barboza of the "new york times." he received a pulitzer prize for his reporting from china. >> i worried for much of the year and i was warned by very smart people in china that investigating this kind of issue -- this is one of the most sensitive issues in china is the families of senior leaders and the business ties of senior leaders. so i was touching in this very forbidden area. very dangerous area. and i was told "you should leave the country. your life is in jeopardy we did

receive some threats." >> rose: we continue with bettany mcclean and brian borough who write about hedge fund king steve co-then "vanity fair" magazine. >> you could argue steve cohen has already been destroyed. even if the government forever brings charges he'll be forever smeared by these allegations and even if they do bring charges, hedge fund guys would tell you they traffic in the gray areas all the time. that's the definition of the job. so when does the gray cross into the black. what makes everyday behavior become illegal? those questions are interesting. >> rose: we conclude with andre gregory and cindy klein >> that's a good question. i don't know if i have a philosophy about anything but i do believe that once trust an actor -- i fall in love with a actor, i don't audition them. and once i trust them i feel

they know where to go. i read a wonderful article about mohammed ali. and he was with he was in the ring his trainer would say "i live them a left, i give name right." he never said ali was doing it, it was me. so i'm in there with the actors, in their bodies, in their souls. but i don't believe in telling themhat do. nibble them. >> rose: david barboza, bethany mclean, bryan borough, cindy klein and andre gregory when we continue.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: david barboza is here. the shanghai bureau chief of the "new york times." he won the 2013 pulitzer prize for international reporting. it was awarded for his "striking

exposure of corruption at the highest levels of the chinese government, including billions in secret wealth owned by relatives of the prime minister." the committee also cited well-documented work published in the face of heavy pressure from the chinese officials. i am pleased to have david before a boza back at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: there's so much to talk about so i'll try to go right to it. so the reaction to that was they took down the "new york times" web site. >> that's right. that's right. they took down the "new york times" web site. my e-mail was hacked. >> rose: hackd? >> hacked. we believe it was the government but there's no conclusive proof but i was -- my e-mail was hacked before the stories came out. >> rose: while they knew you were writing it? >> yes, yes. and e of my colleagues has not been able to get into china. he's in hong kong. chris buckley. >> rose: chris buckly. >> right now he's still awaiting his visa. >> rose: do you believe it will change in the near future?

>> i hope so. there were good signs. the good sign for me is that i got a visa. i got my visa renewed for another year in china. >> rose: why do you think they did that if they were angry at you? >> i kind of think it's -- the government is not mono lith nick china. that maybe some other parts of the governme fel you know, that i did everything legally, most of the documents i used were government documents so maybe they were -- everyone wasn't against this story, at least. but the official position is pretty strong. >> rose: how hard did they try to stop it? >> very hard. >> rose: what does that mean? they had representatives talking to me. i was for a while asked by to go back to china to talk to the

government. so we gave them an opportunity to respond to the story and the family, the wen family, you know they had representatives that were talking to me for -- about a week before the story was published. so there was a pretty strong effort from the government officially and from the family sort of unofficially to stop this story >> just for thebenefit o people w didn't read the "new york times," what was the essence of this story? >> the essence of the story is, well, the big question i've had for many years in china is it is true that the leaders, some of the relatives of some of china's senior leaders have secret shares in companies that they have, in fact, large stakes in chinese companies and this is sort of part of the way they did business in china. and i wanted to find out if this s tr. and i think the story really concluded that, indeed, some of

the highest-ranking leaders, the prime minister's family, have large stakes. >> rose: also called the premier in china, wen jiaboao. >> at least $2.7 billion and an array of companies. >> rose: and was it wi literally real stock holdings. so you could document that? >> that's right. everything we got was documented which was the amazing thing for me about doing this story because it's sort of a detective story. but we're able, to my great surprise, that actually the government had documents on that. the problem was you had to figure out who the shareholders were. >> who are these nominees and how do you trace it back? that's why this took a year. at least a year to figure it out. >> rose: so what's happened to the family and their wealth since then? >> we don't know.

officially nothing. the government has not announced the prime minister finished his term in march the family has been quiet. >> rose: no charges or anything? >> keep in mind that anyone to n china no member of the politburo's standing committee has ever been accused of corruption or at least prosecuted in china. >> rose: i know one who woonted to be on the standing committee. >> well, it's believed once you get on the standing committee you're iun from prosecution. whether it's true or not, we don't know. but no one has been brought down from the standing committee on corruption charges. >> rose: how long do you think you'll be there covering china in china? >> well, i hope another couple of years.

