to our program. tonight, an analysis of the federal court decision overturning proposition eight, which prohibited same-sex marriages in california. >> there is both the liberty ground that says there is a fundamental right for everyone to marry that encompasses gay people. and there is also a ground that says there cannot be an inviddious distinction between gay and straight and that the distinction between gay and straight marriage was such an inviddious distinction. >> in the court what was the most moving was the testimony of the four plaintiffs, four upstanding members of society who simply want to get married and i think that even members of the defense team were moved by this. >> no one has an interest or a willingness to inject this into the midterm election campaign, and i'm talking about republican leaders from red states as well.

if they are going to win in november, they believe that the election has to be on the economy and on jobs. so i think on both sides, on the left and maybe on the far right it will energize the base a little bit but i would not look for this to become a central issue in this midterm election campaign. >> charlie: and a conversation with patric clarkson about her new movie, "cairo time." >> i play the female eçlead. i have been leading lady in certain films but i have never carried a film, so it's nice, at 50 -- i was a little younger then when we shot it, but it's beautiful. it's -- i think i was ready. i think i am at a certain age, in the best sense, that i have made my peace. i'm accepting of who i am. what i am. >> charlie: a ruling on same-sex marriage, and a new film starring patricia clarkson. coming up.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: a federal judge has overturned california's ban on same-sex marriage known as proposition eight. yesterday's decision prompted celebration from gay-rights activists throughout the state of california and across the nation. earlier today, supporters of the ban gave notice that they will appeal the decision to the ninth u.s. circuit court. 52% of californians had voted in support of prop eight in november 2008. most now believe the u.s. supreme court will ultimately take up the question of whether gays have a constitutional right to marry. also today the senate confirmed elena kagan as the new supreme court justice, the vote 63-37. she becomes the nation's 112th justice and the fourth woman to sit on the court.

joining me in new york is kenji yoshino. from new york the paper's san francisco bureau chief. from kansas city, jeff zeleny, also covering this -- i am pleased to have all of them on this panel for this important decision. tell me first about the decision and wat judge said. >> the decision was -- >> charlie: the opinion said. >> extraordinary one. it was a 136-page opinion that struck down proposition eight on federal constitutional grounds using both due-process clause and equal-protection clause. what that means, charlie, is that there is both the liberty ground that says that there is a fundamental right for everyone to marry that encompasses gay people and there is also the there cannot be an invidious distinction between gay and straight people and that the distinction between gay and straight marriage was such an

invidious distinction. >> charlie: what does this mean? >> it means that he wrote a very, very tight, well reasoned opinion and that he went through the facts with such care, so his ace as a trial court judge -- you would think as a trial court judge he would be the lowest on the totem pole but his aces that he gives deference to any facts he finds so an appellate court reviewing him can review any decisions of law anew, de novo but has to give his factual opinions great import. he blew all of the state's rationales out of the water. >> charlie: he's a respected federal court judge. >> he's a bush appointee which gives him credibility in a bipartisan sense as well. >> charlie: because of the combination of david boyce, democratic, ted olson against each other in the gore v. bush

case. tell us about how these two guys became involved. >> despite the fact that these two were on opposite sides of bush v. gore, they are pretty good friends -- they said they've gone on bike trips together in france and things like that but i really do think that this was -- despite their ideological differences something they both agreed on. some people think that ted olson is kind of late-life conversion as it were may have come out of his -- out of his wife's persuasion. i think that david boyce has long held the position that gays should have equal rights. but it was remarkable to watch them actually in the courtroom together because they were exceptionally close and they huddled together constantly, olson handled most of the openings and closings and boyce handled most of the cross-examinations but it was a fascinating dynamic. >> charlie: what was the argument being made by proponents of proposition eight -- the legal arguments? >> briefly put, it would be

simply that this was kind of the way it's always been. tradition played a large part in what they were arguing and in addition they also had this argument consistently put out that marriage is fundamentally for procreation, which was even in the courtroom watching the proceedings something that judge walker seemed instantly skeptical of. he did not seem to buy this. he brought up cases of people that were infertile, people past the age where they could breed children and it seemed very early on that this idea that marriage is simply for making babies wasn't going to fly. >> charlie: now that this decision has been made and it may appeal to the circuit court and perhaps appeal to the supreme court, what will happen in terms of marriages in california before there is another decision? >> right now, it was an interesting decision because it came out and almost instantaneously judge walker's

-- he will decide whether to continue the stay or whether or not he will lift it in which case marriages could begin as soon as monday morning. what i think is likely is that he will continue the stay. he will allow the appeal to continue on to the ninth circuit. but i think it's remarkable that he even got to the point where the taste for many gay advocates -- the possibility that gay marriage might be coming back to california is right at the tip of their tongues. >> charlie: jeff, what are the political implications of all of this? >> this is coming three months before the midterm elections so it could have an impact on both sides, but the republicans that i talked to from across the country who are gathering here in kansas city for the republican national committee meeting -- no one has an interest or a willingness to inject this into the midterm election campaign, and i'm talking about republican leaders from red states as well. if they are going to win in november, they believe that the

election has to be on the economy and on jobs, so i think on both sides, on the left and maybe on the far right it will energize the bases a little bit but i would not look for this to become a central issue in this midterm election campaign. as it was in 2004 in some states like ohio during the presidential campaign. but the one thing, i think, we already have sort of a narrative of the government has overreached on many fronts -- on immigration, on other things, so this could sort of feed into that but in the short term i would be surprised if this becomes a marriage issue over the next three months, at least. it's more of a long-term proposition. >> charlie: what else did the judge say in his opinion that caught your attention? in the way he made his arguments for his decision? >> there are a couple of things. one was that he's an extraordinary story teller so he actually showed a fact that these marriages had on individuals who were before him,

so he talked about how individuals who had been together for a very long period of time didn't feel accepted in the same way by their families because they had lost the word "marriage," so that would be one really distinctive feature. another would be that he actually really did an exhaustive survey of the scholarship on not just gay rights but also on marriage, so you had academic experts like george chauncey in gay history, nancy caat, testifying about how marriage is a very changeful institution so the argument that was alluded to earlier where the claim by the state that marriage has always been one thing was revealed to be tautalogical, marriage has been an extraordinarily changeful institution over the history of the united states so back in the day we used to ban marriage, back in the day when a woman married a man she was merged into her husband's identity, so by drawing out that history i

think he painted a much more complex picture of what marriage could be and really put -- to the argument that marriage will and will always be between one man and a woman. >> charlie: if a circuit court of appeals reverses, what will be the likely grounds for reversal? >> if the circuit court reverses, that's a great question -- i think that the likely ground for reversal is basically to say that the claims that he is making under both the fundamental right to marry and the equal protection grounds are not sufficiently grounded in doctrine. so with respect to the first, they will say just because we say that there is a fundamental right to marry in our precedence doesn't mean, say, that polygamy is legal. notice they would have to, charlie, take a double-barrelled approach in the sense that he gave two independent grounds for his decision so they would have to knock out both of them so the ninth circuit would also have to address -- the equality issue

and have to say that equal protection has never meant in the 14th amendment that gays and lesbians have to be treated equally to straight people so it would have to be that kind of double-barrelled approach. >> charlie: anything surprise you about the judge's reasoning? >> i thought his reasoning was actually extremely exhaustive -- as kenji mentioned, it's 136 pages. i'm not surprised by the opinion. i felt all along that he was probably going to overturn. i think that he was affected, even to anent the defense was affected by -- -- even to an extent the defense was affected by the history of marriage, the politics behind this but i think in the courtroom one of the things that was most moving was the actual testimony of the four plaintiffs. these are four upstanding members of society who simply want to get married and i think that even members of the defense team were really moved by this. and to jeff's point, in 2004 this was a wedge issue and it certainly may have cost or could have cost john kerry the election, but in talking to

people today about the political ramifications of this, what a lot of people say is it's six years down the road, we now have five states where this is legal, it's legal in the district of columbia. even last month, the field poll out here in san francisco did a poll of people's opinions and said "how do you feel about same-sex marriage?" and 52% -- i believe 52 or 51% said they now approved, which is somewhat amazing considering that just 20 months ago they voted against this, so you do kind of see this arc of changing public opinion and i would be curious to see at the appellate level and then, of course, at the supreme court level how closely they're reading the papers -- judges are always supposed to be impartial but as many people say they're not immune to public opinion. >> charlie: do most people want to see this go to the supreme court so you have a clear supreme court ruling on this? >> i think a lot of gay-rights activists would want nothing more than for this case not to be gotten over -- >> charlie: pedalled? >> not to have it go to the

