>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> a father-son duo wrote one of this year's most talked about movies, a space adventure that takes place entirely in zero gravity.

oscar-winning director james cameron calls it the best space film ever done. here is the trailer for "gravity." >> beautiful, don't you think? >> what? >> the sunrise. >> houston, listen to my voice. >> i can't breathe. what do i do?

>> anybody, please copy. >> i am pleased to have the director and his son and co-writer at this table. >> thank you so much. >> actually, i finished the screenplay, a little bit of cg's. >> how long did it take? >> the technology to do it did

not exist. when you are writing, you don't think of those things. >> what were the hardest part? >> gravity. [laughter] creating the illusion of zero gravity. >> the idea of zero gravity is that nothing holds you down. >> strictly speaking, it is called microgravity. there is not such a thing is no gravity. there is always some microgravity. >> i trust your filmmaking.

how was it to have your son work with you? >> it was great in the sense that when we are working together, we are just two writers working together. >> just like any other good writer. >> he came with the concept, not necessarily the story of space but the concept that it was very visceral. it is so relentless that audiences would put themselves into an emotional journey. >> you were working on an independent film that fell through? >> yes, the reason we started talking about "gravity" is that when the project fell through, i went to london to figure out what to do with that project, to find financing. he read this other script that i had written that had a similar concept to "gravity."

we started talking about that concept. we never planned to professionally sit down and write "gravity," we just started talking about the types of movies we wanted to see and that conversation turned into an all night long conversation that led to the plot of "gravity." >> how much money has it made already? like $600 million or something? >> over $500 million. in the whole journey, it has been very surprising. the film took 4.5 years and we released the film two weeks before the venice film festival. we had no idea of what was going to happen. it started to be like a great response from festivals and from viewers. then it started connecting with

the audiences as well. it was a very happy surprise. >> why do you think it is? >> my theory of why audiences are connecting so strongly with that is that beyond being a space movie, a space adventure, it's a movie about a very universal theme, which is adversity. in life, we all go through adversity. when you go as an audience to see the film you get so engaged, and suddenly you start imposing your own adversities. that is why we wanted to do a narrative in this concept. >> i might say it in another way, it is like your two main characters are in danger and you wonder if they are going to make it. it is overlaid by the fact that you are seeing space in a different way.

you get some sense of what it is like to be out there. >> part of the attraction for audiences is getting immersed in that experience of space, to float in space. it had also a thematic function. when we started writing the screenplay, even before we decided it was going to be space, we were talking about -- it is about adversity and the possibility of rebirth. when you go through adversities, you lose ground. all metaphorically, of course, you lose ground. here you have a character that is going through adversities, loses ground, getting further away from human communication

and leaving your own bubble. i think in many ways when the audience sees the film, they are going to keep to the journey and the roller coaster ride, but also there is an emotional immediacy that i think is what has been working with audiences. >> what is the relationship between the characters? >> ryan is a character that has given up on living intellectually. through this journey she's going to get a new desire to live. george is going to teach her not only how to move in this environment that she is not used to but in a way will give her back the desire to live, to enjoy life. the character of matt is this guy who enjoys every moment of

living and will enjoy the moment until he runs out of oxygen. >> the present is a good place to be. [laughter] >> let's take a look. this is when the explorer, which is the spaceship they are on, gets hit by debris. >> mission abort, repeat. confirming visual contact with debris. >> requesting transport. >> we have to go, go, go. >> houston, explorer, copy. >> explorer, do you copy? >> houston, this is explorer. copy. we lost houston. we lost houston.

>> we need to get the hell out of here. man down. man down. >> explorer has been hit. >> dr. stone, must detach. listen to my voice. you need to focus. you need to detach. i can't see you anymore. do it now. >> i'm trying. >> houston, we have lost visual with dr. stone. >> you said that you knew that the main character had to be a woman. how did you know?

>> since we started talking about the thematics of a story about a character who has given up on life, has lost all the force of fertility, we just knew we wanted to have this female presence, this presence like life. it's a movie where the backdrop is earth throughout it and we always see earth as this force of life. >> i would say it was very organic. we started writing and we started discussing. >> the moment we started talking about it, we talked about it as a woman. then we started mapping the whole thing.

it was not until we started developing the script that we questioned why. >> it had to do with the ideas we have been talking about of rebirth and fertility and having the background of earth as mother earth. suddenly everything was infused by female elements. >> you have said sandra's performance was compared to a dance routine. >> we use the approach that she had to take. in order to achieve all the choreography, because it is very complicated. sandra had to go into a whole routine in which she had to hit very specific marks. she had to keep very specific timing, under very gruesome, physical conditions. not unlike a dancer, she prepped for five months for the whole thing.

not unlike a dancer that goes through physical preparation and then going into memorizing very complicated routines. the moment you roll camera, it just frees us to explore expression and emotion. it was brilliant to witness that. >> did you use lots of things that ron howard did not use in 1995 with "apollo 13"? >> scientists and astronauts used to train with the vomit comet -- basically a plane that goes very high up and then just freefalls for 20 seconds and then goes up again -- up again and then freefalls. when you are freefalling, you're inside the plane so you have the

sensation that you are floating, and it is so much fun. [laughter] >> let's take another look at a scene, with some of the same ideas. they get detached while they are flying through outer space. >> we're going to hit hard. grab hold of anything you can. >> what do i do? what do i do?

>> the tether broke. ah, ah! >> i'm going to take a look at this. this is a picture of a lightbox that was one of the new pieces of technology you used. what is the lightbox? >> it is a 9 by 9 empty cube in

which are led lights. i don't know how many million individual lights are inside. you can see the image inside the international space station. if the character is inside, the image will convey the point of view of the character. >> i see. >> that image is going to lead the character. it works as a reference, a point of view. most important is the interaction of the light, because that lighting has to match perfectly with the cg environment that is going to be used.

>> the screenplay from the original title was "gravity, a space adventure in 3-d." we wanted it to be an experience, almost like an interactive experience because our belief is that that way you would connect with the themes on a more emotional level. it would be more direct, more guttural. >> i bet you are waiting to direct, aren't you? >> the script that i showed him that inspired the concept of "gravity," now i'm actually prepping that movie. >> wasn't always inevitable that you would want to do this? >> i never thought i was going to go into film. i said i wanted to be a writer but then i started experimenting with this medium and since i was bombarded by him my whole life, it came natural.

>> i want to go back to the lightbox. this is george clooney in the lightbox. >> you see he is in a rig. it will have certain motion. those are trackers for the visual effects. it is conveying his environment. if he was standing in space, as he looks around, what happens is that that environment, the sun is being projected from the right side of the frame. our view is actually the view of

the camera that was mounted on the robot. >> take a look at it. >> it would just move around, helping the motion. otherwise it is complementing the movement of the robot, otherwise the robot would have to move superfast. it was a strange kind of environment. it is a testament to the actors. >> calling on them to be better than they might in a traditional movie. >> it is almost like a stage play in which the whole thing was to have a thematic and emotional clarity of each single

one of the moments. otherwise all the technology -- the important thing is the story. >> when you are directing george clooney, and he is a really good director, do you call on that skill that he has as well? do you have collaboration about how you might best shoot something that he is involved in? >> he is not only an amazing director, he is an amazing writer. he is a full-blown filmmaker, but he is relaxed. he is there to help you in your film. generally speaking, he is just there doing his job as an actor, something he really enjoys. at the same time, it's so great that he understands exactly what you are doing. you realize that he is already helping you as an actor solve

what you are trying to do as a filmmaker. he has worn the director's hat and he can have a conversation with you as a filmmaker, but never imposing absolutely anything. >> he doesn't tell you how to make your movie. >> he says i only work with people i respect. we are buddies so we can discuss this. >> he is fun. it is like his mission is to make people at ease all the time. for everyone to have a good time. >> and sandra bullock? >> they're both great collaborators in the sense they really gave me the time of day to really work on fine tuning

the dialogue in their scenes. what really surprised me about sandra is when we started the idea where -- i was really surprised that even though i wrote it and i was jaded by the fact that i knew everything that happened, the film had a strong emotional connection to her character. she gave such a true, human performance, which is surprising because she was inside of those horrible rigs. having seen her do that and seeing her on screen just floating, it was really surprising. she told me from the get-go that she wanted to step out of her comfort zone. she really wanted to explore and go for it. it was really remarkable, the

amount of preparation she did and the discipline and precision. i never worked with an actor as precise as sandra. >> did you watch other space movies, those kinds of films about space, even though they were made a long time ago? >> we want to see how they solve certain technological aspects of filmmaking. the only way i can exemplify it is -- it would not be like taking a shower next to a porn star before going out with your girlfriend. now i have to wait a couple of years before i can watch "2001"

again. it is not only the best space movie ever, it is one of the best films ever. >> what would it have done to you if you watched it? >> it's just that it is so elusive. >> did you fear you might be copying it? >> not really fear. i would feel that it is just -- i saw the films that i love but not the big ones like "2001." >> "women in the moon" is a film in 1926.

he already predicted the three stage rockets. >> take a look at this. we want you to set this up. this is dr. stone, sandra trying to make contact with someone while floating alone through space. give me what is beyond what we see, what is going on. you want to show what about her in this scene? >> it was this idea of the difficulty of communication. >> maybe hearing you but not being able to communicate back. roll tape. here it is. [gasping]

>> explorer, do you copy? houston, do you copy? houston, this is mission specialist ryan stone. i am drifting. do you copy? anyone?

