>> rose: welcome to the broadcast. tonight, a highly-praised new play on broadway called "red." it stars alfred molina as mark rothko and eddie redmayne as his assistance. we'll also talk to the playwright john logan and the director michael grandage. >> although i never met rothko, i kind of loved him. it's because he embodies what i think is the greatest quality of any artist, which is... i mean, any creative person, which is that he's much, much more concerned with being listened to and understood than he is being w being liked or adored or admired in any way. >> that, for me, is what resounded in the play is that feeling that it's something that everyone can associate with. ken arrives on day one incredibly nervous. he then gradually learns from and sort of through osmosis and through listening takes on a lot of what rothko's saying but he also has this world outside the hermetically sealed submarine

that is the... that is rothko coe's studio and begins to start to challenge rothko. >> the whole play, really, is an emotional and intellectual debate between two people where the paintings are, if you like, the third party in that debate. >> what i always say about the process of "red" is that it is a quartet. four people made this play, it was michael, me, and fred and eddie. the only people i heard speak these lines aloud were fred and eddie at our first rehearsal. they're the only actors i envisioned the parts. they helped me shape the play. >> rose: we continue with richard stengel the managing editor of "time" magazine, his new book is called "mandela's way: 15 lessons on life, love, and courage." >> i think he was profoundly wounded by the fact he never had a family life. he was profoundly aggrieved by what happened to him, how he was treated. but as a leader he realized i have to suppress that.

i can't reveal that. i can't show that. i can't show any bitterness. >> rose: "red" and mandela next. ♪ if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic ) captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: in 1949, mark rothko started painting the large-scale canvasses of luminous color and light that we know so well, collectors and galleries son clamored for rothkos. he became famous as an abstract expressionist. but he was never completely happy with the term or with selling his paintings. this tension is at the heart of a new play called "red," it starts alfred molina as rothko and eddie redmayne as his young assistant. after a successful run in london's west end, it's now on broadway. here is a look at the production. >> these pictures deserve compassion and they live or die in the eye of the sensitive viewer. that's why they were created. that's what they deserve. now, what do you see?

>> red. >> $35,000 they're paying. no other painter comes close. where do you earn the right to exist here with me and all these pictures you don't understand. red! oh, you want to paint the goddamn thing? go ahead, here! here's red! i'm red! tragic, really, to grow superfluous in your own lifetime. >> i'm here to stop your art! i'm not here to make pretty pictures!

>> rose: also joining us, the director michael grandage. he's director of the donmar warehouse where the play was first stage and the playwright john logan. i'm pleased to have all of them here at this table to talk about "red", which people are talking about. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: why is mark rothko interesting in this day? >> that's like one of those questions like "have you stopped beating your wife?" whether you say yes or no, you're damned. >> rose: no, no, no. come on. >> personally i think he's interesting because he's one of the most enigmatic figures in a point in the cultural history of new york and of america that was a really, really crucial period. there was a lot of social upheaval. there was an amazing shift in the perceptions of what was art and what wasn't. what was cultural, what wasn't.

what was important, what wasn't. and the fact that he was so enigmatic and so inscrutable, in a way, and at the same time a huge success in his own lifetime and very, very well documented. but even with all that documentation, with all the monographs and all the essays and all the exhibitions, the man himself remains very much an inig ma and i think that's part of what drama is able to reveal. you know, we enter a world of imagination and in that world someone like rothko can exist in a way that's hopefully provocative and interesting and exciting. >> rose: is this similar to the production that was in london? >> pretty much. in london we played on a three-sided auditorium. and we've got walls here. so we're able to... we're able to create the whole of his studio on broadway. john has set it in a studio he

converted from a gymnasium on the bowery. and it's very well documented. it's photographed. there's a lot of research that we've got available to us. and christopheroram, the design, has yes created that on the stage. >> rose: how did you do it? >> it started with the paintings. i was in london working on a film and i love art and i would go and haunt the tate modern and they had the seagrams murals in the room and they just grabbed my heart, they stopped me cold, those paintings. and i became obsessed with seeing them. i knew very little about rothko and i thought there's something magnificently challenging and provocative about these paintings. i found them deeply moving. while other people in the room found them superficial and had no connection whatsoever. so i found that fascinating. and the more i read about rothko, the more i read about abstract expressionism and his significance and the more i read

about the commissioning of the seagrams murals i thought, yes, there's a play there. yes there's a fascinating character to explore. >> rose: tell us about the commissioning of the seagrams mural which is never made it to the four seasons. (laughs) instead ended up at the tate. >> it was one of the great artistic commissions of the 20th century. the seagrams building, the first modernist building in new york and they planned to make it the show place for the modern world. and the heart of the building was going to be the four seasons restaurants and they wanted only the best. so they considered decoon ig, various artists but finally they went to mark rothko and said we'll pay you $35,000-- which at the time reputedly is the most ever paid for a 20th century commission-- to do murals for this restaurant. and rothko thought about it deeply and finally said yes. >> rose: and had to defend himself against his friends and everybody else. >> he did. because he was the great exponent of pure art.

and suddenly he's doing commissions for a restaurant for a rich corporation. so all his friends, you know, were looking at him very askance at his taking the commission, taking the money while still professoring to be the pure voice of modern art. >> rose: so there's the essence of our play, ideas about art and commerce and the life. >> >> right. and also the life of what was most interesting to me was an artist and mentor. father and son. that was the most interesting part of the play for me. he happened to be an artist, he happened to be mark rothko but the compelling relationship to me is what does a mentor give the a protege and how does a father teach a son, how does that power relationship shift? >> the play on a good night should go beyond my that. it's an explan nation of creativity as a whole. even thinking yes yay iftly should sort of understand that central relationship about a teacher and his pupil.

>> rose: so where does the character of ken come in? >> ken is in this father/son dynamic. i turn up on day one almost as a job interview to be his assistance and it's terrifying and it's meeting an icon and idol which is great because it means i can come on at the top of the show using those nerves and fears of working on broadway for the first time. >> rose: (laughs) >> rose: or turn to molina and say... >> right. but it takes place over two years, the two years that rothko is working on these seagram murals. and gradually the character gains confidence. he gains a lot from rothko but also begins to fire back at him and perhaps represents a younger generation, the pop artists, the warhols who are out there doing something completely new and eventually sort of challenges him to where he stands now as this cyclical nature of kind of

time passing is going on. and that for me is kind of where ken fits into the... there's a line in it which you must kill your father, respect him but kill him in order for generations to keep moving on. and that's what ken represents. >> rose: roll tape. this is an early time in the play where rothko demands ken react to one of his paintings on the first day of work. >> so now what do you see? be specific. no, be exact. be exact but sensitive. you understand? be kind. be a human being, that's all i can say. be a human being for once in your life. these pictures deserve compassion and they live or die in the eye of the sensitive viewer. they quicken only if the empathetic viewer will let them. that's what they cry out for. that is why they were created.

that is what they deserve. now, what do you see? >> red? >> do you like it? speak up. >> yes. >> yeah, of course you like it. how can you not like it? everyone likes everything nowadays, they like the television and the phone graphic and the soda pop and the shampoo and the cracker jack, everything becomes everything else and it's all nice and pretty and likable. everything is fun in the sun huh where's the discernment? where's the arbitration that separate what is i like from what i respect? what i deem worthy. what has... listen to me. significance. >> rose: what was the title you thought of other than red. >> i never had another title. >> rose: that right? >> it was always "red." >> rose: it was never "rothko" or anything like that. >> it was important to me it not

be "rothko" because the play, it's not reportage. it's absolutely a work of drama. >> when they cast us they were going to call it "bland." (laughter) >> and then "bald" and that didn't work. >> and we end up with remnants of red paint in our fingernails. >> it's the running light motif of the play that skirts along with all sorts of representations, both literal and figurative and they're splattered in red paint and it becomes blood and it becomes everything it conceivably... >> i had a friend who came up afterwards and said "oh, thank goodness, i'm so glad i came to see it, i thought it was about communism." (laughter) >> rose: is that right? (laughs) you actually i think said this. you called-- and i want them talk about it dts that the paintings were the other character in the play. >> oh, very much so. i think we all agreed with that. >> rose: paintings were characters. >> well, they are because they're the point of discussion quite often.

and their feelings are the point of discussion quite often and, you know, the whole play, really is an emotional and intellectual debate between two people where the paintings are, if you like, the third party in that debate. and that's really why the play is there. it's important, i think, the whole thing of it not being a biopick. john was keen to write a play that was set over just two years in the life. >> rose: right,' 58 to '60. >> that's right. that's right. and that offers us opportunitys to get rid of the worries about being a biopick. we can do something else, just concentrate on two people in this very specific space and the debate that happens between them and the passion that happens between them as well. >> and one of the interesting thing-- and i give credit to michael here-- when i wrote to play i didn't envision what that world would look like, i just wrote rothko's studio. and one of the first discussions make and i had about it he said all right, there should be no

stage hands. the only people on that stage are rothko and ken and it's their world and it's going to be rothko's studio. everything they do is practical. they mix the paint, they boil the size, they time from canvas, they clean up the floor. everything that you see in that confined hermetically sealed fwhoox is our stage, the rothko studio, is these people creating those paintings. >> one of the exciting things about it is it's what we call a work play. there's a tradition of work plays where people... playwrights like david storey who used to put up tents on stage. but this is a genuine work play where we get to see people do all of those things. real... a proper working artist studio where you can see frames being made and canvases being stretched. so much so that i wanted right at the beginning even when you come into the auditorium to be able to smell it. and in england where our rules are slightly... well, i don't know, clearly problematic now, i

realize, is that we were able to spray turpentine and things all over the place. here in america we had to go to a firm, a company that makes scents and ask them to create a scent based on turpentine. can you imagine going to somebody who's... i think most of the time they have people calling them saying can we have a scent with lavender? we rang up and said "could k you make a scent with turpentine?" >> what are you wearing tonight, darling? (laughter) >> rose: the new turpentine. >> so when you come into the auditorium the whole experience can be something that affects all the senses. >> rose: how does eddie change? >> well, he... what i love about >>. >> rose: how does ken change. >> i feel like everyone relates to that master/apprentice relationship in some way whether it's a boss or a parent figure or a brother figure and that for me is what resounded in the plays is that feeling that it's something that everyone can associate with. ken arrives on day one

incredibly nervous. he then gradually learns from and sort of through osmosis and through listening takes on a lot of what rothko is saying but he also has this world outside the hermetically sealed submarine that is rothko's studio and begins to start to challenge rothko. and really it's about the idea that rothko has no idea about this guy's life. we live, work together 9:00 to 5:00 everyday and he never asks a question about ken, anything outside of his world. so it's also on a personal level as well as an artistic level that ken begins to sort of challenge him and about what his life is other than his obsession with his work. >> rose: what did you do to, as we say, prepare for? >> it was non-stop art history. it began with rothko and went to manet immediately because someone said "oh, the black in rothko is the black that manet" so i went back to impressionist

and post-impressionist and i studied and studied and i have a lot of artist friends who are gracious enough to sit and let me watch them paint, hang out in the studio and just see what mucking around in pigment was really like. and, you know, frankly, a lot of walking and thinking about great mentors in my life. thinking about those titanic figures that have always challenged me. i just recently did a movie with marty scorsese. he's one of those people that challenges you constantly to do your best work. as rothko is constantly challenging ken to become a better artist and to think more deeply about everything. so it was a combination of my own exorcism about artistic mentors and just pure research. >> rose: who decides on the actors? >> me. (laughter) >> rose: and forever will be. >> god, i wish i'd been nicer to him. (laughter) >> i decide on the actors as part of a collaborative process. obviously i talk to the author about the actors but in the first instance he said come up

with a whole list of names and we chatted through some... >> rose: and was guess who on the list? >> well, guess who was on the top of the list. the great joy about doing it... about doing a two-hander is that you really can... i think both the actors thought... it's a lovely thing. it's an opportunity to really... >> rose: there's a new expression for me, a two-handed play. >> it's vitally important... what i always say about the process of "red" is that it is a quartet. it was four people made this play. it was michael, me, and fred and eddie. the only people i have ever heard speak these lines aloud were fred and eddie at our first rehearsal. they're the only actors i envision in the parts. they helped me shape the play, as in michael helped me shape the play. >> rose: shape the play from what was presented as a text to what would be presented on stage? >> exactly. as we world work through rehearsals i would say "does that sound good? does that sound bad?" and the play evolved, as plays always, do as a living organism.

>> well, you helped us understand it. there's always a point in rehearsals about what's great about having a living organisms, we're often working with dead organisms. (laughter) >> rose: you prefer dead or living? >> we prefer living because we can always say it's me. and quite often they say they don't know. >> rose: but living can always say no. >> that's true. >> rose: >> but the great advantage of having the author in the room is as a purely practical thing because very often you're working on a scene or working on a portion of a scene and there might be just a simple thing where you're not quite clear what is intended here. it's a very simple thing. john, what does this mean? what were you intending for this? and very often it's a simple tweak, like a simple shift of emphasis or something. and it can be a very simple solve. you know, i've got it, let's do it again. whereas when you're dealing with

an author that is no longer with us, very often you can spend days agonizing over these... because no one really knows for sure. so when you've got the writer at the end of the phone or in the same room, it's fantastic. >> rose: what impresses me about what i've seen here is the notion that you feel like rothko wants to convince him. he has a reason to want ken to understand his work. >> well, you've hit on something very interesting which is absolutely the reason why i love this character so much. and although i never met rothko, i kind of love him. it's because he embodies what i think is the greatest quality of any artist. any creative person which is that he's much, much more concerned with being listened to and understood than he is with being liked or adored or admired in any way. and he... rothko in the play doesn't really care whether ken walks away going "oh, mr. rothko what a guy" he doesn't care.