supreme court because if we're really playing ultimate-stakes politics, if we get a bad decision from the supreme court we're going to have to live under that for the same period of time that we had to live under the 1986 decision that upheld the sodomy statute that wasn't overturned until 17 years later so we're really worried about this one. >> charlie: and it would depend -- most people believe it will be really up to the swing judge in this case will be justice kennedy. >> that's right. i can say this now that she's been confirmed elena kagan said in her confirmation hearings said in words of one or two syllables that there is no right to same-sex marriage under the constitution -- i guess constitution is more than two syllables, you will give me that, charlie, so it's going to be interesting to see what she would do -- i actually think she's a safe vote and essentially what she will say is there wasn't at the time but there is now that we are living under a very changeful set of precedents and doctrines so if

there wasn't a right when i answered the question, there is now. >> there were a lot of sweaty palms when this one got filed, there was anger, almost, at chad griffin who was the kind of backer of this through his new foundation that they would take a risk at a federal level. having now won, there is a lot of back-slapping and people are very happy but what's interesting is, you know, ted olson is a -- cagey, wily old fox and he certainly argued a few cases in front of the supreme court and i asked him point blank, i said, you know, "do you have the votes? if you lose up there, this is going to be the law of the land." and he says, "i know how to count to five." so he seems to think he has it -- one would think, i guess, it's justice kennedy he thinks is fairly confident would side with him but there is a twinkle in his eye when he talks about it, to be sure. >> charlie: what would happen in terms of other states now? would you simply say that this federal decision would stand at the federal district level and so therefore, other states could

go ahead and do what? >> well, kenji might be better equipped to address this but if the appellate court picked it up essentially it would be the law of the land in the west. >> charlie: if it doesn't? >> there is only one way i could see this would be localized to california and that would be the following argument. which is if the ninth circuit affirms what the district court did today but does it on a narrow equal-protection argument that says that it is unfair to have 18,000 same-sex couples who are married, which is the case in california because they got married in that weird window in between may and november -- it's weird to have -- or it's unconstitutional to use more academic talk rather than "weird," it's unconstitutional to have a distinction between those 18,000 couples on the one hand and then all of these other couples who are exactly the same except for that they came to the altar later, and if they ruled

on that ground, then that would be california-specific because no other state has that fact -- if another state did have that fact ipattern, because we're talking about the federal constitution, that would be problematic. >> charlie: it used to be said that cultural issues and lifestyle issues could have a huge impact. is it less true today? and is this one example? >> i think it's becoming a little bit less true. it's an evolution, and there is obviously some reason that mr. olson had an evolution here and joined this case in the first place, and you know, we have, now, several examples of how this type of issue has played out across the country. look at iowa, for example. people were very surprised, you know, when the supreme court there made the ruling that allowed gay marriage. it really has not become much of an issue at all in the governors' race -- in the governor's race there, in the senate race -- on the far ends of the spectrum it has, so i think we're seeing windows across the country where it is not a big deal, however, i still

think in the next presidential campaign i'm watching for what president obama is going to say. he was one -- he had, i think, like, four public events today in chicago, did not mention anything about this -- not surprisingly, of course, because he still says he is opposed to gay marriage but the burden will be on him possible to have a public conversion on this or perhaps he will stay opposed to this when he runs for re-election, but i think that will be a defining moment in terms of a president in office -- a democratic president, the first black president having to at some point say something public on this. >> charlie: do you expect he will soon? >> i don't think he will soon. this is going through the court system, the legal system, but when he's running for re-election he will be asked this question. he will have to have some kind of a moment, i think -- some kind of a -- perhaps a conversion as well, or it would be difficult to see how he would sort of regain some of his support from the left, so i

don't think that the potency has totally gone away as a political issue -- there is no question that people have very strong feelings about this on both sides and many people find it morally wrong, et cetera, but i do think that toward the middle of the political spectrum it's not quite as hot of an issue as it was, and it's probably cooling year by year. >> charlie: what about california this election term? with the race for the governorship between meg whitman and jerry brown and then carle fiorina and barbara -- carly fiorina and barbara boxer for the senate? >> the chairman of the republican party advised his candidates not to make this a big issue, to keep talking about the economy -- jesse could speak to this better because he's in san francisco but it's hard to believe this won't be an issue at least in california. >> charlie: where do they stand, jesse? >> at this point, jerry brown has been extremely -- extremely supportive of gay marriage to the point that he's currently