do you copy? please copy. >> it was this whole thing of her attempting to communicate. also the whole thing of -- in terms of the directorial approach, until that moment we have been watching and following the journey of these characters like in a third person. now the camera goes inside her point of view. the camera switches into a first-person kind of situation.

the camera goes out to become a third astronaut. the audience is now partaking with the journey. the laws of physics, the character in zero gravity. >> she had to survive, didn't she? >> that was the whole point. it would be like one of our references, before he climbs the last wall to escape. a movie about a character like that. through her journey, she learns to live again. it would be horrible and

anticlimactic -- >> the whole experience has changed her so she wanted to live. you want her to live. >> i understand and respect this, but she had a deeper sense of understanding about life and that is important. the whole point of the whole film is for her to put her feet back on our ground. finally she is grounded. then it was to find a metaphor to get her back on the ground. not only that, in the theme of rebirth, it is like an evolution chart. first you have the primordial soup, then you have amphibians, then she comes out of the water and crawls into the muck. finally she is an erect human.

it was that kind of whole thing that we are talking about, the biological urge. there have been spiritual interpretations of that whole thing. it falls into the understanding of every person to define how to codify the film. >> we explored that instinct that keeps pushing you forward. gravity is the force that is pulling you back to the ground. ♪

>> the new exhibition at the museum of modern art explores the work of a painter who

created some of the most iconic paintings in our history. it was curated by my next three guests. he is the director of a collection in houston. she is curator in the modern art institute of chicago and i'm pleased to have all of them here. how did this come about? >> i have a kind of lucky world plan that after we finished a project with moma a few years ago we got a lovely phone call inviting the artist to be part of a project they had been talking about, and to be the third partner in an exciting exhibition about magritte. it was an easy, one-word answer, absolutely yes. >> why would you want another partner?

>> in the case of our partnership here, i don't know if i ever told stephanie this, but we knew we wanted the show to end in 1938 and we knew that the art institute of chicago had the picture that we wanted to be the last one. you had that amazing painting, "time transfixed." that collection has the largest group of magritte anywhere in the united states. >> how is it traveling? >> it is here until january 12, then it goes to houston and opens right around valentine's day. then we will be in chicago for the summer. >> this is great, for people in those cities and for them to

experience something they would not ordinarily see. tell me who magritte was. >> he was a strange guy, a very interesting man. he behaves like a non-artist. he presented himself as a painter, and he disliked the notion of the bohemian painter. he liked dogs. he never had children. he loved to wear a cowboy hat. >> we have talked about this, i think he puts the bowler hat on in the late 1930s.

his contemporaries identified him with the romantic figure of the lost jockey in paris. he certainly did cultivate this aspect of being a bourgeoise. that is from 1938, it is a publicity shot. >> this is when he went back to london after having been there about three months in 1937 or this big exhibition of his work. it is the first time we see him with the bowler hat on. the first public persona. we think of warhol with the wig. we think of magritte with the bowler hat.

>> sort of an anonymous person who has no individual identity anymore. it is a picture of a man reduced to very standardized dress. >> you called it the mystery of the ordinary. >> yes, because i think both those words are ones that magritte and his contemporaries engaged with, thought about, used in their writing and speaking. that was the original long-winded title that we talked about that got whittled down, because his friend who was -- he wrote that to look at his paintings and turn around and look at the world again was to find that the world had been altered. there were no longer any ordinary things.

originally the title we played around with was no more ordinary things. >> where was he before 1926? >> he was in brussels. he was working as a commercial artist and painting, and he was making pictures that were abstract. in 1926, he decided to turn to painting objects in all their realizable detail. he made a conscious choice to turn his back on conventional notions of avant-garde painting. >> even the flatness of the way he paints things, like very

artificial envelopes. >> it is what helps make him an artist, he knows from his graphic design what is an indelible image in your mind, and he capitalizes on that. that sort of clear, bold, instant communicability that comes out of that early training. one other person i can think of is man ray, and it is interesting that they both have a fine arts career. >> we tend to reduce what is strange to what is familiar, that is the quote.

>> it is almost disturbing when you really get into looking at these pictures. it is almost like a trap. it is very familiar and almost boring or banal, but then there are tricks he uses as a painter to really challenge what you think you know. i think he does that in a very unique way. >> i guess the flip side of that is, to make the familiar strange and the strange familiar. the everyday becomes haunted. >> he was a very good painter and we see him flaunt some of that in the show. he uses techniques to fool the eye.

he first starts out in 1920 with futurist, abstract work. he intentionally adopts a very academic painting style. there are photographs in the catalog of magritte sitting in front of some canvases that are underway. other artists might lay in a sketch but then get to the canvas and begin to do their work on the surface. he is laying in an image and then painting very much in perfect detail and then laying in the next patch like an academic painter would. part of his wholehearted practice, his intentional shunning of one kind of painting style is not just about the way it looks and the illusionist equality it has, but really becoming a different kind of painter.