part of china is in the 1920s and part of china is in the 2000s so i want to go to each side and see how people produce the goods that we're using and also to see a little of the future of -- some of the infrastructure, the trains, the airports, i mean, it's a dynamic country to be in. >> rose: i don't want you to give away anything but tell me where your curiosity or your journalistic interest -- can you give me four or five stories that you're looking that the you think are important to understand? >> well, i think -- you know i'm still looking at the economy which you would think after eight and a half years that i would have a pretty good handle on it but it is -- china is a unique place. 1.3 billion people. the 10% or more growth for the last 30 years. everyone's been expecting a crash or the bubble to burst for the last at least ten years.

so that's something i'm still fascinating by, the economy. i'm still fascinated by the labor issues in china, whether robotics will come in, whether that will change the labor situation. i'm writing about culture which i find interesting, too, i'm writing a lot about the art market. >> rose: which have exploded. >> that's right. two of the largest auction houses in the world. clearly equal to sotheby's and christie's in size so there's just a -- everywhere i look i see a great story in china. >> and the interesting thing about the art market as i understand it is that they are not in search of the great western impressionists. >> rose: right now a lot of traditional are calligraphy and the modern chise artists are popular. >> rose: i'm going ask you

questions that serve curious about. how deep are tensions within the society between, first, say rural and urban? >> okay. there's been a lot of tension rural and urban for a long time and also interior of china to coastal china. that's really the income gap. and that's something the wen adnistration was trying to dealith andit's believed to have gotten worse in the last ten years. newspaper the income disparity? >> that's right, that's right. so the coastal cities. the urban areas versus the rural areas. that's partly why a lot of these companies are being lured into the center of china. they take advantage of the lower labor costs so the cities like chongqing, building new areas for these companies so apple is producing in hunan province, one of the poorest provinces in cha. hundred million people in just

this one province. and -- >> rose: stop there. that's amazing to me because it's true and everybody's always blown away by the notion, a hundred million people in one province of china. >> that's right. in most countries in the world there's not a hundred million. >> rose: one-third of what we have. >> most people haven't even heard of hunan province. now i phone is made there. >> rose: what's the status today of the chinese economy? >> flowing, definitely flowing. there'sdefinitely concern. i would say we're back to -- it's not 2009 but there's now concern again china may be slowing too fast. pa that's partly because of europe and the united states. >> rose: so what's the consequence of that? >> well, if china goes down to 6 or 5 that's clearly a big problem. that's been the case for more than a decade.

also the snse that would be a disaster in some ways because the economy is still expanding. there's so much money being pumped into the economy by the government, investments, so if you start slowing, how are you going to get a return on all those investments. if you have so much money on investments and you can't get a return for two or three years, that's when the economy will be hit. >> rose: it's said the leaders are paranoid and have a lot be paroid about. >> that's right. that's right. that's right. and if you have 1.3 billion people and it's -- seems when you're on the ground like 13 or 30 countries in one you've got a lot of things to be paranoid about. >> rose: therefore they have an obsessive need to control. >> that's right. even within the leadership if we

go back to the bo xilai case, there's paranoia between government officials. so there's a lot of internal warfare in the government so paranoia, i tnk, in china is a way of life. i felt my own paranoia for the last year as i tried to report -- >> rose: you had paranoia about what? that they would stop your story somehow or they would do some -- they might even cross the line and take action individually against you? >> all of that. i worried for much of the year and i was warned by very smart people in china that investigating this kind of issue this is one of the most seitive issues in chinese -- the families of senior leaders and the business ties of senior leaders so i was touching in this very forbidden area, very dangerous area and i was told you should leave the country, your life is in jeopardy, we did

receive some threats. >> rose: how would they be expressd? >> i don't really want to say but i can tell you this: it was clearly made to me, the threats were clear that something would happen if we went through with this article and the people around me were made clear that this was a very serious issue and there would be serious consequences. and i'm not just talking about the government. i was writing about lots of other businessmen in deals with the relatives and the prime ministers and relatives of other senior leaders. >> rose: so how did this appear? >> i still don't know how. at one point i didn't know whether i could move forward or move backward. i mean, i gave -- the "times" knew the story was coming. i knew we were on solid ground. we had government documents and yet for a while i wondered

whether i should go ahead based on those threats. when they tell you "do you really want to risk your life or your wife's life for a story?" you have to have some pause. i talked to my wife about it the -- >> rose: did you ever think about sending her out of the country? >> i did. i sent mooifs out of the country. >> rose: (laughs) >> there were three periods over the last year where we left the country thinking i had finished the story only to come back and say "we need more, we need to get more reports." auditors, lawyers, but this is really a lot of -- a lot of it was me. when you a story like that you want to make sure can you imagine if the story is wrong what the consequences would be? so i wanted to make sure. i wanted to take as long as possible and to try every way imagine to believe reach the family, to reach the government, make sure we had it right.

