>> rose: welcome to the program. i'm jeff glor of cbs news feeling in for charlie rose who is traveling. we begin with a look at the economy with dennis berman and jill schlesinger. >> i think it's fascinating because the story is yet to be told. we know the initial market reaction has been amazing. stocks have risen dramatically i think because of the ideas of tax cuts and spending in infrastructure and we see the dow is doing better than the s&p because of industrial companies. shawl companies have been on a tear, it's been phenomenal. but let's get back and put my old cfp hat on for a second. the average of american, say half of the americans have 401ks or iras or any investment accounts, that person has stocks and bonds and the

bond market has gotten hammered. >> we continue with charlie's conversation with 2016 nascar sprint cup champion jimmie johnson. >> the tracks change like a golfer to a golf course. the more times you come to a course, you know where the breaks are and you know how to play it. i know how to set up my car and the direction to lead my team, plus life experiences to manage stress, pressure, schedule and life. >> we conclude with the cast and director of the film "loving." >> people see themselves in the film and kind of take what they want and need out of it. i think, if we tried to point the film in one direction or another too much, it might rob people of that experience. i think you have to make a film that, as simplistic as it sounds, reminds people of the humanity at the center of the

much bigger debate. >> the economy, jimmie johnson and the new film "loving," when we continue. >> 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. >> glor: good evening, i'm jeff glor of cbs news filling in for charlie rose who is economy. president-elect trump outlined an ambitious economic agenda to kick start haze presidency. he proposed massive public spending initiative of bridges roads and other infrastructure.

also wants to introduce tax cuts not seen since the george bush era. two cabinet members, tom price to lead the department of health and human services and elaine chao former labor secretary to head the department of transportation. dennis berman, financial editor of the wall street journal, and jill schlesinger, cbs news business analyst and host of "jill on the money," pleased to have both of them here now. dennis, let's start with chrption and this chao pick today. if the president wants to get the massive infrastructure project done, she would seemingly be the bern washington connections. >> well, she has a lot of experience in the government serving eight years under george w. bush, married, perhaps not incidentally, to mitch glor: the only one whoe served the full eight years under george w. bush. >> that's correct. so obviously a creature of

washington, knows how it works. but i think for me, just the really interesting thing about infrastructure is there is so much work that has to go into actually spending the money. we talked about this at the end of the financial crisis is shovel-ready projects and there is a lot of work to be done. >> glor: a lot has been made of infrastructure. has it gotten better since the end of the financial crisis or no? >> i don't think that's the case at all. if you look at funding from state level and city level, much of the infrastructure around this country, so many states and municipalities have been pinched so deeply they're just putting off maintenance projects. so trump and congress is right that the spending has to take place, but it's not going to happen in the way perhaps the politicians want it to materialize. >> glor: jill, how might we imagine this will happen? a trillion dollars they're talking about? >> yeah, but the question is is this a jobs program or infrastructure program? if the genesis is we need to put

more people back to work or take people who are maybe disenfranchised from globalization and technology and try to get them involved and actually working, it's a very different question than what is the best way to rebuild the infrastructure of this country? right now, when i talk to a lot of analysts, they will say to me, you know what? we don't even have enough people today to do projects that are already funded. we're not sure we have the skilled labor necessary to do all these projects. i think the reality is that we are going to see money that is spent. will the government do it on its own? no, it will be some kind of private-public partnership, and sometimes when the private sector is involved, they'll want to concentrate on projects that are high yield, and many of those high yielding projects may be in places where the governments and the localities could do it themselves but are choosing not to. so i think the devil will be in the details of this process. >> or they may want to do it at

lower costs. a few cases even in new york city they've hired chinese construction companies to redo some of the bridges here. >> the space program has become the public-private partnership as well and many promising possibilities but also challenges as well. you say jobs or infrastructure. can it be both at the same time? >> well, it can be, but i think sometimes these projects may be drifting towards the types of labor that really needs to be skilled labor. it's one thing to do some kind of big, huge iives spend when you have 10% unemployment in the economy. but right now with the unemployment rate under 5%, finding the right people could be actually pretty difficult in this process. so i think, look, we do all want this. this is actually a bipartisan issue. but trying to find the right people to get these projects done is not as easy as that blusblurb of "let's do

