>> good evening, i'm jeff glor in for charlie who is away. we we begin with stephanie ruhle and david sanger of "the new york times." >> we showed president obama was very concerned about appearing to act in a partisan away instead of acting to protect the integrity of the network and wanted to keep it low key and there was also a concern, stephanie, i don't know how legitimate it was but it was described by many people in the administration they raised an alarm too loudly saying if the russians were coming to mess with the election they'd play into vladamir putin's hand.

>> and the choice of rex tillerson for secretary of state. >> he's been chairman and ceo and arguably our largest and most complex international business based in the united states. he's had significant international experience dealing at the head of state level, head of government level for many many years. of course he knows president putin and other world leaders. he's also managed a very complex organization, exxon mobil and i think some of his experience much of it can be transferrable to the job of secretary state. >> we conclude with the new film "20th century women" and we spoke to the director mike mills and the film's star annette bening. >> my mom had him as a teenager during the depression and had to get out of high school because of the war and she's from that world and i'm a 1970s kid who

grew up on punk rock and skateboarding. it's rudy valle meets the buzzcocks. >> that's 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. >> good evening. i'm stephanie ruhle of nbc news filling in for charlie rose who is away.

we begin with david sanger who co-authored how russian cyber power invaded the united states and the motive behind the hacking. did he seek to mar the brand of the american democracy and for stall activism for russian and invaders and weaken the next american president or as the cia concluded last month a deliberate attempt to elect mr. trump. putin accomplished all three goals. i'm please to welcome david sanger to the program. good evening. what a piece. unravel this for me. where did it all begin? >> the first activity that was seen in this story against the dnc was seen by the united states government. nobody will tell us exactly who saw it but it seems likely it was picked up by intelligence agencies.

passed on to the department of homeland security and fbi. then the fbi had a fairly low-level special agent call the dnc and try to alert them to what was going on. he got the help desk like you and i do when you have a problem with your pc. eventually he got routed to a young cyber security consultant who had been hired by the dnc which is run pretty much on a shoestring budget -- >> but david given the history we've seen hacking. president obama himself knows first hand what chinese hacking looks like. why was this handed down from a low-level homeland security person to a low-level person at the dnc? >> great question because as you indicated in 2008 the chinese and russians got into the elections of president obama and senator john mccain. it was president obama's

homeland security advisor who was then at the justice department who had first called dennis mcdonough to warn him of the hacking in 2008. these are people -- we have a u.s. government very aware of the threat here. what happened was the fbi person contacts the dnc and the person who takes the call doesn't believe they're from the fbi and takes seven months not moving quickly to alert anybody senior at the dnc they have a problem. during that time the russianing hacking efforts spread. that's the period of time when the chairman of secretary

clinton's campaign john podesta clicks on something which allowed the hackers to his e-mails and you were reading those starting this fall. it was a series of cascading errors then we take the story through what happened in the white house as they tried to decide how to respond and in the minds of many underresponded. >> how do you explain that whether as the white house under responding while president obama was one of hillary clinton's strongest advocates or surrogates or john podesta. we're talking about stake holders. >> president obama was concerned about appearing to act in a

bipartisan work rather to protect the integrity of the election and wanted to keep it low key. it was described to me by many people in the administration if they raised an alarm too loudly and sid the russians were coming to mess with the integrate of the u.s. election they would play into vladamir putin's hand and would undercut the confidence people have in the election system. that's in part why they decided on a series warnings to mr. putin, one delivered in person in china by president obama. but no counteraction or at least none we can find yet that suggests there may be some still coming. there's one other election here too. they knew there were vulnerabilities in the american election system for the day of

the vote on november 8. they were concerned if they ratcheted up the pressure on russia too quickly they could start an escalation ladder in which the russians would come after the actual voting machines and registration systems which had been examined by some russians looking for vulnerabilities. they were concerned about not doing anything prior to election day that would spur a bigger problem. >> well, take us inside the rnc. according to the report the rnc was hacked. that information didn't go anywhere but john spicer from donald trump's team said it was not hacked. in fact he said we invite "the new york times" to come to our office and check it out and you didn't. you went with the story. >> that's right. so the story of the rnc is a

