program. tonight, wilbur ross a man who made billions restructuring the american steel business tells us about what america has to do to maintain its economic place. you'll be surprised. >> i really feel that within five or ten years we could be a second-rate power. we'll still be big, but we could really be behind the 8-ball in a very big way. it isn't even just r&d, a generation ago we were number one country in the world in the terms of what percentage of people finished college. you know where we rank now? 12th. >> charlie: we conclude with kevin kline with a new movie called "the extra man." >> every actor has his or her own style, there's no one method, doesn't matter where you've trained. it's sort of like that character

jeffrey rush played in the shakespeare movie. it's ultimately a sort of alchemy of strange ingredients suddenly bring forth gold or lead depending. >> charlie: a program note our conversation with the executive editor of the french newspaper will be seen later this week. tonight, wilbur ross and kevin kline. coming up.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: wilbur ross to here the c.e.o. and founder of wl ross and company, it is invested in textiles, auto parts, healthcare and other industries. in 2002 he began purchasing

financial distressed steel makeers with initial investment of $325 million two. years later he sold that for $4.5 billion in the wake of the economic crisis he thinks there's another opportunity to revive regional banks such as michigan, florida, new jersey. i'm very pleased that wilbur ross is at the table l to share his thoughts on what he does, bankruptcy and also the idea of where the american economy is and since he's investing in banks, what he thinks is the future of the financial sector. welcome. >> thank you. >> let me just talk about you. you came out of yale and then -- did you want to be something other than a financier? >> i wanted to be a creative writer. yale has course called -- you have to put in 1500 words of original prose each day. by the third week i was out. i dropped the course, it saved me from the life of poverty. >> charlie: then you got interested in business?

you went to harvard business school because you didn't have anything else you really wanted to do? >> the then treasurer of yale left to go a money management firm, instead of continuing to park cars on the jockey club which was my prior job he dragged me down to wall street that's what changed my idea. >> charlie: you went back to harvard after that? >> yes. >> charlie: you worked for rothschild. >> for about 25 years. >> charlie: then what happened? what did you see that made you go in a different direction? >> well, at rothschild i had been running originally the restructuring advisory practice on the global base. in 1997 also started a fund to invest in bankrupt companies, between '97 and 2000 had both responsibilities, finally concluded, i and actually my whole team liked the investing better than the advisory. so went to the management of

rothschild and said, i don't want to do this any more. i'd like to buy the fund from you and then we'll go out of the business. we won't compete with you for advisory assignments. that's the deal that we worked out. so on april fool's day, 2000, went in to business for myself. >> charlie: then you started when to start buying, looking at the steel business say, there's opportunity here? >> late 2001. we had actually looked at steel before, i haddon the first ltv bankruptcy have a dozen years before -- >> charlie: this is lane tempo -- >> exactly. had been a big conglomerate had sold off the aerospace was down to steel mills. and i was very unhappy, we met all these recommendations, they didn't file any of them about changing the way of the work practices and the pension programs and all that. so then it came around. second bankruptcy was a real

mess, it was in danger of being totally shut down. what they call hot idl checks is just a little bit of metal going through so that the refractory bricks don't implode. i went to the leader of the uswa, the united steelworkers said, we'll buy this thing and we'll revitalize it, but we need a contract that's different from the contracts that you have had historically. it turned out he was looking for someone to do just that. >> charlie: because he understood that they were about to go out of business. >> absolutely. i have found that the leaders of some of the big industrial unions, steelworkers, the auto workers, they understand the dynamics of the industry at least as well as the senior management of the company. so leo, leo gerard was the then head of the steelworkers. we worked out a contract that took 32 job classifications down to five, changed the work rules

to make it more flexible. and most important of all, we put in a blue collar bonus, i'm a big believer in productivity bonuses for blue collar workers. because american worker, if you give them the right environment and chance to do well will be a very, very productive person. so that's what happened as the story unfolded. the year we sold the business we paid about $200 million in productivity bonuses to blue collar workers. probably more than any american company ever has. >> charlie: let me go back to some of the external. but first, this point, which is an important point that management ought to listen to their workers more than they do and that perhaps there is more sort of shared sense of interest in the future of the business from union leaders than we might imagine? >> i think there is, because for the union worker this job, that

he or she presently has is probably the best job they will ever have. the alternative asking flip hamburgers at mcdonald's or work at wal-mart or something like that. henry ford invented middle class america. and there was a great danger that the so-called rust belt company would disinvent the middle class. so, the union leaders, the big ones in the sensible ones understand all of that. leo had actually offered the same kind of contract to the more established steel companies and none of them wanted it. partly because it also put a limitation on the ratio between the c.e.o.'s pay and the worker'sworker's pay. >> charlie: were you able to do this in addition, the dire straits, but also you had health care commitment. but you had pension commitments, you had what else? >> what happened, the bankruptcy court had already done away with the pension plan and haddon away

with the health program. >> charlie: what happens when a pension plan is done away with in a company facing bankruptcy? >> it goes to the pension benefit guarantee corn which is basically an ons entity. up to a certain level they honor the pension benefits. but over certain amount per year they don't -- >> charlie: is eight reasonable amount? >> well, it's 40-some odd thousand dollars a year. it's not starvation wages. >> charlie: so, there was a pension. the health care, what happened to healthcare? >> well, we put in voluntarily a veba, you have heard about that with the car companies. we actually worked one out with leo on the theory that even though the retirees were not our employees, they never were, because it already shut down. but we lad moral obligation to them. we put in this employee trust. the way it worked we seeded it with $50 million.

then as profits came through an increasing percentage of the profits wog to the veba to take compare of retiree health benefits. >> charlie: you also knew or at least suspected that president bush was going to raise the tariff of imported steel. >> we made a bet that based on the recommendations of the independent council that had been advising president bush, we made the bet that he would do something? >> was it just a bet or did you have informed opinion and -- >> we talked to everybody we could. we talked with everybody we could in washington. we pitched the administration as well, the secretary of commerce and others. >> charlie: were prepared to do this if we think that there will be restriction on importation of steel. >> we made the commitment before it was actually announced that there was going to be the restriction. in that sense it was a bet. but all we needed was one year, because we needed that so that we could get the mills back up

and running and reengaged with the customer. so all we were pitchingpitching for was not a permanent tariff. i don't believe in big barriers forever because that leads to destructiontive practice. we wanted a little opportunity to reform the industry. we're in the business, not so much of being contrarians deliberately but rather we'd like to take perceived risk instead of actual risk. what i mean by that is, you get paid for taking risk that people think is risky. you don't particularly get paid for taking actual risks. so what we haddon. we analyze dollars the bid we made. we paid money partly for fixed assets. we basically spent $90 million for assets on which ltv spent $2 billion, 500 million. if worse came to worse we could knock it down and system it to

the chinese. then we also bought accounts receivable and inventory for 50 cents on the dollar. so between the combination of things we frankly felt we had no risk. >> charlie: then next year you bought bethlehem. >> before that even, what happened, out came "businessweek" asking us, wilbur ross, crazy? a question which my wife, hilary, still has not been adequately -- >> charlie: investigated. >> she thinks more research needs to be done. the joke was, right when everybody was taking this was too risky it will never work, the big debate within our shop was, should we just liquidate it and take the profit sore should we try to start it up. that's how sure we were that we weren't actually taking risk. but i wanted to start it up because if you liquidate it you make some money but you wouldn't change the whole industry and you wouldn't make a large sum as we turned oit to do.

>> charlie: you started it up and made it productive. >> we became the most efficient steel company in america. we were making steel with less than one man hour per ton. the chinese at the same time were using six man hours per ton. so we got it to a very, very low -- >> charlie: could you compete internationally with the chinese. >> we were. we were actually exporting steel to china. >> charlie: why did you tell it? >> we didn't sell it so much as americaned it with natal the deal was half cash and half stock. we ultimately had gotten to one-third marketshare of the whole u.s. so there was not much more we could do here. but clearly the growth march debts would be outside the u.s. and natal was in a lot of the emerging markets. somebody introduced us --

