recover some money, leslie? >> the case is significant because it really challenges what the government was doing. now of course we've had dowd frank since then that has put in place measures for how you would resolve companies if they get into financial trouble. but this would be a really big slap in the face of the government. but not having properly carried out this particular rescue. >> rose: and it's probably the first time that these guys have been under oath to explain their actions and by a very, very good trial lawyer who is not only read their book, but also subpoenaed or gotten information about the writing of their books and what they have said.
every possible note or utterance they made, about this case. >> precisely. these gentlemen gentlemen have testified extensively in congress. and been before the financial crisis inquirery commission. so they are used to giving testimony. but they may not be used to the bull dog approach, that they're going to face with david-- here. >> rose: aaron, what do you think of this case? >> i think you're correct. i mean essentially what you have here is a situation where the government bailed out aig to the tunes of tens of billions of dollars. and then they come back in this case, six years later, and they say it wasn't enough. so it's one of those things where the government seems to believe if aig has the ability to dictate the terms of its own bailout that that sets a very dangerous precedent for any other company going forward, even with dowd frank, should trouble arrive in the future. >> yes, i want to add to that, that the plaintiffs,
star international company run by hank greenburg, maintains that the government wrongly applied punitive terms, wrongly sought to penalize it. the government and its response says no, we weren't so much being punitive as we were looking, we were concerned about moral hazard. and we felt we had to put together a very stiff set of terms because we didn't want to encourage other companies to be reckless, and then think they could come to us and getter deal than they could get from the private sector. >> rose: but does it make the case, will david boyd be able to make the case that somehow the terms in this situation were different from the terms with other banks, and that therefore they want beyond the law in the collateral they demanded, the stock, as well as the interest rates they imposed. >> in certain ways they've already raised that at the trial, just in the first week, and now this testimony by hank paulson. and they almost have the
government officials admitting that that is the case, that it was a harsher penalty for aig, that did have a higher interest rate than any other bank. but what the government has said is look, we're justified to do that. we had our reasons, that we felt it was necessary, and it was legal. but in terms of the basic tenants of whether or not aig was treated differently, it's almost like that's already been decided and now they're arguing over whether that was right or wrong. >> exactly. i think hank paulson today testified, said under oath that it was apples to oranges, some of these comparisons that david was bringing up about tougher treatment for aig versus some other companies. and he said we were acting based on the kirx in this case so, it will be-- based on the circumstances in this case. so it will be interesting how the judge, does it matter in the end legally that one got a different set of conditions than many others did. >> rose: what was the hardest question for hank paulson today? >> he did struggle a little bit on a question about
china. he seems to take issue with the idea that the china aes government, the cic, was going come in and save the day for aig. he was very skeptical that was going to happen, mr. boist tried to press him on that to see whether he was really open to the idea of a chinese rescue. and then hank paulson would push back, probably the hardest, de all day, against that idea. >> rose: and then you'll hear from ben bernanke and also from tim quitener, as i said, these are the three people who were at the centre of the financial crisis, how difficult a road is this for david boyes to climb. >> he has several challenges. first he has to prove that the government did act beyond-- went beyond the reaches of the fed really reserve statute, correct. but then on top of that he may have to prove damages. and economic loss to aig. so even if he's able to convince the judge that aig-- that the government did something wrong here, the government may still be able to say, but where is
the harm? where is the loss? they can't prove they were hurt by anything we did. >> so it seems like david does have a pretty hard-- pretty hard case. but he's got a lot of money, you know. mr. greenburg has been paying the legal bills, and there's been a lot of money coming in. but they have been able to spend a lot to build as good a case as you could possibly build. >> and mr. boyes has been successful in certain aspects of defending mr. greenburg, has he not? >> the government has fought to get this case thrown out a couple of times. and you know, still here we are in court. and a couple claims remain. so that says david boyes has had some success so far. >> rose: aaron? >> that's exactly right. there is also a case a couple of years ago where hank greenburg sued aig about who owned star, the company that is now suing in this court. so he represented