infrastructure spending" because that is a much longer-term project that requires a lot of thoughtfulness around it, an it's more than a slogan. >> glor: let's talk about possible tax cuts, if we could, dennis. if they happen, they are not insignificant. >> not insignificant. we are talking huge numbers both at the corporate tax level and the individual tax level. the hope, of course, is that money will be spent. as far as the corporate level goes, this idea there might be hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions of dollars that are taken offshore where today they are taken back to the u.s. to put to productive purposes, say giving people jobs, building a new business infrastructure, again i think the devil is in the details there. we want companies to spend money for business investment, but they have been so reticent to do that. i just don't know if they're going to do that even if the incentives are there. >> glor: look at apple, how many billions of dollars and not spending that. we ask if it will happen, will

the cuts happen? >> there is going to be some tax cut plan because between speaker ryan and president-elect trump, they are close enough where a deal can be made here. i think the real fascinating part of what the deal ends up being is who makes money on this, around i think that, if you look at it and you say, okay, tax policy center scores the trump plan and says the average household will get $800, $900 in tax savings. that seems awesome, 2% sounds great. but if you find out the top 1% got much more a at the end of the day/10, 12, 14% of their gross income, then that's going to make a big difference. the other part what we know from economists is if you give a tax cut to someone wealthy, they might buy a new car but

generally they will invest it, whereas a work class person will take it and maybe pay down some debt but probably go out and spend it. so it's considered more still lative if you go to the middle where there are more people and give the money there. if it goes to the higher end, i'm not sure how much it's actually going to boost the economy. it will be good for rich people but less good for the mid pal and bottom. >> "stimulus" is a controversial word. >> very controversial. back to jill's point, business investment. when you think about the rich people investing more in companies, where is the company money going? oftentimes to share buybacks and dividends, not necessarily to productive use. when we talk about stimulus, it's great on the election trail and in congress, but, again, actual dollars in people's pockets who want it and need it who voted the way they did, we have a long way, to get there, i

think. >> glor: have you been surprised at what the market has done since the election? >> i was teased mercilessly because people said you said the stock market was going to crash if trump won. i said i was right for three hours on election night. ( laughter ) i think it's fascinating because the story is yet to be told. we know the initial market reaction has been pretty amazing. we've seen stocks rise pretty dramatically i think because to have the ideas of still lative effect of -- stimulative effect and the dow is better than the s&p. small companies have been on a tear. it's been phenomenal. but the average american, say half of the americans have 401ks or irs as or any investment account, that person

has stocks and bonds and the bond market has gotten absolutely hammered. now that doesn't mean we are going crazy, we're not going to face double digit inflation anytime, but it tells you the two markets see the world differently. stock market is more optimistic, the bond market more pessimistic, a bit worried all the spending could come home to roost, blow out the government's debt problem in a major and dramatic way, and i think a little fearful about what do the next four years mean for the economy, for people and for inflation. >> glor: what do the next few months and years mean for rates? >> i think you are overstating a little. the rates were down 1, 2, 3, 5% on a ten-year treasure. we're up to about 2.35% on a ten-year treasure and still incredibly low. so on a relative basis, the rates have moved a lot and that

will affect people's ability to get a mortgage, finance a car and education, all the things that matters. but the fed wanted inflation in our economy. we were standing on the abyss of deflation and now looking at possibly inflation and that's not necessarily bad. >> some possible inflation or -- yeah, so right now the fed's expectation is below 2%. >> glor: could pick up fast. could pick up fast. this is on a relative basis. it could pick up, but right now, i would say the fed, when they're at home at night having private conversations, they're probably saying, you know what? it's not too bad. i'll take this, i'll take this. maybe jill has a different view. but i know it's not terrible at this point. >> no, i agree with that. i'm talking about the pace of change which has been pretty dramatic. so from 1.3 to 2.3, seems like rates are still low in the ten-year but you just lost 8% in your bond positions in a short

period of time. that said, the fed would like a little inflation. janet yellen who came under pressure during the trump campaign, he said she and the fed kept rates too low for a long time. she could be trump's friend because if things accelerate, they will raise faster next year. >> glor: and sometimes they accelerate faster than you think and sometimes you can't react fast enough. >> i think that's the real tough position of being a central banker is that, you know, you are taking in information, information can change, and obviously that if the fed has to accelerate rates because things are moving a little bit faster than expected, that's fine. i think what's more intriguing to me around the movement in the bond market is that it feels quite extreme relative to what is going on on the ground because what we don't know again is we don't know exact details of the spending plans, and we also don't know whether