he doesn't care about that. what he cares about is that ken walks away having understood something he didn't understand before and can then use that to make his own creative choice. make his own contribution. that's a wonderful thing in an artist. >> rose: you feel the same thing from the other side? >> and i also feel again it's something you relate to in life. as an act knorr this profession you try by any way you can whether listening or osmosis or the actors you work with to gain something. but the idea of the play is incredibly funny in moments but it's also rothko's seriousness and that word, his belief that art matters is something at the core of it. however much at moments in the play he's a tyrant or this incredible go maniac at moments he believes in what he's saying

and i've worked with people who i've gone "you're a nightmare to work with but you're serious about what you do." >> rose: that wasn't me, was it? (laughter) my question is better. who was it? (laughter) >> mike >> michael said something very interesting in rehearsals. because when scenes in a play which quite clearly you have to start raising your voice and getting very, very intense about something it's very easy to start shouting if you're not absolutely specific about what you're doing. and it was very on the money for me as an actor, very good piece of advice which is the rage is fueled by passion not anger. and that's... it sounds like a subtle difference but it's a big difference because it's to do with what motivates rothko's rages. what motivates his desire to

start shaking you by the lapels. it's not anger, it's passion. >> rose: i couldn't agree more. it seems to me it's that the artist has put so much labor and it's just labor. it's hard work, it's not some gift that came from god that he just put on canvas. it is hard work, making art. >> rose: the only thing rothko ever asked from his viewers was for them to put a little bit of the care and attention into looking at these paintings that he put into creating them. and it sounds like a fair deal to me. >> rose: me, too. because then you'll see meaning it n it, too. if you're searching for why it is, it's not crimson. red. it's not scarlet, it's red. all of that. there's also rothko's life beyond this and what happened to him. does that enter the play at all? >> it... it sort of... there are

intonations. he was even in the' 58/'59 he was beginning a downward spiral that led to his suicide and he was a man obsessed with tragedy. he once said for me there needs to be tragedy in every brush stroke. that's what painting was for mark rothko. so infuses everything in the play. his complete embrace in the nuance and texture of doom. that was deep part of him and we suggest and hint of what is to come. >> rose: he sliced his wrists, didn't he? >> he did. standing in front of his work in his studio. >> rose: did he leave any letter? nothing? no explanation? >> he came in everyday other day just like a banker... >> rose: that's a great thing. tell me the story. he woulddom the studio... >> like a banker, he would dress in a little gray suit and hat with his briefcase. he'd take off his little gray suit and put on his painting things and paint like a madman all day and at the end of the

day, exactly 9:00 to 5:00, he'd put on his gray suit and take the subway back home. that's what he thought painting was, that was job. >> rose: he really thought that. it wasn't like he would paint until the wee hours of the working day. >> and he compared himself to jackson pollack who was a great friend and contemporary. they were great mates but jackson pollock represented, as we say in the play, everyone's romantic ideal of what an artist should be. whereas rothko was the stoll lid rabbinical sober serious man of letters. but he recognized that was the cliche and stereotype of what an artist is perceived and he had no interest in doing that. >> rose: could this be chance a enter entered into the dialogue? (laughter) >> a bit. you have to ask the thespians. >> rose: what does he say about jackson pollack? >> that's interesting. there's a wonderful sequence in the play where after ken responds to an admonition of mind that he hasn't read certain things and he comes back and

says i read all those books you told me about and i want him to tell me what he's learned from it and he makes what rothko thinks is a simplistic analysis between the difference of rothko and pollack and how they stack up against each other. and rothko's response to that is to really reanalyze pollack from his point of view. and it starts off... and you get the sense that rothko's being a little less than respectful about pollack. he sounds almost dismissive about him. and then, of course, what is reveald is that what he's talking ant... he's basically saying, look, the circumstances of his life are right now irrelevant, what's important is what he did, what he made and how he felt about it. and then rothko starts talking about that and it's one of the most... i think one of the most beautiful passages in the play. it breaks my heart every time i

hear it because it's one artist recognizing the beauty of another artist, of another artist's work and a very deep, very profound understanding of what it costs to do that. and it's so... in the end you realize, of course, that rothko loved pollack and, you know forgave him presumed... forgave him everything. >> rose: where was he going as an artist at this time? >> well, they're of greater minds that have been struggling with that one since he died. and i wouldn't presume to be one of them. from our point of view i think as john said, there are intimations... there are echos in the play that if you're interested in finding out more about rothko we'll, i think... we'll excite your curiosity. but i think it was this obsession with thank di. this belief that at the heart of