mr. greenburg and won that case, and was able to show that hank greenburg actually was the controlling interest in star, as opposed to aig. and what's interesting is now you go a couple years later, and here we are in court. and there is no one from aig that is necessarily on mr. greenburg's side. you have a few of his old friends from the company, and what not. but aig itself is not a party to this suit, and they don't really agree with what he is doing. you sort of have this strange triangle, aig, the government, mr. greenburg and the shareholders. >> rose: you come back to what mr. denser said who is the government's lawyer. he said it's like they've said thanks for the life boats, but they're just not comfortable enough. in his opening argument. >> in some ways aig's interests are aligned with the government here. because as we have reported in a story at the "the wall street journal," there are some indemnification provisions in the credit facility that is at the heart of this case. so if, if mr. greenburg wins this case, if star wins this case and there is some big
award, the government could turn to aig and say well, we like your help paying for this. there are some good reasons why aig could get, you know, arguably could get out of that indim anyification agreement. but it's an interesting twist here. >> rose: aaron, how is aig doing now, some eight, nine years later? >> it's doing okay. that's part of what the government has been saying. is look, to get to the previous point about damages, where are the damages here? the aig shareholders might have obviously taken a certain haircut at the time, if you will, in terms of the shares and the way they were diluted. but they ultimately made money. the government is saying look, the shareholders in this case wound up making money, so there is no way we should have to go back later on and give them even more. remarkably aig is doing okay, all things considered. >> rose: what interested me about this, is just the dynamic of this courtroom, with the issues as big as they are, and the money as large as it is, and the personalities who are in there, as witnesses, you know, and the star quality
of david, reputed to be, certainly one of the great trial lawyers. >> it's interesting, though, in terms of you mention mr. boyes and his style. he has this sort of conversational style and the way he deals with the witnesses,. and mr. paulson today was very straightforward, if you will, might not be the best word. but he would answer the questions very directly. they kind of moved through very quickly, much more quickly than we would have thought. whereas last week the fed's general counsel was on the stand and seemed to contest every little point. they were arguing over the meaning of words like what does many mean, or, you know, is a bond downgraded, and so that took days. i mean so it will be interesting to see if mr. quitener and ben bernanke learn from what hank paulson did today and sort of follow in that lead. >> rose: thanks, leslie, thanks, aaron. in full disclosure i should note that many years ago the star foundation like many other found station-- foundations was one. underwriters of this show, and david boyes has been a long time personal friend of mine. back in a moment. stay with us.
>> rose: gillian flynn wrote a 2012 thriller called "gone girl" it has sold 8 million copies worldwide it follows nick and amy dunn a couple experiencing a marriage gone wrong when amy mysteriously goes missing. nick becomes a prime suspect in the investigation of her possible murder. it is now filmed by david finch, heres is the trailer for gone girl. >> nick dunn, you're probably the most hated man in america right now. did you kill your wife, nick? >> every one told us, and told us, marriage is hard work. not for me and nick. >> as you all know, my wife, amy elliott dunn disappeared three days ago. i had nothing to do with the disappearance of my wife. i have nothing to hide. >> you don't know if she has friends. you don't know what she does
all day, and you don't know your wife's blood type. >> just being a good guy,. >> boy, you really don't like hirjs do you. >> all i'm trying to do is be nice to the people who are volunteering to help find amy. >> i will practice believing my husband loves me. but i could be wrong. >> have you ever seen that guy in the glasses before. >> amy is the kind of girl who attracts admirers. >> i'm hoping you can tell me what this means. >> amy's treasure hunt. >> you seen this girl around here. >> yeah, i remember her. >> i know you. i saw you at the volunteer center. >> i wanted to help. >> what's your want. >> she wanted a gun. >> we are all scared, but we are all fear now. >> i feel like something to be jetisoned is necessary. i feel like i could disappear. >> the hallmark of a socio path is a lack of empathy. >> amy lost a lot of blood in there and somebody mopped it up. >> why would they mop up the blood if they were trying to stage a crime scene. >> whatever they found, i think it's safe to assume it is bad. >> i finally realized i'm
frightened of my own husband. >> in a deposition what to say, what not to say. >> a trained monkey. >> who doesn't get legal injections. >> she's going eat auliffe. >> you assaulted her. >> that's not good enough for you. >> i hit her? absolutely not, i never touched her. >> involved in the disappearance of our daughter. > without a body, without a murder weapon, their only hope is a confession. >> do y'all know anything yet. >> you need to tell me, how was your marriage, nick. >> are you asking me if i killed my wife. >> man of my dreams, this man of mine. >> what about my side. >> this man may kill me, in her own words. >> this may may-- man may truly-- kill me. >> did you ever hear the expression, the simplest answer is often the correct one. >> actually, i have never found that to be true. >> rose: joining me now david fincher, the director, gillian flynn, the author, screenwriter and two the stars ben affleck and rosamund pike. i'm pleased to have them here at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much. >> rose: explain the popularity of the book first?
