logo
Robert Benton, Oscar-winning filmmaker behind Kramer Vs Kramer, dies at 92

Robert Benton, Oscar-winning filmmaker behind Kramer Vs Kramer, dies at 92

His son John said he died Sunday at his home in Manhattan of 'natural causes'.
During a 40-year screen career, the Texas native received six Oscar nominations and won three times: for writing and directing Kramer Vs Kramer and for writing Places In The Heart.
He was widely appreciated by actors as attentive and trusting, and directed Oscar-winning performances by Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep and Sally Field.
Although severe dyslexia left him unable to read more than a few pages at a time as a child, he wrote and directed film adaptations of novels by Philip Roth, EL Doctorow and Richard Russo, among others.
Benton was an art director for Esquire magazine in the early 1960s when a love for French New Wave movies and old gangster stories inspired him and Esquire editor David Newman to draft a treatment about the lives of Depression-era robbers Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, imagining them as prototypes for 1960s rebels.
The project took years to complete as Francois Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard were among the directors who turned them down before Warren Beatty agreed to produce and star in the movie.
Bonnie and Clyde, directed by Arthur Penn and starring Beatty and Faye Dunaway, overcame initial critical resistance in 1967 to the film's shocking violence and became one of the touchstones of 1960s culture and the start of a more open and creative era in Hollywood.
The original story by Benton and Newman was even more daring: they had made Clyde Barrow bisexual and involved in a three-way relationship with Bonnie and their male getaway driver.
Beatty and Penn resisted and Barrow was instead portrayed as impotent, with an uncredited Robert Towne making numerous other changes to the script.
'I honestly don't know who the 'auteur' of Bonnie And Clyde was,' Benton later told Mark Harris, author of Pictures At A Revolution, a book about Bonnie And Clyde and four other movies from 1967.
Over the following decade, none of Benton's films approached the impact of Bonnie And Clyde, although he continued to have critical and commercial success.
His writing credits included Superman and What's Up, Doc? He directed and co-wrote such well-reviewed works as Bad Company, a revisionist western featuring Jeff Bridges, and The Late Show, a melancholy comedy for which his screenplay received an Oscar nomination.
His career soared in 1979 with his adaptation of the Avery Corman novel Kramer Vs Kramer, about a self-absorbed advertising executive who becomes a loving parent to his young son after his wife walks out, only to have her return and ask for custody.
Starring Hoffman and Streep, the movie was praised as a perceptive, emotional portrait of changing family roles and expectations and won five Academy Awards, including best picture.
Hoffman, disenchanted at the time with the film business, cited the movie and Benson's direction for reviving his love for movie acting.
Five years later, Benton was back in the Oscars race with a more personal film, Places In The Heart, in which he drew on family stories and childhood memories for his 1930s-set drama starring Field as a mother of two in Texas who fights to hold on to her land after her husband is killed.
'I think that when I saw it all strung together, I was surprised at what a romantic view I had of the past,' Benton told the Associated Press in 1984, adding that the movie was in part a tribute to his mother, who had died shortly before the release of Kramer Vs Kramer.
Benton was born in Waxahachie, Texas, outside Dallas. He owed his early love for movies to his father, telephone company employee Ellery Douglass Benton who, instead of asking about homework, would take his family to the picture shows.
The elder Benton would also share memories of attending the funerals of outlaws Barrow and Parker, Texas natives who grew up in the Dallas area.
Robert Benton studied at the University of Texas and Columbia University, then served in the US Army from 1954 until 1956.
While at Esquire, he helped start the magazine's long-standing Dubious Achievement Award and dated Gloria Steinem, then on staff at the humour magazine Help! He married artist Sallie Rendigs in 1964. They had one son.
Between hits, Benton often endured long dry spells. His latter films included such disappointments as the thrillers Billy Bathgate, The Human Stain and Twilight.
He had much more success with Nobody's Fool, a wry comedy released in 1994 and starring Paul Newman, in his last Oscar-nominated performance, as a small-town troublemaker in upstate New York.
Benton, whose film was based on Russo's novel, was nominated for best adapted screenplay.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Taylor Swift emotional as she reveals family's role in regaining her masters
Taylor Swift emotional as she reveals family's role in regaining her masters

