July 21, 2025 • 60 mins
Original Release Date: Monday 21 July 2025
Description: It’s been a while since Phil brought out the ol’ Chillpak soapbox, but on this week’s show, it comes in handy as Dean and Phil delve into the huge show biz news in “The Explanation of the Week” involving late night shows, corporate mergers, bribery, evangelical Christianity, and Stephen Colbert. In “What We’re Reading” the teachings of Taoist philosophy go into the spotlight. The first two episodes of “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds” season 3 get reviewed and Phil defends the series from some recent criticisms about the show “not being about anything”. Then TV mysteries “The Residence” and “Poker Face” get discussed before the 1965 big-screen Agatha Christie-adapted mystery Ten Little Indians and 2024 Cannes winner for Best Director, Grand Tour, get reviewed.
Description: It’s been a while since Phil brought out the ol’ Chillpak soapbox, but on this week’s show, it comes in handy as Dean and Phil delve into the huge show biz news in “The Explanation of the Week” involving late night shows, corporate mergers, bribery, evangelical Christianity, and Stephen Colbert. In “What We’re Reading” the teachings of Taoist philosophy go into the spotlight. The first two episodes of “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds” season 3 get reviewed and Phil defends the series from some recent criticisms about the show “not being about anything”. Then TV mysteries “The Residence” and “Poker Face” get discussed before the 1965 big-screen Agatha Christie-adapted mystery Ten Little Indians and 2024 Cannes winner for Best Director, Grand Tour, get reviewed.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (00:02):
All right, good. This is actually one of those weeks
where I'm glad to have a show in order to
talk about certain Really I found that I was like
really kind of piste off.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Oh hey, let's here the rage.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
You know sometimes the we we still we still have
the soapbox we do.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Yeah, and now Your Chill Pack Hollywood Hour with Dean
Haglind and Phil Lareness.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Welcome to year nineteen, episode eleven of Your Chillpac Hollywood Hour,
coming at you from the historic Los Angeles neighborhood of
Los Felis, where I am about to release a brand
new episode of my Voice of Los Felis podcast on
some stack. I am Phil Lareness and joining us via
the magic of podcasting and zoom all the way from Birmingham, Michigan.
(01:39):
It's the Motor City adjacent Madman. It's TV's Dean Hagland.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Now are you sir?
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I'm all right now that you are back in the
main house, Dean, I think, what's on my mind? What's
on everybody's mind? What are you reading?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Blat I can't even find the books that we even
unpacked the books yet we've got to put it back
in the library. Let's see, there was one on top
that I said, I don't think I ever read this. Uh.
(02:17):
I think it was the last of the Cloud of
Nines by Rogers Delancey, the sci fi writer from the sixties.
I don't think I finished that series as much as
I loved it. So I believe I got a paperback,
a crazy paperback. If I can remember the first six
of them, they'll read the seventh.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
That's where AI comes in handy, my friends, they already
have read and yeah, or or it would be instantaneous
so you can get the quick synopsis.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
I finished reading The Dow of Contemplation, Oh Good for You,
which you know we had discussed on our little side
Price object, and which takes the essence of contemplative life
and combines the elements that make that up with the naturalness, spontaneity,
(03:14):
and joy of a Taoist approach fun. I found it
to be a perfect mirror for myself at this juncture
in my in my path towards hopefully an ever more
harmonious and contemplative life. And that's the thing, when you
have so many books that are on your list to read,
(03:38):
you can kind of use the force and just kind
of go, oh, this is the one that wanted to
define me today, right, Like, yeah, it's not a it's
not a it's not a choice per se. It's a it.
It chooses you. And uh so you know, remember, for
(04:00):
a while I was doing the writing exercise of I
was just grabbing in the morning to get the juices flowing,
just randomly grabbing books, like blindly grabbing books, opening a
page and whatever I read about, that's what I was
going to write about that morning, you know, just to
it and it worked and I'm writing, yeah, and I'm
(04:22):
writing every morning now. This book its author was Jasmine
Lee Corey, who was a therapist, a spiritualist, a teacher,
and of course an author. Uh her, her final gift
to me in this book, coming on the on the
guide's very final pages, was a really important reminder, I thought, again,
(04:45):
especially now, which is that the the number of paths
to follow the dow i e. The way that the
number the number of different ways that one can achieve
can follow the way right are as numerous as the
(05:09):
total population itself.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Oh good, so I'm doing it right.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
No two people have the same paths now in order
to be at one with their true nature. No two
people can have the same paths. However, there is only
one path for each person. Wow, so why judge anyone?
(05:38):
First of all, if we're judging anyone, we're clearly not
on our path the moment we're judging anyone, we are
not living according to our true nature. So there's a
big sign right there, don't do it. But also, everyone
else's path is their path, even if it's lovingly offered
the suggestions of advice on how they can follow their path,
(06:01):
you don't know they're not following their their true path.
I think for me, one of the takeaways was this
this realization that you do know when you are with
someone or encountering someone who is genuinely struggling to embrace
(06:24):
their path, right they they are clearly in conflict disease.
Disease is often a pretty good indication of that, right,
people using drugs, people, people's addictions to things, diverse diversion tactics.
(06:45):
But uh, if you see that someone is struggling to
embrace their their true path, well then help as you
can if doing so is to be true to your
own nature, right, and it's only true to your own nature,
if it's free of any idea of what you are
(07:07):
or what you should be, just like free of what
that person is or what they should be. It was
powerful words for me to end on, especially now, and
I realized, I do believe there are monsters in this world,
that there are actually people whose path it is to
(07:28):
be cruel.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
That is their path cruelty.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
I think I see that. I think I see that
there are people because you look at them and you go, no, man,
they are out one. They are in total harmony. Who
they are and everything they are is a celebration of cruelty.
And however, I do feel that most people who act
(07:54):
with cruelty are not living in harmony with their path.
Most people monsters are rare, but I do think I've
encountered ones where it's they live forever. They're totally at
bliss with it, and what they express is cruelty.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
But maybe not just the opposite of that, that they
have not delved deep into it, exploring the path and
haven't come to two terms that it's all.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
I'm just saying that again from an energetic level, I
don't sense that. I sense that they really are at one.
Maybe it's the exact same amount of people that are
let's say, what we might consider saintly where we go.
(08:42):
How are they so effortlessly at ease being the light
that is within them? Because you do encounter some of
those people, right, not very often, and so I'm not
talking to everybody who claims to be a yogi because
(09:03):
they teach a yoga class. I mean, the very rarefied
era of that. Maybe it's the same amount because nature itself,
as we've talked about, is violent and it does injure
harm and destroy. It's without intention, and so that would
(09:23):
be the intriguing question. Then, Dean is the people where
it's cruelty for cruelty's sake and it's not with intention.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Oh well, that makes it even more sinister, doesn't it.
It's just random cruelty as in random acts of kindness.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
No, I think maybe I don't know what sinister means.
Maybe I mean I said like monstrous, So maybe I
just sinister Again gives an seems to apply to me
an intent. You know people who have a sinister intent,
I would argue, Then, I bet if you spent much
(09:59):
time with them, you would find that they are not
living in harmony with their path right. For example, a
man who will figure prominently in the next part of
the show, a former reality show host Donald Trump. Uh.
I feel quite often, really powerfully that when he lets
(10:27):
out his deep seated wish to be other than that
which he so often embodies, it's genuine like there is
someone in there who actually.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Could find the path, has has a path.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
That's that's different than what he feels he needs to do,
versus being in harmony with his true true nature, which
kind of brings us to the the big, the big
show business. You know, late night television. Dean maybe a
dead man walking as the economics and viewing habits and
(11:08):
patterns change, but one thing is still true, without a doubt,
the biggest show bus news still involves late night TV.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Right the chill Pack Hollywood Explanation of the Week.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
It did when we started this show, when it was
Leno versus Conan with Letterman and Kimmel throwing haymakers.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
Remember that in the early nineties it was Jay versus
Dave and the battle for the Tonight Show.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Well, Jay won that franchise, but Dave earned a heck
of a lot more money than Jay. Launching his own
franchise exactly at CBS. And here we are thirty three
years later, thirty two years later, and just a short
while after, the Tonight Show, the longest running franchise in
(12:05):
late night got reduced to four nights a week. Right,
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has been canceled.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Right next year May in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
Now this, well, not next year, the end of this season,
and that's the point. It's at the end of this season, right,
and coming as it did on the day when federal
funding for NPR and PBS was withdrawn. Right, this felt
(12:42):
like the day just felt like a pretty awful attack
on our culture and on our collective joy.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Right, But we also consume entertainment differently. So twenty eighteen,
Late night revenue was providing around four hundred and thirty
nine million dollars per year in advertising. Now it's down
to two hundred and twenty million. So yeah, that's half
of what their revenue was. I don't know the costs
of making these things. I don't know how much it
(13:10):
costs to transmit. And would you know how much is
that ated Sullivan's studio? Did they buy it? Is that rental?
Who knows but my point is, Hey, I'm the guy.
I'm the guy not watching those commercials. I watch Stephen
Colbert on YouTube their segment there. I don't have to
see the interviews I don't watch. I don't have to
sit through commercials except the ones I can skip in
(13:32):
five seconds. How handy is that? And I watch it
first thing in the morning, not late night. That's when
I get my chuckles.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
So okay, So you're arguing in favor of the financial decisions,
and they claim, and here's where they get in trouble.
They claim it's purely a financial decision.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
In a way, they're telling the truth, and you were
speaking to them. But all of that is simply the
answer as to the when to fire and cancel, not
the why, it seems to me, so let's start with
the when, which is what you led into all these reasons.
