test. >> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with post-election analysis with mark halperin and john heilemann. >> as a conservative, is the republican party more conservative as a result of this election or more moderate? >> more moderate, for sure. >> yeah. >> rose: becauseo. >> because of the need to of govern now that they have both chambers. and because again, i think most of the people who were elected in the senate and a lot of these governors who were elected are people who want to get things done. and are not bomb throwers. >> rose: we continue this evening with jake gyllenhaal, the actor and dan gilroy the director. their film is called nightcrawler. >> its he easy to put blame on the mediament and i think that's sort of a simplification of it. i think it's more, in the character in the movie lou is enenabled by renee rouseo character who is enabled by the station head and enabled by the audiencement i think that we are the audience. and how are we complic sit

what-- how do we create somebody like lou is what this movie is asking. and i think that's what is interesting. dan sort of takes it a step further. and instead of just saying oh, look what the media does, he says how did we create this. >> we conclude this evening with the young whom is the c.e.o. of wanelo, dana varshavskaya. >> after i left, i got exposed to what the start-up world was about. i started noticing the oldest story tell being start-up founders and startups that are just building huge things. and frankly that just sound really fun. so i started taking on this notion that you know what, i think that sell sos like something i would want to do. i would want to build a company. >> halperin and heilemann, gyllenhaal and gilroy and varshavskaya, when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following:.

>> 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. swept to victory in yesterday's midterm elections. the gop retook the senate with ease. they also added enough house seats to earn their largest majority since world war ii. and then when governor-- won governor races in blue states. the results were seen as a harsh referendum on president obama who had said that his policies were on the ballot. the president spoke earlier today but the new status quote in washington. >> the key is to make sure that those ideas that i have

overlatch somewhere with some of the ideas that the republican have. there is not going to be perfect overlap. there's going to be some ideas that i've got that i think the evidence backs up would be good for the economy. >> and republicans disagree. they're not going to support those ideas. but i'm going to keep on arguing for them because i think they're the right thing for the country to do. there are going to be some ideas that they've got that they believe will improve the economy or great jobs that from my perspective, isn't going to help middle-class families improve their economic situation. so i probably won't support theirs. but i do think there are going to be areas where we do agree. >> the president's remarks followed a press conference by the presump stiff senate majority leader, he struck a conciliatory note as well. >> i would like to remind pethat divided government is not unusual in this country. we've had it frequently. i think maybe even more

often than not since world war ii. when the american people choose divided government, i don't think it means they don't want to us do anything. i think it means they want us to look for areas of agreement. >> rose: joining me mark halperin and john heilemann, the co-managing editors of bloomberg politics and host of "with all due respect" >> i'm pleased to have them back at this table. so let's begin with the results. what is interesting, surprising? what should we take note of? >> well, i mean, the scale of the republican sweep is pretty striking. you know, mark and i were here on monday and we were saying we thought the odds were better that it was more likely than not the republicans-- but you couldn't be sure and a lot of these races were close. it turned out every contested senate race, the republicans were in except for new hampshire that they won them all. and louisiana which was going a runoff. they pretty much won a clean sweep and won by margins that were in some cases pretty tight but in a lot of

cases much larger than we expected. they won in states that president obama carried the last two times. they won in iowa and in colorado. those to me were the most meaningful ones because of that fact. they won pretty much everywhere exaccept for in new hampshire. so there's-- their strategy which had been to nagsize these elections around president obama, was pretty much vindicated on the day and it's part of why you see the president having to react the way he did. because his name was not on the ballot. but boy he was in a lot of ads at the end and was the central issue in the campaign. >> but is it more than barak o bap-- obama. is it really fed up with washington, fed up with the way the system is working and fed up with the sense that they think other people are doing better than they are? >> it's definitely all those things. and the president said today, and he's quite right, as the party in power in the white house, they're going to take a lot of that. the brunt of that i think the democratic party had some fundamental problems about what it stands for. either as ot bama democratic party or just the democratic

party in general. you looked at their candidates out there try og to find a message. and they would cheree pick, they would try to link the republicans to the koch brothers or try to attack the republicans tore particular issue opinions am but having an overarching theory of the case about what the democratic party stood for right now at this time in our history, derivative the president's agenda or again just the party on its own, they really lacked a comprehensive national management. and the republicans didn't have one either except to run against the president. in a midterm, that was good enough. >> so we read a lot of post-election commentary today including peter baker who suggested that the president really had brideeled at the idea he could not get involved. that he was on the sidelines. that he wanted to go out there and have at it and explain himself, his party and his politics. >> yeah. well, look, the president has been like this throughout. you think about 2012, he sometimes felt this way. he was frustrated about the fact that his campaign didn't want him to argue the case on behalf of what he accomplished for four years. they tried to steer him away

from that. you saw on one particularly dramatic instance when he went to northwestern university, my alma mater and gave a speech, six weeks ago or so, where he said this famous thing where he said my name is not on the ballot but my policy, every one of them are on the ballot. and democratic candidates around the country were beating their heads against the table. they saw it as uniformly, they saw it as unhelpful. they were angry at the time. and now they are came lashing out in the press in some instances about how the white house is very clueless. an even within the white house there is some confusion. the line wasn't in the speech, it was not add lind. but there is no one who could have seen that as helpful. you could predict consequences of that, right? it was, not only was president obama in a lot of ads but that specificbyte was-- bite was in a lot of ads. >> why didn't somebody catch it. >> i think it is what the president wanted to say. it goes to your point about he was frustrated about the fact that he was not welcomed in these con tesd senate races. he was frustrated about the fact that the clintons were allowed to go everywhere

