I’m perpetually torn about the concept of “not for me,” the response to a given piece of art that suggests that there’s nothing necessarily deficient with it but rather that I myself don’t connect with it and that’s fine.
I think one of the most worthwhile conversations in art criticism is on how to criticize taste. I was perusing a substack’s playlist blog the other day and checked out the artists they decided to rank around their top 10 of the year. It was some of the worst stuff I’ve heard recently that is a genuine attempt at either art or entertainment (in this case both).
It’s not that I think the genres of those particular examples (a lot of Hip Hop, EDM, singer-songwriter-indiepop and Shoegaze) aren’t or can’t be good, it’s that I felt the artistic quality of these examples were lacking and their entertainment capacity was middling. Now, naturally, I’m not in control of someone else’s taste or why they enjoy something. But I think for the sake of what these pieces were both trying to be and how that stacks up to what exists around them, the selections could have been better *for the sake of the medium in which they were executed.* This be as much in the contextual use of melody, harmony, rhythm, and lyricism as much as in its realization.
Seinfeld seems to have taken a dip in popularity but I don't care. I think it's better than Curb and It's Always Sunny, the two shows that people always say is better than Seinfeld.
Why are you really glad about that? That's a very weird thing to be glad about, not hearing about things. I can't imagine what kind of utility or pleasure could come to me from not hearing of TV shows or immensely-famous actress Emma Stone. Could it be that, instead, what you're trying to awkwardly signal is "there's a kind of person that I'm NOT, I'm a better, cooler, less stereotypical kind of person!" Could that be what this comment is really about?
This is satire, yes? You're happy that you dont see "mean spirited" shows while in the same sentence describing "a whole lot of humans" as insufferable, self-obsessed and not terribly smart"? Sheesh! Talk about proving Freddie's thesis!
"If you don't recognize that a whole lot of humans are insufferable, self obsessed, and not terriblely smart you're likely sheltered, inexperienced, or deluding yourself."
Nah, I've been around -- for a long time, actually. And the fact that you so quickly go to the non sequitur of "bully" so easily makes me wonder......
Plus, have you considered the odds that YOU are insufferable, self obsessed and not terrible smart?
Your "your difference between us" paragraph was I'm sure VERY satisfying to write. I, too, like strawmen. Enjoy your life!
Couldn't we also psychanalyze you as trying to justify your own time spent watching these shows, and being on top of pop culture, by writing articles such as these? Couldn't it be genuinely good to avoid "the latest thing"?
I liked his comment, but not for the reasons you lay out here. I just didn't like the premise of the show as you tell it. It doesn't sound funny to me, only tiresome.
Comedy shows that try to insert social justice issues into them just fall flat to me. It's like they are trying to backdoor SJ by using laughs to mask it. Tons of people are really tired of 'virtue' entertainment. It's still sort of a lecture, despite it being 'comedic'. And no one likes to be lectured to, especially when it comes to comedy.
I don't watch much TV (outside of sport) so include me in the list of never having seen these shows. I always find your writing interesting, but in this case, yeah..."not for me"
There's finite time in the day and so there's a finite amount you can see or hear so why not be glad you avoided seeing and hearing about something irrelevant and unpleasant to you?
Reading comments sections is a really interesting exercise. I’m like, “do I have anything to say about that? Do I have anything to say about that? That? That?” I can sort of feel my engine overheating, but in a good way. Just a random observation about comments. And myself.
The key point here is that comedy is subjective in a way that drama isn’t. We have stumbled upon the 3 act structure that makes for a satisfying narrative, but comedy doesn’t quite work like that. There is definitely a craft to writing jokes and gags, but you can do everything right and still have a joke fall flat with some audiences. And unlike drama, which you can gain an appreciation for by better understanding the craft, comedy doesn’t get funnier when it’s explained. I think there will always be humor that doesn’t work for some of us, for me, I just don’t find Adam Sandler or Will Farrel movies to be funny, it just doesn’t work for me. The tricky part of comedy is that when it doesn’t work, it’s a disaster. A bad drama can be inadvertently entertaining, even funny. A bad comedy is just excruciating. An even worse experience is when everyone is laughing but you, it’s hard not feel like the joke’s on you
This is an insightful and interesting review! I am not a fan of Fielder either and probably wouldn’t watch this show (the word “precious” comes to mind for me - when he is on camera, he seems to be imploring the viewer to understand how clever he is).
