I had the great pleasure to meet this wonderful man briefly, many years ago, and what a great treasure he was....an absolute delight. A great talent very sadly missed!
I met him for a minute / briefly myself, and could not agree more. Not only remarkably well-mannered, but was stunningly articulate and able to convey a story so vividly and precisely as seen in this interview, I was in my mid 20s at the time, but he was and is one of my favorite actors and personalities. Simply a brilliant mind able to express serious thought, but also present such perceptive nusianced characterizations of people and behaviors. A completely underrated actor, even if he did win two Academy Awards.
Just what you want on an interview show. Witty ,charming and full of wondrous stories - thats all you need . The incredible and force of nature Peter Ustinov.
@@sgtpluck8344 And audience; Americans often don't or can't appreciate the little elements which they missed with Olivier asking Ustinov: 'Can you come in a little faster with your yes?
I remember he came to give a speech at Oxford in the late 1990s and he had nothing prepared. So someone asked him a question about the various places he'd done films, and he talked for 2 hours, impersonating immigration officers from around the globe, and then telling a story about going to court in France over his Jaguar that had been impounded, impersonating the French judge. It was absolutely hilarious.
@John White I was in the audience for this show. Wish I could find the rest of it. You are so blessed to have been there for this great moment. I love ANYTHING Ustinov related. I am jealous, in the kindest way, of you!
Apparently it was Ustinov who first said the line, which is very relevant today, often attributed to Clive James, that Australians may be descended from convicts, but that it shouldn't be forgotten that they're also descended from jailers.
Back when an actor or public figure could be interesting because of who they actually were-cultivated and warm human beings-rather than to satisfy some manufactured public image
Peter is one of the most interesting, the most humorous and most intelligent poeple that I can think of. This man was incredible really. He could impersonate more poeple like robin williams and invent more characters like robin williams. He understands more of diplomacy than most diplomats in the world. His sensitivity concerning understanding human behaviour is incredible fine and sophisticated. This man had wisdom. He had the knowledge and the character to lead a nation. And he can tell stories that are not only humorous, but at the same time very entertaining and educative. This is one of the best humans I can think of with one of the best characters a human can have that I can think of. What is outstanding about him is his understanding of things that many poeple don't even know that they exist and these things are: dignity, honour, respect, care, patience and tolerance. If you want to learn what it means to be a human and to be human the best teacher you can find is Peter Ustinov. There is a reason why he has such diplomatic skills. For anyone that is interested in that I recommend you to inform yourself more about this man. This man was a gift to this world. I'm really thankful that I know him.
@@M21L35 Peter didn't seem comfortable here for some reason. If you compare this with the interviews he did with Michael Parkinson you will know what i mean
@ John Lewis.....Doesn't it make you intensely uncomfortable just having to wade through this most incompetent interview one could ever expect to painfully endure? Woefully overmatched bonehead pathetically failing in a meager attempt to even attempt to match wits w/such an overpoweringly brilliant mind. Supreme waste of Sir Peter's efforts in dealing w/the curmudgeon Letterman!
Herzlich willkommen, mein verehrter Peter Ustinov! Ich wusste immer, dass uns mehr als der coole Humor und die persönliche Zurückhaltung verbindet, ich wusste nur nicht genau, WAS...!
Wish Dave hadn't interrupted Ustinov's rhythms so often. Peter was in the midst of his stories, and Dave kept killing the flow. Watch Ustinov tell his "Horse" story on the Parkinson's interview--very droll.
Bill Rossiter Yes you're right. He always did his own rhythm. If he's not doing his own rhythm he's afraid of loosing it. He always had to be the boss. He always had to be in charge. We know that it was always one of his weakest character features. But nevertheless being who he is he did pretty well with his restraint. He gave this wonderful man a bit of space to tell his stories in the rhythm that his stories require. But all in all just to be part of his show that is all in all superficial and without depth was a bit of wasted time for Peter to get treated like an attraction in a zoo. I wonder why he accepted the invitation. He must have known that Dave won't give him the space that he deserves and needs to tell his stories. One can only give respect to another person if one has self respect. That is the thing: Dave had never much self respect. He always just acted as if he would have self respect. Ustinov really only deserved a host that treats him with the respect that he deserves. His way to tell a story and go into so many observational details while telling it was so unique and special and outstanding that he really only deserved a host that gave him the space he needed to shine and pass on to the audience the treasures of his wisdom and wit and humour. When Dave introduced him he apologised correctly beforehand that this man is too classy to appear on his show. That Peter didn't decline the offer to come on the show tells how generous this man really was and that he loved all people indepent of their social standing or educational level.
