>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin today with the president and isis and a conversation with aluf benn and david sanger. >> the remarkable thing about the second term of the obama presidency is that the light footprint has largely failed him. you know, the drones worked very well against al-qaeda in the wide open spaces in pakistan or in the mountains of pakistan. cyber worked well for a brief while against the iranian nuclear program. the special forces worked well in getting bin laden and attacks like that. but those have all been stymied by the time of conflict that we're in here now against isis, and even during the syrian civil war. >> rose: we conclude this evening with a new film called the disappearance of eleanor rigby. it stairs jessica is chastain

and james mcavoy with ed benson. >> it's about this couple that has just passed the phase of romantic love, all consuming love. now they're having to deal with grown ups problems. and it's a problem with communication and grief, what happens when two people need to grieve in separate ways. and can you love someone enough to let them go. >> rose: the president talks about isis, and a new film called the disappearance of eleanor rigby when we continue. funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country

has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: president obama went to mcdeal air force base in tampa earlier today. he's being briefed by united states central command on the fight against isis. speaking to the troops he promised that the united states would not wage a ground war in iraq. >> this is not and will not be

america's fight alone. one of the things we've learned over this last decade is america can make a decisive difference, but i want to be clear. the american forces that have been deployed to iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. they will support iraqi forces on the ground, as they fight for their own country against these terrorists. >> rose: the president and the joint chiefs of staff suggested that u.s. ground troops could directly engage isis. >> within this partnership our advisors are intended to help the iraqis develop a mind set for the offensive and to take actions consistent with offensive. our military advisors will help the iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler and logistics support and our coalition activities. if we reached a point where i

believe our advisors should accompany iraq troops on attacks against specific isil targets i'll recommend that to the president. >> rose: joining me now is david sanger the "new york times" national security correspondent and aluf benn is the editor-in-chief of haaretz. i'm pleased to have both of them back at this table. welcome. david tell me where we are with the president according to one newspaper has turned on a dime about what he's prepared to do. >> i don't think the president has turned on a dime. i think the president is leaving himself every option open because i think there's a wide spread sense in the whitehouse, certainly in the pentagon that if you go into a conflict announcing what you're not going to do, which is what he did when he said there will be no combat troops on the ground. you are tying your hands, and perhaps telegraphing too much to the enemy. now this is very consistent for president obama. he came in as a president who

was going to get us out of iraq and somehow end the afghan war. the end of afghan combat mission is just a few months away. and i think it's his natural inclination to say at the beginning of any of these we're not going to have a combat role. >> rose: because i perceive where the american people are who have war fatigue. >> i don't think he's not only reading the poll, i think he agrees with the american people on this issue. remember he is the president who used to use the line, particularly in discussing the afghan surge, that the time has come to do nation building at home. so he's got these dual tasks right now. he's got to deal with isis. and at the same time he has to assure people they're not going back into the iraq war. slightly different tasks for the chairman of the joint chiefs, who has to leave open the possibility that this could be a more complicated operation. >> rose: he has to address

the whole contingencies. >> he does. and he committed the ultimate washington gaffe which is he told the truth in public. and the truth here was, way don't know what this conflict with isis is going to require. and he needed to leave himself some room to escalate if he needed to, are and it was interesting, the whitehouse did not tamp that down at all. they said he's discussing contingencies and, you know, if he comes to the president, the president will think about it. now the president's statement today in tampa makes you believe he will do anything short of actually putting these forces in combat. but that doesn't mean that they may not be at the combat, it doesn't mean that the c.i.a. may not be playing a role. >> rose: we'll come back to that. how is this playing in your region of the wobrd? >> well here in israel where i come from, we're a little bit

far away from it. the isis card, islamic state was used politically by prime minister netanyahu on two issues. one is he made the equation that hamas equals isis. and there's been a long held israeli argument that we're on the same side with the west and with the moderate arab states against the extremists. >> rose: or as they say the muslim brotherhood in gaza. >> exactly. and the other reason was israel we're now having the annual budget debate. and the defense ministry came up with a huge request for inquest which he supports. several reasons which has to do with internal politics and not just with economics. but one of the arguments he made for the budget increase is isis. and today premier military official gave a briefing in which he said that israel is not in the sight of isis, it's far

away. we're assisting the americans with intelligence and so on but it's not our fight. >> rose: the reason i asked you the question that i asked you is because you talk to people from outside of israel in your role and previous roles at the paper. why is there so little arab support for doing what the administration thinks is essential to have ground troops on the ground there that can do the job, and support it by other arab countries. >>#@ you mean like arab countries -- >> rose: like saudi arabia. >> like they did in 1991. >> rose: yes. >> well maybe they don't see it as enough of a threat, or perhaps they fear that there is underlying support for the isis cause which they don't want to be exposed. >> rose: within their countries. >> within their country, within their country and they don't want to expose it by going too far. >> rose: how much support is in saudi arabia and these other

sunnies for isis. >> i don't know. >> rose: they're getting money from these countries in terms of private groups. >> we're getting money and also they are now the fighting force of the sunnis against the shiites, and people in the sunni countries may feel that this is their fight in a way against the shiites. for example, if we look at syria where isis, iraqi is more in the news here. but in syria which is also closer to home to us, isis may present itself at some point as the true fighting force of the sunnis protecting them from the assad regime. so far they haven't been doing that so far in stopping that regime. >> rose: do they view the threat of isis as serious as the u.s. views the threat of isis not so much the united states

but to the region, if they have a successful islamic state it will provide refuge for a whole rain of activities. >> if isis gets away from its plan then all these governments won't be there. >> rose: exactly. >> isis wants to create this one big islamic state, like the caliphate of ages ago and not keep the ruling in power and be a nice friendly neighbor to them. but as i said either they feel that this is not enough of a threat, you know. isis is still far away from saudi arabia for example. in israel the main concern is about as always is about the stability of jordan and which you know undermined by syrian refugees from the syrian civilian war, and jordan is like the strategic depth of israel. >> rose: when you talk about the c.i.a., some people say this president believes in covert

action. and i guess it's title 50 or article 50 gives the cia power to engage on the ground. yes? >> it does. this is a president who turns to covert because he believes in the first term called the light foot printed. something we've discussed on this show before. the light"p foot print was essentially the term to high technology, meaning drones, cyber affects, the use of special forces and covert forces who could go in and out quickly and not actually occupy a country. the president believes and i believe the evidence in the past 13 years supports that if you put a hundred or 150,000 groups in country for five or six years you end up not changing the country as much as you think you might. and you end up breeding resentment. >> rose: and you end up owning the problems. >> you end up owning the

problems. so he wants to show first that this is, in this case, iraq's fight. syria's a more complex issue because obviously he doesn't want to seem to be supporting assad after he declared this man who was responsible for 200,000 deaths by some count must leave. and secondly he wants to make it clear that the united states does not own the outcome here. but he has to some degree guide the outcome and that's the box he's in. the remarkable thing about the second term of the obama presidency is that the light foot print has largely failed him. the drones worked very well against al-qaeda in the wide open states, in pakistan or the mountains of pakistan. cyber worked well for a while9y. the special forces worked well in getting bin laden and attacks like that. but those have all been stymied

by the kind of conflict we're in here now against isis and even against the syrian civil war. >> what is the goal here. i hear all the discussion about armed forces, not armed forces versus light footprint. we were having a similar debate in israel during the written conflicts[because netanyahu likt obama is about cyber warfare and not action and using their own forces because ground forces means casualties. in israel military casualties, it's a constrict army, have enormous impact on public opinion. but the war in gaza has shown to most israelis that you cannot win wars an from the air. what hamas did is they dug tunnels which cannot be destroyed by bombs or aircraft. then there was the extent it was deployed and so on.

the big question is what is the goal of the war against this islamic state to destroy it and then to rebuild the border system, to rebuild the iraqi state, to rebuild the unified syrian state. this is the main question because you can destroy isis and then comes then another bad organization to run this area. >> rose: what comes first. >> the destruction does not come first. >> rose: the expectation it leads to. in the iraqi case the president was very anxious to have a government that showed some interest and inclusion before he announced air strikes in a significant way. >> but he can't do that in syria. we don't know what happens in syria, whether it splits up. would like to see assad gone. there's the knowledge when assad goes, the country may go in many different directions.

d irections aluf raises the great question here. if you don't have control of the ultimate outcome, what kind of state emerges. then the goals thattj you expres are really tactical. and i think that that's what's behind a seemingly semantic argument within the administration about whether you call this a war or whether you compare it to the war against al-qaeda and so forth. and the fact that the administration didn't have the talking points together on this may simply be a talking points issue but it may indicate they're struggling with what their long term strategic goal is. >> rose: do you know who the voices are of the different arguments. >> we don't, i don't know right now who, what the voices are of the arguments about the broader strategic element. within the isis argument itself, this has gone across fairly traditional territory here where

the pentagon has been obviously very reluctant to get into syria. if they were going to go in against isis they want to go in with enough of a show of force that isis didn't just linger as a continuing force. and i think that's the push back that you were hearing some from general dempsey. the similar argument that broke out over the summer as they were debating to what degree do you confront vladimir putin in ukraine. where dempsey and others were making the case that you have to have enough of a show of force in ukraine, not necessarily with american themselves targeting the information and so forth, that putin would understand the risk of going after the nato states. so the pentagon never wants to be in a position of the assigned to simply degrade a force and not actually destroy it. >> we had this debate during the gaza war and there were politicians in israel who argued

for like prime minister leiberman. degraded is the new buzz word. >> rose: in israel. >> the best option in israel because someone needs to take care of the territory. and the vacuum'thousands of miln syria and eventually you would lose any control over gaza. >> there is an interesting argument in this case about whether the president should have come out a week ago to declare it until the end of his presidency this becomes the major goal of american foreign policy. there were some who left the administration who were active in the first term and part of the second who have made the case to me that the president's speech should have said look, we're experienced at this. we've dealt with the taliban, we've dealt with the pakistani taliban, we're dealt with al-qaeda, we will now deal with

isis and what comes after isis. and we're pretty good at counterterrorism and just let us go handle it rather than make it the dominant theme at a time that he's got so many other challenges to deal with, from putin to china and many others. >> rose: including ebola. >> interestingly, yesterday he sent 3,000 troops for ebola because there may be 1500 troops in iraq right now. >> rose: interesting. back to israel and hamas. what's the status of that conflict today? >> extended cease-fire. yesterday a motor bomb exploded in israel in añgaza. they said it was a cease-fire and clearly there was no israeli reaction. there are talks supposed to take place in cairoxm but that doesnt

happen. everybody lingers in trying to find out whether this takes them anywhere. >> rose: are any of the things hamas wanted going to happen? for example the borders will not be restricting embargoes or sanctions or whatever you call them will not be as deep? >> well, not as much as hamas wanted to build a seaport and open the gaza airport. they agreed with the u.s. and palestinian authority on some sort of reconstruction regime. but that depends on hamas agreeing to have the palestinian authority present in the border crossings and even within its territory. so far it's still -- >> rose: talk about this. talk about the president's mind because he clearly has come to the point that we have to do something. it is not going away. >> that's right. >> rose: semi military footing. >> that's right. and you know, he was highly resistent in the first term and

even the beginning of the second to have a prolonged military presence of any kind in the middle east that would suck us back in. i think in his heart, given where he grew up, given the waive he views the future of the american economy, he believes pivot. he believes that's where america's future is. and that the middle east is something where the united states has to play and has to fill-but there's no or very lite long range benefit for the american public in this. >> rose: and he's made clear that the isis struggle will go beyond his presidency. >> well he's made that clear because -- >> to the -- >> rose: look what happened in iraq. >> going back to your question about the coalition. i believe that president obama would have loved have the united

states playing the arbiter in original balance of power in the middle east. as britain did before the first world war in europe. and time and again it's failed and it has to come and clear all in the middle east with the military force, and not just telling others what to do or taking one side or the other. one of the problems is that, one of the problems here is that america cannot and would not enter a full alliance, open alliance with iran. which it may have been tilting this way, and given the isis problem, it is clearly more open about it on both sides. but still there are many impediments of america entering in alliance with iran. and therefore you have to, you can't send the iranians or the shi'ites to do your job against isis, you have to do it yourself. >> rose: it's clearly some kind of information taking place between the iranians and the united states. because they have the iranian

supported militias on the ground, yes? >> so the real partner here is iran. >> rose: in some cases there's some cooperation. david, you know iran well. >> well this is going to be the fascinating question. a year from now when we look back at this conflict, are we going to say that the united states did this from the air and the iranians did this from the ground and they didn't coordinate at all. now we're headed into a pretty interesting week on this. the foreign minister of iran, he's coming to new york today. >> rose: president of iran's0p. >> president of iran's coming next week and the president of the united states is coming next week. you remember last year they talked on the phone. >> rose: right. some wanted to meet and others didn't. >> that's right. and the natural progression here would be move from a phone call, which was the first time the leaders of these countries spoke to each other in 30 years, last year, to a face to face meeting. right now we have no evidence

