♪ >> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose". >> she opened her renowned restaurant 40 years ago. emphasis on local, organic ingredients help to galvanize the local movement. she created the edible schoolyard in 2005. it teaches children the important and growing, cooking, and sharing food. president obama awarded her the national humanities medal last month. her new cookbook is called "my pantry." joins us with her daughter

also joining us, her longtime , friend and fellow food lover, a regular contributor to the new york magazine since 1963, and is a great friend of this program. i am pleased to have ample them at this table. this is a friendship here, isn't it? >> alice, fanny, and me? yes, we've known each other for a long time. charlie: born out of a love for food? >> i met allison a long time ago. then she married the brother of a good friend of mine, so we saw even more of her. then fannie came along, and that improved the situation. >> what is in the pantry?

do you have anything new to say to us? >> i guess i want to say that the easiest way to cook something quickly and is to have certain things in your pantry, ready. have olive oil. good olive oil and vinegar. i always spend money on good olive oil and vinegar. i also like spices, and i like to have a really good posture, -- a really good stuff, and i like to have some things that i have made myself, and so this book is about the things that make my cooking my own. that's how i think about it. charlie: you know what is great about this book are the illustrations? where did you have dinner last night? can you tell me? >> i can tell you.

we were on the 51st floor of the building, and we were doing a benefit. part of the food and wine festival -- charlie: they ask you to provide the menu for dinner? >> they ask us to do the menu, and we brought chefs and another check from new york and we , cooked for 100 people, and fanny and i had the pleasure of talking about the book, and i think they raise a lot of money. charlie: were you there? >> no, i do have a theory on banking, that the meltdown in 2008 was caused by smart people going to wall street. in my era, the lower third of the class with a wall street, and they were pleasant people and not stupid or anything, but they could not have done credit

default swaps. they didn't know the math. that is putting much my connection with wall street. charlie: got the wheels of power, and all of a sudden we had these derivatives that nobody could imagine. securitizing things. >> exactly. charlie: going crazy. >> but i don't know anything about wall street. charlie: you do know something about food. >> a little bit. i don't cook. i cook sometimes -- i don't cook in new york. charlie: where do you cook? >> i cook in nova scotia in the summer. charlie: is that true? >> yes. i have between 3-8 dishes, depending on how you count, whether there has to the stove involvement to make a dish, and some of them don't, like i have smoked mackerel pate -- no, i buy it smoked.

since we go way back, charlie, i am going to tell you the ingredients. [laughter] smoked mackerel. charlie: you can make smoked mackerel pate. >> and a cuisinart. or something like that. >> you can smoke it yourself. very easily. just a little smoker you can put on top of the stove. >> we could do that. on birthdays i may put a little man is in it. fishere are some preserved recipes in this book. >> i want you to know i did not contribute any recipes to this book. >> although he did contribute a recipe to a little book that i was putting together when i went off to college, all of our friends gave us recipes, one copy only.

his recipe was scrambled eggs that stick to the pan every time. >> that's what i used to feed my girls for breakfast, scrambled eggs, and in one time they came downstairs and were holding hands and said, we are never eating your scrambled eggs again. i said, what is this bolsheviks, a strike, and they never have. charlie: when you cook scrambled eggs, what kind of oil to use? >> i use olive oil. charlie: that's exactly what i do. i do cook scrambled eggs, and i use olive oil. >> this is one of the recipes, really hard recipes, in the book. you just put a pan on the fire and toast the seed, and then you

found them, and then you add salt to it. and he sprinkle it on top. it is delicious. >> i love reading the introduction of this book, when she comes home for her trip and opened her pantry and gives her such comfort to see what is there. i realize i had kind of the opposite feeling when i come home. i open my refrigerator and there is just a bunch of beer -- i don't even recognize it as home. charlie: the national humanities medal, that is a big deal, as you know. she was honored for celebrating the bond between the ethical and edible. did you write this? >> i did not write this, but it is true. because, when she became so well known she could've built an , empire or series of brand

extensions, that's what people do, and instead she put it back into things like the edible schoolyard and sustainable agriculture, so i think it is a good model. i think she deserved the national humanities medal. charlie: the president said that she had promised to cook for him, but nothing unethical that would violate the rules of giving gifts. did you cook for the president? >> i have cooked for the president. charlie: did he invite you up to the west wing or whatever he is -- it is? >> it was for a number of benefits that i organized. i was part of the team that could for him. theset's the deal with take benefits anyway? >> i think it is kind of crazy, the kind of money that they need to raise to become president. i think it's completely crazy. charlie: the impact of money on politics.

