Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  April 9, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT

12:00 am
>> rose: welcome to the program am we begin with the boston bombing verdict in which dzhokhar tsarnaev was found gillee on all counts. joining me for consideration of this decision and the sentencing phase that will come later is masha gessen dan abrams rikki klieman and mike barnicle. >> we did it american justice worked. we had a trial of a terrorist. he was found guilty. and now we go into another phase wherewithal due respect to the lawyers involved, you sort of set the statute aside. because human nature now plays perhaps a gf earning role in here. you have literally the life of a human being in your hands as a juror. >> rose: we continue this evening with a chairman of the psychiatry department at the columbia university jeffrey lieberman, his new book called shrinks,ed untold story of psychiatry. >> the isolation that have
12:01 am
characterized the field are now sorted of arriving at a point which really embraces neuroscience to understand how the brain works and how it underpins human behavior and disturbances that are produced in mental illness. but also have retained the fact that no matter how much you know about human biology the construct of the mind and personality is still something that has to be appreciated in order to be able to diagnose mental illness and to treat people effectively. >> rose: we conclude this evening with the wonderful an lovely candace bergen. her new become "a memoir" is called a fine romance. >> you learn to take responsibility for many bad choices. you learn that you just do the best you can at the time. you-- and you reexperience wonderful moments in your life. and and give thanks for
12:02 am
those, i think. i don't know that i have learned any mottoes that i could pass on. but i think it's in almost every way a valuable experience. that i know aa tells their members to write inventories self-inventories. and i think it's just very helpful to go back in your past and kind of excavate it. >> rose: a verdict in the boston marathon it case jeffrey lieberman on psychiatry, and candace bergen on a fine romance. when we continue. funding for charl yeast-- charlie rose is provided by the following: additional funding provided by:
12:03 am
>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: dzhokhar tsarnaev was found guilty today of all 30 counts in the april 2013 boston marathon bombing case. he carried out the bombings along with his 26-year-old brother tamerlin tsarnaev the explosions left three people dead and more than 260 injured in the worse act of tertism-- terrorism on american soil since september 11th. they also killed an m.i.t. police officer during the six-day manhunt that followed. tamerlin was killed during a issuedout with police in watertown, massachusetts. the second phase of the trial will begin next week. a jury will decide whether to sentence tsarnaev to death. joining me it now to talk about there verdict and its implications are rikki klieman a trial attorney
12:04 am
and analyst for cbs news masha gessen. with a new book about the trial. >> mike barnacle contributor and a well-known bostonian. joining us from abc news studio in new york is dan an raps the network's chief legal analyst and i'm pleased to have all of them here. i begin with rikki klieman you have what is this? >> this is the verdict form. it is 32 pages. it's one of the largest and most complex i have ever seen in a criminal case. there are parts to each count. so it is not just only answering yay or nay guilty or not guilty on 30 counts there are 99 decisions this jury had to make because of making a decision of guilt or not as to each of the subcounts. the jurors took a day and a half to do it. i think that it probably was an adequate period of time
12:05 am
because the defense said to the jurors he did it it was him he should help -- >> opening and closing like book ends. so it wasn't that this jury had to really think about whether he was not guilty. they only had to think about whether or not the government proved each element of these counts. >> rose: does this surprise you at all dan the way this verdict came down? >> no. as rikki points out. when the defense is basically coming forward and saying my client did it it is not a very tough decision that they have to make. it was complicated in the way that rikki is describing. but it wasn't-- it wasn't a hard choice. it is a totally different issue when you're talking about are they going to impose the death penalty. i don't think the fact that they convicted him on all the counts i don't think talking about how quickly they did it is going to tell us anything about whether these same 12 jurors will now come back and
12:06 am
decide to impose the death penalty. because that's a very very different question. >> rose: so what might influence them? >> as a legal matter they are supposed to weigh the aggravating circumstances. meaning the reasons to execute. his involvement the severity of the crime et cetera against the mitigating circumstances. the defense again will argue that it was primarily his brother who did this. and not him. but in the end when you're talking about the death penalty it becomes a sort of gut call. because there is not a sort of right way to evaluate aggravating versus mitigating. the jurors just basically have to say do i think this person deserves to die. and you have at least one juror on this jury who said that she opposes the death penalty. now she said she could impose it in a case like this. >> rose: but she opposes it. >> but she is personally opposed to it. so the fact that this was an easy call for the jurors in the guilt phase says nothing about how hard this may be
12:07 am
