Dick Cavett Revisited

John Puccio

John Puccio is a communications consultant from New York, living in New Jersey, who self-identifies as a Floridian. He majored in History at Loyola University Maryland back when it was still just Loyola College. A lapsed stoic, John is a life-long New York Jets fan, which explains a lot.

Related Post Roulette

26 Responses

  1. Pinky says:

    Just watching Fallaci brought back how miserable an era that was. The mid-1960’s to early-1970’s dripped with lack of perspective masked as perspective. PJ O’Rourke once said that “seriousness is stupidity sent to college”. You’re right that it’s a time capsule, though. I’ve seen reruns of Johnny Carson where you think about some celebrities of the era, but this clip really brings back the feel of the era.

    I’m curious if you’ve watched any Tom Snyder recently.Report

    • John Puccio in reply to Pinky says:

      That’s interesting. I find the naivety you see in a lot of these conversations endearing. I don’t see that time anymore or less miserable than today, but I didn’t live through it as I was only born during it. There has never been a shortage of insufferable people, at least back then they were better read.

      I have not seen any Snyder recently. I do remember him, but probably more for Dan Aykroyd’s doing him on SNL than his show himself. Anything specific you recommend? Not sure I can do another deep dive into the 70s like I did via Cavett.Report

  2. Pinky says:

    Nothing in particular. I just think he was somewhat of a successor in terms of style, then followed by Charlie Rose, then a considerable gap then the long-form podcast. I figured you might enjoy.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Pinky says:

      By the way, I would have read the article with a different picture, but wow, that’s a picture.Report

      • John Puccio in reply to Pinky says:

        LOL. If you write something, and want people to read it, you could do a lot worse than promoting it with a photo of Raquel Welch at the peak of her powers.

        Earlier in the Welch-Joplin show I reference (but not in the Huntley clip) Cavett says to her “There you are… and when I say there you are. There’s no doubt about it either.”

        And that is the truth.Report

    • John Puccio in reply to Pinky says:

      I was a big fan of Rose. He was a far superior interviewer than Cavett. Funny you mention podcasts. I was going to draw a line to them in the piece but never got there.Report

      • Pinky in reply to John Puccio says:

        I remember joking that Charlie Rose was like, in 2004, “Famous Director, what inspires you to create a film like this?” In 2005, he was, “Geopolitical Expert, were there WMD’s?” In 2006, he was, “Famous Director, what do you think about WMD’s?”Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    I remember watching Dick Cavett’s show, along with Carson, Snyder, and some of the afternoon shows like Merv Griffin.

    What they had in common in that era was being network broadcasts trying to cope with the rapid cultural shifts in America.

    Their mandate was to somehow appeal to the broadest possible audience, which meant being relevant and topical. But the network censors had as their Default American Viewer, some middle aged woman in Iowa.
    And they had as their template (Cavett more than anyone), the educational talk shows developed in the 1950s where people would sit around smoking and quietly discussing the issues of the day in grownup language.

    Which accounts for all the bizarre lineups you noticed. The gatekeepers of culture like the New York Times, the three networks and radio were all trying to feel their way through the wild uneven landscape, but still maintaining their grip as gatekeepers.

    So like Cavett might interview some radical lesbian advocating free love, or someone on par with Anita Bryant, and remain ostensibly neutral while indicating with subtle cues as to the acceptable boundaries, as defined by him and his circle, and the network censors.Report

  4. LeeEsq says:

    I was born in late 1980, so only saw 70s TV in reruns but the 1970s seemed a strange time for American entertainment. The American public seemed more open to realistic working class sitcoms like All in the Family, Good Times, or Welcome Back Cotter. There were lots of variety shows on TV with different themes and serious talk show interviews.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

      A couple guys my age were talking about something about China in the 1800’s, and one of them said, “Oh, did they even have China back then? Wait, that’s right, Hop Sing was on Bonanza”.

      I know what he meant. In the black and white 1960s all the faces on TV were white middle Americans. Then, suddenly, around 1970, colored TV and colored people just sort of appeared out of nowhere.

