Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to the Mass Funny podcast and
Speaker 1: part two of my interview with former producer Alex Fanelle.
Speaker 1: If you haven't heard yesterday's part one, yeah, I would
Speaker 1: urge you to go do that before jumping in here.
Speaker 1: Otherwise you just you've missed half the chat. Basically where
Speaker 1: we left off yesterday. I just asked her about the
Speaker 1: process of frank and grabbing, which most people would just
Speaker 1: call massive editing fails, and why they do this, why
Speaker 1: they chop sentences up and merge them together, and yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll I'll just jump straight back in so here we
Speaker 1: go back to the conversation to get back to like
Speaker 1: you as a producer, I want to bring up this
Speaker 1: this topic which always comes out in the media every
Speaker 1: year called frank and biting.
Speaker 2: It's actually called franken grabs. Would they say frank and bite.
Speaker 2: It's week all them frank and grabs.
Speaker 1: Okay, So for the listeners to this who don't know
Speaker 1: what a frank and grab is, it's where you would
Speaker 1: essentially take maybe a few words from one sentence, a
Speaker 1: few words from a sentence a few days later of
Speaker 1: a participant, and you mash it all together to make
Speaker 1: a whole new sentence, which is often not what we're
Speaker 1: said in the slightest Uh, that.
Speaker 2: Is not what my definition of it is. But the
Speaker 2: technical side is correct, Yes it is.
Speaker 1: Well, look before we let me play a couple of
Speaker 1: examples of this, so take a listen to these.
Speaker 2: I guess for me, when I said I wanted to leave,
Speaker 2: it was because I was scared. No matter what happens tonight,
Speaker 2: I think it's important for me to, like Carolyna, know
Speaker 2: how I'm feeling.
Speaker 1: So to me, there I can hear that, you can
Speaker 1: hear the like different inflection in the words. It goes,
Speaker 1: I do not like this about like you can tell
Speaker 1: this fake.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, but why did I do that?
Speaker 1: Because to me, that feels like a sloppy, desperate attempt
Speaker 1: to say, Okay, we have this storyline, we need to
Speaker 1: run with it. But they haven't said anything to keep
Speaker 1: that storyline going, So fuck do what you have to
Speaker 1: to just like it's it's not real.
Speaker 2: Half the time the participants talk in circles and riddles.
Speaker 2: It's so hard to get a clear sentence from them.
Speaker 2: Frank and grabbing isn't something that is unique to reality TV.
Speaker 2: That's something that exists in all TV shows, in all media,
Speaker 2: in all documentary. Putting sentences together and cutting the shit
Speaker 2: in the middle and clarifying what somebody says is a
Speaker 2: technique as old as time in television, in movies. Secondly, ideally,
Speaker 2: you don't want to be doing that. Ideally, the participants
Speaker 2: speak in a way that makes sense for the audience
Speaker 2: and to the story we're telling. Most of the time,
Speaker 2: a frank can grab is used to clarify what somebody's
Speaker 2: trying to say. They still said it, They've got the
Speaker 2: sentiment of what they're saying.
Speaker 3: Sometimes they're like.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, it was like, you know, he was,
Speaker 2: you know, looking at me weird, and you know I
Speaker 2: felt like pressured and oh, I don't know, like it's
Speaker 2: all okay, So we know what.
Speaker 3: That person's saying, but they didn't say it. So what might.
Speaker 2: Happen is you'd find parts where they've said something that
Speaker 2: implies that. So we're always trying to just clarify what
Speaker 2: they're doing in terms of taking things completely out of
Speaker 2: context or saying things. I personally haven't ever used a
Speaker 2: frank and grab for that. I can actually put hand
Speaker 2: on heart and say I have never used a Franken
Speaker 2: grab to make somebody say something that wasn't aligned with
Speaker 2: what their sentiment was in that interview. Most of the time,
Speaker 2: when somebody is being a dick or saying or being salacious,
Speaker 2: you see it coming out of their mouth, and that's
Speaker 2: what the audience ultimately knows. They're like, you can blame
Speaker 2: me edit and the Frankens or whatever, but we saw
Speaker 2: you saying it. We saw you looking at her like that,
Speaker 2: we saw you saying it to her face, and so
Speaker 2: I really do begrudge the whole It's a frank and Grabs.
Speaker 1: So when someone comes out and says they blame the idea,
Speaker 1: I suppose what I'm realizing here talking to you is
Speaker 1: it's not as simple as them just going that's out
Speaker 1: of context, because their perception of blaming the edit might
Speaker 1: be because they will hear a frank and Grab and
Speaker 1: they go, I didn't say that, but they don't realize
Speaker 1: that it was like they kind of did, just not
Speaker 1: in those words.
