Celia Larkin: 'Late Late' host needs to get some backbone
Ryan Tubridy's cop-out on the Dunphy interview was compounded by allowing George Hook to attack Dunphy, says Celia Larkin
You know the Kenny Rogers line, "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"?
Ryan Tubridy needs to learn it. Fast. If he can learn it. Because his interview with Eamon Dunphy last week was a lesson in everything not to do as a chat show host. The role of a talk show host is to expect the unexpected (with Dunphy the only thing to expect is the unexpected), handle the difficult, cajole the meek, draw out the debate, roll with the punches, know when to scoff, know when to provoke laughter.
Gaybo's ability to do all of the above is the reason an older generation remembers the Late Late Show as the source of conversation for the following week, partly because of the sometimes explosive debate it hosted on issues that touched the very core of our society, but also because the programme wasn't predictable. If someone unexpectedly handed Byrne a controversy, he knew how to squeeze every drop out of it. Ryan Tubridy doesn't.
Eamon Dunphy offered some controversy. He made comments calling Ireland a "dump" and a "kip", but that sort of comment is the fuel of live television. Or should be.
I hate to have to say it, but Ryan was just unable to handle him. He reacted like a rabbit caught in the headlights. He fell back into the trap of sticking to the script. I mean, who cares that Dunphy did an ad for McDonald's? Yet Ryan abandoned what could have been a very interesting spat -- sorry, line of questioning -- to pursue pre-scripted and much less relevant queries, leaving the memory of what Dunphy had said unaddressed, unchallenged, even -- since silence gives consent -- accepted.
Why? He can't have been surprised by Dunphy's performance. That's Dunphy for you, to paraphrase Albert Reynolds. He was never going to be plain sailing. He's forceful, opinionated, passionate and, above all, controversial. He has always been controversial. It's his 'unique selling proposition'. If you take him in, you take him on. But Ryan didn't.
It could have been a fascinating to and fro, but instead it was simply a rant from Eamon. There aren't many who can rant as well as Eamon, but unchecked it can make for tedious television. What made it worse was that it was obvious Ryan wanted to engage, but anytime he appeared to try, his attempts were timid and Eamon was able to brush them aside with an imperious wave of his hand.
Worse, the host broke a fundamental rule of television. No good presenter abandons a hot topic to pick up a lukewarm one. Ever.
Ryan can do the soft interview very well. Who could forget the lively, spontaneous, warm and appealing interview he had with Joanne O'Riordan, the teenager born with total amelia (no arms and legs)?
This was Ryan at his best, drawing Joanne out, giving us an understanding of what life is like for the 15-year-old, how she thinks, feels, reacts to the world. We saw the best of Ryan in action on that occasion. It was glued-to-the telly stuff, the kind of material Pat Kenny used to find it uncomfortable to deal with during his Late Late stint. But Pat would have known how to handle Dunphy.
Unfortunately Tubridy just cannot handle strong, forceful, controversial characters. Yes, he has fired questions at politicians in the past. But politicians, by their nature, have to be guarded, conscious of the public's reaction to their answers. It's easy to hammer them -- they'll play ball, stick to the script. But what about the wild card, the guys and girls who'll tell you what they really think? The Mary Kennys, the Ulick O'Connors? Eamon Dunphy?
And if last Friday night's appearance by George Hook was meant to redress the Dunphy fiasco, it didn't. Like Dunphy, Hook was allowed to deliver an uninterrupted rant. His target, with gentle encouragement from Tubridy, was Eamon Dunphy. But unlike Dunphy, Hook's rant was personal and it was nasty.
If it was meant to make amends for the show's failing the previous week, it failed miserably. If anything it compounded the offence. And it proved that Tubridy had learned nothing from his mistake.
In the past few weeks some fellow broadcasters -- Sile Seoige and Ray D'Arcy -- have begun to question Ryan's suitability for the Late Late format. Sile asked: "Where is Peter Ustinov, where is Spike Milligan?" proving yet again that whoever hosts the Late Late is doomed to be compared to Gaybo forever. (A "friend" of Tubridy's was quoted making the obvious point that both of the raconteurs are dead.)
The Late Late used to be the release valve for the venting of views on contentious issues of the day.
It was exciting, interesting, intriguing, educational and sometimes infuriating. It could make your blood boil, make you shout at the telly, even start a row in the house. It could make you cry, laugh or nod your head in agreement. But most of all, it could make you think.
The show has taken on the shape of a well-rehearsed play rather than a lively, spontaneous chat show. It reeks of researchers deciding what are the best bits the guests should cover, the guest stipulating what questions they will or will not address, and Tubridy sticking to the agenda come hell or high water. What happened to the inquisitive gene interviewers should possess, the curiosity factor, the natural flow of conversation, the answer itself providing the next question rather than just a check list to be got through?
There's a general trend now for interviewers to flatten people out into villains and heroes with no account of the complexity of personalities, thought processes, idiosyncrasies, character traits: all the elements that make up the flavour and texture of the individual. Unfortunately, the nuances are missed when an interview is too scripted or an interviewer is hell bent on hammering home their own views.
The other element that's been abandoned is surprise. The Late Late always provided surprise. There were no advance promos for guests, regardless of their illustriousness. You watched the whole show lest you might miss some mega-famous film star slipped in as the last guest. And participants stayed for the duration, not just a quick segment, questionnaire complete, off you go. It was the Late Late Show, not a computation of unrelated slots banded together to fill the allotted time without any common denominator.
Actually, there is one common denominator. Most of the guests are promoting something or other. Ryan goes through the motions with them, but they have no organic link to anything else in the show. Most of the time, he looks plain bored. The few exceptions have been his interaction with children.
We need to see a more spontaneous Ryan, a glint of curiosity in his eye, excitement in his voice, a facilitator for the expression of views, a non-judgemental prober for information without need for black or white, winner or loser, villain or hero.
Originally published in
