Evelyn Waugh Face To Face BBC Interview
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2012
- He was a novelist known for his quick and cruel wit, his wide-eyed opinions and his indifference about saying the shocking. So a BBC Home Service programme called Frankly Speaking in which Evelyn Waugh is quizzed by three abrasive questioners was never going to be a walk in the country. Today what was later described as the most ill-natured interview ever broadcast can be heard for the first time since 1953.
Waugh was being questioned by Charles Wilmot, Jack Davies and Stephen Black and the exchanges are, to say the least, "sparky", according to British Library sound archive curator Stephen Cleary. "It's three interviewers pitched against one subject and they don't get on terribly well." - Zábava
"No, you must allow the novelist's imagination to roam more freely than that," says Waugh, and smiles.
His manners are perfect. I see no problem whatsoever here.
Completely agree. I think Waugh was actually remarkably restrained given some of the daft questions he was subjected to.
Greatchef281 No, but he is witty or sarcastic ("I don't remember it"... being born!!)
I found him very tolerant.
Yes Waugh was absolutely fine. The interviewer was asking ridiculous questions and was robotic at best.
The people who actually did know him saw plenty of his bad manners, petulance and rudeness.
There is no animosity I can see in this interview. Waugh seems to answer politely every question and has patience with every interruption.
I completely agree. I was waiting for the difficult petulant interviewee that Joan Bakewell described and didn’t see it. The questioning is very odd though. A very high proportion of closed questions requiring only a one or two word answer - which is what they get. I have to say I warm to Waugh as I watch this.
@@angusmcintosh1857 I agree. There is almost no time to allow Waugh to take breath and continue with a thought. Any copper will tell you, if you wait and say nothing, the interviewed will fill up the space with further information.
So the BBC was lying to suit their own agenda - even back then. I thought Waugh was a top bloke.
The thing is that Mr Waugh irks the morbid class consciousness of journalists
you are correct; he wasn't a snob, he was surely a genius
a
Freeman was completely out of his depth in this interview and Waugh wipes the floor with him. Brilliant.
Auberon Waugh became just like his father ( in the way that Martin Amis has become just like his father Kingsley). I used to like Auberon Waugh's spoof Diary in the back of Private Eye.
Is it fair to say that Freeman's Face to Face interviews became best known for Gilbert Harding's tears when he talked about his loneliness?
The BBC brought back Face to Face with Jeremy Isaacs doing the interviewing. I seem to recall him interviewing Anthony Burgess, Alan Ginsberg and George Steiner, among others.
@@martydav9475 and the famous Tony Hancock interview that did him no good according to his brother.
Attempting to map one reality onto another and Waugh is NOT having it but can't directly point out how facile and idiotic and intrusive Freeman's low rent "Construct" really is. In spite of that Waugh comes across fairly well - odd how 'Butt hurt" Freeman and by extension the BBC was and seemed to be even in a later period ????
-
What do they say 'Never meet your heroes " and consequently some sort of boundary had to be set. Although I have to say the studio set up and harsh lighting and near interrogation style (almost pre-dating Magnus Magnusen on the spot "quiz show" / Master mind .) - doesn't really help or put the "Target" at ease.
How can someone in his right mind say that Waugh was egotistic or rude? I am absolutely repulsed by this idiots on BBC.
It's because he's not a lefty atheist - being a Christians is even more offensive than being a racist
Because off screen he was a racist, as well as an arrogant venomous old snob and anti-Semite?
@kelman727- if what you say is true, then, hey, sounds like he's ok!
kelman727 you knew him then? Or you are saying this according to reports from ... ? I'm always surprised when people spread the most vile things about somebody else, and their only source of knowledge of the truth of the charge is "oh I heard it somewhere". It's somewhat the tone of the whole interview.
kelman727 "As well as an arrogant venomous old snob and anti-Semite?" And? Takes nothing from his work, fantastic writer. How many writers were/are shameless racists, again? Better yet, how many Jewish writers/people in the arts are outrageously racist? Just look at US media, especially film, and the people who have always run it, from Louis B Meyer on. Look at the Sony Hack. Please take several seats.
I love this interview. I don’t understand why it’s deemed as ‘Ill-natured’
True. Waugh is clearly a bit shy, I think. And not at all bombastic or annoyingly effusive in the way he expresses himself. Comes across, actually, as pretty cool.
waugh is not rude at all.he is calm and smiling.why did the interviewer say he was being rude??
That's the only way he could be remembered. He couldn't shine Waugh's shoes.
I think it has more to do with different standards at the time. There were definitely some subtle jabs in Waugh’s responses. Compared to the sort of interviews you see today they’re nothing, but Waugh was not exactly friendly.
