>> rose: welcome to the program. it's the end of summer, we're looking back at some of the best moments on our program. tonight a look at three documentaries, making a murderer, oj made in america and norah ephron scripted and unscripted. >> it was ease for me to start out knowing i was doing a story about race. that's the gigantic theme in this film oj's story. once started down this path i realized what you said the interconnectedness between all these things and you can't simplify it to see this is what this was. it was just about race. no, because you can't separate oj's celebrities so that dawned on me pretty quickly.

>> -- aer didn't think she was as brilliant as she was. the meaning is that the thing that is, that trips you up today is a funny story tomorrow, and it was a kind of, it was a kind of way of saying get over it and figure out a way to use this because your life has the ability to be a comedy rather than a tragedy. >> i think the conflict of interest that was very present in this case, the fact that steven did have this pending lawsuit against the county and two of its former officers. and the fact that that county said that they were going to have nothing to do with this investigation, and as you learn in the series and as witnesses come to trial, you find out that they were very much involved in the investigation and in fact they were the ones finding some of the key evidence. >> rose: three documentary

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been 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: oj simpson is one of the most capital veysing and controversial figures of the modern era. he first became known as a star football player for the university of southern california and then in the nfl. he transcended to become a below figure in popular culture. in 1994, he was charged with the murders of his exwife nicole

brown simpson and ronald goldman whose subsequent trial transfixed the nation. oj made in america is a new documentary that chronicles simpson's rise and fall. the "los angeles times" calls the documentary a master work of scholarship, journalism and cinematic art. here the trailer for oj, made in america. >> i told him we're breaking the laws of god. one day everybody's going to know everything that you've done, man. >> you're a black man in america, you're fighting our war. >> the reality of black america and white america, two totally

separate worlds. ♪ >> none of the people that we associated with looked at him as a black man. >> a civil rights leader in los angeles says if you're going to be a negro in a big city then loss -- los angeles is the best place to be. >> really? oj simpson as a civil rights victim. it was disgusting, it was appalling.

♪ >> it's easy to be -- you not you got an attractive -- >> rose: part one of the five part documentary series premiers on abc saturday june 11th. the remaining four parts will air on espn beginning june 14th. joining me is the director of the documentary ezra agentsman without a doubt marsha clerk and who served on the 1995 defense team. i'm pleased to have all of them here at this table. welcome and welcome.

why does this man and this case resonate? is it because it is a story of what? >> it's a story of everything. it's a story of race, it's a story of masculinity, it's a story of class, it's a story of gender, it's story of select tree and story about the criminal justice system. it's a story of america. >> rose: how did you decide to do this. >> it's a little bit unsatisfying, i was approached by espn who had an idea of doing something bigger and ambitious. it started out as a five hour film and it just grew over the course of a couple years of doing it. >> rose: and now that you have completed it, what do you want us to take away? >> that everything is not so simple. >> rose: and that you will learn new things. >> you will definitely learn new things and you will learn about a history that you may have never known or you may have forgotten. >> rose: what do you think we'll learn? >> you're going to learn a lot

about the reason the verdict was the verdict. this film is a fascinating exploration of the history of los angeles, the city that i love, and the structing relationship between the african american community and the lspd only through understanding that story can anyone think to begin to appreciate how and why this verdict was ever rendered this way. >> rose: it's amazing because that's what introduces you to think about it. you go from people coming to los angeles because they think it's a great place. >> sure. >> rose: and they're burning down everything in site. >> correct. and only of the injustices with the society that people were leaving from the jim crow south regrettably they encountered the same kinds of abject racisms when it came to l.a. >> that was enlightening for me

as well. i lived there my entire life and it's just a great way that it really ran forth to me why i chose to become a civil rights lawyer. i remember texting ezra after watching the film to thank him for reminding me of those issues that i fight for every day in my life as a civil rights lawyer. >> rose: this made you famous, this case. >> yeah. >> rose: it made you almost a household world. you lived it. and now you see this whole larger picture. tell me how you watching this film felt. what did you think, how did it resonate within you? >> what i learned that i didn't know is a different story than the way it resonated. >> rose: let's take the resonated first. >> let's do that, okay. i thought people will finally see the reality that we knew working downtown in a criminal courts building for. many years.