congressional republicans are going to push back against mounting debt in the united states. we have a whole slew of legislators that were elected based on the premise that they did not want too much spending, right? these were the people who were willing to blow through the debt ceiling to keep spending in check. aren't these the same people who will rubber stamp a deal to add so much money to the national debt? i don't know. >> glor: they also have specific thoughts about trade as well, everybody here involved, and the president-elect said some very strong things. >> i know, this is, to me, is the most interesting part of everything that's going to happen in washington. whether trade barriers are erected in one form or the other, that raises the possibility of more inflation. so the dollar is getting stronger as interest rates are rising. if we erect trade barriers as well, the price of things that are going to be coming to this country are going to be hit

quite hard. so we might be embarking on an incredible experiment on trade barriers in the modern world, and we have no idea what the effects might be. >> glor: we're embarking on a whole bunch of experiments, seems like. ( laughter ) jill, what else are you watching out for right now? >> i think what's kind of false nateing is coming into the new administration is to just see what kind of collaboration will take place with strange bedfellows. i was struck by the fact that when we talked about trait, for example, during the campaign, you had the sanders people and the trump people kind of coming together. there was a populous sentiment. so i'm intrigued to see what kind of conversations are going to happen across the aisles from one another. i'm interested in seeing details of all these plans. i'm interested to see what the electorate believes is what's happening to them because sometimes what's actually happening to them is not evident

until some time passes, and i wonder if, many times, what we do as a population is say i'm voting for the guy who seems like the guy who's just going to shake it up and if it goes back to a throwback, what are those people then going to do at the mid-term elections? i think that's going to be kind of an interesting thing, and we want to see what all the countries are going to do. i'm worried about brexit. we're supposed to debt theresa may, the prime minister to come say something. so many pieces, but it's uncharted in so many different areas. to some extent i think the economics of all this is interesting but the fabric of society is more interesting. >> glor: always unset told a certain extent, right? >> absolutely. >> glor: we can look back at any point in history.

>> if i could take your question for a bit. the relationship between the executive branch and the federal reserve, we fought this war 200 years ago, andrew jackson, second bank to have the united states, wa boleshed that, start the federal reserve 80, 90 years later. it will be interest to see if he appoints that are aggressive on the economy at large. he said a lot of things. whether he appoints jeff hensarling, someone like him, that could be a very important thing for markets. the markets have become dependent on the fed. you can say that's a bad thing, that the fed is going to bail them out and that relationship might change which, in the end, depending how it's done, might have positive effects, but certainly there will be volatility in what it is.

>> janet yellen, the fed chief, said a year ago that she believed there had to be fiscal solutions, not monetary ones. she said, congress, you want growth, you do it. now we're going to have that and the fed can retreat and normalize policy and i think that's going to be -- it's almost like a post-crisis nacho corns you thought would happen a few years ago. now it's going to be on a fast track to happening. that said, we have been talking about stimulus measures, what's shovel-ready, what's this or that, and, again, it has to be the efficiency of getting the dollars to work. and my concern about some of the rhetoric that we've heard is that it sounds like a panacea, and we've with seen other countries try to do this. japan has a george rail system, you know, it's amazing. the economy is still mired in a low-growth period and maybe deflation. so if we spend all this money

and add to our national debt, is this actually going to move the needle or not? >> i think paint a more positive scenario, and i share all your concerns, jill, i really do, and the detail shovel-ready, you're totally right. but let's say for a moment that there is a collective belief that somehow the attitude and the sentiment in the business community specifically has changed and people are willing, like i said, business investmentwise to spend money, consumers are willing to spend money, whether you agree with trump's politics or not, it at least hypothetically presents an opportunity for us collectively to reset the mindset which is really one thing prior to this and that was stuck. it was stuck, stuck, stuck. productivity was poor, both poor. >> for a long time. yeah, so whether in the end there are substantive changes, i don't know, but if we collectively believe ourselves that they are going to happen, it's kind of a fake it to make it thing, which might be the ultimate trump creation,

