Late Night with the Devil: Live Broadcast to Hell

Concept and Execution

The concept of the 2023 horror film Late Night with the Devil is undoubtedly brilliant. However, the film’s execution ultimately falls short, leaving viewers feeling more frustrated than scared. Confined entirely to the narrow setting of a fictional late-night talk show segment from the 1970s, the film makes a risky attempt to link concept and execution.

The central concept of the film is undoubtedly extraordinary. It would be a tempting idea to show the story of possible demonic possession in a longer real-time vérité film using a smaller number of cameras. Colin and Cameron Cairnes flirt with creating a work that could become a cult classic at such a point. However, their ambitions extend beyond the confines of their narrative. Quickly, the brothers succumbed to their self-imposed stylistic limitations and surrendered to the genuine genius of their perspective tricks. The twist turns what was once an impressive cinematic experience into a forgettable satire on low-budget sensationalism and shock tactics while making it hilarious and subversive.

The potential greatness of the film is still an interesting hypothetical situation. It is set in 1977 and imagines a different reality where there is a fourth national commercial broadcast network besides the famous “Big Three”. The fictional setting provides the backstory for David Dastmalchian’s character, Jack Delroy, a talk show host from Chicago who is elevated to a national platform. The film begins with a five-minute prologue that recounts Jack’s past and includes important biographical details that, when revealed, make the film’s conclusion very clear. Let’s just say Johnny Carson’s ratings juggernaut always surpassed Jack’s six seasons on national television. Even with one near miss, Jack’s show was never able to unseat the king of late-night talk shows.

The event reaches a “sweeps week” (a period of intense competition) before the story’s turning point. Heavily regulated by the ratings agency AC Nielsen, the quarterly events determine the future direction of a television network’s finances. Artificially, the networks compete fiercely to increase viewing figures during sweeps, sometimes airing their most dramatic, graphic, and potentially offensive content. Jack works with his producer, Leo, a man whose sensual appearance recalls Sean Penn’s famous portrayal of a drug-addicted lawyer in Carlito’s Way. They have a long-standing tradition of producing Halloween-themed broadcasts that always end with a costume contest and also plan to assemble a very interesting panel of guests to top previous efforts and attract more viewers.

Christou, a psychic who tries to charm the audience with mentalist routines, is the first guest. His actions depend on his ability to predict seemingly insignificant details about the audience. However, critics could see that Christou’s strategy was dishonest. After Christou appears is Carmichael the Conjurer, a character very similar to the famous skeptic Amazing Randi. Quickly dispelling the illusion of Christou’s appearance, Carmichael painstakingly explains the methods that might lead the audience to believe that Christou has supernatural abilities.

Special Effects and Intrigue

When best-selling parapsychologist Dr. June Ross-Mitchell joined the program, it reached its peak. During a dramatic standoff with law enforcement, Dr. Ross-Mitchell interviews Lilly, the sole survivor of a mass suicide committed by a satanic cult. After this, the story moves into an increasingly ridiculous and terrifying realm. No doubt, the duo of Colin and Cameron Cairnes (and their talented crew) worked hard on the project. Such commitment is especially visible in the field of practical effects where the texture is very thick.

While the film’s intrigue cannot be denied, its narrative structure ultimately works against the intrigue. The persistent depiction of the story as “found footage” focusing on buried broadcasts immediately sets off false expectations. The film abandons internal coherence and embraces a narrative freedom that goes against accepted genre norms. Interestingly, the visual style is very different from the aesthetic that could be easily learned and imitated from easily accessible late-night talk show broadcasts of the period under study (roughly 1977-1978 American television). There aren’t many films in the category that truly capture the idea of authentic footage. The genre’s penchant for narrative invention raises the question of why filmmakers choose to use a particular stylistic device.

The story becomes less interesting because of the prologue. The audience’s experience is limited to holding the events between them until they reach a predictable ending, due to the film’s conclusion being revealed too quickly. It would be more persuasive to present the broadcast as a stand-alone artifact without any frame or introductory text. It will place viewers right in the middle of the mystery and maintain their curiosity as the story naturally develops in a broadcast setting. In such a case, the dialogue the caller delivers to Jack is very effective because it realistically imitates the kind of conversation that would occur in the unusual circumstances of a live television program.

