>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> steven soderbergh is one of our great directors. movies like "sex, lies, and videotape" have earned him a

reputation for balancing mainstream appeal with creative ambition. he worked together with the screenwriter scott burns. they bring their collaboration to the theater. the play is called "the library" written by scott burns and directed by steven soderbergh. let's begin at the beginning. how this began. there was an effort in hollywood to make a movie out of columbine. >> i read a book and i know that stephen was reading it at the same time. even though nobody was interested to make it as a film,

it was one part of the story i had not been aware of until i read dave's book. i thought it could make a great play. >> you suggested that to steven soderbergh. >> i started writing it. after we finished "side effects," i asked if he had an interest in a play. >> you directed a couple before. >> this is the third thing i have done. i wanted to do this one because it was tied into conversation scott and i had had about our primal need for stories. how we make sense of everything. what i said to scott was, think of what your life consists of. something happens to you, you tell somebody about it. something happens to them, they tell you about it. that is most of your life. this was about the danger of

putting the story -- replacing the story, giving it a priority over the truth in an effort to heal or transcend or whatever. >> everybody has their own motivator. >> we are all trying to figure out reasons to get up in the morning and keep going. that is fine. in this situation, these competing narratives create destructive debate within a community. i said yes because i thought, we have been preparing for this for a long time. >> the larger point is what is truth? >> what is truth and what happens when people get trapped in their own narrative. what can we do to get outside of that?

the empathy that requires. do we ever move closer to understanding? >> this is not related but at the same time, has the idea -- bob woodward's technique for writing books -- he gets one person in the room and they tell him what they saw and heard. he uses that to get another person to say what he saw or heard because he thinks they are --. you come up with a mosaic of the meeting. >> the question becomes -- everybody has a different motivation and agenda. some of the people may be driven by a certain ideology. at what point, if you are bob woodward, you are going on instinct about who will get primacy. that is tricky stuff. if you are off compass three degrees, you are way off.

>> there are things in law school. i went to law will. they will have somebody come in and explode the classroom and run out. this is a common technique. everybody has to describe what happened. it is vastly different. people tell different things. was that a redshirt or brown shirt? black slacks or tan slacks? >> imagine a situation where your life is threatened and somebody is trying to get what you saw or heard. you are talking about a 16-year-old. who has other issues in her life besides that. >> the shooting takes place in a

high school library. there is a shooter who comes in. he has a motivation for doing that. the motivation becomes very subjective for all the people who are affected. we don't learn for quite a while what is driving the shooter. more importantly, there is an incident that happens -- i don't want to give away the play -- an incident that happened in the library and a girl who is wounded and survives. it is her journey afterwards. how does one get their truth told and listened to? when there are other people who were claiming great amounts of pain and suffering. >> i don't want to give away either. there is someone who is killed. >> several people. >> in different places. they have parents. their parents are invested in their child. that is their prism.

>> absolutely. in order to deal with an unspeakable tragedy, you have a parent who constructs a narrative that somehow makes this livable. the problem is their narrative -- >> the only way it softens the impact of the tragedy. >> the parent did not just show up. how does this event integrate into that? >> everybody is affected by the way their life was before. police play a role, too. >> the media plays a role. the fact that we live in a world with unfiltered content. >> you also put this in the context of media today. what do you believe?

>> as you have seen, in many outlets, you'd rather be first then right. this is the situation in which this is happening in a big way. the effect it has on the lead character is intense. >> what drove you to this? to want to do this theme? >> it grew out of these conversations that scott and i would have about why we can't seem to solve more problems in the world. >> we see them differently. >> because of these competing narratives. >> i have thought is as important -- for negotiators. people like henry kissinger have said this. you have to begin by expressing what you want. you have to begin by

communicating that you understand where they are coming from. they are getting a hearing within you as the world they see. >> i think that is absolutely true. very much with the play is about. the heart of the conversation that scott and i were having. you are talking about empathy. the one ability to understand why somebody is asking for what they are asking for. that is why when he brought the play to my attention, the idea that he was going to do it -- it seems these are things that run throughout the three films we have made together. it seemed in alignment with those. >> the detective tells caitlin chloe grace -- the difference between what people said and which they said tends to grow. >> i think so.

especially in a situation like this where there is trauma. >> it is interesting to bring another example into this -- it is said that president reagan would talk about the war in such graphic terms, but it was based on what he had done in los angeles. and that somehow what had actually happened and what he would describe -- >> -- had become fused. that doesn't surprise me. i know that seeing the television movie the day after was one of the reasons he started on this idea of speaking with the soviets about disarmament. he was so affected by the movie, he said, we have to do something about this. >> he was an interesting guy. before those conversations with gorbachev, they would make movies about soviet history for him.

