>> we look forward to sunday's presidential election in france. >> it's kind of historic proportions. we are way beyond what happened in the u.s. election and certainly what happened in the brexit vote. that's why they don't want to sound too complacent about it because they want the voters to get out there and put the ballot paper in the box. but it has to come to turnout levels we've never seen before. >> we end with the broadway play oslo leading to the accord 1993. >> it's not choosing sides, it's not saying so and so is right or so and so is wrong. the political act is to expands the kinds of things we see people on the stage. >> healthcare, the election in france and the play oslo when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> good evening, i'm jeff glor of cbs news filling in for charlie rose. we begin this evening with politics. with every democrat voting no, house republicans cheered as they vote thursday to repeal and replace the affordable care act, obama by a four vote margin. the bill now faces an uncertain future in the senate. questions of how many americans will lose coverage and how much that coverage will cost. joining me now is nick confessore of the "new york times." i'm pleased to welcome him back to this program. welcome. >> good to be here. >> so let's talk about the time line a little bit. what sort of juice we believe the whitehouse has right now to get the senate moving quickly. >> i think the juice is the same in all cases. there's a political imperative to get this done in the senate, to try to get some version of it done to pass it, to put the staff and say we did this, we repealed obama and replace identify it with something better. but there's also reality of the legislative counterthe timetable. the members going back home. if they can't get it done in the next freu weeks they have to wait much longer. that's why you saw senator mcconnel to work on the proposal. this house bill isn't going to get very far as in the senate. >> it's what the house republicans had yesterday and what the senate brings back. >> the republican bill was essentially designed for the conservatives in the caucus with enough extra things in it to get a few of the moderates on board to support it. so there was more money for these high risk pools for some states. a few billion dollars. not the hundred million dollars or more that was required. >> it's basically a bill for the conservatives in the house. the senate is going to want a different kind of bill that row tech the moderate members and there are at least one or two republicans in the senate who are not going to go near anything like this house bill. >> 52-48 is the split between republicans and democrats, you're not dealing with a real big margin of error. >> it's a very small margin of error. >> we now the senator from kentucky is coming from the right. he doesn't like how the bill was put together but the real hard question is on substantive grounds and care. duty moderate members on the senate on the republican side seek bigger changes that then can't get reconciled back with the house version again. >> the cvo numbers are going to play into this. what's the timing in terms of when we think we might get those and what the senate then does with those. >> this is interesting, right. so the cvo will add some table and move this as fast as they can. sts or what its full impact is going to be. and of course a lot of house members hadn't read it. by the time the senate gets to work on this, it is likely we'll have some kind of cvo on the house version but of course it's going to be totally different and that will have to be scored. >> the number before on the previous version of the bill that never was brought to a vote was 24 million people losing coverage. and how is that affected under this bill then. >> this looks crazy. we don't know the answer to that question and they still passed the bill. there are a lot of reasons to think that the number could be higher, we're not totally sure. it could be higher than the previous version. some of the additional subsidies might actually cover and bring some of those folks back in. but the big thing that this bill does is it enables governors that make the expand to pull out of that expansion and basically change the medicaid program which result if that happens a lot of people off the program. it's a big question, mark which makes it so much politically risky to pass this in the first place. >> and to talk about some of the issues that obamacare has. but regardless, at this point, a lot of this is now seven years later is part of the system. >> the big lesson of health care reform. people are more afraid of losing whatever care they have than the new promise in a new bill. it's the inertia for the party to pass a big change. guess what, obamacare is no longer obamacare. president obama is gone. now it's just care that people have and they are afraid of losising what they have even if there are people who find that the premiums are too high or they still have to paid them. there are ways to fix that. i'm not sure that this bill is going to hit all those cylinders and prevent -- premiums to be prizing. >> trumpcare. some people are calling it that at least. i'm not sure how he feels about that. some called it the ryancare in some previous version. but he has that name now. >> if the republican healthcare