I think this review can coexist peacefully in a world where “not for me” is perfectly acceptable, and objective value is just about impossible to ascertain. I still appreciate critical takes, and I will agree with some and not others. Nothing wrong with that.
It's funny, I interpreted The Rehearsal as Fielder's examination of and penance for Nathan For You. The whole shtick of The Rehearsal, in my view, was that you didn't in fact know how much you, the audience, were being fucked with: were these people actually real? The show, again and again, suggested that they might not be, and that the audience was the real mark. The thrust of the first episode was that Nathan Fielder was not to be trusted, that the entire conceit of the show was not to be trusted.
This was one of my main curiosities about White Lotus. Does the core audience have any idea that they're the subject of its content? The people in my life who love it so much and talk about it the most might as well be the Aubrey Plaza character in S2.
What does it mean if you didn't like it? I thought it was the a very boring piece of television, with deeply unlikable characters. Why did people like it?
The show reads to me as more of generational representation than that of a few specific types. I was expecting to see something about my social class and generation that I could connect with, both good and bad, at a personal and generational level.
my genZ boys love Impractical Jokers; I think it's mean - to the unsuspecting participants as well as the so-called friends. But I think that reveals, in me, a lack of understanding the way men interact with each other
my slightly older daughter eagerly awaits every Nathan Fielder project, but I've only seen 2 episodes of Nathan For You. I read alot of press for The Rehearsal, and she really talked it up, but I still didn't seek it out. There's a lot out there and only so much time.
I was disappointed by Good Time, which felt like a half-baked and unremarkable crime thriller with an unusually good lead performance and soundtrack.
But Uncut Gems - Uncut Gems is art, a unique, nauseating and wholly personal statement. I've never seen anything like it. Parasite was probably the only 2019 film I saw which exceeded it.
I feel about Good Time the way I feel about Mean Streets. I was underwhelmed when I watched it, but I understood that Scorsese couldn't have made Goodfellas if he hadn't made Mean Streets first.
I'd be curious to hear Freddie's thoughts on Heaven Knows What - the Safdie brothers probably get too much of a pass from critics because of their talent for style and and willingness to explore grime and moral complexity in a way so few directors do these days, but I think his criticism is mostly on-base.
For me it was Mr. Show. I heard nothing but praise, nothing but how brilliantly funny it was. So I watched it and found it aggressively unfunny. I'm willing to accept that the fault may be mine, but that still doesn't make me laugh.
Humor is definitely tricky, especially in episodic form. I can watch Seinfeld or Cheers over and over and over and still laugh, but something like The Office doesn't do a damn thing for me. I remember talking to someone a decade younger than me who had the exact opposite take. So maybe it also matters when you are, and not only who you are?
I think you last sentence explains people who like horror as well. They are glad it's not them. They like feeling superior. Interesting. I think it explains why I don't like either genre.
I think that's true of some horror, like old school slasher films where a bunch of unlikeable characters get bumped off, but the appeal of a lot of horror is that you identify with the protagonist and want to cathartically go through something horrible with them while they survive and triumph.
As someone who survived too many real life horrors, I've never understood the appeal. I guess it's a safe way of experiencing trauma and having it immediately fixed after 2 hours. Thanks for helping me see that.
This is off-point, but: how does Nathan Fielder get to star opposite Emma Stone? Either I don't understand the Hollywood marketplace, or things have really changed in the past few years, or Emma Stone is less of a star than I thought, or, maybe, she does whatever she wants to do, and she wanted to do this.
Your last point is the correct one. And given the huge buzz around both this silly TV comedy and the coming Oscar baity "Poor Things", she seems to pick her projects rather well.
I think one of the most worthwhile conversations in art criticism is on how to criticize taste. I was perusing a substack’s playlist blog the other day and checked out the artists they decided to rank around their top 10 of the year. It was some of the worst stuff I’ve heard recently that is a genuine attempt at either art or entertainment (in this case both).