perhaps, that might create some positive benefits. >> economic crossfire. i would agree, but i would think it was starting to happen. we were already seeing wage gains coming into this period, we were already seeing consumer spending, we got revision to vired quarter g.d.p. consumer spending stronger than expected, so all this somewhat has been happening organically and, you're right, if it's a jump start, great, i'm all in, i want that to happen. i am generally a somewhat nervous person when i look at the promises. that's my number one thing. and i just want people to be clear that promises and campaigns are different than governing, and when we see the results, i'll be psyched, i want everyone to have a job, but i want people to be clear that what we're doing is going to have a good short, intermediate and long-term effect and we'll have to see. >> and business cycles are

governing, too. one is not dictated by the other. it's amazing to think we are almost ten years removed from the financial crisis. you're almost a decade out. dennis berman, jill schlesinger, thank you both very much. >> thank you. >> rose: the great jimmie johnson is here, the 2016 nascar sprint cup champion. he made sports history sunday in miami where he captured a record tying seventh year-end title, equals him with richard petty and dale earnhardt senior. johnson's fifth in the season and 80th win in his career. welcome back to the table. >> thank you. >> rose: think of that with petty and earnhardt, sr. that's a pretty cool place to be. >> that's a cool place to be. the legends, what they've done for our sports, just honored to be joining them. >> rose: yeah. how did you do it? was this a difficult year? >> it was a difficult year.

we won a couple of times early in the season, then the summer hit. as a group, we realized our four cars weren't performing as they needed to. all our department heads and everyone in general, we have 650 people who work and build cars for us, all in charlotte, everybody locked arms, we knew we had a mountain to clievment we did it. just in time, the chase started, the playoffs started. we were hot again. won two events in the post-season, leading to the opportunity for championship in miami. >> rose: i have a big climactic race coming up h this weekend in abu dhabi. one was winning for a while, the other winning now. essentially, it will be decided. which says interesting things to me about the nature of the engine, driver, the team and

auld of that. >> luck. >> rose: and luck. you think of the stress you put on these vehicles and sometimes a 5-cent part breaks or could be more elaborate with the engine, a puncture with the tire running over debris on the track. so many variables makes the championship so special over the years, all the understand the you have to have it go away and it doesn't, it's there for you. >> rose: how have your skills changed? >> i think i'm taking care of myself physically so i'm able to stay sharp mentally and physically. >> rose: people don't know how much driving is a physical challenge. >> without a doubt. a huge, huge part of it. and to sustain the energy and the hydration over the course of a race, the things that i've learned in sports carried over to my day job. >> rose: but in terms of -- i mean, do you see it differently? does the experience give you a sense of how you see the challenge of where you -- the challenge of the race itself, from the driver's perspective.

>> yeah. >> rose: beyond the fact that you're physically better, beyond the fact that you have incrementally added, you know, new experiences? >> absolutely. i mean, these tracks change each and every year like a golfer to a golf course. the more times you come to a course, you know where the breaks are, you know how to play it and i know how to drive the tracks and i can watch them evolve and know where the line goes and how to set up my car and the direction to lead my team, plus life experiences to manage your stress and pressure. to manage life. that's all important. >> rose: the different of the track in terms of formula one, indy 500 and nascar, what's the difference for a driver? >> in nays cars, we're not allowed to have dat data comingf the cars.

in nascar, the drivers are the computers. >> rose: i didn't know that. all the data pouring into a formula one grand central, you don't have that? >> we have everything away from the data. we have all the tools to prepare, but in the car it's me. so trying to connect me to those tools and validate and know how to use those tools is a big part of our job. >> rose: when you didn't win for, what, 24 races -- >> yes. >> rose: -- were you beginning to doubt yourself? >> no, 24 races isn't long, especially when we have 36 a year we run in. it wasn't fun by any stretch. we weren't even leading in laps or looking at a win, so that part was tough. it allowed jeff gordon to come back. jeff retired last year and to have his expert opinion, and, one, he was watching from afar, then he was able to get in the car and feel what we had been

talking about, that was a big moment for us and help us find the right direction and get hendrichendrickhendrick motorspn top. >> rose: what did he do? it validated what we drivers were talking about. >> rose: because he had experience, he could confirm, validate and interpret, too. >> exactly. he's taken on a strong role in managing the company. drivers will complain and that's my job so we're complaining about all kinds of stuff. when jeff experienced it, he was able to help mr. hendrick know where to infuse the money, the engine development, and fine tune the areas. >> rose: do you want to own? absolutely not. i want to shelve my helmet. >> rose: and do the rest of your life. >> yes. >> rose: want to do other kind of racing? >> i've always wanted to experience other cars.

