August 20, 2025 • 33 mins
The line between debate and theater has never been thinner than in the explosive 1968 televised confrontations between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. This pivotal moment in American media history forever changed how we consume political discourse, transforming substantive argument into entertainment.
Join us as we explore this fascinating time capsule through Morgan Neville and Robert Gordon's 2015 documentary with our special "Debate Dual Delight" bourbon cocktail. In this episode, co-hosts Jonathan C. Legat and Tricia Legat, and producer Michael Noens discuss how these televised confrontations continue to influence the political landscape today.
Remember to imbibe responsibly! If you haven't seen "Best of Enemies," watch the film before you listen to the episode.
Subscribe to our podcast for more thought-provoking discussions where film and spirits come together to illuminate our shared cultural experience.
Looking for more episode content? Read the Episode Recap, including links to episode references and the ingredients for this episode's featured cocktail – now available on our website under Reviews & Articles.
To begin your Imbibe Cinema membership, visit imb.watch/membership.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Who dis New podcast.
Please subscribe or follow uson all of your favorite podcast
providers to get the newepisodes as soon as we release
them.
Rate and or leave us a reviewto help our show reach that
larger audience.
You can also follow ImbibeCinema on Facebook.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Facebookies Boogie down.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
You can also imbibe.
It's getting worse.
Greetings and our salutations,and welcome to Imbibe Cinema.
(00:53):
The Imbibe Cinema podcast isbrought to you by the Blue
Whiskey Independent FilmFestival, otherwise known as
BWIF.
To learn more, visit BWIFFcomor visit BWIFFcom.
In this episode we're going tobe discussing the political
debate documentary the Best ofEnemies about the 1968 ABC
convention coverage.
(01:14):
The cocktail that we areimbibing is called the Debate
Dual Delight.
It has bourbon, lemon andlavender simple syrup.
It is quite tasty.
The recipe, as well as pictures, are available on our website,
imbibesinemacom, and you mightnot be able to see it
(01:34):
immediately, but both sides ofthis are covered in the
Republican pin and the quotefrom Gore Vidal, which happened
to be in my All About, All AboutEve book, which, by the way,
really good book If you reallylike the movie.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
If you don't like the movie or you've never seen the
movie, well, go for you forreading the book.
But still it was a weird thing,because I had never heard of
Myra Breckenridge.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Myra Breckenridge Right.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
So I had never heard of my rib Breckenridge Right, so
I had never heard of that movieand I don't think I'd actually
really heard of Gord Vidal untilI saw this, or Buckley.
I had no influence from theright or the left Right and I
opened up this book that I havenot read for a very long time.
I was just trying to looksomething up, something that has
nothing to do with this podcast, and in doing so, on the first
(02:25):
page, there was a quote fromBrian Ridge, from Gore Vidal,
who did not write the All AboutEve book.
But it was just weird.
It was like it was following mearound all of a sudden.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
I'm curious what?
Here's the quote Because inconnection with.
All About Eve.
I find that fascinating.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
I might have caught a glimpse of the heart of the
mystery from the rear, anunflattering angle which,
paradoxically, has alwaysexcited me, possibly because it
is in some way involved with mypassion for backstage quote,
unquote for observing what ismagic from the unusual
(03:05):
privileged angle.
Now, obviously, that can betaken many ways and we will let
you take it how you will.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Yeah, had I not seen Best of Enemies I would have
taken, this a very different wayRight In the theatrical.
Which makes me wonder if theperson who put this in here has
seen Myra Breckenridge and knowswhat.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
I think so, you think so.
It's supposed to be satireright.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
Yes, shocking satire for its time.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
Yeah, so the debates are represented from somebody
who's a conservative andsomebody who's a liberal.
One of the reasons I wanted youguys to see this and I was
really taken aback by it was howdebate is represented in our
country and how theseindividuals, their relationship
(03:55):
with each other was so justsurprising.
And also it's like this timecapsule moment to go look at
1968.
And in not in the ways thatwe're used to, because when you
look at 1968, typically you'relooking at the big history
points of Bobby Kennedy, martinLuther King Jr, all the tragedy
(04:18):
that occurred, vietnam, and likea different perspective of the
Chicago Democratic Convention.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Oh, this one didn't go well.
I've seen several films whereyou know, like I guess, most
recently the Trial of theChicago 7.
And you know, you get reallyinto that mess where this is
from a media perspective, whichis different.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Right and also a little bit of backstage, because
you're seeing what happened toABC Right and how they got put
in this position and how it ismore what they came up with.
It was more invention, ofnecessity, it was okay,
everything is going wrong.
There were only three networksNBC, cbs and ABC.
(05:08):
And NBC and CBS are so good.
You've got like Walter Cronkiteand then the other guys which I
can't remember their names, butit's like Brinkley they make me
think of a water filter LikeHinkley and Schmidt, so we'll
call them Hinkley and Schmidtfor this.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
They're not Brinkley and Schmidt, brinkley and
Schmidt.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
These are people who, like newsmen, who America
trusts.
And so ABC doesn't really havefooting.
It's having trouble.
You know, abc is so far behindthat it was third in the
networks only because thereweren't four.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Which I found really surprising.
I was like wait, wait, wait,disney was last.
That doesn't add up right.
But Disney didn't own ABC until1995 or 96.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
Back before, like five people owned everything
Right.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Right.
So that's why I was like wait,wait, wait.
Why is Disney at the bottom?
That doesn't add up right?
Speaker 4 (05:57):
No, they got money.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
ABC had all that Disney money.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
So my favorite behind the scenes is they show how
their tent for the GOPconvention collapsed and so you
get to see how, like hey, it'sbeforehand everybody's kind of
sitting there, and then thewhole ceiling comes down.
You're like, oh my God.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
And in retrospect, it's really kind of amazing how
everything unfolds, when youlook at how disastrous things
are starting.
Yes, are starting, and we can'tturn this around.
This is like the visualrepresentation of everything is
falling apart quite literally,it's embarrassing, and yet turns
it around and powers through.
(06:36):
It's almost better thateverything collapsed and they
were down to these bare bones,because really that backdrop was
way better.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
Gave me a headache and I'm like and this was in
black and white, I can't imagineif it was in color.
Oh my God, there's too busyback there.
Stop Too much.
Too much America in thebackground.
Tone it down, yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Now, this will be the first documentary podcast for
us Brave new world.
You can do a lot withindependent films.
They can really push anenvelope that cannot always be
pushed by studios or otheragencies and those people who do
not want certain envelopes tobe pushed.
So you know, one of the greatthings about independent
(07:18):
documentaries, you know, is thatas long as they do their level
set best they should be able topresent both sides and one of
the topics we had wanted todiscuss was the difference
between documentary andpropaganda.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Right, because sometimes the way to digest it
is to disguise it, to dress itup as a documentary, right?
So it's like propaganda is nodocumentary in sheep's clothing.
Yeah, no, that doesn't.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
We're gonna give you tons, tons of facts, but the
facts that you are getting arevery much skewed in a singular
direction that the editor or thedirector, or whomever it might
be right everything has,everything, has influence right,
everybody has a perspective.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Everybody has a way they see the world right, and
when somebody has a very uniqueperspective or a very dramatic
perspective and they make thattheir film, well, that's going
to get butts in seats becausepeople are like, whoa, this is
something I never saw.
The is that line where you'relike are we sliding one way or
(08:30):
another way too much, that we'renot representing everyone.
I know Michael Moore has gottenmany critics saying that his
films are propaganda, although,um, very entertaining, yeah, and
informative, and also I do inmy my, my, uh, my meter scale or
how I judge propaganda.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
It's like oh, but you made fun of everybody, so I
can't see who we're cheering forand and, honestly, that is one
of the key factors.
Again, you know, uh, I knowjust from q a's that we've done
at the festival, uh, over many,many seasons at this point, that
there's points where you knowyou find out how much footage
(09:13):
has been collected for adocumentary and it it amazes me
the number of times thatdocumentarians go into a
particular film thinking that,hey, I'm gonna like go follow
this group of people or this x,y or z story.
This is the story and this iswhat's out and, oh yeah, by the
time they actually see all thefootage, the story has changed
(09:33):
as to what they thought theywere collecting and what.
What the narrative is thatthey're going to not narrative,
because it's a documentaryregardless, it's yeah, the
narrative, yes of the story, yes, right, and I mean everything's
an ongoing narrative.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
You have to craft a beginning, middle and end, for
it to be a film yeah otherwiseit's just somebody you know,
videoed your whole life.
Yes, correct, and at some pointthere you go.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
but at some point, you know, once the the story has
kind of revealed itself to I, Ithink, the filmmaker.
It is a documentarian's job totry to hunt down the opposing,
hunt down the antithesis to thestory that they are finding, to
see if they can reflect that.
Now, at the same time,depending on where you're headed
(10:20):
, you could get stonewalled bythe people who don't want to
tell the other side of thatstory and at that point that's
not necessarily thedocumentarians fault, especially
if they actually put in youknow cards at the end that say
this you know particular personwas unavailable for comment
approached X number of times andnever you know wanted to speak
(10:42):
in front of it.
We got like this person and likethat is at least an approach
towards the documentary versuspropaganda.
But again, it's a fine line totread.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Right, and then you have like, as a viewer, you
would have to then go have tofact check.
Here's another one.
When you talk about documentarypropaganda, we usually think
political, right, right.
There are some shows ontelevision that I posit to you.
They're the ones that are likethe UFO ones and the conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
On the History Channel?
Speaker 4 (11:13):
Yeah, the 10 Secrets on the Hitler Channel.
Everything goes back to Hitler,even in Rome.
They somehow link it.
There are a lot of these showswhere you're like I see the same
person being interviewed.
Is this what you do for aliving?
Speaker 3 (11:29):
you just go on these and be like, okay, so I'm going
to talk about this I feel likethis shouldn't be a
controversial thing to say, butI feel like a true documentary
filmmaker is, is like is ajournalist and that is trying to
capture a story and get bothsides and should welcome and not
(11:49):
challenge the side that theypersonally disagree with.
Instead, be very thoughtful inasking the right questions and
then be able to look at themside by side.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
That is exactly a neutral position.
Shows both sides, but then letsthe viewer make up their own
mind.
So that then links us to debate.
Debate in its concept, the ideathat we get up and we go okay,
here are our opposing views onhow we feel we can best serve
(12:20):
whatever we're debating, andthen the audience gets to go.
Oh well, you have a good ideaand you make a good point, but I
agree with this person versusthat person, yada, yada.
But here, especially in thisfilm, it lives up to the blood
sport reputation.
It is mudslinging at its finest.
(12:40):
It's not about saying what youbelieve in, it's just tearing
the other person down and makingthem look like a fool and you
looking super cool.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Yeah, I 1000% agree, you know.
I mean, I think the big thingabout good filmmaking is
challenging the viewer'sparadigm.
A paradigm is only as good oronly as strong as when it has
been challenged.
Good debate should challengesomebody's paradigm.
(13:08):
These two gentlemen were meantto help Americans determine
which direction the nationshould head.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
And they're very smart, these two gentlemen who
are just insulting each otherlike outright, and yet the way
they react to each other, thesmiles and the comebacks, it's
almost like they've just takenout their gloves and they're
just like smack on each other.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
I think that has a lot to do with their
understanding of TV ahead ofmost other people.
It would be interesting to knowif it was a radio broadcast, if
it would be the same, becausethey know they were on camera
and so you can see in their facehow upset they are, and yet
they're doing it with a grin.
(13:53):
It's like the more upset theyare, the bigger the smile is.
They're trying to compensatefor how angry they are, and this
this is like uh, I thought inmy head naively.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
The debate was like more of an honest representation
of like here are my beliefs,here are my bullet points.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Oh, sure, yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
And then you know and this is how I would address
what's going on, or this is whoI you know, if we're talking
about this convention, here arethe things that I would talk
about Right, but they don't out.
Right, but they don't, theyjust just sling mud at each
other and they each represent anentire side, which is silly
because they are so much alike.
And the documentary does areally good job at at showing
(14:36):
that the way they wrote, likethe way they grew up, the way
they were raised where they wentto school and they're.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
I'm assuming it was like their memoirs, their
writing about how they reactedto certain things, like how they
almost realized, in a way, howsimilar they were on opposing
ends.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
And they disliked each other more for it.
Yes, but then there's likeself-love, Like I think there's
that other point is they are.
These are two men who lovethemselves a lot.
Well yeah, almost like how.
How, how much of this hatred isa mutual attraction?
Speaker 1 (15:16):
We're going to take a few minutes to fill our glasses
and get ready to do them bymore after this.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
The blue whiskey independent film Festival
exhibits short andfeature-length motion pictures
that utilize story elements in anew and exciting way.
Our official selections are acarefully assembled blend of
imaginative, sophisticated andfull-bodied stories.
This is what our namerepresents, with.
(15:45):
Audiences expect to experiencecharacter-driven, independent
cinema that is fueled by thefilmmakers' passion for the art
of visual storytelling.
