Audio Episode 05 - The Continuing Case of Ted Lasso
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 01. 2022
- Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2C6SdbT...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/show/pop-cul...
Google Podcasts: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
Our website: popculturedetective.agency/po...
Episode info:
In this episode we investigate the second season of the hit Apple TV comedy series Ted Lasso. We see much more character development this time around as the writers attempt to complicate Ted’s happy-go-lucky wholesome persona but a few outstanding issues remain unaddressed.
Support Pop Detective:
All of our Pop Culture Detective media projects, including this one, are 100% funded by listeners and viewers. You’ll never hear ads and all episode will be made available for free online. So if you enjoy in-depth media criticism, please consider supporting our work over on Patreon.
PATREON
Support this media project on Patreon:
/ popdetective
PAYPAL
Make a one-time donation via PayPal:
www.paypal.me/popdetective
Fair use:
All multimedia clips included in this podcast constitute a ‘fair use’ of any copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of U.S. Copyright law, which allows for criticism, comment and scholarship. Learn more about fair use via New Media Rights!
Show credits:
Audio production: Jonathan McIntosh
Intro music: Simon Stålenhag
Outro music: Rick Lopez
I love your work, love these discussions and insights. But I sometimes find, in these kinds of discussions about problematic behavior, it's assumed that because characters we root for behave a certain way, the show implicitly endorses this behavior as correct. Remember, these are characters, not role models. They're not supposed to always behave as we want people to behave. Their job is to behave the way real people actually do behave, and suffer the consequences.
For example, when discussing Roy's continuing struggle to relate to other men without using domination or violence to offset feelings of vulnerability, it seemed as though everyone on this podcast assumed that the show was endorsing his behavior. I thought the show was merely portraying how men in this world often are. Neither Ted nor Beard act that way, nor do Dani or Sam. It's behavior particular to Roy. The show has not yet addressed it, and maybe won't ever do so. But that doesn't automatically indicate tacit approval. It's just a portrait of a football player on a quest to become a better person, using what tools he's got. In fact, in the end, he reserved that behavior mostly for Jamie. And though this isn't the best way for these men to communicate, the important milestone they reached with it was connection. They were speaking the same language. On a long enough timeline, they may learn to use their words instead, and be better for it.
So here's the question. Should we expect every major character to shed all their problems, learn all the lessons, and reach perfection? Is every fault of a character, if not directly addressed, implicitly endorsed by the show? Roy and Jamie have come a long way, but they have a long way still to go. And we're just not going to see the journey's end. Keeley as well, in dismissing Nate's inappropriate behavior as harmless, reveals her unconscious investment in that same toxic masculinity mindset. She's still struggling to respect her own boundaries, or insist others do the same. That scene tells where she's at, given who she is as a character. And I agree with Felicia that it's deeply problematic. But again, we can't assume "the show" agrees with Keeley's choice just because it wasn't immediately challenged. She has her flaws too. She's learning, just like everyone else. I have a feeling this choice will haunt her later.
Ultimately, Ted Lasso has to present the world of football in a way not too divorced from its ugly, toxic realities. It's not Ted's or the show's job to reform all of football culture in one show, making it a paradise of healthy behavior and enlightened choices. That's not a story, it's just wish fulfillment. Ted Lasso presents a semi-plausible fantasy of a man who enters a world riddled with problems, and with the imperfect tools he has, he endeavors, and in some ways succeeds, in making it a better place. The show is already working miracles to make the dramatic transformations of its various characters feel almost plausible, certainly moving. I would cautiously assert that by being what it is, it challenges the real world of football to be a little less like Jamie's father, and a little more like Ted himself. Or at least Roy, which is still a vast improvement.
But if it transformed that world into a utopia entirely unrecognizable to the real world, I think the show would lose its impact. In the real world, we can expect growth, but we can't expect miracles. A show that gave us nothing but miracles would only serve to remind us how unlike the real world it is. Ted does better than easy miracles. It gives us hope. That's my take on it.
As someone who’s been in Keelys position, that scene rang SO true to me, it’s realistic to apologise and comfort the man who’s just hurt you, Keely doesn’t know how he’s going to react if she calls him out, it’s safer not too, so she doesn’t. It’s an uncomfortable scene, but it’s realistic.
Glad to hear the follow up to your fist episode.
In regards to the scene where Nate kisses Keeley, I’d seen a comment which I think is an interesting counterpoint to your discussion. This person appreciated Keeley’s reaction to the kiss because they found it true to their experiences of unwanted sexual advances; where being in a position of vulnerability forces you to act solely for self-preservation. Of course Keeley is fully within her rights to call Nate out for he’s done to her, but there is a horrible history of abusers reacting violently to being called out for their abuse. I think Juno Temple did a good job of portraying that crossroad of shock, upset and the need to remain calm for self-preservation in that situation.
The follow up and that Nate’s crime isn’t commented on is really gross and the writers absolutely fumbled that. But if that’s what the scene was trying to do, I think it was quite well executed.
I think that while there's definitely a point to it with regards to realism, it's the duty of a piece of media - particularly one that prides itself on being relatively progressive - to show us either a better way or make it clear that a certain way is not ideal.