that's going to hatch. >> rose: and that is the worst thing in terms of the sunni arabs could possibly happen. >> and israel is afraid that america would say to iran's ground forces, northerntñ iraqi and syria and no nuclear concessions. they would get closer to the bomb in a way of degrading isis. >> rose: i realize certain things have been made clear or have been said by the supreme leader, has said we're not going to have any cooperation collaboration but in fact you've got people like suleiman who is of forces in iraq. >> he was and the good forces are in iraq. and were significant in taking back. >> rose: and he reports to the supreme leader. >> he does. and so there's this interesting

division. first of all you'll have sarif and he does not have authority to deal with iraq and syria. >> rose: but he's a nuclear negotiator. >> he's the nuclear negotiator. and whether he's got control over this issue versus the iranian guard corps and of course the supreme leader we don't know. because we know so little about who sits around the table in the national security councils of the iranians or whose got the real power here. we're facing this deadline of late-ñ november for a nuclear deal, where the iranians of course want to use all the leverage they're getting from this conflict with isis, and the americans want to say these are completely separate issues. i don't know actually how you keep them completely separate. you know, it's a nice talking point, i'm not sure you can do it in reality. >> that's the problem when you have conflicting alliances.

your alliance with israel and the sunnis and they are fledgling new very careful alliance with the shi'ites. >> i'm not sure i would call it an alliance at this point but i would certainly say there are common goals here. whether they're going to be actual cooperation, there's so much distrust. >> they do it through iraq because the iraqi government -- >> rose: can talk to both. >> can talk to both. >> rose: you tell the iraq government we're going to bomb here and make sure there are no iranians there and the iraqi government will tell the iranians. >> yes, exactly. >> rose: when you look at the strength of isis, is it surprising? we learned from the cia they've got 30,000 men. if you look at a map it's a surprising part where they're. >> it is. 30,000 is not that big a force

as military forces go. there's an argument to be made that isis is overstretched, they've got more territory than they've got people to hold on to. they have big expenses. they are paying these fighters, they're paying, as they control territory something al-qaeda never tried to do, you know, they've got i guess they're not filling pot holes because they've got to do the equivalent. so that's a problem and also creates a vulnerability. that's why the motion important part of this conflict to look at may not be the part that central command is fighting. it may be the part that the treasury's fighting. we had a story over the weekend about the effort to cut off the million dollars or more that isis is making every day from oil exports that are mostly running up through turkey. one possibility is to try to kill off the black market for that. the other possibility which i know the pentagon has looked at is whether or not they just blow

up a few of these tanker trucks as they head up to turkey and create a disincentive to drive up there. >> rose: another interesting6". >> the turks did not sign on to that general statement that secretary kerry negotiated last week. he was in the gulf and he was in saudi arabia. they have not said what they will do in the economic front. they've not been successful in shutting down the black market in oil goods. there's suggestion that those close to power in turkey who may profit some from this black market in oil through isis. but there are there are also some suggestions we've read and not been able to confirm that even assad is buying some isis oil. how is that for strong. >> rose: there's also been reports that assad did not want to see isis destroyed early on because they were a force that was operating against the

presyrian forces within syria. >> you're absolutely right, and they are, right now the arabs are being the american effort that otherwise might be assad. >> the main question there is not just the number of troops available to isis or how many weapons they have, the organization's ability to join more and more sunni tribes and clans under its umbrella. >> rose: that is the issue isn't it. >> that is. this is the old strategy of the prophet mohammed how he conquered the middle east taking one tribe after the other. not awk -- absorb it all at one and this is the strategy in their pr and their ambition. >> rose: said another way, there is a fight at this moment on the ground for the hearts and minds of those sunni tribes and

militias who have been on one side and the other because of the iraqi government, the maliki government's action they may have early on given support to isis. but now realizing what isis is about, they're being encouraged to join the fight against them. and how they play that out -- >> a combination of greed and fear in this case. sometimes you think that ifjoino get something and sometimes you're threatened. >> what's this remind you of charlie. it's the arab awakening. and that was the last quarter of the bush presidency, we are entering the last quarter of the obama presidency. so there's some pretty remarkable parallels. >> rose: thank you david, good to see you. great to you have here. back in a moment. stay with us. the appear disappearance of eleanor rigby is a film buying ned vincent follows a

