Also desperately trying to avoid the stack of papers (in my case, in my inbox) screaming for my immediate attention...
Again I agree with Kevin about Pollak - so much better than Charlie Rose that is is actually embarrassing whenever Pollak gives Rose credit for his format (which he does often). Is Rose even still on PBS? I have not bothered to watch him in a couple of years now, but I have seen commercials that seem to indicate he is on the Bloomberg channel or something. One advantage that Pollak has over Dave and company (and this was mentioned earlier in reference to Jon Stewart) is that he only has on guests that he has some interest in. I would love to see Dave get to the point where he mostly has on guests that he really cares about (which I guess is a big part of my original motivation with this thread - why does Dave, my favorite talk show host - have to swallow so many shallow and trivial guests that he clearly is not interested in?). I am not a celebrity and have never been on a late night talk show, but I have had a somewhat similar experience on occasion (once every two or three years) of being interviewed in public on stage in front of an audience, in recent years on video tape (or I guess it is now digital recording of some kind). I agree with Kevin that it is far from natural - though it is always easier when the topic and format allow for genuine conversation and spontaneous interaction (as opposed to some occasions, when basically I am just giving my side of a fairly canned and pre-programmed presentation). Of course sometimes the more natural conversations are boring, or spend too much time on one subject and never get around to the other subjects, or are disorganized and hard to follow, but having participated in and watched a number of these things, I would much rather have three of these interviews where 2 are uneven and hit and miss and 1 dazzling, than 3 well organized, on-schedule and neat and clean, but programmed and produced the hell out of with all spontaneity wrung out of them. Same goes for talk shows on TV- I would much rather see Dave just wing it with his guests, even if 2 out of 3 are ragged. And, if Dave had on guests he was interested in, I am confident that less than 1/3 would actually be ragged, because he is so good at it when he is engaged. When I went up to bed last night my wife was watching CFerg. I had just been reading this thread, so I stayed up and watched the entire interview that was on, which was with the Scottish woman who had been the Mama Borg on Sarah Conner. I really enjoyed it - they were funny together and natural and relaxed and seemed to really enjoy each other (and she was a lot prettier than she was on Terminator). My daughter today informs me that she sings with the group Garbage, and that my lack of hipness in knowing that embarrasses her. I downloaded "I Think I'm Paranoid" from the itunes today - it is not exactly my cup of tea. Still, I enjoyed her segment. On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > Following up on Dave S's comments about Charlie Rose on the other > thread, I think my comments relate more to the subject of this thread. > > Charlie Rose needs to go. He is bland, talentless, and extremely > white. In other words, he is the stereotype of what is wrong with PBS. > He is so bad at his job that he actually confuses his guests. He > thinks phrases like "state of movies" or "health care reform" are > questions, when they clearly aren't. Yes, he uses words like "crux" or > "intonation" so people think they're watching a sophisticated talk > show, but they're not. He is a boob. > > Let me again offer some praise to Kevin Pollak (who, ironically, > patterns his show after Rose's, but this is a case where the copy is > better than the original). While others correctly criticize Pollak for > telling the same eight tales of Hollywood in each episode, they might > not watch enough of the other talk show hosts to see how much > repetition they employ (how many installments of Jay's "Headlines" or > Dave's "Fun Facts" can one human being tolerate?). Pollak has a guest > on for at least an hour (sometimes two hours), so even if they are > there to promote something, that is a fraction of the conversation > (another fraction are the aforementioned eight tales). His interview > with Eddie Izzard last month was outstanding (his interview with Weird > Al, not so much, mostly because I got the distinct impression Pollak > wasn't really a fan of Weird Al's). Pollak even got Kevin Smith to not > sound like he was baked out of his mind, which isn't easy to do these > days. > > As people are questioning the importance/need to include famous faces > on talk shows who are only there as promotional machines, it is worth > remembering that there is something inherently awkward about being > interviewed on television. We are so oversaturated with interviews > that we take for granted how unnatural it is to sit in a room with > strangers, under hot lights, in a chair that probably contains Adam > Sandler's butt sweat, and talk to somebody you are not physically > facing. Heck, try it at home. Point a camera at you sitting on your > couch and try to be witty and self-effacing for 10 straight minutes. > Actors are trained to not be themselves. Singers put their heart and > soul into lyrics and melodies. But those skills don't translate into > quality interviews. So the best talk show guests are the ones who are > either tremendously comfortable in their own skin (Jimmy Stewart on > Carson comes to mind and Arsenio Hall is presently a fantastic talk > show guest, by virtue of him not caring anymore) or the ones who come > out and just leap into, if not a character, a set routine (Steve > Martin, Charles Grodin, and Super Dave Osbourne, a.k.a. Bob Einstein > are a few examples). > > Where I see guests struggling now when they didn't used to is in the > comedy arena. Stand up comics used to be conversational in tone, and > so their routines translated well into what they refer to as "desk > segments," with the host merely needing to provide the requisite "oh" > or "really." But comedy now tends to be filled with rants (think > Dennis Miller or Bill Maher), with comics going on and on without > natural pauses, not needing cues from anyone, and not really even > noting the attention span of the audience or the host. There is a > rhythm in modern comedy that isn't bad, but it doesn't work in a talk > show format. It has been discussed before, but Jay Leno has the > attention span of a three-year-old, and all he can do with modern > comics is giggle while they go off on a tear. Letterman, by contrast, > tends to react as though he believes the comic is going insane on > national television. The comic may get laughs, but the pace of the > talk show will be thrown off. > > I mentioned Steve Martin earlier. Some might not know that for > decades, Steve Martin's pre-interview on a talk show consists of Steve > asking how many minutes long his segment is. That's it. Very few > guests are afforded such respect or trust. I understand having a > pre-interview for "civilian" guests like the pilot who safely landed > the plane in the Hudson or an inept reality TV contestant, but > pre-interviewing celebrities kills the spontaneity of the > conversation. > -- > Kevin M. (Can you tell I am procrastinating when I should be grading > papers today?) > > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