else, and welcomed and he was not. he feels that he, ask not happy to see the members of his own party running away from him as he did. you can imagine it personally. coto the go back to iowa, the state that launched him towards its democratic nomination in 2008. a state he won twice, the fact that he was so toxic that he couldn't go back to that state. which means a huge amount to him. the personal level of frustration is understandable. and i think in various times heading up to election day, his frustration, he acted out in some ways. and that speech is one example of that ad. >> rose: clearly he's searching for common ground here. but what is his driven sense of trying to find common ground? >> well, driven is an interesting word. he did a press conference today, over an hour, with the exception of his final answer, there wasn't a lot of sense that either of us had watching it, that there was drive there. that you think about back to george bush and bill

clinton. three two term presidents in a row. bill clinton and gorge bush each had one good midterm election which sun common even in a first midterm. barack obama has it two bad midterms. he didn't have a good one. after both of their bad midterms they did press conferences where they were clearly on their game, energized, fighting for the balance of their presidency. i don't think you could have a reading of what president obama did today about being driven to save it. his theory seems to be that now the republicans need to govern with the pressure of 2016 coming. that they are going to make deals with him on a few things. and the muscles start to work, the relationships building up, that maybe you pass an energy bill or infrastructure bill and then you can move on to some bigger issues. but i think that the realityity is he can't be passive and i think he was relatively passive today. he's got to be the commander in chief of this and take charge. there is a meeting friday at the white house. and maybe that is when he will take charge. but the symbolic moment of today in the history books, if you are writing the

history of the last two years of this administration and started with today, this was not a take charge moment. >> it seemed per funkorry and rothe through most it he explicitly went out of his way not to say i understand the results yesterday are a reflection on me. he took no blame. he didn't say that there was a large message that he needed to change course. when he was asked explicitly, are you ready to change how you do business, he basically said not he said i'm going to do what i have done all along which is try to find common ground, et cetera, et cetera. and you know, i get that he has-- there are principleses around which -- >> he said if rep came-- republicans come to him with ideas, he's willing to change. >> but that is still pretty passive. >> rose: very passive. >> and no one should expect the president and no one there is not reasonable to expect the president to capitulate to republicans or give up on his core principleses and he's not going to let them gut at fordable care ago. that's totally understandable. but again, as mark said, there is a kind of passivity around it, and even his description of the midterms, you know, he did not, he's

kind of tried to cast it as kind ever a bipartisan repudiation when it was not that he said at one point, i hear the two-thirds of of that didn't vote, two-thirds of the people didn't vote in this election. let's not pay as much attention to it didn't mean that much. i just don't think that he gave the impression, to a lot of people, at least monitoring social media, democrats and republicans alike that he was a little bit in denial. that is the impression. i don't think he is in defile but the affect of the moment was that he answer wasn't really absorbing the magnitude of what happened. >> i tell you, the thing that i found the most startling was there is a story in "politico" that quotes an administration official saying you still have to worry about the base, the base comes first, the base of the democratic party and i read that one of the president's most trusted political advisors. and he was appalled. that that someone on the president's behalf was saying that. >> the day after. >> the day after. i mean the president doesn't have to all of a sudden endorse private social security accounts and you know, and its keystone pipeline. but there's no doubt despite

what his liberal supporter was like, there's no dot that if he will make deals with mitch mcconnell and john boehner they will be more towards the center and annoy some people on the president's base. >> in is obviously an aid being kroted quoted. i don't know if the president would say this or not but on a pertinent issue now, the president is faced with the question of whether he will take executive action on immigration. republicans tell us, have been saying, and been telling other people that the president before its end of this year and the lame duck does this executive action t will poison the well on everything going forward. and yet i think there is a reasonable chance he will do t nonetheless. and i think what he's thinking is not that i'm trying to appease the base but his attitude is this is an issue of principles. i think that i'm right about it and he's so cynical now about the abilities to do a deal on something like immigration with this republican party, that his attitude is, well, you know, i should do what is right at this point. because i'm never going get a deal done. i'm not endorsing that view but i think that is partly what he's done. over six years of having the republican party relentlessly opposed to everything in lock step that he wanted it to do, he

doesn't see there being that much upside in trying to do a deal because he just doesn't think it will get done and wants to do what he thinks is right. >> i don't want to be someone that spends my life comparing barack obama to bill clinton but let me do it here. if bill clinton faced these circumstances today he would have, i think, talked about issues, maybe with not a lot of specificity by showns some sent rich by saying trade authority, nuclear power, there's a range of things. reforming teachers, the way teachers are treated by unions. there's all sorts of things that he could have said today to just throw out a common agenda with the republicans. and maybe divide the republican party a bit. none of that. >> i don't know why he didn't do it. >> except for funding on ebola and funding for isis. well, i just think those are, i mean, those are not-- those r you know, like he kind of like apple ground. >> in the republican's interest to prove that they could govern. the democrats, it's in the president's interest because it can-- at least add