i wanted to drive indy cars. that was my dream. i always wanted to be in an open style vehicle. >> rose: what's stopping you? i'm so busy, one. two, i have a family. the open cars are more dangerous. prior to kids, i could drive an open car. now i have to honor the deal i have with my wife. endurance sports car racing interests me, and going back to my roots in racing some of the trucks. >> rose: you've always been in amazing physical shape. you and jonathan harris which understand a lot about how the human body works, he had a gym, you would work out, and had a gym in your house. >> yeah. >> rose: but you evolved toward simply doing marathons. >> and triathlons. >> rose: and how is your body

different because of that? >> definitely a lot lighter which is fun, and like i said, being in the race car. jon gave me structure for doing the crazy schedule and making the most of the time i have. >> rose: it has to be a routine. >> a routine and effective. wasting time doing things isn't going to cut it. >> rose: it's better for you because it's performance stuff. >> absolutely. >> rose: you're out there and it's not just a workout. >> absolutely. the endurance side has been really good because the car races, the shortest is three and a half hours so hydration and nutrition is very important and i've learned a lot about the aspects and carry it over to my day job. >> rose: your crew chief said he's probably the most underrated champion in this sport. most people, were were in wood crumble -- meaning not winning every sunday -- and he didn't ever waver. he knew what he needed to do. he knew what the demands were

and made it happen. the real spark in this whole thing is jimmie. you felt like you were carrying the future of the team on your back. >> yeah, this year's been a special year for me. i've always been focused on being successful, but i made a pledge to myself and my team and the company that i was going to be more significant in the company. i've taken on a different role with jeff gordon retiring, he kind of passed the torch to me, sat me down and had dinner and said, look, you can have whatever you want out of this company and you can be as vocal and involved as you want or just continue to be the driver which you have been, which is totally fine, but i felt like there was something peeling me to be a leader for -- pulling me to be a leader for the company, to be more involved and help the young driver, a driver chase elliott, and kasey and his team.

the process has been more difficult. i have been more invested in the overall company. >> rose: people say -- i mean, daily earnhardt, jr. said you willed yourself to the front, from here to here. >> i've always been all in. and since opinions i was a kidn southern california, my dad ran heavy equipment and my mom was a school bus driver and i had a passionate desire to make my way to the big time. a lot of support and love on their behalf and briefly of others in me because they've seen my passion, they've given me a chance. i'm all in and i love -- >> rose: what is it you like beyond the track? >> father of two daughters. when my wife and i wanted to start our family, we dialed some things down. i wanted to be around during the week. my job takes a lot out of me so

fulfill the sponsorship obligations with the 48-car. i've been selective on the endorsement deals i have so i can be at home. >> rose: does jeff own part of the car? >> half to have the 48. >> rose: hendrick owns the other half. >> yes. >> rose: why wouldn't you own part of your own car? >> now it looks like it would be an easy situation to have, but when i first came on, it was a three-car company. jeff was eager to start a fourth car and mr. hendricks says, okay, if you want to start a fourth car, put some money up, let's do it. that's how the fourth car started. >> rose: what does he contribute? what does hendricks contribute to it? is it leadership, vision? >> he's a very successful businessman, so, yes, there is all those things. but the man operates from the heart. everybody works for us, it's a family environment, and to have such a successful man with 100 auto dealers across the country, tens of thousands of people that

work for him, then the auto racing side we have, everybody feels like they're working for their dad. it's really an amazing attribute he has, and we're all in this family environment. >> rose: if you had it to do over, would you do anything different? >> i don't. i had the dream to race indy cars, but when i look at my strengths as a driver and what's really propelled my career in a nascar vehicle, my upbringing, my battleground in racing offroad trucks and racing on the dirt and slipping and sliding around polished up a great skill set for nascar style vehicles. open vehicles, you spin around and you're gone. the nascar, you slide around a lot. >> rose: you're 41 and, ten years ago, you know, how you might have changed and skills that might have affected your performance on the track, when you look at the competition, is it bigger, younger, tougher?

