Skip to main content

Late Night Reinforces the Talk Show Monotony


It’s sad that a movie can give us a long-running late night woman talk show host before reality can. But that’s the world that Late Night exists in, a movie directed by Nisha Ganatra and written by Mindy Kaling about the relationship between a seasoned talk show host and her new writer. It’s always interesting, especially for fans of comedy and comedy writing, to see a movie that explores that world. The best one in recent years was Mike Birbiglia’s improv-oriented film Don’t Think Twice. And Late Night has a similarly interesting premise rooted in the process of developing and reinventing a topical comedy show in a modern market. Or at least it should.
Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson) has hosted a prime time talk show for nearly thirty years, during which time she’s won a number of Emmys and been considered a trailblazer for women in comedy. However shortly after winning an American Humour Award, she’s told that due to plummeting ratings over the last few years, she’ll be replaced by the end of the season. Criticized too for the lack of diversity on her writing staff, she hires Molly Patel (Kaling), a first time writer and comedian. Initially Molly and Katherine clash due to the formers’ inexperience and outspokenness, but soon her ideas start changing the tide of Katherine’s show and its public reception.
I wanted to love this movie. It’s subject matter is quite fascinating to me and there’s a lot in the world of late night talk shows to pick apart, as The Larry Sanders Show demonstrated. It’s also refreshing to see the life of a T.V. comedy writer and the atmosphere of a writers’ room illustrated in a movie. But Late Night doesn’t really do much with that material by virtue of it being told from the wrong perspective. Despite being written by Kaling and clearly having some roots in her experiences, this movie is largely Katherine’s story, her career and personal issues being the driving focus. In this, the storytelling itself is contrived and the plot meanders through the standard motions of comeback success stories. And the audience isn’t given a reason to care because despite it being key to our investment in Katherine’s arc, we’re never shown any indication of the truth of her reputation. People refer to her as a legend, as a sensational comedian, a pioneer of the format, and she’s received numerous accolades for her work (like Thompson herself, she’s a Dame); but we’re never shown why, outside of the implicit being a woman in a patriarchal environment. Carol Burnett is a comedy legend, and it’s not just because she broke a glass ceiling -it’s because she also is incredibly funny, intelligent, and innovative, and has exhibited those talents with astonishing confidence and finesse. Because we don’t have that barometer for Katherine’s reputation, we can’t tell that saving her show is worthwhile. Especially considering how off-putting her personality is, both in front of and behind the camera.
Even when pigeon-holed as stubborn, crochety women, Emma Thompson is a great actress though, and her performance here is quite good, delivering some unexpected pathos and heart amid the tyrant-like control she exerts over her staff. And because Thompson herself hasn’t done the kind of comedy depicted in this film in quite some time, it creates a stronger relationship between actress and character and makes the difficult-to-watch moments of public embarrassment all the more harsh and uncomfortable. She’s complimented by an ever-reliable John Lithgow as her endearing, sardonic husband whose relationship with her forms the dramatic backbone of the last act. Kaling herself is also not bad, coming off nicely warm and bubbly, if perhaps a little too on the virtuous side. However she is bringing a lot of truth to the part, especially in the scenes that highlight her alienation from the rest of the somewhat resentful white male writing staff. We see too her determination and creativity in action. It’s definitely believable she could bring a different bent to the show.
Which is why it’s pretty disappointing that she doesn’t. Though we don’t get to see all that much of Katherine’s show (itself something of a problem), the impression is that it’s more than a little out of touch and Katherine prefers to book journalists and politicians than A-list celebrities. There’s clearly some pomposity there, but the solution Molly orchestrates essentially turns it into every other generic talk show, with Katherine even performing Fallon or Corden-like gimmicks instead of doing something new. I honestly don’t think her revamped show is all that different from the one that would have come from her network-mandated replacement -an obnoxious young comedian played by Ike Barinholtz. There’s a point made about how apolitical the show has become and the courage it takes for Katherine to do a joke about abortion laws, but we never see the show actually become political. Reference is made to the unique voice she has as an older woman in comedy, so why can’t we hear her use that voice? Worse, the movie seems to present the idea that copying the styles of other late night hosts rather than compromising one’s own style just enough to make it more accessible is the right thing to do. The moral isn’t to challenge the status quo as much as to conform to it. On top of it all the actual transformation of her show, the most interesting part of the premise, is confined to a mere montage.
Late Night’s models are largely the ilk of ‘the Jimmys’ when they should be something like Craig Ferguson or even Stephen Colbert. And in keeping with that approach, the script isn’t very funny. A lot of the jokes are fairly tired and flat (though Thompson can make some of them work) and there’s nothing all that fresh to the pervading sense of humour. It’s a movie that just doesn’t go far enough with the potential of its premise, and though the performances are good and it does at times stumble into something compelling, it’s not enough to make this film much better than the late night formulas it’s replicating.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...