The film’s “found footage” conceit is also inconsistent. The inclusion of allegedly spontaneous “backstage” moments by network cameramen raises the question of why the cameramen chose to document scenes that were unsanctioned and deviated from their assigned roles. Additionally, there is still no explanation regarding fluid editing that combines the unapproved portions with the planned broadcast footage. The film does not discuss the possibility of the existence of master recordings stored in secure vaults marked with clear warnings, nor does it provide a logical explanation of how the disparate material could be pieced together into a coherent narrative.

Plausibility and Audience Behavior

Although the film employs the widely accepted “found footage” style and other related cinematic markers of realism, a major question arises: how credible is it that a studio audience would remain calm after seeing a guest vomit what appears to be a living symbiote from the Venom franchise? The discrepancy between a film’s stylistic decisions and audience behavior draws attention to a potential weakness in the “found footage” genre: implausible events potentially undermine the genre’s reliance on verisimilitude.

The master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, famously rejected critics who emphasized the plausibility of narratives and called them “The Plausibles.” Hitchcock was right to say that any story requires a certain degree of suspension of disbelief to succeed, but even masters of suspense recognize the importance of maintaining a certain amount of plausibility. Films with lots of plot twists that don’t make sense run the risk of alienating the audience, and that’s what happened in the film. It never reaches the peak of true engagement, but it’s not enough to simply keep the tension simmering.

Despite Dastmalchian giving a terrific performance (especially in scenes where Jack is vulnerable and deceiving himself), the character’s rise to national prominence on the late-night talk show circuit is ultimately less than convincing. Dastmalchian does a fantastic job of depicting the dramatic part of Jack’s breakdown. However, the film fails to showcase his comedic abilities in a way that justifies his alleged rapid rise to fame. Presented solely through auditory cues, audience laughter is not an organic reaction to genuinely funny material; rather, it is a narrative device that tells viewers about Jack’s comedic prowess. The reliance on outside approval is a recurring problem in the film. A similar strategy is used in Joker, as the audience’s laughter is used to support the comedic genius of Robert De Niro’s character. However, De Niro’s portrayal lacks the comic timing and delivery necessary to convince the audience of his character’s comedic abilities, even with his talent for character transformation. In short, Dastmalchian’s performance fails to align his interpretation of the character with the film’s central idea.

The basic idea and general atmosphere of the film are unique, but the way it is conveyed is still a matter of debate. The production team’s infectious enthusiasm and vividly imagined world are evident despite concerns about the story’s coherence. There’s no doubt that a large format freeze-framed coffee table book will be charming. The filmmakers wanted to evoke the aesthetic of the 1970s. Although some camera movements suggest a post-Scorsese influence, cinematographer Matthew Temple’s evocative lighting effectively captures the era. However, the use of artificial intelligence-generated background art and interstitials reduces the expected sense of depth. The striking contrast reminds us of the latest technological developments rather than the expected analog style. For a relatively small investment, a more conventional strategy of using an experienced graphic designer can produce a more believable historical feel. There’s no denying that the film succeeds in creating a general “70s” feel. Costume designer Steph Hooke’s choice of ensemble perfectly captured the mood. The stylistic direction is further reinforced by the typeface (thanks to production designer Otello Stolfo) used for the show’s credits.

The Skeptical Audience Member

Deftly, the narrative acknowledges the notion of distrust in genre films by using Ian Bliss’s depiction of a skeptical audience. While on-theme, the behind-the-scenes look is ultimately detrimental. The well-built immersion created by most of the film is broken by the sequences. It is an example of a self-deprecating narrative. The film has many positive aspects despite its faults. The overall experience is enhanced by consistently excellent acting, a compelling storyline, and smart work from the editing, lighting, and production design teams. However, the film is a flawed work and is ultimately marred by internal injuries.

Bibliography

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *