>> rose: welcome to ththe program. we begin this evening with personal reflections from the jordan-syrian border, where there's a refugee camp that i visited when i went to jordan to interview king abdullah. his one more reminder of the casualties and the innocence in war. this region is stained with the blood of war, and yet in its children is the hope of peace. kings and presidents and prime ministers decide on war for good and bad reasons. warriors fight and die, and the

innocent suffer. so after my conversation with the king, i boarded one of his helicopters to take a close-up look at one of the prices of war-- dissplassed people, homeless and unknowing of their future, fleeing the onslaught of guns and arb approaching armies. we went to a refugee camp inside jordan near the syrian border, and there before us, miles and miles of tents bolted to this dusty, windy land, containing families or half of families, fleeing war and seek shelter, medicine, food, and water, and also safety, if there is any. and leaving behind their fathers and brothers and sisters who fight for a better life for which so many of us take for grant or values like freedom that have always driven us to war. ed in and out, the men and women, and especially the

children, who are the innocents. their faces and the faces of the caring mothers who are their protectors, carry the anxiety and fear, and the worry about those left behind still in harm's way. you wonder what they wonder as they go about their curiosity. and their games. playing as it they have no worry, sometimes shouting "freedom forever, whether you like it or not, assad." their eyes are at moments bright with none of the attrition of war and none of the fun of the young. so we ask their stories. the questions are obvious. why did you come? how long can you stay here? did you think about fighting? the answers, angry and scared. some ask you not to show their faces. they fear what will happen to your loved ones left behind.

on one tent, a political message. so the kids here wrote this and it's intended for whom? >> for russia, iran, china and hezbollah. >> rose: it says, "the day will come when you pay back. the bloofd our martyrs will not go in vain. each of you contributed to shedding the blood of our innocent children." so we leave going back to our security and comfort, two things they don't know when and where will come. all wars end one day or the other, when the politicians and generals decide they have had enough or they die. these people here, like refugees throughout the history of war, did not choose to be here. they are not wriors, but r has come to them, and they had no choice but to leave everything behind. for a future they know not what, bonded by one thought-- to live another day.

that report originally appeared on "cbs this morning." my thanks to the editorial and production people from "cbs this morning" who accompanied me to that refugee camp and helped make that report possible. coming up next, "the bourne legacy." we talk with tony gilroy, the director, and three of the film's stars, jeremy renner, rachel weisz, and edward norton. >> we're living in an age of-- of a kind of a pervasive concern that-- that the enemy might be something we've grown up and out of ourselves. it might be the corporate oligarchy-- >> we created our own monster. >> yeah, that it might be the government trying to protect us going too far and doing that which we don't want done in our name. and i think the bourne films have always been-- had a sense of peeking behind the curtain to see what's going on behind those

very headlines that make us uncomfortable. >> there's always been this really, really deep-seat integritied to it. it started very small, and it's very intimate, and the idea of doing action from a character's point of view was a very fresh idea 13 years ago when we started. it's probably become more of a common theme, maybe as a result of "bourne." there's an integrity about it. there's an integrity to the behavior. there's an integrity of the action. there's an integrity to every set and the location. you go to paris, you don't show the eiffel tower. that kind of thing. i think that's what you navigate towards every day. >> rose: a conversation about "the bourne legacy" when weve continue. captioning sponsored by rose communications

from our studios in new york

city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: 10 years ago movie audiences were introduced to jason bourne, a former c.i.a. assassin played by matt damon. we followed bourne through three films. now a new chapter has beencread. icreated. here is the trailer for "the bourne legacy." >> what's your name? >> ys, s,give yourself to thise sir. sir. there's nothing you wouldn't do for your wantcoy.tr you want the strength to do wh's necessary.wh is h is he? that has healed well. >> what do you think that we do out? re t? >> jason bourne was the tip of we iceberg.

we have never seen an evalun li this. >> i've never met anybody in the program. >> so how many of us are there? >> you ask too many questions. >> jason bourne istan. >> manhattan. >> confirmed. >> what's? >> that's all i have. >> gotta go. people, listen up. this is a national security emergency. >> the f.b.i. is investigating liees attwben treadstone and this man, jason bourne. >> you were using the ferrari and your people treated it like a lawnmower. >lawnmower. >> when you start to consider the magnitude of what we'retw facing. we will burn the program to the ground.

>> do you want that jason bourne was the whole story? there's a lot more going on here. >> it's the most exciting development in try htois ofto science. >> i am not just a science project. >> i gave them everything. we both did. >> you okay? >> let's go. >> rose: joining me is tony gilroy, the director and three of the film's stars, jeremy renner, edward norton, and rachel weisz. i am pleased to have them here

at this table to talk about this movie. so how did it start in i mean, you had written three previous, and you had matt damon not coming back. >> right. >> rose: new director. and you needed to do what? >> you know, they-- my involvement was really incrementally less as time went on. i wrote all three, but i wasn't involved in the production at all. and when they finished "ultimatum" i was really outside of the bourne world in every way. and i think that a lot of smart people spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to go forward with that. and i think they were sort of-- it was wrapped up so nicely at the end of "ultimatum," they ran out of road. they couldn't figure out how to do it and everybody walked away. and a few months later, the guys from the estate were in new york, and -- >> rose: the hud lum estates. >> it was a really casual meeting, a cup of coffee, almost a courtesy. and they said, "look, we're stuck. we want to do this.

we need to go forward. we're never going to have jason bourne again. what did we do?" i had never seen the third movie. and i said, "look, i'll go watch it and if i think of anything i'll give you a call." it was really that casual. i went back, watched the movie, and i called my brother and said, "you could do this." he said, "you should tell them they could do that." i said, "look, what if you said there was a much larger conspiracy? what if we were only seeing a small piece of something that was much larger?" and once you say that, that leads to certain-- it's sort of a math problem that starts to follow through. it was really-- it started as-- you know, writers don't always work on full scripts. sometimes you come in to fix a scene or try to fix somebody's ending. it was really sort of a very-- "i'll come in for a week or two and start to dig some holes and see if something happens." it started that quietly. we proceeded-- i did those two weeks, and when you say-- when you say you're going to-- that you're going to have a larger

conspiracy, then you say well, "ultimatum" has to play in the background. what happened in the film was very public. you have the opportunity to play another movie in the background at the beginning of this, and that's how it started. so i really wasn't planning on doing this, and i think everyone was kind of-- there was a big hopeless period there. >> rose: but does it open the door to the future as well? >> yeah, once we got our hands on it, and once the character came into play, i mean, even before we started the script, i presented it to the studio and said, "look, there's a way of preserving everything that happened before and hopefully enhancing everything that had happened before, and doing some housekeeping with that, and then laying a whole, you know, organizing methodology for where you could go in the future. and it's wide open what could happen now. >> rose: i asked this earlier, as jeremy and edward know, what is the secret of this? why does this connect as an action adventure, "the bourne"

series, continuing with this? >> the d.n.a. it's only things you really have to follow-- there's always been this really, really deep-seated integrity to it. it started very small, and it's very intimate. and the idea of doing action from a character's point of view was a very fresh idea 13 years ago when we started it. it's probably become more of a common theme, maybe as a result of bourne. there's an integrity about it. there's an integrity to the behavior. there's an integrity of the action. there's an integrity that every set and the location-- you go to paris, you don't show the ifill tower. that kind of a thing. i think that's what you navigate towards every day. that makes it work. >> rose: and there's also this great american fascination with conspiracy and also individual against the establishment and being chased by everybody in the world. >> right. >> rose: right? >> we don't have villains. you know, there's nobody who is trying to drain the oceans. you know-- our villains are all

internal. i mean, jason bourne's enemy was himself, really. i mean it was really-- auburn cross' enemy is slightly external but he's really fighting his past. i mean, it's-- we're not in the villain business, which is kind of-- >> but i think-- to your point, i think that's kind of the age we're living in. we're living in an age of a kind of a pervasive concern that-- that the enemy might be something we've grown up and out of ourselves. it might be the corporate oligarchy. that it might be the government trying to protect us going too far and doing that which we don't want done in our name. and i think the bourne-- the bourne films have always been-- had a sense of peeking behind the curtain to see what was going on behind-- those very headlines that make us

uncomfortable. we're worried-- we're worried about -- >> rose: it's backward where that goes. >> every time -- >> rose: that's the deep personalization of war. >> yes. and you know what's amazing, the day of the premiere-- yesterday-- >> the front page -- >> the front page of the "new york times." the picture, if you opened it, the picture was the exact banal little consil is in the scene where i'm chasing jeremy. >> rose: so how did you see auburn cross? here you know where you're coming from, having heard this. and you know the history of jason. you're not jason but you are aaron cross and you come from the same place and you're part of the same bigger picture. >> i think the most critical thing for me was how i could grab on to it. what could i sink my teeth into and connect to the character? that was the thing we talked about earlier, the fuel for this

character. and tony and i talked about it in depth. this is a guy who wants to belong. obviously, he joined army because he wants to belong to something. i think that's a very human, even a very male trait, you want to feel like you're a part of something. and then to join the program. so it was also very polar to what bourne was, which is also a great thing, so never, ever any confusion and have to worry about that. it's a guy who upons exactly who he is. he's willingly signing up for this thing, wanting to do good and wanting to do something and all that kind of good script. >> rose: you said he was a movie athlete and that was important. >> yeah, i mean, the bar had been set really high. the action is eye mean, you know when you buy your ticket you're going to be in fair certain kind of actions and there's going to be plenty of up. we're in an upgrade world. everybody wants everything to be upgraded, so you kind of have to-- if you're going to do a

motorcycle chase it has to be-- you start off saying we're going to do a better motorcycle chase than anybody has ever done before. the bar has to be really high. because we're photo real, the way we make them, there's not a lot of room to hide. and it would have been impossible to tackle this with someone who wasn't -- >> rose: exactly. >> rose: when you're going to do the best motorcycle chase you've ever seep, where do you start? >> you start with dan bradley. you call up dan bradley. ( laughter ) you get dan bradley, like, a year and a half in advance. >> rose: who is dan bradley. >> a famous second-unit director who has added a lot of testosterone to a lot of directors over the years ask had them fighting above their weight

class. he did "ultimatum" and other films and i got with dan as soon as possible and-- you act like you're seven-year-old kids on the cartet on christmas morning with cars. it's the same silly-- it's child's play -- >> rose: it went on and on. i loved this because it never ended. whenever i thought it might end, i expected it to end, it. >> it's got several chapters to it, several chapters. >> rose: edward, talk to me about your character and how he fits in and how he sees the moral universe he's operating in? >> i think as tony said, the unique cleverness of what he pulled off was, instead of

trying for-- instead of trying for a replication, he went for a level change in a way, in the sense that if the first three films were the smallest of the russian dolls, you know, we went and saw that now it's nested inside a larger set, and my character is the momma russian doll outside of all the others who's-- you know, he's the architect of multiple interlocking experimental programs that he brokers out to constituent agencies like the c.i.a. ands defense department and all things. so i think in a-- in a role sense, he's-- he's the chess master who's managing a lot of different people who know nothing about each other and he's the center of it. but i think on a-- sort of an ethical level, the thing i liked about it was that tony doesn't

really write in-- you know, heroes and villains, per se. he wrote three characters who are all collaborators in and complicit in a system that has a lot of moral compromises in it-- as a doctor, as a soldier, as an assassin, as a policymaker. and i think-- you know, he's someone who kind of tony gave this articulation that's kind of the question in the film, which is, like, are there bad things you have to do for a reason and whether you agree with that is sort of crux -- >> rose: and that's the challenge for your character. your acting in your character to prove that. >> yeah because-- villainy is-- real villainy is people who rub their hands with glee. you know, those are fun characters, too. but i think that-- i didn't get

the sense-- to me the appeal of it was that i didn't get the sense that tony was looking for a villain. he was looking for someone who could convey a moral point of view that-- that's somewhat disturbing because it's persuasive, and it implies tha that-- that some pool might have to do bad things for the benefit of the rest of us. >> rose: and then there comes the doctor. what is it-- what is she doing? what is this research about that connects you to him and to him? >> well, jeremy's character, aaron, and my character, market awe're both working for the government. we're employed by the government, jeremy as an agent or a soldier, assassin-- would you call yourself that, all those three? >> just sort of a journeyman. ( laughter ) >> and i work in a scientific research center. i'm a virologist. and we're working on some very

cutting edge science, which is basically that you can alter d.n.a. by infecting it with virus, which is actually not something that-- it's not science fiction. it's not created. it's not fiction created-- actually, it's scientifically possible and in small ways is already happening-- not that i know of to create-- to enhance human beings in a way that it does in the film. yeah, so i'm a scientist. i'm a doctor, not look a doctor that hazel people. i'm a doctor of-- i guess i have a ph.d. in virology. and i am very morally compromised -- >> rose: do you know what you're doing? >> i know the science of what i'm doing and i-- i don't ask any questions beyond that. >> rose: you don't know the names of the people. >> no the people that come visit me that i'm experimenting on-- jeremy is number 5. i don't know his name.

