>> to unite, we need a fresh face. the one thing i found in talking to everybody is that we are going to unite and be strong, we needed to face to help do that.

charlie: the first democratic primary debate is tuesday in a nevada. joe biden is third in the polls, but remains to be seen whether he will enter the race. joining me is the host of "face and theon" on cbs, political director of cbs news. i'm pleased to have it back at the table. also a correspondent from slate magazine. >> great to be back here. i see what you do and try to do half as much. talking to awas member putting together votes for mccarthy. he said the trophy is that he will get the majority. the worry is that when the formal vote happens on the house floor in october, he's not sure he can get 218 republican votes. why? because of those conservatives. click on the -- the call them the "hell no" caucus.

they want a certain set of promises from kevin mccarthy as speaker. i thought this was going to go forward, but ultimately he decided he couldn't exceed his promises. you couldn't promise they could deliver the most conservative members in the house. whylie: wasn't that part of john boehner step down? >> john boehner is going to stay as speaker until he find a new one. he may be speaker for a good long time. his retirement parties going to be pushed well into the future. the fundamental question is -- can this group of conservatives go along enough to find a new speaker that they like? kevin mccarthy was the person in the wings. paul ryan is mentioned, his press release saying i have no interest in this job. it came as -- the speed was so

fast in terms of his statement after mccarthy announced he wasn't 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 want 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. he said, i guess we got a free lunch. but that was it. 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. i mean 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. rose: is he began to loose? dickerson: 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-trump 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. rose: does he say he will go the distance, because he has money? dickerson: he has to say that. 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: exactly. bushse not only has jeb not performed in the way they would like 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? i am a fresh face. i am younger.

i am of the 21st century, not the 20th century. dickerson: a little bit, and when you see it in practice, it's a different order than with other candidates. level,eys at a gut 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 weaknesses. 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. that is the big question. obama might be doing the same thing. 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, the 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 is interesting. 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 basically 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. rose: about joe biden. dickerson: i tell you what. 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. there are certainly a lot of activities about whether he would get in the race. and i think it's basically we have to wait for joe biden to make his decision. i mean 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: 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. it is really hard to resist it. and if, in fact, there is the pull of those who wanted you to do it, that's a powerful argument. dickerson: absolutely, and the

more weight on that scale, 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. it is not just this is your best chance to get something. 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: exactly. by the way, it's powerful to have a bunch of people come to you and say, "please go to this." just as a pure human thing. 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 is going to be pretty ugly. it would be a fight. she's not going to go gently into the good night. right. 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. and so, it becomes, why are you running? 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." and 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 actual campaign mean?" then it becomes a garden-variety campaign.

rose: i thought about asking you this question all along. what is the make or break debate in the campaign of 2016? it will no longer be about obamacare. i don't think so. court haspreme ruled. 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 squeeze. the middle class will be the conversation, but there will be interjections of foreign policy, as we have always seen. rose: and you never know where it will happen. rose: 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: that is very appealing to joe biden. 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." rose: he understands us. dickerson: he does not have to say it. 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. why does that matter? 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: interesting time. thank you for coming.

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

rose: steve jobs is one of the most influential minds of the past century. he co-founded apple in 1976, 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 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've been 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. the board believes 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. >> co-founder 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's 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 , danny about him? pantheon of in the remarkable people. boyle: it's difficult to assess because it's ongoing, so fresh. he passed away years ago this week. and his legacy appears to be still growing. it is certainly evolving. his vision is evolving more and more.

the personal computer is literally becoming so personal it's in your pocket, in people's bedrooms. rose: it is in your watch. boyle: 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. because 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. and the personalities involved because they are machines, but they are full of this guy's personality. rose: perhaps an ultimate legacy is that the ca 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. and i felt like i had been out sick from school for a week and just missed something along the way. rose: what did you miss? understanding who steve jobs was? 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 their laptops. and 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, believe me, he seeks perfection, too, and his way of coaxing it out of people is much different. rose: was that the primary thing

, and we will get to this later, was that the primary thing knowing you and your writing process 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, lisa, who for the first 4, 5, 6 years of her life, he denied paternity, and their relationship continued to be difficult. father of ao the 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. that 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: you wanting to do art, not 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 give lovability by creating products people loved. sorkin: i have felt that as well. because i have often felt, if i write something that you like with characters that are affable, perhaps you will look at that. and i have often felt i'm better on paper than in real life. now,is situation right 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?

sorkin: there is a part of me that does. since becoming a father, i have kind of left that behind. nothing makes me feel more like a man than being a father. rose: here is what i believe you may be 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? this was somebody very close to them. they worry the audience knows the truth. that concerns them. sorkin: i understand their concern. i'm not going to combat them on that. i will point out that you and i have two 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 -- sorkin: 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 out right now. the santa fe opera company has commissioned an opera. rose: do you think the documentary is a fair appraisal of steve jobs? sorkin 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." [laughter] i did read that. rose: david fincher was the original director. boyle: 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.

rose: what do you mean? means he 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. howdy you depict genius -- how do you depict genius? 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? from that? boyle: you have 185 pages of dialogue and no instruction. let's do it. there is no manual. is a the dialogue reflection of what is in your mind. boyle: 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. and industry presentation that he revolutionized 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. so the question is 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. the cradle to grave structure, where you land along the way, 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. talking to them, 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. right? 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. like symphony hall in san francisco. i thought, "what if, in that of the traditional biopic format, the entire movie was just three scenes that took place in real time?" 40 minutes in the audience is

the same for the character on the screen. 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. this is when amy was the chairwoman at sony. 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. particularly because he comes from the theater, he is a director who gets out of great actors great performances. this is exactly who you need to do this.

and i guess what i'm trying to say is this -- without danny, it's 185 pieces of paper with snappy dialogue. [laughter] rose: you liked that, did you? [laughter] stay with me on this point. 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 john sculley, 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, liked him, and therefore, he plays a commanding place in this. sorkin: i do like john sculley very much. 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. that is what i have to have. 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. there was not -- 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? i rest my case on johnny. a spiritual partner for him, in

the biggest part of the way. 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 are going to get 10 different stories. it is very possible they will all be good. we are well on our way to proving that, by the way. the -- i hours is believe ours is the sixth. ♪

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. i mean what aaron had done in , many ways was very formal. it was the same six characters repeating. whereas a film is linear, loves momentum and forward motion. and 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

distinctive as possible the three spaces, the way they were shot, and give you something to progress to. and that is what i think you were hinting at. 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. certainly, the relationship with his daughter, lisa, in our film. 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.

that 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. and 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 tim. 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. he would scold his good friend larry ellison.

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. [laughter] 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, ok, 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. it takes events, some real and some imagined, six characters turn up three times, 40 minutes before each product is launched and just bang on each other. [laughter]

sorkin: that sounds like you. it is you. [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. and the rhythm, it is super real. 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.

rose: the best dialogue for the speed of thought. boyle: exactly. 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. he specializes in that layered look. but you never forget they are there. he has pulled off the same and .agic trick 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. how they go about it. you do not since any easy way into his work. he does not do likability just for the sake of it. just to ease people into it. he chooses projects and goes on journeys. 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. rose: he is not an imitation. of caryhere is a bit grant and fassbender. 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. they would be stoic about it. in that final scene, he cried. sense toas that same play it honestly. 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. she agreed to work under him and facilitate. 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. was: the reputation, she able to stand up to him. boyle: 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 loved 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 great friction that falls into the story we're telling.

it in the not make movie because i liked her. i like all these people very, very much. rose: i am being facetious. sorkin: of course. but you make it into the story if there is a point of friction that fits with the others and kind of works. like i said, you could write a whole new story using a whole new group of people, and probably illuminate something else about steve jobs. rose: so here is my question. 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 series of scenes that forms a narrative arc. characters are something that 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. as journalism has. in this movie, just because it would make good storytelling, 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. rose: not in the last 10 years. sorkin the last 10 years are not : part of the movie. woz was certainly very close to steve. john sculley was very close to steve. andy hurt, 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. see you next time. ♪

announcer: "brilliant ideas," powered by hyundai motors. narrator: the contemporary art world is vibrant and booming. it is a global industry in its own right. "brilliant ideas" looks at contemporary artists with powers to push boundaries and ask questions. and see the world afresh. the artist in this program is subodh gupta. ♪