Charlie Rose

Andrew  02/20/2008 06:32 AM Report

Mary M and Pamela, I respectfully disagree with your negative sentiments.

The discussion is about film making, and a group of people who are working together to try and tell a story. The discussion was not glorifying Frank Lucas any more than they were denigrating him, this was supposed to be a discussion about the process of creating a cinematic story regarding a person who was not one sided. Despite his despicable acts- There were *both* positive and negative sides to Frank Lucas, as was shown in the film.

Misguided people will want to emulate powerful figures and take away the wrong message from any story. [including Scarface, A Clockwork Orange, or any controversial story centering around monstrous characters\ does not mean that the story should not be told.

After A Clockwork Orange was released, there were gangs of kids emulating the horrific acts in that film. I'm sure quite a few rapes and murders occurred. That is the fault of those idiotic people who chose to do so, not the filmmakers.

We should all be able to understand that interesting, charismatic people can also be horrible monsters.

I suppose some might prefer that they simplify their message in each film and say "this is bad, don't do this" but I do not agree that this is the job of a story teller 100% of the time. Spelling morality out for the viewer is a recipe for boredom and an oversimplification of the true nature of life. You should at least have enough respect for the audience to make their own interpretation. Allow a story to be told based on a simple fact of life and that is that powerful enigmatic, successful people are often behind terrible acts. If you cannot see that after seeing this film, I suggest you watch it again. Frank Lucas' hypocrisy is pointed out plain and centered on a million times. So what if a bunch of idiot kids will want to emulate the portrayal of his character? If you are mis-guided enough to do that, then there will always be something else to emulate, some other horrible act to commit while thinking it's "cool".

There was a scene in "Unnecessary Roughness" where some guys are lying down in the middle of a freeway or crowded street as a machismo type dare. Some guys emulated this after the film was out, and were either run over, killed, or seriously injured in some way. Should we now chastise the filmmakers that they should not have had such a scene in their film? What utter poppycock.

Blaming American Gangster or the people who made it for people wanting to emulate a gangster image is asinine and immature.

And as for critiquing Mr. Rose, well it is fair game to say you think he should have asked more questions about the negativity of Frank Lucas' character, but it seems like you've projected your rightfully negative reaction to Frank Lucas' character and placed it all upon Denzel and the filmmaker, and Charlie Rose by his obvious association and respect for these people. While I'm not a huge fan of the film, I think in this case it's a great example of Denzel being a little too convincing, and these overly negative comments are proof positive to me.

It's very disappointing to read these sort of comments, but not surprising.

Charlie Rose needs no more praise from me or anyone else, but he should at least be understood and respected to being a positive person who is attempting to foster meaningful discussions that are not based on 15 second sound-bites. As for him "yucking it up about these crimes", he is yucking it up with people who he respects, talking about their quest to create a story about a MAN who committed these crimes. There is a difference, and I wish people would realize that.

mtmurphy  11/14/2007 02:46 AM Report

I was very disappointed in this interview. My favorite thing about Charlie is the willingness to look at hard or uncomfortable issues. In this instance he was "yucking it up" with a crimimal who was fondly reminsiscing about the good ol' days. I couldn't believe how Charlie appeared to enjoy himself in conversation about these crimes. Wasn't he thinking about the real violence and irreparable harm (thanks to our current criminal justice system) these thugs had wreaked?

For the first time we changed the channel.

Cookie  11/13/2007 06:07 PM Report

You seem to be saying making movies is a business! I think I need a cup of herbal tea after that. You aklso seem to be pumping up Denzel - heaping a lot of praise on the guy by saying he is liked, powerful and in control. I think he would enjoy that.

scripts7  11/13/2007 05:40 PM Report

American Gangster would not have been made without Denzel Washington on board. (The producers talked about how the studios did not want to make this film). Hence, Denzel was crucial to greenlighting this film. Denzel is the one with the clout. He's the one, like all the top actors, who will demand a rewrite on a script so as to keep their saleable "image". Denzel is why this film was made and distributed so widely. Denzel deserves the criticism. This movie is all about money. Denzel is just another greedy Hollywood player. And that sell-out image goes against the image of the mythic good guy that Denzel's been capitalizing on for years. But that's what Denzel, "the image machine," has delivered in this simplistic film.

To the idiot thug wannabes on the street, American Gangster is powerful life-affirming stuff. The message is "go for the kill" and "you'll end up a winner and still be basically a good guy, like Denzel."

Cookie  11/13/2007 02:49 PM Report

I think the criticism was that he payed the part sympathetically and made the criminal seem cool. If he did so it is a legit gripe...though he didnt write it and may have had no choice in the matter. My impression is that he has made not so positve movies in order to get funding for more positive portrayels of African American experience ie. his other new movie about a Black debate team in the 30's.

Rosie Powell  11/13/2007 01:17 PM Report

Someone had condemned Denzel Washington for portraying a corrupt drug dealer like Frank Lucas. Apparently, this person wants Washington to portray "uplifting" roles in order to act as role models for Black and Latino kids. Washington's job is to act. Period. He is not supposed to be a propaganda machine. Nor did "AMERICAN GANGSTER" portray Frank Lucas in a positive light. If the person who had criticized Washington could not see this, she was obviously not paying attention to the film. And if white actors or other non-Black or non-Latino actors and actresses can play lead roles that are unsympathetic, why not Denzel Washington? He did managed to win an Oscar for portaying a corrupt cop.

PleaseHelp  11/09/2007 01:47 AM Report

**PLEASE HELP!!!** Immediately after watching the American Gangster interview last weekend. Charlie Rose was broadcast speaking to an African American gentleman that stated something to the effect of, "It is our challenge to go out in the world and put the things in place to make our dreams come true". Obviously it was stated more eloquently - please can someone give me the quote and/or the name of the gentleman he was speaking to. I thought it was amazing!

scripts7  11/08/2007 06:01 AM Report

Has Ridley Scott given up on receiving an Academy Award? He's been unfairly passed over years before and it seems he's thrown in the towel. This film is very well-crafted with wonderful pacing but the subject matter stinks. Black and Latino kids are coming to this movie because it's cool to be a powerful rich street thug. The message is repulsive. Charlie Rose showed Frank Lucas shooting off his mouth. He is a blowhard murderer and a drug kingpin who helped turn people into slaves.

Denzel Washington is a sell-out because this role is cunningly getting him street-cred with the dumb kids and box office numbers with the greedy studios. All these men are turning out to be goofballs. It's an embarassment that they take themselves so seriously.

Kathryn Wilson  11/07/2007 06:06 PM Report

Mr. Washington's movie is a travesty. Doesn't he know that he has sent an image of the black male around the world to confirm the already negative stereotype that exist. There are hundreds of positive heroes in history. Why the criminally insane Frank Lucas. If he was all that brilliant, he could have just gone to into a legitimate business. John Johnson did it, and so did many other blacks people includng Madam C J Walker. As a historian who writes about history--to reveall to our young people of all races about the people who really contributed to society,Washington has wiped out the work we do in two hours and forty minutes. I wonder how he sleeps at night when so many young boys see Frank Lucas as a hero not the villain that we know him to be.

Cookie  11/05/2007 10:10 PM Report

Russell was indeed sweet and gets a delicious linzer tart, but the interview itself was bizarre. It made no sense. And I love the guy, truly - but what the heck was Denzel on about? He kept saying that everyobdy was asking about the film - ojay - why? Why did people want to see it? What got them excited? The interview never connected the dots. And why was CR the only person to wear any color other than black? Are they all fat? Black on black with a black background - headache inducing. Personally, i think CR had to do some serious editing to find anything remotely like a thread to follow. And that thread was all the guys kissing each others tushies. They needed Opie. I dont even care that Opie had nothing to do with the movie - he adds grace and common sense to any interview. Ok, I am done.

