The ending is perfect. Buckley has that grin showing that he knows he has squeezed out a perfectly contained quotable sentence in which to end on and Mailer has that laugh indicating that he is aware that he has just provided it and recognises that Buckley is satisfied with it. The professional host and the professional guest. Wondrous episode of a wondrous show. What happened to US TV? (not Drama which is obviously in the latter stages of the ultimate golden era)
Great conversation, but the thing that interests me most is just that this show even existed and was POPULAR. Regardless of what I might think of Buckley's politics, to realize that this was once the way American discourse, let alone American discourse on TELEVISION, was handled, it's fascinating. Compare this to today's shows, with nine or ten guests all screaming at each other, both sides trying to get their hyperbolic, knee-jerk opinion heard above the din. Yes, you can find extended conversations today, through podcasts and whatnot and, I suppose, Charlie Rose, but, Jesus, this was, like, a big, famous, popular show. Our country used to be comprised of people who would regularly sit and listen to fifty minutes of civil conversation that delved into not only the political but the philosophical. And even then, we'd already degenerated. Neil Postman wrote a great chapter about the people who lived at the time of the Lincoln/Douglas debates; farmers and doctors and all sort of regular townsfolk, who enjoyed prolonged, in-depth oratory as entertainment. I wonder what we will be, say, fifty years from now? Probably like the Eloi from The Time Machine, only with cellphones open to Buzzfeed and Reddit. I was in a supermarket a couple years back and two girls were having a political discussion. The one girl said, "Oh, yeah--I heard about that on Jon Stewart!"
Those supermarket women have not had a life (so far) that has led them to find the need to belong to a particular political group or adopt an ideology beyond a normative social injunction to "live freely and authentically" and "enjoy yourself, discover who you are, create your identity" Of course, people become dissatisfied in their life and adopt political identifications. But I find there is a great majority of people today that have the luxury of being apolitical. Having benefited from generations of real political struggle, the most privileged of our youngest generation mostly fully identify within the framework of a system that places culture above politics. The political discourse of the past, of the kind Buckley and Mailer are here seen to be engaged in, is for them effectively meaningless. Not because it is of no inherent value - there's plenty to be gleaned from this - but because it's of no social utility. It doesn't help them to be recognized or understood.
John Stewart's gift was he tried to move discourse back to this, and regularly attacked only the people that where the most repugnant at banal discourse(O'Reily and Tucker Carlson) He had to be bold because no one would listen to him if he was considered in this time, the only problem was he was a man cast ashore in his field where everybody else lusted after zingers and soundbites
I consider myself a liberal, at least by default, but I have to say Buckley had him on the Castro thing. Mailer, God love 'em, he really showed the almost infantile idealism the liberals can hold. He saw Castro as a great man because he wanted him to be a great man, like some mythological archetype, and the facts didn't matter. He had absolutely no answer for the loss of freedoms under Castro. "Um--well, he's a great man!"
'Mailer, God love 'em, he really showed the almost infantile idealism the liberals can hold.' - As an Englishmen I always find the American interpretation of liberals as being left-wing funny.
Mailer's voluble flow clearly evinced his genius, but I was impressed with Buckley's ability to patiently and open-mindedly (apparently) listen to Mailer and wait for an opportunity to make a telling point. Unlike the televised pundits of today (the few I've seen, at any rate), Buckley conveyed the impression of being eminently reasonable and civilized.
@dnggitg Mailer's 'voluble flow clearly evinced his genius'? Since when has volubility ever been characteristic of anything other than garrulousness? Personally, I think that Norman got destroyed in this debate--in the early segments, the two were on equal ground, but in the final two, Buckley was actually showing mercy to someone he had on the ropes. We do agree that Buckley was impressive though; sadly, he seems to have been the last of a now mythical breed of conservative intellectuals.
"Why were you terrible in this interview" was basically the question that kid asked. Who the hell asks that question? What sort of answer does he expect?
Anthony Garruzzo The kid asked what I was thinking, I wanted to know what Mailer’s views were and it seemed like at least much of the first part of the interview was making witty asides and not being direct. Anyway, I was able to see Mailer speak sometime in the 2000s and he was thoughtful and interesting.
