Great overview of the current late night situation. I’ve been listening to Kevin Pollak’s podcast from the beginning for several years. I’m an older guy so I like him and his references, but I think he is not only older, he is old school show biz for the most part. Going along with that, it’s also kind of a boys’ club. Of the 164 podcasts he has done, women have been guests only seven times. Unlike network hosts, podcast hosts only have to interview people they’re interested in. I would see him being as bored as you characterize Letterman is these days with interviews. And as happens with all impressionists, Pollak’s great ones are getting a little stale, and the people he does will be leaving the landscape. That happened to Dana Carvey.Larry is 100% correct about both Pollak and Letterman. As for Kimmel, he can be clever, and is doing the best of the Los Angeles-based late night show, but he relies too much on Guillermo and similar shtick. Also, his timing in the monologues is too quick – almost as if he can’t wait to get each joke over with, or he doesn’t have enough faith in the material to wait for the laugh.
You are right about Letterman phoning it in these days. He gave a round of interviews surrounding his Kennedy Center honor, and he more or less said he’s taking it easy, doing a different show at 65 than he did at 35. Trouble is, there’s nothing fresh about it. So, I started watching Kimmel. I think he has the most show biz savvy and is young enough. I think he will rise to the top of the late night time bunch. Fallon is really talented, but like others, aren’t these people being rewarded with a job that doesn’t play to their strengths?
Labels: television