>> charlie: welcome to the program. we begin this evening looking to the questions about russian hacking in washington and talk to the washington post reporter karoun demirjian. >> is there a smoking gun or something to substantiate the allegations or is this all -- as democrats said they don't believe is this coincidence or something real. >> charlie: and we continue with a conversation about a book that is getting a lot of praise it's called "the rules do not apply: a memoir." the author joins us her name is ariel levy. >> it's a universal coming of age story though there's mongolia and things that won't happen to people but we all go

through a process where we figure out everybody doesn't get everything and that's being an adult admitting that and accepting it and appreciating what we have. we all have to do that. >> charlie: and we close with a conversation about a new netflix film called five came back and talk to the author and filmmaker laurent bouzereau. >> they had the most in propaganda assignment and the other four thought they'd travel the world to whenever the battlefronts were and document the war and bring the truth of the war home to the public. i think sometimes their impulses as filmmakers to tell a great story and as patriots to sell the war and to make the case for our side and the impulses clash with each other.

>> charlie: investigations in washington, a brilliant memoir and five filmmaker who's recorded world war ii when we come back. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> charlie: we begin with more questions about the russian hacking, of the political process and also about

accusations and the call for devin nunes to recuse himself and he admit he met with a source on white house grounds last week to view secret intelligence reports. the reports suggest potential surveillance of president trump and his associates by u.s. spy agencies. chairman nunes canceled all hearings scheduled for this week including testimony from sally yates. joining me is karoun demirjian from the washington post. welcome. >> good to be back. >> charlie: tell me where you think this is with respect to the house intelligence committee and chairman nunes. >> i think they're in disarray right now. you have democrats calling for him to step aside when it comes to the investigation that is front and center. he's saying i won't go. he's accusing them of just trying to take a political point

right now. that does not bode well for progressing with the investigation. there was supposed to be a hearing with the director of intelligence and sally yates. that got canceled late last week. nunes said that was to make room for the fbi and nsa director to come back to capitol hill and talk to committee members behind closed doors and that was never scheduled either so it's ab and people aren't sure how long the pause is going it last. >> charlie: what's happened to the credibility of the committee? >> it's taken a hit in other parts of the congress. you've seen most republicans in the senate do not want to say one thing or want to comment and you heard john mccain saying

it's time to put this to a committee or independent commission because congress has shown it can't do its job itself anymore. there's a lot of faith in the senate intelligence committee and in the fbi process as well though there are criticism of the fbi director and how forthcoming he's being with information though most were pleased with his open hearing the house committee held to grill him and the nsa on issues. clearly there's a lot of discord in the house among the committee and leaders and everybody surrounding that. clearly there's a lot of looking ascant from across the capitol and the community is tight-lipped but not rushing back to huddle behind closed doors so it's not clear when that will proceed. >> charlie: tell us what

actually chairman nunes do when he went to the white house? >> we only know what he said which is he went to the white house grounds to the executive office building to meet with this source whose identify he won't disclose and there was suggestion there was the president's name or his surrogates on his transition team that their identities had been unmasked which is what happens when you have an intelligence report on surveillance being done and in this case it was against foreign targets that's incidental collectio collection. you're identity is supposed ton

kept secrets and the identities may have been revealed. even the day he made the acquisition there's a lot of back and forth about that because his ranking member on the committee adam schiff said later that afternoon it was his impression there was only one name unmasked in the intelligence reports and wasn't affiliated with trump or his authorization. nunes said it was clear to me who the people were. we don't know we don't know if it's transcripts or two foreign dignitaries who's conversations were picked up and were talking to someone on the trump team or a cable picked up by surveillance and happened to mention the president or the surrogate in the aftermath of the election. we only know what we're dealing with or how serious it is or

specifically who and whether the names were actually revealed. lots of swirling questions and political anger happening in the wake of nunes making the announcement and many people feeling he's distracting with the fact that the hearing with the fbi and nsa director didn't go well. that's the hearing where we heard the fbi's been looking into allegations of possible ties between the trump team and the kremlin since july. it's significant and longer term than people realized. >> charlie: and collusion has been suggested. >> yeah, the ranking member said if there's circumstantial evidence of collusion and corrected himself but has not indicated what that is. if there's a smoking gun they