Also, many of the questions which seem harmless were loaded with imputations or may have been considered insensitive at the time.
There is a definite air of subtle antagonism.
@@emilchandran546 I cannot expect a more friendly manner in front of such questions :) ... Certainly I sense a lot of ironies and pride in the answers but still in a calm and mild way, which is, in fact, quite entertaining and enjoyable in my view. Perhaps this tension is partly the charm of this interview.
Compared to the general behavior of contempory times, Mr. Waugh is a flawless gentleman.
Not the case.
Most people interviewed at this time were polite and restrained. The '60s didn't start to 'swing' until a bit later.
@@bingola45
Well... he looked quite polite and restrained to me... more than I can say about the interviewer (in some instances)
The interviewer missed many chances with this genious sensitive man. Mr Waugh was trying hard to be humble. He was clearly amused by the interviewer's loaded questioning style. It was an interrogation and a waste of precious time with a brilliant individual.
This is not the interview as noted above, but it shows, in my opinion, Mr Waugh to be a very patient, decent man. It was a pleasure to watch his reactions to these questions. I feel I know him better now. Thank you.
@Brexit Monger Waugh was an indifferent father to his offspring. Waugh displayed acts of sadism once devouring 3 rare and rationed bananas in front of his children.The fruit was supposed to be treat for them alone .
@@beboplady1542 In his memoirs ("Will This Do?") Evelyn Waugh's eldest son Auberon takes a rather amused view of the banana outrage. Most of EW's children (I think Septimus was the exception) had very fond memories of him, especially Margaret, his favourite. So, hardly the 'sadistic' monster you depict.
@@beboplady1542 Not THREE bananas! You have no idea what sadism is.
@@beboplady1542 It was not that bananas were disappearing. They were coming back after the war. Soon there would be plenty for all. Waugh was merely exercising paterfamilial rights. This anecdote was told by Bron as a joke against adults who still moaned about cruel parents when they were kids.
I found Mr. Waugh charming and self effacing and very efficient in his answers. The long caveat that preceded the showing of the interview was not at all accurate in its depiction of the dialogue. People’s sensibilities are so fragile these days.
They were just jelly. They couldn't quite grasp the genius of Waugh, so they felt it imperative to reduce him to something rather banal they could critique and dissect. I would propose it happens quite regularly to those at the top of the intellectual heap, as it were.
Quite
The interviewer seemed unaware that Mr Waugh was a satirist.
i read "satanist"!....
@@golkeeper8517 ROFL. Well, he was a Catholic in England, which, as Anton Lavey pointed out in one of his flashes of insight, is the the equivalent of being a Satanist anywhere else.
Yes England is extremely anti-Catholic, it's the only prejudice that's politically correct.
Waugh was rather polite, really. This is especially true in light of his reputation of not taking fools gladly.
"No honest man can save(a lot of) money." So said Evelyn Waugh. He was a truth-teller and a great writer.
Waugh has it backward. It’s easy for an honest man to save wealth but very difficult for an honest man to acquire wealth. Nearly all wealth is ill-gotten.
Freeman was trying to rush, out-stage and even run down Waugh - Waugh was a perfect gentleman.
Waugh is delightful, and he has a winning smile!
This confirms both Waugh's reputation as a genius and Freeman's reputation as a hack.
The interview isn't listening, he is just rattling off prearranged questions that have nothing to do with what Waugh is saying. If Waugh isn't expansive with his answers, it is hardly his fault.
I understand what you are saying.. I do not know if you have been interviewed by the BBC or other media organisations before. I have. Sometimes the interviewer will tell you what questions they are going to ask you. This happened to me a couple of times with the BBC. In my case, they were telling me that there were people out there who had religious beliefs that might be troubled by what I had to say. There was nothing outrageous I was going to say, and I was prepared for this anyway. So, the questions in the Waugh interview could well have been prearranged. This could be at the behest of the producer, the interviewer, the interviewee; or, as you suggest, the interviewer could have been incompetent.
Just want to add to the rest of the people saying that the interviewer seems ruder than Waugh.
You know i think many in the BBc were envious of the real artists, they were hostile towards them!
@@Deliquescentinsight I think it’s the anti-Catholic bias.
Imagine if we had television in the 1880's and Oscar Wilde could be interviewed.
Yes, they could have televised his trial, which showed him to be not quite so clever as he thought.
@@australiainfelix7307 So you’ve seen the replay?
