NICHOLAS HATTON: Our show, which is 99.9% fabricated and artificial, the key .1% of all that is the real person in the middle who brings that completely authentic and unfabricated humanity. And that’s the thing that I think really, in a way, because of the artists around it, it highlights and focuses and really brings to the fore that humanity.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Welcome to We Disrupt This Broadcast. I’m your host, Gabe González. I’m gonna level with you here for a second. It is rare to feel surprised while watching television these days, especially reality TV. I mean, how many different ways can you throw a martini in someone’s face? But the show we’re talking about today somehow did the impossible.
They took a really big risk, and it paid off. Then they did it again. Today, we’ll be talking about Jury Duty and its second season, Jury Duty: Company Retreat, with co-creator Lee Eisenberg and executive producer Nicholas Hatton. Now, Jury Duty isn’t exactly inventing its own genre. What’s surprising about the series is how it draws from different TV traditions to create something that feels entirely new.
Part hidden camera reality TV show, part scripted comedy, Jury Duty picks one person and creates an entirely constructed reality around them. In season one, Ronald Gladden thought he was participating in a real jury, and in season two, Anthony Norman believes he’s working as a temp at a corporate retreat.
What feels most unexpected about Jury Duty is what this show hopes to capture these subjects or heroes doing: being a good person. After being raised on a diet of cutthroat reality TV that places people in competition, or at odds with each other to create stakes, Jury Duty‘s ethos, the show’s entire vibe, feels different.
Under the most unusual circumstances, do everyday people have the capacity to do the right thing? So today we’ll be chatting with Lee and Nick about how they’ve pulled off two seasons of the series, what it’s like working 10-hour days behind a two-way mirror, and how the series had to fundamentally transform to make it on the air in the first place.
Later on, we’ll be joined by Hunter Hargraves, an associate professor at Cal State Fullerton and author of Uncomfortable Television, to talk about the reckoning facing early aughts reality TV, why we enjoy feeling uncomfortable, and what Jury Duty can tell us about how audiences’ tastes might be shifting when it comes to reality TV. So don’t go anywhere. We’ll be right back.
CLIP: Jury Duty: Company Retreat
Introduce yourself and tell us where we are.
Okay. Um, hello, my name’s Anthony Norman. Um, I’m here at … Sorry.
You can do it again.
Okay, okay. Rocking Grandma, sorry. First day here.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Welcome back to We Disrupt This Broadcast. I am your host, Gabe González, and we are here with the co-creator of Jury Duty, Lee Eisenberg, as well as the executive producer, Nicholas Hatton.
Welcome to the show to both of you. Season two, I cannot believe it happened, and we have so many questions about how it did. But before we dive into season two, I wanted to explore the origin of Jury Duty. Nick, when you joined the project, what were you thinking it would be, and what ended up happening for you once you kind of dove into season one?
NICHOLAS HATTON: Well, I’ll never forget that Todd Schulman, who’s a dear friend of mine and we’ve worked together for a long time, he sort of brought me over to the US in the first place. I was working in the UK. And I was finishing producing Borat 2, which was a very intense process and its own beast entirely. And honestly, I had sort of sworn to myself that I was never gonna go back into this space again because it is so, it’s unbelievably challenging. And the reality is, you know, you’re dealing with real people who have their own agency and free will, and you’re hoping to land on some creative outcome which you really can’t control. But you build all the elements around it and hope you can guide people to this place.
And obviously with Borat, and I think this is important because I think it informs Jury Duty to a degree, with Borat, it is satirical. It is meant to be hanging a lantern on injustices, and so you’re dealing with a lot of people who might, you might not politically align with, who might have views that you don’t particularly agree with.
And they might aggressively and sometimes violently defend those views. And coming out of that process, I was like, I, this is too much. This is too bloody hard. I don’t wanna do this anymore. And then Todd called me. He said, “It’s something in this space. We love it, but we need someone who can actually, like, take what, you know, Lee and Gene had written and make it real.” And, ’cause this didn’t exist before. We kind of invented this format.
And my instinct was to say no, and then he pitched the idea, and I was like, “Oh, bloody hell, that’s a really good idea.” That’s really, I think that’s undeniably really smart. And it was the heart of it, the original concept of, like, you know, the Henry Fonda banging his hand on the table, standing for justice when everyone else around him just wants to go home.
That was so appealing to me and I think as a direct follow-on to the work on Borat, which I think can delve into some of the darker elements of human nature for ultimately a good purpose, higher meaning. This was more of an outright embrace of decency and humanity. And frankly, it felt like a bit of a soul cleanser.
LEE EISENBERG: Just process-wise, there’s two distinctions. You know, the two distinctions are one, you know, Sacha’s the star of Borat or Bruno or any of those things. We have Ronald and Anthony. So there’s a big difference between having one of the, you know, the world’s greatest comedians at the center of it, and then having other people surround them.
In our version, it’s the inverse of that, so you have an unsuspecting hero, and then they’re interacting with everyone else. But, you know, in the same way that you do with a regular narrative, your hero needs to guide the story as much as possible. So how do you get somebody who in many ways should be so passive or just kind of experiencing life, how do you get them to be active?
And so that’s really, that’s quite a distinction. And then, you know, from the moment we pitched the show, we always called Ronald and Anthony, you know, whoever it was, we always called them the hero, from, if you saw our pitch pages. And so, you know, it was very important to us that we were never punching down, that the joke was never at their expense.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: And it’s interesting ’cause you’re working in kind of a hybrid style that, again, has never been crafted. But a lot of times folks will talk about it as scripted or candid camera, a hidden camera, but reality as well. And I think for a lot of Americans historically, a lot of reality TV has generated storylines from people making bad choices, often at a producer’s behest.
But both seasons of Jury Duty are so intentional in being crafted around, as you said, that hero, that normal person, and not just making them feel supported, but giving them the opportunity to do the right thing in extreme circumstances. So in a way it almost feels like anti-reality television. And I’m just wondering, Lee, why is this the journey you chose to follow, and was it a difficult one to commit to once you had made that choice?
LEE EISENBERG: I mean, for me, and I’m curious to hear, you know, what Nick’s perspective is on it, we weren’t interested in telling that story. You know, we wanted- I think the world isn’t always feeling so great, and I think that, you know, when you start doom scrolling, I don’t think that’s the most uplifting thing. We put together this incredible team that works tirelessly on this. It was to tell something that does kind of show the best of humanity. That was our North Star from the beginning.
NICHOLAS HATTON: Yeah, it’s funny. I actually, I find a lot of reality shows quite tough to watch, and I think it’s because I feel like there’s an engineered conflict there, an engineered tension, which in and of itself I can sense the artifice, and I think it’s the reveling in some of our darker feelings, our darker exchanges and emotions for our entertainment, which I’ve never…
I’ve always just found it very personally, it’s a barrier for me. I find it very hard to overcome. And the irony being our show, which is in 99.9% fabricated and artificial, the key .1% of all of that is the real person in the middle who brings that completely authentic and unfabricated humanity. And that’s the thing that I think really, in a way, because of the artists around it, it highlights and focuses and really brings to the fore that humanity.
LEE EISENBERG: I think that the other thing, too, you know, with reality shows, they create these storylines, and so some of it feels manufactured, as Nick said. With us, we are blatantly creating storylines. I mean, that’s- That, we- that is the… Among the things that we keep secret, that is not one of them. We are actually constructing storylines.
However, the thing that I think people take for granted, and you see a little bit of it particularly in episode eight of season two, is the connections that the actors find with Anthony, those are not put on. Those are not put on whatsoever. There is genuine affection and friendships that will continue on long past this experience for all of them.
And, you know, when the actress who plays Helen tells Anthony that she- Yeah … you know, she wishes if she had a son, that he would be like… I mean, like, as someone who for 20 years has been, you know, trying every day to write something that matters or that makes someone feel something, to have a moment that I had absolutely nothing to do with affect me in that way is, it, it’s so powerful.
And those are those moments that you’re like, that’s what makes the genre so electric because none of us could have ever scripted that. If we had written that, it wouldn’t have worked. If that was on an episode of The Office, if that were on an episode of The Bear, if that were on an episode of any comedy or drama, that would not have worked.
But the fact that a real person was affected by Anthony, another real person, and in the most organic way, was very honest, in a moment after they had been hiding the truth for so long, their actual connection was 100% authentic.
NICHOLAS HATTON: The thing that surprised me, and gloriously so, was the relationship between Helen and Anthony- between Stephanie Hodge and Anthony. And we’d seen glimpses of, because again, we’re living with them, we’re watching them even in the dull moments- Yeah … and they would hang out in the yurt a little bit and they’d color together. They had these vision boards as one of the seminar exercises, which you don’t see.
And so we knew that they, you know, were friends with each other. But it was a reveal to us as much as anything else when we saw what happened in the final episode. And again, it makes me cry every time. I wanna cry now thinking about it. Yeah, it’s amazing. It’s, uh, one of those most beautiful surprises which we didn’t anticipate. But again, it goes to sort of the magic and electricity of the show.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, absolutely. And I feel like that interaction in particular comes at such a crucial moment, too, like toward the end. I believe she tells Anthony that she felt so seen by him, and there were so many actors that responded pretty emotionally once they kind of dropped the facade. We actually have a clip of Helen’s reveal to Anthony.
