That’s a really helpful counter example. He was smiling and relaxed and clearly was happy to be interviewed by Charlie Rose. Maybe he respected him, or they were golfing buddies? In comparison, he was antagonistic and closed from the get-go in this newest interview.
I’ve seen George Burns get the “ever thought of retiring?” in every interview once he hit his 80’s. he always had a great retort, that reminded the audience WHY he was so respected and beloved in his profession.
Inexperienced interviewer, no doubt, but the subject didn’t help.
I know a lot of people don’t. I think you had to be a kid in the 60’s when those four movies I mentioned came out. And you really had to like physical humor. I think it was the last vestiges of vaudeville comedy, with a bit of cringe-worthy melodrama stuck on. But some of the comedic skits were really funny and modern for their time. To me at least.
Then in the late 60’s and early 70’s, political humor, and dark humor, and other styles came along, and Lewis fell out of step.
Completely tone deaf interviewer. If the interviewee is acting like that stop and talk about it, or wrap the interview. He just kept firing his stupid questions as if Jerry would warm up to that.
Charlie Rose comes to interviews armed with intelligent questions and researches his subjects beyond reading their WP page. This interviewer is a moron with the talent of a cucumber, a perfect example of doing the bare minimum necessary to carry out his job. I enjoyed listening to Lewis make him squirm
Thank you for the first part of your response. Helpful. Of course, yes or no questions are risky if the subject is in a certain mood. Careful framing of questions, check. And reasonable preparation for an interview is certainly the interviewer’s job.
I would say, at the same time, it’s the subject’s job to accept that some interviewers will always be more/better prepared than others. A professional in any field should have no difficulty taking the question given, converting into the question they wish would have been asked, and answering that.
Thereby, the subject makes him/herself look good, and at he same time gives the interviewer a non-demeaning lesson. If you can’t do that, decline the interview.
No matter how right Mr. Lewis may have been here, he also comes across in large measure as a petty, arrogant grumpus. What publication would be next to risk that? What’s in it for Lewis?
Re your last paragraph, it’s quite amusing you would assume I was the interviewer. Ha ha. Nope, just a regular, generic, generalist person seeking understanding while trying not to make undue assumptions. Another lesson, huzzah!
You framed the question as if you were. I wouldn’t have wasted my time on such a careful answer (and rewatching the interview) otherwise, so good job punking me.
no intent to “punk” - just a random person who honestly gave the idea actual thought based on your original comment, then asked about it as if participating in a “discussion forum” - read it again in that context - but i concur, sometimes it’s more like a “fight club”
Where is your sense of adventure?
That urge that gets people to watch a trainwreck unfold before our eyes?
The desire to see hubris in its most obvious form?
Guys look at the other interviews before putting the blame on the interviewer.
The entire point of the series was about creative people in their 90’s and how their work effected their life and longevity. All the other interviews, which I assume had the same interviewer, are spot on.
The variable here is Jerry Lewis…a well known asshole.
