S1: Hey, I'm Usman Farooqi and this is the drop a
S1: culture show from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age,
S1: where we dive into the latest in the world of
S1: pop culture and entertainment. I'm here with Thomas Mitchell and
S1: the Zendaya of this podcast. Mel Kambouris is here. She's
S1: back baby, how you doing Mel?
S2: Ah I'm good. Look at this smile. I'm so happy
S2: to be back with you guys, mainly to save you
S2: from yourselves, but also just to hang out.
S1: Thomas is beaming. Thomas is beaming.
S3: I am very excited. I did miss Melanie. Uh, not
S3: as much as the listeners, and especially my sister, who
S3: kept texting me asking when Mel would be back on
S3: the podcast.
S2: The best Mitchell in the family.
S1: You could have come back a week earlier when we
S1: fumbled our way through a conversation about mothers in live
S1: comedy spaces and, uh, the biggest woman pop star in
S1: the history of the world. You know, I.
S2: Know I feel like I missed out on some subjects
S2: where I really would have had a point of view. But,
S2: I mean, you guys, you guys handled it, I'm sure.
S3: Well, I mean, you don't know if we handled it because.
S3: And this is like, really doing my head in. Mel
S3: refused to listen to the podcast while she was on holidays.
S2: I didn't refuse. It was just I knew if I
S2: listened to it, I would kind of get sucked in
S2: and I'd want to engage and I wouldn't be able
S2: to tap out, and I kept I knew, I kept saying,
S2: I'll do it, I'll do it, I'll do it. And
S2: then I just never did it. So now I don't
S2: know what you've said about me, what's slander, what lies
S2: you've told, but I'm just going to have to let
S2: it sit.
S1: Well, okay, so you weren't listening to the podcast, but
S1: what were you doing? Can you tell us a bit
S1: about this trip? What were the highlights?
S2: Oh, there was lots of lots of fun. So I
S2: went to Dubai. I went to Paris, went to London,
S2: they went to Singapore. So a little round trip. I
S2: have to say one of the highlights was all the
S2: plane films I got. Yeah. So it's a.
S1: Lot of flights. What did you watch?
S2: Yeah. And like this is actually quite fitting because I
S2: watched a lot of mid films. I don't like watching
S2: like really good films on planes. So I kind of
S2: used it as an opportunity to catch up on all
S2: the kind of things I hadn't quite got around to like.
S2: I watched Mean Girls the Musical, not not great. Wonka,
S2: Wonka the musical. Wow. Not not great. I checked in
S2: on Woody Allen watch. Stroke of luck. Very Woody Allen.
S2: Still doing the same thing. Not not not great. Um,
S2: and then I watched. Are you There? God. It's me, Margaret, which.
S1: Is pretty great film. Pretty great film.
S2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that was the best of the lot.
S3: But in, like, all this hours of flying time, you
S3: couldn't find any time for a mid podcast that you
S3: sometimes that you sometimes feature on.
S2: Well, I knew I definitely needed to listen to it
S2: when I was connected to the internet so I could
S2: give you kind of live feedback on it. But you
S2: know what else I did watch another kind of mid thing, um, you,
S2: you know, the thriller. You I've watched you I never
S2: watched it though. A great Netflix.
S1: Show with the guy from Gossip Girl.
S2: Yeah. That's it, Ben Badgley. Um, yeah. Very bingeable on
S2: a plane.
S1: Are you up to date with any new releases?
S2: Well, no. The new releases were all things we've seen
S2: or discussed, really. But I did go back and watch
S2: Priscilla again, which I had seen in cinemas, and I
S2: do think that film was like hugely underrated. I really
S2: liked that film.
S1: Have you seen challenges yet?
S2: I still haven't seen it. They didn't have it on
S2: the plane, but I also would not have watched it
S2: on the plane because I feel like I need to
S2: watch that in the cinema.
S1: You need the cinematic experience, you need the audio reverberating
S1: from that soundtrack in a cinema for that one. Yeah, I.
S2: Agree, and you probably would watch it on a plane
S2: because you fly business class. But for the rest of us,
S2: economy is not where you did all those flights. Economy
S2: I am I like at the end I was like,
S2: this is inhumane how we have to the worst.
S3: Thing about you not seeing challenges or not being here
S3: for our discussion was that I couldn't, like, hastily make
S3: a meme with the three of us are sitting on
S3: the bed like the challenges mean that he's currently doing
S3: the rounds on the internet.
S1: Uh, the way that that film has just become like
S1: the pop cultural zeitgeist kind of thing of the moment.
S1: It's pretty extraordinary. I watched it again, actually, and had
S1: a bit more fun with it this time when I
S1: wasn't trying to, I guess, overanalyze what it was trying
S1: to say about the world, as we discussed on last
S1: week's episode. But it is a really fun film, and
S1: it makes total sense. I think it's sort of like
S1: the Saltburn of this current moment. There's just so many like,
S1: fan edits all over TikTok, but it's a much better
S1: film than Saltburn.
S2: I'm very excited to see it. And have you guys
S2: each considered taking up kind of fashion to serve the
S2: tennis fashion?
S3: Well, I'm pretty good at tennis, so so I feel
S3: like I've got that covered. We should actually play tennis
S3: one day. That would be.
S2: Fun. I dropped tennis.
S1: Comp. I would absolutely play tennis with you guys. I'd
S1: beat you both so hard.
S2: Do you actually think so?
S3: I reckon I would crush you both.
S2: I'm pretty nimble.
S1: You guys are both pretty good at tennis. You're telling me?
S3: But we play doubles together, obviously.
S1: And we did actually get a review while you were away, Mel.
S1: And the title was you need Mel. Exclamation mark, exclamation mark. Uh,
S1: it was by, um, someone called Del Kathryn, who is
S1: maybe the two time Archibald Prize winner, del Kathryn Barton,
S1: if it's you. Thanks for listening and I guess thanks
S1: for your review. I don't know, they said I love
S1: this podcast, but it's seriously lacking chemistry and nuance without Mel.
S1: I hope she's back soon. Seriously lacking chemistry and nuance.
S1: That's a lot. I thought you and I, Thomas had
S1: heaps of chemistry. Maybe even too much chemistry.
S3: That's what I think as well.
S2: I can imagine just telling each other how jacked you
S2: are for like hours on end.
S3: It was the most obnoxious echo chamber, but I loved it.
S3: Couldn't wait to get back here every week. No, but yeah,
S3: like that is a, I guess look. It's a scathing
S3: but also kind of nice review. But I do suspect
S3: that people the people miss Melanie Kembrey. Uh, they missed
S3: her smart and nuanced takes and also all her book chats.
S3: So I think we're all glad that she's back. Uh,
S3: and she also went to a bunch of jazz clubs
S3: when she was away. So she's into jazz now. So
S3: there's so much to learn about the new mill. And
S3: I'm very glad you're back on the pod.
S2: Yeah, that's very nice. Thank you. Thomas, maybe the nicest
S2: thing you've ever said to me. Um, no.
S1: It's great. The Dream Team is here. We're ready to
S1: tackle the big questions looming over culture this week, which
S1: include are we living in an era of mid TV?
S1: That's a question that was posed by the New York
S1: Times chief TV critic this week. Really, really interesting. Long
S1: read looking at the current state of the TV landscape
S1: and why so much of it, even the most interesting shows,
S1: the ones that we talk about pretty regularly, don't seem
S1: to be hitting as hard as great television used to.
S1: We're going to dig into that piece and discuss our thoughts.
S1: We're also, and I'm very excited for this one, going
S1: to discuss the new Anne Hathaway rom com that is
S1: being released on Amazon Prime Video today. The idea of you,
S1: where it fits into this contemporary rom com renaissance that
S1: we seem to be going through. But first Guys, Jerry
S1: Seinfeld has some thoughts about the state of comedy. He's
S1: promoting his upcoming Netflix film Unfrosted, which is about the
S1: origin of the Pop-Tart. Yep, that's a real movie that
S1: is coming out, directed by starring Jerry Seinfeld. In a
S1: podcast interview with The New Yorker's editor David Remnick, Seinfeld
S1: shared his view that, quote, the extreme left and PC
S1: crap had made it harder for comedians to write sitcoms
S1: like his obviously famous and beloved show, Seinfeld. Thomas, you
S1: covered what Seinfeld said for us in the paper this week.
S1: Can you tell us a bit more about what he
S1: actually discussed with Remnick?
S3: Yes. Uh, firstly, I just think it's very funny that Seinfeld,
S3: a guy who has done like four projects, one of
S3: them being about a pop tart, one of them about
S3: a bee is like is coming in and making these
S3: comments like, he doesn't work a lot, but I mean,
S3: he doesn't need to. He's like, show has been syndicated. Um,
S3: so his wallet is well lined. But yeah, as you said,
S3: the the interview, it's one of those things where you
S3: can tell as soon as you read a story and,
S3: you know, 80% of the story is, you know, just
S3: them chatting and then there's 20%. And as soon as
S3: you read that, 20%, you know that this is going
S3: to be all the headlines are about. But essentially in
S3: this chat, uh, he talk turns to the current state
S3: of comedy. And the interviewer asked, like, how do you
S3: grapple with all the seriousness the world is currently facing
S3: and how it affects comedy? And Jerry kind of goes
S3: on to say that nothing really affects comedy. People always
S3: need it. And then he begins to lament more the
S3: the death of the sitcom and how sitcoms aren't a
S3: thing anymore.