Speaker 2: You can get really hung up on being like, I
Speaker 2: didn't say that specific thing. But that's like straw man argument, right.
Speaker 2: It's like, just because you didn't say that specific thing
Speaker 2: does not then equal that none of this happened.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 1: I love how you've not worked them mapsprokably for years now,
Speaker 1: and you're like, you're almost like defending it still, And
Speaker 1: I get that because it's your work. But I suppose
Speaker 1: me as a person watching this, I'm constantly I almost
Speaker 1: side with their participants and I'm like, yeah, the fucking
Speaker 1: fucking editors did them dirty. But then talking to you,
Speaker 1: it's like, no, this is the reason that looks like
Speaker 1: that and this sounds like that.
Speaker 3: Well, I just don't think it's as salacious as people
Speaker 3: want it to be. That's the truth. And I'm not
Speaker 3: really defending this beeause.
Speaker 2: Before I worked on Maths, I was just an audience
Speaker 2: like everybody else, and I was really keen to get
Speaker 2: on the show because I loved it and I still
Speaker 2: love it, and I was warning to see, you know,
Speaker 2: how much of it is the edit, how much of
Speaker 2: it is the manipulation, how much of it is frankin grabs.
Speaker 3: You know. I had the same questions as.
Speaker 2: Everybody would, and I was interested when I was like
Speaker 2: when I realized, ah, sometimes everything is just a practical
Speaker 2: reason and a really reasonable explanation for a lot of it,
Speaker 2: and that's what then started to get me worked up
Speaker 2: when people would always blame the edit. I'm like, no,
Speaker 2: most of the time, Like, for example, okay that the
Speaker 2: groom that dropped his bride was the scene yesterday, Ryan,
Speaker 2: there was a scene yesterday where they're meditating and they've
Speaker 2: got a voiceover of him, like spec replaying the instance
Speaker 2: of him dropping her on the.
Speaker 3: Ground and oh my god, I can't believe I dropped her.
Speaker 2: And it's comedy, right, there's no way that that actually
Speaker 2: that he that they can prove that he was actually
Speaker 2: thinking that when he meditated, But is it such a
Speaker 2: long bow to draw that he was still thinking about that,
Speaker 2: because the day before he was saying, I don't put
Speaker 2: that to air.
Speaker 3: I can't believe I dropped my bride. I can't believe it.
Speaker 2: And so there's always a bit of creative you know,
Speaker 2: a creative license when it comes to these scenes, but
Speaker 2: it's often based in what really the sentiment and what
Speaker 2: really has been happening.
Speaker 1: Because I suppose at the end of the day, as
Speaker 1: we've already said that, we may watch this thing in
Speaker 1: the show is about finding love for these people, but
Speaker 1: it's not. The show is an entertainment show created to
Speaker 1: entertain viewers. If someone finds lovers a byproduct of that, great.
Speaker 3: But that that's entertainment as well.
Speaker 2: Though Yeah, well I don't know what The show originally
Speaker 2: started as.
Speaker 1: Married at First Sight is a Swedish format, I believe,
Speaker 1: and it was originally like pitched as like almost a documentary,
Speaker 1: and then the Swedish one was boring, and then there
Speaker 1: was a couple of UK series and they only have
Speaker 1: two or three couples. They weren't the dinner parties and
Speaker 1: it was just kind of fly on the wall and
Speaker 1: it was boring. It started with the wedding but boring,
Speaker 1: and then the first few seasons of the Australia one boring.
Speaker 1: And then they brought Tara McWilliams as executive producer and
Speaker 1: she came from like Master Chef on one of the
Speaker 1: other dramatized shows, and she flipped everything. She Her first
Speaker 1: season was the one with there was some twins from
Speaker 1: Perth nick and I don't remember the names, and then
Speaker 1: there was a chick called Cheryl. I believe. There was
Speaker 1: drama with her and there was a farmer who ran
Speaker 1: away or something, but she essentially flipped what the show is.
Speaker 1: She kept like the overall concept of strangers marry, but
Speaker 1: she sensationalized it and made it bigger and better, and
Speaker 1: that worked so well that every other franchise around the
Speaker 1: world is now copying the Australian format.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so it's almost like it got spring of fired.
Speaker 3: Have you watched that Springer documentary?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 3: No, you got to watch it. It's so good. It's
Speaker 3: that exact story. Jerry Springer is a show used to
Speaker 3: be so.
Speaker 2: Bland and boring and it was just tanking in the ratings,
Speaker 2: and then this executive producer came along and he was
Speaker 2: a tabloid journalist and he was like, nah, we need
Speaker 2: to flip it.
Speaker 3: On its head.
Speaker 2: We want stories like this, and it just that's when
Speaker 2: it started to become bonkers.
Speaker 3: But that's when it started to rape well.
Speaker 2: And you can get angry at Maths for displaying all
Speaker 2: this behavior, but also we need to be angry at
Speaker 2: ourselves as an audience, because we vote with our eyeballs,
Speaker 2: we vote with.
Speaker 3: Our remotes, and we're still watching it. But so who's
Speaker 3: the villain.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like a representation of the world as
Speaker 1: a as a whole, because every year, our perceptions of
Speaker 1: like what's normal are acceptable in society goes to a
Speaker 1: new extreme. Like I was in high school maybe fifteen
Speaker 1: years ago, and I remember back then, if like a
Speaker 1: celebrity is topless, picked eleaked, it would be outraged. Remember
Speaker 1: Paris Hilton had a sex step. Outrage shocking, disgusting, slut shaming.
Speaker 1: Can't believe that would ever happen. And then gradually more
Speaker 1: people started, like only fans became a thing and it
Speaker 1: was like, oh my god, someone is selling pictures of
Speaker 1: their boobs and the media were outraged. And now we've
Speaker 1: got Bonnie Blue OnlyFans star I fucked a thousand people today.
Speaker 1: I'm like, okay, I know what's the next extreme? And
Speaker 1: just to go into the only fans world. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you know these people, but Bonnie Blue is
Speaker 1: like the current kind of one taking fans. Oh yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: She did the thousand people in a day, But then
Speaker 1: two months before that, the UK version of her, Lily Phillips,
Speaker 1: she slept with one hundred people in a day and
Speaker 1: made a documentary about it and everyone was like disgusting,
Speaker 1: how can she? So then Bonnie comes out does a
Speaker 1: thousand and you know what, Lily, You know what Lily
Speaker 1: did The day after Bonnie Slept with a thousand what
Speaker 1: she was scrolling on Twitter? She posted a selfie style
Speaker 1: video walking through London at five Hey guys, just on
Speaker 1: a come walk, just like left the guy's house and
Speaker 1: she had semen dripping down her face while walking down
Speaker 1: the street. And I was like, what is happened into
Speaker 1: the world, and like she posted it as in like
Speaker 1: this was the most normal thing ever.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah.
Speaker 3: The the thousand people in a day thing really just
Speaker 3: is so bizarre to me. The whole that whole thing
Speaker 3: is bizarre.
Speaker 1: But then I think Maths is gonna like how do
Speaker 1: they keep getting more extreme? And obviously we know most
Speaker 1: of these participants and upon only fans, which I've got
Speaker 1: no problem with, like who cares? But then like, at
Speaker 1: what point are they going to bring that into the show?
Speaker 1: And then I know at the minute they're trying to
Speaker 1: keep it somewhat family friendly because they want like family
Speaker 1: friendly advertisers like wool Worfs and Cols and you know,
Speaker 1: those ones who maybe don't want to be aligned with
Speaker 1: adult content. But for Maths to keep evolving and reflecting society,
Speaker 1: it's almost like I wouldn't be surprised next year, if
Speaker 1: there's a storyline where a bride's caught filming porn with
Speaker 1: six different men while a husband's at the gym, like
Speaker 1: you know, because and she's like, well, I'm a creator,
Speaker 1: he knew that. You know, that's my job.
Speaker 3: You should be a maths producer.
Speaker 1: If they do that exact storyline next year, I want royalties,
Speaker 1: But I don't know. We're getting sidetracked, I think. Before
Speaker 1: I wrap this, I just want to say so the
Speaker 1: general perception from the public is maps producers are evil,
Speaker 1: the horrible people. How did they sleep at night? How
Speaker 1: did you sleep at night?
Speaker 3: Sleep so well?
Speaker 1: And like the colleagues you work with, just normal everyday
Speaker 1: people with a job. They're not like even monsters.
Speaker 3: No, I don't think so, We're just normal people. Were
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 2: I have worked on lots of different shows. I have
Speaker 2: a journalism background. I've worked on Neighbors, Home and Away,
Speaker 2: the Projects, Sunrise Master Chef.
Speaker 3: Your job is as a journalist.
Speaker 2: As a producer, it's always clarify a story, amplifier story
Speaker 2: and make it andentertaining.
Speaker 3: That's always your job.
Speaker 2: That is just the lens through which any media professional
Speaker 2: will always bring to whatever show they work on you
Speaker 2: do the same. Yeah, you know what's interesting and what's not.