@@australiainfelix7307Just like Depp vs Heard 🤮
I agree with some of the posts here. Waugh was courteous enough and seemed willing at times to open up, but the style and tone of the interviewer (which at times resembled that of a public prosecutor) unfortunately did not allow for much to happen in this interview. A more skilled interviewer makes a relaxed atmosphere for his guest. But perhaps this was not this interviewer's intent. Pity.
I think the intent of the interviewer was EXACTLY TO GET A REACTION...failed at that
Freeman was one of the best interviewers ever. Also a gentleman and thoroughly decent sort. Everyone at the time of this show's run knew that he always asked probing, potentially awkward, questions. And, as he said himself, Waugh needed the cash.
I'm not surprised at the prosecutor-like tone, anti-Catholicism has been extremely popular in English culture for centuries.
It needed a Parkinson as interviewer.
@@blackmore4 Yes, this is the exact, prewritten speech you have given to several other posters. Are you a "Fanboy" as you inanely put it, of the interviewer, Mr. Freeman? You seem to spend a lot of time and energy writing about him.
Waugh has gone up massively in my estimation by smoking that cigar!😊🤣
Waugh's answers are brief, clipped and to-the-point, but they are in no way rude or demeaning. Whatever Freeman says in the inroduction, this is not a hostile interviewee, simply one who is answering accurately the questions he has been asked. I think the "legend" about this interview arises (a.) from nitwits confusing this interview with the completely different one to which Waugh was subjected by other inquisitors years before; and (b.) by another variety of nitwit who expects an interview to be an emotive tell-all dealing with all manner of intimate details which interviewees of Waugh's generation would have regarded (quite rightly) as quite irrelevant to the matter on hand.
Yes....and the opening questions are sort of stupid and irrelevant!
All true. The problem, which isn't necessarily his problem, is that he comes across as a tremendous nitiwit and utter bore, quite devoid of brains or substance, and that that's the same impression he manages to give with his books. There's nothing there.
I don't think you believe that for a second, no one with any understanding of, or even just a liking for, English literature ever could. Waugh is not a good interviewee, but he doesn't need to be. His books will still be read with pleasure for many, many years to come.
Agree!
Oh, well said, sir. I found Mr Waugh succinct, straightforward and at times charming. People have become so addicted to the through-the-mud mentality of gossip rags that they no longer understand what a polite, occasionally reserved individual is quite like - which, contrary to current pop culture expectations, every person has the right to be - and at which the British, particularly the well-educated, excel.
I heard no rudeness or irritability. He seemed very reasonable and scarcely contradicted the interviewer.
I completely agree with you. I wonder what someone would have thought of the interview had they not been forewarned by the saintly Joan Bakewell that his manner would be antagonistic and curt. I still dislike the man intensely but I think he came across quite sympathetically here.
ComposerInUK
I read his novels avidly; I can see why some people dislike him; he probably came across as aloof or arrogant. Perhaps these affectations were defensive due to his being a closet gay; like so many others, he felt forced to marry; we have to feel very sorry for their wives, yet few could stand up against the pressure: the alternative was banishment, alienation and imprisonment.
+Peter Gregory The man had 6 kids! He loved women and enjoyed the company of "pretty gals".
@@stevejones4235 Waugh's homosexual tendencies and relationships are not even contested. Fairly common knowledge, really.
@@DG-mv6zw Waugh always talked very freely about his 'homosexual phase' at Oxford, his affairs with Richard Peres, Terence Greenidge and Hugh Lygon (one of the models for Sebastian Flyte). He seems to have had no particular complex about it, many of his close friends like Harold Acton and John Sutro were flamboyantly gay, one of the most important influences on his early work was the ultimate swooning aesthete Ronald Firbank. And then he married, the first time unhappily, the second time happily, with lots of children. The idea that just because you had sex with other boys because there was nothing else available at the time makes you gay for life is, if you'll forgive me, somewhat unwordly.
A little curt perhaps but certainly not rude as the introduction suggested. Waugh seems quick and to the point, what more could be wanted?
Jack Beazley I think that he’s trying to be polite here, but you can kind of see that Waugh does not want to be interviewed here (it’s just very hard to tell)...when you are bombarded with questions, it wouldn’t be too difficult to respond like the way Waugh does here.
He comes across pleasantly enough. The interviewer isn't antagonistic, but he asks far too many questions that invite single-word responses.
"Are you ever rude to people-nuns, and priests, and people in your own faith, or is that a thing you reserve rather for outsiders?" And they accused Waugh of being prickly!
The interviewer represents , to quote Charles Ryder, the nascent world of Hooper.
After that introduction, you expect Waugh to be such a monster that he actually comes across as quite charming. I especially liked this bit:
Freeman: What do you feel is your worst fault?