(14:16):
So Colbert and his staff have ten more months on
the air, right, ten months for which Paramount and CBS
are on the hook for paying, regardless of whether the
shows get produced, and there's very little cost in terms
of actually the audience getting in and the show being
(14:39):
put on. There is some, but the big bulk of
the cost is they have to pay the two hundred
people that make that show, regardless of whether they make
those shows right ten months, So that's a lot of
financial commitment to just pay in order to not make
a show. The sunk costs there are, for the most part,
(15:01):
the costs of making the show versus a movie, where
we might say we have to pay the whole staff,
but there's a lot of other costs involved in making it,
marketing it, releasing it. So let's swallow it here. If
they swallow it, they're pretty much swallowing the whole nut. Okay,
(15:22):
So ten more months of that, and if they don't
get those shows produced in airs and aired, they then
lose the already committed advertising money right for those ten
months as well, So you know, so they'd be out
(15:45):
all the money to make the show and have to
give back all the advertising revenue as well if they
canceled it now. Okay, So it stays on the air
until the contract runs out, right, But if this weren't
(16:06):
a matter of bowing to political pressure, an act they
hope will ensure the approval of the Sky Dance merger.
In so doing, removing from the air one of the
president's most fierce critics, and perhaps his only critic that
his evangelical supporters actually fear. Right, then they would give
(16:31):
it a chance to improve its financial position by continuing
to attract larger audiences and therefore increased revenue. You wouldn't
just go ahead and cancel it ten months early, even
if behind the scenes you were letting people know, look,
if these finances stay the same, we've got to pull
(16:54):
the plug there. Instead, you would take the ten months
you're on the hook for and try to squeeze every
dollar you could out.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Of it, right right, that makes sense. This is a thing. However,
that is the when to.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Well no, but that's what I'm saying. That points to
the why, the fact that they're not trying to improve
the financial condition for ten months. Lets you know that
canceling it has nothing to do with the financial situation,
or they would have addressed the financial situation in the interim.
It has to do with the when we can't cancel
(17:32):
it now, mister president, because we're out so much more money,
a huge amount of money. We can't do that. We
can't do that to the advertisers, we can't and to
other companies, all of which makes sense. We can't cancel
him now. We know you want him canceled. We will
do this for you, but we can't do it now
(17:54):
for these financial reasons. In fact, the again, the irony
of this from a financial standpoint is that by canceling
it for such nakedly political reasons, they are ensuring the
audience is going to grow. Yeah, the show probably will
(18:16):
be financially profitable by the time it leaves the air,
because as the audience size grows, the advertising commitments increase
in value. Right and oh, by the way, by then
they will have made Stephen Colbert the worst adversary to
have a talented communicator with an even bigger platform wherever
(18:41):
he ends up than he had before.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
I know any streaming is going to pick him up
there there. I'm sure everybody's stumbling over themselves trying to
cobble together some new deal for him and his show
to continue.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
You don't think the Tonight Show is thinking about getting Fallon?
He Fallon has fewer viewers than the Daily Show.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
No, you're kidding. I.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
In addition to being number one for nine consecutive seasons,
Stephen Colbert's Late Show has won a Peabody Award twenty
twenty during the Pandemic, which was the third overall for
a Colbert hosted program. By the way, what about Colbert.
I'm hearing whispers of him taking over the Daily Show
(19:28):
at a new location too, because you know, John Stewart's
contract runs out at the end of this year. Anyway,
it was just one of three late night shows nominated
for an Emmy this week. Right, So, despite the obvious
challenges of television economics, at a time when many late
(19:50):
night shows are being downsized or discontinued, the gold standard
being put out to pasture is still shocking. It's just
not a sur given the country we live in now.
Paramount Global is in a long process to merge with Skydance.
Skydance is owned by David Ellison, whose father, Ora cole
founder Larry Ellison, is a good buddy of Trump's, and
(20:13):
Ellison himself, the owner of sky Dance, sat ringside with
Trump at UFC events earlier this year and this past
Monday on The Late Show, Stephen Colbert called to the
Matt Paramount and CBS for their settlements in the utterly
(20:36):
frivolous and without basis sixty minutes lawsuit that the president filed,
and he called that settlement a big fat bribe, and
that kind of went viral. But what many people might
have missed was on the air, Colbert said, as someone
who has always been a proud employee of this network,
(20:56):
I'm offended and I don't know if anything will ever
repair my trust in this company. Right said that on
the air. Three days later, in a clear act of retribution,
he's canceled, and it's possibly part of the big fat
bribe as well, given his criticism of the President.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Well, it is sad. You know, you always thought the
court jester was free from the being beheaded by the king,
but that's.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Even in the dark ages. But now, and this has
been an evolution we have seen since we started this show.
It has become a culture where we shoot the messenger. Yes,
we always used to believe you don't shoot the messenger
because what you're upset with is the message. But no,
(21:48):
we have learned kill the messenger.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Just as an act of retribution. You know, you've got
to feel good.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Somehow, silence the messenger. Yeah, yeah, sad day it I mean,
I don't know if it's if I'm sad. I mean,
I know he was sad and everything, but like we
said he's gonna end up on his feet because he's
so smart. He's smarter than the people that canceled him.
(22:16):
He's certainly more talented. So he's gonna end up somewhere
where he ends up having, like I said, a bigger audience,
a bigger platform.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
And probably not tied end boxed in by CBS lawyers.
I mean, it is, of all the networks, the highest
oldest demographic, you know, it has all these things, so
you can't be and you see it in some of
the monologues there's a big chunk edited out that clearly
(22:50):
the lawyers go, yeah, don't say that, and then they
cut to you know, the band, and then it cuts
back to the laughter sounding a bit different. So yeah,
I'm sure if he doesn't have a team of very
cautious lawyers Hagenman, his monologues and everything will be way
more hilarious and tighter.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
You know, it's interesting that the ratings have rebounded for
the resurgent Daily Show, and it really, you know, it's
the only thing on Comedy Central. It's the signature on
Comedy Central other than what South Park reruns. And just
a couple of days before this, John Stewart expressed his
(23:36):
belief that they're going to be shown the door for
political for political reasons really, because again their parent company
is Paramount Global, and their contracts are up at the
end of the year. So the fact that we haven't
heard about it just to me makes me think, yeah,
(23:59):
they're just going to drop the on that. And he
said he already let them know. I've been kicked out
of better dumps than yours. And the show will end
up somewhere, And again, what if it ends up somewhere
with full time hosts Stephen Colbert, that would be really
interesting as well. I read a great substec article from
(24:23):
Charlotte Clember about why it is not only that the
Trump supporters have never liked Colbert prior to his criticism
of the president, because Colbert, who despite their hatred, remains
and we should also add this, oh, by the way,
(24:45):
not just smart and talented. He's one of the most
widely beloved people in all of entertainment. It's true, and
part of the reason so many evangelicals hate Colbert is
that he has always lived his life as the faithful
(25:05):
and humble Christian. They constantly claim themselves to be right,
but are perhaps too selfish or too fearful to actually be.
Colbert's been open about his faith as a Catholic and
the importance he places in Christ's teachings, but he's nowhere
(25:29):
near obnoxious about it. Right. He is living according to
his true path, and he never expects anyone else to
be living any different than according to their true path.
If anything, he genuinely has both a thoughtful and empathetic
(25:50):
outlook on the role of faith in his life, a
fascinating openness to other people's paths. But the one thing
he can't seem to stand is Christian hypocrisy, right, and
that's what makes him a fearful figure. There are so
(26:11):
many videos of his that have gone viral social media
where he talks about faith or his own or with
other people, and it's fascinating if you look at the
YouTube numbers, we're talking about millions of people watching those
clips versus perhaps hundreds of thousands from the same time
(26:32):
watching funny clips about you know, name the subject, right,
But there's real hunger for those commentaries. But I go
back to twenty ten, when he was still hosting the
Colbert Rapport right in what most of the time was
(26:52):
a satirical conservative persona Right and One show, he broke
character during a segment and he offered up this submation,
which has become available in many spaces ever since online.
He said, if this is going to be a Christian
(27:12):
nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to
pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are,
or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to
love the poor and serve the needy without condition and
then admit that we just don't want.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
To do it.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
Right. Wow, doesn't that get straight to the heart of.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
The matter, doesn't it? Though?
Speaker 1 (27:38):
And it's statements like those from him that rankled many
right wing fundamentalists over the years, long before the emergence
of Trump, because they can't claim that he's being inaccurate, right.
(27:58):
They can't even claim that he's being particularly judgmental, right,
because his calm truth and his personal accountability for the
Christian faith are unassailable. And again, that's what makes him
such an uncomfortable threat to so many people, and that
(28:20):
threat became more powerful this week.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
Huh, Well, there you go. I mean, you think you
solve it by stamping down here, it's a good grow
twice as large over there. It's a lesson of nature
time and time again.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
He's become galvanized, right, more than he's ever been. And
like I said, he's talented, he's smarter than he's ever been.
And late night television, getting back to the financials of it,
it might be a dying part of show business, right,
but it sure does seem like it's going to have
(29:03):
a huge hand in shaping where this culture is heading
for the next several years before it disappears from view.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Hm hmm, fascinating. Okay, well, now I'm excited. Before I
thought it was bad news. But no, you're making it
sound like it's a is.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
It you know? I read a book the Now of Contemplation?
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Yes, did you contemplate?
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Is it good? Is it bad? Dane? Who knows? That's
the question for everything? Is it good? Is it bad?