fascinating one as well. their data was hacked according to american intelligence reports and we've dug back into this and like many companies, like many other organizations the rnc has contractors who siphon off the data of the rnc and help store it or index it for them and that's how their systems were attacked as well. now, we didn't see anything from their systems to get out in the public and that may simply be it was not terribly interesting or old or it could be somebody made a decision they wanted to make public the democrat stuff from the dnc and mr. podesta's e-mails and those came from his personal g-mail account and trying to figure out why the republican material didn't get made public but what you heard

the republican national committee doing is answering the question narrowly were the servers in their offices hacked. a question they've not answered yet is did any of your contractors get hacked or data leave? remember what happened in the office of personnel management a year and a half ago. the giant washington bureaucracy that's got the security files on 22 million americans and lost them all to chinese hackers. they weren't keeping many of those in the office of personnel they were stored in external servers by other agencies. >> we know president obama has called for an investigation into this and wants it by january 20. we have seen republican lawmakers ask for the same type of information and investigation. assuming they're in agreement and learn what you do, what they've learned from the intelligence agencies then what?

the president-elect is donald trump. >> the president-elect is donald trump and i think it's important to note here, i have not found many people even among secretary clinton's biggest supporters who believe the russian hack necessarily changed enough votes and would have effected the outcome of the election. we will never know how many votes this effected because you'll never know if there were people who didn't go to the polls because they were disgused in what they were reading and may have less than an effect on secretary clinton and her handling of classified data or less effect as her short coming as an active presidential candidate. there's always kinds of factors

but what's important is it's the first case where we've seen cyber weaponry use to interfere in a u.s. presidential election. and i may be the first time it was done in a sophisticated way it's almost guaranteed it won't be the last. the big question is what does the united states do in the new cyber era to make sure it's able to control this phenomenon. you'll see others use it. >> david, isn't it difficult to control the phenomenon when have you a president-elect who until how is denying, refusing, questioning, saying it could be the russians, chinese, the people at home. we've not seen donald trump agree with any findings and he ended up ultimately winning. how do you believe he can handle this going forward? he himself has questioned the

agencies he'll be working with in months. >> it's a fascinating question. a few data points. president obama asked for a report from the intelligence community that includes the lessoned learned from the incident. he also asked for the report to be submit to him before he leaves office january 20. one of the big debates is how much they'll make public. you've seen democrats today ask for a national intelligence estimate done by a group within the director of national intelligence's office on the same subject before january 20. and you've seen republican members of congress including mitch mcconnel who's wife has been entered for president trump's cabinet and others saying they want to hold hearings next year. that would be outside of president-elect trump's purview at that time. so i think it is possible that

you're going to see more disclosures once this gets de classified. >> do you believe the ultimate goal in the investigation or fact finding is about combatting cyber warfare and what the u.s. government should do going forward since you can't go back in time and to your point try to find people on the street to say, well, it was definitely the hacking that caused me to vote. the toothpaste is out of the tube. >> people will long argue and never resolve the question to the degree of the russians effected the vote in one way or another. if there's one lesson we've all had from the election season is if you think you understand the motivations of voters you're probably wrong. it's going to be impossible to know the final effect of the outcome. it's not impossible to know what happened, where it came from, what kind of information the

u.s. government had, why the dnc was wide open, why it is the russians were so able to go into other areas including personal mails and gmail accounts and how the mechanism worked from which the material got from the russian intelligence agencies or the hackers working for them to wikileaks, and how it became learned and what we did in the "new york times" today is an early look at what we know now. >> your piece references probably the most famous american election scandal, watergate 44 years ago.

can you compare and contrast? >> downstairs in the basement of the dnc headquarters of a file cap -- cabinet from the watergate burglary and looks like a beaten up 1970s file cabinet and next it to hit is a small, thin dell server the russians got into. in that imagine you can see where we've come and how little progress we've made to some degree in the 40 plus years that have ensuedqusince the watergat scandal and in that case it was the united states and operatives breaking into the dnc leading to the president's resignation.

