>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the president's address on immigration reform. here is what he said earlier this evening? >> today our immigration system is broken. and everybody knows it. >> rose: we continue with analysis of the president's decision to use an executive order in a conversation with michael shear of the "new york times" and karen tumulty of the "washington post." >> the republicans and the president are going to deal on these issues if they both side it is in their interest to deal on these issue. this idea because somehow they fought on one thing they can't work together on another is-- it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. >> rose: and this evening, for most of our program, we remember and appreciate mike nichols. >> you prepare like crazy, and then you wait to discover what happened. >> rose: and a surprise will come. >> yes, every day a surprise.

that's the joy of making movies. >> rose: the president makes his move on immigration reform, analysis by add sheer and karen tumulty, and remembering mike nichols. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we again with president obama's announcement

on immigration in a prime-time speech, he disclosed plans to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation. >> first we'll build with considerable resources, so they can stem the flow of illegal crossings and stem the speed of those who do cross over. second, i'm make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy as so many business leaders have proposed. third, we'll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country. i want to say most about the third issue. especially those who may be dangerous.

that's why over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80%. and that's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. felons-- not families. criminals, not children. gang members, not a mom who's working hard to provide for her kids. we'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day. millions of immigrant in every state and every race and nationality. i'm being straight with you. it's also not who we are as americans. the actions i'm taking are not only lawful. theatre kinds of actions taken

by every single republican president and every single democratic president for the past half century. to those members of congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question of wisdom of me act when congress has failed, i have one answer-- pass a bill. i want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. and the day i sign that bill into law, the actions i take will no longer be necessary. meanwhile, don't let a disagreement over a single issue be a deal breaker on every issue. that's not how our democracy works, and congress certainly shouldn't shut down our government again just because we disagree on this. americans are tired of gridlock. what our country needs from us right now say common purpose. >> rose: there are an estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the united states. both parties agree that the nation's immigration system is

broken and needs to be fixed. the question is how. the president's plan has come under sharp criticism from republicans who accuse him of going beyond his executive authority. joining me now from washington are two reporters who have been covering the story in recent days. michael shear is the white house correspondent for the "new york times." karen tumulty is the national political correspondent for the "washington post." i am pleased to have both of them on this program. i note that we taped this conversation before the president spoke but with much anticipation and advisement as to what he is going to say and why he is saying it at this time. i begin with michael shear. michael, just set this up forinous terms of the context of immigration reform coming out of the election, what happened before the election, and the intent of the president and republicans to do something. >> so i think that the thing to understand here is how far the

president has traveled in terms of changing the way he's approached this issue. he came into office and spent, after getting health care through, spent much time trying to persuade the congress, and especially the republican congress and the republicans in the house, to actually pass a legislative overhaul of the immigration system, you know, on the theory that you could, by change the nation's laws, you could actually do a whole lot more in terms of putting immigrants, undocumented immigrants on a path to legalization. that literally went no-- it didn't go nowhere, they passed it in the senate but in the house it went nowhere. and he essentially over the last year and a half had increasingly come to the realization that he was going to leave office with this-- this piece of business undone if he relied on congress. and so what had started as a belief among himself and his advisers that he really had no choice but to rely on congress really changed over the last six months, especially, where he came to believe while he

couldn't do everything, that he really could do a lot to proceed down the path to kind of getting some of these people a kind of legal status that would allow them to come out of the shadows and work legally in the country and that's what he's doing. >> rose: karen talk about the republicans in terms of how they see this. obviously, the new congress doesn't take place until january, and the president is saying, look, give me something, republicans, and i'll act on it, and i'll shred executive authority. they choose not to give him anything at this time. and they also seem to say if he goes along the route that he is planning to go, it will be poisoning the water. >> well, of course, poisoning the water, anybody who's been in washington for the last few years, would say, you know, how could you tell? how would that be any different from what we've had? the president, i think-- i think he has surprised the republicans since the election. he's been sort of gone all in on a number of issues-- on net

neutrality, making a deal with the chinese on carbon emissions, and then this, which is, you know, essentially the republicans have been-- have been stressing that they believe this is just another example of executive over-reach by a president who they keep saying thinks of himself as a monarch. they-- but at the same time, they understand there's a real danger here for them if they over-react. there's a feeling they need to sort of step on the people within their own party who are talking about shutting down the government or impeaching the president, that in many ways, this is the kind of act that also brings out the worst impulses of the republicans. and so the leaders here have a pretty-- pretty delicate job on their hands, on the one hand to push back against the president but on the other hand, to tamp down some of their own members. >> rose: michael, what can the president do with executive action? >> well, what they said they can

do is to create a group of people that comes close to four million, four to five million people that essentially won't be able to get citizenship but will be able to live without the thres of an i.n.s. agent coming through their coor and taking somebody from their family and sending them out of the country and at the same time, get a social security number to be able to present to an employer and work legally. and that is a huge difference for, you know, something like 11 million people that are in the country illegally, and, you know, something like approaching half of those people may be able to actually have a legal presence here. >> rose: is there a difference in what the republican definition of immigration reform and the president's definition of immigration reform? >> i think so. i mean, you know, you sort of have this belief that everybody talks about the system needs reforming, but on the republican side, you know what that really means is a sense of shutting down the border so that no more

folks are coming in. when you talk to republicans, especially in the house, what do you want to do onimigration? that's what they talk about is shutting down the border. that's different than dealing with the kind of people that the president has focused on in these actions, which are really the people that have lived here in the country a long time, paying taxes, but always living under the threat of deportation. >> rose: karen, both sides know the hispanic population is going to be a crucial fact in the 2016 election. does that play a role in how they approach these issues? >> absolutely. and the president has in some ways been backed into a corner here. because he promised this action early this year, and promised that it would happen some time during the summer. then they announced they were going to delay it until after the election. so the president really doesn't have much choice. for him to not do this sort of executive action now would really be breaking faith with a

very key part of the republican constituency. i mean, of the democratic constituency. sorry about that. and the republicans have a problem here, too because they actually did fairly well with latino voters in this midterm election, but they know that they-- that to alienate this group, which is the largest-- the fastest growing minority in the country, is to-- creates a long-term problem for them. >> rose: there are two point here from republican senators jon cornyn of texas and "i believe his unilateral action children is unconstitutional, anticipated unilateral action, which is unconstitutionally illegal will deeply harm our prospects for immigration reform. it will be deeply harmful to our nation's tradition and rules of law and deeply harmful to the future of democracy." that from cornyn, john cornyn. and this from senator tom courn, "the country's going to go nut because they're going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president and it's going to be a very serious situation.

you're going to see-- hopefully not-- but you could see instances of anarchy. you could see violence." that's a big bit extreme, i think. but what could we see as a response to this executive action? >> the calculation that the white house is making and certainly it's what i'm hearing from a lot of lawyers i've talked to is that this is the kind of case that the court don't like to get involved in. they see it as a sort of political dispute between the other two branches of government. so congress' options here are to a., they could pass a bill with a veto-proof majority to over-ride this executive order. they could defund the parts of the government that would be required to implement it. and in the most extreme case, they could impeach the president. >> but, you know, but, charlie, just to add to that, you know, i think both sides are trying to sort of sussous what the

reaction from the public is going to be, too. the republicans are betting by focusing on the powers of the perez paens and the idea that's he's over-reaching, that they will fire up their base and ultimately be a plus for them goinged for politically and in elections. i think the democrat democrats e betting that in fact the more the republicans rail against what the president has done, the more fired up and likely to turn out at the polls the hispanic voters are going to be. and especially in the presidential election. that seems to favor the democrats. >> rose: does paul ryan have a point when he said he had two years with the super majority of his own party and didn't lift a finger and now he won't give us two weeks. he's basically choosing to give us a partisan bomb. >> he has a point and he doesn't have a point. yes, it is true, that the democrats did not act when they had not only a majority in the house but a, you know, filibuster-proof majority in the

senate. they were completely preoccupied with health care. but also the idea that the republicans were somehow going to deal with this in a few weeks is unrealistic to the point of being ludicrous. >> rose: is there a frame of mind-- and i think you alluded to this in the beginning-- that the president really has looked at this election and he understands the results of the election and may believe it could have been different if he made different arguments, or participated more or whatever. but has he come to certain conclusions about what he has to do in the next two years that he's president? >> well, look, i think part of-- you know some of what we see-- and i think karen noted the right things, the net neutrality and all of the-- the china example-- some of those those are things of coincidence. they have been in the works for a long time and they happen to have sort of all come together. but it is hard to look at the

