Best of Enemies (2015) User Reviews

The erosion of TV debate

[stubbornpanda · 7/10 · 27 July 2015]

For anyone interested in how we arrived at todays angry confrontations and four way screaming matches on news programs - this documentary might be for you.

"Best of Enemies" covers the ten televised debates from 1968 between conservative William F Buckley Jr and liberal Gore Vidal. The debates,for all the wrong reasons, helped inspire TV networks to move towards the format of screamfests we now know. The focus being the act of conflict of opposing opinions, rather than substance. Today you can almost hear the producers scream at debating participants "energy people.. energy! And Go! "

The film homes in on the verbal confrontations of Buckley and Vidal. The arrogance and intellectual wit of both men combined with their serious character assassination attempts of each other is a spectacle. It is however, also the very distraction from the subjects they discuss and you can almost hear the future echos of a Jerry!.. Jerry!.. in the wings (be it a highbrow jerry springer chant). This is emphasized by the fact the debates are not shown in their entirety but instead edited to fit the documentary. Instead commentators in each corner of Buckley and Vidal provide the social and political context around the subjects. The film hereby focuses mainly on the confrontational segments. A deliberate choice of the documentarians, but it comes at the expense of the viewer missing the very important piece to understanding why Buckley and Vidal were the debating heavyweights of their time - detailed positioning of argument!

The accompanying storyline is the struggle of ABC news and their bid for ratings. It does detract from the debates but provides more media history context.

The film can be seen as an introduction to Vidal and Buckley but will not provide a thorough insight to either of these two political warriors. Mainly The documentary shines a light on the subject of TV debate and where the erosion of TV journalism might have started.

With the recent loss of Christopher Hitchens and an ageing Noam Chomsky,it seems that the times of fearless intellectual exchanges between debating parties is over. Gutsy political commentary, social criticism and satirical wit appear to no longer be coming from intellectuals but comedians. Once Bill Hicks and George Carlin. Now Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. But even they cant live forever. Who will replace…

Gore Vidal was asked as one of the last living legends of the literary scene why no one seemed to be taking on the mantle of work and standard of writing of him and his peers. Vidal replied "Because no one took on the mantle of reader". Maybe we also didn't take on the mantle of viewer.

Brilliant.

[JoshuaDysart · 9/10 · 14 August 2015]

"Best of Enemies" is incredibly effective at achieving multiple thematic ends without coming off as dense. Here's a few of things it managed to touch on.

It's a sound, but passive, attack on the current state of our discourse, giving us a history lesson on the genesis moment of television punditry.

It's a fascinating look inside network news in the time of American political convention "gavel- to-gavel" coverage. The last time that ever happened.

It's an exploration of how TV changes us, or at the very least, reveals us to ourselves, both as people who long to sit in front of its cameras, and as a nation who watches its images.

It's about how the two sides of the late 60's culture war found their primetime voices.

It's about class, and how where we come, or how we where we wish we had come from, affects how and what we think.

It's about the personal journeys of the intellectuals at the center of it - gay-left leaning best selling counter-culture author Vidal and establishment defending policy-affecting conservative Buckley - and how their confrontation never really left the center stage of their own minds.

But most spectacularly, it's about how the issues of a turbulent period (our republic caught in an ongoing war of attrition, race riots in the streets, the all too familiar rhetoric of income and racial inequality at the center of the political debate) never really ended.

And it does all of those things with a sense of real legitimacy, never once feeling like it's assigning more importance to the story than it deserves. A perennial fault in the doc genre. But it's not just a good story. It's a good story told well.

The whole thing is brilliantly structured, wonderfully cut together, incredibly funny and tragic, and far-reaching in its ambition. It's political positioning is measured, either because of or in spite of it's co-director being affiliated with the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation.

It features great talking heads, including political historian Sam Tanenhaus (who I sorely miss as the New York Times Book Review editor) and avowed socialist/Marxist/anti-leftist/cultural contrarian Christopher Hitchens, who manages to bloviate even from beyond the grave.

This is one of my favorite documentaries of the year. A perfect double feature with last year's excellent, "Last Days in Vietnam". Catch it if it interests you. It didn't do as well at the box office as it should've.

"Confrontation of life styles"... dawn of a new TV era

[paul-allaer · 8/10 · 24 October 2015]

"Best of Enemies" (2015 release; 88 min.) is a documentary about the infamous 10 televised debates that took place during the 1968 Republican and Democratic Presidential Conventions (in Miami and Chicago, respectively), between conservative William Buckley Jr. and liberal Gore Vidal. As the documentary opens, Vidal is commentating about old pictures hanging up in his house and one of them is showing Buckley and Vidal at one of those debates. We then get some background as to who these 2 guys are, and why ABC veered away to bring the "unconventional Convention" coverage. And then we get to the first debate... To tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this documentary is co-directed by Morgan "20 Feet From Stardom" Neville and Robert Gordon, who is affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. If you think that means the documentary is kinder to Buckley that to Vidal, think again. The two men are pitted against each other, and vehemently disdain each other, even before these debates, and much more so afterwards. "It was a confrontation of life styles", as someone comments. Yes, it was, but as it turns out, these debates had another unexpected consequence: ABC's ratings went through the roof, and the other mainstream networks quickly realized they had to have their own versions of these "point-counterpoint" programs. In other words, the Buckley-Vidal debates set into motion what would eventually become the Fox's and MSNBC's news channels. Apart from the historical legacy created by these debates, the documentary also examines the long shadows cast be the debates over the personal lives of both Vidal and (even more so) Buckley. If you have any interest in politics and/or in TV history, you will not want to miss this documentary. It makes for completing viewing, period.