and i guess the organization set that up because if he was humanized it would make it more difficult to do what i'm doing. so the people become numbers, and i don't ask any questions about what's happening outside of the lab, and i'm instructed i mustn't ask any questions, which kind of suits me fine, but i think deep down there must be a kind of a guilt and a nagging worry about what's going on. i think she knows on some level she's very, very morally compromised. yeah. >> rose: here is the first scene we want to take a look at. this is the scene in which you come back it find her because you've read in the paper about her. roll tape. >> the gun's empty. hey, hey, look, look. it's me. i'm not here to hurt you. >> how did you-- >> shhh! listen to me. you want to live? look at me. do you want to live?

do you want to live? >> yes! >> good. let's go. good. now i need you to do exactly what i say. listen to me, exactly. >> rose: so what's happening here? first time you come to get her and this really sets the movie in motion. does it not? >> yes. >> it certainly changes the pace. >> rose: exactly and she's about to be killed because something terrible has happened because you issued the order that all these people be dead, to shut it down, and you come back and know about it. >> yeah, and it becomes a really great sort of place in the movie where these two people who don't really know each other need each other to survive. >> rose: that's a great formula right there. you get the thing in motion and it goes into fourth gear. >> you want people that need things desperately. >> if you want to write-- you can't-- i mean that's what you're always looking for characters. they need something. they need it desperately.

the audience understands what it is. it's difficult but attainable. that's what you want to have. she's been marked for death, this whole program-- what we're saying is because jason bourne went public in "ultimatum," because he shot up new york city and the reporter was killed in london, edward has been sitting there for the past 12 years beside you in the movie theater watch the c.i.a. fail to bring in jason bourne and no this has suddenly gone public. he's got a whole constellation of things he's been doing, and his concern is that the treadstone program that jason bourne is part of, if that becomes exposed, there's one other program that kisses up against ifa a way he can't control and it makes the program vulnerable. that's the program he's part of, and that's the program she's the researcher for and that program has to be destroyed and all evidence of that has to be destroyed. >> it's successful except for them. i call them the hanging chads.

they're the two hanging chads? >> rose: you say that in the movie? >> and i'm like karl rove. i have to get rid of those hanging chads. >> rose: i knew this would get political at some point. >> they're the only two people who-- they're the only-- only they can help each other and the only way they can stay alive is if they-- it's sort of the doctor-patient defiant ones. they're really strapped together. they can't survive without each other. >> rose: in a movie like this, do you suspend disbelief? you say they can do all this stuff. i'm going to believe my characters because i like my characters. i want them to live so i'm suspending believability. >> i want the most kitchen sink, absolutely most real, on the floor-- i don't want any daylight. i want this to be believable up and down. >> rose: that he is that athletic-- >> that's our benchmark. we may stretch it from time to

time. i've worked on plenty of movie that that's not the marching order. in this movie we want everything to be believable. >> rose: is there a moment in the acting where you have to transition from sort of the scientist to i'm with you. "whatever it is about you, i believe you and i'm with you." is there a moment in the film where you make that transition. >> during the course of the movie he becomes very humanized >> rose: when is that? is that at a moment or is it the arc of the whole thing? >> i think it's the arc of the whole thing. we have a quiet moment where we connect with one another, and i just take him in and see him and he actually tells me his for he tells me who he was before the program and where he will fall if he has to go back. and i think in that moment, i have guilt, empthee, for him.