kind of stacking up of issues and not come away with the conclusion what the president and his advisers have decided is that relying on this congress in particular, or really and congress in these last couple of years is not going to form his legacy. if he's going to try to shape that legacy, what he's going to have to try to do is exert and press against the outer edges of the authorities he has as a president to act on his own. and i think this is sort of the centerpiece of that idea. >> rose: karen, what about the possible areas the republicans and the president can cooperate on, including corporate tax reform and, 2, trade? >> you know, i think-- you know, the idea that this fight is going to affect those other fights, i'm a little bit skeptical of, because, you know, this is a very transactional system we have here in washington. i mean, the republicans and the president are going to deal on these issues if they both decide it is in their interests to deal on these issues.

this idea because they fought on one thing they can't work together on another, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. >> rose: go ahead, michael? >> i agree, you know, and it is a transactional city. i will say that, you know, the relationships matter in this town, and the questions of trust matter, and i do think that to the extent that there might have been some hope in this city that the election would mean a sort of turning of the page and that there might be a slow building of the trust that would lead to things, this doesn't suggest that will happen. >> rose: michael shear, thank you. karen tumulty, thank you. >> thank you, charlie. >> thank you. >> rose: mike nichols the director died last night of a heart attack. he was 83 years old. the legendary entertainer explored all mediums-- film, television, and his first love, theater. his career spanned five decades. he was known for his exquisite comic timing, and his interest

in the relationship between men and women. he won the oscar for best director in 1968 for "the graduate, "which starred dustin hoffman and anne bancroft. >> oh, i guess this isn't the bathroom, is it? >> it's down the hall. >> how are you, benjamin? >> fine, thank you, mrs. robinson. the bathroom's down at the end of the hall. >> such a pluzzant room. >> look, mrs. robinson, i don't mean to be rude, but i'm-- i'm awfully-- >> is there an ashtray in here? >> rose: his other film credits are who's afraid of virginia wolf, silk wood, working girl, the bird cage, and primary colors. >> governor, why did you quit politics in 1978? >> there are a lot of reasons, charlie. i had personal problems. >> rose: he won emmys for his work in television, including "wit" and "angels in america." and he won one of his nine tony

awards for "bare foot in the park." richard burton once said he appears to defer to you, then in the end he gets exactly what he wants. he conspiers with you rather than directs you to get your best. born to jewish parents in berlin his family immigrate to the united states to escape the nazi. his passion for theater began at 16 when he took a date to see "a streeted car named desire." he met elaine may, and their satirical two-person character sketches won them a grammy award and national audience. nichols credittedly the relationship to his success of the director. he once said it is a long kid on an icy road and you do the best to stay on the road. if you're still here when you come out of spin, it's a relief. but you've got to have the terror if you're going to do

anything worthwhile. he is survived by diane sawyer, his wife of 26 years, three children, and four grandchildren. he appeared on this program several times over 24 years. his first appearance was in 1992. we talked about comedy, improvisation and directing. when you were with elaine may did you even think about directing as something that might be your mietre. >> no, the strange thing that happened is elaine and i did it because it was the only job we could get. we started this-- there was a group in chicago which was started by my friend paul sills, who is now part of the new actors workshop. and elaine and i were in that group. it's why wherewe met. and i went back to be in the group because i couldn't get a job of any any tiend in new york and we thought this is what we would countil we got grown-up

jobs and it turned out those were our grown-up jobs, and when elaine and i split up and stopped the act, which was in '61, i didn't know what i was. i was sort of a lefted over half of a comedy team. and then saint siewber the the director suggested i try dwrecting this play called, "nobody loves me." i said why don't we try-- it was in summer stock. why don't we do it for a week? i said i'll do it if i could get that guy i saw in played house 90. it was robert redford. we rehearsed for a week and did it, and during the week of rehearsal, i thought, this is it. this is what i was supposed to do. >> rose: it has been said-- and you may have said this-- that there was, between the two of you-- she was the brilliant idea creator, and upper the person -- you were the person, even within-- that knew how to

move it along, had the sense of what? >> i had the sense of the shape of it for the simple reason i wasn't as inventive as elaine. elaine was enormously invent and i have still is and she came up with these characters and she could have gone on. but i was through after a certain amount of time, and i needed to move on. and also, therefore, i learned improvising is a great thing because you learn what the audience wants. the audience says, okay, why are you telling me this story? and you learn that you have to provide certain answers. because it's funny, is one answer. because it's you, is another answer. but because of the pressure from the audience while you're improvising, because they're constantly, in an unspoken way, of course, saying, "so? yes? what's your point?" that pressure is somehow a great crucible for teaching you what a scene is made of. elaine used to have a rule, when