      American Bandstand was followed by Soul Train, Mr. Ed was followed by The Jeffersons and Sanford and Son and Good Times.

      I can see how people just felt like America just transformed overnight. Look at San Francisco in Vertigo (1958) and Dirty Harry (1971).
      But we know now that this wasn’t true of course. Nonwhite and non Christian people existed in the same numbers before 1970 as after, and all the things that seemed new in 1970 like premarital sex, swinging, homosexuality, and radical leftist politics had always been around.

      Its just that the lens of American culture was now turned in a different direction and looking at things it never had before.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        I am not really sure about what color TV has to do with my observations on the weirdness of 70s television. Also, Americans of all races generally preferred their entertainment to be aspirational and affluent rather than gritty. The 70s seems to be a big gaping exception. Compare and contrast the movies made during the New Deal. Even ignoring race issues, most White Americans were suffering because of the Depression but still wanted to watch movies with mainly prosperous or even wealthy individuals rather than grit.Report

        • Greg In Ak in reply to LeeEsq says:

          Movies are too varied to fit into a neat box. There were gangster/ crime flix in the 30’s and Film Noir was a thing in the 40’s and 50’s. Lots of american entertainment was down or cynical even in up times. People want many things from entertainment, not just whatever is the Zeitgeist. But it wasn’t until the late 60’s/early 70’s that the actual diversity of america started to show up on tv/movies.

          Old 30’s fav of mine. I was a prisoner on a chain gang starring Paul Muni.

          Pendent point: Film Noir was not a movement at the time but a collection of styles that was later named. FTR yes i have had long discussions about what is Film Noir.Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to LeeEsq says:

          Im not disagreeing, just explaining how it looked for a lot of people.

          Color was part of the overall shift of culture, fashion, and music.

          if you look at say, Johnny Carson in 1965 versus 1975, it wasn’t just that the earlier show was broadcast in black and white, much of the world it presented WAS in black and white. His suits were charcoal gray or black, his shirts were white.

          The world that you saw on TV in the 70s was ablaze with colors, vivid Peter Max graphics on Laugh In, or the harvest gold and avocado of every sitcom living room, to the plaid and striped bell bottoms and silk shirt which would be parodied by Steve Martin and Dan Ackroyd in the 80s.

          For people who got most of their information about the world from their TV set( i.e., most people) the world just looked like it changed somehow.Report

          • Greg In Ak in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            We’ve been watching a couple old popular 70’s tv shows that. Quincy and Emergency. Both fun and good and weird given the times they were made. Both have minority characters often in important roles which was a big deal. Sure there is the occasional wow cringy moment to our eyes. But it was a big shift from most older tv.Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            I think was mainly due to the limitations of the technology. I’ve seen color photos of the set of the Addams Family TV show. It was let’s say really vivid.Report

  5. Saul Degraw says:

    I think the networks in the 1970s still felt a bit that it was their public responsibility to educate and enlighten public. Now a lot of these shows could be aired during times when very few people watched TV but the shows existed. Right before he died, the poet Frank O’Hara was subject to a lengthy profile on an arts show from one of the big three including him reading some of his poems. I can’t imagine that happening today. There was a time when Bravo tried to be an arts network, Discovery tried to be a science network, and the History channel tried to have some history (even if jokes about the Hitler Channel are over 20 years old at this point). All of that is gone. Bravo is now for gossip and trashy reality TV. Discovery and History have their own horrors.

    DC probably survived for as long as he did because of this public service component.

    I remember watching Dick Cavett interview Mick Jagger back stage at some concert and all Cavett wanted to talk about was Mick’s student days at the London School of Economics. Jagger had no idea how to react to this.Report

  6. I recall Cavett talking about the Rodale incident. When the man collapsed, Cavett, still miked, asked “Is there a doctor in the …” and was about to say “house”, but realized the cliche could be interpreted as a joke, and so switched to “… audience?”. Good presence of mind.Report