I could not find a thread already established for this, so if there really is already one - oh please dearest mods, don't ban me!

Charlie Rose: such a puzzle. He gets the most fascinating, interesting guests. His interviews take on an intriguing conversational air. And yet? That conversation? Is like having one with the world's worst dinner party guest. But Charlie Rose has no excuse; he's sober. Or not. But I'm assuming sober. His questions are so leading, that he tends to answer them on the guest du jour's behalf. Which leaves the guests in the uncomfortable postition of having to agree with answers that are not their own, or pointing out the idiocy of the host. And yet, because of the lack of typical talk show time constraints, and the conversational tone, these can sometimes be the most interesting interviews. Does anyone else in the Twop-verse have a similarly conflicted view on his show? My fave interview to date: Ed Harris after Pollock was released. I know, sounds like a trivial show and guest, but was terribly engrossing, and for some reason it stuck with me. I think it was mainly because an actor and director was peripherally trying to discuss fractal geometry. Eh, math geeks... unite... My least: Anytime he speaks with Kofi Annan - a million interesting responses he could have, but Chuckie R has to answer for him. Ack!

So true, and so disappointing given the fantastic guests he manages to snare. Maybe his Southern charm lulls them. He seems compelled to reframe any point to his satisfaction rather than let his guests just speak. He interrupts constantly! You'd think an ex-lawyer would have been chastened about that kind of tactic enough times in the courtroom to employ it on a talk show. Great guests--awesome guests--but unfortunately Rose makes his show quite unwatchable.

Exactly! Tonight he had on Bill Clinton, and he kept trying to corner Clinton into accepting a theoretical position in a John Kerry Cabinet postion. Clinton was trying to politely point out that it was pure conjecture on Rose's part, and that the only person who should be asking that question is an elected Kerry. But Rose kept persisting, and it was simply bizarre to watch the lenghths he would go to in order to get Clinton to agree to be part of a currently non-existant Kerry White House.

I will say that having watched part of the Oprah interview with Clinton, this was by far a more cogent discussion. Clinton was more relaxed, and I chalk that up partly to the abscence of an audience suffering from Oprah-induced histrionics. Also, Rose seemed less focused than Oprah was on getting a telegenic scoop. But at the end, he did something completely Rose-esque. He interrupted Clinton mid-sentence while he was answering a question, and simply ended the show. Not even a "excuse me, our time is up." He just ended it, and thanked Clinton for coming. (It didn't have anything to do with Rose getting an unsatisfactory response, either. Just Rose noticing they were out of time and ending it suddenly. Kinda like on 7th Heaven when people just hang up the phone instead of saying goodbye.) Clinton's response was to just laugh at him. Heh.

I saw CR's Clinton interview and I'm as frustrated as you are. My problem with Charlie Rose is the same one I have with Oprah, Barbara Walters, Larry King and any other celebrity interviewer; by that I mean, not someone who interviews celebrities, but an interviewer who thinks he's a celebrity too. All these people think they're equals of the people they're interviewing, hence the softball questions, the lack of followup questions, not letting the guest answer the damn questions, harping on some pet personal agenda, and the general lack of focus. You just can't get objective "journalism," if that's what these interviews are supposed to be, anymore. So sad.

Really rude way to end the interview too, you dummy. Nice way to treat an ex-President.

...or who's clearly chummy with the subject. For artists, musicians, filmmakers, authors or scientists it's no prob' (even though he does the same interrupting, re-phrasing and muddling). But with political or hot-subject guests he approaches pointedly rebutting, talks over himself, and ends up just mumbling off to the next topic.

Talking over himself is an excellent way to put it. He's so intent on pushing forth a certain viewpoint sometimes that ... good god, could it be? He even interrupts himself!

A couple nights ago, he was discussing the unfolding Sudan tragedy, and he had on Nicholas Kristof (amongst others.) While Kristof's interview did not convey nearly the poignancy and horror that his Times columns did, it was still interesting. Rose for the most part let everyone talk to completion. But towards the end, Rose displayed he was mostly only interested in making everyone aware that the issue was urgent, as opposed to a compelling story that needs to be told. So he started directing the panel discussion in a rather higgeldy-piggeldy manner, to get all 3 panel members to say, in essence, "The media needs to report on this NOW!" Unfortunately, it came off more like he was rushed for time, rather than him trying to impress upon a viewing audience that the situation is in dire need of attention. (By the way, I agree with Rose that Sudan needs immediate attention, so kudos to him for trying to highlight what's going on.) Ach, if only he'd get out of his own way occasionally.

