Colbert’s ‘Late Show’ dilemma
My wife, who hates football, prefers college football. Why? Because it’s more unpredictable and potentially exciting. I mention that as we move from last week’s Republican National Convention to this week’s Democratic National Convention (7 p.m., PBS, C-SPAN, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC; 9 p.m., ABC, CBS, NBC).
Last week’s meeting was not so much a party convention as the gathering of an insurgency that had taken over a party. As such, it was, well, something.
As of this writing, the DNC has not yet released its official schedule of speakers, but it’s expected to include the current president and former presidents as well as sitting senators and governors. In short, the kinds of speakers one expects (or dreads) at a normal political convention. Does that make for “exciting” television? Probably not.
The distinction between politics and entertainment also comes to mind when assessing the recent revival and long-term fate of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” (10:35 p.m., WREGTV Channel 3). Colbert seemed to get his groove back last week, particularly when he revived his old “Stephen Colbert” personality, the brash, somewhat obtuse pundit from the old “Colbert Report.”
And while that’s fun, it points up the bind he is in. When Colbert replaced David Letterman, he traded in a postmodern funhouse take on political culture for a network desk where he was expected to interview the stars of new movies and other A-list stars and make them seem witty and fascinating.
Colbert still seems to prefer interviewing authors and intellectuals — unlike Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and James Corden, who do a better job of playing along with their celebrity guests.
At the same time, Colbert’s old “Daily Show” colleagues, John Oliver and Samantha Bee, host of “Full Frontal” (9:30 p.m., TBS), have come into their own with savage, smart takes on the political scene, riffs with more than a whiff of moral outrage about them. You can’t help but feel that both Colbert and “Colbert” are more than a little bit jealous.