S4: It used to be you would go home. At the
S4: end of the day, most people would go, oh, cheers
S4: is on. Oh, mash is on a Mary Tyler Moore
S4: is on, all in, the family is on. You just
S4: expected there'll be some funny stuff we can watch on
S4: TV tonight. Well guess what? Where is it? Where is it? Um,
S4: this is the result of the extreme left and PC
S4: crap and people worrying so much about offending other people. Mhm. Um.
S3: And that was particularly the comments that, you know, everyone
S3: cherry picked and jumped on as, oh, this is, you know,
S3: is Jerry Seinfeld one of the great comics of our time,
S3: you know, saying that comedy is is dead now as
S3: a result of the extreme left. Other things that I
S3: think are interesting that people have also jumped on. He
S3: does talk about, you know, David Remnick says, well, what
S3: about Curb Your Enthusiasm, a show that you're involved with
S3: that only just finished that is famously pretty, you know,
S3: happy to take on anyone and everyone. But Jerry says, well, look,
S3: Larry David's a special case. He's got, you know, a
S3: lot of skin in the game, money in the bank.
S3: He's been around forever before these kind of rules were enforced.
S3: And so he doesn't really count because.
S5: Isn't that what curb is all about? Yeah.
S4: Larry was Larry was grandfathered in. He's old enough that
S4: I don't have to observe those rules because I started
S4: before you made those rules.
S3: We did. And basically he ends it by saying, look,
S3: the reality is, if Larry David was 35, there's no
S3: way he would be able to, as a young comic,
S3: get these ideas over the line. And essentially he ends
S3: it with saying, stand up comedy is the place where
S3: the edgy and risky comedy can live. Now the sitcom
S3: is dead, although he does concede towards the end that
S3: maybe things are slightly correcting back in the right way now.
S3: Maybe our, you know, this over political correction is is
S3: is over, and we're going to start to see a
S3: more sane approach to comedy. And naturally, you know, that
S3: has ignited, again, a kind of culture war where people
S3: on the right are being like, yes. Finally, Jerry Seinfeld,
S3: you know, is saying what we're all thinking. You've got
S3: Elon Musk tweeting out clips from the interview saying, ah,
S3: thank you, Jerry. And then at the same time, people
S3: on the other side of the spectrum are saying, oh,
S3: here we go again. This is John Cleese and Ricky
S3: Gervais and Dave Chappelle, all these rusted on comics who
S3: do not lack a platform saying that you can't say
S3: anything anymore. So that's kind of the state of play. Yeah, it's.
S1: A really another really interesting example of how everyone on
S1: every side of this would just sort of cherry pick
S1: the one line that they think backs up their own
S1: perspective on this issue. When I saw this stuff being
S1: sort of dunked on on social media, a lot of
S1: people immediately pointed out, well, you know, what about curb?
S1: And it's interesting, as you pointed out, that in his
S1: interview actually sort of discusses that head on. And I
S1: want to I want to talk to you guys about that.
S1: Whether we think he's right in terms of his argument
S1: that Larry's grandfathered into the system, I'm kind of also
S1: a bit confused by his reference to to shows like
S1: Mash and cheers. Like, is Mash like a famously anti-woke show?
S1: It's like a satire on the Korean War. I know
S1: there's a character called Hot Lips Houlihan, and there was
S1: like a lot of casual sexual harassment of her in
S1: the workplace, which in this instance was a mobile surgical
S1: hospital in Korea. Uh, so maybe that couldn't happen as much.
S1: Maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing, but, um, I yeah,
S1: I kind of think there's maybe a couple of different
S1: bits of this. One is what happened to the sitcom,
S1: because Jerry's right that we don't have shows like Mash
S1: and The Mary Tyler Moore Show, uh, on every night.
S1: And then there's a question of, okay, is that because
S1: of a oppressive culture that doesn't let comedians write on
S1: his jokes? What was your kind of immediate reaction to
S1: this one? Mel?
S2: Yeah, I mean, I guess alarm bells always ring for
S2: me when someone who is no longer quote unquote as
S2: relevant as they once were suddenly bemoans their lack of relevance,
S2: but blames it on everyone else rather than reflecting on
S2: their own kind of brand of comedy. I agree with you.
S2: I was quite confused by those references to say that
S2: the sitcom doesn't exist in the form of Mary Tyler Moore. Cheers. Mash. Well, like,
S2: I mean, I agree with him. We don't really have
S2: laugh tracks and live audiences. We don't have sitcom seasons
S2: that are 30 episodes. We don't really have those four
S2: camera kind of shots anymore. So yeah, I guess I'm
S2: not going to argue with him. That Mary Tyler Moore
S2: style of sitcom doesn't exist. And I agree with you. Also,
S2: they're not really examples of kind of daring comedy either. Um,
S2: but I will disagree on the fact that he's lying,
S2: that there is no longer room for inoffensive comedy. Whatever
S2: he takes inoffensive to mean. I don't think that's true.
S2: I think the sitcom has evolved, and I still think
S2: there are. There are shows that are pushing the edges
S2: of what comedy is on TV. So I disagree on
S2: that point.
S1: That was my initial reaction as well. And I went
S1: straight to say a show like curb, which at some
S1: point I literally just wrapped up and continued to say
S1: all sorts of things that people say, you can't say
S1: anymore about race and religion and gender and, you know,
S1: gender identity and sexuality and all these kinds of things.
S1: I also thought about a show, one of my favorite shows,
S1: Always Sunny in Philadelphia, which just like continues to find.
S1: Quite funny and interesting ways to say extremely crass things.
S1: But then I wanted to ask you guys about his
S1: argument that, okay, sure, shows like that exist, but they've
S1: been around for decades. They started an era where it was,
S1: according to him, easier to say whatever you wanted and
S1: you couldn't do it now if you were a 35
S1: year old Larry David. Do you think there's some merit
S1: to that? Thomas?
S3: Yeah, I do think there is like, you know, Always
S3: Sunny started in 2005. That's a very long time ago.
S3: So many people like this tweet yesterday went viral about
S3: the popularity of Veep, a sitcom that is again, you know,
S3: doesn't shy away from going into areas that are tricky.
S3: But also, like Veep started in 2012, that's like now
S3: 12 years ago. It was also starring Julia Louis-Dreyfus, one
S3: of the most famous sitcom stars of all time. And
S3: it's created by Armando Iannucci, who has got, like, enormous
S3: money in the bank. These are not like these are
S3: people who will get their shows greenlit. I get the
S3: feeling with this entire thing and what's kind of been
S3: lost in maybe the edit of the transcript or, or
S3: just what we got to see of the chat. I
S3: really think, like Jerry was talking about the state of
S3: comedy right now. If you're a young up and comer,
S3: that's not like able to just like use your back
S3: catalog to get something over the line. Like, I feel
S3: like he was that got lost in the back and forth.
S3: But you know, obviously there are going to be people
S3: who can get edgy shows made. But I think he's
S3: saying if you're a 20 something, 30 something comic and
S3: you're pitching to a network and you don't have a
S3: lot of, you know, prior experience and you're trying to
S3: write something edgy, there's a high chance that you may
S3: get like sense checked to death before you get anywhere
S3: near like, production. And I think in some ways, I
S3: definitely think that there's a lot in this that I
S3: don't agree with. And there is an element of like
S3: a 70 year old multi-million dollar comedian who just, like,
S3: collects classic cars and doesn't probably watch much contemporary TV
S3: being out of touch. But I do think there is
S3: something to be said about the way in which shows
S3: get made by committee now at these big networks, and
S3: they are more risk adverse. And so there is a reality.
S3: If you're a young comic that's trying to write something
S3: really fucking weird, that maybe you do just get like
S3: Committee to Death. Like I can see that being a reality.
S1: What? Look, I think I think a couple of things there.
S1: I think I think you're right that say, shows like
S1: Veep and Always Sunny are of even a slightly different
S1: era to where we are right now and benefit from
S1: having these big names. But I also think, you know,
S1: there's a big gap between Mash and Mary Tyler Moore
S1: and and Veep and Always Sunny. So I think I
S1: think he's kind of I think the most obvious thing
S1: that he's probably wrong on is that we just don't
S1: have comedies like we did in the 70s, like that
S1: was 50 years ago. If we're saying, okay, we don't
S1: have comedies like we used to have 12 years ago,
S1: that's a slightly different point. I think it's maybe one
S1: that is worth thinking about a bit, a bit more deeply.