OK, what could have better illustrated these points better than last night's interview with Henry Kissinger, the Blowhard Himself who speaks a lot of words but says nothing terribly illuminating? These two in congress just broke my brain for all the calorie-free verbiage. But one thing: When Charlie was trying to interrupt one of Kissinger's long-winded obfuscations to rephrase a point, Kissinger counter-interrupted him with a, "Let me explain to you a little about the world." Hi-larious. Hello, Larry-like. Absurdly unfunny to the point of being absurdly funny.

Okay, that just makes me giggle. That is a priceless way to phrase it. Hee!

I missed that show. Kissinger's pedantic drone just bores me silly, so I didn't even bother to watch. Too bad I missed all the mutual interruptions. "Let me explain to you a little about the world." Heh. The World According To Kissinger. No thanks.

P.S. Still giggling as I reread, Bungalow Joy.

Edit: Was it me, or on the Thurs. show was Charlie being weirdly deferential to Michael Moore? Or is Moore just a more effective inturrupting conversationalist?

bump!

Did anyone watch it yesterday?

I watched the one late at night yesterday, because I have such a huge crush on Heather Goldenhersh. Doubt looked really fascinating from the clips that were shown and it seemed like Charlie Rose loved it.

Word, katiedid. He's either under some kind of influence, or has another problem symptomizied by a lack of concentration. The problem is curiously exascerbated when his guest is a _____ female (fill in the blank: breasty, powerful, rich, connected, breathy).



I saw him interview Martin Short about 5 or 6 years ago, and could see how amused Short was at what he was experiencing. In retrospect, I now see that Charlie was one of the inspirations for Jiminy Glick.



Charlie's just a farm boy who came to the big city in search of an angle. I've always suspected that he survived by recognizing the shortage of suitable debutante escorts. I found it hysterical when Charlie revealed upon Brando's death that Brando had repeatedly chided him, "You gather all this information each night. What the hell do you plan on doing with it?"

I may be alone in my opinions here, but I really looooooove Charlie Rose.

Just watched his interview with the late, great Anne Bancroft. He was smart, funny, endearing, insightful.....

And respectful. The one thing I've always got from him is that he loves and respects women. Unlike some other talk show hosts (listening, Bill Maher??).

His has become my favorite talk show. I never miss it.

Dork that I am, I'm actually debating the value of Charlie Rose. I'll never, ever be cool.

I saw the Anne Bancroft interview again (I had seen it in 2000 the first time around), and agree that he treated her respectfully. I was heartbroken by her passing; she was a great actress and a charismatic personality. I also agree that he generally treats women with respect, and tends not to suffer from the raging talking head syndrome that dominates cable.

I have to reiterate my earlier point in the thread, though. His mesmerization with a woman's power, sexual energy, wealth, whatever, does tend to cloud his objectivity. I can only imagine how many times he gets his own woody beneath that distinctive wooden table.

The interview with Anne Bancroft was no exception. He was unconsciously playing Benjamin to her Mrs. Robinson for the entire hour, and never actually "saw" the real Anne. There were at least half a dozen occasions in the interview in which he missed a precious opportunity to follow a provacative thread that she initiated. There's absolutely no reason to jump around asking 10 shallow questions, when you can use three thoughtful ones to actually get somewhere.

I missed that one! I saw the interview the first time around, though, and what I really got from it is what an amazing lady she was.

I do like that Rose seems to treat all his guests with the same level of courtesy, and he seems to interrupt everyone equally.
*shaking head* Sigh. This happens with such frequency. The maddening part is, this is still one of the better talk shows on televison. The quietness and simplicity of presentation lends itself towards conversation that is revealing when it works right.

I thought it looked quite fascinating, too. I have to say, Rose is really good about inviting stars of the stage to his show, even if they're not big household names.

Most memorable guest: Harvey Keitel, from when Charlie Rose first moved to PBS. The show was getting buzz for elevating conversation on TV. So boy, did Keitel bring a knapsack of all his big words. Unfortunately, he didn't use a lot of the words correctly. Also, he didn't converse. He just listed off names of great artists, writers, thinkers. These lists were totally unresponsive to Charlie's questions, but I guess they were intended to show Keitel had, at least, been exposed to the classics.

It would have been pretentious, except Harvey failed so spectacularly at building the intended pretense. Also, he was awkward & nervous ... like he was at an IRS audit ... I couldn't help but feel sorry for him. I think Keitel's a good actor. He could have given a good interview if he hadn't been trying so hard. Besides, Charlie Rose was overrated then, so Keitel had nothing to sweat.

That does sound memorable. Glad I missed that, though. Keitel always struck me as reasonably intelligent in written interviews, so that's kind of surprising. Maybe he's not so good live unless he's pretending he's someone else.

Hey, Quean: I told my paisan, DeNiro, you were busting his buddy's balls on the Charlie Rose thread, and he said...and I quote..."What? What? What? F...ing What? If I evah, and I mean, evah, see that shit again, someone's going to get whacked with my copy of Ulysses. First Edition."

I have a love/hate relationship with Charlie. Yes, he can be a blowhard who is interested in people knowing what the thinks of his guests, rather than letting them speak for themselves. At the same time he has some of the most interesting guests that you would never see interviewed anywhere else.

My favorite interview was with the architect Phillip Johnson (One of the reasons I like Charlie is that he actually interviews architects). Every time Charlie would ask one of those educated leading questions, Johnson would laugh at him and destroy his interpretation. It was hilarious.

Has the format of the show changed? It used to be an hour with just one guest or one set of guest and now he's up to 3 different topics.

Actually the format has always been varied. I have a copy of an interview from two years ago that was only 15 minutes long, so it's been happening for a while. My assumption is they time the interviews for the guest. Actors and some authors only have brief interviews in case they can't fill a longer slot.

On other news I loved the two NYU professors on last night discussing the Bush appointment to the Supreme court. No shouting, no agenda. It was incredibly civilized, and informative for those of us who don't live and breathe politics. The two professors also called Charlie on the inappropriateness of some of his questions.

If anyone out there watched it (I realize this is the slowest thread here), did anyone notice that when they were reviewing the members of the court individually they skipped Thomas and Kennedy? Kennedy was brought up later, but the exclusion of Thomas seemed telling.

Hah! nuevorain, I may miss the rerun, so if you have the time could you recap this exchange briefly?

Recapping, hmm, that may require more memory than I have.

As I recall, throughout the conversation the professors would correct Charlie's assumptions about this or that judge, and the current nominee. Finally, towards the end, Charlie asked who would be good candidates should another position open. One of the professors responded with, "That's the wrong question." They all chuckled at that, even Charlie. The professor then reformulated the question so that it was broader, and more interesting. Something along the lines of, what type of judge is the court missing now? The answer was a judge who understood the political process. Apparently, Sandra Day O'Conner was the only judge on the Supreme Court that had run for office.

Overall, Charlie didn't say much. It made me want to go to NYU's law school to have those guys as my professors. It was just a very friendly, civil, discussion. Something that is absent from the TV these days.

Bumping up this thread to give hand claps for the interview of NOLA-born jazz musician Wynton Marsalis. Wynton gave one of the most insightful, heart-felt observations on NOLA post-Katrina I've heard throughout the media coverage. I'd post a link to the transcript, but I don't yet see one online, and from the information on the show's site, transcripts are not freely available. Anyhow, the Marsalis interview appeared in the Tuesday, Sept. 6, broadcast (which aired Sept. 7 on my PBS channel.)

Man, you are so right. I don't usually watch Charlie Rose because Rose annoys me, but I flipped past it last night and could not stop watching. Wynton Marsalis was more insightful than any of the professional journalists or politicians have been since this crisis began. I loved how he spoke about how all the media and the politicos do is play upon our fears (because it's in their interest) and broadcast about our divisions, while they often ignore our similarities and the points in history which brought us together. He was great.

Yeah, I caught Marsalis this morning. Made me late for work, but I appreciated his insights, and his passions in regards to NOLA and America as a whole. He and Harry Connick, Jr. need to run for public office.

Did anyone else see Thursday's show with the publisher of The New York Times? He wouldn't give a forthright answer to any of Charlie's questions.

Note to Charlie and Maureen Dowd -- get a room, you two! Man, if those two don't become an item soon, there's something wrong in the world.

Maureen Dowd only partially redeemed herself with me in her interview with Charlie Thursday. I had watched her previously on Tim Russert and Reliable Sources, and she made me want to scream. Not only at what she was saying, but her voice drives me crazy.

OldMizzentop, I watched the entire interview with Arthur Sulzberger Jr. His family has owned The New York Times since the 1800's. That's the first time I have ever saw any member of that family being interviewed. That's what so great about Charlie's show.