haven't publicized it and haven't substantiated the direct link between the president and russian officials that would be untorrid is a polite way to put it some say even illegal but the link has not been drawn. >> charlie: has the chairman shared the information he received on the white house grounds or executive office building whenever he looked at it. has he shared it with adam schiff yet? >> the democrats on the committee including the ranking members say they only know what we know at this point and pointing to the order of operations that everybody found out. nunes went to the press twice before he came to the committee and he's not been that forthcoming with detail and haven't been given reasons why the meeting were canceled much

less what nunes' source is or what was handed over and he said the rest of the committee will find out as soon as he gets the full data drop or information drop of documents he requested from the fbi, nsa and cia -- they asked for a list of people would were unmasked as part of the incidental collection with the surveillance that's not directed at the individual but somebody else and they happen to be incidentally collected because they're on referred to or on the opposite end of the phone line. that's stuff everyone's still waiting on. nunes said he think once it comes to congress everybody will see what he has seen but the most recent update is he's expecting the nsa's contribution to come today or tomorrow and we don't know yet when the cia or

fbi may furnish what's on their end. each agency has the power to unmask the identities legally. there are legal parentheses t legal procedures. we still don't know if it's been done legally or no legally. that also hasn't been clarified. it could be a concerning thing identities are being unmasked and the leaked or it could be a commonplace thing the intelligence community does and they were doing their job and we'll have to wait to find out. >> charlie: and sally yates, what could she tell the committee?

>> the bridges the gap from the current progress to the previous one. and when it comes to reports on meeting with various russian officials it appears some of that came from the justice department whether or not it was yates herself. those were the early chapters we probably almost forgotten now and the meetings and the issue there being how forthcoming and open they were about the substance of those meetings more so than the fact they met with age ambassador. that's a fairly commonplace thing and were not in this case. i think people are curious to know what yates knows and as we reported earlier today the white

house went to lengths to keep yates from testifying in front of the house intelligence committee as she was scheduled to do today and clearly that didn't happen. it's supposed to happen in the future but not until comey and rodgers go behind closed doors but it seems they tried to keep her from testifying and they were alleged some of economy communications would have been privileged because they happened with the president and they're pushing back against that. there's a question of whether there is something she knows the white house knows she knows or if there's a procedural thing the presidential administrations like to play things close to the chest especially because there's discord between president trump and the acting attorney general and there was a firing. >> charlie: didn't she go to the

white house after the discovery of flynn having met with the people he met with to advise the white house of that? >> yes. we've reported that as well. that's been -- again, this has become a common theme. there are various things we have reported in places like the washington post or "the new york times" the administration denies the reports members of congress especially republican members of congress will question the validity of the reports. there was back and forth with the fbi director last week where they seem to be just sharing insider wink-wink knowledge that, oh, so often reports like this are wrong. there's been quite a lot of effort to discredit -- i can't go into details because they didn't go into detail on which points but i'm certain many of the things we have reported and others on what yates' involvement was and the

relationship she had with the trump administration and to the degree there was pushback or did alert them or discussions had i'm sure will come up if she appears before the committee. may may come they may come questions from both sides not only troublesome to the president and to pushback and discredit what's been reported thus far. in open forum it would be up to yates to set the record straight and it's not clear when or if that will happen at this point. >> charlie: there's a lot of questions out there. what's the most important question you'd like an answer to? >> i think all of us would like to know the ultimate question for all this which is there a smoking gun? is there something that will substantiate all the allegations or is this all many democrats said they don't believe a coincidence or something real and republicans have said as the coincidence and average things

everybody pulling into a great big conspiracy theory but the question is what took place and how much was behind it in terms of politics maybe in terms of money. in terms of all the allegations. >> charlie: will paul manafort and jared kushner testify in open hearings before the committee? >> if they do it's only the first step. manafort and paige and stone and as far as the senate goes kushner as well have volunteered to do interviews not under oath and that's step one and if there's a step two for a public hearing great but we're not there yet. >> charlie: thank you for coming. we'll be right back. stay with us. arie ariel levy. she's been a staff writer since

