>> rose: welcome to the program. tonight the controversy about hillary clinton's e-mails and we talk to ann garon, mark halperin and john hileman. >> not the first thing anyone has done, it has bad judge. , the exact line people want to go after her on, it shows she was supported by people who again helped her engage in something she shouldn't have done. an she has been in setting it up, she has just been too cavalier about it because she never from her experience in little rock, her experience in the white house, she never wants to admit weakness, error or a failure to exer good judgement because she knows quite rightly she will be attacked more and more. the more she reveals and shows weakness, she will be attacked more and more. this is going to be a problem for her for the fore seeable future. >> rose: we continue with julian barnes, his new novel is

called the noise of time, a novel. >> i'm telling the story of the collision of art and power am and without wins and who loses. who wins in the short term. how the artist fights back. and also i hope by the time you get to the end of it, who wins in the long-term because in the long-term, the artist as long as he hasn't been kill, wins out. i we remember the name of mozart. we don't remember who the archduke of whatever was. >> we conclude this evening with jeses ka lange starring on broadway in long day's journey into night. >> for me, at this point, in my life, it's the greatest part i could possibly play. i mean i think it's one of the best roles in american drama. and it is-- what it does is it offers you like everything as an actor you want to do. it is physical, it's emotional,

it's-- you know, i mean it just covers everything from a to z. >> clinton's e-mails, julian barnes and jessica lange when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. >> 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: we begin this evening with politics. the inspector general criticized hillary clinton's e-mail practices in a report delivered today. their view said clinton violated government policies in using a

private account for official business. the fbi's own investigation into the matter is ongoing. the new comes as clinton faces renewed personal attacks from donald trump and a protect-- protracted primary fight with bernie sanders. joining me ann garon, political correspondent for "the washington post." in mark mark halperin and john helle man of bloomberg politics, the hosts of with all due respect and of them along with ann on this program. let me begin with you. exangtly, is this-- what is the report say and how damaging is it for hillary clinton? >> well, the report says that she violated state department e-mail practices in a couple of regards. it says she failed to get approval for this system, private e-mail system ahead of time. and that that approval would not have been granted had the state department officials in charge known all of its ramifications

because of security concerns. it also says that state department sort of sloppy handling of e-mail dated back to previous secretaries of state and that is something that the clinton campaign is relying on in its defense, but it makes clear throughout an 83 page report, and i think scathing is not too harsh a term to apply here. scathing 83 page report that hillary clinton was by far the worst offender on those sloppy practices. and it also says she refused to sit for an interview. >> rose: refused to sit for an interview through the inspector general of the state department. >> correct, yeah. >> rose: and so did her aides? >> yes. exactly. that she did not, other secretaries of state either sat for an interview or cooperated. and she did not. you also asked how damaging this

is. this is quite damaging. in that one of her chief defenses on this whole e-mail thing is that when all was said and done, it would be proved she has said, that she never willfully did anything wrong and that she wasn't trying to hide or avoid anything. this report strongly suggests that the system she set up was set up deliberately, if not to go around state department rules, then to certainly accommodate her in a request that wouldn't have been granted otherwise. >> rose: mark, how damaging? >> well, a lot of what this does is confirm what we knew. but now under the imprint of the inspector general, a thing she did that were clearly not in the public interest. they were clearly wrong, selfish, i think, sloppy. and that the heart of that is using private e-mail, a personal server to conduct official government business where the record-keeping was lax.

i think it's a political matter. there are a couple of things in here that are potentially quite damaging. >> rose: quite damaging. >> yeah, i think the failure to cooperate is something donald trump will make a big deal of. and rightfully so. if their explanation is the secretary didn't cooperate and her top aides didn't because they are under potential criminal investigation, i would be willing to accept that as a matter of policy, that is a pretty standard thing. they need to, plain why they didn't cooperate. the second thing is, there are suggestions in the report as ann suggested that she didn't-- she didn't-- she wasn't forth coming about getting approval for. this if she wanted the convenience of using personal e-mail and a private server, the department should have signed off on it as a legal the matter, as a technology matter, and steps should have been taken to make sure that system wasn't hacked. there is a report, in the report there is an account of the server being under assault by somebody. and them saying don't send her any sensitive material right now. you cannot as secretary of state, get a private account do all your official business that way, and not have the full legal

and technological support of the department. you just can't. age i think quite rightfully her critics including donald trump and republicans will say this was cavalier. is it the worst thing ever? you know? is she a good person who did a bad thing, you know. >> rose: to quote james car vell. >> about her husband, this is not the worst thing ever done but it's really bad. and the report, ann is right, scailting is not too har be a word. it is an indictment of how she handled this and her aides. >> rose: and it plays into a hands of her. >> her opponent calls her crooked hillary. this is not an appropriate thing to do she said that but this report lays out how inappropriate from a security matter, from a government records matter. and the people around her should not have allowed her to do it. >> rose: i'm interested in the fact that they say she dispt ask for permission because she knew it would be denied. >> they certainly suggest that. one of the things, if you go back and think about the arc of this story now which is more than a year old, one of the things that the clinton people