Yeah, he tried evading all of Charlie's questions re: the impact the Judith Miller fiasco has had on the Times. He kept on saying "That's in the past, let's move on". This coming from a guy whose family owns the most important newspaper in the country, who was once a journalist himself. I don't know much about journalism, but isn't one of it's main focuses to get at the truth?? No matter how long it takes?? Or which institutions are challenged?? I guess he means, go and search for the truth anywhere you want but here. The guy just came across as so pretentious, so rich, so East-coast, ivy-league ....... everything conservatives despise about liberals. But, I'm very left-leaning, and I couldn't stand him either.

The New York Times lost respect and credibility with me long before Judith Miller....and Jason Blair. When I was researching an actor years ago, I noticed bias in their coverage of the arts. Among other things, instead of being forthright like a publication like Entertainment Weekly, which comes out and says every year - "This is who we think should win the Emmy and why...This is who we think should win the Oscar and why....." the New York Times tries to influence readers (voters) in a more subliminal way by placing articles and photos in their pages at the same time voters are voting for various awards, like the Emmys, or Grammys, or Oscars. Hence, an article strategically placed in July or August, for example, hailing a particular actor or show, knowing this is when the TV academy is voting for the Emmys.

This is not me being paranoid delusional. That actually goes on with the Times. Articles and reviews are not written so much with truth in mind, as with a hidden agenda. Judith Miller clearly had an agenda. And her case proves that a culture exists at the Times that condones agendas, truth be damned. And, if they are getting away with it in serious issues such as the Iraq War and Weapons of Mass Destruction, then you know it's going on in other areas of the paper, like the arts, where people don't care as much.

I think the Times knows, and rightly so, that their reign as "The Record of our Time" is coming to an end. On shows like Reliable Sources (CNN) you now see bloggers being interviewed alongside reporters from the Times and Washington Post, etc. The little guy is (finally) getting his voice out there. And it is being heard. And, unlike a TV critic, for example, working for the New York Times, the little guy writing here or elsewhere about a particular TV show, doesn't have an agenda, or an editor watching over his shoulder, or a job or advertisers to worry about should he say the wrong thing. All he cares about is the truth. That is why I am more apt to believe people here than at the Times. I don't believe anything that paper says anymore. Not a word.

Having said all that, Charlie's interview with Sulzberger was still a great interview. Because, where else but on Charlie Rose would you find a member of the Sulzberger family defending himself and his paper?? That's why I love Charlie Rose and his show so much. There's really nothing else like it on television.

OH lord, I had the same sentiment. All that mutual fawning. I ended up turning the tv off because it reached a point I just couldn't take it anymore. And while I can't say I agreed with Ms. Dowd about her take on men/women, it was the attention Rose kept trying to focus on her "looks" that caused me to turn the tv off. Instead of just putting the kibosh on it, she clearly enjoyed it despite her demurring, and let him stutter on about how attractive she was instead of moving on to something the rest of the world might care about. God.

I watched the show last night and Bryce Dallas Howard was on and mentioned how Lars Von Trier finds her mother fascinating, Charlie then gushes about how he also finds her mother fascinating, why? She's married to Ron Howard but what does she do?

Charlie is an odd duck. A lot of the show is really the guest for me. I missed the Sec of State this week. Did anyone see him? I did catch part of the Terrence Howard interviw and damn if that man isn't pretty and smart. But I don't know if Chalie asked him about his night in jail.

Caught the end of Terrence Howard and was completely turned off by his pretentiousness. Charlie's usual fawning questions seemed as carefully groomed as his subject. No controversy here.
It's funny that the real-deal actors (Cate Blanchett and Ralph Fiennes come to mind) come across as personable human beings while these hot, new names ooze self importance. Ugh. You're a lovely man, Mr. Howard.....on the outside.

Lud, anyone else come to mind? When was Cate on? Ralph is one of those people that should really be more famous.

I meant to post here a couple of weeks ago after I saw the Wendy Wasserstein appreciation show. It was a nice tribute, but if I had played a drinking game, taking a shot whenever Charlie said "She was my first friend when I came to New York", I would have been stinkin' drunk by the end. RIP Wendy.

I really enjoyed the Terrence Howard interview. He'd be compelling to watch and listen to, IMO, no matter what he happened to be spouting. But it was very nice to discover that he's so textured and complex. And isn't so narrowly consumed with acting so as to be completely oblivious to the world outside of it.