relationship of a couple in new york as their marriage is tested by tragedy. the variety magazine calls it a most effective portrait of two people who love each other but may no longer be able to live as one. here is the trailer for the film.o÷ >> would you mind having -- >> from what? you're exhausting. what. >> oh, you noticed. thank you. there's only one heart in this

body. thinking this>> i can't do this. >> i don't know where she's going. she's vanished. >> i don't know if i can help you. >> stop reminding me that something's wrong. >> you look like heaven. >> man she wants me to go after her. >> no, she doesn't. >> i'll wait a couple days and go after her. >> i need to try some other version of myself. >> how is that? >> will you still love me if i couldn't pay for dinner. >> i'm going to leave first. >> run run run. >> if you walk away from things,

start a whole history of walk aways. >> everything seems so limitless. >> you're the story of my life's story. >> rose: joining me now is the director ned benson the film's two stars, jessica chastain and james mcavoy. i'm pleased to have them here at the table. explain all of this to me for the benefit of no one watching. in the history of this one, two, three films. >> yes. the history goes back 11 years actually to when i had a short film in a festival that played out in los angeles. there were 12 people in the audience and most of them were the directors of the films. afterwards they go out to the lobby and this beautiful young lady comes running up to me and says i want to work with you. are you the director of that film. i'm like yes, i am. why do you want to do that. and her name happened to be jessica chastain and she had an

episode of er on her reel and had just graduated from julliard. we became friends and i went to go see her do a play in0called d and she blew me away. i knew she was incredibly special as an actor and we became very close. i started writing the him part of the script because there are three parts to this. >> rose: explain the three parts. >> so ultimately there's him, her and them. and the original thing that we went to shot, went to shoot was him and her. >> rose: that's two films. >> that's two films. and that was based on this him script that i originally wrote, which i gave to jess and then jess had all these questions, you know, and thoughts about the character of eleanor rigby. because essentially the character, she was just serving the character of connor in scripted and she was curious about that character.

that true conversation created this idea in me to try to write a whole other script for her. if i wanted to write a film about relationship what better way to do that than show both perspectives, both sides of the relationship to show a cumulative whole. >> rose: that's tricky. how do you do that. >> yes, it was tricky. we created a whole subtext and created this whole other world that became this 223 page script that we set out to shoot. and it was jessica, myself, my producer -- it was really hard to get made because i have really no credentials aside from some short films and a couple people believing inap me. ultimately we'd gone to james to play connor with that script. and when we sent it to james, he was not in the right space i think to approach a character like that or a story like this.

>> rose: what does not in the right space mean. >> the couple in this room suffered a tragedy. suffering a tragedy, in my life i experienced something that made it altogether too raw. a couple years down the line the guy that was going to do it fell out for some reason, and you guys had a short window in which to replace that actor. he came back to me and i was a little bit older and a little bit wiser. >> rose: but the point is you couldn't do it the first time because you were first too raw in terms of what happens there for you because of where you were in your life. >> yes, exactly. >> rose: a year later, two years later. >> it's the one. >> rose: so you had him. so where are you then when he comes back and says okay i'm ready. >> jess actually, these are both really busy in demand actors i was working with. she had a window that she needed

to fill for the summer. and had somewhat committed to another project. luckily we got there just in time because we were fighting for that window and thank goodness for james because it pulled everything together for us. we're all of a sudden in pre production and then what this group of people with amazing cast. >> rose: so you have him and her. >> you have him and her. >> which we shoot two years ago in july and august here in new york over 40 days. so that's 222 page script over 40 days with these lovely people and the lovely cast in the film. and then you know, from that, we had this two part film that premiered the toronto film festival last year where it played better than i think any of us expected it to. was picked up by the weinstein company. and thatú kes us into thisyear, we're in . we had conversations about how to distribute a two part three

hour and ten minute film. >> rose: i can imagine having that conversation. >> so i got into an editing room with my editor and my assistant editor and the producer who all sat in the editing room with me to create the other two films and we found the third film which is them. >> rose: and the awards and all the rest of it. >> the whole project is because i think that's what we initially set out to do. >> rose: so who are the characters here and what's the story we have so people at home can appreciate what we're talking about. >> i play eleanor rigby. and james is connor ludlow. and for me, it's an adult love story, so it's about this couple that have just passed the phase of romantic love, all consuming love. and now they're having to deal