>> charlie: they live in london? >> yes. but the company is based in luxembourg. we found that we had more in common with each other than any of us did with the rest of the -- >> charlie: what did you have in common? >> well, both were viewed as outsiders. both were viewed as kind of strange for the way we went about things. but also we both believed the consolidation is totally essential for the industry. the reason it was essential when you had a lot of mills that only had one mill, one location. steel demand was down 5%. you can't winch back a mill 5% for very long. it's either on or off. so if you have multiple mills you can modulate your production to be consistent with demand. what the mills were doing when they were fragmented, keep producing, producing, producing.

then they dump it in someone else's market. well, when everybody is dumping in someone else's market it means everyone is dumping in everyone's market. that drove the price down. so, we felt consolidation was needed. natal was on the verge of being the biggest company outside the u.s., putting it together with us made the world's biggest steel company. >> charlie: here is what i'm leading up to. at a time that people are looking at the future of the american economy, there's manufacturing in the united states have a future? >> well, i think it does. but i think there are couple of caveats. a couple of things that have to be fixed to make it work. the union part i think is gradually ticking itself, i really do. we've made sprr reasonable contracts with the uaw, so did gm and ford and chrysler. but what i'm worried about is -- >> charlie: again they had little choice, did they? >> well, that's true. but people don't make hard decisions until they have little

choices left. what i'm worried about is railroad&d. u.s. is graduating one-sent as many engineers per year as china and india combined one-seventh as many. many can't get -- >> charlie: they have much larger populations than we do. >> they do. in terms of brain power for technology, a multiple of seven is still a multiple of seven. never mind what percentage. >> charlie: the people there. >> it's still very big. >> charlie: better to have seven engineers than one. >> oh, yeah. so what worries me, this is roundtable of which i'm a part thinks that within a few years if this trend continues, 90% of all the engineers working in the whole world, will be working in asia. 90%. if that's true, and you merge that with an inex-husbandable supply of very well disciplined,

very qualified labor then there won't be much room for u.s. manufacturing. >> charlie: what we have to do as a first step, is graduate more engineers. >> absolutely. one of the -- >> charlie: and computer scientists. >> all the other disciplines. one of the sad things, every year the bush administration they cut federally funded r&d. >> charlie: why do they do that, other than just normal budgeting? >> i have no idea. i guess the political constituencies for r&d are not strong enough. but that contributed to the problem. the reason that's so important is, you have to have new technologies, new growth industries to supplant the ones that don't need to grow so fast any more. like right now, china, we think of china as a polluter. let me tell you, china is the leader in wind technology, wind-power technology and -- >> charlie: they are the leading polluter in the world. but looking to their future and

spending heavy amounts of investment in terms of alternative sources of energy nagana this is an issue for them in the future. >> not only that. but they see it as a huge export market. they already are producing 40% of all the wind turbines in the entire world and exporting 80% of those. and they did it in typical chinese fashion. they ordered the power grid that it must first take, alternative power before it can take anything else. second, must do it under long term contract and third, must do it at a big premium price. well that made all the utilities want to do the alternative power. the renewable. so then that created a demand for the equipment. then when the fine manufacturers wanted to commend the chinese, 70% local content they got a technology transfer so they managed to get technology and create a huge domestic market

and now beaming in on the exports. that's how you have industrial power. >> charlie: we don't have industrial policy at all. >> nor do we have energy policy. >> charlie: nor do we -- and energy in terms of climate change and alternative sources and weaning us off of imported oil. >> yeah. we don't even do easy things. for example, railroads, there's a bill languishing in congress, we're invested in railroad equipment people so i'm making a disclosure. railroads use one-fourth as much fuel per ton mile as intercity freight. >> charlie: 25 -- >> 2r5% as much as as intercity freight by truck. yet they keep spending -- >> charlie: trucks that go from city to city. >> they couldn't do it by rail. intercity. yet highway lobby gets tens of billions much dollars to spend on highways and government doesn't do an awful lot for railroads. you don't even need exotic

solutions in order to cut pollution. but what you need is someone to say, a policy. and enunciate a reasonable policy. there's something that is right in front of us, wouldn't be that hard to do. >> charlie: tom freedman would love to hear this. 90% of his cool ums are about just this. which is the idea that we have to invest in alternative sources. b, if we don't the chinese will lead that market and be where the world has to beat path to in order to get access to those kinds of technologies. >> and it's not even just that. biotech, making a big push, making a big push in all the technologies that they see as being the future of technology. >> charlie: industrial policy would look like what? how is it different from what the obama administration athletes wants to do leaving apart what congress will allow. >> it's a little hard to sort the two out. but because some days the president says he has a lot of control over congress, some days he says he can't do anything.