From personal experience, yeah it was a very realistic reaction that is ingrained in us to not make a man upset (or kill us, tbh). However it's a fictional show, I wish they could have let Keeley (so?) call him out and really show that it isn't okay to assault someone
@@DrZaius3141 I should say that while the individual scene was well executed, in the greater context of the episode I found it distracting and worsened the episode.
If they’d gone for a less realistic portrayal of Keeley only being bothered because she’s seeing someone and not being attracted to Nate, that would’ve been just as bad, because it’s still leaving Nate’s assault out there without comment. But it is such a cliched rom-com trope that I think it wouldn’t have stood out as badly.
I think if they’d tried having Nate asking for a kiss or going overboard with his flirtations, that might’ve threaded the needle. You can still get all the plot character stuff with Nate and Roy, but without the ickiness of how it actually played.
@@SeattleWaffle I totally agree. I mentioned in another reply that while I admire the execution of that individual scene, it is handled so poorly as a plot line that it worsens the whole episode. Whatever way the writers intended that plot line to go, they definitely strayed out of their depth.
As a mexican, you necessarily dont have to dress fancy to go to church. Particularly if you come from a low income background. Its something that would be interesting to explore in the show, coming from that background and able to go to play in Europe makes sense why he would be so happy to play in Europe. Looking at his clothes for the rest of the episode indicates a bit that he isnt from a rich background at least.
As a mexican, Dany Rojas isnt that bad, however it would be fun to spend more time with him in the show.
I’m mexican and I loooove Dani’s character. His actions, and the dialogue is very accurate and I feel that it is good representation, probably because the actor is Mexican himself. I agree he should have more screen time and he lacks depth. Still, I think he’s a great side character and totally steals the spotlight from time to time!
Keylee reassuring Nate to me screams Fawn Response. Which is a lesser known response in fight or flight. Its also freeze and fawn. As someone who has experienced a variety of unwanted attention I now understand that one of my trauma responses is fawn due to early childhood trauma. Someone like Keylee has probably had unwanted attention from men and women her entire life, something the show hints at in the greyhound puppy scene. Throwing herself into her work and having Roy go on vacation without her also sounds like conflict avoidant behavior.
Therapy is a big fincial burden. I and a lot of my male friends would love to get therapy, but we simply can't afford it. I really dislike that this fact is missed in your discussion.
You're right, it is often prohibitively expensive in real life and that's a huge problem. Therapy should absolutely be part of free universal healthcare. In the context of the show, it's provided to the employees by the business so the cost isn't part of the story and that's likely why it didn't come up in our discussion. It's hard to mention everything in a 1 hour conversation. Still you are 100% correct that cost is key.
You talked about RomCom references. My favorite were Sam and Rebecca's screen names in Bantr. She was "BossGrl" and he was "LDN152" which are direct references to You've Got Mail. Meg Ryan was "Shop-Girl" and Hanks was "NY152."
But the show references SO many things that you don't even pick up on one watching. I think I've watched the show front to back 4 or 5 times, and I was still seeing new references on the 5th viewing.
I agree with other commenters. As a woman who’s been in Keely’s situation before, that’s how I responded. I think part of the response is just shock and not knowing how to react, and unfortunately years later I’ve realized that a huge part is that it’s so ingrained in women that we shouldn’t do anything that makes others feel “bad” or hurt their feelings, especially men, EVEN when they’ve just violated or hurt us. It’s super f*ed up for sure, but it’s scarily accurate. And while it might have been nice to have her comment more later to Roy or to someone, that she was more disturbed by it than she initially let on in the moment, realistically we sometimes process those things by minimizing them as a way to cope AND she’s likely “protecting” Roy’s feelings or worried about him having a violent response so also downplaying. I think her response is, unfortunately, really REALLY accurate. And I think I would disagree that the show is treating it as if it’s “no big deal.” The characters are saying “it’s no big deal,” but the sheer number of minutes and scenes devoted to it and talking about it and the aftermath seems to me like they do see it as a big deal, and it is a LOT more attention than something like this would’ve gotten in past TV shows. Would I like it to be more clear that it’s not ok? Yes. Is it fair to criticize a show for not taking a stronger/more clear stance on consent, assault, and women’s bodily autonomy? Absolutely. But is the show reflecting the reality of how a situation like this would play out? Unfortunately, I think yes.
This was a great discussion of production choices and character development. But sometimes it seems like you conflate the characters choices and beliefs to that of the writers. Some good discussion gets lost when you don't give the writers credit for intentionally creating problematic situations and instead treat their choices like an oversight.
Last podcast you critiqued the writers for the Nate-gains-his-confidence, locker room scene for presenting Nate's behavior as positive when it was very toxic and negative. Now after watching season two, you say that "in season two the writers maybe reconsidered" and congratulate yourselves for spotting that the behavior was bad in the last podcast. Instead of noting that what you took for shortcomings in writers may have actually been a beat in a well crafted arc. Suggesting that they are just changing tack now because they are "reconsidering" seems dismissive of deliberate story telling.