for them in the state of massachusetts when it comes to the penalty phase. >> rose: what do you think the people of boston, if you could, and you understand them, would want to happen to him? >> well i think a couple of things are going on here. i think first of all there is a sense of pride in the nobody ility of our justice system that these two brothers, one dead one has been on trial now for 16 weeks, or whatever since the beginning of march. and we did it. american justice worked. we had a trial of a terrorist. he was found guilty. and now we go into another phase wherewithal due respect to the lawyers involved you sort of set the statute aside because human nature now plays perhaps a governing role in here. you have literally the life of a human being on your hands as a juror. do you vote up or down life or death. and it's going to be interesting to see what happens during the course of this phase because judy clark, the defense lawyer, i think did a masterful job in
12:08 am
making sure that the juror did not find the defense obnoxious. she played her cards exactly right. i think there will be an element of sympathy for her, not necessary for her client. but i think that will play a part in whether the jury says up or down on death. >> rose: before we continue tell me what you learned about these two men in writing this book. >> i learned that it's a tragic story. these are-- these were two kids who were moved around from place to place who were never at home anywhere. i mean they didn't simply come to the united states. they in fact dzhokhar was personed in chec chechnya and the older brother in-- but they moved around their entire lives not accepted anywhere. they came to the u.s. their american dream was shown for a while and then it didn't. and it's just a sad story of an unraveling. >> rose: how did they become what they became? >> you can never tell how someone became what they became. because there are obviously
12:09 am
millions of people who have had bad luck who have been marginalized disenfranchised who hold radical beliefs and believe in violence who don't go and build bombs. there is a logical leap there anyway. and you can never explain that away. you can just tell the story leading up to it. and in that sense the defense probably has a very good case that dzhokhar probably wouldn't have taken the leap without the older brother. >> there is an interesting question and it goes back to also what dan has said and about gut reaction. you know when we're looking at the death penalty here for these jurors they have to decide is this defendant the worst of the worst? so the governments argument is if not him then who? what could be worse than this? and what masha says gives us the counterpart, if not him then who well his brother his brother was worse than he was. so perhaps though his brother is dead and if they
12:10 am
had been on trial together perhaps the brother would have gotten the death penalty and perhaps dzhokhar would not that is a very interesting argument for the defense to make literally or even as a subtext. >> and remember charlie that you only need one juror here. i mean, you need one of them to say i'm not willing time pose the death penalty and it's over. and an interesting question of course is going to be does he testify in this phase of the case. it's unlikely. it certainly would be smarter than in testifying in the guilt phase of this case. but the only way that she would ever even consider putting him on the stand is if he's going to say something very different than he said scrawled into that boat when he was found. he certainly can't get up on the witness stand and say i did this because americans are killing innocents in afghanistan. he would have to get up on the witness stand and say i am horribly sorry about this. my brother brainwashed me. i can't believe what i did.
12:11 am
and i think that the likelihood of him being willing and able to say that ask very small. and so i think the chances that he will testify are small. >> rose: can you be cross-examined if he takes the stand in the penalty phase? >> absolutely. >> rose: okay, go ahead. >> i just have a couple things. i completely agree with dan that the strategy has been amazing to watch, actually. the defense has almost sat back it hasn't cross-examined anybody who is directly affected by the tragedy. they have been very careful to even you know to basically not be adversarial in an adversarial process to not alienate the jury this he have only cross-examined some of the fbi ect as and experts. that's all they have done. i wouldn't be terribly surprised t is highly unusual for a defendant to testify in a criminal trial. i wouldn't be terribly surpriseed if dzhokhar tsarnaev took the stand and expressed remorse. >> i would be absolutely stunned given the an deck -- anecdotal evidence that i
12:12 am
heard of people who handle him taking him in and out of the prison. >> rose: what is the anecdotal evidence. >> that he is just sulen cantankerous bitter nonverbal appears to give off just a-- . >> rose: does he want martyrdom. >> that is the real issue. so you are his lawyer and you have advised him not to take the stand. he has the right to take the stand over your observation. he gets on the stand hypothetically, and says i want mar dirdom. i want to join my brother. i want to go off to paradise and kill me. now they can either as jurors agree with him or they could fight him and decide that if he wants mar dir tom-- martyrdom perhaps they should give him life not lawyer is going to want him to testify. they can't even trust him if he says he is going to be remorseful on the stand because they don't know who he is going to be when he gets up there. >> were those who i know who have attended nearly every day of the trial both media
12:13 am
people as well as assistant u.s. attorneys they would tell you i've heard this repeatedly that the most powerful motive for the death penalty for the juror would be a film clip that the prosecution showed of dzhokhar tsarnaev standing directly behind young 8-year-old martin richman placing his backpack down behind this young boy whose body was shredded whose autopsy was read to the jury. >> rose: clothes were shown to the jury. >> and he is there for 45 seconds. not a random drop. not a random act. 45 seconds. knew his surroundings. knew who was in front of him. knew there were children there. that would be the primary motive for a jury to say you know what i'm against the death penalty but boom. >> rose: has he said anything? you describe him as sulen and -- >> no. >> rose: no one -- >> no one. and the-- the only humanity -- >> he does talk to his