S1: And I actually think there is something to what you're saying,
S1: and I'm not sure whether it's self-censorship. I'm not sure
S1: whether it's genuine, like, you know, standards of what people
S1: think is funny, changing. I think part of it is that, like,
S1: there are just some things that people don't want to
S1: say now, because saying the n word as a white
S1: person is not a good thing to do. So that's
S1: part of it too. But I wonder whether some of
S1: what is going on is a conservatism or a fear
S1: of radicalism, or a fear of risk taking that is
S1: existing at the big networks and big streamers. A show
S1: like Barry, I think, really delved into this, where you
S1: see these committees in action. This is a show about
S1: a hit man who tries to become an actor, but
S1: it ends up in its later seasons being about Hollywood
S1: and how you get TV shows green light. And it
S1: is very scathing of this process. And it basically shows
S1: how a combination of like risk averse executives, algorithms and
S1: all these sorts of things are aimed at just creating
S1: the lowest cost possible show for the broadest possible audience,
S1: which maybe means you don't get something that is a
S1: bit edgy and a bit provocative. And I think about
S1: things like, you know, Post-black Lives Matter. There's episodes of
S1: Always Sunny that don't exist on streaming platforms anymore because
S1: it involves them doing blackface, and they've since talked about
S1: it and they've made an episode reckoning with it, one
S1: of my favorite episodes of community, where they all play
S1: Dungeons and Dragons, doesn't exist anymore because Senor Chang is
S1: in blackface. And I got to say, like, I don't know, like,
S1: I think it's okay to say that's bad without saying
S1: you endorse blackface. And I wonder whether there is an
S1: element of truth in some of what he's saying, in
S1: that there is just a lack of people willing to
S1: push a boundary for a comedic effect, because streamers don't
S1: want to be considered anti-woke, or they just don't want
S1: to deal with a headache of their offices being picketed
S1: and then being the subject of petitions and campaigns. Yeah, I.
S2: Mean, it's a very complicated discussion, and it's hard to
S2: unpick because I think to really broad terms like woke
S2: and cancel culture are thrown out and no one really
S2: knows what we're talking about and what counts as cancel culture,
S2: what counts as woke. So the conversation becomes very congested.
S2: I think we've had like a significant amount of social
S2: change in quite a short amount of time with Black
S2: Lives Matter, MeToo, and everyone is still trying to adjust
S2: and eventually an equilibrium will return. But at the moment
S2: we're in the midst of it and trying to figure
S2: it out. I will also say there's something generational going
S2: on to like. It is about what different generations find funny,
S2: and that might be also what Jerry Seinfeld. Comments are
S2: identifying that his generation and a new generation making TV.
S2: It might not necessarily be because they're self-censoring, as people
S2: like to think it might be, because what they find
S2: funny is very different. Um, and I do think I mean,
S2: I think of Dave that that TV show that we
S2: always tell you to watch, like that's not a politically
S2: correct show, is it? And that is, that's out there.
S2: Even shows like, I mean, Master of None, I think
S2: of Derry Girls. I'm trying to think of shows that
S2: are more classic sitcoms. I mean, they are still pushing
S2: boundaries in certain ways. They're just pushing those boundaries in
S2: a different way to the shows that Seinfeld is presumably
S2: referring to.
S1: Yeah, I think that makes sense, and I'm actually way
S1: more interested in hearing from the creators of shows like
S1: Always Sunny and Dave about what they think about this issue,
S1: because they are currently, in a contemporary sense, engaged in
S1: the art of making funny TV shows that try to
S1: push boundaries, but also do it in a way that
S1: is like clear that they're on the right side, if
S1: you know what I mean, that they're like, I want
S1: to talk about these ideas, but I'm actually not a
S1: right wing person who doesn't believe in a trans person's
S1: right to exist or whatever. I think the thing with
S1: Jerry Seinfeld weighing in on this discussion is it's not
S1: like Seinfeld was like necessarily a super edgy, provocative show, like,
S1: largely family friendly entertainment. And it's not like his new film,
S1: the Pop-Tarts movie is, like particularly boundary pushing. It's like,
S1: I'm interested to hear what Larry David has to say
S1: about this. I also wonder whether part of his desire
S1: to to to step in on this, you know, he's
S1: before Unfrosted was like most recently in the media because
S1: he's regularly now subject to protests because of his views
S1: on on Israel. And sometimes you see this from people
S1: of a certain generation where they they think they're on
S1: the right side. And then a younger generation says you're
S1: on the wrong side. And they react and say, well,
S1: the extreme left and PC culture is, you know, ruining everything.
S1: I think there is something in, in the debate around
S1: like what you can and can't say and what you
S1: can and can't make comedy about. I'm just not sure
S1: that Jerry is the right person to frame that debate.
S1: When there is a new generation of comedians who are
S1: trying to have these conversations.
S2: Yeah. Completely agree. And also, as you mentioned, he was
S2: famously family friendly. Like he's made the argument before about
S2: why he doesn't swear and why inoffensive comedy is a
S2: great kind of comedy. So it does feel odd that
S2: he's now decrying the lack of quote unquote offensive comedy,
S2: which is a strange kind of label in itself that
S2: could probably be unpacked.
S1: Yeah, I think we've just discussed like, half a dozen
S1: shows that are more edgy than Seinfeld ever was as well.
S2: Yeah, for sure. Curb really is. And I know you
S2: mentioned this, Thomas Curb really is an example of someone
S2: who is, you know, with Larry David, I think he's
S2: 76 now who is still making comedy. That is hitting
S2: the mark in this day and age. So I don't
S2: think it's just about people being I don't think it's
S2: about comedy changing as much as it is about certain
S2: comedians not changing in response to kind of the world
S2: around them.
S3: It is funny, though, how he makes the point, and
S3: I guess this really, like contextualizes Jerry a lot. He
S3: makes the point in the interview that, you know, or
S3: he's kind of big point is that comedy and sitcoms
S3: are dying because there are no new sitcoms in this
S3: fall schedule in America on the four kind of major
S3: networks over there. But of course, like, who cares about that?
S3: Like four networks, like, everyone watches stuff on streaming now
S3: like that. You know, the fact that there's no new
S3: NBC comedy or anything on CBS or that would be like,
S3: you know, in Australia when we, you know, do the
S3: upfronts at all of our major networks. And very often
S3: the conversation is around like, well, there are so few
S3: new original dramas on like seven, nine, ten. That would
S3: be like us being like, oh my God, dramas are dead.
S3: When in reality, like all of the best stuff that's
S3: being commissioned and the new stuff is happening on like Stan, Netflix, Amazon, binge,
S3: like that's where the new commission is happening. Not the
S3: major like free to air networks.
S1: Yeah. I mean, clearly Jerry is not aware of Young Sheldon,
S1: which I think is killing it on one of these networks.
S1: But yeah, yeah, I think that's a whole other part
S1: to this conversation, which I think we're going to have
S1: in a bit more detail around our chat about mid television.
S1: But we've talked about it before as well in the show,
S1: the structures of how TV works now, it's just so
S1: fundamentally different, like networks or people who have money and
S1: commissioning TV shows aren't reliant on 30 episode runs of
S1: 20 minute sitcoms that have advertising partners that bring in
S1: all the revenue. That's just not how the TV model
S1: works anymore. And I think, you know, I think maybe
S1: in some ways that's bad, but I think in other
S1: ways it's led to an explosion in the kinds of
S1: creators who were never allowed to make those big network
S1: sitcoms make smaller shows for streaming, and have them land
S1: like Atlanta is a show that just would not have
S1: existed in an era of network dominated comedies. Shows like
S1: Dave are the same. There's all these shows that maybe
S1: they'll commissioned by HBO or FX, but they really found
S1: their audiences online rather on late night TV. And yeah,
S1: I think that's probably a way bigger factor in why
S1: TV comedies look different now than this society wide fear
S1: of saying the wrong thing. But like I said, I
S1: do think that there is a risk adverse nature. Probably
S1: more so, I think, from. Then from young comics and
S1: comedy writers. So I think are trying to find ways
S1: to talk about edgy, for lack of a better term,
S1: ideas in a way that is interesting and provocative and
S1: genuinely funny.
S2: Yeah. And I think that is where you set the
S2: you separate the curds from the way, if that is
S2: what you do with the curds and the way where
S2: you like being a proper artist, making something.
S6: Yeah. I don't know what either.
S1: Curds are way off.
S2: Frankly, I believe you separate them. Um, I guess my
S2: point is where you separate true artists from the kind
S2: of the chaff.
S6: If the 17th century.
S2: From old London town. Um, because I do think true
S2: art has to press upon the boundaries of the world.
S2: It is made in like that's part of its job. Right?
S2: And I do think it takes a certain kind of
S2: person to be brave enough to do that. And like
S2: art is about being brave. So yeah, I think there's
S2: a lot of artists who probably aren't brave enough to
S2: do that. But then every so often you get someone
S2: who is and they do jump out. People like the
S2: creator of Dave or some of the other shows that
S2: we've mentioned where they are willing to cop the consequences.
S3: It seems to me that having like, read about this
S3: and spoken to lots of people, that the the generally
S3: like sensible take. Is that what Jerry saying is a
S3: bit crazy, and it definitely shouldn't probably be coming from him.
S3: One of the most powerful people in comedy. But there
S3: was a little kernel of truth, and especially some of
S3: the stuff about that, like being, you know, like jokes
S3: by committee, being the end of comedy and scripts or
S3: comedic ideas going to all these different hands at an
S3: executive level, which kind of renders the comedy dead and buried.