and secretary clinton herself at the outset said was this is not unusual. there are many cabinet secretaries who have had personal e-mail accounts. that was always bogus. i mean it was always the case that yes, there have have been other cabinet secretaries with personal e-mail addresses who maintained personal e-mails but none have done what she had done. which was to set up a server, a home server and direct all of her official business to run through that serve are. that was the unprecedented thing. the thing that this report does, and we asserted that, many of us did at the time, would you challenge them on this, say wait, this is not bay personal e-mail account, this is about a whole system home brewed offline. they would say, this now has-- this is now like an official ruling of the state department that says yes, this was actually unprecedented and was outside the bounds of what we would consider proper behavior, broke our rules, broke the administration's rules. and was undertaken in a way that seems to have been designed to not have people know about it in the sense that people who would

challenge her, and so there is a thing in the report that talks about two members of the state department staff raising the question that this might be a problem. and them being told by people within the department that this has been submitted for review and has been approved. so that, there is a story there. >> yes, they were told don't worry about your concerns, this has been submitted for review and approved so please you folks were worried about this back then, back away. there is a story to be told there. there will be more report on this, i imagine, as we try to figure out what the details are. but that suggests that at least internally those who raise concerns with t of whom there were according to this report some, repr lied to because the report concludes there was no-- it was not submitted for review and was not approved so that raises interesting questions about not just about the setting up of the server itself but the efforts to conceal it from those or pretend as though it were approved for those who had concerns about it that turned out to be justified. >> rose: do we assume that this system, this server that she had in her house, could

easily have been compromised and might have? >> well, i think there have been considerations or concerns from the start that adequate security considerations either weren't taken or couldn't be verified after the fact to have been taken with that system. because as john and mark point out t was set up completely separately and in parallel to the state department systems that come with those-- with all of that security, architecture, all that stuff that goes around it the fact that she was conducting regular business, eck cluesively on a system that wasn't set up by the state department under its rules was suspect from the start. that is what the fbi investigation is about. this was the state department inspector general which is looking at procedures. the fbi is looking at were government secrets compromised. so there were always these two

big shoes to drop in the whole e-mail issue before the presumably both of them before the election. and maybe both of them before the democratic convention in july. now we have one, the other is still to come. >> rose: i put at the center of the table this idea. we are looking for in a president judgement. and this reflects on judgement. >> from the start, hillary clinton has said, you know, i never-- i never did anything wrong. i never meant to do anything wrong. her explanation of what actually happened has changed a bit over time. but that, you know, i never did anything wrong, i never knowingly sent classified nrvetion and so forth, has not changed. i think what has changed and what will look to see whether she makes, you know, further changes from here, is she is always claimed this was allowed. i didn't do anything that, you

know, the state department wasn't letting me do. this says the state department wouldn't have let you do it if they had known about it. and that does speak to judgement. and i expect in some ways she will have to address that. >> it speaks to judgement. but again, i've been pretty clear on this program and previousably. i think what she did was really irresponsible but let's put in the context as we val yait her as a presidential candidate of other judgements she has made. this is not the biggest decision she ever made. it's not-- probably not going to urn out to be criminal in anyway. let's just wait and see what we learn overall about the facts here. >> rose: if the facts are that she did not seek permission because she knew it would be turned down, isn't that that it was to avoid. >> one of the working theories has always been that she knew that doing it through the ordinary means, setting up a system through ordinary means, having a regular state department e-mail address would

subject her to open records law and for somebody who has been through as many congressional investigations, outside lawsuits and media inquiries as she, the theory goes, she was saying from the start let's design a system that will shield me from that. or that her aids were doing the same. we don't know that to be true at this point. but that has been one of the theories from the start. and that appears to be what the state department inspector general was looking at as at least one possibility here. >> the thing about the politics of this, mark eluded to it earlier. you know, you have donald trump who is now chrisened hillary clinton crooked hillary. there is obviously a huge amount as with most things trump of embroidery and exaggeration, hibber boal in that, right. but what many people would say who are not partisan would say that this is another example of a pattern that has been true of