Waugh: Irritability.
Freeman: Irritability with your family? With strangers?
Waugh: Absolutely everything. Inanimate objects and people, animals, everything..
Of course he's irritable. Who wouldn't be? Having no money because of high English taxation, mentally tortured to believe the Bible pertains to him today, pressured in his upbringing to perpetuate Edwardian values and Christian servitude. Irritable? DAMN STRAIGHT.
@@josephrohland5604 I suppose you think he would be less irritable if he shared your modern views, contrary to the evidence you display.
Not at all.@@SBCBears
This is one of the most enjoyable literary interviews I've encountered. What a delight!
It was a thoroughly excellent series of the time (1960s)
Great that this old footage where writers and great thinkers were interview has become available for posterity. Thanks
This isn't an interview, it's an interrogation
Agree. The "interviewer" had absolutely zero panache.
Style of the time. Rapid fire questions where the interviewer immediately moves on to the next question as though the answer is scarcely worth further consideration
This was the style. Hard-core. Only intelligent, quick minded people of note would be interview subjects.
@@leighbennett1961 Is that true? I believe you I just didn't know that. When did it change to a more conversational style?
One of the worst interviewers I've seen
This was no interview, it was an interrogation!
Yes, I am thinking the same!
the interviewer clearly knew the guest was being disingenuous hence is quick style in an attempt to catch him off guard.
Waugh's terse answers failed on the whole to persuade the interviewer hence his relentlessness. Alas the emotional myopic selfie obsessed millennials can only comprehend in the way they were conditioned.
In their bespoke psychosis inducing echo chambered pens, reacting in a black and white binary logic mode of thinking, void of critical thought.
Bleat away oh psyop'd member of the bewildered herd, and suck on Hagel's teat!
Exactly! I actually felt sorry for Waugh during this interview. He was instigating Waugh not questioning him.
Rico Lanz are you one of Waugh’s hallucinations?
That was the idea. No PR, plugola or spin doctoring. No acolytes grooming the celebrity's image. Just the facts, ma'am, as Jack Webb would have said, elicited by a self-effacing interviewer. That is why 'Face to Face', 60 years after it was transmitted, remains the greatest programme of its kind.
"Are you ever rude to nuns and priests?" "Do you remember the twelve Fruits of the Holy Ghost?" What an idiotic interviewer. You have barely half an hour to interview one of the great novelists of your age and you decide to quiz him on the catechism?
The interviewer is so rude... "Why didn't you do well at Oxford?", "I was too busy enjoying myself I suppose", "HOW? WHY?!"
"Why didn't you do well at Oxford?" What an arse...
Rude or provocative? Waugh was a prickly one and very guarded in this interview...Freeman knew who he was dealing with and asked 'insightful and probing' questions which was expected of him. Perhaps there was Leftist bias on Freeman's part...a jab at the aristoratic world of the hedonistic upper class Waugh inhabited. Freeman was a former Labour MP.
Well, the whole idea of a live interview is the broadcasting company's fault for insisting on doing things as cheaply as possible. The best way to do it would be to tape it at a location chosen by the subject, then an expansive interview, where the subject is put at ease with segues from question to question. (This is how we did it back in the day of print journalism.) Then, the tape could be edited down to fit the format.
@John Salvage You don't have to talk like Keir Hardy to be a Labour MP, you know.
Some of them are quite educated!
@John Salvage In self-serving, like most politicians.
what a gentle , loving , charming , phenomenal artist/man !
Waugh seems perfectly fine. No animosity at all. He answers guardedly but that may have resulted from his previous bad experience with a BBC interview contributing to his nervous breakdown.
"No, I'm afraid if someone praises me, I think: 'Whar an arse;" and, if they abuse me, I think: 'what an arse.'"
@Brexit Monger John Lennon show respect?
Well, the interviewer abuse him so we know what he thinks about the interviewer.
I absolutely love the British Classics. All geniuses are a bit eccentric, because they put themselves through the mill to produce their brilliant works.
how did you get this SPECTACULAR interview - thank you so much for posting it , SUCH A WONDERFUL GIFT ! SUCH A BRILLIANT MAN , A HUMAN TREASURE !
I was amazed by the prejudice displayed by Bakewell, who usually confined herself to banality, and by Freeman's manner, which would have frozen beer.
he had less irritability than i would have considering the stupid questions that were being asked!
"You didn't get a very distinguished degree, did you?".
I'd have walked out.
Exactly. That and his asking about the size of his house. Good grief. What a disappointment in the BBC. And those sketches of him shown prior to the interview. I'd be in a sour mood, which he wasn't, if I was drawn that way too.