every creative gesture there is a small death of something and i think that... that obsession, that preoccupation. i prefer to use preoccupation. that preoccupation became greater and greater as he grew older. and then the... i think for me one of the crucial ones was his aneurysm which happened two years before he died which left him physically much weaker so he was unable to work on big canvases. in fact, his doctor at the time told him... ordered him not to work on anything above 44 inches high or something because his heart wouldn't take it. and i think that was a huge factor in his depression, in his downward spiral that he couldn't actually make the art the way he wanted to. >> rose: it's hemingway, too. >> yes. >> rose: the last scene here which rothko is railing against pop art and what is to follow. here it is.

>> my point is people like me, my contemporaries, my colleagues those painters who came up with me, we all had one thing in common-- we fund importance of seriousness. >> you're too much. >> what? >> you heard me. >> what the hell did you say to me. >> who are you to assume they're not serious. >> look at their work! >> not the way you usually look at things like an overeager undergraduate. >> i have. >> what do you see in >> never mind. >> you look at them, what do you see in in all those flags and comic books. >> this moment right now and a little bit of tomorrow. >> and that's good? >> it's neither good nor bad, it's what people want. >> that's exactly my point. >> so art shouldn't be popular at all now? >> it shouldn't only be popular. >> you may not like it but nowadays many people are genuinely moved by frank sell la as mark rothko. >> that's nonsense. you know problem with these painters? they are paying for this moment right now and that's all. it's nothing but zeitgeist art, completely temporal, like

kleenex. >> like campbell's soup, and comic books. >> you think andy warhol will be hanging in museums alongside vermeers. >> he's hanging along rothko now. >> because they'll do anything for money! that's business, young man, it's not art! >> rose: if you don't want to see a play after that... (laughter) >> thank you all. it's a great, great pleasure to have you here. thank you. 45th golden theater, go see it. thank you. very much. rick stengel is here, he's the managing editor of "time" magazine. earlier in his career he collaborated with nelson mandela for three years on his memoirs. this effort resulted in mandela's acclaimed autobiography "long walk to freedom." stengel has a new book on mandela, it's called "mandela's way: 15 lessons on life, love and courage." i'm pleased to have rick stengel

gak back on this program. welcome. >> great to be here. >> rose: also, i would never have interviewed nelson mandela without you. >> thank you for remembering that. >> let me talk about you and him. how did this begin? >> it began... i wrote a book about south africa in the 1980s called january sun. >> a village in south africa. >> exactly. about a force red mooufl until a village and it was about three families, a white family, an india family and a black family. that book is being released in time with this with a new introduction by me. and when little brown, the publisher of long walk to freedom was looking for someone to work with mandela that the editor-in-chief had read that book and hired me to work with mandela on the autobiography. so it was very serendipitous. i had never met him before. it was the classic offer that you can't refuse and it was the greatest experience of my life and the opportunity to work with one of the greatest men of the

century, one of the greatest men who ever lived and to have this incredible intimacy with him over a period of years and the special kind of rapport given the nature of what we were doing and to me what this book about, "mandela's way" is to tell you what i learned. to... you know, i was present at the creation with this historical man at a historical moment and i want people to hear about them. i want them to learn the things he knew at a fraction of the cost he had to pay. so to me it's like being a pivotal point in history and telling people about that experience i have. >> rose: i want to talk about how he is today in just a moment. don't push that aside for a second. take me back to that time and take me back to... take me to the relationship that continues to exist because you have given one of your son's middle name is... >> right. and he's a godfather to my oldest son as well as my younger

son. it was a... i went down there at the end of 1992, he had been out of prison less than two years. there was no new dispensation yet. there had not been elections. there was no constitution. it was a very, very dangerous period. a period that he thought the country was close to civil for what and what happened was... i started the project with him. you know this story that i spent about three or four weeks waiting to meet him and finally i did and at the end of our first session he said to me "i assume we can do this two or three more times and you will have enough for the book." >> rose: (laughs) >> and i said, mr. mandela, if you think that's the case you're crazy. and i had just met him, an aide walked into the office, promptly escort med out and i thought the whole project was completely sunk. saw him two days later, i went in and apologized to him. i said mr. mandela, i'm sorry i was so... and then for some reason this word came into my head. "i'm sorry i was so brusque with you."