CLIP: Jury Duty: Company Retreat
Hey, Anthony. I’m Stephanie. I’m not Helen. And…
You was my favorite. You was my favorite.
I have to tell you what you did for me. As an older person, you get pushed to the side a lot. You get in the last seat. You get chosen last for the games. And you didn’t ever see me that way.You saw me as a person and not some older lady, and that means the world to me. And the amount of love that you gave everybody here made my heart so huge and happy, and I’m just grateful for you, and you are a fine, fine man. And don’t you ever forget that, okay?
Yes, ma’am.
Okay.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Even after the cameras go down, they’re still in character, right? They’re kind of, like, living with these characters a lot. And to not just have the, like, relief of being able to drop the character, but the catharsis of being able to communicate how much of that affection was genuine seems to be overwhelming for so much of the cast in a way that, you know, as you mentioned, Nick, I think people are waiting for and react so strongly to. And it connects a lot to the themes that we’ve seen in Season 2, right? I mean, this idea of giving ordinary people the opportunity to do the right thing is kind of the through line. But this season in particular seems to sort of be pushing back, not just toward the cynicism that pervades maybe reality television, but people’s sentiments toward working a corporate job. I mean, how did you all land on the corporate retreat and sort of these human elements that you’d explore within that playground?
LEE EISENBERG: There are certain parameters in order to kind of pull off a season of Jury Duty. You need to kind of sequester people in some way or another, ideally preventing them from using social media as much as possible, and finding something that feels like an ensemble that could kind of exist for a week or two. And, you know, I gravitated very quickly to a corporate retreat because, we wanted, if we were going to do another season of the show, it needed to feel tonally aligned, but it needed to feel like its own thing.
NICHOLAS HATTON: Yeah. And I think the theme is important to us. And I think you start with theme, and then kind of work from there, especially since, you know, it is a bit of a magic trick, and people are amazed the first time they see a magic trick. And then, you know, there are sort of diminishing returns every time you do it, so we have to really justify why we’re doing it in the first place.
And I think the idea of working with dignity and being treated with dignity are very… is very, very important, especially in this day and age when there are less labor organization than any time, I think, in modern American history. Rights are being taken away, the rise of the gig worker, all those kind of things. So I think focusing on dignity in the workplace, dignity in your output and what you do, and how much of yourself you commit to it is something that is, a lot of Americans can relate to.
And also the time that, you know, the stories you see between Doug and Dougie Jr. and the passing on of this company- we’re seeing the largest wealth transfer in the history of America right now between that generation and the ones to follow and, and the buying up of all of these businesses by, you know, large corporations and private equity groups. And I’m aware of saying this whilst we are making a show for Amazon.
But, I think all of that, a lot of people can connect to this. And so you have a, the theme that is relatable to a lot of people, and then you combine that with the, you know, the heart and the humanity that we’ve spoken about with regards to our hero and what he brings to it, and I think it makes quite a potent mix, and that’s why we’re seeing the response to the season that we are.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: So in your mind, Nick, what’s the ideal hero when you’re working from the theme that you’d picked for the season? What were some of the qualities you were looking for, and when did you know the right puzzle piece to fit with this ensemble?
NICHOLAS HATTON: I think ultimately the archetype of a hero is always gonna possess a few core elements. I think compassion, I think empathy, kindness are all very important. I think having a sense of humor is important to sort of make a sense of what the hell is going on around you as we throw all these insane people and all these insane set pieces at them. I think that’s very important.
And something that actually, it wasn’t part of our search process, something which we didn’t talk about during either season, but I’ve now reflected on afterwards, is both Ronald and Anthony have a degree of self-possession, which I think is really quite amazing. And I think the way that translates is because they are secure and in themselves, as people approach them, they are able to take people at face value and as they stand and interact with them in good faith, rather than projecting whatever is going on inside them onto that other person, displacing those feelings, which I can say I do.
It’s something I try and work on, and I try not to view everyone through my own prism of my own insecurities and madness. That’s something that, you know, Anthony and Ronald, both of them take people as they stand, and it leads to these experiences where they’re able to really fully engage with people around them with these sort of help me pranks that we engineer for them.