serving as the attorney general and he essentially refused to defend proposition eight once it got passed -- he filed briefs essentially saying he didn't support it, essentially backed off any sort of defense of it so much so that other groups had to step in to defend it. meg whitman has been slightly more cagey, slightly less interested in even talking about it. she has said publicly that she supports proposition eight and then yesterday after the ruling came out she put out a statement saying this is just part of the process and this will continue. so i'm not certain it will be -- a major part of the fall campaign -- this is a state with a $19 billion deficit. it's a state with 12% unemployment, sometimes more than 12% unemployment. it really feels to me like the number one issue is going to be the economy, as i think it will be in the congressional elections across the country. that being said, i think there is a couple of elections, a couple of state legislative elections where it might come up. the congressional district --

the 45th in the southern part of the state has an interesting race in which the mayor of palm springs who is openly gay is running against mary bono, who has been the only conservative female republican in the california delegation, so that's a race in which this dynamic of gay marriage may come up. so we shall see. in terms of the senate, i think that boxer probably has bigger problems right now. carly fiorina has a lot of money and she's been after her fiercely and carly falls to the right of this and barbara is one of the more liberal senators in the senate. >> charlie: who is ahead? >> it's essentially a dead heat, but it's tightening day-by-day. >> charlie: here is what david alexrod said this morning. "the president opposed proposition eight at the time, he thought it was mean-spirited and he opposed it at the time so we reiterated that position yesterday, the president does oppose same-sex marriage but he supports equality for gay and

lesbian couples and benefits and other issues and that has been effectuated in agencies under his control, he supports civil unions and that's been his position throughout so nothing has changed." that from david alexrod. what's going on in kansas city? what are the republicans talking about if they're not talking about same-sex marriage? >> republicans are talking about one thing. can we really not blow this? republicans have a great political environment here, and -- you know, but they still manage to have some in-fighting. chairman michael steele -- republican chairman michael steele is nowhere to be seen so republicans are feeling very confident right now but there is a little sense of worry that the element of surprise has been taken away on the democrats here, so a bit of waryness but happy waryness. >> charlie: where is sarah palin? >> good question. she's in alaska, i think. she's not a member of the republican national committee. i saw a tweet that she sent out earlier today telling people to

get involved in the tennessee congressional primary. she's endorsed, again, there -- so she's being involved only from afar, which is her pattern recently. >> charlie: who is in the lead now among the potential nominees for the presidency in 2012? >> well, it depends, you know, who decides to run. any poll right now would not be worth the paper it's prescripted on -- it's printed on because no one has said they're running but shockingly she does not fare well in sample polls and straw polls. people like her, not convinced she wants to be president but you have to put governor romney on the list and a few others like tim pawlenty. >> charlie: you have to watch how many trips they make to iowa. >> exactly. >> charlie: same-sex marriage in other countries. give us a status report. >> this is breaking news on this front, so earlier -- there is breaking news on this front, earlier, last month, argentina

became the 10th country to valorize -- to permit same-sex marriage, some countries have done it by courts some by legislature, south africa did it by court opinion -- spain did it by parliamentary decision, the trend is unidirectional and i not want to point out it's nonlinear. there has been a tipping point. three of those countries were within the past year so i think that both internationally and domestically the toothpaste is out of the tube on this one. >> charlie: argentina, belgium, canada, icelands, south africa, spain, sweden allow same-sex marriage. here is what's interesting. iceland. >> yes. >> charlie: the prime minister of iceland made history last month when she wed her long-time friend becoming the world's first head of government to enter a gay marriage. >> yes, absolutely, and i think that it was a unanimous parliamentary vote that legalized same-sex marriage in that country -- or if i'm wrong

on that, it was at least very, very close, so i think that her leadership has had a lot to do with that and that people are becoming increasingly comfortable -- actually, very curious to know what jeff thinks about this as a political analyst because i really think that we have kind of changed with respect to gay rights in this country -- it used to be that our invisibility and our diffuseness, we were called an anonymous and diffuse minority rather than a discrete and insular minority. the discrete and insular minorities were supposed to get the help of the courts -- at the time we complained that our anonymity and our diffuseness hurt us because we were spread out over the country, we couldn't actually vote, we couldn't vote somebody into office from our district because we weren't clustered into neighborhoods, we couldn't actually, because of our anonymity, hold each other accountable, there are higher search and costs, et cetera, but once you actually pass the gay tipping point all of those disadvantages -- being