both clintons for a long time which is that they believe they can and often do play by their own rules. that the standard rules, the standard procedures now apply to them because they believe they are virtious and maybe even uniquely virtious. that they are allowed to cut corners here and there. that those normal rules don't apply to us. that is not crooked hillary but those two things rhyme. those two critiques. >> and that may be a part of some of the mistrust of her. >> that's what i mean. i think what trump-- it makes this argument in an exaggerated hyperbolic way. even for people who don't hate hillary clinton and are not partisan, they hear crooked hillary and there is something there that echoes which is they play by their own rules. which is again not crooked. in this case i don't think it is crooked and i don't anyone has shown that she has broken a law. i doubt highly that there is a criminal charge that comes out on this against her. but it does echo, right, they play by their own rules. crooked hillary. as a political matter, that is a powerful argument in a narrative

and a framing device that trump is going to adopt. >> rose: is there a way she could have addressed this before hand to try to lessen the impact. >> i think certainly they have it throughout this whole e-mail issue, reacted after the fact and not seemed at least from my perspective to try to get out in front of it preem tiffly. she hasn't, you know, done big interviews ahead of expected revelations. and that sort of thing. so maybe they could have done some of that. maybe they didn't know exactly what the scope of this ig report would be. until quite recently. certainly they wouldn't have-- they would have gotten a copy before its public release which is supposed to be tomorrow. the news organizations got it today. that says to me that the clinton campaign would have had it for a couple of days ahead of now. she is in california. campaigning, doing a regular

sort of course of business, political business this week. and the campaign hasn't so far said or shown that they expect to deef yait from that path. >> rose: she's already. >> she already admitted it was a mistake. she shouldn't have done it. >> rose: shunts have set up a private server. >> at the time she said it did a mistake because i have gotten in trouble for it she is not fully ever owned up to the national security implications or the government accessing government information. >> rose: and now full disclosure with respect to. >> i don't think she-- i don't think there is anything else she has to-- you say what could they have done. i don't think there is much else in here she would have been inclined to admit to i think they are hoping to say everybody does t the government had a bad recordkeeping and system. let's move on and talk about how we can reform government recordkeeping. it is possible, if the fbi investigation doesn't go anywhere and the thread john mentioned about the question of more junior people questioning, it, if that doesn't go any where i'm not sure she suffers substantially more damage

long-term and therefore they don't need to react any more just on pure politics. >> rose: but it always is true, you all know this better than i do, is that if the questions are raised go to the heart of your fragility, that's the worst thing that could possibly happen. >> and this does. it does. >> part of the narrative here, is people around her who aid and abet, their attitude of we can do things differently. because i can tell you, if any of the three, four of us were state department aide and the secretary of state i'm going to use a private e-mail system for my government e-mail and i'm folt going to do careful recordkeeping and take the records with me after i leave the office, all four of us would have said no. >> whoa. >> rose. >> we need counsel to sign off on that the it people to explain-- anybody, we know. >> rose: i know you have to go, but would you agree with that point? >> well, yeah. i mean clearly the after the fact it looks like she got bad advice here. what i think is still yet to be known is whether that was

because of aides around her wanted it to come out a certain way or she wanted it to come out a certain way. or maybe there's some fundamental misunderstanding of what she was supposed to have done at the outset at the state department. i think some of those questions may be answered in the fbi inquirery. it will depend on how much of that becomes public. i also want to make one quick point on the trust worthiness thing. remember that when the erck mail thing first blew up more than a year ago, done all trump wasn't yet a for sure political force on the republican side. and this issue still damaged and affected her trust worthiness rating. so this has been a problem and a question of trustworthiness for her from the start. absent donald trump. >> rose: thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> rose: a couple of questions before you guys have to go. when-- what do you expect her to say now?

here's what nick murel said. while political opponents of hillary clinton are sure to misrepresent this report for their own partisan purposes, you would expect that, in reality, the inspector general's document showed just how consistent her e-mail practices were with those of other secretary and senior officials at the state department who also used personal e-mail. is that true? >> secretary powell did. there are three differences. at least three differences with what he did. one is it was a different age. and the reliance on e-mail was nothing like what it was. in that age or by him. he was not a big person in terms of e-mail and compared. second is, as john said before, it was a private server t was not, i believe secretary powell used aol. that is just a different beast for all the obvious reasons. and the third thing-- . >> rose: did he use it for official business. >> he did and i don't believe he had any-- just like her, i done think he used any government e-mails. and the third thing is she is running for president, you know. >> rose: john. >> yeah, yeah, i mean i think

they will try to basically what the statement is and what they will say is basically that and they will try to just push through and sort of make the points that mark said before. the ig report has a lot of language about how screwed up the state department's recordkeeping systems were. they will seize on the things that are favorable to them in the report. they will ignore and downplay the things that are not favorable to them in the report and move forward. again, i think it is the case that because the fbi thing is going to be-- i mean she is likely to go and be interviewed by the fbi. when that happens, again,-- . >> rose: she said she would do that. >> she said she has been willing to. she offered to do it. they are almost certain to take her up on it. unless it is done show under the cloak of pure secretary resee, that will be a circus when she actually goes to the fbi building and sits with them. that is the main event still here. and that is what their eyes on the prize. their eye politically on the prize is if there are no criminal charge, if she is not indicted and no criminal charges surrounding this, they will be able to stand up and say this is all just-- this is all just

