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

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day