that was the way he learned more than reading a lot of books. >> wish i could've made those. >> we both read the nicholson baker book. that had been a big influence. >> it was about all the stories that i was unaware about the second world war. an alternative history we were not taught. there is a narrative drift that occurs after an event that exists mainly because it suits somebody's agenda. for the story to morph. >> creating a theater piece. how you used music -- the darkness of the space. speaking to place. >> direct address. >> my job was to try and make this as visual as possible.

bring whatever tools i could from the other job into the theater. create a sense of editing that you don't typically see in a theater piece. >> how do you edit a theater piece? >> i think you will someday get a look at that. because i wanted it to be seamless and i wanted it to -- as we talked about, the biggest difference between the job we did before the job we are doing now -- >> in terms of movies versus plays. >> how do you created close-up? with the movie, you just go there. onstage, you have to direct

everybody's attention to that. >> how do you do that? >> a combination of composition and lighting. staging. what i knew i didn't want to do was make a piece that was representational. going into a medium in which would be boring to me. that couch look like a real couch. i do that when i make a movie. in this case, the number of scenes within the play required me to be able to be able to change location to in an instant instant. the only way to do that is to create an abstract space in which light and composition are your way of transporting people. >> apparently i did. >> he was on the show. >> i was going strictly on -- talking about stories -- i had never seen his exhibits. but i heard people describe them.

i was going off what people had described to me. but i have no idea if it is like that or not. >> have you found out? >> now i am like, i'm definitely not seeing one of his exhibits. >> to be clear that this came out of your imagination. >> what i am appropriating from him and what we both believe is that light is an emotional thing. we have an emotional response to light. the quality of light, the intensity. when you use two different colors. it is a very efficient way to affect people. >> do you use light to accentuate the sound of gunfire? >> yes. >> you use dark a lot. >> is a moody piece. there have been complaints. i think it is kind of -- we are up to something different.

>> you said to me, it will be a different play by the time it opens. >> this is a big difference between film. steven has always included me on the post process. the post process gets advanced into the preview process in a play. there's no post process. the editing and the sound, you have the opportunity to look at it and say, that line did not work. we are getting a laugh and we don't want a laugh. normally you can cut it in the editing room. we have to cut it out in previews and see the next night if it worked. it is hard. a friend said it is the difference between skiing and surfing. when you ski, the mountain does not move. with surfing, the mountain

moves. everything moves. it is a more fluid process. >> how it is different to write for theater? >> i hope i have an answer by the time i am done. i think, again, a lot of it goes to not having a camera. there are opportunities in a screenplay where somebody does not need to say something because you know you can push in on them and capture their a emotion. here there is a -- an opportunity for people to verbalize things that they could normally express or the camera could help them express. or editorial could help them express. >> even though you have done this before? do you come away with a different sense of the power of theater? >> absolutely. i think forgetting about the fact that people cannot steal it

-- which i really like -- when you talk about empathy, there is a connectivity between the performers and the audience in a live situation that is unique. very electric. very satisfying. >> and can change from night to night. >> it really does. >> our pieces about story -- our piece is about storytelling. >> their life is different based on what happened on the way to work that day. >> the audience is a huge part of it. there is a feeling before the play even starts that is palpable. the difference between a matinee audience on a sunday and

a friday night audience. they have started a process before the play is going on. i don't think we are ruining anything by saying, there is someone on stage when they walk into the door. that immediately begins a sort of interaction that is interesting to witness. >> no curtain. >> no. >> you walk in -- >> and there is somebody on stage. >> you have gone through, on this program, a conversation about your life. i was stunned because you talked about leaving filmmaking. how did that work? >> that was just, to my mind, a normal evolutionary process. it only became public when a friend of mine who shall remain nameless but whose initials are matt damon gave an interview that got some traction.

it was just time for me to start doing other things. thinking about other things. i would never say never. it just became clear to me, i have to go off and try other stuff. >> i thought painting was one possibility. >> i started, but the next -- then i started doing a 10 hour tv show. >> what is it called -- is it a drama? >> for the most part. mayhem. medicine in 1900. interesting stuff. >> have you seen this evolution in him? >> i have seen him through the course of doing the movies and

the play. i have seen steven try to find new ways to do things. it is not only dealing with the agents and producers. those can have a corrosive effect on your enthusiasm for the endeavor. it is that part coupled with how many times can you come up with a new way to shoot an over the shoulder. and at what point do you want to try to do other things? which i think is great. >> what is your equivalent of that? >> writing a play or a book. each asks something else of you. allows you to find different things about yourself. what i found about the play was it was a representation of the ongoing dialogue we had had