first you need a policy that's based in the economic realities, not just in political realities. china, being a country can deal with the economic realities. it's one of the luxuries of not having the kind of government we have. >> charlie: they had stimulus bill of 500-some billion dollars one day and began to employ people the next day. >> that's right. there it works. the main thing they really make a five-year plan. they really hold themselves to it. they really believe in it. if you are thinking in terms of five years rather than the next ten minutes, you have a different thought process. >> charlie: here you are, a businessman who is worth more than a billion dollars, on top 126 richest person around. and you are saying, what we need from the government is policy, you need leadership and unless we have that, we're going to

lose our place, our economic place at the world's table. >> i really feel within five or ten years we could be a second rate power. we'll still be big. but we could really be behind the 8-ball in a very big way. and it isn't even just r&d. a generation ago we were number one country in the world in the terms of what percentage of people finish college. know where we rank now? 12th. >> charlie: perch of people enter college and finish. >> no. just percentage of -- >> go to college from high school. >> and finish. we used to be number one. now we're 12th. >> charlie: here is what people say. they listen to, this wilbur, you're right. we recognize the problems but we still have greatest universities in the world. they're the envy of the world. >> that is true. >> charlie: 18 of the top 20. >> that's right, too. >> charlie: not going to dry up overnight. >> not going to dry up overnight but we're having a dumbing down of the population because we're

not keeping up with the percentage, is that other people are having to get college degree, for sure engineering we're going to fall way behind. >> charlie: do you have solution for the power of the purse that congress has? >> well, stepping up r&d budgets would be a very good thing. spending more on the universities. most universities need federal help. >> charlie: that's where basic research takes place. >> sure. exactly. and if you look at the big venture capital companies th have helped contribute to technology, huge percentage much those are immigrants. and yet that's another problem with the engineers is getting -- >> charlie: go to silicon valley you'll find a lot of immigrants. >> you bet. that's kind of weird for the united states of america to have to do that. >> charlie: we need a new immigration policy as well. >> i think so. >> charlie: with respect to people being able to stay here to come and go to the universities, the idea of -- >> people paint immigration with a big broad brush. not everybody who wants to

emigrate here is a drug dealer or somebody who is going to be a burden -- >> charlie: are even someone wants to come illegally looking for a job. >> a lot of people would like to come here are very well educated, very professional people that could really contribute -- >> charlie: what else would you change? these are very interesting things. industrial policy, energy policy, in terms of the united states and its place in this sort of economic -- >> i frankly think those are more important even than tax policy and the other things. i'm resigned to the notion that obama is going to tax people like me more heavily. >> charlie: do you have problem with that? >> no, i don't. >> charlie: seriously. he'll extend bush tax cut make under $250,000 for people make more than $250,000 you -- >> i think that's okay. as long as they do -- >> charlie: why does everybody make such a big fuss about it? >> my qualification is, as long as they do something reasonable with the money. if it just going to give --

>> charlie: then how is this administration in this economy wasting money? >> well, i think they're missing opportunities, for example, the -- i don't see them stepping up the railroad&d -- >> charlie: you mentioned that. >> immigration policy. i don't see anything carved out for engineers and scientists coming here. a lot of little things. >> charlie: we mentioned those two things already. but i think it is -- >> but i think it is important to keep tax cut for lower income people below 250. 21 million is allowed to expire. 21 million americans are going to pay more tax and will be total of something like $250 billion a year. if you want to do something to destroy consumer spending just eat away at the middle class. because the other problem we have is the structural problem of middle class america, median