>> rose: i'm sure you made that argument to them. >> we did. i did. >> rose: you had it right. >> i did. >> rose: and they never responded? >> they didn't. and when they responded-- and i say not the government but the representatives of the family-- i think they know. i met with them, i talked to them. they know i had it right. they know i have the records and we've shown them some of the records so i think if we had sources it would have been scary. it's government -- it's in the vernment's own documents. >> rose: you're a brave man, clearly. so what consequence did it have? he's okay. he still has the money. >> he's okay. the family still has some money but i do get a sense that it's had major consequences. >> rose: meaning? >> meaning that all of a sudden now anyone in china, any government official in china, especially a high-ranking official now realizes that in the records there's an

opportunity -- there's a possibilithat your relatives and friends could be unmasked and published in a major publication around the world. that alone. to think that we had the photographs, the documents not only the prime minister's relatives but of their friends, of billionaires who partnered with them and we put the charts together. if they that happens to others, that's just -- could be devastating. so i think although the prime minister didn't have a problem

as far as we knew, my story was related to bo be xilai, that bo xilai or the people representing bo xilai had actually given me these documents becaus there'd been so much sort of internal conflict between the leaders that maybe they thought how could the "new york times" come upon these documents. so. >> rose: they made an assumption that bo xilai -- >> i think people intentionally planted the idea that i got documents from bo xilai to discredit the story. but there is -- there is -- there was a tension, at least, between bo xilai and wen jiaboao. so i can understand how some people might have believed that maybe the was something going on. >> rose: so his wife has been tried, convicted? >> his wife has tried and convicted. >> rose: she's in prison somewhere? >> she will probably soon be tried and convicted in one of his -- the businessmen involving the case may soon be tried and

convicted for bribing bo xilai. and in an interesting note, one of the businessmen who was involved with bo xilai was also involved with when you but a -- with when you but a's family, not with wen jiaboao. so you can see some of the businessmen-- which will come out soon-- some of the businessmen were working with more than one family. >> rose: and a businessman is now dead because he was poisoned and she's accused of -- and convicted of poisoning him. >> yes, yes. and we still -- still a little murky about the details of this case. >> rose: meaning she might not have -- >> well, the family claims that maybe she didn't. maybe the police chief actually did it to frame bo xilai. i don't know if i believe that. >> rose: this is the chief who went to seek some variation of asylum. >> yes. i'm not sure i believe that but

i think china's not an open society. there's not going to be an open trial. so we're not really going to know what happened. so probably it's a lot more complex than we've written about. >> rose: thank you, david. congratulations. >> thank you. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: steven a. cohen is considered the greatest trader of his generation. now he and his hedge funds are at the center of one of the biggest insider trading investigations in history. over the past several years federal regulators have obtained 71 confessions or convictions from involved parties. an article in june's issue of "vanity fair" traces a path to steven cohen. the author are brian burrow and bethany mclean. tell me who he is, bryan. you've interviewed him. >> i have. as far as i know i may have been the last person to interview him which i'm not sure is good or bad. steve cohen was a legendary tradern wa stree >> rose: he still is, isn't he?

>> during the '80s and '90s. today, yes, he trades and he was smart enough to found a hedge fund in the early '90s at a time where very few people-- including himself-- knew what it was. his legend was made in the late '90s when he made something like 48% return two years in a row on technology stocks and then 2000 bet against them and made another 48%, 49%. >> rose: made one going up; one coming down. >> exactly right. anthat created a legend and the persona outside the trenches and over the last ten years his firm has been very successful. they're one of the largest. i think he ranks at the 39th or 40th wealthiest individual in the country right now. >> rose: made like nine or ten billion or something like that? >> something like that. it's one of the things you guess at. and over the last six or seven years there's been a steady and growing drum beat of stories and