with grown up problems. and it's a problem with communication and grief, what happens when two people need to grieve in separate ways. and can you love someone enough to let them go. so it's really like this, i find it a film that is completely encircled by love. love in family, there's father and daughter, father son, there's eleanor's parents that are in the film. the sistñiz9 relationship. it's actually a beautiful love letter to that. >> rose: and because it's done the way it is, we can see how two people can experience the same thing and see it very differently. >> yes. >> absolutely. >> i think it's that we've all had an argument and we love dearly and we've argued about how it actually went down. and how it was revealed or whether it was revealed or whether it was discovered. and i think that partly it's about memory but partly it's

about a sense of right, as well. you've got to believe in what lno going forward and especially after a couple suffered such a massive loss, you know. how do you heal a couple. you can't heal a couple, you have to heal yourself individually before you can even start thinking of a couple, you know. >> rose: you're playing two different characters aren't you. >> yes. in him and her. in her i was playing eleanor rigby and him i was playing connor's perception of eleanor rigby. so it was really fun experiment in acting because i would do things that would help further his story. make her more of a mystery, more inaccessible, maybe slightly colder. things that perhaps if you saw him and hadn't seen her version yet you might think like oh eleanor's a terrible person. >> rose: we've had lots of

clips here to make sense of this. the first one is from them. this is where you and connor when they are in your words some place good. here it is. >> where are you going. >> here. are you coming? >> yeah. >> rose: this is not the first time this has been done in films, is it. this idea of two characters, a character from two different

perspectives. >> no. i think rashman did it, divorce his, divorce hers with richard burton and elizabeth taylor. it just came from this organic place. character. >> not even that. it just seemed like appropriate for what we were trying to do. >> i think also in the movie theatre when this conversation came to be was the size of our fathers and the letters. and those two movies from different sides. >> rose: clinton eastwood. >> exactly. the idea of a relationship, a love story from the male perspective and female perspective. it goes beyond even just the characters, it goes like the taupe of the -- tones of the film, the color pallet, feminine

versus masculine. >> the more complex a person you're playing and ned can write it when people are very simplistic. these guys were a mess and you don't want to give it away. it's hard not to take their baggage home with you at the end of the day. and that find of fueled everything for me in the movie. he doesn't talk bit, he's trying to push everything down. it's quite hard to go home and not let some of that energy. at the same time it's amazing. >> rose: hard to talk bit you say because of the epic tragic a vents and we don't want to give it away. >> a lot of reviewers have but it's best going into a film not knowing. >> rose: not knowing the

central moment. >> that's not what i wanted the film to be about. >> rose: what did you want it to be about. >> about this couple, i wanted it to be about this relationship. it's an extreme thing that happened but it could have been anything. the point is it's showing that two people cope and two people live and experience something in such vastly different ways or even just subtly different ways but that's what makes them who they are but also that's sort of ... >> i think in particular about the  thing they go through, thisis. the thing they go through is(p]ñ that what makes it sort of important for me to remember all the time is that whenever i look at jessica's face, i see the tragedy. >> exactly. we cannot look at each other and see anything but a tragically injured relationship. and yet we're trying to hang on to it, well i'm trying to hang

on to it anyway. >> rose: does acting in this give you insights into relationships. what you want audience to come away with that relationships, that love is tough, that love is relative. >> i just believe in the idea that love evolves. love, you know, it changes. at the end, look i have a very hopeful view of love in relationships you know that i brought into this film and i walked away from in this film. and i just want people to see that these two people can have their love sort of become something else or change or evolve in different ways. because i think love is this sort of amorphous kind of constantly changing thing. at the end of the film i want people to know the love that these two people experience is always going to be part of their lives, it's going to continue,

it's just going to change. >> rose: ts right. why do you call it the disappearance of eleanor rigby? why that title. >> well i think that was the tile because as ned was outlying the script, he was listening to that song. but what i love so much about the title is her parents had met or were falling in love around, they were going to one of the beatles concerts. and one they had the daughter, they thought well the last name's rigby, we could call her eleanor rigby. for them it's a great token of their love because that's the blossom of it. but yes eleanor's a tragic character of that love. i think it was a really smart choice for ned. and it's so much about where eleanor is in this time in her life. >> isn't it sort of twofold. in my film -- in the him film