"Best of Enemies" made quite a splash at the Sundance film festival earlier this year. The movie's been out for months and I didn't think it would reach theaters here in Cincinnati, but then out of the blue t showed up this weekend at my local art-house theater here. I figured this would not be playing very long and went to see it right away, The matinée screening where I saw this at turned into a private screening, as in: I literally was the only person in the theater. A shame, as this is a riveting documentary. If you get the chance to see this, be it in the theater, on VOD or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, do not mist it! "BEst of Enemies" is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

Vastly entertaining documentary chronicling 1968 Buckley-Vidal televised debates proves much more tragic than amusing

[Turfseer · 9/10 · 11 February 2016]

Co-directed by Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville, Best of Enemies chronicles the series of televised debates during the 1968 Republican and Democratic National Conventions, between conservative and liberal pundits, William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal.

Television convention coverage was usually a staid affair, but Buckley and Vidal set the tone for years to come by going "mano a mano"— perhaps the first time commentators of such different political persuasions presented such stark differences of opinion in a remarkably entertaining fashion. Indeed, ABC, considered the "poor man's network" at the time (in contrast to powerhouses CBS and NBC), garnered such favorable ratings, that we're informed by Gordon and Neville that television was "never the same" after the broadcast of these imbroglios.

Buckley, fairly well-known for his Firing Line show on PBS and Vidal, the noted author of various biographical novels of notable American politicians as well as other historical figures, both shared elite prep school backgrounds as well as being masters of the English language. One is struck however, by the true lack of substance as they grapple with the political issues of the day. Instead, each engages in a game of one-upmanship, trading cutting insults in order to humiliate one another.

The debate finally takes an ugly turn when Vidal manages to push Buckley's buttons—calling him a crypto-Nazi and praising the protesters who waved the Vietcong flag and cursed the police outside the Democratic National Convention. Buckley, usually proud of his self-control, suddenly loses it and calls Vidal a "queer" and threatens to punch him in the face. While Vidal argues that the protesters had a perfect right to "free speech," Buckley regards their actions as the deepest betrayal to their country.

The documentarians supplement the footage of the actual debate with newsroom out takes along with commentary from supporters and detractors of the two men including Christopher Hitchens, Dick Cavett and James Wolcott.

Buckley is seen much later in life being interviewed, indicating that he was tired of life in general and "ready to die." While being interviewed by Ted Koppel, Buckley is stunned as he watches footage from the debates where he calls Vidal a "queer." After the footage is shown, he remarks to a friend that he thought that segment had been destroyed long ago. And Vidal appears equally obsessed with the debates, poring over them repeatedly at his Italian villa, much like an obsessed Norma Desmond watching her old silent pictures in "Sunset Boulevard."

While Best of Enemies proves to be vastly entertaining, it's also a cautionary tale about two extremely gifted men who forgot to embrace humor to soften the vitriol between them. In that respect, their ultimate clash on television, should be seen much more in the context of tragedy than mere entertainment or what some others may label as a comic interlude.

Fascinating viewing

[valleyjohn · 8/10 · 17 December 2015]

Best of Enemies is a fascinating documentary film about a series of nationally televised debates in 1968 between two public intellectuals, the liberal Gore Vidal and the conservative William F. Buckley Jr. If that doesn't sound very interesting you couldn't be more wrong. This is a film about two men who absolutely hated each other. Two extremely clever men who fought each other live on television by debating with each that eventually led to personal insults being thrown at each other and it's mesmerising viewing. I have to admit I had never heard of these men before and that's probably because these debates happened a couple of months before I was born but I do know now and I feel much better off for it.

That was a time that lingers until today

[jakob13 · 7/10 · 2 August 2015]

The legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr. is not necessarily his 'National Review'; it isn't his devotion to the Buckley pere's hatred of FDR's New Deal, an act deemed a patrician's treachery to his class; it is the implosion of what his brother Reid concretes him as a revolutionary who ushered in the conservative revolution that we see in the impossible array of 17 candidates for the 2016 Republican nomination for the American presidency and the rise of Donald Trump. But, in 'Best of Enemies' trans-political make over is a glint in Buckley's eye as he faced the talented Gore Vidal as they 'commented' on the 1968 Republican convention in Miami and then the Democratic convention in Daley's Chicago. Who has read Buckley's apologia pro sua vita as spy for the FBI 'God and Man at Yale' today? Brilliant, effete, an amateur of the harpsicord,a seasoned sailor, he thought of himself the American heir to the little read GK Chesterton, in his affected speech. He could demolish in high disdain the arguments of his guests on 'Firing Line', guests like Norman Mailer, Allan Ginsberg and the like. Buckley was a man of the right--God, Country, Law and Order, who fought those critics of his values not necessarily in the name of freedom and humanity but in defense of older medieval values by attacking contemporary secular culture. And the embodiment of his distaste was the writer, playwright and commentator on things cultural and political Gore Vidal. ABC pitted these two 'aristocrats' of polished English as a wedge in the wall-to-wall coverage of the conventions by rivals CBS and NBC, at a time nightly television news was accepted more or less straight by the American people. From the get go, it was obvious that these two mavens of the Verb mutually loathed one another. Buckley shucking and sliding verbally, eyes popping, a supercilious grin on his lip as he flung mud at Vidal, not so much on what he said about the convention but for what he stood for. Remember, Gore Vidal had broken taboos for his 'Myra Breckenridge', about a transgendered man, light years ahead of the much admired Caitlin Jenner, a Republican. To Buckley, the writer of note was an enemy of God and patrician values and yes even to an elite education which Gore Vidal didn't pursue--he was a drop out who joined the Army during WW2, serving in Alaska where he wrote his much praised 'Williwaw'. Vidal was a 'revolutionary' in his own way; he published 'The City and the Pillar', which had a homosexual theme, that so exasperated the Old Grey Lady, the New York Times, which boycotted reviewing any of his books till decades later when they couldn't ignore his obvious talent. And in Gore, Buckley met more than his equal, so much so that until his death he wouldn't pronounce the V word. Buckley and Vidal were bellwethers; each had a finger on the rage and discontent of the times. And according to the talking heads, their 10 debates radically changed political discourse that now plagues our own day. 'Best of Enemies' is more than nostalgia, it is a palimpsest for the soul of the American soul. Buckley was an admirer of authoritarianism that Vidal was not. And it was to Vidal's credit that he pierced the supercilious armor of Buckley that, despite the adulation of his peers, rendered a life of hobnobbing with the rich and famous, the anti-Semites and racists, made him lose his 'cool' and restful nights of sleep. Even though he called Vidal a 'queer' (which wasn't a slur a half-century ago), Vidal suspected that he was a closet case, going as far as saying he was an incarnation of Myron Breckenridge. (For those who want to read about the conventions in Miami and bloody Chicago,Norman Mailer's 'Miami and the Siege of Chicago' is not a bad place to begin.

imagine these people on TV today!

[Quinoa1984 · 9/10 · 4 February 2016]

Most people who come to Best of Enemies knows what the state of news media coverage is, especially in the realm of cable news. It's been bad for a long time (there's a very brief excerpt of the time when Jon Stewart called out Crossfire for the very problems that can be seem sprouting up in the film in the end credits). But what's so great about Best of Enemies is how you see that the groundwork laid at the beginning for what's been twisted into the barking (less talking) heads in coverage of the daily events (let alone political conventions) is seen as relatively cordial and sophisticated. Sure, William F. Buckley Jr and Gore Vidal might not be everyone's idea of a good time with a glass of beer (though that depends on what class system rank you're in), but, perhaps except for one major outburst from Buckley - which haunted him for years (or he just became obsessed with it like a cry-baby, you decide) - they were so evenly matched as far as their scope of intellectual prowess that it boggles the mind.

Over the course of Best of Enemies we get to see what these two men were like, before the debates in 1968 and then after, and there's this monumental point of view (probably totally correct) that the directors give which is that TV changed things for the public so much that two people arguing about this or that could change things, like concretely in people's minds. But past it being of interest in a sociological or political science interest is the emphasis that these two men *really* did not like one another. Perhaps there was some unspoken level of respect, that sort of look of 'hey, let's give them a show' (and apparently after one of the tenser debates, Buckley leaned over and almost paid a compliment that that's what they did). But watching the scenes here I can't imagine anyone walking away thinking it was just an act, and yet at the same time I think there was an element of the theatrical; one of the revelations is that Vidal tested some of his retorts to Buckley on staffers or crew before filming.

The documentary may be borderline on too much context in a way - the talking heads from (the late) Christopher Hitchens and Dick Cavett and Buckley's biographer shine some light on certain aspects of their personalities (how personally Buckley took things, and how Vidal kept things under lock and key what he showed on his face). It can even be said there isn't quite enough of the debates in the film, and that's the one thing keeping it from being a 10 out of 10. But sometimes the best movies are never long enough, and this is a case where I could watch another 30 to 60 minutes of this story, especially as it's set in the tumultuous time of 1968 at Republican and Democratic conventions (the latter being when Chicago went into a series of riots). As long as the filmmakers keep the focus on these two men looking at each other and sniping in sardonic and totally dead-serious ways, the film works wonders. And you also get thrown into the mood of the period through music that almost has the buzz of technology, of TV electronic-waves and such.

If the medium is/was the message, then having two men argue at a time when there were only three channels with ABC hosting it had to do something different to compete with Cronkite and the like (and as one person says in the doc, argument is sugar ans we are the flies) made the message clear: conflict and drama makes for much more enticing (and perhaps simply easier) viewing than watching straight, down-the-middle factual news reporting. Who needs the facts when you got the paragon of the Conservative right (Buckley, by the way, has that sort of smile and grin that is both charming and kind of creepy) and of the intellectual, hardcore left (Vidal, with his books making him like an unofficial if sometimes controversial arbiter of history). Check it out - and ponder if either of these men could last a minute on Fox news or even CNN.

We've lost so much ...

[bruce-129 · 19 August 2015]

What should have happened was that political coverage on TV should have gotten much better over time ... but what did happen is that we now have, in large part thanks to Buckley ( CIA operative ) and Ronald Reagan, a country that has been taken over by money and power.

This movie and its precise angle and POV on America focusing on elections and broadcast TV and news is the exact right view to explain what happened.

Over time all our of media has been bought out by giant corporations that have killed news and journalism throughout our country. I remember all the names I used to see thinking they were well meaning Americans, Jeff Greenfield, Sam Donaldson, and many others in this documentary who turned into lackeys for the right wing and said nothing as TV news was destroyed, journalism undercut, but they got richer and more famous. It is a national disgrace.

Buckley and Vidal should have been the start of a way to present cultural visions to Americans ... at a time when we trusted TV new. What is there now .... nothing?

As a kid this movie pretty much take place during the time I was just growing up, until today. I missed these debates being just mentally growing up at the time of the 1968 election, but I followed William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal for decades. But as I got older I watched and criticized Buckley and Firing Line for decades. I never agreed with Buckley on almost anything, but I did appreciate his show. Maybe that is why it had to end ... because it did the job of the Left too well.