Filmmakers can expect anintimate festival experience
where their personal story isvalued as much as the one
projected on the big screen.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
We were discussing the beginning of the end being,
you know, this convention.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
Or people just trusting their news source to be
the same information comingfrom any news source Correct,
because that's a news source.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
And that was the Fairness Doctrine.
It was a doctrine that mandatedbroadcast networks devote time
to contrasting views of issuesof public importance, and it was
there from 1954.
And by 1970s, the FCC calledthe doctrine the single most
important requirement ofoperation in the public interest
(16:54):
, and so, in 1985, the Reaganadministration got rid of it,
thought everybody didn't need tobe told to behave properly.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
They just should, because they're gonna and
nobody's gonna abuse that andand.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Without that doctrine in place, we really see, I
think, the fracturing that isthe current media yeah, okay.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
So now we're going back to debate and how I've been
trying to find a way to say howit's not fair and how it's just
back and forth mudslinging.
It is not in good faith.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
Right, we're not trying to understand each other,
we're not trying to change eachother's minds.
We're trying to eviscerate oneanother.
And while that can beentertaining to watch, what good
does it do?
Right?
And especially when it's likejust rehashed and repackaged
over and over and over againyeah, what does that give anyone
?
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Here goes to my original statement of good
debate.
Should all make you challengeyour paradigm.
Make you challenge yourparadigm, and a challenged
paradigm is either strengthenedby you know, your resolve and
(18:17):
the fact that you, you know,even once challenged the facts
don't make you change, or you dochange your paradigm.
The problem that we areencountering now is that
people's silos are not activelychallenging their paradigm.
They are meant to enforce yourparadigm on flimsy sand.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Right, well, and then you've got the algorithm just
telling you what you want tohear.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
The bubble is telling you exactly what you have
already believed.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
The example that pops into my head when you say that
this is where my brain goes.
Follow me on this journey.
Murder is wrong, Dexter.
Well, I guess in somecircumstances.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
I mean if he's murdering murderers.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Right, like that's where my brain goes.
This is like challenging myparadigm Okay.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Dexter's practically law and order right.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
Without the doink, doink yeah doink doink.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
In the criminal justice system there's one group
of person.
He is a murderer of murderersand that's what makes him okay.
Doink doink, it's a differentjoke, I don't know the theme.
Do, do, do, do, do, do.
Anyways, it's a different joke,I don't know.
(19:35):
Yes, different points of view.
So before the break we had beendiscussing debate in general
and now we're kind of trying toget into that debate versus oh,
versus theatrics or theatrics orso at the very end of this film
.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Uh, and if you haven't seen it, please see, see
it.
And if you, if you see it,watch all the way to the end.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
For my favorite part which is very in the credits.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
During the credits.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
This is a good reminder right.
Just to say, because if youdon't read our show notes before
you listen to the episode, wewill ruin things.
So make sure you imbiberesponsibly and watch the film
before you listen.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
And when Trisha mentions this is her favorite
part of the film and wementioned that it is in the
credits don't think that we'rejust saying that her favorite
part is the end of the film,Just throwing that out there.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
It's a very intense film, it's fascinating, like I
said earlier Time, capsule 1968.
But what gets at the very end?
You have comedy legend,journalist extraordinaire,
america's most trusted newssource, jon Stewart, and he says
I thought you were going to sayJeremy Irons.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Yes, comic legend Jeremy Irons, you know my work.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
It's a clip from something where he's talking
about people debating and hesays, yes, debate is great, but
that's not what you guys do.
This is theater, and that isthe note.
That's like the nail on thehead is this is all theater and
earlier you had talked about andwhen I say you audience, I'm
talking to Michael you hadtalked about how, if, what, if
(21:04):
this was radio, right, if thesedebates had been on radio, and
how the difference is how theyknew they were on television.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
And you can tell.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
So way back, follow me 1960.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
OK.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
When we have the first televised presidential
debate.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
Between Nixon and Kennedy.
Oh yeah, said Kennedy won thatdebate.
And then they talk about howNixon lost that election, how a
lot of it.
They blamed the televisionbecause he wasn't as photogenic
as his opponent.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Well, he refused to wear makeup too, right?
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Yes, which, again in that televised debate, is what
actually killed him and made himlook dark, because he's
sweating Right.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
It's because he's not buying into the theater, right.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Right.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
And I'm not saying this is pro or anti yes, yep, of
how much the camera doesinfluence people without
anything coming out of yourmouth.
Right, just what they're seeing,and in this movie, if
everything's on mute Right Inthis movie especially, they can
(22:29):
jab at each other.
They have these back and forthwhere they say very smart, awful
things.
But they say these awful thingsto each other and they smile
and you can tell that it's likenobody's losing their cool over
it.
And what gets everybody in theend is somebody loses their shit
on camera and says things thatthey should not be saying on
(22:51):
camera because they forget inthe heat of the moment.
Buckley gets pissed and he saysstuff and then it's like, well,
that's the the moment he lost,which then just reminds me of my
grandpa and john's father, whoevidently loved to play.
Let's get which is we argue andI'm not picking a side that I
believe is right, I'm justarguing until you get angry,
then I win, and that's that'show we play and which is
(23:16):
unhealthy.
Thank, you.
But at the same time we use ourpowers for good Do we, they have
a podcast now.
Yes, but yeah and then.
And somebody who I thinkembodies that approach to debate
is Stephen Colbert, from whenhe had the Colbert report.
Yes bear rapport where it waslike he does his homework, which
(23:42):
is what vidal did in the firstset, and buckley caught up when
he realized right how behind hewas, just because he typically
doesn't evidently do thehomework and he needed to.
He needed to step up because hewas on his opponent.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yeah well, I'd actually, I'd actually say
counterpoint to that in thesheer fact that, uh, at least
based on what I was yep, kind ofoh, why did I throw?
that jane you ignorant slutthank you well played um, one of
the things that they talkedabout about buckley jr was the
fact that on his show heessentially acted like colbert.
(24:15):
He would call in leftisttalking point people and just
essentially make them look thefools.
And when he was approached byABC, abc asked who would you not
want to?
And his response was um yeahthere was like something like uh
, like an actual, like socialistor something like that A
(24:36):
communist a full out communistor Gore Vidal.
And so they're like cool, GoreVidal it is.
It seemed like he wasn't doinghis research on Gore Vidal in
that first episode.
He was ready to talk about theconvention.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
He was ill-prepared for where the topic went, not
what the attack plan right, butI also think he probably isn't
used to uh somebody who was onhis level.
Oh no, he was definitely notused to being able to phone it
in and and just do circlesaround people, correct he's
ready to dance, met somebody whowas ready to wasn't even like
(25:17):
wasn't going to play fair at allfrom the beginning, and I think
that's true.
I think Gort Vidal does notplay fair from the beginning.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Not that it's the same thing, but it did make me
think of Colbert versus BillO'Reilly.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
Papa Bill.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
Yeah, he would meet people backstage and he's like a
lovely individual and he waslike this is not who you're
going to see, like I'm not thatperson, like this is, this is me
, so we're, this is why we'remeeting now, so I can talk to
you as me, but that's not who'son stage with you.
And people are like that'sfunny.
And then they get on stage likeoh God, he's right.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
No, that's not the same person.
Yeah, um, yeah, again theatrics, the theatrics of it.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
Yeah, right you know you're, you're performing and,
uh, conflict is definitely it.
It's more intriguing, it leadsmore intriguing than anything
else right now.
Okay, so if you were to take amovie that explores the power of
debate and speech andpersuasion, do you have a movie
off the top of your head?
I'm throwing you in front of abus because I can tell you.
(26:30):
The one that I immediatelythink of is Thank you for
Smoking.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Okay, yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
And that is because they're lobbyists, right.
But again, it's all about afather and a son, and Aaron
Eckhart is explaining debate andhe talks about how.
It's not about proving that I'mright.
All I have to do is prove youwrong.
I win Yep, and he does it withice cream.
It's like chocolate versusvanilla and he just eviscerates
(26:59):
the kid.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
My brother was on the high school debate team.
One of the things about itbeing is each team is given the
topic.
One team, whether they believeit in their humble beings or
other, is given the pro, pro,and the other is given the the
(27:22):
con.
And like lawyers, yeah, likelawyer, and.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
And you are just meant to go and write out, right
, what your debate is back tothe team idea of it is like it
is, it's, it's who's going towin this battle of words.
And then we all kind of pick aside and, like in politics,
whether you agree with them ornot, there's somebody you
disagree with more and then youkind of find one side.
(27:49):
And I find that reallyinteresting in this documentary,
especially since these two menare very much alike and have
very different opinions onthings, but also they're two
middle-aged white men who havevery high education.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Affluent yes.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
And it's like you don't really represent everybody
.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
The vast majority of either constituency.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
The fact that, like Gore Vidal's sister,
Sister-in-law is Jackie O.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
And then they stopped speaking because of bobby
kennedy's yeah and and jackiegoing with bobby and saying you
know, if you're, if you're gonnabe a pompous, arrogant asshole,
um and uh, against bobby I'm,you know, know, we're done, and
again sister-in-law.
So.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Right, but like neither of these people are
likable, and yet they'refascinating, fascinating.
Right and then it's reallyinteresting because you kind of
see, because it was so long agoand you get to see this like
what happened to their livesafterwards.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yep.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
And the people they become when they're older.
In fact fun fact, we weretalking about the folks that
made this film, morgan Nevilleand Robert Gordon Right.
And they actually did aninterview with Gore Vidal.
I say Gore, and then I'm likewait Vidal.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Vidal.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
Because otherwise we think a different one.
Yeah, with Gore Vidal, and theydidn't include it, and I think
that's a really good thing notto, because I'm sure they didn't
interview Buckley because hewas dead, right.
Yeah, it's an unfairperspective, and also another
fun fact that I think you guysmight be excited by.
I read on the IMDB that AaronSorkin bought the rights to this
(29:40):
film and is now doing anarrative about these two guys.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
oh, yeah, I'm very excited about that, I know I you
know it's excited and terrifiedsee, and you know it's funny
that you said that, because youwere asking about films that are
great debates and I was like,well, I can think of the
newsroom.
But I was like, really,anything that Aaron Sorkin
writes is usually a really greatdebate, even when it's not even
(30:06):
political, like if you've everseen Molly's Game.
It's just, it's the way hewrites his dialogue.
Episodes of the West Wing areso fantastic because he welcomes
right viewpoints.
But anyway, I was starting tosearch, like, okay, what can I
find?
And a lot of them are courtroomfilms.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
Yeah right.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Which makes a lot of sense.
And there are a lot of reallygood ones the Trial of the
Chicago 7, which I think wasfantastic, my Cousin Vinny A Few
Good Men Social Network.
The Verdict 12 Angry Men ToKill a Mockingbird, philadelphia
.
Good Night and Good Luck.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
you mentioned yeah, and as I over break one thing
that I thought was fun, thatcame up in like the best debate
speeches in film was Clueless,Right, right and I was like but
they are entertaining and shedoes make valid points.
She does.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
It is such a smart movie really.
Speaker 4 (31:02):
For all our really educated listeners.
Not that you're not smart,You're smart.
You're so smart because you'relistening and we appreciate it.
Hey Mary, how's it going?
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Yeah, mary, can you double check.
Are there any other like reallygood debate.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
Yeah, Mary, you want to send us a comment.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
I mean you can send us a comment, you just need to
click that button and that willalso let us know whether or not
that button is working.
Anyways, let's poke the bear.
Oh my god, poking the bear.
Alright, so find out whatothers think of this film.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
First up we have Filmmaker Magazine and they say
I might be being oversensitive,but blandish docs like this one
shouldn't be given the benefitof the doubt.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
Blandish.
What does blandish mean?
Define blandish Right becauseI'm just thinking like food,
food, Like it's bland, like it'sboring Coax, someone with kind
words or flattery.
Huh, Well, I have not been.
I did not think that was theword.
I'm learning something new.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
I would neither find neither of the words that either
of the two gentlemen used to bekind.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
I don't think it's sugarcoating anything no.
Speaker 3 (32:20):
Slant Magazine says, by engaging celebrity worship
rather than using these figuresfor deeper claims about
media-dominated informationcultures, Morgan and Neville
reinforce circumstances theyoutwardly condemn.
Speaker 4 (32:39):
Ah, because they're using these guys as a form of
entertainment to prove thatentertaining people, uh, in this
way doesn't help anyone.
I find like they were justtalking a little in circles
there.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
I think that that's the the the point that they were
trying to make right is thatthe circular nature of it almost
like it's going to continue theproblem which I don't think
focusing on the problem, likeshowing what the problem is,
should be the first step inaddressing there is a problem.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Well, yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Again, acceptance.
They have a whole steps programand that is the first one.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
No, acceptance is not the first one, shh.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
We greatly appreciate all of our listeners for
choosing this podcast supportingindependent films and the Blue
Whiskey Independent FilmFestival.
I'm Jonathan Sealegg, andthanks for imbibing with us
Cheers.
Who dis New podcast.
Please subscribe or follow uson all of your favorite podcast
providers to get the newepisodes as soon as we release
them.