12:14 am
lawyer. i have attended most of the trial. we don't know what he says that's confidential. we are don't heared chatter. they go seem to have excellent rapport. >> yes they do. >> it's really amazing to watch. >> they joke. >> she's a very good attorney. dan, she is very good isn't she? >> they the public defender for the district that includes massachusetts seems to have an even better rapport with him. >> rose: wait a -- >> there is physical contact which is also-- it's kind of moving to watch. because you can see them really treating him as a human being. >> a lot of physical contact especially on the part of judy. >> which i think is important because that is the only physical contact he ever gets. >> rose: what is taking place in that courtroom is an amazing tribute to our justice system in this country. an amazing tribute to it. >> rose: dan? >> yeah, no i was going to say. and if you think about the contact she's's having with him right very often lawyers and rikki will tell you this they know when the
12:15 am
jury is watching them right. and every move they make when they are communicating with their client both physically and verbally they know they're being watched. when you think about the fact that her only goal here is to save his life right one of those rare cases where she's not disputing that her client is guilty. where she's just trying to save his life those little things, i think tend to mean more than they would in an ode case. because that's the only things that's at issue. >> rose: how is boston today? >> boston today is fine. i mean it's been nearly two years exactly to the day when this event occurred. and since that day i would submit that there has been a marathon of the spirit in greater boston. that people have just continued on with their lives. shocked from what happened. the event itself is an enormous new england and world event. very different from anything else that happens in most
12:16 am
other major cities 26 mile long block party shattered by this event. but people have gotten on. people who obviously lost limbs and were injured they too have gotten on and shown amazing strength and spirit for all of us to admire. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: thank you dan. >> good to see you. >> thank you marcia the book is called brothers the road to an american tragedy. thank you rikki, i will see you tomorrow morning. >> you will. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. jeffrey lieberman sheer the chairman of psychiatry at columbia university he is also the former president of the american psychiatric association. his new book is called shrinks, the untold story of psychiatry. it captures the infamous beginnings of the field it also tackles the mixed legacy of sigmund freud and the latest discovery in brain science mean for psychiatry. i'm pleased to have jeffrey lieberman back at this table. welcome. >> thanks charlie. love to be here. >> rose: let's talk about just the obvious things. do psychiatrists like the
12:17 am
word shrink? >> not really. it's demeaning. >> rose: yeah. >> in fact when my publishering-- when i came to my publisher and told him the title i had it was something like pariahs in the palace of medicine or sojourn in the scientific wilderness. and she said no no she came back to me a couple days later and said here's your title shrinks. isn't that he did meaning demeaning schmeaning do you want to sell the books this is what people think when they think psychiatrist. >> rose: you say the profession to which i have devoted my life remains the most distrusted feared and denigrated of all medical specialists. >> it is i wish i could say otherwise. but-- . >> rose: why is it? >> well, i sort of refer to it as the rodny dangerfield of medical specialties because when medicine really began to become a scientist -- scientific discipline and differentiate from physicians and surgeons into subspecialties which was beginning in the early part of the 19th century
12:18 am
psychiatry was kind of the runt of the litter. and what became a late bloomer. and the reason was is that as medical research identified mainly in postmortem studies of cadavers the pathology of heart disease of cancer respiratory illnesses when it came to the brain and mental illness they came up empty-handed. they couldn't find anything. and with no sort of scientific evidence for an illness no op rattive theory or theoretical framework to understand mental illness significant mind freud entered the picture and filled the vacuum with this brill nant -- brilliant theory of the mind which was an entirely theory. and it was mehta physical. >> was it so-- was it -- why did it take over as so divining of psychiatry? >> freud is an interesting character. he is obviously the most famous and important psychiatrist in human
12:19 am
history. and you know he wasn't actually a psychiatrist. he was trained as a neurologist. >> rose: yes. >> and at the time neurologists saw many of the patients that psychiatrists you know would normally see people with behavioral disturbances. but there was no scientific basis for this. and what he did was he invented an understanding a conception of the human mind which explained how people became who they were as a person and what motivated their behavior. and at the seem that was revolutionary because the thinking then was and remember this is like the late 19th century was that everybody knew exactly what was in their mind and what caused them to do what they did. we had no idea of the unconscious. we have no idea of the idea the notion of defense mechanisms. we had no idea that there were different components of the mind. and he just by sheer genius invented it. but he made two mistakes. the first mistake was that
