announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." good evening. i am filling in for charlie rose who is traveling. we begin with the economy. president-elect trump has outlined an ambitious economic agenda. he has proposed a massive public spending initiative on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. he is expected to roll back regulations and introduce tax cuts not seen since the george w. bush era. today, trump announced to cabinet appointments, tom price, a staunch critic of obamacare to lead the health and human how.ices and elaine co

joining us now is dennis byrne and -- berman and jill's lessons schlesinger. let's start with transportation. if the president-elect wants to get this massive infrastructure done, she would seemingly be the person with washington connections. haves: she does experience. married to mitch mcconnell, leader of the senate majority. servedhe only one who eight years under george w. bush. dennis: a creature of washington and knows how to -- it works. the interesting thing about infrastructure is there is so much work that has to go into actually spending the money. we talked about this at the and of the financial crisis with

shovel-ready projects and there is a lot of work to be done. jeff: i wonder has it gotten better at all since the end of the financial crisis or no? dennis: i do not think that is the case. if you look at funding from state level and city level for much of the infrastructure around this country, so many states have been pinched so deeply that they are putting off maintenance projects. trump is right and congress is right that the spending has to take place but it will not happen in a way that the politicians want it to materialize in. jeff: is it a trillion dollars they are talking about? jill: is this a jobs program or an infrastructure program? if the genesis of this is we need to more people back to work or we need to take people who are disenfranchised from globalization and technology and try to get them involved and actually working, it is a different question then, what is the best way to rebuild

the infrastructure of this country. right now when i talked to a lot of analysts, they will say to me, we do not have enough people today to do projects that are already funded. we are not sure we have the skilled they were necessary to do all these. the reality is that we are going to see money that is spent. will the government doing -- be doing it on its own? it will be some sort of private public partnership. when the private sector is involved they will want to concentrate on projects that have high yield. the may be in places where governments and the localities could do it themselves but are choosing not to. the devil will be in the details of this process. jeff: they may want to do it at lower cost. chinesethey have hired construction companies to reduce some of the bridges here. >> the program has become the private partner public ship --

public private partnership as well. aresay can it be a jobs infrastructure, can it be both at the same time? sometimesan be but these projects may be drifting towards the types of labor that needs to be skilled labor. it is one thing to do some kind of big, huge infrastructure spend when you have 10% unemployment in the economy. right now with unemployment under 5%, finding the right people could be actually pretty difficult in this process. all want this. this is a bipartisan issue. but trying to find the right people to get these projects as easy as that blurb of let's do infrastructure spending because that is a much more long-term project that requires a lot of thoughtfulness around it, and it is more than a slogan. possible's talk about tax cuts. if they happen they are not insignificant.

huges: we are talking numbers at the corporate and individual tax level. be hope is that money will spent. as far as the corporate level goes, this idea that there might be hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions of dollars that have been taken off shore where there are today, taken back to the u.s. where they are put to productive purposes, say, giving people jobs, building new business infrastructure, again the devil is in the details there. companies to spend money for business investment that they have been so reticent to do that. i do not know if they are going to do that even if the incentives are there. jeff: if it will happen, will the cuts happen? cut: they will be some tax plan. between speaker ryan and president-elect trump they are close enough that a deal can be made. i think the real fascinating part of what the deal ends up being is who makes money on

this? andink that if you look at you say, ok, tax policy center scores the trump plan and says the average household in the u.s. will get 800 or 900 bucks in tax savings, that seems awesome. 2% sounds great. but if you find out that the top at the end ofre the day, 10, 12, 14% of their gross income, that will make a big difference. the other part of this is what we know from economists is when you give a tax cut to someone really wealthy, they might buy it -- a new car. what they will do is invest it. where is a middle class are working class person will take that money and potentially maybe pay down some debt but probably go out and spend it. it is considered more stimulating if you go to the middle where there are more people and give the money there. if it goes to the higher end, i

am not sure how much it is going to boost the economy. it will be good for rich people, no doubt. good for -- list good for the middle and the bottom. jeff: stimulus remains a controversial word even more so. business get back to investment, to jill's point. when you think about the rich inple who are investing more companies, where's the company money going? oftentimes it is going to share buyback, dividend. not necessarily going back to productive use. when you talk about stimulus it is great on the election trail and great in congress but actual dollars in the people's pockets who want it or needed or perhaps he voted the way they did we have a long way to get there. jeff: has -- have you been surprised at what the market has done since election? jill: i was teased mercilessly because you said that stock market would crash if trump one. i was right for three hours.

