[The Colbert Report in the Media]

When I glance over tweets in languages other than English, it seems like TCR is valued mostly for its witty send-up of the ugly American and TDS is valued mostly for its pointed editorial voice (especially after segments like the one about Ferguson, immigration, Gaza/Israel, etc.). I think with John Oliver now becoming very solidly fixed on the pointed editorial side of comedy, that may have shifted perception of TDS closer to the middle between hilarious and editorial, which I think is closer to where they actually are. Anyway, it reminds me of what Stephen said once, that Jon deconstructs the news, and he reconstructs it in some warped form. Now John Oliver deconstructs it and just leaves it in pieces. Basically: Jon's dinner, Stephen's dessert, and John's the indigestion that wakes you up at night. I love these shows so much.
 
(A lot of commentary lately, though, has been that people overseas cannot even view the shows on CC because of geoblocking. Is Viacom responsible for that, or is it a matter of international regulations?)
 

Although that might have changed over the past few years as the US-style punditry has been exported more globally, to the detriment of all.

God save us.

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/8/14]

I feel like he tries to provide various layers of context for the questions he asks. Sometimes, it works, and sometimes, it drags down the interview. He sort of made up for it this time by clamping down pretty well on his impulse to interrupt. I think also that the status of his guest was such that he perhaps tried to squeeze in as much as he could ask, knowing he'd probably never get a chance like this again and that there was no time for an extended interview. All of that, unfortunately, made him ask "question bombs" rather than questions.

 

Having never seen Ban Ki-Moon being interviewed before, I had no idea that he is such an optimist. That was sort of heartwarming (if it's the truth).

 

EDIT: Speaking of "optimism," the extended interview with Tavis Smiley was fantastic, even though Jon clearly hadn't read the book--probably due to how busy he's been with Rosewater. Since I grew up in Japan, I wasn't exposed to American history as taught in the American school system, so I feel like I've always been playing catch-up and looking for reading material that gives me details rather than myth. Smiley's book looks like a valuable one to add to my reading list. Also: I'm not religious at all, but when Smiley seemed slightly unsure of the reaction he's get mentioning MLK's faith, sermons, and so on, I appreciated that Jon didn't shut him down or mock him. Not that I expected him to, but it seems like religion is something that most shows either treat as something to take a wide berth around or allow to dominate the conversation, either in a positive way or a negative way. It's nice that, on TDS, it's just another part of the humanity of whatever or whomever they're discussing.

 

In other news: what was Betsy McCaughey thinking, agreeing to a DS interview again? Did she only belatedly recognize the name of the show, or did she think she'd be safe with a correspondent and away from Jon?

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/15/14]

Thank you, maculae! I didn't realize what all went into the guest slot. Now I wonder what everybody behind the scenes thinks about it when an interview goes really, really long, like with Timothy Geithner. Although, I guess the writers wouldn't have to stick around for it.

 

Colbert as Sharpton is hilarious. (And, wow, he gave up going to the premiere of LOTR? That is true love!)

[In the Media: The Blogs Must Be Crazy]

I just read that, too, maculae. Wow, that was quick. I enjoyed his work while he was here; best of luck to him!

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/15/14]

I've always wondered about the "TBD" slots. If the guest can't make it whatever reason, are they allowed to not have an interview? Or are they obliged to fill the interview slot with another guest? The only times I've heard anything about it was when Jon made a joke about having interviews to cut down on the length of the script, and when Denis Leary once filled in for a senator (but he also had a movie to promote). Anyway, I've always been curious about that.

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/8/14]

How did he manage to flip off Goodell, by the way? I saw it online, and it wasn't blurred. Was it blurred when it aired? (Or have those rules changed?)

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/8/14]

That was a great segment on Roger Goodell's bullshit, but I agree, Chattygal. There's a much broader culture of protection that I wish they had tackled more directly, perhaps with an in-studio correspondent follow-up.

 

As someone interested in attending a graduate program at Edinburgh, I've been on the edge of my seat about Scotland's independence.

[Clip Recommendation: So Many Clips to Choose From!]

I only saw this clip for the first time last year, and it brought back so many emotions. Posting it from YouTube to get around geoblocking. I'm glad that Viacom hasn't yet taken down this video.

 

 

Forgot to add the MOZ: "A Puppy"

[The Nightly Show With Larry Wilmore in the Media]

Larry and Rory's first day on TMR. Love it! I am so ready for January.

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/8/14]

That's not how it came across to me. I don't know if you saw the extended interview, but please don't interpret the quote above as his literal meaning. The words he used were different; I was summarizing, perhaps poorly.