Wales Online

time4 hours ago

  • Wales Online

Taylor Swift emotional as she reveals family's role in regaining her masters

Taylor Swift emotional as she reveals family's role in regaining her masters Taylor Swift has opened up about the day she got her masters back, admitting that she 'very dramatically hit the floor for real' when she found out the news Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift had plenty to say on the latest New Heights podcast Taylor Swift became tearful whilst reflecting on a momentous occasion in her life so far, as she recalled the moment she finally regained ownership of her master recordings. ‌ The pop icon appeared on her boyfriend Travis Kelce and his brother Jason's podcast New Heights to share details with her fans about the forthcoming album, The Life of a Showgirl. Prior to discussing the tracklist and the album's origins, Taylor revealed intimate details about the day she regained control of her masters. ‌ Taylor confessed that she had been putting money aside from a young age with the goal of owning her music. She elaborated on how re-recording her tracks was what she considered the nearest thing to actually possessing them. ‌ Following the Eras Tour, Taylor convened with her team to contact Shamrock Holdings, who held ownership of her masters. For Taylor, controlling her catalogue represented far more than financial gain; it encompassed her artistic work, personal diary entries spanning her entire life, and compositions from different periods, many of which she had personally financed. Taylor became visibly emotional as she described receiving the news Article continues below Instead of involving solicitors, she arranged for her mother and brother to meet with Shamrock Holdings. After conveying to the firm how significant this would be for Taylor and attempting to devise a strategy, her mother, Andrea Swift, rang to inform Taylor that she was uncertain where this might lead, reports the Mirror US. A visibly moved Taylor continued, saying: "A couple of months after the Super Bowl in Kansas City, I get a call from my mom. She's like, 'You got your music.' I very dramatically hit the floor for real. Bawling my eyes out, weeping, like 'Really! ?'" She continued, "I said to myself, 'Go tell Travis in a normal way,' he was playing video games, and he put his headset down. I was like 'I got my music back!' And I was in heaven crying. This changed my life." Article continues below Back in 2019, Scooter Braun's firm, Ithaca Holdings, purchased Big Machine Records, which owned the rights to the pop star's initial six albums. The following year, he offloaded the masters to Shamrock Capital for $300 million. The Grammy-winning artist revealed the news through a statement on her website and Instagram on May 30. Taylor shared an image of herself against a white backdrop wearing a relaxed blue polo shirt and jeans, positioned amongst her first six records, with the caption "You belong with me" and various coloured heart emojis representing each album.

How can Gwyneth Paltrow bear so much ridicule?
How can Gwyneth Paltrow bear so much ridicule?

Spectator

time6 hours ago

  • Spectator

How can Gwyneth Paltrow bear so much ridicule?