in doubt, seduce because -- >> seducing as you and i would understand seducing the the audience-- >> no, seducing me. a fight is a scene. a seduction is a scene. not that many other scenes are a scene? and. >> rose: it's either love or conflict. >> that's right. and when in doubt, seduce is very useful. or if you say black, i have to say white. and these elements of theater are taught to you in this hot crucible of the audience saying, "come on, show us something. entertain us." so when i started directing i discovered that unknowingly, unconsciousingly, that's what i had been preparing to do. >> rose: after "virginia woolf" and after "the graduate" and you had done "bare foot in the park" "odd couple two."

you couldn't be any hotter than you were. how was that for you? and did you think this will never end? i am home free? >> funny you should say that. i was in the man in the moment in hollywood, and there was some dinner at somebody's house, and i was in line for food with my agent, my then-agent, and standinstanding in front of me e mankiewicz. and he turned, like somebody in one of those english horror movies, leered at us and said to my agent, "make him think it's forever." and i was thrilled. i loved joe mankiewicz because, first of all,, of course, i knew it wasn't forever. >> rose: you did know. >>, of course. second of all, i knew that in a way, real life wouldn't start until the first failure, and what i was saying at that point was, let it come already. let's go, let's go, let's go. and & "catch-22 "was kind of a failure. and i was thrilled to see-- i was fine. >> rose: you wanted failure to

come and you could move in beyond it because you knew it was inevitable in your life? >> yes, and also to stop this midas gold touch it was some hook that somebody made up. you know, everybody is on a pendulum. >> rose: did you say at any point, "i'm not this good? they're give me attributes"-- >> at every point. >> and on my best day i'm not as good as they think i am. >> , of course, i said that. at every point i said that. and i also said let me remember this so i have a little bit of something in that bank for when they say you're not good at all. i'll know that isn't true, either. it's somewhere in between. we all live and work on a pendulum. we certainly work on a pendulum. and i love the pendulum because as it's swinging into the crap, into the bad part, you know it's gathering energy to swing back. >> rose: where is it in its arc right now? >> i have no idea because i

don't look. >> rose: what's the pull of it? what's the magnet of directing for you? >> the magnet of directing a movie is that you beat the hell out of the script and you do it again and you do it again and you keep trying to tell the story. you say over and over, "okay, then what happens? and then what happens next? and then what? and what's after that?" that's what the audience says. they always say, "then what?" and you cast it as well as you can, and you work with the director of photography and the art-- you do all this and then it takes you over. it starts to tell you what to do. at a certain point in shooting, the movie picks you up by the the scruff of the neck -- >> even in a movie shot out of sequence? >> absolutely. it just creates its own life. it decides what it's going to become. it's like in the cutting room, there are pieces that are jumping because they're alive, and there are people just laying there dead and you automatically learn to cut out the dead pieces. >> rose: how is stage

different, theater different? >> theater is about right now. theater is about this is happening for the first time now you, tonight. and it's about the connection with this actual audience, and that's its excitement. and for the director it's a very different thing. a play is largely about where everybody is on the stage, but the physical staging is about who the actors are. the reason that i'm besotted with movies is that this mysterious thing where they take you over. movies are dreams anyway. the movies are our dreams, the ones we see. but the ones we plac are, too. >> rose: you'd rather make a movie than direct a play? >> at the moment. it goes back and forth. at the moment, absolute. >> rose: it has been written about you after "virginia woolf" and after "the graduate," this is the guy who will redefine film. and you became something less of

that. are you comfortable with that? do you buy into that? does it make any sense to you? >> it's the only thing anybody ever says about anybody who does very well at the beginning. orson wells told me that-- first of all, he said never think about how you're doing on in relation to that kind of concept that other people have. never think about-- is it this? is it that? what is the shape of my career? he said let them do that. you just do it. but he said that there are lives-- he was speaking, of course, of himself-- that start high somewhere and then kind of descend. and he said, speaking for him, that he wouldn't have had it any other way, that that was a thrilling and exciting life to have. i say this is the only bsks ever made about-- observation of ever made about an american artist. it never goes in the opposite

direction. you can't name someone. you-- i read in a film encyclopedia about preston stubbornlyes, one of my heroes. his biosaid he made this and "palm beach story" "the lady eve." and lost his talent at 52. i said lost his talent? are you nuts? he made eight of the greatest cop disease we've ever had. nothinnot enough. he lost his talent. that's how it looks when you're right on top of it. how it looks later, i don't know. >> rose: i spoke to mike nichols in 1998 about the intersection of movie and life. it was a theme he pursued through all of his creative work. >> it's a strange and not very comfortable feeling to look back. and i-- i don't tend to sort of extrapolate principles about whatever i've done.

it's sort of like i'm the bird and someone else has to be the ornithologist. i don't-- i don't know. and i don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. >> rose: but those who look back say the following things. if you look at the themes of your movies, it is about betrayal, it's about honor, and friendship. >> yes, those are certainly my concerns -- >> the main theme that goes through what you've done. >> when elaine may and i were in a comedy group, an improvisational group in chicago at the turn of the century-- ( laughter ) when we all did-- we improvised various scenes and elaine and i ended up doing something that the rest of the group always called "people scenes." which i guess meant that they were only about people. there was no more to them than

that. it's what's always interested me, the things that go on between people, especially the unstated, less-than-immediately-visible things that go on between people and there's something about a group of people looking at something, all apprehending something unspoken that is very exciting to me. it's what i love in the theater at its best. and it's what i love in movies. >> rose: but you have said when you go to a movie, what you want to do is find something that makes you understand yourself more and your experiences better. >> the first thing you want to have is an experience, period. you want the movie to give you an experience. if you're able in that experience to say, "oh, my god. i know that man. i am that man."

that's a particular kind of experience that at least some of us still like very much. if you ask of movies, as we also do that movies transfiguring everything and ourselveses and take you somewhere that you haven't been-- somewhere, perhaps, that doesn't exist that's, first of all, a perfectly legitimate experience to wish for, as many experiences are. there aren't good or bad in these things. it's just what turns you on. and i think life has become so much about us every minute, television is so much about our processes, that the things we read are so much about ourselveses and our processes, it's perfectly understandable that we want to go to mars and that we want to get out of here

for a couple of hours. >> rose: who hired you for "bare foot in the park" in 1964. >> st. siewber who was the producer. he called me up and said, "do you want to direct this play?" i said, "i never thought of that." "let's take it to summer stock and see if i'm any good." so we did. >> rose: and as you mentioned, it was like everything you had been learned or trained or learned anew prepared you to do what you were doing. you were born to be a director. >> so it turned out. >> it's the first of many times i've been interested in-- it sound so pretentious-- our conscious play in our work. this is what i discovered the thing for which i had been preparing but didn't know it it. >> rose: you were fascinated by the unconscious and how it plays out in any kind of creative endeavor. >> for a long time i thought it

was a great way to justify my laziness. i can just say, "i'm letting the unconscious work." ( laughter ) that freeze you from doing anything much. but i'm also interested, very interested by the things that you find yourself doing and you're not sure why that lead to-- i mean, the example i always use, perhaps too often, is that the last scene in "graduate" that when we shot it-- >> at the church. >> leaving the church, getting on the bus. i i said to dustin hoffman and catherine ross, to whom i'd been very nice. get on the bus, we stopped traffic, we can't do this over. get on the bus and laugh. and they looked terrified. they had tears in their eyes. and i thought what is wrong with me? why am i treating them like this? and the next day i saw the dailies and i said i know why. i see it's the end of the movie. they are terrified.

ed did i plan this? did i know it? not at all. i didn't have a thought in my head, i thought. and i am very interested by that aspect of what we do, because it's one of the things that we're dealing with. ( laughter ) >> hey, swamp. hey, swampy. >> yes, martha? can i get you something? >> well, sure. you can light my cigarette, if you're of a mind to. >> no. there are limits. i mean, a man can put up with only so much without descending on the old evolutionary ladder. now, i will hold your hand when it's dark and you're afraid of the bogeyman and i will tote

your gwynn bottles out after midnight so no one can see but i will not light your cigarettes and that, as they say, is that. >> rose: films for you are like dreams. >> yeah, they are like dreams in that they contain messages in the same way, and that they're strangely personal in the same way. and that in some way, they're coming out of our-- at least partly out of our unconscious, as we watch them, because they're connecting with-- well, with actual dreams that we've had. >> rose: at any moment, when you make a movie, it find a life of its own in the process. i mean "silked wood "-- >> that's the nice thing about making a movie, if you're lucky and it's any good, at a certain point it jumps in your hand and is alive and pretty much begins

to tell you what it wants, which is a moment i always love. that it-- it's like turning a light on and off as you go through it. some scenes obviously have to stay. some scenes have to go on the spot because they've died overnight. and the movie begins to take its own path. >> rose: do you like the editing process? >> very much. i now like all of it. i used to be terrified of shooting, for the obvious reasons that it's now or never in every sense. put i now like every stage of it. if the editing process is great. if only life had an editing process. ( laughter ) >> rose: you can choose to make it the way you want to. you can cut the bad out-- >> you get a second chance. >> rose: and you can make it look as good as you possibly can. >> that's right. >> rose: you can make it

dance, you can make it-- >> and you can follow its secrets. you know, you can say, "this isn't quite clear. maybe we need her looking at him yet again so that we know that's why he crosses the room." it's the thing we wish we could do with life. >> rose: how is film making today "primary colors" all way back to "who's afraid of virginia woolf?" different for you, how is it different for you as a filmmaker with all this experience? >> very little. the only thing that might be different for me personally is i'm a little nicer than i was because i-- i'm just not as crazed and i don't feel this great pressure and i dwoant have to drive everybody else crazy in quite the same way because i've learned for me that if you have a nice time and you don't yell and scream and carry on and push, it just happens just as well, it's no worse. sometimes it's better because

people are happy. >> rose: is it a curse to be-- when you were 30, you hit this town-- 29-- with an evening with nichols and may. then you went on, as we've said. "who's afraid of virginia woolfqand the "the graduate "was considered a masterpiece, and then "silkwood" and all the things in between, is having so much attention, does it set up unfair standards for you as an artist? i mean, are you running against mike nichols every time you go to bat? >> no. that's where my poor sense of reality comes in. i once asked marlon brando-- to drop a name-- whether it was-- how tough it was when he first came to hollywood to to whatever it was-- "streeted car--" whatever his first-- the men-- how did he manage with everybody making such a fuss?

and he said, "oh, honey," he said, "i didn't see all that. i was just so busy trying not to go crazy." and that's the answer, really, that you have other things-- you have are other fish to poach. >> rose: in 2005 i interviewed mike nichols for "60 minutes." we spoke about the runaway success of spa "spam as lot" ans love of the theater. ♪ stick with me and i'll show you what to do." >> what do you think you do when you sit around a table like this, i assume, with your actors before you begin rehearsals, when you begin to read? what are you looking for? and what is it you want them to shed and become? >> it's different with different pieces, of course. but my concern always is, whatever it is, whether it's

ludicrous or tragedy, it's really the same. there are just certain questio questions. first of all, for the audience, why are we doing this? what's our point? what are we telling? why have you called us together? >> rose: right, exactly. >> and you have to have an answer. and you have to-- how can i say this-- the first thing i think you have to say is, as you know in your job and when elaine and i used to be comedians, the first thing you have to do-- you can't say it, you have to do something that says, don't worry. you're in good hands. we know what we're doing." and then the second thing you have to say also without words is, "and what we're doing is this," a statement of theme. >> rose: so whatever you do, you'll always come back to the thoart. >> i hope so, because it does feed you. it does give you something back, and because the people i most

admire like pacino, he comes back. he works and works and works and works. he never stops. >> rose: what it means to him. so they can somehow get away, to share that kind of psychic income. >> that's it. that's it. it does give you something-- i think that big difference in the theater is that you're actually in front of living people. and you-- and they are telling you something. and you're telling them something. you are connected. you are communicating with them. the great actors that i've worked with without any

exception-- including the guys in this show-- i mean, some people have it soto such an extent that it floors you, like streep-- they have a deal with the audience. they can pretty much do whatever they want with the audience because they're so connected them to the audience and the audience to them. they remember why they're there the audience thinks why they're sending out is there over the years, many of the great actors and directors have appeared on this program, a tribute to mike nichols. >> mike nichols was a major influence on me because i looked up to him so much. it's not that he had more experiences. i was older than mike and he hadn't directed a play yet when