i've been trying cases downtown for ten years. whenever there was an african american defendant, race was going to be an issue. and the question of the mistrust of law enforcement and their mistrust of the criminal justice system was always an issue. so to me, it was a wonderful thing to show everybody the realities of, as carl said, life in los angeles and what the real relationship was between minorities and lapd, and the real sense of mistrust and bad feeling between them that had existed for so many years. and our office was fighting those cases. and we were prosecuting those cops. we prosecuted the rodney king cops. but you know did not succeed. s certainly too, all of ust carl trying cases down there we're aware of it. but i didn't realize how much, how little others were aware of it outside of that microcosm i

guess you would call it. >> rose: what did you learn. >> i learned what a great actor oj simpson was, i never appreciated how charismatic how affable self awe facing generous he could appear on air. i had never seen him on camera as a sportscaster during his football career. i remember naked gun, the hurts commercial. these are limited snap shots but to see what he was able to pull off on camera in more lengthy interviews was very impressive. i saw him in a smaller version in the courtroom because he always knew where the camera was, he knew when it was on him and he played to it every time. it was not the same picture that i got when the camera was not on him. >> i learned from this documentary some of the reasons why oj was the man he was. i didn't know as much about his background growing up at galileo

high school at the hunter's port section of la. san francisco sist, sorry. i didn't learn or know about his interactions with his colleagues and old friends which helped to shape the man that i came to learn and came to know. and that was fascinating for me to learn those information. >> rose: you told i knew oj and what he represented at that time and how he became the first black corporate ditchman as far as at lutsz athletes go. i wanted to tell a story that existed in the mid 60's along with the tension in l.a. at the time that culminated with the watts riots. those were things that were very mean it does say that so much 30 of human life is connected.

>> culturally. celebrity. sports. politics. it's all interconnected. >> that's, frankly, it was very easy for me to start out knowing that i was going to do a story primarily about race. that's the gigantic theme in this film, in oj's story. having said that, once you start down this path what i did realize is exactly what you said the interconnectedness between all these things and you can't simplify it to say this is what this was. it was just about race. no, because you can't separate oj's celebrity. and then you get into all of these other issues. so that sort of dawned on me pretty quickly. at the same time you can't possibly tell this story and understand what happened in 1994, 95 if you go back to 1991 and 92. this is a history that and a situation that people have been living with in los angeles for decades. and unless you emotionally respond to that as a viewer, you will fail to understand why that

trial. >> rose: it does make you want to understand every historical event and every event of great focus within a context. >> if it does, sure. >> and it's so important. i mean one of the most important themes in this series, i think, is that very message what you just said, charlie, that everything is, you have put it to context. neither did rodney king or the civilson verdict. part of this is the fabric woven together, there's a cause and effect linked them all importantly and this series brilliantly shows that. >> rose: within the same time within the context it's imperative of getting social context. it's also imperative to remember that murder is murder and loss is loss. >> sure. and i think the film does a great job of reflecting humanity

of that as well. >> but importantly what i've learned, the more things change charlie, the more they remain the same. one reason why this documentary and the whole oj simpson story is resonating now with melennials is because the issues that were right then regrettably are still issues that are in the forefront of the conversation today. the black lives matter movement. trayvon martin, those kinds of issues. i have a 24 year old son who was too young then to understand all the issues going on. but i've had that story that all parents of young african american males have in los angeles, how to act and how to respond and how to say yes, sir or no sir, keep your hands where it's visible. that's part of the history and context that this film really shows well. >> rose: what did you think

you had to do and the defense team had to do. what was the mandate? >> it's important to remember that the burden is not on the defense. the defendant doesn't have to prove anything. and what we have to do is believing in the constitution, holding the prosecution to their burden of proving the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. and that's just not some slick phrase or cliche. that is real. and in this case, there was a tremendous mountain of evidence and so our challenge was ever strong. that's why some of the things that came out, the glove demonstration, the furman tape resonated with this jury because other will you tellly we were trying to make the prosecution prove their burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. >> rose: how important was the glove? >> i think the glove was probably, charlie, the most