convictions, all of which suggest that he is at -- he is the target of what is the largest insider trading investigation that we've seen since the big ones of the '80s. now why do they suspect him? is it because he has such extraordinary returns that people say "you can't do that without having some edge"? >> i think it depends on who you talk to. if you talk to his defenders, it's precisely that. because he's generated such extraordinary returns, because he cease rich he's become a target of the government out of jealousy, suspicion. you talk to others and people say there've always been whispers about cohen, some of which he has acknowledged and he acknowledged to bryan in his piece. that he was always sort of pushing the envelope on the rules and at least in the gray area. >> rose: drove up to the line. >> and perhaps across it. >> rose: another character is a guy by the name of pret the barreiro who -- you tell me.

>> well, he's the rudy giuliani in all this, if you will. he is the u.s. attorney who has invested enormous resources of the u.s. attorney of bringing in dozens of people who were sected with the s.e.c., has been there and now there is an enormous amount of debate about what he intends to do and i am of the school that this man has far too much invested in this case who has too much invested to let it go away. >> the settlement was with the securities and exchange commission and the s.e.c. was quite clear that this may not be it, this wasn't an end to what they were doing.

some will whisper well, it is an end but the s.e.c. was clear and it has nothing to do with criminal charges. it's an s.e.c. civil settlement over two trades so it doesn't remove steve cohen himself. >> a lot of this-- and take a look at this-- traces you through this is called "collaring the white whale." and a whole range of people here including this man have gone to prison for insider trading. >> yes. >> rose: and he was convicted in some way. not to steven cohen directly but -- >> well, one of the things we wanted to do was -- in fact the primary idea was this is an article -- this is a story that largely has not jumped the curbs of the business press into the mainstream press so far. and there's a sense that -- >> rose: hello? (laughs) >> there's a sense that it's about to. so one thing is to summarize everything and let people know where it started it started with raj, it started with an

investigation into another firm, the galleon group in 2006 and it was during that investigation that investigators and informants began telling investigators yes galleon is dirty but you need to be looking at the s.e.c. and this gentleman named steve cohen. >> rose: so fee venoco hen, right now he has a huge legal and -- team of people around him and friends as well who say at? >> who say that the compliance that s.e.c. has put in place is tops in the industry and there's no reason to cross a line. >> rose: he's got too much to risk. >> he's got too much to risk. he's worth $10 billion. >> rose: so therefore he would not do this? >> what's the point of gaming the system or crossing into the black from the gray in order to make an extra $2 million in the trade or even an extra $100 million. >> were all these -- the things that he's accused of, are most of the -- they occurred after

he said he got religion -- he didn't say that but after he brought in a compliance team? >> clearly. >> rose: >> he's not accused of anything yet. the closest one is a guy named matthew martoma who has been indicted on charges of the largest insider trade in history $276 million. >> rose: been dieted. >> he has been dieted so he's pleading not guilty but he has been dieted and he had 20-minute conversation with steve doe coe hen before and nobody knows what happened in this 20-minute conversation where he convinced co-then to abruptly take a huge long position and reverse it and short sell the stocks -- meaning bet against them. and this made s.e.c. a total of $26276 million according to the government. >> we know this is inevitably going to come down to legal wrangling over one or two or three trades. but that -- that causes us to forget the fact that clearly the thinking behind this case is

that s.a.c. has been running on gray market information for yes. >> rose: what does that mean? >> their belief is that cohen has set up a system that obliges his men i don't knows, from the portfolio managers to get gray market information, illegal information, information that may or may not be on the line. and this is very different from the insider trading scandals of the 1980s where you're dealing with bags of cash given to investment baners. here we're talking about somethat that is alleged to be systemic. that this is an entire generation of young hedge fund guys who are kind of pushed toward learn everything you can about that company and we don't care too much about where it came from as long as steve doesn't know about it. at least that's the allegation.

