Better in the Dark

I have always meant to speak more in-depth about the podcasts I enjoy. It is far easier to warn others about poor podcasts than it is to make a case for a good show. For example, I have spent much time maligning Keith and the Girl episodes and guests, but this is only for the attention it might focus back on to my blog. So far this plan hasn't worked. I usually enjoy the Keith and the Girl show. I understand the effort they put in. They deserve their position at the top, but I still feel the need to, on occasion, say hey: that was very bad, or you’re just filling time. Someday I will have to praise their show, beyond remarks about what a benefit they have in Patrice.

The film discussion cast Better in the Dark is created out of Brooklyn and therefore is not too far from Keith and the Girl in region, but the shows overlap very little beyond geography.

If you are interested in film talk, I would advise you to give Better in the Dark several listens. I say several, because the show is quirky. Quirky in a good way. While Derick and Tom are all about discussing production values captured on film, their show is ironically recorded without many niceties or special effects. The sound as I mentioned is only passable. I believe they share a microphone, which accounts for the sound levels rising and falling as one or the other of the podcaster leans into their laptop. The first thing you may notice, however, is the editing.

The editing cuts are often and severe. It almost becomes a punk-like special effect on its own, the equivalent of a director inserting video static (snow) into his film in post-production as a transition. The transitions I say are severe, abrupt, and happen within sentences. This type of editing reminds me of “patches” a way music is refined in a studio. If a musical solo is flubbed or uninspired in the studio, the recording doesn't start over from the beginning, instead a patch is made over the offending portion. Usually the musicians play from one silence to the next for a seamless finished product, but Better in the Dark is all about seams. The patches are so frequent they almost create a rhythm. Another way the audio portion is like music.

At first the seams may be distracting. You will hear words stutter where the patch doesn't quite cover over the original take, but the longer you listen, the less the seams invade your thoughts.

Is this editing intentional? You can tell that tremendous effort is going into the edit. But the sound patches seem to be more a matter of who is talking and possibly what is being said. It seems like a dialog is improvised and polished as the show is being made. So the edits build the show instead of a show being organized or abbreviated later through edits.

The Better in the Dark episodes I have enjoyed most are the ones where the hosts bring their personal stories of how and when they first enjoyed a film, or what in their experience brought them to choose a topic (Pam Grier). They are always enthusiastic about their topics. I appreciate their knowledge of film categories (like blaxploitation) which maybe unfamiliar to me. They quickly summarizing movie plots, finishing each others sentences or one repeating the other for emphasis, which is more endearing than it sounds.

If you are a regular listener to many podcast, you will know how they often plead for money to help improve their show quality. With Better in the Dark, part of me wishes the men did have a better recording setup, but another part of me really enjoys the way they create their shows presently and I wouldn't want a slick new production. (If you want slick try Hollywood Saloon.)

I realize my review may not be eloquent or persuasive enough, but try a few shows out and make up your own mind. Give Better in the Dark a good listen for what they are not sa_saying as well as what they do sa_say.