dramatic day of my life inside of a courtroom. and i've been a lawyer for 36 years. we always learned the first day in law school to never ask a question -- >> rose: you don't know the answer to. >> -that is ten times, if there y 50 times if that, i would dare demonstration is going to be shown before 95 million people. >> rose: you took a chance you're saying. >> the prosecution took a chance. >> rose: that's what i mean. >> correct. a huge chance was taken, perhaps not the wisest chance depending on the outcome particularly right now. >> rose: what happened to the glove. >> it was a terrible idea. i never wanted to do it and it was suggested first by judge ito. he said he should try on the glove, i objected it immediately. it had been frozen and unfrozen. there was everything ron with it. you can't din -- duplicate the condition. >> rose: you knew. >> it was the insight i ever

had. he wanted it. he was in favor of it. he said if we don't do it the defense will. >> rose: you're smiling because of what. >> because i love to hear the post mortem examinations of this debacle and how it came to be. i was unaware of the internal tensions going on in the prosecution team. to hear it then and to hear it now is really illuminating to me given what i know what happened. >> rose: just for a moment, ezra excuse me. >> it's much more interesting. >> rose: just for a moment, did you have any doubt that he could make this glove look like it didn't fit? or that the glove didn't fit. >> yes. >> rose: thank you. >> i like the latter interpretation. there were weeks and weeks of dna testimony and evidence. there were weeks and weeks of domestic violence testimony, charlie. but this is the murder glove.

and the murder glove did not fit the accused murderer. and we were confident after that event that the images would resonate. i didn't understand all the dna stuff. i don't know what's going on barry, it's like you and the witness having a private conversation. but the murder glove not fitting was resonant and we were confident the jury would take with them to the very last day of the trial. >> rose: do acquit. >> that was jerry's line not even johnny's line. that was jerry olman on a saturday after that glove demonstration and we were all high fiving after it came through. >> rose: you knew you had a tough challenge after that. >> we did way before that. i didn't think it was, it was a visual moment, it was a moment that certainly the media enjoyed obviously carl enjoyed. and we were, what carl doesn't know is we were at sidebar, i

objected to it, it's on the record, my objection's on the record and we pulled away from sidebar and argued. i called up stairs for the rest of the team and i said can you think of any reason why we could do this. no. >> rose: you couldn't stop it. >> that was his witness and his choice to make. i know that the press had dug me as prosecutor. i was co-prosecutor, i was not chris' boss and carl doesn't see it that way that's fine. but i know what's inside, i know what happened behind the scenes. >> rose: chris said the same thing. >> i think he would. he would have to. i know what happened. so all i can say is look, the case was lost before we walked into court, that's the truth. and we had a jury pool -- >> rose: the case was lost before you walked into the court. >> yes. >> rose: because? >> we were going to have a jury that was in large part, yes, the jury always had a significant --

>> rose: you didn't have to work hard, it was already decided. >> apparently. i spent 16 months doing nothing. it was a walkover. >> i'm not saying that, i'm just saying we did have the pool that we did. >> rose: it was a challenge. >> it was a huge obstacle and we knew that. >> rose: you could not succeed. >> we thought honestly, the best thing we could do is hang it. that's what we thought. knowing that we were going to have an african american contingent on the jury the best we could do is hang it. even that became impossible but that was right from the start and to say the glove demonstration was the turning point or that made the difference. we also addressed all those issues with the glove expert who explained the latex, everything i've said to you and then we actually put the same gloves on his hands and they fit beautifully. gloves that he didn't have to wear lay text with, gloves that hadn't been frozen and unfrozen, we put pristine exact identical gloves on his hands and they fit. >> rose: so what was he like

after the trial, after the acquittal. >> i didn't get the benefit of knowing him much after the trial. i last saw oj at johnny cochran's funeral in march of 2005. >> rose: how was he received there? >> at that setting, he was received well. i remember al sharpton was one of the people giving the eulogy and he first asked all of the lawyers that worked with johnny to stand up and he then stood up. and he asked everyone johnny represented to stand up and oj and michael jackson were just a few chairs away and they both stood up. and my community after the trial, oj was always received well. >> rose: really. >> yes. >> rose: yes, please. >> well there's the thing he sort of buried the lead because al sharpton gave one of the eulogies and we are in the huge church and oj's in the audiences and he looked down and said brother simpson with all due respect when that verdict came

