rose: we begin this evening with politics. representative kevin mccarthy dropped out of the running for speaker of the house today. mccarthy: the one thing i've always said to go this majority -- more service. we should put this conference first, and i think there is something to be said for us to unite, we probably need a fresh face. the one thing i have found talking to everybody, if we are going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to help do that.

rose: no date for another preliminary vote has been set, but senate democrats vowed to block all legislation pending action on proposed gun legislation measures. the first democratic primary debate is scheduled for tuesday in nevada. joe biden is third in the polls, and it remains to be seen if he will enter the race. joining me now is john dickerson, "the host of "face the nation" on cbs and also cbs news. he is also a political correspondent or columnist for "slate" magazine.

dickerson: i see what you do and try to do half as much. last night, i was talking to a member who was putting together votes for mccarthy, and said the worry is when the formal vote happens at the end of october, he's not sure he can get 218 republican votes because of those conservatives. they call them the "hell, no" caucus and also the freedom caucus members because they want a set of promises about how he will behave as bigger. last night, they thought it would go forward, but mccarthy decided he could not accede to those promises, could not promise he would deliver for those very conservative members of the house. and he says they need a fresh face. it's not a fresh face, they need to find any kind of face. john boehner is going to stay until they find a new one, so his retirement party is going to be pushed well into the future. the fundamental question is -- can this group of conservatives go along enough to find a speaker they like? kevin mccarthy was the person in the wings. paul ryan is mentioned, and his press release says, "i have no interest in this job."

it came out almost -- the speed was so fast in terms of his statement after mccarthy announced he was not running. he does not want that job. rose: he said he hoped kevin mccarthy would do it even though mccarthy already said he was not. dickerson: robert costa reports that boehner even called ryan and said, "you should do it. you are the only one who can unite this party," but ryan knows how impossible the job is. it says something about the job that paul ryan would rather wrestle with the tax code because it's easier than trying to put together a 218 majority. a couple of other thoughts are being kicked around, but i talked to a couple of members today who do not think there are live possibilities, but one is to find retiring members and make them speaker. that would take the conference through 2016, through the elections. the benefit to that is it puts the tough votes and tough favor on these people who are going to

retire and allows -- you hear a lot of talk about tough votes. kevin mccarthy said he did not to run in force members to have tough votes. he means he does not want someone to support him and get walloped by the grassroots. rose: any other reason for this decision? dickerson: i was talking to someone who was whipping votes for mccarthy last night who said they went in planning for a four-hour meeting, the conference where they were going to vote on the speaker. after 15 minutes, it was over. anything that happens in a shock like that, people are always looking around or what else is going on, but the fact that mccarthy is staying on and not resigning, that suggests it is what it is.

rose: is the republican party redefining itself so they that are not -- so they are not out of the mainstream? john boehner said they knew they could not win, and yet, they continued to press the case, knowing it was impossible and therefore, causing problems for everybody. dickerson: you are exactly right. boehner said they were false prophets. it is a charge of deep cynicism, which is to say that these super conservative members know that you cannot take over the whole legislative system when you got filibusters in the senate and a democratic president. you cannot just shove conservative legislation through, and they know that, but they whip up the grassroots, and they get angry and punish the members because they have unrealistic expectations, and

these ultraconservatives are fanning those unrealistic expectations. but that is where we are. that's where the state of play is. rose: let me turn to the presidential race. where does it then now on the republican side? dickerson: you still have donald trump at the top. i think he is pretty much still there. he has had a little bit of a dip. ben carson has had also a bit of a dip. marco rubio's also an interesting case because a lot of the non-trunp candidates -- slow and steady will win the race, they have said. they said they would grow over time. scott walker out of the race. same with perry. jeb bush has seen himself go

down. he is in a tricky place now, which is to say he has got to do things to excite both the voters but also the people funding his campaign. when you have to speak to those different audiences, sometimes, it can make you act out. rose: the other part is florida and marco rubio, people who might be prepared to say it's not going to be jeb this year, and they will shift their allegiance to marco. dickerson: there has always been the legacy problem. hillary clinton is likely to be the democratic nominee, and if jeb bush is the nominee, they cannot make the charge of the same old politics. rose: does that work for marco rubio? dickerson: a little bit, and when you see it in practice, it's a different order than with other candidates. even if you are not listening to the specifics of the words, he