>> exactly. but i look forward to the time that he does come. >> i have to say one thing, she lives in england and sometimes stays with me, my country has -- my pantry has improved a lot and with a lot of very healthy , stuff. i think of myself as if not a friend of the earth, a long-time acquaintance. but it is nothing compared to her. she really put stuff in there. charlie: more about this. this is what our dear allison said. we talk about all the beautiful things that are cultural experiences for us and lift our spirits, and yet we have never talked about food that way. food has always been something like fuel, something that lifts our spirits, and when food and agriculture put together and the rhythm of nature, it brings us back to the table, where a cultural conversation can happen.

i agree with you totally. every great meal i've ever had was matched by a great conversation. >> that is a very sad statistic, that 85% of the kids in this country do not have one no with her family at the table. and so it means that they are just out there grazing, and the conversation where you learn to pass the peas is not happening anymore. i think it is very important to us that we make that happen in the schools -- yes, completely -- to change the food in the schools and bring the children around the table. i want to make school lunch and -- an academic subject. so you are eating a tortilla and

speaking spanish. or you're discussing the history of food -- charlie: this is her educational philosophy. >> yes, and she's been educating people about restaurants as well. when i first entered traveling around the country, if you asked somebody were to me, they would tell you what was called the fine dining restaurant. cardinal cuisine. which is on the top floor of some office building and spinning around, so if a woman puts her purse down here, it goes halfway across the room. and a menu that tells you a lot about the food, except that it has been frozen for a year and a half. i always thought the continental was from continental trailways bus company or something like that. and the chef there, the head waiter was a guy who was hired to make you feel uncomfortable

and not quite deserving of being in a restaurant. we were lucky to be there. alice and some other people did in the 1960's was take that fine dining away, and, plus and that restaurant, if they wanted to charge a little extra -- charlie: and fine dining for her became the quality of the food. >> and the people and the fact that it was an egalitarian place so that the people's suppliers , were also mentioned, and it was also local, as opposed to imported. charlie: all the great chefs do that now, don't they? >> they do. charlie: they copied you in that. >> exactly, and copenhagen. charlie: right. >> i think that it is just a matter of coming back to our senses. this is the way that we have

done it since the beginning of civilization, and somehow it has been locked in the fast food -- lost in the fast food culture of this country. we are doing really crazy things, feeding ourselves things that is not good for us. charlie: is your life today teacher rather than -- >> i think it probably is. >> i think cooking is something that you always do, but it is a kind of comfort, coming back into your routine at home, make something for yourself, but certainly not professional occupation that it used to be, and i think -- my mom on how that restaurant runs, the menu, -- and conversations happening with the cooks. as far as what she is thinking about on a day-to-day basis, a one track mind, edible education, sustainable schoolyard, and it has become this kind of passion that is all-consuming.

charlie: was it hard for you to resist putting a restaurant in las vegas or miami? >> not hard to resist. >> as i say, those were all kind of ran extensions, and in a way it is very tempting, but alice went the other direction, and now there are restaurants in every city in america, or copy that stuff. the other thing that happened around the same time is the society was shaken up enough so that it was ok for a trust lawyer from denver if he was asked about his son saying, he is great. he is a chef in san francisco. it used to be that there was kind of a class problem here. charlie: it is a higher class to be a chef in san francisco than

a trust lawyer in kansas city. >> anything's better than kansas city. charlie: you cook often? >> i cook all the time. it was white as a sort of a natural collaboration for us. i can imagine eating all of the things and these recipes that we were working on for this book. charlie: the idea of a restaurant? any pull on you? >> no, no, no. charlie: who is samantha greenwood? >> she is my right arm. we talk about food every morning. she is kind of an amazing cook herself. she is a collaborator with me, and she is here in new york helping organize the whole group that is cooking for this benefit tonight. charlie: so you're going from here to the benefit? >> i'm going from here to the benefit. charlie: once you go and have a good time?