in october 3rd, 1995 and we all erupted in cheers, we weren't cheering for you, we were cheering for johnny. the entire church exploded. and so i think that says -- >> rose: is that true? >> yes. that's really what many don't understand. >> semi true. >> rose: only because there were a lot of people exploded never knew johnny cochran hardly well. >> what they saw were african american lawyers and they learned that competence comes in all colors, charlie. i remember attending a convention of african american lawyers at the national bar association after this particular trial. and we were received there like rock stars. i remember barry shec, lee bailey was there and small towns across the nation. because the trial was on cnn every day, people became to respect the intelligence of an african american professional. and that i think as much as pfoe

country. not for oj per se. >> rose: remarkable achievement in terms of putting this seven. >> almost eight. >> rose: almost eight hours together. it's about america and all the things we talked about so i thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: steven avery was wrongfully convinced of sexual assault and attempted murder in 1985. he served 18 years in wisconsin state prison before he was exonerated by dna evidence in 2003. in 2005 shortly after filing the lawsuit against the county that wrongly convicted him avery became the prime suspect in the murder of teresa halbach a net flick documentary of his eventual conviction. it is called making a murderer. "new york times" calls the documentary immersive, compulsive and unpredictable. here's the trailer for making a murderer.

>> the people that were close to diseaf -- steve knew he was happy happy happy. >> like everybody else, he didn't education like everybody else. >> stevey did things but he always owned up to things he did wrong. >> i loved life until all the trouble started. >> heady bernstein was everything that steven wasn't so think of them side by side. >> there was no real investigation found by the sheriff's department. >> the sheriff told the da not to screw this came up. he want avery convicted of this crime. >> there wasn't one iota of physical evidence in this case

hat connected steve avery to it. in fact the sheriff was told by the police you have the wrong guy. >> steven avery spent 18 years in prison for something he didn't do. >> 18 years. >> 18 years. >> dna had come through indicating that he had not committed the crime. >> law enforcement officers realized that they had screwed up big time. >> we were getting ready to bring the lawsuit $36 million to the county itself and the sheriff and d.a. would be on the hook for those damages. >> they're not handing that kind of money over to steve avery. i did tell him be careful. they're not even close to being finished with you. >> do we have a body or anything yet. >> i don't believe so. >> we have steve avery in custody though. >> are you kidding me? >> disappearance of teresa

halbach remains a mystery. >> what are you going to say today. >> if convicted steve avery will spend the rest of his life in prison. >> we found a key and that key had his dna on it. >> certainly strange. >> what's going on here. >> halbach's last stop monday was steven avery's home. >> if he did this maybe it was good he was in prison all that time. >> the only thing i've heard him say. >> it was extraordinarily disturbing. >> we went through this 20 years ago and we're going through it now again. >> good luck. you are probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom. >> the truth always comes out. >> rose: joining me now are the directors of making a

murderer. laura and laura deimos. i'm pleased to have them at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you. by dna, nowu.es this start charged in new crime. and we recognized steven as this potentially unique window into the system as somebody who has been dealt by the system in 1985 and now found himself back in it 20 years later. >> rose: when you looked back at his conviction the second time. >> at that point he had really just been charged in the murder of teresa halbach. so as laura said, this idea that this man who had been failed so terribly by the system and really failed for 18 years. there had been opportunities for the system to correct itself and it hadn't. and now he was stepping back in 20 years later. and in that 20 years, there had

been advances in dna, there had been legislative refeerms. case as it unfolded. so the series sort of gives you this opportunity to use, you know, what we like as 20/20 hindsight. it's very easy to look back at something. >> rose: it's so intriguing and so interesting everybody talks bit. when you went to make the film, did you have with netflix to do that that? >> no, absolutely not. it was the two of us corralling some families and friends. it was all self funded. >> rose: why do you think everybody is talking about this? what is it about this that we haven't said already that makes