and he looked at me and he smiled and he said "if you thought you were brusque with me the other day, you must be a very gentle young man indeed." and, of course, i thought so foolish. and i laughed and he laughed and that was the beginning of our friendship. i mean, obviously he had been through so much and a little thing like that wouldn't even have been on his radar. but what i started to do that day was in addition to our daily interviews which were early in the morning i said, look, let me just hang around with you everyday, travel with you, gob to the countryside with you, go on your morning walks. and we did do all of that. it was a chance for me to be a kind of eyewitness to history. to be a fly on the wall and i became his kind of sidekick. >> rose: this is called "15 lessons on life and love and courage." he cared about appearance is one thing that we know. >> yes. i think one of the keys about mandela-- and you know, charlie, because you know him-- he's this extraordinary physical specimen.

and we've lost the connection in a way between physicality and size and leadership that used to exist. i mean, people talked about george washington who was 6'4 being the greatest horseman of his generation. mandela's great meat who brought him into the a.n.c. told me the story, he said "we wanted to grow, we wanted to become a mass organization and one day into my office walked a mass leader, nelson mandela. he was 6'2, he was handsome, he had a great smile, broad shoulders, he was magnetic, he was a mass leader." it was a very pragmatic and practical organization and they realized we need somebody who can take us to the next step. we need somebody who can reach an audience of millions not just an audience of thousands and that was the role nelson mandela played. >> rose: the other thing he had was some sense of what comes across here is the steel that was there. >> yes. >> rose: he often said to you that everything... it wasn't about principle, it was about

tactics. >> well, it's funny, he had... that's one of the chapters, to have an overarching principle and everything else is a tactic. he would say-- and i'm going to say in the a plainer way than he would-- he said, you have to have one core principle. he had one core principle above everything else, an overarching principle which is to bring democracy one person, one man, one vote to south africa. to reverse the history of apartheid. to bring democracy there. everything else was a tactic. so even, for example, the a.n.c.'s original embrace of non-violence from the gandhi tradition. he would say "that's a tactic, that's not a principle." >> rose: so you can violate that. >> and he did. when he became the leader of the a.n.c.'s military wing he violated that because he felt to achieve his great goal he needed to do that. a lot of us would say that's a principle. no, that's a tactic.

>> rose: where did he come from? what shaped nelson man? l.a.? >> everyone says he's from a royal background. his father was a head man and his father died when he was a young man and his father was very close to the regent of the team bird flu tribe who then adopted mandela as a seven or eight-year-old. he grew up in this royal household and it gave him confidence. the fact that he was raised away from apartheid in an african area with african traditions and hearing about african leaders who fought battles for hundreds of years it'm bird flued whim a confidence and a sense of himself as an african leader that young men and women growing up in townships in the cities didn't have. so when he left that area to go to johannesburg and he encountered prejudice for the first time, he encountered people who treated him as less than human, it wounded him deeply. it affected him deeply. and it changed his whole

trajectory in life. he basically realized the rest of my life is dedicated to overturning this because it offended him so deeply because of his sense of self-worth and his sense of self-esteem. african leaders... a.n.c. leaders always used to evaluate each other and say "well, he's very confident." or "he lacks self-confidence." you never hear that here. but that was a very core principle in a way to them because that was something that you had to be to be an african leader in south africa. it was just... it was danger from the beginning of the day to the end of the day everyday. >> how much bitterness does he still contain, though, because he spent 26 years... 27. >> rose: from 1962... >> right, he famously... here's what i'd say going back to your question about strategy and tactics. i think by nature he's someone who's generous. he's someone who sees the good in others but he also realized

that was a very good tactic and strategy and that when he came out of prison to unite south africa he had to unite white and black. he had to be the father of the nation of both white south africans and brown south africans and everybody else and the way to do that was he realized was to say i'm not bitter. i spent 27 years in prison, it destroyed my family but i say forget the past. forgive your neighbor. let's find... >> rose: it's the burden i bore for my country. >> right. what unites us is more important than what divides us. if you're asking me how did he really feel, did he feel bitterness and anger... >> well, gave away years of his life. >> rose: tremendous, yes. i think he was profoundly wounded by the fact he never had a family life. he was profoundly aggrieved by what happened to him, how he was treated. but as a leader he realized i have to suppress that. i can't reveal that, i can't show that. i can't show any bitterness.