>> your both invited. >> i'm not sure i want to eat in the bank. charlie: what are you writing? >> i'm putting together a collection of thesis on race that i've done in the past, which has turned out to be more trouble than i thought. charlie: what kind of trouble? >> some of the pieces have to be cut, have to writing introductions. i thought it was going to be like dipping into capital. i've done a book of children's poems that will come out in about a year. charlie: you go out to eat every night? >> no, i somehow without cooking -- of course, i used to live in the village. my house has not moved, but the real estate people have decided i live in the west village. so i live in a neighborhood that

is the capital of prepared food in the world. i can always pick something up, or sometimes i push the beer aside and find something in the back of the refrigerator. charlie: i don't know the answer to this. >> you don't know the answer? go ahead. [laughter] charlie: about food. it was -- do you eat with the same passion or are you somehow that you just eat to live, rather than live to eat? >> i do like to eat, but i never ate with so much passion as the books indicate, because those are basically different experiences squeezed together,

so it looks like that is all i do is eat. so i was never really that way. also, i have to admit that when i see a review of a restaurant or something, i look at the bottom to see where it is. if it is on east 74th street -- >> i live in the midtown of manhattan on central park. restaurants in the town of getting better. >> i will never know. >> there are certain things i will not have experienced. i don't boycott them. charlie: what else is on your list? >> what. charlie: things you have never experienced. >> there is a lot. you don't want to hear about it. charlie: there are so many great memories of family they come from around the table. >> in high school, a couple of high school kids is like a soap opera. better than watching television.

charlie: great to see you, sir. >> good to see you. charlie: come back and we will talk more politics. i would love to know what you think about the trump candidacy. >> it's good to take another big show for them. charlie: thank you. pleasure. the book is called "my pantry", by alice waters. homemade ingredients that make simple meals your own. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

charlie: he is cofounder and ceo of periscope, purchased earlier this year by twitter. this trimming out allows anyone to broadcast video in real time anywhere in the world. he says the mission is to create the closest thing to a teleportation machine. live streaming platforms are changing the way that we communicate and share our experiences. and its peers have come and are screening for enabling the piracy copyright material. we'll talk more about that. i'm pleased to have him here at the table for the first time. even though we had met at another table. tell people what periscope is and does. >> it is the simplest way to start or watch a live video broadcast. if you have an iphone or android

you press a button, go live, and , anyone can watch and hear you. if you are in the midst of a protest in baltimore, you can go live in show that with the world. if you are running on the beach with your dog and want the family to see it you can go live. charlie: or you can -- if you're on a train and standing next to a remarkably interesting person, you can pull out your smartphone -- and have a conversation. when somebody that you might not see again at the end of the trip. and share with whoever wants to watch it. >> absolutely. charlie: that's rather interesting. i mentioned the sale to twitter. why did you choose to sell it? >> one of the things we thought was interesting was the vision and the mission for periscope is very similar to twitter. twitter is a real-time pulse on what is happening around the world. that is what we want periscope

to be. it is a key part of that, about the world. in twitter's mechanical way of a -- a coalition that is through 140 characters, picture, and video. periscope's focus is live video. the fact that that vision alignment existed was one of the reasons why the idea of a partnership with twitter, whatever that meant was really -- charlie: it enables you to do things that you might not have been able to do right now on your own? >> just the brand recognition of twitter alone, is one of the reasons why we are where we are from a brand perspective. people all around the world know periscope under using periscope. i don't think we would have gotten there as quickly if we had done this about twitter. charlie: in the beginning, you used images and not video. >> in the beginning, we built a simple prototype and it was pictures, almost like what

happened in a reversed google maps. you could drop a pen and see what is happening. we realize that still photography is not as effective as a medium to communicate what is happening now. we did not want to have a live video company for the sake of a live video company. that was a means to an end. charlie: how fast are you growing? >> we are growing rapidly. we announced just over a month ago that we have reached over 10 million accounts. every day, roughly 40 years worth of broadcast our watch. if you added up all the time people are watching live broadcast every day, it's 40 years. the fact that we launched it months ago, we are really happy about that. it's one of the things that keeps us up all night. charlie: how did you solve the problem of latency? >> in short, we had a fantastic team. one of our engineers is holding down the fort in wales. we invested a lot of time in building the video stream

infrastructure such that you could achieve a really nice looking quality broadcast, not hd, but you don't think about the quality, at a low latency. charlie: users will figure out ways to use periscope that you may not even have imagined? >> that is the beauty of any user-generated application or software, this is true for twitter and every other sort of consumer application. charlie: when they designed twitter, they were not thinking about being part of revolutions. >> users dictate how these platforms evolve, and that's been true for periscope. we had our sense of how people might use it, but within the first day we were seeing new cases that we never thought of. charlie: tell us one of the interesting ones. >> there are a lot of collaborative broadcasts, >> -- graffiti artist will go live, and the mission of the broadcast will be to collaboratively paint