Who knows? I do know that canceling Paramount Plus and
giving that money to PBS instead sure became the easy
thing to do this week.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Oh yeah, except Star Trek, Brave, New World New Episodes.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Strange New Worlds well or Colbert himself. Yeah, no, so
I watched a couple of those, But that was it. Yeah,
and I let him know, and I let him know
why I canceled it. And I would be really surprised
if not only does the bottom drop out on their
subscriptions this month, but that those announced season four and
(30:15):
season five of Strange New Worlds get canceled as a
result of it. I think they have killed off the
franchise by doing this. I'd be really surprised. After all, WWCPD,
what would Christopher Pike do cancel his subscription? I mean, look,
(30:35):
it was fun. It was fun after they had my
subscription for years while I waited for this show. Right anyway,
Like I'm in an abusive relationship and I have to
just see how that show turns out before I get
out the door.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
I guess sure I can find it somewhere else.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
I watched the season two finale again after two and
a half years. I think it was before the second
part of it, Jenemy Part two, the season premiere of
Strange New World's launched, because this basically was the finale
(31:14):
for that season. Right. Season three opens with the finale
for season two, and so did you catch this? Did you?
Speaker 2 (31:22):
I did? Yes?
Speaker 1 (31:24):
I found it quite.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Satisfying, Yes, highly entertaining.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
You know, I genuinely enjoy you know, writ large several
of the actors on the show, and I love several
of the characters. And I don't just mean the legacy characters,
though I love what those actors are doing with them. Right.
I read some serious criticism of the show this week
(31:54):
and leading up to them dropping the first two episodes
of the season that although strange, New Worlds restores a
sense of fun, which it really did do. Yeah, and
although it does the best job of exploring character of
(32:17):
perhaps any Star Trek series, right, the show isn't really
about anything. That was the criticism, the way that Trek
has always been about something, and I just want to
offer having only watched now two episodes of season three,
so we can't know that it's not going to go
(32:40):
to some allegoric place and be about something. But through
the first two seasons and now two episodes into this season,
I just want to suggest a counterpoint of view. Okay,
just showing characters and exploring and revealing characters of different ethnicities, genders,
(33:08):
and even species, and showing those characters working together as
a team, being inventive, being brave in the face of
their most profound fears, sometimes choosing hope, not being hopeful.
Choosing hope is to be about something in a way
(33:31):
we probably need most these days.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Ah, this is going right back to Gene Ronberry's initial contemplation.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Maybe, but his shows always were about something. Every episode
each week had to have a message, had to have
a theme, had to be about something real world, you know,
those real world salt vampires. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. Right,
But this is what I'm saying, though, is the vision
(34:01):
of humanity as evolving and not just evolved, but evolving
and constantly evolving and reminding us that that's possible, and
exploring genuine character. I think that is the Star Trek
we deserve and maybe the Star Trek we need. You know,
(34:26):
as I've said before, when he came along Anson Mount
as Christopher Pike kind of saves Star Trek discovery. Yeah,
because he was at that time a valuable reminder and
maybe it was a reminder I needed. But I don't
(34:47):
think I'm alone given the intense popularity, and you can't say, oh, well,
he was popular because he was a legacy character that
hasn't always.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
Worked for other actors.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
Yeah, other actors are other franchises. Right, you don't just
plug somebody in. But it was something that he embodied,
and that was a valuable reminder that there was a
place in this world for what one decent, kind, loyal
white man of a certain age can accomplish. Right kindness
(35:21):
and compassion in the midst of turmoil and underthreat matters.
Right kindness and compassion under those circumstances matter more. Again,
showing us evolved and and evolving, showing that kind of
humanity is not nothing. Next Generation assumed a destination for
(35:46):
us that remains probably most people's favorite Star Trek, and
it assumed at the time a destination we were going
to achieve.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
This culture would arrive there somehow.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Our basic nature would get purified to a point, and
at that time we were there for it.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
I'm not sure we collectively believe in that future anyway.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
It's hard to find that hope for sure.
Speaker 1 (36:19):
Certainly not enough of us do to ensure that it
will come true. Right, But most people, I think probably
could believe in the future and adventure and fun of strange.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
New worlds, right because it's fun.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
And so the emphasis on character is what this show
is about.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Okay, perfect and then tell the critics that.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Yeah, I mean we talk about this from tign to
time where there will be a criticism issued that is
not the flaw its point, which.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Will bring us then later on to Mission Impossible six.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
Well, you know Blade Runner, right, the famous old well,
the the androids, the replicants are more human, but the
company's motto was more human than human? How did you
miss that? That's the point, not the weakness. Anyway? Did
you watch episode two where Reese Darby Who I Love
(37:27):
and a Door? Where Reese Darby reveals that the original
series character Trelaine from the Squire of Gothos is in
fact part of the Q continuum as has long been theorized,
And even John Delancey Q himself has a bit of
a cameo as his dad. So yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
Thought that was great. I thought he did a great job,
so funny, and.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
I love that the series will go from the really
intense you know, but also fear and darkness of Hegemony
part two and then get a silliness because both are
still rooted in character, both are still about choosing hope,
(38:19):
And to me, they built enough of a golf Sure,
I'm watching it hours after I watched that one, but
by building in story wise, the fact that they've been
billeted at a starfleet base for three months repairing the
ship lets you know that after those experiences, these characters
might be ready to blow off some steam, might be
(38:42):
ready to exhale. What I was not prepared for was
the gorgeous tango dancing on display on the part of
the fantastic Christina Chung, who is one of my absolute
favorites on this and the needle drop of Wham's wake
(39:04):
Me Up Before You Go Go and Anson Mount as
Christopher Pike his reaction to hearing Wham being the happiest
he's ever been, and we got to get on the
dance floor. Is it art? Hell? No? Is it satisfying?
You bet your ascidies.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
As it is. That's so funny And of all the
things Wham, that's hilarious. You hope in the future some
things will get put into obscurity, but not Wham.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
We're fifty forty years on from that song coming out.
It's not more obscure, it's more omnipresent.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
Bugg Bugg.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
Talking about TV, talking about canceling, canceling television shows that
we enjoy, right the residence. We talked about that literally
the day or the day after the news came that
it was being canceled, and I said, well, but it
was based on a book. I mean, like, is that
a big deal? But first of all, I found out
that that book was a history book. There was no
(40:27):
mystery in it. There was history, not mystery. That was
the inspiration for it. And where it took a lot
of its characters, where it took all the detail from
and then they placed a murder mystery inside it. So
I guess maybe the ideal was we are going to
recreate this at different residences.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
Different model shows. I mean they're they're contained in a space.
Uh you know how many contained spaces can you get
that are famous enough? I guess you go Buckingham Palace,
the Louver. We've seen that already. You know amount of ideas,
So right there.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
I mean a murder MYSTERI who'd done it in a
lockdown like the Louver where they do have intense security
that can come into place to protect everything obviously not
just from theft, but from fire and all manner of threats.
That would be an incredible locale. You should outline that
(41:27):
and pitch that for season two. For season two, oh wait,
wait on my phone, there won't be a season two.
And this is a financial decision because the show was
met with lovely reviews. Is so delightful and entertaining. I mean,
my god, that finale, Dean is so rewarding, so good.
(41:49):
How they managed that in that big cast. Everyone gets
a great moment in that finale, and yet Uzo aduba
uh gets the longest greatest detective monologue of all detective
monologues in history. Well, what a trick they pulled off
(42:10):
in that. But it I remember I was singling out
when we were talking about Wes Anderson and we were
saying that there was that moment in the episode prior
where the camera cranes up and reveals her walking through
all the rooms. We see her going from room to room,
(42:30):
revealing the sets, and it was kind of a Wes
Anderson sort of moment to me. Well, oh my goodness.
When I realized that this was purely financial, I thought,
oh yeah, move, this show cost a ton a huge
cast that they're keeping under salary, even though they may
(42:53):
not be working every day, they may not be working
for weeks, right, but they got to them locked down
under salary so that they're available when they do need them.
And uh, and yes that was not fakery. That was
not camera trickery or post production magic. They had built
(43:14):
a replica of every floor of the residents in sound stages.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
Yeah. I thought they had a permanent h at least
oval office that you could rent.
Speaker 1 (43:26):
But but that's that's the Westwick where they never go.
Speaker 2 (43:31):
Oh yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
They built the residence. They built the whole house.
Speaker 2 (43:36):
Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, okay that yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
I mean that shot itself spilled out into multiple sound stages.
Speaker 2 (43:46):
Yeah yeah, so that's expensive.
Speaker 1 (43:49):
Yeah, so anyway, and you mean you're not coming back
here for next only murders in the building. As ridiculous
as the premise is, stretched, incredulity does understand the importance
of amortizing your costs as those building those sets get
(44:10):
to become less expensive with each passing year.
Speaker 2 (44:14):
That's true. That's how you do a show right there.
Speaker 1 (44:17):
It's why season three of Star Trek we get rid
of the only thing that costs extras and supporting cast.
But we've got the sets. So it's how many episodes
can we try to solve the mystery of where did
four hundred people of the crew disappear to.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
Exactly. It's fantastic. That's the kind of thinking, the financial
thinking that gets you going places.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
Mister, speaking of Uzo Aduba, who is wonderful. I can't
wait to find out what she does next and track
it down her postar of Orange is the new Black.
Natasha Leone, of course, plays a detective of sorts on
poker Her Face, which is in its second season on Peacock. Okay,
(45:05):
now have you haven't seen it? Oh?
Speaker 2 (45:07):
I haven't.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
You haven't even seen season one? Wow? What is I mean?
Closer Face? This is what people I've talked about this
so many times. This is what got people through the
pandemic other than Colombo, And this is what got Ryan
Johnson and Natasha Leone through the pandemic because they said,
let's make Colombo. So they revived Colombo with a woman lead,
(45:30):
Charlie Kele, who is a human lie detector. She knows
when someone's lying and she constantly finds herself in these
positions where Okay, I'm risking myself, but I can't let
this person get accused of something they didn't do. So
I'm going to solve it. So and it's very much
of the style and the texture, uh, and the the
(45:53):
structure of we know who did it, it's a how
they how she finds it out kind of mystery. And
season two overall a major letdown. And I found out
that Ryan Johnson not nearly so involved in this one.