12:20 am
he was a control freak and he would not permit his theory to be subject to scientific and verification so he had to accept it on faith. he became a dog ma of religion. >> is that because he thought it would be debunked or for some other reason. >> he had absolute confidence in it. it was because he felt that people would begin to distort it and implement the talking cure as it was called inappropriatesly. but the second mistake was really not fruld some of as it was his followers. his disciples. so freud's theory applies to what i would call the worried well. people without don't have illnesses they just have challenges and daily living. but it has no relevance to mental illness per se schizophrenia manic-depressive illness depression obsessive compulsive disorder dementia. >> and all the other illnesses of the brain. >> right. an when his disciples began to apply it to these continues for example one
12:21 am
of his disciples likeman the psychiatrist in the popular story i never promised you a rose garden she coined the term skits friend hadogenic mother that the mother's above hear why the reason they developed skits friend ya-- discuss friendia. so they began to blame the parents for autism it said because you were a refrigerator mother. and then they committed one of the most heinous sins of all, they labeled homosexuality a disorder. and explained that as having an overinvolved controlling castrating mother and a weak father. so this extension of psyche analytic theory to mental illness and to social issues was a grievous mistake and that caused psychiatry to lose a tremendous amount of respect. >> you say he was the greatest hero of psychiatry and at the same time the
12:22 am
most calamitous rogue. >> exactly. >> for all the reasons you just said. >> exactly. >> when did neuro science really begin to have an impact? >> well -- >> the idea of being able to look at the brain from a molecular level? >> you know, there's a former chairman of psychiatry at yale named morton riser who made a very telling comment in the late '60s early '70s. so he said and this was after psychopharmacology was the first introduction of medications for mental illness had occurred. and the beginning of neuroimaging, neuroscience molecular biology was beginning to have an impact. and he said you know for the last 50 years psychiatrists have been brainless. and now we will be mindless. meaning that psychiatry was going to overfocus on the brain in neuroscience neurons cells neurochemistry.
12:23 am
and not think about the mind. >> and now swinging back to some balance, do you think? >> exactly. >> and that's the point. >> exactly. so the oscillation that historically have characterized the field are now sort of arriving at a point which really embraces neuroscience to understand how the brain works and how it underpins human behavior and disturbances that are produced in mental illness. but also have retained the fact that no matter how much you know about human biology the construct of the mind and the personality is still something that has to be appreciated in order to be able to diagnose mental illness and to treat people effectively. >> what's your definition of the difference between the brain and the mind? >> the brain is the organ which gives rise-- . >> rose: the cells and the tissue. >> that's right, the mind is a mehta physical construct which describesed mental functions of the brain.
12:24 am
you know the brain-- and one of the things that i think has been really not appreciated about psychiatry psychiatry gets a bad rap for a lot of things. much of it is deserved. but it's not that people were vennal it is not that they were slackers or not smart. the brain is just so much harder an organ. dow this wonderful series with eric kandel our mutual friend and colleague which describes the brain. you know the heart is vital important in our culture big hearted, warm hearted the heart is a pump. it's a muscle for the kidney is a filter, the lung is a belloses. the gi system is a pore oust tube. the brain a hundred billion neurons, 30 trillion connections, able to perform a myriad of functions simultaneously from regulating your temperature to giving you these insights
12:25 am
and creativity to produce art and things of that sort. it is the most complicated organ in the universe. and it has taken a long time to begin to understand it and we've just scratched the surface. >> rose: what do you hope to achieve from the president's brain initiative? >> well, you know when i first heard about that and my colleagues as well we kind of growned oh we're going to have a brain initiative which is going to focus on neurotechnology and psychiatry hasn't really benefitted that much from technology in the past. but when you really look into it it is going to be tremendously beneficial for all areas of science but particularly psychiatry. the reason is there. scientific progress is only enabled by the level of technology and instrumentation available to it. galileo could not have approved sellio sen rich without a telescope pasture
12:26 am
couldn't describe microorganisms without a microscope. what we have come to understand is that even though we can do a lot of things in the brain using various basic science disciplines from genetics to molecular biology to physiology the brain when it becomes behavioral and mental functions you have to be able to monitor tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of cells and multiple neurocircuits simultaneously to understand why you perceive something you interpret the information you make a judgement and then you decide to act this way. and we simply don't have the tools to do it. so the whole thrust of the president's brain initiative is to create a new more powerful set of tools to deconstruct the brain. >> rose: you know the incident took place in south carolina about a police officer shooting a man in the back. i'm sure you saw the video, it is really disturbing video. without knowing any fact you know the man has been arrested and charged.