I had problems, agreements and disagreements with both of them. I was not a big fan of either of them, but they set the tone for an age. And age that should have evolved into something better.

What I enjoyed most about this movie was the way it tells people who might not have lived during this time what the American outlook was. The ending where they talk about how media and the nation has changed to me is the saddest thing and most important.

During these times there was a lot of debate and interaction. It was a time as they say in the movie that the most trusted institution in American was the nightly network news. That is completely dead now, and news has been absorbed by giant corporations that do not care about news, but only care about propaganda, and it is another center for profit and power. It makes me sick to see our media and national culture today. It is a wispy shadow of what it was during this time, even with all its problems.

There used to be a lot of news shows and talk shows ... very intelligent shows on TV during this time. Now what is on free TV is reruns of murder shows, CSI, idiotic reality shows, and infomercials that run for hours at a time. We have lost our culture, and that is what informations our civilization, and if we thought inequality was a problem back then, look at it now.

The free market, Buckley's and Reagan's free market and strangling government was supposed to fix things, instead it has wrapped itself around our throats and is killing us, but toxic junk.

What happened?

This is the best movie/documentary I have seen all year, maybe longer.

Commentary on Commentary by Commentators

[bkrauser-81-311064 · 6/10 · 20 May 2016]

If one were to look for a patient zero when it comes to the dawn of modern political punditry, it would likely be the 1968 Vidal vs. Buckley debate. Amid mounting Vietnam war protests, conflict within the civil rights movement, fractious inner-city turmoil and the shocking assassination of Robert Kennedy, the summer of 1968 was turning into what professionals would call "a real clusterf***k". Meanwhile the now institutional stalwart ABC News was trailing the other large networks in a quest for ratings. Due to budget restrictions, their network only had cursory coverage of the Democratic and Republican conventions taking place in Chicago and Miami respectively. So to fill time, the network hired conservative author and commentator William Buckley Jr. to give analysis and perspective to the political uncertainty of the time. When asked for suggestions on who would be his liberal counterpart he asked not to be sitting across a Communist or Gore Vidal; I suppose no Communist was available because guess who they hired?

Best of Enemies analyzes the antagonistic relationship between Buckley and Vidal as they debate the issues of the day. The two trade barbs and vitriol each pretty much seeing everything wrong with society in the other. While Vidal caustically jabs Buckley's National Review magazine, Buckley continually refers to Vidal as "the author of Myra Breckinridge," Vidal's most controversial work. Despite making careers being on the opposite side of the political spectrum, both were at their heart, prep school dandies who spoke in paragraphs. Vigorous debaters till the bitter end of their confrontation, the event left indelible mark on the both of them and in the process left a mark on the country as a whole.

There were ten debates in all, thus I'm sure the issues of the day were given their due in 1968 but the film all but ignores any semblance of context. There's no deeper gleaming of the existential milieu of the time. There's little reference to the major events that surrounded the conventions nor is there any real explanation about the mechanics behind the conventions themselves and why they're so interesting by today's standards. On there rare occasion we do get nuggets of information, they're told second hand by our two subjects who flippantly add their own two cents.

Best of Enemies could have been a movie about how we view 20th century history and more importantly, how contemporaries thought about history as it was unfolding. Instead the makers of the film decided it'd be better to pick apart the psychology of the pundits and the ways they approached each other. Yet by narrowing the film's focus, we also narrow the film's impact. Why should an audience care about two blowhards when they should be caring about the impact these two blowhards had on their world? It also narrows the film's marketability which as it stands only services fans of Gore Vidal. A little more context, a little more information heck a little more nostalgia could have made this documentary transcendent.

But fine, I suppose in good hands you could still flesh out a neat story from the film's odd couple. After all, co-director Morgan Neville did blow people away with 20 Feet from Stardom (2013), a documentary that similarly exposes the passions, frustrations and psychology behind backup singers. Unfortunately not even the voice-over work of John Lithgow and Kelsey Grammar could flesh out and humanize the pomposity in the room. By the time the film reaches it's "smoking gun" moment, all the venom, all the contempt and all the nastiness of the debates renders the film puckishly inconsequential. Despite most secondary interviewees concluding one side won over another; it's understood we've all lost in the end.

Perhaps in a roundabout way, that was the point of Best of Enemies; the idea that our civil discourse corrodes our society's mores and makes us more inclined to speak instead of listen. Yet let's keep this in mind, Best of Enemies is a commentary on commentary, expanding on the confrontation between two commentators and using commentators to do so. It's like a Russian nesting doll of proto-reality TV hyperbole. Only it fails to truly plug itself in a context and ultimately lionizes one talking head over another. Thus this muckraking political documentary is just as unsatisfying as most.

Provocative and terrific entertainment

[howard.schumann · 9/10 · 9 August 2015]

Gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Republican and Democratic national conventions was still being offered by CBS and NBC in 1968, but ABC, lacking their resources, limited their coverage to a few hours in the evening and highlighted it with a ten-night debate between conservative author and commentator William F. Buckley Jr. and flamboyant liberal novelist and playwright Gore Vidal. These debates are chronicled in the powerful documentary Best of Enemies directed by Robert Gordon ("Johnny Cash's America") and Morgan Neville ("Twenty Feet From Stardom").

In addition to fully restored original broadcast footage, the film includes commentaries from people who knew Buckley and Vidal such as former TV talk show host Dick Cavett, journalist Frank Rich, authors Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan, Buckley biographer Sam Tanenhaus, Vidal's last magazine editor, Matt Tyrnauer among others, while actors Kelsey Grammar and John Lithgow read passages from the writings of both men.