I guess he's been really busy with the New Knives out.
(46:15):
There have been high points. Cynthia Arevo in episode one,
playing four different parts. I think all was fantastic. There
was an entire episode with John mulaney and Richard Kind
and Rha Pearlman about a mole in the FBI who
is a mob informant or vice versa. That was hilarious.
(46:41):
What a great episode of TV that was. But anyway,
the whole season is out. Season two. I finally caught
up to episode eight of season two. It's called The
Sleazy Georgian and it focuses on a ring of con men,
the leader of which is played by John Cho star
Trek's John Show. And he is so magnificent in this
(47:06):
episode that I needed to bring this this entire series
up because it might well be the best role he
has ever been given on screen. Really, Oh my goodness,
it's fantastic. We immediately went back and scanned through it,
(47:30):
didn't watch the whole episode, but watched a lot of
his parts again because of the work he was doing. Now,
I know John, I've known John thirty years, and so
I love the guy to death. He's awesome. I've always
thought that he was a great actor, but it's just
so cool, all these decades on, here he is getting
(47:51):
his best role yet in an episode, in one of
these little mini movies of poker Face. And and it's
also neat because they've gotten to a point in the
series where the past two episodes that I've watched seven
and eight have been variations on a theme, no real mystery,
(48:11):
but a personal desire for the main character of Charlie
to right wrongs or bring a certain amount of justice
to those who have done wrong. Each has been really emotional,
and in the case of this one, surprisingly so. The
emotional payoff for this is so delightful and profound. Anyway,
(48:35):
you certainly should avail yourself at the first season. Absolutely,
it's a it's a that was a ton of fun.
Speaker 2 (48:43):
Yeah, I can't believe.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
Yeah, I can't either. Since we've talked about.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
It, I'd lost my list that was the problem.
Speaker 1 (48:52):
Since we were on mysteries. I watched an odd and
oddly disappointing h nineteen sixty five adaptation of Ten Little Indians.
Oh you know, the Agatha Christie chess.
Speaker 2 (49:09):
Yeah yeah, I saw it on stage in Winnipeg one time,
and hilariously, the prop door at the very end that
was supposed to be locked opened up. She could have
run away, but then she slowly closes the door and
the audience that erupts it to laughter, while the final
payoff of threat is completely diminished.
Speaker 1 (49:30):
So this nineteen sixty five version was directed in rather
mundane television fashion of the age, despite being a theatrical
release by George Pollock, who was the director of several
of those Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple movie Oh Yeah, which,
(49:55):
let's face it would have been TV if they had
been made decades later. In fact, they were TV, and
they were called Murder.
Speaker 2 (50:01):
She wrote, right, yes, exactly.
Speaker 1 (50:05):
Anyway, it's a remake of the classic and far superior.
And then there were none. Right, same premise. A bunch
of strangers invited to an isolated manner start turning up dead,
and they all seem to have blood on their hands.
That the mysterious killer wants to avenge right now. The
(50:27):
locale in this has been changed to an alp chalet,
so the manner of a couple of the deaths were
updated and kind of cool, kind of grizzly, kind of scary.
The cast has several notables. Hugh O'Brien, who was TV's
Wiater Yes, Shirley Eaton, who just the year before had
(50:48):
been the Bond girl Painted in Gold.
Speaker 2 (50:51):
Teen idol, fabian, fabian, fantastic.
Speaker 1 (50:57):
Stanley Holloway the year after he played Eliza's Dad and
My Fair.
Speaker 2 (51:01):
Lady, Oh Yes, music called Giant.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
Wilfred Hyde White, who's so wonderful in My Beloved. The
third man, Nnis Price, who killed almost the entire royal
family and kind hearts and coronets, right, and none of
them give a performance that entertains let alone makes any sense?
Speaker 2 (51:26):
What how? So?
Speaker 1 (51:28):
So the story is like too ironclad not to work,
but it comes as close to not working as you can.
Speaker 2 (51:36):
Imagine, Wow, how do you screw that up?
Speaker 1 (51:39):
And the ending and this will get to the question
of how do they not give performances that work? The
ending where two people survive the weekend you kind of
revealed that one of them is a woman, but two
people survived the weekend. That ending concludes with such a
(52:01):
light hearted, jokey, winking tone, what as to suggest that
there are no emotional ramifications from having witnessed so much
violence and grizzly death and from barely escaping with your
own life. The mid sixties were a weird time. That
(52:24):
is all weird.
Speaker 2 (52:27):
Yes, I mean that was the whole Nobody knew what
was going on with the counter revolution and the anti disestablishmentarianism.
It was like, oh, enything's off the books. Because I
have been a friend lent me the Monkeys entire series
on DVD with extra bonus voiceover commentary, and just watching
(52:50):
that just a couple of episodes, the director himself thinking,
oh man, nobody was doing this. It's like the Marx
Brothers and this was you know TeV. We were breaking
boundaries and it's just they sped up the frame and
put a larger laugh track in it. So I think
that's sort of what it sounds like you are describing
(53:11):
here in this one.
Speaker 1 (53:14):
I would love like if there's time travel, like you
think of all the big moments that people would like, Oh,
I want to go and I want to prevent stop
Hitler or stop all this sort of stuff, Like I
want to go to the post production beating where that
note was given because it harried the day. But come on,
(53:39):
did it harry the room? Or were people with less
power going This guy is an idiot suggesting speed it
up in a bigger laugh track, like or was everybody
on board with, Hey, my gosh, this is you know, experimental,
Look how amazing that is. I want to, you know,
(54:00):
like I'm I want to go back through time at
every town hall meeting at in the town where my
mother grew up, the little tiny town of Manson on
Lake Shellanne in Washington, and just find out, you know, like,
following the murders, did at least one person on the
(54:20):
town council suggest or someone in the citizenry in that
town of five hundred suggest should we change? I know
we're named for somebody different, but no one else will
know that should we change the name? I just got
I gotta believe someone suggested it. Someone read a paper.
(54:41):
Now they're kind of isolated, so it would have been
six months later, but they would have read the paper
and uh, and someone suggested that, and then like what
was the what was the decision to keep it? Like, well,
we understand your point, but this will blow over. And
we've put a lot of money into advertising letting people
know how to find us, you know, for tourism, right
(55:02):
they because it's not easy to find us. And so
they now know they got to get to the mouth
of the lake Lake shealand they've got to go through
the town of Hitler and then they have.
Speaker 2 (55:12):
To to Manson. Oh my god, Manson. Maybe I yeah.
Speaker 1 (55:20):
Over the past couple of days, I also finally watched
twenty twenty four's winner of the Best Director Award, It Can,
one of the films that I really hailed coming out
of Can last year, saying all right, this should be
on our radar, right and it's Portuguese filmmaker Miguel Gome's
Gomez is a Grand tour. It It's recent release on
(55:45):
Mobe actually gave me my first chance to catch it. Oh,
it did not get the release I would have thought
it got after, you know, like that Best Director it Can,
Those films usually get significant traction. Yeah. It was inspired
by a passage in the w Somerset mom book The
(56:05):
Gentleman in the Parlor. The film set in Asia nineteen eighteen,
a time of British colonial rule, and a British civil
servant named Edward who speaks nothing but Portuguese. As again,
the film is from Portugal, which I love. I think
alone is a great joke, because of course we made
(56:26):
movies where people are from so many countries. They speak English.
Speaker 2 (56:32):
They speak English. Yea, yeah, any Roman empire is all
speaking English.
Speaker 1 (56:38):
So Edward abandons his fiance of seven years on the
day she arrives in Rangoon in nineteen eighteen, the very
day they are finally to be wed. Oh, and the
rest of the first half of the film tells his
story of fleeing her throughout Asia and across the South
(57:01):
Pacific as he gets more and more ill in the process. Okay,
the second half goes back to that doc and tells
her side of the story. She pursues him, always just
a half step behind him, herself getting sicker and sicker
(57:21):
the whole time. Wow, the stories told by narrators who
might very well be present day narrators. Indeed, much of
the footage in this otherwise black and white period film
is color and contemporary documentary footage that is evocative of
(57:43):
the present day nature of the cities and countries visited.
Speaker 2 (57:47):
Wow, that's quite a feat.
Speaker 1 (57:50):
It's all quite effective at both capturing the spirit of
golden age of movies globe trotting adventures, while also devilishly
pointing out how the actors in those films never left
sound stages in Hollywood. They were merely cut into surrounding
documentary footage.
Speaker 2 (58:11):
That's hilarious.
Speaker 1 (58:13):
The Rotten Tomatoes consensus reads this director Miguel Gomez continues
to leverage the possibilities of cinema to explore passion and
time in this globe trotting lark, richly realized in striking
black and white photography. I'm not sure when any of
that means, and I'm pretty sure that the consensus there
(58:36):
written by AI do we think now?
Speaker 2 (58:38):
I think so.
Speaker 1 (58:40):
It used to be editors that you know, would.
Speaker 2 (58:42):
Sort of discussing as you would see a discussion going on.
Speaker 1 (58:47):
But I don't think it has to do with letting
the viewer know the work that they have to do
to settle into unique approach and charms of this film.
There's a crazy cinematic innocence to this movie that maybe
(59:08):
I've kind of described. It's interspersed and mixed with very
complex and sophisticated cultural commentary. Oh, if you need a
good story or the kind of rich characters from which
such stories flow, you might be left cold m and
(59:31):
like me, sort of left just relishing the cinematography.
Speaker 2 (59:37):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (59:38):
However, by the time the film concluded, the enchanting nature
of the cinematography itself and the excuse that the characters
provide for an era spanning, continent crossing travelog did certainly
(01:00:00):
imbue me with a heavy dose of wander lust. So
I might not ever want to watch the movie again,
but I sure as hell want to live in it.
Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
I want to go to Radgon nineteen eighteen. I don't
know if that's really good?
Speaker 1 (01:00:19):
Can you book that? Can I go from Manson nineteen
sixty eight to where wherever that editing room was, speed
it up, make it a bigger laugh track.
Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
Promotional consideration paid for by Empire State Gas. From farm
to pump, We've got great gas. Belated spoiler alert
Can you hear me?
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (00:02):
All right, good. This is actually one of those weeks
where I'm glad to have a show in order to
talk about certain Really I found that I was like
really kind of piste off.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Oh hey, let's here the rage.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
You know sometimes the we we still we still have
the soapbox we do.
Speaker 3 (00:24):
Yeah, and now Your Chill Pack Hollywood Hour with Dean
Haglind and Phil Lareness.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Welcome to year nineteen, episode eleven of Your Chillpac Hollywood Hour,
coming at you from the historic Los Angeles neighborhood of
Los Felis, where I am about to release a brand
new episode of my Voice of Los Felis podcast on
some stack. I am Phil Lareness and joining us via
the magic of podcasting and zoom all the way from Birmingham, Michigan.
(01:39):
It's the Motor City adjacent Madman. It's TV's Dean Hagland.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Now are you sir?
Speaker 1 (01:45):
I'm all right now that you are back in the
main house, Dean, I think, what's on my mind? What's
on everybody's mind? What are you reading?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Blat I can't even find the books that we even
unpacked the books yet we've got to put it back
in the library. Let's see, there was one on top
that I said, I don't think I ever read this. Uh.
(02:17):
I think it was the last of the Cloud of
Nines by Rogers Delancey, the sci fi writer from the sixties.
I don't think I finished that series as much as
I loved it. So I believe I got a paperback,
a crazy paperback. If I can remember the first six
of them, they'll read the seventh.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
That's where AI comes in handy, my friends, they already
have read and yeah, or or it would be instantaneous
so you can get the quick synopsis.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
I finished reading The Dow of Contemplation, Oh Good for You,
which you know we had discussed on our little side
Price object, and which takes the essence of contemplative life
and combines the elements that make that up with the naturalness, spontaneity,
(03:14):
and joy of a Taoist approach fun. I found it
to be a perfect mirror for myself at this juncture
in my in my path towards hopefully an ever more
harmonious and contemplative life. And that's the thing, when you
have so many books that are on your list to read,
(03:38):
you can kind of use the force and just kind
of go, oh, this is the one that wanted to
define me today, right, Like, yeah, it's not a it's
not a it's not a choice per se. It's a it.
It chooses you. And uh so you know, remember, for
(04:00):
a while I was doing the writing exercise of I
was just grabbing in the morning to get the juices flowing,
just randomly grabbing books, like blindly grabbing books, opening a
page and whatever I read about, that's what I was
going to write about that morning, you know, just to
it and it worked and I'm writing, yeah, and I'm
(04:22):
writing every morning now. This book its author was Jasmine
Lee Corey, who was a therapist, a spiritualist, a teacher,
and of course an author. Uh her, her final gift
to me in this book, coming on the on the
guide's very final pages, was a really important reminder, I thought, again,
(04:45):
especially now, which is that the the number of paths
to follow the dow i e. The way that the
number the number of different ways that one can achieve
can follow the way right are as numerous as the
(05:09):
total population itself.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Oh good, so I'm doing it right.
Speaker 1 (05:14):
No two people have the same paths now in order
to be at one with their true nature. No two
people can have the same paths. However, there is only
one path for each person. Wow, so why judge anyone?
(05:38):
First of all, if we're judging anyone, we're clearly not
on our path the moment we're judging anyone, we are
not living according to our true nature. So there's a
big sign right there, don't do it. But also, everyone
else's path is their path, even if it's lovingly offered
the suggestions of advice on how they can follow their path,
(06:01):
you don't know they're not following their their true path.
I think for me, one of the takeaways was this
this realization that you do know when you are with
someone or encountering someone who is genuinely struggling to embrace
(06:24):
their path, right they they are clearly in conflict disease.
Disease is often a pretty good indication of that, right,
people using drugs, people, people's addictions to things, diverse diversion tactics.
(06:45):
But uh, if you see that someone is struggling to
embrace their their true path, well then help as you
can if doing so is to be true to your
own nature, right, and it's only true to your own nature,
if it's free of any idea of what you are
(07:07):
or what you should be, just like free of what
that person is or what they should be. It was
powerful words for me to end on, especially now, and
I realized, I do believe there are monsters in this world,
that there are actually people whose path it is to
(07:28):
be cruel.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
That is their path cruelty.
Speaker 1 (07:32):
I think I see that. I think I see that
there are people because you look at them and you go, no, man,
they are out one. They are in total harmony. Who
they are and everything they are is a celebration of cruelty.
And however, I do feel that most people who act
(07:54):
with cruelty are not living in harmony with their path.
Most people monsters are rare, but I do think I've
encountered ones where it's they live forever. They're totally at
bliss with it, and what they express is cruelty.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
But maybe not just the opposite of that, that they
have not delved deep into it, exploring the path and
haven't come to two terms that it's all.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
I'm just saying that again from an energetic level, I
don't sense that. I sense that they really are at one.
Maybe it's the exact same amount of people that are
let's say, what we might consider saintly where we go.
(08:42):
How are they so effortlessly at ease being the light
that is within them? Because you do encounter some of
those people, right, not very often, and so I'm not
talking to everybody who claims to be a yogi because
(09:03):
they teach a yoga class. I mean, the very rarefied
era of that. Maybe it's the same amount because nature itself,
as we've talked about, is violent and it does injure
harm and destroy. It's without intention, and so that would
(09:23):
be the intriguing question. Then, Dean is the people where
it's cruelty for cruelty's sake and it's not with intention.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Oh well, that makes it even more sinister, doesn't it.
It's just random cruelty as in random acts of kindness.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
No, I think maybe I don't know what sinister means.
Maybe I mean I said like monstrous, So maybe I
just sinister Again gives an seems to apply to me
an intent. You know people who have a sinister intent,
I would argue, Then, I bet if you spent much
(09:59):
time with them, you would find that they are not
living in harmony with their path right. For example, a
man who will figure prominently in the next part of
the show, a former reality show host Donald Trump. Uh.
I feel quite often, really powerfully that when he lets
(10:27):
out his deep seated wish to be other than that
which he so often embodies, it's genuine like there is
someone in there who actually.
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Could find the path, has has a path.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
That's that's different than what he feels he needs to do,
versus being in harmony with his true true nature, which
kind of brings us to the the big, the big
show business. You know, late night television. Dean maybe a
dead man walking as the economics and viewing habits and
(11:08):
patterns change, but one thing is still true, without a doubt,
the biggest show bus news still involves late night TV.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Right the chill Pack Hollywood Explanation of the Week.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
It did when we started this show, when it was
Leno versus Conan with Letterman and Kimmel throwing haymakers.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
Remember that in the early nineties it was Jay versus
Dave and the battle for the Tonight Show.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
Well, Jay won that franchise, but Dave earned a heck
of a lot more money than Jay. Launching his own
franchise exactly at CBS. And here we are thirty three
years later, thirty two years later, and just a short
while after, the Tonight Show, the longest running franchise in
(12:05):
late night got reduced to four nights a week. Right,
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has been canceled.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
Right next year May in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
Now this, well, not next year, the end of this season,
and that's the point. It's at the end of this season, right,
and coming as it did on the day when federal
funding for NPR and PBS was withdrawn. Right, this felt
(12:42):
like the day just felt like a pretty awful attack
on our culture and on our collective joy.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Right, But we also consume entertainment differently. So twenty eighteen,
Late night revenue was providing around four hundred and thirty
nine million dollars per year in advertising. Now it's down
to two hundred and twenty million. So yeah, that's half
of what their revenue was. I don't know the costs
of making these things. I don't know how much it
(13:10):
costs to transmit. And would you know how much is
that ated Sullivan's studio? Did they buy it? Is that rental?
Who knows but my point is, Hey, I'm the guy.
I'm the guy not watching those commercials. I watch Stephen
Colbert on YouTube their segment there. I don't have to
see the interviews I don't watch. I don't have to
sit through commercials except the ones I can skip in
(13:32):
five seconds. How handy is that? And I watch it
first thing in the morning, not late night. That's when
I get my chuckles.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
So okay, So you're arguing in favor of the financial decisions,
and they claim, and here's where they get in trouble.
They claim it's purely a financial decision.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
In a way, they're telling the truth, and you were
speaking to them. But all of that is simply the
answer as to the when to fire and cancel, not
the why, it seems to me, so let's start with
the when, which is what you led into all these reasons.
(14:16):
So Colbert and his staff have ten more months on
the air, right, ten months for which Paramount and CBS
are on the hook for paying, regardless of whether the
shows get produced, and there's very little cost in terms
of actually the audience getting in and the show being
(14:39):
put on. There is some, but the big bulk of
the cost is they have to pay the two hundred
people that make that show, regardless of whether they make
those shows right ten months, So that's a lot of
financial commitment to just pay in order to not make
a show. The sunk costs there are, for the most part,
(15:01):
the costs of making the show versus a movie, where
we might say we have to pay the whole staff,
but there's a lot of other costs involved in making it,
marketing it, releasing it. So let's swallow it here. If
they swallow it, they're pretty much swallowing the whole nut. Okay,
(15:22):
So ten more months of that, and if they don't
get those shows produced in airs and aired, they then
lose the already committed advertising money right for those ten
months as well, So you know, so they'd be out
(15:45):
all the money to make the show and have to
give back all the advertising revenue as well if they
canceled it now. Okay, So it stays on the air
until the contract runs out, right, But if this weren't
(16:06):
a matter of bowing to political pressure, an act they
hope will ensure the approval of the Sky Dance merger.
In so doing, removing from the air one of the
president's most fierce critics, and perhaps his only critic that
his evangelical supporters actually fear. Right, then they would give
(16:31):
it a chance to improve its financial position by continuing
to attract larger audiences and therefore increased revenue. You wouldn't
just go ahead and cancel it ten months early, even
if behind the scenes you were letting people know, look,
if these finances stay the same, we've got to pull
(16:54):
the plug there. Instead, you would take the ten months
you're on the hook for and try to squeeze every
dollar you could out.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Of it, right right, that makes sense. This is a thing. However,
that is the when to.
Speaker 1 (17:11):
Well no, but that's what I'm saying. That points to
the why, the fact that they're not trying to improve
the financial condition for ten months. Lets you know that
canceling it has nothing to do with the financial situation,
or they would have addressed the financial situation in the interim.
It has to do with the when we can't cancel
(17:32):
it now, mister president, because we're out so much more money,
a huge amount of money. We can't do that. We
can't do that to the advertisers, we can't and to
other companies, all of which makes sense. We can't cancel
him now. We know you want him canceled. We will
do this for you, but we can't do it now
(17:54):
for these financial reasons. In fact, the again, the irony
of this from a financial standpoint is that by canceling
it for such nakedly political reasons, they are ensuring the
audience is going to grow. Yeah, the show probably will
(18:16):
be financially profitable by the time it leaves the air,
because as the audience size grows, the advertising commitments increase
in value. Right and oh, by the way, by then
they will have made Stephen Colbert the worst adversary to
have a talented communicator with an even bigger platform wherever
(18:41):
he ends up than he had before.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
I know any streaming is going to pick him up
there there. I'm sure everybody's stumbling over themselves trying to
cobble together some new deal for him and his show
to continue.
Speaker 1 (18:56):
You don't think the Tonight Show is thinking about getting Fallon?
He Fallon has fewer viewers than the Daily Show.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
No, you're kidding. I.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
In addition to being number one for nine consecutive seasons,
Stephen Colbert's Late Show has won a Peabody Award twenty
twenty during the Pandemic, which was the third overall for
a Colbert hosted program. By the way, what about Colbert.
I'm hearing whispers of him taking over the Daily Show
(19:28):
at a new location too, because you know, John Stewart's
contract runs out at the end of this year. Anyway,
it was just one of three late night shows nominated
for an Emmy this week. Right, So, despite the obvious
challenges of television economics, at a time when many late
(19:50):
night shows are being downsized or discontinued, the gold standard
being put out to pasture is still shocking. It's just
not a sur given the country we live in now.
Paramount Global is in a long process to merge with Skydance.
Skydance is owned by David Ellison, whose father, Ora cole
founder Larry Ellison, is a good buddy of Trump's, and
(20:13):
Ellison himself, the owner of sky Dance, sat ringside with
Trump at UFC events earlier this year and this past
Monday on The Late Show, Stephen Colbert called to the
Matt Paramount and CBS for their settlements in the utterly
(20:36):
frivolous and without basis sixty minutes lawsuit that the president filed,
and he called that settlement a big fat bribe, and
that kind of went viral. But what many people might
have missed was on the air, Colbert said, as someone
who has always been a proud employee of this network,
(20:56):
I'm offended and I don't know if anything will ever
repair my trust in this company. Right said that on
the air. Three days later, in a clear act of retribution,
he's canceled, and it's possibly part of the big fat
bribe as well, given his criticism of the President.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Well, it is sad. You know, you always thought the
court jester was free from the being beheaded by the king,
but that's.
Speaker 1 (21:28):
Even in the dark ages. But now, and this has
been an evolution we have seen since we started this show.
It has become a culture where we shoot the messenger. Yes,
we always used to believe you don't shoot the messenger
because what you're upset with is the message. But no,
(21:48):
we have learned kill the messenger.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
Just as an act of retribution. You know, you've got
to feel good.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Somehow, silence the messenger. Yeah, yeah, sad day it I mean,
I don't know if it's if I'm sad. I mean,
I know he was sad and everything, but like we
said he's gonna end up on his feet because he's
so smart. He's smarter than the people that canceled him.
(22:16):
He's certainly more talented. So he's gonna end up somewhere
where he ends up having, like I said, a bigger audience,
a bigger platform.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
And probably not tied end boxed in by CBS lawyers.
I mean, it is, of all the networks, the highest
oldest demographic, you know, it has all these things, so
you can't be and you see it in some of
the monologues there's a big chunk edited out that clearly
(22:50):
the lawyers go, yeah, don't say that, and then they
cut to you know, the band, and then it cuts
back to the laughter sounding a bit different. So yeah,
I'm sure if he doesn't have a team of very
cautious lawyers Hagenman, his monologues and everything will be way
more hilarious and tighter.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
You know, it's interesting that the ratings have rebounded for
the resurgent Daily Show, and it really, you know, it's
the only thing on Comedy Central. It's the signature on
Comedy Central other than what South Park reruns. And just
a couple of days before this, John Stewart expressed his
(23:36):
belief that they're going to be shown the door for
political for political reasons really, because again their parent company
is Paramount Global, and their contracts are up at the
end of the year. So the fact that we haven't
heard about it just to me makes me think, yeah,
(23:59):
they're just going to drop the on that. And he
said he already let them know. I've been kicked out
of better dumps than yours. And the show will end
up somewhere, And again, what if it ends up somewhere
with full time hosts Stephen Colbert, that would be really
interesting as well. I read a great substec article from
(24:23):
Charlotte Clember about why it is not only that the
Trump supporters have never liked Colbert prior to his criticism
of the president, because Colbert, who despite their hatred, remains
and we should also add this, oh, by the way,
(24:45):
not just smart and talented. He's one of the most
widely beloved people in all of entertainment. It's true, and
part of the reason so many evangelicals hate Colbert is
that he has always lived his life as the faithful
(25:05):
and humble Christian. They constantly claim themselves to be right,
but are perhaps too selfish or too fearful to actually be.
Colbert's been open about his faith as a Catholic and
the importance he places in Christ's teachings, but he's nowhere
(25:29):
near obnoxious about it. Right. He is living according to
his true path, and he never expects anyone else to
be living any different than according to their true path.
If anything, he genuinely has both a thoughtful and empathetic
(25:50):
outlook on the role of faith in his life, a
fascinating openness to other people's paths. But the one thing
he can't seem to stand is Christian hypocrisy, right, and
that's what makes him a fearful figure. There are so
(26:11):
many videos of his that have gone viral social media
where he talks about faith or his own or with
other people, and it's fascinating if you look at the
YouTube numbers, we're talking about millions of people watching those
clips versus perhaps hundreds of thousands from the same time
(26:32):
watching funny clips about you know, name the subject, right,
But there's real hunger for those commentaries. But I go
back to twenty ten, when he was still hosting the
Colbert Rapport right in what most of the time was
(26:52):
a satirical conservative persona Right and One show, he broke
character during a segment and he offered up this submation,
which has become available in many spaces ever since online.
He said, if this is going to be a Christian
(27:12):
nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to
pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are,
or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to
love the poor and serve the needy without condition and
then admit that we just don't want.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
To do it.
Speaker 1 (27:32):
Right. Wow, doesn't that get straight to the heart of.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
The matter, doesn't it? Though?
Speaker 1 (27:38):
And it's statements like those from him that rankled many
right wing fundamentalists over the years, long before the emergence
of Trump, because they can't claim that he's being inaccurate, right.
(27:58):
They can't even claim that he's being particularly judgmental, right,
because his calm truth and his personal accountability for the
Christian faith are unassailable. And again, that's what makes him
such an uncomfortable threat to so many people, and that
(28:20):
threat became more powerful this week.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
Huh, Well, there you go. I mean, you think you
solve it by stamping down here, it's a good grow
twice as large over there. It's a lesson of nature
time and time again.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
He's become galvanized, right, more than he's ever been. And
like I said, he's talented, he's smarter than he's ever been.
And late night television, getting back to the financials of it,
it might be a dying part of show business, right,
but it sure does seem like it's going to have
(29:03):
a huge hand in shaping where this culture is heading
for the next several years before it disappears from view.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Hm hmm, fascinating. Okay, well, now I'm excited. Before I
thought it was bad news. But no, you're making it
sound like it's a is.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
It you know? I read a book the Now of Contemplation?
Speaker 2 (29:27):
Yes, did you contemplate?
Speaker 1 (29:29):
Is it good? Is it bad? Dane? Who knows? That's
the question for everything? Is it good? Is it bad?
Who knows? I do know that canceling Paramount Plus and
giving that money to PBS instead sure became the easy
thing to do this week.
Speaker 2 (29:48):
Oh yeah, except Star Trek, Brave, New World New Episodes.
Speaker 1 (29:54):
Strange New Worlds well or Colbert himself. Yeah, no, so
I watched a couple of those, But that was it. Yeah,
and I let him know, and I let him know
why I canceled it. And I would be really surprised
if not only does the bottom drop out on their
subscriptions this month, but that those announced season four and
(30:15):
season five of Strange New Worlds get canceled as a
result of it. I think they have killed off the
franchise by doing this. I'd be really surprised. After all, WWCPD,
what would Christopher Pike do cancel his subscription? I mean, look,
(30:35):
it was fun. It was fun after they had my
subscription for years while I waited for this show. Right anyway,
Like I'm in an abusive relationship and I have to
just see how that show turns out before I get
out the door.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
I guess sure I can find it somewhere else.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
I watched the season two finale again after two and
a half years. I think it was before the second
part of it, Jenemy Part two, the season premiere of
Strange New World's launched, because this basically was the finale
(31:14):
for that season. Right. Season three opens with the finale
for season two, and so did you catch this? Did you?
Speaker 2 (31:22):
I did? Yes?
Speaker 1 (31:24):
I found it quite.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Satisfying, Yes, highly entertaining.