S3: And it seems like people kind of connect it to
S3: that idea. So while the framing and execution and maybe
S3: the broader argument that Jerry was making, people are like, oh,
S3: I don't know, there was something that struck a chord
S3: with people. So I guess, like, therein lies whatever's going
S3: on right now. People are like, we don't fully agree
S3: with you. But also there is a general feeling that
S3: perhaps this risk adverse nature is hamstringing comedy a little bit.
S1: All right, well, we've got another interesting conversation coming up
S1: about the state of television more generally. But why don't
S1: we take a bit of a detour to talk about
S1: brand new movie? Movies are out, guys. There are new
S1: ones coming out. This one is out literally today. It
S1: stars Anne Hathaway. It's called the idea of you.
S7: How did you guys meet? We need to know the story.
S7: We met at.
UU: Coachella. Hi. Hi.
S8: This is your trailer?
S9: Yeah, I'm in the band performing on the main stage.
S8: August moon. Yeah.
S10: I met someone tonight.
S1: It's based on a book by the American actress Robin Lahue.
S1: I'd never heard of before, but apparently she's in, like,
S1: the latter 250 Shades films. And this is her debut
S1: book she wrote. The film is written and directed by
S1: Michael Showalter, who's a very experienced hand when it comes
S1: to comedy and romcoms. He directed The Big Sick and
S1: the Wet Hot American Summer franchise. The movie is about
S1: Anne Hathaway's character. Celine is a 40 year old single mum.
S1: She takes her daughter and her friends to Coachella, where
S1: they've got VIP passes to meet the members of a
S1: fictional boy band, which is a pretty obvious One Direction
S1: stand in. A daughter and her friends are really busy
S1: watching Saint Vincent, as you do at Coachella, and Celine
S1: has a run in with one of the members of
S1: the band, a young man called Haze Campbell, played by
S1: Nicholas Galitzine from Red, White and Royal Blue and Bottoms fame.
S1: They have this meet cute. They fall for each other. Basically,
S1: what follows are the ups and downs of a love
S1: affair between a single mum and a 24 year old
S1: British pop star. Do you remember.
S9: Me? But we met in Coachella.
S8: Yes, I remember you well.
S9: I desperately need some artwork.
UU: Why don't we start in the back? I like. These
UU: are fantastic.
S8: This piece is from my friend Sarah. What's it called?
S8: Unclose me.
S9: What do you feel when you look at it?
S8: Everything.
S1: Now, this movie on the surface, doesn't feel like a
S1: necessarily very hefty or complicated story. It's a little bit frothy,
S1: but I got to say, I had a really fun
S1: time with this one. It landed for me in the
S1: anyone but you sort of frame, but I think it's better.
S1: I think this is like a genuinely quite a well
S1: written and well directed film. I think Anne Hathaway probably
S1: elevated a lot for me. I think she's like moments
S1: where she's like crying and really acting. And Nicholas Galitzine,
S1: who I liked in everything he's done before, he's like
S1: a little bit one note, but he brings enough to this,
S1: and the movie ends up being a bit more interesting
S1: than just this frothy rom com. It's a bit about,
S1: you know, the weight of fame on a young star
S1: and the expectations of a woman in her 40s who
S1: was a single mom, and whether she can date and
S1: have a good time. And the ending was. Less predictable
S1: than I expected it to be. So I had a
S1: really good time with this film and would recommend it.
S1: How did you guys feel about the idea of you?
S2: Yeah, I definitely would have watched this on the plane
S2: if if it was an option available. Yeah, I agree
S2: with you largely, but one thing that really bothered me
S2: was the worst part of this was the actual romantic
S2: part of it. Oh, really? Yeah.
S3: I just you didn't Melwas texted me yesterday being like,
S3: this is so unbelievable.
S2: Soul and Hayes I just could not they just I
S2: could not understand what they liked about each other. Like,
S2: I don't think they showed enough.
S1: Super hot. And he's super hot.
S2: Yeah, but I didn't even really get like the chemistry
S2: didn't seem real. They didn't have any kind of intellectual collection. He, like,
S2: hates her art and what she believes in. They didn't
S2: really have any emotional connection like the most emotion we showed.
S2: I just didn't believe that they actually really liked each
S2: other and that their chemistry was there. And like, I
S2: thought it was so funny. He was wearing like a
S2: hat at one stage. That said, simple on top of it,
S2: and I was like, that is what you are. You
S2: are very simple. And then another I don't know if
S2: the show was being self-referential, but he also said, I'm
S2: just English works a charm. And I was like, that's
S2: all you are. There's just I did not buy it.
S1: She is sick of fuckboy loser men, including her ex-husband,
S1: who literally cheated on her, and she thinks this young
S1: guy who is a young pop star is another one
S1: of these fellows. But turns out he's actually really smart
S1: and really interesting and really nice and really handsome. And
S1: she's like, God, you know what? I don't need some
S1: loser who thinks he's actually great and progressive and cool.
S1: You're actually just like a nice, simple English guy who
S1: seems way nicer than he should be because he's a
S1: pop star.
S2: Sorry. He's not smart, though. He walked into the art store. He's.
S2: This is meant to be some profound artist, and he's like,
S2: what is art about? What does it all mean? And
S2: then he goes, and he buys all her art because
S2: he's so rich to show off his wealth that he
S2: can just buy out her gallery, her life's work in
S2: one go. And we're meant to think that that's like
S2: an attractive move, but I will. Aside from Hayes, I
S2: will agree with you. Anne Hathaway carried this like, completely
S2: carried it the best parts of it were when he
S2: was not in it, and she was dealing with the
S2: repercussions of like a normal civilian being caught up in
S2: a media storm, dealing with the kind of the perception
S2: of a cougar like and all of that. That was
S2: definitely the best part. He was not necessarily necessary at all.
S2: I didn't buy it. I would have had far less
S2: of him, far more of an.
S6: I can't believe like six weeks.
S3: Off hasn't been able to warm up your cold, dead.
S6: Heart.
S2: Did you really think they had it?
S6: Why would you? I thought this to him.
S3: I thought this movie was really fun. I definitely don't
S3: think it's in the ballpark of anyone. But you agree? It's.
S3: It's you.
S1: Guys. Anyone but you is better than this.
S6: Way better. Way better. Interesting. I feel like.
S2: It's more knowing this wasn't knowing enough for me.
S3: I just think this feels way more designed for like
S3: a streamer, whereas this is like proper mid. Whereas anyone
S3: but you felt like a proper old school rom com film,
S3: but they're both really good and I can see why
S3: they're in the conversation together. And I can see also
S3: why they're being both like part of the chat about
S3: the return of rom coms. Like it was a fun movie.
S3: I thought Anne Hathaway was great. Um, and I definitely
S3: thought the chemistry was like, you know, this tapped into
S3: so many like, rom com devices, like the, you know,
S3: it was like a reverse Notting Hill where she's a
S3: civilian and he's famous. Then there was like the age
S3: gap romance, and it kind of navigated those things really well.
S3: And she, they set up so well. Why a woman
S3: like her, this 40 year old single mom who has like,
S3: you know, we saw her sitting on the couch, like
S3: swiping through apps, looking at these people, these like sad
S3: options that are available to her. You can see why
S3: she may actually pursue an opportunity like this should it
S3: come up. Whereas and also, I would catch all of
S3: this with when you watch a rom com, the first
S3: rule is that you have to suspend disbelief because like,
S3: of course this shit is going to be a little
S3: bit like stretched.
S1: I know, I totally, yeah, totally. I mean, like Notting Hill,
S1: a great movie, probably one of the best rom coms
S1: ever made. And this has been called a reverse Notting
S1: Hill for the obvious reasons of who's the famous one.
S1: That also makes no sense. Like, why does she love
S1: Hugh Grant? Like, why does Hugh Grant not know who
S1: the biggest movie star in the world is like? Doesn't
S1: make any sense.
S2: Yeah, it's not so much the believability of the concept.
S2: I know you have to postpone that. It's just like
S2: you never saw them having any kind of. I never
S2: understood what their relationship was. You think.
S6: They didn't have real.
S1: Chemistry.
S2: Like when they were at.
S6: What about when she having.
S2: Dinner in Paris or Italy and he says he's like,
S2: are you having a good time? And she says, we.
S2: And he's like, hahahahaha! And I was like, that's your
S2: that's like it. That is what you laugh about.
S6: What about when she.
S3: Rocks up at his hotel and she's like, got that
S3: nice dress on. And he's like.
S2: Well, that also didn't fully make sense to me. How
S2: she suddenly embraced overnight her her inner sexy lady and
S2: was all of a sudden a seductress, I.
S1: Think I think one of the things that surprised me
S1: about this movie, we've been talking about movies like challenges,
S1: anyone but you was bringing kind of sex back to cinema.
S1: I thought this movie was, like, more explicitly sexy than
S1: either of those movies. The scene where they kind of
S1: first hook up, where he's playing her, the song on
S1: the piano like that was that was that was real
S1: chemistry that that was great. I thought.
S3: Yeah, I mean, Osmond and I get chemistry. Yeah.
S6: Can I also.
S2: Say one thing that I really I struggled with too
S2: was her daughter looked about the same. Ages her and
S2: like I could not figure it out. She was at Coachella,
S2: but then she was like at some cute school camp.
S6: School camp. It's like, is this kid?
S1: Is this kid 12 or 18? Yeah.