>> explain yourself. >> rose: yes. i mean you're here now. >> you know, i think it was the relationship that is at the heart of the story. you know, i think there are a lot of different kind of thrillers, you know, that have a who done it element. but i think it was one of those things, women wanted to talk about it, men wanted to talk about t people finished reading it and handed it down to someone else. >> rose: because it's about relationships at the core. >> i think at the core there is a lot of entry points to it. there's gender stuff. there's the media, and what that is doing to society. there's relationship stuff. there's a lot of ways into the book. ways to have opinions about it. >> tell me about the cast. i mean you basically said that based on ben's smile. >> yes. that's a little-- yeah, exactly. it's a little out of the-- no, i-- i never dreamed that he would be available. because actually at the time that we were crewing up to make the movie, we were sort
of jockeying to get the las last-- electricians and camera department people because he was directing. >> yeah. >> and it was obviously, i mean everybody was discussing at the studio. >> and. >> why were they saying that? >> because it's just too perfect. >> what does that mean? >> i think that you need to have somebody who has great wit about the situations that this guy finds himself in. >> i mean you don't want somebody who has, you know, he needed to be somebody who could understand the global aspect of the film, the impression that he's making over the course of two and a half hours, as opposed to, you know, finding yourself in a situation that's particularly embarrassing at any given moment. >> rose: tell me how you saw nick? because you have said this is the trickiest role. >> yeah, i mean i think it's really, it's the role that
the movie hinges on. there's some of subtlety to it. there are so many different nuances to it but we can't really know that there are nuances being played. so i had to have an actor like ben, i thought of him kind of immediately, once i started writing the screenplay because i kind of knew, you know, i loved films like hollywoodland, where you saw kind of that darker side. i knew he had that great acting ability to pull off making us wonder what this guy was thinking, without saying too much. and at the same time, this real core likability. does you don't want the audience to turn completely off on him immediately. >> rose: so what was the challenge for you here, both of them thought you were the guy for nick. >> -- you are a morally suspect character. >> as it was put in some magazine, but no, the truth s i think what was really interesting for me was i mean yes, there are-- certainly
i'm not the only actor who has been through tabloid experiences and have had photographers outside their home and that sort of thing. but it's something that i have sort of made peace with. and there's a particular sort of quality to that experience in my life, that is parallel in some ways to some of the-- story. >> rose: you had something to go on. >> yeah, i didn't have to spend a lot of time researching that. >> but there was also no hindsight resentment of it. i think you were incredibly well balanced. and-- you don't have any say in t it's not about you, it's beyond you. i think that is the thing that, the effortlessness that you were able to bring to it. >> i think what these guys put together was a really interesting challenge and interesting and unusual protagonist. if is not a conventional pro nag test because it is somebody that -- hollywood has this obsession with like able. if you read studio notes, one of the first things, the guy is not likable enough. we're not invested with him enough to. make somebody likable the theory goes you have to adhere to these six or seven
articles of behavior. and this movie, this book and movie seem to totally want to abandon that. and so that what happens is that sometimes he makes choices that sometimes you can understand and empathize with and some things happen and you go whoa, whoa, i'm not sure i would do that, exactly. and he is sometimes obtuse and sometimes-- and what is interesting about that, i think, the audience is forced to project themselves on to a more honest pro nag-- protagonist than one that is conveniently manufactured to, you know, sort of reassure us of our own virtue. >> rose: how did you know about this film? >> very good point, one of the things, in this film likability is not important. which say big relief. i think for all of us. i heard about it --. >> rose: is this a role you went after because you -- >> you can't go after something when he's directing it. you can't, no. >> rose: he has to come to you. >> he has a very singular process which everybody-- i mean, i think that's the