about how people take turns telling each other stories. that is true of large things like war. smaller things like relationships. i wanted to write something that was much more personal. a lot of the research was with a survivor of columbine. it was interesting to hear how the echoes of that experience effected her in all sorts of ways. >> i'm adapting a book by the washington post reporter called the burglary. >> suppose somebody comes to see

you today and says, i have a brilliant idea for theater. you agree. you say, let's do it. somebody comes in and says, i have a fabulous actor who wants to make a movie. would you write the screenplay? which would you choose? >> i feel stories choose me. to me, is almost involuntary. >> whether the story itself -- you can connect to it in a visceral way. >> or i can imagine a structure i haven't tried. ultimately, narrative starts to wear on you if it is always linear. you are trying to find a new way to tell a story. that can be by structure or by changing the form from a movie theater to a play. >> do have a sense of the power of theater -- the capacity to change theater? >> i have to of course find my way through it. i'm not trained as a theater

director. i understand directing and storytelling. i understand actors and composition. >> that will get you a long way. >> it would be stupid for me to go and do a revival of a shakespeare play. to do a straight piece of theater would be stupid. that is not my background. i want to do other pieces, but they have to be things i feel like what i bring to them is going to make them -- i'm going to make them better. i don't know what that is. >> the other reason is to look at it with a fresh eye. you haven't done that. your skills have been mostly employed in a different place. you may see your with a fresh eye, a beginners eye, that gives you the possibility to use it in an interesting way. >> if i can be the idiot savant,

that would be awesome. >> thank you. >> "the library" is running through april 27. ?

>> tilde swinton is here. she stars any -- tilda swinton is here. she stars in a new movie about vampires. here is the trailer. >> you're being inclusive is only going to make people more interested in your music. >> what a drag. >> hello. what is it? you look tired. >> tell your wife what your problem is. >> is the way they treat the world. how they have succeeded in contaminating their own blood. >> typo negativo.

♪ >> is very possibility of a night flight to detroit? >> i love what you have done with the place. remember when you -- ♪ >> i had a dream. >> shouldn't she be sleeping in a coffin somewhere? >> i am really, really hungry. >> could you smell it all the way from l.a.? >> i am pretty lucky in love. if i may say so. >> wow, man. >> that certainly was visual.

>> what is that? >> o negative. >> tilda swinton can also be seen in "t he grand budapest hotel." >> vampires in love. lovers and love who happen to be vampires. >> it is about mortality. >> it is about mortality and immortality, which tend to go together. rebooting your interest when you get fatigued. >> i believe in that idea. if you reboot yourself, you have to refresh yourself to make sure you have the energy to

move forward. >> i would suggest you don't have to be much older then 26 -- maybe 16. >> you play eve, tell me who she is. >> she is 3000 years old. she has perspective. adam is young. >> a musician in detroit. >> a genius. a proper, bona fide genius. >> eve is living with christopher marlowe in tangiers. >> he put out all of shakespeare's plays under the name of an actor. [laughter] we live a long life. >> part of that life is having real conversations. >> real conversations, we

wanted that. we wanted to show that. >> even if you don't like somebody, if you like them and find them interesting, you can love them. >> the first grain of the film was a book, a wonderful book, mark twain's diaries of adam and eve. this was a book that jim was inspired by. he passed it to me. that was the first thing that sparked the interest in the couple. the curmudgeonly, grumpy adam. stomping around the garden, saying i have to name all the animals. she is a space cadet. they are completely unalike, and yet they are a pair. >> you have had those kinds of

relationships. >> i am >> i am lucky. i really have. >> what about the vampire aspect? that is about to give the centuries of relationships? >> you are suggesting naming out really be vampires? >> i'm not suggesting anything. i want to see why jim wanted to make a movie with vampires. >> you will have to ask him. i would suggest there is something about vampires being outsiders, they are loners. they are outside. >> does that resonate with you? >> occasionally, when i am not sitting at this table. [laughter] but i am in very good company. i can tell you that.

>> you do see yourself as a kind of -- outside the mainstream. >> i would posit there is more than one mainstream. one man's mainstream is another's dirty little brook. [laughter] >> this is the third collaboration between you and jim. what about it is attractive to you? >> he is a friend of mine. that is a great help. i love his mind. i love the weight in which he makes a real cinema that is unique. the first jim jarmusch film that i saw, stranger than paradise -- >> you love it. >> it was the first american independent film made by an alien. >> don't you consider yourself something of an alien?