she want couldn't help but tell me if i said what do you feel about this or that? mike could take it apart and show me what to do to make it better without ever being specific. >> rose: he made "the odd couple better." >> every play we did he made better. but he made better by making me make it better. he never said in this scene do you a thing where he does this and she does that. he called me up at 3:00 in the morning, "are you sleeping?" "no, i was just sitting here

waiting for you to call." i think the best example is in the book when we were up in new haven with prisoner of second avenue, and i see a whole dress rehearsal, and he said, "what do you want?" and i aid, "it's really good, mike. i love this." he said, "the ending isn't going to work, you know?" i said, "what do you moon it isn't going to work." he said the end is no good. i said we'll find out tomorrow night. >> he said why wait until tomorrow night. let's do it now. i said it's 1:00 in the morning. i can't think of anything else. he said how do you know? we sat in the lobby-- i hated him at the moment. i wanted to quit. >> rose: i would love that. >> i truly didn't feel that way. but he made me sit there for two hours and after throwing ideas at each other which we were both saying, "terrible, awful, forget it." and then there was an hour of quiet. i would have to go pack to the whole play to explain it and he

said, what about if it snows and he gets the shovel out of the clolzet and they sit there looking like the american gothic." he didn't say if it was good or not. he said i'll get the snow and shovels and see youat rehearsals tomorrow. and he did and it worked. and i thanked him for pushing me. >> mike nichols and noron do this kind of thing, they sit for a couple of weeks, and get to know each other, and by the time you get on the set, you know each other, and quentin tarantino did it, in different ways. this getting a feel for each other, the stories, whatever. it's more important that just the rapping that you all do, than it almost is the rerehearsing. >> rose: nichols has talked about that. he wants you to open up. he wants to have people tell him something that is embarrassing or something he might not want you to know-- you're smiling because you know. >> yeah, because i was-- that's

how i went to film school basically is i wrote two movies for mike. so i just-- you know, he's its greatest. he could get people to say the most amazing things. i can get anyone to say anything like that. >> rose: he does it by awfg up himself, too. >> i offer up myself. i degrade myself and no one will tell me a thing. >> rose: nichols also once said exactly what you just said in a circh way. i want, "what do you want actors to do?" he said, "i want them to surprise me. i want them to surprise me. of. >> and nora and mike have that same thing the joy they get over the surprise will-- will last you a week. the ability for them to be an audience for yours, no better than if you were their son and you had just, you know, spoken your first word or went potty or whatever you do. that's the joy you get as an artist, knowing you could make the great nora ephron and the

great mike nichols laugh. >> oh, right. >> only because of the history. you know both of them have this great history. and it's tough. funny doesn't come easy, as a performer, to make them laugh. so when you can can you know -- >> you can make nora ephron laugh? >> absolutely, and genuinely, and same with mike. they both assume you'll give them greatness, and because they assume it, you do it. >> mike nichols is a rare person and a rare human being, so he is very special, but he's always been a very smart director. the thing about that, the thing that is special about mike nichols is when they're that smart, they create a platform that you feel very safe and brave because you don't want to let him down. he's got too much taste. he's too clever to let you fall too far. it gives you confidence to go to places that you might not necessarily go. you stop protecting yourself and you think, "mike nichols is not going to drop me. he's not going to let me down." you feel free and it creates a

platform to do your work. >> rose: for an actor to access the best that's within him. >> yeah. >> rose: because that's in fact what it's about. >>, of course. >> rose: why did mike nichols choose you? >> long answer or short answer? >> rose: long answer. i mean, you obviously had talent. but why did he choose you. redford was the model if you listen to the description of what beverage men was, it's redford. >> it's in the book, six feet, blond hair, blue eyes, member of the track team, debating squad. >> rose: none of that is you. >> none, none, none. boston brahmin. you know. i think he tested redford. he had tested a lot of people over a period of, like, a year and a half or something. and he was scraping the bottom of the barrel by the time he got to me. i don't think he knew anything about me. people said-- i was in a play off-broadway that got very good reviews. and i don't think he saw it. i think he was told about it. so they sent it to me to read, and i read the script, and then i went and got the book and i read the book, and i had a panic

