The Idol has a serious The Weeknd problem
There's one thing preventing HBO's controversial drama from being a weird, fascinating, and dare we say good series: Abel "The Weeknd" Tesfaye
TV Features The Weeknd
One of The Idol’s most striking scenes (in a rare positive way) arrives in episode two. Jocelyn (Lily-Rose Depp) is propped up on stage in a skimpy fuchsia outfit, forcing her way through a music-video shoot for a song she loathes. Her famous, glamorous outside world is nothing compared to the lonely nightmare within. She is shaken by grief after her abusive mother’s death and is visibly falling apart. And her team still insists she that push through the pain—literally, because her heels are making her bleed—to give the fans what they seemingly desire: their favorite singer grooving and grinding excessively to a track called “World Class Sinner” in an effort to rebrand her as the next nasty pop queen.
It’s a moment that speaks to The Idol’s lost potential. What is the relationship between a young superstar like Jocelyn and her fandom as she seeks to reclaim her image after a devastating loss and nervous breakdown? Who drives and manipulates that dynamic for her fame and ticket sales? It’s neither Jocelyn nor her passionate followers; instead it’s the crisis team buzzing around her, played by a dizzying array of talented actors like Rachel Sennott, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, Hank Azaria (despite that horrendous accent), Jane Adams, Troye Sivan, and Dan Levy.
Co-created by Sam Levinson, Abel “The Weeknd” Tesfaye, and Reza Fahim, the drama is briefly fascinating when Jocelyn’s PR agent, co-managers, publicist, label executive, and devoted assistant take over. They’re often clumsy and catty while fighting to ensure her relevance with the public, embellishing the state of her mental health to a Vanity Fair reporter (who is given unreal, unprecedented access), figuring out how to deal with a racy viral photo, and motivating her to write new songs. It’s a weird but undeniably gripping look at the music industry’s inner workings. Too bad, then, that we only get glimpses into this world because all that promise collapses into an unwatchable mess once The Weeknd comes onscreen, which is, of course, is far too often.
Look, The Idol was always going to be a challenging watch. It premiered in June with too much baggage—reports of an unhealthy on-set environment, Levinson switching focus to an extreme male gaze, director Amy Siemetz’s exit, The Weeknd’s careless dismissal of a damning Rolling Stone report, and abysmal early reviews out of Cannes. It was also following in HBO’s Sunday night time slot after the network wrapped seasons of its acclaimed Succession, Barry, and Somebody Somewhere. The only saving grace would be if it was narratively rich, but The Idol quickly establishes it’s more interested in the tediousness of a character named Tedros instead.
Even if the team’s damning response to the alleged news of The Idol devolving into torture porn didn’t exist, the show has no qualitative legs to stand on. And that’s mostly thanks to The Weeknd’s laborious, cringeworthy output as Tedros. Four episodes in—season one wraps with episode five on July 2—The Idol is only superficially provocative and incendiary while depicting Tedros’ influence over Jocelyn. A club owner, talent scout, and cult leader, he’s supposed to evoke devotion and fear. But Tesfaye’s bland, awkward acting captures neither of those things. He has a following of aspiring artists, like Suzanna Son’s Chloe and Moses Sumney’s Izaak, but The Weeknd has no command over the material, and he’s unable to sell any of the characteristics he needs to. He scurries in and out of a scene, rat tail intact, with an unearned air of superiority. And unfortunately, the weak script matches his rhythm. Jocelyn says in the premiere that she liked Tedros’ “rapey vibe.” If you’re on Twitter or TikTok, you’ve seen a barrage of clips that will make you want to wash your eyeballs.
It’s a shame, as there are punchy performances on the show—but none of those characters are ever fully realized. Episode four’s best moment features scene-stealer Randolph and Son, but their quick interaction goes nowhere, with any juice the moment had evaporating as soon as The Weeknd enters the frame. And then there are those poorly staged sex scenes. The Weeknd has claimed that they’re purposely bad, but that’s a shoddy cop-out for what amounts to depictions of sexual assault. And even if they were bad on purpose, what’s the intent? The show can’t seem to understand how to use kink for character-driven arcs; it’s for shock value and nothing more.