@TomMichaels101 I would venture to say yes...I'm younger than you are, but judging by the time period, as well as the artists and intellectuals of the time period who were his peers, it was probably something pretty novel.
someone said earlier that Buckley wasn't intelligent -- he only has a big vocabulary. one thing someone said about him in the recent documentary 'Buckley v Vidal' is that he is a great master of breaking down argument. he listens very carefully and dissects his opponent's argument. he has done this several times in this conversation to one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.
yeah, buckley was aging, the show declining, when, it seems to me, a sober discussion of social issues were needed most, or as much as ever. he was at his prime through the early, maybe mid-80s.
Mailer seems to be in a rush to say what he wants to say and is constantly shifting his position in order to say it. He also seems to like being overtly explicit and contentious, for the sake of argument and image. I've never read any of his writing but only some of his quotes and I'll leave it at that. We are alive but for one life and if we choose to boycott a writer for whatever reason, who the fuck cares? Will my life be less without having read him? Buckley here seems rather bored in a sense, or rather serene. He flicks through the opening pages of mailer's book while mailer himself is making a point, and yet, listens to the stratosphere of what Mailer is saying. And I think that's the approach to Mailer. With all his apparent earthiness and affected Irish accent, we have a man whose goal was the epitome or zenith of literature in America, but who fell short because he failed to realize how tortured artists die young or mature or don't adopt the voice of the country but give that country a new voice. You can skim his words and garner some gems. But those gems are far more precious in the hands of Bukowski because of Bukowski's appetite for his impoverished condition... you're better off with Bukowski or Hemingway or Steinbeck or Fante or Lowell or Frost. Mailer seemed to start out like that (from what I have read about him) but stayed like that. His intellect was in milk and chopping it to cream in an effort to break out his genius. But the fact is, he wasn't a genius. He just had a lot to say. His mind was probably racing to the end. I'll give him that.
@bapyou Buckley, Friedman, Buchanan and so on were part of a generation of conservative intellectuals who, while I think they were wrong on many things, were very thoughtful and were keen to debate with the left, perhaps because they knew- as we all should know- that there is always a possibility that they were wrong.
They are, of course, both very articulate, but their answers are only "partially correct & part-truth" at best. ... somewhere between the conservative & the liberal is the golden mean of truth that brings liberation from mere ideology and the curse of oneupmanship so apparent almost everywhere.
fascinating to be an old adult now and revisiting these "brilliant" men and to see how history makes fools of us all. i wonder what my grandchildren will consider when and if they resurrect the inanities and insanities of our own tortured zeitgeist.
Imagine BIll O'Reilly interviewing Norman Mailer. "You're a far left loon!" And that's as far as O'Reilly would be able to take it. What's up right-wingers? How come all of your present-day spokesmen are now morons on O'Reilly's level? Buckley's thoughtful, reasoned curiosity is as far from today's average right-wing pundit as Mailer is from Abbie Hoffman.
@@zootsoot2006 Buckely certainly was flummoxed and seemed unable to differentiate between Mailers playful absurdities and whatever the opposite of that is. It was classic deer in the headlights look
Norman Mailer passing judgement on anyone is hilarious. He only missed a life in prison because of a lucky accident that his wife didn't die when he tried to stab her to death.
These Firing Line reruns are great. They remind you how lame 99 % of TV is today. Thanks so much for the upload.
Mailer was an extremely complex man. Fascinating interview even from Buckley's POV I must say.
The ending is perfect.
Buckley has that grin showing that he knows he has squeezed out a perfectly contained quotable sentence in which to end on and Mailer has that laugh indicating that he is aware that he has just provided it and recognises that Buckley is satisfied with it. The professional host and the professional guest.
Wondrous episode of a wondrous show. What happened to US TV? (not Drama which is obviously in the latter stages of the ultimate golden era)
What a great interview. It's nice to see people reason with care.
Good to see these two brilliant men cliffhanging each other's ideas, with more than just conviction, tot intellectual honesty as well.
excellent interview! I loved the tension - thanks for uploading!
Great conversation, but the thing that interests me most is just that this show even existed and was POPULAR. Regardless of what I might think of Buckley's politics, to realize that this was once the way American discourse, let alone American discourse on TELEVISION, was handled, it's fascinating. Compare this to today's shows, with nine or ten guests all screaming at each other, both sides trying to get their hyperbolic, knee-jerk opinion heard above the din. Yes, you can find extended conversations today, through podcasts and whatnot and, I suppose, Charlie Rose, but, Jesus, this was, like, a big, famous, popular show. Our country used to be comprised of people who would regularly sit and listen to fifty minutes of civil conversation that delved into not only the political but the philosophical.
And even then, we'd already degenerated. Neil Postman wrote a great chapter about the people who lived at the time of the Lincoln/Douglas debates; farmers and doctors and all sort of regular townsfolk, who enjoyed prolonged, in-depth oratory as entertainment.
I wonder what we will be, say, fifty years from now? Probably like the Eloi from The Time Machine, only with cellphones open to Buzzfeed and Reddit. I was in a supermarket a couple years back and two girls were having a political discussion. The one girl said, "Oh, yeah--I heard about that on Jon Stewart!"
Those supermarket women have not had a life (so far) that has led them to find the need to belong to a particular political group or adopt an ideology beyond a normative social injunction to "live freely and authentically" and "enjoy yourself, discover who you are, create your identity"
Of course, people become dissatisfied in their life and adopt political identifications. But I find there is a great majority of people today that have the luxury of being apolitical. Having benefited from generations of real political struggle, the most privileged of our youngest generation mostly fully identify within the framework of a system that places culture above politics.
The political discourse of the past, of the kind Buckley and Mailer are here seen to be engaged in, is for them effectively meaningless. Not because it is of no inherent value - there's plenty to be gleaned from this - but because it's of no social utility. It doesn't help them to be recognized or understood.
You have hit the nail on the head. Sums up the message of the film, 'Best of enemies', which you should see if you haven't already.
Having seen 'Best of Enemies' myself, I'd like to echo Mr. Carolan's endorsement.
John Stewart's gift was he tried to move discourse back to this, and regularly attacked only the people that where the most repugnant at banal discourse(O'Reily and Tucker Carlson)
He had to be bold because no one would listen to him if he was considered in this time, the only problem was he was a man cast ashore in his field where everybody else lusted after zingers and soundbites
Thank you for posting these videos.
I consider myself a liberal, at least by default, but I have to say Buckley had him on the Castro thing. Mailer, God love 'em, he really showed the almost infantile idealism the liberals can hold. He saw Castro as a great man because he wanted him to be a great man, like some mythological archetype, and the facts didn't matter. He had absolutely no answer for the loss of freedoms under Castro. "Um--well, he's a great man!"
'Mailer, God love 'em, he really showed the almost infantile idealism the liberals can hold.' - As an Englishmen I always find the American interpretation of liberals as being left-wing funny.
thanks for posting!
Mailer's not an idiot who talks out of his ass. He just 'makes contradictory statements' or approaches logic from a paradoxical premise now and again.
I love the look of subtle exasperation on Buckley's face a minute in.
Mailer is all over the place like a drunk behind the wheel on a dark,unpaved country road
Firing line was a great show. Unfortunately I only started watching it the last 2-3 years it was on.
I don’t know if they said anything that important but this was great TV compared to what we have now.
Try this: UK: Christopher Hitchens & William F. Buckley (1/5)
Wow! I could have been there that night if my time machine worked right...
Mailer's voluble flow clearly evinced his genius, but I was impressed with Buckley's ability to patiently and open-mindedly (apparently) listen to Mailer and wait for an opportunity to make a telling point. Unlike the televised pundits of today (the few I've seen, at any rate), Buckley conveyed the impression of being eminently reasonable and civilized.
... why I think Castro is a great man ... WOW
Roosevelt loathed DeGaulle. Had Roosevelt lived, the US would have never gotten involved in Vietnam.
@dnggitg Mailer's 'voluble flow clearly evinced his genius'? Since when has volubility ever been characteristic of anything other than garrulousness? Personally, I think that Norman got destroyed in this debate--in the early segments, the two were on equal ground, but in the final two, Buckley was actually showing mercy to someone he had on the ropes.
We do agree that Buckley was impressive though; sadly, he seems to have been the last of a now mythical breed of conservative intellectuals.
"Why were you terrible in this interview" was basically the question that kid asked. Who the hell asks that question? What sort of answer does he expect?