point. i know enough about directors to sort of believe fundamentally you can't really-- you can sort of pitch your wears to a director. i don't think that is how it works. people try, sure. but the approach has to come. >> rose: is that true, do you believe. suppose there is someone who really has to convince somebody, maybe at first instance, they don't think that you might be right. you have to convince them because you think -- >> of course. >> rose: then dow convince them and then they're happy you did. >> the temptation to do that is obviously very strong. but i, i don't know. how many times have you been convinced of something. >> i think you can make an impression. i don't know how david does it i think you can make a-- it's appealing to see somebody has a tremendous amount of commitment and is wills to like walk through fire, which ross did. she did everything you can possibly do for this movie. and that was clear, and so other than that, i think sometimes ackers-- . >> rose: you mean in the movie or getting the part. >> yeah, during the movie, yeah, willing to go to any lengths to accomplish the,
to play the part. but you know, this thing actor does where they are playing like the war hero, come heroin addict, i actually was a heroin addict too, you get a little-- i've done it myself, starting out as an actor. i had a tv show, you can play tins, i was like yeah, i'm actually pretty good. and the whole scene was hitting tennis balls and it was just like-- it comes out. so there is a-- thing that goes on and that is why it is hard to tell. but what is easy to see is commitment, and that's easiest. i imagine david saw materialee on. >> rose: go ahead. >> when i feel that also you know, i feel when dave fincher meets you, your only responsibility is to try and show him some truth, you know, because he's not a guy who is going to take whatever has been packaged already. he's got his own very particular-- and when he talks to you, he is going to scan the sub strata and find out who you really are. and you know, you just have to go in there with a willingness to talk for
hours and hours and hours. and it's interesting. and yeah, i read this bock and thought well, i know i've got this in me somewhere which is disturbing enough as it is. but-- . >> rose: you mean you had amy in you? >> yeah. >> rose: this is what you said about her exactly. you needed an only child. you needed an orchid. and you needed a hot house flower. >> well, what i said was-- what i said was when i met her, i had seen rosamund's work. hi seen, or hi seen a lot of it. and i had seen it kind of parsed, you know, it would be like i would see a movie and two years later another movie. and i'm one of those people who, i watch actors all day long. that's all i do. so i kind of, you know, you think you develop a radar for their-- for their how many errors they have-- arrows they have in their quiver. and i never got a bead on rosamund which was something that was very different for me. because so when we started talking about rosamund i was
like, well, i don't have-- i don't have a full impression of her. which is weird, because i've seen four movies that she's been in. and then i met her, and i realized that there is a sort of opacity and there's-- and there's a-- there's a resistance to being pinned down. and as we started talking, i was drawn to her and curious about her. and we started talking about her upbringing. and she revealed that she was an only child. and it suddenly occurred to me, that's amy is an only child who has has a cartoon, has a twin and this-- all of a sudden it made sense. why i couldn't quite grasp it. >> rose: facts filling out your instinct. >> exactly, you go i don't know,
tyler perry. >> i had met tyler in real life. 4[wp>> in the book he's much more, you know, he's -- >> showman a little more. >> he's a little more. >> razzle-dazzle. >> he's also a little more cynical, you know, i think in the book. and he's much more of a huck center, and what i love, as we were starting to see the faces and have the pictures an kind of get a look at the team, one of the things that i sort of felt was we have so little screen time with tanner, maybe he shouldn't be this guy who is totally smooth. maybe he should be a guy who is totally honest. and puts you at ease. and when you talk to tanner bolt, tanner bolt who is introduced as a shy center, you know, like, and you see him and he's like, you got to go take it on the chin. you have to walk out there, and you've got to take your lumps and there is the best way to do it.
