The summer of 2015 is notable for the game of musical chairs being played by the late night talks show hosts and since the lowest common denominator standards of excellence have precipitated an avalanche of pabulum flavored entertainment, perhaps it is time to beg Huge Hefner to bankroll a return to intelligent, thought-provoking, and civilized debate to counteract the tsunami of crap that is comprised of an infinite number of cloned talk shows that deliver results that remind some critics of an unattended kindergarten class on speed.
The first objection would be that appealing to a limited number of intellectuals might not attract the proper audience numbers to sanction the effort. Bullshit! If America is ready to endorse the idea that quality no longer trumps quantity, then why not let the screaming matches interrupted by crepitating and belching get some high-brow competition just for the S&G (Snide and Galling?) factor?
If cable TV networks can subsidize fictional TV series, why can't they get their own talk shows? If "Mad Men" can exist without a home on the big networks, why can't a talk show do the same? Wouldn't most cable channels be willing to discuss the possibilities with Mr. Hefner?
Episodes of Edward R. Murrow's "Person to Person," such as the interview with Marlon Brando which started with a racist joke, are still drawing fresh viewers on youtube. Intrinsic quality can refute the short shelf life or grown stale argument.
Where the hell, in the talk show jungle, does a person go to see and evaluate new talent attempting to make a dent in the pop culture? [An internet acquaintance from Australia introduced us to the term/concept "Cultural Imperialism."]
The trend to use talk show appearances to promote items such as a new album, book, or film has reduced the content to the level of a huckster's sales pitch. The content of these sales pitches can accurately be called "promobabble."
According to some experts the Tonight Show in the Jack Paar era fostered quality story telling. The need to go to a commercial break causes the (new word alert?) bumperstickerization of all topics. (For an example of a non-traditional talk show guest readers are encouraged to watch the film "American Splendor.")
If, for example, some of Hugh Hefner's picks for future stardom are given the chance to exhibit their inherent charm, then perhaps fame and fortune will arrive at their doorstep earlier than expected.
If some of Hugh Hefner's long time friends are on a new season of "Playboy after Dark," it would be interesting to see and hear them get the chance to tell some stories and anecdotes that last longer than can be successfully told in a three minute segment.
So what, if a review of "King Matt the First," by Janusz Korczak (translated from the Polish by Richard Lourie) sounds a bit too arcane and esoteric? What parent doesn't want to learn of he existence of a marvelous children's book from 1920 that still appeals to adults? Even better if it raises unique topics such as "must children submit to kisses from adults approved by the parents (such as aunts and uncles) or should kids have the right to pick and choose who kisses them?"
Thanks to the internet, some laggards had the opportunity to watch the final episode of "Mad Men" during the week following its broadcast. This should refute any allegations that a talk show has to be seen live to work.
Yes the concept of having an episode where someone asks George Lucas if the C. L. Moore stories about Northwest Smith had any influence on him and his Star Wars films is a very esoteric topic, but, like seeing Brando tell a racist joke, it might have some appeal to film school student fifty years (or more?) in the future.
Don't many folks who are not in the industry love to hear show biz rumors and gossip? Is it true that the next installment of the "Saw" movie series will be a musical comedy?
The modern day installments of pundits making a critical appraisal of the week's events in Washington D. C. is supposed to be a chance to (metaphorically speaking) listen in on a WWII bull session featuring Morrow's Boys, but the reality is that it is actually a melee of authors with competing egos who want to deliver either a scathing example of wit in action or a brilliant "Eureka!" sound byte that lays bare the crux of the debate.
Are the talking heads in the USA going to ask: "What gives America the right to arrest the officials in charge of Soccer and the World Cup competition?" Does Lichtenstein have a right to arrest George W. Bush for war crimes?
Will the talk shows discuss the idea that the Broward Savings & Loan scandal should be just as important as the finances of the Clinton Foundation will be during the Presidential Election?