David Letterman was on vacation last week, so it wasn't until last night's Late Show that he was able to address the death of his mentor, idol and hero, Johnny Carson. The contrast between Letterman's appreciation for the former king of late night and the one presented last week by current Tonight Show host Jay Leno was an extreme one. Leno came out and turned his monologue into a somber, yet not very personal, reflection on what Carson meant to television. He seemed incredibly uncomfortable, trying to be serious in a forum where he's used to being funny. The rest of the show felt like an outsider interviewing people who knew Carson better than Leno ever did or could. It was a perfectly nice presentation by the show that nominally carries on Carson's work.
But what happened on Letterman last night was a whole different animal; not a period of mourning as much as a celebration. Letterman didn't need to have Don Rickles and Bob Newhart reminiscing about what made Carson so great. Letterman came out and started giving a standard monologue, without mentioning Carson at all, much to my surprise. Yet five minutes later, anyone watching the show knew that he couldn't have honored Carson more . Following the traditional comic monologue, Letterman continued with a magnificent reflection about what Carson meant to him that was funny and touching. After mentioning how he owes everything to Carson, he also revealed, "Every one of those jokes I did a few minutes ago were written for us over the last couple of months by Johnny Carson – a tremendous act of friendship." (Can anyone imagine Leno even entertaining the thought of using a Carson-written joke in his monologue?)
Granted, Letterman is known for having his own insecurities about his own talents. The stories of his post-show freak-outs have been going around since his days on NBC. He's never thought he was good enough; much of his humor on-the-air comes from a self-deprecating place – another contrast to the ever-confident Leno – and he's always projected a degree of awe in reference to Carson. Last night during his interview with former Tonight Show producer Peter Lassally, Letterman even asked if Johnny every lost it or screamed in his dressing room when something went wrong after the show, an interesting question for anyone who ever read Bill Carter's The Late Shift about the "late night wars" surrounding Carson's retirement and Letterman's move to CBS.
Letterman spoke about Carson all night with an adoring sense of awe that would have seemed a bit annoying had it not been so genuine. You could tell here and there that had he not been on camera, Letterman might have broken down crying. During much of his reflection, he had a harder time looking into the camera than normal; in fact, it was almost only during a self-deprecating comment that he would stare straight at the home viewer and flash that toothy smile.
He also managed to give a brilliant analysis of both Carson's contribution to late-night television as well as what's currently wrong with it.
The Tonight Show didn’t really become The Tonight Show until Johnny Carson started to host it. And he created the template for that show, and everybody else who's doing a show, myself included, we're all kind of secretly doing Johnny's Tonight Show. And the reason we're all doing Johnny's Tonight Show is because you think, Well if I do Johnny's Tonight Show, maybe I'll be a little like Johnny, and people will like me more. But it sadly doesn't work that way. If you're not Johnny, you're wasting your time. Really everything -- the band, the chairs, the desk, the announcer -- it's all because we just want to be a little bit more like Johnny.
And he's right. Nobody has been able to redefine that template. Even interview-oriented shows like NBC's Later or the Tom Snyder version of CBS's The Late, Late Show that simply featured two easy chairs eventually morphed into a host behind a desk. Last Call with Carson Daly which started with the same comfy chair set-up put Daly behind a desk some time ago as well, simply retreating to the standard set-up created by Carson. It's unfortunate actually, and as Letterman mentioned on the show, maybe some day, another will come along who will redefine the format, but that's still not the case today.
Last night's Late Show show exposed the primary difference between Letterman and Leno: the current Tonight Show host is much more of a performer than his rival and competitor. The only thing different about Leno's show last week from any other Tonight Show was his attempt at warmth and seriousness in his monologue. He had a subject to cover, and that's what he did. Letterman, on the other hand, has rarely seemed as enthusiastic as he was talking about his idol, even under such circumstances.
Maybe that's because of the personal relationship Letterman and Carson had which never existed with the latter's Tonight Show successor. While NBC was able to shove in a clip of one of Leno's earlier stand-up performances on Carson's show, The Late Show was able to provide a mini-retrospective of clips and sketches featuring Carson interacting with Letterman. What does it mean that the eternal sidekick – Ed McMahon – was the only Carson Tonight Show regular to appear with Leno while Letterman spent a half-hour interviewing producer Lassally and then featured a performance by Carson bandleader Doc Severinsen (along with former Tonight Show bandmembers Tommy Newsome and Ed Shaughnessy) – who conspicuously didn't appear with Leno but was doing interviews on Today the next morning. And then there's the fact that Carson had been secretly writing and feeding jokes – for no reason other than his own amusement – to Letterman for at least the last several months.
The viewership numbers may still show Leno being the current late-night leader, but comparing the two tributes to Carson proves both who really carries on Carson's legacy as well as who his favorite was. If the secret to late-night success – at least artistically – is being yourself, Letterman wins in a landslide, and we should all be thankful that the next host of The Tonight Show will be Conan O'Brien.
Meanwhile, there was a little blurb in the business section of yesterday's New York Times (I can't find the article online) that talked about viewership in late night today versus Carson's last year in 1991-92. Amazingly, the analysis of the numbers is abysmal, paying more attention to Leno's larger lead over second-place than Carson's greater total numbers and audience share in a universe with fewer total viewers (as well as, to be fair, far fewer viewing options). But Carson's dominance in the late-night landscape, even if his lead over ABC's Nightline is smaller than Leno's lead over Letterman, shouldn't be underestimated, especially for its cultural significance.