can it ever be proved? we'll see. >> rose: so you have some information somewhere that was not legal and you didn't tell anybody how you got the information, you just passed on the information. there s the person who receives the information guilty of something. >> that's the $64,000 question and that's probably how much the lawyer would cost. >> rose: (laughs) >> i think that one's trickiest. if he didn't know the source of the information. but if there are enough of those i think the securities and exchange commission could inflict some damage on steve cohen. to me the greatest tragedy in looking all this is the amount of time these smart people put into figuring out a company's quarterly earnings ahead of the announce some they could trade the stock and get out of it the next day having made millions of dollars and you think whever happened to long-term investing? what's gone wrong here? >> rose: why is this particular story so interesting to the two of you who only care about interesting people? >> well, it's the biggest story

going on wall street not involving the collapse of one of the major firms. one of the things that's most interesting is it has remained mired in the business press. there's no public outrage going on about a lot of conduct that is proven outrageous. that's because this is happening in the shadows of the collapsed bear stearns and lehman and everything. there is no longer any outrage -- >> rose: also this notion that not many people in terms of the collapse-- we're talking about insider trading which is different. people have gone to jail for insider trading. but coming out of the financial crisis we went through and you wrote about, nobody has gone to jail, have they? >> no one that matters. >> none of the top people. what fascinates me about the story, i'm always interested in ambiguity and complexity and that you have in spades. the government aggressively precuting insider trading cases has brought down a couple hedge funds because hedge funds rest on their reputations. as soon as they're raided

they're out of business. people's livelihood has been destroyed. you could argue that steve cohen has already been destroyed because his reputation will never be the same even if the government never brings charges against him he'll be forever smeared by these allegations and even if they do bring charges, hedge fund guys would tell you they traffic in the gray areas all the time, that's the definition of the job. so when does the gray cross into the black? what makes everyday behavior become illegal? those questions are interesting. >> re:indeed. because that's where you get interesting looks into character. >> precisely. >> rose: take a look at this. i mentioned bharara. he's been on this program. >> you'd be surprised how stupid people are. sometimes the best evidence of a crime is not what is written in an e-mail that gets produceed but the discovery that an e-mail was destroyed at pla a particular point in time after an investigation was discovered. there was a case we brought in insider trading area where the best evidence in the case was a person admitting tois frien

that he had kept inside information on a flash drive and he decided after he got wind that there were investigations being done by my office and the s.e.c. and the f.b.i. smashed the flash drive with a couple pairs of pliers, walked out of his apartment at 1:00 in the morning and chased multiple different garbage trucks to get rid of that evidence. >> rose: you know who he's talking about because the story is in your article. >> it's one of the classic moments of this case. the image of the young man with the unpronounceable last name chasing down garbage trucks at 2:00 in the morning throwing in bits of his flash drive. any number of people have been caught destroying evidence in this scandal and that's just the best story. >> rose: next clip, this is talking about white-collar crime. >> some people are very arrogant and think they're above the law. some people think they can do no

wrong and some people think "maybe i'll not get caught because nobody's enforcing these laws." part of our job in the white-collar area and other areas is to have people understand when they're doing -- if they're doing the cost-benefit analysis wlorngts it makes sense to engage this this fraud or bad activity on wall street or somewhere else that they should not be only considering whether or not they're going to have to pay -- disgorge their profits and pay a penalty. they have to consider in their calculation they may also go to jail and that changes the calculation considerably and that's the way in which particularly in the white-collar area you can have measure of deterrence. >> rose: how much has the government spent to get him, if that's a fair phrase. >> i don't know the answer to that but that's a lot of money in terms of the f.b.i. they've had wiretaps 24/7 and the commitment of resources on the part of the f.b.i. to that it takes to wiretap is enormous. and this has been the southern district of new york's kind of premier effort in the business

arena, if you will. and whenever -- the s.e.c. says the same thing. whenever there's criticism of the failure to prosecute people after the financial crisis the subject immediately turns "look at what we're doing on inside trading." >> rose: it has a traditional pattern doesn't it? you get somebody below to implicate somebody above them and somebody above them and as you do that you get somebody to say "i was there, i was in the room when i said this." >> classic pattern. i've never thought of it as a ladder but a concentric circle. they start with the small fish who inevitably are on the outer most circle. they flip them by threatening them with prosecution. >> rose: and they have resources that the people they most want have. >>hat gvesouhe lower level people and then the -- inevitably you get up to people who know the person who's at the center. in this case it's steve cohen. >> rose: let me just nail this down. there's no question that he -- this is a concerted effort by

the southern district of new york to go after steve cohen, that he is in person that they want and a lot of what they do is to find a case against him? for some reason, because they think whatever -- that there was a violation of law, they would say? >> i don't think the southern district would say at to you if we were sitting here right now. i don't think he'd say our goal is to get -- >> rose: would he think that? >> i don't think they would say it but it seems clear from the evidence if you look at another guy who was recently indicted, another trader recently indicted i don't think the government would have spent the resources going after this guy if it weren't for the fact that he worked at s.a.c. it's too much pointing there and too many leaks, frankly, to other media outlets about the government's investigation and where it's going. you have leaks that a cooperating witness was saying that he was pressured to develop insider information while he was at s.a.c. and i don't know what that's designed to do other than to put pressure on s.a.c..