+Peter Gregory Hear, hear.
Clearly Felix Topolski aimed to incite Waugh with those brusque sketches
Painful even to watch.
Waugh played the game.
Waugh was a class act and a decent man. A man of integrity
Meaning?
Although a great writer I would question his 'decency'. Read the excellent book by his grandson. He was of course a terrible snob..
I don't understand what the fuss is about. Waugh doesn't strike me as rude at all - in fact his behavior is admirable considering the quality of questions, which ranged from banal to tendentious.
Absolutely agreed: Waugh being rude, or perhaps Bakewell and Freeman prejudiced against and condescending towards the author, perhaps because he was a Catholic convert? A conclusion not implausible, given the nature of so many of the questions and comments, or even Lord Nicholas Windsor's - Queen's cousin's and himself a Catholic convert's own fairly recent observation that ‘On the whole, I think people are reluctant to voice anti-Catholic prejudice per se, but it certainly exists in the form of horror at our moral positions, which are thought antediluvian and dangerous, at least by our friends at The Guardian,’ graciously and generously concluding that "people who do write angrily and sometimes scurrilously about the position they take, some of them are reasonable, and we have to engage with them." This is exactly what Waugh is doing here and he ends up being called 'curt,' 'antagonistic,' 'malicious,' and 'obstructive' for that! He certainly was not! Thanks to the poster of this interview, as it inspires a revision of one's learned perception of Waugh's character and attitude.
Thank You kaewonf8 and well put. I'm Surprised the interviewer didn't admit to that in the beginning. What else may he not be admitting?.
Fully agree with you all .......this analysis of his body language and gesture etc., Its a wonder Waugh didn't throw the ashtray at him.
I'm glad to see this in other comments likes yours. I, too, was puzzled to see this 'infamous' interview be more of a pestering by the questioner than any rude behavior by Waugh, of which I see none. Just goes to show you, never believe anything you're told in media. There's always an agenda of some sort. In this case, I think it was BBC making a mountain out of a mole hill. And in fact, the BBC who are the rude ones, not Waugh, who was merely fielding a barrage of quick, sporadic questions, many of which didn't segue into the next with any sense of fluidity. More like he was just checking off from a list.
One has to remember back then people weren't used to being interviewed on camera. It was quite a palaver too, large cameras, bright lights, loads of people behind the camera. Not easy to deal with when used to sitting in a Somerset mansion most of the time!
The Interviewer is trying to do a hatchet job on Evelyn, who simply dashes back at him like pottery with a scepter.
Well- we re all still reading Waugh. As for the interviewer - who cares!
The interviewer's tone and line of questioning was off-putting from the start, Waugh answered the questions directly and with good humor
The interviewer called Waugh's correction of his name when they met "rehearsed," yet Waugh said himself during the interview that he was hard of hearing. Sounds to me as though the interviewer might be a bit hard of listening.
Waugh seemed perfectly fine during the interview, not at all curt, or uptight, or trying to act bored. He certainly didn't give the interviewer a "rough ride." That ride was about as smooth as rides come. This seems to just be the BBC's effort to flog an old interview as something extraordinary, when in fact it was simply ordinary.
How could you interpret that as rude? He seems perfectly congenial.
Translation : he didn’t acknowledge my importance and so I thought him disagreeable.
Listen to this woman explain what we are going to see before we see it. The BBC has produced many, many fine TV shows and other programs, but there is also a strong strain of unimaginative mediocrity that already has formed its opinions on a variety of issues and people and no actual evidence will change this overall mindset. As I age, I increasingly see just what the Goons and Monty Pythons and other brilliant performers were up against and complaining about. Thank so so much for posting this!
Yeah. It's clear from the preamble and the line of questioning that they had certain quotes they wanted to extract from Waugh, certain phrases they knew would make great headlines. It was a pioneering technique here and it's come to dominate news and define our generation. The irony is that anyone who has the attention span to listen to the interview learns the opposite to what the 'clickbait' promises, while the intended audience who are too dumb to even watch the video fulfill their role by sharing the headline.
everything Evelyn Waugh touched said or did should be preserved in gold ! this man had an intense and all seeing eye !
I think Waugh was remarkably patient and forgiving of what seemed to me inept and irritating questioning and, contrary to what's said in the introduction, it's the interviewer, not him, who seems ill at ease. At one point he has to insist on being allowed to finish what he was saying. It might have been better to simply let him talk.
Waugh is charming. The interviewer has, I think, a fair bit of hostility to Waugh’s conversion to Catholicism - this was a viewed with curiosity at best, suspicion at worse, at the time. It shows how much the world has changed, that such things mattered back then. Waugh was a genius writer, such beautiful prose....Brideshead Revisited remains one of my favourite novels.