anonymous, being diffuse, suddenly become advantages -- our anonymity suddenly means that we're everywhere so once it becomes safe to come out, people who are in the fortune 500 executive suites, people in the top ranks of the military, people who are in academia, people who are in other -- thought leaders and journalists can actually come out because they've actually already been put into power -- you know, they can't -- there is no gate-keeping against gate people because we have been invisible. again, after the tipping point, the diffuseness helps us. we're in every family and every family suddenly wakes up and realizes that they have a gay daughter like mary cheney or what have you. >> charlie: are we at the tipping point or past the tipping point? >> i think we're right on the cusp, in this nonlinear, meteoric rise both of our commentators have said what we're seeing is that this was a wedge issue -- a major wedge issue in this country in the last election. it's not so clear that it's going to be such an issue in future elections and i think the only reason that president obama is being so cagey is that 2012

is exactly when this case going to be hitting the supreme court, if it hits the supreme court. >> i think it would be a mistake, though, to think that if this is not an be in the midterm election campaign that the tipping point is crossed. i don't think that's the case at all. i think republicans and republican leaders want to not allow a distraction in this campaign but i think that speaking about anything in the past tense that things have changed -- that might be jumping the gun just a little bit, i think -- you know, this will be a long process if it happens, but i'm not sure -- on the -- in san francisco and new york it might look like things have changed. in the country, i would say things are changing. >> charlie: jesse? >> i would agree with that. i would add i talked to robert shrum who was one of the advisors to kerry's campaign in 2004 and he brought up something interesting that i thought in the state of california one in five voters identifies themselves as independent and obviously independents are the fastest growing political movement in the country, and these people used to be known as swing voters and essentially

what he said to me was that using gay marriage as a wedge issue might galvanize your base, it might bring your most hard-core supporters to the polls but it's that 20% right now which is settling a lot of elections which might be alienated by that because -- as kenji said, people have come out, people have joined society, everyone knows someone who is gay, everyone knows someone in their family who is gay and i think to kind of demonize gays doesn't really play with those voters -- with those one in five. so -- >> to add a little bit of fuel to jeff's fire, and to temper my earlier enthusiasm a tiny bit, i would also say that there's been globally -- again, if you rightly take the broader perspective, as you did earlier, we see a lot of backlash in african countries like uganda, malawi or senegal who are saying south africa doesn't speak for all of us, so there is a

backlash too, i guess i'm trying to say that i don't think there is any question that we can tell a kind of progressive account of the history of same-sex marriage here, i think that 50 years from now we will look back on this in exactly the way we look back on interracial marriage and antimes sedgination laws. >> charlie: the independent vote -- and the antimiscegenation laws. >> charlie: obama has lost his support -- am i correct? >> i think you are correct -- he's certainly losing -- if not -- i'm not sure lost entirely but particularly among men -- the white house still believes that the health care plan can appeal to women independent voters so their focus groups, their polling -- they do considerable research on this and they're showing that women they think will still come around but it is thought to be sort of a temporary thing -- even if you talk to republican pollsters who study public

opinion, they still are surprised that even people who do not like the president's policies still find him acceptable personally so it's one thing that gives the white house a little bit of hope that they think, you know, over a little bit of time that they can get some of these independent voters back. but i'm not sure if that time window allows between now and november. i think we're looking at the next two years. >> charlie: and the president has made three separate trips to herald what he has done for the automobile industry and automobile workers. i assume that's simply because -- what? >> one of the things they're trying to do is talk about this made-in-america sort of concept, and you know, if it's -- the number of jobs we're talking about is not that many jobs but they're trying to show that the economy is getting a little bit better, and trying to show that they've done things. you can't simply give a speech and make people believe it's the case but through this imagery of

the president sitting behind a new ford motorcar, they're trying to show that things are getting better but the made in america slogan which the president is saying all the time now is designed to reach some of those blue-collar democrats who may have given up on them in the short-term but still fundamentally believe that that's possible. so it's a bit of his hope agenda that they're trying to inject back into the dialogue. >> charlie: thank you, jeff, thank you, jesse, thank you, kenji, a pleasure to have all of you here. patricia clarkson is here. she has been in a remarkable range of rolls, but large and small, across theater, and film -- a range of roles, both large and small, across theater, film and television. they have won her wide acclaim. here is a look at some of that work. >> i love you, elliott. ♪ >> now it shows. >> stop. i tried, ok?

but i can't go -- i té>:uw i can't. i can't have another bad experience. >> it won't be like that. >> you don't know that. >> it's the whole point of going. we're making a memory. >> you're not listening to me. i have too many memories, jim. >> good memories. we're making something good. >> what if it's not? >> it will be. i promise. i promise it will be beautiful. >> how could you do this? there aren't many like me. i actually understand you. i am one in a million. how could you possibly? why don't you put it on your bagel and eat it. >> i have a pretty good idea. >> sure you do. his name is randy lee james. >> who? >> this delightful young actor. he fell in love with you at first sight.

>> mama, i'm married. >> i refuse to recognize it. >> what are you doing with a gimpy -- who has to sleep with the light on? how did he get that limp? >> he jumped out the window and suicide didn't work. >> you can't win them all. now, listen. i have a good lawyer who can get all of this annulled. >> mom, you're crazy. >> charlie: clarkson has won two emmys and an oscar nomination for best supporting actress. she has never headlined a movie until now. in the new film "cairo time" she plays juliette, a canadian woman who finds herself alone in egypt. here is a look at the trailer. >> i'm here to see my husband. >> juliet. unfortunately, your husband has been delayed in gaza. >> mark, where are you? how long do you think? i can't stay in cairo that long. i'll go crazy. >> what are you trying to do? >> explore.

>> why don't i take you? >> mark and i made a promise we would see them together. >> of course. >> in cairo, one instant. can change your world. >> seems like you are getting used to life here. >> maybe i'll stay. >> goodnight. ♪ >> i like the way you say my name. "hi, tareq." ♪ >> how is that gorgeous husband of yours doing? >> when arure coming? >> i understand. -- >> when are you coming? >> i understand. >> juliette. here, we believe in fate. >> what is your fate?

♪ >> i never thought my trip would turn out like this. >> charlie: patricia clarkson joined me last week for this conversation. welcome. >> thank you. >> charlie: great to see you. >> thank you so much. >> charlie: tell me about this movie. >> you know, kaerl -- >> charlie: i said to you it proves that a woman can love two men. >> that the heart can split. >> charlie: that the heart can split. >> and i believed it all along and now i'm in a movie and because it's in a movie, it's true. >> charlie: you can have an emotional attachment to two men at the same time. >> yes. >> charlie: in different relationships. and to have one, it's not a zverevao-sum game.

to have one does not mean that the other is not great and wonderful -- >> no, and that's the beauty of this movie, charlie. this is a very -- this is a happily married woman. this is not a woman whose husband has walked out on her, been abusive in any way. it's a very strong marriage. she has a little bit of empty-nest syndrome, children who finally left the house and she has a wonderful job. she's a very -- >> charlie: she's got it together. >> she's got it all together. and then she suddenly is a stranger in a strange land in cairo -- this beautiful man, inside and out, comes to sort of rescue her -- her husband's -- >> charlie: delayed. >> my husband is delayed in gaza. he works for the u.n. and his former, kind of, security-detail driver comes to take me around. it's -- you know, the beauty, the serendipitous nature of love

and ruba had the courage to make a film that's unwestern, there is no gratification in this film, it's its own time -- >> charlie: they don't run off into the sunset. >> goodness, no. i wished. i said, "ruba, let's reconsider." but i think -- you know, and it -- it evokes such emotion from people. such a quiet -- the timbre of this film is so soft and so subtle and yet having been with it for so long now -- we have been to many festivals, we just had the premiere and the things people have said to me about this film, charlie, these two brilliant new york playwrights who happen to be -- i am lucky enough to be friends with them -- one feels that the movie is about the tragedy of restraint. and the other feels that it's about the triumph of restraint. and i said, "ok, boys."

>> charlie: what do you think it is? both? >> i think it's whatever -- i think it's how you take the journey. i think to each his own, and i don't know -- i have no objectivity about it anymore, you know, it was such a -- a personal, deep exploration, this character. it's one of the most difficult characters i have ever played. >> charlie: because? it doesn't speak a lot? >> there is so much silence and so much internal work -- >> charlie: exactly. >> charlie, as actors, we love bells and whistles. we love wigs. we love big emotions. we love -- we love it all. and i had nothing. nothing. in this film. there were days i had to sit. it's like in horseback riding, if you have a good seat. i had to just sit this part. and i'm a very gregarrious,

demonstrative and -- and juliette is not. i had to realign so much of myself. >> charlie: that's a challenge? >> it is. it is. and it continues to be a challenge, which is beautiful and wonderful and that's why, when i was offered this part, of course, i couldn't say yes fast enough. i'm -- you know, a woman of a certain age. >> charlie: who is the director? >> ruba nadda, a wonderful woman -- she is of syrian and palestinian descent -- she's from canada. >> charlie: she's of a certain age. >> no -- well, she's -- you would think because of her -- the depth and -- again, the courage she had to make this film. and so i think -- but she's -- i hate to give away her age but

she's younger than i am. by quite a bit. but her soul is -- is old. >> charlie: and wise? >> and she's wise. and you know -- she's of those people -- you know, when we were in cairo, i -- i -- you know, the cairenes are a very specific people, and ruba to me felt right at home there, and she speaks beautiful arabic. she navigated us through so many very difficult situations -- you know, shooting in cairo, 20 million people, it has certain political complications, and there she was just on the street -- this woman, in cairo, navigating. and directing. and making sure that she never compromised. great directors -- doesn't

matter, young, old, i've worked with some of the greatest directors in -- >> charlie: woody allen. >> woody allen, martin scorsese. >> charlie: you picked two. >> i have high hopes for them. but -- you know, i think you just have the gift, and ruba has the gift. she has a singular vision. >> charlie: you have said this is one of the best scripts you had ever read. >> yes. and probably the least amount of dialogue ever on a page i have seen. and i love words. i love -- and i'm drawn to them -- i mean, i have just done "whatever works" with woody allen where i had paragraphs, and so -- but there was just -- she -- it was so distilled. and yet, so ripe and potent. and intoxicating to me. and she never compromised that.

never. >> charlie: this is what you said of the difference between woody -- >> oh. >> charlie: "woody's passion is more subdued but marty's passion is forward and visceral and oral. very oral." >> this is the funny thing, in this interview, charlie, i have to tell you something funny. in this particular interview, when i spoke about marty, i said he was aural. he's aural. they misquoted me as saying he's oral. and i warned martin scorcese -- i said, "there is an interview coming out when "shutter island" comes out and just know there is a vowel or two wrong. because he is -- yes. woody is -- woody is very internal. >> charlie: his passion is more subdued. >> his passion is subdued, but it's there and it's

crystal-clear, but marty is -- there is no dead air on a martin scorcese set -- or on a woody, but it's a-- martin scorsese set, or on a woody. he requires so much of you as an actress. >> charlie: like what? >> we get lazy as actors. we like a lot of time, we like a lot of discussion. we like a nap, we like a snack and you don't have either. woody -- woody -- you know, there is not even m&m's. you have to show up completely and utterly prepared, you have to be able to speak, you have to shoot the scene in one take, sometimes it's 8-10 pages, you have to be able to improv, you have to know your character inside and out and it's a beautiful way to work. it puts you on the edge. >> charlie: did you ever think

you failed him? >> oh, repeatedly. >> charlie: would he -- was there anything about the way he responded or reacted that made you think maybe i didn't get what he wanted? >> he's parsimonious in his praise. >> charlie: parsimonious in his praise. the eye picture -- >> so it's very little. he says very little. "that was good. that was good." occasionally, "i think we got it." then you're fine. if he's not good he will tell you -- he will tell you. oh, no, he will say "it wasn't good." >> charlie: wasn't good. >> you live in fear of that but occasionally he says it, but you are always -- you are in the pocket with him. you have to be in the pocket and you have to be able to swing, and he will say, "just try something else. say something else there. go somewhere else." he just wants you to show up and know what you are doing. >> charlie: so it's up to you to give the back story that helps you get inside the character.

>> but you do need to know it, because in order to improv, in order to go, in order to let loose and go forward and to be able to change on a dime, to throw something out -- remember, you are improving in -- you are improving in front of woody allen. >> charlie: here is what stanley tucci said about you. when i am writing it is hard not to write a role for patty. she can be funny and heartbreaking, go to the darkest places you ask her to go, and to the lightest places and she can do it on a dime. what was the movie? >> "blind date." a little tiny film we did again on a dime -- i don't even think we had a dime. charlie, someday. no, i -- occasionally i shoot a movie that -- >> charlie: are you carrying this movie, so to speak? >> you know, charlie, for the first time at my certain age -- i'm 50 -- i have -- i have no troubles -- i love -- i actually -- >> charlie: love being 50?

>> well, i don't know that i love -- you know, you know, i played the female lead -- i have been the leading lady in certain films. >> charlie: right. >> but i have never carried a film. so it's nice, at 50 -- i was a little younger then when we shot it but i'm -- it's beautiful. it's -- i think i was ready. i think i'm at a certain age, in the best sense, that i have made my peace. i am accepting of who i am, what i am -- >> charlie: and the talent that you have. >> well. >> charlie: i'm serious. you have to believe in your talent in order to be comfortable with yourself, don't you? if you were sitting here saying, "i'm really lucky because" -- >> other people have given me -- these remarkable people who have hired me to play these once-in-a-lifetime parts, some of them, and, of course, "cairo time" being the top of that list. >> charlie: the latest. >> yes. so they have helped -- of

course. >> charlie: here is a scene. ♪ >> tareq. >> juliette. how are you? >> it's so good to see you. >> it is good to see you. >> have you been sitting here long? >> oh, not long. about an hour. but now i understand why you are so desperate for good coffee. you have caught the sun. >> i went to the white desert. >> you have been ñbusy. >> yes. >> mark has been held up, so i decided to find out how you were. >> oh. you spoke to him? >> not directly. but he sent someone to contact me. >> well, i'm fine. thank you. >> so. what would you like to do? >> oh. explore.

>> ok. explore. >> charlie: i'm interested in women's lives. >> wow. ok. no, of course. it's -- it's -- i think a lovely thing to be interested in. >> charlie: aren't you interested in men's lives? >> all the time. >> charlie: the nature of their life and what it is that drives them, what they want like i want to know -- >> charlie, i'm single. i'm still trying to figure that out. >> charlie: so am i. >> oh, my. >> charlie: so you have been quoted as saying that -- what you see here is a internal transition. >> yes. >> charlie: what's that about? >> well, i think it has to do with just the subtlety and the depth of the transition she makes in this film, and that -- we often think that our changes, our epiphanies are large and

external and reveal themselves, but i think in this -- in this case, it's so subtle -- and again, ruba has done a beautiful job of almost charting my glow, so to speak. >> charlie: chartering your glow? >> no. charting my glow factor. >> charlie: right, right, right. >> how i kind of awaken slowly in this film. >> charlie: ah. >> and it's not simply -- it's not a sexual awakening. this is a woman who has a very good life and a -- >> charlie: so what kind of awakening is it? >> i think it's almost -- it's that -- moment when you realize -- again, i come back to the -- what we discussed. this heart can split. that life can suddenly -- this very deep, profound, internal shift and taking you to a place that you had never even thought

-- you know, that you thought was unfathomable. and there she is in the middle of this and it has taken her by such storm and such surprise. and yet -- and i think it's something -- i don't want to give too much away about the film, but as you know, it's a very chaste -- it is -- it's a -- it is an affair of the heart. but yet is it any less profound? or is it more profound because -- you know. >> charlie: roll tape. take a look at this conversation. >> ruba, how many hours do you work? >> eight. >> ok. 12.

sometimes longer. if i have deadlines. >> this does not sound like a good life. >> good life? >> here, we work until 3:00, we go home, we relax, maybe meet with family and organize the evening's activities. >> certainly don't get off at 3:00 and they certainly don't look like they're living the good life. >> different. >> what is the difference? >> it is different. >> charlie: how? >> they're not educated. >> school doesn't offer a ph.d. >> charlie: let me go back for a few movies. "high art." >> oh, my. >> charlie: did that give you -- >> it completely changed my whole career. it's that simple. it -- you know. i'm forever thankful to lisa

coladenco for giving me this great opportunity. >> charlie: she just made another. >> she's a great woman, and she -- she at a time when i don't think anyone would have put me in this really radical part -- german lesbian heroin addict -- charlie, i've never even smoked pot, ok? >> charlie: way back in new orleans? >> maybe i had had some bourbon here along the way but -- >> charlie: she put you -- she put you in this really -- >> she took -- when i -- for years i had been playing the moms and the suburban ladies and the -- you know, a very, very av archetypeal -- very specific women, but she -- archetypal,

very specific women, she knew inside, she got it, that's what great directors do, she knew it, she got it she knew that, greta, i got it, the externals might not have been, i'm not german, i'm not a gay woman but she knew that i had the internal -- the internal life of this woman, and she saw that in me. thank goodness in that one audition. >> charlie: here is a scene. take a look. >> husband always told me of this quality in a woman. insanity. it really is. i don't care if she's disabled. >> charlie: let me just tie this together in this way. i think -- i think the director said -- i think she said this was a very unwestern film. >> yes. >> charlie: meaning? >> it's just the tone.

the timbre. the pace. the subject matter. it is other-worldly. it's intoxicating in a very different way. and i think you have to really give yourself over to this film. and when you do, i think it is surprising. it will take you as it takes juliette to very unexpected emotional places. i still get calls from people who were at the premiere, beautiful. >> charlie: it touched them, resonated with them and made them think about life. >> yeah. >> charlie: "cairo -- "row time" opens august 6. patricia clarkson. >> charlie, thank you. ♪

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