S6: And look, and if.
S1: There is one unbelievable part of it, I mean, Anne Hathaway, like,
S1: without getting weird about it, she looks incredible, right? And
S1: there's this bit where she's, like, hanging out with these, like,
S1: younger women who are the girlfriends of the other members
S1: of the band. And she's like, oh, they're all wearing bikinis.
S1: And I feel really uncomfortable. So I'm going to wear
S1: this one piece and it's like Anne Hathaway, like, you know,
S1: you are sure you're like a slightly older at 40
S1: and you're playing a single mom, but like, you were
S1: not unconventionally, you know, a very conventionally attractive person. But
S1: I guess maybe part of what the movie is trying
S1: to say is like, these are these insecurities that that
S1: hit women at a certain age and a certain stage
S1: of life.
S2: I found out more about them.
S1: I found the, um, Wikipedia like subsection for this film
S1: to be very, very, very funny. It has these two hilarious,
S1: like juxtaposed sentences. Grazia described the film as being based
S1: on Harry styles fan fiction. Vogue described the plot as
S1: a socio cultural commentary about aging and a woman's worth.
S1: And I'm like, I guess the movie's literally both of
S1: those things and kind of a decent job of both
S1: of those things.
S2: Yeah, I mean, also, the more when I couldn't quite
S2: figure out why they were together, the and then I
S2: was like, so what's going on here? And then I
S2: was like, it's quite clear really, if you wanted to
S2: pathologize them, she's trying to recapture the youth she never
S2: had because she had kids too early. And he's got
S2: mommy issues. Right, that they explain. So I was like,
S2: maybe that's what.
S6: Is also going on in the movie.
S1: That's in the text.
S2: Well, it's like not very low.
S6: I think she's slipping. Yeah, I think.
S1: The script is um, I think the script is interesting.
S1: I think there's a lot of layers of complexity, and
S1: maybe it doesn't all work out, because ultimately you can
S1: see maybe the writers are trying to make this a
S1: little bit more of a meditation, all of these ideas.
S1: But then Amazon's like guys, you've got like $20 million.
S1: Just shoot this thing in a weekend. Let's get this
S1: on the planes and on streamers. Let's go. You know
S1: so it's a bit of a tension there.
S2: Yeah, I think so. And I mean, I do think
S2: it was speaking of that, it is a bit of
S2: a mish mash of those two tones, isn't it, the
S2: rom com and then the kind of quite serious study
S2: of Anne Hathaway's character.
S6: Yeah.
S3: It had like I think it had very like commendable
S3: aspirations to be something great. And it ended up being
S3: something pretty good.
S1: Well, I mean, you could say that makes it a
S1: perfect case study of what we call mid tier streaming content.
S1: It's fine. It's entertaining, it's not bad, but it's not
S1: really transcendent either. And that kind of mid TV was
S1: the focus of a piece written by the New York
S1: Times chief TV critic James Poniewozik. He opened the piece
S1: by talking about Donald Glover and Maya Erskine, who wrote
S1: and starred in Atlanta and Pen15, respectively, two pretty elite,
S1: boundary pushing, critically acclaimed shows. And this year they both
S1: performed together in the Mr. and Mrs. Smith TV series reboot,
S1: which James says was fine but, you know, best suited
S1: to airplane watching something Mel would probably agree with, uh,
S1: rather than the kind of like detailed viewing that a
S1: show like Atlanta commands. You don't really want to watch
S1: it on a plane. You want to sit down and
S1: think about it and really enjoy what Donald Glover is
S1: trying to say. He goes on to talk about a
S1: bunch of shows like The Diplomat, hijack, Ozark, none of
S1: which are bad, but none of which are really going
S1: to be shows that we discuss in years down the track,
S1: even though they all star like very famous people. There's
S1: a lot of killer quotes in this piece, but this
S1: one really stood out to me. TV was so highly
S1: acclaimed for so long that we were like the frog
S1: in boiling water, but in reverse. The medium became lukewarm
S1: so gradually that you might not even have noticed. And
S1: I found that a really interesting way to describe how
S1: quickly we seem to have gone from, wow, TV is
S1: better than it's ever been. There are so many stars,
S1: there are so many budgets. This is replaced. Cinema is
S1: like the predominant form of high quality visual entertainment to
S1: oh yeah, Anne Hathaway movies. Okay, this Idris Elba Apple
S1: show is okay. It feels like a topic we talk
S1: about on this show pretty regularly. We talk about all
S1: these new shows every month. Some of them are fun,
S1: some of them are entertaining, but we end up kind
S1: of agreeing that none of them are really going to
S1: break through in the way shows like succession did a
S1: year ago. Do you guys agree with the premise of
S1: this piece? Are we living in a mid TV era?
S3: Yeah, I think so. I mean, how often have the
S3: three of us had a conversation where we desperately crave
S3: another succession or we, you know, discuss how rare something
S3: like the bear is? I do think that it's been
S3: like a whole bunch of factors that have led to this.
S3: And I know, Mel, you hate calling anything like, you
S3: don't like the label prestige, you don't like peak, you
S3: don't like mid. But I do think that what, you
S3: know was kind of deemed the golden age of TV,
S3: with all of these movie stars rushing to do TV
S3: shows and the production value skyrocketing and and them earning
S3: more money. So more and more, um, movie stars traditionally
S3: were keen to do these. You then found yourself in
S3: this kind of like glut of TV shows starring really
S3: big names, with all these different streaming services offering all
S3: these different shows, and everyone's kind of like siloed off
S3: from each other, because not everyone has every streaming service
S3: and there's just like a constant output, which means like
S3: the quality goes down. And, you know, he makes the
S3: point in this article, which I think is really interesting,
S3: is that, like, you know, he uses the idol, a
S3: show we all know and hated together, which was so fun.
S3: But like that is such a rarity now to have
S3: a bad TV show because like there is just so
S3: much mid effort going into these other shows with good
S3: enough people behind the cameras, good enough people in front
S3: of the cameras and enough money that what you get
S3: is this kind of product that is forgettable, like the
S3: fact that, you know just this week, Nicole Kidman was,
S3: you know, honored by the American Film Institute for an
S3: incredible career. Last year, she starred in Expats and Special
S3: Ops Lioness, two shows that no one could give a
S3: fuck about. Really? Like they're fine, but they're forgettable. And
S3: you know, he talks about Idris Elba in Hijack this year.
S3: We had Jodie Foster in True Detective, like these are
S3: all fine shows, but they just like come and go.
S3: And then six months later you could barely tell someone
S3: what they're about.
S2: Look, I understand what you're saying, and I don't mean
S2: to come back being contrarian as I feel I have been,
S2: but man, I reckon this guy just wants to be.
S2: And I call him. This guy is very esteemed. I
S2: think he just wants to be in, like the Oxford
S2: English Dictionary for coining the term mid TV. Like, that's
S2: what I reckon the play is that like critics like
S2: that love having coined a label. I don't buy the
S2: argument or I don't buy his reasoning behind the argument.
S2: He's reasoning is that we have a willingness to retreat,
S2: to settle, to trade the ambitious, for the dependable. That's
S2: what he argues that we've become safe. And I just
S2: don't buy it. Of course, there are more average TV shows.
S2: That's because we are watching so much more TV now
S2: in Australia, I think we watch like 51 hours a month,
S2: which is nearly two hours a day. If I've done
S2: my my math right there. Platforms have pressure to supply
S2: for this demand. When you're over supplying, obviously there's going
S2: to be problems with quality. Um, and they're also having
S2: a pressure to get people to subscribe based on the
S2: enormity of their catalogs. So yeah, we're going to have
S2: a lot of mid-level TV. I mean, we have the
S2: Opal tower because we needed more houses quickly. You're like,
S2: you know, you've got to have a lot of you've
S2: got to have a lot of frescoes to get the
S2: Sistine Chapel. I just don't buy his point that what
S2: it reflects. Yes, I agree there is a lot of
S2: TV that doesn't stay the test of time, but I
S2: don't buy his point that it's about a willingness to retreat,
S2: because risk only exists because you have safety like it
S2: can't exist without it, like they're in a dialogue together.
S2: And I mean, of course, he mentions The Sopranos. You
S2: guys who love your prestige TV chat like to mention
S2: The Sopranos. You know what else came out in 1999? Angel, Roswell, passion, spaced,
S2: The Lost World, popular, Bad Girls, Jack and Jill. Once
S2: and again. Do you know any of these? Some of them.
S2: But that's a whole lot of mid TV, right? Like
S2: average TV has always existed. We have more of it
S2: now because we have more TV in general. But it
S2: doesn't mean good TV doesn't exist. And I think like
S2: I think it's quite a damaging point of view and
S2: it's quite lazy criticism to kind of just throw back
S2: to nostalgia. They were better times because you're really not
S2: acknowledging all the great TV shows that we do have
S2: now that are pushing boundaries. We mention them, some of
S2: them before in the comedy section. But I mean, Baby
S2: Reindeer is another example like that is his issue is
S2: that is baby reindeer exactly what he says. We need
S2: more of its original, its provocative, and its important, so
S2: to say that those shows don't exist at all, I
S2: think is wrong. No, but.
S3: What he's saying is that he specifically says mid TV
S3: is not the mediocre TV of the past. It's it's
S3: like a level up in that we have this ecosystem
S3: now that allows it's almost like it just like pulls
S3: this ultimate trick on everybody. It looks good, it smells good,
S3: the dialogue is good. And you are like kind of
S3: fooled into thinking that Ozark is Breaking Bad, but it's not.
S3: And so I think he's he's not saying there was
S3: not mediocre TV before, but he's saying this actual concept
S3: of mid where we are fooled into thinking something is
S3: perhaps better than it is, or we've become like conditioned
S3: to just be like, oh, this is all a pretty
S3: good is kind of specific to an environment that has
S3: come about as a result of the golden age of TV,
S3: bringing a whole bunch of big names into the mix and,
S3: you know, streamers having more money to spend but needing
S3: to spend more money to produce more content. And so
S3: we have entered into a particular time where, like, everything
S3: is just of. A similar ish level, and it maybe
S3: goes up 5% or down 5%, but nothing like sits
S3: at the very bottom or at the very top.
S1: I think that like, I mean, a lot of what
S1: you said, Mel, in fact, most of what you said,
S1: I really agree with and I think I think one
S1: of the important distinctions to make is that I also
S1: agree with you, like the fundamental thing that I agree
S1: with you on is I don't think this is mode
S1: of TV that he's describing is reflective of us as
S1: individuals wanting it or demanding it. I think there have
S1: been quite significant structural changes to how television is made.
S1: And like you're saying, feeding the beast that force you
S1: to pump out more stuff, but more stuff that seems
S1: high quality but obviously can't be as high quality because
S1: it has to be done a bit cheaper and a
S1: bit more quickly. And I think that is how I
S1: interpreted this sort of definition of mid TV. I mean,
S1: I think Thomas listed a bunch of those shows. Kate
S1: Winslet is like on an HBO show called The Regime.
S1: Kate Winslet has been nominated for an Oscar seven times.
S1: She's won. It's just insane that, like, we live in
S1: an era where this is happening every month and I
S1: guarantee you in five years from now, we will not
S1: be talking about the regime or anything else. I think
S1: that's sort of the kind of TV frame that I'm
S1: interested in at this moment. And I think, yeah, I
S1: really agree with you that it's not because I think
S1: we as audiences aren't ready for more ideas. I think
S1: Baby Reindeer is another amazing example of that, because that
S1: is an interesting show that is risky, that is bold
S1: and weird and grim, and that was a show that
S1: was not teased by Netflix. They did not send that screeners.
S1: They did not alert critics to it. They clearly just
S1: like bought it at some point and thought, this will
S1: be interesting. Let's chuck it on to Feed the beast.
S1: But it has gone ballistic because audiences like us and
S1: like lots of people are ready for interesting, provocative, fascinating, weird,
S1: sometimes really dark shows. But that was an accident in
S1: a way. Like what these people are sitting around and,
S1: and sort of deciding they want to commission more of
S1: seems to be this pattern of does it have big
S1: name star? Does it have a credible writing team? Can
S1: we pump out eight episodes of this for less than
S1: $10 million and then do that 12 times a year?
S1: I think that is what we've ended up with television.
S1: I think streaming is a huge part of that, because
S1: I think it makes it harder for these networks. They
S1: think this goes to this risk conversation we're having earlier.
S1: They don't want to take a risk. Because if the
S1: way that we all live our lives now is we
S1: go to work, we come home, we argue with our
S1: partners about what to watch, and ultimately we just want
S1: to make sure that there's enough new stuff on every
S1: night and every weekend to binge through a show, and
S1: then do that again the next week and do that
S1: again the next week. That's how we live. Then the
S1: goal of the streamer is to maximize the volume of
S1: content that is new, that's being served up at the
S1: lowest possible cost. So I think it does exist not
S1: because we want it, but because this is where the
S1: economic structures of like TV production distribution have led us to.
S2: Yeah, I think that's very true. And I also do wonder,
S2: like you mentioned, baby reindeer and I'm kind of am
S2: quite shocked that that has been the success it has
S2: been globally. Um, but I do wonder too, whether we
S2: are in a kind of echo chamber in a way,
S2: in the sense of what we get out of TV
S2: versus what a person who doesn't work in culture or
S2: doesn't approach TV in the same way we do get
S2: out of it like it's easy to be like there's
S2: too much TV. But for a lot of people, the Mr.
S2: or Mrs. Smith is probably exactly what they want from
S2: TV and go to TV for. And of course, other
S2: shows like The Curse and The White Lotus will always exist.
S2: But a lot of people are happy with Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
S1: I think what worries me is that I'm not sure
S1: that shows like The Curse or The White Lotus will
S1: always exist. Like, I think, you know, one of the
S1: shows that I've loved the most this year, Ripley, which
S1: is beautiful and different and interesting, is like a legacy
S1: of the kind of TV that was being greenlit five
S1: years ago. The Sympathizer on Binge is another show that
S1: I think is amazing and different and bold, and it's
S1: Park Chan wook directing it, and it's awesome. Is that
S1: that kind of came out of the pre mid TV era,
S1: if that makes sense. When we were putting a lot
S1: more money in, a lot more thought into this craft.
S1: Like I think when we look five years from now,
S1: I think it's going to be way more of like
S1: the regime or three body problem shows that are fine,
S1: but just like not that extra little bit. And you know,
S1: you're also right. Again they're probably like what we think.
S1: And what we want is different to what a lot
S1: of people want. Like I always say, the most watched
S1: show in the history of television is The Big Bang Theory, right?
S1: Which fucking sucks. But it is also important, I think,
S1: as critics, to acknowledge that sometimes people just want to
S1: watch a dumb show because they're busy with their lives
S1: and they need something that they can sit down and
S1: watch with their families, and that's fine. And that TV
S1: needs to exist. But what TV can and should do
S1: as an art form and as a medium should be
S1: pushed into more interesting and progressive and, you know, I
S1: guess edgy, edgy ways. And that doesn't feel like there
S1: is that inertia within the current television universe to do
S1: that as much. I mean, this is a thing that
S1: I've yelled at you guys about so much before TV,
S1: its entire existence, and it's certainly for our entire lives,
S1: was shows that came out every week for like half
S1: the year. And you got to know characters, and you
S1: talked about it with your friends and new characters came
S1: in halfway through the season. Then you were off for
S1: half a season. They went back to the drawing board.
S1: They added new things. You lived with it for 4
S1: or 5, six, seven years of your life. That's what
S1: TV was. It wasn't movies which just came. You enjoyed
S1: for two hours and then it went away. You watch
S1: these things, you talked about these things. That's the social
S1: role it played in our kind of communities. And it
S1: is not that anymore. And it's like, well, what is
S1: it now? It's just like something that should be a
S1: movie like hijack becomes an eight part Apple TV series,
S1: but something that brings you together in a way that
S1: you can discuss and debate and watch characters grow and really, like,
S1: have some kind of emotional connection to largely has disappeared
S1: because of streaming and the and the binge mode. I
S1: think the binge model is responsible for a lot of this,
S1: because you just you can't connect to characters or story
S1: in a weekend the way you could over a year.
S1: That's just a reality of it. And maybe it's pie
S1: in the sky to think that we could ever return
S1: to that. But I think we've lost like what TV
S1: was for basically our entire lives.
S3: Yeah, but there's no way back now because the all
S3: the different styles are so fractured, like you can't, you know,
S3: I've seen other people make this comparison, but it feels
S3: relevant because it's happening right now. But like Baby Reindeer
S3: would be a bad show to not binge. I think
S3: like that. That is a show fit for binging. It's
S3: half an hour. It's it's kind of dark. You just
S3: get so sucked in that you don't want to watch
S3: one episode of that and then wait a week to
S3: watch the next one.
S1: That also could have been a movie, you know what
S1: I mean? Like, it literally could have been like a
S1: two hour movie.
S3: Yeah, it could, it could have been. But like, I mean,
S3: it ended up I, I almost think it was one
S3: of the rare ones where I think they actually got
S3: it just right, like it felt it felt perfect at
S3: seven episodes. And then, you know, we've all loved. Well, um,
S3: I don't know, Mel. You've kind of like, tapped out
S3: of culture completely now.
S6: But.
S3: We've all enjoyed Shogun, which is like probably the closest
S3: thing to what all the prestige TV heads big up
S3: to me and Osborne have been reaching for since succession ended.
S3: But that like, man, if that was like, you know,
S3: that was perfect for exactly what it was. It was
S3: week by week. And so like the TV landscape is
S3: so fractured now. Anyway, just like my friend Jerry said, that,
S3: you know, you can't have you need to have both
S3: models like coexisting at the same time. Some stuff needs
S3: to be binged, some stuff needs to be appointment viewing
S3: week by week. And like that's just how the landscape
S3: has like kind of evolved now. And so we all
S3: have to just like live with that. And I think
S3: there's no like this one is better or that one
S3: is better, but I do. I did get the suspicion
S3: as well. Like I wondered, having spoken to this about
S3: almost exclusively people that I know either work in the media,
S3: work in TV, or just really are into the industry
S3: of TV. Like, again, I don't mean to like slander
S3: my wife on this podcast for the thousandth time, but
S3: you know, she's someone who, like, I reckon half of
S3: this show, she'd be like sick, put it on like
S3: she couldn't give a fuck about, like if it's mid
S3: TV or not. Like, is this just a problem for
S3: people who are like really in.