on election night it really did look like a crash. i think it is fascinating because the story is yet to be told. the initial market reaction has been pretty amazing. we have seen stocks rise pretty dramatically. because of these ideas of some stimulative effect of tax cuts as well as some spending going on in infrastructure. we see that the dow is doing s&p because it has more industrial companies, small companies have been on a tear. it has been phenomenal. -- let's put my hat.fp that person has stocks and bonds has gottend market hammered. that does not mean that we are going crazy. --will not face deville double digit inflation. the markets see the world quite differently. stock markets are more

optimistic. the bond market more test a mystic, worried that the spending could come home to roost, could blowout the government's debt problem and in a major and dramatic way. a little fearful about what do the next four years mean for the economy, for people, and for inflation. what do the next couple months mean for rates? dennis: these guys are overstating it a little bit. those rates were down to 1.35% on the 10 year treasury. that was a historic low. of all time. and it is still incredibly low. the rates have moved a lot. that will affect people's a mortgage,et finance a car, and education, all the things that matter. in our wanted inflation economy. we were standing on the abyss of potential deflation. we are looking at some possible inflation and that is not

necessarily bad area jeff: -- not necessarily bad. jeff: not necessarily bad? dennis: it could pick up fast. it could pick up but right now i would say the fed when they are at home at night having private conversations, they are probably i will takes not -- this. maybe jill has a different view. jill: i agree. when i am talking about is the pace of change which has been pretty dramatic. to go from 1.3 to 2.3 seems like, rates are still low in the 10 year but you lost 8% in a short time. that said, i agree, the fed would like a little inflation. janet yellen who came under great pressure during the trump campaign, he said she kept rates and the fed kept rates too low for too long. she may become his good friend. acceleratetart to

they will raise rates faster next year. jeff: sometimes they accelerate faster than you think. you have to be reactive and sometimes you cannot react fast enough. jill: that is the top position of being a central banker. you are taking information, information can change and obviously, if the fed has to accelerate rates because things are moving faster than expected, that is fine. what is more intriguing to me around the movement in the bond market is that it feels quite extreme relative to what is going on on the ground. ofdo not know exactly tales the spending plans and we also do not know whether congressional republicans are going to push back against mounting debt and the united states. we have a slew of legislatures -- legislators who are elected east on the premise that they did not want to much spending.

these are the people who were willing to blow through the debt spending -- ceiling to keep spending in check. will they rubberstamp a deal that adds much to the national debt? i do not know. jeff: they have specific thoughts about trade as well. everybody here involved. the president-elect said some strong things. dennis: this is the interesting part. whether there are trade barriers erected in one form or another, that raises the possibility of more inflation, to your point. the drop -- dollar is getting stronger as interest rates are rising. if we erect trade barriers the prices of things will be hit quite hard. we might be embarking on an incredible experiment on trade barriers in the modern world and we have no idea what the effect might be. jeff: we are embarking on a whole bunch of experiments. it seems like. jill, what else are you watching

out for right now? fascinating -- jill: what is fascinating is to see what kind of collaboration will take place with strange bedfellows. i was always struck by the fact trade, forked about example, during the campaign, you had the sender's people and the trump people coming together. a populist sentiment. imf treat to see what kind of conversations are going to happen across the aisles from one another. i'm interested in seeing details of all of these plans. i'm interested to see what the electorate believes what is happening to them. sometimes what is actually happening to them is not evident until some passes. and i wonder if many times, what we do as a population is we say, iambic voting for the guy who seems like a guy who will make -- i am voting for the guy who seems like a guy who will shake it up.

