Charlie Rose recently had a conversation with David Denby of The New Yorker and A.O Scott of The New York Times. They discussed the recent Oscar nominations. Whether you agree with them or not, it was a fascinating discussion. Someone please give these guys a weekly show!
I just wished there was at least one televison show out there with intelligent film critique. It’s too bad Charlie only does this once a year.
More often than not in the last few years, I tend to agree more with A. O Scott than with David Denby. If you are interested in what they had to say you can catch it here .
49 Responses for "Oscar talk on Charlie Rose"
I caught this when it aired and sadly they were not able to get to the supporting catagories. I really wanted to hear their complete thoughts on all the catagories. They should of had a two episode Oscar special.
I also wished they were able to go through all the nominations.
A.O Scott had started to talk about Angelina Jolie which gave the impression he wasn’t too pleased with her performance, when he was interrupted by Charlie. I would have liked to see him complete his thoughts on that.
It would have been interesting if they had a woman film critic talking to Denby and Scott. I do tend to agree more with Scott. It’s interesting that he said he thought Winslet gave a better performance in RR than in The Reader. I would love to hear Scott’s take on RR since Dargis panned the film.
I am surprised that Scott thinks the Academy might not choose Slumdog for Best Picture. He must not follow web sites like Awards Daily!
I do enjoy these two critics talking to one another–they should have their own show, really, instead of those two lightweights who now do At the Movies.
Very interesting, but the Slumdog criticism is disappointing. They don’t miss the point of the movie, but they seem to undervalue the importance of simply gripping the audience. Oh, well, it’ll still clean up at the Oscars.
Also, while interesting, they’re both overly pretentious, I’m sorry. They should both take a hint from Sasha, who makes valid and insightful points without taking herself so seriously as to be the voice of God.
They make some solid points on Button and The Reader, but what they say doesn’t take away from the overall impressiveness of either film.
And I don’t think Sean Penn’s transformation in Milk is so dramatic or impressive to convince me that he’s so far in the lead over Mickey.
And it really bothers me how some people criticize Slumdog for its predictability or simplicity (and correctly note that Frost/Nixon and The Reader are overreaching), but then they act like Milk was so inspiring and innovative (it’s not) that it overcomes the familiarities surrounding any social-movement film.
Film criticism is always a matter of opinion, but I think the Academy will ultimately get more right this year than many critics have. Of course, this always happens.
Wish there could be more like this; they should’ve expanded to just use the nominations as a starting point, and have a larger discussion about the Class of 08. Although maybe with another critic or two.
@ Zach:
“…they act like Milk was so inspiring and innovative (it’s not) that it overcomes the familiarities surrounding any social-movement film.”
I don’t think it is a point of film criticism to call a firm “inspiring.” I don’t think that’s something you can argue, either. Lots of people were moved and inspired by the film; therefore it is inspiring. Whether it’s innovative is another story. There you may be right. I think it has certain Van Santian quirks, but they’re not necessarily innovations in the genre.
I didn’t mean to say it wasn’t inspiring; obviously it is. I was simply referring to the “innovative” part.
Kate winslet for the win. not just because she’s great. I still believe she was the best among the nominees. 2nd ann and 3rd meryl
I agreed with everything but their comments about The Reader. The New Yorker guy’s comments about Benjamin Vomit were spot on. It has no heart. He doesn’t learn anything. It requires suspension of disbelief and then doesn’t tell you WHY you were supposed to suspend belief. Instead, it gives a love story that could have been told better with normal aging. What is the significance of the reverse aging? What do we learn about life? Nothing, in Fincher’s world.
The Reader must be the most misunderstood movie of the year. It has MAJOR issues, namely we can only guess why Hanna cares so much that she cannot read (my take: note that she never has any family. Maybe she’s ashamed not so much that she cannot read, but instead that she was an orphan. Note how she always works her ass off and gets glowing reports and takes her responsibilities so seriously. It’s like she has a score to settle to prove to the world she is worth something).