Rate and or leave us a reviewto help our show reach that
larger audience.
You can also follow ImbibeCinema on Facebook.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
Facebookies Boogie down.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
You can also imbibe.
It's getting worse.
Greetings and our salutations,and welcome to Imbibe Cinema.
(00:53):
The Imbibe Cinema podcast isbrought to you by the Blue
Whiskey Independent FilmFestival, otherwise known as
BWIF.
To learn more, visit BWIFFcomor visit BWIFFcom.
In this episode we're going tobe discussing the political
debate documentary the Best ofEnemies about the 1968 ABC
convention coverage.
(01:14):
The cocktail that we areimbibing is called the Debate
Dual Delight.
It has bourbon, lemon andlavender simple syrup.
It is quite tasty.
The recipe, as well as pictures, are available on our website,
imbibesinemacom, and you mightnot be able to see it
(01:34):
immediately, but both sides ofthis are covered in the
Republican pin and the quotefrom Gore Vidal, which happened
to be in my All About, All AboutEve book, which, by the way,
really good book If you reallylike the movie.
Speaker 4 (01:50):
If you don't like the movie or you've never seen the
movie, well, go for you forreading the book.
But still it was a weird thing,because I had never heard of
Myra Breckenridge.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Myra Breckenridge Right.
Speaker 4 (02:05):
So I had never heard of my rib Breckenridge Right, so
I had never heard of that movieand I don't think I'd actually
really heard of Gord Vidal untilI saw this, or Buckley.
I had no influence from theright or the left Right and I
opened up this book that I havenot read for a very long time.
I was just trying to looksomething up, something that has
nothing to do with this podcast, and in doing so, on the first
(02:25):
page, there was a quote fromBrian Ridge, from Gore Vidal,
who did not write the All AboutEve book.
But it was just weird.
It was like it was following mearound all of a sudden.
Speaker 3 (02:37):
I'm curious what?
Here's the quote Because inconnection with.
All About Eve.
I find that fascinating.
Speaker 4 (02:44):
I might have caught a glimpse of the heart of the
mystery from the rear, anunflattering angle which,
paradoxically, has alwaysexcited me, possibly because it
is in some way involved with mypassion for backstage quote,
unquote for observing what ismagic from the unusual
(03:05):
privileged angle.
Now, obviously, that can betaken many ways and we will let
you take it how you will.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Yeah, had I not seen Best of Enemies I would have
taken, this a very different wayRight In the theatrical.
Which makes me wonder if theperson who put this in here has
seen Myra Breckenridge and knowswhat.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
I think so, you think so.
It's supposed to be satireright.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
Yes, shocking satire for its time.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
Yeah, so the debates are represented from somebody
who's a conservative andsomebody who's a liberal.
One of the reasons I wanted youguys to see this and I was
really taken aback by it was howdebate is represented in our
country and how theseindividuals, their relationship
(03:55):
with each other was so justsurprising.
And also it's like this timecapsule moment to go look at
1968.
And in not in the ways thatwe're used to, because when you
look at 1968, typically you'relooking at the big history
points of Bobby Kennedy, martinLuther King Jr, all the tragedy
(04:18):
that occurred, vietnam, and likea different perspective of the
Chicago Democratic Convention.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Oh, this one didn't go well.
I've seen several films whereyou know, like I guess, most
recently the Trial of theChicago 7.
And you know, you get reallyinto that mess where this is
from a media perspective, whichis different.
Speaker 4 (04:45):
Right and also a little bit of backstage, because
you're seeing what happened toABC Right and how they got put
in this position and how it ismore what they came up with.
It was more invention, ofnecessity, it was okay,
everything is going wrong.
There were only three networksNBC, cbs and ABC.
(05:08):
And NBC and CBS are so good.
You've got like Walter Cronkiteand then the other guys which I
can't remember their names, butit's like Brinkley they make me
think of a water filter LikeHinkley and Schmidt, so we'll
call them Hinkley and Schmidtfor this.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
They're not Brinkley and Schmidt, brinkley and
Schmidt.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
These are people who, like newsmen, who America
trusts.
And so ABC doesn't really havefooting.
It's having trouble.
You know, abc is so far behindthat it was third in the
networks only because thereweren't four.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Which I found really surprising.
I was like wait, wait, wait,disney was last.
That doesn't add up right.
But Disney didn't own ABC until1995 or 96.
Speaker 4 (05:49):
Back before, like five people owned everything
Right.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Right.
So that's why I was like wait,wait, wait.
Why is Disney at the bottom?
That doesn't add up right?
Speaker 4 (05:57):
No, they got money.
Speaker 3 (05:59):
ABC had all that Disney money.
Speaker 4 (06:07):
So my favorite behind the scenes is they show how
their tent for the GOPconvention collapsed and so you
get to see how, like hey, it'sbeforehand everybody's kind of
sitting there, and then thewhole ceiling comes down.
You're like, oh my God.
Speaker 3 (06:16):
And in retrospect, it's really kind of amazing how
everything unfolds, when youlook at how disastrous things
are starting.
Yes, are starting, and we can'tturn this around.
This is like the visualrepresentation of everything is
falling apart quite literally,it's embarrassing, and yet turns
it around and powers through.
(06:36):
It's almost better thateverything collapsed and they
were down to these bare bones,because really that backdrop was
way better.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
Gave me a headache and I'm like and this was in
black and white, I can't imagineif it was in color.
Oh my God, there's too busyback there.
Stop Too much.
Too much America in thebackground.
Tone it down, yeah.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Now, this will be the first documentary podcast for
us Brave new world.
You can do a lot withindependent films.
They can really push anenvelope that cannot always be
pushed by studios or otheragencies and those people who do
not want certain envelopes tobe pushed.
So you know, one of the greatthings about independent
(07:18):
documentaries, you know, is thatas long as they do their level
set best they should be able topresent both sides and one of
the topics we had wanted todiscuss was the difference
between documentary andpropaganda.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Right, because sometimes the way to digest it
is to disguise it, to dress itup as a documentary, right?
So it's like propaganda is nodocumentary in sheep's clothing.
Yeah, no, that doesn't.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
We're gonna give you tons, tons of facts, but the
facts that you are getting arevery much skewed in a singular
direction that the editor or thedirector, or whomever it might
be right everything has,everything, has influence right,
everybody has a perspective.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Everybody has a way they see the world right, and
when somebody has a very uniqueperspective or a very dramatic
perspective and they make thattheir film, well, that's going
to get butts in seats becausepeople are like, whoa, this is
something I never saw.