something to his sense of legacy. >> he didn't want to waste the lalast two years in office. he wants to get something. you presumably think. >> i think there is more political prirb on republicans not to get stuff done, only because by the fall t would take the fall to get anything major to the president's desk or a conference committee. by then i think a lot of republicans are going to say we need to get a deal with the president where we get 65-35, the president away, let's wait a year, there will be a republican president, hopefully from their point of view and then we can get the whole thing done. so i just think the window for them to really want to work with the president is pretty small, pretty narrow. >> rose: is mcconnell going to try to repeal health care. >> i don't think so. i don't think he has the stomach. i think there may be some attempts to fix obamacare. there is some notion, as a matter of policy i think it's hard to fix it without having the whole thin unravel. >> but there are proposals out there that people on the right think you could try to

chip away at it in various ways. so will there be some symbolic votes taken. i don't think mitch mcconnell will send repeal after repeal, ted cruz wants to keep sending repeals to (o bam's desk. that is to the going to happen. >> some of the new republican senators are very conservative. >> they're very conservative. but i think if you look at their bios and i've met some of them but i don't know them well enough to make this judgement, but if you look at their bios and careers, i think they will be more like senators who are part of trying to get things done like a marco rubio, rather than look a ted cruz or mike lehman. >> best thing that could happen is somehow to read where the country is, i think, who is fed up. and that is what this election was about. and -- >> and somehow to be motivated by that. >> in my entire career with possible exception of 1992, i have never seen so many people as i travel around, and i'm sure you two see it too, so many people who say washington needs to work better. it's crazy. and it's often. >> gentle language from what i hear. >> yeah, but it's often,

it's just as strong from conservatives as liberals and it's often, i think in a very gratifying way and very important way, connected to very specific things. washington needs to work better not in the abstract-- an tract but because we have to fight the deficit, we need new infrastructure. >> we need trade. >> and so that is, that is probably the biggest reason for optimism that they can overcome some of these personal things. >> rose: the president wants to do something about corporate income tax. he wants to reduce it. >> i just do not see tax reform at this point. because there's winners an losers in lobbyists. and i just don't see this president holding that fragile quo lis together on tax reform, corporate or individual or both. >> rose: we don't know a lot about it? tom cotton one, for example? >> you know, he's got a great resume. i think he still needs to broaden his communication skills to be a real star. >> who else? >> core gardner is a very impressive guy. >> very conservative.

>> very conservative but very impressive and a good commune cate. and you know, that state, has produced some politicians who are comfortable fits for their state and just sort of big personalities. and i think he could be one of them. >> and who mod vate-- moderated stands on a lot-- part of the reason why udall's constant harping on a lot of-- i supporters felt he was a one-note candidate talking about women's issues and the war on gender and reproductive rights, gardner of moed to the center on those issues, part of the way in which he neutrallized udall's charges, so he is very conservative but also moved to moderate himself. >> the governors in blue states, charlie baker in massachusetts, bruce ran never illinois could be big national stars. >> rose: how about purdue. >> not been impressed with his communication skills and his feel for populism. >> rose: what does this mean for the republican race for the presidency? >> well, i would say there

are three obvious things chris christie, won a bunch of races. he won governorships in blue states like massachusetts and maryland. he held on to the governorships that he really needed to hold on to, florida and wisconsin. he will be able to say that he was a very successful rga chairman at a time when he was very distracted by the bridgegate and will still have a successful tenure. it is a big deal with donors, in the part, collecting chits around the country, john kasich who won re-election in october, in ohio by 31.68 in that race is someone who is thinking about running. and i think, you know, now is a pretty, that say pretty big kre dechblingt and scott walker if he didn't survive, he would have been done for. and i think will look at it. >> rose: is the republican party more conservative as a result of this election or more moderate. >> more moderate, for sure.

>> yeah. because of the need to govern now that they have both chambers. and because again, i think most of the people who were elected in the senate, in a lot of these governors who were elected are people who want to get things done. and are not bomb throwers. >> rose: and not just that i mean this was a race where the republicans an democrats alike agree about one thing. which is the key element of republicans, victories last night was that they had great candidate selection and that in their primaries, the establishment candidates won. and that was because the party establishment rallied around them. they saw what happened in 2010 with a bunch of candidates like christine o'donnell and ken buck and sharon angle and made sure that didn't happen again. the tea party candidates were almost uniformly beaten in these employmentaries and these candidates were the establishment. and the great lesson for the republicans is that it worked. that picking again not moderates by any means, but not tea party, nop string condition data. >> and you have seen it in the coverage, just in the last day, in the same way we've seen all this back biting around president

obama. you've seen establishment arian elected officials and strategists in the paper saying, using words like wackos. the wackos have now been burjed. the wackos are now back in their cages. we are now back in charge. that kind of language tells you something about what the party, the party establishment has taken as a lesson. >> hillary clinton. >> look, i don't want to overstate this but i think this is very bad for her over the next few months. her operation, does some things very well. one thing it does not do well and this applies to her, is deal with complicated and evolving situations. and last night's result does, because it was unexpected, it sends us off in an unpredictable projection. how does she posture to the president now that he is even weaker, does she have to distance herself faster, how does she deal with the new republicans in congress, is she someone who talks about compromising with them as president or someone without talks about confronting them. and it throws off whatever calendar she was thinking of about when to announce. so i think that her

operation is not nimble. they overanalyze, they overstress about everything. and now there's a lot to analyze and stress about. >> when she makes a statement like corporations don't create jobs s that good or bad for her? >> it's bad for her. in that case, she tried to clean it up. she knew it was a bad thing. i mean i'm never a big fan of these things. i think the press, you know, allows the opposition to sort of make a big deal about it. but it just, it shows again, that she is just, even though she has days when she was is a better candidate than given credit for there are plenty of days when she is a clunker as a presenter. and republicans an press will jump all over that every time. >> and there's also the element of something mark referred to earlier which is one of the things that is true is that not only do the democrats not, they found out that turning the midterm electorate into a presidential electorate is harder than they thought. which is to say getting more nonwhite voters, more young voters, more single female voters to come out that turned out to be hard. the other thing is that the

democratic economic message did not resonate with white working class and white middle class voters. and so the party right now has some positions that are very popular. but doesn't have, like, an economic theory. and that leaves hillary clinton to fashion that out of whole cloth. that is an opportunity for her. but it's also a real challenge. because it's not like that is an obvious thing to pick up and run with. >> i don't think there was a democratic message because they were scared to death with the relationship of the president and his policy. and they thought therefore, if they tried to be as defensive as they were and talk about local issues and education and that kind of thing. so there never was a message. but the same thing is true about the republicans. it seems to me in this election, what you come out is everyone was against something, nobody was for something. >> that's right. >> an therefore, and in a country in which people are saying we have to do better. >> with the exseng of ed gillespie in virginia who got very close to winning, he wasn't expected to win who had a health-care plan, i looked at every major senate candidate. they had nothing, nothing on the economy, nothing on jobs, nothing on education, of an

original idea. and, that is why i think in the presidential contest this applies to hillary clinton add the republicans who might run, the field is wide open. come up with two ideas that you request connect, you will lap the field. >> and you again, might make this point about bill clinton, think back to 1992 when the basis of clinton's run then was going and and giving the series of big policy speeches that were about his theory of the case. you know, the stage is now yours, guys. republicans and democrats alike. neither party has a theory of the case. it's now the floor is yours. you have a huge opportunity to do what clinton did. and we'll see if anybody wants to occupy that stage and grab the mike. >> the people who are given most credit for being big idea people, marco rubio and rand paul, read their policy speeches, he they are not wholly unthoughtful but the notion that embedded in them is some idea that will capture the public's imagination, it's not there. >> too much-- interesting

shard shards of ideas but not a fully integrated case. >> thank you. >> back in a moment. stays with us. >> nightcrawlers new movie by dan gilroy follows a videographer who sells graphic footage to a local news station in los angeles. -- called the movie modern day media all igorree, here is the trail-- all gory. here is the trailer nor nightcrawler. >> excuse me, sir. i'm looking for a job. i'm a hard work. i set high goals, my motto is if you want to win the lottery you have to make the money to boy a particular so what dow say. coy start tomorrow or even why not tonight. >> no. >> i'm not hiring. >> we're first, go around get a shot inside the car hey, back away aim he back. >> will this be on television. >> morning news if it bleeds

it leads. >> are you currently hiring? >>. >> i'm starting a tv news business. >> you, get back. >> i film breaking stories. maybe you saw my item this morning of a fatal carjacking. >> no i don't have a tv. >> do you have a cell phone. >> yeah. >> gps? >> yeah. >> congratulations, you're hired. >> okay. we're taking the next right. >> go back. >> you beat the police. >> i will never ask you to do anything that i wouldn't do myself. >> excuse me, i have something will you very excited about. >> you have a good eye. i want you to contact me when you have something. >> something like this. >> think of our news cast as screaming woman running down the street. >> you will be seeing me again. >> residential. >> home invasion.

>> you got to call the cops. >> and we will at the right time. >> but i don't know what to do. >> we're going to find the person that drove that car. >> start filming. >> i think you withheld information. >> that would be a very unprofessional thing for me to do. >> it would be murder. >> i want what you promised me. >> i want something people can't turn away from. >> 911, whs's your emergency? >>. >> we want all of it. >> oh my god. >> i think you are inspiring all of us to reach a little higher. >> joining me now dan gilroy, the director and screenwriter and jake gyllenhaal, the film's star. please to have them at this table am welcome. i think what we just saw, the trailer, answers this. but what say nightcrawler.