Bill Perry  11/05/2007 03:15 PM Report

"American Gangster" is a brilliant film. Well made, well acted, thoughtful, American. The real story is the rampant corruption in the law enforcement agencies. Frank Lucas, was truly an American businessman in the sense that he provided a product that many people were willing to pay for - which is hardly different from Pfiser, Smith-Kline or other drug companies that are running the health care system today. I suppose one might say the drug companies are more humane because they put warnings at the end of every commercial - However, it is doubtful if those warnings would be there is they weren't forced to include them.

duncan brown  11/05/2007 11:25 AM Report

Mr. Rose, Thank you for all of your efforts over the years to provide interesting and insightful interviews into the the important figures-movers ans shakers if you will-of the day. Your program is one my wife and I look forward to. D. Brown

It could be worse err it is  11/04/2007 11:13 PM Report

So we have Frank Lucas (Michael Vicks) et al

We also have:

Aperspective

Cheney

Bush

The administration

The M-I complex

The CIA

Jingoistic DNA

Cheney

Blackwater

Voting ravages

Roves

Gitmo

Abu Gharib

Rendition

Cheney

Torture

Cruelty

Waterboarding

Venality

Corruption

Earmarking

Lobbyists

Halliburton

Cheney

Global warming

Redaction

Secrecy

Etc, etc ad nauseum

Will  11/04/2007 07:09 AM Report

I think that Charlie Rose has done a great service by presenting this particular movie in the way that he did. Typically, the actors are brought out one by one, on Leno or Conan, and asked what it is like to work with Brian Grazer or Ridley Scott - then they watch a small part of the film together - they make a 30 second comment on what they saw in taking on the character and they are done. At least with Mr. Rose, you get the four main talents of the film together, and he gets right down to business delving into the film's actual content and message. The only fault in the whole interview of both groups, was the lack of time to talk about the corruption in the CIA, the military, the New York police dept., and the New York special prosecuters office that allowed a man like Frank Lucas to exist completely in the shadows. Mr. Rose should look into devoting some time addressing some of these past problems, since the probability of it happening again in Afganistan is very high.

complexity  11/04/2007 03:51 AM Report

I do agree with Mary and Pamela, in the sense, that there are more nobel figures to make movies about.

Mary M  11/03/2007 10:42 PM Report

Pamela is right. By ripple effect, this gangster, has killed more persons than any serial killer or terrorist. Why is he out of prison? Drugs (that this greeding monster put on the street) caused poverty, violence, over crowding of the prisons and social ills - too many to list. I could care less about a movie of his life. America needs to pay respect to the great persons who positively affect others not this person.

James  11/03/2007 09:44 PM Report

Pamela why don't you see the movie before you criticize it or Charlie. Because if you did see it you would see this isn't exactly the black scarface. Not the way the trailer would make you believe. So put your intellectual poses aside, it's only a movie.

justine  11/03/2007 03:02 PM Report

I think that this show was very interesting and the movie should be amazing. It talks to our own stuggles within ourselves and our society. It's one man that sees things as black or white, good or bad and another man this sees shades of gray, everything or anything is acceptable under certain circumstances (when push comes to shove).I think it's human nature that sometimes things are black and white and sometimes they are gray depending on or moral compass and our environment upbringing.

complexity  11/03/2007 02:57 AM Report

Pamela you're not taking into consideration the movie ends with a frank reality. One criminal basically turned upside down the entire country, without Frank Lucas, we would probably have more corruption than we do now. I think, this is valid history. We're not going to stop putting slavery into our our childrens history books?

Pamela Frame  11/03/2007 12:29 AM Report

Mr. Rose's arrogance astonishes. He doesn't appear to hear what comes out of his own mouth (nor does he hear his page turning). Charles Rangel told him this movie was a bad idea. Why would anyone air this self-congratulatory, on-air party centered on such a criminal? This show was in poor taste.

Great actors or not, the point that comes through is NOT how fascinating corruption is, nor that 'everyone remains buddies', nor that that the subject is still living. The point which Mr. Rose has made in this program is that he has a difficult time making decisions about content. There is such a wealth of material, it's really a waste.

complexity  11/02/2007 06:07 PM Report

I can't wait and Jerry this monday!

Cookie  11/01/2007 12:09 PM Report

Russell was fantastic in "Cinderella Man". I loved that movie. I sure hope he does himself a favor and plays nice for this one.