The is that line where you'relike are we sliding one way or
(08:30):
another way too much, that we'renot representing everyone.
I know Michael Moore has gottenmany critics saying that his
films are propaganda, although,um, very entertaining, yeah, and
informative, and also I do inmy my, my, uh, my meter scale or
how I judge propaganda.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
It's like oh, but you made fun of everybody, so I
can't see who we're cheering forand and, honestly, that is one
of the key factors.
Again, you know, uh, I knowjust from q a's that we've done
at the festival, uh, over many,many seasons at this point, that
there's points where you knowyou find out how much footage
(09:13):
has been collected for adocumentary and it it amazes me
the number of times thatdocumentarians go into a
particular film thinking that,hey, I'm gonna like go follow
this group of people or this x,y or z story.
This is the story and this iswhat's out and, oh yeah, by the
time they actually see all thefootage, the story has changed
(09:33):
as to what they thought theywere collecting and what.
What the narrative is thatthey're going to not narrative,
because it's a documentaryregardless, it's yeah, the
narrative, yes of the story, yes, right, and I mean everything's
an ongoing narrative.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
You have to craft a beginning, middle and end, for
it to be a film yeah otherwiseit's just somebody you know,
videoed your whole life.
Yes, correct, and at some pointthere you go.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
but at some point, you know, once the the story has
kind of revealed itself to I, Ithink, the filmmaker.
It is a documentarian's job totry to hunt down the opposing,
hunt down the antithesis to thestory that they are finding, to
see if they can reflect that.
Now, at the same time,depending on where you're headed
(10:20):
, you could get stonewalled bythe people who don't want to
tell the other side of thatstory and at that point that's
not necessarily thedocumentarians fault, especially
if they actually put in youknow cards at the end that say
this you know particular personwas unavailable for comment
approached X number of times andnever you know wanted to speak
(10:42):
in front of it.
We got like this person and likethat is at least an approach
towards the documentary versuspropaganda.
But again, it's a fine line totread.
Speaker 4 (10:53):
Right, and then you have like, as a viewer, you
would have to then go have tofact check.
Here's another one.
When you talk about documentarypropaganda, we usually think
political, right, right.
There are some shows ontelevision that I posit to you.
They're the ones that are likethe UFO ones and the conspiracy.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
On the History Channel?
Speaker 4 (11:13):
Yeah, the 10 Secrets on the Hitler Channel.
Everything goes back to Hitler,even in Rome.
They somehow link it.
There are a lot of these showswhere you're like I see the same
person being interviewed.
Is this what you do for aliving?
Speaker 3 (11:29):
you just go on these and be like, okay, so I'm going
to talk about this I feel likethis shouldn't be a
controversial thing to say, butI feel like a true documentary
filmmaker is, is like is ajournalist and that is trying to
capture a story and get bothsides and should welcome and not
(11:49):
challenge the side that theypersonally disagree with.
Instead, be very thoughtful inasking the right questions and
then be able to look at themside by side.
Speaker 4 (11:59):
That is exactly a neutral position.
Shows both sides, but then letsthe viewer make up their own
mind.
So that then links us to debate.
Debate in its concept, the ideathat we get up and we go okay,
here are our opposing views onhow we feel we can best serve
(12:20):
whatever we're debating, andthen the audience gets to go.
Oh well, you have a good ideaand you make a good point, but I
agree with this person versusthat person, yada, yada.
But here, especially in thisfilm, it lives up to the blood
sport reputation.
It is mudslinging at its finest.
(12:40):
It's not about saying what youbelieve in, it's just tearing
the other person down and makingthem look like a fool and you
looking super cool.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Yeah, I 1000% agree, you know.
I mean, I think the big thingabout good filmmaking is
challenging the viewer'sparadigm.
A paradigm is only as good oronly as strong as when it has
been challenged.
Good debate should challengesomebody's paradigm.
(13:08):
These two gentlemen were meantto help Americans determine
which direction the nationshould head.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
And they're very smart, these two gentlemen who
are just insulting each otherlike outright, and yet the way
they react to each other, thesmiles and the comebacks, it's
almost like they've just takenout their gloves and they're
just like smack on each other.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
I think that has a lot to do with their
understanding of TV ahead ofmost other people.
It would be interesting to knowif it was a radio broadcast, if
it would be the same, becausethey know they were on camera
and so you can see in their facehow upset they are, and yet
they're doing it with a grin.
(13:53):
It's like the more upset theyare, the bigger the smile is.
They're trying to compensatefor how angry they are, and this
this is like uh, I thought inmy head naively.
Speaker 4 (14:05):
The debate was like more of an honest representation
of like here are my beliefs,here are my bullet points.
Speaker 2 (14:11):
Oh, sure, yeah.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
And then you know and this is how I would address
what's going on, or this is whoI you know, if we're talking
about this convention, here arethe things that I would talk
about Right, but they don't out.
Right, but they don't, theyjust just sling mud at each
other and they each represent anentire side, which is silly
because they are so much alike.
And the documentary does areally good job at at showing
(14:36):
that the way they wrote, likethe way they grew up, the way
they were raised where they wentto school and they're.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
I'm assuming it was like their memoirs, their
writing about how they reactedto certain things, like how they
almost realized, in a way, howsimilar they were on opposing
ends.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
And they disliked each other more for it.
Yes, but then there's likeself-love, Like I think there's
that other point is they are.
These are two men who lovethemselves a lot.
Well yeah, almost like how.
How, how much of this hatred isa mutual attraction?
Speaker 1 (15:16):
We're going to take a few minutes to fill our glasses
and get ready to do them bymore after this.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
The blue whiskey independent film Festival
exhibits short andfeature-length motion pictures
that utilize story elements in anew and exciting way.
Our official selections are acarefully assembled blend of
imaginative, sophisticated andfull-bodied stories.
This is what our namerepresents, with.
(15:45):
Audiences expect to experiencecharacter-driven, independent
cinema that is fueled by thefilmmakers' passion for the art
of visual storytelling.
Filmmakers can expect anintimate festival experience
where their personal story isvalued as much as the one
projected on the big screen.
Speaker 1 (16:15):
We were discussing the beginning of the end being,
you know, this convention.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
Or people just trusting their news source to be
the same information comingfrom any news source Correct,
because that's a news source.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
And that was the Fairness Doctrine.
It was a doctrine that mandatedbroadcast networks devote time
to contrasting views of issuesof public importance, and it was
there from 1954.
And by 1970s, the FCC calledthe doctrine the single most
important requirement ofoperation in the public interest
(16:54):
, and so, in 1985, the Reaganadministration got rid of it,
thought everybody didn't need tobe told to behave properly.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
They just should, because they're gonna and
nobody's gonna abuse that andand.