>> a euphemism for a stringer which is -- >> the cameramen who go and film nonunion at night when the unicam ramen are asleep. and try and find footage to sell to local news. >> rose: and it is pretty easy. >> or if it gore enough. >> as dan's script says, they're not interested in all crime, they're interested in crime creep nooingt suburbs, so it isn't as easy to get, you know, good footage but when you get it, it's worth something. >> rose: where did the requested come from? >> originally came when i heard about oiji the crime photographer of the 1930s. joe pesci made a film called public eye, got there first. when i moved to l.a. i heard about the modern equivalent, people that go out with video cameras, and they have a dozen scanners instead of one. i thought it was a very kinetic damage prop-- backdrop for a film. >> rose: you envisioned lou bloom as a coyote. >> dan and i talked about when we first started working on it about the topography about los angeles

and there are the mountain ranges but essentially outside this mass metropolis from space if you were to look at it there is just blackness, the desert there is the wild desert and the animals that come down from the mountain ranges and desert into the metropolis at night scrounging and hunting for food. and lou really was that. he was sort of like a walking metaphor for a generation that you know, was looking for jobs, looking for work but also really primal. his intention was to succeed. and he was hungry literally and figurively like a coyote so we just decided it would be interesting. >> rose: his eyes are important in this film. >> well, they blame important because when jake made this bold decision to lose the weight, to get a physical appearance like a coyote, but two jake talked about, there is a desperation to the character, a hunger. and survival, very much a survival because we are in an increasingly survival oriented world. but his eyes became more prominent and an energy that came out that is effective in the film in which the character wants to consume not just food but ideas and people and whatever is in

front of him. >> rose: look at this. this is where jake lou bloom tells the tv news editor rene russo, by the way, your wife, by the way. >> that's right. >> what he wants nightcrawler wants. roll tape. >> the name of my company is video production news, a professional news gathering service. that's how it should be red and how it should be said. >> i also want to go to the next rung. and meet your team. and the station manager and the director an the anchors and start developing my own personal relationships. i would like to start meeting them this morning. will you take me around, introbus me as the owner and president of video production news and remind them of some of my many other stories. i'm not done. i also want to stop our discussion over prices this will stave seem. so when i say a particular number is my lowest price that is my loews and you can be assured a rifed a whatever that number is carefully. now when i say that i want these things, i mean that i want them. and i don't want to have to ask again. >> rose: tell me about that scene. i like the scene but tell

me. >> well, you are watching in terms of where you are in the story are you watching the full blossoming of an auto didactic, self-actual itzed person who has come into a landscape of pure hypercompetitive, free market. and turns out every instinct he has is well suited for it he is utterly empowered in the scene. he's saying that renee russo, actually the news director of the station he sells the footage for. and until then she has-holding the cards and are you now realizing he is the one who has the power. >> rose: why did you want to dot part? >> it was the best screenplay i ever read, to be honest. >> rose: the best you ever read, wow. >> uh-huh it was a character literally unlike anything hi ever read. his dialogue is extraordinary, huge long soliloquies as you can see, but that is just the first. >> rose: should we be concerned about the world that you have shown us here? >> well, i would be concerned on a number of levels. one, we present this character as a success story to some degree and it's a personal film for me and jake and other people without became involved

because i feel certainly that the lous of the world, people with sociopathic tendencies are increasingly being reward. and so on that level i think we should be concerned. on another level, local television news depending on the market does tend very heavily toward graphic violent images particularly in los angeles. and it creates annetteos of fear that we all walk around in. unless you can pars t and unless you can look at other outlets and perhaps get a more nuanced narrative of what is going on you could walk around believing that crime is going down an los angeles is-- crime is going up, in fact it's going down. that somebody wanders into your neighborhood, you don't know, and should be perceived as a threat when they are just going off to get a slushy. there is a societal toll to local television news and network news. news that leans into fear to get ratings, is thing that has a detrimental effect i don't feel we can put our finger on. but i think, i think it's something that we should be aware of. >> two things have been apparent to me in being a part of morning television.

not some of what we do, but any time we cover these subjects. one is weather and the other is crime. you know? >> right. >> crime and natural disasters. >> well, i'll go back to the market for a minute. the weather girls in loss length-- and less are like pinnup dolls because weather an sex. >> to quote his script, renee russo's character says to one of the people working, your job is getting heather what is her name, deb to turn sideways and to get the tweet of the day. >> right. >> so that's weather. and in terms of crime, again, it's trying to get ratings. people compare this film sometimes to network because it is about journalism. i thought what cass captured so well was the moment when network news departments were told they had to make a profit. because there was a time when news departments were sacrosanct and providing a service. that went beyond entertainment and the second news departments have to make a profit they start to drift into entertainment because renee plays a news

director, news directors are at every station and they have to bring ratings up. >> if you talk to dave fincher will tell you gone girl is part about the media. an ben affleck. because of the obsessiveness of media to play off of celebrity. >> to create a story that survives news cycles. >> a dichbs between the movie like gone girl and this, this movie is begging the question how we are all complicity in that situation. it's easy to put blame on the media and i think that is sort of a simplification of it. i think it is more, the character in the movie, lou, is enabled by rene russo character who buys the footage who is enabled by the audience. and i think that we are the audience. and how are we complicity is what-- how do we create somebody like lou is what this movie is asking. and i think that's what is interesting. dan sort of takes it a step further. instead of just saying look what the media does, he says how did we create this. >> there is a clip where lou first introduces himself to anyoneo. roll tape.