12:27 am
how how does that have to do with what? >> does it have to do with all kinds of emotional things? does it have to do with fear. does it have to do with race. does it have to do with influences that shaped one's capacity to react to a variety of surprises? what? >> well it's potentially anyone of a number of thins you just mentioned. >> rose: without seeing or talking to having ever interviewed the subject we're talking about. >> well the first thing is i would say it's very unlikely that it was due to mental illness. and more likely it's due to an individual who reacted to a situation and made a very bad judgement. or alternatively just somebody who is just prone to saddistic and aggressive behavior an has bad impulse control. so these are simply aspects of the broad range of human behavior that many people
12:28 am
possess and are vulnerable to. as opposed to mental ill,. because we've had many incidents i have been on your show talking before that mental illness has been the reason that has expected them to share violent act. we talked about jared loftner in arizona who was floor i hadly schizophrenic and acting at the behest of his psychotic simptons. the police officer in south carolina was not that kind of person. this was something that was due to his character and the way he reacted to the situation. >> we talked about this without having met him talked to him knowing a lot of things we do not know. but we are looking at that kind of circumstances and we all ask ourselves those questions. >> the point i would make is when you come up against these violent incidents that occur whether it's timothy mcveigh blowing up the federal building in oklahoma
12:29 am
or whether it's major hasan in frts hood or adam lanza or whether it's this pilot in the germanwings plane. >> yeah. >> these there is a method and a body of knowledge to be able to disattorney what is the motivation and the cause of it. and -- >> what is that method? >> well the method is really a deduckive method of trying to understand who the individual is. what their motives were. and to what degree they may have been related to a mental illness or some of the more you know mundane venal motivations that characterize human behavior whether it is a crime of passion, whether it's a crime of greed, whether it's a vendetta to try and take revenge. or something but these are all understandable but often times what happens in the media discourse is they get
12:30 am
lumped in together. and they get con plated with somebody's sort of pet political issue. but i believe that given adequate information we are able to really make a much more precise determination. >> what is the red line where it becomes mental illness and therefore a legally defensible act? >> well i meaned law about not guilty by reason of insanity varies from state to state. but in my definition it's when somebody is so influenced by the pathology of their illness the symptoms of their illness that they are not able to discern right from wrong or why they are doing what they are doing. famous case from your home state in north carolina an eye witness at the universities of north carolina there was a law student named wendell williamson. i hoped him write a book about this who first year law student had a psychotic episode, first onset of schizophrenia.
12:31 am
he was hospitalized treated did well. recovered symptomatic remission went home for the summer stopped taking his medicationment came back to school and relapse. nobody noticed it. and unfortunately we didn't get him back into treatment. and he walked up to franklin street, the main street in town and killed two people. why, because the voices were telling him to did it. so somebody like this and then when he was treated he had perfect insight on what he had done and how he was reacted. >> rose: he was or was not insane. >> he was at the time he did it. >> rose: right. >> but will spend the rest of his life in a mental hospital society doesn't forgive it. i think one of the most emblematic forms of mental illness that really tip i fews how our-- typifies how our society has to the been able or willing to acknowledge and deal with mental illness is ptsd. >> rose: right. >> which is now the signature wound of our military campaigns.
12:32 am
ptsd which was not named or considered a disorder. >> rose: post traumatic stress disorder. >> was named after vietnam. but ptsd has existed throughout human-- history of human warfare we called it shell-shocked we called it battle fat agency. but the military could not acknowledge this because it is anti-thetical to think that you can have psychological vulnerability in a force that's supposed to be considering itself vulnerable and attacking the enemy it wasn't until huge numbers in world war ii of the casualties of war who had to be removed from service for psychological casualties that this began to be acknowledged. but even then it didn't find its way into the diagnostic nomenclature until after vietnam. and we still haven't-- we still haven't really made an all out push to understand
12:33 am
the underlying cause of it. and develop treatments. so what i would say is that in the late 1970s we were faced with a crisis of a new illness aids. we didn't know what was causing it. but there was such a strong advocacy to compel the government to invest resources to treat it that within six years we had identified the cause. and within another six years treatments were developed that now make this a chronic illness. the same all-out push should be done for ptsd. >> rose: and depression as well or just ptsd. >> well ptsd is the consequence of these traumatic experiences that the military are going through. if individuals have depression or any other type of mental disorder in the context of that stles this will also be able to be studied and treated in this context. but the question is, well how do you take somebody who is ostensibly normal
12:34 am
behaving normally and then because of an ied exploding because of a fire fight they all of a sudden become symptomatic and permanently changed. we should be able to determine why that happens and to stop it. >> rose: that book is called shrinks, the untold story of sky trieste jeffrey lieberman, thank you. >> thank you charlie. >> back in a moment, stay with us. candace bergen is here. she first began performing as a child on her ventriloquist father edward bergen's radio program alongside the famous puppet charlie mccarthy. her credits as an actress include carnal knowledge and starting over for which she won an oscar nomination shell. is perhaps best known for her television role as the tough and sassy journalist murphy brown. >> frank i want to ask you something. >> what? >> it's a fair. >> so ask me. >> it's a big favor.