Though both men had previously run for public office (Vidal for Congress, Buckley for Mayor of New York), their forte was not politics but writing. Buckley was the founder and editor of the influential conservative magazine The National Review, and Vidal was a controversial novelist and playwright whose sexually liberated views were in evidence in his novels "The City and the Pillar" and "Myra Breckinridge." Both men spoke in the accents of Eastern elites, what Neil Buckley, Bill's surviving brother, describes as "patrician, languid accents," yet both were erudite with acid tongues.

To say that Buckley and Vidal did not get along is like saying Bobby Kennedy and James Hoffa were not the best of friends. Vidal knew that Buckley had supported using nuclear weapons against North Vietnam and China, and called him "a bloodthirsty neurotic," while Buckley retorted, "We all know that your tendency is to be feline." The Democratic Convention was held in Chicago where protests against the Vietnam War and the subsequent police overreaction threatened to derail the nominating process, creating a highly-charged atmosphere for the debates that only enhanced the acrimony.

One of the highlights occurred in the ninth of ten debates where the debaters clashed over the extent of the police response against the demonstrators and both stepped out of their well-calculated cool, intellectual personas. The discussion began with the revelation that the police had removed a Viet Cong flag from the demonstration. While Vidal defended the right of the demonstrators to state their political views, Buckley noted that during World War II, people were free to ostracize pro-Nazi spokesman even though they were free to speak their views. Vidal responded by saying that "the only sort of crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself." Though the moderator Howard K. Smith warned both men against name calling, a red-faced Buckley, his hands trembling, shouted, "Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face, and you'll stay plastered." It was a moment that Buckley regretted, though the feud continued with competing articles in Esquire Magazine and subsequent law suits. Best of Enemies is provocative and terrific entertainment but while the edited debates are pure theater, full of witty banter and relentless thrusts and parries, they are less than illuminating as a contribution to the troubling issues of the time and include no discussion of the most important issue of the day, the Vietnam War.

Although issues such as economic inequality, foreign involvements, and issues of morality and culture were discussed, the debates were not a conflict over positions on issues as much as they were a battle between two individuals convinced the other was a threat to the health and well-being of the country.

Many commentators in the film are full of nostalgia for the day when intellectuals were seen on television and point to today's cable news pundits screaming at each other (rather than the corporatization of the media and the over-dependence on ratings) as evidence of the decline of American television, but if the Buckley-Vidal debates are an example of the intellectual vitality of television in the sixties, I think I'd rather stick with Rachel Maddow.

a magnificent, uproarious documentary

[framptonhollis · 6/10 · 3 August 2017]

Surprisingly heartfelt and enormously entertaining, "Best of Enemies" observes the iconic debates and feuds between political intellectual masterminds Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr. Both figures of American politics have contributed greatly to the world today in both positive and negative lights, and this thrilling and hilarious documentary presents these truths in an impressively objective light. I am one who will acknowledge that, no matter what my personal political affiliations may be, both Buckley and Vidal were brilliant individuals, charming in both their classiness as well as their tastes for fun and humor. The documentary gives both of the somewhat threatening gentlemen equal screen time, capturing both their lives and the times surrounding them in a way that gives any and all viewers a well developed understanding of the rivals in both a personal and political light. even if you aren't personally all too interested in politics, this film is still entertaining as Hell, because it's always fun to witness a true battle of the wits unfiltered by a desperate need to be overly kind or obscure your own views for the sake of political correctness. What we see here is pure debate with as much chaotic comedy in the mix as there is fierce intellect and impressive exchange between brilliantly well spoken ideas.

When TV talking heads were educated and well spoken

[MarkSeanOrr · 9/10 · 27 December 2015]

Best of Enemies An awesome documentary which looks at the debates and personal rivalry between conservative, pretentious talking head pundit William F. Buckley Jr., and liberal antagonistic Gore Vidal in the tumultuous year of 1968. Very well done documentary. I wish they had showed more of the actual discussions and a little less of the media hype surrounding this great feud between two geniuses who just happened to have completely different views regarding nearly everything political. There should be debates like this today between learned and interesting pundits instead of the brainless, media grabbing news whores we have today on almost every news channel, and I use the word "news" sparingly when referring to the likes of FOX and MSNBC. It's interesting to note that although there were some radically different things going on in 1968...one could easily compare the premise of the two ideologies today in 2016. Definitely worth the watch.

A great documentary.

[invisibleunicornninja · 7/10 · 20 April 2018]

This movie is very entertaining and informative. If you are interested about the history of the news, then I recommend this movie. It is very interesting and well made.

Scintillating, unsettling balderdash that would put you off the stroke..

[samabc-31952 · 8/10 · 18 September 2021]

"You have to have a mind of winter to see nothing that is not there and nothing that is"

• Wallace Stevens 'The Snowman'

When debates becomes diatribe, mudslinging .... Two men: one was the first modern conservative intellectual who saw the ideological debates as cultural debates. And the other was an iconoclast, liberal, an apostate, writer against the grain.. An intellectual thinker and an intellectual writer..Year 1968, the Vietcong, Bobby Kennedy's assassination, struggling ABC network, the hippi era, the counterculture age and more.. It was not about right fighting the far left but it was about right fighting the one who is not quite far enough right... the most infamous political debate aired live on ABC ...during the concluding debate,Gore Vidal labeled Bill Buckley as a crypto-Nazi and in response Buckley called Vidal, "You queer,"!!!! This resulted into further antipathy that continued with denigrating personal polemic attacks in a patrician, languid style and heralded the future discourse.. it is scintillating, unsettling balderdash that would put you off the strokes.. a great watch ..