in this case it's different. it's an important power. disturbing in its own way and posing a whole new set of challenges. you know, it's only the beginning of the set of challenges that we have the way cyber warfare has changed or capabilities have changed the way nations conflict with each other. we saw it in the american use of a computer virus against the iranian nuclear program. we've seen it in the way the iranians and north koreans have attacked targets around the world and now have seen it in the case of the russia hack of the 2016 presidential election. >> i want to ask about "the new york times." we learned it's beefing up an already big effort covering the white house. your plan going forward what is it about president-elect donald trump. is it complex things like russian hacking or it's a

changed election or a president-elect like we've never seen or his favorite medium is twitter. why are you take a bigger effort to cover president-elect trump? >> how do you organize yourself best to do this for a coming administration. we've got a couple of new challenges with us. the first is that you have a president coming in promising so much change on so many scales and you've already seen it in the cabinet appointments including today an energy secretary appointed who four years ago said he wanted to eliminate the energy department. an epa administrator who was in various time in court against the epa. a president of the united states or president-elect who we're still not sure how he's going to separate himself fully from his wide business interests around the world. there'll be a lot of to write

about. secondly comes the technology of "the new york times." we're read primarily online on the app on your iphone, on tablets, on computer and makes us more of a 24-hour news operation and we always have been but we're under a great pressure to be that than ever before. it takes a lot of man power. when i was a white house correspondent we did it with three correspondents and were covering two wars but the demands today are all the greater and made greater that president trump is likely to spend a lot of time in new york and florida in addition to washington. >> you mentioned donald trump's cabinet choices. when you look at who he has surrounded himself in the official positions, rex

tillerson with a close relationship with vladamir putin and exxon clearly has business ties and if sanctions were lifted we'd see it as a positive in terms of oil and gas exploration that russia want to see happen as well as a company like exxon. you have rex tillerson and as many things as donald trump has changed his opinion on he never said anything besides vladamir putin say strong leader. do you tie any of the new realities to the influence by russia on the outcome of the election? >> it's very hard to draw a direct tie. what we do know about vladamir putin is whatever he thought of donald trump we know he disliked secretary clinton. it go back to his belief that secretary clinton was responsible for some of the street protests in 2011 after the united states and statements issued by secretary clinton at the time denounced a 2011

parliamentary election in russia that she believed had been pretty well rigged and it had been. from that moment on it was clear mr. putin viewed the united states as getting involved in his elections and it's possible whatever happened here in this election cycle was just fair play coming back to do what in his view the united states did. >> but we didn't? >> well, the united states issued statements after that it's not free and fair. now, was there information warfare in the run-up? obviously not but for a moment i'm trying to say as putin looks at this we fired the first shot, not him. i'm not saying he's right. i'm simply saying this is what

he and other russian have said. >> thank you so so much. extraordinary reporting. i appreciate it. >> thanks, stephanie. >> good evening i'm jeff glor in for charlie who is away. we turn to a conversation about president-elect trump's selection of rex tillerson for secretary of state and we have nick burns professor of diplomacy of international relations at the harvard kennedy university. let's start with jeff tillerson and what do you make of the appointment or nomination? >> he's a very impressive person. heard a lot of tributes from condoleezza rice and he's been at exxon mobil his entire career

and has been chairman and ceo d. this is arguably our largest and most complex international business based in the united states. he's got a big international profile and has had experience dealing at the head of state and government level for many years. of course he knows president putin and other world leaders and -- led a complex company exxon mobil. the secretary of state is fifth in line to the presidency. the nation's chief diplomat and has to run a 50,000 person global organization. we have over 275,000 consulates and billions in the aid budget and the key strongest foreign minister position in the world based on the fact that the