It’s not that I think the genres of those particular examples (a lot of Hip Hop, EDM, singer-songwriter-indiepop and Shoegaze) aren’t or can’t be good, it’s that I felt the artistic quality of these examples were lacking and their entertainment capacity was middling. Now, naturally, I’m not in control of someone else’s taste or why they enjoy something. But I think for the sake of what these pieces were both trying to be and how that stacks up to what exists around them, the selections could have been better *for the sake of the medium in which they were executed.* This be as much in the contextual use of melody, harmony, rhythm, and lyricism as much as in its realization.
Seinfeld seems to have taken a dip in popularity but I don't care. I think it's better than Curb and It's Always Sunny, the two shows that people always say is better than Seinfeld.
Why are you really glad about that? That's a very weird thing to be glad about, not hearing about things. I can't imagine what kind of utility or pleasure could come to me from not hearing of TV shows or immensely-famous actress Emma Stone. Could it be that, instead, what you're trying to awkwardly signal is "there's a kind of person that I'm NOT, I'm a better, cooler, less stereotypical kind of person!" Could that be what this comment is really about?
This is satire, yes? You're happy that you dont see "mean spirited" shows while in the same sentence describing "a whole lot of humans" as insufferable, self-obsessed and not terribly smart"? Sheesh! Talk about proving Freddie's thesis!
"If you don't recognize that a whole lot of humans are insufferable, self obsessed, and not terriblely smart you're likely sheltered, inexperienced, or deluding yourself."
Nah, I've been around -- for a long time, actually. And the fact that you so quickly go to the non sequitur of "bully" so easily makes me wonder......
Plus, have you considered the odds that YOU are insufferable, self obsessed and not terrible smart?
Your "your difference between us" paragraph was I'm sure VERY satisfying to write. I, too, like strawmen. Enjoy your life!
I really don’t understand this comment thread or why Michael’s original comment was offensive.
You’re coming across as unreasonably hostile and I don’t know why that is either.
We have libraries so you never have to watch/read new stuff. We have a big backlog of reading for everyone.
I was actually being serious. I'm a librarian.
A librarian with a great newsletter! https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/
Couldn't we also psychanalyze you as trying to justify your own time spent watching these shows, and being on top of pop culture, by writing articles such as these? Couldn't it be genuinely good to avoid "the latest thing"?
I liked his comment, but not for the reasons you lay out here. I just didn't like the premise of the show as you tell it. It doesn't sound funny to me, only tiresome.
Comedy shows that try to insert social justice issues into them just fall flat to me. It's like they are trying to backdoor SJ by using laughs to mask it. Tons of people are really tired of 'virtue' entertainment. It's still sort of a lecture, despite it being 'comedic'. And no one likes to be lectured to, especially when it comes to comedy.
💯 I am heartily sick of moral scolds.
I don't watch much TV (outside of sport) so include me in the list of never having seen these shows. I always find your writing interesting, but in this case, yeah..."not for me"
There's finite time in the day and so there's a finite amount you can see or hear so why not be glad you avoided seeing and hearing about something irrelevant and unpleasant to you?
Reading comments sections is a really interesting exercise. I’m like, “do I have anything to say about that? Do I have anything to say about that? That? That?” I can sort of feel my engine overheating, but in a good way. Just a random observation about comments. And myself.
Did this essay make you feel less glad?
The key point here is that comedy is subjective in a way that drama isn’t. We have stumbled upon the 3 act structure that makes for a satisfying narrative, but comedy doesn’t quite work like that. There is definitely a craft to writing jokes and gags, but you can do everything right and still have a joke fall flat with some audiences. And unlike drama, which you can gain an appreciation for by better understanding the craft, comedy doesn’t get funnier when it’s explained. I think there will always be humor that doesn’t work for some of us, for me, I just don’t find Adam Sandler or Will Farrel movies to be funny, it just doesn’t work for me. The tricky part of comedy is that when it doesn’t work, it’s a disaster. A bad drama can be inadvertently entertaining, even funny. A bad comedy is just excruciating. An even worse experience is when everyone is laughing but you, it’s hard not feel like the joke’s on you
This sounds like a Curb b-plot. In a good way. You've unintentionally sold me.