attack. i thought, why are they trying to ruin my career, which is just beginning now? because i'm starting to get parts-- character parts, you know, and here's a leading man. and i turned down the audition. i was in new york off broadway. the auditions were in los angeles. and when he heard that this unknown actor was turning down the audition, he called me up and he talked me into doing it. >> rose: what did he say? >> he said saiz, "you don't want to do it because?" i said, "because i'm a character actor, and i'm not six feet. i'm not blond." and he said, "did you think it was funny?" i said, "yes, i did think it was funny." he said, "and you don't want to do it because you're jewish?" i said, "well that would kind of look underlined if i did it." he said, "maybe the character is jewish inside." and that was what made me do the audition. he said later, i don't think too

long ago, in an interview, that he never really understood why he cast me. >> rose: which is the question i asked you. >> yes. and he said-- and i didn't know until i read it-- he said, "i think i was casting hoffman because the character was my alter ego. yes. >> rose: i saw myself. >> yes, and he didn't think of himself as attractive. what i do know as a fact sifinished shooting. i went back to new york to collect unemployment. pimade $3,000, i think. put it in the bank, started collecting unemployment, and after the film is edited in los angeles, they start showing it to homes that have screening rooms. and then i read -- >> that's what they do in hollywood. they show it to their pals. >> yes. and they did that, and the producer larry turmon and nichol both in separate articles or interviews years later, i read for the first time, that people came up to them after a screening and said what a great film you'd have if you didn't

miscast the lead. and that was absolutely what that town felt. >> rose: but not mike nichols? >> well, that-- that was maybe one of the most courageous things any director has ever done. >> rose: it goes back to what he once said to me. he wants an actor to surprise him. my guess is you surprised him. >> yes. >> rose: you gave him a look at this character that he hadn't thought about and he liked it. >> yes. andun what he did? he came from the theater-- he was the hottest theater director, i think, in town, and he did what we were taught to do whether strasbourg or adler, you start with zero. you don't try to do anything. you just say the words and stuff will start to come to you. and he allowed us to do that in rehearsal. he said, "don't try to play characters. i have no--" and he didn't. it goes back to what i was saying before. he didn't predetermine what anything should be and he really let-- i could give you examples but, you know. >> rose: give an example. >> he said, "do you think this

character is a virgin? and i said, "no." i said, "but i don't think he's ever screwed his mother's best friend." "had sex with his mother's best friend." so i'm rehearsing with anne bancroft, and he says, "think about that, the first time you ever made out with a girl, how old were?" i said i guess i was about 15. i was a piano player, and i was supposed to play "bungle boogie" for the millionth time at an assembly. and there was a girl-- we were in the basement waiting to be called. today it would be considered racist but she was doing al joalsen in black face singing "mammy." and she was sitting next to me waiting to be called for rehearsal and somehow she we started to look at each other and experimenting sexually, but i can't get too close to her because she's in black face. i told hip the story and i put

my hand on her breast, and we're just sitting there, chairs facing the wall fully dressed, and she just looked and she just let me do it. and i told nichols the story. cut to the scene where i'm rehearsing with anne bancroft in the hotel room, and he said, "the next time we do the scene, i want you to go up in back of her, she's just take her sweater off, she's in a brassiere, just hold her breast and heat just see what happens." and i did it. and she had been looking at her sweater, and she acknowledged barely that i was hold her breast, and she went back to try to rub off the thing that was on-- it was brilliant. i started laughing. and i thought-- in those days-- well, probably today, too, if you're an unknown actor, if you're caught laughing, it's the worst thing you can do because you're breaking character. and i turned my back on nichols who was sitting there and i walked to the wall and i kept saying, "don't laugh, don't laugh, don't laugh. you're going to get fired." and i couldn't get myself together. and i started banging my head against the wall saying, "stop

laughing." and he starts laughing. and that's in the movie. the whole thing is in the movie. >> would you help me with this, please? >> certainly. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> benjamin, would this be easier for you in the dark? >> mrs. robinson, i can't do this. >> you what? >> this is all terribly wrong. >> he kept putting in meas accents that happened, from really the actor bringing forth what he felt. >> rose: mike nichols, dead at

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

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information worldwide.

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. funded in part by -- thestreet.com. featuring stephanie link who shares her investment strategies, stock picks and market insights. learn more at thestreet.com/nbr. getting down to business. what president obama will say tonight on immigration and what the business community wants to hear. >> if you like what wall street did for the housing market, you'll love what wall street's doing for commodities. >> senator carl levin goes after goldman sachs, accusing it of manipulating the price of aluminum, effectively driving up