The movie isn’t about assuaging guilt through literature. It is about Hanna, plain and simple. It certainly brings up the complexities of how to be German post Holocaust, but the crux of the story is that Hanna spends those 20 years in prison learning to read in the hopes that Michael might forgive her one day, and he doesn’t, so her life is no longer worth living; she failed as a human being. Of course she feels guilty about what she did, and of course she feels more ashamed of whatever happened in her past, because in her world, she never would have gone to the SS but for whatever caused her not to be able to read. It is a brilliant, BRILLIANT character and a brilliant performance from Winslet.
In most years, I would never claim that it should win Best Picture. However, this year, the field is pretty weak. As I have said, I would be fine with Slumdog or Milk. Both are great films. If Benjamin Vomit wins, I will be even more mad than when Crash won.
I agree, it was a very good discussion. I wish we could see more like it (At The Movies, I’m looking at you).
i wanted more. I agree with their analysis of Slumdog. I found it extremely predictable and not very complex.
Agreed. SM was predictable. I just saw The Reader today – Awesome!!!
Hey,
if you want great television critics Margret and David from “at the movies” in Australia are the best…………
Does anyone else think that Tomei has it in the bag for supporting actress!!!!!
Denby is interesting because of his connection ro the Pauline Kael era, but I like Anthony Lane more. Lane and Scott are my go to critics.
agree with the earlier comment about tone, though. Sasha’s is the best anywhere.
Zach, actually Sasha could learn a little something from these two. It is called criticism and not basing one’s likes on being a fan or liking the character because the character is not complex. Could do without Charlie Rose interrupting (For Your Consideration really nailed that tendency of his).
I thought they were spot on on their criticism of the Best Picture nominees (in particular Curious Case, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader), though their love for the multi-ethnic eccentricity of Rachel Getting Married is more than a bit strange.
As someone who’s own upbringing resembled the United Nations, I found the movie trite and silly at times.
I am so sick of people criticizing Slumdog because it’s predictable. It’s a goddamn fable! It practically gives away the ending in the first minute!! I hate to sound cheesy but it’s the journey that matters in this case. Ugh. Hate on Slumdog all you want but to criticize it for being predictable is like criticizing No Country for being nihilistic.
Oh god, just the comments here make me realize I could never watch this without losing my mind. I don’t want to hear any of the criticisms about the big five. This is the first year in a while where the critics didn’t really have a say about how the Best Pic lineup turned out. As I said before, it’s like five years ago all over again – this is the way it always has been, but for the last two years. Anyway I wanted to respond to:
I agreed with everything but their comments about The Reader. The New Yorker guy’s comments about Benjamin Vomit were spot on. It has no heart. He doesn’t learn anything. It requires suspension of disbelief and then doesn’t tell you WHY you were supposed to suspend belief. Instead, it gives a love story that could have been told better with normal aging. What is the significance of the reverse aging? What do we learn about life? Nothing, in Fincher’s world.
Are you kidding? I can tell by your use of the phrase “Benjamin Vomit” that you’re what, early 20s? Do you really someone to tell you why you’re to suspend your disbelief? Since when? I would like to understand better (no, I wouldn’t really) why people keep saying it has no heart when, for me, the movie was nothing but heart. Then again, for me it is about the things I’ve been meditating on for most of my life after about the age of 30. Aging backwards would only mean something to someone who has actually aged. You can’t know the complexities of emotion of a person feels as time slips by. One of the most interesting characters is Daisy because she is the one feeling age and she is the one who suffers in watching Benjamin grow younger and more beautiful while she grows older. To really get this story, though, you have to have an appreciation for F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife, Zelda. To Zelda, who became a ballet dancer in her 50s, age was the absolute enemy. To her, youth as everything. She WAS everything in her youth and then had to watch it drain out.
These interpretations to the story don’t come easily. This isn’t a pretentious film that looks “Important,” this is a thoughtful story on the human condition. It baffles me that everyone didn’t feel as I did while watching it.
It baffles me that everyone didn’t feel as I did while watching it.
Sasha, tell me about it. It takes every ounce of self-restraint I have not to scream “MORON!” when I read posts like that.
But I am the soul of self-restraint.
Right there with you guys. It was one of the most meditative, profoundly moving experiences I have ever experienced while watching a movie. Benjamin’s backwards aging calls into question the very nature of time and age, and how those components exist simultaneously to create what we know as life, something so much greater and richer than we can simply sick a number to, or artificially chart according to time tables and time lines.
No, life is determined by everything we do on this planet, everybody we love and everything we make out of it. The age is a number, and the time is an illusion of life moving. Benjamin is born, ostensibly, as an old man. But time dictates he was just born, hence he can be nothing but young. As he grows older, his age moves in a different direction, but that indelible and enigmatic time never allows his spirit or soul to waste; he’s just looking at it all differently.
Right there with you guys. It was one of the most meditative, profoundly moving experiences I have ever experienced while watching a movie. Benjamin’s backwards aging calls into question the very nature of time and age, and how those components exist simultaneously to create what we know as life, something so much greater and richer than we can simply sick a number to, or artificially chart according to time tables and time lines.
No, life is determined by everything we do on this planet, everybody we love and everything we make out of it. The age is a number, and the time is an illusion of life moving. Benjamin is born, ostensibly, as an old man. But time dictates he was just born, hence he can be nothing but young. As he grows older, his age moves in a different direction, but that indelible and enigmatic time never allows his spirit or soul to waste; he’s just looking at it all differently.
Right there with you guys. It was one of the most meditative, profoundly moving experiences I have ever experienced while watching a movie. Benjamin’s backwards aging calls into question the very nature of time and age, and how those components exist simultaneously to create what we know as life, something so much greater and richer than we can simply sick a number to, or artificially chart according to time tables and time lines.
No, life is determined by everything we do on this planet, everybody we love and everything we make out of it. The age is a number, and the time is an illusion of life moving. Benjamin is born, ostensibly, as an old man. But time dictates he was just born, hence he can be nothing but young. As he grows older, his age moves in a different direction, but that indelible and enigmatic time never allows his spirit or soul to waste; he’s just looking at it all differently.
Right there with you guys. It was one of the most meditative, profoundly moving experiences I have ever experienced while watching a movie. Benjamin’s backwards aging calls into question the very nature of time and age, and how those components exist simultaneously to create what we know as life, something so much greater and richer than we can simply sick a number to, or artificially chart according to time tables and time lines.
No, life is determined by everything we do on this planet, everybody we love and everything we make out of it. The age is a number, and the time is an illusion of life moving. Benjamin is born, ostensibly, as an old man. But time dictates he was just born, hence he can be nothing but young. As he grows older, his age moves in a different direction, but that indelible and enigmatic time never allows his spirit or soul to waste; he’s just looking at it all differently.
I agree with everything David Denby said… everything. And it makes sense since he writes for the single best editorial publication ever printed.
Yes Benjamin Button is a bad movie. A movie’s merits shouldn’t be judged based on its level of technical mastery (Which this one does have) but rather based on the way it deals with its central conflict. To me, it was basically a 2 and half hour long run on sentence. The only parts that worked were those with Tilda Swinton and that’s because she’s an actress who can translate an intellectual conflict into dramatic acting which like Denby said is something that Pit can’t do. This is a movie who is a man who is born a child (Didn’t look like one but he was a baby on the inside) and dies an old man child (Looking like a baby but having the life and mind of an old man) there is nothing special about his journey in the way the film tells it and the central conflict is never truly explored. We can’t just assume how the characters feel based on a conceit, we need to be allowed into their world. There is not depth to this work, just assumptions. Even the big decision that he makes about leaving, never leads to any real conflict within him, he just leaves seemingly fine with that sacrifice in the face of all the great world exploration he gets to do.
And as far as the reader, they were both right. It’s a movie that’s demanding that I understand the inner conflict of a woman who is ashamed of not being able to read when she is totally matter of fact about killing all these people. That’s not a bad thing for a character. I am not saying no film can have that. This isn’t a moral statement but the Reader never lets us into Hannah’s psyche, her reasons for such detachment from her actions while having such a deep connection to this quest for higher learning. And that doesn’t mean they have to redeem her by the end, no. It just means, I should be able to understand her better by the film’s end. I could still hate her actions but I would get where she’s coming from, hence…. A FREAKING CONFLICT. Something that great or even just good movies have to have.
This brings to mind the whole thing with Laura Brown in the Hours (Same screen writer, same Director. Much Much Much better film) She does this horrible thing and as a result of it, everything gets screwed up for everyone she hurts with her action and they all die horribly but a combination of great high stakes story telling by Hare and Daldry and great acting by Julianne Moore allowed me to be torn about my feelings toward Laura Brown. I get why she did what she did but I hate her for it. The reader only had one of the factors I listed above, Ben Button had neither. In fact, I don’t even hate him. I simply don’t care.
Now I’m actually beginning to think that I may need to “rethink The Reader,” as Ryan recently put it.
Because if so many people can be blind to Benjamin Button, maybe I missed something on my first viewing of The Reader. I doubt it, but I’m willing to give it a second chance.
There’s nothing with Slumdog being predictable if it’s the journey that’s interesting. And it was, this in no way means it’s the best film of the year, but to criticize or dismiss a film for being predictable when it’s a “road” film is…aggravating.
***We can’t just assume how the characters feel based on a conceit we need to be allowed into their world.***
And we are, beautifully, through Pitt’s introspective narration and the slow, heartbreaking unraveling of the relationship between Benjamin and Daisy. Pitt’s isolation is palpable, and his internal hurt is nothing but shattering as he observes a world around him that cannot respond to his unusual circumstances.
***We can’t just assume how the characters feel based on a conceit we need to be allowed into their world.***
And we are, beautifully, through Pitt’s introspective narration and the slow, heartbreaking unraveling of the relationship between Benjamin and Daisy. Pitt’s isolation is palpable, and his internal hurt is nothing but shattering as he observes a world around him that cannot respond to his unusual circumstances.
***We can’t just assume how the characters feel based on a conceit we need to be allowed into their world.***
And we are, beautifully, through Pitt’s introspective narration and the slow, heartbreaking unraveling of the relationship between Benjamin and Daisy. Pitt’s isolation is palpable, and his internal hurt is nothing but shattering as he observes a world around him that cannot respond to his unusual circumstances.
***We can’t just assume how the characters feel based on a conceit we need to be allowed into their world.***
And we are, beautifully, through Pitt’s introspective narration and the slow, heartbreaking unraveling of the relationship between Benjamin and Daisy. Pitt’s isolation is palpable, and his internal hurt is nothing but shattering as he observes a world around him that cannot respond to his unusual circumstances.
Paul, a second viewing is not needed. I saw it again the other day. Just a medicore film that manipulates the viewer.
Regarding Brad Pitt (and what A.O. Scott was saying), I agree with him that much can be conveyed through the eyes. Brad doesn’t quite have it as much as some other skilled actors. But I still think he was effective, overall.
Benjamin Button is proof a sucker is born every minute as P.T. supposedly once said. Multiple viewings? Why? To make me suffer it’s patronization again. Once should be enough. I didn’t commit a crime after all.
Spare yourself, DoCH, wouldn’t want to risk you getting suckered. I was talking about multiple viewings of The Reader anyway.
Is anyone else just plain irritated by Charlie Rose? The man comes across (to me) as an over-eager puppy who interrupts people far too often and is JUST SO GRATING!
But Denby and Scott were great. Scott probably groaned over Jolie’s nomination because he called CHANGELING a gigantic, “Hey, give me an Oscar!” bait project.
PS. Scott is looking sharp these days. Keep it up, man!
Sasha–I am in my 20’s. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I cannot connect to the movie because I have not experienced aging. Perhaps I would enjoy the movie if I were in my 40’s or 50’s.
That said, there are still many problems that Wael expressed flawlessly. If you can relate to the aging thing, great, but not everyone can. A good script would have engaged the rest of us by exploring a central conflict and presenting a unified plot that made sense, rather than randomly going to Russia one day (though that was the only part of the movie that I liked, mostly because Tilda Swinton is so great), New York the next, and Paris the next.
I guess I liked the Reader because I have felt misunderstood and judged, and just relate to Hanna’s character in general really really well. To be fair, that movie has its share of problems, that again Wael laid out.