>> you my fill in operator? >> i don't think so i'm lou bloom. i have some footage for sale. >> a stringer? >> what? >> who dow work for? >> at the moment i work for myself. >> okay. well, see frank out there the way you came. what is it tied to. >> -- what do you have? >> something i'm fairly certain will you be very excited about. >> it's for sale, his first sale. it turns out he is learning a lot. >> he's a remarkable salesman too. >> yeah. >> he's confident, he's on the point. >> well, he has sociopathic tendencies and he is extraordinarily smart, brilliant. he understands there is a line where somebody says your problem is you don't understand people. and there is an irony because he understands people the way lions understand a gazel. he knows everything about people. >> the interesting thing about you is some would argue that this is a role that you couldn't have played five years ago. >> uh-huh.

>> rose: that a because of your growth as an actor and a whole lot of other things, dow buy that or do you think look, i could have done this five years ago, i just didn't have the opportunity. >> no i don't think so i don't think i could have done it five years ago. particularly just because of the technique, the discipline that i have learned. one of the main things i feel like a approach my work with is this one idea, which is that freedom is on the other side of discipline. >> wow. >> great quote. >> and to me that is what i have sort of nurtured and cultivated over the past five years, is this idea that preparation is everything. >> rose: i was going say preparation is on the -- >> it really is. >> rose: freedom is on the other side of preparation. >> and i'm really am not, i don't have the ability to do something in the moment just like that. i have to do that preparation. and the preparation is my favorite part. that's what i have learned. my favorite part rses just learning the character and figuring out how you going to get inside. >> everything having to do with real life connected to a character is more fun it was more fun for me going on

the streets with dan at night, with the stringers. it was more fun talking with dan about all the idiosyncracies of this character, trying to collect ideas, walking down the street taking a picture of someone's tie thinking lou should wear that tie. all of that time which is very intimate was most fun for me. the performance is ter fewing in a way. and really fun. but not as much fun as the preparation. and talking about it, though i'm an actor and it would seem i would love to do that, is less interesting. >> you know what i mean. >> yeah. >> you have infinite possibilities. when are you doing, everything becomes finity and you feel like oh my god it is being set in cement and i have to move on. >> still at the same time i feel the same way about preparation for this television show. but at the same time, it all comes together on the moment that you come to the table. >> you have to let it all go. >> but you have to believe. >> do you have to let it all go. >> well, the unconscious will guide you there, you know what i mean. >> if you are prepared, if you done the preparation. >> the best person, people who understand this are jazz

musicians. >> yeah. >> they know that you have to be good musicians before they have the freedom to go off. >> well, that's funny because the words in this movie, the structure of these dialogue, some of of it is truly extraordinary, you know w within that the intensions were like jazz, we changed the intentions of almost everything in take to take. you know, i would take one, i would do one take and it would be completely different from the next because you know, words allowed that. the melody sort of was the melody. we had the structure of what that was but within side that we danced like crazy. >> we were close creatively and collaborated and it was always a could latch raise. >> maggie was here, god i love her. >> me too. >> she's great in that fill. she's on broadway. >> she is extraordinary in that too. >> is it -- >> she's doing the real thing on broadway am but she is amazing in the honorable woman too, i loved the film. >> she-- she is really, i

mean-- i told her this the other night when i saw her in her show. i any she's really mastered something. i mean i don't think it's possible to master totally the craft of acting but my sister has really mastered something in her work that is so moving to me to watch. not only as her brother but also as a fellow artist, and a fellow actor. to watch her up on stage, she's so agile, her mind is so extraordinary. it's just, it's testament to the minds when you see an actor up there. you can see how they work, in a way that you can't normally in movies because obviously someone else's hands is changing things but up on that stage is a purity. and she has really mastered something. it's amazing to watch her. she's extraordinary. my older sister, i feel that way about. >> well said. >> back in a moment, stay with us. deana varshavskaya is here, founder and c.e.o. of wanelo it is changing how we shop,

the on-line social media app connects millions of consumers with some of the biggest brands as well as the tinniest of independent boutiques, 20 million products from 350 million stores are individual make to her company's 11 million active users. i'm pleased to have her here at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you so much. >> rose: let me talk about you. and before we talk about the company. born in. >> siberia. >> rose: in siberia. your father was a journalist. >> correct. >> rose: and your parents divorced. >> also correct. >> and you came to america. >> yes. >> rose: with your father an his family. >> correct. >> rose: settled in new jersey first. >> yes, for a short amount of time, just a couple of years. >> and then. >> moved to upstate new york for college, cornell. studied everything under the sun looking for my passion. i knew from an early age that i had no interested interest in having a regular 9 to 5. >> but any entrepreneurial, you know, experience, any reason to know that what you

would like to do is build a business? >> not yet, no. >> it took after until after i left college to actually discover that the real world has problems, which i was really interested in finding. >> in terms of finding the m -- >> so entrepreneurs are just optimizers. we just walk around kind of scanning the environment for what is the thing that needs to be improved. and so as soon as i found that first thing and i said i know how to do this better. >> that was the passion. >> i canned whether a better mousetrap. >> yeah. >> but you left cornell, a very good university, only two courses short of graduation, some people would say why couldn't you just go ahead and finish and graduate and take those two courses. were you so anxious to do something or was there something else? >> i think it has to do-- it is an interesting question, for sure. i think what happened is that i actually was disagrees with the way traditional education was