They’re such good eggs, essentially, in that sense. And actually, another thing I just wanna add is obviously the feedback being like, “How do you find these men?” And we’ve had this, a number of, numerous people have said that we should start a dating service, which I think is actually a good idea. I was gonna say- And Lee, we should discuss this-
’cause that isn’t-
LEE EISENBERG: I, I actually just got a t- I got a text earlier today about the dating service. I think
NICHOLAS HATTON: that’s, you know-
GABE GONZÁLEZ: I’ve got straight women and gay men asking me, so you’ve got a wide demographic here
NICHOLAS HATTON: You know, we’re onto something here, actually. But I will say that-
LEE EISENBERG: The show is a loss leader for our dating site.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: There comes the corporate pivot. There we go.
NICHOLAS HATTON: I think the thing I wanna stress is they’re not unicorns. There are good people out there, and it’s just that they choose to lead with things that we all possess. We all have the capacity for kindness and curiosity and empathy. We do all have that within us. They lead their lives in that way, and I think there’s something aspirational about that for all of us as an example that they set of how they interact with other people. And I know there are other people like that. It’s just that often in our culture, in our, you know, political discourse, we lead with the other thing, ’cause the other thing gets the attention, the negative energy, the abrasive behavior, the shocking and odd things.
But that doesn’t mean that there are plenty of really good folks out there if you give them the chance or show them that common humanity is more widespread than you’d think. We share more in common than you think, you know, in terms of just getting to know your neighbor and being a part of community. I think there’s more to cherish out there than people realize, and this show is, I think, a fun celebration of that
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Yeah. I mean, I’ve gotta say yeah, I… It’s just it really does wow me ’cause I– There are so many moments where in the back of my head I’m like, “I think I wouldn’t have made it past episode three,” let’s say, right? Like, I don’t know if I would’ve made it past the proposal on episode one. And so it’s so curious, ’cause you almost wanna see, like, is there some kind of secret trait that these people share? Like, what– how do they do it? Uh, but as you said, yeah, maybe they’re not that rare. Yeah, Nick.
NICHOLAS HATTON: I think, in terms of if you were our hero, No, I think– ’cause I think what you don’t see, and I think this is, you know, I think goes into sort of the skill of the making of the show, is we do craft an experience that we hope they stay on, and we believe will be enticing for them to stay on.
And what you see ultimately in the edits is, you know, these 29 minutes of this sort of insane experience. But we obviously spend a lot longer actually shooting. And we are crafting and creating a psychological environment which we hope will have them continually opting in to stay in the journey, to stay in the experience, the bonds they’re creating with people, the story as it’s being unfolded in front of them. We design it so that people wanna stay in it, ultimately. And so, yeah, give yourself some credit. You’d, you’d get to at least the sixth episode.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: I mean, those Uno games look really tempting. I think those would’ve kept me there for sure. I mean, as we’ve mentioned, the show has a lot of heart, and audiences feel very positively about it. And then there’s also this sort of element of deception, right? Kind of the little white lie of the show is that you’re leading to something that will feel great and cathartic and positive for this person, but it means lying for a little bit along the way. So I’m wondering, for such a feel-good show, how do you reckon with that sense of discomfort or dread that could slip in? Do you lean into it as, you know, part of the human experience? Or do you kind of try to reach a balance where you shy away from it sometimes?
NICHOLAS HATTON: I think for me personally, you know, there are a couple of important notes which help me get through the experience in terms of throwing the surprise party, and that is to know from the outset that, you know, Anthony, much like Ronald, they know they’re on a TV show. And they choose to continually opt in to being on the TV show. They are not captive. They are aware. They have the ability to bow out any moment if they want to, and we present them with those opportunities.
And, you know, the surprise is the shift in focus. They don’t realize that the show is about them ultimately. But it is not someone who is deathly afraid of being on camera, who would be embarrassed of being on camera. We take a tremendous amount of time in our hero search figuring out who would be comfortable in this experience. You know, there’s a lot of the secret sauce of how we make the show is being very comfortable that psychologically our hero is gonna ultimately have a good time and is gonna enjoy this experience.
And again, knowing, going into it that they are going to be filmed, they are going to be on camera, and that this thing is ultimately gonna be put out there for the world to see. So, you know, that’s sort of when we use deception, that’s sort of how it feels comfortable for me, and then ultimately knowing now two times over that it’s gone the way that we intended it to and been received in the way, in the spirit in which it’s been intended.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Well, this is a question for both of you. I’m curious, if there was an eight-episode season about your experiences hiding out at different points on this property filming Anthony, what would the major season arcs be? What would your hero’s journey have been if we’d been following you instead?
LEE EISENBERG: Everything that you’ve learned about producing and writing and creating and directing is thrown out the window when you can’t call cut, and you can’t say, Hey, can we try another one where you seem anxious or, you know, where you’re angrier at this person or anything like that? You spend all of this time in prep: writing, rewriting. You do rehearsals. In episode eight, you see how we have a stand-in kind of acting as the, you know, as a surrogate for what the hero might do and how the other actors can be blocked so that you, people are on camera, that Anthony’s on camera, whatever it is. And then it just happens.
It’s like life. You try to control as many variables as you can, and ultimately things don’t always work out the way that you had hoped. And there are happy accidents every single day, and there are things that you never in a million years could have come up with, like I was mentioning that Helen moment earlier, and that’s, the audience feels that. I think what separates the show from other things is it’s electric because it’s dangerous because at any moment it could be ruined. And I think Amazon would be okay financially speaking if the season of Jury Duty didn’t reach its logical conclusion, and I think that would be fascinating in its own right. But ultimately for us in the years that we’ve put into it, over the course of two weeks you don’t know what’s going to happen from moment to moment, and that is unlike anything, any other piece of art that we’ve ever created.
NICHOLAS HATTON: It carries a real power. You see a bit of this in episode eight, but in the mornings we would send Anthony on runs so we could bring all of our crew in. And as a way, just before he would come back, as a way of calming myself, there’s a little creek in the canyon. It had this family of ducks there. And each morning I would go to the family of ducks and I’d record a video for my daughter, who at the time was two and a bit years old, and I was tremendously missing her ’cause it’s a very, you know, very demanding project.
Record the ducks every morning and then get back in, into control and hide in the dark for the next, you know, 10 hours- … essentially. When it was all done, after we revealed the truth of it to Anthony, it feels like, it’s an incredible feeling. It’s like a huge party, not just for Anthony, but for the crew as well and for the cast. Everyone can come out of hiding. It’s almost like a country fair or something. We bring out the ice cream trucks and everyone’s, like, throwing footballs around and having a great time.
And to speak to the pressure and the sort of the sense of catharsis, I then went back to the ducks by myself. And I have to be honest, I just bent over and just started, I just started bawling. I started just crying my eyes out ’cause it was just this huge release after doing this thing, and building this experiment and having it come out the way that it did is just… I can’t… It’s unlike anything else you can do professionally. It makes the making of the show very special, and I do think that is communicated through the screen, and that a sense of that is what people get in episode eight.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: How do you go into the character creation process? ‘Cause you’ve got this incredible cast, right? Who can’t be too well-known, otherwise somebody might recognize them, but they’ve gotta be really confident in their improv skills. So when you’re building these characters for them, how much of these archetypes are kind of already fleshed out for them, and how much of their own ideas or improv are these ensembles bringing to the table?
LEE EISENBERG: It’s a combination of both. You know, at the beginning of every season of, you know, these two seasons we’ve done, we come in with characters that are, you know, that have shapes and have arcs and there’s storylines. You know, I was trying to explain the show to someone recently, and I said, “You can’t have a show with 12 Dwight Schrutes.”
So, you know, the weirdest person in the office can’t exist 12 times. That’s not realistic. It’s distracting for the audience, and it would certainly be distracting for, you know, the hero. So part of it is, how are you finding ways where everyone, where this amazing cast of improv actors- can shine, where everyone gets their opportunity to shine without it feeling ever overly silly, overly broad, or distancing, or that, you know, it’s gonna pull them out of it.
NICHOLAS HATTON: I think the success lies in that these characters have really well-defined games, really strong engines that you can really identify, and that ultimately is the jumping-off point for these performers because I think the difference between this and a traditional scripted thing is they are living this person on the page, in character, 24 hours a day with no break for weeks on end around someone who does not realize that they are playing a role. So by definition they infuse it with their own personality, their own essence, and that’s the joy of discovery, I think, in this thing, and it really does become, you know, actors talk about, like, making a role and making it their own. These really do ’cause it’s such a quantum leap between what’s on the page and then actually living in the skin of that thing, of that character. That’s the joy, I think, of the casting process.
CLIP: Jury Duty: Company Retreat
My name is PJ Green. Where do I look? Do I look at you?
You can look at me, unfortunately.
Okay. I always wanna look right in there. I love it here, and I love this company retreat that we’re about to go on ’cause listen, if PJ can take a vacation, PJ’s gonna take it. Okay? And we’d like to… What’s up?
Can I get those papers that were on the printer?
Oh, yes. I’m sorry. It’s a little chip dust on that. Don’t mind it.