2008 she was pregnant when the went to mongolia to report on the mining boon and while there suffered a miscarriage and wrote about it in an essay for the new yorker and has written a memoir called "the rules do not apply." first of all, you won an award for the piece. >> i think that particularly with the piece i wanted to talk about the kind of experience of being a female human animal. that's the last taboo. but the fact that women are actually animals and that intense stuff happens to us

around birth, menstruation and pregnancy and in that sphere of our bodies i wanted to get into that. >> charlie: take me back earlier to the light you had. when you went to mongolia, pregnant, happy -- yes? >> i was very excited i was having a baby. >> charlie: for the baby? >> yeah. >> charlie: you had this wonderful line that for a small amount of time you knew you were a mother. >> i knew because i had a living baby in my hand and for ten minutes i was somebody's mother. it was black magic. >> charlie: what do you mean? >> because then he died. it the most painful experience of my life and also the most transcendent because before he died he lived and i experienced motherhood very briefly. i experienced what maternal love

feels like which the most brutal -- i'm sure had he lived to be four is how old he'd be now i'm sure i'd feel all sorts of other things i didn't get a chance to feel but i experienced that love, that primal, brutal maternal love where you think i would die for you without -- it's not even a thought. >> charlie: wow. and i wanted to take a picture of him. >> i did, yeah. i took a picture. >> charlie: because? >> because the whole thing was so shocking. it was so surreal to be in mongolia and to have a living person who came out of my body. that has never happened to me before and i knew he was going to die and this was going to be it. this was going to be the only time we had together and i knew i'd want to see his face again

and believe me i looked at it a lot. >> charlie: and why ever time -- and you feel the same way when you look at it? >> i don't look at it any more but i did back then. >> charlie: when you got back what condition were you in? >> not the best. i was so sad i could barely breathe and had a little identity crisis on my hands because a switch had flipped in my heart where i felt like a mother and a switch flipped on my body because i was lactating but that was invisible to the rest of the world because i had no child so i was in a profound state of grief. >> charlie: did writing about

it -- i don't want to use the word cathartic or something. >> something. i don't know what the grieving process would is been like had i not written about it but i also don't know what it's like to not write about everything that happens because that's what i've always done. >> charlie: i want to ask about your life. your parent sound fascinating. >> i dig them. >> charlie: children of the '60s. tell me about them. >> well, they're both feminists. my mom really stressed my whole life i could do and be whatever i wanted and had a lot of -- she always said of course you'll be a writer and that's a motivation gift to say to a kid who wants to be a writer and my dad is a

writer too. you name any lefty-group like green peace or name it he's probably written some of their copy. >> charlie: there's a moment where you describe him and say he wants you to be proud of the fact he approved. >> of my first girlfriend. he said aren't you impressed i'm so cool with this and i'm not like really. it's in keeping with you. >> charlie: they gave you confidence. >> they were very loving and my mom really believed i could write. she always told me that's what's going to happen. so i believed her. >> charlie: why do you think someone can write as good as you

can? >> what a nice thing to say. well it's what i've been doing for 20 years. all i ever do is write things. >> charlie: is it natural do you think? is it learned? what? >> i taught a writing class at wesleyan and taught that class a year ago and thought it was like either someone can write or they can't. like it was a joy to interact with these students but i think some people have it. it's just what they do. it's how they exist. >> charlie: you also came back and were divorced. >> yeah. two weeks after i got back from mongolia my former spouse went to rehab -- >> charlie: for alcohol? >> for alcohol abuse, yeah. and it was not the first -- the beginning of the problems around that and at that moment in time

i felt like i couldn't do it. i felt like i couldn't do two recoveries at once and had to do my own. >> charlie: but you sent this to her. >> oh, i love her. she's very important to read and i sent this to her before i turned it into my editor and said if there's anything you can't live with tell me and i'll take it out and she's a really generous selfless person. >> charlie: what did she say? >> she said i'm not going to sensor you. you do what you have to do. >> charlie: how is she today? >> she's well. i'm very proud of her. >> charlie: the irony of this is you now have a relationship with a man who is a doctor in mongolia who now in south africa? >> no, now he's in your green room. >> charlie: so he's watching this? >> unless he fell asleep, yeah. >> charlie: how'd that happen? >> that happened because when i

went to the clinic in mongolia after i lost my son there was this person there who i connected with and we started writing to each other and at first it was really my life line because john, my doctor -- dr. john as i called him, was the only person who had seen what was invisible to the rest of the world. her is a mother with a baby who has died. we wouldn't e-mail about that night but it was a comfort to be interacting with someone who was there and saw that happen and then it was just a matter of chance. we just happened to connect beyond that. >> charlie: being in love is another some it took a while through e-mails and everything else. >> people would think it's not

convenient if you live in new york for someone who lived in mongolia and worked in south africa but it was time for me to grief and fall in love. >> charlie: other than that nothing bad happened to you. >> this showed me i had shown me i never experienced real suffering. >> charlie: did you know how to deal with it? >> i don't know if anyone could know if you can be prepared for it because it's so all encompassing. i lived in greece in a dark tunnel and then -- grief is a dark tunnel and then it lived in me. >> charlie: and today?

