Cyclops and Producers and Riddlers, Oh My! Or: Waiting for the Past in the Golden Age

Have you ever had one of those days where you say, “Whoa! That Cyclopish guy from ‘O Brother, Where Art Thou; that guy from the Producers; and that guy who voiced The Riddler in Batman: The Animated Series are all doing Waiting for Godot on Broadway! *squeal*”

Oh… I’m the only one? OK, then.

Well, watching this interview, I felt I had good reason for squealing. Nathan Lane‘s passion and eloquence was awe-inspiring. John Goodman had a happy yet troubled air about him. Bill Irwin obviously knew what he was talking about and John Glover was profuse in his deserved complements toward the others. The group’s passion and awesome stage presence seemed to really click with each other and Charlie Rose.

It was interesting to watch because I had recently read a post on Dick Cavett’s NYT blog. In it, Cavett said how there can only be a couple of awesome conversationalists at a time. Then some of the comments lamented the downfall of the talk show, proclaiming its death by capitalism. They said people simply come on to advertise their products instead of actually discussing things.

You could argue the Godot cast was simply trying to get their product out into the limelight. If so, I don’t care. This interview certainly did not seem like a simple infomercial.

It definitely was not “ersatz celebrities… hawk[ing] their products and merchandise shamelessly,” as one commenter described modern-day talk shows on Cavett‘s blog.

Nor was it "droning on pointlessly about their latest promotion," as another chimed in.

They were discussing their passion. They were talking about the biggest thing in their lives at the moment and discussing how the play has impacted them from their childhoods to today. They spoke of Beckett. They spoke of the play's history. They spoke of their own trials and triumphs trying to come to terms with the play. Simple promotions don't do that. If you find one that does, please, show it to me so I can bask in its glory.

That interview was conversation: it was interesting people talking about the things they wished to talk about.

And it’s not a rarity, either. Craig Ferguson recently had a wonderful conversation with Wolfgang Puck about “the gayest of herbs,” Austria’s dominance of Germany (which I don’t believe has ever happened), and small… well… penises (even David Letterman’s… ewww…)

Craig alluded to Tom Snyder. Puck made a jab about “the governor’s fingers.”

It was, quite simply, witty conversation.

Then look at Stephen Colbert. He’s always having a satirical conversation of some sort or other.

How could we forget Bill Maher, who lambastes religion perhaps even more than Jonathan Miller? He regularly interview authors, directors, etc. (His shows are available on itunes, for those who want them.)

Do none of these conversations count as good conversations? Do none of these conversationalists count as good conversationalists? If so, then I don’t know the meaning of conversation.

Perhaps the talk show hosts of today are louder and more irreverent than the men who came before them. Perhaps they strive too hard for the laugh, and in doing so, forget good, insightful analysis of the way things are today (*cough* David Letterman talking about Senator Palin‘s daughter *cough*.)

The talk shows of yesterday weren’t perfect either, though. Tom Snyder had that horrible interview with Howard Stern, where the two mercilessly attacked each other.

The past always looks brighter than the present, and that is usually self-evident. Perhaps attacking nostalgia is an overly-simplistic thing to do. Perhaps its okay to sometimes reminisce about days of yore and get carried away.

But I truly feel we are in the golden age of the talk show. There are so many sharp hosts out there today. If there’s something wrong with modern-day talk shows, I’m inclined to say it’s that they are too good.

It’s a strange thing to say, but a couple of these guys in The White House or on Wall Street, and I would feel much better about America today.