>> it owes a lot to the backward, noncritical style. there was a strong interest from the surrealists to kind of undermine painting, to cultivate it in painting. he perfectionized it in a very unique way. >> there is the removal of self. he is striving to make images that don't speak of an individual, that are deliberately deadpan and neutral in their style. in 1927, he said something like, "painting excites our admiration for its ability to convey

likenesses of things we do not admire in the original." there is no question it was under attack by the surrealists. there was a thrill on his part of what paint can do that nothing else can in terms of image making. which doesn't contradict what you are saying. >> let's look at some of the things in the exhibition. >> that is a very disturbing piece that is so directly aggressive. it is usually understated, the aggression or violence in his work. the whole topic of glorifying

the child, but here the child becomes kind of a demon. >> this was painted for his first ever one-person show in 1927. it is one of the first times that the bowler hat in man stepped onto the pictorial stage. >> the third is "treachery of images." it is instantly recognizable. >> why is this the most famous? >> and it is so simple. >> and funny. >> and profound. >> this one is kind of

interesting, the first time the language and image are against one another. >> the next one is "the interpretation of dreams." >> this is the one that is done in english, uniquely. he made it for showing in the gallery in new york city. >> it shows the importance of his legacy. >> the next is "the lovers." >> it is mysterious, strange, discomforting. >> there are lots of stereotypes about this one, for instance that his mother committed suicide and was found after she drowned herself.

there is a myth that is probably not true that this imagery comes from that memory. >> or it could be true. for me, that was the story that began to be told in the 1940s, about this image in particular. i think the only reason i always raise a finger and say there is more to it is because if you say this is about the mother's suicide, it is kind of like, we solved the picture. >> this is one of those pictures that you cannot really appreciate the power of it until you have it in person. the physical presence of it, this really strong outline of this woman fighting against a man who seems to be overtaking her, except her bodily form has already overtaken him. that really strong, beautiful shadow on the side.

the violence of it, it is a picture you have to see in person. >> what is the size of it? >> it is about 4.5 feet. it is imposing. >> the next one is "clairvoyance." >> this is magritte practicing his own particular method of image making. it is interesting, i think, to look at this. he draws your attention to the ink. if you follow his gaze, it is not looking at the ink, and it is not looking at his canvas, so his brush, almost unbidden,

conjures up this bird out of nothing. >> we tend to see him actually making things. coinciding with him starting to write about his process. there is an announcement of himself and his practice. you are seeing something familiar, showing him actually creating right in front of us. >> the next one is "not to be reproduced." >> this is remarkable, and so beautifully painted. he referred to it as a failed portrait, one that denies you what you expect. >> last is "time transfixed."

>> it is a work that i look at all the time, except for the past couple of months. it still haunts me when i walk into the gallery. it is a perfect example of the familiar, and you look at it and you can easily say it is a fireplace hearth and it is a pipe, and then you say wait a minute, it is not a pipe, and is actually a train. there is an idea about the motion of the train and stopping time on the clock. candlesticks that aren't doing anything. it is a picture that you can walk by and think it is so familiar. i am very familiar with the picture and yet it still confounds me. it haunts me. >> tell me what happened to him after 1938. >> in 1939, as we all know, the

war breaks out. belgium is occupied. he does not make a lot of pictures. >> there is the moment when he is afraid to be put in a mental asylum. >> he did a lecture in 1938. what was it called? >> in wonderful, surrealist fashion, he sort of narrated the development of his life and art as a painter and talked about influences and inspirations, and childhood moments. >> in 1929, the wall street

crash happened, and he went back to brussels because he couldn't make a living anymore. >> he was supposed to have a one-person show in march of 1930, two weeks before the gallery went bankrupt. he and his wife are left in paris without a means of support. >> then he made a great sale. >> then he went back to brussels and opened up a commercial art studio. >> he said one year before his death, "i don't want to belong to my own time, or for that matter, to any other." >> his art is timeless. there is something very confusing. the mystery of the ordinary is really true. you believe you know it.

>> some artists thought they were in his tradition. >> that statement was made at a time when he was being compared frequently to the pop artists. so he said that, i don't want to belong to my time or any other, to distinguish himself from warhol or others who were embracing commercial, contemporary culture. he wanted to say i am more enduring than that. >> he said that pop art is painted reality, but he infused it with a sense of mystery. >> it is the poetic potential of the everyday. that is what magritte does that only he does. when you think about all the different artists who come after

him, trying to go beyond abstract expressionism. you can go on right up until the present moment. >> go see it at moma, then it goes to houston. thank you all. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west" where we cover the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i am emily chang. our focus is on innovation, technology, and the future of business. let's get straight to the rundown. ces is about to kick off. google has teamed up with