>> rose: willing to take the risk. >> well, i-- it's two things. i'm willing to take the risk. i only don't have any choice. it's kind of -- >> rose: your his safety net. >> we're bound together. we're each other's prisoners but we actually start to care for each other. >> uh-huh. >> rose: the way she looks when she says it. what's a sin eater. >> what's a what? >> a thin eater. it's a reference to the scene-- we have one flashback in the film where you come to understand that my character and jeremy's character have actually had a face-to-face relationship. they actually know each other. it has been a one-to-one collaboration, not all numerical. and i think that-- you know, i

really liked the reference because it's a literary reference. it's almost, you know, pulling from the greeks or what was your-- >> it goes way back. it's the person who accepts the sin for the tribal community. >> yeah. >> you know, the shameon will take all the sins of the community on itself. >> jeremy's character had sort of a crisis from-- a crisis of conscience because of a covert operation gone bad, and my character sort of needs to manage-- keep him on the rails and make sure that he gives him a box in which he can put this experience that helps it be okay, and so i think, you know, in a lot of ways it's the idea of the thin eater, it's the rationalization, whether you buy into it or not, that somebody has got to take out the trash

for the rest of the community. and that-- and that-- that you can be that person, and still be a part of a good, you know, something good. >> rose: roll tape, here it is. >> you need to stop what you're doing and turn around. that's an order. we got screwed on the intel, okay. nobody knew those people were in there. it would be perfectly normal for a person to have doubts about what we asked you to do. >> is that a question? >> no, it's not. tune into what i'm trying to say to you. do you know what a thin eater is? that's what we are. it means we take the moral excrement we find in the equation and bury it down inside of us. that is the job. we are morally indefensible, and absolutely necessary. you understand? >> rose: how do you create the great immediacy of dialogue? >> i was just-- even as a kid, i

was a freak for it. i mean, the writers that i loved were all phonographic. i read-- this will sound so weird-- james farrell, studs lonergan, i fell in love with that book. you go from that, to the george higgins books. those boston books were crucial for me. richard price, robert stone, john lecarre. i mean the people that just-- i don't know. i have always gravitated to it. there is some aspect of tempo and musicality to it. >> rose: is that what you think when you write a script? >> i write everything from the character's point of view. i do not know how people plot in general without plotting-- i have to write hundreds and hundreds of pages of dialogue, and i follow my characters, and my characters dictate the plot. it's the only way i've been able to do it and i do it primarily through dialogue. i throw most of it away. in fact, i throw probably 90% of it away. >> rose: you don't keep it at all. you just throw it away. >> i'm noontime--

>> we try to bring it back. ( laughter ) and then-- >> everybody loves to do the 400 page script. that would be his dream. he needs a miniseries. >> my first play i did in new york was with edward alby, and he was always killing his babies, too. and here i am 20 years later, i was still pleading with a good writer not to kill all of the good stuff. >> you have to get rid of a lot of stuff, a lot of weeding out. >> rose: why gotta? >> that's how we talk. if you take transcript and look at the punctuation, and you'll see how we talk. we talk in shotgun. >> rose: exactly. >> there's a lot of stuff-- >> it's very interesting what you said. you write from the character's point of view. i've never had anyone say that before. i think there's something in your writing where you don't judge the characters. because writers can judge characters and then actors can very, very often judge the

characters as they play them. it's interesting that you-- if you're seeing something from the character's point of view, you won't judge your character. but if you see it from the outside, if you see it objectively-- reading the script, i would judge my character severely, but when i play her, i don't have any judgment for her whatsoever. i believe everything she's doing is right. >> rose: because of the way he seems-- >> i do that any way on all jobs. >> good actors protect their character no matter what. >> rose: "good actors protect their character." >> yeah. you have to imagine you're an attorney in court, you're defending this character, and you have to absolutely believe in their innocence. i think -- >> rose:ier me, so what were you protecting here in this character, say? let's assume that's true-- it is true. >> yeah, well, i dont think it's really-- it was more you can't have any judgment. you can't judge your character,

i can't judge a guy-- that's easy to judge. but really there was only one maybe-- the thin eater part was doing something you felt was morally-- you completely disagree with. >> rose: you have to be him. is that the idea? >> right. you can't have judgment-- i believe, you cannot have a judgment about a character you're playing. >> you have to judge the piece. therit's a phased process. an actor has to use the more judgmental part of your brain when you're arbitrating for yourselves is the peace worthy. you know what i mean? say you're playing a nazi, you know, who is going to say morally repugnant things, the time to judge it is when you read it at first and say does this serve-- does me doing this serve, you know, a piece that i believe in?

