THERE are two striking aspects of this BBC rebroadcast of a 1960 interview with the British writer Evelyn Waugh.

First, there is the stunning misrepresentation of the interview by Joan Bakewell, who introduces the rebroadcast with utterly false charges of rudeness and hostility on the part of Waugh, and similar mischaracterization of the writer by John Freeman, the original interviewer, who had posed a number of antagonistic questions to Waugh and accuses him of nervousness that is nowhere to be found. Why do they seem eager to attribute rudeness and even mental instability to the author? Is it their own egotism, their search for a titillating angle, or is there something else at stake? Perhaps his religious beliefs?

Secondly, there is the interview itself, which is a memorable and fascinating glimpse of the author, who is open, candid and succinct, his lucid thoughts traveling visibly across a pudgy, Anglo-Saxon face devoid of conceit and concealment. Waugh says there is only one reason why he agreed to be interviewed on TV: poverty. Not many celebrities would admit to the financial self-interest in publicity.

Waugh remembers fondly the instruction his mother gave him before he went to school and being read to as a child. He recalls the harshness of life at a British boarding school during World War I and briefly discusses his conversion to Catholicism. I highly recommend the whole thing.

— Comments —

Janice G. writes:

This interview was both strangely interesting and slightly uncomfortable. So different in its interrogation style from the relaxed, conversational method of interviewers like Dick Cavett, who put subjects at ease and gave them a wider swath, I felt like I was watching a courtroom lawyer leading the witness.

I thought Evelyn Waugh was polite to the interviewer, and gave as much reflection in his answers as he could to the rapid-fire, closed questions. When Mr. Waugh was asked if he grew up missing having a sister in the family, to which he replied “no”, I cringed as the interviewer went for the “gotcha” moment by reminding Waugh he once related a story about a brother missing a sister in one of his books. I think I cringed more for the journalist than Evelyn Waugh; stupid people set stupid traps!

I agree that the whole production was probably a concerted effort to lower the esteem the reading public had for Waugh and to cast stones at Catholicism at the same time. It didn’t work, though.

Evelyn Waugh will remain one of the greats among English-speaking writers. As for me, I am going to look for a copy of Brideshead Revisited, which I haven’t yet had the pleasure of reading!

Thank you for that, as well as all your articles.

Laura writes:

You’re welcome.

Brideshead is a truly great novel. I hope you get the chance to read it.

John E. writes:

Thank you for posting this. I watched this interview a while ago, but only in part, and I recall thinking then that the rudeness and nervousness Bakewell and Freeman were accusing Waugh of, if it was to be found in the interview at all, must show up in the part I hadn’t watched.

Your post prompted me to listen to the whole interview this time, and I’m glad I did. I suppose it’s possible there is more to the story behind the scenes with Waugh and the interviewer, but just taking the interview itself as it appears it is clear that Bakewell and Freeman are seeing what they want to see in it, in spite of what actually occurred in it.

If Waugh comes across as short in any way, obviously it’s because of the terse and machine-like questioning of Freeman. Freeman is not inviting the listener to learn and appreciate how interesting a person Waugh is as a good interviewer would do. He comes across as trying to obtain evidence, giving it more the feel of an interrogation. In particular it’s pretty clear Freeman is trying to trap Waugh into walking through sordid details of his past life. Waugh is skillful in both not taking the bait that Freeman offers, but still responding to his dishonest questioning with interesting answers. He does this all with as much politeness as one can expect, given the circumstances.

Johanna writes:

Just finished the interview and aside from parts where I couldn’t understand him because he speaks very fast and the words are somewhat muffled, I thought he was charming, open and real. What’s more you can see by the crinkles around his eyes that he probably smiles often. I agree with you completely that their characterizations are totally manufactured but then, what else is new? We now know all this propaganda has been going on since the dawn of democrats.

Thank you for sharing it.

T. writes:

“The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold,” a novel which is supposed to have been loosely based on Waugh’s own experience, has a great description of Pinfold (of Waugh) and in the first chapter is a very nice description of his attitudes late in life: specifically his attitudes toward journalists.

Laura writes:

Thank you. I will look that up.

Please follow and like us: