I guess this is the kind of freedom you get when you’re not bound to the studio system. This wouldn’t bode well for advertisers or a shareholder meeting. But this is the freedom the independent film makers carved out for themselves- Cassavetes in particular.
You gotta give it to Dick. He was up against 3 great friends all in the joke & he was the outsider. As for John, Ben & Peter, I love them all. God I miss this type of entertainment.
What I love about these guys is how they have no boundaries with each other. They just act on every impulse towards each other and they just roll with it. It takes years to master that type of friendship
The friendship is artificial...that is with clarity...Cassavetes method is the relationship and the unhappiness, and inner loathing of "Husbands" is the alchemy that this performance symbolizes. Cavetts instincts are insurmountable....not a flinch, not a stutter, not a missed beat or syncopated arrhythmia...that reflects a composed reflection of Cassavetes and how boundaries are somewhat a method consequence of Cassavetes. The unpleasantness of Husbands is and are these men. If Directors are tyrants by inner cynicism...Cavetts Circus Master disposition is all round, and round....
Trying to imagine how modern hosts would have handled this... Conan would've joined the fun and outcrazied them. Fallon would've fake laughed at first and progressively descended into deep depression.
For those who criticize Cassavetes, Gazzara and Falk. I saw the full interview and the three guests began more polite and more cooperative after that. They understood that Cavett was kind of disappointed and they were conscious of their behavior. They saw the professionnal patience of their host and decided to be more serious and more kind to him. But, after all, this was the best promotion of this wonderful film "Husbands", the three were like their characters in the piece. That was intentional and, at the same time, there were themselves. P.S.: sorry for my english!
Guillaume: So they sobered up... So what? None of that redeems their actions or excuses the fact that they were disruptive in the first place. There is NO excuse for drinking and acting like a macho douchebag in this circumstance. There was no need for them to "be in character" (aka indulge themselves to drink and be idiots) to promote their mess of a movie that's a sympathetic character study of three macho douchebags. And even if there were, that doesn't excuse the fact that they're drunk on a talkshow. They could've "been in character" without drinking. As actors, they could've just -- you know -- acted! "But it's a beautiful film about how being a manly man leaves you emotionally stunted and spiritually poor" Then why spend so much time sympathizing with the characters? Why does Cassavetes drag the film out the way he does? Why is Cassavetes clearly indulging his own macho stupidity by showing up on a talkshow with two actor friends of his, clearly drunk out of their minds? If it's all supposed to show that "being a manly man" is a waste of time, then why waste people's time explaining that?
@@anotherjoshua Drunk? Oh yes they were. But when you see the complete interview,they were not completely out of a control. They were more kind and polite.
Ladies and Gentlemen this video is truly legendary. Gazzara, Falk and Cassavetes are all toasted out of their mind. I frequent this video often when I want to remind myself why I quit drinking.
It’s a shame they didn’t air the whole interview. After Cassevetes put Falk on his shoulders and they came back from commercial, they stopped horsing around. They were still tossed obviously but began to reveal what the film meant to them, why they that it was important, etc. It seems this UA-cam channel (of which I am greatly appreciative for so many insights into the past) decided to cut it out because it didn’t fit the narrative of them being crazy. They ended the show much more subdued and forthright. It’s a shame most people won’t see the actual interview portion. I found it elsewhere on UA-cam. I encourage you to watch it.
I think it's through no fault of their own (the custodians of the programme, nor the gents appearing on the show). Nor do I blame them. A lot of people don't have time to sit down and listen to a one-hour interview. Actually, let me rephrase that, they may have the time but they don't have the willpower. A successful social media account knows this and ends up asking 'how then can we get people hooked?' Furthermore, I presume the answer lies in the creation of accessible 'moments' - for 15 minutes, we are able to engage with the famous names who have since left this world, to know what it might feel like to be sitting amongst that studio audience - in return we keep clicking and generating coin for the channel, for UA-cam, or both. Time is money, and as the account sells us verisimilitude, we in turn sell them our engagement. As we form our opinions, so should we acknowledge the ways in which the content provider makes conscious efforts to slant their product to influence that opinion. For that, I commend your point. What I take issue with is your concern for 'most people'. One should be able to readily acknowledge that The Dick Cavett Show UA-cam Channel does not equal The Dick Cavett Show. But this channel has over 85mil combined views. I'll wager there's a figure to rival the amount of viewers DC had in a single night, although we must take synchronicity, or lack thereof, into account. When you say "it's a shame most people won't watch the full interview" are you implying there's a link between viewing figures and credibility? That if more people watch this edited clip than the original, then their impression of the event is somehow skewered? Sure, this is but a quarter slice of the cake, but that isn't the be and end all. Dick's courageously timid "We'll be right back" ratifies this. But your comment makes me think...to what extent are we entitled to our own interpretation? Does context ensure credibility ('you weren't there man')? How can we be certain that what we are witnessing now is any less true than what people would have watched in 1970? The only thing that separates now from then is the number of times you've blinked; some people call it hindsight. In all, I think I would advise you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While we may not always have access to the larger conversations these clips belong to, we will always have these moments, nonetheless. That, and gatekeeping sucks.
I think it's through no fault of their own (the custodians of the programme, nor the gents appearing on the show). Nor do I blame them. A lot of people don't have time to sit down and listen to a one-hour interview. Actually, let me rephrase that, they may have the time but they don't have the willpower. A successful social media account knows this and ends up asking 'how then can we get people hooked?' Furthermore, I presume the answer lies in the creation of accessible 'moments' - for 15 minutes, we are able to engage with the famous names who have since left this world, to know what it might feel like to be sitting amongst that studio audience - in return we keep clicking and generating coin for the channel, for UA-cam, or both. Time is money, and as the account sells us verisimilitude, we in turn sell them our engagement. As we form our opinions, so should we acknowledge the ways in which the content provider makes conscious efforts to slant their product to influence that opinion. For that, I commend your point. What I take issue with is your concern for 'most people'. One should be able to readily acknowledge that The Dick Cavett Show UA-cam Channel does not equal The Dick Cavett Show. But this channel has over 85mil combined views. I'll wager there's a figure to rival the amount of viewers DC had in a single night, although we must take synchronicity, or lack thereof, into account. When you say "it's a shame most people won't watch the full interview" are you implying there's a link between viewing figures and credibility? That if more people watch this edited clip than the original, then their impression of the event is somehow skewered? Sure, this is but a quarter slice of the cake, but that isn't the be and end all. Dick's courageously timid "We'll be right back" ratifies this. But your comment makes me think...to what extent are we entitled to our own interpretation? Does context ensure credibility ('you weren't there man')? How can we be certain that what we are witnessing now is any less true than what people would have watched in 1970? The only thing that separates now from then is the number of times you've blinked; some people call it hindsight. In all, I think I would advise you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While we may not always have access to the larger conversations these clips belong to, we will always have these moments, nonetheless. That, and gatekeeping sucks.
@@robertcollins5161 Forget the acting. If you were aware as to the humanity/the human qualities of the 3, you wouldn't have said that. John was making films about interracial love before the Civil Rights movement. You mention growing up. I suggest to you, adults do some research before commenting, especially before they go onto calling people jerks
this is the EPITOME of not taking yourself seriously (and these guys could, if they wanted to)! they just made me like them even MORE. what an inspiration.
I think it’s great. Everything about this is the 70s. I miss the 70s. I miss the booziness and the cigarettes and the whole crazy polyester ride. Thank you for posting this. And I will always love Peter Falk, warts and all.
@@r.edward5701 2 years isn't that long of a time. Sometimes I reply to comments 5-10 years old, depending on the topic and context. And people go "why are you replying to an OLD comment?" Age of the comment shouldn't matter. My opinions, in most cases, don't change that often. So something that I said 10 years ago will probably line up with what I think now. And if not I am more than happy to point out how my views have changed, rather than be like "how dare you reply to an OLD comment!".
NOW I've seen Husbands (and really enjoyed it), watching this interview again in the special features makes a WHOLE lot more sense. I'll whisper it......*the movie ISN'T finished*.......*if it's Cassavetes, it's NEVER finished.* :) Incidentally buy the Criterion bluray. This clip is fifteen minutes too short here. The next fifteen minutes is even better, especially what Falk says.
I enjoyed it too, and it is about as far from "mainstream" cinema, even mainstream art cinema, as it is possible to imagine. It was challenging in 1970 and is still challenging today as it represents a direction that conventional film and TV has yet to take, Audiences still prefer directors to provide underlying motives to explain why characters behave as they do, and to use set up to tell them what they should be feeling. Cassavetes abjured all that, so all you have is the actor, their performance and how "available" they are to the actor opposite them.
This episode aired on September 18, 1970. Falk’s first Columbo movie aired February 20, 1968. The next one aired March 1, 1971, and it premiered as a regular series September 15, 1971. So Falk was not best known for Columbo at this time.
So great to see this, and you can stream the whole thing on Shout TV too. One of the great chat show car crashes of all times, and it is oddly like watching Husbands itself, the same bewilderment for the viewer when there is nothing in the set up to tell you what you should be feeling about the characters, their motivation or what is going to happen next. The three guests do come across as reasonably well refreshed too. When this first went out I was just a few weeks old, so this is in my lifetime, just. The 60s and 70s were wild, you have to say. Makes modern chat shows where celebrities appear to tell their "anecdote" and plug product look very, very tame.
The Night Victor Franko, Lt. Columbo and Cosmo Vittelli walked in... 3 NY actors who were obviously very close friends at various stages of their careers. Although they all started in the 50's Falk was stuck playing bit parts as quirky, violent characters until his breakout role as Columbo. He did the pilot in 1968 but the series would not start until '71 so was probably the least-known of the trio to the general audience. Gazzara was established in both TV & film by this taping and Cassavettes had a productive career as both actor and director. I love these 3 men in just about EVERYTHING they're ever done, and I can see how much they loved each other in this 'interview'. Finally, great job Cavett just treading water lol behind Johnny, his show was a treasure.
I'm Generation X (53) so I barely caught the tail end of this kind of late night talk show in the late '70s, secretly looking for a late night monster movie or cartoon (local stations DID play cartoons late at night once in awhile) while parents were asleep. Too young to really get what was being said, but still watched cuz most time nothing else was on and wanting, in my own way, to better understand the adult world. Boy I truly miss this era of television when even this silly conversation is more serious and interesting than ANY of the crap that passes for televised discussion today.
@@juniorjames7076 You're not alone in that sentiment- my teen-aged summers included classics on the Late,Late show and they did have a profound impact on my tastes as an adult.
So, Mr. Cavett, the Marx Brothers had a reunion on your show - and you got to be Zeppo! 😸 This was in 1970. The pilot episode of "Colombo" had aired two years earlier. One year after the Cavett episode, a second "Colombo" episode aired. A year after *that,* the show became a series - at which point Falk was pretty much set up for life.
@@bobtaylor170 Yeah, he was probably a highly functional alcoholic....but he would have likely lived at least a decade or so longer if he hadn't drank on top of the hepatitis. His liver was too damaged by the hepatitis to be drinking.
Wow, I never expected Falk to be so abrasive and Gazzara to be so amused. Maybe they decided to code-switch. And Cassavettes does thank Cavett "for being a good sport."
They're acting like obnoxious drunks, but it's still pretty funny to watch. Enjoyed it more than listening to the usual pretentious, narcissistic Hollywood stars.
Holy Underwear, Batman ! I have never seen THREE drunk guests on a TV talk show at the same time ! They are really plastered ! I admire how Mr Cavett was able to keep his cool & keep the show going ! I was rarely able to watch Mr Cavett's show when it first aired...I was a teen and had to be in bed much earlier because of school the next day. Nice to see these bodacious "blast from the past" episodes ! THANKS for uploading for us to enjoy ! CHEERS !! :-)
I don't think they were actually drunk. It seems to me that they had it all planned as a way of promoting the film (as Cassavetes more or less explains in a later part of the show that is cut out of this clip). I think they also genuinely liked Dick and were playing a good natured joke on him... sort of an experiment, because they knew he would be funny under the circumstances.
@@wingsofwhimsydreamscapes totally agree with you. There is NO WAY their physical comedy could have been this coordinated under the influence. They pulled off a GREAT AND PURE FUN show/prank.
"Are you guys all smashed?" as Gazzara proceeds to say that Cassavetes never drinks, lmao. Just watched Husbands last night and this is a perfect substitution for the 85 minutes Cassavetes was forced to trim.
I thought Dick was much more clever and funny with his comments than the other three. By the way, I watched the whole interview that someone put on youtube in 3 or 4 parts. It seemed like an hour and a half watching this and I kept hoping they would "snap out of it," but they never did. Anyway, Dick handled himself well, and for this he should be appreciated.
They ended the show composed, spoke about the picture, what it meant to them as men, actors, and husbands. They stopped horsing around. I’m not sure you watched the entire interview, and it is misleading to say they never “snapped out of it.”
dfghjklkjhgf this is HYSTERICAL! I love it!!! It feels like when my mom asks my siblings and I a question and we all simultaneously do a Bit and laugh the whole time, all the while she's getting more and more angry lol
I saw this already it's honestly really hilarious, but also honestly really childish and silly. Like normally I'd go extremely angry with such behavior but considering that this was the behavioral norm of the three (especially Cassavetes, in here he might've been actually rather timid) I'm not surprised, they're really hard to control. Love this episode anyways. Also, major props for Dick for ethically putting up with their bullshit.
It is very like Husbands itself, a film that has always divided opinion. You can see why many people find it self indulgent and puerile, but I was re-watching the scenes between Jenny Runacre and John Cassavetes recently and, uncomfortable though it is to watch (which it is) it is also interesting. There is nothing in the set up to tell the audience what to think; no soundtrack, no imagery to set up metaphor or hint at meaning. You are just left to scour the way the characters are behaving to try and work out what they are feeling or might do next. It is nerve-wracking, but it is also intriguingly different from conventional cinema (even much art cinema). More akin to Warhol and Chantal Akerman movies. They may well have been drunk, but it is quite subversive too.
This is the funniest show I have ever seen and there was not a single swear word in it! They were delightful. Hilarious! Where is the other half hour of it? or these guys are not in it? Can you upload it please? Thanks.
This show reminds me of one of Johnny Carson's shows when his guests were Bob Hope, Dean Martin, and George Gobel. Like this Dick Cavett show, things got a little wild, and Johnny quipped at the end, "At what point did I lose control of the show?" ua-cam.com/video/pbpc-NJHcZ8/v-deo.html. In both cases, the shows work as entertainment. However, given Dick's thoughtful style of interviewing, I can understand if he felt frustrated that his guests were not more cooperative with letting him take the lead.
With all due respect to this segment, that Carson show with Dean Martin, Bob Hope, and George Goebel was EPIC. Possibly the best episode of a late-night talk show ever.
Something wrong, as in you're not hammered? I love a drink too but the way these guys got on was disrespectful to Dick, who's a fair and open minded guy. A car crash!
I watched Mikey and Nicky for the first time last night, and it’s one of the greatest films about friendship I’ve ever seen. These 3 have such a wonderful relationship
Does anybody know where I can watch the episode Cavett is referring to where Cassavetes and Norman Mailer have an argument? I can't find anything about it online, there are so many episodes of this amazing show that appear to be a little lost to time.
Pretty sure they’re in their characters they portrayed in Husbands. How they are acting is what the movie is about, that’s the whole joke, that’s why they keep ignoring Dick when he asks what’s the movie about.
I think this might be my favorite Dick Cavett show. I watched many of those shows when they first aired...at least until the early seventies when I stopped watching television...with a few sporadic times when I lived in non-TV free environments. I like youtube since I can pick what I want and catch up on those things I had never watched before. I am not a snob and enjoy various types of TV shows. I just find TV and recordings distractions. I wish more TV shows were like this one, where people don't get locked into a certain format.
To be honest though if they only knew what a wasted opportunity this was. I would have loved to hear each talk about their movies and life. It is why I really liked Tom Snyder's one on ones for an entire hour.
