The Prestige TV Podcast - 'Fleishman Is in Trouble’ Series Recap

Episode Date: December 30, 2022

Joanna Robinson and Rob Mahoney give their thoughts on the finale as well as the season as a whole for FX’s ‘Fleishman Is in Trouble.’ They delve into the show’s interpretation of main character syndrome with Jesse Eisenberg’s portrayal of Dr. Toby Fleishman, and highlight Claire Danes’s performance on the show as well as the arc of her character, Rachel. Plus, they reflect on how this series fits into the larger landscape of television this past year. Hosts: Joanna Robinson and Rob Mahoney Producers: Jade Whaley and Eduardo Ocampo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Yo, this is Rob Harvilla from 60 Songs That Explain the 90s, the world's greatest loopy and perverse and inaccurately named music nostalgia podcast. We're doing 90 songs now because there's too many songs. Pearl Jam, J-Z, Jewel, YouTube, Cher, Hootie. These are just some of the names people yell at me on the internet because we're back. More great songs, more rad special guests, more loopy perversity. Join us once more on 60 Songs That Explain the 90s every Wednesday on Spotify. Come back into the prestige TV podcast feed.

I'm DeWinner Robinson and joining me today on a very special professional Platonic podcast blind date. It's Rob Mooney. Hi, Rob. How are you? You know, we're just swiping on the apps. We're just trying to get it set up with different coworkers on this thing. It's a new adventure for both of us.

Exactly. We're making our way into the new year, doing our very best. Yeah, Rob and I have never, we've exchanged a few texts. We have listened to each other's work. Of course. But this is the first time, like, we are seeing each other on a Zoom call. We've never met. And now we're going to have a conversation about a TV show.

Rob, I'm so excited. I'm so thrilled that you're here. I'm such a huge fan of your work. So I'm excited to talk to you about Fleischman is in trouble. I wanted to start, like we should say, this is dropping after the finale. We're going to talk about the entire season of Fleischman, all eight episodes. So all spoilers all the time. Spoiler Palusa on this podcast.

But I wanted to start by asking you because I don't know in depth what your relationship is with the show, whether or not you've dipped into the book at all and how you feel sort of overall about this story. Yeah, this story was totally new to me. I'm not a fiction reader by type. So it was nice to be able to kind of unspool it in this way and kind of get to know the characters

and not having a clear idea of where things were go, going to go beyond. I think the show does tip its hand that maybe some turns and perspective maybe coming at some point. But I found it to be a pretty effective rendering of like main character syndrome and how self-absorbed we can be sometimes

and the desolation of adult life. And I think it hits a lot of those things pretty well and maybe sometimes it's a little too cute for its own good, but I have a pretty high tolerance for that kind of thing in general. So I found it pretty effective, I got to say. I love that you have high tolerance for cute.

Okay, so we, Sean Fennacy and I covered the first couple episodes on a Presti's TV podcast episode. You don't have to have listened to that to listen to this conversation, but I just want to premise it a little and say that like, you know,

Sean and I were intrigued. I've read the book. Sean hadn't. We were having a debate, though, about whether or not this felt like eight episodes worth of television. We hadn't finished the season at that point, but whether or not this book felt like

it was stretched a little thin over eight episodes. And something that I couldn't tell Sean then that you and I could talk about more freely now is that I knew that this perspective turn was coming. And Sean has since texted me to say, like, I really love Jesse Eisenberg's, like, slow descent into like the villain of the piece

and stuff like that. So this show starts with Dr. Toby Fleischman being our hero. You mentioned main character syndrome and ends with a pair of episodes, one very much from Claire Daines, Rachel's perspective. We get sort of the whole story told again from her point of view.

And then the finale, I mean, the whole thing has been narrated by Lizzie Kaplan's character Libby, but the finale is very much like a Libby episode. And you kind of feel like, oh, this was really Libby's story all along. And Toby and Rachel are sort of helping and form a big choice in her life. So I wanted to hear from you a little bit about this idea of main character syndrome and how you felt that heel turn, if that's what you want to call it, works for the character of Toby

and whether or not we needed to spend four, five, six, your mileage may vary episodes before we really understood necessarily that that's exactly where it was going. What do you think, Rob? It's a great question. I mean, those are two huge questions that I think are tangled up

in a lot of different ways. And I think I would probably start unpacking it with the casting itself because I think the casting of the two leads of Toby and of Rachel is so incredibly self-conscious in a way that they know exactly what they're setting up for you

to be predisposed to in terms of storytelling. You cast our freak-out queen, Claire Dane's, in this role because the audience expects her to snap. And you can kind of unwind that expectation bit by bit and by the end of the series, I found her to be an incredibly sympathetic character. I think the Rachel-focused episode is by far the most effective.

of this whole batch. And then on the other side of that, you have Jesse Eisenberg, who this is where I think the length of the series does benefit. It devotes a lot of time and a lot of attention

to taking this actor who we know can be acidic and neurotic and portrays that in a lot of different parts. And it makes, it devotes a lot of time to making him pretty sympathetic

and his circumstances like pretty hard to argue with, like how frustrating that would be to be in those circumstances. And then you get the opposite effect obviously of his. endpoint. And I mean, again, I feel like with a series of this length and with the central mystery of the show being Rachel's disappearance and kind of wondering where she is and what's happening,

we know at some point we're going to get some clarity on that. And we know at some point we're going to hear from Rachel, at least in some sense, as far as what she's been doing. But still, when we see Toby turn a bit from our central character and a guy we can kind of identify with as the story goes to someone who's just like completely disengaged and unsympathetic with Rachel's circumstances when he finally learns of them. Like, I found those payoffs to really work. And that's where, yes,

did I feel it dragging in episode four or five? I did. But I think the payoff might be worth it. I feel like this is maybe, and I said this before and I stand by it, I think it's maybe like a six episode season. Something like that. Like I feel like if you could tighten up,

I would still want the full Rachel episode that we get. Like, I wouldn't change a thing, not a hair on Claire Dane's blonde head at all. And, you know, the finale finale is really interesting because the Claire Dane's Rachel episode contained as it is is something that I think we're familiar with in prestige TV in general. I think it goes all the way back to a show like Lost, where Lost would, this is the trick that Lost would always play.

It would present you with various archetypes and you would make your assumptions about the archetypes. And then you get these flashback episodes, you'd be like, oh, oh, no, context, oh no, right? It's like a beautiful narrative trick that loss got to play over and over and over again. And so that's what we get with Rachel is like we think we know who she is. A money obsessed, neurotic, you know, et cetera, superficial, self-absorbed, bad mom, bad mom. Like that's this sort of like, you know. What greater sin in television than bad mom, you know?

Exactly, right. Abandon your kids or want something out. outside of being a mom, you know, like all of that sort of stuff. And and then we, it all flips on its head. And as you say, like, we're smart TV watchers in general. I think I think anyone who watches a lot of prestige TV could probably see something in, on the horizon. But to the extent and the coldness that Jesse brings through in the finale, I think really, really hits it. The finale, though, is such an interesting journey.

what did you think of the way that equation was balanced between Toby, Libby, and Adam Brody's character, Seth, who, I don't know, feels a little underserved despite the length of the season. What do you think?

Yeah, I do think Seth ends up being more of like an idea for the other characters to bounce off of than his own character, which is fine, and I think kind of speaks to the themes of the story in a lot of ways.

But I think the finale was important structurally because we finally get a sense of, in terms of the narration, I think it's totally fair for your mileage to vary on the show based on your response to the narration style alone because it's very in your face.

It's very direct. It's very hard to ignore. And I think there's probably a conversation to be had if the show would be better served without it. But then you get to the finale and it's like structurally this is important. This is the telling of this story, which, I mean, I'm going to try to get this right.

the show is the story of the book written based on the lives of the characters by one of the characters narrated in the style of that book within the world of the show. Very light year is based off the person, not the toy that the toy is based on vibes to me.

So I didn't, I found that whole, like the metaness of the finale and that being the arc that is ultimately trying to serve Libby, that part didn't work for me so well. Like I found Libby to be a really great character standing,

on her own. I kind of don't need that. I agree. Yeah. Yeah, I think the Pendleton episode worked much better for me than the finale did, even though I love Lizzie Kaplan. And this is, again, this is another exploration of, like, you know, a bad mom or what does it mean to try to find your identity outside of your kids? Or what does it mean to try to cling on to, you know, or revisit your youth? Or what does it mean to lose yourself in someone else's problem? Like that's something that, you know, I've definitely done in my life where you find sort of, you can occasionally find like meeting and motivation and just energy out of losing yourself in someone else's mess, which means you don't have to confront your own mess, you know, at home or whatever conflicting feelings you're feeling about being in suburbia. And I thought that that was really interesting.

But as a whole, I felt like it was a bit of a come down from the Rachel episode. Yeah. Before I love that you call Claire Daines Our Freak Out Queen. It's like an incredible incredible. She needs no introduction, you know? Bill was texting us. Was it us or was it Sean?

I can't remember if you were on this thread about like Clare Dane's top freakout moments. Do you have, is it this show? Is this the pinnacle of Claire Dane's freak out? Or what do you think? This one was great. I mean, that is a, her screaming in her like isolation booth is a pretty great moment.

And honestly, like as far as, you know, it's kind of on the different end of the freak out spectrum. But I think the moment of this show that's going to stick with me the most is her just absolutely losing it with the Survivor Support Group. Like that was as big of a wallop as I've had watching anything this year. Any movie, any TV show like that, that gets you right to your core. And for her to get that kind of freak out versus a home. land level freakout, for example, of, you know, fretting over highlighters.

That's kind of the magic of this show. That's the part of it that I really love is that you do get the freak out you're expecting, but as you said, oh my God, the context is totally different. It's always a wrench in the works knowing all the details. It's interesting. I brought up a Brokedown Palace, which is another incredible example. But I think, you know, like we met, and this is something that Alan Seppelmo brought up when he was first talking about this show,

this idea that a lot of these actors are actors we met first on television and especially when they were younger. You know, Adam Brody, of course, and then Claire Daines, of course, Jesse Eisenberg to a lesser degree, but he was on television before. He was in movies and Lizzie Kaplan.

And I think that that speaks generationally to sort of our generation a little above but a little below of watching these characters grapple with different versions of a midlife crisis and knowing that we have seen them as like young adults and teens navigating the world. And I think, you know, Claritaine's introduction to this world

through the television series, my so-called life, where she does do more of that survivor group interior freak out and also to see her surrounded by all these women and that, like, beautiful tableau that happens at the end of that scene. Incredible. Reminds me a lot of many frames of my so-called life

where her character is surrounded by, like, you understand the importance of friendship and support and stuff like that as you navigate the tumult of teenage years. And then how much harder those friendships are to hold on to, those relationships are to hold on to in your adult years, this idea of Rachel is this incredibly lonely person and this person who feels like she needs, like that episode starts,

I know we're here to talk about the finale as well, but like the Rachel episode is so good. That episode starts with this expression of her desire to feel valuable, that like she needs to, she might not be this, that, or the other thing, but she can get you tickets to something. She has value, you know, and it comes from the hard work that she is put into,

her career, stuff like that. And so that idea of like someone going through life, feeling like their only value is not inherent to them as a person. They are not inherently deserving of love because she was, you know, was abandoned as a child and all this sort of stuff, but comes from, you know, the connections you have and the apartment you have and how impressive is that? Like these exterior trappings with which Toby keeps looking down his nose at are all part of her trying to feel like a valuable, lovable person in the world. And that was such like a knife to the gut to me watching this season of television. Well, especially I think it's very tempting to look at the three friends of Toby and Seth and Libby and say like,

okay, these are kind of the three perspectives of adulthood. They're trying to render here. There's something very easily identifiable for people within a certain age bracket. But the more you zoom out and the more you realize that Rachel is very much a part of that too. And I think that's true for a lot of the different versions of Rachel we see in this show. even in the first couple episodes, that woman was very recognizable to me. Like, I know that person.

Even through Toby's eyes, I have seen that version of that person, much less, you know, the more fully fledged version we see later in the show. And one who I think is in concert in a lot of ways, like I kept thinking of, maybe it was just because I was watching them in succession, but of Daphne and Y. Lotus in this version of like a woman

who doesn't have a lot of female friends and this feeling of isolation that Rachel is going through, there really is like something very, very vivid being captured there. And I think something vivid being captured in all those various perspectives of adulthood that obviously like the big arcs, you know,

being married for a long time and having kids and being a little disillusioned and a little bored, like anyone can kind of understand where Libby might be coming from, for example. But like the level of detail that they, and the specificity that they capture

in some of those things of like showing up at a backyard barbecue and your neighbor is playing Freebird with his band. Like the level of that, I think is what really drives those things home. Yeah, and I mean, as someone who is stubbornly sticking to living in a city while a lot of my other friends have moved to suburbia, like there are elements of that Libby lifestyle that grates on me.

Oh, yeah. Like, those elements great on me. And then at the same time, there are elements that feel aspirational or completely comfy and cozy and stuff like that. And that's the constant push-bull of, like the city suburbia binary and sort of looking over the fence at someone else's existence and saying like, I want to be Adam Brody's character, Seth, like, you know, party until four in the morning or whatever, grabbing a baguette off the back of a truck or something like that.

Or, you know, I want to, you know, be experimenting with marinerades or whatever it is and at a backyard barbecue. It's like there's a pool for all of that. And I do think the show really captured that. What do you make of this idea that, you know, you talked about, and I think you're completely right, that the Seth character becomes more of an idea than a full-fledged person. There's nothing to do with that in Brody's performance, because I think he's actually tremendously good at this. But what do you make of the conclusion of his story

that we end with this sort of surprise wedding that he pulls at one of his parties? Felt a little plot devicey, I think. You know, just like, here's a setting for us to talk about marriage. And for our, you know, obviously you need an excuse. used to bring the characters together, and especially after the way that they have fought, you need a pretty good excuse to bring them together. So it kind of rang that way to me.

That doesn't mean that it's not satisfying in its own way, or to see some of the exchanges and the meat that you get in those scenes is still valuable, but I don't know that it totally worked. You know, I totally believe that Seth is, that he doesn't want the life you described, you know, of the baguette life, as impressive as that is. But I don't know that we, I don't know that within the framework of this show

we totally would have gotten to a place where this is where his character would end up. And then, you know, I've heard you primarily because I'm not a sports person, I've primarily heard you talk about film and I know you have like a really interesting film like sensibility. And really like what do you make of these various film directors,

these sort of like Sundance film directors in like Valerie Ferris and Jonathan Dayton who did Little Miss Sunshine, Sherry Springer Berman and Robert Puccini did American Splendor and Alice Wu did saving face in the half of it. What do you make of these film directors directing the show?

Does it feel cinematic to you? What is the visual palette of the show? How is it striking you? Yeah, I mean, I thought it was really pretty inventive relative to even what you see on television a lot of these days, and some of that was formic. I think about the scene where Toby is told that he's not getting the promotion

and you get this very jumbled dialogue. You get this very fuzzy. kind of filter on the entire situation. You know, there's some devices that don't quite work for me, this whole, like, we're going to flip the camera upside down motif that seems to be like a signature of the show. It feels like, again, a little on the nose. But this isn't on the nose show.

Like, this is a show where when we talk about staring into the void, we are going to go to the museum and stare into a literal void. That's what we're signing up for. So I'm okay with some of that. I found most of the filmmaking to be really effective. And in particular, you know, as we're shifting perspectives, just a reminder that like the camera is its own perspective and you're seeing some of these scenes

just from like a slightly more sympathetic view to Rachel, for example, and how differently they play. Like I really would love to revisit some of those back to back and figure out like, are these scenes even shot differently or am I just seeing them differently because of the context? I think some of them are very clearly different angles. Some of them are very clearly different performances. And it's amazing what, you know, Jesse Eisenberg can do

with a furrowing of his brow or what Claire Daines can do with like a sympathetic kind of tilting of her head at the right time. Yeah. It just changes everything. But I think a lot of that is just where the camera is and how those scenes are shot and how those characters are framed. And it really sells a lot of the story in that. It also feels like it's really interacting.

You know, you mentioned the conscious casting of Jesse Eisenberg. And I think that, and I may or may not have mentioned this when I talked to Sean about it, but like Jesse Eisenberg in the social network, I think is one of the greatest performances that we've ever seen in our entire lives. It's a perfect film and a perfect performance to me. And we basically get direct callouts to him being in hoodies and being a tech bro in this show, which, again, self-consciousness to the max, every stage.

You're right. You're totally right. But I think, you know, the way in which this is interacting with a type of character, a Jesse Eisenberg type of character, not in the social network, because the social network weaponizes it as the show weaponizes it. But I'm thinking like earlier in the aughts when like this idea of sort of the

nebishy, you know, guy who, you know, is sewing his oaths or finding something or being broken open by an experience and we're meant to celebrate that and not interrogate it and just say like, this is it. This is the, you know, culmination that started with revenge of the nerds. And here we are.

And we are doing it. and then for this show to present that and then say, that's not a, let's dig a little deeper. And in this archetype, what is really at the bottom of it? Or what have we observed or what is Taffey observed in a man like this? And I'm wondering, like, if there are other Eisenberg performances or if there are other stories, especially like divorced dad's stories, which are so such an interesting genre that I know.

that they've covered in depth on the rear watchables. They love a divorce movie on the rear watchables. Like, scenes from a marriage is something that I thought was really striking. And I was thinking about a lot when I was watching this. Like, what do you think of that archetype and what they did with it? I think that's some of what is most effective about this. And maybe this is us speaking to our age group and that shared experience. And even as you were saying earlier about these characters being on television from a young age,

a lot of them, or these actors, rather, and having that experience and that familiarity and seeing the full arc of their acting experience parallel to potentially your own experience as a person or your own timeline. Like the fact that Jesse Eisenberg can go from to the genre you're alluding to, the son of a divorced dad in like the squid in the whale

to being the divorced dad, I think that's what makes this so identifiable. And there's obviously this important turn, I think everyone's life where you go from identifying with the children in a movement, to the parents in a movie or with, you know, the kids to the authority figures, like everyone kind of goes through that shift. This feels like a show that is almost designed to prompt you along that arc to say like, you're not Jesse Eisenberg in Squidin the Whale anymore. You or

Jesse Eisenberg in this show. This is, this is kind of a reflection of a certain part of you or people in your life or people you know or just kind of a version of a person you can identify with. That's a really vivid and effective thing. The other thing I think, I think, you for bringing up squid in the whale. That was exactly what I was thinking of. The other, the other aspect of this that I find so fascinating is this idea that, like, Taffy as a journalist, before she was a novelist, before she was a showrunner, is famed for these celebrity profiles. And the way that this book is structured is structured a bit like the celebrity profiles where her specific brand of celebrity profile, where she sort of famously inserts herself into

a celebrity profile, which we are taught as journalism as journalists not to do, that it is self-indulgent unless you do it extremely well, which Taffy does. So like, exceptions are made. Isn't that always the rule? Like, don't do this unless you do it at an absolutely elite in incredible level. So the idea that she's structured her novel and now the show

as Libby as the Taffy character, who is painting us a portrait of Toby Fleischman. but really we're on her journey all along and that's sort of like what Taffy does with all of her profiles as well and it makes sense like in the structure of a celebrity profile which I've never been proficient at writing but I do love reading that idea of like a fourth section break turn at the bottom of the profile where like all of a sudden

the new player enters and you learn something and I was just like oh, you know, that's what the Rachel episode is. It's like, here comes the juice of the profile and you really thought you were reading something. You get little hints of it earlier. But then like, here comes the real juice and we're going to end this profile in such a, like, profound perspective shifting way.

And I was like, I think that's fascinating because so many journalists want to be TV writers that's like a constant in those various professions. But for Taffy to take and transfer what she is mastered in journalism, into a fictional narrative space. That's not something I've seen. I mean, I guess, like, you know,

maybe with some of the stuff that we saw with The Wire, that feels like a very, like, let me take what I've learned in journalism and put it into fictional storytelling. But, like, this is a different brand of this. This is a high-gloss magazine version of that. And I don't know. I just wonder if you any thoughts on that.

I mean, I think that's where the narration comes into play, It's one of those things where it's like, it's not an unreliable narrator necessarily, more so than the rest of the story is pretty unreliable, like the actual, some of the depictions of the characters more so than what's actually being said. Because Libby, by the time she's telling the story, has a lot of the details,

you know, like has a lot of the information, knows where a lot of the characters are coming from. And that's where I get a little stuck on this idea of like, what would this show be without that? Because clearly it's important to that turn that you're talking about. You don't get that big reveal, you don't get that whole development in the story, in terms of her writing the book

and structuring the story and this becoming hers and kind of taking control of it and resting control of it in that way without it. And I kind of think that if you didn't have the narration that's constantly calling out characters, undercutting them, frankly, like, mercifully interjecting when, for example, Toby is just like unloading

way too personal information on someone in his orbit. I was thankful for those moments, for sure. But I also just kind of think the show would be, maybe way too bleak without it. Like, these are, these are sad situations and sad stories that I think would be maybe hard to watch without Libby sometimes. I love, I love that the Rachel episode ends with that very journalistic, you know, a rule of journalism is you have to talk to a secondary source.

And this idea that the story she told us so far is one person's perspective, but you've got to, you got to get corroboration and you've got to get all different angles of the story as you go. This is really a show about the ethics of journalism. You know, that's really what this is about. I was waiting for Gamergate round two, and I'm so glad it's here, and I'm so glad you've floated that for me, Rob. Snoring, gasping during sleep, feeling fatigued, ask your doctor about Zepbound, terseptite.

The first and only FDA-approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, OSA, and adults with obesity. Zepbound is a prescription medicine used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity to help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea, OSA, and obesity to improve their OSA. Zepbound is approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, or 15 milligram injection. Zetbound contains terseptitide and should not be used with other terseptite containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zepound is safe and effective for use in children.

Don't share needles or pins or reuse needles. Don't take if allergic to it, or if you or someone, your family had medullary thyroid cancer, or if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop, Zepbound, and call your doctor if you have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing, pregnant, plan to be, or taking birth control pills.

Taking Zep bound with a sulfonel urea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsened kidney problems. Talk to your doctor. Call 1-800-545-9 or visit setbound.lily.com. You mentioned White Lotus. This is a one-and-done, right? This is an adaptation of a book. The book is finished.