united states is still the most powerful country on earth. a lot of his life experience i think can be transferred to that job but obviously there's going to be a steep learning curb because he's never been a diplomat and running the state department is different than running exxon mobil. we have to build and nurture alliances like nato and alliances with japan and southeast asia and create coalition out of thin air when a crisis occurs like ebola or if there's a natural disaster in a place like haiti. it requires tremendous physical stamina. you have seen john kerry travelling millions of miles around the world. it requires a great intellect and someone to be strategist and tactician and implementer. in some ways it's the most challenging job in washington. >> you mentioned russia and vladamir putin which seems to be

question number one right now and rex tillerson's current and former dealings with russia. they've been discuss the a bit already. what are we to make of those now? >> it's an asset and liability for mr. tillerson. the asset is to have a secretary of state if he's confirmed who has been in close proximity to putin who understand what's makes him tick and negotiates substantial oil and gas deals with russia is to our advantage from an international national interest perspective and you heard that have some republican members of the senate as well as democrats. there's a worry he's been too close to the russians throughout his career. he of course on behalf of exxon mobil opposed the u.s. and european sanctions against russia for russia's illegal

invasion and division of ukraine. those sanctions are the only leverage we have on putin right now. in some ways his confirmation hearings in january will be an examination of not just rex tillerson but donald trump because donald trump has taken positions on russia throughout the last 18 months of the campaign that are extreme. he's the first presidential candidate and now president-elect that i can think of in the last seven decades who has not criticized any aspect of russian policy, has made continual excuses for the russian government at a time when i think most people would say that russia's our most dangerous adversary in the world today if you think of them pressuring atonia, latvia and lithuania and russia is still in ukraine and crossed a red line

by annexing crimea and we haven't seen that since mussolini and the bombing of civilians in the eastern part of aleppo and some politicians want to bring russia up on war crimes. we need to be containing russian power and donald trump has not sufficiently explained how he think he'll represent american national interests in accommodating him and it will be the test of confirmation to explain donald trump's strategy and how he hopes to serve american relations. >> this is a statement the cia and fbi say hacked in the election? >> that's right and that's probably the most serious charge. there seems to be no disagreement that russia did intervene in the election. there is a disagreement whether they were trying to tilt the

election to donald trump. that has not been substantiated but when you have the most senior members of both parties including senator john mccain and mcconnel all calling for an investigation we have to see if russia intervened to disorder the most precious asset we have our free and democratic election and to see the reaction of donald trump to essentially launch criticism publicly of the cia and not criticize russia i thought was unwise. that will be part of a confirmation hearings of rex tillerson as well. >> we say there's no disagreement of the hacking and the president-elect disputes where the hacking came from.

nick, is this the president-elect and rex tillerson as well saying russia's not the enemy and maybe the focus should be on china? >> the real challenge for president-elect trump on the election day one is the crises with russia and we need to be tough-minded with them and there's issues in the middle east from four failing states in yemen and iraq and syria and libya and what to do on pushing back against an iran that's very aggressive in a negative way in post of the countries i just named. what it do good the continued battle in the islamic state. a syria so shattered there has to be a diplomatic effort and there's a big complex issue and china how do we prevent the chinese from destabilizing the

east china and bullying their neighbors and combat climate change on the global economy that's a difficult partnering act with partnering and competing with china and there's afghanistan. the list is endless. he needs a secretary of defense and state and general matis to hit the ground running. >> you mentioned climate change. rex tillerson disagrees on paris and disagrees with the president-elect on tpp. what's would the incoming secretary of state's role be then in dealing with those issues and more? >> jeff, this is a very dynamic time. this particular transition su sun -- is unlike any i have seen

in 30 years because we have a president-elect with strong opinions on issues but not a structured strategic world view and that has to be pulled together and people like jim matt is and others to be appointed the deputy secretaries to encourage the trump administration and the president-elect himself to take a measured view of american strategy. do we really want to have a crisis that many have been dedicated too. is that the right use of capital and time. do we need to focus on north korea instead. we have afghanistan and american troops there. do we keep the troops there. is the strategy a winning strategy. i think presidential decision

making is a team effort. you have a national security advisor and principal secretaries, defense, commerce and the president-elect needs to listen to all these people and have intelligence briefings and needs to connect with our career service people. our people will support him 100%. they'll be loyal but you have to bring them into the conversation and we've not seen that yet and i think hopefully now we'll see a more measured approach by the transition. >> when and how does rex tillerson if he's confirmed divest himself or does he have to divest himself of the holdings in exxon? one has to presume he's still involved in deals being negotiated whether it's russia or someone else. how's that play out if he is to take the job in a month and a half? >> the general practice has been

the cabinet secretary and those below the cabinet secretaries will need to meet with ethics lawyers and divest themselves of holdings that would promote a possible conflict of interest or perception of conflict of interest and that's done on a legal basis and we have ethics attorneys that work with them and that's worked out before the nominee is sworn into office and the practice has been with the straight treasure and defense to go through confirmation hearings with the help and consent of the senate and have them sworn in on the 20th or 21st of january because it's rather quick transition given the united states government is so big and powerful and complex you want the senior donald trump advisors in power by their inauguration

day. >> can you also talk about what you'll be looking out for here when rex tillerson appears before the senate committee what are you looking for him to say and what are you looking for him to be asked? >> i think he'll impress the committee. he's a mature, seasoned, pragmatic leader. i think what the committee will want to know is zero in on russia. there's an implication he now needs to make a big transition which of course he's aware of from being chairman of a company and serving the company of stockholders to being the secretary of state representing 320 million americans. we heard from many democratic

senators is donald trump too close to russia and is rex tillerson and distance themselves to build our strength to counter russia. i think that's where most political leaders are. it's where i am. i worked on the russia issue a long time. this say dangerous moment. we need to be strong and stand by our allies. particularly in eastern europe. they're counting on us and i do think vladamir putin appreciates and respects strength and clarity. he takes advantage of weakness. he's not a sentimental person. i don't think you can convince him to do something contrary to his interest and you have to align power. that's the best way to keep peace and will be the key issue for the confirmation hearing. >> nick burns, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. pleased to be with you.

>> "20th century women" is the new film from writer/mike mills and annette bening is concerned about the influences in her teen aged son's life and recruits two younger women to teach him how to be a good man. the film has been called a warml warmly textured family affair and here's a look at the trailer. >> when you were born i told you life was very big and unknown. there were animals and cities and music and you fall in love and have passions and meaning but now it's 1979 and nothing means anything. and i know you less every day. >> i think maybe you guys can help me with jamie. how do you be a good man?

>> what's that mean nowadays? >> don't you need a man to raise a man? >> i don't think so. i think you're what's going to work for him. >> it's just me and you. >> you don't know what i'm feeling. >> men always feel they need to fix things for women and some hard -- how that's hard for you. >> having a kid seems like the hardest thing. i'm not sure you love the kid you just screw it up. >> you get to see him out in the world as a person. >> it's not about you. it's always about the mother. >> ok, jesus. yeah.

>> so sweetie i don't know if we ever figure our lives out and the people who might you may not be who you thought or wanted. they may just be the people who show up. >> never have sex with just the vagina. you have to have sex with the hold women. >> that's slightly off top ping >> i'm please to have mike mills and annette bening at the table. welcome and could be congratulations. >> thank you, it's great to be back, charlie. >> is this about your mother? >> on some levels, yeah. she's a seed for the script and the character is based on my sister. >> rose: you come from a matriarchal family.

>> a mother and two sisters and a father who was a sweet man but not super present and a closeted gay man so the pay patriarch was lacking. >> rose: what's it say about women raising boys? >> they're good at it. i'm reporting from my life and bring the love and experience i and hopefully finding truth to share with people. that's my experience and my mom was very handy at it and a strong proto feminist woman born in 1925. >> rose: 1925 and was a proto feminist? >> i think she wanted to be. >> rose: it's how you act? >> she wanted to be a pilot and wants to be a draftsperson and made all the money in the family and was the man and woman in my life. >> rose: i know your children,

