Reviews

The Dick Cavett Show -- Ray Charles Collection

Dan MacIntosh

It's no secret that Dick Cavett loved Ray Charles' music.


The Dick Cavett Show -- Ray Charles Collection

Cast: Ray Charles, Dick Cavett
Network: Shout! Factory
First date: 2003
US Release Date: 2005-09-13
Amazon affiliate
Amazon

Before the advent of BET, it was difficult for even the best R&B artists to secure extended television airtime. An exception to this general rule, however, is the respectful way Dick Cavett treated Ray Charles here. This two-DVD set features three original full-length Cavett programs. Two of these episodes spotlight Charles as a musical guest, and on the third one, Charles is the lone guest. If you've seen the excellent film Ray, and now you want to know what all of the Ray Charles fuss is about, this package presents the soul man in his prime.

At first -- during the scene where Cavett desperately tries to sing "Am I Blue" with Charles on the June 25, 1972 episode -- it is a tad uncomfortable to watch. Cavett is nearly unbearably white, which he cannot hide here. And Charles is deep, dark soul to the bone. Nevertheless, Cavett is not trying to pretend that he's hip during these moments. Instead, he's living out the dream to sing with one of his musical heroes. Reciprocally, you also get the sense that Charles respects Cavett's sincerity, and especially his professionalism. This is not some sort of a bi-racial summit; instead, it's two entertainers from polar ends of the entertainment spectrum, which somehow find a whole lot of unlikely middle ground together.

If you love to just sit and watch Charles sway back and forth, as his beautifully gravelly voice squeezes out every last emotion from his songs, you won't be disappointed here. In other words, you can skip over Cavett's interview portions altogether. There are many familiar Charles favorites to choose from, such as "Georgia on My Mind" and "I Can't Stop Loving You". One is also treated to Charles' take on "Eleanor Rigby", which significantly increases the pain factor of The Beatles' original version. Another pleasant surprise is his approach to "Shake", which was a song originally introduced to the world by fellow soul brother, Otis Redding.

If you choose to watch each of these programs in their entirety, including Cavett's non-musical invitees, you'll also get a taste of just how eclectic the Dick Cavett Show truly was. For instance, one guest on the first episode was that The Odd Couple guy, Tony Randall, as well as famed anthropologist Margaret Mead. Cavett easily trades humorous barbs with Randall one moment, and then shows off his natural smarts during his discussion with Mead. Randall, while all the while speaking in that oh-so-formal voice of his, can be seen and heard explaining his shock over witnessing the topless sunbathing phenomenon in Los Angeles. Mead, on the other hand, takes on more serious topics, such as pollution, overpopulation, sexual taboos, and women's liberation. The second disc's non-musical lineup of John Lindsay and Dr. Samuel Rosen, however, is not nearly so fascinating. When viewed as a whole, this TV look-back is a reminder that there once was a time when talk shows booked guests because they were interesting, not just because they had a new book or film to promote. This is expressly why you don't see the likes of Mead on today's late night television.

During his interview segments with Charles, Cavett poses a lot of questions we'd all like to ask blind people. And due to the mutual respect they shared, Cavett could get away with some rather naïve queries. For example, he asks Charles what he thinks about people when familiar names are mentioned. He prefaces this question by mentioning the way sighted ones get mental pictures of physical attributes when this common practice occurs. So what do blind people "see"? As Charles explains it, he pictures people the way folks used to imagine their favorite stars, back in radio's heyday. He imagines what they must look like, including height and weight and so forth. During one other Q&A session, Ray also tells Cavett that he can still picture basic colors, because he was a pre-teen when he first lost sight. Nevertheless, he has trouble with modern colors (well, these were modern at the time) such as "electric pink". Most importantly, Cavett asks Charles if he'd ever want to regain his sight again, if medical science were able to give that back to him. Although he'd love to see what his children look like, Charles answers, he'd probably only need about one day to see all of his previously denied sights. Quite simply, he had adjusted well to being sightless by then.

On a few occasions during these three programs, Charles politely complains about the state of television at that time, and how it related to music. It bothered him that so much emphasis was placed upon how people looked, rather than how they sounded. At one point during his commentary, he even breaks the word television into two parts, revealing that "vision" was the operative word. Charles was so in touch with sound, being that he hadn't been able to see since the age of seven, it's not hard to empathize with his frustration. Now with around 30 years of hindsight, Charles also comes off way ahead of his time -- what with the near omnipresence of stereo television these days. Sadly, the re-release of these three shows doesn't even come in 5.1 Surround Sound. So if Ray were alive today, he might still be disappointed after listening to these DVDs.

Even without great sound, however, Charles never fails to exude charisma on the TV screen. Although it's highly recommended that all true music fans watch Ray the movie, there is still nothing like the real thing.

8

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image