Anthony Garruzzo
The kid asked what I was thinking, I wanted to know what Mailer’s views were and it seemed like at least much of the first part of the interview was making witty asides and not being direct. Anyway, I was able to see Mailer speak sometime in the 2000s and he was thoughtful and interesting.
@TomMichaels101 I would venture to say yes...I'm younger than you are, but judging by the time period, as well as the artists and intellectuals of the time period who were his peers, it was probably something pretty novel.
someone said earlier that Buckley wasn't intelligent -- he only has a big vocabulary. one thing someone said about him in the recent documentary 'Buckley v Vidal' is that he is a great master of breaking down argument. he listens very carefully and dissects his opponent's argument. he has done this several times in this conversation to one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.
Mailer Proves he was wrong when he said we couldn't beat Communism.....One word........Reagan.....
yeah, buckley was aging, the show declining, when, it seems to me, a sober discussion of social issues were needed most, or as much as ever. he was at his prime through the early, maybe mid-80s.
Mailer seems to be in a rush to say what he wants to say and is constantly shifting his position in order to say it. He also seems to like being overtly explicit and contentious, for the sake of argument and image. I've never read any of his writing but only some of his quotes and I'll leave it at that. We are alive but for one life and if we choose to boycott a writer for whatever reason, who the fuck cares? Will my life be less without having read him? Buckley here seems rather bored in a sense, or rather serene. He flicks through the opening pages of mailer's book while mailer himself is making a point, and yet, listens to the stratosphere of what Mailer is saying. And I think that's the approach to Mailer. With all his apparent earthiness and affected Irish accent, we have a man whose goal was the epitome or zenith of literature in America, but who fell short because he failed to realize how tortured artists die young or mature or don't adopt the voice of the country but give that country a new voice. You can skim his words and garner some gems. But those gems are far more precious in the hands of Bukowski because of Bukowski's appetite for his impoverished condition... you're better off with Bukowski or Hemingway or Steinbeck or Fante or Lowell or Frost. Mailer seemed to start out like that (from what I have read about him) but stayed like that. His intellect was in milk and chopping it to cream in an effort to break out his genius. But the fact is, he wasn't a genius. He just had a lot to say. His mind was probably racing to the end. I'll give him that.
@bapyou Buckley, Friedman, Buchanan and so on were part of a generation of conservative intellectuals who, while I think they were wrong on many things, were very thoughtful and were keen to debate with the left, perhaps because they knew- as we all should know- that there is always a possibility that they were wrong.
They are, of course, both very articulate, but their answers are only "partially correct & part-truth" at best. ... somewhere between the conservative & the liberal is the golden mean of truth that brings liberation from mere ideology and the curse of oneupmanship so apparent almost everywhere.
Castro was a great man alright... so was Genghis Khan, but that doesn't make him any less of a butcher.
fascinating to be an old adult now and revisiting these "brilliant" men and to see how history makes fools of us all. i wonder what my grandchildren will consider when and if they resurrect the inanities and insanities of our own tortured zeitgeist.
Imagine BIll O'Reilly interviewing Norman Mailer. "You're a far left loon!" And that's as far as O'Reilly would be able to take it.
What's up right-wingers? How come all of your present-day spokesmen are now morons on O'Reilly's level? Buckley's thoughtful, reasoned curiosity is as far from today's average right-wing pundit as Mailer is from Abbie Hoffman.
The cadence of Mailer's speech for some reason makes me feel as if I'm being stabbed repeatedly in the ear with a pair of shears.
I've never seen Buckley so far back on his heels and frightened.
I just think he was perplexed by Mailer's absurd ideas.
@@zootsoot2006 Buckely certainly was flummoxed and seemed unable to differentiate between Mailers playful absurdities and whatever the opposite of that is. It was classic deer in the headlights look
Well,.. at least he didn't threaten to smash him in the g#d#mmed face...
I want to be just like WFB.
William Buckley, incredibly brilliant, was at his best, dissecting Mailer's foolishness about Castro.
Had not to admire and enjoy both men, whatever your political views.
Mailer moves from erratic to tiresome to boring.
Norman Mailer passing judgement on anyone is hilarious.
He only missed a life in prison because of a lucky accident that his wife didn't die when he tried to stab her to death.
In your gut...you know he’s nuts. And pretentious.