policy right now they didn't bring it into the store but they're about to knock it over and break it so they own it. even if they don't change it, they own it. that's what's so troublesome for the republicans. they are now the custodians for healthcare policy. they control both ends of pennsylvania avenue and it's up to them. and they can't blame it on the democrats if it goes south. >> one of the part of this is not just when the senate takes this up and what it does with this and what they then return to the house. >> the senate does their own bill and is substantially different which it will be, they will pass them through both chambers again. does the senate pull their version of the bill back to the left does that make it harder to pass in the house. there will not be a single democrat i believe in either house that will vote for this if it looks anything like that. >> we're in this era of a weird set of political assignments or political incentives. the democrats politically actually need this bill to be as bad as they say it is to actually reap any political benefit of it from 2018. if on the other hand it never actual passes in this form all the things nancy pelosi is saying how bad it is for republicans will actually come true. there's a weird alignment the republicans didn't want to pass this as is but a lot of those republicans are hoping the senate makes major modifications to it. >> what is the general idea right now or suspicion about what then gets lost or adjusted in the senate? >> i think the previous rendition is the most important or politically important part of this debate. what the house bill does which is a little weird, it doesn't actually get rid of those protections but it does get rid of the community ratings which is a term that means the insurance can't charge you more than your neighbor if you have the condition and they don't. and that provides price protections. but the house bill does say the insurance can now charge you more and we're going to throw some more money in the pot to help cover that but not really enough money. >> your insurance might not last but you might not be able to afford your insurance if you had cancer insurance before. look, there's also a weird loop hole in the house bill that could threaten employers' health insurance which is not what we think about with obamacare. there are a lot of things we're going to see more and more as it gets read and digested. >> the president said yesterday that preanl williams -- premiue going to go down and deductibles going down. you typically see those going in opposite directions at least when picking coverage. i'm confused about and a lot of people are about how that goes down at the same time. >> it's not going to happen at all. there isn't really a free lunch in healthcare. they want to cover more people, you got to spend more money and someone's got to pay for that. the way obamacare does it, is it charges taxes and more wealthy people provide that care. there's no magic way to somehow make healthcare much cheaper or bring those premiums down and then also expand the coverage for everybody. the money has to come from somewhere. the republicans doing right now are getting rid of the revenue sources that tower and fund the expansion in the first place. >> it's interesting, this is such a partisan issue when they first passed obamacare which is a partisan issue as well which is trumpcare. is there any scenario you see it becoming a bipartisan solution to what may be some problems in obamacare but away from what house republicans passed yesterday. >> i think the scenario is republicans lose control of one or both chain bursts of -- chambers of congress in 2018. i think that's a scenario. the second scenario is i think democrats have actually won the intellectual war on this issue already. they won it when republicans decided or many republicans decided that it was part of their responsibility to broaden coverages and make insurance possible. that was a big intellectual leap with the republican party. now they're looking for ways to pay for it and make it work. there's not really a good way to do that without having those revenue raises and taxes and expanding government programs. democrats have them halfway. the question is what does the program look like in five to ten years. >> nick confessore from the "new york times." thank you. >> with foreign news now voters in france go to the polls sunday and the final round of presidential elections. the choice is when far right politician marine le pen and centrist candidate emmanuel macron. i'm joined by so fee pedder, bureau chief of the economist and michiel vos, u.s. correspondent. what is the mood on the eve of this vote. >> i was in southwestern france for the very last rally, he has it outdoors in the beautiful evening. and i have to say that they are pretty confident now. if you look at the polling numbers in the last today which is the last day the polls are allowed to be published before france goes into a blackout perid, they're having a voting on sunday, they give macron a 20 point lead. i think that he's quietly confident. a little bit nervous of saying that publicly but i think there's a confidence that they are now heading for a victory for macron. you can see here in his speech. he gave the speech which actually sounded very much like a speech a president