>> i still will always have a part of my heart that has like a little hole in it for that baby and i'll always have grief for my first relationship. my first marriage. just because you get divorced doesn't mean you don't care about someone so they're sad things but it's ok. i just take them with me. >> charlie: and the rules do not apply. where's that come from? >> i basically thought the rules that my mother and certainly her mother had to follow. weren't relevant to me. i felt the beneficiary of this enormous gift from the women's movement that made me feel i would be the protagonist in my own life and i could follow my dreams -- >> charlie: and i can do anything. >> and fall in love with a woman and marry her. i had so many freedoms unthinkable to my mother or her

mother. i felt like i was living a different version. >> charlie: is the book about fennism other than the fact that you're feminist? >> in some ways because i talk about becoming a writer -- >> charlie: you focus on women. >> i focus on women who are unconventional and who have accomplished great things. i think that's feminism but i also think about writing what happens with women's bodies i consider that to be part of the feminist project. >> charlie: how's feminism doing today? >> well, we certainly have ourselves a powerful opponent to focus on. when you have an look who have literally the most competent, most well prepared woman ever running against the least qualified man ever and the man wins even after you heard him

say he think it's ok to sexually assault women, it's galvanizing. >> charlie: how do you explain women who voted for him? >> i can't explain it. i don't know why. i don't understand. i don't get it. >> charlie: even women say i don't feel i should have to vote for someone because she's a woman but because she's the most qualifie qualified candidate. >> charlie: brakarack obama sai that. >> i think it would be a more relaxing time to exist if she was running the free world. >> charlie: if you were writing this over would you change anything? >> i'm sure there's a comma here or word there -- >> charlie: i'm not talking about grammar. would you have included more?

>> no. i can't want to suggest prince charming came and save me because he didn't save me. >> charlie: you saved yourself. >> falling in love with somebody else -- >> charlie: what saved you? >> after a while, surrendering. where i'd wake up every morning and say i don't accept this. it's not ok with me my child is dead or my spouse is an alcoholic. i don't accept this reality and then it became clear to me whether i accepted it or not it's real so it's better to surrender. >> charlie: and you can't accept this to where you get beyond it.

what does that take? >> time i think. you just have to suffer and live through pain and not try to push it away. >> charlie: so all these people have reacted to this so strongly. what is it they are reacting to. everybody, men and women are saying about this -- one person said i read it in one long sitting. a, it's not that long. >> people have told me that i think it's because it's short. it's a short book. >> charlie: it is something else. you're caught up in your life and where you were and what happened and how you struggle to

find another place. >> it's a coming of age story though mongolia and miscarriage won't happen to a lot people but we all struggle through you don't get everything and part of that is being an adult and appreciating what you have. we all have to do that. >> charlie: we have to realize, men, women and everything else you can't have it all. >> absolutely and there's a misconceptio misconception feminism of you can have it all and the idea you can have it all is the thinking of a toddler. and i think -- >> charlie: so toddlers think they can have it all. >> they do seem to think that. >> charlie: so where are you

now? you wrote the book which has enormous response, you're at "the new yorker", you're in a relationship. have you reached the other side so to speak having to swim through treacherous and dangerous waters? >> i think so because i feel happy and grateful and opposite of this is unacceptable. >> charlie: what do you think the lessons are? >> the process disabused me of the illusion i can control my life. as a writer i got accustomed to this this power and if i was strategic i ca can everything i want. >> charlie: is that the lesson? >> i think the lesson is

everybody doesn't get everything and that's ok. the sooner you accept what you have and find what is in there to be grateful for the less you'll suffer. >> charlie: does a writer get better because they live longer and have experiences and their picture of reality grows or do they get better simply because they labor over sentences more and more. there's a sum total -- there's an experience of getting better because you're doing something you've labored over. is it more the experience side and you've seen more light so the reference points are better or the skill -- >> not everybody does get better. it's not automatic. >> charlie: well, you got better. >> i would love to keep getting better. >> charlie: that's my question. is it because age gives you

experience or age gives you better craftsmanship. >> i have grace paily one of my favorite writers and i love the way in her early work you hear that voice and then it becomes refined and aged. the same way joni mitchell's voice sounds roughed up from a life time of smoking and wildness. i love the way that happens to writers. >> charlie: the book is called "the rules do not apply: a memoir." it's a delight to have you. you should read this without being profoundly admirable the way you can make sentences work. >> thank you so much. >> charlie: back in a moment. stay with us. john houston and william whiler and five of the most successful directors in hollywood in the early century put their careers on hold to enlist in the

military and used their film making skills to document the war and "five came back" will be on netflix march 31st and it was adapted from the book of the same name. steve ven spielberg and others offer commentary on the five iconic directors and the impact their war documentaries had. entertainment weekly called "five came back" a thorough history lesson. here's the trailer. >> i'll make you masters of the world. >> it was comedy. >> america stands at the cross roads of its destiny.