Speaker 1: But what's what I find interested in? That is so
Speaker 1: my background was I got into the industry randomly because
Speaker 1: I just liked celebrity culture. And then I would skip
Speaker 1: school with my mum's little shit digital camera and I
Speaker 1: became britain youngest paparazzi. And then yeah, I did, like
Speaker 1: I put a book out recently, and not to go
Speaker 1: into that, but I spoke about the couple of years
Speaker 1: I did doing that, and I quit that because I
Speaker 1: felt I crossed the line morally and I did a
Speaker 1: set of pictures that still kind of haunt me to
Speaker 1: this day, which I don't agree with. And I reflected
Speaker 1: on that and thought this is not for me. But
Speaker 1: then I was offered a job as a tableau journalist.
Speaker 1: It was great. I was suddenly I was fucking sent
Speaker 1: to hang out with Ariana Grande in a hotel room.
Speaker 1: I was off to a Karashian party, and I thought
Speaker 1: this is great. But then as I got more senior
Speaker 1: in that role, went from a magazine to a newspaper,
Speaker 1: I'm like, look at me, my career is flying. And
Speaker 1: then suddenly I was like, oh wait, I don't agree
Speaker 1: with this story. I don't feel good about this one.
Speaker 1: And it's like I constantly have this battle of Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe I don't agree with all of the views of
Speaker 1: this corporation I work for, but is it just a job?
Speaker 1: And then I suppose with maths producers, people are like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, you work in TV. It's the dream.
Speaker 1: But what people don't realize is maybe it's sixty five
Speaker 1: percent of the dream. But then these first five percent
Speaker 1: where you're like, a, do I agree with doing that?
Speaker 1: Do I feel comfortable? But then I suppose look at
Speaker 1: anyone in any job, even say you work in Starbucks,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sure if you go to the very top
Speaker 1: of how Starbucks operates as a company, or any company,
Speaker 1: you're probably like, morally, you'll find things you don't agree.
Speaker 2: Yeah, at the end of the day, anyone who's working
Speaker 2: within a capitalist system, for a corporation, there's gonna be
Speaker 2: things which are unethical because that is the definition of capitalism,
Speaker 2: that's the definition of business in so many ways. And
Speaker 2: if you're just a human trying to exist in a
Speaker 2: capital society, there are going to be things which go
Speaker 2: against our.
Speaker 3: Out of integrity.
Speaker 2: I suppose, I guess when it comes to a career, though,
Speaker 2: I believe happiness is found through acting with integrity. So
Speaker 2: that is something that I have focused on more and
Speaker 2: to be honest, that is what the podcast is about,
Speaker 2: and that is my way of kind of living within
Speaker 2: more integrity. But I can't speak for everybody that's ever
Speaker 2: produce any every show. There's thousands and thousands and thousands
Speaker 2: of people that have worked on these shows, and I
Speaker 2: am not a representation of everybody, and this is just
Speaker 2: my story and my version of things. It doesn't even
Speaker 2: mean it's fact, you know.
Speaker 1: And for anyone listening to this podcast as we wrap now,
Speaker 1: I think they should. Actually I'm going to link your
Speaker 1: podcast that Shelby's maybe in the description, and like, if
Speaker 1: you're intrigued by the reality of the industry and what
Speaker 1: happens behind the scenes, definitely go and listen. I'm obsessed
Speaker 1: with it. It's actually fascinating to me. It's refreshing, and
Speaker 1: I've never heard anyone kind of do what you and
Speaker 1: Jody a doing and speak from that side of things.
Speaker 2: M thank you and I we're big fans of you,
Speaker 2: which is why with Jordy gave me information to.
Speaker 3: Speak to you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Johnny, and thank you so much for your
Speaker 1: time today. This has actually been a great chat. And
Speaker 1: it's funny because I said I'm never going to do
Speaker 1: long episodes, but i just haven't really wanted to wrap
Speaker 1: this because I found it so fascinating.
Speaker 2: Ah me too, Thank you, Josh.
Speaker 3: Well speak to you on the internet.
Speaker 1: Yeah, have a great day. Thank you. I don't know
Speaker 1: what you guys think, but to me, that whole interview
Speaker 1: was actually fascinating, Like I'm so intrigued by all of
Speaker 1: this stuff and just the process behind a show of
Speaker 1: this scale, how it actually comes together. And I'm hoping
Speaker 1: to get another former producer, one who did a few
Speaker 1: more seasons and worked in like a different department, so
Speaker 1: then if that goes ahead, I can ask them some
Speaker 1: of the questions you guys have been submitting because Alex
Speaker 1: couldn't really have answered a lot of them because that
Speaker 1: wasn't really in her department. So I'm maybe trying to get,
Speaker 1: you know, someone from each the apartment so we can
Speaker 1: cover every element of how this show is made. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just working on that in a minute, but for now,
Speaker 1: thank you for listening and see you soon.