would give after he's elected. it was hardly a campaign speech anywhere. it was about reconcile france, need to heal with divisions some of the campaign has thrown up and bring the french together and sort of unify the country after pretty tense and at times incredibly divisive election campaign. >> it's interesting. we talk about the city and she says she was in southwest france. the dividing here between candidates and voters and support has been significant, rural versus urban. >> rural versus urban. northeast rural versus the city or the southeast also, very heavy le pen, north east heavy le pen, of course macron. it's about anger, the anger people out there so to speak le pen. the people in cities feel more comfort many with him and they'll vote for him. >> le pen needs a very low turnout. any chance is the suspicion. >> that's the suspicion. if she has a low turnout she'll have a better chance. she's swimming against the poll sort of speak. she wasn't helped in the past few weeks by a few mistakes. i thought she was overly harsh in the debate last wednesday the last debate in the intervening period between the two of them. there was a change of the guard at the head of her party, and of course somebody came forward to take over the baton of hers at the head of the party and of course he was linked to anti-semetic comments and denying holocaust in the past. it hasn't helped, even though her message of i'm there for the people who feel fear of europe, of the other, of the banks, of the system, of the man so to speak whose holding you down, resonates with a certain part of france. >> so sophie, how much recognition do you believe there is in france of what happened both here and i should say in the uk with brexit. that was predicted to be a little closer. but in the u.s. presidential election as you know, hillary clinton was expected to win convincingly. >> of course, people are very aware what happened last year with the brexit vote and the u.s. election. and that's how they've working the polls with lots of caution and superstition start. it's the nature. if we have polls that are much narrower, then i think people would feel that they couldn't possibly call the results ahead of time. but, if you look at second round since 1981 in france, poll's only been off two points by average, less than two points and now we're looking at a 20 point gap. some of the polls have come up today friday have suggested it's bigger, over 20%. it would take an upset of historic proportions way beyond what happened in the u.s. election and certainly way beyond what happened in the brexit vote for marine le pen to win. obviously turnout does matter. he doesn't wowbility to sound too complacent about it because he wants the voters to get out there and put the ballot paper in the box. but the turnout would have to come down to levels we haven't in seen before. the french are very dutiful, 80% turnout is an average. most french people do actually go out to vote in the presidential election. and it would have to come right down to the 60's, 60% turnout for marine le pen to get over the 50% majority. so mathematically, of course it's still possible but politically i just can't see it happening. >> interesting how 60% turnout to be impressive. >> it would be in the 60-40 range. >> he has been leading basically all the time. he's been critiqued for being a little too joyful after the first round. he was partying a little too hard and looking a little too presidential already then he sort of made a weird visit to a factory two weeks ago where he got into i think a sort of unscripted exchange, testy exchange with workers. that would never happen in american politics, presidential politics. that was a little unprepared i think but at least he went into the debate. he said you don't into debate with le pen, you suck up the fear of people and use it for electoral purposes. i think in the debates he said you're vague on everything you don't have a real program you're not precise. and by the way you're tied to that name, that tradition, le pen, le pen. he keeps saying le pen. of course her father and the holocaust denial, asterisk quoations of that. and it was bubbling up. she's been trying to get rid of that. we know all of that of her party. it didn't really work. it keeps coming back up. >> sophie how effective in your opinion has marine has been distancing herself where she feels she needs to. >> i think there was a feeling she had made great progress doing that. over the last year or two, i don't know that since she took over the presidency of the party in 2011, she's been invited into tv studios, she takes debates. people don't think it's shocking to have her taking part in the kind of democrat process. she's been received by the president. she's been treated as sort of almost a leader of an opposition party, which she isn't because she don't have two deputies in the insure awe sense me. what this campaign has been so revealing, where it's been so revealing is the unearthing her father in terms of the sort of rhetoric she uses, the imageries she uses. some of the people who sit around her in a circle who have pretty untoxic past, how much that is still part of what the national france is all about. i think that this has been a very important for the french to sort of see that and see it all coming out and realize she's put a certain amount of distance between herself and her father but it's not been a complete process. and that really has e marijuanad over the alaskanal weeks. one point i wanted to answer these last couple weeks of campaigning which have been very interesting with the character or the personality of emmanuel macron. before this campaign people thought he didn't have the capacity to be decisive or sound like somebody they would trust for the presidency. the frefn like the president to embody the nation, to be a kind of figure that they canty as representing the down tree but also they put a huge amount of trust in. and in two episodes this week, one that michael just mention, the visit to the factory. i was there when he did visit. it was a hostile union strike out side a factory gate in factory that's about to be moved to poland for lower cost production site. he was quite brave frankly because this was an area you couldn't secure. his security detail couldn't in this area. he spent nearly an hour arguing with the unionists there. he's somebody who wants to take on the argument and to be quite brave and tough. you see that in the debates as well. there are two episodes, he's sort of grown as a candidate in these two weeks and i think that that has reassured a huge number of french people about the president he might be. >> at 39 years old. >> yes. at that debate, they stood this close. and he calls her to her face, the high priestess who sits opposite of me. that's a real debate. it's not like standing next to each other in room. they debated and he keep out strong in that pea bait. >> how much has he or his campaign touted any obama comparisons that have come up. >> he's been embrace the by sort of the elite. he's been painted as the elite, as the crown prince of the elite by le pen. it works both a little for him and against him. there's been in the press that he's almost too much of an american product of marketing, of slick, of talking on both side of the issues. they're not comfortable with him. but they have no choice. they can't go her so they have to stick with him even though they don't really trust him. even though he's right she's come out strong in the past two weeks as sort of the father of the nation, whatever that means in france. that's important. >> you can't fully evolve inside of two weeks. >> no, you can't. and he remains young and remains something i'm not sure if he agrees but like something in need of his, he is slick and a little like how could this guy out of almost no where it's amazing who built his own party out of nothing and then take over the country. and sort of he has to also save her by the way. >> it's worth noting, i don't want to say throughs -- there's no where to go but up for him. we're coming up a series of french presidencies here which have not been all that effect testify. >> yes. that's one of the reasons for his emergence. you ask where did he come from and how does he do it. it is going to be one of the most extraordinary stories in french political history, you know. a guy a year ago didn't have a party, and has never to do to election anywhere. not even a townhall election. it's an extraordinary sort of achievement. or it will be if and when when he's elected on sunday. but i think that you know from his moment of view, i disagree with the idea he's just a product of his own marketing campaign. i think that he has been planning this for a number, for quite a long time. he's been the economy minister. he's worked there for two years. so he's not when he was deputy chief of staff, it didn't come from no where this campaign. it's the fact that the last two presidencies have not really done anything in terms of breg down unemployment which has been about 10% of the population for the last 20 years. the economy has been under performing relative to germany which is france's main training partner inside the european union. and frfrance has never quite managed to achieve what it could do in terms of performance on the economy front. that has been a real source of disillusion about politics with the french people. and it's been a sort of search for someone who can respond to that. maricopa -- marine le pen at oe point looked like it could be her. and -- backed by the communist party. he looked like he could respond to it but in the end actually it seemed to be the macron, certainly the idea that he has something positive. don't forget french is incredibly blasted as a country because of the terror attacks. it's been under safe emergency. what else can be thrown at france. there he is constructing something positive and something sort of almost up beat. which is unusual in french politics. usually you get elected on the back of a pretty negative message. i think yes the past has been a guide to this but this is sallow unchartered territory with this. it looks like history is about to be remade here. >> as the centrist candidate, though, i think everyone agrees that france has these socio-economic issues that need work. how willing is it going to be to change what might needs to be changed. >> he's going to renegotiate the relationship between with european and france. i'm not sure he feel it but i think he now gets it something on the table put by her and other candidates but it's on the table. and he has to yes do something about the stag 234u7b9 economy about the 10% unemployment rate. something that feels like america trump voters left out. the politics is not there for them, it's there are for wall street but not for main street much that whole, they see some of those voters see, i think le pen would be their great revenge on the system and he would be more up beat as sophie said like revamping the system. he feels the heat and the anger. it's all like about anger. it's all about like despair almost. and now this 39 year old france, the big country to a relative unknown still has to fix all that, it's amazing i. >> sophie he uses a good word, revenge, those that don't get it in a result potentially on sunday, what then is the next step for the national front and marine le pen. >> we've got legislative elections which come up in june. a two-round election. the french like that two round voting so there's two more ahead after the presidential. actually, this is crucial because we will then be able to know whether a president macron if that's what we have is able to put in place any of his policies. although the presidency under the constitution has huge hours he still needs parliamentary approval to put legislation through. it is still a system. we have a legislative role, and it's very unclear what the results of that election would be. so he's going into it without a party at all. he's building one from scratch. he's going to put up candidates in every one of the constituencies. again that would be historic if he manages to get a majority with a party that doesn't exist in parliament at the moment at all. but he's already shown that he can decide all the rule but i think more likely we'll look at perhaps sort of some form of coalition or minority government that will depend on some votes from certain deputies. it's very unclear what sort of relationship we're going to end up having in june. but the national front will be one of those parties that will be represented for the first time in significant numbers in the national assembly. so despite the fact that marine le pen looks like losing this election, in a way sort of defeat for her also, the reason for the victory in their too because she will be a real presence in parliament. it will be different for france for, possibly a grouping. that means the national front still sort of plays a role in setting the agenda or at least shaping the debate even if she doesn't win the presidential election. >> sea sophie pedder and michiel vos. >> always oslo is the new playe norwegian capital which lead to the accords between israel and the palestinian organization. the "new york times" calls the play as expannive as any recent broadway history. always low has been nominated for -- oslo has been nominated for many roles. here's a look at the play. >> in europe they are calling us nazis. in europe where it's only been 50 years. every day more and more the world turns against us but all we do is sit at that negotiating table. >> you're negotiating that's fundamentally true -- it's ridged impersonal -- >> this is what the americans want us to do. >> certainly you must do it. but also establish a second channel. build on the exact opposite model. not a grand pronouncement between governmentssbut intimate discussions between people. held somewhere isolated totally where you and the pillow can meet alone and talk. now this model i can oversee. this place i can arrange. my expertise all at your disposal. discretion guaranteed. >> rose: joining me is the playwright j.t. rodgers the director of bart will you tell sher and terje rod-larsen between the israel and jennifer ehle who plays his wife. i'm pleased to have all of them at this table. welcome. did you have a lot of playwrights and film collectors beating their path to your doorway saying there's a great play there's a great movie about this. >> i actually think it is a great play though it doesn't portray exactly what happened. it's not history but it captures very much i think the spirit of what's happened in oslo in 1993. i think it's a great job and it's actually a little bit awkward for me to sit here beside my wife. she did a great job portraying the role of my wife. >> rose: captured the spirit the what was the spirit. >> the spirit of oslo i think is hope. i think one of the reasons why i think it's a full house every day now is that at this day and time where we have chaos and anarchy in ganglands across the world, i think ittportrays a message of hope that is possible to do the impossible, namely to bring adversary ease together to great friendship and actually reach an agreement that was done. >> rose: in today's world we can do that. >> i think so too. but then sometimes it's easier to do the impossible than to do the possible. i think that's what we did in 1993. >> rose: just for the record, whose idea was it to make a play? >> to make a play, i think it was actually -- >> rose: it was your idea. >> i met through my daughter. they were in school together. i would go to soccer matches and he would tell me these crazy insane stories of middle east peace and attributed them to jt and they got along well. i thought there could be a play that worked out that could be something. >> he was very savvy. we have a relationship now working together. he knew if he said to me i think there might be a play here my first response would be don't tell me what to write about. he introduced. they came to see my last play which was about spies and diplomats in the 80's in the afghan war. and you were very kind about and we went out for drinks. as he talked, i knew the vagus givenning all the credit to the clinton administration. we were talking over drinks right from the theatres, i realized there was sort of a floor underneath the floor, a secret. he really didn't want to talk about what he had done, he wanted to talk about the extraordinary israelis and palestinians to meet. when somebody says it's not about me, is it really. as a story teller, i'm always looking for stories that are about the gripping personal stories against the larger political back drop. to discover as we talked, i think it was the scotch we had or i had, if i remember correctly, to realize there had been secret meetings and people risking their lives. you think my lord this is my wheel house as a playwright. >> rose: jennifer, what were you trying to capture for mona. >> i think for mona in the play, she was cautious, a diplomat, stretch an animal of diplomacy and she chooses when she speaks very carefully. she chooses when she chooses to speak very carefully. and there are only a few times when she actually does speak up and speak her mind. otherwise she is there facilitating and balancing. >> rose: is she the woman in the room. was that interesting. >> i think to have a woman in difficult negotiations between adversary ease who are at etch other's throats is very important. the men and it's usually men. they are much more careful, much more polite, much more inviting, much more accommodating when there is a woman in the room. and i think the story of oslo actually exemplifies how important it is to have a woman center stage of difficult international negotiations. >> rose: my impression is and we do a lot of programs about diplomacy, as you know, is that there's always an effort, people trying to find some way. what happened here was different in terms of you got people who normally don't speak to each other in the room. convince them that this was important. >> it was kind of those i ncidental. i got to know israelis and palestinians. working directly with them. at the time, and it was forbidden by law in the u.s. and in israel to have contacts with the plo, it was disbanded by law as a terrorist organization. but then it's so important to do the unorthodox thing, to as i said earlier, to look at what everybody or most people think is impossible. so it's easier to do the impossible to do what people think is possible. and i think at this time and day again, that this is the main challenge in the middle east today. you can go to yemen, to libya, to iraq, syria. >> rose: especially syria. >> yes. there are possibilities. >> rose: when you went from lincoln center to broadway, ben said we found the stain for an expansion play. what did he mean. >> we were in a small 00 seat level and moved up to 1100 seat level. it's a space for language and a space for big ideas. it's a sprawling play and covers 64 scenes. strangely having done many musicals, this was harder than any musical i had to do there. it changes so quickly. it's such a fast momentum. what we wanted to make was a historical thriller. there's a deliberate slow space to do it and draw to the intellectual excitement coming to peace or coming to conclusion and give them the experience in the theatrical way of the possibility of things working out. that was exciting doing it in june and then after the election. publicans and democrats than it is about the palestinians and israelis and we have audiences have a greater longing for hope now then we did when we did it in june. they sealed to be struggling. >> you can feel them sitting in the audience, like a collective thought balloon as they watch the show now. here we are today on the cusp of the second round of elections in france. and you feel this collective sense of oh my goodness. are there people in wash with mitch mcconnel sitting in room and chuck schumer, are they talking about their families. please, i hope. what interests me as a writer is the double chess game is there a conversation. >> rose: with respect to mona, what role did she play. >> i would like to hear you answer that because i know what role she plays in the play but i would love to hear. >> i think in a way, i think actually that your play catches that kind of division between mona and myself. i'm the kind of guy who had devised ideas and she's the sober person who brings it in, makes it realistic and makes it doable. to move it from fantasy into realism. >> rose: working the narrative too. >> i think you should talk to her. >> rose: let me just come back. so you had staging and you actually said that this play has been harder than any other production you had ever done before. >> in the beaumont. yes, because it looks incredibly simple. but they're changing so quickly over three hours and moving so fast from one thing to the next. and i want no space in between scenes. so the minute one sentence ends in one place you're suddenly in tel aviv. so you get what it feels like in a film where you can july cut quickly but you want to sustain the momentum and pay attention to each thing. he's developed this beautiful structure of up grading from a small negotiation and a higher level and you feel this mounting. before you know it, you've con to an agreement and then you start to deal with the consequences of it. i want to tighten the screws theatrically as much as possible. even though they think they know the history the this is essentially like a shakespearean history play they are not convinced what they think they knew aboutate. they find themselves, it's a delivery system, thhe tension, the suspense, all that delivers the idea. >> rose: are you ready to take the dramatic license that's necessary. >> i think that, for me, writing the play, you have this balance that you're trying to tell the story with all of what actually happened both because it's so fantastical and because i think you have an intellectual responsibility let us say not to put people's characters on stage names for real people saying the opposite what you believe. you have those rules you set for yourself. you have the ruthless narrative playwrighting where i'm not a journalist i'm here to use your comment and thank you for you but i'm here to capture the spirit of what happened. time lines were moved around. there are people in the play that play a small role in the theatrical fiction of it that played more. some of it is the fact that you have three hours which is extraordinary to get three hours to tell the the story. what i want to do is basically the question that gripped me as a dramatist, if i learned the very bones of the story, i thought what would it be like to sit across from the people that are your sworn enemy to a, have the courage to do that and to see them as real human beings. and then unexpectedly and perhaps even more profoundly b, to realize you are the one that has changed by that feeling. and that is the tort -- sort of question the fear is what you make. journalist has to tell you this is how they did it and why they did it. what thm theatre does is everyone on this stage is a human being and you get to decide what you think about that. >> you can show people go through transition and go through something. the hope comes from watching people transform, not from, you know, when you watch any kind of television or news reporting, you only see the events and you're making all those decisions. you don't want them make the decisions or come to new places. that's what it does, allows you to transfer. the hope comes from the experience of the actual accomplishment as opposed to the reporting of the accomplishment. >> rose: you two are going to make a movie. >> yes. >> rose: there was a lot in you had to take out. >> yes. that's funny. this has been an extraordinary experience. lincoln center is an extraordinary place to work. they give you not only facilities but the sort of protection and support. from the first performance a new house to opening night. i cut 34 minutes of material out of the play which might be a record. and in hindsight now, a lot of what i cut in collaboration with bart, were things that i think will be center pieces that didn't need to be in the arena of the stage and there's simply, it's going to be a gift to get to revisit the same story from a different angle so to speak as a movie compared to a play. >> how did you and your wife differ in terms of world view. >> that's a very hard question. i think actually, it actually, i mean the real story start off by visiting gaza for the first time. my wife was a diplomat based in cairo and we went to israel are for the first time and to gaza and the west bank. and we flew during the first clashes between israely soldiers and palestinians. what we saw in the eyes of the youngsters was the same angst. they were afraid, both of them. we said this is meaningless. here you have these 18, 19 year old kids palestinians and israelis standing there with guns and stones and slings to each other. this is meaningless. and this became kind of motivation for both of us. we have to do something to resolve this issue. again, it's personal. it's very simple. it's emotions. it's people to people. >> rose: and the belief it's not impossible. >> yes. probably everybody if they knew what we were trying to do would go crazy. to young legions trying to resolve the arab-israeli, the israeli-palestinian issue was kind of a maniac. but we did it. i think this exemfies, sometimes it's easier to do the impossible than to do the possible. >> i think the play gives a ray of hope that indeed it is possible to resolve issues. >> rose: this is the first clip. you'll see jefferson maze who plays you begging you, mona, to talk about this secret. here it is. >> pulling away. unthinkable. the pieces make a difference. >> fine, go ahead and try. >> mona, i cannot about you. after all who am i but you are mona. you of the norwegian foreign service. this is the most beautiful, powerful that is trying pie love, together. >> tell me you would have said no. >> rose: that resenseables the conversation that might have taken place. >> our daughter saw the play. she's 16. and mona, my wife was not entirely happy with the portrayal. but my daughter turned to me and whispered, she said this is exactly the way you are interacting. >> well, i'm glad. >> rose: what was the most challenging thing for the both of you in terms of mounting this. >> for me, the challenge was on my own was to find a way to sculpt it down to a manageable narrative that an audience to could nine months of 24 hours around a clock, , push and pull negotiations. the great thing about having a long time collaborator