throwback, like a what will they do at midterm elections? we want to see what all these other countries are going to do. i am still worried about brexit. i am a nervous nelly. let's see, we are supposed to get theresa may to come out and say something. there are so many different pieces moving in the world and as you said, it is unprecedented, unchartered, but differentome in a areas and to some extent, the economics of this is interesting. but actually the fabric of society is even more interesting. jeff: it is always unsettled to a certain extent. >> you can look back at any point of history. dennis: the relationship between the executive branch and the federal reserve, we follow this war 200 years ago. we eventually could have abolished that, we start the federal reserve about 80 or 90

years later. it is going to be interesting to see if he really appoints people who will be very aggressive on what the federal is in the government and economy at large. whether he appoints someone like jeb hensarling to treasury secretary who has been vocal about his reservations about the , that could be an important thing for markets. markets have become dependent on the fed. you could say that is a bad them but the fed will bail out and that relationship might change which in the end, depending how it's done, might have some positive effects but there will be some volatility in what the end result is. jeff: the link is tighter than ever. yellen had said a year ago that she believed there had to be fiscal solutions, not monetary ones. she is saying, congress, you want growth might you do it. we are going to have that. now the fed can retreat and

normalize policy. that is going to be an important -- almost like a post-crisis natural occurrence that you thought was going to happen a few years ago. it is going to be on a fast track to happening. that said, we have been talking what isimulus measures, shovel ready, what is this, you have -- it has to be the efficiency of getting these dollars to work. theoncern about some of rhetoric we have heard is it sounds like a panacea. we have seen other countries try to do this. japan has a gorgeous rail system. it is amazing. the economy is mired in a low growth time and may be deflation. if we spend all this money and add to our national debt, is this actually going to move the needle or not? dennis: i can paint a more positive scenario. i share your concerns, the details, shovel ready, you're

right. let's say there is a collective belief that somehow the attitude and the sentiment in the business community specifically has changed and people are willing like i said, business investment wise to spend money. whether you agree with trumps is the -- itnot presents an opportunity for us collectively to reset the mindset which was one thing prior to this and that was stuck. jeff: for a long time. dennis: whether there are substantive changes to those things, i do not know. if we believe in -- ourselves they will happen, it is a think it to make it thing which might be the ultimate trump creation perhaps that might create some positive benefit. jill: i would agree with that to happenas starting already. we were already seeing wage

gains coming in to this time, we were seeing some consumer spending, we just got the revision to third-quarter gdp, consumer spending stronger than expected. all of this is somewhat -- has been happening organically. -- if it is a jumpstart, great, i am all in. i am generally a somewhat nervous person when i look at the promises. that is my number one thing. i want people to be clear that promises and campaigns are different than governing. when we see the results, i want everyone to have a job but i want people to be clear that what we are doing is going to have a good short, intermediate, and long-term effect and we will have to see. jeff: and business cycles are different from governing. one is not dictated by the other. we are almost 10 years removed from the financial crisis. almost a decade out. thank you both very much. ♪

johnson ismmie here. he captured a record-tying year-end title equaling him with richard teddy and dale earnhardt, senior. the win was his fifth of the season and the 80th in his career. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. think of that with petty and

earnhardt, sr. it is a cool place to be. jimmie: such a cool place to be. what they have done to our sport. charlie: how did you do it? was this a difficult year? jimmie: it was a difficult year. cars wered our four not performing as we needed to. one of our department heads and everyone in general, we had 650 people working. everyone locked arms and now we knew we need -- we had a mountain to climb. we work together and we did it. just as the chase started, our playoff started, we were getting hot again. we won two events in the postseason and that led for opportunity to change in miami. that won the race. charlie: i follow formula one, they have a big limb actiq race

coming up in abu dhabi. ,he idea is that the same team one was waiting for a while and the other is winning now. the final decided by sunday. which says interesting things to me about the nature of the engine, they nature of the driver, the nature of the team and all of that. jimmie: think of the stress you put on these vehicles and sometimes -- it could be something much more elaborate with the engine, a puncture in the tire, there are so many very of holes. that is what makes a championship so special. all the -- it is there for you. charlie: how have your skills changed? am takingfeel like i great care of myself physically so i am able to be sharp mentally. charlie: people do not know how much driving is a physical challenge. jimmie: without a doubt.