she literally disappears. it's called disappearance and it's chasing the whole film. in your film, you disappeared in yourself. >> she wants to disappear from herself. she wants to disdisappear eleanor rigby and come where else. >> i want new york to exist it's a great collaborator and also a pain in the ass. >> rose: not just the two of them -- you put together a rather remarkable cast. >> i mean that was a lot of luck because you know, a, i think because of these two actors who signed on to the it. william hurt signed on to it a

year before. cassandra our producer had ex experience has one and worked with people like karen hines. and worked with isabel and actually called her up and give her the script. all those things i think really helped me because youúñ know i'm very untested. >> apart from the fact it was ambitious and exciting two film model here. they are sitting very quietly and bravely unique about you writing about that script even if it was just one script and not two. i think you got that cast because all of these openings and because everybody read it and went this is unique. and you write about adult love. and you write about it in all its harshness and all its pain and you still managed to make it magical and the reality of adult

love and awe all the harshness and hard work and hardship that went with it. it was beautiful, you know. >> rose: you can certainly add to that couldn't you. >> yes. it was a really special experience for me doing this film because as ned was writing her perspective, every day he was talking to me about what he was writing and asking me about like sister relationships. he says i have this idea about this. i said that's fantastic. and it was a beautiful thing to be involved in like the constant development stage of that. >> rose: i want to schip to four and five. this is a him and her version of the same scene. this is where they encounter in the car which we saw a bit of in the trailer. here it is. eñ

>> owe of course we get the call where the retarded wife is. >> couldn't we just wait it out. >> what are we doing here? >> you tell me. you're the one who said that we needed to talk. we went to my parents house. what are we doing here. >> like an hour ago you walked into my bara and you suggestee drive in the storm here. >> i guess it's funny. >> yes, hilarious.

>> we got the car with retarded wipers. >> that's not right. what are we dealing with here. >> you tell me.ñyou asked me. you said we needed to talk and you showed up at my parents house. >> an hour ago you walked into my bar and suggested we drive aimlessly in the storm here. so? >> it's kind of funny.

>> yeah, it's hilarious.1" >> rose: 2cthe difference betwel films and big films, between x men and eleanor rigby. you want to do both of them is this where your head is. >> i would like to do both. i like the collaboration on smaller films more. it's less hang around incredible so i like the closeness that you have with the group, the director and collaboration. it's like there's more technical ins and outs getting in the way of collaboration in a bigger movie but smaller movie it feels like a very close family thing. and you can communicate directly with people. don't get me wrong, i love doing big movies too, yes. it's good fun. >> rose: what'ss:p made it suh

a sensation. >> other than the fact we made it on purposes for the audience to hate the character. and then spend an hour or 20 of the movie to reel back the character and for you to like him again. but at the end ultimately when he receives the ultimate sort of punishment, really, we're looking at the film again. so yes. but also as much as the film is they crazy humor and all that stuff, significant mental illness. for me i watched films about mental illness, people's illnesses, they're.np quite realistic whereas the this for me was surrealistic progression of what it was like inside.

that's why it was like at home anyway. here, not so much. >> rose: you've got how many films coming out now. >> if you count eleanor rigby, two films because we have it opening this weekend and we have him and her opening october 10th. >> rose: him and her open on. >> october 10th. >> him and sur. i'm sorry, interstellar november 7th and then another year in december. >> rose: is that -- >> no, ms. juliement someone asked when they off me to do ms. julie which i loved, when i went to school i said i love it all. it's pretty much like do you want to hang out with lee goldman for two months. why not for the rest of my life the stories i'm going to have about that. questions ofbergman. fantastic. >> rose: it's really a wonderful sense of the two of them. >> yes.

and the book she's written. the book she wrote, changing. it's beautiful. >> rose: she spent some time here at the table. congratulations to you, to you and especially you. >> thank you. >> rose: how does it feel having done it. >> i feels, i think having done it in this way with this group of people it feels very special. >> rose: thank you. as we said opening this weekend them and then him and her on october 10th. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and early episodes visit us on-line at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. >> no rush. the blue chip dow index finishes after a record after federal reserve chair janet yellin sticks to her clip and makes sure that the bank will keep interest rates in place for a while. and profits considered a bellweather, earning a lot of money last quarter and could be a sign of things to come. and down to the wire, the battle for independence in scotland and why the outcome could mean big changes for business. a report tonight, on "nightly business report" for wednesday, september 17th. good evening, everybody, and welcome. it was as susie just mentioned another re