income in this country went no where the whole decade of the 2000s. but every year, people want to live a little better than they did the year before and the only solution they could find was to borrow. and i really believe that that sore yes logical phenomenon is what led to the subsubprime crisis. >> charlie: is there a conflict for you. one a huge debit that is facing us, one idea. the other idea is that unless we invest, which also means spend in part, we will not have the kind of growth and we will not have the kind of future that is necessary. those two things are occasional plea in conflict. >> they would be, if there weren't so much waste going on. in the country. so much misspent -- >> charlie: where is the waste? >> think about things. we say we want to wean ourselves off foreign oil, but we have

subsidized the growing of corn for ethanol purposes. then we i am mows a tax on ethanol which street low cost. now is that a good idea, is that well balanced thing of government, i don't think so. we spend several billion -- >> charlie: every politician who goes to iowa changes his position. >> maybe we should change the primaries. we spend billions of dollars a year subsidizing the growing of tobacco. doctor right. >> i don't think that's going to -- >> charlie: because of the farm lobby, the tobacco lobby. >> that's an explanation. but that money would be better spent on r&d. you can go thing after thing after thing. a lot of places where we could change. >> charlie: do you have access to this administration? you're on the business roundtable. that's one place. >> the administration has been pretty good to me. they have made me a manager of the public-private investment partnerships to buy out the

toxic -- >> charlie: how much is it? >> we have $1.460 billion. >> charlie: more than three billion. >> we have three from them. >> charlie: what is the size of the tox it racquet they would like for to you buy? >> hundreds of billions. but there are seven other managers. it's probably going to end up being 25-30 billion. >> charlie: is this warren buffet's idea? >> i don't know. it was certainly an idea of geisner he has done very good job with that program. first of all it's made over 20% rate of return for the government. it's actual lie profit producing. second, it has totally changed the market to residential mortgage-backed securities and for commercial mortgage backed. it straightened out those markets. just as he has straightened out the short-term commercial paper market. >> charlie: this is time geithner, secretary of the treasury making a speech today here in new york.

>> obligation of speed, we'll move as quickly as possible to bring clarity to the new rules of finance. the rule writing process traditionally moved frustrating glacial pace, we have to change that. second, we will provide full transparency and disclosure, the regulatory agencies will consult broadly as they write new rules, draft rules will be published. the public will have a chance to comment. and those comments will be available for all to see. third, we are not going to simply layer new rules on top of old outdated ones. everyone that is part of this financial system, the regulated and the regulators, know that we have accumulated layers of rules that can be overwhelming and these failures of regulation, rules that did not work, did not meet their basic purpose, were in some ways as appalling as the failures produced where regulations were absent. >> charlie: you like geithner? >> yeah. >> charlie: doing a good glob. >> i think so. >> charlie: you said, well i'm one of the people that gets

to manage this. this money. public-private thing is buying up the toxic racquets but not very much compared to the sum total. >> it did a lot of good. because -- >> charlie: psychologically or moral? >> more than that. remember what changes the price of anything that trades is the last few percentage points of the trade. it isn't thed 9% that doesn't trade. >> charlie: i hear you. >> it changes the market. >> charlie: stow, it's that -- >> absolutely. >> charlie: did you have access beyond that? >> we've had dialogues with people in the administration. and we will hopefully continue to have them. i saw secretary geithner at a small lunch today, actually great pleasure of sitting right next to him. we had quite a little chat. >> charlie: you told him some of the things that you told me tonight? >> he knows my obsession. >> charlie: so do we. thank you very much. we'll be right back. stay with us.

>> kevin kline is here, he is a classically trained actor who spends his time in film and theater. he has tackled everything from shakespeare and to "a fish called wanda" and "the ice storm" sheer a look at some of his work. >> worldwide renowned. guide your own destiny, protect you in a manner of speaking and -- >> what do the english usually eat with chips? make them more interesting? wait a moment! it's fish! isn't it?

down the hatch! david barnes, producer. oh, no. they were awful. >> i think you're one of a kind. >> can i buy you a drink you? look a little parched. >> you're a very handsome man. just get rid of the grin, you look like a schmuck. >> that guy talks nonstop throughout the entirety of the miserable 18 holes on topics that are supposed domain of my department. >> yeah? >> you're boring me. i have a husband.