There is nobody who finds Gwyneth Paltrow, 52, more interesting than the woman who was a teenager in the 1990s. This was the last era of the true pin-up, the heart-throb, the movie star as icon, rather than the whiffy melange of brand-pusher, pound-shop activist and reality star that constitutes celebrity today. I was as Nineties as the next girl living in provincial Massachusetts and when I first saw Shakespeare in Love in 1998, Paltrow's first and only Oscar-winning role as the late-16th-century actress-in-male-garb Viola de Lesseps, I'd never enjoyed anything as much in my life. And in 2025, Paltrow's career's Take Two fascinates the early middle-aged woman who finally gives in to the barrage of wellness marketing sent her way on Instagram. She now finds herself ordering 'adaptogens' (plants that are meant to help the body adapt to stress) such as reishi mushroom powder 'for immunity' and bovine collagen powder 'for hormone balance and joints'. Naturally, Paltrow's much-ridiculed lifestyle brand and newsletter Goop, which she founded in 2008 when good acting parts began to dry up, sells its own adaptogens: Paltrow was an early adopter and evangelist of almost every current wellness trend. As we learn here, she is extremely shrewd and, when it serves her, thick-skinned – a curious combination of entrepreneurial survivor and woo-woo artiste. Altogether, Paltrow's ability to fascinate and allure has served her very well, as this detailed, gossipy and slightly catty biography by the fashion journalist Amy Odell makes clear. There was something predestined about Paltrow's success, for 'as her parents and their world always taught her, she was just that special'. She was also just that talented, with her ear for languages. She learned fluent Spanish on a school exchange in just a few months and, despite being a New Yorker, managed different English accents for Sliding Doors (1998), Emma (1996) and Shakespeare in Love. Gwyneth is not just of interest to long-term viewers or followers of Paltrow, but to all students of celebrity, culture, media and the complex interactions between nepotism, talent and sex appeal. What makes it more than a repetitious biography of a movie icon is the subject's obvious complexities, beginning with her background. Her parents, Blythe Danner, a stage actress of birdlike frame, was famous, and Bruce Paltrow, a producer, was rich. They were an unusual couple. Danner was anxious, reflective, introverted and always more interested in the art of theatre – stage – than celebrity and success. She was posh and Episcopalian, whereas Bruce was 'brash' and Jewish, with a father called Buster. But they loved each other and stayed together – until Bruce, the 'love of [Gwyneth's] life', died, aged 58, in 2002 from throat cancer. The parents had tried to give their daughter and her younger brother Jake a 'normal' upbringing. Bruce cut Paltrow off financially when she dropped out of the University of Santa Barbara to pursue acting, and she waited tables out of necessity. The family was decidedly cultured, and when Gwyneth was a child went every year to the elite Williamstown theatre festival in the Berkshires, where Blythe joined huge names on stage. Theatre buffs will relish this roll call of late 1970s and 1980s acting aristocracy. Gwyneth the precocious child was popped into a range of parts, including one in a Chekhov play. Later, when a movie star, she returned in a highly acclaimed turn as Rosalind in As You Like It. She was born the definition of white privilege and has always been hated – and envied – for it. She got screen roles easily through connections, and with her love of partying, willowy frame and ethereal beauty soon became an haute couture clothes horse and It Girl. Much is made of the importance of being Brad Pitt's girlfriend in the mid-1990s when he was the world's biggest heart-throb, but it made her increasingly miserable because, in part, he just wasn't good enough. He was from ultra-conservative Christians in Missouri and couldn't understand her Upper East Side sophistication. There were bad parts and failed movies (Hush, Great Expectations, View From the Top), but her work with Harvey Weinstein at Miramax – she was the studio's 'muse' for a decade – clinched her reputation as a quality superstar. Somehow she survived Weinstein's rapacity and manipulativeness, but her account of his predatory behaviour when filming Emma, when she was 24 and he was 43, provided key early testimony for the first major #MeToo story, broken by Jodi Kantor in the New York Times in 2018. We see how Paltrow aggressively covets the fine things in life – demanding private jets and suites at the Ritz as a breakthrough star, and she can clearly be a cold, bitchy diva. This is a feature Odell returns to repeatedly, interviewing people who knew her at school, who worked with her on set at different times, and who went from being useful to not useful or, like erstwhile friends Madonna and Winona Ryder, somehow annoyed her. But for all the garbage, there is also an impressive resilience. Most people who endure half as much loathing and ridicule as Paltrow would be having public mental health struggles. She famously doesn't care what most people think, and seems to concentrate mainly on her children and her next winning hand. There is a shrewd simplicity and perceptiveness to some of her pronouncements. Of the idea to start Goop, she says: I was privy to such good information, and I thought, 'Well, if my girlfriends want to know this information, surely other girls and guys may want to know too. So, if they do, I'll do it, I'll just put out a newsletter. This is perfectly sensible. 'I would rather die than give my child a Cup-O-Soup' she said in 2005, making everyone hate her, again. But her point, brand and personality was at least succinctly presented. And she can be wise. At one point when her star crested in the late 1990s, her father sat her down for a talk with his bratty daughter: 'You know, you're getting a little weird… you're kind of an asshole.' Instead of blocking him, as her contemporary equivalent might have done, Paltrow felt 'devastated' and thought: 'Oh my God, I'm on the wrong track.' This led to an important reflection. By the age of 26, she didn't have to wait in line at a restaurant, and if a car doesn't show up, someone else gives you theirs. There is nothing worse for the growth of a human being than not having obstacles and disappointments. Her life in the 21st century as a businesswoman is less interesting than her late-20th-century one because it is a far more commonplace story. But her antennae for the next big thing are nonetheless remarkable. Long before MAHA tsar Robert Kennedy Jnr was saying the sun 'is good for you' – cancer be damned – Paltrow was saying the same. But few in the MAHA movement ever won an Oscar.