something for the audience. the audience will say, draw me a wall, a blue sky, arose, a -- a rose, a turtle, and you have this craftsman who is responding to you as the audience member and this piece of art is evolving over time. i seen so many of those broadcasts that it's really fascinating. this morning, actually i was , sitting in my hotel room, and my twitter feed started blowing up. somebody was doing a live broadcast on my face. she was asking the audience what color should i paint his shirt. someone says he never wears red, so do a neutral color. that kind of enter active broadcaster-to-viewer experience, rarely does the audience sitting on their couch have a chance to interact with the creation process. that is the magical part of a medium like this, where you are bridging that gap. charlie: when i went to st. petersburg earlier this year, i

i went to the hermitage, and so he walked with me and we had a television camera as we were going to the museum. we look at the paintings, a day in which there were thousands of people in the museum. and we walked through and talked about the museum and it had a really interesting quality of being real and not packaged and sterile. i think it would have been better on periscope. i think people would understand it is not going to be perfect because we do not have time to carefully edited and make the right cuts. it is going to be real. and here's a man who can tell us what we might want to know about the history of the place and the rest. think about what we are doing, we like to think that periscope has the potential to be a platform for truth. we say truth, because even

notice live we know that it is happening right now. it is not edited or filtered, it is actually happening right now. i don't think other tools can express as literally as periscope can. charlie: here's an idea that you believe, time watched. explain it from your standpoint. >> the most relevant way of understanding whether people are engaged with this tool is to understand how much time they spend watching the broadcast. if everybody is opening the mobile app and not watching the broadcast, they're not getting a viable experience. the metric we focus on is how much the watching live. that is the secret sauce. sure you can watch the archive later, but we think that life experience is what we want to optimize for. that is how we measure our own success. charlie: compelling content? >> we find that it is the broadcaster themselves. you can be doing the most mundane broadcast, and if you're a compelling narrator, people want to listen to you.

charlie: excitement, passion, descriptive power. >> knowing how to be a performer, and part of that is interactivity. if you are responding to questions, you don't need to be doing the most exhilarating thing. the other side of the spectrum, too you can be a kevin hart or , roger federer, and people want to watch you because you are you. it goes both ways. charlie: i watched kevin fedor workout, practice, and then come over and talk to you about the workout he went through. >> my favorite is roger fetter at wimbledon. he started broadcast walking with the president of wimbledon through the courts, royal box, centre court, before the tournament, so roger is asking the president, do you mind if i go step on the grass. just being able to be in the palm of his hand while he is doing that. >> he was holding the phone.

>> do you mind coming to my wedding this year? and he says, now i'm busy this we're. you don't see this kind of interaction on tv or on any no caps on. i think that is what is really compelling. charlie: how will it be used by news? >> it is already being used by news. some of our most powerful examples are either citizen journalism, or actual journalists in the field. the refugee crisis in the middle east, some of the most powerful broadcasts i've seen. we have a journalist in germany, he was crossing into serbia with hundreds of syrian refugees and was broadcasting live. you can see on the map where he was. he crossed over the border and was talking to these refugees, asking them how long they had been walking, what do you hope to do once you get the serbia, that sort of wrongness of following that story is really powerful. baltimore, ferguson, following the protests. the aftermath of the earth quake in nepal, seeing the devastation, the lines of people

going into the hospitals. i don't feel like i would have experienced the rawness of that story by watching tv or other sources. i think periscope had a really interesting perspective on that that felt true. charlie: jack dorsey will now be the ceo of twitter. do you think that means anything different for twitter? >> i think it is an incredible thing for twitter. charlie: the founder will be there. >> not just that the founder will be there i think that's an , important, symbolic moment as well, but the fact that it is him specifically. i think he has a spiritual understanding of twitter, what it is now and what it can be, that no one else in the world does. i think, to combine that with the fact that he has the moral authority of a founder, and also the fact that he is such a good leader. he is now built to incredible companies for the world.

i think it is a great commendation. charlie: then there is this, the floyd-mayweather fight. >> we spoken extensively about that. charlie: it was the extensive part of three minutes. what is coming out of that? and what is the danger that this will be an issue for you, so-called copyright material? >> exponent happens. charlie: somebody periscoped parts of the fight, did they not? >> i guess the way that i would describe it, a time that there is a new technology platform that gets mass adoption, there will be moments of disruption that are contentious. in the context of live streaming, and the sense that anyone with a mobile device in my stream, one of the convocations with that is copyright protection. what's stopping somebody from taking the phone out and filming. it is a problem for copyright holders.

it is something that we think about, frankly. we don't believe content is compelling. i don't think is particular the interesting to have somebody pointing the phone at a tv screen and rebroadcasting content. but, it is the internet and it happens. it has happened since people -- charlie: i think it is more compelling than you do, because there are certain things people , have a need for instant gratification, and they want to see it as it happens even if the , quality is not perfect. >> that was true in the case of the music industry. that pushed for an evolution in the technology and accessibility of that content legitimately. i think that trend will hopefully continue in the context of a video as well. in a world where people can only be satiated by getting their content immediately, i think that will push -- charlie: what you going to do? what is going to happen? >> from our standpoint, we need to do a few things. have already done them. one, have a policy to protect the sort of thing. you're not allowed to rebroadcast something that

someone else's copyrighted. we need to have processes and two, teams of people to address this. every night there is an event that someone may want to broadcast -- we have teams and processes. charlie: this is akin to one of the problems that youtube has. >> youtube had their own growing pains in this regard, and they spent a lot of time and money on this world as well. frankly, this is one of the great things about being a part of a company like twitter. we're not starting from scratch. we have teams of people who can help us with content moderation and process and help us reach out to broadcasting partners to make sure we are working well with them. charlie: there are always interesting evolutions in terms of technology, often directed to a consumer market, but at some point it expands into a business market, where there is more money being spent. i can imagine circumstances in which periscope could be used by

business people looking for an early start and a message they can all share at the same time, the ease of access, which is appealing to people. >> it is easy to access, and the ability to reach a large audience to tell your story. if your business -- i mentioned john before we started this. john is the ceo of a public company. he is one of my favorite users on periscope. what does he do? he will take you to board meetings, a job for central park, he is engaging with his customers. this is not his first time using a technology platform, but with periscope as the ceo of a public company, he can reach his customers and say here is what i'm working on and here is what is important to do. give me your feedback. we are seeing an incredible array of use cases from businesses, not just individuals using periscope. charlie: thank you for coming. pleasure to have you. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

charlie: stanley was one of the most famous and controversial figures in the history of psychology. he conducted experiments at yale university. it was indicated that those people will not refrain from infecting pain on others, in

order to do so. peters are scarred -- aarsgaard place them in a new film. >> rock, pillow, hair -- >> incorrect. 165 volt strong shock. >> let me out of here. i will not be part of the experiment anymore. >> he says he does not want to continue. >> he says he does not want to go on. >> the results of the same. they hesitate, sigh, tremble, and ground. they advance to the last switch because they are told to. this is an experiment. >> the man in the other room wasn't being shocked. >> let me out of here. >> we want to get true reactions from people. >> please continue.

>> social relations, what is that mean? >> the way people talk and elevators. the study of formative societies. >> human beings participate in destructive and inhumane acts. anomalys defiance the instead of the norm? >> why did you stop? >> utility to continue. >> why don't i have a choice. >> have you done it? >> i would never do that. >> that really hurts. let me out. >> the experiment really begins. ♪ >> your father is turning into a fictional character. >> critics insist your callous, deceitful. >> no one was force. >> you are invested in the idea of authority and love lording it over all of us. >> a person has a choice. >> yet, she chooses obedience. awareness. liberation. life.

♪ charlie: experimenter. explain. the idea was a person, people being shocked new they were not being shocked? >> right. the doctor in the room is also an actor. the only person who does not know the reality of the year meant is the person who is the teacher, the person who is behind the machine. if a person hits the wrong answer you give them a shot. charlie: and the people receiving the shock act as if it is the most painful thing. peter once they get to the end, : because it goes from mild to xxx danger. actually, even before the experiment begins the person not , in on the experiment would get a sample shock so that, a mild shock. he would say guess how much that was, and they would guess. charlie: this was controversial?

peter: it became more and more controversial. it is interesting. it has a lot to do with the time that the experiment happened, coming of the 1950's going into the 1960's. to me, and we had an experiment like this happen today it would , be a a lot less controversial than it was then. this idea of a candid reality. the idea that even in the photography, the acting that came later, the idea that the camera is capturing something inside of us that we are not intending, a style of acting that happened then, and so something from candid camera to punked. that we have come to accept. charlie: you come out of this knowing what you know about it believing what? that people will do what ever they are told to do? peter: 65% of people will not obey their own instincts about what is right and wrong and follow a malevolent leader.