S1: I think it is. But I think like basically all
S1: of these conversations are right, like most people have enough
S1: to worry about than, than debating. The New York Times
S1: chief TV critics like attempt, as Mel said, to coin
S1: a term called mid TV like I think and I
S1: think this is why I think it's really important to
S1: say it is not the fault of any individual who
S1: loves watching shows that we think are like mid or
S1: even worse. I just don't think that is the solution
S1: to this. And I think we need to make sure
S1: that there are shows for all sorts of different audiences
S1: and different levels of quality, and some that are bingeable
S1: and some that are more, uh, interesting and perhaps more cerebral.
S1: But I think those decisions need to be made deliberately,
S1: not to feed a never ending sort of like fire
S1: hose of just content, because that is how streamers have
S1: optimized what they want, which is time on the app,
S1: which is what shareholders want to see. Like, I feel
S1: like the things are upside down. It's like, yeah, let's
S1: make high quality, mid quality, low quality television to satisfy
S1: different audience segments. But let's not just end up with
S1: a situation where we need to have a thousand shows
S1: a year. So what is the most cost optimized model
S1: to do that? I think you made that point really
S1: well earlier, Mel. There's just so much of it. So
S1: we're probably going to like have to deal with this
S1: in the future. But is there a case for there
S1: being less television like being made?
S2: Yeah, definitely. And I think certain streamers will maybe settle
S2: into that because I think what you find and like
S2: I mean, it's in the book publishing industry as well.
S2: I know you guys have no doubt missed my book
S2: references is that, you know, these are companies that need
S2: to make money. They have a shareholders to make happy
S2: that you need to offset your bigger, bolder, riskier projects
S2: with some money makers. Like that's just the way the
S2: world works, right? I mean, it's not that different from journalism.
S2: You need to do some stuff so you can do
S2: the stuff that's deeply important.
S1: Yeah. Like all of our work is basically what funds
S1: Nick McKenzie's investigative pieces. That's I.
S3: Do the podcast so I can then do my high art.
S6: Column on Sundays.
S2: Yeah, we deserve the Walkley. Um, yeah, exactly. So I think,
S2: you know, you there is a I get that that
S2: stuff needs to exist. So the kind of more daring
S2: stuff like the curse can exist and I think, you know,
S2: it's ignorant to not see that that is the reality
S2: of the situation. I do think maybe some streamers, depending
S2: on how they want to approach their subscribers in the future,
S2: will probably go less, but more high quality, which I mean,
S2: HBO has largely done in the past. Fewer shows, higher
S2: quality shows, and that will become their their brand. So
S2: I think you probably will see that. I guess my
S2: main issue with this article was just the fact that
S2: I think he discredits the good shows that are being made.
S2: And yes, there are more mid shows, but the fact
S2: is like there's only more because of we're consuming more
S2: TV than we have in the past. And I don't
S2: think he really acknowledges the why the Mid exists as
S2: it does now.
S1: I like I think I appreciate your optimism, Mel, but
S1: I feel and I'm not trying to say that you're
S1: looking at me like I'm being I'm not trying to
S1: be patronizing at all because I think I can get
S1: in my like head and be very negative about a
S1: lot of different things. So I think it is genuinely
S1: very helpful to hear someone who thinks about this stuff
S1: as much as I do say, hey, actually, just relax, man.
S1: There's like stuff going on. But I think the HBO example,
S1: like HBO doesn't exist anymore. HBO is rebranded to Max.
S1: It is a subset. Of a subset of a company
S1: that is now called discovery. Like, somehow the Discovery Channel
S1: became the biggest thing out of like, Warner Brothers and
S1: HBO and all these things merging together. And I think
S1: in some ways that is like a really perfect metaphor
S1: that this once prestigious brand that took these risks and
S1: sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't, is now just
S1: a name on a streaming platform that is a subsidiary
S1: of a giant, you know, mega corporation that doesn't really
S1: care about taking creative risks. Maybe that is doing a
S1: disservice to these to the people there. And I'm sure
S1: there are still really good network execs and programmers, but
S1: I just think that the trend is going in a
S1: direction that is taking us further away from even the
S1: shows that we think now are pretty good. And I
S1: guess what I always want to come back to is,
S1: and maybe this is just the reality of the future
S1: of how we live in terms of fragmentation. Since succession,
S1: there has not been a show that, like a lot
S1: of people watch and talk about. And. I know it's
S1: been 12 months, but like, there's been a lot of
S1: big shows. There's been a lot of attempts to do
S1: something like this. There's going to be some more later
S1: this year and next year. I like. Is that ever
S1: going to happen again?
S2: The succession one confuses me a little, only because I
S2: do speak to a lot of people who were not
S2: as into succession as we were, and as people in
S2: the media were into succession, and they never released viewer numbers,
S2: though we know it wasn't. You know, we know it
S2: wasn't the most popular show on binge and that the
S2: numbers actually weren't as high as you mentioned. Some of
S2: the other shows, I mean, Law and Order, NCIS were
S2: still kind of far outweighing the number of people of
S2: watching succession. So, I mean, will we get and I'm
S2: sure we will get another succession. Baby reindeer is not
S2: obviously a week by week appointment viewing, but people have
S2: been talking about that. The curse had its moment. The
S2: White Lotus is going to come back. I know that
S2: that's huge in Australia. It hasn't cut through as much overseas,
S2: particularly in the UK, but here it's huge. I just
S2: got back from um, I just got back from the UK.
S6: I've done the streets, the London streets.
S2: I've done a survey of the population.
S6: They're all just.
S3: Top boy over.
S6: There.
S2: Yeah, I mean I do think shows will still cut
S2: through and I do think we'll have a succession again
S2: in the future. Yeah. And maybe that is my, um,
S2: post-holiday optimistic glow. But I just do think good shows
S2: still exist and we are still talking about them.
S1: What do you think, Thomas?
S6: Uh, no.
S3: I think I tend to agree with you, sadly. Osman. Uh, like,
S3: I just think the way the trend is going that
S3: of course, these good shows still exist, but as the
S3: kind of like streamers get more and more of a
S3: return on, like pumping out this certain level of TV
S3: that like how frequently these good shows slip through the
S3: cracks almost and become great, uh, will become less and less,
S3: and there'll be less stuff like the, you know, the
S3: The sympathizer, the curse, the bear. Like, think about how
S3: much we all, like, frothed over the bed just because
S3: it was like this one. Like, great show that managed
S3: to kind of slip through. And it could have so
S3: easily if you if you said to someone the elevator
S3: pitch of the bear, it could sound like any other
S3: mid TV show. And so I don't necessarily think the
S3: argument is whether or not these good shows will continue
S3: to exist, but it's like, how frequently will we get them?
S3: Or will we just continue to like, be drowned out
S3: by shows that seem pretty good until. Yeah, kind of
S3: like he says, you don't even notice that the temperature
S3: has changed. Um, so yeah, I don't know. But either way, um,
S3: it's definitely an interesting conversation. And, you know, we've got
S3: between this and Jerry Seinfeld, it's like, are we obsessed
S3: with the past? Do we know what's good anymore? Like, yeah.
S1: And we should say that, like, probably part of the
S1: reason why it exercises all of us in different ways
S1: is because it's literally our job. Right? Like every day
S1: in our jobs, we think about what TV shows or
S1: works of film or whatever do we want to talk about?
S1: What are people watching? Why aren't they watching this? What
S1: shows do we want to cover on this kind of podcast?
S1: And when you're making a podcast and you're wanting to
S1: reach as many people as possible, it's like, okay, you know,
S1: like Vanity Fair does these recap things, right? And they
S1: chose the regime because they're like, this is a big
S1: Kate Winslet show on HBO with some of the writing
S1: team from succession like, this is obviously going to bang
S1: and go, what? It totally flopped. And it's an interesting
S1: like insidery, I guess, insight into how people whose job
S1: it is is to critique and discuss culture, choose what
S1: to talk about when the market and the audience is
S1: so fragmented. So there is something that is like just very,
S1: I guess, personal to our work. But I also think
S1: audiences are interested in it because even if they don't
S1: think about it necessarily from the same perspective we do,
S1: it determines what is on their Netflix home page. It
S1: determines what shows are available for them to watch. So
S1: it is something that I think a lot of people
S1: should be engaged in. You should check out that piece
S1: in the New York Times, I think.
S2: Absolutely. And, Thomas, your goal for the year is to
S2: coin a term that can be in the OED. I've actually.
S6: Got one. Really? Yeah.
S3: What curds and whey viewing. So basically. What it is
S3: is when you can't separate what's good and bad and
S3: then you shan't ever enjoy another TV show again.
S1: I'm more of a fan of the the wheat and chaff,
S1: you know, logic around this stuff.
S6: And there was an opal.
S2: Tower metaphor in there somewhere as well.
S1: The Opal tower one was very good, bringing the yimby
S1: discourse to conversations around television. Very, very good.
S6: Um, okay.