 

This is just my interpretation, but I seriously doubt that he meant it in the sense that he's struggling to see that women need basic equality, too, but in the sense that every day can be a learning experience as human beings on this planet as far as what people without this or that privilege go through. Anyone can believe in and honestly advocate for equality and still have blind spots about particular aspects of experience that have never occurred to them, what with it being something they've never personally had to deal with. That's being human, and also being human is never shutting ourselves off from learning under the notion that we're advocating for the right thing, anyway, and never need to listen to details or examine ourselves again. I think that's what he was going for. No part in the interview or any previous commentary that I've seen have come across as him needing to be instructed on that very basic point of "hey, women should be equal, too." I'm not sure how you got there, except if it's due to my poor job at summarizing. I apologize, if that was the case.

 

I would add, too, that I switched the order of his sentence around: his comment opened by saying that he recommends the book to men and boys, too. For whatever that's worth. Anyway, I'll stop typing now.

[Rosewater]

Yeah, I couldn't quite get through that one. I liked the enthusiasm, but calm down, dude.
 
I enjoyed reading these reviews, although they are less effusive: Serving Cinema, Mashable, and ScreenCrush. They all review it in the light of who Jon is and isn't, and what that means even to the process of reviewing it and being an audience member. That's probably the biggest hurdle for the movie, for better or worse; I think in one of these interviews (can't remember now which one), Jon alluded to a sense of guilt that his name carried its own weight into the material.
 
Mike Ryan at ScreenCrush summed it up pretty well:

It’s impossible to separate ‘Rosewater‘ from the personality that is Jon Stewart. On the surface, this statement makes little sense, because many films are deeply culturally intertwined with their director. But ‘Rosewater’ is a little different, because it’s a person not known for directing — or even really acting, for that matter. Jon Stewart is famous, but famous for something almost completely unrelated. It would be as if Derek Jeter or Joe Biden directed a movie. The public curiosity with ‘Rosewater’ is all because of who directed ‘Rosewater,’ not what ‘Rosewater’ is about.

...
 
Jon Stewart made an OK movie. And, again, as a first time filmmaker, ‘Rosewater’ shows a lot of promise – and I really hope Stewart decides to make more movies, mostly because I suspect that he’ll be more confident with some of the stylistic choices he made. He sometimes seems to dabble instead of going “all in.” But, not many first time filmmakers will have the amount of attention that Stewart is experiencing – which is both a good thing for ‘Rosewater’ and bad thing for ‘Rosewater.’

On Instagram: "Jon Stewart looking very directorial in the studio for Rosewater." Not quite the behind-the-scenes image I was expecting, but I can't complain. It's a great shot.

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/8/14]

I get the sense that Kirsten Gillibrand, like Elizabeth Warren, is a politician that Jon genuinely likes and admires. From what I've learned since posting here, it seems like John McCain and Ron Paul used to be held in high regard, as well; we know one of those ships has sailed, if not also the other.

 

EDIT: At the end of the extended interview, she recommended the book to every girl and woman. I like that Jon added his comments about the issue of empathy, admits that he's still growing in that regard, and that he recommends the book to every boy and man, as well. Very nice interview. The only thing that made me sad is when she joked about him becoming more of a feminist and he sort of shrugged. They both played the joke as lighthearted and fluffy, but I wish there wasn't in our society still this reductive, negative view of feminism as a man-hating monolith with no nuance, variation, or legitimacy. I think there's a valid debate in how we define movements and ideologies as we understand more about humanity and understand our complexities (eg. that gender and biological sex are not best understood as a strict matter of binary oppositions, that sexual orientation can be fluid), and perhaps a term more inclusive of all gender definitions would be more representative of what feminism is all about, at its core. That said, "feminism" still has to fight the stigma of being a dirty word, and, unfortunately, Jon's point about empathy is right. For instance: glance at Reddit, and you can hardly tell a liberal user from a conservative one when the topic comes up. It's getting better, but there's still a long way to go.

[In the Media: The Blogs Must Be Crazy]

If you haven't yet heard or watched this TED Talk by Zak Ebrahim, I highly recommend it. Not only is it relevant to this forum, given that he credits Jon with helping to change his perspective and his life's trajectory, but his story in and of itself is incredible.
 
"I am the son of a terrorist. Here's how I chose peace." Quoting the relevant part below:

Then there was "The Daily Show." On a nightly basis, Jon Stewart forced me to be intellectually honest with myself about my own bigotry and helped me to realize that a person's race, religion or sexual orientation had nothing to do with the quality of one's character. He was in many ways a father figure to me when I was in desperate need of one. Inspiration can often come from an unexpected place, and the fact that a Jewish comedian had done more to positively influence my worldview than my own extremist father is not lost on me.

Reflecting back on Jon, it's quite powerful to see that the philosophy he promotes on the show as its host and its voice has a real, positive impact on people's lives. It's nothing he asked for, and it's not something I expect, but it's heartwarming and amazing to hear stories like these.

[Rosewater]

This is a nice interview with Brian Tallerico, at RogerEbert.com.

 

How you fight the apprehension that comes from a white man telling an Iranian story? Or do you just have people around you to protect you from that concern?

You have to own it. You can’t pretend that you’re not. That’s what I did. The kind of thing that I wanted to do was create what I called a “quiet inauthenticity.” I was never going to capture it with the nuance of Farhadi and all the great Iranian filmmakers. Knowing that, I wasn’t going to pretend that I was. Which means the accents are not true. I have actors from eight different countries. I tried to create a kind of patina of accent that was not particularly recognizable to any region. It exists in its own indescript world. It exists in a world that you probably can’t peg as anything. But as long as it’s not too discordant. I wanted the inauthenticity to not be so egregious so as to register and remove you from the storytelling. Since I can’t capture the authenticity I have to create a world of, sort of…

Commonality.

That’s correct. That’s what you hope. I said to Maziar, “We’ll do this in Farsi.” He said, “Why? You don’t speak Farsi.” “Oh, right, OK.”

On the review front, there are both positive and lukewarm reviews coming out of Toronto. This is mostly a lukewarm review, but I appreciated the point he was making. It was a better read than the ones that were either all "yay, Jon!" or "don't quit your day job."

[Rosewater]

Gael García Bernal is so damn gorgeous. (I'm sorry; I know meaningful words were spoken. I will go back and watch again.)

 

EDIT: They got a standing ovation at TIFF, and Maziar took a selfie with Jon and Gael to mark the moment. Aww. I love that Jon and Maziar seem to be very much in this project together.

[S01.E16: For-Profit Schools]

What a great segment on student debt. His takedown of Corinthian Colleges, Inc., was brutal, and his wife being an Iraq War veteran really gave that bit on the G.I. Bill a razor edge, too. Has anyone checked to see if APSCU is still breathing today? Superb job.

 

Now he needs to address the other student loan debt problem with "non-profit" colleges/universities (and I put "non-profit" in quotes because while technically 'not for profit' in terms of stock holders and such, these colleges/universities are paying their administrators/sports coaches a damn good amount of "profit" which drives up the cost of education)

Yes, please. I'm deeply embedded in this so-called "non-profit" system, and it's a nightmare.

 

I have no words for LBJ.

[In the Media: The Blogs Must Be Crazy]

Thanks for the link, maculae!

 

ETA He definitely has a cameo in Top Five.  Also, reading a person's Twitter feed can really alter your perception of that person.  140 characters means he's either really bitingly sarcastic or a total asshole.

His Twitter feed is interesting, to say the least. I think he's bitingly sarcastic, but Twitter humor is sort of its own thing. Even someone like George Takei can be (or obliviously come across as) an asshole on Twitter. 

[All Episodes Talk: The Best Damn News Team]

I'd forgotten about that one. Didn't he apologize a few days later for that, acknowledging that he hadn't read the book prior to the interview and had acted like an ass?

[In the Media: The Blogs Must Be Crazy]

I stumbled across this comparison and had to share. From the Boston Globe (an interview with New Testament scholar Amy-Jill Levine):

IDEAS: What would be a modern-day parallel to the parable?

LEVINE: Something like “The Daily Show.” When I hear Jon Stewart talk about politicians whom I actually like doing things that make me distressed, I’m called to account. I’m challenged, I’m sometimes indicted. Although I’m not sure Jon Stewart would appreciate the comparison to Jesus.

Yeah, probably not. For several reasons.

 

Thanks for those links, Victor the Crab! I didn't expect to see one of the correspondents there. I wonder what movie Michael is in?

[All Episodes Talk: The Best Damn News Team]

I have to disagree. Kathleen Sibelius. President Obama. And a couple of others. Very tongue in cheek, mostly, downright disrespectful at least twice that I remember.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. I found that he was no more or less respectful of them than he's been of guests that he disagrees with, like DeMint, Yoo, or Huckabee. I didn't find him at all disrespectful during President Obama's interview. The only thing I found egregious was his after-interview comment about Sibelius "lying," but it was egregious precisely because it's not his style. People on both sides made a big deal of him laughing during the Pelosi interview, for instance, and completely ignored that one of DeMint's comments made him laugh in a similar way during that interview.

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/1/14]

Michael Che's deadpan works very well with assholes like Gilchrist. Just sit, stare and let him keep digging.

I loved his ongoing expression of contempt, though. A thing of beauty, it was.

 

Michael Che is really coming into his own as a correspondent. I wish they would give him some sort of series, like John's Australia gun control series or Jason's many adventures across the globe. His deadpan is glorious.

[All Episodes Talk: The Best Damn News Team]

I wonder how much of a choice he gets, as far as individual guests go. Does anyone know? I remember back in April when Letterman announced his retirement that Jon wasn't in consideration in part because non-stop celebrity interviews would be like nails on chalkboard to him. It seems like TDS is obligated to have an interview and is part of the promotional circuit, but I wonder if he is able to be more selective when it comes to non-celebrity guests (authors, directors, scientists, activists, etc.). When he interviewed Jane Goodall, Richard Dawkins, Diane Ravitch, or Steven Brill, etc., I didn't get the sense that he was faking his interest, whereas he seemed to be really stretching himself when it came to Liam Neeson, Jude Law, or Evangeline Lilly. (On the other hand, his interview with George Takei was fantastic because it wasn't about the Shatner gossip but about Takei's experiences during the war.)

 

I guess we all read his interviews differently. I realize that I'm not the best judge of the celebrity interviews because I do skip most of them and only watch if it's a friend of his or someone I like.

["The Colbert Report": Week of 9/1/14]

Re this Monday: has Stephen ever had a new episode on a night The Daily Show is dark? I think that's a first.

Thus reaffirming that Stephen has, in fact, won television.

 

I'm honestly caught between getting excited to see Stephen out of character, mourning the loss of this show so soon after I began watching it, and getting beyond excited and closer to impatient to see Larry Wilmore's show. It's an emotional whirlwind! Thankfully, Stephen will remain on the air, but "Stephen" will be a devastating loss. I don't comment on his show very much, but I adore it.

[All Episodes Talk: The Best Damn News Team]

Jon isn't a perfect interviewer (I think he gets impatient sometimes, leading him to interrupt), but I have to say that whenever Jon retires, what I will miss most are his interviews. I can't think of any potential correspondent-turned-host who would or could interview the way Jon does, in that it's much less of a traditional interview and much more of a conversation. I don't mean that in terms of being friendly and loose with guests but in the sense that it is a conversation between two equal participants, rather than being structured as more of a Q&A where the interviewee talks for most of the time. That's probably a good change for some (most?) fans, but I particularly appreciate Jon's style in the serious/political interviews. (As for the celebrities, I think he is still hospitable to them, whatever his respect for their product. I generally skip over them, though, and couldn't care less whether or not he watched the movie. There are more than enough places where celebrity news & gossip are given equal weight to political and social issues.)

 

With these serious/political interviews, whoever takes over will probably do more of the standard talk show interview for people they like or feel neutral about and possibly take on a more field piece interview style for people they loathe and/or disagree with on a policy or political level. (I noticed that about John Oliver's different interview styles on LWT: Keith Alexander vs Fareed Zakaria and Pepe Julian Onziema, etc.) I'm not necessarily critiquing that style in and of itself, which creates its own valuable, satirical atmosphere that I enjoy also, but Jon's interviews give the show a very special feel that would be quite different without him. Anybody can meet him at his desk and know they will be treated with respect by Jon, if not the studio audience (which he tries to control at times). I can't think of another host or program on American TV where there is that space for genuine, civil, gotcha-free conversations between two people of viewpoints potentially as disparate as Jon and an ultra conservative guest like DeMint, Krauthammer, or Huckabee. However his guest acts, Jon seems to make an effort to hold up his end of that bargain, at least. I like that, when a guest is spouting bullshit and Jon's subtle counterpoints are whooshing over them, Jon assumes his viewers can form their own conclusions and do any follow-up research on their own. My point is that I will dearly miss his willingness to see any and all guests as human first and political actor second. I think the closest to this conversational style are Charlie Rose and Terry Gross, but the former is far more aggressive than Jon and seems to look for gotcha moments (which suits that program) and the latter seems more of the traditional interviewer as opposed to an equal participant in the conversation. Anyway, I can't imagine any correspondent handling this style of interview--much less with any and all guests as varied as Jon has had. Maybe they will prove me wrong.

 

I didn't mean to go off on a tangent and write so much, but I feel strongly about it because, as much as I enjoy the on-point monologues and field pieces, his singular craft at political interviews is why I became a fan last year. He was (is) such a breath of fresh air.

["The Daily Show": Week of 9/1/14]

It was so satisfying to see Gilchrist fumble through his own logic like that. First, it's that the children are making it up about being in warzones, and then he says they can't escape death. So, basically, his point of view boils down to "I've got mine; fuck you. Because freedom." That's at the heart of so much that is wrong in this country, as though having independence is the same as living outside of the very society that benefits you. It's so fucking embarrassing as an American to watch the debate on this, while other, poorer, more vulnerable countries welcome refugees despite the difficulties. Because humanity.