Of course, NBC and Leno care more about the numbers in today's landscape, which makes sense since they're in the business of audience share. And I suppose that was reflected in the two respective tribute shows. While Leno and The Tonight Show honored a figurehead mostly because he had to, Letterman and The Late Show honored a man and his unique talent – because he wanted to.
Great piece, Aaron... the difference between Letterman's eulogizing and that of Leno's was the difference between a friend's vantage point and that of a stranger. Letterman's affection for the great Carson was touching and sincere -- and it reminded us why Carson was, and is, such a revered figure in TV.
Posted by: Chase | Tuesday, February 01, 2005 at 10:15 AM
aa: thanks for this -- so true, and way more thought-out than what i was able to get into on slate today. i haven't been so moved by letterman in years -- as you say, it was lovely that he had a genuinely celebratory, upbeat tone, like, let's be happy about this person's life, not act fake-sad about the fact that he's gone. and the old tonight show clip where carson's people stole letterman's beat-up truck and had it towed into the studio? awesome. looking forward to what conan has to say tonight (and what you have to say about it.) i don't know how you feel about conan, but i've always liked him -- i think he knows how to be himself, though it's a pretty weird self.
Posted by: lizpenn | Tuesday, February 01, 2005 at 09:07 PM
how are you so sophisticated? i mean really?! c'mon, what's your secret???
Posted by: middle america | Wednesday, February 02, 2005 at 01:13 PM
Hmmm ... well, for one thing I don't use some generic alias pretending to represent a segment of our population, nor do I type in a fake email address, so I guess that may be part of my secret. But more importantly, what the hell are you talking about? I don't think there's anything in this post claiming to be more "sophisticated" than "Middle America." (Proper name capitalization and all.) Unless for some crazy ass reason you think calling Leno less real than Letterman is an attack on "Middle America."
I hope that answered your question. Certainly makes sense to me.
Posted by: Aaron | Wednesday, February 02, 2005 at 02:36 PM
The Conan appearance was good, but I would have loved to have cameras set-up in some of the middle-American living rooms (bedrooms?) that might have been watching. I don't know ... maybe he doesn't have much of a red state demo, but you've got to figure there were some people not living in the cities watching that and saying, "What the hell is going on?"
does that answer your query?
Posted by: middle america | Thursday, February 03, 2005 at 09:43 AM
Yes it does. Now since you're obviously not sophisticated enough to know how to post comments to blogs ... you grabbed that quote from a comment of mine on Ultragrrrl's site, right? How the hell am I are anyone reading your comment on a post that doesn't say anything about "middle america" supposed to know what you're talking about. And obviously, you are unable to even understand what my comment was about, especially since it wasn't putting-down middle america or trying to claim myself as smarter than anyone. I was just saying that the performance was relatively wild, with two members of the band putting on motorcycle helmets and simply jumping around the stage smashing things that I'm sure there are some more conservative-types out there who would be baffled as to why anyone likes it.
But I'm sorry that your anonymous "middle america"-self is so insecure that you found that comment to be a criticism.
Oh, and for anyone who still doesn't understand what we're talking about because "middle america" decided to post that quote completely out of context, the "appearance" referred to has nothing to do with Letterman, Leno, Conan or Carson. It was Arcade Fire's appearance on Conan O'Brien Tuesday night.
Luckily, I'm sure none of us actually take "middle america" as a representative for middle america, because that, in fact, would be a criticism of that entire part of the country.
Posted by: Aaron | Thursday, February 03, 2005 at 10:17 AM
it sounds to me like you were saying people in middle america and/or not in cities would neither understand nor appreciate the antics of arcade fire. lucky for your smug self, you do get it. congrats.
by the way, why don't you go promote DIG! again.
Posted by: middle america | Monday, February 07, 2005 at 01:26 PM
Again, middle america (the person, not the place) you are welcome to follow you're little self-hatred insecure stance and consider me smug. I was saying that a lot of people in middle america and/or not in cities would think Arcade Fire was crazy, and if you think that's not true, you're nuts too. I did not say ALL, and in fact I even mentioned that I'm sure Conan has a demo that is all too aware of it. Why this bothers you so much is beyond me, and if you find me smug, don't come to my site. I couldn't care less.
As for DIG!, this is a supid little non-controversy that I have no idea why Sarah started, other to defend some friends of hers, and now Gawker's all over it. Whatever. I think you give "middle america" a bad name because you're a moron.
I'm not exactly a member of that whole downtown blogger clique although I've met several of them and think they're very nice. But this is a movie/TV/entertainment blog. I see a lot of movies, and many of them for free at various screenings. If I hadn't liked DIG!, I would not have given it a positive review no matter what the little blogger email invite said. I acknowledged in my post that I went to the premiere and anyone with half-a-brain (I'm obviously not including you Mr/Ms Anonymous can't-leave-an-email Coward) would know that I didn't pay for it. I can't speak for any of the other bloggers there, but I thought it was a very well-made and interesting movie. And while winning the audience award at Sundance and got mostly positive reviews doesn't guarantee anything, accusing anyone of being influenced of giving a good review simply for being able to see the film for free is asinine.
I hope Middle America (the place) feels welcome to read my blog. But "middle america" the person, stay away. You and your pointless, groundless criticism annoy the crap out of me.
Posted by: Aaron | Monday, February 07, 2005 at 01:37 PM