Film Review: Late Night

Sexuality/Nudity Mature
Violence No Objection
Vulgarity Mature
Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature

Many years ago, Aaron Sorkin created a follow-up series to The West Wing called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.  The show was about a failing SNL type sketch show that hired two supposedly legendarily funny writers played by Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford.  The cast of Studio 60 was good and the directing was sharp.  However, when it came time for the show to display how funny these two characters were when their first skit debuted on the air, it was... lame.  Ultimately I think the show failed because when you make a show about comedians, you MUST make them extremely funny.

This is the problem with Late Night.

The movie is about Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson), the host of a long-running late night comedy show, whose ratings have dropped and whose comedy has become stale.  After firing one of her writers for asking for a raise to support his family, she insists that they hire a woman of color to replace her.  Molly Patel (screenwriter Mindy Kaling) works at a chemical plant but dreams of being a comedy writer.  She gets the job because she fills the diversity requirements, much to the chagrin of the rest of the writing staff, especially monologue writer Tom Campbell (Reid Scott).  Molly has to work hard to prover herself while at the same time pushing Katherine to break free from the comedy rut that she is in.

To be clear, Late Night  is not a bad movie.  But as I wrote earlier, if you put out a movie about comedy, it had better bring the jokes fast and furious.  If you fail to do that, you cannot earn the audience's trust.  The only way Molly can make us believe that she is the necessary voice to lift up the show is if her comedy breaks through the noise and has us rolling in the aisles.  I'm thinking about Barbara Streisand's character Judy in What's Up Doc?, who immediately cuts into the audience with her sharp wit and humor.  That is what Molly should do in Late Night.  And she doesn't.  Kaling's writing is fine and there are some laughs to be found, she never reaches the bar set by the movie's premise.  How can I root for her jokes to win out if she isn't as funny as everyone else?  Humor being subjective, this may be an incredibly difficult standard to meet, but it must be met nevertheless.  Director Nisha Gantara comes from mostly a television background and it shows.  The movie is visually competent without being compelling.

Molly hates it when people point out that she is a diversity hire, even though she clearly is.  The movie does a good job of setting forth the idea that while political correctness may earn you a chance, merit is what will earn you respect.  Molly pushes Kathryn to gain a more authentic voice.  To be sure, people are more likely to listen if you have a strong point of view.  But she is also advised to get more political and get "woke."  This is incredibly ill-advised seeing as how entertainment endeavors that do this tend to simply turn away fans and lose money.  We see this happen in movies, TV, video games, comic books, etc.  Kathryn joking about pro-life people is portrayed as brave and appealing.  However, in real life you can even see the ratings decline of most of the late night talk shows and how they correlate with getting more political.  This aspect of the film seemed much more like wish-fulfillment than insight.

Despite this, the main trajectory of Molly's story was written quite well.  I especially like the way her relationship with Tom doesn't go in the way I was expecting, but changes as the story unfolds.  Kaling is perfectly charming in her role as well as Scott.  Thompson is also very good in her role, but the character is tough to crack.  She abhors feminist stereotypes while embodying them.  She is callous and vindictive, but we are supposed to care about her feeling's of depression and despair.  She worries about her relationship with her husband (Jon Lithgow) even though she stole him from his wife when they were younger.  Instead of these contradictions making her more interesting, they make her a bit more infuriating.  And yet Thompson makes us feel enough sympathy for her that we want to see what is next.  

This goes back to this recurring theme I have noted in other recent reviews where talented people are supposed to be given a kind of moral pass because their talent elevates them above normal people.  This elitism is something I have always found appalling and distasteful, and it applies to this film as well.

And again, much of this could be overlooked if it was funnier.  Laughter covers a multitude of cinematic sins.  But rather than focusing on being funny, the movie wanted to tell us something "important."  When comedy becomes a lecture, all the laughter will die.