It would have been interesting to hear you all discuss the writer's choice to have Ted encourage to Nate use old-school toxic machismo to gain respect with the team and build his confidence. A tactic that Ted would never use himself to gain respect. In encouraging that behavior in Nate he creates a monster.
It has to do with framing and context. If writers intend for a character's actions to be taken as positive, negative, or as questionable there are a hundred subtle ways to indicate that to the audience. In fact, they do it throughout season two with Nate's behavior. Things start off as little offhand comments, hints, sideways glances between other characters etc etc. And then later the problem escalates to something more overt. There are no such hints or indications about Nate in season one. If the audience was meant to question Nate's speech in season one there should be some indication of that and there isn't. Also in general, writers rarely write multiple season arcs for new shows because they don't know if they'll get picked up for future seasons. Behind the scenes TV writing is way more "fly by the seat of your pants" "make it up as you go along" than most viewers think, which is not a criticism, it's a skill to be able to pivot arcs from season to season and still keep the audience engaged.
I do agree that the show doesn’t really know what to do about critiquing the institution of Professional Sports, and in particular the culture around it. I think Coach even emphasized the teams need to actually win games in order to keep the team afloat and their jobs. So ultimately making the concessions with certain attitudes towards aggression and the more toxic masculine views are seen as necessary in other to get an edge to win the competition, and thus keep everyone employed (Or at least not lose). So I don’t know how the show is going to properly criticizing the greater culture of Professional Sports on its attitude with Aggression and Competition, when the greater culture has already decided that Domination (ie “winning”) is the ultimate goal of a competition, and have built the entire monetary system around that.
Strange, why don’t these podcast episodes show up on my subscription feed? I’ve been enjoying the series
I'm wondering the same thing. I only found out these episodes were uploaded because I saw CZcams recommended one of them to me... but won't put it in my feed?
The line about her being twice as good at her job as Ted was a direct lift from Lance Armstrong's book "It's Not About the Bike" which was his cancer survival story. He went to his Oncologist and asked about his survival chances, and that very convo happened (according to Lance, a known liar). The Doc asked how good he was at cycling, and replied he was twice as good at his job.
Huh, I didn't know that, though I'm not surprised it's a quote since the show loves its references. Thanks for the heads up.
I 100% agree that Nate wanted to be treated as a sexual threat to Roy. One thing I think that wasn't touched on here was that there are a hell of a lot of orientalist stereotypes about Asian men being almost asexual. I couldn't help thinking that there is definitely a racial angle to Nate's frustration of not being viewed as masculine for his sexual advances not being viewed as valid which bubble under the surface, though I doubt that specifically will be addressed.
So glad to see you guys cover this series! I’ve been looking forward to part two.
Totally valid criticisms of the institution of professional football, especially with recent news about Greenwood.
Honestly making me question a lot about how the beautiful game does have a horrifying dark side that very often goes unacknowledged. Maybe a culture shift to a version of the game that is beautiful but does not harbor abusers and patterns of behavior who's extreme ends result in horrifying crimes is warranted.
Really enjoyed all of these episodes so far. Please keep doing them!
I had no idea these had replaced the main channel videos, I had been listening to the podcast on Spotify. I feel like your videos have made me broaden my perspective when it came to media so I really hope we haven't seen our last edited video media critique as interesting as the podcast is
It’s still mostly a video essay channel. There will be a New video essay will be out this month in fact. So many people asked for the podcast to be uploaded here as well that we finally did it, though audio episodes don’t go into the main feed.
@@PopCultureDetective Thanks for letting me know, I wish you the best in your future endeavors
Yay! I've been waiting for Season 2
just found these podcasts after being a fan for the channel for a few years and catching video essays when they came out and i am so hype for this content lmaoo i love the guests and the whole vibe. i listen to podcasts n CZcams videos abt media and politics to calm my anxiety at work and keep my adhd brain satisfied, so this series of podcasts was a godsend for me !!!! (yeah i watch political content to calm down i’m not like other guys)
anyways keep it up and thanks to the guests (i cannot remember names if i don’t see em written down i’m so sorry but y’all are all great shdjsh). this was a great listen!
loved the podcast always interesting to hear different peoples perspective and i love that you guys arnt afriad to criticise a show that most people are uncritically enjoying
If the failures of this show are as bad as you predicted, it would still be one of the greatest shows ever.
I just caught up to this series, nice.
Hey, thanks for your work! Would be too much if I ask for subtitles in the podcast? I know is an absurd but could be very helpful to have more "audience".. thanks im advance!
Do you think you’ll actually do the third part of this series?? I have a lot of thoughts about season 3 that I’m curious if y’all ahare
You should check out Cobra Kai. That's a show that think it's interrogating masculinity and just fails spectacularly at it.
When they discussed aggression in sports, I was reminded of one of the best Amy Schumer sketches, which is a send up of Friday Night Lights/football: czcams.com/video/TM2RUVnTlvs/video.html
I love that sketch. She was on fire that season. So brilliant.
As always, I loved the discussion here. didn't like the comment about rom-com being way worse than being a communist though...
Aren't all these podcasts with their low view numbers gonna destroy the view numbers of future videos?