Brings Back Memories of Two Iconic Men and a Turbulent Time

[Miles-10 · 8/10 · 5 December 2015]

In 1968, eighty percent of American television viewers watched the national presidential nominating conventions. As we watched the Chicago Democratic Convention, we saw what a federal commission later called a "police riot"–a horrific skull-cracking rampage. The decade was a time of economic boom, civil rights struggle, assassinations, riots, disaffected youth, rock 'n' roll, changing sexual mores, escalating protests against an escalating yet undeclared war (the Democratic Party's finger prints were on the war more than the Republicans—hence the demonstrations in Chicago), new welfare programs, and dazzling technological changes. (The national conventions were broadcast, for the first time, entirely in color in 1968.) Even though I watched the conventions, I didn't watch much of ABC, which only covered the conventions during prime time, while NBC and CBS covered the conventions from gavel-to-gavel—unheard of today except maybe on C-SPAN. So I missed seeing the subject of this documentary, the epic ten-round debate between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr., but I sure heard about it. After the round in which Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" and Buckley called Vidal a "queer" and added "I'll sock you in the god-damned face," it was water-cooler conversation everywhere in America the next day. Even those like me who had not seen it, understood how shocking it was. According to this documentary, the network suits turned to each other after it happened and asked, "Can they say that on television?" And someone told them, "They just did—live." Maybe if ABC had not been the lowest-rated commercial network, it might not have been so eager to have Vidal and Buckley comment/debate at the conventions. That, of course, assumes that ABC realized that they would not do much commentary and that there would be no rules in their debate. The two men had a great deal in common in terms of background and intellect (both were masterful word-smiths), but they hated each other politically and personally with a burning passion that makes the title of this film so apt.

Their "debate" got personal fast as they ripped into each other mercilessly. It was only surprising that they lasted so long before the sharpest knives came out. At the heart was the battle between the liberal and conservative world views that each man represented. Vidal was an outspoken advocate of libertine-ism and central planning, the almost contradictory shibboleths of modern liberalism, and also a successful writer who wrote a number of good novels, plays and screenplays, but his most recent and provocative novel, in 1968, was "Myra Breckinridge," a satirical romp about trans-sexuality (very progressive, you might think) and also a celebration of homosexual rape (Yikes! You might think), but it was a different time, and both sexual liberation and rape were lumped together, according to Vidal's champions, as signs of forward thinking and, according to critics, as signs of moral decay. Buckley was the editor of "National Review", a conservative magazine that still thrives despite his passing. Both men were scions of social upstarts who became successful, Buckley's family in oil and Vidal's family in politics. Both had good educations, although, Vidal had not gone to college. They both spoke with patrician accents that, as one of the film's commentators, linguist John McWhorter, opines, would seem pompous and uncaring to listeners today. (Indeed, Kelsey Grammar, of "Frazier" fame, voices the writings of Buckley and John Lithgow, of "Third Rock from the Sun", voices those of Vidal in this film.) Vidal won the "debate" based purely on the fact that, though each man strove to get under the other's skin, it was Buckley who finally lost his cool. What got to him was the odious conceit that conservatives may be linked to fascism. Buckley had heard this slur his whole career, and was visibly infuriated by it, but pushing that button would have been a lower trick than it was if Vidal had not genuinely believed that there was truth in it. (The persistence of this myth explains the peculiar surprise of one of Buckley's liberal biographers when he learned that Buckley, otherwise unsurprisingly, had once fired a Nazi that he found to be part of his magazine's sales force.) Buckley was ashamed of his outburst in the debate for the rest of his life. Vidal gloated over it for the rest of his. I wonder if one is sadder than the other.

The filmmakers, Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville, make some attempt to be fair to both sides but are, perhaps, unfair to both and to history as well. For example, they present a recounting of Vidal's frequent viewing of the debate tapes in his old age while showing us a scene from the movie "Sunset Boulevard" (about a forgotten movie star who pathetically watches herself in old movies night after night). If there is a flaw in the conclusion drawn for us by the film—that the vitriol of the Buckley-Vidal debate was not only a harbinger of, but may even have caused today's cable news and internet cat-fighting—it might be that the film overly sentimentalizes the homogeneous, middle-of-the-road political viewpoint shared by most network newsreaders and commentators during the sixties. This artificial sameness presided over and callously ignored a turbulent, ongoing cultural and political split in the country as if ignoring it—or at best reporting only the ripples on the surface that could not be ignored—would make it go away. For all any of us knew, we might have blown off some of our more destructive steam if there had been alternative media back then. The confrontation between Vidal and Buckley on national television in 1968 was set against what was going on in the streets at that time. They were expressing the frustrations of adherents of both of their ideologies, frustrations that were just under the surface but not being articulated on the nightly news.

Interesting even if it doesn't really recreate a time/place, and fumbles the link to the modern age

[bob the moo · 23 October 2016]

This documentary put me in mind of Rumble in the Jungle, the documentary about the fight of the same name; like that one, Best of Enemies looks at a staged conflict which had an impact on popular culture. In this case it was a series of televised debates between Vidal and Buckley – two men on polar political extremes. It was interesting to watch this in the run up to the 2016 Presidential Debate between Trump and Clinton (at the time of writing this, the first one will be in 2 days' time) because it hearkens back to a time where the discourse was a little more civil. It is also interesting to note that there is still an edge to their communication, with Vidal using snide insults (as is the liberal way), and Buckley using more direct language in a jokey way (as is the conservative way).