is a different kind of candidate, but the downside is that also exacerbates potentially one of his great with us is, which is that he is a one term senator with no executive experience, which is the charge republicans have been making for seven years against barack obama. the presidency is not a place where you get on-the-job training. rose: they railed against obama and now might be defending the same thing themselves. dickerson: also elevating rubio in part because he has this attractive candidacy, which is to say they are not latching onto rubio because they read the 18th page of his taxes, but they like the fact that he conveys a sense of future and movement and energy in the party. rose: is it likely this will somehow be narrowed down to two people, one representing the

establishment and one representing the outside? dickerson: i think that's right. the question is when it will happen. that is the standard -- we are in a year in which the standard is hardly normal. nobody knows who's turn it was. we have 17 candidates at one point and donald trump, who has been surviving all of these what were thought to be near-death experiences. i think those forces, the forces that look or something in the grassroots look for a wholesale change in washington, and those forces that support, say, the new transpacific partnership, corporate forces and establishment forces in the party are still looking for a

candidate. rose: john kasich was at cbs this morning. an interesting guy. how does he stand? dickerson: he's making the case -- i think above all the others -- politics matters and having experience in politics matters, and he is quite forceful about it and argues that he is enough of an outsider being from ohio, and you could make the case that his effort as budget chairman inside the system was -- could be kind of revolutionary. i think the question is how he breaks through, and i think some people have to fall away before he can make that leap, but he has shown a certain kind of energy. that is why he is around and somebody like scott walker is not. i get on the phone with people who have relationships with joe biden and say they think he's going to do it, and you talk to someone else at about the same

source level who says they don't think he could. it's the most frustrating thing. he's keeping it close to the vest. i think it's basically we have to wait for joe biden to make his decision. a lot of people throughout this process who are close to him has said he's going to wait until the last minute. that is his way. it's also because this is so emotional and not easy. rose: the other day, someone said that if you have wanted something for 40 years and you're looking at the best chance you have ever had -- if it is not, that means a question, but certainly better than before -- it's really hard to resist. if, in fact, there is the pull of those who wanted you to do it, that's a powerful argument. dickerson: absolutely, and the decision to turn it off means not only lowering the light on your son's request that you make a run but also turning off your career. you are putting your career, basically, to bed.

you could go on and do other things, but you are permanently saying good night to a portion of it. rose: what you have been doing the last 40 years. dickerson: by the way, it's powerful to have a bunch of people come to you and say, "please go to this." rose: if he goes in with full enthusiasm and gets lots of money, are the democrats and hillary clinton in such a position that he could achieve it? is there a pathway for him to get the nomination when you look at the head start she has? an additional question -- has she done things to damage her that it becomes more likely he is successful? dickerson: if there is a path,

it would be pretty ugly. it would be a fight. she's not going to go gently into the good night. she has a lot of support built in these states, and also what happens -- and the people i talked to who are close to biden say he knows this quite well -- but the day he in the race, it all flips. his campaign, i think, will essentially be a character campaign, which is, "i have been through these crucibles and i am authentic and i have the stuff of a president." that is one way to go, but also, in terms of a rationale for the candidacy, people may very well say, "you got into the race because you were not hillary clinton, but what does your campaign mean?" then it becomes a garden-variety campaign.

rose: what is the make or break debate in the campaign of 2016? it will no longer be about obamacare. i don't think so. even though some candidates will continue to say that's the first thing they will do. for a while, it looked like it would be about foreign policy, and then we listened to republicans talk about domestic issues. now we have syria, which suggests foreign policy will play a bigger role. what will the debate be? dickerson: i think if we were going to bet, the safest bet would be what happens to the middle class. the middle class will be the conversation, but there will be interjections of foreign policy, as we have always seen. it will seize the debate, and we just do not know what it will be and where it will be from. foreign policy could take over the debate, but it will always

go back to the question of middle-class and it society is toward those with power and money. rose: joe biden believes he is of the middle class. he understands and has been fighting for the middle class. dickerson: an obama strategist said he has a visceral connection with the middle class, which is that they see him and say, "he is one of us." he does not have to say. hillary clinton has to do her biography because people do not make that instant connection with her. he does not have to spend two paragraphs talking about it because people get that he is of them. it means when he's alone in the oval office deciding what to do, they know the president is on their side. that is one of the big debates -- who is on your side at the end of the day? rose: thank you for coming.

john dickerson, "face the nation," cbs news and slate.com. stay with us. ♪

rose: steve jobs is one of the most influential minds of the past century. he cofounded apple, which revolutionized technology and continues to impact the lives of millions and billions of people. many have intended to shed light on jobs' complex relationships

and since his death in 2011. the new film, "steve jobs," draws from a biography of the same name and focuses on three pivotal product launches of his career. here's the trailer. >> what if a computer was a beautiful object, something you want to look at and have in your home? and what if instead of it being in the right hands, it was in everyone's hands? >> we be talking about the most tectonic shift in the status quo ever. >> i'm begging you to manage expectations. >> have i ever let you down? >> every, single god-damned time. >> then i'm due. >> your daughter and her mother are on welfare. >> she's not my daughter! >> you must be able to see that she looks like you.

>> you're the only one who sees the world the same way i do. >> everyone is waiting for the mac. >> what are people going to do with it? >> you issue contradictory instructions. you're insubordinate. you make people miserable. therefore, you are no longer necessary to this company. >> what you make is not supposed to be the best part of you when you are a father. that is what is supposed to be the best part of you. >> i'm the only one that knows that this guy is someone you invented. >> is there a plan? >> the plan will reveal itself to you when you are ready to see it. >> well, it's happening.

>> the comeback of a superstar. >> cofounder steven jobs. >> steve jobs -- >> steve jobs -- >> is returning to apple. >> the most significant event of the 20th century. the allies win the war and this. rose: joining me now is the film writer, aaron sorkin, and director, danny boyle. let's talk about this from the beginning. steve jobs has been on this program, sat at this table. why are we all so fascinated about him? boyle: it's difficult to assess because it's ongoing, so fresh. he passed away years ago this week. his legacy appears to be still growing. it is certainly evolving. his vision is evolving more and

more. a personal computer is literally becoming so personal it's in your pocket, in people's bedrooms. if the biotech continues, it might end up inside is even to some degree. so i think people are still probably assessing, and i think that is why it was important to make a film about him, really. we need to keep these people in the forefront of our mind. they made a technology, and convenience for the world, and he dreams about a computer for everyone. it means that you have to remember the origins. you must remove the origins and the personalities involved because they are machines, but they are full of this guy's personality. rose: perhaps an ultimate legacy and what is remarkable is that the company continues to grow, continues to innovate, and people he left to take the company when he knew he would be gone are running the company. sorkin: to the original question

you asked, why we feel this way about him -- that was really what got me involved in the first place. the book, the film rights to the book were sold just a couple of weeks after he died, and the whole world eulogized this man. i felt like i had been out sick from school for a week and missed something along the way. rose: understanding who steve jobs was dapper sorkin: i understood who he was, i've owned the products. i have a mac. i have an iphone in my pocket right now. i still listen to music on my ipod. i like the clicking wheel. what i missed was that he managed to endow these products with personality and people have relationships with them that

they do not have with other products. they love their phones and laptops. one of the things this movie explores was -- and it explores a number of questions. one of them is -- is it possible that because steve was a difficult man, a complicated man, and by all accounts, he could be a difficult man to be around -- rose: because he was a demanding perfectionist? sorkin: yes, but danny boyle is a demanding perfectionist, and no one would describe him as a difficult man to be around. i sat in rehearsal for him for a long time, sat in casting sessions, production meetings, and he has way of -- i believe he seeks perfection, too, and his way of coaxing it out of people is much different. rose: was that the primary thing you could

i want to establish other points as well, but was that the primary thing, knowing you -- and you are writing this -- that interested you? sorkin: there were a number of things that interested me, but perhaps -- well, one of those things was steve's relationship with his daughter, which is a whole different kettle of fish. his relationship with his daughter, who for the first 4, 5, 6 years of her life, he denied paternity, and their relationship continued to be difficult. i'm also father of a daughter, and i wanted to explore that. this movie suggests not by any means that anyone who has been adopted is going to have problems going forward or is going to be a poor parent. in his case, it took a toll on him.

his need for what they call in the business end-to-end control of the product stemmed from his lack of control at this point. rose: what interested you most was the fact that that side of his personality was the central part of him, and you say that's what attracted you, that's what made him interesting to you, that someone who had done so much could also have this, in your judgment, contradictory -- sorkin: the contradiction is in the fact that it seemed to me that this man deep down felt flawed and unworthy of being liked or loved and to compensate for that, had the remarkable ability to infuse these products with lovability.

rose: you are saying this man did not feel loved but was able to feel lovability by creating products people loved. sorkin: i have felt that as well. if i write something that you like with characters that are affable, perhaps you will look at that. i have often felt i'm better on paper than in real life. that anyone watching this interview who was a fan of "the west wing" cannot believe that i'm the guy who wrote it, that they were expecting something better. rose: do you believe that? dickerson: since becoming a father, i have kind of left that

behind. nothing makes me feel more like a man than being a father. rose: it sounds like what you are saying to me is that in the movie you created, you found things in steve jobs that you identified in yourself? sorkin: you have to. you cannot judge a character, you have to write the character as if they are making a case to god why they should be allowed into heaven. you have to be that character's lawyer. rose: that is an interesting way to put it. here is what people close to you have said to me with some concern -- who knows what the truth is? sorkin: i understand their concern. i'm not going to combat them on that. i will point out that you and i have different jobs. you are a journalist, and your job is to be objective, find facts. my job is to be subjective and

interpret things -- rose: totally agree as long as -- dickerson: i understand we are talking about real people, many of whom are still alive. first of all, i think the people who are concerned should see the movie first if they are concerned, and after that, then a conversation can begin. this is not the only -- this movie is not the only material on steve jobs that's available to the public. there are books. there's a documentary that's all right now. the santa fe opera company has commissioned an opera. rose: do you think the documentary is a fair appraisal of steve jobs? dickerson: i have not been a lot to see it or the other movie about steve jobs. the studio said i could see it after we finished.

rose: how does this end of being directed by danny boyle and screenplay by aaron sorkin? boyle: scott rings me up -- you are all laughing. scott brings me up and says, "you will have been reading the original director dropped out." he directed "social network," aaron and scott's previous film. he could write the sound of this man's mind, which i think that's what the film really is, the sound of this man's mind. it somehow illustrates the speed of thought, the contradictory nature of a man pushing to turn the world off its axis onto a different axis, really. the speed of thought engages it, and using all of aaron's skill gives you the glimpse through the medium of an actor, and it

gives you a little glimpse of the majesty of the man's thought process. that's what i got from reading it. rose: there's nobody who does dialogue like he does. it would be disparaging to say it's snappy, but in fact, this is really -- this is not a film where you had all the elements you had in "slumdog," is it? boyle: i don't know. rose: the visual elements? boyle: you have 185 pages of dialogue and no instruction. let's do it.

also, you've got this extraordinary engine running, which is that each three times you see him, he's 40 minutes out from fronting one of his products. now, every ceo you interview has to be able to walk the boards -- rose: the podium. i just went to one at apple. tim cook comes out and did what steve does. steve did it uniquely well, and you captured that. back to your sense of steve, why did you choose the idea of three separate introductions of products to define steve jobs in your mind?

sorkin: before i knew what i wanted to do, i knew what i did not want to do, and that was create a biopic. that is something audiences are familiar with, but i did not know what i did want to do until i ran across a piece of information. the research on this was walter's book and reading a lot of other things, primarily spending a lot of time with all the real people who were represented by characters in the movie and a few dozen others. i ran across just a piece of unimportant information, seemingly, that at the 1984 mac launch, minutes before the launch, they could not get it to say "hello" and that it was very important to steve that this be the first computer to introduce itself. he wanted people to know that

this was a friendly thing, wanted people to like it. that's where i got the idea. i am most comfortable as a playwright. i kind of fake my way through television and movies. rose: "a few good men" was written when you were, like, 20. sorkin: right. as such, i like claustrophobic spaces and compressed periods of time, especially with a ticking clock. i like behind the scenes of theaters, and these launches happened in grand palaces. i thought, "what if, in that of the traditional biopic format, the entire movie was just three scenes that took place in real time?" all taking place in the moments leading up to a product launch. frankly, i did not think it was something the studio would let me do, but they were very

enthusiastic about it. i did know that if you build a screenplay entirely out of dialogue like this, you are going to need a visual master. i don't see anything visually at all to me. everything is aural -- a-u-r. danny, on the other hand, is a visual genius. he also is a director who gets out of great actors great performances. this is exactly who you need to do this. i guess what i'm trying to say

is this -- without danny, it's 185 pieces of paper with snappy dialogue. [laughter] rose: you liked that, did you? here is what else you do, which i'm not as admiring of -- you go to people to get more information, and then you fall in love with those who are the most interesting and tell you the best stories, and they make it to the piece. jeff daniels, john sculley. you go down to florida and see him, he played an important part in steve's life, but i'm of the opinion that all the beginnings simply were a building box for what happened after he came back and all the things he did in