I think he's a most brilliant writer. As a youngster, I couldn't get enough of his work. Some would call him a fuddy duddy, they'd be quite wrong. He was great, and sensitive . Undoubtedly. Great man.
i agree, Miss Dream.
A great man indeed . I agree with the previous comments .He was at ease and answered every question honestly .He thought about every one no matter how trite they were .
literary genius then , now -and forever...his work speaks for itself. it should be read in hundreds of years -like all classic writers.
As a journalist, the approach of this interviewer (who, strangely, retrospectively said he held Waugh in high esteem) irritates, angers and perplexes me. He never attempts to develop a rapport with the interviewee, he never complements him or attempts to get him to elaborate on his answers. He seems more eager to get to the next question than to get Waugh waxing lyrical. He is almost barraging him with questions like a physical questionnaire. For a modern journalist like me, to see an interviewer make so little effort to disarm and charm his interviewee before rounding off with some piercing questions, makes me think he either did not appreciate the privilege of such an interview opportunity or was not clever or open-minded enough to approach this interview in a tactical manner. It is absurd that the interviewer says he felt bad that he could not turn Waugh around, when he appears to make no effort to relax Waugh into talking freely. I mean my word, these days interviews can be 'sparky' even when the interviewer is trying their best to get on with the interviewee, the interviewer in this regard should be grateful he didn't get a cup of hot coffee chucked in his face.
rerevisionist aha, that explains it. And Waugh's rejoinder at 26:00 mins "No honest man... "
Joe Wilkes , a complete barrage, and how humorless!
I can only think of him as a jew with an axe to grind 🤔
What a wonderful man. No doubt he was cranky in real life but this was hardly offensive. His bit at the end about getting on better with fellow Catholics is one I'd often felt and he articulates it perfectly.
"Squire-archic life". Even 40 years after-the-fact, in a black-and-white interview, Evelyn Waugh augments my vocabulary.
What a hostile, incompetent interviewer. I'm amazed at Waugh's self-control.
I completely agree with you. Freeman was obnoxious.
John Freeman was
Trying to find the truth
He was greatly experienced interviewer
You are both wrong
John Freeman respected Evelyn Waugh please do
Your Home work on
Mr. Freeman
and you will understand that your
Comments are wrong
A fatuous comment. Waugh had a lot to hide and was an appalling person. Read some proper biographies before making a fool of yourself on the World Wide Web.
This interview could be pasted into a courtroom drama and fit in perfectly. The interviewer seems to be cross-examining him. Firing questions one after another. I love Waugh's books. And he shows here that he is a patient person, with a lousy interviewer, and a quick thinker who can answer the questions thrown at him quickly. But why shoot the questions at him so quickly? It seems kind of rude. What a lousy interviewer! I thought BBC was a little better than this.
DainBramaged00 I agree with your comment. Let's assume, and I'm not doing so btw. that Waugh was indeed "nervous", "defensive", displaying an "underlying malice", the silly (and I dare say profoundly arrogant) BBC woman never once asks herself why. They'll probably explain it with their usual Freudian psychobabble nonsense.
+DainBramaged00 Look the interviewer may seem completely dead pan but that is because he had to be with Waugh. Waugh was well known for being completely hateful and hermetic about everything and pretending that he lived among the gods because he appreciated the aesthetics of things. As a man Waugh was not terribly up to scratch with values. Any questions about his art would have been answered with a who cares they are all this and that sort of thing. Questions about his background was common to the point in those days especially when he passed himself off as perhaps far grander than he was. These questions as well were evaded. The fact is Waugh was writing about a world he simply learned second hand. He had no adult partnerships with any aristocratic woman ( or man) that resulted in anything more than a look in. He wrote it all well and nailed a lot of ism's but in his books there is a certain nihilistic attitude an extreme form of skepticism that screams more of the middle classes than the upper classes. The upper classes were and are for the most part deeply occult people and the supernatural is certainly something they know very well. The negative aspects of skepticism are certainly more a middle class British trait. Nothing is good enough. The upper classes were far too busy ignoring everything( an often everyone including their families) and living in their passions to care. Waugh here is very "fuck it all! I hate everything! " even covered in his chubby smiles.. which were all a front. The interviewer was well aware of this cherubic and devilish stance and this is WHY it looks like a courtroom tone. It is all Waugh would probably respond to as he was playing one elaborate game with his world. He drank too much was well known to be tortured sexually and a very self loathing person to an extreme. He looks and take this to extremely bloated here. But the books are all winners. All of them are entertaining and very well written and imaginative. At times even a documentary of the 1920-40's. Not completely realistic of course but very interesting.