This is not going to get a second season. But how is it sitting for you in the larger 2022 TV landscape in terms of? of what you've seen, what stories are really hitting. I think, I mean, what I will say is, as we reflected, I mean, this is a year-end pod by nature of timing. There's been so much IP television that obviously I'm caught up and covering on the ringerverse, but like looking at prestige and what feels like it's really popping, I think FX, which used to be like such a huge powerhouse has like sort of diminished in the last couple years.

but had two really interesting stories in The Bear and this show. I'm wondering what you think this year in television is done for some of these smaller stories that aren't connected to a Star War or a Marvel film or something like that. Do they still make those, the ones that aren't connected? I thought that's just all we were doing now. Well, this is actually a backdoor pilot for Libby's character, which is now a superhero. No, yeah. I can't wait for that development.

But it's a great question. I mean, I think, you know, there's a lot of thematic commonality, even between the bear, for example. Or, yeah, between the bear and Fleischman is in trouble. Just in terms of, like, unpacking trauma is obviously, like, a huge part of basically all storytelling these days. And I have to say, as far as, let's rewind and show the trauma and show the context as a structure, like, can be a little tired. I thought this breathed a little bit of life into it for me. Fleischman did. In that in a way that's kind of fitting for the way we watch TV now,

like this whole like block universe explanation of the way we love our lives and the way we experience relationships. And frankly, the way I watched TV because I couldn't tell you what I watched this year that came out this year and what came out two years ago that I missed and it's just like been lingering in the air. Yeah, yeah. But this portrayal of that trauma as a thing that is like always happening. It's not a piece of backstory and context.

It is a thing you are kind of constantly experiencing and living and reliving and a framing device in a totally different way. And I think we're getting to that next level of unpacking those kinds of stories, at least God, I hope we are, because we've seen a lot of the same kinds of trauma storytelling in the past. This one I thought was at least pretty inventive with that form. I thought the same thing of the bear. I think you could say the same thing, even though we're not talking about any variations

of a Star War. you could talk about that with Andor in a lot of ways, too, and what makes that show emotionally resonant beyond just being like really good storytelling. So we're getting to an interesting place with that stuff. Beyond just, obviously, there's the sandbox side of TV of things that are just like purely fun, purely engaging. But there's still a lot of like really good adult storytelling being done here.

I think if I look back on this year of Presti's TV, this podcast, or that umbrella term, and look at things like Better Call Sol or The Bear or, Fleishman or White Lotus. It also feels very gendered to me. It feels like a lot of these stories are interested in taking certain male archetypes that have been presented to us as like fun or romantic or alluring. And as you say, we're unpacking trauma.

We're unpacking like some of the darker sides of those archetypes but also the impact that they haven't. So like something like Saul, that's a show. I won't like get into depth about that. If you're listening to this podcast, you've watched Better Call Saul, I won't, like, spoil for you, get into depth.

But, like, that's a character that, that was a prequel show where we knew that character was headed for something tragic. But when we're with that character and he, Bob Odenkirk, as Saul Goodman, is pulling cons,

and there's the, and the music is zippy and getting away with it. We're having so much fun. We're like, this is a really fun con man portrayal. Yeah. We're having a great time. And then it just, like,

hits the skids and goes and, into literal black and white. And it's like, oh no, if it isn't the consequences of my own actions. You know what I mean? Like, that's what happens with Saul. With the bear, we take a character, the like the chef character, which has been romanticized and unpacked over the past like few years, if you think of something like burnt with Bradley Cooper, et cetera, et cetera.

But the bear more than any other portrayal of the sort of celebrity chef or the chef O'T or whatever you want to call it, really unpacks that myth in a significant way. And then White Lotus, I mean, the gendered themes of White Lotus could not be clearer in terms of, you know, what we think of these various depictions of male machismo or like, you know, it's, it's stabbing at the godfather for, you know, for fuck's sick. So, yeah, I'm curious about the timing of all of that and like what you make of, is this like a, I don't want to, I hate to invoke his. name, but like, is this a Trump ripple? Is this a Me Too ripple? Like, what are you seeing this as a reaction to? The Trump ripple with this show in particular is interesting, especially because of like the way

the series is grounded in time. And like there's idle chatter about Hillary Clinton, for example, and just kind of like offhanded comments about her electability and things like that. And her voice. Her voice. And her likability. They're just impossible to ignore, you know, like they are very pronounced. at least they were to me in this show.

And maybe that's like it's just kind of sticking out in not always a good way in terms of storytelling, but they certainly were noticeable. So it's hard to rip it from that context for sure in terms of in terms of this show in particular and the gendered aspects of obviously the perspective play. Like, I mean, first of all, I want to zoom out for a second and I want to give an Emmy right now to whoever it was that designed the RU2 Sad Postpartum Depression Brochure that is given to Rachel in this show. Because it was one of those. details that just like in a very emotional episode I was just cracking up at like some of those

kinds of digs and subtle uh subtle indignities that were happening that were just perfect um but yeah the like the gendered portrayal of this show and the split of it is incredibly pronounced i don't know that it this this show doesn't feel like a me too response necessarily or maybe maybe a trumpish kind of division in terms of how we talk about um like whose perspectives we trust, whose we listen to, how we characterize the people in our lives who are not us, who are on the other side of whatever, you know, indefinable aisle you want to see. So maybe some of those things are at play. I think there is like an otherization of everyone who is not me.