to sustain the energy and hydration over the course of a race, things i have learned to endurance sports have carried over. charlie: do you see it experience, does the give you a sense of how you see -- thellenge of where challenge of the race itself on the drivers? the on the fact that you are physically better, beyond the added newave experiences? jimmie: absolutely. these tracks change. the more time you come to a course, you know where the breaks are. i can watch them evolve and where the line goes and how to set up my car in the direction to lead my team. life experiences, learning how to manage spread -- stress and your schedule, manage life. all that stuff is important especially when you race is often as we do. charlie: beyond the track, in

terms of formula one, indy 500, nascar, what is the difference for a driver? jimmie: we are not allowed to have two elementary in nascar. any formula one, they have streaming data coming off the cars and they can tell you what is wrong. and the computer. the 40 cars -- drivers are the computers. charlie: all the data that is pouring into a formula one grand central, you do not have that. jimmie: we have all the same tools so we are preparing and debriefing and using all those tools. it is me. trying to connect me to those tools and validate those tools and how to use those tools is a big part of our job. charlie: when you did not win for 24 races, where you beginning to doubt yourself? jimmie: no. especially when we have 36 year -- a year when we run in. we were not leading laps and

looking at a win. that part was tough. one thing that was helpful, dale earnhardt, junior, -- it allowed jeff gordon to come back. jeff retired last year. to have his expert opinion and he was watching from afar and was able to get in the car and feel what we had been talking about. that was a big moment for us and helped us find the right thection and get motorsports back on top. charlie: explain what he did. jimmie: just validated what as drivers were talking about. charlie: he had driving experience, he could confirm and validate. a stronge has taken role in managing the company. to know, drivers will plane about everything, that is my job. we are complaining about all kinds of stuff. when jeff experienced it he was able to help mr. hendrick understand where we needed to infuse money and which departments, and fine-tune those areas.

do you have -- do you own one? jimmie: no. charlie: no sense to go to any other kind of racing? i have always wanted to experience other cars. i thought it would race indy cars when i was a kid. that was my dream. i have never been in an open styled vehicle. i have never had the chance to drive one. charlie: what is stopping you? jimmie: i am busy and i have a family. open cars are most -- more dangerous and i have to deal with my wife -- had a deal with my wife. i will honor the deal i have with my wife. racing issports car something that is interesting. and going back to my roots in racing with those offered trucks. charlie: you have always been in amazing physical shape. harris understands a lot

about how the human body works. he had -- you would come and work out and you had a gym in your house. you evolved toward doing marathons and triathlons. how is your body different than because of that? lighterdefinitely a lot which is fun being in a race car. they gave me great discipline and structure for doing a crazy schedule and trying to fit it in and being productive and making the most of it. it has to be routine and effective. just wasting time doing things will not cut it. charlie: it is better and easier because you have performance stuff. it is not just a workout. jimmie: the endurance side has car good for me because races are three and a half hours. good hydration and nutrition is important. i happen able to allowed -- i

have been able to carry this over to my day job. charlie: he is probably the most underrated champion in this sport, most people in this situation would crumble. not waiting every sunday. he did not ever waver. he knew what he needed to do my he need -- he knew what the demands were and made it happen. the real spark in this whole thing is jimmie. you felt like you were carrying the future of the team on your back. i have always been focused on being successful. i made a pledge it was going to be more significant -- take on bigger role. he sat me down to dinner and said you can have whatever you want out of this company and you can be as focal and is involved or continue to be a driver which is totally fine. i felt like there was something pulling me to be a leader for

the company, be more involved and help the young drivers that ,- the driver chase elliott helping those guys be more competitive, to be there for through.help him the process has been different this year. i've been more vested in the company. charlie: here is what people say. you will dod that yourself to the front. dale earnhardt, junior said that you willed yourself to the front. jimmie: my dad ran heavy equipment and my -- i have had a passion to make my way to the big time. through a lot of love and support and belief from others in me, they have seen that fashion, they have seen that will i have had to succeed. they have given me a chance.