it so compelling? >> well i think for the most part people understand that the criminal justice system isn't perfect. but i think what this series really demonstrates is, you know, what happened when it goes wrong and the cases in this series are really a stark illustration of that. one of the major characters in the series was pulled into this system and became a co-defendant with steven in the halbach case. he was 16 years old at the time and incredibly limited. his iq was somewhere in the range of 73, 67 to 73. and this was an individual who was interrogated alone by the investigators and just really out of his depth. and had no prior experience with law enforcement. so i think that's one of the most troubling aspects of this story, and we hear quite a bit

about that from people we've watched. >> rose: do you two differ in any aspect of this in terms of how you read it. >> i think after a decade of really working hand in happened, i think we see it, you know, i think we recognize different things as we were experiencing it. but then you know, going through that experience and then going through all the footage and doing additional research and digging through primary source materials, i think we end up in the same place. >> rose: so do you think steven avery killed teresa? >> i don't think we have a way of answering that because i have so many unanswered questions. you know, the issue is that despite this being the largest criminal investigation in wisconsin's history apparently, i'm still left with so many unanswered questions. >> rose: so your answer is i don't know. >> exactly, i don't know. >> rose: is your answer i don't know or is your different answer. >> that's right. >> rose: you just don't know because so many unanswered questions and how are you going

to answer those questions. >> also i don't think the system is designed to deliver certainty. one of the major take aways for me was with respect to our process was you know, part of our inquiry was to what extent can the system deliver on its promises of truth and justice. and i really came away from this process thinking that the system can do a better job of delivering truth. i'm sorry, justice which is a process. >> rose: is that true. >> that's right. we cannot always count on the system to reveal truth. i mean there's so much ambiguity in these matters. they're extremely complex and there's so many ingredients that go into the investigation and prosecution of a case. one of the things we really wanted to do for our viewers was to document the pretrial proceedings. what came before the trial phase so that viewers could understand and appreciate what basic rights

defense attorneys are fighting for at that point. significant decisions the judge is making which determine what types of evidence the jury even gets to hear. >> rose: right. >> we have been criticized recently for not including all evidence in the series. and you know, what i would say to that is this is a documentary, it's not make out in real time. and of course we have to make editorial choices about the types of evidence that gets in. but even a jury in a criminal case doesn't hear all of the evidence that either side would like to offer because the judge is making decisions at the pretrial stage about, you know, what types of evidence is reline, -- reliable what might tend to prejudice the jury. >> rose: isn't one of the questions that's unanswered for you, somebody so upset as steven avery because he filed a lawsuit that they set out to ruin his life? >> well i think the conflict of

interest that was very present in this case, the fact that steven did have this pending lawsuit against the county and two of its former officers. and the fact that that county said that they were going to have nothing to do with this investigation, and as you learn in the series and as witnesses come to trial, you find out that they were very much involved in the investigation. and in fact, they were the ones finding some of the key evidence. and so when i'm asked to have trust in that evidence, when there's such a clear conflict of interest where individuals have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial, i think that raises serious questions. >> rose: roll tape. take a look at this. >> once they were going to leave stevey out and hand that man $36 million, they weren't going to make him a laughing stock that's

for sure. they just weren't going to do all that. something's going to happen. they're not going to hand that kind of money over to steve avery. >> we told him he could expect people to think he would get rich with family private matters that are now public. and don't be surprised if people say some things about you that you haven't heard before that are just plain false. there are things we didn't tell him. you have to be careful when you bring a lawsuit against a sheriff's department in a community where you still live because you could end up getting charged with murder. >> rose: that raises the question, doesn't it. >> absolutely. >> rose: through the voices of though people. >> steven himself could not make sense of what was happening to him. he proclaimed his innocence in the halbach case and he just could not understand how he found himself back in this

position. and i think in an effort to try to make sense of what was happening, he, you know, looked to the lawsuit that he had filed that was pending that was actually going very well for his side. and thought perhaps law enforcement has done something here, something improper to try to derail that lawsuit. >> rose: how long of a trial, the trial lasted how long. >> it was just over five weeks, steven's trial. >> rose: 200 hours. >> something around there, yes. >> i guess that's how the math works out. >> rose: you have to decide what to include and what to exclude. >> sure. his trial i think takes over just three hours. and that includes press conferences and out of court scenes so not even three hours of courtroom footage, yes. >> rose: what's the biggest question you have now having gone through all this? have you seen it become a sensation in terms or much

talked about in terms of media conversation. >> there's a major question i come away with is to what extent are we as a society going to step up and try to -- -- >> rose: that's what i thought you would say. in other words what's it going to take to change the system. >> part of that is trying to recognize an injustice as it's happening and try to interrupt that. because you know, if we don't do that and if it leads to a wrongful conviction, that also necessarily leads to a wrongful acquittal which means an innocent person is being locked away while the guilty person, you know, is left free. and we see that in the first episode with steven avery and gregory alan who went on to attack women for ten years while steve avery was in prison serving gregory alan's term. >> my biggest question is how

can we come together on this because i see a lot of talk in response to this series people taking sides debating guilt and innocence and that's not exactly what this series is about. it's about failures within our system and why those are happening and how could we do better. there's so much that we could unite about over this or as mentioned a wrongful conviction is a wrongful acquittal. you don't have to care about the person going to promise i wrongly, you should care about the ill doer on your streets. >> rose: right, exactly. so what happens now. do most people just watch it all the way through. like they cannot resist once they start it. >> i've been hearing a lot of that. >> yes, people in one day or over the course of two days which frankly surprises me a little. we're asking a lot of our viewers, it's a very dense series. >> rose: it is. but it drags you right in and you want to know. to the very end there are

unanswered questions. >> there are. >> that's right. >> rose: you're not sure -- >> we're not giving you the answer, we're raising questions here. and the goal was to start a dialogue. >> rose: thank you. great to have you here. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: making a murder. ten episodes of making a murderer are available, good where, on netflix. >> rose: nora ephron. she died 5972 in 2012 after a battle with leukemia. her son chronicles her life and work in a new documentary. everything is copy, nora ephron scripted and unscripted. it happened this pass monday on hbo and here's the trailer for the film.

>> they are cannibals. if anything good happens to you, you know you're in trouble. >> she was a very smart filmmaker, writer, reporter. really true comic writing is impossibly hard. and she had it. >> i wanted to make her laugh. >> it was just like winning an oscar. >> i don't know that people think i'm an expert in relationships but i definitely am. sometimes i wish my husband were dead. >> she cried for six months and wrote it funny. and writing it funny, she was. >> come home with some thing you thought was the tragedy of your

life, someone asked you to dance, my mother would say everything's copy. >> my mom really believed this mantra of hers. >> everyone uses his or her own life. >> do you have any idea that she was sick. >> no. >> no. >> not at all. >> why after being so open about everything else did she choose not to address the most significant crises of her life. >> this is the most fascinating in the whole world to me. she achieved a private act. >> the story of my life. everything is copy. >> rose: everything is copy is on copy on the hbo and hbo demand. pleased to have you at this table. first explain the title. >> my grandmother was a screen right and the thing that she always said to my mother growing up whenever anything happened that, you know, wasn't so desirable of a boy hadn't asked her to dance or a teacher didn't think she was as brilliant as she was. her mother would say everything is copy.

and the meaning is that the thing that is, that trips you up today is a funny story tomorrow. and it was a kind of, it was a kind of way of saying get over it. and figure out a way to use this because your life has the ability to be a comedy rather than a tragedy. >> rose: somehow this came to her in talking about her mother's death. >> well, i don't know. it was a thing that her mom had said but when her mom died when she was on her definite bed she said -- death bed she said take note of this. and she wrote the pink coat which i believe is in esquire. it was the anthology that they put out a couple years ago. and that's what she, you know, she really came to believe for at least a very long time. that if you found a way to tell

your story, you could control the narrative. and she had a very good sense that the experiences you have, you don't want to waste if you're a writer. that wasn't always so easy for people around her, though. >> rose: this was a film you had to make. >> yes. i felt after she died that i wanted to write about her in some way. i also was self aware enough to know i wasn't going to do, that i wasn't going to write a book about her that was better than any of the books she had written about herself. and i had seen the bill cunningham documentary. and i had seen -- >> rose: for those who don't know bill cunningham is a photographer of the "new york times" and he takes really wonderful pictures and he has a way to capture stuff that appears every sunday. >> there had been that and there had been the joan rivers documentary and had been fantastic and the valentino