>> we know as long as ago as 2009 when the earliest useful informant, a young man -- excuse me, a middle aged man in silicon valley who once he flipped the southern district of the f.b.i. actually asked him can you try to get your old job back at s.a.c. and he called and tried and -- >> rose: they turned him down? >> well, not only did they turn him down but bethany found a desition for a lawsuit in whic chen actually discussed that and said "we thought the guy was working with the government." so they've -- s.a.c. had known that the government is coming after him for at least four or five years. >> rose: what damage has done this done so far to steve cohen? >> it's done both financial damage to him and reputational damage and perhaps some damage to the man himself outside investors have pulled money from

tirr t hedge fund because they can't face the legal risks. >> rose: over all $10, $12, $14 billion. >> and most of it is his own capital so it doesn't matter that much but the outside capital pays the expenses on the place and $1.7 million have been yanked out. then reputational damage. the number of articles in the paper about steve cohen, about the practices of s.a.c.. no matter what there will be a percentage of people who think it's a dirty shop. then other people who know him well have said to us the thing this guy cares about mt is being known as the greatest trader of his generation and if he is -- if his reputation is smeared by allegations of insider trading he's never -- that's done. that's always going to linger over him. the one thing he cares about most. >> this is nothing new. this has been going on for four or five years where he was fortunate enough for the "new york post" to get a whiff of cohen. there are things about cohen

that so define the era. he's been call gatsbyesque. this is a middle-class kid from long island who was never at the top of his class. who was a tape reader standing on the sidewalk outside of merrill lynch office in philly learning -- watching that. and you know now he's one of the wealthiest men in the country. i think this-to-those of who who follow the story, that's been my fascination has been the man. you've met him. even today he's -- he does not feel like a master of the universe. he's this doughy, clerkish -- he's like your cousin the actuary. there's nothing overly impressive about him but he's brilliant on some level. >> rose: do you think the prosecution really believes he's done some awful thing? >> i don't -- >> rose: or do they think they need to prove something else, whatever that might be. >> i think insider trading is

rampant on wall street. is i think it has been for a while. i think it has become pervasive, particularly in some sectors like technology where everybody is scrounging around trying to dig up information to get a jump on things. a friendof mine who's a c.f.o. said his security team swept his hotel room and found it bugged because people were clearly hoping he was going say something interesting while he was in his hotel room that would allow them to trade on the information. it's pervasive. so rightly or wrongly the government has looked at s.a.c. as the firm that most people -- there have been rumors and whispers about forever and said this is the way that we can get people to realize they can't do this anymore. that we're going to find a way to go after this. >> rose: basically saying nobody is above the law, see what we did. >> exactly. per year conversation with the u.s. attorney. >> so then there's this: do you believe he did it or not? that he was guilty of insider trading.

>> i believe at one point in time he was. this was a shop that pushed the envelope in every way possible. is he guilty within the statute of limitations? has he specifically -- >> rose: right. >> i think the guy has surrounded himself with such an army of high-priced legal talent it's very analogous to the c.e.o.s of big banks who after the financial crisis were impossible to prosecute because they'd built up such an army of lawyers and accountants around them who signed off on things and i think the same might be true here. that's why i'm not sure this is going to result in a criminal indictment of cohen. i'm not sure. >> rose: there could but you're not sure if >> we differ. i would be startled if a case was not made. >> rose: does that mean you think there's a case to be made or is there a technical plau somewhere in t experience tha you can nail aern? >> i think if a case is launched it won't -- this won't be

michael milkin going to prison on a technicality. >> rose: it's going to be what? >> i think they're going to try to make the case that an awful lot of people at s.a.c. were engaging in gray and black market information and that it was part of their job to funnel it cocoa hen. i think the allegation is going to be made that the system, the way they're set up over there is designed to insulate cohen from exactly these types of allegations. bethany believes that's enough perhaps to protect and i don't know but i don't see the government giving up here. i don't. >> rose: well, i'd certainly like to see him at the table. (laughs) >> i think that would be fantastic. >> rose: thank you very much. this is the cover story of "vanity fair." here's a quote: "if steven cohen gets off, he will be the o.j. simpson of insider trading." thank you. >> and that doesum up the