charlie: how do you explain that? peter: i think a lot of it has to do with abdicating responsibility. in the last two days of the experiment, he filmed the experiments. i think this is one thing that made them quite interesting to people, and probably quite popular, right? because you could watch them. , one of the things that i find helpful is that there is no one , who does it without a lot of pain. these people, some of them weeping, all of them protesting, many laughing uncomfortably, but most of them say it is your responsibility. because it was yale university. it was not hitler. they thought they must know what's going on. when it seemed like the other person was being injured, they thought that this is on you. charlie: a lot of people look at this and say do we understand how people follow orders, as you suggested.

peter: absolutely. it's no accident that he was a jew from the bronx. he grew up in the 1940's. in the bronx. didactually, the man who this effort examines went to the same high school. at the same year. this idea of trying to understand the thing that was not understandable was certainly in the air. charlie: what intrigue you about playing him? peter: well for me as an actor, , it is -- i'm questioning the nature of reality, what is the truth of what is going on any given moment, something i have always been interested as a kid, what is the reality of this moment, you know? whenever you walk out on stage and you are scared, any good acting teacher says, look at the reality. look up. look at the room. look at the people. look at your hands. feel everything that is happening. that is the reality, and it will ground you.

i think there are several realities going on in this specific experiment. we have the person who think that they are electric hitting someone else. that is the reality. it is a valid reality. it is true to them. the two other people who are actors in the room have another reality. stanley, who is on the other side of a two-way mirror, has another reality. this is not a traditional biopic. it is like a box of mirrors. we play with what is fake, certainly there are elements in the film that are less convincing than others, the kind of candid reality were used to another types of filmmaking. when my beard is first introduced into the film, he had this very particular kind of beard that like abraham lincoln had without the mustache. , the first scene you see that, there is an abraham lincoln impersonator that i'm talking to with that beard and i'm asking him if he has a real accent. i'm doing a pretend accent. we are playing with this idea of what is true, what is the reality.

if it is not a candid reality, is it still valid? charlie: it seems to me that an , not only is it about finding truth, but what is truth? peter: what is truth? is the candid truth the truth? that is certainly the order of the day of what we consider most good acting. does this feel like it's actually happening in the way that we all know, a kind of familiar feeling. to me, it's not the only one. charlie: how did you prepare for this? know, i never you consider it that important to learn every cranny of a real person's life when i'm going to play them, because there is some idea that we have a common truth that my experiences in my life are going to overlap with the characters really experiences, and it is hopeless to try to be them. that said, for about two years

before we started making this, michael gave me too much information, but it is interesting. i don't always get interested. sometimes, like with the film i have that now, "black mass." with that, i took a picture of him and looked at the picture and i didn't about him. i did not get into the specifics of the real person. charlie: that would have been easy to know as well? peter: yeah with this, stanley , had his wife -- we met with her a number of times. she gave me a self-portrait that he had done, and he is wearing mirrored sunglasses. he has the beard, and it is a kind of mask. you don't actually learn anything deep about the person from looking at this picture but , that says something interesting about him. charlie: take a look at this. this is a clip of stanley meeting his wife, played by winona ryder.

♪ >> we going to the same party? >> probably. you know doris? >> paul invited me. >> never heard of him. ♪ >> shall we continue talking or wait until we are properly introduced? charlie: winona ryder, wow. peter: yeah. it's so difficult to play someone so dispassionate. that's one of the things that i really gleaned from a lot of my

research talking to his brother, and talking to sasha, is this idea of playing someone who is really always watching. everything is about other people. as an actor, you are used to playing people where everything is about them. to be a scientist is to not judge the results, or become emotionally involved. charlie: also to become emotionally observant. peter: exactly. charlie: there is a relationship between what he did and what happened at stanford? peter: yeah, definitely. and that experiment, you start acting like the jailer. you are pretending to be a jailer, you're going to assume a lot of the qualities of the one who is jailed. you know, i think one of the reasons these things are particularly cinematic, is because they have a lot to do with acting. to me. i used to say to people that -- they would say, you bring your work home with you?