Speaker 1 (17:10):
Without that doctrine in place, we really see, I
think, the fracturing that isthe current media yeah, okay.
Speaker 4 (17:19):
So now we're going back to debate and how I've been
trying to find a way to say howit's not fair and how it's just
back and forth mudslinging.
It is not in good faith.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (17:35):
Right, we're not trying to understand each other,
we're not trying to change eachother's minds.
We're trying to eviscerate oneanother.
And while that can beentertaining to watch, what good
does it do?
Right?
And especially when it's likejust rehashed and repackaged
over and over and over againyeah, what does that give anyone
?
Speaker 1 (17:55):
Here goes to my original statement of good
debate.
Should all make you challengeyour paradigm.
Make you challenge yourparadigm, and a challenged
paradigm is either strengthenedby you know, your resolve and
(18:17):
the fact that you, you know,even once challenged the facts
don't make you change, or you dochange your paradigm.
The problem that we areencountering now is that
people's silos are not activelychallenging their paradigm.
They are meant to enforce yourparadigm on flimsy sand.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Right, well, and then you've got the algorithm just
telling you what you want tohear.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
The bubble is telling you exactly what you have
already believed.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
The example that pops into my head when you say that
this is where my brain goes.
Follow me on this journey.
Murder is wrong, Dexter.
Well, I guess in somecircumstances.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
I mean if he's murdering murderers.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Right, like that's where my brain goes.
This is like challenging myparadigm Okay.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
Dexter's practically law and order right.
Speaker 4 (19:09):
Without the doink, doink yeah doink doink.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
In the criminal justice system there's one group
of person.
He is a murderer of murderersand that's what makes him okay.
Doink doink, it's a differentjoke, I don't know the theme.
Do, do, do, do, do, do.
Anyways, it's a different joke,I don't know.
(19:35):
Yes, different points of view.
So before the break we had beendiscussing debate in general
and now we're kind of trying toget into that debate versus oh,
versus theatrics or theatrics orso at the very end of this film
.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Uh, and if you haven't seen it, please see, see
it.
And if you, if you see it,watch all the way to the end.
Speaker 2 (19:48):
For my favorite part which is very in the credits.
Speaker 4 (19:52):
During the credits.
Speaker 3 (19:53):
This is a good reminder right.
Just to say, because if youdon't read our show notes before
you listen to the episode, wewill ruin things.
So make sure you imbiberesponsibly and watch the film
before you listen.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
And when Trisha mentions this is her favorite
part of the film and wementioned that it is in the
credits don't think that we'rejust saying that her favorite
part is the end of the film,Just throwing that out there.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
It's a very intense film, it's fascinating, like I
said earlier Time, capsule 1968.
But what gets at the very end?
You have comedy legend,journalist extraordinaire,
america's most trusted newssource, jon Stewart, and he says
I thought you were going to sayJeremy Irons.
Speaker 3 (20:38):
Yes, comic legend Jeremy Irons, you know my work.
Speaker 4 (20:43):
It's a clip from something where he's talking
about people debating and hesays, yes, debate is great, but
that's not what you guys do.
This is theater, and that isthe note.
That's like the nail on thehead is this is all theater and
earlier you had talked about andwhen I say you audience, I'm
talking to Michael you hadtalked about how, if, what, if
(21:04):
this was radio, right, if thesedebates had been on radio, and
how the difference is how theyknew they were on television.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
And you can tell.
Speaker 4 (21:12):
So way back, follow me 1960.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
OK.
Speaker 4 (21:17):
When we have the first televised presidential
debate.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
Between Nixon and Kennedy.
Oh yeah, said Kennedy won thatdebate.
And then they talk about howNixon lost that election, how a
lot of it.
They blamed the televisionbecause he wasn't as photogenic
as his opponent.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Well, he refused to wear makeup too, right?
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Yes, which, again in that televised debate, is what
actually killed him and made himlook dark, because he's
sweating Right.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
It's because he's not buying into the theater, right.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
Right.
Speaker 4 (22:06):
And I'm not saying this is pro or anti yes, yep, of
how much the camera doesinfluence people without
anything coming out of yourmouth.
Right, just what they're seeing,and in this movie, if
everything's on mute Right Inthis movie especially, they can
(22:29):
jab at each other.
They have these back and forthwhere they say very smart, awful
things.
But they say these awful thingsto each other and they smile
and you can tell that it's likenobody's losing their cool over
it.
And what gets everybody in theend is somebody loses their shit
on camera and says things thatthey should not be saying on
(22:51):
camera because they forget inthe heat of the moment.
Buckley gets pissed and he saysstuff and then it's like, well,
that's the the moment he lost,which then just reminds me of my
grandpa and john's father, whoevidently loved to play.
Let's get which is we argue andI'm not picking a side that I
believe is right, I'm justarguing until you get angry,
then I win, and that's that'show we play and which is
(23:16):
unhealthy.
Thank, you.
But at the same time we use ourpowers for good Do we, they have
a podcast now.
Yes, but yeah and then.
And somebody who I thinkembodies that approach to debate
is Stephen Colbert, from whenhe had the Colbert report.
Yes bear rapport where it waslike he does his homework, which
(23:42):
is what vidal did in the firstset, and buckley caught up when
he realized right how behind hewas, just because he typically
doesn't evidently do thehomework and he needed to.
He needed to step up because hewas on his opponent.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yeah well, I'd actually, I'd actually say
counterpoint to that in thesheer fact that, uh, at least
based on what I was yep, kind ofoh, why did I throw?
that jane you ignorant slutthank you well played um, one of
the things that they talkedabout about buckley jr was the
fact that on his show heessentially acted like colbert.
(24:15):
He would call in leftisttalking point people and just
essentially make them look thefools.
And when he was approached byABC, abc asked who would you not
want to?
And his response was um yeahthere was like something like uh
, like an actual, like socialistor something like that A
(24:36):
communist a full out communistor Gore Vidal.
And so they're like cool, GoreVidal it is.
It seemed like he wasn't doinghis research on Gore Vidal in
that first episode.
He was ready to talk about theconvention.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
He was ill-prepared for where the topic went, not
what the attack plan right, butI also think he probably isn't
used to uh somebody who was onhis level.
Oh no, he was definitely notused to being able to phone it
in and and just do circlesaround people, correct he's
ready to dance, met somebody whowas ready to wasn't even like
(25:17):
wasn't going to play fair at allfrom the beginning, and I think
that's true.
I think Gort Vidal does notplay fair from the beginning.