>> who doesn't. all humans are aliens. >> this is the -- this is a lovely story i read about you. somebody called you and said, we want you to give a lecture about cinema. you said, no thank you i am busy. your son says, as i remember, how did people dream before there was cinema? >> this was a few years ago when my son was 8.5 years old. the san francisco film festival. they ask someone to give the state of cinema address. when they ask me, i assumed they wanted somebody to talk about the industry or fiscal reports. >> no interest -- >> i certainly can't give that lecture. i was on the verge of saying, impossible. then i said good night to my son. >> how old was he?

>> about eight and a half. he asked me this question. what were dreams like before cinema was made? this kind of exploded my brain. i went downstairs. even before i wrote the people, i wrote this lecture or rather this piece of writing which was a letter to my son, talking about a state called the state of cinema. a place we all go to. jim jarmusch lives there. he is a master filmmaker who makes a corner. jim jarmusch land. >> you can go there. >> it is nice to be there. the eight and a half foundation was created by you. in order to make films about individuals --

>> to make film fans. my colleague mark cousins and i, we inaugurated this foundation to create a new birthday for children. eight and a half. when they become film fans. why 8.5? >> is the age of my son when he asked that question. also the name of a fellini film. 2000 children have taken part. we curate into national films from the last hundred years. we now have 100 years of cinema to draw on. they write to us.

they will work when their 8 1/2th birthday is. it will be something from iran or china. it will almost surely not have been made by disney or pixar. >> what were you doing at moma? >> apparently i was there. >> you were asleep? talk about this. >> it is a piece of work. i offered to make it. i made it originally 19 years ago in london, and then again in rome. the performance department was making a series of re-performances of old performance art. i was invited to do it at moma. it's part of the piece that i do not talk about it. >> explain why.

>> the piece is as about disappearance as much as appearance. authentic presence. as much a person in an authentic space. >> let me talk about one thing in your life. your mother died while you were making this film. how old was she? >> she was 83. jim and i have been talking about making this film for eight years. looking forward to shooting at. when you are planning something for a long time, is like a party. the moment we started shooting, my beloved mother was diagnosed as terminally ill. >> she didn't have long to live.

>> weeks, they said. she ended up having enough time for me to finish shooting and look after her for seven weeks. the film is about -- is a bittersweet thing for me. but it is -- it was one of those things. it kept me going. >> he was about to abandon it. >> when you make something for a long time, you abandon it for -- before breakfast and pick it up again. >> he says you talked him out of it. >> you have to put a band together. you need to get everybody together. i was there from the beginning. it is an easy thing for me to have a conversation on the phone or meet up with him in new york. that's the easy part. i truly believed we would make

it. i know enough about these long gestation on films, because you need it. >> he has total control over his films. he is not part of the studio system. he has final cut. he makes the film he wants to make. >> properly in every way independent. not codependent. >> talk about other men in your life. wes anderson. >> another one. >> another what? >> another master of the cinema working to make another great film. maybe his best ever. just evolving and delighting. >> she is really old like 83.

>> she is actually in her mid-90's. >> she's going to die. >> she dies in love. she is deeply in love. >> a brilliant performance by ralph fiennes. >> an artist like jim jarmusch or wes anderson or martin scorsese, they make films. they make the things it says on the tin. jim jarmusch -- vampire lover film. martin scorsese's wall street. >> you like it?

>> i like "the wolf of wall street" very much. i once had a meaningful moment with michael powell. he said, what was on the plane? i said it was not a good film. one of the first batman films. he said, that is a good film. it makes its own world. any film that makes its own world is a good film. i swallowed that and have digested it ever since. i believe he is right. those filmmakers are all making unique worlds. >> it is great to have you. >> nice to see you, charlie. ♪ >> peter matheson --peter matthiessen, the author and

naturalist, died on saturday. he was 86 years old. he always seemed to be of a different, earlier era. he was an environmentalist, explorer, founder of the parish review, and cia agent. first and foremost, he was a writer. the only author to win for both fiction and nonfiction. his last work will be published on april 8. in 1927, he was born into a wealthy new york family. he graduated from yale and moved to paris. it is there that he and his childhood friend founded "the paris review." he moved back to new york and spent the rest of his life writing about the natural world and humanity.

his work includes, "at play in the fields of the lord." he is survived by his wife, four children from previous two marriages, and grandchildren. your moments from his conversations on this program -- here are moments from his conversations on this program. >> what drove you to go to africa? >> my dad is a hunter. i used to hunt, too. i got interested in animal behavior. my brother did, too. he went to marine biology. it started very early, since we were eight or 10 years old.