so you judge when you're deciding what the whole thing has to say and if there is a value to it. if there is, then you can play a-- somebody and invest in their point of view because you're would yobecause you're working n service of something you have faith in. >> there's another piece of this and it's jermaine to rachel being cast and the way she plays it. it sounds very cut and dried. you also need to have confusion in your characters. you need to have chaos in your character. her character-- we never even talked about this-- one of the primary reasons she was the most interesting was because-- very little time to introduce her character. we have very little time to do anything here. it has to be very economical pup meet a woman and she is a scientist and you can't just put glasses on her and have her be a scientist, and you can't have her eating a hamburger on the way in-- >> the kooky signs.

i was trying for, that charlie! >> they say character who you have to feel is incredibly proficient in her work and buttoned down in her work but her private life is an absolute wreck, and we have very little time to do that. >> rose: how do you accomplish that? >> you cast an actor who can bring the kind of-- can hold all those ideas simultaneously, and can bring that sense of abandoned-- you really feel she's lost in her home and together in her lab. and that's a really-- it's not all this guilty/not guilty. >> rose: on the casting issue, you got everything-- you're looking for what, satisfaction, when you're looking at her? >> i was over-icism liifying it by saying guilty or not guilty. there are infinite, infinite things you play when you're playing a character. i was just discussing that one -- >> rose: let's talk about casting when everyone says is

huge when you make that kind of movie. you said you got everything you wanted, everything you need to make the movie you want to make. when you think of casting, so you think of jeremy. you're thinking of him because beyond that he's a good actor. there's something about him that connects to your imagination for the character you had. >> that month we chased publicly. he wasn't available at the beginning, we were looking at an athlete, looking for an actor, somebody the audience hasn't pinned down. somebody who the audience knows but haven't beat pinned down to it. when "avengers" worked out the schedule all of a sudden he was on the list, and me and frank marshall, we went to berlin. i chased with e-mails and cups of coffee -- >> rose: why did you need to

be convinced? >> because-- well, on the one hand, i don't-- i dont think he was completely finished with developing it. i mean, it was mostly there, but there were some things i think he was still figuring out. i guess here's the point. like you don't-- there's not that much to me that's interesting about a tone or a, you know, a character who is functional but one dimensional. and i think i wanted to understand-- i didn't like that "v" word, villain. and i think-- because that felt kind of like what rachel was saying, something that has been two dimensionally judged and i wanted to understand better what tony saw as the paradox operating within this guy. and to be honest how in the movie that has the demands of something like this, how is that

going to get room to breathe. >> you weren't sure it was going to be good? >> no, no, that's actually not true. i'm a big fan of his films. and probably-- probably my faith in his writing and directing was high, and i wanted to make sure he was going to be allowed to bring all that energy to a franchise picture. >> we wanted to make sure we had control of what we were doing. >> that's a good way to put it. >> rose: meaning what? >> it's a big franchise. it's a big franchise. >> rose: you wanted them ton what you were doing. >> he had the rope-- make it as complex as he wanted to, that they didn't simplify things. >> rachel, we met on a monday, and i think she was cast by tuesday afternoon. >> i'm a cheap date.

come on. it was a quickie. >.it>> it was love at first sig. >> rose: it was, joy of the character, the people you would be associated with, the fact that you thought these guys could deliver. >> who's "these guys?" >> rose: all of thom. >> "michael clayton" was one of my favorite movies of all time so i really wantd to the work with tony. >> rose: why do we all like "michael clayton" so much? do you like it as well? we all love it. you have great acting. you have george and tilde-- >> we all need to be redeemed, i guess. i don't know. >> rose: it's something. it's going to be a cult movie, i think. >> that pleases me greatly. >> rose: so what was it about it? don't you think you know? >> it's kind of a dream to me. it's like a movie and sort of a life experience. i haven't seen it in a very long time. >> i kind of personally think that part of it is that there's

a thread running through it that runs through a lot of his stuff. and i think most of the best film makers actually kind of make the same movie oaf and over again. and i think there's a pervasive thread pulling through a lot of tony's stuff about fear of who the oppressor is. who is the oppressor now? the oppressor is a certain institutional oligarchal system that's going to destroy you and does not want you or need you. and a lot of his stories have people pushing back against that. and i think-- i think in "michael clayton" the thing that as an national twinge-- he said it to me once-- that clooney's character, like he's this close to it being too late to become anything different or to ennoble himself opener -- >> rose: that close. >> year, he's right at the edge of being too old in life to try