government e-mail gibberish. don't worry about this. if they are trying to stay focused on that, but to add this one little thing, which is you know, hillary clinton has this big task ahead of her between now and the convention or through the convention which is to union fie the democratic party. we have seen donald trump doing an extraordinarily surprisingly staryging job of uniting a supposedly fractured party behind him. over the last couple of weeks. everyone is falling in line behind donald trump. she is not the head of a unified party right now. there are still millions of sanders voters out there that need to be brought into her fold. a lot of those sanders voters are suspicious of her. they don't trust her. they shi she is corrupt just like donald trump does. and the job she faces in terms of getting those people into her tebt and getting them thukically behind her is complicated not just by bernie sanders staying in the race but by issues like. this because for a lot of millenial voters who think she is corrupt and senator sanders suggest add long the way that she might be corrupt, they hear this too. they live in this world where

this will be a big news story over the next couple of months. it doesn't help her with that cause any more than it doesn't helper her with the cause of taking on trump. >> itives go the trump the able to talk about this with the backing of barack obama's inspector general state department inspector general. and again, i just have got to be put in proportion. it's not the worst thing anybody has done. but it showed bad judge. it fits with the exact line people want to go after her on it shows she was supported by people who, again, helped her engage in something she shouldn't have done. and she has been in both sitting it up, too cavalier about it because she never from her experience in little rock, or experience in the white house, she never wants to admit weakness. she never wants to admit error or a failure to exercise good judgement because she knows quite rightly she will be attacked more and more. the more she ree reveals or shows weakness, she will be attacked more and more. this will be a problem for her for the fore seeable future. >> rose: it say great honor to you have both here. thank you. back in a moment, julian barnes

the great english novelist joins us, stay with us. >> julian barnes is here, "the new york times" said of his writing, if there is a single theme running throughout barnes work it is the elusiveness of truth. the subjectivity of memory, the relativity of all knowledge. he was as you know awarded the man booker prize for 2011 forth book sense of an ending. lis new novel is called the noise of time it is a fictionalized account of composer-- life under stalin. i'm pleased to have julian barns at this table again. welcome. >> thank you. >> great to see you. first of all let's talk about serious stuff here. >> sure. >> rose: you grew up in leicester. >> i did. >> rose: what does it mean to you? >> it is incredible. my football clubk socks soccer as you call it, after 55 years of support from me and never having won anything, finally won the premiership.

this is, you know, it's not even david and gol eyate. it's a tiny little-- it's bigger than that. it has very sort of comic side bars to it i mean accident emergency had twice as many admissions as in a normal week after they won the premiership. so a lot of festivity has been going on in leicester. it's been famous for two things this year. the first is that the bones of king richard 3 were discovered underneath a municipal car park. >> rose: that was big. >> and the second thing is that leicester city won the premiership. now a very enterprising pub-- publisher in britan there will obviously be lots of books about this great sporting event, has written the story from the point of view of richard iii in shake speersian english tells the story of ye foxes beating ye manchester united. it is hilarious. >> rose: this say direct quote from you. it runs on a bit but i will till.

talking to yourself. i haven't always been a leicester city supporter. there was a time before i could read or new how to tune the bake-light wireless to the voice of raymond glen denning on sports report. but from the moment i became sportingly sentiments, say age five or six, have i been as they don't much say then, a fox. so six and a half decades and counting. i i did nishally support a second time, party thinksel from the grittier end of glasgow-- glass could you but that was because my infant mind was patrick, thinksel and my middle name is patrick. i vent allly stopped shorting them such is the strange-- of fan dom. when i was about 40, i still instinctively check the results in my sunday newspaper. but apart from this dal yans, i have been entirely monday og news-- man og mus. >> yes, i think that's part of most fans lives.

you know, you get inducted into supporting a team at a very young age. and i certainly don't understand people who say oh, i am supporting x this season but i'm thinking of supporting y the next season. it's like people who only want to support winners. i mean i think the most important thing about being a fan is the suffering. and the loss. and the pain. i always say about supporting leicester city, it makes you-- it's a good way for preparing to support england bah thes don't off he win. >> that is what they say about the cubs in baseball. other people have written about that, they came close last year and may do it this way. you know the story of john mick elwait, the edit err of bloomberg here. >> tell me. >> he has for like 30 years laid down a big bet, not so big, on leicester city. 30 years every time he bet whatever. 20 pounds. >> yes, yes. >> and this year, he didn't.