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Not that it's the same thing, but it did make me
think of Colbert versus BillO'Reilly.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
Papa Bill.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
Yeah, he would meet people backstage and he's like a
lovely individual and he waslike this is not who you're
going to see, like I'm not thatperson, like this is, this is me
, so we're, this is why we'remeeting now, so I can talk to
you as me, but that's not who'son stage with you.
And people are like that'sfunny.
And then they get on stage likeoh God, he's right.
Speaker 3 (26:04):
No, that's not the same person.
Yeah, um, yeah, again theatrics, the theatrics of it.
Speaker 4 (26:09):
Yeah, right you know you're, you're performing and,
uh, conflict is definitely it.
It's more intriguing, it leadsmore intriguing than anything
else right now.
Okay, so if you were to take amovie that explores the power of
debate and speech andpersuasion, do you have a movie
off the top of your head?
I'm throwing you in front of abus because I can tell you.
(26:30):
The one that I immediatelythink of is Thank you for
Smoking.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Okay, yeah.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
And that is because they're lobbyists, right.
But again, it's all about afather and a son, and Aaron
Eckhart is explaining debate andhe talks about how.
It's not about proving that I'mright.
All I have to do is prove youwrong.
I win Yep, and he does it withice cream.
It's like chocolate versusvanilla and he just eviscerates
(26:59):
the kid.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
My brother was on the high school debate team.
One of the things about itbeing is each team is given the
topic.
One team, whether they believeit in their humble beings or
other, is given the pro, pro,and the other is given the the
(27:22):
con.
And like lawyers, yeah, likelawyer, and.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
And you are just meant to go and write out, right
, what your debate is back tothe team idea of it is like it
is, it's, it's who's going towin this battle of words.
And then we all kind of pick aside and, like in politics,
whether you agree with them ornot, there's somebody you
disagree with more and then youkind of find one side.
(27:49):
And I find that reallyinteresting in this documentary,
especially since these two menare very much alike and have
very different opinions onthings, but also they're two
middle-aged white men who havevery high education.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Affluent yes.
Speaker 4 (28:04):
And it's like you don't really represent everybody
.
Speaker 1 (28:08):
The vast majority of either constituency.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
The fact that, like Gore Vidal's sister,
Sister-in-law is Jackie O.
Speaker 3 (28:19):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (28:20):
And then they stopped speaking because of bobby
kennedy's yeah and and jackiegoing with bobby and saying you
know, if you're, if you're gonnabe a pompous, arrogant asshole,
um and uh, against bobby I'm,you know, know, we're done, and
again sister-in-law.
So.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Right, but like neither of these people are
likable, and yet they'refascinating, fascinating.
Right and then it's reallyinteresting because you kind of
see, because it was so long agoand you get to see this like
what happened to their livesafterwards.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Yep.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
And the people they become when they're older.
In fact fun fact, we weretalking about the folks that
made this film, morgan Nevilleand Robert Gordon Right.
And they actually did aninterview with Gore Vidal.
I say Gore, and then I'm likewait Vidal.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
Vidal.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
Because otherwise we think a different one.
Yeah, with Gore Vidal, and theydidn't include it, and I think
that's a really good thing notto, because I'm sure they didn't
interview Buckley because hewas dead, right.
Yeah, it's an unfairperspective, and also another
fun fact that I think you guysmight be excited by.
I read on the IMDB that AaronSorkin bought the rights to this
(29:40):
film and is now doing anarrative about these two guys.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
oh, yeah, I'm very excited about that, I know I you
know it's excited and terrifiedsee, and you know it's funny
that you said that, because youwere asking about films that are
great debates and I was like,well, I can think of the
newsroom.
But I was like, really,anything that Aaron Sorkin
writes is usually a really greatdebate, even when it's not even
(30:06):
political, like if you've everseen Molly's Game.
It's just, it's the way hewrites his dialogue.
Episodes of the West Wing areso fantastic because he welcomes
right viewpoints.
But anyway, I was starting tosearch, like, okay, what can I
find?
And a lot of them are courtroomfilms.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
Yeah right.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Which makes a lot of sense.
And there are a lot of reallygood ones the Trial of the
Chicago 7, which I think wasfantastic, my Cousin Vinny A Few
Good Men Social Network.
The Verdict 12 Angry Men ToKill a Mockingbird, philadelphia
.
Good Night and Good Luck.
Speaker 4 (30:43):
you mentioned yeah, and as I over break one thing
that I thought was fun, thatcame up in like the best debate
speeches in film was Clueless,Right, right and I was like but
they are entertaining and shedoes make valid points.
She does.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
It is such a smart movie really.
Speaker 4 (31:02):
For all our really educated listeners.
Not that you're not smart,You're smart.
You're so smart because you'relistening and we appreciate it.
Hey Mary, how's it going?
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Yeah, mary, can you double check.
Are there any other like reallygood debate.
Speaker 4 (31:16):
Yeah, Mary, you want to send us a comment.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
I mean you can send us a comment, you just need to
click that button and that willalso let us know whether or not
that button is working.
Anyways, let's poke the bear.
Oh my god, poking the bear.
Alright, so find out whatothers think of this film.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
First up we have Filmmaker Magazine and they say
I might be being oversensitive,but blandish docs like this one
shouldn't be given the benefitof the doubt.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
Blandish.
What does blandish mean?
Define blandish Right becauseI'm just thinking like food,
food, Like it's bland, like it'sboring Coax, someone with kind
words or flattery.
Huh, Well, I have not been.
I did not think that was theword.
I'm learning something new.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
I would neither find neither of the words that either
of the two gentlemen used to bekind.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
I don't think it's sugarcoating anything no.
Speaker 3 (32:20):
Slant Magazine says, by engaging celebrity worship
rather than using these figuresfor deeper claims about
media-dominated informationcultures, Morgan and Neville
reinforce circumstances theyoutwardly condemn.
Speaker 4 (32:39):
Ah, because they're using these guys as a form of
entertainment to prove thatentertaining people, uh, in this
way doesn't help anyone.
I find like they were justtalking a little in circles
there.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
I think that that's the the the point that they were
trying to make right is thatthe circular nature of it almost
like it's going to continue theproblem which I don't think
focusing on the problem, likeshowing what the problem is,
should be the first step inaddressing there is a problem.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Well, yeah.
Speaker 1 (33:12):
Again, acceptance.
They have a whole steps programand that is the first one.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
No, acceptance is not the first one, shh.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
We greatly appreciate all of our listeners for
choosing this podcast supportingindependent films and the Blue
Whiskey Independent FilmFestival.
I'm Jonathan Sealegg, andthanks for imbibing with us
Cheers.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.