>> in the early year of hitler's rise movies became part of the culture. >> he understand cinema could be put in the service of propaganda. >> americans realized we can win the war. they'll beat us. >> western civilization was at stake and we'll fight until we make. >> five filmmakers wanted to respond. they chose to serve. >> the documentaries were powerful for american audiences. >> it was worth it. >> we had an enormous story to tell. the greatest heroes and villains on the world's stage. this is real filmmaking. >> it's the people's war. it is our war.

>> these five men were saying gb good-bye it families who never knew if they'd return. >> each one made their greatest film. >> i believe a film should have something to say. >> you should make people think and feel long after they leave the theatre. >> nothing could prepare anyone for the intensity of the conflict. >> these filmmakers changed the world. >> charlie: i'm pleased to have the author marc harris and director laurent bouzereau at the table for the first time. welcome. it's great to have you here. >> thank you. >> charlie: where the idea come to make this into that? >> when i was working on the

book and when it came out i was surprised by the readers saying it was fascinating to read about the documentaries. too bad most of them are lost and i said they're not lost. you can see them. they still exist. they're property of the u.s. government. i thought this is a real opportunity for us as well as i could try to describe the films in a become there's nothing like being able to show them to people. that was the germ of the idea. >> charlie: the idea was to take five directors and explain each that was our director's big innovation. >> charlie: tell me about it. from we're trying to figure out an innovative way of telling the story and it was steven spielberg said let's think of an interesting way to tell the story and who better than

directors to talk about directors. then came the such for five directors to speak for five guys. it was great. we had a short list. everybody sort of organically was available. it worked out and -- >> charlie: what were they charged with? >> being interviewed in the way you're interviewing me right now. they had to come in a lot of knowledge. they all had to read the book before we approached them. they also did a lot of research. mark wrote scripts for the episode and i would highlight if steven spielberg came in to talk about adam wiler or the things pertaining to him. they have well prepared. they were so familiar with the

movies and lives and steven spielberg came with his own knowledge and appreciation. >> charlie: your challenge was to connect them all. >> absolutely. it was well done in the back and not only to connect them but to make sure on one hand we had this epic story of world war ii. on the other side. there was the balance wen the personal and world stage. >> charlie: and changed lives. this begin as a way to honor your father? >> it did. he was a world war ii veteran and a way to apologize. when i was growing up i didn't really listen to his war stories very much. it was very scary to me the idea someone would leave his family and go oversee

overseas and as i got older i regretted and it's a way to reopen the conversation. >> charlie: how did you choose which director for which director? >> it's a great question. we wanted to find sensibilities or traits comparable to the five original directors from the past. spielberg we knew for year and i was always impressed with his humanity and his own roots being jewish and we felt adam wiler

was similar in spirit and steven spielberg talks about being a young director meeting a legendary director and saying i was so impressed with whiler and how kind he was and i thought perfect casting. franci francis coppola and he had done a press conference at a festival and said making the film was like a war and i thought a set echoed john houston and this fiery personality. paul greengrass comes the documentary world and identified with john ford in a way that was

very personal benicio del toro is an immigrant and his movies are emotional and he connected with him and the last one is moan for movies like the big heat and before that was famous or being a screenwriterer b screenwriter and it was important we had a director famous for his screen plays. we enrolled him to see him.