show contrition and that's what is-- and what i love is his voice, and his manner. an as an actor, he watches everything so-- you know, he's so wrapped in it. he watches everybody. and i thought that was something-- . >> rose: tyler perry. >> yeah, it is that. he's-- he's a talk show host. he's like somebody is going to sit you down and make you feel calm and you're going to-- you're going to spill. >> rose: what does it tell us about in the end, about media and how we-- those of us who don't, i don't do up a lot of that. but we all are obsessed by celebrity. and, in fact, we bring a prism to it that's unreal. >> well, it's not-- we're not talking about the media. we're talking about a very narrow spectrum which is tragedy vampirism. >> rose: tragedy -- >> vampirism. >> rose: is that a term you coined? >> i've trademarked it. but no, i don't know any
other way to describe it. -- it's when you see these programs that are designed to stoke your rightous indignation about what is such an obvious, you know, when it's nine times out of ten it's the husband, and it's o obvious this is one of those nine times, that's what we are talking about. we're talking about that rush to judgement. we're talking about the stoking of the lynch mob. >> there is a certain profiteering that i think is unseemly. and inserting of one's self into a story. and when it doesn't seem to be scandallus or pur yent enough, trying to dig around for more details. look, clearly someone murdered someone in their family. it's appropriate to report on it. it's appropriate to-- but
then there come these huck center lawyers who show up and want to sue somebody and four more shows show up. and there is a chicken and the egg thing. where the people who are doing this, semi hysterical reportage around murder say well, it's what the-- giving people what they want. the demand is there for it, so we give them. i think that is a sort of-- not unlike, you know, a crack dealer might say to you. why are you doing this? well, people want the crack, they weren't all smoking it to begin with, because you sold it to them. >> rose: why dow make so many drugs. >> because you americans want them. >> there a market. >> rose: you wrote characters two important characters, nick and amy, was it easier for you to write one or the other, and part of that question, but nick may be more interesting. >> it was easier for me to white nick. i mean -- >> because? >> i'm-- nick-like. there's a certain, you know, nick i gave-- nick has a lot of my biography.
we come from the same area. we, you know, both were pop culture obsessed. and wrote about that. and you know, i certainly, i felt i have a very soft spot for everything that nick gets himself into because i'm sort of that sort of same way. like what is the easiest thing to do here, is to well, you know, i'll smile and see where this goes instead of actually fighting it. which i think is a lot of nick's thing. and you know, with amy i spent a lot of time trying to figure out who amy was. i spent allots of doing, you know, old-fashioned like college-level, you know, exercises, writing exercises to try to figure out who amy was. it took a little bit longer than that to, you know, that is why amy has got such an elaborate back story. you know, the parents weren't in there to begin with, as i was trying to figure this out, i said you have to go back to the childhood somewhere. >> what is the impact on her, she hates it when she get os to a small town. what is the impact on her in
terms of development that she has this cartoon character sister. >> to me that is kind of what i thought when i was realizing-- i knew she came from money, early on. i couldn't figure out what the family industry was, for a while it was like a dating site. and i thought that was too on the nose. kind of like this eharmony marriage site. and then i thought, i thought oh, i've got -- >> we should have done that. >> whatever, keep going. >> dvd extra. >> we'll fill testimony. >> then i just realized that idea of first of all this kind of unearned honor, her parents are the ones that created this famous alter ego for us. she didn't do it but at the same time i liked the idea that it was always a little bit better than she was. she was in constant, you know, sibling rivalry with this thing that didn't really exist. but i mean rosamund, how did you get, did that feel right to you. >> you only talked about celebrity earlier, i think that is the hardest thing. when are you under the media spotlight for something you didn't earn through your own merits, which is what amy
had from a tiny girl. she had to perform at these book functions. >> rose: so does she feel like a fake. >> i don't think she knows who she is. she has a fragile sense of self. because you have this amazing amy character that excels everywhere, at every point that the real amy failed or gave up, whether it's supporteds, music, academia, whatever. and yet she's meant to sort of go out there and parade herself as a sort of, you know, as the prototype. and i think it's-- she is probably very inward looking because of that. and also a sense of sort of entitlement coupled with inferiority or inadequacy which makes a very unstable person. so you translate that little girl into an adult woman who is in new york on the dating scene, where there is freedom, sass awe-- as you say in new york to keep reinventing yourself. if you do live in a small town, because your circle of friends are going to shift. and she will just be whoever she needs to be to get the best out of that situation, you know. >> rose: let's talk about
mr. fincher as a director. is he different? >> i don't-- we don't talk about this much. but he. >> rose: are you putting me on. >> this is awkward. i don't want-- . >> rose: are you putting me on. >> the studio felt as though they needed, i don't want to say ghost director. but-- . >> rose: he is putting me on. >> but somebody without could-- . >> rose: he's kidding. >> a grown-up, on the set. and so, because not that he's bad, charlie, that's not what i'm saying, or helpless, or confused. those are the wrong words. >> rose: but he needed somebody there when he had to make a hard decision. >> a decision maker. >> not a ghost director but, you know, the smile also-- a lot of the decisions. >> rose: let me see if i've got it now. on the set he is kind of is wishy washy, doesn't really know what he wants. pretty much is willing to take the first thing he sees, and go with it, have i got it. >> yes. good enough.