instry's attitude toward him. i talked to a lot of hedge fund guys, that was a quote from one of them. if he gets off he's the o.j. simpson of insider trading. >> rose: back in a moment, stay with us. >> rose: andre greg i have an experimental theater director. his productions like "alice in wonderland" have changed the way we think about the experience of theater. he's been a character actor in movies by woody allen and martin scorsese. in 1981 he and wallace sean starred in "my dinner with andre." the film portrayed a dinner conversation between two friends at a new york city restaurant. >> is there really such a thing as two people doing nothing but just being together? i mean would they simply be relating to use the word they're always using? what would that mean? i'm never going -- i mean either we'll have a conversation or carry out the garbage or we're going to do something separately or together.

i mean, do you see what i'm saying? what does it mean to just simply sit there? >> that makes you nervous? >> (laughs) why shouldn't it make me nervous? it just seems ridiculous to me! >> that's interesting, wally. you know, i stayed on a farm for a month. then you know when people come over in the evening for tea nobody says anything unless there's something to say but there almost never is so they just drink their tea and it doesn't seem to bother them. i mean, see, the trouble wally with always being active and doing things is that i think it's quite possible to do all sorts of things and at the same time be completely dead inside. i mean, you're doing all these things but are you doing them because you really feel an impulse to do them or mechanically as we were saying before? i really do believe if you're just living mechanically then you have to change your life. >> rose: now his wife has made a documentary about his life and work called "andre gregory before and after dinner."

here is the trailer for the film. >> the theme is one's self. who am i? why am i here? where do i come from? and where am i going? note >> why, hello, andre gregory! >> you've been very influential in working with actors in a very physical way. a k you give us a hint to your approach? >> >> anymy theater of work is an ongoing met station of the most frightening person in my life-- my father. when i heard my father might have been a nazi collaborator i asked if people believed it. i believed it so thoroughly i had shingles. >> it was a very formal theatrical environment. the kind i hate. with authoritarian parents you don't get a straight answer. i prefer to do my work for very small audiences, living rooms, abandoned factories, even unfinished bunkers in the desert. all you need is a tiny room with a few friends and you can make a miracle.

in many of the arts we take the time we need. i knew what can happen if you take a year or two to rehearse a play. that's completely unpredictable. you're sailing for the unknown, to uncharted seats. you spend 13 years working on a play. i create a playground for democrated children. >> he must think i'm mean! >> i never audition an actor, i only interview them. i'm drawn to them. i trust them totally. it's the art of being, not the act of performing. >> his basic technique is to follow your impulse. >> he knows what it is to be truth informal his work. and we wear masks, even emotion can be a mask. i'm stripping away less and less to find theater of the spirit. >> every movie has to have a sexy scene in it.

>> i spent my whole life inform the theater creating big happy family. in our culture we have shame but we do it intuitively. >> rose: i'm pleased to have cindy klein and andre gregory at this table. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: so how did this film come into being? was this automatic that this was something you wanted to do? did you have to convince him or did he want it done and had to convince you or what? >> no, i certainly didn't have to convince him, as you can see. >> i'll talk. >> he'll do anything on camera. >> rose: (laughs) >> but it came into being at first as an idea of recording andre's incredible stories because he's not a memoirist and he wasn't going to write a memoir and that idea grew into

documenting --anting to document his incredible life's work but without making it a kind of biopick or serious kind of television style documentary about the great man because i felt first of all as his wife i could don't that and i make personal films so it kind of morphed into being this -- the story about andre's work and process, which is really about the artistic process for everyone and i wanted to at the same time weave these five threads together. the story of a good marriage-- because the last film i saw about a good marriage was "mrs. minuter have" which was made in the '40s and you see a lot of films about bad marriages so that interested me. >> and we really have a good marriage. >> rose: how long have you been married? >> 15 years. >> rose: what do you want us to understand about this man you've been married to for 15 years? >> i would say it's the incredible artist he is and the way his life and art really has completely been one thing,

really, forever and his family experiences, his childhood, all of his experiences have fed into the work and it's a reflection of my own life in work. so it's very interesting to see that process that's becoming an adult and also becoming the more -- an artist. >> rose: from looking at the film, i would say she's also doing a film that -- you know, about what we'd normally call a -- you know, a 79-year-old guy who is having the time of hiss life! >> rose: take a look at this. this is you back in 1995. so 18 years tag. roll tape. are you two best friends? >> well, i'll say yes. >> rose: really close. >> yes, we are close! although my knowledge of myself is not great enough to be able to even recognize myself as an

