Throwback Alert! This After Hours special with Rob Gibbs and Jeremy Fiebig was originally recorded in the summer, so some discussion topics may seem a little dated (yet still interesting to ruminate on). Get the spiciest of takes on a Trump interview, as well as stagecraft wonderment and a reading of a shared project called ‘The Hangman’s Tale’ just in time for spooky season!
We’d love to hear your own spicy takes on ‘The Hangman’s Tale’ – feel free to contact us at email@example.com
The show is produced by Claire Martin and Jeremy Fiebig and edited by Ashanti Bennett. Jen Pommerenke and Julie Schaefer also assisted with this episode.
This project is supported by the Arts Council in part by contributions from businesses and individuals, and through grants from the City of Fayetteville, Cumberland County and the North Carolina Arts Council, a division of the Department of Natural & Cultural Resources.
We’re here to tell you about one of our sponsors Anchor you haven’t heard about Anchor you should know. It’s The easiest way to make a podcast. We’re using it even now to make this very podcast. Let me explain why Anchor is so great. First of all, there’s a Shakespeare connection. There is a very famous Anchor pub, just a stones throw away from Shakespeare globe in London. Next to you should know that Anchor is free. They’re a creation tools that allow you to record and edit your podcast, right from your phone or computer.
And we’ve done both today. Anchor we’ll distribute or podcast for you hassle free. So it can be heard automatically on Spotify, Apple podcast, and many more platforms where your listeners will find it. You can make money from your podcast through Anchor with no minimum listenership, it’s everything you need to make a podcast all in one place it’s super easy and we could not recommend it more highly to get Anchor download the free Anchor app or go to anchor.fm to get started.
Welcome to the Sweet Tea Shakespeare After Hours where we offer you in depth conversations, insider insights, and a sneak peek behind the scenes. Hello? Hello.
Where did that music come from? Jeremy are a good friend. Oh, and Eddy who use to live in town and move to Hawaii because of his army job wrote that for us, for production is actually in our history. That’s cool. Okay. You and I were on a production apparently as once together. Well, strictly speaking, I was not in that production.
I, I came out at the beginning of it in what was, I guess, appreciate announcements capacity, a and sort of active j*****s for five minutes, a at the top of your show and then Sunday estate and then some kind of left. But that was a good that a good production. Yeah. Yeah. I had fun. I still remember the song you made up paradise paradise. May I have a program, please?
I am proud of that. To the extent that it was made up in the moment as I was coming down, the stairs was very Julie <inaudible>. That was how he started on that a little bit. And that as I was coming down, there was a person <inaudible>. So, so yeah, that is not it’s funny because people do, I mean, to handle the people who We we’d hope, who remember that, that does get brought up periodically.
It was one of the, every time in grad school, one of the things that people throw Maggie at me more often than anything else. So I don’t know what to make of that. Exactly. The pedicle of the work that I did during that time. But it appears that maybe,
Well, this is a surprise to everyone. We didn’t tell anybody we were doing this. We’re just here. So hello. You’ve been surprised. Secret show. It’s a secret show on. And so, although like no one has seen our faces for many weeks, although were still on the podcast. Like we had lots of, you know, we’re, we’re a weekly on the podcast. So, you know, this all appear on a podcast in a few weeks after we’re all caught up, I guess. Very nice. So we’re talking about stuff today. We’re talking about Trump’s Axios interview and Perry Mason, and then we’ve got a scene and to read, we’ve never read a scene.
Yeah. We’re thinking we may add this in as a, a feature that we periodically do hear on the podcast slash E broadcast a, the show as it were some original piece of short material, a scene of some sort, maybe a short play in and of itself, but we’ll periodically do a little bit of theater and well, how about a story that we’re, we’re a little periodically a kink in to the feed here.
So that was fine, but yet, so you say, we want to start with the Axios interview, a Donald Trump, if we don’t know what we’re talking about for HBO as a TV series, as geos, which is a The television, I guess, broadcast well, cable broadcast. I show that goes along with the Axios website political website.
Umm, I was an interview with Donald Trump at the white house by Jonathan Swan. It was a regular reporter for actually us at the white house. We are your thoughts about that. Jeremy okay.