Speaker 1 (31:28):
You know, I genuinely enjoy you know, writ large several
of the actors on the show, and I love several
of the characters. And I don't just mean the legacy characters,
though I love what those actors are doing with them. Right.
I read some serious criticism of the show this week
(31:54):
and leading up to them dropping the first two episodes
of the season that although strange, New Worlds restores a
sense of fun, which it really did do. Yeah, and
although it does the best job of exploring character of
(32:17):
perhaps any Star Trek series, right, the show isn't really
about anything. That was the criticism, the way that Trek
has always been about something, and I just want to
offer having only watched now two episodes of season three,
so we can't know that it's not going to go
(32:40):
to some allegoric place and be about something. But through
the first two seasons and now two episodes into this season,
I just want to suggest a counterpoint of view. Okay,
just showing characters and exploring and revealing characters of different ethnicities, genders,
(33:08):
and even species, and showing those characters working together as
a team, being inventive, being brave in the face of
their most profound fears, sometimes choosing hope, not being hopeful.
Choosing hope is to be about something in a way
(33:31):
we probably need most these days.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
Ah, this is going right back to Gene Ronberry's initial contemplation.
Speaker 1 (33:40):
Maybe, but his shows always were about something. Every episode
each week had to have a message, had to have
a theme, had to be about something real world, you know,
those real world salt vampires. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. Right,
But this is what I'm saying, though, is the vision
(34:01):
of humanity as evolving and not just evolved, but evolving
and constantly evolving and reminding us that that's possible, and
exploring genuine character. I think that is the Star Trek
we deserve and maybe the Star Trek we need. You know,
(34:26):
as I've said before, when he came along Anson Mount
as Christopher Pike kind of saves Star Trek discovery. Yeah,
because he was at that time a valuable reminder and
maybe it was a reminder I needed. But I don't
(34:47):
think I'm alone given the intense popularity, and you can't say, oh, well,
he was popular because he was a legacy character that
hasn't always.
Speaker 2 (34:56):
Worked for other actors.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
Yeah, other actors are other franchises. Right, you don't just
plug somebody in. But it was something that he embodied,
and that was a valuable reminder that there was a
place in this world for what one decent, kind, loyal
white man of a certain age can accomplish. Right kindness
(35:21):
and compassion in the midst of turmoil and underthreat matters.
Right kindness and compassion under those circumstances matter more. Again,
showing us evolved and and evolving, showing that kind of
humanity is not nothing. Next Generation assumed a destination for
(35:46):
us that remains probably most people's favorite Star Trek, and
it assumed at the time a destination we were going
to achieve.
Speaker 2 (35:59):
This culture would arrive there somehow.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Our basic nature would get purified to a point, and
at that time we were there for it.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
Right.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
I'm not sure we collectively believe in that future anyway.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
It's hard to find that hope for sure.
Speaker 1 (36:19):
Certainly not enough of us do to ensure that it
will come true. Right, But most people, I think probably
could believe in the future and adventure and fun of strange.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
New worlds, right because it's fun.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
And so the emphasis on character is what this show
is about.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
Okay, perfect and then tell the critics that.
Speaker 1 (36:50):
Yeah, I mean we talk about this from tign to
time where there will be a criticism issued that is
not the flaw its point, which.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
Will bring us then later on to Mission Impossible six.
Speaker 1 (37:05):
Well, you know Blade Runner, right, the famous old well,
the the androids, the replicants are more human, but the
company's motto was more human than human? How did you
miss that? That's the point, not the weakness. Anyway? Did
you watch episode two where Reese Darby Who I Love
(37:27):
and a Door? Where Reese Darby reveals that the original
series character Trelaine from the Squire of Gothos is in
fact part of the Q continuum as has long been theorized,
And even John Delancey Q himself has a bit of
a cameo as his dad. So yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (37:52):
Thought that was great. I thought he did a great job,
so funny, and.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
I love that the series will go from the really
intense you know, but also fear and darkness of Hegemony
part two and then get a silliness because both are
still rooted in character, both are still about choosing hope,
(38:19):
And to me, they built enough of a golf Sure,
I'm watching it hours after I watched that one, but
by building in story wise, the fact that they've been
billeted at a starfleet base for three months repairing the
ship lets you know that after those experiences, these characters
might be ready to blow off some steam, might be
(38:42):
ready to exhale. What I was not prepared for was
the gorgeous tango dancing on display on the part of
the fantastic Christina Chung, who is one of my absolute
favorites on this and the needle drop of Wham's wake
(39:04):
Me Up Before You Go Go and Anson Mount as
Christopher Pike his reaction to hearing Wham being the happiest
he's ever been, and we got to get on the
dance floor. Is it art? Hell? No? Is it satisfying?
You bet your ascidies.
Speaker 2 (39:22):
As it is. That's so funny And of all the
things Wham, that's hilarious. You hope in the future some
things will get put into obscurity, but not Wham.
Speaker 1 (39:34):
We're fifty forty years on from that song coming out.
It's not more obscure, it's more omnipresent.
Speaker 2 (39:47):
Bugg Bugg.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
Talking about TV, talking about canceling, canceling television shows that
we enjoy, right the residence. We talked about that literally
the day or the day after the news came that
it was being canceled, and I said, well, but it
was based on a book. I mean, like, is that
a big deal? But first of all, I found out
that that book was a history book. There was no
(40:27):
mystery in it. There was history, not mystery. That was
the inspiration for it. And where it took a lot
of its characters, where it took all the detail from
and then they placed a murder mystery inside it. So
I guess maybe the ideal was we are going to
recreate this at different residences.
Speaker 2 (40:46):
Different model shows. I mean they're they're contained in a space.
Uh you know how many contained spaces can you get
that are famous enough? I guess you go Buckingham Palace,
the Louver. We've seen that already. You know amount of ideas,
So right there.
Speaker 1 (41:05):
I mean a murder MYSTERI who'd done it in a
lockdown like the Louver where they do have intense security
that can come into place to protect everything obviously not
just from theft, but from fire and all manner of threats.
That would be an incredible locale. You should outline that
(41:27):
and pitch that for season two. For season two, oh wait,
wait on my phone, there won't be a season two.
And this is a financial decision because the show was
met with lovely reviews. Is so delightful and entertaining. I mean,
my god, that finale, Dean is so rewarding, so good.
(41:49):
How they managed that in that big cast. Everyone gets
a great moment in that finale, and yet Uzo aduba
uh gets the longest greatest detective monologue of all detective
monologues in history. Well, what a trick they pulled off
(42:10):
in that. But it I remember I was singling out
when we were talking about Wes Anderson and we were
saying that there was that moment in the episode prior
where the camera cranes up and reveals her walking through
all the rooms. We see her going from room to room,
(42:30):
revealing the sets, and it was kind of a Wes
Anderson sort of moment to me. Well, oh my goodness.
When I realized that this was purely financial, I thought,
oh yeah, move, this show cost a ton a huge
cast that they're keeping under salary, even though they may
(42:53):
not be working every day, they may not be working
for weeks, right, but they got to them locked down
under salary so that they're available when they do need them.
And uh, and yes that was not fakery. That was
not camera trickery or post production magic. They had built
(43:14):
a replica of every floor of the residents in sound stages.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
Yeah. I thought they had a permanent h at least
oval office that you could rent.
Speaker 1 (43:26):
But but that's that's the Westwick where they never go.
Speaker 2 (43:31):
Oh yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
They built the residence. They built the whole house.
Speaker 2 (43:36):
Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, okay that yeah.
Speaker 1 (43:42):
I mean that shot itself spilled out into multiple sound stages.
Speaker 2 (43:46):
Yeah yeah, so that's expensive.
Speaker 1 (43:49):
Yeah, so anyway, and you mean you're not coming back
here for next only murders in the building. As ridiculous
as the premise is, stretched, incredulity does understand the importance
of amortizing your costs as those building those sets get
(44:10):
to become less expensive with each passing year.
Speaker 2 (44:14):
That's true. That's how you do a show right there.
Speaker 1 (44:17):
It's why season three of Star Trek we get rid
of the only thing that costs extras and supporting cast.
But we've got the sets. So it's how many episodes
can we try to solve the mystery of where did
four hundred people of the crew disappear to.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
Exactly. It's fantastic. That's the kind of thinking, the financial
thinking that gets you going places.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
Mister, speaking of Uzo Aduba, who is wonderful. I can't
wait to find out what she does next and track
it down her postar of Orange is the new Black.
Natasha Leone, of course, plays a detective of sorts on
poker Her Face, which is in its second season on Peacock. Okay,
(45:05):
now have you haven't seen it? Oh?
Speaker 2 (45:07):
I haven't.
Speaker 1 (45:08):
You haven't even seen season one? Wow? What is I mean?
Closer Face? This is what people I've talked about this
so many times. This is what got people through the
pandemic other than Colombo, And this is what got Ryan
Johnson and Natasha Leone through the pandemic because they said,
let's make Colombo. So they revived Colombo with a woman lead,
(45:30):
Charlie Kele, who is a human lie detector. She knows
when someone's lying and she constantly finds herself in these
positions where Okay, I'm risking myself, but I can't let
this person get accused of something they didn't do. So
I'm going to solve it. So and it's very much
of the style and the texture, uh, and the the
(45:53):
structure of we know who did it, it's a how
they how she finds it out kind of mystery. And
season two overall a major letdown. And I found out
that Ryan Johnson not nearly so involved in this one.
I guess he's been really busy with the New Knives out.
(46:15):
There have been high points. Cynthia Arevo in episode one,
playing four different parts. I think all was fantastic. There
was an entire episode with John mulaney and Richard Kind
and Rha Pearlman about a mole in the FBI who
is a mob informant or vice versa. That was hilarious.
