Nathan For You

been rewatching this lately and man the "Smokers Allowed" episode might be one of the most meta & avant-garde episodes any comedy show has ever produced. just...really stripping down what is real and what is performance which is underscored even more by the fact that nothing interesting at all happens during the "play" itself

I do wonder about the original audience of 2 or the actors he hired - they had to know this was absurd, right? Did they play along because it was for a TV show? Did they know what the TV show was about?

sounds like his upcoming show has a pretty similar premise to 'smokers allowed':

“The Rehearsal’s” official description is as follows: “In a world where nothing seems to ever work out as you had hoped, Nathan Fielder gives people the opportunity to rehearse for their own lives.”

https://www.vulture.com/article/nathan-fielder-rehearsal-profile.html

In one of the more unpleasant segments, Fielder pitches the owner of the Help Cleaning Service on an idea he says would allow her to offer “the fastest clean in the country.” At his suggestion, the owner dispatches 40 of her employees to a small apartment. Crammed into the place like clowns in a clown car, they manage to clean it in just over eight minutes. After they finish, Fielder lines them up in front of the man who lives there, a middle-aged white guy, and tells them he’s single. When the guy compliments the women on their hard work, Fielder turns to them and jokes, “If you’re lucky, he could do some hard work on you.” The women look unamused.

The owner of the housecleaning service, Kandiie Tapia, is a Mexican immigrant. She was 22 when Fielder’s producers told her they wanted to interview her about how she had built her business. She felt honored that someone wanted to share her story and called her family to tell them the good news. But after the producers rushed her through the process of signing a contract, they “flipped a switch,” she said. During the taping, she found Fielder to be rude. He was in character, but she didn’t know that, or that his technique sometimes involved getting a rise out of a subject. At one point, Tapia said, he blew his nose in a tissue and then asked her if she would throw it out for him. “You’re the Help, right?” she recalled him asking her. (No such exchange made it into the episode.) “It was a power move,” she told me. “Like he’s white and I’m a minority and I’m young.” She talked to her husband about dropping out, but he still thought the show could benefit the business. When the episode aired and Tapia realized it was a comedy, she was so embarrassed she told her family not to watch it. “If I’d known what it really was, I would have said no,” she said. “I’m not gonna go on a show voluntarily to be made fun of.”

Fielder said he was surprised and upset to learn how Tapia felt. “It kills me any time I hear people didn’t like their experience,” he said. “I remember her being very excited about it.” He didn’t recall asking her to throw out a tissue or calling her “the Help” and couldn’t imagine having done that. “I don’t want to invalidate anyone’s experience,” he said, “but I know the types of jokes I might make.” He pointed out that he is the one who is meant to look like a fool in the episode. “I definitely feel I’m the most pathetic person in everything I do.”

I do wonder about the original audience of 2 or the actors he hired - they had to know this was absurd, right? Did they play along because it was for a TV show? Did they know what the TV show was about?

― frogbs, Wednesday, November 17, 2021 5:45 PM (seven months ago)

It can be hard to tell just by watching the show how a given subject will feel about it. When fans debate its cringiest moments on Reddit, they sometimes cite a scene with an actress named Victoria Lynn. In that episode, Fielder stages a play at a bar in a highly impractical attempt to circumvent California’s ban on indoor smoking. Lynn was cast in one of the roles. At one point, Fielder proposes an acting exercise. He gazes into her eyes and instructs her to say “I love you.” One of the running jokes of the series is that Fielder is desperate to connect with someone, anyone, and will use his power as a television host to wheedle affirmation out of everyone he meets. “I’m not believing that at this point,” Fielder says in the episode. “Say it again.” She does. “Again,” he says. This happens 11 times, ending only when Lynn points out Fielder has tears in his eyes. Viewers have wondered whether she felt harassed or threatened, but as it turns out, she had a great experience. “He just seemed like he needed to hear ‘I love you,’ ” she told me, “and I felt really comfortable giving him that.”