@@exexpat11 I know. I went to the youtube video because of I wanted to listen to the three men--especially Cassavetes. In one way, it was a disappointment and in another way, it was quite fun.
I’d be scared shitless with those 5 eyeballs staring down at me.
haha good one
@@markbowen9084 He did a fair bit of googling himself
An odyssey
@@stevebatt1211 "heh heh heh. hear what i said tone?"
@@dothebartman9156 Did you ever get checked for Tourettes?
Dick was upset that they wouldn't talk to him about the film, but they're kinda giving him a first hand experience of what the film is.
No, they’re giving him a first-hand experience of what it’s like to have three annoying drunks on the show.
I guess this is the kind of freedom you get when you’re not bound to the studio system. This wouldn’t bode well for advertisers or a shareholder meeting. But this is the freedom the independent film makers carved out for themselves- Cassavetes in particular.
Best take
Well said
True
I always considered this the unofficial sequel to Husbands.
These men were gorgeous
Criterion Collection is releasing „Husbands“ on 26 May: www.criterion.com/films/28827-husbands
they're clearly all still in character! method acting...
brilliant and hysterical
Crazy but fun.
You gotta give it to Dick. He was up against 3 great friends all in the joke & he was the outsider. As for John, Ben & Peter, I love them all. God I miss this type of entertainment.
Just like the "Rat Pack."
I always point to this exact episode when people talk about what's lacking in Late Night the last decade ❤
What I love about these guys is how they have no boundaries with each other. They just act on every impulse towards each other and they just roll with it. It takes years to master that type of friendship
Dude, they were DRUNK
@@jamespfitz 🤣😆 facts. I’ve seen three guys who just met at a bat act the exact same way.
They're drunk.
@@laurenceschwartz8606 They're high!!! .........and a little drunk.
The friendship is artificial...that is with clarity...Cassavetes method is the relationship and the unhappiness, and inner loathing of "Husbands" is the alchemy that this performance symbolizes. Cavetts instincts are insurmountable....not a flinch, not a stutter, not a missed beat or syncopated arrhythmia...that reflects a composed reflection of Cassavetes and how boundaries are somewhat a method consequence of Cassavetes. The unpleasantness of Husbands is and are these men. If Directors are tyrants by inner cynicism...Cavetts Circus Master disposition is all round, and round....
Trying to imagine how modern hosts would have handled this... Conan would've joined the fun and outcrazied them. Fallon would've fake laughed at first and progressively descended into deep depression.
Would have loved to seen Conan interacting and having fun with them!
Hahahahaha Fallon
Fallon couldn't hang.
Ferguson would have had a BLAST!
Yes Conan would have been fine(Ferguson also👍)...The others could never have coped!..way too real&"off the cuff"..
For those who criticize Cassavetes, Gazzara and Falk. I saw the full interview and the three guests began more polite and more cooperative after that. They understood that Cavett was kind of disappointed and they were conscious of their behavior. They saw the professionnal patience of their host and decided to be more serious and more kind to him. But, after all, this was the best promotion of this wonderful film "Husbands", the three were like their characters in the piece. That was intentional and, at the same time, there were themselves. P.S.: sorry for my english!
Well said my American cousin, too often folks jump to erroneous conclusions.
Guillaume: So they sobered up... So what? None of that redeems their actions or excuses the fact that they were disruptive in the first place. There is NO excuse for drinking and acting like a macho douchebag in this circumstance. There was no need for them to "be in character" (aka indulge themselves to drink and be idiots) to promote their mess of a movie that's a sympathetic character study of three macho douchebags. And even if there were, that doesn't excuse the fact that they're drunk on a talkshow. They could've "been in character" without drinking. As actors, they could've just -- you know -- acted!
"But it's a beautiful film about how being a manly man leaves you emotionally stunted and spiritually poor"
Then why spend so much time sympathizing with the characters? Why does Cassavetes drag the film out the way he does? Why is Cassavetes clearly indulging his own macho stupidity by showing up on a talkshow with two actor friends of his, clearly drunk out of their minds? If it's all supposed to show that "being a manly man" is a waste of time, then why waste people's time explaining that?
You are correct, in the full interview they become more cooperative and start talking more about the picture.
Wasn’t intentional. They were drunk.
@@anotherjoshua Drunk? Oh yes they were. But when you see the complete interview,they were not completely out of a control. They were more kind and polite.
Ladies and Gentlemen this video is truly legendary. Gazzara, Falk and Cassavetes are all toasted out of their mind. I frequent this video often when I want to remind myself why I quit drinking.
Smoking, drinking and under the influence on a TV talk show. I miss those days.
@brettfaverify true that!
less hysterical times ?
Whoever u are brettfavreify...I LOVE ya!! by the way GO PACK GO!! (born and bred in Green Bay lol)
I'm sorry and sad you see it that way.
@James Henderson you are a certified idiot.
It’s a shame they didn’t air the whole interview. After Cassevetes put Falk on his shoulders and they came back from commercial, they stopped horsing around. They were still tossed obviously but began to reveal what the film meant to them, why they that it was important, etc. It seems this UA-cam channel (of which I am greatly appreciative for so many insights into the past) decided to cut it out because it didn’t fit the narrative of them being crazy. They ended the show much more subdued and forthright. It’s a shame most people won’t see the actual interview portion. I found it elsewhere on UA-cam. I encourage you to watch it.
I would love to see the full show. Can you provide the link TM?
Right....”didn’t fit the narrative”. They are being drunk idiots. I think that speaks for itself.
Interesting thanks!
I think it's through no fault of their own (the custodians of the programme, nor the gents appearing on the show). Nor do I blame them. A lot of people don't have time to sit down and listen to a one-hour interview. Actually, let me rephrase that, they may have the time but they don't have the willpower. A successful social media account knows this and ends up asking 'how then can we get people hooked?'
Furthermore, I presume the answer lies in the creation of accessible 'moments' - for 15 minutes, we are able to engage with the famous names who have since left this world, to know what it might feel like to be sitting amongst that studio audience - in return we keep clicking and generating coin for the channel, for UA-cam, or both. Time is money, and as the account sells us verisimilitude, we in turn sell them our engagement. As we form our opinions, so should we acknowledge the ways in which the content provider makes conscious efforts to slant their product to influence that opinion. For that, I commend your point.
What I take issue with is your concern for 'most people'. One should be able to readily acknowledge that The Dick Cavett Show UA-cam Channel does not equal The Dick Cavett Show. But this channel has over 85mil combined views. I'll wager there's a figure to rival the amount of viewers DC had in a single night, although we must take synchronicity, or lack thereof, into account. When you say "it's a shame most people won't watch the full interview" are you implying there's a link between viewing figures and credibility? That if more people watch this edited clip than the original, then their impression of the event is somehow skewered? Sure, this is but a quarter slice of the cake, but that isn't the be and end all. Dick's courageously timid "We'll be right back" ratifies this.
But your comment makes me think...to what extent are we entitled to our own interpretation? Does context ensure credibility ('you weren't there man')? How can we be certain that what we are witnessing now is any less true than what people would have watched in 1970? The only thing that separates now from then is the number of times you've blinked; some people call it hindsight.
In all, I think I would advise you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While we may not always have access to the larger conversations these clips belong to, we will always have these moments, nonetheless. That, and gatekeeping sucks.
I think it's through no fault of their own (the custodians of the programme, nor the gents appearing on the show). Nor do I blame them. A lot of people don't have time to sit down and listen to a one-hour interview. Actually, let me rephrase that, they may have the time but they don't have the willpower. A successful social media account knows this and ends up asking 'how then can we get people hooked?'
Furthermore, I presume the answer lies in the creation of accessible 'moments' - for 15 minutes, we are able to engage with the famous names who have since left this world, to know what it might feel like to be sitting amongst that studio audience - in return we keep clicking and generating coin for the channel, for UA-cam, or both. Time is money, and as the account sells us verisimilitude, we in turn sell them our engagement. As we form our opinions, so should we acknowledge the ways in which the content provider makes conscious efforts to slant their product to influence that opinion. For that, I commend your point.
What I take issue with is your concern for 'most people'. One should be able to readily acknowledge that The Dick Cavett Show UA-cam Channel does not equal The Dick Cavett Show. But this channel has over 85mil combined views. I'll wager there's a figure to rival the amount of viewers DC had in a single night, although we must take synchronicity, or lack thereof, into account. When you say "it's a shame most people won't watch the full interview" are you implying there's a link between viewing figures and credibility? That if more people watch this edited clip than the original, then their impression of the event is somehow skewered? Sure, this is but a quarter slice of the cake, but that isn't the be and end all. Dick's courageously timid "We'll be right back" ratifies this.
But your comment makes me think...to what extent are we entitled to our own interpretation? Does context ensure credibility ('you weren't there man')? How can we be certain that what we are witnessing now is any less true than what people would have watched in 1970? The only thing that separates now from then is the number of times you've blinked; some people call it hindsight.
In all, I think I would advise you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While we may not always have access to the larger conversations these clips belong to, we will always have these moments, nonetheless. That, and gatekeeping sucks.
Three extraordinary actors no wonder they bonded together.
Genuine as people as well.
Three real jerks--no wonder they bonded so well. Grow up, Jeff.
@@robertcollins5161 Have a sense of humor ya stiff
@@robertcollins5161 Forget the acting. If you were aware as to the humanity/the human qualities of the 3, you wouldn't have said that. John was making films about interracial love before the Civil Rights movement. You mention growing up. I suggest to you, adults do some research before commenting, especially before they go onto calling people jerks
@@robertcollins5161 seems to me you the jerk as you put it
@@robertcollins5161how about you get that stick out of your ass, rob? how about that?
this is the EPITOME of not taking yourself seriously (and these guys could, if they wanted to)! they just made me like them even MORE. what an inspiration.
This is actually the best possible way to promote *that* film
I think it’s great. Everything about this is the 70s. I miss the 70s. I miss the booziness and the cigarettes and the whole crazy polyester ride. Thank you for posting this. And I will always love Peter Falk, warts and all.
Love that description of the 70's!
Warts???
@@those_eyes Yes, warts.
@@yearginclarke why? Where?
@@TelevisionCrews I think I was drunk and don't know what I meant by that comment, reading it now. Perhaps I was being sarcastic? IDK to be honest.
10 times more entertaining than any talk show today!
Any of them had more talent than today's hosts combined
Two year old statement,still as true today as it was then
@@r.edward5701 2 years isn't that long of a time. Sometimes I reply to comments 5-10 years old, depending on the topic and context. And people go "why are you replying to an OLD comment?" Age of the comment shouldn't matter. My opinions, in most cases, don't change that often. So something that I said 10 years ago will probably line up with what I think now. And if not I am more than happy to point out how my views have changed, rather than be like "how dare you reply to an OLD comment!".
@@yearginclarkeyeah, that’s something I just don’t get. The comments age shouldn’t matter.
@@yearginclarkeagree
3:07 "This is the reason I didn't join a fraternity." LMAO! Great comment, Mr. Cavett.
Absolutely agree!
"Do you have an hour?"
"No, but it will certainly seem like it"
Yes, LOL!
That exchange is a “cousin-of-sorts” to the famous Groucho line “I’ve had a marvelous evening, but this wasn’t it.”
The fact that Dick Cavett outlived them all makes his constant smile in this clip all the more enjoyable.
John Cassavetes
9 December 1929 ~
3 February 1989
Rest in powerful peace ⚘
Falk, Cassavetes, Gazzara -- Lords of the manor, each one.
'powerful peace'?
I love that i share a birthday with John Cassavetes 😊
@@ianbauer4703 Lovely statement. ♥
NOW I've seen Husbands (and really enjoyed it), watching this interview again in the special features makes a WHOLE lot more sense.
I'll whisper it......*the movie ISN'T finished*.......*if it's Cassavetes, it's NEVER finished.* :)
Incidentally buy the Criterion bluray. This clip is fifteen minutes too short here. The next fifteen minutes is even better, especially what Falk says.
I enjoyed it too, and it is about as far from "mainstream" cinema, even mainstream art cinema, as it is possible to imagine. It was challenging in 1970 and is still challenging today as it represents a direction that conventional film and TV has yet to take, Audiences still prefer directors to provide underlying motives to explain why characters behave as they do, and to use set up to tell them what they should be feeling. Cassavetes abjured all that, so all you have is the actor, their performance and how "available" they are to the actor opposite them.
Is the criterion supplement just the full interview without ads?
You know how when everyone else is drunk and you’re sober, you find them totally annoying?
YES!!
@@jessesmith8388 they’re right
Teetotalers seldom keep company, and fewer friends.
@@jessesmith8388 At least they truly knew how to have a good time.The ones today are off to the hospital after 3 shots.
Yes,if You are some sheltered monk who don't know how to handle guys like this.
Ben Gazzara directed the best ‘Columbo’ episode ever: “A Friend in Deed”.
A friend with weed is better.
Also the episode Troubled Waters
@@leegsy
Yes, Placebo.
Yes! Definitely one of my favorite episodes!
@@leegsy you made my day😂
Peter Falk
16 September 1927 ~
23 June 2011
Rest in powerful peace ⚘
Still better than nearly every modern talk show.
Dick Cavett is a class act. I think Peter Falk had started doing 'Columbo' by this time?
First movie two years before that.
@@crapstermcduck6593 ah! Thanks mate.
First Coumbo episode aired almost exactly a year after this.
Morten Gottschalck what year was this? Columbo first aired 1971.
This episode aired on September 18, 1970. Falk’s first Columbo movie aired February 20, 1968. The next one aired March 1, 1971, and it premiered as a regular series September 15, 1971. So Falk was not best known for Columbo at this time.
So great to see this, and you can stream the whole thing on Shout TV too. One of the great chat show car crashes of all times, and it is oddly like watching Husbands itself, the same bewilderment for the viewer when there is nothing in the set up to tell you what you should be feeling about the characters, their motivation or what is going to happen next. The three guests do come across as reasonably well refreshed too. When this first went out I was just a few weeks old, so this is in my lifetime, just. The 60s and 70s were wild, you have to say. Makes modern chat shows where celebrities appear to tell their "anecdote" and plug product look very, very tame.
This just became my favorite talk show episode EVER!
The Night Victor Franko, Lt. Columbo and Cosmo Vittelli walked in...
3 NY actors who were obviously very close friends at various stages of their careers.
Although they all started in the 50's Falk was stuck playing bit parts as quirky, violent characters until his breakout role as Columbo. He did the pilot in 1968 but the series would not start until '71 so was probably the least-known of the trio to the general audience.
Gazzara was established in both TV & film by this taping and Cassavettes had a productive career as both actor and director.
I love these 3 men in just about EVERYTHING they're ever done, and I can see how much they loved each other in this 'interview'.
Finally, great job Cavett just treading water lol behind Johnny, his show was a treasure.
I'm Generation X (53) so I barely caught the tail end of this kind of late night talk show in the late '70s, secretly looking for a late night monster movie or cartoon (local stations DID play cartoons late at night once in awhile) while parents were asleep. Too young to really get what was being said, but still watched cuz most time nothing else was on and wanting, in my own way, to better understand the adult world. Boy I truly miss this era of television when even this silly conversation is more serious and interesting than ANY of the crap that passes for televised discussion today.
@@juniorjames7076 You're not alone in that sentiment- my teen-aged summers included classics on the Late,Late show and they did have a profound impact on my tastes as an adult.
Yes, the bar is open backstage!
What a trio of great talent!
Who acted like annoying clowns.
Ben Gazzara
28 August 1930 ~
3 February 2012
Rest in powerful peace ⚘
Cool how the band played along to the hijinks perfectly.Straight professionals.
How intimidating this interview must've been for Mr. Cavett
More than 50 years later and we still talk about it, i think it speaks fot itself !
this is what “a night with the boys” really is
Love Falk & Cassavetes. ...and Cavett...some how held it all together ....oh well...at least nobody got hurt.
Brilliant stuff! The three of them piling on to each other on the floor is, essentially, what the film is about.