it is all i know. i love to drive now. charlie: what is life beyond the track? i backed a lot of that down. we started a family we wanted to -- we dialed something -- some things down. i have been selective on have so its that i can be at home. charlie: hendrix owns the other half of the car? why wouldn't you own part of your own car? jimmie: it looks like it would be a pretty easy situation to have but when i came on it was a three car company. jeff was eager to start the fourth car. and esther hendrix said put some said up -- mr. hendrix let's put some money up. hendrickshat does

contribute? jimmie: he is a successful businessman. the man operates from the heart. everybody works for us, it is a family environment. to have such a successful man across theto dealers country, tens of thousands of people who work for him and the auto racing side we have, everybody feels like they're working for their dad. it is an amazing attribute that in thisnd we are all family environment. charlie: if you had to do it over would you do anything different? i have not. i look at my strengths as a driver, my up bringing, my background in racing trucks and racing on the dirt and slipping and sliding around polished me up. bobble the slightest, you spin around and you're gone.

with a nascar vehicle you slide. charlie: you are 41 now. how you might have changed -- changed and skills that might have affected your performance on the track. when you look at the competition, is a bigger, younger, tougher? that has been ever? jimmie: it is. tougher for sure. competitive. i was having a conversation a few minutes ago about how they're used to be a flow on the track. 500 laps, why are you going to overly challenge someone for position? it is so competitive, you cannot give someone a break. you go for blood each and every lap. you have to fight for every position. whereps are so important you are running on the track because of the aerodynamics are involved, closer to the field, the more competitive your car

will be. no one cut you a break. -- cut you a break anymore. have you here.to congratulations. back in a moment. stay with us. ♪\

jeff: good evening, i am jeff glor. mitchell and rachel loving were a couple who were arrested for violating the genius

anti-miscegenation laws. it was the inspiration for the "loving." here is a look. >> i am going to build you a house. our house. >> i want to take her out to d.c. to get married. >> are you sure about that? >> by the power invested me by the district of columbia, i now pronounce you husband and wife. >> in here. >> what you doing in bed with that woman?

>> there is no good here. >> richard perry loving being a white person and mildred jeter, being a colored person, did unlawfully cohabited as man and wife. >> of believe this is a battle that could go all the way to the .upreme court, >> it is unfair to bring children of mixed race into the world. i am going to raise my family here. i do not care what they do to us. >> i can take care of you. >> i know we have some enemies. we have some friends, too.

>> you realize this case could monster -- could alter the constitution of the united states. battle,y lose the small but when the big war -- win the big war. >> is there anything you would like me to say to this agreement justices of the united states? >> tell the judge i love my wife. jeff: running mate is the writer and director jeff nichols and ruth negga and nick kroll. i want to start with you. the trailer debt with the court case -- dealt with the court

case but the film overall, what strikes people who see it is it is a more personal story that it is the public story. the you are approaching script which you wrote, why did you decide to focus on this marriage in particular as opposed to the bigger case? jeff: the first thing i was approached with is the story. when you sit down to watch nancy's documentary, you are immediately struck by this archival footage of -- footage of these two people. it is filled with it, with these lifeographs from magazine. it is very clear that these two people sincerely loved one another. by the end of watching the documentary, i felt like i was witnessing one of the greatest love stories in american history. e very much sense, it

made a lot of sense to focus on that, to focus on those two people. jeff: despite how reticent they are in the documentary and in their lives, how quiet they were, you sensed the love. these were not outspoken people by any stretch. jeff: they were not political people. it is important when -- we all know that this film is a representation, this is my interpretation of what i could find out about them. outwant to try to find their essence and you want to try to represent that truthfully. i do not think they had an agenda. it is important to the way the story plays out in the film and it is important to their story overall, which is the active -- act of them getting married was not a active defiance. it was not a symbol or a statement. they truly loved one another. that is important because that sincerity, it can draw more people into their story. this is not propaganda. this is not to people trying to

make you think one way or another, they just love one another. i think that is an important thing to focus on. find it is hard to archival video of richard loving actually saying something. jeff: there are a handful of interviews. it is tricky. there is a little it a footage from the mid-1960's but we had to cobble together several different interviews to get a paragraph to research to build the voice out of. on facialas relying expressions. when we landed in virginia because we shot this in and around richmond and bowling green and central point where they were from, the first thing we did is we got him in masonry school. he is good at it.