>> home at lunch, doesn't care much. and so that -- >> no, obviously david has got the whole-- everybody knows that david is-- . >> rose: is what? >> i think you just work anyway. behind the scenes i have seen good directors and bad director. it's hard to tell when you watch them work because stylistickically people are different. but david's movieses are, speak for themselves an they're excellent. and great. and so that's the thing as an actor, you show up and say want to work with somebody i can trust. because so often you lay yourself out there just as hard for a movie that works as one that doesn't. the same, but what ross did, for just the physical aspect of getting banged against walls an thrown on the ground. david has yet to learn about stunt actors. >> rose: you mean it is a punishment to be with him. >> you put yourself, you commit yourself and you want it to be like, you want somebody use the good stuff, to make a smart movie. and that is the basis of appeal. and i liked when i first sat down with david he was like, i don't know if you thought
i was going to be club med or something, but it's not about the process, for me. it's about like, i want to do something, it's not the product. but what we do ultimately. how we express this, in other words, the message is not going to be a party, we're not going to have fun, we're not doing this so we can, get free drinks after. this is about making something that we can be proud of. and i like that idea a lot. a lot more than just sort of we'll get a good caterer. >> rose: then what he said about famous many takes. it's a lot of extra work for an actor and sometimes pushes them out of their comfort area, zone, in some cases they are not getting paid as much as they would on another movie, i would go out on a limb, if people work harder for me than they do with other people, but i want them to be happy with the fact that we were able to do something singular, something unlike anything else in their or my tomography. that's well said. >> that's very well said. >> that's exactly right.
>> very well-- not only de want to you be an assistant director, but a publicist for him. >> charlie, exactly. >> are we-- you get to a certain point, what matters is am i-- is this going to matter to me. am i going to be proud of this. and david is, to praise him in front of him is awkward but he's there before anybody, and he's there after everyone has gone home. i think that is the mark of i guy who says we can succeed, we can fail, we can make good choices or bad choices but i will be invested if not more so than anybody here. that's actually not common among guys who become really successful and been around the block and some directors tend to kind of go, yeah, i can prep the movie in two weeks. i feel like this is pretty good. david has more drive than a hungry director, never mind a guy who is like fat on the hog in santa barbara, you know. >> rose: fat on the hog in santa barbara. >> he-- okay, well, go ahead.