i don't particularly people the need for another. >> you have a point there. it's a very good point. >> if i were only -- >> i won't ever hit you. ever. i don't want you smaller. i want you to be happy, you're not. not here with me. not home with your mother, not alone, not anywhere. you're what i was most of my life, sam. i see it in your eyes, in your sleep, in your answer to everything. you're barely alive. i had been invited as chief inspector of the police

nationale and because of my recent medal of honor i have been nominated seven times. i have never won. but still, seven nominations, that's something. >> charlie: the actor's life. his latest project is a film "the extra man" based on the book by jonathan ames here is a look at the trailer for that film. >> so, tell knee, why are you moving to new york? >> for myself. i'm against the education of women. it dulles their senses and affects their performance in the boudoir. i like the hasidic women they really get it. you're the only person who has come for the room who speaks english. is something wrong? >> hosting a dinner party she wants me to escort her. >> i bring the complete package. i was an extra man. i would argue that i am

essential. >> the dwarf in that picture. >> it's a child, henry. >> are we having a conversation? >> i'd say so. we should know as little about each other as possible. >> are you vegetarian? >> vegan. >> i wish i could be vegan. i really like eggs. i'm sort of seeing this girl from work. >> that sounds like a lie. >> i have two lady friends who need escorting. >> would this officially make me an extra man? >> yes. but no where near essential. i don't go around needing sex, i don't need any love. >> being dishonest, everybody needs something. >> here is my car. >> maybe we should take a cab. >> i don't? i go every:where in my electra. >> i forgot to buy socks. >> kill the fleas. >> you have a strange power over people. >> don't be so middle class.

it's so wrong to be interested in you. >> yes. i'm not interested in you. >> put the dog down. >> right away. i'm coming. >> how did your evening with the billionaireess go? >> get back in there. >> it was fine. until she stopped breathing for a full minute. then she rallied. >> charlie: i have pleased to have kevin kline back at this table, welcome, sir. >> thank you. >> charlie: when you watch that, remarkable life. the actor's life. >> it's nice when it's all compressed like that in a montage. yeah. >> charlie: is that why you became an actor because you could in habit all these characters who team to be a bit diverse. >> thank you.

yeah. i don't think the diversity -- i want to be an actor, i want to grow up and be diverse. >> charlie: but inhabiting many different characters. >> i just wanted to be an actor probably for all the wrong reasons. but when i went to juliard then john houseman formed the acting company out of our first graduating class, i got spoiled by the diversity that was inflicted upon us, because you would be a furniture mover one night, next night out be hamlet, next in restoration comedy. the next night you'd be in chekov, then small parts, big parts, leading men. with the idea being that they wanted to build the complete actor. and everything done that for four years i got a taste for that variety. i think it's stayed with me. >> charlie: has it been what you expected it to be? no.

>> no. it's different. i grew up reading books about laurence ouvrier and richard burton and marlon brando and studio system. i wish that the old studio system were still in operation where they just assign you roles, how it was in drama school they put the list up on the board. oh, mime playing -- >> everybody. >> charlie: julius cesar. >> just a did what was assigned to you as opposed to having to filter through the scripts. >> charlie: do you have any idea what compass guided you through all of this? >> i think it was my own instinct. luckily, i'm one of the rare actors to have gotten this training then been formed, handed an equity card, told my john houseman go get on that bus and tour across the country. playing in "three sisters" and

whatever. these great roles that most of which i was too young for but great building blocks for any actor. that experience, four years that have then -- i was fortunate to work with actors that i admired to and looked up to. >> charlie: they used to call you kevin decline. >> still do. >> charlie: why did you take "the extra man"? >> no arm twisting. i just jumped off the page. i thought this character was so original, jonathan ames' voice as a writer, as a novelist is original. >> charlie: tell us what henry harrison is. >> well, say he's an extra man then define what an extra man is, which is basically companion who fills an empty seat because women out live men and wealthy widows -- >> charlie: like dinner parties.