12:35 am
awe, come on murphy you want to borrow my junior walker album again i don't know -- >> i want you to father my child. >> excuse me. >> i want to have a baby frank. i need a father. i think it could work. >> this is a joke right? >> i know what you're thinking. it's a little unorthodox -- >> you want to have sex with me, right murphy s that what you are saying. you want to have sex with me? oh my gosh! oh my god! >> frank please i don't want to have sex with you. i'm talking about fertilizing an egg. we don't even have to be in the same room. >> oh this is too weird. >> rose: still funny isn't it? >> yes t is. it is. it was a good show. >> rose: her new memoir is called a fine romance about three things. your daughter. >> yes, well it's primarily about my love of my daughter
12:36 am
and my love of her late father louis mall and the luck of finding a relationship after his death which is with my current husband marshal rose. >> rose: exactly. and a friend of mine and what a lucky man he is. we'll talk more about that in a minute. but between the time that you wrote the first part of your memoir, back talking about your father and all that, and this how many years? >> 30. >> rose: 30? why did you it take you so long? >> well well first of all i did not want to write about pie late husband's illness and his death because-- an even now it was painful to write about it and people sort of asked me. they said you know don't you think it's timement and i didn't have much else to do, frankly. so but i managed to put it off, i was four years late turn it in? >> four years. >> yeah.
12:37 am
>> rose: you dedicate it to bunny which is the name that you call enclosey-- chloe an which he calls you collect? >> yeah we call each other bunny for obtuse reasons. that is what we do. >> rose: what do you learn from writing this kind of memoir? >> you learn to take responsibility for many bad choices. you learn that you just do the best you can at the time. you and you reexperience wonderful moments in your life. and give thanks for those i think. i don't know that i have learned any mottoes that i could pass on. but i think it's in almost every way a valuable experience. that i know aa tells their members to write inventories self-inventories. and i think it's just very
12:38 am
helpful to go back on your past and kind of excavate it. and see what brought you to this point in your life. >> but people always say you know i would love to have known what i know now. however i had to go through what i went through to know what i know now. >> yeah. i mean i wish i had sidestepped many events of my life. but they all you know they all brought me here which is a very nice place. >> rose: it's a nice place. why is it a nice place? >> well i have had such a rich life. and i have a daughter who is just a stellar kid by any standard. and it's thrilling to watch her take her place in life. and i have a man who just loves me inexplicably. and who is very demon strattive and very much a present partner.
12:39 am
>> rose: when you had to go down something hated to see you go. it was painful for him after you got married. >> yeah whenstance i did a broadway show it was like be home when-- so i would not go out afterwards. because he-- he likes, he likes-- . >> rose: you. he likes you. >> he likes traditional marriages is what he likes. >> rose: and you? >> and me, i am-- i didn't get married until i was 34 so i obviously have great capacity for being alone. but, which is the only thing i miss in a marriage is alone time. >> rose: it's not lonely it's being alone. very different things. >> yeah yeah. >> rose: why did you-- you when you met louis t wasn't like instant this is the man for me. >> no. >> rose: diane von furstenberg set up a luncheon, a picnic in her house in connecticut. >> she had a big lovely picnic at her house. and i was the guest of mike
12:40 am
nichols and ann a bell nichols at the time and met louis and i remember we were sitting on the grass. and we were introducing ourselves. and louis said i'm louis mall. and mike went are you? because he was a big fan of louis's work as a director. but no we-- it took us-- it took us until he called me for lunch. and then we had lunch for four hours. >> rose: at the russian tea room. >> that's right. >> rose: there was another din tear in los angeles. >> yes, where we sat next to each other we didn't say a word. we were both so intensely self-conscious. that we didn't speak. >> rose: why was he the right man for you? >> you know he-- he was a brilliant man. he was incredibly talented. he had bottomless curiosity. and he just-- i would be sitting next to him at night and think i'm with one of the most fascinating men in the world. and we-- and when you get past a certain age you sort
12:41 am
of have a sense when you landed where you are supposed to stay. >> now had you decided you wanted a child before that? >> no. i was very ambivalent about having a child. because i was a creature of my time which was this them nist-- feminist movement and it was it was sort of turbulent at the time for women. and many women were missing the moment that they could have children. and so i suddenly thought oh and -- >> you thought what? >> i thought i might have missed it. >> so you said let's get on with it. >> yeah. >> but that was after you were married? >> yes t was five years after we were married. i don't know why i even thought i could get breg nant. i was almost turned to dust. >> rose: you what? >> i mean i was older to think to be confident about getting pregnant. >> rose: a lot of people that old get pregnant. >> and as it turns out i did very easily. >> rose: then he had a
12:42 am
painful illness. >> yes. >> rose: you sort of had to take care of him in your house for the last year of his life. >> yeah. he had illnesses which morphed into other illnesses and morphed into illnesses by endless streams of letters, you know. i don't even remember the letters offhand. but as the illness eventually ended up it attacked the base of his brain. and so he lost his ability to walk. he lost his ability to speak. he gave up speaking because i think he found it so demeaning to try to speak. and he could move his right hand. and he would sort of communicate with his hand. but it was-- it was just it's horrible to be with someone that you love and not be able to help them when they're as sick as that. and my daughter was nine years old at the time. and everyone just stepped up to the plate.
12:43 am
but it is it takes a lot out of anyone surrounding that. >> rose: did you think you would marry again? >> i didn't even think i would date again. in three years afterwards i had had one dinner. and i was home by 9:00 so i was not-- rpz did you want to? >> well i just thought it was sort of hopeless. i mean. >> rose: candace bergen it's hopeless. >> but you know one gets to a certain age and things change. >> rose: when will i get to that age? >> well you're the exception charlie. >> rose: so and then comes marshal and don hewitt sets up that dinner. and he picks you up to take you to a dinner. >> yes. a dinner that i didn't find out until our wedding dinner that it was all a settup. so yes it was to introduce me to marshal. and i thought it was just a dinner. >> rose: did you just
12:44 am
thought this is a neat guy. >> well he just don called two days before don hewitt who created "60 minutes," said a man is going to pick you up to take you-- i said fine. and then i came downstairs and there was this great looking man with just wonderful eyes and i just thought i trust this guy immediately. >> rose: did you really? >> yeah. >> rose: and he loved you so much that -- >> not then. but-- . >> rose: i bet he did. he just didn't tell you. he probably did. but i know all these people so i knew him and his wife we kid about being brothers you know or cousins or something. and he had had a wonderful marriage. >> uh-huh. >> rose: you had had a wonderful marriage. >> uh-huh. >> rose: you both had lost your spouse. >> uh-huh. >> rose: because of -- >> within the same time frame. it's a big event to have in common when you meet someone. >> rose: because you have to come to terms with it. >> yes. and you know to a degree what the other has gone through.
12:45 am
and how-- how debilitating it is for the family. >> rose: so those are the three loves chloe marshal and louis. did louis ever want to put you in a movie? >> no. >> rose: he never wanted to work with you. >> no he didn't. and he said that and i don't think i would have been up to it. but he said you know to not be able to get away from your cast at the end of the day is just asking too much of a director. you know he would just like to leave the set and go home. you hate them. >> rose: but he liked actors. >> he loved actors. he loved actors but rrz i want to talk about the life. because the interesting thing about growing up and we've talked about that before, you have talked about that before you wrote about that before just for people without didn't see that interview all those years ago just tell us one more time about the relationship with charlie mccarthy.
12:46 am
>> well my father was a ventriloquist on radio and hugely popular and created the dumby named charlie mccarthy that became an icon in america during the pos and 40s. charlie mccarthy clocks and i mean-- just all kinds of memorabilia that were for sale. and he-- and i was from-- from the second i was born always referred to charlie mccarthy's sister and charmie was kept in our house. and he had his own room that was referred to as charlie's room which was next to mine. and. >> rose: so the question is what this did to you? >> well i think i think it made me ideal material for an actor. because i was always waiting for someone to-- my father would sit me on one knee and charlie on the other when i was five or six in our breakfast room. and he, when he squeezed my
12:47 am
neck it was the signal for me to move my mouth. and we have charmie and i yeah talking to each other across him. and he would supply the dialogue. so i was a quiet child. >> rose: you would move your mouth and his words would come out. >> yeah. and when he didn't supply the words i was just quiet. >> rose: but he was reality in hollywood. >> yeah. >> rose: royalty. >> yeah. >> rose: had it all. >> yes, he did. >> rose: the life that you lived, his wife was a model your mother was a model. >> my mother was very beautiful. she was a model. she sang very well. she was you know-- . >> rose: so there is nothing wrong with this life. >> no. but did i say there was? >> rose: no. >> because i don't remember. >> rose: you were getting to the point, you have really strong feelings and thoughts about being beautiful. i mean you everybody knew how beautiful you were. i mean people wanted you in their movies before you were even good. >> earnings, it was-- hundreds of years before i knew what i was doing really. i was just sort of just tell me where you want me to stand. >> rose: i remember that
12:48 am
i'm old enough to know. where everybody you were just we thought she's going to be great. >> but she wasn't. >> rose: i know she wasn't. but she was beautiful. >> but that was not enough. >> rose: i know. and i said that to you too didn't he. he said you can't depend on beauty because that is going to away at least part of it. >> yes, i was forewarned by my father when i was nine or ten i remember. we were in the car driving. and he said you know candy it's the beautiful women who commit suicide. he said it's the beautiful women who when they lose their looks they struggle and they have nothing to fall back on and nothing to rely on but their looks. and then they get in trouble. he said you must always develop your outside interests. you must always follow your,. >> rose: yours was photography. >> photography and writing sort of a kind of half ass journalism. >> rose: so when you started making movies did you think i'm not very good and i-- i better get really good because i really love this? >> no.