“It kills me any time I hear people didn’t like their experience,”

cmon bro you cannot seriously believe this, the show is fucking funny, but don't act like you don't know what you're doing

"I'm sorry if you were offended"

yeah the show is unambiguously exploitative & sometimes deliberately mistreats its subjects (wasn't one of the big jokes of the Claw of Shame episode Fielder finding a way around the requests to make the parents anonymous?) - I can give it a pass sometimes because it's very funny and I do believe it tries to make Nathan himself the primary butt of the joke, but yeah there are a lot of episodes where I came away thinking "I hope he made things right with those people"

My kids think he's hilarious. They also like Eric André, who has maybe (?) the same kind of schtick without some of these more problematic aspects.

glad the article touched on the fact that the businesses in many cases are immigrant/poc owned also

I need to read that article. But I feel that what Nathan often exploits is the desire of people to be on television, specifically reality television, or even more basically, the desire for attention or money. Like what hoops people will jump through for free gas, or a cheap television, or to be on (or host) a dating show. Of course I don't agree that Nathan is the most pathetic figure on the show, because we know he is a character. What's pathetic is our almost pathological societal complicity whenever cameras come out. I mean, how many reality shows have any of us seen where our take away was, I can't believe the people on camera signed off on that?

Eric Andre ... he kind of falls even more into the more obnoxious category of what will people tolerate, how far can I push them, a la Borat.

I can't remember at all, does much of Nathan for You, a few episodes aside, take place anywhere outside of Los Angeles?

I still remember then "The Gong Show" made such a splash. It was maybe the first show expressly to exploit the desire of people to be on television and their willingness to humiliate themselves to do so.

I remember watching Cops regularly when it first started and came to the realization all the perps dragged away drunk with their pants around their ankles had agreed to be shown on national TV. I think they do get paid some small amount, and maybe they were in positions that they figured a few hundred dollars was worth it, but I also came to believe that some just wanted their 15 minutes.

absolutely cannot wait

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fjPFt8cpic

didn't know Eric Notarnicola, the main off-camera guy from On Cinema, was also involved heavily in Nathan For You

this show looks like it'll be pretty good and a natural extension of what NFY brings. but who knows. feel like there's gonna be a lot of crazy stuff in this show that they're deliberately not showing yet

fwiw I just noticed yesterday that NFY is available on HBO Max now for anyone who wants to revisit before the new show starts up

Think it's almost entirely filmed in LA

One night at dinner, he agreed to show me the feat of deception that short-circuited his brain all those years ago. “It’s not that impressive,” he warned, slipping a worn business card from his wallet. “See the card?” With a flick of his wrist, the card disappeared. I asked him to do it again. Fielder smiled. “No, I’m not going to do it again.”

lol

He's still got it

I was scream laughing at the trivia inception, especially "I curse the day when the Chinese invented gunpowder"

Spoiler tagging because I think I'd be more mad about this show getting spoiled than any twisty scifi whatever type show

this was amazing & this gave me anxiety

what a joy.

there is nothing like this show

yeah I was in heaven watching this

ok i will be the guy who asks

where do you all sit on the exploitation-ometer re this show? i felt somewhat uncomfortable with the way the friend Trish was portrayed in her introduction - and thought the trivia cheating was 50/50 - the rehearsal of an angry reaction was a fascinating addition that still didn’t justify or absolve the manipulation

i watched this with my partner who doesn’t know Nathan’s schtick - and she thought it absolutely exploited the subjects. Cole had a degree of agency in the whole thing but i’m not sure I would be stoked if I were Trish. we both work in tv and have many discussions about exploitative vs collaborative documentary film models. i know it was entertainment! i know these issues have probably been discussed to death elsewhere including probably upthread! still keen to hear some different views.

i feel like with "exploitation" i really want to be able to understand the harm being done: a harm beyond being embarrassed after the fact about something you understood and agreed to

i don't think these people are mocked; i think they seem human and complicated. i agree that it "uses" other people to achieve its ends, but there's a matter of degree here, and with this first episode it doesn't feel abusive. an improv show that invites a volunteer on stage (and then does something silly with them) isn't necessarily "exploitation" - although it can still be mean or embarrass about the volunteer.

if trish was mistreated over the course of this production - if she felt deceived, etc - then she'd be right to be angry and fielder would be obliged to respond to this. but with a lot of art i think that's the extent of the moral obligation: to try not to do harm; to face those who feel harm was done, if that's the case, and respond in good faith to their complaints. but you don't have a moral obligation to "avoid any circumstance where someone might feel bad."

i say this as a novelist who has used real people in his work

if there is a novel about a jerk, and it becomes known that the character was inspired by a real person, the author may have a responsibility to deal with that real person face to face. but they don't have an obligation not to write that book.

bad nathan friend

Xp thanks for this response Sean G, that’s really interesting - esp “avoid any circumstance where people might feel bad”, which I must admit I try to do myself! there’s something about the power imbalance between someone with access to massive budget and broadcast distribution apparatus - and people who don’t! that makes me wary. i think people often enter into relationships with media without really understanding the implications of what it means to surrender their story to an edit process.

your example of writing novels is interesting, would you agree tho that maybe there is a difference when someone is presented in a certain way in a heavily constructed “reality” show?

the intro montage of Trish’s over-talking was the one bit where i felt the editorial of the show was being actively unkind - especially given she had not agreed to participate. would be absolutely fascinated to read about Trish’s post-production interactions with the show and feelings about the experience. Presumably she had to sign off? Was paid? maybe providing that kind of insight as extra material would be an ethically cool addition, i dunno.

I’m not a tv insider but I always take it as a given that any time I see someone’s face & hear their voice in a show like this (i.e. not the news) they have agreed in writing and been paid at least a nominal sum

i was more wondering if they showed her the cut before she signed! btw of course i do think she actually comes across really well when it counts - but definitely interested in these considerations around agency and representation.

https://thriftyboy.org

yes, the "stories" look hilarious but don't miss the iStock watermarks on all the preview photos

this was staggeringly impressive, i couldn't believe they spend the money on the bar set.

this should prob have its own thread, ill start it

This sounds potentially amazing

https://www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/the-curse-first-look-nathan-fielder-emma-stone-flip-houses-benny-safdie-1234897207/

i wonder if we'll get another season of the Rehearsal given all the HBO problems

Hmm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tui5vl13Gqg

i guess we're not getting a second season of the Rehearsal

but this looks great.

i guess we're not getting a second season of the Rehearsal

It technically was renewed for a second season (after this new show was already greenlit) so it should be coming eventually, but who knows with (HBO) MAX these days

Would love if this new show was just an elaborate ruse by nate to meet Emma Stone

It's hard to see Nathan in a purely dramatic role — which this may not be, it's still kind of vague in the trailer — without wondering what "Nathan" is making of the whole thing.

the scene where he takes the $100 back from the girl is pure Nathan though

that last line was delivered in pure Nathan voice, too

The Curse is a genre-bending drama series that explores how an alleged curse disturbs the relationship of a newly married couple as they try to conceive a child while co-starring on their new HGTV show.

...and the creators are Nathan and Benny Safdie

this is going to go to some really dark places to be funny, isn't it?

I really liked The Curse and it certainly kept me off-balance, tonally. Fielder's conversation with the father-in-law is funny, but there's this horror film drone on the score that was unsettling--I kept waiting for something terrible to happen, some sudden abuse. Ditto the camera work--all those shots through windows, and that fantastic one in the kitchen with Stone in the mirror.

I read an review calling Emma Stone America's best "mouth actor", and she certainly has an amazing way of keeping a smile plastered on as the rest of her face starts losing control.

After it was over, my partner said, "Wow, they really can show anything on TV these days, huh?" I feel sorry for the reddit commenters who mentioned watching this with their parents.

only the first episode has dropped, right?

That's right, I think it's airing weekly, ten episodes.

We've only seen the first episode so far but ... yeah, this is predictably pretty fucked up. This show is like a cross between "Uncut Gems" (with long silences subbing for the yelling) and "The Rehearsal." Re: the score, this is Daniel Lopatin/ Oneohtrix Point Never, right? He did "Uncut Gems" as well.

Was not expecting the importance of micropenii to the plot

Before watching the second episode I wondered if that might be part of the title’s meaning.