(46:41):
What a great episode of TV that was. But anyway,
the whole season is out. Season two. I finally caught
up to episode eight of season two. It's called The
Sleazy Georgian and it focuses on a ring of con men,
the leader of which is played by John Cho star
Trek's John Show. And he is so magnificent in this
(47:06):
episode that I needed to bring this this entire series
up because it might well be the best role he
has ever been given on screen. Really, Oh my goodness,
it's fantastic. We immediately went back and scanned through it,
(47:30):
didn't watch the whole episode, but watched a lot of
his parts again because of the work he was doing. Now,
I know John, I've known John thirty years, and so
I love the guy to death. He's awesome. I've always
thought that he was a great actor, but it's just
so cool, all these decades on, here he is getting
(47:51):
his best role yet in an episode, in one of
these little mini movies of poker Face. And and it's
also neat because they've gotten to a point in the
series where the past two episodes that I've watched seven
and eight have been variations on a theme, no real mystery,
(48:11):
but a personal desire for the main character of Charlie
to right wrongs or bring a certain amount of justice
to those who have done wrong. Each has been really emotional,
and in the case of this one, surprisingly so. The
emotional payoff for this is so delightful and profound. Anyway,
(48:35):
you certainly should avail yourself at the first season. Absolutely,
it's a it's a that was a ton of fun.
Speaker 2 (48:43):
Yeah, I can't believe.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
Yeah, I can't either. Since we've talked about.
Speaker 2 (48:47):
It, I'd lost my list that was the problem.
Speaker 1 (48:52):
Since we were on mysteries. I watched an odd and
oddly disappointing h nineteen sixty five adaptation of Ten Little Indians.
Oh you know, the Agatha Christie chess.
Speaker 2 (49:09):
Yeah yeah, I saw it on stage in Winnipeg one time,
and hilariously, the prop door at the very end that
was supposed to be locked opened up. She could have
run away, but then she slowly closes the door and
the audience that erupts it to laughter, while the final
payoff of threat is completely diminished.
Speaker 1 (49:30):
So this nineteen sixty five version was directed in rather
mundane television fashion of the age, despite being a theatrical
release by George Pollock, who was the director of several
of those Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple movie Oh Yeah, which,
(49:55):
let's face it would have been TV if they had
been made decades later. In fact, they were TV, and
they were called Murder.
Speaker 2 (50:01):
She wrote, right, yes, exactly.
Speaker 1 (50:05):
Anyway, it's a remake of the classic and far superior.
And then there were none. Right, same premise. A bunch
of strangers invited to an isolated manner start turning up dead,
and they all seem to have blood on their hands.
That the mysterious killer wants to avenge right now. The
(50:27):
locale in this has been changed to an alp chalet,
so the manner of a couple of the deaths were
updated and kind of cool, kind of grizzly, kind of scary.
The cast has several notables. Hugh O'Brien, who was TV's
Wiater Yes, Shirley Eaton, who just the year before had
(50:48):
been the Bond girl Painted in Gold.
Speaker 2 (50:51):
Teen idol, fabian, fabian, fantastic.
Speaker 1 (50:57):
Stanley Holloway the year after he played Eliza's Dad and
My Fair.
Speaker 2 (51:01):
Lady, Oh Yes, music called Giant.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
Wilfred Hyde White, who's so wonderful in My Beloved. The
third man, Nnis Price, who killed almost the entire royal
family and kind hearts and coronets, right, and none of
them give a performance that entertains let alone makes any sense?
Speaker 2 (51:26):
What how? So?
Speaker 1 (51:28):
So the story is like too ironclad not to work,
but it comes as close to not working as you can.
Speaker 2 (51:36):
Imagine, Wow, how do you screw that up?
Speaker 1 (51:39):
And the ending and this will get to the question
of how do they not give performances that work? The
ending where two people survive the weekend you kind of
revealed that one of them is a woman, but two
people survived the weekend. That ending concludes with such a
(52:01):
light hearted, jokey, winking tone, what as to suggest that
there are no emotional ramifications from having witnessed so much
violence and grizzly death and from barely escaping with your
own life. The mid sixties were a weird time. That
(52:24):
is all weird.
Speaker 2 (52:27):
Yes, I mean that was the whole Nobody knew what
was going on with the counter revolution and the anti disestablishmentarianism.
It was like, oh, enything's off the books. Because I
have been a friend lent me the Monkeys entire series
on DVD with extra bonus voiceover commentary, and just watching
(52:50):
that just a couple of episodes, the director himself thinking,
oh man, nobody was doing this. It's like the Marx
Brothers and this was you know TeV. We were breaking
boundaries and it's just they sped up the frame and
put a larger laugh track in it. So I think
that's sort of what it sounds like you are describing
(53:11):
here in this one.
Speaker 1 (53:14):
I would love like if there's time travel, like you
think of all the big moments that people would like, Oh,
I want to go and I want to prevent stop
Hitler or stop all this sort of stuff, Like I
want to go to the post production beating where that
note was given because it harried the day. But come on,
(53:39):
did it harry the room? Or were people with less
power going This guy is an idiot suggesting speed it
up in a bigger laugh track, like or was everybody
on board with, Hey, my gosh, this is you know, experimental,
Look how amazing that is. I want to, you know,
(54:00):
like I'm I want to go back through time at
every town hall meeting at in the town where my
mother grew up, the little tiny town of Manson on
Lake Shellanne in Washington, and just find out, you know, like,
following the murders, did at least one person on the
(54:20):
town council suggest or someone in the citizenry in that
town of five hundred suggest should we change? I know
we're named for somebody different, but no one else will
know that should we change the name? I just got
I gotta believe someone suggested it. Someone read a paper.
(54:41):
Now they're kind of isolated, so it would have been
six months later, but they would have read the paper
and uh, and someone suggested that, and then like what
was the what was the decision to keep it? Like, well,
we understand your point, but this will blow over. And
we've put a lot of money into advertising letting people
know how to find us, you know, for tourism, right
(55:02):
they because it's not easy to find us. And so
they now know they got to get to the mouth
of the lake Lake shealand they've got to go through
the town of Hitler and then they have.
Speaker 2 (55:12):
To to Manson. Oh my god, Manson. Maybe I yeah.
Speaker 1 (55:20):
Over the past couple of days, I also finally watched
twenty twenty four's winner of the Best Director Award, It Can,
one of the films that I really hailed coming out
of Can last year, saying all right, this should be
on our radar, right and it's Portuguese filmmaker Miguel Gome's
Gomez is a Grand tour. It It's recent release on
(55:45):
Mobe actually gave me my first chance to catch it. Oh,
it did not get the release I would have thought
it got after, you know, like that Best Director it Can,
Those films usually get significant traction. Yeah. It was inspired
by a passage in the w Somerset mom book The
(56:05):
Gentleman in the Parlor. The film set in Asia nineteen eighteen,
a time of British colonial rule, and a British civil
servant named Edward who speaks nothing but Portuguese. As again,
the film is from Portugal, which I love. I think
alone is a great joke, because of course we made
(56:26):
movies where people are from so many countries. They speak English.
Speaker 2 (56:32):
They speak English. Yea, yeah, any Roman empire is all
speaking English.
Speaker 1 (56:38):
So Edward abandons his fiance of seven years on the
day she arrives in Rangoon in nineteen eighteen, the very
day they are finally to be wed. Oh, and the
rest of the first half of the film tells his
story of fleeing her throughout Asia and across the South
(57:01):
Pacific as he gets more and more ill in the process. Okay,
the second half goes back to that doc and tells
her side of the story. She pursues him, always just
a half step behind him, herself getting sicker and sicker
(57:21):
the whole time. Wow, the stories told by narrators who
might very well be present day narrators. Indeed, much of
the footage in this otherwise black and white period film
is color and contemporary documentary footage that is evocative of
(57:43):
the present day nature of the cities and countries visited.
Speaker 2 (57:47):
Wow, that's quite a feat.
Speaker 1 (57:50):
It's all quite effective at both capturing the spirit of
golden age of movies globe trotting adventures, while also devilishly
pointing out how the actors in those films never left
sound stages in Hollywood. They were merely cut into surrounding
documentary footage.
Speaker 2 (58:11):
That's hilarious.
Speaker 1 (58:13):
The Rotten Tomatoes consensus reads this director Miguel Gomez continues
to leverage the possibilities of cinema to explore passion and
time in this globe trotting lark, richly realized in striking
black and white photography. I'm not sure when any of
that means, and I'm pretty sure that the consensus there
(58:36):
written by AI do we think now?
Speaker 2 (58:38):
I think so.
Speaker 1 (58:40):
It used to be editors that you know, would.
Speaker 2 (58:42):
Sort of discussing as you would see a discussion going on.
Speaker 1 (58:47):
But I don't think it has to do with letting
the viewer know the work that they have to do
to settle into unique approach and charms of this film.
There's a crazy cinematic innocence to this movie that maybe
(59:08):
I've kind of described. It's interspersed and mixed with very
complex and sophisticated cultural commentary. Oh, if you need a
good story or the kind of rich characters from which
such stories flow, you might be left cold m and
(59:31):
like me, sort of left just relishing the cinematography.
Speaker 2 (59:37):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (59:38):
However, by the time the film concluded, the enchanting nature
of the cinematography itself and the excuse that the characters
provide for an era spanning, continent crossing travelog did certainly
(01:00:00):
imbue me with a heavy dose of wander lust. So
I might not ever want to watch the movie again,
but I sure as hell want to live in it.
Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
I want to go to Radgon nineteen eighteen. I don't
know if that's really good?
Speaker 1 (01:00:19):
Can you book that? Can I go from Manson nineteen
sixty eight to where wherever that editing room was, speed
it up, make it a bigger laugh track.
Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
Promotional consideration paid for by Empire State Gas. From farm
to pump, We've got great gas. Belated spoiler alert
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com