NICHOLAS HATTON: I also think there’s a little bit of ethos of the sense of discovery for the performers. I think we like that. You know, especially living in LA and the age-old tropes about coming out here and making it and hoping one day to land that big role. This is a town full of thousands of incredibly talented people who’ve never quite been given that shot or never quite had the opportunity, and I think the joy of this show is being able to really reach out, find those people, no stone left unturned, and giving them this moment to do this completely insane thing, and having them, you know, really enjoy it. And to have that moment to come out and celebrate and that, “Yes, I’m in this thing,” is just how meaningful it is for them off the back of their incredible work. Again, it’s another bit of it which makes the process so special for this show and unlike other things.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lee Eisenberg, Nick Hatton, thank you both for joining us this episode. Our team cannot stop talking about the show. I can’t stop talking about the show in public with other people. I butt into strangers’ conversations to talk about the show with them when I hear them talking about it.
NICHOLAS HATTON: I should also say one thing, the Peabody, which we were fortunate enough to earn in the first season, was an incredible moment, and I think an unexpected moment for all of us. And it was just such a beautiful recognition of, I think, the spirit of the show and what we set out to try and make. And so this sort of full circle, being back here talking to you folks, is really lovely, and it’s a privilege and an honor. And I’m glad that the second season is having a similar effect on people in a positive and joyous way.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Well, thank you so much. I mean, it really does mean the world, and it’s so rare to get to see television shift substantially in a very positive way, right? We don’t often see new formats emerge, and I think in an era where it seems like so many people are risk-averse, this kind of shines as an example of a risk that not only paid off, but I think helped generate a little bit of hope in a genre that can often feel very cynical and kinda sad at the end of the day.
LEE EISENBERG: Oh, thank you.
NICHOLAS HATTON: Thank you for having us.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Thanks again to Lee and Nick for crawling out of their control room to talk to us about Jury Duty today. And look, I’m glad Nick got a proper goodbye with that family of ducks. I’m sure they miss him dearly.
What blows me away about this series is the collective effort that goes into making it happen, especially when the stakes feel so high. It’s gotta take a genuine synergy between your cast of actors and your crew to preserve the central twist of this show because everyone is equally responsible for pulling it off. As our guests mentioned, anything and anyone could make it all go wrong at any second. So now that we’ve been taken behind the scenes of production by the co-creator and executive producer of Jury Duty, it is time to talk about the other end of the screen.
How did such an impossibly intricate show work? And why does it feel different compared to anything else on TV right now? After the break, we’ll be talking to Hunter Hargraves, author of Uncomfortable Television, to discuss some of the TV tropes that have shaped reality television and why Jury Duty gets away with breaking so many of them. We’ll be right back.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Welcome back to We Disrupt This Broadcast. I’m your host, Gabe González, and today we are here with Hunter Hargreaves, who’s an associate professor of cinema and television arts at California State University Fullerton. He’s also the author of Uncomfortable Television, and recently appeared on E!’s Dirty Rotten Scandals talking about America’s Next Top Model, if you’d like to see him on TV. Welcome to the podcast, Hunter. How are you?
HUNTER HARGRAVES: Thank you so much for having me, Gabe. Wonderful to be here.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: I did wanna talk about cringe comedy, because that’s one of the things you explore in your book, and there is an element of cringe comedy present in Jury Duty that feels very much in the tradition of shows like The Office, films like Borat, both of which are projects that Jury Duty‘s creators and executive producer worked on. Do you think discomfort is a critical part of the comedy landscape today?
HUNTER HARGRAVES: Yes and no. I mean, I would almost say discomfort and cringe have been so, like, have almost defined our relationship to comedy over the last, like, two decades. That now we’re almost kind of, like, in a, not necessarily post-cringe, but kind of like what do we do after cringe? Like, is there, can we go back to sentimentality? Can we, and still, like, figure out what that looks like, right?
And, you know, starting in the late ’80s and early ’90s with Fox shows, like Married with Children or The Simpsons, right? Like, shows that were already taking this kind of ironic view of the nuclear family, that really sets into motion some of the, like, kind of, I think, mechanisms of cringe that would then be leveraged by Seinfeld and Larry David’s humor, in Curb in the, you know, early 2000s. And then, of course, we associate it with The Office and kind of the mockumentary sitcom of the late 2000s. Arrested Development too.
Now we’re in a little bit different landscape, where some of the shows that especially got a lot of viral attention out of the pandemic, shows like Schitt’s Creek, shows like Ted Lasso, they’re almost sort of gesturing towards this kind of like, much more sentimental. Like, they are trying to get to something that’s comforting, even if there are sort of elements of cringe embedded in there, right? So I think we’re, like, both, like, still in the middle of a lot of cringe, as something like Jury Duty really shows, but also, like, trying to figure out how to climb out of it.
And Jury Duty is really interesting because the final episode of each of the seasons that have come out are about the kind of revelation of sentimentality and saying, like, Okay, well, you’ve had to watch all of these, like, awkward, voyeuristic dynamics for six, seven episodes. Now we can kind of give you the reveal of the hero and celebrate him appropriately with a much more toying on the heartstrings, playing off of the kinds of emotions of the moment final episode.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: As we mentioned, Jury Duty kind of mashes together three very different styles of TV that come with their own kind of legacy and baggage. So we’ve got the sitcom, right? These sitcom roots to the show, but we’ve also got elements of reality TV and the hidden camera show, which feels especially to come from a very moralizing tradition. It’s like we’re catching people doing something good or bad. But in Jury Duty, we’re catching good. And I think it’s fair to describe it as a feel-good show, but at least two of these formats we’ve talked about do feel historically pretty exploitative. How do you think Jury Duty kind of wrestles with this tension by combining the different elements it’s pulling from?
HUNTER HARGRAVES: That’s a really great way to think through Jury Duty, right? In part because its generic instability is, in many ways, the hook of the program, right? Like, you’re watching something that’s, like, you hear about it because it becomes nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series at the Emmys, but it’s also being described as this kind of reality social experiment, right? Like, and a lot of the shows that it has a sort of direct comparison to, and I’m thinking specifically of something like Spike’s The Joe Schmo Show from the early 2000s. It has, like, a very similar kind of narrative structure in that we’re gonna kind of, like, show you the show, and then the big payoff is in that final episode or penultimate episode revelation where the mark figures it out.
And then you have a whole episode that’s devoted to process. So let’s now, like, show the audience the process, but also let’s show the mark, let’s show the target, the hero- … the process, and make sure that they get to see exactly what had been going on, and let’s talk about all of those close calls and stuff like that. And that important part of the process at the end, I think, is what helps viewers really sort of end up negotiating between all of these different generic registers, where obviously you’re supposed to sort of root for Ronald or Anthony in Jury Duty as you sort of watch it, but you’re also sort of watching, you know, out of the possibility that they might figure it out, and, like, really figure it out, and confront a kind of like is this a show? What’s going on? You know, a real kind of Truman moment, right? Like, will he figure it out? And then it gives you that beautiful kind of cathartic moment at the end.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: It’s so funny you mention The Truman Show. I mean, obviously, you know, a natural comparison, but there was a point where executive producer Nick Hatton, in our earlier interview, compared himself. He was like, I felt like Ed Harris at the end every time we reveal ourselves to our hero, ’cause he’s holed up in a cave watching these guys, right? Like, in the dark, mostly silent for, like, 10 to 12 hours a day, but developing, I’m sure, this very, like, oddly parental kind of parasocial relationship from behind a camera.
HUNTER HARGRAVES: They comment on that in the show, right? Absolutely. They say, like Yeah, I feel like I’ve known you forever and ever, and you have no idea who I am. And that’s why that kind of process episode is really important at the end of these seasons, right? Because, you know, they need, in order to sort of, I think, get the viewer ultimately into that sweet spot of cathartic, wow, this was such a cool social experiment, it doesn’t feel exploitative, they really wanna show you the number of people working on the production, how there was such care involved in taking care of this one subject who doesn’t know what’s going on, right?
Like, and that’s why you need the testimonials of all the actors being all like, “No, we really fell in love with you. Like, you’re family now.” Like, in part so that way there’s kind of a bulletproof, you know, we’re not gonna have any Tyra in a trench coat later on. Yeah. Trying to be like, “Jury Duty: What Went Wrong,” right? Like, they spend a lot of effort trying to show the audience, and of course the subject, that they were doing a good job of taking care of them, and that they were sort of really, you know, not being exploitative.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Is reality TV responding to audience expectations, or are audience expectations being shaped by new trends we’re seeing?
HUNTER HARGRAVES: I think now that we’re in what one of my friends, the Vulture’s TV critic Brian Moylan, calls sort of, like, late stage reality television, or, he calls it late stage housewifery with the Housewives. But this idea that, like, we’re now in this sort of iteration of the genre where everyone kind of knows the tricks. Everyone kind of knows what’s going on, and that, you know, what we’re getting is a very edited part of the story. And that’s why regardless of what kind of show it is, a lot of fans feel a fatigue. And so that’s why I think Jury Duty was able to intervene and kind of say, like, “Well, actually, we’re still taking what you like about reality television,” right? We’re going to still give you this kind of natural narrative of a reality show, but we’re going to, you know, make sure that the person that you relate to the most is likable and relatable, not like a lot of reality TV personalities, right? That they’re there for, quote-unquote, “the right reasons,” because they just want to participate in their civic duty or, you know, be a good temp because the economy is rough right now, right?