i would say, onset if i sit and do this all day long eventually , i will be upset. it is sort of like the way the body goes with the emotions. you pretend to do something, even if you're doing it from a kind of outside-in place. to me, it does not matter. the body teaches the heart sometimes. the outside will affect the inside. charlie: you just completed -- when did you and hamlet? peter: in the spring. and then i went straight into "the magnificent seven." charlie: magnificent seven? >> i am in the magnificent seven remake. charlie: who else. goodell washington, ethan hawke, a lot of people. modeled off ofu a lot of the people that we know? >> yes. charlie: when i was in london,

everyone was talking about benedict cumberbatch, who was in hamlet at the time. everybody has approached it with great trepidation, great willingness, and everybody believes that something has to be part of their own acting, most of them do. some avoided. tell me how you approached it. because people also tell me, there have been lots of hamlet at this table, that it never leaves them. >> that is true. charlie: and you are almost possessive and productive. peter: you are definitely possessive of it. it is difficult to watch other hamlets after you have done it. i asked alan rickman if he would play claudius. he said, i have played hamlet, and i don't know if i want to sit there and watch you do it every night. charlie: why is that? peter: it is a deeply personal part.

i think the thing that keeps people thinking about it is because it is impossible to stick the landing. you are never going to do it and go i did it. part by ihed that guess a year and a half out, i decided to do it, asked someone i worked with, austin pendleton, to direct it. my mentor, pinnie allen, who is probably the greatest acting coach in cinema today. she's working probably half of the gas you have had on here real hidden talent. , had not acted in many, many years on stage, and she wanted to play gertrude, and she play -- she played my gertrude opposite my hamlet, and that was a large part of why initially got involved. i read the play every day for a year, a little piece of it for an hour and a half, moved through it sequentially, i would -- charlie: it can take you that long did it?

peter: i would take a little piece of it and i would go through it and think about it. then i would move on to a little piece, and maybe every month i would read through the whole thing, just to become -- because it is all about the word, you know? it is all in the language, and so that's what you're minding the entire time. i think i'm going to do it again. charlie: this was a modern adaptation? peter: it was -- it is hard to say. fl like it was in the mind. to me, the play feels like it takes place in the unconscious mind. when i look at hamlet's plight, i look at someone who has been gas lighted, some people are going, are you ok? are you sure you're ok? and he reacts by going, does that cloud like a camel? and they go, oh yeah. if you have the whole world not reflecting the trip back to you , end up like one of stanley's people. you can't figure out what

reality is. that is very interesting as an actor. it really never leaves you. charlie: did it change your view of anything other than what shakespeare had in mind? peter you mean the relationship : and the nature of the play? charlie: the character and the pete -- play wantingsh the to play her a show. i went, i'm kind of getting a bead on hamlet, but what is up with this friend who doesn't say, hey, look you killed your girlfriends father, your two childhood friends, maybe we shouldn't go back home quite yet. all this stuff you're talking about the cemetery, he doesn't say that. to me, a lot of the time i'm attracted to characters because i don't have an answer. if i feel stopped, i will want -- if i., i want to do the part. i think that is the way a lot of

people feel doing hamlet, i don't understand. i have to try to understand by doing it. charlie: you mentioned the acting coach, what is her name? >> penny allen. the thing is, the way that she works is never like, this is what the scene is about. all of the ideas feel like they come from you. sometimes it is music. sometimes it is up home. a lot of the times, as an actor, because you work by yourself, before a project starts are kind of by yourself, it is difficult to be disciplined about doing it. because we are an undisciplined lot of people. the other thing is to have someone bounceback, be your mirror, and i feel like that is a lot of what she does, just have that conversation with you. charlie: thank you for being here. great to see you. the film is called "the experience are" it opens on friday, october 16. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪

>> it's tuesday, the 20th of october. i'm rishaad salamat and you're atching "trending business." we're headed right to sydney, singapore, mumbai this hour. the markets currently tumbling in asia but the aussie strengthening as the reserve bank appears to bank away from further rate cuts. is the i.m.f. says the juan not undervalued and traders

revision, china's president armed with an invitation to buckle happen palace and deals worth billions of dollars. do follow me at twitter. defensive health care tell coss, all appear to be in vogue. this one, bailout of mining stock. a look at that and the rest of the market action. >> it's certainly a bit of a mixed day. the regional benchmark index is slightly lower, mainly due to that fall we were seeing in common by --ty players. the shanghai switching between positive and negative numbers today. still concerned about slowing growth down weighing into the equity market. elsewhere we're seeing a little bit of weakness in the region