BUCKLEY AND VIDAL 'DEBATE' ON ABC IN 1968

1968 TV "debates" of Buckley and Vidal nothing to be nostalgic about

For the Republican presidential convention in Miami and the Democratic one in Chicago ABC TV hired William F. Buckley, a conservative, and Gore Vidal, a liberal, to act as opposing commentators in a series of duo "debates." This documentary argues this set the style for many political TV face-offs to come. In any case, the effect was sensational, raising third-ranking network ABC high in ratings and paving the way for Buckley's TV debate show "Firing Line's" remarkable 33-year history on public television. Arguably Vidal "won" the debates, since his smug condescension led Buckley to humiliate himself with an impolite outburst which he forever regretted: "Now listen, you queer," Buckley snarled, "stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddam face, and you’ll stay plastered."

Anyone looking for nostalgia or classic American TV of the past is due for rude disappointment in this busy, mediocre documentary. Its "media history" aspect has to be the best one for the shows and this film. Evidently the ABC network, a poor third after CBS and NBC, did achieve great ratings for their flimsy convention coverage because of the mutual rudeness, vitriol and provocation of the Buckley-Vidal combo, and thereafter gavel-to-gavel presentations of these political circuses (once even more fully covered on radio in the Fifties) came to be dropped.

But this just means American TV was a dubious medium for covering political events from a partisan point of view. Print journalism has always been better, from the days when H.L. Menckin delighted in providing satirical on-the-scene reportage of presidential conventions. Even so in the sixties, Norman Mailer's lengthy personal rambles enriched the understanding of American events. And in 1968, newspaper reports were supplemented by Esquire magazine's use of a bracingly neo-dada "New Journalist" choice of writers to comment on the conventinons: William Burroughs, Terry Southern, John Sack, and Jean Genet.

While the Buckley-Vidal confrontations disappoint as a clash of public intellectuals -- they're more mutual sniping than commentary, and a statement that Buckley was a "master debater" seems wildly promotional -- the documentary is inadequate in its filling in of background both about the two principals and of the context of public events. Miami and the siege of Chicago was a stunning time in a pivotal year. But we don't learn quite enough about it.

The filmmakers play up the clash, and it becomes hard to detach fact from hype. Clearly the pairing has drama. Both men had patrician backgrounds. Vidal's was more distinguished, with several relatives in government and a connection to Jacqueline Kennedy. Both had patrician manners and ornate ways of speaking. Both had done enough writing about politics to be considered public intellectuals, and both had run unsuccessfully for political office. Each man regarded the other as politically dangerous. Vidal considered Buckley a crypto-fascist (he was perhaps an early neocon). Given that he'd just scored success with the transsexual novel Myra Breckenridge, one can see how Buckley would see Vidal as a monster of depravity -- though the film's mention of his screenplay for Caligula is irrelevant; it came 11 years later. One is struck by Buckley's mannered way of leaning back, pen in hand like a wand, his bared-teeth rictus smile and way of raising his eyebrows and flashing his eyes. Vidal, more elegant in dark double-breasted suit and wavy hair, smiles smugly, almost beatifically. Though in the second round of debates Buckley came prepared as Vidal had been for the first round, it seemed that overall Vidal was the less fased and the more enjoying himself.

Watching "Firing Line" (barely covered here) is unenlightening today. The shows were absorbing only because it was hard to make much sense of them. One can see why. Watch Buckley's one "Firing Line" encounter with Noam Chomsky. All that's clear is Buckley's lack of preparation compared to Chomsky, Buckley's reliance on irrelevant changes of subject and interruptions to try to regain control. It really does not make much sense, in terms of argument. All one gets is what was obvious: Buckley supports the US war in Vietnam and Chomsky opposes it. It's Buckley's show. He uses his old Yale debating mannerisms to control it. But there is, sadly, no debate. Nonetheless "Firing Line" did feature an impressive list of intellectuals, mostly to the left of Buckley. The show exists for its sense of a battle and the confrontation of unlikely personalities. That is TV: the feel of conflict without much actual intellectual content. This is nothing to be nostalgic for. It's just gotten down and dirtier. Incidentally, Buckley threatens to punch Chomsky too; in fact his hostilities often bubbled up.

The documentary, despite having Buckley's brother as one of the main talking heads, does not serve either man well with historical context. There is not enough background on Buckley's books or his National Review's history. It notes that in latter decades readership of Vidal's novels and books on American history dropped dramatically. But it never mentions how important he became as a political essayist -- probably what he'll be remembered for in future. Vidal's output was staggering, including 14 screenplays, 8 plays, 26 novels, 27 books of non-fiction. Yet he kept photos of this encounter with Buckley in his bathroom in his Ravello villa: in some sense these brief public encounters were as memorable an experience for him as they were for his opponent. Perhaps they were too crude, though, to make for a good documentary.

Best of Enemies, 87 mins., debuted at Sundance January 2015, with nearly two dozen other subsequent festival showings. US and Canadian release 31 July 2015. East Bay debut at Landmark's Albany Cinema Friday 21 August 2015.

_________________
©Chris Knipp. Blog: http://chrisknipp.blogspot.com/.