too bad about johnny carson, 79 is pretty young. as far as talk show hosts go give me dick cavett or steve allen. but johnny had his place. on a good night the tonight show was as good as a bad the gong show. guests like buddy hackett, don rickles and monty rock the third could make for some fun tv party viewing. and those suits!
Mr. Carson "had a particular way of understanding what everyday people wanted when they watched television,"
I guess that’s what bothers me about Johnny. He’s being credited with perfecting the talk show format, but that was by way of diminution, as the show went from 90 to 60 minutes, and the interviews went from actual conversations to virtually 100% shill. It’s not all Johnny’s fault, but he was certainly on the job. Still, he was an adroit host, and maybe best as a topical humorist. He wasn’t a serious social critic, but he played a real role in the ebb and flow of people’s feelings about the passing scene. As a political humorist he was bland but effective; he had an old-school nonpartisan integrity that someone compared to Walter Cronkite, his contemporary. The free-associating Karnak bit could put a surprising spin on any topic, but a lot of the skits were pretty lame.
Allen was probably too big a personality himself to make a truly accommodating host, and Cavett’s PBS-grade intellectual approach was more than “what everyday people wanted” at the wilting hour. I think Letterman’s postmodern reconstitution of the format in the 1980s is noteworthy. Leno is effectively “more like” Carson, but Johnny had timing and times have changed.
i find leno unviewable. letterman started out as a good source for unconventional humor but took a nasty turn to the point of being unappealing. the rest, blech. now i just watch charlie rose, except when he has actors on.
ow. freakin' talk show format should be deep-sixed.
|
- bill 1-26-2005 2:13 am
Mr. Carson "had a particular way of understanding what everyday people wanted when they watched television,"
I guess that’s what bothers me about Johnny. He’s being credited with perfecting the talk show format, but that was by way of diminution, as the show went from 90 to 60 minutes, and the interviews went from actual conversations to virtually 100% shill. It’s not all Johnny’s fault, but he was certainly on the job. Still, he was an adroit host, and maybe best as a topical humorist. He wasn’t a serious social critic, but he played a real role in the ebb and flow of people’s feelings about the passing scene. As a political humorist he was bland but effective; he had an old-school nonpartisan integrity that someone compared to Walter Cronkite, his contemporary. The free-associating Karnak bit could put a surprising spin on any topic, but a lot of the skits were pretty lame.
Allen was probably too big a personality himself to make a truly accommodating host, and Cavett’s PBS-grade intellectual approach was more than “what everyday people wanted” at the wilting hour. I think Letterman’s postmodern reconstitution of the format in the 1980s is noteworthy. Leno is effectively “more like” Carson, but Johnny had timing and times have changed.
- alex 1-26-2005 6:26 am [add a comment]
i find leno unviewable. letterman started out as a good source for unconventional humor but took a nasty turn to the point of being unappealing. the rest, blech. now i just watch charlie rose, except when he has actors on.
- bill 1-26-2005 5:08 pm [add a comment]
ow. freakin' talk show format should be deep-sixed.
- sally mckay 1-27-2005 5:43 am [add a comment]