and if he had, it would have returned like $100,000. >> it was 5,000 to one were the odds. and it is very interesting. because quite a few people took that bet. they put 10 pounds or something. and with about six weeks to go, when the team was having a bit of a wobble, the book makers came in and they said okay, if they were to win it, you get $10,000 pounds, how about 4,000 pounds now. and it is very tempting. a lot of people took that. a lot of people accepted the money. >> so they don't get the big payoff. >> some people stuck it out to the end and got the big payout. >> the noils of time-- a man who probably suffered more. >> probably more than any other composer in the history of western art. did he suffer and endure the weekly, monthly, year-long, lifelong presence of power in his life, telling him what to do. telling him whatnot to do. >> so much of it. and to his deep hurt, you tell

the story of sleeping by the elevator elevator. >> not sleeping. >> standing by the elevator. >> standing by the elevator. >> that's right. and fear that the secret police would come for him and he didn't want his family to know. >> that's right. he had a wife and a tiny girl baby at the time. and it wasn't that he didn't want them to know. they would certainly know he had been taken away but he didn't want the door broking endown. the nkdb, the predecessor of the kgb intoed apartment. they might have taken his daughter away. because political sinners often had their children re-educated, taken away, given a false name, put in a public orphanage. and then he had this terror that, you know, his daughter might grow up not knowing that her father had ever exoalsed a note of music. he might have been killed. he might have been sent to a labor camp. as it was, members of his family, members of his wife's family, associates and friends were taken away at different points.

he was lucky to survive. >> rose: what story are you telling here? >> i'm telling a story of a collision of art and power. and who wins and who loses, who wins in the short term, how the artist fights back. and also i hope by the time you get to the end of it, who wins in the long-term. because in the long-term, the artist, as long as he hasn't been killed, wins out. i mean we remember the name of mozart. we don't remember who the archduke of whatever was at the time. and all those patrons of beethoven, we just. >> so what is the level of the humanity yaition of. >> to t comes in different ways. it comes in different forms. and it's a very, very-- i think what we have to remember is that under the third union, all art was controlled to the tinniest degree by the state. so if you were a composer you

couldn't even buy man you script paper to put your notes on unless you remember the union of composer. when you had put those notes on the man you script paper, your music then had to be vetted by a committee of musical bureaucrats. if it didn't pass, you didn't get paid. soo there was a daily pettedy interference with what you wrote. and then, of course, when the hire echelons got interested, anything could happen to you. in his first-- lady mcbeth was a world hit in 1935, it was premiered at the met, had its american premier here t played in cleveland, all over south america. and as a result, stalin who thought he knew about it, got interested, went to see it. and from that point, his life changed and he was always some what in danger until stalin died. after that he was safer. >> rose: after stalin heard

the music he allowed him to travel. >> within the soviet union. but the thing was, that he was the poster boy of soviet music. his first symphony came out when he was 19. and it was again it was premiered all around the world. and so they knew they had talent there. but you know, talent couldn't just be let to go it's own way, it had to be directed. so-- if properly dected, could write real soviet music. though they certainly didn't think that he should write operas. because that is sort of snobby stuff. they thought he should write film music. and he did write a lot of film music. >> rose: did things change when crush ef came to power. >> yeah, thins changed. you weren't likely to get killed and people started coming back from the labor camps. that is certainly true. to use the phrase, power became

vegetarian. which is a wonderful word, rather than. >> power became vegetarian. they instead of being like man-eating tigers, yes. and but there was still different sorts of pressure. they still wanted to corral you into their way of thinking. and also they wanted you to represent them. >> rose: well, did he have to denounce straf insky. >> did he denounce stravinsky. you were given speeches to reed and either you looked at them before or you didn't. and in his case, he-- if he got this very long speech to read, and he just thought well, you know, i will read the first page and i will sit down. he read the first page and sat down. the american translator read the english version and he sort of idly followed it. and then he found himself denouncing himself, denouncing prokoviev and stavinsky and felt that was one of the moments of

greatest humiliation. >> one was in exile in unioned states and-- he always revered him. and here he was-- . >> rose: having to. >> having to denounce him. >> rose: when coming to this, did you decide i want to explore the collision of power and art or did you say i want to look at shaktacovich life and see what it means. >> well, both. the novel picks up where the buyographer and historian has to stop. where the known facts stop. and we without showing the joy, if we could, take you further in to the person to their heart and their memory. that's what we do that's our job. >> did you feel any pressure after the man booker prize to produce something that would be considered as good or better? >> no. i didn't. i was lucky enough to win the man booker prize when i was in