>> rose: here is a clip from that interview you helped us get. this was september 30, 1997. 17 years ago. here it is. >> our duty as an organization is that these high expectations are unrealistic. it will take us years before we can address the concerns because it requires consolidation, reorganization of various attitudes like the civil servant and the mobilization of resources. >> rose: that's incredible, isn't it? >> amazing. it's lovely to see him so vital and so strong. >> rose: we'll talk again a

little bit later. he was a different man between the man who came to prison and the man who was released from prison. >> that man who went prison was by his own admission and that of his friends and colleagues pag gnat, tempestuous, lacking in self-control he would get in fights with people, push people off of podiums. he was hot headed. that's not the nelson mandela we just watched. that's not the nelson mandela that came out of prison 27 years later. so what happened? how did that man become the man we knew? i used to ask him this all the time. he used to get very frustrated when i asked him. he's not classically introspective and he would rebuff me and finally one day he said to me in frustration "i came out mature." and it was such a simple thing to say but, again, you know, as mandela would say, a mature man is one of the rarest things in the world and he achieved

maturity in prison. prison was his great teacher. and i would never want anyone obviously to experience what he experienced to have those values to be measured, to be temperate, to not overreact, to see the good and others, to see both sides of arguments but that's what prison taught him. because the only thing he could control in prison was himself and if you lost control in prison you lost control of everything. and so prison taught time this incredible self-discipline. it gave time incredible filter which allowed him to lead the country when he came out. that young man put in that same position 27 years later would not have led south africa to a new dispensation or a new harmonious nation. that young man might have

created a civil war. while the plane was in the air i was told that the propeller stopped working and they were going to have ambulances there and he had one aid with him on the plane. the plane landed fine. >> rose: he'd been reading the paper oblivious nothing was going on. >> the fellow with him was terribly frightened and he told me the only thing that calmed him was to look at nelson mandela looking like nothing was going on. so he came in, signed autographs met people and then he and i went into the back of his door go to the speech and i got in the car, he came in, he closed the door and he looked at me and said "man, i was terrified up there." and it was a part of the revelation of him that he was never afraid to say he was afraid. and he believed that courage is not the absence of fear, courage is overcoming the fear and as he said to me many times, i put up a front, i pretended to be brave. i mean think about that. think about siting across from

mel son mandela, one of the greatest heroes and figures who's ever lived and he would talk about how frightened he was. that to me is an extraordinary lesson, a lesson for everybody in the sense that we all have fears. it's not a hero isn't someone who doesn't feel fear, a hero is someone who triumphs over it, who learns to deal with it and appear brave. that's part of why appearances matter to him. he had to show people day in and day out when he was in prison. he walked upright. the prisoners would say just looking at nelson mandela would make me feel better. but i know there were days when he did not want to walk upright like that, where he felt terrible. he had family problems and terrible things going on, but he knew he had to put up a front. >> the reason i brought it up is he understood leadership almost instinctively because he said once i think-- correct me if i'm wrong-- a leader had to be above the people, someone they add hired and seem larger than life

and yet at the same time had to be of the people, had to be... people had to feel he was of them as well. >> it's funny you say that. i think that was something he said. >> rose: and didn't believe. >> i would naught in strategy and tactics. i think he was never quite a man of the people in a way because of his upbringing, because of the way he carried himself, because he was different. and i don't think anybody thought that he was thoughty or self-involved or full of himself because he wasn't. he had a real humility. but he also understood that the symbolism of leadership. i used to wait with him in the back of the car for just the right moment when he would emerge to go into a crowd to speak. i mean, he was very calculated about how deh he displayed himself and his power. that was part of his genius as a leader. he fund power of his image. that smile, that incredibly magnetic smile. i mean, as you saw, he's not the

world's greatest and most eloquent and riveting speaker. but to see him smile makes the whole world seem sunny. his presence is sunny. he used that. that smile became the campaign... >> he had a rational mind, an amount of logic and deduction? >> incredibly rational, incredibly materialistic in the philosophical sense that he thought about consequences of things. he was not terribly spiritual. he was a logician and he was a pragmatist above all and i think he would agree with that. he'd say basically, look, anything to get to his goal in a pragmatic way was something he would embrace and he was a great political tactician. he's a great candidate but i would have hired him to be my consul and the if i was running for office because he understood voters, how to campaign and politics. >> rose: you admire him greatly

because he did not run for another term? >> yes. the analogy is george washington right? we didn't have term limits in the constitution. george washington, people wanted him to be president for life. he served two terms and then went back to his farm, as he said. nelson mandela... >> rose: to mount vernon. >> nelson mandela could have been president for life if he wanted to. there's not a long history in africa of people who willingly resign from power, as you know. the fact that he was walking in sand for the first time and other people had to follow, as he put it once to me, was so important to him. that he had to give the example of someone who would willingly give up power when he didn't have to. that was key. >> what's been his life like since he gave up power? >> you know, he likes to be the center of attention. he still, of course, is the center of attention wherever he is. the first year or so when he left office he kind of kept a muzzle on himself but then he

realized i'm a moral leader and he spoke out. he spoke aunt about thabo mbeki's aids policies. >> rose: it took him to a year to come to an understanding of aids, too. >> it took him a while and we've talked about that. he was a man of his generation, and, remember, he lost 27 years. when he came out of prison, he didn't know what cameras like that were. that first interview when they had the sound mic he thought it was a weapon, he leaned back. he missed out on so much. and he had to learn so quickly. he was... he's a very fast study which people don't realize. >> rose: did he educate himself further in prison? >> the a.n.c. guys called robin island the university. he studied marxism and leninism. he read war and peace. he really... he was an auto die dakt.

he taught himself in prison. >> rose: guess who writes the preface of this book? nelson mandela. november 2008, in africa there's a concept known as the profound sense of where you're human only through the humanity of others that if we are to accomplish anything in this world it will in equal measure be due to the work and achievement of others. richard stengel is one of those people who readily grasp this is idea. he's an outstanding writer a deep understanding of our history. we are grateful to him for his collaboration on the creation of "long walk to freedom." we have fond memories... why does he say we? >> that's the royal we. >> rose: we have found memories of his many hours of consideration and hard work put together that on project. he's shown remarkable insight into the many complex leadership challenges still facing the world and all the individuals in it. everyone can learn from it. nelson man lachlt when was the last time you saw him? >> i saw him last year in his office. and we had a ceremony where i donated 75 hours of tapes from

the period during "long walk to freedom" to the mandela foundation. we had time together in his office. he's a man of 91. he has good days and bad days. he's... it's... it's not the same being with him. and but he seems very at piece. he seems like he knows what he's achieved. he's lost that restlessness. >> rose: the third marriage has been good? >> yes, she's a fantastic woman. hit it changed his life. as one of his aides once said to me, he needs someone to scratch his back at night. i'm not so sure his wife would like to be described as that but he needed someone... >> rose: she's a great woman. >> she's a great woman. and he got married at 08. his 80th birthday was his wedding. >> rose: he would look back and say his proudest achievement was the day that south africa voted

for... >> rose: >> you know, charlie, i would guess that's the answer. >> rose: i'm not saying for him but had an opportunity to elect its own leader. >> he would say his great legacy is that he achieved democracy for his country. >> rose: without having to engage in civil war. >> without violence, without having to engage in civil war, through a healing process rather than a process that involved bitterness or acrimony. i think he would say i've set this up. i've set a precedent not only for south africa but for the world. i mean, remember, the south african situation was unique in some ways but also mirrored many other historical colonial situations around the world and he... and he almost single-handedly reached a harmonious outcome because of his incredible leadership. >> rose: how is south africa today? >> you know, it's... it's getting ready for the world cup this summer.

i think it's a... it was a very optimistic country when mandela was in power and even the years afterwards. i think now it's more uncertain. unemployment is very high. the h.i.v. infection rate is very high. it's a beacon for the rest of africa which is both good and bad. i think there's a mixed report card on it now. but, you know, jacob zuma is the new president. couldn't be more different than nelson mandela. he, indeed, is a man of the people from the very humble upbringing and he isn't a person who people think, you know, stands above them. i mean, i think what the rank-and-file members of the a.n.c. and voters think is that he's one of us. but, again... >> rose: with all the flaws, briefly about the magazine business and where "time" magazine is today. tell me not so much in terms of "time" and its competition, but really where does this magazine,

which is an iconic magazine and has been for a long time see its future and look at the digital world and say this is where we're going. >> well, we're in a very, very solid position both in terms of our circulation, in terms of our product, in terms of the great journal. they we do online everyday and in print every week. but looking forward... and everybody in our business is looking at the media environment and i actually... my view is that it's a great time in media. more people are interested in journalism and information than in any time in human history and there are more ways to create it and deliver it. i don't think it's a zero sum game. i don't think forms of media are going to go away. i think they all exist simultaneously. you'll industrial print. you'll have digital online. you'll have i pads. you'll have mobile. iphone applications. people will consume this information from in different ways and the information has to

be tailored to each new medium. it has to be organic and i think it's a fantastic time to be in media. >> rose: the book again, mandela's way, 15 lessons on life, love and courage. the preface by nelson man lachlt thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

♪ if you've had a coke in the last 20 years, ( screams ) you've had a hand in giving college scholarships... and support to thousands of our nation's... most promising students. ♪ ( coca-cola 5-note mnemonic ) capt