to change and that makes you want it for him and care. >> rose: that's absolutely right. >> i remember watching "carnal knowledge" at 14 and i was like what is it? and i watched it 30 years later and i was like oh, my god. >> rose: you shouldn't be watching classics until you were 30 because you wouldn't understand divorce andanger and jealousy and rage and all of that. here you found the guy you wanted. you wanted to be part of the-- part of a lot of the action stuff. >> yeah. >> rose: you wanted to be physical. >> yeah, yeah. it was caned of required. and then it sor sort of -- >> rose: it's in there. >> i don't look at it and say i have to dox amount. i just had to be prepared not to

get injured and that's what i elsewhered on the previous movies "mission impossible" and "the avengers." as swooped into "bourne." the hand-to-hand stuff was probably the most important for the camera-- excuse me. and everything else was take it as it came. see what i could do. if i couldn't do it, have someone else do it. >> rose: do you know who is like his character in terms of the physicality of it? in other words, do you know guys from special forces or guys who-- mennd women who are part of that world? or from the c.i.a.? >> the most immersive time-- we made "proof of life." and it had a big s.a.s.-- russellio's character was an s.a.s. officer. we prepped in london and we based out of london and they were really, really into it.

and we spent a lot of time with s.a.s., s.b.s., and a lot of the people in the fringe of that through preproduction, through training, through the actual shooting, hanging out with them. i spont a lot of time in that environment in that period of time. probably most of what i'll ever know about that came from that year. and, you know, i think the surprising thing about that is how unlikely those guys are. we would go to the special forces bar, and you'd be in the room with teen or 20 guys, and it would be russell and david and i and david caruso, and if you went through the room to try to pick out who the baddest ass guys were in the room, you would have mistakenly picked russell, and i. it's not apparently at all. and even within their own culture, who was the the alpha of that curt. it was always shocking. it was never who you thought it would be. it was a good lesson in over

estimating-- >> it's not a physical thing. >> rose: meaning? >> absolutely mental preparedness. any athlete and also in military, absolutely mental. >> the ability to improvise when things go wrong. the acceptance of failure. >> rose: take a look at this. this is a scene we've complained, where aaron finds out marta does not know his real name. here it is. >> where are we going? >> june, your name is june, june monroe. say it. >> june monroe. >> say it. >> june monroe. >> pick a place you live. the last place you lived, the place you know. >> bethesda. >> you lost your wallet, i'm driving you home. my name is james. you're june. james and june, you got it? >> yes. is that your name? >> james, no. what? you don't know my name? what do you call me?

what do you put on my blood work. >> 5. >> 5? the number 5? you know how many times we've met? 13. throan exams over the last four years, and that's what i get, a number, number 5. >> rose: we were just talking about what got laughs at the premiere. so what surprised you about what got laughs at the premiere. >> we don't have a lot of humor but we have three places and in every test screening people always laugh. it's like a little oaceis. it's very predictable where people will last. >> rose: did you change anything because of test screenings. >> oh, sure. >.oh, my god. >> rose: like what? >> many things. you cut down. you eliminate. >> rose: is it mainly sculpting? >> i wish the process was different. i wish you could use the process the way you wanted to use it. i wish test screening was absolutely filmmaker friendsly and you could do it and take away from it what you want to take away from it.

the met rubs at this point have become so unbelievably comprehensive. you cannot believe the list of metrics that you goat off of the screening in sacramento. >> rose: what do you mean by-- >> i mean every single character and every single plot, everything-- it's to every quadrant. it becomes-- it becomes an enemy at that point. but it's very helpful to sit with an audience and watch your film and talk to people about itards. anybody who doesn't do that-- it's a drag if they make you not like it because it's such a painful thing oh, man, i've been doing-- listening to focus groups, 30 people in the front of the room for 20 years. it's just not something i look forward to. ( laughing ) >> rose: you said, "everything else can be pushed or fixed or wrangles in some way, but acting is magic. i learned that a lot time ago." >> i mean, you can't-- look, the script-- the script has to be proper and they have to have film in the camera.

