spinofflive
Soft TV? Shhhh, we’ve got it.
Soft TV? Shhhh, we’ve got it.

Pop CultureMay 28, 2020

Emily Writes: In celebration of Soft TV

Soft TV? Shhhh, we’ve got it.
Soft TV? Shhhh, we’ve got it.

Emily Writes celebrates wholesome shows and the rise of cosy television.

The world is frightening right now. From Covid-19 to climate change, just watching the news can be overwhelming let alone going outside. This horror is the perfect environment for what I call Soft TV to flourish. Wholesome reality TV isn’t new, but it used to be quite niche. Now more and more shows in the soft TV genre are landing on streaming services and in my opinion it’s just what we all need.

Soft TV is television that feels like a hug. It’s an antidote to the horrible classism of documentaries like Tiger King and the torture porn of true crime where someone’s brutal death becomes background noise. It’s an act of self care. The rise of wholesome television is a gift.

Instead of the toxic masculinity of the boys of The Bachelorette slut shaming their way through a reunion show, Soft TV gives you tonic masculinity on Lego Masters. Just two bros picking each other up and hugging it out in celebration of a really good build. You have a guy on Making It saying his quilt is inspired by wanting to tell his child “they can play football or craft”. Soft TV is Yan and Henck on The Big Flower Fight.

Instead of producers setting up fragile and vulnerable people for public nervous breakdowns on Married at First Sight, there are Lego Masters judges Jamie and Amy who cry every time someone gets voted off. Or Amy Poehler helping a contestant with her glue gun and pouring her a wine when she’s eventually voted off on Making It.

Even the language is different. Instead of MAFS’ James “Jimmy” Hardy calling another woman a slut five times, you have two amateur floral sculptors saying “This body shape is perfect for a beetle.” Instead of the open homophobia of a show like Love is Blind, Soft TV shows all have openly queer folks – being affectionate! Not hidden! Happy! Lego Masters has a non-binary builder!

This is soft TV. Nobody is fighting. There’s no manipulation. Nobody is trying to have sex with anyone. Nobody is slut-shaming or body-shaming. Everyone is weird. There are Dutchmen wearing kilts and feather earrings and red bowler hats, people who really love tiny cabins as a specific thing, and people who call themselves “felt artists”. There are a lot of aquariums.

It’s all incredibly low stakes. On Lego Masters each week builders compete for a Lego brick that gives them immunity which they somehow don’t ever seem to need. On Making It they win a patch to display on their aprons. On The Big Flower Fight you’re named Best in Bloom. Everything made on these shows is impressive but somehow also pointless. On Making It a competitor says she wants to put eyelashes on her hanging photo album slash quilt thing to symbolise the fact that she likes to sleep in.

There is no drama beyond a worried florist saying “I’m very concerned as to whether it will attract enough insects” or two craft obsessives realising they’re both making bees (they handle this by simply smiling and buzzing at each other, bonding over their love of bees). Seriously.

Even eliminations are gentle. Think “this is the most preposterous proboscis I’ve ever seen” as a compliment and “I’m upset and offended because you said it would be ugly but it’s STUNNING”.  When a contestant turns in the ugliest owl thing I’ve ever seen, the judges don’t even tell her that.

Still, I was on the edge of my seat over transferring “builds” on Lego Masters. My son cried his eyes out when his favourites Aaron and Christian were voted off. And I am forever fascinated by the transformations, whether it’s the rooms on Tidying Up with Marie Kondo or Queer Eye or Amazing Interiors, or the creations on Extreme Cake Makers.

Some Soft TV shows don’t even have eliminations, making them even more relaxed. The whole premise of these shows is just “look at this guy who made a run for his cats” or “look at this volunteer firefighter who lost his house but now has a way better tiny house”.

At a time when life feels desperately hard and scary, these shows are the televised equivalent of a hot water bottle in your bed, a perfect apple pie for one, a new pair of slippers. It’s exactly what we need in 2020. Gentle and tender, low stakes but still interesting enough to make us momentarily not focus only on the fact that we live on a dying planet in a global pandemic.

For just half an hour – or 45 minutes if you’re lucky – all that matters is whether a widow’s seaside bungalow can be repaired or whether a a vet can work out why a cockatoo has started pulling out its feathers or whether the guy who had depression will be able to reach Mount Midoriyama.

So if you’re like me and can barely handle the shade on Drag Race, tune into any of the following for both a good time and a soft time.

Amy Poehler and Nick Offerman in Making It. (Photo: Paul Drinkwater/NBC)

Making It (TV3)

The best in the genre. Crafting. Amy Poehler and Nick Offerman. What more do you need to know? Someone made a bunny out of angora wool and a balloon.

Bob Ross (Netflix)

The Joy of Painting is also an OG. Arguably coming well before Harry’s Practice but let’s not argue let’s just enjoy it. Netflix has 26 30-minute episodes so have at it.

The Great British Bake Off (not currently airing but the NZ version is on TVNZ on Demand)

Well, 94 episodes and 28 specials can’t be wrong. Another classic of the genre and one of the best. Just don’t mention the Baked Alaska Controversy.

The competitors of Lego Masters. (Photo: Supplied)

Lego Masters (TV3)

In my opinion the superior show is the US version hosted by Will Arnett but I will take any of them. Family viewing at its best.

The Extreme Cake Makers (TVNZ)

They make really big cakes. That’s it. That’s the show. It’s so good. They made this duck one time that was so duck-like.

The Big Flower Fight (Netflix)

Amateur florists, artists, and weirdos make big giant flower sculptures in a dome.

Amazing Interiors (Netflix)

Every episode is under half an hour. It shows three houses with “amazing interiors”. See the guy who can scuba dive in a giant aquarium in his lounge. See the guy who loves cars and wants to live in a car shop. See the woman who lives in a human-sized doll house. Nobody is voted out. It’s just houses – mostly, they are ugly. That adds to the fun.

Marie Kondon and her closet destroying softness. (Photo: Netflix)

Tidying up with Marie Kondo (Netflix)

Everyone has watched it. But it’s a classic of the genre so I had to include it.

Queer Eye (Netflix)

See above. Easy watching. I appreciate Bobby carrying the team and what can I say? I like to cry.

Barkitecture (Quibi)

They make luxury dog houses that are nicer than your flat. Seriously. Joel McHale gets called a fur-daddy. One dog gets a custom-made chandelier with glass dog bones in it (and has a fireplace). The designers say seemingly without irony “we wanted him to be able to have a second level so he could get away”. And the him in this instance is a white fluffy dog called Norbert whose owner cries because she’s so happy that Norbert has finally got the two-storey retreat he deserves. It’s terrible and amazing.

Ninja Warrior Australia (Three)

I haven’t seen the US version. But I’m just super impressed by people swinging off things. And everyone’s so happy to even get there, even if they bomb out. It’s somehow relaxing and riveting.

Tiny House Nation (Netflix)

Not all of the people living in tiny houses are likeable and even the concept of tiny houses can be problematic but still there’s something so satisfying about seeing these houses come together. They say things like, “have you told anyone you’re going tiny?” which is a bit insufferable. Sometimes I watch it on mute.

Cabins in the Wild (Netflix)

One of the judges has the best beard. It’s cabins! In the wild! Built from scratch!

The Curious Creations of Christine McConnell (Netflix)

I don’t really know what’s going on. But I can’t stop watching it. I don’t even know how to explain it. She makes cakes and things. But also puppets? It makes me sleepy in a good way.

Keep going!
Hannah Gadsby in her Netflix special, Douglas, the follow up to 2018’s Nanette. (Photo: Netflix)
Hannah Gadsby in her Netflix special, Douglas, the follow up to 2018’s Nanette. (Photo: Netflix)

Pop CultureMay 27, 2020

Chasing Nanette: Hannah Gadsby’s new special Douglas is a gentle piece of genius

Hannah Gadsby in her Netflix special, Douglas, the follow up to 2018’s Nanette. (Photo: Netflix)
Hannah Gadsby in her Netflix special, Douglas, the follow up to 2018’s Nanette. (Photo: Netflix)

Two years ago, her genre-busting show Nanette broke the internet. Now Hannah Gadsby has released a new stand-up special, and expectations are sky high. So how does Douglas hold up?

“If you’re here because of Nanette, why?”

The elephant in the room is quickly addressed in Hannah Gadsby’s new Netflix special named after her dog, Douglas. Namely, the fact that you’re watching this because you watched Nanette, her 2018 special that caused a once in a generation kind of chatter. A lot of people loved Nanette, a lot of people thought it was a bummer, and a small, predictable group of people (straight white men) thought it wasn’t stand-up comedy at all.

Nanette was probably the first special since Tig Notaro’s Live (in which Notaro famously made her cancer diagnosis public) to make a big splash outside the fairly niche realm of comedy nerds. Overnight, Hannah Gadsby became the “most-talked about comedian on the planet”, according to Gadsby herself. Nanette tore down the idea of stand-up comedy, a form that has always held both tension and trauma, presenting the idea that Gadsby’s self-deprecation was actually a form of self-harm. By joking about her past onstage, she argued, she was actually internalising her trauma and obscuring her own story. Gadsby ended the special thus: “Laughter is not our medicine. Stories hold our cure. Laughter is just the honey that sweetens the bitter medicine.”

Even more importantly, Gadbsy took aim at the patriarchy, and what stories the patriarchy values. She brilliantly used her art history background to highlight how we focus on Picasso’s painting, rather than the 17-year-old child he married. She explored the ways we’re told to separate the art from the artist, but only when the artist is a man. This didn’t make Nanette an easy watch, but it was a healing, paradigm-shifting one. Two years later it’s not lost any of its power. The world is still full of tension and trauma, perhaps more than ever.

Gadsby wasn’t the first to make jokes about straight white men, not even close, but Nanette felt like a move of the needle; they’re acceptable targets now. Look at the world since Nanette: “straight white man” is to contemporary stand-up comedy what “take my wife” was to comedy 20 years ago. It’s become a joke that the audience knows the punchline to; they know where the gun is pointed, and they can either laugh along or get defensive, depending on whether or not they’re in the crosshairs. For lesser comedians or writers, it can be a crutch; a chuckle where a laugh should be – see my use in that first paragraph up there. The only difference between “straight white man” and “take my wife” as a punchline is that the former is generally punching up (unless it’s a straight white man referring to himself, in which case it’s performatively punching inwards, and relying upon an even lazier crutch) while the latter is always, always punching down. 

Nanette was deconstruction as its own art form. Its brilliance came not from the fact that Hannah Gadsby played with form, but that it made deconstruction – of genre, of audience expectations, of patriarchy itself – the entire point. We need to change the way we tell stories, and the way we hold them. Gadsby said of Nanette in a TED talk last year, “The point was not simply to break comedy. The point was to break comedy so I could rebuild it and reshape it; reform it into something that could better hold everything I needed to share.” Every comedy special, especially those that value emotional vulnerability over punchlines, exists in the wake of Nanette. 

Hannah Gadsby and a prop version of her dog Douglas in her new special. (Photo: Netflix)

That includes Gadsby’s own Douglas, and the comedian is aware of it. It’s half the reason why she front foots it, I’d wager. (Although she’s smart enough to also ask why the hell people are seeing her show if they haven’t seen Nanette.) The other reason for Nanette’s early prominence in this new special? It’s because Douglas is more than a little bit meta.

In the first 15 minutes, Gadsby sets up the entire structure, beat-by-beat, of the show we’re about to watch. There’s no gut punch like Nanette, intentionally so. She tells us that she’ll be making fun of Americans, doing some observational comedy, then a story that includes some “good-natured needling of the patriarchy”, and so on. The deconstruction also includes a self-labelled spoiler of her own autism diagnosis. It’s similar to a relaxed theatre performance in this way, with a preface to help orientate audiences and help them engage with what they’re about to watch. 

A relaxed performance is essentially a contract that establishes trust between the creators and the audience, and it seems almost antithetical to the art of stand-up comedy, which relies on set-up and surprise punchline. Gadsby knows this, and presenting the show to us like this, though it might seem laboured and self-indulgent, is actually establishing a new contract for the show. There will be hater-baiting, there will be exactly one Louis CK joke, and there will be a lecture. Now you know that, you can enjoy the show. She says that Douglas is a show about autism, and she commits to it. She shares her journey with her own diagnosis in a way that her chosen form (and frankly, her approach to that form) absolutely supports.

It’s a brilliant choice, because it allows the structure to be as much of a joke as the actual content. If you ever needed a demonstration of form marrying content, you’ve got it with Douglas. Douglas is Gadsby’s “look ma, no hands” moment; it’s tempting to ignore for a moment the actual jokes (rapid fire, the right blend of absurd and approachable) and sit back and marvel at how brilliant she is as a performer.

You don’t necessarily have to, because Gadsby does enough of that herself, in the best possible way – like when she chastises an audience for rising to applause-bait. Metatheatrics can be a crutch (comedy is full of ’em), because it’s so much easier to say something’s a good joke than to actually write a good joke, but it never feels like one for Gadsby. When she deploys it, it’s not hanging a lampshade on a joke. She’s amplifying its effect, and letting the audience in on that joke. Her jokes are funnier because we’re on an even playing field. She’s established the contract of trust, and rather than having jokes told to us, we feel like we’re having jokes laid out for us. It’s a subtle but welcome difference, and that she can do that while ripping into her usual target, like our old friend the patriarchy, is proof of her genius.

A bit of Douglas is lost, as with any stand-up special, by not actually being in the room. Both Nanette and Douglas are shows that implicitly address tension – one builds it, the other does its best to eliminate it – and that’s lost when watched through a screen. There’s a moment when Gadsby actively calls out anti-vaxxers, telling parents who don’t vaccinate their children to “fuck off”. Onscreen, it’s great, but when I saw the show earlier this year (sorry to be that guy), the energy in the packed Civic Theatre palpably shifted. Perhaps even more uncomfortable was the moment where she correctly labelled who her audience was (take a guess, you’re probably right) and that there’s a lot of crossover between them and that particular anti-science movement. That moment was the most uncomfortable I’ve ever seen an audience, amplified even more given the genuine comfort felt throughout the rest of the show, but it doesn’t translate through the screen. There needs to be some real life target for that discomfort, or you need to be sitting in a lounge full of anti-vaxxers. In which case, hey, it probably does translate. Sorry to you and your lounge.

The only time the genius falters a bit – and this is still nowhere close to a fail, but more like a couple of scratches on a brand new manicure – is when Gadsby takes aim at what I’d call acceptable targets; the ones we all know it’s OK to attack. It’s like making a Simon Bridges joke in a room packed with Labour voters; there’s no chance you’re not going to get at the very least a sympathetic laugh. There’s a thin line between knowing your audience and pandering to them, and Gadsby tips towards the latter a bit too much. There’s a strangely vicious Taylor Swift joke, an extended bit on paleo diets, and of course countless jokes at the expense of straight white men. They’re never not funny, but it’s more that Gadsby is straying into territory covered by other (frankly lesser) comedians. The gulf of quality between these jokes and a brilliant Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle bit that brings in her art history background is huge. When Gadsby is introducing new ideas and concepts, she’s brilliant. When she’s treading familiar ground, she’s merely great, relying on crutches neither she nor her audience need.

Douglas is not Nanette. It’s not going to shatter you or lead you into difficult conversations with the men in your life (unless they’re especially fragile). But we’re living in a post-Nanette world, and Hannah Gadsby has made Douglas for that world. Nanette was breaking something down, while Douglas is building something up: the idea that comedy can be comfortable, that it can take us to a known destination without shattering us. It takes care of its audience, which is more than can be said for a lot of comedy. Nanette was Gadsby breaking comedy. Douglas is her building it back up, on her own terms. 

Hannah Gadsby: Douglas is streaming on Netflix now.