>> to go to the opera, to go to gallery, whatever. but he says, i'm not an extra man, i'm annie shown shall. because of my with it and intelligence and -- he's a wonderful ability, sort of like in a sense, he can rationalize whatever his behavior is. he's always finding a way to turn a negative in to a positive. he has will to survive. and even he's living at a poverty level he's dining out at the nicest restaurants with the wealthiest women then he goes home to his squalid little rent controlled, i assume, apartment. >> charlie: worried about where the next meal is coming from. thinks he very much belongs at the dinner parties that he goes to. >> he's an aristocrat. he has a kind of license to get

away with things that mere mortals cannot. >> charlie: you described him as, but stuff of cirino and whole list of characters. >> conglomeration of -- yeah, he's a man of the theater, he's a man with a past, he's come from money, we think. he's got a mystique about him. he doesn't like talking about himself. he's from a different era. he has an opinion about everything. very strong opinion. >> charlie: what he expresses to this young man to express the place, whose dynamic there? >> you sneak town himself. he a kindred spirit. they're both outsiders in a way. this is a young man who wants to be a writer, just moved to new york. he was fired from his teaching at a high school because -- well, the principal saw him trying on a brassiere that fell

on the floor, the ladies in the faculty room, whatever. he has some issues about experimenting in cross dressing. which is, i think, this young artist just wants to really explore perhaps more rigorously than others may. to find out who he really is. he has some psychological problems. >> charlie: if you had a choice this summer, you make movie you had choice to do shakespeare in the park, would you do it or would it depend on the role or would you be doing "merchant ever venice fifth hal wasn't? >> absolutely. i'd love to play that role. >> charlie: have you ever? >> i have not. >> charlie: what else is on your list? >> i don't hill rattily have a list. >> charlie: as metaphor, what else do you want to play, lear? >> i'd like to do lear again because you really need a few gos to get close to getting it

right. >> charlie: same thing apply to mcbeth? >> you're not allowed to say that word. it's bad luck. it's referred to as "the scottish play" you can never quote it or mention that man's name. >> charlie: because so many people hatch had bad luck with it. >> it's funnily, there's -- i've heard many explanations as to why it's bad luck. it's because someone always gets hurt. it's doomed, there's always something, it's very hard play to bring off. but others say, no, it means in the old days if they announced that they were doing the scottish play, the actors knew that business was bad but that is real crowd pleaser. means business is bad we have to drag out the scottish play. you are not supposed to whistle back stage. there are all these funny superstitions, but they say, that's because they used to give whistles to the guys who were lowering the screen rethey would take it as a cue if you -- don't whistle. don't mention the scottish play. don't put your hat on the bed.

>> charlie: who has performed the best mcbeth that you know about? >> wow, i saw an awfully good one a few years ago, anthony sher. they did it in new haven, well worth the schlep. that's probably the best one i've seen. >> charlie: i remember peter o teal told me about the -- o tool told me about the disaster on stage. extraordinary. >> charlie: he wouldn't mention it in conversation. >> before he performed the manager of the theater, just director came out in front ever the audience, disowned the production. we are not responsible -- what you're about to witness. burnstein did the same thing when he played beethoven concerto with gould. he said, this is not -- this is

his idea. more or less. >> charlie: i'm just here -- >> this is not my interpray takes, but mr. gould insists on doing it. whatever, his choice. gould knew that beforehand, it was agreed that -- but burnstein wanted him to know as this is not the way i would ideally play this piece. >> charlie: you ever known anybody to come up after a performance say, i'm sorry, i heard -- >> i heard stories when nicholas williams was doing hamlet, he would be through the first half, i'm sorry, i'm terrible tonight. go home. >> charlie: we'll refund your ticket. >> the managementmanagement will refund -- no. i've been tempted at times saying, can we just start over. let's just call eight day. >> charlie: i don't feel good it's not my day. this is book called "actors talk

about shakespeare" you said, acting is like a sculpture you have a big hunk of stone and you keep chipping away until what is left is the elephant. find out how not to do it. in doing so you find out how to do it. >> yes. i specifically describing rehearsal technique. if you think of rehearsal as a place to experiment and explore and try, even sort of letting your unconscious go and not judging yourself and going -- opening doors and going in to rooms that you have no business going in to necessarily. going down paths that lead no where. but by finding out how not to do it or by chipping away what you're left with, unless it's all been pulverized in to dust is your interpretation of the role. >> charlie: what difference did juliard make for you in terms much the acting? >> any good conservatory or