@@peternemeth1777 None of what you said is correct, of course. David Letterman was a HUGE star in his own right. He was being his usual, American, sarcastic self when he said that Ustinov was far too classy an actor, etc. Letterman had MANY classy and important people on his show, both prior and AFTER this interview. The big draw to Letterman was that he was funny, sarcastic, and quick with a quip. The WHOLE REASON people loved Letterman was for his humor and the way he would banter with the guests. He was a huge draw with audiences and that is why waning stars like Ustinov would agree to be on the show. Peter was having difficulty finding roles at that time, and any publicity or money coming in was fine with him (which is why he did so many subpar films in that era). Letterman's show was NEVER an interview show where guests would come on and drone on and on about themselves endlessly. This modern talk show was primarily about the host being so funny that the guests had to try to match wits with him. One of Letterman's great talents was having REAL conversations with guests. Apparently you haven't had many conversations with REAL people, because in reality when people are chatting with each other, one rarely sits in silence as someone tells a story. The stories are often interrupted with quips, jokes, comments, approval, and encouragement. That is what Letterman did so well. He behaved as if he were having a casual chat with guests, the way WE would want to talk to them. If I met Peter Ustinov, I would have spoken WITH him, not just sat and listened to him ramble on about whatever he wanted. That's not natural. I would have had a real, NATURAL conversation with him, which is what Letterman did. In addition, Ustinov was on Letterman's show again shortly after this segment, so it's not as if Ustinov had a problem with Letterman's humor or approach. YOU have a problem with it because of your own misconceived ideas of what an interview should be like and what Ustinov would accept. Also, the idea that Ustinov was "generous" in accepting Letterman's invitation is asinine. Ustinov was plugging a movie and was doing the talk show circuit. THAT'S why his people put out that he was available and why Letterman to let him come on the show--to advertise the upcoming film. Sheez. Your comments about Letterman having no self respect are ridiculous. The man has an IMMENSE amount of self respect. That is why he is so self confident in his interviews. He is not a shy, retiring, ridiculous person who doesn't have self respect, as anyone can see.
@@kugelweg BRAVO 👏 about time someone spoke Sense , too many butt hurt whinos talking baloney that they know nothing about , only repeating what they see in the comment section and to make themselves feel like intelligent they add a cool addition to a fake comment they’ve dreamed up to fit in !!!!!!
Dave is actually a superb interviewer, but he would get nervous or overconfident with some guests on occasion. Ustinov got insulted when Letterman pretended he didn't remember Prince Charles' name, and whatever little chemistry there was in the beginning just dissipated after that.
Ustinov clearly DIDN'T get insulted, he played along with Dave's silly sarcasm. Ustinov was PRETENDING to be annoyed, using an old man's voice to do so. It's called acting.
Ustinov had a fascinating life and family background. His ancestry was Ethiopian, Jewish, Russian, German, French, Italian, and Polish with nobility on both sides. Ustinov's dad was a German government official who spied for the British against first the Nazis and later the USSR. He held secret meetings in Peter's home where they plotted to oust Hitler prior to WW Two. Peter was a high school classmate of the son of Hitler's Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop. His autobiography is hilarious- especially read out loud by him (available free on RU-vid).
Sheesh. The last U.S. chat show hosts who understood how to focus the spotlight on the guest AND actually listen to them were Cavett and to a lesser degree, Carson. They weren't 100% but then who is? Well, Michael Parkinson came very close indeed.
Cavett is a fav of mine; a great charmer and very adaptable but Carson kept endlessly interrupting guests like he was giving a running commentary fragmenting many interviews that could have been brilliant if he kept his ego, which needed constant nourishing, under control!!
Yes, Here is one of the greatest story tellers ever in my view not being allowed to develop. A lack of understanding. British humour is different from American humour. The main difference is British is built on character and eccentricity of character .And the interaction between characters which in Britain are many. This type of Character that doesn't exist in America.The understanding isn't there. America stereo types s fall into about 10 to 12 types where as British stereo types are vast .
Agreed. It's also about depth. Americans are for the here and now. The British are aware of thousands of years of history behind them. There are many shades of depth but millenia of history may never be ignored.
an unessecary divertion, from the guests flow. Letterman knew he was shite, so thought he'd make a 'interesting' contribution, which turned into a colossal embarrassment.
Peter was a renaissance man and a raconteur par excellence however, in this interview it found the the usually excellent Letterman floundering. The questions were somewhat trite and therefore did not allow for an easy rapport. However, Ustinov as usual presented a most avuncular charm.
Without wishing to appear condescending, it wasn`t a question of Ustinov being "upper class". It came down to Letterman not knowing how to interview an intellectual. Lettermans inane questioning and awkward demeanor gave him away.
I love Peter Ustinov, and don't understand why this was such an awkward interview. I don't really think it's fair to blame Letterman. Ustinov seemed very wary of him from the beginning, and was actually pretty unfriendly to him throughout. I don't get it--guess they just didn't like each other.
My God he's almost as erudite asTom Cruise or Seth Rogan. Please say that there are people with some intelligence left in Hollywood or indeed the world!