So I, I loved it perversely. I loved it. It, it gets re has reminded me most of the old school, John Stuart, a daily show interviews in terms of its sort of staging and in terms of the, the, the getting a ridiculous response and ridiculous words out of someone’s mouth. But of course the Jon Stewart stuff was sort of edited to do some of that, right, Andy, and to, to sort of purposefully make, you know, uninformed people look stupid or stupid people look stupid, or this was, this kind of worked in the opposite direction.
Right. It was just revealing as opposed to, I think working it, working at an angle and in the way that the Taylor show stuff did.
Yeah. I think that’s true. Part of what’s interesting about it to me. Oh, they’re a lot of interesting things about it. And this has been spoken about quite a bit. No doubt of people listening to this or watching have seen the interviewer in her, a lot of commentary about it and that they have a whole thing clips or around online, or you can find the entire interview on the line it’s worth taking a look at. It does feel different from other interviews that Trump has done recently.
And the farther back to the past, he seems to be this guy on the heels of, in an interview that he did with a Chris Wallace. So at Fox reasonably does feel like he’s trying to engage with congregational media, which credit to him, I guess, you know, given, breaking his emo over the past four years of shining demo of media, he’s clearly diving into that. I think to try and create a contrast with Joe Biden, who according to their narrative is docking all press and all difficult interviews.
So he can say, look, I did these interviews and I am sure that this have Yasmin. I already said it where he probably has. He will be assumes as you know, I’m going, I’m having these interviews. If people are saying they are incredibly difficult, incredibly hard, I’m going in for them and let’s show by doing so that’s the purpose of doing this? And it may ring out to his benefit ultimately seems to me that these sorts of interviews do sort of confirm the priors of whoever’s going into it though.
This one is interesting because the response does seem to have had people who support kind of even can see that was a bad look for him. I’m curious about like really diving into what it is that made this so much worse for him than other interviews. I don’t think that this is going to have a necessarily lasting, in fact, I think it would be cumulative. The end will be, Andy has a number of moments that will be remembered.
So what is it that, that, that made this damaging? I contend that Stagecraft has so having to deal with it, but yeah, it tells you what I mean, tell us what you mean about, well, okay. Couple of things. This was an unusual interview in that, the way that it was well, part of this is because it was raised, MBO was using different sorts of cameras, had a more filmic look to it in part because as he goes presents itself as an elevated news magazine, that is on HBO.
And so the visual style of it is higher than the kind of grainy washed out or a flat look that you see on cable TV often, which also tends to be framed in very close, close up, you know, two shots. You got one a while on camera fray to enclose on the present from the shoulder up. And then one Friday in clothes on the interviewer for a lot of the chest up and a, this was different and that they have a lot of coverage.
It at least three cameras and they were the quality of the, they fell was higher. It was a higher, it was a, so you got, it was a better definition. And so it felt like you are watching a scene from something on a film or a TV show in some way, which is suddenly sadly shifts the dynamic.
I feel like a little bit and a half also. You just got a lot more the body language. They are both of the people involved. So which health to tell the story better. Now, a part of what was interesting about that to is that they were very animated. Current is usually very animated. So it’s not really a surprise, but swine as the journalist, during the interview was unusually demonstrative in many ways.
And so on that level, I think the tactical Schaefer level, I think that, that a lot, in fact, in my perception of it and when I was talking about Stagecraft, the other point that I made is that the interplay between the two of them, it felt very much like a scene. I think so from, to me, I’m seeing in a film or a TV show, again, part of that is because the way there was filmed that also they were unusual things about the way that Swan approached that interview were a public conversation and felt like you were watching and interplay between two different characters almost.
And I think that that had the effect of bringing down the presidents lard in certain respects though. I think he is basically he is, but it was also affecting to see someone responding to him in a way that felt Natural the sick and, and human in a way that interviews with him rarely too seem.
And there was some sort of cathartic in emotionally charging about that. We can get into some of the details of that, but that’s kind of what I’m talking about when we talking about Stagecraft I guess.
Yeah. It’s really interesting. Cause where my brain goes with with hearing you say that is, you know, of course when you stage or a screen, something in that way, the thing that’s gonna follow as a sort of a revelation of character. Cause that’s what we’re trained to look at when we look at those things, when you frame it or when you stage it in this way, our brains are the sort of encoded now watching, you know, 40 plus years or whatever happens to be of, of this thing. We’re S we’re, we’re making associations about character that are different than, than your right, the, the sort of one dimensional 24 hour cable news, umm, way of handling that most of the time.