S1: So it's time for Impress Your Friends, a regular segment
S1: where we share something we read, watch, listen to consumed
S1: in the past week. Mel. You're back, I'm back.
S6: You get to go first.
S2: Guess what? I've picked a book. Yeah, I had to.
S2: I read so much while I was away. Um, usually
S2: when I go on holiday, I don't read new books. Like,
S2: it's I it's time to revisit the past. So I
S2: understand where where we're at today. Um, but I did
S2: read one new ish book, which was a psycho uzuki's
S2: best selling butter, translated by Polly Barton. It's a Japanese
S2: kind of cult best seller. Um, it's inspired by the
S2: true story of this Japanese woman who was known as
S2: the Konkatsu Killer. And she poisoned three of her male lovers.
S2: So it takes that story and it turns it into
S2: this chef, um, Nanako Kagi, who's been convicted for seducing
S2: businessmen with her cooking and then poisoning her. She's in jail.
S2: She meets up with this journalist who wants to to
S2: get a recipe, and they start a very big exchange.
S2: I love books about food, and this is about desire.
S2: An appetite. It's about beauty standards in Japan and hunger.
S2: It's a really gripping Bingeable that was Bingeable works particularly
S2: well here. Um Bingeable read. Definitely worth picking up. Good.
S2: Also good for a plane, I would say. Have you
S2: ever read Ottolenghi?
S3: Simple.
S6: Also a great book about food.
S2: Yeah, it stresses me out.
S1: Uh. Great recommendation. Thanks, Mel. Great to have you back.
S6: Thank you. We did, we did.
S1: We did mention books while you were away. Just for
S1: the record. You wouldn't know because you didn't listen. But
S1: we did talk a fair bit.
S2: I'm gonna go back and listen to them all.
S6: You're not gonna. The breastfeeding segment in particular.
S1: Uh, Thomas, what have you got for us?
S3: Uh, yes, I have a TV show. Is it me?
S3: Nobody knows.
S6: Um.
S3: Uh, no, it's actually really good. Um, it's it's here
S3: on the ABC. It's called after the party. You guys across.
S6: This?
S1: Yeah. Really interesting choice.
S3: Yeah. Uh, it's. Look, I feel like lately. I mean,
S3: a couple of weeks ago, I recommended baby reindeer. Also
S3: a very heavy and triggering show. And it's kind of
S3: in the same territory in terms of, like, it's a
S3: New Zealand six parter that deals with some pretty heavy themes.
S3: It stars Robyn Malcolm in the lead as Penny. And basically,
S3: you know, she's a high school teacher in New Zealand.
S3: We meet her and we kind of learn that five
S3: years prior, at her husband's birthday, she kind of stumbled
S3: on a scene of him. It was a drunken party,
S3: and she stumbled on a scene of him, possibly what
S3: she thinks is like assaulting a young person at the party,
S3: a young man. And we flash forward five years. Her
S3: husband is kind of like left town in disgrace. Although
S3: no one really believes her side of the story. He
S3: returns home, they share a teenage daughter and the story
S3: kind of picks up from there. And it's a really
S3: interesting kind of musing on like what it's like to be,
S3: you know, someone who's accused of something that in your
S3: life changes. But also for Robyn Malcolm's character, you know,
S3: no one believes her. She lives in this kind of
S3: isolation with what she believes she saw. And, you know,
S3: at the start where kind of we're following her and
S3: we're led to believe that's what happened. But we do
S3: start to get the inkling that perhaps she's an unreliable narrator,
S3: and it covers some really interesting themes. So that's on
S3: ABC iview. All six episodes are available now.
S1: It's a really, really good show. It's a really good show,
S1: really interesting. It's getting a lot of great reviews, a
S1: really good recommendation. I would put it above mid TV. Yes.
S3: Me too. Yeah. Where is that mill?
S2: Just which tower in Sydney could I compare that to?
S1: Um, my recommendation is the Sydney Morning Herald's coverage of
S1: the implosion of the South Sydney Rabbitohs. Oh my gosh
S1: it's not. But man things are not going well. You
S1: guys across this.
S3: Yeah man.
S1: Obviously everything's bad Russell Crowe apparently there's factions organizing against him.
S1: So I'm going to say that like we started this
S1: downhill trajectory after we moved from Redfern to Maroubra, Heffron Park,
S1: that was not a good decision. Um, we have not
S1: done well since then. Um, that is not my recommendation.
S1: I just needed to get my feelings off on that one.
S3: Russell Crowe's been doing a fair bit of mid work,
S3: to be honest.
S2: I just watched I watched Land of Bad actually. And
S2: you know who has a cameo in it? George Burgess
S2: I didn't know which one he was, but I did
S2: read that he's got a cameo in it.
S3: Land of bad is how you could basically describe his
S3: career over the last ten years.
S1: Someone pointed out that Russell Crowe was in two movies
S1: with the word Exorcist in the title last year. It
S1: was like Exorcism and The Pope's Exorcist, and the posters
S1: of them are just him wearing like a, you know,
S1: priest's robe and holding up a crucifix.
S3: What's happened to him, though? Because he did, and he
S3: unhinged was really weird. Land of bad, the Pope's exorcist.
S3: He has done so many shit movies.
S2: Poker face one was that. Yeah. Or whatever. Poker.
S6: Yeah, that was on Stan, though.
S3: We liked that one.
S2: We do like Stan.
S6: Um, yeah.
S1: And he's he's this movie Kraven the Hunter, which is
S1: like a the Sony thing which has been delayed again,
S1: I think it's supposed to come out last year and
S1: was supposed to come out this year. I think now
S1: it's coming out 2025. Uh, I just like, can this movie. Anyway,
S1: let me tell you.
S6: Isn't he.
S2: Can I ask, isn't he building like a film studio
S2: on the North Coast? Wasn't that what he was up to?
S6: Yeah, yeah, on.
S1: His farm up there. Mid-North coast near Coffs Harbour. Um,
S1: which is where he, uh, famously nine years ago took
S1: some Souths players for a let's not talk about this anymore. Um.
S3: What's your recommendation this week?
S1: My recommendation? So you guys know that I'm not a
S1: big Marvel head these days, but there was a cartoon
S1: show I watched in the 90s when I was a kid,
S1: which was how I fell in love with comic books.
S1: It was X-Men The Animated Series, which is really iconic
S1: kind of theme music. And it's a big part of
S1: the reason why X-Men became like a pop cultural phenomenon
S1: in that era, leading into, you know, the first Sony
S1: X-Men films with Hugh Jackman. That TV show has actually
S1: been rebooted by Disney. It's got X-Men 97. It's really interesting.
S1: It's really fun and sort of violent and thought provoking.
S1: There's a lot of analogies in this series to like
S1: January 6th and, you know, ideas around terrorism and politics.
S1: It's a really interesting show. It's doing really, really well.
S1: I think it's got a lot of fans and hype,
S1: particularly in the States. I'm just having a really good
S1: time watching it. It's like it's fun, it's thought provoking,
S1: but it's also just like a cartoon that is a
S1: bit silly at some times. So it's a very good
S1: kind of chill watch. If the grimness of Baby Reindeer
S1: and After the Party getting a bit too.
S11: Too much for you.
S6: A palate.
S3: Cleanser?
S1: Indeed, indeed.
S6: I thought you were going to.
S2: Pick Sabrina Carpenter's, um, espresso.
S6: Well, I am.
S1: Loving that song, too. So good. Sabrina Carpenter, thank God
S1: we have someone who's, like, genuinely making good pop hits
S1: when Taylor is in her fail era.
S3: Well, can we, can we? Before we wrap things up,
S3: we didn't get to hear Merle last week on Taylor.
S3: Can you give us, like, your really quick take on
S3: the tortured poet's apartment?
S2: Okay. Quick take. I don't think it's as bad as
S2: the critics have been ready to say. I think there's
S2: a bit of groupthink going on in the amount of
S2: critics slamming it. I definitely do not like the long version,
S2: the two hour and two minute album. I think the
S2: shorter one is good. Yes, I agree with you guys
S2: that there's a lot of it is derivative, a lot
S2: of it. I got Deja vu listening to. I was like,
S2: I've heard this, another Taylor song, but I do think
S2: there are some bangers, and I do think it is
S2: an album that rewards listening to more than once.
S1: Name one banger.
S2: I'm kind of down bad crying at the gym. Everything
S2: turns out teenage petulance. You know there are. And obviously the, um,
S2: do it with a broken heart. And I do think
S2: there might be a bit of disconnect between critics and
S2: her fans because her fans love this album.
S1: Yeah, not for the first time, Mel. Yeah, thanks for
S1: that one. Great analysis from.
S6: You. So would you say that.
S3: It's not great, but not bad, but it's just mid.
S6: That's don't.
S2: Understand me or Taylor.
S1: Well we are definitely not in our mid air. It's
S1: great to have you back Mel.
S2: It's great to be back I've missed you guys.
S1: Mel Thomas thanks so much. See you next week.
S6: Thanks. Bye.
S1: This episode of The Drop was produced by Jay Wong.
S1: If you enjoyed listening to today's episode of The Drop,
S1: make sure to follow us on your favorite podcast app.
S1: Leave us a review or better yet, share it with
S1: a friend! I'm Osman Farooqui, see you next week!