>> yeah. >> rose: than it has been ever? >> it is. younger, for sure. tougher, for sure. it is so competitive. i was just having a conversation a few minutes ago with someone about how there used to be a flow on the track, and lap 50 of 500 laps, why are+++ you going o position? well, now, it's so competitive you can't even give somebody a break a quarter of the way through the race. you go for blood each and every lap. >> rose: what does that mean go for blood? >> you have to fight for every position. pit stops are so important where you're running on the track where the aerodynamics are unsolved. the closer you+++ are to theath0 nobody cuts you a break, nobody's taking or giving. >> rose: great to have you here. wack in a moment, stay with us.0 >> glor: i'm jeff glor, cbs news, in for charlie rose who is traveling. mildred and richard "loving" were an interracial married

couple arrested in 1958 for violating virginia's intermarriage laws. peter travers of rolling stone calls "loving" a quietly devastating film that resonates for the here and now, here's a look. >> i'm going to build you a house. right here. our house. >> i'm going to take mildred up to d.c. and marry her. >> you sure about that? by the power vested in me by the district of columbia, i now pronounce you husband and wife.

>> richard! what are you doing in bed with that woman? >> i'm his wife. that's no good here. richard perry loving, being a white person, and mildred jeter, being a colored person, did unlawfully cohabitate as man and wife. >> richard! i believe this is a battle that could go all the way to the supreme court. >> we ain't hurting anybody. they will argue it is unfair to bring children of mixed race into the world. >> tell that woman to come over here. >> i'm going to raise my family here. i don't care what they do to us. >> get back inside! i can take care of you. know that. can take care of you.

know we have some enemies. but we have some friends, too. >> you realize this case could alter the constitution of the united states. >> you think you will lose? we may lose the small battles, but win the big war. >> is there anything you would like me to say to the supreme court justices of the united states? >> tell the judge i love my wife. >> glor: joining me is the writer and director of the film jeff nichols and two of the stars, ruth negga who plays mildred "loving" and nick kroll who place the attorney who successfully argued on the "loving"'s behalf before the supreme court in the 1964 case "loving" vs. virginia.

i'm pleased to have them all at the table today. jeff, the film overall, what strikes people who see it is that it is a more personal story than it is the public story. when you were approaching the script which you wrote, why did you decide to focus on this marriage in particular as opposed to the bigger case? >> well, the first thing i was provide with was nancy bursky's documentary the "loving" story which came out on hbo in 2011. >> rose: a peabody. yes. and i was approached in 2012. when you sit down to watch nancy's documentary, you're immediately struck by this archival footage of these two people. it's filled with it. it's filled with these photographs for lif "life magaz" it's very clear these two people sincerely loved one another, and by the end of watching the documentary, i felt like i was witnessing one of the greatest

love stories in american history, and it made very much sense to me to focus on that, to focus on those two people. >> glor: despite how reticent they are in the documentary and overall in their lives, how quiet they were, you sensed the love. because these were not outspoken people by any stretch. >> not at all, and they weren't political people. and i think it's really important then you're -- you know, we all know this film is a representation of the lovings. this is my interpretation of what i could find out about them, but you want to try to find their essence and represent it truthfully. i do not think they had an agenda. i think it's important to the way the story plays out in the film and their story overall which is the act of them getting married was not an act of defiance. it wasn't a symbol or a statement they were trying to make. they just truly loved one another, and that's important because i think that sincerity,

it can draw more people into their story. this isn't propaganda. this isn't two people trying to make you think one way or the other. they just loved one another and i think that's an important thing to focus on. >> it's hard to find archival video of richard loving actually saying something, right? >> it's tricky. there are a handful of interviews. hope riden is a tournament filmmaker who we represent in the film and a little footage from the mid '60s, but we had to cobble together several intefer views to get a paragraph for jill to research to build the voice out of. >> glor: so he was relying on the facial expressions, hands, his impressive brick laying skills which he went to school for. >> well, yeah, when we landed in virginia because we shot this around richmond and bowling green and center point where the lovings were from, the first

thing when joe landed is we got him i in i in in masonry school. he's good at it. >> rose: richard country talkative. mildred went either but a little bit more. >> she was, i suppose, the mouthpiece of the couple. i think that it landed on her to be the one to be the communicator, and i think she might have been quiet and reticent, but i think she had a very dignified way of communication -- communicating what she needed to, and i think that her manner was also one which people responded to. you know, the lawyers, bernie