handling you know me as a person. and i felt that i wanted to sink my teeth into something and academia just wasn't it. >> and how long did it take you to find your present wanelo? >> it took several years, probably five or so. >> but you were entrepreneurial in terms of looking at yen line things that you might do. >> yes, yes. so after i left cornell, i had actually gotten exposed to what the start-up world is about, right. so i started noticing that there was oldest story tell being start-up founders and start-ups just building huge things. and frankly that just sounded really fun. so i started taking on this notion that you know what, i think that seems like something i would want to do. i would want to build a company and run it. >> so wanelo stands for who needs love, wants need love. >> and how did you come up with that. >> so it came from a personal frustration first, so just going to the malls and i've always had unique

tastes and i really care about my style. and the things that i put in my house. and so i would go shopping and looking for the special unique pair of shoes and traditional malls were just really frustrating. limited choice, kind of predictable. so i started thinking, you know, where are all the independent stores that are out there, the designers out there, how do i find out about them. and so that was piece one, and the second piece was actually just thinking about the future of shopping and discovery of products and stores, you know. so i mean so basically social networking is something that is just taken over, right. if we kind of go back to the beginning of our thesis, humans have always been social. >> right. >> but it is only recently that it has become possible to actually create massive networks, global networks. >> of humans, right. >> so. >> you can unite people with shared passion, shared curiosity. >> in ways that were completely impossible before

so that's why we have platforms like twitter and pinterest and instagram. >> as you put yourself right there alongside those very successful platforms. >> yes. >> right. >> it just speaks to them i was going to say, your company is evaluating hundreds of millions, is it that-- how much is it? reasons is it hard to tell. >> the last official valuation was over a hundred million. >> that is what i thought. >> and dow that in terms of what the people who invest in you, you know what they pay for percentage of the business, i assume. >> correct. >> so and therefore you put yourself in a category with facebook and twitter and an interest in others. do you worry that they become competition for you? because they have a family that might be in search of the same thing? or do you have as warren buffett says you must have, a meet around your own business so that you are protected? >> you must have a meet.

so the reason i don't worry about these particular social platforms is that people don't actually go to twitter, pinterest, instagram, facebook to shop, that's number one. >> but why wouldn't they, know. i know you say that they go to twitter for news. they go to, you know, others for different kinds can of things, they go to -- >> i think it's just how the human mind works. we like to have a single category and we like to have sort of, you know, a business or a thing that owns that category, right. so i mean you don't go to amazon to read news, why? because amazon owns commodity shopping for you. quick, convenient shopping. so you don't go to twitter to shop. and -- >> but in fact, what is happening, and i'm asking this. >> yes, please. >> they're all getting in each other's business. amazon and google, apple, they're all competing with each other. >> because they are competing for attention. >> yeah, exactly. but why wouldn't they decide

we can do what she does. and you have a millions of users. but why wouldn't they say we can do this with her. we can compete and why not? >> they do, in fact, work on commerce. and in media we have a lot of conversation about facebook commerce and twitter commerce, pinterest commerce. but the truth of the matter, so your inintent is number one. number two is something people underestimate is that shopping actually has a really unique set of problems that need to be solved in order for it to work. and i think it's not an accident that you look at these social networks. we have a leading social network for almost every important human need. and shopping kind of continues to be the one lagging. i think the reason why that is the case is that it is just how hard those problems are. when are you dealing with an image, versus a product, the

product is a lot more complex as an entity. because it has availability it has price, sizes, colors, available with it. so on wanelo we have to know whether the product is even still available so that we can show it to you. so that problem is really, really intelligent. >> profile a person would comes to wanelo? >> u.s., female, college age. >> what do they come with, a question? go they come with a picture. >> so they typically come to see what is greatest and latest. they come to be inspired, to find what is trending. they come to see the latest, greatest products. and it's really fun for them, right so there's a utility component to them where they like finding things that are, you know, to buy. but it's also just very entertaining for them. they love it. >> and you direct them to the site. >> we do. >> of whoever makes that item. >> correct. >> and whoever has that site, if they sell, they pay you a percentage of the cost of the item? >> that's correct.

>> sounds like a business to me. >> yes. we are the only social network where all of our content is 100% purchaseable. >> good point. >> i quite like that and what that means for us is our business model can be 100% aligned with what our users need, right. we don't need to interrupt the users with advertising, for example. >> rose: from 2013 to 2014 you went from 1 million users to 10 million users. is that a growth rate that you can continue? can you grow it that fast from 2014 to 2015, 2015, to 2016, because growth becomes exponential, like a stone rolling down the mountain. >> growth is something you have to you know, master as a discipline it is a challenging question. >> how do you master? >> i think for us it's about understanding what is the utility around what we are

building. an as i mentioned earlier, i think we're solving incredibly challenging questions. and so for instance, we've done a lot of research with women in their 30s. and we know that women in their 30s as compared to younger women, like women in their 20s have a lot less patience. they're a lot more experienced as shoppers. they have a lot more preferences. you know, they know which brands they like already. and so a lot of what we do internally is we spend time thinking, you know, what does that mean. how do we-- develop the platform for them. >> you might think that they would have, for example, they might say well, why do i-- why would i go to wanelo who is going to direct me to ralph lauryn. why don't i go directly to ralph lauryn. >> that's correct. assuming that you already know ralph lauryn and that is a brand you like. >> and so one of the things that is different about wanelo is that you will be exposed to lots of independent brands, lots of