>> there must've been some wanderlust there. >> when i started writing novels, they were not selling well. i said, will you send me around the world? i want to see wilderness and wildlife. i needed it as a way of life, and income. it was something i loved to do and was getting paid to do. >> your life seems to have had a guardian angel for the most part. you agree? >> i think i am very lucky in my life. >> father was an architect that lived in connecticut -- you went to yale? >> i went to yale. i don't think my folks would have chosen me to become a writer, but they were encouraging and open.

they were wary that i might write about them in the first couple of books. people always think you are writing about them. >> published early? >> my first story at yale i sold to the atlantic monthly. >> long association with the new yorker? national book award? for "the snow leopard?" it is not your best book in your judgment. >> it has been a nail in my coffin. it is the hook most closely associated with me. >> you think you would be remembered in time for your

fiction. >> maybe i am whistling in the dark, but i don't think so. i began as a short story writer. three of my first four books were novels. not very good. but the stories were being published. and then it was a financial decision. i was doing commercial fishing in addition to my writing. i had a wife and young kids. i had to make some money. i went over into writing nonfiction about what i knew

and wild places and wildlife -- then i got mr. shaw of the new yorker. he agreed to send me to the wild places. i was writting about wilderness. i rushed off to south america before he could change his mind. that was the beginning. that produced a nonfiction book and a fiction book. that encouraged my interest in indian people. i have been interested in traditional people. i have been a certain kind of anthropologist. i am interested in how they relate to the world. i'm not much interested in -- i am much less interested in cities. i like people on the edge. >> what common denominator do most good writers have? >> that is an interesting question. i don't know. i do know -- i think i kind of know.

i think there has to be an element -- in good writing, there has to be an element -- it has to be kind of intact. i don't want to depend on anything for identification on the part of the reader. i make them work too hard, maybe. it has to be complete in itself and a mystery inside of it. the sense of something mysterious. even if you never spell it out. i think the reader has to feel the presence of something they cannot quite define. wilke spoke about that. something that is just implicitly there. some writers write into that and are daring. i think almost all good writing has that mystery, strangeness, somewhere in there. >> you were a cia agent that use the paris review as cover. >> i did.

but in short order, i was more interested in the paris review would then my other job -- the only adventure i regret was the cia. i quit, while on the job. while still a young kid, 24 or 25. i told my handler or whatever, you guys cannot trust me. things are happening back here. blacklists and -- >> what did you do for them in paris? >> it was pretty small, really. i was spending my day deceiving people.

that is all it is. >> deceiving people as to -- >> who you are. your identity. i really disliked it. >> you were looking for people to convert? >> no-no. i didn't even know what i was doing. they never tell you. they never tell you what the heck you are doing. but i made a very good contact they were excited about. it was at that point that it came to a head. they wanted me to go in deeper. >> writing for you. are you happiest with nonfiction or fiction? >> fiction. i began as a fiction writer. that is where my heart is. i love fiction. i wrote nonfiction to make a living. i'm not putting it down.

my nonfiction in a way has the same things. though -- themes. the loss of values and injustice. but in fiction, you can go deeper. i am going deeper. you can do things you cannot do. in nonfiction, you're stuck with the facts. or you should be. >> you should be? >> nonfiction is less loyal to the facts? [laughter] fiction, you go to a deeper place. >> speaking of writing, you have always been obsessed with endangered species. and endangered planet. >> endangered people. >> is there something about the american ideal that you think is in danger?

>> yes. i think so. i think what we are settling for in recent years and decades, is so far a degraded form of what was envisioned in the constitution. it seems we are constantly going in and beating up on -- usually darker people, some smaller country, haiti and grenada, vietnam, wherever. it seems to be that we are behaving in a way -- to go into iraq -- putting that aside, to say shock and awe. to say we will shock and awe

these people. that seems beneath our dignity as americans. abu ghraib. the whole thing is beneath us. terminal rendition. the dreadful terms we use now. >> you think it is a temporary thing in the american experience? >> i sure hope so. we have lost a lot of respect around the world, and rightly so. as americans -- this is a fantastic country. i think we have to speak out. it is not unpatriotic to say, hey, we are better people than this. our values are better than this. that is the way i feel. [laughter] >> you think about the end? >> i am 81. time is not on my side. >> you never know.

>> i do have a lot of things to finish. >> his new novel, "in p aradise," will be published tomorrow. i was looking forward to seeing him again to talk about his talent and passion. this program will miss him. my grief goes to his family. peter matthiessen dead at 86. ♪ live from pier 3 in san

francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i'm emily chang. i am here with cory johnson. lots of big stories. you are looking at for profit colleges. >> we took a long look at technology and the way it is innovating education. we have an example of billions of dollars online. the education results have been disastrous. we will talk to the attorney general's inig