my 60st. i think had i won it in my 30st, i might-- it might have put more pressure on me. but have i written 20 books, 12 novels. i know what i am. i know what i do. >> rose: and you know your audience. >> well, i do and i don't. it's nice that different books find different readers. and some books work in some places and other books work in other places. it's not-- i tend not to write the same sort of book, you know. though it shares themes of, as you said, of sort of memory and truth, it is very different from the book that won the booker prize. >> here is what some of the critics have said. this comes from the sunday times. sondberg, brilliant. roughel, funny, poignant, saffage. cleeming with intelligence and literary flair, this elegantly composed fictionalized meditation offers a fresh glance at a musical geniuses collision

and-- collisions and collisions with power. >> thank you for reading that. >> rose: well, they said it, so i didn't make it up. the idea is that we can hardly imagine what it's like and the sack if i-- sacrifices that this great musician had to make. >> yes. i think that's certainly true rdz and it's too easy to say i might have done different in defense of my art. >> exactly. that's one of the themes of the book. it's very easy when we look at the different regime in a different time to say oh, he should have done this. or he should have done that. or i would have done differently. i would have been a hero. we all imagine that we would behave better if our country is invaded. your country and my country haven't been invaded for a long time. not since we came after you-- sorry about the white house and all that. bt you know, the rebuilding was good too. >> right. but we always think that under

tir ranee we would tirn nee we would suddenly become heroes. the only part of the united kingdom that has been innovated in the recent times was the channel islands between england and france by the germans in the second world war. and the people there behaved exactly as everyone on the continent did they gave up their jews. they collaborated and some were brave and some weren't. and i think that we're all made from the crooked timber of humanity. and we're all likely to be as brave or cow ardly as everyone else. but the additional point is if you are living under a regime like stalins is that it's all very well oh, he should have been a hero. or he should have thrown the bomb. he should have pulled the trigger. if he did that, you are also condemning your entire family and all your friends and associates to the death camps. and so unless you wabbed tok dead and you wanted your family to be taken away, you had to collude heroes. >> who are they for you?

>> whose life and work have been most meaningful in your own sense of your life. >> within one of my great heroes flaw disz better. and one of the things he said is no monsters, no heroes. that was one of his cree decou er meaning in modern life, and this is something that your great writer edith wallton also said, in modern life it is the days of the gods and heroes and monsters have disappeared. unfortunately after both those two died, the monsters came back in the 20th century. and we can't live without monsters unfortunately. so i think my heroes, some of them would be literary and artistic. and some of them would occasionally be political and military like gary baldi. >> and. >> he is a hero because he was also a cow ard. >> you make that point, don't you. >> yes, yes. >> rose: so he is a hero

because he was a could you ad on. >>-- or a hero because he recognized his coward and didn't condemn it. >> i wouldn't condemn it for a moment. in order to condemn it you would have to think you were a morally superior person to him. and i don't think anyone should claim that. but the other thing, the point which he makes rather ryufully and ironically in my book because he was an ironic person, courage is easy. you just have to do the one thing. whereas being a coward is a lifetime commitment. so in a way, being a coward requires a sort of courage. >> rose: the book is called the noise of time, julian barnes, always good to you have here. >> my pleasure. >> rose: back in a moment. a two time oscar and three time emmy recipient. she earned critical praise for her performances on fx american horror story from 2011 to 2015. now she returns to broadway for

the first time in over a decade. she stars as mary tyrone in jonathan kant's rerevival of eugene o'neal's classic drama long day journey into night. the hollywood reporter calls it transfixing. the role has earned lange her first tony nomination. i'm pleased to have her back at this table. welcome. >> thank you very much. >> rose: after is 11 years you go back to broadway. >> yeah, yup, yup. >> rose: but? >> no, i mean, it's-- you know, there are certain roles that even though you know, you understand that it's going to be exhausting and physically, you know, overwhelming and everything, but it's that thing of, like, as an actor, you just want a chance to play that part. >> rose: why mary that kind of part. >> well now i played this role in london. >> rose: i know. >> 16 years ago. an i have always z wanted to revisit it.

and i mean for me at this point in my life, it's the greatest part i could possibly play. i mean i think it's one of the best roles in american drama. and what if does is it offers you like everything as an actor you want to do. it is physical, it's emotional, it's-- you know, i mean it just covers everything from a to z. >> tell us who mary is. >> well, she is married to an actor, to james tyrone, this is all now based very closely on eugene o'neill's family. his mother an father, his brother, and himself. >> rose. >> and she is, she is addicted to more feen and has been-- i mean in reality, his mother was a diked for 25 years, which is

an awfully long time to sustain a habit like that. but and this is one summer's day in their life. and it covers tremendous ground in that one day. >> i mean is it fire to say also that when you're inside, a great playwright's words, it makes all the difference? >> oh, are you kidding? i mean no matter how hard the play is, no matter how exhausted you are. there is something that transports you. it is, it's truly like, i mean i always liken it to when you step out on stage, it's like stepping on to a fast-moving train. you know, it just has this power behind it. that just carries you along. >> rose: and builds. >> and it builds, of course. i mean, and the words, you know, that's the thing of getting lost in the poetry of this man's genius. it really is. >> rose: it really is

