Why do I want to keep talking about Jimmy Fallon. I’m kind of an entry-level talk show host nerd I guess.
Anyway, an interesting thing about Jimmy Fallon is that he’s basically the anti-Letterman. I know Letterman pretty quickly evolved into this legendary statesman of late night, but in his prime I think he was widely acknowledged to basically be just a huge asshole. There’s that one DFW story about him and I think it’s basically accurate.
Like, the gist of that is his entire schtick was just never taking any of his guests seriously, and in order to have a “successful” interview you would basically have to play his game of treating everything you did with a sort of aloof self-awareness.
So this was pitted against Jay Leno, who is the closest thing to a daytime/morning talk show host that has ever been allowed near late night. I mean, he’s basically a non-entity. He didn’t fawn over his guests the way daytime hosts would, but he was successful basically for just coming in every day and doing his job without ever making anyone feel very strongly either way about anything he does. That’s why he always won in the ratings, but why Letterman was always seen as more “credible.” You stay “relevant” by just shitting over everything anyone has ever done, I guess.
Conan O’Brien I think is kind of an interesting mutation of the Letterman thing, in that he seems equally aloof and disinterested in anything his guests do, but rather than play it like he’s “above it all” or treating it like a joke, he does it in a self-depricating way, making himself seem like a nerd or a loser for not getting the big deal.
So in the current generation, I feel like Jimmy Kimmel has struggled for a long time to really have a unique identity. He’s kind of boring to me, but not as bad as Leno. But it’s like as soon as he got a beard everyone realized he’s actually not as dumb and immature as he used to be in the Man Show days or whatever (aside: I strongly suspect Kimmel going from the Man Show to hosting a legitimate network talk show played a pretty big role in Colbert getting the CBS gig. I want to come back to Colbert in a minute though).
But Fallon is succeeding by basically just being the extreme opposite of Letterman, and I think it’s kind of cool even if I get why other people find it irritating. The easiest way for me to explain his interviewing style is that it’s “The Chris Farley Show” only real. It’s extra irritating because of the way it plays in to the extreme commercialization of nostalgia culture, but I think it’s interesting for someone to try to do a late night show that is both trying to be pseudo-hip while also just totally indulging in enthusiasm for like, everything any of his guests have ever done. You also get this interesting anti-letterman dynamic when he interviews people who have been around a lot longer than him–he lets them play the sort of aloof disinterested cool guy while he comes across as a giddy idiot. I find it sort of charming.
But really, what I think late night shows have been missing (other than like, people who are not white dudes, obv) is someone to just do serious, in depth interviews with interesting people. Like a 21st century Dick Cavett. I feel like Colbert kind of has the potential to turn into this, especially since he’s on CBS, which is basically TV For Old People. I mean, I’m glad that he’s still letting himself be a little bit funny, but I also hope that jumps at the chance to put serious Actual Interviews back in late night. This includes having guests other than whatever actor / musician that has a new product coming out that week. I like the way The Daily Show and Colbert Report would sometimes interview scholars and policy dorks, more of that kind of thing would be cool to see on network tv.
God why am I such a nerd.