obviously. i know what a good parent you are -- >> thank you. >> rose: you both are great parents. did you bring some of that to bear here in terms of thinking of being a parent? >> i think that's fair to say though i'm quite different from the character. she's in a financially strapped condition but the basics of love your kids like crazy and you have to protect them and want to and you can't and you have to let them go and all of that feels very much like what we're going to do. >> rose: that's true with every parent. >> exactly. >> rose: 1979. why centered in 1979? >> it's true to my life and a fascinating year because it's like the beginning of now from personal computing and

relationship in the middle east the end of post-war american industrial strength and relevant going from carter to reagan to where we're at now. and it's impossibly a land we can't return to a predigital world. >> rose: the time before digital? >> exactly. i love it for that contradiction. i feel like it relates to now in terms of the concerns we have and a magical place we can't return to. >> rose: and you include the jimmy carter crisis of confidence speech the malaise speech but the word was not used. >> when i'm writing i'm interested in transposing our personal lives against our moment in history. our social lives. that speech is talking about so many things but he beautifully describes the crisis in meaning and american peoples lives and it fit all my character struggle so i was using it to talk about

the moment and help describe the period but also to describe what was happening to the mom and all the women in the film. >> rose: what's the mom's struggle? >> it's personal but one i think mike and then i being trying to get across what he was thinking about that is someone enigmatic. she's trying to raise her son and make him a good man and trying to figure out how to do that is the main thing. >> rose: what drew you to the project? >> i heard him interviewed on mpr terry gross for beginners and he's talking about how his dad was gay and came out when he was 70 and then made a beautiful

movie about it which i loved so i knew that and sent me the script and i got really excited. my adrenaline went and i loved it. mike didn't know if he wanted me to play the part or not which was fun and exciting. >> rose: did he tell you that? >> he didn't say, through my agent mr. mills would like to meet with you if you like the script and i loved the script because the script tells the story of the time i grew up in, where i grew up which never happens. people don't write about southern california and mike knows about the reason why or can articulate it better than i can. so i was reading the story and i knew the place and could smell the place and i knew people and william and knew a number of williams. i'd met these people in some way and that meant a lot to me and i

also like many audiences i felt when i read it i feel like someone's telling me about this time in a way i've never been told before and i like the context he put it in. >> rose: what does your character learn from abbie and julie? >> well, she learns a lot of about what she doesn't know. i think she figures out she'll never be able to be in her son's life in the way maybe she didn't even know she hoped but maybe she hoped and that's a big part of parenting. as you go along you realize how much you're letting go and how much you must let go and that's healthy and appropriate and joyous in some ways but there's a certain melancholy in that and discovers she'll never really know her son like other people know him because and if she's in the room the chemistry changes which is true of all of us. i think a lot of the things she learns are beautiful and also

somewhat melancholy. >> rose: we have a difference of generations here too. >> in real life my mom had me at 40, 19 66. she was a teenager during the depression and had to get out of because of world war ii and it affected her and her family and she's from that world and i'm a 1970s kid that grew up on punk rock and skateboarding and a cross of rudy vallee meets the buzzcocks. >> rose: here's a scene after a birth day party. >> don't hang out with him anymore. >> he seems dumb. >> exactly. >> happy birthday.

>> stop. >> what? >> thinking you know everything going on. >> no, i think having your heartbroken is a tremendous way to learn about the world. >> do you think you're happy? >> like as happy as you thought you'd be when you were my age? >> seriously? you don't ask people questions like that. >> you're my mom. [laughter] >> especially your mom. thinking your happy say shortcut to being depressed. give me that. >> rose: did you write this too? >> yes. >> rose: do you always do that? >> yeah. i can't -- to me directing and writing are interwoven and making a movie the half is

coming up with what your going to shoot and the most important part in some. >> rose: is it different four in the editing room for a director -- >> i've never been a director that didn't write and for me writing continues through the process i love to keep it alive. if you give me a minute i'll change it again. it feels like alive and i like that. i want it to feel surprising and want to explore and see things i didn't see coming. >> rose: when you look at yourself do you think of the ways you might have done it otherwise or once you've done it it's a wrap for you? >> that's a very good question. you mean on this movie? >> rose: any movie. >> there are definite time i look and think i can make it better and it's true. i could. then other time i say that's ok i can leave it and other time i look at it and say that was really good but i'm also very