I only wish that the interview could have lasted longer. And what an incredible talent he is. It's obvious that the Academy is set on awarding the Oscar to Philip Hoffman this year, but at least Terrence Howard's work has been recognized with a nomination.

curare, Rachel Weisz was another artist whose recent interview with Charlie captured an approachable human being.
Cate was on in 2004.

Yes, Mr. Howard certainly commanded your attention with his looks and intelligence, but I found his arrogance extremely off putting. The only reason you act is to support your mom and grandmother and you'd rather be a theoretical physicist? To me that's saying several things: Acting is no big stretch to him and he'd rather associate with his peers, the intellectual elite, rather than lesser beings. That's my take only.

Terrence Howard just mostly made me laugh. Like, to out-windbag Charlie Rose is quite a feat I think. He was bearably pretentious for me, because it was that "actor-y" sort of pretension. He struck me as the sort of person who really likes thinking a little too much about the story of his life. I also cracked right up when Charlie asked him about his two movies that are award contenders, and he said directly that he likes Crash better. I'm sure the Hustle and Flow folks were thrilled to hear that.

How many years is Charlie going to congratulate himself for his boundless curiousity instead of getting in the game, himself, and achieving the kinds of things that would warrant interviewing him?

I hope the heart surgery goes well -- get better soon, Charlie!

Hope Charlie is back on his feet soon and everything goes well.

The older I get the more I appreciate his show.

No screaming blow-hards, vacuous starlets or prop comics, just calm and interesting discussion about a wide variety of topics.

I wonder if Fareed Zakaria will pinch hit for him. I hope he's okay when this is over. When I first heard he went to Paris for heart surgery I thought it was odd, but I didn't realize he had been in Syria. Just his luck - normally he's within a mile or two of several of the best hospitals for heart surgery in the world.

Does anyone know if his ratings have taken a fall with the success of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central. I know my nearly 70 year old mother switched over from Charlie to them.

I like what they've been doing.

Having friends interview their friends and mixing in some old interviews that Charlie did.

I love Salman Rushdie's books and I've seen some of his appearances on TV. But as guest host this was the first time I ever noticed how creepily hooded his eyes always are. Really creepy.

It's still weird to me to see and hear Salman Rushdie anywhere. I still remember the fatwah years.

So since TDS and TCR are on holiday I've been catching this show and Ken Tucker was discussing the new TV season with 3 other TV critics. First, I've loved Ken Tucker from way back when he was at LA's now defunct Herald Examiner and he rocked as a music critic. The discussion was really good, even when they went into "economic models" and TV show iPod downloading and the stale business stuff because they spoke with volumes of knowledge about the subject. Would it be ick to have a weekly show like this, round table discussions of television? Instead of your standard Entertainment Tonight or Extra or whatever? It strikes me that there are movie review shows like Ebert and Roeper, but nothing like it for TV, really. Because I really enjoyed the discussion.

Bungalow Joy I really liked Ken Tucker filling in as well (even if they discussed Lost and Desperate Housewives to death)...he also interviewed Kiefer Sutherland not too long ago on the show as well (along with Jean Smart), which was also well done.

Basically, he asks the good, insightful questions with just the right amount of humor and cultural relevance; definately a lot of fun to watch.

I was thinking that if David Spade were smart enough (I don't think he is) he'd follow the TDS model and regularly have Tucker or some other critic come on and discuss semi-seriously what's on TV.

I've only just started catching this show regularly. It's so low-budget, public-access with the flat black background - it really is like NPR on television - I love it. Lately I've noticed that the video and audio are not synched up correctly (at least where I'm viewing in Atlanta). I've gone to the website and downloaded interviews and they are synched correctly. Has anybody else caught this?

According to the NY Daily News, Charlie will be back on Monday!

That's a deliberate choice, so there are no distractions from the conversation.

As for "low budget," well, Charlie's table was custom-made for him by Linley Furniture (the queen of England's nephew's company), so it isn't exactly a Salvation Army castoff.

ETA: So Charlie was back last night, and talked about his health problems with Bill "My Mentor" Moyers and Yvette "My Executive Producer" Vega. I was so bored I turned off the TV after 15 minutes. David Letterman's return was much classier: He brought his surgery team onstage, introduced them, and told the audience they saved his life. Dave chokes up a little bit, we cut to commercial. After that, the show continues. Charlie? Gasses on and on about how his world-famous, brilliant French cardiologist is now a close friend. Blech. I really didn't need an in-depth account of what happened. Also, Charlie, it's condescending and somewhat racist to be surprised that there are excellent doctors in Syria.