he said he wanted to go back to australia and build. i am not sure of that will happen. jeff: richard loving was not all that talkative. noted was not necessarily, either but a little bit more. she was the suppose mouthpiece of the couple. it landed on her to be the one to communicate. i think she might have been quiet and reticent but she had a very dignified way of communicating what she needed to. and i think her manner was also one which people responded to. , bernie and phil, they talk about a woman who

radiated dignity and charisma. gettingwas vital to their voice heard and what she needed to say heard. but i think she was enamored of the spotlight. i think she pursued this case because it was her way of getting home. that was what was the motivating factor for her. i do not think she relished the go to lawyers to and have to go to court at all. necessary avenue to take to raise her family where she wanted to raise them which was in her home. lawyers she the dealt with could not have been much different from her

personality-wise. this is an outspoken guy, he was a loud guy, he was very committed to the case but i wondered for you what that was like, dealing with such a sparse script for mildred and richard and you being the voluble guy. scene andhot my first realized that in one scene, bernie had more lines than richard has in the entire film. it was very interesting to play a character who is a much more talkative and as jeff's script beautifully lays out, bernie's job is to -- and my job is to walk the audience through what is happening in the court case or what is happening in the proceedings as it is spanning a nine year period. i had to cover some ground in that. it is also amazing to work with people like ruth and joel who do not say much but are saying so

much, that their performances nuanced ande and our committee getting so much without having to say a ton of lines. jeff: the lovings were given the option to be there for the court case in person, they did not want to be. what jeff it belies and ruth are saying, these were not people who had set out with an agenda to change the way american worked. they were two people who wanted to be married and could not understand why they would not be able to. to idea that mildred road attorney general kennedy and that letter was passed along to the aclu, at which point bernie gets his hands on the case and gets involved is in a way a bit over his head, he did not have a ton of experience at the time and then bill -- brings and feel deal with the more

constitutional aspects. they were able to make access -- progress but they were not political people. do you think mildred would have gone? ruth: i think they did not want to hear their family being disparaged. by people who did not know them. i do not think they wanted -- i t plays beautifully in our film that their kids would have been used as some sort of stick to beat them with. i think that was a final straw i think, for them. i do not think they wanted to hear that. you watchat is when the film, i watched the film and i feel that. reluctant to tell them

because it is such a shameful thing to use against people, their children. were first arrested in for jenna and ended up moving to live for five years but went back and were arrested again and that was the spur for what became the supreme court case. jeff: kind of. they were arrested the second time and we take a little bit of creative license with the scenario around their second arrest area they were arrested -- the rest. they were arrested when they returned for easter vacation. i collapsed that with the return of -- to give birth to their first child. richard's mother was a midwife. i took a little bit of creative license there. thatreally happened was the first trial judge sends them to exile for 25 years.

exile from the state of for june yet closest place they could go -- the state of virginia for you and place they could go with d.c. people could say what is the big deal? for richard and mildred it was a big deal. jeff: you see the dread on mildred's face when they are pulling in for the first time. how different from their environment. jeff: you have to look at mildred as a character of the ark of the story which she begins in -- as a 19-year-old who is pregnant. and has never been away from home to not only have the change of being married, having a baby, but also being completely removed from your home and your family. i believe and it is represented this way in the film that mildred went into a depression in d.c. she speaks about it in the

documentary. we used some of those lines in the film. i think it broke her heart, and i think she had a connection to that place that was certainly built out of family but also built out of dirt. i think she was connected to the nature of that place. them i thinkes joel has talked about this before. the names even though the case is so famous, the names may not yet is well known to many americans as one might think they should be. is telling that the event that sparked all of this was in their bedroom. it was in the privacy of their home. something done in public. it was not a march or an explosion. the violence here was by definition, in the privacy of their bedroom. it was done that way on purpose.

because i believe the sheriff at the time wanted to literally catch them in bed together. jeff: and he did. jeff: and he did. isn you have something that prosecuted inside the bedroom and then drawn out over a period of nine years, it is not necessarily the thing that stays in the headlines. jeff: it is interesting the documentary did not get made before it did. jeff: nancy andrews have spoken about it. mildred's they read obituary in 1998 when she passed away. all publicityff for decades before she actually died. she did one interview before she passed. jeff: that was not who she was which validates the approach to the whole story. this is not who these people are. the same stance for her daughter

who is the only surviving child. like people, they don't drawing attention to themselves necessarily. by a richard is killed drunk driver at a young age. the other two children have passed as well. nick, you have done plenty of comedy. people always want you to make them laugh. to do the big smile. this is obviously a little bit different. was very excited to get the call from jeff because i was a big fan of his films. jeff: how did you find him? jeff: i found his show. i was a fan of his show which is externally. -- extraordinary. you do all this work

and you hope you will get a call out of the blue from someone you it -- you respect. come do this thing with us and i got that call from jeff and it was exciting. and then without knowing anything about the fillmore the story and i read the script and it was so beautiful and i know a little bit about the story itself, a friend of mine had written a song called loving, virginia. i was excited to be part of it. to be -- we have the desire to be able to do different things. it took someone like jeff to , i would not say a chance on me but give me the opportunity to do something. was -- tremendousat's a resemblance to bernie. that cannot be overlooked. was not afraid to talk.

is an important thing to note about the performance -- ni ck's performance. it is a performance within a performance. we all change when we get on camera. our bodies change and our voices change. that was true for bernie. it felt like sometimes you are watching episodes of "the office," he is catching the camera and he is very aware that someone is watching him speak. i apply that in the first scene where they -- he meets richard and mildred. the idea that he is putting on presentation of himself because of his age and experience but that is who he was. nick: he had to sell them. each of the phone conversations is quite good because you see mildred's reluctance. your character wrote a letter to robert kennedy who referred it

to the aclu. i wonder how that is as an actor, talking to the phone in that particular scene when he is trying to convince you to meet with him and to take up your cause. nick?didn't we ring >> we recorded it. >> we had a couple different take us and we had those queued up. they would be timed based off of its performance -- ruth's performance. that was the first time we heard you do the voice and it was uncanny. was in l.a. and i pulled over on the side of the road, i got a call. from the 1950's. and for me, hearing ruth's voice, i remember hearing her voice in a couple of takes and i knew of her work but i knew her

as an irish woman and to then hear her voice as mildred was like, a gave me the chills to hear it. it was really very, it was weird to be 3000 miles away and immediately feel like sucked into that world, and just hearing her voice. had heardt to set i her but to sit across the desk it wasth and joel, surreal. again, it is not mimicry. but both of them so beautifully embodied the essence of these two people that you felt like you were -- i was talking to them in some way. it was quite surreal. >> a think you have to make a film that, as simplistic as it sounds, reminds people that the humanity of the -- of the thenity of the center of

debate. there are so many relevant connections to political issues and social issues, we knew the audience would bring those into the theater and richard and mildred were not talking about those things, even though they were representing a lot of those things, so we had to stay focused on this relationship. jeff: thank you all. jeff: thanks for having us. ♪

♪ >> what does her family think? david: do they think it was something wrong with us men wanting to do computers? would be better off getting a have you thought how your lifewould be better off getting a harvard degree? mr. gates: i am a weird dropout. david: as far as your relationship with steve jobs -- >> we were both there at the very beginning. david you were the wealthiest : man for 20 years more, is that more of a burden than a pleasure? >> would you fix your tie, please? david: let me move it this way. ok. ♪