I watched this at the Adelaide Film Festival after the Chomsky doomsday doco was sold-out, and I was more than pleasantly surprised at this brilliant production; its incredible wit, resonance and poignancy.
I must admit I have not had the opportunity to read the works of Gore Vidal or William F. Buckley (though now I intend to) - prior to watching the film I was aware of Vidal by his reputation as the unabashed gladiator of sexual liberation in an otherwise fiercely conservative social landscape.
What surprised me most about the film (as all good films tend to do) is that my preconceptions of the how I would receive Vidal and Buckley during the debates and their personalities were almost turned on their head by the film's end.
In the backdrop to the intellectual combat in ABC's studios was one of America's most tumultuous periods; the height of the civil rights movement, violent protests in response to the unpopular occupation of Vietnam and of police state repression. It's disconcerting to see how political discourse, human rights and public institutions of the US have actually stagnated if not regressed since the 1960's. Consider the incendiary milieu that exists in the United States today and the #blacklivesmatter movement. For example, as were in 1968, race riots in Baltimore and evidence of flagrant police brutality in Chicago.
What I think "Best of Enemies" illuminates is how, no matter the weight of the intellect of both sides of the argument, pride and human nature will general ensure it devolves into the most primal and puerile name- calling. This is actually what most people want to see. Undoubtedly, Vidal and Buckley were both incredibly strong-willed men and while the production is selective is only focusing on the sledging, it signifies that it was exactly this dynamic that caused the ABC to commission these debates – visceral personal conflict.
The major thematic premise of the film illustrates that in the modern world of endless freedom of choice in technology – we have become more disparate. The inception of cable, the internet, social media and hand-held wireless devices have culminated in confined and specific interests and experiences. A world of distracted individuals bound by endless sources of entertainment. Political discourse, for instance, is seemingly ubiquitous but in reality drowned in a sea of radicalism, self-righteousness, triviality and populism. In Buckley and Vidal's era, it seems one at least had to be familiar with the opposing argument to counter it. In contemporary punditry it seems experts are well-versed in their own ideology while seemingly never having been exposed to any context or counter-argument.
On a personal level, the documentary seems to acknowledge that Vidal (in interviewing his biographer) was unable to extricate himself from the rivalry long after it seems Buckley had, even though Buckley remained tormented by his on-air explosion. This was interesting considering it was Buckley who shattered his reputation as the ice-cool velvet sledgehammer while Vidal was generally considered victorious, so to speak, in the debates.
In fact, it was Buckley that struck me as the more moderate of the two polemicists, perhaps out of some humility later in his life where he could see the wreckage that had become of the conservative movement he had founded. Vidal's animosity towards Buckley is portrayed as intensifying in the latter stages of his life, which seems sad and almost irrational. Unexplored in this feature are the rumours that Buckley had threatened to disclose damaging information about Vidal's private life (the spectre of which has surfaced courtesy of Vidal's disenfranchised family members since his death). Vidal could either be construed as somewhat petulant or paranoid.
Nevertheless, the documentary itself is riveting and thought-provoking and charming with a sense of pathos.
I must admit I have not had the opportunity to read the works of Gore Vidal or William F. Buckley (though now I intend to) - prior to watching the film I was aware of Vidal by his reputation as the unabashed gladiator of sexual liberation in an otherwise fiercely conservative social landscape.
What surprised me most about the film (as all good films tend to do) is that my preconceptions of the how I would receive Vidal and Buckley during the debates and their personalities were almost turned on their head by the film's end.
In the backdrop to the intellectual combat in ABC's studios was one of America's most tumultuous periods; the height of the civil rights movement, violent protests in response to the unpopular occupation of Vietnam and of police state repression. It's disconcerting to see how political discourse, human rights and public institutions of the US have actually stagnated if not regressed since the 1960's. Consider the incendiary milieu that exists in the United States today and the #blacklivesmatter movement. For example, as were in 1968, race riots in Baltimore and evidence of flagrant police brutality in Chicago.
What I think "Best of Enemies" illuminates is how, no matter the weight of the intellect of both sides of the argument, pride and human nature will general ensure it devolves into the most primal and puerile name- calling. This is actually what most people want to see. Undoubtedly, Vidal and Buckley were both incredibly strong-willed men and while the production is selective is only focusing on the sledging, it signifies that it was exactly this dynamic that caused the ABC to commission these debates – visceral personal conflict.
The major thematic premise of the film illustrates that in the modern world of endless freedom of choice in technology – we have become more disparate. The inception of cable, the internet, social media and hand-held wireless devices have culminated in confined and specific interests and experiences. A world of distracted individuals bound by endless sources of entertainment. Political discourse, for instance, is seemingly ubiquitous but in reality drowned in a sea of radicalism, self-righteousness, triviality and populism. In Buckley and Vidal's era, it seems one at least had to be familiar with the opposing argument to counter it. In contemporary punditry it seems experts are well-versed in their own ideology while seemingly never having been exposed to any context or counter-argument.
On a personal level, the documentary seems to acknowledge that Vidal (in interviewing his biographer) was unable to extricate himself from the rivalry long after it seems Buckley had, even though Buckley remained tormented by his on-air explosion. This was interesting considering it was Buckley who shattered his reputation as the ice-cool velvet sledgehammer while Vidal was generally considered victorious, so to speak, in the debates.
In fact, it was Buckley that struck me as the more moderate of the two polemicists, perhaps out of some humility later in his life where he could see the wreckage that had become of the conservative movement he had founded. Vidal's animosity towards Buckley is portrayed as intensifying in the latter stages of his life, which seems sad and almost irrational. Unexplored in this feature are the rumours that Buckley had threatened to disclose damaging information about Vidal's private life (the spectre of which has surfaced courtesy of Vidal's disenfranchised family members since his death). Vidal could either be construed as somewhat petulant or paranoid.
Nevertheless, the documentary itself is riveting and thought-provoking and charming with a sense of pathos.