self-critical and it's not very interesting. >> rose: do actors know the difference of why one take was good? is it possible to know what led one thing to be on the mark. >> that's tricky. i think the answer is no. i know -- i remember being on sets for other reasons people were looking at takes and i remember thinking, yeah, that was a great one i felt it there and then thinking that was going to have to be the one that was going to be used and it was fine. it was tricky. however, i know from years of experience i learned from it. in the beginning it was hard because i never had to watch myself when i had certain feelings or knew what my face looked like and then i realized what it did and that took a lot. once i got beyond it there's a lot to be learned as an actor.

there's a lot to learn technically. >> rose: it's a time factor but i think you can look and learn and it ought to be instructive to you. you will never know if what you didn't ask would have produce a particular response it has to do with a coming together. >> yes. i heard a very interesting interview with tony bennett the other day and has a new book which i now must read and one of the things he said is when he first started and had a hit record he was talking to jack benne and george burns and they said to him, well, pretty soon you'll start to learn what you don't need to do. and he said that's what he began

to learn and what he feels now more what not to do. meaning simplicity and if you're a hard worker, you're a hard worker. we all want to do a good job. you begin to learn what you don't need to do and what to let go of and simplify. that was beautiful coming from tony bennet at age 90. >> at work she launches herself into the moment of any scene or take and go into a spell and the magic of being present and listening. i would imagine it's hard for you to look at yourself and see what you did because you're in such an unself-conscious place. what you see is not what others see. you're seeing something but not seeing what other people are saying. that's why it's relatively helpful. >> rose: and others in the film? >> billy's a delicious soul. he has warmth that comes out in the character and playing a

character that is representing the loftness of men in the late 1970s with the masculine ideals are falling apart and billy inhabits that so well and is a warm person for the women to be around and the joke he made in the trailer you saw expresses sensitivity towards women. >> rose: so he plays a character called william. why doesn't she ask for his help? >> she did and he didn't respond to the man and being a practical women she recruits the girls and they say why us and she is says he's who he responds to. >> as we move out of our original families that we were all brought into we find other families and find other people

that serve as our mentors and as our guiding teachers of life and that's really important of how life is designed. i'm sure you are that person to some people. i'm sure mike is. i know i've become that to certain people and that's very different than being somebody's parent. >> take a look at this. this is where you're being confronted about their impact on your son. here it is. >> you're good at hiding stuff, huh? >> my mom calls it compartmentalizing. apparently i do that a lot. >> are you helping him? >> i'm trying. >> really? >> what about you? have you thought about your impact on him?

it's always about the mother. like do you think you've moved on since his dad? >> you know you're not actually a therapist? i've had new guys, ok. >> no one appropriate. >> appropriate? >> guys you won't risk anything with. men you don't even really like. >> listen, your 17, ok. maybe you don't know what's good about these guys that i really like. >> i'm talking about you. you never seem into it. except for with william. he's inappropriate. >> ok.

jesus, yeah. it's hard to find someone i like. >> rose: she seemed pretty smart. >> very smart. >> rose: she got you. >> absolutely. sna -- >> rose: what are you doing next? >> i don't know i like having my material coming from real life and when you cinematize that it has a charge it doesn't have otherwise. i'm doing this and my feelers are out. >> rose: meaning what? within your brain or to -- >> of course now with the election i feel everything is changed as an artist somehow everything will have to change but i feel something that's happened to me i can report on in a unique way and strangers dark room that will hopefully talk about. >> rose: are they debating the

election in the bening household? >> it's fantastic. thank you, charlie. >> rose: great to see you. thank you. >> thanks for having us. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. 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 watching pbs.

a kqed television production. ♪ like sort of old fisherman's wharf. it reminds me of old san francisco. >> the calories, the cholesterol. >> it's like an adventure. >> oatmeal with a touch of wet dog. >> i did. inhaled it. >>