12:49 am
i-- . >> rose: you just thought this was fun. >> i just kind of tuned out which is what you saw basically. a person who was just kind of taking up space on the stage. and so and for some reason i kept doing it. and-- . >> rose: we always thought you know she's not only beautiful but she's smart. she's just-- you had something there that people said she's very special. >> i don't-- . >> rose: did you feel special? >> i feel special now. but i didn't then no. i had a lot invested because of what my father told me. in not being beautiful. and not paying attention to my looks. so i was remarkably unvein about my looks and never-- . >> rose: were you unvein about early acting? >> well i was stupid about early acting because i didn't know what i was doing. and i underestimated the difficulty and the
12:50 am
complexity of the job. and i-- and also deprived myself of the joy of the work. >> rose: when did it-- was it easy for you? i mean were you just simply gliding through life and saying -- >> no it was never easy. >> rose: it wasn't. >> it was never easy. but i was just dancing as fast as i could. >> rose: that's it? >> yeah. as were many of us in our youth. >> rose: i know. >> not you. >> rose: dancing as fast as we could. like paddling as fast ass you could to stay above water. >> i'm fine. >> rose: did you need help? i mean is there any blemishes here? are there blemishes here? are there faults are there things that you said oh my god i was so crazy. i was so wild. >> i was very wild. >> rose: i know you were. i know i know. >> you have to get up early
12:51 am
in the morning. yes i was-- i was fairly wild. >> rose: i know. what was that about? just fun? >> oh, i think it was acting out to get my father's attention back. i mean that is what my guess is, you would think i would know by now but just like maybe if i do this and i don't and i disappear for a couple of-- i was just doing everything to say hey and i think i was always in some perverse way courting my father's approval. >> rose: really? >> yeah that's not unusual. >> rose: no i know. no it's not unusual at all. >> which i never really felt that i got. >> rose: to the end you never felt you got it. >> no and i was endlessly a provacateur with him. i was given a forum of the press when i was 19. and i acted out my adolescence in newspapers and magazines and my parents
12:52 am
were like stop it! the reagans are our oldest friends. i was just-- taking pot shots at anyone. it was -- >> yes. >> yeah. but that was what i mean help me understand more what that was. >> i think i-- i think-- . >> rose: one part is about getting, you want your father to take notice. you want your father to -- >> i think also being beautiful slows down yourself discovery process by-- . >> rose: because life is easy. >> because you are responded to on a level that has nothing to do with who you are trying to find. people were responding to my looks in a way that mattered that made no sense to me. it was just all i felt was that something about me mattered to much to people. and it want who i was.
12:53 am
because i had no idea who that was yet. but it just made too much difference. >> rose: when did you find yourself? >> oh probably in my pos yeah. i mean i moved back to new york. and that's always-- . >> rose: the hollywood period was over. >> yeah yeah. >> rose: and what did murphy brown mean to you because you were one of the highest paid. you got all these emmy nominations. the show was spectacular. >> emmy nominations charlie hello. >> rose: i know, i know. >> five. >> rose: i know five emmies. >> yes. murphy was the dream job. murphy was-- . >> rose: was it you? >> it was in fact it was the heart of me. but the part of me that only the people i was closest to saw. and murphy contributed i mean just gave me a new kind
12:54 am
of confidence. a new-- i was swaggering during that time. i mean-- and it was such a great job. we had such a good time. it was a lot of work. >> rose: it was great. >> yeah it was great the writing was just e senseal. >> rose: its whole thing was great. >> you knew you were good. you knew it was good. >> yeah. >> rose: it fit you you fit it. >> yeah, it was-- and who would have thought. because it was like you've cast who to play comedy? it's like but i was just loved playing her for ten years. yes it went on way too long. >> rose: did it make you crazy when it was over. >> no because frankly we were beating a dead horse by that time. >> rose: do you want to act? >> i-- . >> rose: do you really want to act? >> i don't want to act for long periods of time. because i want to accommodate my marriage. but i loved working with alan alda. >> rose: do you love broadway. >> i love broadway because i love how people do it for
12:55 am
the work and not the money and not their double wide trailers and not all of the bull. >> rose: yeah. >> and you know they are just there because they love the words they love the craft. and --. >> rose: thank you. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: i love you. >> you too. >> rose: i do. i do. the book called a fine romance-- fine romance candace bergen. her original memoir was called knock wood, thank you for joining us. see you next time. >> for more about there program and early episodes visit us on-line at pbs.org an charlie rose.com.
12:56 am
captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
12:57 am
12:58 am
12:59 am
1:00 am
this is "nightly busines report" with sue herera. wheeling and dealing. two twdeals, one done and the other possibly totaling a staggering $100 billion. off and running. alcoa kicks off earnings season. the expectations and the realities of this always crucial time period for companies and for investors. and health rewards. how one insurance company is trying to revive sales and get people into better shape. all that and much more tonight for wednesday, april 8th. good evening everybody. i'm bill griffeth in for tyler mathisen. sue herera is also off tonight. so it's just you and me tonight. let's get to it shall we? it was a day of