I think in both of our cases, it isn’t that we are missing something that we could understand in upon multiple viewings, and it isn’t that either of us is a moron (I think the fact that we are here to talk about these movies instead of Mall Cop erases that possibility). The problem is that we have had different life experiences. I adored The Reader, because I related to the experiences of Hanna. You liked Benjamin button because you instantly related to the theme of aging and the pain of Daisy (or Benjamin? Sorry I’m confused). If either movie had truly lived up to its promise, we both would have felt the same pain, because the script would have been written well enough or the characters acted well enough to draw our pathos from sympathy, rather than empathy.
Ben Button is not unlike any movie I have seen in a long time. The conflict is Ben with himself. He’s trying to find himself in the world. The conflict is not really resolved. It eludes him, just like everything else in the film.
For a film that is being lambasted for not having an emotional connection, I was emotionally affected by this film well after the closing credits. I felt deeply saddened for the remainder of the day. Even the next few days I kept thinking of this film.
Slumdog on the other hand had a lasting affect like a made-for-TV film. It is predictable, there is little chemistry between the two leads, and the editing was distracting. Did it work in the film? Yes. It is a good film? Yes? Is it a great film? No. Is it best picture? No. Is Ben Button the best film of the five nominees? No. Is it better than Slumdog? Yes.
Also, of the four best picture nominees I have seen (missed the Reader), the one I would watch again is Milk.
My rank of the 5 nominated is Slumdog, then Milk, then TCCoBB, then The Reader, then Frost/Nixon.
And I give the first 3 all 9/10’s. I’d be happy if any of the first 3 won.
I am not a multiple movie viewing kind of guy, but I did see ‘Benjamin Buttons’ twice and ‘Slumdog’ three times. In my opinion, they stood on their own merits as great films in a lackluster year. I still think some of the critics and people “didn’t get” both movies, but I don’t understand what’s great about Sean Penn in ‘Milk’ especially compared to Mickey Rourke in “The Wrestler.”
Overall, glad they loathed “The Reader.” And I wished they would have touched upon ‘Batman’ more in depth (Apologizes for stirring up that pot).
I saw this when it aired and something that has been bothering me about Brad Pitt’s performance in CCBB was finally perfectly articulated: he can’t act a thought. It’s one of the toughest things an actor has to do. I can think of actors like Kate Winslet, Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Denzel Washington, Marion Cotillard, Javier Bardem etc., and how they can say a million things with just one look, or project so much emotion when they LISTEN to other actors in a scene. It’s really something to behold. With Pitt (just my opinion, and I know and respect the fact that a lot of folks here love the film and Pitt’s performance, so no pitch-forks needed), I didn’t feel anything from the moment he first steps on the tugboat up to the end of the film. To me, this inability was fatal to the film.
ETA: The fact that the two critics practically guffawed at the mention of Angelina Jolie is so catty. For all their insight, they’re still quite small.
Everyone has his/her opinions about films they see, even the beloved “Benjamin Button.” Not everyone is going to like it, much less love it. Not everyone is going to like Pitt’s performance either.
Sasha, I think the one film that got nominated for the Oscars that the critics helped out was Milk. I’m not sure the Academy would have normally recognized the film but the critical acclaim may have led voters to watch the film seriously.
Dorothy: To be fair, they were clearly about to get into their thoughts on Jolie’s performance before Rose moved on, so I’m sure they had something more insightful to offer than a mere guffaw. It’s obvious they don’t think much of the performance, but that doesn’t make them catty.
They were completely right about the Curious Case of Benjamin button, and Frost Nixon for that matter.
Glad to see they loved Milk
I wish they would have been able to do supporting actor, actress and original screenplay.
Guy: the response stood out, they didn’t chuckle at any of the other names. I think it was a catty thing to do, sorry.
Fair enough, if that’s your take. Frankly, I think Jolie’s nomination is pretty laughable myself, so I probably shouldn’t talk!
Her peers didn’t think it was laughable.They nominated her.
Ah, that explains it, Guy.
And David, very well put.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.