in the end, they put their asss on-- you know, it's their face. it's them. and it is eye mean probably you know, i don't know, mike nichols and a hand full of others understanding acting. anybody who pretends what they really understand what an actor is going through and what it takes to get it done is really-- is really not telling you the truth. i think the only thing you can do-- and i watch a lot of other directors work over the years and have the benefit of that experience-- you want to make the safest place you possibly can. you want everything perfectly set up for them and then you want to let them do their thing and pick the right glaps you guys share that-- >> he cares. you definitely feel it it. it's nice to have an emotional man that you know you're protected and trusted and you trust right back. and that's when magic happens. >> he's a really everywhere

unusual combination he, tone, because-- >> he is, yeah. >> he's got great intellect. he's an incredible wordsmith, and to direct a movie you have to be in control of so many different things and controlling and organized and keep a very tight rein on multiple, multiple parts, but just between "action" and "cut" we goat a very small amount of time to do our work. he takes his hands off the wheel and let's you go free and let's emotion-- directors are not meant to say, "i don't know" about anything. they're meant to say, "i know the answer about everything." tony just said, "i don't know about act." >> rose: the notion is theater is an actor's place and film is a director's place. >> well i get to pick the tape. ( laughter ). >> it's a director's medium because they sculpt the movie in

the end. >> rose: when you-- what don't we know about acting? i mean, we just talked about this whole notion of how hard it is. >> we're making it sound a little like the "deadliest catch." and it's not, really. it's-- it's-- >> what does that mean? >> that's that show about alaska crab fishermen, the most dangerous job in the world. ( laughter ) it's not-- i've never found myself broken on the rocks. >> i don't mean that -- >> rose: nobody means that. it's not easy-- >> it is easy, actually. it should be very easy if someone lets you know. >> it's not knowable for the director. >> there's no equation. there's no equation for it. you can't explain it. >> you can have four different acting styles on the set simultaneously. you have four different people who have different ways of working and all of a sudden they have to be in the scene together.

>> they work the same way and you do, too, showing up ready to rale. >> rose: others don't? >> here's the thing-- if you don't rehearse, it putsing everybody on point. not rehearsing is a real friend to me. >> rose: you don't want to rehearse. >> i don't want to rehearse. >> rose: you're looking for spontaneity. that's the way i view this process here, too. >> i have a friend who shot a film and rehearsed half the cast in one location and the cast he rehearsed all they want to do is keep the condition going, and the half he didn't rehearse showed up ready to work and were on point. >> rose: so here are you-- this is, some might argue, a great moment for you. how many movies have you done in the past couple years? >> five. >> rose: i rest my case. you are hot, as they say, and i

know that may be -- >> rose: so what are you looking for now? >> a nap. >> rose: but you went to your mother, as you told me this morning, you went to your mother and said, "should i do this?" when they cameav you for this. >> for this one? yeah, yeah, it was the tail end of three big, you know, franchise movies. and oh, wow, am i really going to sign up for a fourth one. i'm like i don't know how they do a "bourne" movie. so i asked mom and friends. >> rose: what did your mom say? >> you're an idiot. do the movie. >> rose: she knew how long it took you to get there. >> exactly. >> do you know how many people are out of work? >> rose: exactly. with the economy we have here. one last scene. this is where aaron escapes to the basement. here it is. ( gunfire )

>> rum to the basement! go! >> rose: we talked about filming the chase keep. why manila? >> you know, we knew we didn't -- >> rose: you're asking-- hold on. >> my wife said, "why didn't you just write "rome," four letteres, write "rome."

>> rose: because you wanted to do the chase scene, that's why. >> we didn't want to go to europe. we thought about latin america, southeast asia. pat crowley, the producer and i who have traveled all over the world on all these movies, we had a beauty paggent, and we landed in manila, and it felt so bourne-ish. it's just so confidential and ugly and gritty and stinky and crowded. they had a great film industry there for years, built off the vietnam films and the guy who was our liaison had been the armorer of "apocalypse now," the lead armorer, which is a big deal. so they had this really sort of dormant film industry, and they wanted us. you know, they really wanted us. and you want to go some place where they-- where you sort of say, hey, can we shut down this

boulevard for every weekend for a month and can we take over your neighborhood-- you don't want people who say yes too easily. you want people who say this will be really tough but we can call the president and we can get that. they knew what we were asking for and they could get it for us and turned out to be a really eye can't imagine we could have done the whacky stuff we did any place else. >> rose: thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: couldn't have said it better yourself. >> no rewrite. >> rose: thank you, rachel, thank you, jeremy, thank you, edward. it's great to have you here thank you for joining us. "the bourne legacy" for the hour. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org