low-end, high-end brands that you just would have never found on your own. so yes, it works for, i this, you know, five brands i like to go to. but it will expose you to thinks that you would have never found otherwise. and of course the other benefit is that it brings all of the brands together for you in a single place. >> is there any risk for you in this. >> risk? >> yeah. in other words, they don't like a product, it's not your fault, it's the fault of the company that sold it to they you just got a transactional fee for connecting two people, a buyer and a seller. >> we take on some responsibility for connecting for sure. and there's choices for us to be made in terms of how centralized, you know, of a platform we want, how much responsibility do we take. and i think that's something we will have to learn a lot about, as we continue. but yeah, absolutely. we have people e-mailing us all the time. they don't even necessarily know that they placed a purchase with a brand. they think that they have already purchased on wanelo. >> is that right? >> yes.

>> so they just, wanelo and then-- it send the credit card in. >> one of the reasons why this happens is that this, a lot of our usage is -- >> so the majority of our usage is mobile. and on mobile if you try the experience, will you see, it is very fragmented experience of going from the product page that you find the products you like. going to the retailer. it's frequently hard to say t to tell on your phone, whether you are on wanelo or store page. so it is understandable that people mix it up. >> rose: what percentage of people will use mobile to shop with you? >> for us between 85 and the 0%. >> rose: that is-- facebook shows that people can advertise&y >> mob sill absolutely transform difficult. and it's interesting, for shopping, there's certainly a lot more to prove. so currently the smart phone is a really common starting place for your research. >> rose: right.

>> and so the stats are that 55% of all shopping research actually starts on the phone. but then only 7% get completed as a purchase. >> rose: i get that. but my question is, most people have a laptop of some kind, don't they? >> yes. >> rose: but they don't even use that. they go for mobile. is mobile easier, what does mobile have that your laptop doesn't have or your ipad doesn't have? >> it's always with you. >> rose: so that's the convenience of being with you, so you can shop wrefer you are. >> right t means for millennials, they wake up with the phone. it's the first thing they do. i'm lying on pie pillow and i look at my phone. it is the first thing that happens. there you go. >> rose: you do? >> of course, of course. that's where all the excitement is. >> rose: but are you looking for different things. i'm looking at things what happened overnight that is the reason i first look at. what are you looking for. >> i look at my e-mail. i look at my e-mail, of course to see what happened in my e-mail. and then i go to social networks, i go to news.

>> rose: you went looking for venture capital. and the first 40 people vc that you saw said you are a very nice person but no thank you, correct. >> that is almost correct. they actually try to avoid saying no. it's not in their interest to outright reject you. but yes, i got 40-- . >> rose: what do they say? timing is not right or we will get to it. >> send us more information, but i got 40 rejections. >> rose: and then finally why, a why did it take so long. and b finally the person or the company that broke through, were they any different in your presentation? did they respond differently? what was that, made that experience successful? >> so the reason it was so challenging is that i didn't fit the pattern. i'm not your typical silicon valley, you know. >> rose: you didn't come out of business school. >> do it-- i also actually didn't have i also didn't

have a technical team at the time. so there were legitimate reasons for why it was challenging for me to raise. >> rose: but you knew what you wanted to do, but you didn't know how to do it. >> at the time when i started raising funding, i had already built an early prototype, if you will, of the web site. >> rose: you paid somebody to build it for you. >> correct. and then we actually had an early community that was organically growing. and that's what ultimately helped the investors start closing my funding. >> rose: a very smart ven tall-- venture capitalist said to me, he said that one of the reasons, one of the things that he does early on is to try to find out if they have the technology underneath the idea. and those that don't have the technology underneath the idea, the engineering, he generally doesn't support. the idea is good, you know, but unless there is a really

high-end technology, it will not be successful, true? >> i think that that is changing. because true technical ris something actually a little bit less of a common thing these days. unless are you in hardware or something that really deals with science and technology. >> right. >> in consumer businesses, your biggest ris something actually building a product that somebody wants. >> that's it. >> that is very hard, that is really hard. >> but that. >> and want over a period of time too. >> consistently, right, that's right. >> they want to come back and come back and come back. >> so that is the biggest risk it was finding something that is valuable and has that utility. >> do you love this? >> i futurely do. i think it's completely intense and crazy and insane. >> but if i weren't doing what i'm doing, i probably would be really bored so it's my only option.

>> would you imagine what you would be doing if you weren't doing this. >> probably something equally crazy. >> thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> thank you for joining us, see you next time. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us on-line at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> funding for charl yee rose has been provided by the connect cole company, supporting this program since 2002. american express, additional funding provided by. ago by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services world wide.

a kqed television production. like old fisherman's wharf. reminds me of old san francisco. like jean val jean. >> theeries and cholesterol and -- calories and cholesterol and heart attack. >> like an adventure. >> it remind me of oatmeal with a touch of wet dog. >> i did inhale it.