Woody Allen without the zingers: Materialists reviewed
Woody Allen without the zingers: Materialists reviewed

Spectator

time6 hours ago

  • Spectator

Woody Allen without the zingers: Materialists reviewed

Celine Song's first film, the wonderful Past Lives (2023), earned two Oscar nominations. So expectations were riding high for Materialists. Perhaps way too high. And, yes, it's a letdown. It feels like an early Woody Allen but blunter, shallower, with no zingers, and a lead character that's hard to care about. Dakota Johnson is our lead, playing a matchmaker who has two dreamboats (Chris Evans, Pedro Pascal) vying for her hand and throughout I was thinking: I should have your problems, love. It's billed as a romcom but those who expect that will be disappointed. It's more an essay on modern dating. Johnson, whom we have forgiven for her horrible performance in that horrible adaptation of Persuasion – we don't hold grudges – is Lucy. She works for a swanky Manhattan dating agency called Adore (ugh) that deals exclusively with the rich elite. She sees marriage as a business transaction in which people are buyers or sellers. The montage of clients' demands and feedback from first dates – too fat, too short, too old, too balding, 'I would never swipe right on that' etc. – is fun but only one client gets any real attention. This is Sophie, a 39-year-old lawyer who fears dying alone. She is played by Zoë Winters who steals the film from under everybody despite it being a minor role. Lucy attends the wedding of one of her clients and here she meets Harry (Pascal, gliding into view in a way that put me in mind of Omar Sharif). He's a 'unicorn' – hot, rich, tall, full head of hair – but, what do you know? At the same event, serving as a 'cater waiter', is John (Chris Evans). He's her ex, an out of work actor who – a flashback informs us – she left because they were always broke. He still wants her but Harry also now wants her. I wondered why, as she comes across as neither interesting nor especially bright. Midway through there's an act of violence and she is forced to reflect on the nature of her work and you think, you've never reflected on that before? Wake up and smell the coffee, lady! As an exploration of the tension between love and money the film is surprisingly unsubtle from the word go. The opening scene involves a prehistoric cave couple – I thought I was in the wrong screen! – which even sets out the film's stall when it comes to marriage, albeit in a laughably clumsy way. Lucy, meanwhile, has the following dilemma on her hands. Should she be seduced by Harry's $12 million penthouse or return to broke John? (Harry! He has silk sheets!) This leads her to question whether we might be worth more than our 'tangible assets' but is that taking us anywhere new? What is new, I suppose, is how far people will go to 'add value' to themselves these days but that involves a surgical subplot that I can't go into as it would take us into spoiler territory. The characters feel like cinema characters rather than character characters. They have no friends, no family, no interests beyond the dating scene. The film is talky, with some sharp dialogue, but no fresh insights. A good actor has something going on behind the eyes that the audience wants to know about and I'm not sure I ever get that with Johnson. Evans and Pascal bring A-list pizazz but no chemistry is ever ignited. I only ever felt for Sophie whom the film abandons just as she's always been abandoned. Poor Sophie. And why does Lucy have to choose? Why not neither? Is this saying marriage is the pinnacle of a woman's achievement? It's lushly photographed and beautifully framed and it's not a nightmare to sit through but whereas Past Lives stayed with you, I can feel this leaving me already.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store