Not knowing anything about these debates, the film does a pretty good job of introducing the characters and their tensions, however it doesn't totally deliver in some key ways. Specifically it didn't bring out the period and the event as well as I would have liked; with Rumble in the Jungle you had a real sense of time/place, as well as the cultural importance of the event. With these debates that was not quite there; it didn't show enough of the debates to really explain why they were such an audience grabber. Likewise the film did not really link to its wider impact particularly well – a lot of this plays out under the credits, which felt weird considering that this was the moment of that shift.

As an event, and with its large characters, it still is an interesting and engaging film, but it doesn't feel like it captures the event or its cultural impact in as compelling a way as it could have done.

Documentary about two Rather Pitiful Men

[l_rawjalaurence · 6/10 · 27 August 2016]

In 1968 ABC was in the doldrums in terms of its political coverage. Lacking sufficient resources to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the conventions of that year, the company had to look for other means to attract viewers.

It came up with the idea of staging nightly discussions of the proceedings involving Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley jr, two highly public figures who heartily disliked one another, while representing both extremes of the political spectrum. Vidal was a liberal, a lifelong advocate of free thinking who had scandalized the Establishment ever since the late Forties when his novel THE CITY AND THE PILLAR had appeared, with its open attitude towards homosexuality. Buckley was a right-winger, the forerunner of many public figures today; the founder and editor of the NATIONAL REVIEW, who, while not actively supporting continued racial segregation, nonetheless blamed members of the African American community for the country's economic woes.

The rest, as they say, is history. After a series of increasingly fractious nightly discussions, Vidal and Buckley finally came to blows, both literally as physically, during one live broadcast when Vidal denounced Buckley as a "crypto-Nazi," and Buckley responded by calling Vidal a "queer" and threatening to smash his face in. Buckley soon realized what a televisual faux pas he had made, and spent the rest of his life trying to atone for it.

Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville's documentary could be approached as an exercise in nostalgia, an evocation of a time on television when pundits actually said what they thought rather than simply expressing anodyne views, and discussion-programs always had that element of danger about them. Other memorable moments like this included an episode of THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS (1963-4), when a member of the audience took exception to the views expressed by journalist Bernard Levin and tried to punch him in the face.

On the other hand, the documentary also underlined what happens to people when they come to believe in their own celebrity so much that they pay little or no heed to what they are saying. Vidal and Buckley were both highly intelligent men; but their exchanges seemed somehow pathetic, as they tried to score intellectual points off one another rather than engaging critically with the political issues of that time. They did not appear interested in communicating with viewers, but rather tried to enhance their screen images. If that was indeed the case, then both signally failed in their task; they came across as members of the chattering classes, to be ignored rather than listened to.

The genesis of punditry journalism

[attorney-39769 · 9/10 · 15 August 2015]

A well-constructed must-see documentary for anyone who is the least bit interested in the politics of journalism. Don't worry that you won't recall/aren't aware of the background. The filmmakers do an excellent job of setting the stage, and an even more impressive job of avoiding the actual political issues in order to focus on the medium. If you want to know how we got where we are, start at the beginning. This is the genesis of punditry and personality-driven journalism. This is not to say that this little slice of evolution is necessarily bad. As the film points out, prior to 1968 the presentation of news was quite static, with little, if any, chance for anything out of the mainstream to make it out of the studio. Now the genie has been loosed from the bottle, and he has truly been feeling his oats for the past several years. It's up to us to rein him in, give him focus, and pray that we can find some common ground before the growing political mitosis reaches the point of no return.

Fascinating insight into the advent of television punditry

[swj1984 · 8/10 · 7 December 2015]

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.

Last Generation's Testy Political Debates Spawned Today's 24-Hour News Bonanza

[drqshadow-reviews · 8/10 · 21 September 2018]

Turn back the clocks fifty years and we find the birthplace of today's angry, confrontational news programming. In the late sixties, standard operating procedure for network television reporting was straight, impartial, monotone and almost entirely fact-driven. ABC, at the time a very distant third to perennial front-runners NBC and CBS, gambled on rowdy, opinion-driven segments during their convention coverage and won... or did we all lose?

At the heart of it all we find the conservative intellectual, William F. Buckley, and his opponent / counterpoint, the liberal author Gore Vidal, who embark upon a series of fiery debates: one for each night of their respective parties' conventions. In retrospect, their early arguments seem downright civilized - both are eloquent, engaging, brilliant conversationalists and they make for a fascinating contrast - but as the routine bears on and the speakers' attacks grow more personal, the cordiality of their discourse deteriorates. Finally, after slyly baiting his hooks for several such confrontations, one speaker elicits a jolting moment of unguarded, contemptuous rage from his opponent and, knowing his battle won, smugly settles in to enjoy the moment.

It's difficult to get completely behind either man, really. Each spins a mesmerizing oral web, but they also fall into the trap of continually one-upping each other, and that betrays the spirit of the debate. Personally, I'd love to spend a dinner party with either, but wouldn't want to make a habit of it. Deeply interesting historical material that answers many questions about how we arrived at this era of brash 24-hour opinions and endlessly question-dodging presidential debates.

Crucial near-term time travel

[MEMangan · 9/10 · 6 December 2015]

Whoa. It's like time travel, into the recent past, but that so clearly laid the path to our current state of drama and politics. The historical framing is helpful and contextual. And of course the cat-fights are fascinating. But the most compelling part is how this relationship between two American Brahmins was putting the foundation in place for the framework we have today, with intractable polarization and he said/he said political commentary. It manages to consist of both sepia-toned nostalgia and contemporary issues that remain hot-buttons today. While others--like queer lifestyles--are clearly accepted in the mainstream. Mesmerizing.

A good look at legendary debates, it's really what political TV and pundit talk should be like today!