This is an insightful and interesting review! I am not a fan of Fielder either and probably wouldn’t watch this show (the word “precious” comes to mind for me - when he is on camera, he seems to be imploring the viewer to understand how clever he is).
I think this review can coexist peacefully in a world where “not for me” is perfectly acceptable, and objective value is just about impossible to ascertain. I still appreciate critical takes, and I will agree with some and not others. Nothing wrong with that.
I’ve also tried with Nathan Fielder. Stuff like his just doesn’t make me laugh.
It's funny, I interpreted The Rehearsal as Fielder's examination of and penance for Nathan For You. The whole shtick of The Rehearsal, in my view, was that you didn't in fact know how much you, the audience, were being fucked with: were these people actually real? The show, again and again, suggested that they might not be, and that the audience was the real mark. The thrust of the first episode was that Nathan Fielder was not to be trusted, that the entire conceit of the show was not to be trusted.
Interesting point!
This was one of my main curiosities about White Lotus. Does the core audience have any idea that they're the subject of its content? The people in my life who love it so much and talk about it the most might as well be the Aubrey Plaza character in S2.
What does it mean if you didn't like it? I thought it was the a very boring piece of television, with deeply unlikable characters. Why did people like it?
I'm so with you on this. I didn't last 2 shows.
`Does the core audience have...'
The show reads to me as more of generational representation than that of a few specific types. I was expecting to see something about my social class and generation that I could connect with, both good and bad, at a personal and generational level.
my genZ boys love Impractical Jokers; I think it's mean - to the unsuspecting participants as well as the so-called friends. But I think that reveals, in me, a lack of understanding the way men interact with each other
my slightly older daughter eagerly awaits every Nathan Fielder project, but I've only seen 2 episodes of Nathan For You. I read alot of press for The Rehearsal, and she really talked it up, but I still didn't seek it out. There's a lot out there and only so much time.
I was disappointed by Good Time, which felt like a half-baked and unremarkable crime thriller with an unusually good lead performance and soundtrack.
But Uncut Gems - Uncut Gems is art, a unique, nauseating and wholly personal statement. I've never seen anything like it. Parasite was probably the only 2019 film I saw which exceeded it.
I feel about Good Time the way I feel about Mean Streets. I was underwhelmed when I watched it, but I understood that Scorsese couldn't have made Goodfellas if he hadn't made Mean Streets first.
Exactly, Good Time was like a dry run for techniques they would later perfect in Uncut Gems.
The noise I made when I learned about The Unforgiven III
I'd be curious to hear Freddie's thoughts on Heaven Knows What - the Safdie brothers probably get too much of a pass from critics because of their talent for style and and willingness to explore grime and moral complexity in a way so few directors do these days, but I think his criticism is mostly on-base.
For me it was Mr. Show. I heard nothing but praise, nothing but how brilliantly funny it was. So I watched it and found it aggressively unfunny. I'm willing to accept that the fault may be mine, but that still doesn't make me laugh.
Humor is definitely tricky, especially in episodic form. I can watch Seinfeld or Cheers over and over and over and still laugh, but something like The Office doesn't do a damn thing for me. I remember talking to someone a decade younger than me who had the exact opposite take. So maybe it also matters when you are, and not only who you are?
I think you last sentence explains people who like horror as well. They are glad it's not them. They like feeling superior. Interesting. I think it explains why I don't like either genre.
I think that's true of some horror, like old school slasher films where a bunch of unlikeable characters get bumped off, but the appeal of a lot of horror is that you identify with the protagonist and want to cathartically go through something horrible with them while they survive and triumph.
As someone who survived too many real life horrors, I've never understood the appeal. I guess it's a safe way of experiencing trauma and having it immediately fixed after 2 hours. Thanks for helping me see that.
This is off-point, but: how does Nathan Fielder get to star opposite Emma Stone? Either I don't understand the Hollywood marketplace, or things have really changed in the past few years, or Emma Stone is less of a star than I thought, or, maybe, she does whatever she wants to do, and she wanted to do this.
Your last point is the correct one. And given the huge buzz around both this silly TV comedy and the coming Oscar baity "Poor Things", she seems to pick her projects rather well.