>> we came to new york at the museum of modern art when he was trying to figure out how to make the series of movie became why we fight and he was in a tough place because they wanted training films for soldier and didn't give him a staff and barely a budget and sees triumph of the will and think we're going to lose the war for get the movies. we're going to lose the war and then he thought i can use this movie and kill two birds with one stone. first we can turn their own propaganda against them showing our incoming soldiers and how the enemy think and have seized footage from germany and japan and italy. i don't have the money to shoot these movies but i can compile a

movie from existing footage and get the message across that way. >> charlie: the movies were in part propaganda? >> they were. that was part of the task they gave the filmmakers to sell them to the public and the soldier who didn't know the reason we were in the war in the first place. >> charlie: to give them a reason why we're fighting. >> and to excite them and in flame their patriotism and he was good at doing that. >> charlie: did any of them have resistance at all? >> i think an all wanted to serve their country. capper had the most propogandic assignment and the others wanted

to bring the war and sometimes the impulse as filmmakers to tell a great story and as patriots to sell the war and they clashed and sometimes one thing won and sometimes other thing does. >> charlie: there was a story about how some was taken from world war ii and the government prevented it from being shown i think from from german concentration camps and i think it was alfred hitchcock was brought over to edit it. >> the counterpart of the american effort did deploy hitchcock as a propaganda filmmakers and the filmmakers who lent their efforts to the war at some point had some of what they did ed or censored and

the vast majority didn't see d-day and there was a movie called let there be light about the psychological toll of the war on veterans and it was too emotional and upsetting and didn't tell the story the army wanted to tell. >> charlie: did people have to be there to document d-day and what risk did they face? >> ford oversaw the navy efforts and stevens overseeing the army efforts. we're talking about literally hundreds of cameras and dozens of cameramen and still photographers you were as much as in harm's way than any

soldier if not more because they were carrying cameras not guns. >> charlie: what was the impact? >> it was tremendous. you have to put yourself back in the time where you had to go to the movie. now you can get them on your iphone or watch on tv. the movie john ford did was the first film in color. the footage they got of the camps was before there's a vocabulary for the holocaust. those were tremendous discoveries for viewers and shock and impactful all be it in a way of propaganda. >> charlie: what impact did it have on the future lives of these directors? >> when they came back they all -- there was a spirit of independence they"sah wanted t

create their own company and be working for themselves as directors. capra and stevens created their own company and the best year of our lives speaks about the war and i'm sure you're familiar with it but it's interesting to look at the film and compare it to it's a wonderful life which the movie capra does and that failed at the box office where the best of our lives is a motivation success. john ford goes on and makes some of the most iconic westerns and -- >> he made the films shown as evidence at the nuremberg trials and as a successful director of comedy before the war said he could never make another comedy after what he saw in germany and

then he becomes a distinguished director of drama. >> charlie: did the film at nuremberg make a difference? >> it was widely covered by the press and everybody said the first if you days were flat and boring and the prosecutors were not making an impressive case. then the film was shown and the spotlight was turned on the defendants' box and they were force to view the movies and the effect was electrifying. the defendants' own attorneys said after they movie they found it impossible to sit in the same room with the people they were representing. >> it speaks for the journey who goes from being a filmmaker of comedies and musicals to documentary filmmaking and become an evidence gatherer.

it speaks for the filmmaker. >> charlie: the film was a document called let there be light was banned. >> yes. about ptsd. of all the movies i had to watch repeatedly aside from the holocaust footage brings tears to my eyes. it's before -- the word maybe exist or didn't exist at the time, ptsd but it's a notion that is discovered in that film. yet he fought to get it released. >> charlie: ptsd, post-traumatic stress disorder. >> correct. >> charlie: did they change hollywood? >> i think so.

capra's dream filed and it's a wonderful life was such a flop it sank the company and the directors went back to working for studios but there was a spirit of independence and a desire to make socially realistic tougher, more honest movies than what they had been making before the war and you see it grow straight to the 1960s. >> charlie: how did the powerful studio heads react? >> they do like to conserve their power so it was a constant growing fight over everything from whether studios or directors would pick projects for directors to con stand and the how much they would allow to be put in movies until the code fell apart. >> charlie: it was capra's company? >> with stevens and wyler.

it would have been nine movies independent of the studios and the first was going to be it's a wonderful life and amazingly now because we consider it a classic. it was an expensive movie and did not make its money back and they had to give up after one movie. >> you look at these five is there one you admire more than the others? >> i have a real fondness for wyler because my dad took me to see ben her and it was a new vocabulary of images and touched me tremendously and got me

really interested in cinema. all of them made gigantic contributions and i have a bigger appreciation for them. >> charlie: thank you for coming. >> thank you for having us. >> charlie: thank you. the book is called "five came back" the hollywood film on netflix. it begins march 31. thank you for joining us. for more visit us 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 watching pbs.

[plaintive string music] ♪ [woman speaking korean] [laughs] [man speaking english]