terms of one thing after the other. sculley was long gone by them, but you fell in love with him, like him, and therefore, he plays a commanding place in this. sorkin: i do like john sculley -- there's no doubt about that, but i fell in love with the conflict between steve and john sculley, just as i fell in love with the conflict between steve and woz, steve and his daughter, lisa. there have to be points of friction in order for there to be any kind of story. this not being a biography of steve jobs, it does not matter to me that the iphone came later or that john sculley was not around later. there was a fantastic conflict between steve and sculley that i wanted to dramatize in the movie. rose: the biggest conflict is

not between steve and anyone else, but between steve and steve. that's the conflict. sorkin: yes, i think that we see that in this movie, but i just disagree with you that i like some people, do not like some other people, so some people make it into the movie and others do not. that's not how it works. rose: reading about how much you found fascinating sculley's story. sorkin: i find his story fascinating. i'm crazy about lots of things that were not in the movie. rose: we should not judge you by some value in terms of people in the role they played in the life -- the role they played in steve's life? sorkin: charlie, steve's wife is not in this movie. three of his children are not in

this movie. the word pixar is not mentioned. that was a pretty big deal in his life. rose: i don't think a movie maker or a movie maker or writer should be judged on what they did not do. they should be judged on the story they tell. sorkin: i also believe if you line up 10 writers and ask them for a movie about steve jobs, you would get 10 different stories. we are well on our way to proving that, by the way. ♪ we live in a pick and choose world.

choose, choose, choose. but at bedtime? ...why settle for this? enter sleep number. don't miss the columbus day sale. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. you like the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. right now save $600 on the #1 rated bed, plus 24-month financing. hurry, ends tuesday! know better sleep with sleep number.

rose: what was the biggest challenge for you? was it what you said, figuring out how to visualize a remarkable look inside steve jobs' mind? boyle: i guess it was. what aaron had done in many ways was very formal. repeating. whereas a film is linear, loves momentum and forward motion. i suppose that was the challenge, to somehow harness this wonderful repetitive nature of what you were experiencing and make it feel like it was thrusting forward as well, and we did that by making as distinct best possible the three

spaces, the way they were shot -- as distinct as possible the three spaces, the way they were shot, and give you something to progress to. in the final part, when he has achieved everything that he set out to do -- the imac is going to be a success, the products are perfect, the computer he's going to make is seen as cool and desirable and personal, and that is his greatest crisis, in a way. rose: lisa was there because it touched your own sense of your own daughter, you said. sorkin: well, it did touch my own sense of my own daughter, but lisa was there because surely that was the most important conflict. who cares about if the apple ii

should get more credit if there is this going on? that's the emotional center of the movie. i don't think it is a spoiler to say that steve taking a step toward her is the emotional climax. rose: here is what you have said about him -- he was complicated and brilliant, deeply flawed, dreamed big, but galvanized those around him. he thought kindness and genius were binary. sorkin: in fact, he thought kindness was a form of vanity, and he would scold other ceo's. if someone told him, basically, "why do you have to be so mean to these people when i'm nice to these people?"

he would find danny, danny's method of kindness in support of the actors and technicians who are doing this to be a form of vanity. he would say that you want to be liked more than you want this movie to be good. rose: and danny would say you can do both? sorkin: danny would say you can do both, and i would say i'm in no position to say because i'm not a genius, so i have no idea. rose: but you are occasionally kind? sorkin: i am kind, but at those times when i have played a leadership role, even if it's just as the head of morale, you

get the best work out of somebody by noticing their work. rose: but criticism is significant and important because that is how you learn. sorkin: it is, but you don't want to scare people. you don't want to be difficult to be around. by the way, if it is binary, unless you are curing cancer, choose decency. if all you are doing is making a phone, choose decency. rose: i guess some would say if you have a cure for cancer, i don't care if you are kind or not. sorkin: exactly. rose: the ideas that the film clearly come out of real life, but takes it to abstraction. six characters turn up three times, 40 minutes before each product is launched and just bang on each other. [laughter] rose: that's not real life. it is a heightened version of

real life, but in part, that is what movies do. boyle: yes, it is. you train the actors -- they rehearse so they can deliver the speed of thought that aaron writes. we would all love to be able to speak like that to hold the time, and then you go even further, so the actors go as fast as is humanly possible, but occasionally, they have to breathe. you go to editing and take out that breath so they are even quicker. it's weird -- the audience do not mind it. that's unreal. nobody can speak like that, but they don't mind because there's something electrifying and mesmerizing to see the speed of thought exercised. he becomes an action movie with words. the velocity is not blown up buildings but people's train of

thought. rose: someone else said the jobs of "steve jobs" is unreal but still recognizable. his character could pass for a future apple product. the question then -- why michael fassbender? boyle: he does not really look like him. we were not really looking for someone who looked like him. and he's not a huge star -- he was not a huge star, but i