Yeah. Yeah, I think that’s right. And I think that the president is a demonstrative person in his body language and is in his language and, you know, news in our country. The style of it has for many years in to try and frame came off in a way that feels digestible and that flattens things out a little bit, you know, there’s a professionalism to the interviewer that we all sort of a SPECT, a little bit of work in.
You see, somebody’s interviewed with the president a, a, a deference, which is a Swan had, but there were other Hours that move away from the norm. A deference was one of those things where also a sort of polished on unflappable demeanor. There’s a real emphasis placed on sort of a smoothness in continuity for the interview that at the almond has the effect of normalizing odd behavior, especially with the president, when you put that frame on it, that cable news frame on the president with an interview who, with an interviewer who maintains a sort of a unflappable presentation, get the impression this is normal or everything that’s happening right now is part of the, you know, understood acceptable, whatever.
And this Rogan, the style of the thing broke that for that reason at all. So Swann’s physical responses, which were, ER, it was interesting because you look on, I first this interview and clips and images, the memes that have come from this online are still proliferating. And you know, Swan’s facial expressions are a pretty funny, you know, his responses, his reactions to things, a puzzlement of a amusement occasionally, but we’ll Durbin, you know, you, you take them in freeze frame.
It may be the impression that the interview was gonna be somewhat hostile, a just taking a look at those and a couple of, of the clips that we’re circulating. It was interesting watching the entire interview. I, in context. So how does an interesting thing is he doesn’t feel really hostile. He feels like he, he does seem like he’s being respectful on what’s interesting is you get the sense of a relationship that to do with them.
Share president knows him, and he knows the president and he’s digging into a, this discussion with a year of somebody who, you know, as maintaining a professional relationship as a Panda, a deference and a respectfulness, but who also has the sort of agency of someone who carries over a relationship that exists outside of the frame.
And you can see that on both sides. And it was interesting in part with that too, is that the president clearly on some level likes this guy, I took that away. I see it.
Yeah. I see what you’re saying. I think there’s the w w one of the takeaways I have from watching the interview is that, and I, I could not tell if it was a game that was being played or if it was skill or if it was sort of a genuine approach, but, but I saw Swan echoing back Trump to Trump in terms of the specifically in terms of what you’re talking about with like these, these other people might call them micro aggressive responses.
Right. And I’m not sure, but, but I think you’re right, that they’re not entirely aggressive. They are more that they can be red as like, I’m trying to understand you are really, and trying to understand you, you helped me out here. And, and at times I saw particularly in the stuff that, that has gotten sort of clipped out and shown, it does look like to people who are sort of doing this nonverbal parring and that’s what it’s about, but I see what you’re saying.
Yeah, well, right. I do feel like Swan, there is a sophisticated thing that he’s doing their, you know, when you talk about mirroring the president himself, there is, there is a subconscious or a theatrical element to him. I think like the deference that he shows to the president and part of what may seem effective here is that part of what it’s interesting is that he responds in granular form to everything that’s the president says and does takes him on his own terms and, and responds in good faith to the president.
One of the things that I think is a problem with people who we interview him frequently, is that because of what I was talking about, that sanitizing, the impulse on the part of interviewers in particularly cable news. And then the president says something that’s really crazy or demonstrably false, or kind of stupid. A lot of times people just sort of delete it.
The, the interviewer just passes over it, it part, because I think that they don’t know how to respond in a way that isn’t immediately rude. Sorry, just say that stupid or a no you’re wrong. Or, you know, in a way that’s fairly aggressive, what Swan manages to do. And I do think it’s an act. Is he engages in a conversation as if it was a, well, let me finish.
I was saying before the a and so the people who, who were usually interviewed with the president are talking to him at interview type of session rather than immediately come out with something that well shot down the conversations, which is no you’re wrong, or that’s stupid, or, or whatever, because that’ll elicit ad response from him. They’ll either, they’ll just usually not pursue it. Do you know what I mean? Or are they will pursue it in that way.
And then president Trump gets Tassie and shuts it down at the end of it. What a Swan did was interesting is he maintained a, a, a sort of good faith response to the person, to the president where you said, well, wait a minute, is this is what your saying? I don’t, I don’t understand. Could you tell them what books are you talking about? What manuals not with the president, say the word shouldn’t read the manual is to find out about why someone shouldn’t test as much.
It said, well, what manuals or are you talking about as opposed to, you know, Hey, which is to say he pretended to be a little bit more sort of naive than he actually is in some respects. So, and yet at the same time, for a perfectly honest answer, I mean, they, there is something really desiring about the president. Well, he says something, they need to read the manuals, reading the books. And somebody said something that really breaks your brand a little bit is like, well, I don’t know how to respond to that crazy thing that he does said.
So I’m going to pretend he didn’t say it, which as often as not is how people respond to that, you know, Swan served in this very sincere, and now I’m showing you that I’m puzzled sort of way. So that was what manuals are you talking about? Even as a little bit of the thing that Tucker Carlson actually does on Fox a lot, which has Tucker Carlson, the tops, this sort of puzzled face, as you know, when he hears them, he was like, are you, are you saying right now, I, I don’t understand I’m needing my brow and I’m showing you how much I’m confused by the thing that you’re saying, try to cross.
It was never confused. He, you know, that that’s an act, that’s a presentational act and Swan has managed to master that to some degree as well. You know, there’s sort of presentational, you know, conveying of confusion, but also in a way that seem sincere when strictly speaking, it isn’t really, you know, he, he barely, it’s a, it’s a show.
And I think, is it part of what he said? The fact of with Trump to some degree is that no president Trump has a good show biz in sticks. They have nothing else. You know what I mean? And a certain lives of his presidency is it was a TV show or behaves as if it was a type in public as if he was performing and to find somebody who meets him at that place suddenly makes a thing pop in a way that it frequently doesn’t.
I think that what Swan did is he played on Trump’s field it in a way that reporters frequently don’t feel comfortable doing. I think, you know, the sort of maintaining the strictly sort of confrontational, a sort of tenor to the discussion under normal circumstances is part of what slips them off a little bit. They keep trying to drag Trump into the world of reality a little bit.
And the president just maintains this performative sorta thing in Swan and Madam there. And he was very effective because of that.
Yeah, I think you’re right.
One other aspect of it that, you know, before this call that I think is interesting is a, like I said, where he cleanly kind of like swap out and they wanted him to like him and I am curious as a kudos to him, Mike, it’s a long game that he must be playing to get him to be there with them. And that way, because there is this degree to which is the president. I think, you know, the president wants people’s approval often until the moment that he, that it turns sour.
And then he gets ugly with a man to a, been able to maintain the president a bomb that hock of being like, I’m trying to convince you as a, as a rare skill. It’s interesting.
Well, I, to circle back just briefly, I mean, I do think you’re right. This interview is part of a strategy I’m interested to see between now sort of between now in the convention and then after the convention
And then the note press invited a secret background convention. Although the Democrats in this case are not doing much differently, the, the I’m interested to see sort of what the approach is, because right now, I think the thinking across, regardless of who perspec the rational thinking, regardless of whose perspective is that, that things really, really need to break his way, umm, for this election to work out, it’s it?
I do think that the gap that’s there will close, but I don’t think it’s set up right now to close as far as he needs it to. And there is, that requires a change, right? I mean, even, even if, if your, your main job as his is, is sort of marketing and public relations, that requires a change. And, and I see the interview as part of an admission of that. Like we’re going to have two to use the overused word pivot a bit to, to, by some of the Centre of the country back.
Go out of his comfort zone. Right. And if he doesn’t then you know, yeah, it is an admission. And that way there is a version of this election where things didn’t go terribly where the virus shouldn’t happen, where I don’t think he’s engaging with a confrontational media at all. So, but there’s in the moment that we haven’t. So we’ll see what happens
If you enjoy the work of Sweet Tea Shakespeare the number one thing you can do is log on to patrion.com/sweet Tea Shakespeare and to make a monthly pledge, those pledges start at $5 and they go all the way up to $500. You can set whatever amount you want. They are a great perks at all levels, including all digital access throughout the year. This is the greatest way you can show support for Sweet Tea Shakespeare and help us continue to do the work of this podcast. And of all the other things that we do. That’s patrion.com/sweet Tea Shakespeare.
Okay. We did that. We did that. Let’s talk about very basic. Shall we? Perry Mason. So for those of you who don’t know what that is, its a HBO series is Perry Mason a based on, well the old Perry, Mason is a reboot kind of a, there was a Perry Mason, a television show, sorry, Raymond Burr that aired for many years and then had a series of TV movies that went on for decades in which Perry Mason was a, the defense lawyer who was always working to get his clients acquitted, a whatever it was that they were accused of.
So those were also amazed on a series of novels, a pulp novels of which there were many umm, and this TV show is nominally. Well they say that they’re a, a re adaptation of those novels, but there are some subtle nods to the television show throughout. So it’s sort of a reboot of a TV show out and read adaptation, have a house at the same time.
What do you think about that show Jeremy? What is your, well, first of all, do you have any sort of prior relationship with Perry Mason? The tiniest bit? I do remember seeing it, seeing some of the TV movies pop up and seeing the, the TV show in syndication. When I was younger, I was, I followed Matlock much more closely. It was contemporary with my childhood, whereas Perry, Mason, wasn’t quite, but I do remember what the,
The actor and, and that’s about it, you know, it’s like a case of the week kind of thing. And yeah. So I do have like the tiniest touchstone to that. I love the show. I mean, I it’s it’s, I, I, I caught up on it, which is rare for me it’s for, for a show to hold my interest.
Right. No, I understand what that is. Yeah.
Well it does it it’s, it’s sort of far from perfect for me, but I do find the story. Interesting. I think the cast is, is, is Cracker Jack.
Yeah, we should mention that Perry Naison the character who has played by Raymond Burr or the original series is played by Matthew Reese most recently of the mr. Rogers movie with a Tom Hanks. And before that the Americans who were, she was the star of where he played a Russian spy from having to be American citizen. And this is his return to television at a big way with a paradise.
Umm, and in addition to that, you have John Lithgow as his mentor figure Tatiana mass Lani from orphan black, for which she won an Emmy playing in a sort of hybrid character. I think based on a couple of different people, Aimee Semple McPherson, this is probably the character that she’s the person that she’s the most similar to from history who was there a radio broadcasting, a religious figure.
I don’t know exactly what you’d call her. She’s sort of a pretty sure I had a strange position to the church that she was in Tatiana on a slide. He is playing a character that to her and asked some of the great characters, like a lot of just really great character writers who are in to flex their muscles of this. And it’s a fun thing is in Juarez, a series, which is interesting, ay, for anybody who watched the original Perry Mason, the first four or five episodes of a show, I think could be really confounding in some ways, because it’s not strictly speaking, I’m paraphrasing that you remember her and how is it in the novels?
And in the, in the TV series was a lawyer and every episode and sort of framed around his, you know, audacious defenses of is a lot of his clients and really was this show created the cliche for television of the person breaking down on the stand and revealing, you know, under the hard questioning sort of giving everything up and turning the whole case around because Mason, through his expert, grilling of them gets them to say the thing that they shouldn’t say.
And of course it’s is pretty well. This is the show. He is a great agent. Is it a private detective in a real sorta scuzzy one in Las Angeles. So drying on, ya know, the LA Anwar, a sort of tropes of a Chinatown and who’s a very bad to rabbit and to some degree, which is a parody of shutdown, but still holds up as its own large thing or Ellie confidential, you know, sort of in that line.
Umm, and in that period and you know, he doesn’t become a lawyer smiler, I guess we’re gonna talk some smack of the chair until like five episodes into the show. And that’s really, I feel like the key to the series in a lot of ways, Oh this is what their doing. That’s what they call the last for me, the way he becomes a wire on the show is really underhanded in a dishonest, which is interesting, right?
A he’s in this space and he’s defending this big murder case that is sure to lose and or he’s the investigator for his mentor, a lawyer who’s way by John left out a and then I get inspired. There’s a, bug’s skip passes if you don’t want to hear it kills himself because the case is so on a winnable. And then through a series of imaginations that are not strictly honest, he ends up becoming a lawyer.
He doesn’t exactly cheat, kind of cheesy and as he cheats to test, but he cheats the, each of us given the answers, which he memorizes before he takes the test to get on the bar. And he forges the document that says that he’s been acting, you know, as a, he’s been acting as an apprentice to his a matter or a lawyer character for many years, which could stand to the middle of law school.
And so suddenly he’s, you know, very quickly make a lawyer. And I, I think that that sort of speaks to the fundamental mission of the show, which is a very HBO thing to do in one way. And one. So I was saying also sort of popular and in our culture and General with the sorts of reboots, which is a Perry Mason in the original series was this upstanding figure one, got the impression sort of occupational. And this is very much not that guy.
And in keeping with that sort of a tradition on a television recently were they sort of peel back the, the, the illusion, the, the facade, they show you the CME a hundred Valley underneath it at what’s happening here. So I, that would, you know, deconstructing the cowboy Meadows and a undermining it that are the great Western mythos. And this is what a lot, they are doing a cremation, but the, the thing you wanted to do and you’re trying to do that is you want to deconstruct it and then build back up too, the thing so that you are embodying the thing itself again, that seems to have been like on the second half the series while they are really doing, because he, no, the idea is like, well, if we took, what would it take to make this character who could audaciously get his people off, you know, in court with a speech or with his, you know, with the pyrotechnics of his lawyerly abilities and whatnot, and what does it take to be that kind of a genius in a way we could buy him at believe him now.
And that’s used to be the project of the show is like, let’s show you what this guy would have to be in order to be that guy in the real world. And this a little bit like with the double bond actually in the Daniel Craig things. So, which is so let’s start out, sorta undermining him. Can he take a look at cause you know, Royale that was really their project, their, you know, the, he doesn’t really make quips and the fines are brutal and ugly and he’s kind of, you know, pug as well pocket.
I was isn’t quite right, but it doesn’t look like James is not as sleek and as James Bond has a beginning of that. And then only in the last moment and that movie literally for the last 30 seconds. So as he sat out and work in a spot, in a soup and in the trajectory of that entire series has been starting from there until you get to the later movies where they are essentially just him in bodying the original bond with, you know, Ray finds playing am the same way that am was okay in the, you know, Connery and a half and what hobbies in this whole team around him and its got this slightly modern fire better.
It’s the same thing. That’s what their doing with Mason here are, they are pulling in the elements. So the original show putting in some of the modern subrosa twist, some of them in some ways, you know, bringing in, in questions of sexuality, uhh, for instance, with a long standing characters, but you know that around him that are uhh, from the show who we’re shown to be in the, in the series, which is interesting the way in that sense here.
And it all sort of, it’s like you’re trying to create this complicating architecture, this origin story that at the end of the series, I think we could leave it here. And then you could start watching the original parent days in a series and see the sea. All of us running underneath is the idea is like we created these interesting backstories with which you could apply that you could apply to your old Perry Mason series only now with a deeper understanding of it being more complex than you thought it was.
Yeah. I think it’s fun. And the thing I think when I watch it is that it’s a couple things. I mean, it, it does have the feel of a marriage between the old case of the week and the sort of newer long form, you know, storytelling over the course of a season, where is the case of the season? And you, we assume that next season will be a different case kind of thing. And it does ha but it does successfully, I think sort of week to week, even though it’s not a case of the week is a problem of the week.
And it, it is sort of its own chapter. I think they call them chapters actually or pack and packages. It does feel like that it feels very narrative. It feels like a, a play in at times more than, than a TV show or movie, even though it has all the North visual elements of course up to and including the sort of way they’ve colorize the, the, the world, although they back off of that in later episodes.
But it does feel like it, it feels the way the Perry Mason show and the Matlock shows felt like a play more than they felt like a, like a modern TV show.
Well, particularly when they move into the courtroom, that that’s definitely true.
And the characters are played. I mean, in part, because of, of, of what they are trying to do in part, because the setting I’m, the, all of the characters are characters, it’s a Perry. Mason is a, is, is pushed forward as a w w with a sort of character actor approach. Whereas I think it would have, I think, I think originally it’s more of a, I mean, Raymond Bert is not exactly, you’re a leading man type, but it is more like that in, in the original show than it is what we would associate with character acting.
And that’s what you’re seeing from everybody in this show top to bottom is a character push.
Yeah. Now that is true. It’s interesting that you mentioned about Burr. He, he is an odd figure in some ways he’s not traditionally handsome or wasn’t when he was younger, but he’s magnetic, you know, and definitely seems very polished in your control. I mean, he is, but, but I think that the inspiration is maybe routed a little bit on him to the extent that he does bring with them a set of darkness as a unusual for a meeting man, like his cast of M and E.
He was an interesting figure for, is it a series of the time? Because again, he, he implies darkness while embodying something in the show, like on the server, on the surface that it seems very wholesome design, exactly the right word, but at respectable, I mean, he seems very canny and, you know, ber as a performer did have a certain dark as to which was a situated as he moved through his career, got older, you could see that he was an imposing finger and is like, they said, well, let’s pick that guy apart and see what’s inside of that guy.
And, you know, your observation that they’re taking, what would it be a single episode of the show it’s spreading out to a seasoned length? I think that’s right near the process. What they’re doing is stretching everybody up and letting you look at inside of them. And that works out interestingly.
Well, I mean, some, some other things that rattle through my head, I mean, where I think the show is imperfect, it still works. Like, I, I personally think that a, this may be controversial, sorry, but I think that, that a tattoo on a mausoleum on a Muslim, on his character is a stretch here for her. And she is someone who has demonstrated like absolute adeptness at being able to hop character a character.
That was what orphan black was entirely about. But this is like not, you have to look at this character stretched out, as you say. And, and like in this character that she plays is larger than life is in, is in a way it’s just weird. And like, you can see the actor working hard at that. Whereas I think an orphan black, it Mmm. For her, it was, it was more about the, I have, I don’t know, a dozen really great tools in my bag and I know exactly how to use them.
And that’s what you’re getting in this show. This is, this is like a little bit of a stretch there. And I enjoy watching. I just think its it’s a part of it’s that part of it’s like the character isn’t that character we have yet to see sort of what the payoff is.
Well, yeah. As you know, I think that is the key. They didn’t really, she, I guess, is based on this character are on this actual historical figure, Aimee Semple McPherson who was a broadcast or a religious broadcaster who ran the ministry that uhm, was broadcast nationwide, got a lot of money from people because that was a guy who bought or the ministry that was a Senator to do this and this church Mmm.
As he was a charismatic figure and they showed tastes very specific. Like she’s, there there’s been something going on with this character in quotes from the beginning, she’s sort of a magnetic presence on the radio and to the parishioners of the church that she’s the head of, but demons behind the scenes. Yeah.
And they literally, and, and I mean the, the, the, the, the, the good writing here, right, is that her character and the Mason character are a basically following the same arc, maybe on the reverse directions. Right. That they, they are presenting something in public that, that, and while they are haunted in private and you see them maybe headed in opposite directions.
Well, yeah. I mean, I, it’ll be interesting what my, my guess here, given the way that this show usually works in the original series is that this is building to a big moment where she takes the same as a point and is, you know, because all of the course of this series of the church that she is at the head on a boat, it’s a more complicated serve. Structured situation is slowly being implicated in murder of that set of the center of this for season.
And what I think that the show has been about is a, trying to get her into a position where you could see her betraying, you know, the church. And she’s been on this spiritual journey where she’s, I think been questioning the extent to which she is actually, you know, in touch with God, how much does she actually believe that? And they kind of tread water for a while with her character and in some ways, but they really gave the same way.
We are really not bad way, but, you know, finally pulled the pin on that. And this last episode where it gave you some, you know, specific answers are like, well, this is why she is how she is. And, you know, Shara NAZA that. And anything to set things up for, for what I am a, with my predicative, Hours here saying this is probably where this is going. We’ll see if that proves to be true. The last episode, which is about to air on Sunday, but umm, he was rejected out and just renewed for season two, whenever season is back.
So it is renewed it and it’s funny because it was initially brought out as a limited series as a mini series, which I think is the game that all of these networks and streaming platforms and whatnot are playing now. It’s like, here’s a limited series unless you’d like in the military and to a series, a series a, so you get a season two now in the case, Check it out at those of you who aren’t starting to check on it, you know, it’s available on HBO or HBO, a match.
And this is a good time to get into it because the last episodes right here are sheer had to wait for. They are so many time people are listening to this, it will have aired. So go find it or know again, hooray a. So we’re trying some new, totally new. We are trying some of it. I figured, you know, gave him that there’s a theatrical element.
Obviously everything we’re doing here, be fun to a, do a little bit of a theater. Here are, some of them are flex his muscles a little bit and a do something sort of to create. And so we’re going to be doing a new scene newbies in writing that we’ll throw them up here and read through for folks and maybe talk about maybe not a, and there’s some of the universe though, and will see where it goes on the future. We’ll do some other stuff too.
How are you thoughts before we dive in to this year? I’m excited. So they are going to be reading. There is a single called The Hangman <inaudible> Tale. I will be the Zang, the role of the Hangman and Jeremy is gonna be wizard. Was there waiting for the car?
Well, the joke’s to crack on the comments.
Well see a, so I was beginning of this
Oh, how does my heart that’s how I got, well, you please <inaudible> ah, this is going to be a fine day
I know I do smell the air. You know what? That is? The bog. No. So that’s an opportunity area. And on the back,
Daddy. It was her I’m making a metaphor is he, that items are changing and for the better business is picking up,
I suppose that’s not with the boy. I don’t know. There’s something wrong. If some ways are shutting to bring me into a black mood, they are
Just tired of all this. I’m tired of the blood in the, the muck, the tears of the women and the screams of the men. And I hate to bog you shouldn’t of the book. Well, I don’t anymore. I think it’s ugly and smelly and I’m tired of looking at it every day.
A nice quiet town. That’d be my boy. I, how long have you been Fiebig describe your role. No. Well, my, I hazard a guess. This is something to do with your Sweet Pauline. No, leave me alone. Oh, never. No, the creation was in a bar <inaudible> woman to a man.
Shut up. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I know your sweetheart in Memphis. So he coming to your daddy swatting. So why don’t you tell me, but I don’t know.
I hate this job. I hate it. And I hate you.
I see. Yeah. To help put the old Rover on the deck. Have your ladies died all of a sudden the world’s the dark and terrible place. Put a diaper to tell you about how my father died. No, it was loyalist to Duke. Did you know that?
In the car just kicked out our door in the middle of the suburbs I made up to the plate.
Hang on? Oh yes. My boy. I stood there and I washed it as he was. I know what to say.
Well, angry and sad. About a little bit happy too happy. Oh, that’s part. That was a moment that I knew I had found my life’s true purpose, great night filming. And I’ve always called out deep inside and said that this was to be my destiny or are they in my heart more than my anger. That was a great joy. And seeing the one thing in this world that I found to be beautiful.
You may be a sorry about <inaudible>. He may be sir. And hate the tears you shared and on the counter of the work you did. And I see your eyes. When a truck pulls out to them and their dance, its in your head, the sooner you can see that the I, how dare you. It’ll be. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I want you to do though your fingers, take two. The role of a bit too eager in your work and on the news around in the next two, meticulous like this is simply called to do in a careful in this study has to do or ’em a job.
Well done. You might sit.
You said to me is what I do is to sit in your life. The word has a little used for one such as a year. And I, and of those users have a few. That’ll let you walk down the street and say in your bed at night with a free and easy air with a man and in his life out and the open I seized, the secret thrill you feel when you’re watch the light slip out of a body, I want to see who let that life out about this is the place where you could feed that hunger inside of your feet.
It free and clear. You should walk away at a time. It won’t be to far distance when you should look defeated in some other place at that again and again at some enough you’ll find yourself standard in this space once more, but it’ll be me putting a rope around your neck. And on that day, I’ll be sad to do it, but I’ll be happy to their hair falls out at high. Watch your legs because in their notes. And I know what I mean, add to that.
So hooray. We did it right? We did it.
We should invite folks to give us some feedback. Let us know if they, what they thought about that one.
And if it’s something you wanted to see that again there, and as we move through this Jeremy I. May talk about riding some other stuff too,
For sure. We have written some things together. This one reminds me of like a, it makes me think of Dexter in his dad.
Well, but well, the content is hard to love, but it says something in imaginary. Jeremy I. Love it to be weirdos anyway, that’s it for today. We did it. We do their job. All right. There are more to come. We’ll see you all soon.
Thanks for joining us on the After Hours we’ll catch you again, down the road. See you next time.
You’ve been listening to the Sweet Tea Shakespeare After Hours thanks for joining us and for being a patron of Sweet Tea Shakespeare catch you next time.