is know their gifts. so i knew how bart could choreograph bodies in space. really there's no one in the theatre that can do that like him. for me, i colleged myself and challenged him through myself. once we got on our feet we realized wow this is a monster. so with just to find a way to make it seem, i think probably agree that one of the things i'm most proud of i think the audience would see this play and say it's odd just and so simple. we're still making changes a year later because it's not simple. we just want that to be hidden. >> for me a lot about the actors when he talked about double gain and actors love subtext. getting actors who could play this on the surface and this below the surface and really capturing the nature of negotiation which is so orient and layered about how you're actually behaving with each other. not only the personal ones but to embody the level of hatred and watch them go through transformation. it was a gift to have such a great acting company to elevate to a challenge to make audiences when they come in they really feel like they're seeing israelis and palestinians and norwegianens fight something out in real time. >> rose: engaged in and d in the negotiation and howind forth and where they are.and and they never really know which side they're on. that's really testing the actors in terms tough how they play the layers and the obstacles they have in there and that's what makes it so. >> rose: remember that mona played by jennifer was a diplomat. here's her talking about her experience in palestine. >> a million palestinians most of them without regular electricity or water climbs into an area 25 miles long but only a few miles wide. its population exploding with no place to explode. the back alley there when we talked into it. a crowd seething. rushing. that's where the bodies fell. and then we saw it. two boys facing each other. one in jeans, weapons in hand, hate flowing between them. but their faces, we both see this. their faces are exactly the same, the same fear, the same desperate desire for the anywhere but here to not be doing this to this other boy. there in that moment for us, it began. >> rose: why do you think it would be good for some people to see this beyond the sheer enjoyment of theatre. what would be inside in terms of conflict in this world. >> it's always dangerous as an author to think that you have the ability to teach your audience anything because they're so collectively smarter than you. but my hope, my hope is that, in essence the political activist play is not choosing sides. it's not saying so ask so is right and so and so is wrong. the political act is to expand the kinds on of voices in people we see on the stage. i think the people on all divides of this political intractable political problem, the thing that's moving to me is to be contacted by these strangers around the world, finding a way to contact them and say i came to see this play. i felt very strongly about it, about one side. and by watching the play, i changed my mind but i recognized the validity of the other side. and that's a very moving thing to watch a thousand people be silent and hear the plo speak their grievances and hear the government speak their grievances and have both those sides say okay, now what are we going to do. >> in time like where we're living now, people are at each other's throats. even in america, that's why sawed yunsz rea sounded to. they want people to find a way to actually listen to the other side and see what that means and where it goes because it's not easy. >> rose: what happened to oslo? >> oslo is many things. it's an audiology, two state solution which is universally accept as the only way thoughate has materialized but it's also the palestinian authorize which are the states which the palestinians have as a result of oslo. and it's also a dialogue a peace process which is stalled. but seeing the palestinian leader and president trump in washington yesterday, it again gives hope that it can be revised and continue. i do very strongly believe that the vision of oslo which is state of palestine and a state of israel living peacefully side by side is the only way out of the embroil of the come flicks. in the middle east which is the palestinian israely conflict. >> rose: it's good for no one. >> i don't think the one state solution is good for the palestinians and i don't think it's good for the israelis the. the only viable solution is the two state solution. i don't think the majority of pal stillians and majority of israelis would agree to what i just said. >> rose: thank you for coming. a pleasure having you. >> good to see you again. >> rose: oslo is now running at the vivian beaumont theatre until sunday june 18th, sunday june 18th, nominated for seven tony awards including best play, best director of a play, and best performance by an actress in a leading role. all of that. go see it. thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs. . >> announcer: a kqed television production. >> it's like sort of old fisherman's wharf. it reminds me of old san francisco. >> and you'd be a little bit like jean valjean, with the teeth, whatever. >> worth the calories, the cholesterol, and the heart attack you might have. >> it's like an adventure, you know? you got to put on your miner's helmet. >> it reminds me of oatmeal with a touch of wet dog.