That thing is certainly happening and certainly being unpacked and investigated here. But it's a great question. I would be curious to kind of zoom out on some of the other shows and think about that part of it. Yeah. I mean, honestly, it was just occurring to me in real time. So I didn't prep you for this conversation at all. But I was just thinking about that thread.

And some of it is, some of it feels hamfisted. Some of it feels subtle. And even when it's hamfisted on something like White Lotus, it's still entertaining. So it's all sort of baked into this year. But like, you know, this year as an artistic year in television, as a reaction to COVID is something I've been thinking about. But as a reaction to something larger and gendered is something, you know,

and White Lotus really put that into focus for me. something I do also want to spend a little bit more time thinking about the Clinton stuff was so interesting in the show because it really bothered me at first. I thought it was like a little too like, okay, we get it. I get what you're doing, okay. But again, in the Rachel episode,

I think it's only two brief mentions and it's like, you know, someone's talking about her voice and someone's talking about, and they don't even say her name. They just say her. Do you think she'll, you know, we see Clinton signs.

We know what they're talking about. But like, you know, what do you think she's really going to win? Like, you know, my husband says he doesn't like her or whatever. You know, it's just sort of like it really belonged in the Rachel episode in a way that like it sort of graded on me a little bit earlier. What does this make you crave? Like, okay, so you know, you like an IP. You're fond of an IP.

Oh, yeah. You're not, you're not IP agnostic. No. You're not above it. We're for it. We're for it. But like a show like this, do you feel like people are watching the show? I don't know the numbers on it.

Do you feel like people are watching the show? Are they talking? about the show? Do you wish they were talking about it more? And what is this show an example of that you would either like to see more of or less of in the future of Presti's television? I mean, I think people within a certain milieu are certainly watching it. The people you would expect to watch an incredibly self-conscious New York show, I think, are mostly watching it. And I'm hearing a lot of that chatter from those people in my life.

And certainly anyone who's just kind of like prone to, you know, you hear the Woody Allen comparisons, you hear like the, you know, discussion in every direction, positive and negative, about just how naval gazing this show can be and how inside their own heads the characters are, if you're predisposed to that kind of, as we've identified, kind of like early aughts, indie movie storytelling and that kind of thing,

I do think this is for you. I do think it's reaching those people. I do think the, like, the star-studied casting has a lot to do with that in terms of just getting it in front of people. You know, at the end of the day, this is a very well-written show starring like really dynamic performers with a lot of lines that

will stick in your brain like I will never be able to forget one of Rachel's friends asking is this furniture mid-sinch for the rest of my life? It's just it ruined me I never want to hear it again but I'm going to hear it on loop in my brain

and some of that I think is in terms of what I'm craving that's kind of adjacent to the show or inspired by this show I mean the this is speaking right to where we come from, Joe, but like, the magazine world rendering in this show is very effective. And we haven't really talked about

Christian Slater's whole situation in that character, who was like just a great bit of stunt casting. But also, it's not a surprise given who is creating the material here, that this is just like a great send-up of everything that is happening, everything that is engineered, the way you're kind of programmed as a young person coming up in magazines to look at and idolize these figures who are

writing these incredible stories. Not to mention just like, The Heart is a lonely dinner. It's a great fake magazine piece. You know, there's just so many things like that. I kind of want to see that show. So perfect.

If we're going to have a side story or a related story, I would love to see Libby in, you know, a generic men's magazine world. I love that. Yeah, the Christian Slater, again, iconic stunt casting, perfectly deployed Slater.

again generationally smart stunt casting and yeah it's I don't know it's a I'm wondering how

the hardest lonely dinner is so funny and I'm wondering how broad the appeal of something like that is I have questions about it

but I mean it is I admit oh mid-sad but like the I hope that FX, I mean, like the thing is, like, FX, as we talk about IP and stuff like that, FX has literally been purchased by Disney. You know what I mean? And it is, it is, Don Landgraf has spent years making a name for himself as this, like, head of FX, excellent curator of incredible prestige television, some of the best shows we've ever seen have come from FX. It feels at this point like, you know, a perfect boutique experience.

But as Disney continues to consolidate, like, will FX get swallowed into the larger Disney machine? And if it does, like, I don't want shows, like, as bumpy or as maybe like a little soft in the middle, I found Fleischman to be, I want shows like Fleishman is in trouble to exist. I definitely want the bear to exist, you know? And Andy and Chris have talked about this a lot on the watch, this idea that we're headed into. And Leagraph has been talking for years about this idea of peak television and when is the bubble going to burst in terms of numbers of shows that we have. And, like, Chris and I were talking about his top 10 TV shows of the year's list. And he's like, you know, it could easily be 20. It could easily be 30.

There's so much good television this year. It's hard, you know, as you say, you're watching TV from this year and trying to keep up on like all the stuff you missed in previous years. There's so much television content. I'm living on all timelines at once, Joe. Like, they are all intersecting and it's overwhelming. But as we as we like, you know, travel the multiverse, trying to catch up on all of, all of television, the industry is in a different place. And again, I rely on Chris and Andy to inform me on that front. But like this idea that networks and studios are no longer saying yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, more and more to everything.

They're starting to say, no, no, no, less, less, less, safer, safer. And so in the next few years, the TV landscape is going to look very different to what it looks like now. And there's a part of me that's somewhat relieved because there's so much television and I would like to sleep sometime. But also there's a part of me that is worried that what will go away is the Fleischman's and what will stay or the book of Boba Feds. You know what I mean? And that's not the future of television that you or I or anyone I think listening wants. Yeah, God forbid on that. I mean, do this kind of mini-series structure of let's get some movie stars,

let's get some very experienced directors, some very sure hands, let's get like very identifiable faces in for four or six or eight episodes. Is that safe to you or is that not safe to you? Because there is no Fleischman is in trouble season two. So it's not an ongoing product. But you can get a certain kind of appeal, certainly a certain kind of coverage. We're here talking about this show because of how effectively rendered it was.

and the people who are in it. Like, I kind of don't know if that's safe or not. By safe, I think I was thinking more about IP, you know, franchise television. Gotcha. So I wouldn't call this safe, but there is a certain IP baked into like a popular novel. You know what I mean? That, you know, was very popular with the media, you know, and a creator who is known in the media world. to the media being us

are going to cover it because we are aware of Taffy and her work is stuff like that. But I think that what I love is that this is a story that's over

because what is increasingly disappointing is the season of television that should have been four to six to eight episodes and leave it there but we come back for Big Little I season two

and I'm just sort of like, but why? You know what I mean? And I know why. It's hugely popular And so HBO's like, let's do it again, ladies, you know? So it's, I, that always makes you wary. White Lotus season two paid off.

Like White Lotus was really only supposed to be, you know. It's this new era of television where like a first season is sort of like almost like a pilot for do we want to actually make a series out of this or do we want to adapt a book? But if you're adapting a book and you finish the book, that's where I think your show should stop. So like the last thing in the world I want is Fleischman. Is in trouble season two? It's a terrible idea. I think, I think, you know, tell your story, finish it, move on. But, and that move on ability, that's not a word, but like that move on ability is,

is what's attractive to these film actors as they get lured into Breasties television. It's like, okay, you're going to make eight episodes and you're going to be done. You're not locked into 22 episodes a year for the next eight years. Adam Brody, you don't have to go back to your. OC shooting schedule. Like, you know, this is going to be a little different. But yeah, I'm just hoping, again, as I said, as much as I felt like highs and lows, Fleshman is the kind of show that I want to exist, desperately want to exist.

And, you know, hope continues to exist in the future. Anything else you want to say about Fleshman? The state of television in general. Mid-century modern furniture. Anything at all, Romoney. There's so much. I mean, look, the spot on my ceiling is only getting bigger in a way. that expresses my existential void.

I'm with you. Like, I just enjoyed spending time with this show. Like, I like that it exists. I found a lot of the portrayals to be pretty vivid and effective. Would it be on like a year-end list for me?

Probably not. Like, I think it's a good, not great, but still memorable in certain ways, kinds of show. And I'm okay with that.

And I'm okay if, look, if you want to pitch season two ideas, where Toby buys a zoo, where Libby joins the CIA, whatever you want to do. I think we could get something going here. Like we could get some side income.

The year of our Lord 2020, did you just invoke We bought a zoo? I have questions. Look, we're desperate for plot devices. How do we keep these characters in connection with each other? What better way than the zoo? We bought a zoo.

All right. Well, Rob Mahoney, thank you so much for joining me here at the end of the year. Talk about Fleischman. What a joy. This is probably not the last, heard of us, so you might hear from us again in the next year. Thanks, of course, also to Jade Whaley

for her production work on this episode, and we'll see you in 2023. Bye.