exhawsessing. are you talking about four hours. >> yes. >> rose: four hours. >> four hours, yes. >> rose: it's incredible. >> it's-- yeah, i mean sometimes have i to admit i'm like out there on stage. and you know, and i look over and i think god, are we still here? what scene is this. but it's-- i mean i wouldn't have it any other way. i love doing it. i love being on stage and it's a wonderful production. i think it's the first time in new york where i have felt, you know, cradled in this terrific production. so-- . >> rose: cradled in this-- cradled in this terrific production. >> yeah. i mean because sometimes, you know, i mean my other two for ayes into theater here were not successful, nor did i feel that they were realized. and this is wonderful because we had a tremendous director who

really understood what this play was about. and how to keep it moving. and i'm on stage with some of the best actors i've ever worked with in my life. and there's that wonderful thing that happens, you know, when you are on stage. and for a moment you begin to drift or you think whatever it is, that just-- and all you have to do is-- i mean look at gabriel and he's looking at me. >> gabriel burnes. >> yes. and you know, it just, like suddenly it's all there again. it's marvelous. that's what is magical. when theater works, i don't think there is anything in the world like it. >> because it's live, because you can see the and feel the reaction. >> yeah, because it does take on, and i don't want to sound, you know, too-- independenty do-da, but there is a magic to it when it works. when all those energies come together. >> rose: do you know why this worked request when the others didn't work as well in your

mind? >> well, i think because again, and the other two plays i did, you know, were not-- i mean one was street car named desire and the other was glass men age ree. you can't fault the plays. >> rose: two great plays. >> as we know, the plays work. >> rose: tennessee williams. >> yeah. however, you know, the productions weren't right. the productions weren't right, for whatever-- . >> rose: you could feel it from the beginning. >> you could feel it i mean there was-- it wasn't well directed or it wasn't well, you know, i mean and i never fault actors because we're all just, you know, there trying to, you know, fine our way through the forest. but they just didn't come together. >> rose: the production didn't come together. >> huh-uh. >> you are also working and i did a long interview with him the other day. louis c.k. >> oh, yes. he's so great. >> rose: isn't he great? >> i just adore him, yes. >> rose: and these are characters around a bar. >> yeah. a little bit of eugene o'neill

there. >> rose: that's where i'm going. >> i figured, yeah. no, i mean you know, you don't have to look far with any genre of theser to see where the mother load was, you know. i mean all the family plays, you know, and the last what, 60 years more. i mean a lot of that comes from this play. >> a very talented guy. >> he's wonderful. a wonderful writer, a wonderful director. i think a great, you know, i mean a wonderful actor. yeah, it was a joy working with him. i hope i can work with him again sometime. >> rose: do you hope to do american horror story? >> no, i think you know i had four years with that four seasons. and each year was a marvelous character. you know, everything changed from one year to the other which made it very interesting for me. but no, i mean i think sometimes

you come to the end of something and it has been. >> and it has had its natural-- . >> rose: but i mean, people loved you in that. >> i know. >> rose: loved you. >> i know. funny. >> rose: i know, yeah. i mean ryan merric convinced you, did he not. >> ryan murphy. >> convinced you. >> uh-huh. >> well, it was interesting. i had never met him before and out of the blue, i got a phone call from him. and i immediately, i don't know, had some deep trust in like what he was talking about, you know. usually i don't. but there was just some kind of exchange of whatever it was, energy or something, even on the phone that i thought yeah, i would like to work with this man. i find him very interesting. >> rose: and what else do you think about doing now? >> you are back on stage, are you nominated for a tony.

>> yeah. >> rose: are you having your best theatrical experience. >> by far. >> rose: by far. >> yeah. >> and you know, playing for me, i think the greatest role for a woman, i mean obviously you have to be a-- to play it. but i am. so it's perfect for me. but-- . >> rose: an irish thing. >> yeah. so it's, you know, i don't know, once i get through with this, i want time just to, you know, lie in the hammock. >> you can do that. >> do i that very well. >> rose: are you writing at all? >> no, huh-uh. no. >> rose: no diary no memoir. >> no, no, no. >> rose: why do you say no, no, no. look at the life you have lived. >> well, no, it is interesting. but maybe it's only interesting to me. >> rose: no. >> you know what i mean. >> rose: i'm sure. >> i don't-- i don't see how i could actually-- .