[blanbrn · 9/10 · 8 November 2015]

1968 was before my time I wasn't born till 1978 still I know and have studied enough history to know what the times were like and have heard by now and read and have done my homework on the legendary figures of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley. Finally got to watch this new like documentary called "Best of Enemies" Buckley vs. Vidal. And the title is so true and I must say after watching this telling of footage it rings so true from the interviews and debate footage it was interesting and so educational that any political or history buff will enjoy. The film centers around the summer of 1968 as the news would change forever as last place in the ratings network ABC made the choice to put two educated and know a lot people on to debate each other during the Democratic and Republican conventions. Enter William F. Buckley Jr. a rich arrogant snob like conservative who lead the new wave march for the right. And second up the outspoken and always talking liberal Gore Vidal who was also a novelist and champion for the left. During the debates both thought each others views were wrong for America as it even got to heated verbal exchanges and name calling and in the day in age with class and political clashing of the 1960's war and fight for freedom ABC news had a ratings hit. To bad in today's pundit land of political TV it can't no longer be like this as the networks have became to one sided and don't encourage debate and educated thought even if it does lead to verbal words and name calling the country needs more debates from people on the opposite sides. Gore Vidal and William Buckley both were legends who challenged and caused thought and asked questions of many, to bad we don't have any around like those two both the wit and smarts of Vidal and Buckley is really missed in today's TV pundit political world.

Fascinating and Dis-quietening.

[andrew_whalan · 9/10 · 24 August 2015]

It's 1968 and America is in turmoil. Martin Luther King has been shot, riots have broken out across the country, the Vietnam War is faltering, Robert Kennedy has been assassinated and Richard Nixon is campaigning for President.

The American Broadcasting Corporation also has its troubles. As the third (or fourth) network of three, it is struggling. To improve their ratings during the two political presidential conventions, they come up with an idea that will change TV forever. That idea is to put together William F Buckley, arch-conservative interviewer and writer with Gore Vidal, the Oscar Wilde like infant terrible of the political and literary scene as convention commentators.

There's one small problem. Both men loath and detest each other. Yet despite their earlier clashes, they agree to work with each other for the ten days covering both conventions.

This is the basis for the documentary, Best of Enemies which covers the debates between Vidal and Buckley. Both men had clashed before but this was the first time they would be withing arm's length of each other. And what results is electrifying and ultimately disappointing.

Two intellectual giants trade brilliant insults and swap clever put downs. But at no time is there any meeting of minds. In fact the debate created an unbroken animosity between the two men.

Best of Enemies is fascinating : a super sugar hit for a political junkie with an unfortunate climb down. Scarily, the commentary offered on the politics of the day still is relevant now, despite the change in word and phrase as well as manners over the years. Sadly, too, the dynamic of pitting two protagonists, neither of whom will listen to the other, is now the basis of present media political commentary. Finally, this dynamic has resulted in a fragmentation of media coverage (both mainstream and new). Now the media no longer provides multiple points of view for multiple audiences, it now provides what people want to hear. Which began with Vidal versus Buckley.

Best of Enemies is an enjoyable, extremely well put together but ultimately dis quietening documentary.

A Microcosm of 1968 Debate

[gavin6942 · 8/10 · 19 May 2016]

A documentary on the series of televised debates in 1968 between liberal Gore Vidal and conservative William F. Buckley.

I am a bit confused by the use of John Lithgow and Kelsey Grammar for voices, but I suppose if you have to get anyone, you may as well get them. I don't know about Lithgow, but Grammar is a well-known conservative, so he is probably a fan of Buckley.

The film addresses homosexuality indirectly and I find it interesting that for the most part Vidal's sexuality is not a concern. It did not seem to hold him back. The film even briefly addresses Buckley's alleged homosexuality, which surprised me. Was he really gay as some have alleged, or was it the accent? (I suppose if we take his misogynist miniskirt comment at face value, he was straight!) According to the film, 1968 was the solidification of "identity politics" and the modern parties. I suppose that is true in many ways. More often people point to 1980, as this is when the religious aspects became so much bigger. With Nixon, the conservative party still had a number of things about it that today might be considered liberal. But if not 1980, then 1968 probably really did make a difference.

Best of Documentaries.

[anaconda-40658 · 10/10 · 27 October 2015]

Best of Enemies (2015): Dir: Robert Gordon, Morgan Neville / Featuring: William F. Buckley, Gore Vidal, Dick Cavett, Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens: Insightful and often humorous account of the 1968 debate between Conservative William F. Buckley and challenging Liberal Gore Vidal. Directors Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville use archive footage and spectating interviews to convey and story the event that was cut into ten separate debates that shot the ratings high. It also brought to light just how far issues could go around the censors when the debate got heated. William Buckley is only featured in archive footage but his opinionated demeanor is established quickly as he sees fit to put forth rights that he views that the public should have. Not everyone agrees with this method and he finds an opponent in Gore Vidal. He is amusing often hardly jolted by Buckley's stance on his lifestyle. Buckley aims quickly at films that Vidal has been involved with, particularly pointing out anything he deems crass or unacceptable. Gore often smirks and causes verbal outbursts in Buckley with his subtle yet comical retaliation. In the end we witness two lonely men whose lifestyles were highly public. Buckley is asked late in the film if he has any regrets in life and he prefers not to speak of it. Gore is more flamboyant, showing off pictures in his house, particularly one from the debates featuring he and Buckley. Spectators including Dick Cavett offer their food for thought but in the end this is an observant and often funny documentary on the dispute between two individuals of opposites ends of the spectrum. Score: 10 / 10