With regard to Waugh not having "partnerships" with aristocrats - have look at his wife's background...
This is more of a police investigation than an interview!
What a refreshingly open,honest and smart man was Waugh. Opposite to the intro it was freeman who was up tight, and he had an obvious agenda, which was unsuccessful
I think they do Evelyn Waugh an injustice he seemed perfectly well mannered and not at all hostile to me.
The interviewer is stupid and cruel. Waugh's responses are either perfectly reasonable or generous and magnanimous, considering that his personal life is under fire in this way. An artist should be treated with friendliness and respect by those who wish to pry into his or her creative motives.
22:49 "well everyone thinks ill of the BBC" 😂
Waugh is awesome! Thank you so very much, give us more, could listen to the home boy talk for hours..he's honest something fierce and the way he can rattle off his words (wouldn't want to be too close though cause he seems to spit quite a bit), the man's a Shakespeare.
I love his work so much , it's such a shock to see he actually had flesh and blood - I've always thought him a divine spirit !
One has a half hour to speak with one of the 20th centuries great fiction writers. Let's bang on with rudimentary, biographic questions and not get into the creative depth of the work. Waugh is a perfect gentleman - by the end, when he implies that a line of questioning is that of an "ass", he's right . The interviewer could be conducting a character screening for a banking position.
Freeman is obviously hobbled from the start by the half hour format of the show. The apparent rudeness is actually a consequence of his admiration for Waugh and his need to ask all the prepared questions he hoped would elicit interesting revelations. Freeman seems to be constantly thinking throughout the interview: "I've only got half an hour!"
Wilmot is aggressive, insulting and discomposed; Waugh is evasive and detached, but only mischievously chiding. Waugh demurely controls the interview; his dramatic sensibility is far superior Wilmot's, and the interview becomes a scene from one of his books. Despite many opportunities, Wilmot never manages, or really attempts, to press Waugh hard; he barely follows up on Waugh's answers; he continually answers his own questions; he rushes a little madly from one question to the next. We end up with two complementary pictures: Waugh as styled by the BBC official picture, and the BBC as styled by Charles Ryder and his father. Not a conversation.
One detects an occasional shade of (understandable) irritation towards the end of the interview; otherwise, Waugh shows admirable self-control. His answers are brief and to the point. The failure to develop a conversation lies mainly with the interviewer, whose series of questions (which must have been prepared beforehand) has the rattling - and sometimes hostile - effect of rapid fire.
So much appreciate that there is a video of this interview.
Just reading off a list of questions is rather dull. Why are some interviewers so terrified of pauses or silence while a guest puts together some thoughts? Cavett let people sit and gather their thoughts and then we could listen to fascinating PARAGRAPHS of language from his guests (sometimes.)
Watching this a second time, I'm convinced the interviewer is targeting his being Christian and a Catholic in particular. What a shame and what a waste of an interview. Bad form, BBC. Very bad form. You should be ashamed of the way in which you treated this artist. He clearly admitted he agreed to come on because of poverty. He needed the money and honestly stated the fact. Not pretentious in the least, he fielded the barrage of antagonistic questions in a distinguished manner, understandably defensive. Who wouldn't be?
"Are you a snob?" I think that question could be asked of the interviewer instead of the other way around.
humbleradio I couldn't have said it better.The arrogance of these BBC types is mind-blowing
Yes, the cardboard cut out getting arrogant with flesh and blood, astounding.
Brilliant summary of the interview. Bakewell's introduction is also preposterous.
I Think there's a lot more to the mental breakdown .
Combination of writing his novels based on what he had experienced and seen ?. Sure in those days 1960s he wasn't going to reveal the sexual abuse that went on in those upper class establishment toff schools ? ..thank goodness he released the horror of those memories through his wonderfully hilarious books , without the sordid detail ! And leaving it to the readers imagination .
Note , his brother wrote something disparaging ? About sherbourne? School.
AND HE WAUGH JR WAS BLACK BALLED ?.
CAN'T HAVE THAT DEAR BOY .
WHAT WOULD THE CHURCH HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT THEN ? OH! NO!NO!NO!.
SO, I THINK BREXIT ! I SEE WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT WITH THE REBELLIOUS COMMENT ? I THINK ? OR WAS WAUGH , AS WITH MANY OF THAT GENERATION PERSONALLY BEATING HIMSELF UP ? OVER PAST SINS? LOOKING TO BE REDEEMED ?