>> in any skilled or creative endeavor, the more time are you given, the better results you are going to get. and david will spend his budget mainly on time, not on sort of, huge crew that is going to sort of-- i mean, that is where the money on screen, we shoot maybe five hours of footage a day, that's a lot of time on camera. especially you know, which is a luxury. the most easiest way to make an actor screw something up is say we've got to get this in 20 minutes. then they're going to bring all their-- it will hit the fan. >> it is indicative of a priority. a zero sum gain. a certain amount of money and timing how do you spend that on this movie and david's other movies it is spent in front of the camera shooting. for an acker you have two options. you can making the movie, doing what is interesting, trying different things or sitting in your trailer. which is incredibly boring and frustrating because you're not there to do what you want to do. but with him, by far, the ratio of shooting to-- is
higher than i have ever seen and it is really rewarding. the day goes by 14, 12 hours and it feels like nothing. >> rose: do you try to pick actors who you know have that philosophy that you have. or do you somehow know that that is kind of-- the acker i want. >> i think your job is to inspire people to, well, i think look, i agree. i think actors want to act. i don't think they want to-- i don't think they want to spend time on twitter. i think that they want to like actually show up and do, and have bites of the apple. you know, i've a lot of friends who are actors without do live theatre. and i go to visit them and i go backstage to see them and they go oh, you should have come on tuesday. that was the one. and you go what, you don't want to do that with a movie. with a movie you want to go-- here it is on blu-ray and by the way, this is all the best stuff. >> this is literally, there is good stuff that isn't in here. but this is the best. and that is what i'm trying to do. >> it just makes you know,
the question to people without don't do multiple takes is why do you-- . >> rose: why did you know you could make it better. >> you know. >> you gather all these people and all this money, and the trucks and drivers and the sets and the thing and then go like, that seemed good enough, i don't know, you guys want to head? pretty good, i mean -- >> let's go to the casino. >> exactly. >> rose: where have nick and amy in ten years? >> nowhere good. nowhere good. you know, i love-- people that is me, you know, oh, when is the sequel coming. i certainly did not set out to write anything that was going to go on. you know, i ended the book the way i ended it because i liked those open-ended endings. i like that sense of kind of unease that you have. >> rose: you didn't want it neatly tied together. >> i didn't want to neatly tied together. absolutely not. certainly i knew that was not always going to be the most satisfying end are for
some people, especially for people who have been kind of trained. here comes the movie and here is the explosion or gunshot. >> justice. >> here comes the -- >> did you find the justice in this. >> well, i mean people tell me all the time, people will wait 30 minutes in line to get their book signed by me and slam it down in front of me and said i hated the ending. and i say well, what did you want to happen. >> i wanted justice. >> what about the story ever made you believe there was going to be justice. >> rose: what about these characters. >> what about life made you think. >> what about love. >> yeah. exactly. >> rose: what about love. >> what about love. where does justice-- . >> rose: there is no justice in love. >> i don't think so. >> rose: so when you think about five to ten years, are you now intrigued by the idea of coming back to these characters? >> certainly not for a while. i've had a fair amount of nick and amy. but you know, i've been in their brains for too long. but you know, i like to see if the-- when the teen years come around. >> you're intrigued by this.
>> i think what is interesting about this question is that the actual, the paradigm shift would be, not that, this is like-- just the idea of of it is that the whole thing changes because there would be a child am you have a kid. you would be raising a kid. the center of graph sit not nick or amy or nick and amy or their whole, you know, schtick together. it's like how are they affecting the lives of this child. a big reason why nick ends up or why he says he ends up staying. it's like now my responsibility is to this child, and my own needs have to be completely subverted. i often admire people, actually, who i know who have made choices like that. who said like, this is-- it's a consequence of some choices i made in love. but now here mi, this child is here and i'm going to invest in it at the expense of a lot of other stuff i would rather be doing. and that's half what nick says. that's interesting and much more tragic than a bad marriage. is the like horrible baggage, you know, that can be passed on to children. >> rose: to children. >> as everyone knows, you know, to do the whole classic have the baby to
save the marriage thing, children only expose any cracks and fissures it that are already there. so i think seeing what that brings out in nick and amy as they each try to mold or protect the child, can be sort of fascinating. >> rose: you're intrigued by what happens to amy? >> yeah, i am, yeah. i am intrigued, yes. i mean yeah, your brain continues with the characters, long after you finish seeing the movie. but i need to have gillian's brain to really figure it out. >> rose: what was the hardest thing about nick for you? >> the hardest thing was definitely, like when i first sat down with david, he said look, we have to just let go of any vanity, any of the act ory stuff, any pretense, self-consciousness and worriesing what people will think. >> rose: meaning being a mean character. >> being, doing things that people judge. like you this guy nick, is a
jerk. a lot of journalists say that you have to understand i have done enough movies to know, and i have enough friends who are actors to know that audiences con plate people with the characters they play. so there is a vulnerable to go, as you know, i know people who are not great people but who are thought of as great people because they play great characters and vice versa. >> rose: yes, right. >> and i have been in situations where people have sort of made judgements about me based on the characters i played. so there is a raw sort of first level of soil that says oh, we're going to do that, i'm going to do that, but that looks, horrible, you know. >> and it's not even the notion of did he or didn't he. and is he done something evil, it's also he does things that are very human, that are like oh, why. and that's a really, it's a hard thing. an audience, audiences go either way. and i think actors go out of their way to be in a situation where you can avoid that. you've agreed on what the
text is. you've rehearsed the thing. you've taken hopefully the stumble, the stumble and fall out of the equation. this is a character who, you know, steps on a rake and gets hit in the forehead. he continually does that. >> rose: did your idea of nick believe can come back in terms of recapturing the life that he had? >> i think he-- i mean i think this is a guy who was sort of, felt like he was operating from behind the whole time. he reminded me of, you know those rats you see in glass cages who keep on scrambling like they can get up but they're just sitting there going like this and there's a lot of that. >> part of of it. and he kept on doing things and i'm going how am i going to fix the last thing that happened. making that stuff feel like, i think that is us. we are constantly shooting ourselves in the foot in ways that we try to pretend we don't. we present our best selves and say our lines right and don't step on the furniture. i wanted to, you know, i believed that he was a guy who was kind of playing catch-up and it took the support of his sister and
the sort of wonderfulfully sort of magically almost tyler perry to come down and say like, you've made many mistakes. and now we're going to try to salvage what can. >> right. >> sometimes we need someone to go. and then he feels like he can do it. he starts to take control of his life. what is interesting is he does have these midwestern values that she talks about of like good manners an earnestness and friendliness and honesty. and every one of those gets him in trouble. he doesn't become successful until he abandons all that stuff and he becomes man i latif. and cagey and, slightly disingenuous in terms of how, i plan how i will come off in the media. i thought that was a bold. >> he is good at it he does it towards the last part of the movie we move into this very, very surreal place where we're sort of,er's is a tirizing so much and yet it's the point that you feel a palpable shift in the
audience, as they start to kind of see these two players playing each other in a totally different way. and i just love, i of love the idea that amy has kind of, for her purposes, has reignited for nick-- the nick that she first saw. she is now performing. she is now, you know, reflecting. he is now in her narcissistic mind sort of worthy of her because he is not playing video games. he's back to presenting a public facade, to performing, to playing the husband incredible. >> you know, i've never been part of a movie, i can't even think of a movie, really, that has genuinely changed tones during the course of the movie. at the beginning it's very realistic, matter of fact, wife's blood type, interrogated by the police. they look at me, she's holding me sort of hostage by, you know, in the shower and there's blood and the whole thing is she has killed-- the whole thing has mushroomed into something totally different that to me it sort of segues from realism into using a kind of
broader brush to allow these themes to emerge in a really rich way. and i don't, that is why i never thought it would be possible to make this movie. i had no idea how you would do it and it's a really interesting trick that david and gillian pulled off. >> rose: thank you, it's incredible. it really is. thank you, david. remarkable. we go out with this scene where nick sees amy at a party. >> amy who are new. >> i'm an award winner-- b, i'm a moderate leer influential-- c, i write personality -- >> okay. well, your hands are far too delicate for scrimshaw work and i happen to be a charter subscribe tore-- weekly so, i will go with c. >> who are you? >> i'm the guy to save you. from all this awesomeness.
this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. brought in you in part by -- >> the street.com featuring stephanie link who features her market incites with action alerts plus. the multimillion dollar portfolio she manages with jim krae cramer. splitsville, hewlett-packard things two companies are better than one. but why is hp splitting now? and what do investors think of the move? >> taking the stand. paulson, geithner, bernanke, familiar faces from the financial crisis in court this week defending their actions in the bailout of aig. today it was former treasury secretary hank paulson's turn. >> turn of events. one of apple'