and phil, when they talk about her, they talk about a woman who radiated dignity and charisma, that i think was vital to getting their voice heard and what she needed to say heard. but i think -- i do think she was enamored of the spotlight. i think she pursued this case because it was her way of getting home, and that was what was the motivating factor for her. i don't think she relished the idea of having to go to lawyers and have to go to court at all, but it was a necessary avenue to take to raise her family where she wanted to raise them, which was in her home. >> glor: because one of the lawyers she dealt with bernie

played by nick kroll could not have been much different than her personality-wise. this was an outspoken, loud guy. he was very committed to the case but i wonder for you, nick, what that was like dealing with such a sparse script for mildred and richard and you being the voluable guy. >> yeah, we shot one scene and realized bernie had more lines than richard has in the entire film. it was very interesting to play a character who is more talkative and as jeff's script beautifully lays out, bernie's job and my job in the movie is to walk the audience through what's happening in the court case and the proceedings as it's spanning a nine-year period. so i had to cover some ground in that, but it's also amazing to

work with people like ruth and joel who don't say much but are saying so much, that their performances are so subtle and nuanced and are communicating so much without having to say a ton of lines. >> because the lov lovings were given the option of being there for the court case in person and they didn't want to be. >> yes. these were not political people, not people who set out with an agenda to change the way things worked. they were just two people who wanted to be married and couldn't understand why they wouldn't be able to. the idea mildred wrote to attorney general kennedy and that letter was passed to the aclu which at which point bernie gets his hands on the case and gets involved and in a way is in over his head, he didn't have a ton of experience, and brings in phil hirschkof to help with some

aspects of the case. do you think mildred would have gone? >> i think they didn't want to hear their family being disparaged by people who didn't know them. i don't think they wanted to -- and i think, you know, it plays beautifully in our film that it disgusted them their kids would have been used as some sort of stick to beat them with, you know, and i think that was a final straw, i think, for them. i don't think that they wanted to hear that, and i think that i

feel and you can see nick and john's characters, they're really reluctant to tell them but a it's such a shameful thing to use against people. >> they were first arrested in virginia and ended up moving away to d.c. to live for five years, but then went back and were arrested again and that was the spur for what became the supreme court case. >> kind of. they were arrested a second time, and we take a little creative license with the scenario around their second arrest. they were arrested in real life when they returned for an easter vacation. i collapsed that with the return of -- to give birth to their first child because richard's mother was a midwife. so i took a little creative license there. what really happened was that judge bazille, the first trial

judge, sentenced them to exile from the state of virginia for 25 years, so the closest place they could go and be in exile was d.c. and for a lot of people, you would say, well, what's the big deal? it's two hours away from their home. but for richard and mildred, that was a very big deal. >> glor: you see the dread on mildred's face as she's pulling into d.c. for the first time and how different that neighborhood is for them and the environment. >> it is certainly city versus country, but you also have to look at mildred as the character of the arc of the story where she begins as a 19-year-old who is pregnant and really has never been away from home, and to not only have the change of being married, having a baby, but then also being completely removed from your home and your family, i believe, and it's represented this way in the film, that mildred went into a depression

in tee see. she speaks about it in the documentary, and we used some of those lines in the film. i think it broke her heart, and i think she had a connection to that place that was certainly built out of family but also just built out of the dirt. i think she was connected to the nature of that place. >> glor: i think joel talked about the names, even though the case is so famous, the names may not be well known to americans as one thinks they might should be. >> well, it's very telling that the event that sparked all of this was in their bedroom. it was in the privacy of their home. it wasn't something done in public. it wasn't a marsh or an explosion -- it wasn't a march or explosion. the violence here was, by definition, in the privacy of

their bedroom, and it was done that way on purpose, because i believe the sheriff at the time wanted to literally catch them in bed together. >> glor: and he did. and he did. and i think -- so when you have something that is literally prosecuted inside the bedroom and then drawn out over a period of nine years, it's not necessarily the thing that stays in the headlines. >> glor: it's interesting the documentary didn't get made before it did, based on what it was, right? >> well, yeah. i think nancy and ruth have spoken about it. they both, you know, they read mildred's obituary in 2008 when she passed away, because it wasn't something that was on the lips of many people. >> and it wasn't on her lips because she swore off all publicity for decades. she did one interview before she passed. >> that wasn't who she was which again validates the approach to

the whole story. this is not who these people are. i think the same stance for her daughter, peggy, who is the only surviving child, these people, they just -- they don't like drawing attention to themselves, necessarily. >> and richard, killed by a drunk driver at the age of 42, at a young age, i know the other two children passed as well. nick, you have been plenty accommodating. you say people always want you to make them laugh. do the big smile. this is obviously a little different. >> yeah, i was very excited to get the call from jeff because i was a big fan of his films. >> glor: how did you find him? i saw his show and was a fan of his show on comedy central, the kroll show. extraordinary. >> you're very kind. thank you for saying that, jeff, finally.