any -- even at a university, bfa program or anything, it gives you ideally a safe place to practice. and diverse group of teachers, if one or two makes sense to you, it resonates. then it helps, built it's really like juliard. juliard is a music school, you can have a great teacher but it's really -- you've got to practice, get in to the practice room do your work yourself. but a good training -- i learned a lot. i learned a lot about speech and movement and period acting in various styles. that's what juliard was about, teaching that there's a difference between playing chekov and david mammet and restoration and shakespeare, there's a thing called style.

they aren't trained, i do the same thing -- >> charlie: when people refer to method acting today, you talk about brando and others. james dean. do they still -- people still talk about the method in terms of what they learn and how they go about defining what it is, what gives them the tools to inhabit a character? >> now i think the common misunderstanding or understanding of the term is, he's a method actor that means he becomes the character, he takes the character home, that's one interpretation. there are actors who do that. >> charlie: my impression was, my interpretation was that method actors reach inside and they find something in their own life, something in their own experience -- >> yes.charlie: but all actors might use that whether they're method actors or not. >> exactly. that's why it's -- almost every

discipline teaches you that it should come from within. now, it can't all come from within, just great tella story, she was brando's teacher but teaching an actor doing hamlet, he was doing, solid flesh would health and resolve itself and -- darling, hamlet is not a guy like you. and so -- >> charlie: that's great. >> you have to know when you have to get outside of yourself. i don't talk like him. i don't think like him. i don't speak, i am contaminantser. but you have to go outside yourself. yeah. method, it's dredging up something from yourself, not necessarily dredging, but mining. i think that's any good technique will include that. >> charlie: what is the

biggest misconception about this thing you do? acting. >> there are many -- >> charlie: biggest is probably -- but acting, per se. >> acting in general. i think every actor has his or her own style. there's no one method, doesn't matter where you've trained. it's sort of like that character jeffrey rush played in the shakespeare movie, a mystery. it's ultimately alchemy of strange ingredients that suddenly bring forth gold or lead. depending. but i think the biggest misconception is -- maybe from watching hollywood movies where they see the director with the megaphone -- okay, now you're really upset now, walk over to the fireplace, yes, throw the manuscript in to the fireplace, bang your -- and the actor says,

yeah. there's sort of coaching the actor or actress through a scene or have coached them previously then the cameras room or the curtains opening or whatever. and that they have been told to do this, that and the other. there are some directors who do work that way. i happily have not worked with them in awhile. but for the most part, the directors most actors favor are the ones who actually collaborate and frequently, this is why i've come to believe this from doing interviews. now, when the director told to you beena-ba-ba. it was in the script, i just did it. good directors tell you when you strayed from the path when you've entered in to some parallel -- >> charlie: or maybe see something that's good they want you to -- you have given them -- >> reminding you -- when we first take that we've lost, i

think we should explore that. the good directors will say, do you agree or does that resonate. because an actor ultimately has to own it, has to come from him. he can appropriate someone else's idea if it resonates and make it his or her own. but if you are just carrying out orders, i think it has -- tends to have an aura of faulty around it. the really good directors -- i mean, some of my favorite directors, you have to beg them for direction. they say nothing. >> what would woody allen do? >> he is famous for not -- he'll say good morning at the beginning of the day. and good night at the end. with some, not with all. i've never worked with him but i've been told this from friends that sometimes he can be quite voluable on the subject of interpretation. most of the time he -- it's

letting the actors do it themselves. >> charlie: i know directors who have said to me at this table, i would not have done this movie unless i could have gotten that actor. >> good directors know, will say that 99% of it is casting. once they have cast it right, if they have cast it right. then they can let the actor initiate and let the actor collaborate, by all means keep him in line, tell us when we've gone astray, edit us. but don't dictate before you've ever rehearsed or -- this has to be like this. i find that disruptive and destructive. >> charlie: thank you for coming. the movie is called "the extra man". kevin spline kevin harrison.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org