>> rose: well work would be the problem? would it be simply these are your stories and but they involve other people and. >> yeah, i mean i think because a lot of it is very personal. >> rose: right. >> and you know, there is-- obviously there are many things i would never talk about in print. so. >> rose: but is it is it because of your respect for them? >> but for myself too of revealing too much about one's self. no one can talk you into this. >> i'm sure they tried it is just the relationship would make them crazy, think about misha and sam and you think about. >> you know, it would definitely be an interesting memoir. >> but i'm not going to write it. >> what is the biggest passion for you outside of acting?

>> photography. yeah, yeah. >> i mean i've been photographing no forb probably. >> for how long. >> going on 20 years. >> there say story right there, that would. >> that say chapter. >> and black and white photography, you know. analog, no digital, still dark room processing. printing. >> you do it yourself. >> i used to when i-- but now in new york city. >> is it digital now? >> no, no digital, no digital. >> i is still have my leica m6 and rolls of films. >> is it primarily profile, portraits. >> is it landscapes. >> i mean a lot has been just-- i mean i've photographed a lot in mexico, over the years. because there is something very accessible. i mean basically if i had to describe myself, it would

probably be a street photographer because a lot of people have done that very well, i think. some of the greats. henry levitt. >> absolutely. >> do you know the work of sally man. >> dwhre-- man n. >> not well but yes, of course. >> she's extraordinary. >> i think. >> extraordinary in terms of whatever small controversy there was about children, photographing her family, which everybody was part of. and photographing her huses in decline. >> yes, see, i didn't see those photos. >> on purpose or. >> no, just because i mean, i think that was just one area i missed of her work, yeah. >> and are you constantly learning. >> in what area? >> in terms of how to-- is the growths of a photographer not the tech neek butses-- eyes

finding things differently. >> now when i raise my camera, you know, to take a shot. there is a thing in the back of my mind that says you've taken that shot before. you'll never print it. so it's like, yeah,-- i have seen it before. >> i have taken it before, i have seen the context. you decided not to-- there is that discertainment that you start to have. >> so you don't take it. >> you end up not taking it, or if you do take it, it's just because, you know, but yeah, you know, it's like a-- you start to kind of hone in more and more whereas in the beginning, are you shooting everything that you can. and then as the years go by, you know what is going to interest you. and what your actually going to-- and then but still this is liked mystery of photography which i think is so fascinating. there is still the time where like you can shoot a role of film. and you think oh i'm very

curious about what i shot there, those frames. and then you look at the context sheet and you will say no, they-- it wasn't what i thought it was going to be. and then like a couple rows down, you will see a shot and barely remember taking it. and that's the one. and it says what happens. >> so what happens to the photographs? >> you put them on exhibition at galleries. >> have i had some exhibitions, have i had quite a few recently in museums and in europe and now i'm working on a project that hopefully within the next year i will finish. >> you can tell me about it? >> yeah, i mean it's basically highway 61 revisited. ples you bob dylan. >> rose: have i friends that i know who say they don't go a day

in their life without listening or reading something. >> uh-huh. >> rose: from dylan. >> well, i mean i could sing every lyric he ever wrote so shall-- . >> rose: you could sing every lyric. >> i couldn't sing it, maybe, but i could recite it, yeah. no, i mean i've-- you know, since i first heard him back as a kid in minnesota, i mean, that was it. it was one of those transform tiff artists in my life. >> where did there artistic connection happen? >> in the womb? >> i don't know, you know. because i was raised in northern minnesota. i mean we had no theater there. we had no-- i mean it wasn't like we were listening to music in the house, you know. it wasn't grk drk dsh-- but i don't know. i remember as a little giferl with my mother, we would watch old movies on tv, you know.

and so maybe the film thing came there. or else it was just purely that escapism, that thing of the imagination and drk dsh du i do remember as a little girl staying home from school because i wasn't well and lying on the couch. and doing melanie and scarlet? you know, doing melanie's death scene, you know, playing both parts of myself. so somewhere there must have been some early germ nation of this thing of, like, make believe, you know, carrying that. >> some nurturing of the imagination that child like thing of pretent-- tre tend, make believe, which is acting. >> rose: great to you have here. long day's journey into night is running at the american airlines theater until june 26th. as we said earlier, jessica has

been mom natured for her first tony award for best performance by leading actress in a play. i thank you, it's always good to see you. >> thank you, lovely to see you. >> thank you for joining us. see you next time. >> for more about this program and earlier episodes, vilts us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com

kacyra: it kind of was, like, the bang that set off the night. rogers: that is the funkiest restaurant. thomas: the honey-walnut prawns will make your insides smile. [ laughter ] klugman: more tortillas, please! khazar: what is comfort food if it isn't gluten and grease? braff: i love crème brûlée. sobel: the octopus should have been, like, quadripus, because it was really small. sbrocco: and you know that when you split something, all the calories evaporate, and then there's none. whalen: that's right.