Like, and, you know, these kinds of motivations help the audience. We’re not supposed to see Ronald or Anthony as these, like, influencers just sort of chasing a check or chasing a sponcon deal, right? We’re supposed to just see them as these, like, very sympathetic characters, and that’s why I think the show is able to sort of intervene so successfully across all of these different genres and maybe across all of these kinds of, like, disorienting registers, where you’re sort of like, Am I a voyeur? Am I, like. Who am I rooting for? Like, do I want him to figure it out, like, ahead of time? Or is this even a competition? Because now we’ve sort of rewarded both of these heroes with, you know, $100,000, $150,000 at the end of it, but it’s not sold to the audience as, like, a competition.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: I guess that was that the interview process?
HUNTER HARGRAVES: Yeah, right? Yeah. Like, and you’re just sort of all like, Yeah, congrats. And in both seasons, they both sort of frame it as, like, uh, we’re giving you this money because you are a good person. And because you, like, proved yourself to be a good person.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: All right. Well, Hunter, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for making the time to join us here and talk to us about Jury Duty and your book, Uncomfortable Television. Can you let folks know where they can find you or find more of your work?
HUNTER HARGRAVES: You can check out my book, Uncomfortable Television. It’s available from Duke University Press. You can also find it independent bookstores and I guess on, uh, Jury Duty‘s parent company’s website as well. Though I don’t wanna necessarily tell people to buy it there, so.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Make it a one-stop shop. There you go. Yeah, of course.
HUNTER HARGRAVES: But yeah. Thank you so much for having me, Gabe, and always wonderful to chat television.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Thank you again to our guests, Lee Eisenberg and Nicholas Hatton from Jury Duty, and Hunter Hargraves, author of Uncomfortable Television. Talking with Hunter today kind of helped me work out in real time the conflicting feelings you get watching something like Jury Duty. To an American audience, all the visual cues you’re getting are telling you someone is being tricked or deceived, that some kind of prank or conflict will happen at someone’s expense. You’re expecting the kind of discomfort we’re used to. But the series upends these expectations by acknowledging that tension and almost immediately resolving it. What keeps us watching isn’t a story happening at someone’s expense. It’s a story being propelled by this person’s choices, setting them up to be a hero, to use the show’s terminology.
And Jury Duty‘s approach might reflect a shift in where audiences are at today. Maybe now that we know what we know about reality TV and hidden camera shows, there’s something a little too grim about watching an unsuspecting person being exploited by a media corporation for our entertainment. After all, we’ve got enough stories about working class people being exploited by corporations in the news. And that’s where I think Jury Duty‘s sitcom roots shine in the best way. Prioritizing community over competition can still create compelling TV. And maybe audiences really do want to see a series where someone can win without it being at someone else’s expense. It might not reflect our current reality, but it could reflect the one we’d like to be living in.
I’m your host, Gabe González. Thank you again for joining us. And before you pop out your headphones, we have got one more segment to leave you with. Because the Peabody’s are decided unanimously, every episode, we’ll bring you the quote that we chose unanimously as our most disruptive moment.
NICHOLAS HATTON: Obviously, the feedback being like, “How do you find these men?” Numerous people have said that we should start a dating service, which I think is actually a good idea. Lee, we should discuss this.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: Join us next time as we talk to Kim Rosenstock and Elizabeth Meriwether, showrunners of the devastating and hilarious Peabody Award-winning series, Dying for Sex.
KIM ROSENSTOCK: We thought we were making a show where the sex was gonna be the most taboo thing we could put on screen, and by far the thing that people have talked to us the most about was the death. And putting the same sort of unflinching lens on that and pushing in when normally you would pull away, like, that’s stuff that we’re really proud of.
GABE GONZÁLEZ: We Disrupt This Broadcast is a Peabody and Center for Media and Social Impact production hosted by me, Gabe González, with on air contributions from Caty Borum and Jeffrey Jones. The show is brought to you by executive producers, Caty Borum and Jeffrey Jones. Managing producer Jordana Jason. Writers: Sasha Stewart, Jordana Jason, Bethany Hall, Jennifer Keishin Armstrong, and myself, Gabe González. Consulting producers Jennifer Keishin Armstrong and Bethany Hall. Researcher, Riley McLaughlin. Graphic designer: Olivia Klaus. Operations producer: Varsha Ramani. The marketing and communications team: Christine Drayer and Tunishia Singleton. From PRX: the team is Terrence Bernardo, Jennie Cataldo, Edwin Ochoa and Amber Walker. The executive producer of PRX Productions is Jocelyn Gonzales.