Feedback Friday: Many incorrect assumptions (Patreon)

In an effort to streamline the podcast and encourage a little more conversation around some of the feedback letters we receive, we're putting some of them here and responding to them individually. We unfortunately missed Friday this week due to other deadlines, but when we got this letter, we decided it was worth an off-schedule response. Here, a listener takes us to task, but gets a lot of facts wrong. Harris writes:

You all just review corporate trash that’s a waste of time now. Scott is the only one that’s trying to actually push boundaries of films you review. Genevieve/Tasha always pick junk, and Marry Me is the last straw in a long list of films that would appeal to my 70 year old mother. Talking about this film, this much in depth, is like talking about the tv show Friends — there’s just something perversely ‘late-stage capitalism’ and obscenely anti-intellectual about it.

At this point, I think the best thing for everyone involved would be for the podcast to split: Genevieve/Tasha should do a podcast that appeals to midwestern, stay-at-home moms and discuss the movies they can put on to distract their grubby little kids. Scott/Keith can do a podcast that appeals to people who actually like good movies and want to be challenged rather than entertained to death.

Here’s an idea, why not review some of the Oscar nominated shorts? I guess it probably wouldn’t be worth it to you because you wouldn’t get your corporate kickbacks like you (hopefully) got for Marry Me. Lord knows why anyone would willingly watch this film let alone discuss it for an hour without getting paid. Barf.

____

Tasha says: 

I'm afraid you've made a bunch of assumptions here that are fundamentally untrue. While it's often a mistake to engage with feedback that takes this kind of dismissive, hostile tone, it did seem worth addressing the off-base assertions here — not just for your sake, but for anyone else who could use clarity about our process.

1. All four of the main hosts participate equally in picking the films we cover, and what we pair them with. It isn't host's choice — we always want films all participants are eager to discuss. (And if it was host's choice, note that Keith hosted the Marry Me/Notting Hill pairing, not me or Genevieve. For that matter, Scott was actually the strongest proponent for pairing Marry Me with Notting Hill, even though he ultimately stood down during recording because he couldn't fit it into his schedule.)

There's often a lively debate about which film that's releasing in a given two-week period will make for the most energetic discussion, followed by an equally lively debate about what pairs well with it. On rare occasions when we end up with too many good choices, the host for a given episode is the tiebreaker.  But generally, we collectively pick films based on what we think people will actually be watching and thinking about the week the podcast releases, and what older film will best throw aspects of the new film into sharp relief.

2. Scott and Keith are parents, as we discuss often on the podcast. Genevieve and I aren't.

3. Virtually none of our ad sponsors have ever been studios or distribution houses, apart from a few productions from Music Box Films, a boutique distributor based here in Chicago, where most of us live. We don't get sponsorships to cover specific films. Even if we did get ads around a specific movie, the advertising side of the podcast is handled by our parent podcast Filmspotting, and has no bearing on the podcast's programming.

4. The Oscar shorts might make a good Patreon bonus episode, if we could sync up on watching them. We'd all be interested, but time and timing is a significant factor for all of us right now for various reasons. But there's no way to fit a series of shorts into the fundamental premise of the show, which is pairing a new feature film with a relevant feature film from the past. And I've found that reviewing shorts in general tends to make for a very splintered conversation — you're trying to find a theme or common thread in stories made by very different people, at different times, with different intents, who were in no way trying to have the same conversation.

Finally… Clearly Marry Me is not for you, and there's nothing wrong with that! Some of Scott's favorite films are not my bag, and vice versa. But part of the core concept of this podcast is that contextualizing culture makes it more interesting, and that all art is in conversation with the culture and its recipients. None of us were over the moon for Marry Me, and we were very open about the flaws in its construction and conception. But it's still worth talking about a surprise entry in the notably dying subgenre of the studio rom-com, and about a movie with its eyes so firmly on a past moment in cinema.

We're happy with the way we turned it into a larger conversation about what people want out of romantic comedies, and this kind of comfort-food viewing in general, and how it's evolved over the past few decades. If that doesn't interest you, that's also entirely fine! But it interests us, and it's our show. Who knows, maybe it'll interest your 70-year-old mom as well. Maybe you should introduce her to the podcast? We'd be happy to have her as a listener.