( laughter ) it's one of those things as an actor where you do all this work and hope some day you will get a call out of the blue from someone you respect and say, hey, come do this thing with us, and i got that call from jeff, an it was really exciting, and then just without even knowing anything about the film or the story, and then i read the script, and it was so beautiful, and i knew a little bit about the story itself. a friend of mine had written a song called loving in virginia which i heard years before and i was excited to be a part of it. i think we all have the desire to be able to do different things and it took someone like jeff to take, i wouldn't say a chance on me but to be able to give me the opportunity to do something. >> unfortunately, it did not work out, but -- >> nick has a tremendous resemblance to bernie, you know, and that can't be overlooked.

>> it's interesting seeing bernie in the documentary as well. he was not afraid to talk. >> no, and i think -- and it's an important thing to know about nick's her forms which i think is really i smart, it's a performance within a performance. we all change when we get on camera. our bodies and voices change. that certainly was true for bernie. felt like sometimes you were watching episodes of the office. he's catching the camera and is very aware that someone is watching him speak. and i applied that in the first scene where they meet -- where he meets richard and mildred. this idea he is putting on a presentation of himself partly because of his age and experience but also i think that's just kind of who he was. >> one of the great scenes is each of the phone conversations are quite good because you see mildred's reluctance.

your character wrote a letter to robert kennedy who then referred to it to the aclu. i wonder how that is as an actor, talking to the phone, in that particular scene where he's trying to convince you to meet with him and to take up your cause. >> didn't we ring nick? wasn't he on the other line? i called in. we recorded it. he said, we had a couple of different takes and we had those cued up so they would be -- queued up so they would be based on the time of ruth's performance. that's the first time we heard you do the voice and everything and it was uncanny. >> i was in l.a., pulled over on fountain and called from my car. i was pull over on the side of the road and i said, i've got to call the 1950s. and, yeah, for me hearing ruth's voice, because i don't know how

we did it, because i remember hearing her voice at some point in a couple of the takes, and i knew of ruth's work, but i knew her as an an irish worm. woman, and then to hear her voice as mildred gave me the chills. it was weird to be 3,000 miles away and immediately feel sucked into that world and just hearing her voice. so i said i heard her, but to sit across the desk from ruth and joel was surreal because, again, it's not mimicry, but both of them so beautifully embody the essence of these two people, that it wassish it felt like i was -- that it felt like i was talking to them. >> i would like to figure out how many words joel has in the script ( laughter )

>> at least seven. yeah. but that was always your design to keep that script as lean as sparse as it is. >> yeah, and certainly, hopefully, it is a representation of the lovings, but there is a big thing going on there. i've realized it taking the film out into the world and showing people is people bring their own belief systems into the theater with them. people see themselves in the film and they take what they want and need out of it, and i think, if we tried to point the film in one direction or another too much, it might rob people of that experience. i think you have to make a film that, as simplistic as it sounds, reminds people of the humanity at the center of this much bigger debate, because there are so many relevant connections to social issues, political issues, we knew the audience would bring those into

the theater with them, and richard and mildred weren't talking about those things, even though they were representing a lot of those things. so we just had to stay focused on this relationship, and hopefully, by the end of it, you would have an emotional experience with a couple of that's the power of their story, and that's all i was trying to focus on. >> glor: jeff nichols, direct screen writer, ruth negga and nick kroll. thank you very much. >> thank you for having us. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at 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. >> you're w

announcer: explore new woworlds and new ideas through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. announcer: frankie valli, little anthony and the original imperials, little richard, jay black and the americans, fred parris and the satins. 25 legends of rock, rhythm and doo wop unite for a once-in-a-lifetime concert event, next. ladies and gentlemen, the iceman, jerry butler. [cheering and applause] [laughs] thank you, thank you and welcome. tonight we celebrate our american history,