What beautiful English !!! These were the days when people spoke with a wide vocabulary. Look what we've
lost...
Couldn't agree more.. Waugh was a master in the use of written and spoken English--we have indeed plummeted in that respect. Everything seems "awesome" nowadays so I blame the erosion of our language partly on the influence of mediocrity from across the Pond
👍☝️
Well-fenced. He, deceptively, gave very little away.
john freeman trying too hard and waugh brushing him off oh so effortlessly.
Brexit Monger he’s just pointing out the obvious.
Waugh comes across as a lovely, thoughtful man.
I couldn't agree more; as Mr. Freeman's recollection of Waugh showing nervousness, an affectation of indifference, etc. was not even remotely evident in the interview here. I thought Waugh showed remarkable patience for a not very skillfully conducted interview.
Joan Bakewell's preamble is baffling. Waugh seems perfectly fine to me, he does a better job at putting up with the chippy, snide questions of Freeman than most would.
The chair she's sitting on is amazing. "Where can I get one?", is what I'm thinking.
Waugh was right to suspect a trap. Freeman is clearly trying to ask questions that would confirm the view of Waugh as a middle-class man who affected upper class manner and attitudes.
Nothing like as bad as the introduction suggests. Waugh seems reasonably relaxed, clearly suffering physically from his chosen abuse of his body through drugs, alcohol and excessive unhealthy foods and the smoking, not overly nervous for someone unused to television.
So much has been made of Waugh's mien and demeanour in this interview. Might one opine that John Freeman is the problem if any exists - see Freeman's interview with Tony Hancock. I date Hancock's decline and fall ( Pace Waugh) from that Face to face- Waugh was a piece of work but he could write- Boy Could he write
Great interview...glad to have met the man.......
interviewer attacked him...Waugh I think one of the greatest of English writers.
Nice chap indeed. Would have been a pleasure paying him a visit for tea.
Waugh isn't ill-natured. The insensitive obtuse interviewer is interrogating him like a cop.
+Prancer1231 Why did Waugh agree to an interview if he didn't expect to be asked questions??
SelfReflective : He answered that question in this interview itself to which apparently you didn't pay attention.
@@SelfReflective For the money and for the publicity.
It is a bit too bad that Waugh didn't have more fun with the interview, but he does a very good job.
"We've both been hired to talk in this deliriously happy way ". Waugh is the master of the interview throughout. His ability to write perfect English sentences was matched by his ability to speak them. Mr Freeman was misled into believing that his expertise in the medium of television equipped him to joust with Waugh. Freeman was swatted away, like a mildly irritating housefly.
It's always been interesting to me that many other notable writers weren't equipped with an oratory of atleast similar level. Huxley being the most prominent example; a truly remarkably intelligent and gifted writer yet his speaking ability wouldn't cast that impression at all, atleast to the casual observer.
Brilliantly put, Sachi.
@@kekkles117 Right. Another example is Nabokov. There's one interview on YT, I think with French TV, he stipulated that all questions had to be delivered to him and agreed upon in advance. Nabokov then wrote down his answers and when filming began the interviewer sort of pretended to ask questions and Nabokov methodically read his answers.
Extremely charming and open man, I dont understand what malice was referred to at the intro, other than the very intrusive and almost rude questions being aimed at Mr Waugh.
What a rude, intrusive, obnoxious interviewer; Waugh is not rude, but gracious.
This interviewer sounds very much like an interrogator!
when inquisitiveness is interpreted for interrogation - the millennial mindset.
Trending amongst psyop'd millennials is having a doc turn your kok, n ballz into a slit with a klit !
I don't feel he was hostile in any way towards the interviewer, contrary to what was stated in the preface to this interview.
Waugh comported himself properly and with respect, sounds like the interviewer had an ax to grind or is perhaps to sensitive for the job.
what a weird introduction. waugh seemed not only amiable but downright jolly in this interview.
I didn't observe any moments in this half hour where Waugh was rude or upset. He seems to have handled himself very well, and appears absolutely honest and straightforward. The interviewer posed too many questions which implied Waugh had a hypocritical side and a number of character defects. Waugh lets it be known throughout that he is pretty defective, hence human. Waugh may have been leery that he was stepping into a potential lion's den, which he was. Not a very stimulating interview and not much humor in it. I get the sense throughout that Waugh was not enjoying life in the post-War Labourite paradise and that for all his earnings he could not afford as well as he would have liked.
Joseph Campagnolo b
What a treat. Far more civilized than "stories" of Waugh's behaviour had led me to expect. I never liked EW as a man, but always admired his brilliance as a writer. The printed PARIS REVIEW interview is highly recommended, by the way.