documentary. this was this great document trees coming out and it seemed to me we could make one of those and lou of allow her to be the star of it and i could kind of help narrate her story. then the summer after she died, i was in the hamptons at our country house and i realized that the last two essay collections she wrote, i feel bad about my neck and i remember nothing, were both that she had done the audio tapes of both. and i knew almost immediately that we could splice pieces of them throughout the film and that she would be able to narrate large portions of it herself. >> rose: so was this an opportunity for you to share your mother with a larger world or an opportunity for you in a sense to take all of us on a journey. >> i think both. you know, i had some questions too about what it means to be a writer.

i was 33 at that point and i has been doing magazine journalism and newspaper journalism for a while. at that point i was, you know, i was still free lancing for the "new york times" where i now work. and so i was looking for something larger to do. and i was interested in how the private and the public had met up for her. and then diverged from one another. i also read, i had read tender is the night sort of about six months before she died. and of course there was fitzgerald writing about the break up of his marriage. and zelda fitzgerald into madness and it raises questions about what happens when you decide to do that and what is the reality of that for the people around you. so it seemed to me we could make

the film both her life story and in a certain way an exploration of what it means to be a writer and to share stuff that other people don't always want shared. >> rose: how do you explain your mother. >> witty, funny, loving and really tough. >> rose: with herself and everybody else. >> yes, i think that's right. she was fantastic at i think instilling in people both a little bit of fear in her and a desire to please her. she knew how to parse out praise. >> rose: this is a clip of tom hanks and others talking about nora as a filmmaker. >> as a kid we spent all of this time audition ing and getting ready. and he connected on that. >> when she came and told me,

shement didn't ask me what do you think if we replace so and so she said listen we're making a change it's not working out. i said you fired a kid. >> she'd give her that look and we called that look the red dot. your mother, if she got a double look it was like you had a laser from a gun on your forehead and you were about to get whacked. people got called all the time they wouldn't read a new draft and then you were done. if you talked about building a barn over here that was taken out two drafts ago, window or aisle. that's all i could tell you, you know. morning or afternoon flight. could i have a word with you. >> rose: there is a whole series of clips from this show at this table of your mother talking. what did that add to it and did you know that you found this richness from her in the interviews. >> i don't think we knew much of anything when we started. you know, i think it was a kind

of, it was a somewhat haphazard progression. in film making you have an archivallist hopefully that helps you and then i'm reading things of hers and the old clips from "the new york post" and then the letterman clip that she did, you know, during the break up of the marriage with my father and write after she had written heartburn. they all kind of, we just began to amass all this stuff and kind of figured out how it pieced together. it's also roughly chronological film. so we had some, you know, base understanding of how the narrative was going to work. and we also knew that having written about the break up of her marriage to my dad and her parents alcoholism and all of these things that there was a question in ether about why she had chosen to keep her illness as private as she did. and that that would also be part

of the framing divide in the movie. >> rose: in fact that's what meryl streep spoke to as well. why did she keep it so quiet. >> i think there were considerations -- >> rose: it was stunning. all of us can remember. you couldn't believe it. >> well, i think that there were considerations both pragmatic and philosophical. so the pragmatic ones were that she was a filmmaker at that point and you know if you're writing a book i think you can have a fatal illness and you don't lose your book contract but if you're trying to make a film, you can't get insured in you've got something like that. so that was part of it.e3 then the other part of it i think was that to her everything of copy was a means out of victimhood. the quote i see on social media of hers the most often is be the heroin of your life, not the victim. and i think that everything is copy was another version of that. you know that it was a way of saying, as she said, when you

slip on the banana peel people laugh at you. if you tell people you slip on the banana peel you become the hero rather than the victim of the joke. the problem with the fatal illness is how do you tell that story and not become the victim. how do you not become the person that everybody says how are you. are you doing okay. they want to be involved, they want to tell you what doctors to call. they want to tell you to get an acupuncturist. they want to tell you to do all of these things that she didn't want to be told to do. >> rose: she want to manage it herself. >> yeah. >> rose: when did she tell you? >> she told me about six years before she died. and you know, at the time -- >> rose: how did she tell you. >> i went out with her for dinner and i believe she was sitting on the sofa and i was sitting on a chair right by it in her living room the place she and my stepfather shared

together. and we were scared but she said you know, they've got me on these things that are working. and she was on these steroids for a while that blew up her face a lilt bit and because she had written so much about aging people thought she had sort of had a bad trip to the cosmetic dermatologist and that was not the case the she was quite good actually at her cosmetic dermatology and figuring out how to get a little tweak here or there without looking like -- >> rose: like you had a little tweak here and there. >> that's right. >> rose: i want to show a couple clips from the show so of which were in your documentary. the third is her talking about her getting older that you talked about. here it is the third clip one of many appearances that nora made on this program at this table. >> other than memory is there anything wrong with getting older. >> other than anything else wrong. is there anything right with getting older. >> rose: wisdom.

>> oh, wisdom when you can't remember anything. it's not quite there. >> rose: it's not that bad. this is just comic fodder for you. it's not that bad. >> no, no. i don't know, charlie. i don't think it's better to be older, i don't. >> rose: i don't think so either but i think that it doesn't have to be bad. >> no, it doesn't have to be bad. and you have to know but you have to know that at some point it will be. >> rose: oh, sure. >> and sooner rather than later. which is why it's very important to eat your last meal before it actually comes up. >> rose: tell that story how you came to at that time conclusion. oh, i know what it was your friend, your good friend who no longer could eat a hot dog. >> well she could no longer eat. and she said i can't even have my last meal. i mean that's what happens, i mean but to be serious for a moment as they say in the joke. when you are actually going to

have your last meal, you either will be too sick to have it or you aren't going to know it's your last meal and you could squander it on something like a tuna melt and that would be ironic. so it's important. we all play these games at dinner with friends where we go around the table and we say this is what i would have for my last meal. and it's, i feel it's important to have that last meal at least -- >> rose: today. >> today, tomorrow. soon. >> rose: what would you have as your last meal. >> my last meal really is a nathan's hot dog. >> rose: oh yeah. see that, that's the magic in part. what was her impact on you in the end other than having a blessed mother who represented a lot of things you could only admire. >> i think that she was, i think she was fantastic at getting me to aspire to do more with myself

than i might have naturally been inclined. people ask is it scary. yes, it was why the movie needed not to flunk why it better be good. because you don't want to be the talentless child of so and so who does a kind of agography that defies the parent without actually capturing the texture and the essence. >> rose: much success. everything is copied now on hbo now, hbo go and everywhere hbo. we leave you today with this last clip. this is nora on this program talking about her ability to quickly adapt to new situations. thank you for joining us. here's the clip. you seem to have this amazing ability to be able to adapt, to be able to find your way, to be

able to whatever the time is, nora finds out where she is. >> well from your lips. but i do think without being too, i don't know what, philosophical because god forbid us you should ever be philosophical. but i do think one of the lucky things about my life, and by the way, a lot of women i know is that we've sort of been able to make changes, take another path. i always quote that great yogi berra line if you see a fork in the road take it. everyone seems to think it's always famous because it's so dumb. but the truth is it's very wisest specially when it comes to women because i think you can kind of do that. you can sort of do two things at once and one thing and then the next thing. women seem to have a slightly easier time doing it than men. >> rose: you call it fluidity. >> i don't know what i call it

but i do notice a lot of the women who are older aren't doing what they did 20 or 30 years ago. and the men don't have quite the ability partly because they're slightly more successful earlier and it's harder to get out of the success and the income or whatever. but women seemed to have a way of, i think i'll try this i think i'll try that. and i have been very lucky at it but i also notice as i do it that i probably am doing it a little bit on purpose. for more of this program and other episodes visit us on pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

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

that could one day hack your phone. those stories and more tonight on "nightly business report" for thursday, august 25th. good evening, and welcome. the ceo at the center of a firestorm responds to the heat.