So, Mr. Cavett, the Marx Brothers had a reunion on your show - and you got to be Zeppo! 😸
This was in 1970. The pilot episode of "Colombo" had aired two years earlier. One year after the Cavett episode, a second "Colombo" episode aired. A year after *that,* the show became a series - at which point Falk was pretty much set up for life.
"This is why I didn't join a fraternity."
Classic. 😂✅
Dick certainly joined a "Fratenity",
That's why they made fun of him by rolling up their trouser legs.
@@alexcampbell3032 Oh! Because Cavett was a Mason? I thought it was such a goof, wondering what that was all about. lol, I get it now. Thanks!
This is perhaps one of my favorite episodes.
I love the boom mics, Lol
Cassavettes was a brilliant film maker. Also a raging alcoholic, which killed him at 59.
I think the hepatitis he contracted from the water he drank while making a movie in Mexico in 1966 didn't help.
This is true!
@@bobtaylor170 Yeah, he was probably a highly functional alcoholic....but he would have likely lived at least a decade or so longer if he hadn't drank on top of the hepatitis. His liver was too damaged by the hepatitis to be drinking.
@@KClouisville yes. There's a really interesting bio of Cassavetes. I don't remember the author, but the title is memorable: Accidental Genius.
The best interview i've seen in my life. Well, and everything Don Rickless did.
UFO Sharkey was the best thing that Don Wrinkles ever did.
One of the best videos on YT!
Wow, I never expected Falk to be so abrasive and Gazzara to be so amused. Maybe they decided to code-switch. And Cassavettes does thank Cavett "for being a good sport."
Like most drunken douchebags do. Clearly, if you say you're just having fun, that excuses everything.
Drunks being drunks. We've all met these guys.
Beautiful display of guys being guys...they must’ve had so much fun on set 😂...jumping all over each other like that❤️ god bless em!
I remember watching Dick Cavett on and off during the 70's as a kid.
They're acting like obnoxious drunks, but it's still pretty funny to watch. Enjoyed it more than listening to the usual pretentious, narcissistic Hollywood stars.
Dick Cavett didn't appreciate it and said they were his worst guests.
I think that's a fair appraisal
They weren’t “acting” that way they WERE that way, especially Cassavetes.
They were all drunk!!!
I'm new here. Never realized that Columbo and the dude from Roadhouse were such funny charming and brilliant people.
Holy Underwear, Batman ! I have never seen THREE drunk guests on a TV talk show at the same time ! They are really plastered ! I admire how Mr Cavett was able to keep his cool & keep the show going ! I was rarely able to watch Mr Cavett's show when it first aired...I was a teen and had to be in bed much earlier because of school the next day. Nice to see these bodacious "blast from the past" episodes ! THANKS for uploading for us to enjoy ! CHEERS !! :-)
I don't think they were actually drunk. It seems to me that they had it all planned as a way of promoting the film (as Cassavetes more or less explains in a later part of the show that is cut out of this clip). I think they also genuinely liked Dick and were playing a good natured joke on him... sort of an experiment, because they knew he would be funny under the circumstances.
I think they were high AF.
@@wingsofwhimsydreamscapes totally agree with you. There is NO WAY their physical comedy could have been this coordinated under the influence. They pulled off a GREAT AND PURE FUN show/prank.
@@wingsofwhimsydreamscapes Cavette was NEVER funny.
"Are you guys all smashed?" as Gazzara proceeds to say that Cassavetes never drinks, lmao. Just watched Husbands last night and this is a perfect substitution for the 85 minutes Cassavetes was forced to trim.
They were having fun. Great interview. So dam what, they did not talk about the movie.
Great interview? You have to go search what an interview is.
This interview is just like a Cassavettes film!
THE BEST ACTORS
I thought Dick was much more clever and funny with his comments than the other three. By the way, I watched the whole interview that someone put on youtube in 3 or 4 parts. It seemed like an hour and a half watching this and I kept hoping they would "snap out of it," but they never did. Anyway, Dick handled himself well, and for this he should be appreciated.
They ended the show composed, spoke about the picture, what it meant to them as men, actors, and husbands. They stopped horsing around. I’m not sure you watched the entire interview, and it is misleading to say they never “snapped out of it.”
Oh, God, THIS one. Wrestling on the floor, Dick walking out. . . they don't make talk shows like this any more.
What I love about Cassavetes was that his movies were a literal F-U to Hollywood.
It’s clear they all agreed to go on the show as their Husband’s characters.
I had a group of friends like this in Middle school. They wouldn't let us partner up during group assignments
dfghjklkjhgf this is HYSTERICAL! I love it!!! It feels like when my mom asks my siblings and I a question and we all simultaneously do a Bit and laugh the whole time, all the while she's getting more and more angry lol
This the craziest damn think I've ever seen. Peter Falk seemed to be attempting some sort of calm and order but the other 2 overwhelmed him also.
I know, right?! They're bad influences 😂
I saw this already it's honestly really hilarious, but also honestly really childish and silly. Like normally I'd go extremely angry with such behavior but considering that this was the behavioral norm of the three (especially Cassavetes, in here he might've been actually rather timid) I'm not surprised, they're really hard to control. Love this episode anyways. Also, major props for Dick for ethically putting up with their bullshit.