individual much less him. >> rose: your knowledge of yourself is not deep enough for you to even recognize yourself much less him? >> well, i mean, i don't -- if someone asks me who is your friend or what do you -- you know, i just -- that's one of those things where i just draw a complete blank. >> i have to say publicly, i love this person. he is for me like a brother. it doesn't even matter if he doesn't love me. wally once said to me -- it was an amazing statement. i think he said it's very difficult for him toll say i love you. i think wally said? general because it presupposes that you know who i am and you know who you are and you can spend a whole life trying to figure out who i am. but wally is like a broer. >> rose: i want to talk about a film for one second and come back to your film "my dinner with andre." louis malwas not enthusiastic at the beginning.

>> no, he was. >> rose: he loved it from day one? >> wally and i when we had written the script went out and had the most arrogant lunch imaginable about who could direct it because who would want to direct a movie about two guys you never heard of. >> the quote i heard is he said "the more i heard about it the less i wanted to get involved. a movie about two people talking?" >> well, he called me up, i thought it was a joke. and he was in tears and he said "i just read your script. it is so beautiful. if you don't want me to direct it, i'll produce it. but i want to work on your film." so certainly his initial response was -- >> rose: okay so in other words he was never skeptical. as soon as he realized what the script looked like -- >> he may have been skeptical when he started working on it. certainly when we were working on it it seemed incredibly difficult. >> rose: do you have a philosophy about directing actors? >> that's a good question. i don't know if i have a

philosophy about anything. but i do believe that once you trust an actor -- fall in love with an actor, i don't audition them. and once i trust them i feel they know where to go. you know, i saw -- i read a wonderful article about mohammed ali and when he was in the ring, there was an entity with his trainer and his trainer would always say "so i give them a left, i give them a right." he never said ali was doing it. it was "me." so i'm in there with the actor, in their bodies, in their souls, but i don't believe in telling them what to do. i believe in them and i theme as a coach to help them go further. >> rose: and the best thing they can do for you is to surprise you? >> yes. (laughs) yes, but i'm delighted to sit

there bored. i'm delighted to see them sit there for months. but a surprise is great. >> rose: it a graek through moment? >> it's like fishing. you put in a bit and you throw in the and wait. >> rose: what was the challenge of the film? >> the challenge of the film was editing -- editing it to make these five different stoes weave together and it was jonathan oppenheimer who ed ted and co-produced the film who is the person who took this 110 or so hours of material from the beginning and just absorbed it, really, because i had no -- i didn't have the objectivity to work with the material from the beginning so he spent time -- >> rose: because you're married? >> yes, because we're married. and the challenge was to take

the five stories i wanted woven together and just -- also to find for him and for me to find how the structured whole to those threads of the story and it was quite complicated because most documentarys have one story they're trying to tell or one theme. this one has five different themes and what it does is it kind of starts out making you think it's one kind of film and then suddenly it leads you down a garden path and becomes a film noir and suddenly it becomes something else and our image was like a screw, like the little kind of spiral in a screw and it keeps leading you back to another story. >> rose: andre, i'm trying to think of the better try get the answer i want without asking the question of what have the state of theater is today. so maybe the question is what do you like about theater snowed >> nothing. (laughs) you know, i hate to say that

because i love to make it and there is one director whose work i love and i just -- you remember his name? >> david chromer? >> david chromer. but i thk the theater suffers from the same thing that the other bards do, that we're living in the days of worshiping the fated calf and the days of the bottom line so there's so much now is about money and not passion. louis and i had lunch about a year before he got ill and died he said if he were to go into the business today he would not become a filmmaker. >> rose: what would he do? >> an archaeologist. >> rose: are you still working? >> oh, my god!

my doctors would kill me if they knew i was doing this. we're promoting cindy's film and ending it. jonathan demme has made a film of an ibsen play so we're finishing that film. >> rose: the master builder? >> the film is going to be called "feel of fall." so i don't have a second >> no down time, like you. >> rose: great to have both of you here. thank you so much for coming. the title of the film is called "andre gregory: before and after dinner." thank you again. >> thank you! >> thank you. >> rose: and thank you for joining us. we'll see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org