remember thinking i have rarely seen an actor who is so uncompromising in his choices and what they do. you do not since any easy way into his work. he does not do likability just for the sake of it. it's clearly built from inside him, and he's asking you to join him, and that helped very -- that felt very -- and the ferocity and the intensity of his glare, i thought i saw jobs in him. he's very jobsian, i thought, in that respect. thank god he's got a wit as well. and, of course, jobs is a very funny man as well. sorkin: there are some things that an actor cannot fake. an actor cannot fake smart or funny, and michael has got those

things. danny was talking about this in his description, michael's willingness to risk not being loved by the audience is unusual for a movie star. reminds me of last year -- tom hanks did a great movie, "captain phillips," and he did something in that movie that very few movie stars would ever do. he cowered. when those somali pirates pointed a gun at him, he would like that. you would never see clint eastwood or harrison ford do that. in that final scene, he cried. michael is not worried that the audience is not going to like him. as a result, the audience is with him every step of the way.

rose: on top of that, kate winslet. boyle: well, you get a fassbender, you got to get a winslet. she is more than a match for him. eventually, what's wonderful about the scheme, she is the work wife, she calls herself, making what he is doing possible. she realized she's complicit in the way he has behaved. she pierces to the heart of him. she's very, very clear and analytical and clearly knew him very well. rose: here's another example -- you went to meet her and fell in love with her, and therefore, she gets a big role in this film. sorkin: that's not exactly what happened. i met with her and discovered that she was the one -- there

was more than one person who could stand up to him, but i love the way in which she did it, and she also said this to me about lisa -- back when steve was denying paternity and had taken a blood test that showed there was a 94.5% chance that he was the father, steve came up with some crazy algorithm that showed that 26% or 28% of american men could be the father. she said that she said, "i don't care if you are the father or not. there's a little girl who thinks you are her father. what are you going to do about that?" that is a great point of friction that falls into the story we're telling. i like all these people very, very much. but you make it into the story

if there is a point of friction that fits with the others and kind of works. like i said, you could write a whole new story using a whole new group of people, and probably illuminate something else about steve jobs. rose: at the end of the day, whatever euphemism you want to use, when someone comes to you and says, "so you made this movie. did you, in all honesty, as far as you are concerned, capture steve jobs? does your art capture steve jobs?" sorkin: not knowing steve jobs at all, having never met him -- i spoke to him on the phone very briefly three times. it does not even show up on the meter of knowing him. i would not know if i captured steve jobs. i would be very surprised if i did.

rose: surprised if you did? sorkin: because people, actual people -- you, danny -- are difficult if not impossible to capture. the properties of people and the properties of characters have almost nothing to do with each other. rose: the properties of people and the properties of characters have almost nothing to do with each other. sorkin: people do not speak in dialogue. people's lives do not lay out in a way that forms a narrative arc. characters are something storytellers use to tell a story. they are a tool. rose: if it is art, you have no responsibility to truth? sorkin: that's not true at all.

you have a responsibility to truth, but that's not the same as responsibility to fact. if i say steve jobs was an alcoholic -- it's helpful storytelling, and i'm an artist and i get to do whatever i want, but there's an internal compass you have of what is right and wrong. by the way, if your internal compass is broken, the legal department will not let you say steve jobs is an alcoholic, to use that example. when people who do know steve jobs -- you mentioned earlier some of the people who were bothered when steve was in the act -- steve wozniak, john sculley, when they say yes these guys captured it -- rose: they were not the people who are there for the long journey? sorkin: sure, they were.

the last 10 years are not part of the movie. woz was certainly very close to steve. john sculley was very close to steve. joanna hoffman. we are only concerned with 1984 to 1998 in this movie. not just those people, but people lower down the food chain who say they worked there for 11 years, worked there for 14 years, and that i really got it, that makes me feel good.

that was not the goal. again, not to sound pretentious, but it's the difference between a painting and a photograph. rose: thank you very much. "steve jobs" opens nationwide friday, october 23. thank you for joining us. i will see you next week. ♪

francine: welcome to leaders with lacqua. santander is one of the oldest and biggest banks in the world. with a footprint in spain, the u.k., and the united states, it is a truly global bank with more than 100 million customers. recently, the spanish lender had undergone several big changes, most recently when emilio botin, the executive chairman, passed away in 2014. his daughter, ana, took over and quickly implemented a share sale of 75 billion euros. in her first television