It is very like Husbands itself, a film that has always divided opinion. You can see why many people find it self indulgent and puerile, but I was re-watching the scenes between Jenny Runacre and John Cassavetes recently and, uncomfortable though it is to watch (which it is) it is also interesting. There is nothing in the set up to tell the audience what to think; no soundtrack, no imagery to set up metaphor or hint at meaning. You are just left to scour the way the characters are behaving to try and work out what they are feeling or might do next. It is nerve-wracking, but it is also intriguingly different from conventional cinema (even much art cinema). More akin to Warhol and Chantal Akerman movies. They may well have been drunk, but it is quite subversive too.
Alma, it was a different time then.
When you think you're funny but you're actually drunk
Yeah, but John dropping his cigar as he was trying to light it, was pretty funny.
These guys were so hot
I'll take that over the P.R exercises most talks shows are.
The best comment I’ve read in a long time. Can only hope they were deeply embarrassed later....but probably not.
Dick was drunk??
All actors have large heads. I like, love these fellows.
Priceless
the freaking band hitting those drums when three of them are doing voguing drops lmaf
"The film seems long and I haven't seen it yet." LOL
The best of Late Night, ever. 11/10
This is the funniest show I have ever seen and there was not a single swear word in it! They were delightful. Hilarious! Where is the other half hour of it? or these guys are not in it? Can you upload it please? Thanks.
Priceless!
Great days. Such memories.
This show reminds me of one of Johnny Carson's shows when his guests were Bob Hope, Dean Martin, and George Gobel. Like this Dick Cavett show, things got a little wild, and Johnny quipped at the end, "At what point did I lose control of the show?" ua-cam.com/video/pbpc-NJHcZ8/v-deo.html. In both cases, the shows work as entertainment. However, given Dick's thoughtful style of interviewing, I can understand if he felt frustrated that his guests were not more cooperative with letting him take the lead.
With all due respect to this segment, that Carson show with Dean Martin, Bob Hope, and George Goebel was EPIC. Possibly the best episode of a late-night talk show ever.
funniest line: “I had an opportunity to go into the stock market business about 4 years ago”-Dick Cavett
"John never drinks, Peter hardly drinks, and I drink sometimes." MY SIDEEESSS 😂😂
y'see it's funny because john died of alcoholism
These guys are drunk.And funny as all get out.Still absolutely talented.
They seem to amuse each other, but nobody else.
@@sledzeppelin So the audience laughter is obviously faked.
@@pod831 It doesn’t sound like the good kind of laughter to me.
@@sledzeppelinI thought it funny!
Do watch the movie Husbands, it's great.
It says date aired was 9-18-1970. Jimi Hendrix's death and Black Sabbath's Paranoid album release were on that same day also.
i wish i had friends
These were golden days of chat shows ,....proper stars relaxed , lad back, being natural and honest,...and thoroughly entertaining
If you don't love this there is something wrong with you.
A free for all.
I hate it, it’s super uncomfortable and I was embarrassed for the guests.
@John Trickey Unlike you the majority of people isn't mentally ill and finds it awkward and painful.
Something wrong, as in you're not hammered? I love a drink too but the way these guys got on was disrespectful to Dick, who's a fair and open minded guy. A car crash!
I quit watching after the first two minutes. This is not the way I wanted to remember Peter Falk.
Obviously the perfect bonus to "HUSBANDS" dvd (or whatever fucking disc) !!
Actually, I saw the movie Husbands and it was a lot like this. No one was sober, ever.
I watched Mikey and Nicky for the first time last night, and it’s one of the greatest films about friendship I’ve ever seen. These 3 have such a wonderful relationship
They were admittedly putting on the dog for Cavett. He handled them well despite their tomfoolery.
Well, Dick outlived them all...
I almost said that.
LMAO 😂
The Grim Reaper came for him years ago, but he bored him to death.
The secret is knowing when to stop . . .
This is so good,,,
Wow are those Thom McCan's Hustlers Peter Falk was wearing? My favorite shoes when I was young!
magovenor I worked for Thom mcan back in the day when I was a young adult
Does anybody know where I can watch the episode Cavett is referring to where Cassavetes and Norman Mailer have an argument? I can't find anything about it online, there are so many episodes of this amazing show that appear to be a little lost to time.
Peter Falk: "I'm just a teeny little super guy" 🎶
i'm madly in love with them
Pretty sure they’re in their characters they portrayed in Husbands. How they are acting is what the movie is about, that’s the whole joke, that’s why they keep ignoring Dick when he asks what’s the movie about.
Doesn’t make it worth watching.
Judy Vallas you must be fun at parties.
I had the biggest smile for 15 mins
I think this might be my favorite Dick Cavett show. I watched many of those shows when they first aired...at least until the early seventies when I stopped watching television...with a few sporadic times when I lived in non-TV free environments. I like youtube since I can pick what I want and catch up on those things I had never watched before. I am not a snob and enjoy various types of TV shows. I just find TV and recordings distractions. I wish more TV shows were like this one, where people don't get locked into a certain format.
To be honest though if they only knew what a wasted opportunity this was. I would have loved to hear each talk about their movies and life. It is why I really liked Tom Snyder's one on ones for an entire hour.
@@exexpat11 I know. I went to the youtube video because of I wanted to listen to the three men--especially Cassavetes. In one way, it was a disappointment and in another way, it was quite fun.
It just doesn’t get any better than this!
It’s Freakin’ GREAT!
Please post the Norman Mailer/Cassavetes interview referenced on this show
I'm still waiting for this lol
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
riff tipton drift it if you got it.
Damn, this was good. LOL