That same note could be applied to all things The Idol and The Weeknd. Tedros’ big bad wolf persona doesn’t register. It’s vacuous, whether he’s jolting Sivan’s Xander with a shock collar or beating Jocelyn with a hairbrush like her mother did to “inspire her.” What a load of toxic bullshit. It’s understandable why HBO banked on a successful and talented musician like The Weeknd teaming up with Euphoria’s Levinson. They were expecting another triumph in the vein of the Zendaya-led teen drama, which at least has substance. But The Idol doesn’t have any. It’s just painfully dull and dangerously toxic. That, of course, could be remedied in the season finale—hey, Tedros could very well be arrested or be killed off—allowing the show’s more fascinating fragments room to grow. Here’s hoping.
72 Comments
Oh, good: another article about The Idol! I’m sure this will have something of substance in it that hasn’t already been covered by every single outlet for the last month!
I know right? It bothers me to no end that this media-focused outlet continues to write about one of the few major shows airing new episodes right now.
I think this would be a valid point if other major shows got similar attention (I believe we’ve gotten a single article for The Bear), and that the coverage of The Idol didn’t boil down to hate-watching.
It’s more of a “how many times can we keep saying the same things over and over again” issue than a “why are we talking about this” one. This article literally contains nothing new that hasn’t been covered by other outlets, even the A.V. Club itself.Meanwhile, there are a ton of more interesting, engaging shows on the air right now with ZERO coverage from the A.V. Club. Apparently, only Disney+ and HBO Originals get weekly reviews anymore.I know I’m a few years late in saying this, but it’s just so sad to see a site fall so far from what it used to be. This site thinks we need more opinion pieces from people who can’t even be bothered to cover a better show weekly.
Yeah there’s no shortage of interesting stuff to cover on TV (despite the best efforts of the streaming services) but the site doesn’t have the resources to cover any but the most popular or sensationalistic. Coverage of bad TV can be entertaining or informative but it feels like a waste when so much good goes uncovered.
This site absolutely has the resources cover lots of things out there. They were able to just fine 10-15 years ago back when it was just a couple of guys at The Onion. It just chooses not to because they don’t want to or care.
There is absolutely no connection between this current Gawker trend media site and the operation formerly known as the AV Club. There hasn’t been for quite some time. I wish things were otherwise and they had an actual staff of critics, but people should stop being surprised that the status quo is the status quo.
I don’t think anyone is surprised; they’re just complaining about the status quo in the comments because, well, it’s one of the few venues there is for venting their spleens about this issue in a place where anyone else might notice or care about it.
Since the site shifted from legit media journalism to this tacky modern model, complaints about bad articles only end up viewed as engagement numbers that validate that article and the overall approach. The days of there even existing editorial staff who might read comments and give a single shit are years past. The only conceivable way to register distaste for posts in this Gawker model is to ignore them and engage much more with anything remotely decent anyway.The commentariat here doesn’t have any idea what they actually want anyway. Look at the scores of negative comments for the essay about the Bear. People seem to mostly want sites like this to echo exactly how they feel about things at the exact same level of depth that they engage with it.
I’d rather complain than engage with the bad content as though it’s passable (that Bear article is a dumping ground for sentence fragments and comma overuse). Or, even worse, scold people for wanting something better.I’d rather a commentariat that turned on the publication than one all to eager to bicker with itself like gawker clearly wants it to.
He said, with no self-awareness.
Not wrong, exactly, but then, to complain is human. That it feeds into the very system that is making the site worse is an unfortunate vicious cycle, but people gotta vent somehow and somewhere and, well, like I say, where else is there?The site gets shit, people gonna vent about it. Honestly, complaining about the complaining is just as futile as, well, the complaining apparently is.
The problem isn’t really that they are writing articles about things people (say they) don’t care about, it’s the absence of everything else.But for the sake of argument, while a terrible show, this happens to be a show that stars one of the world’s biggest pop stars (which itself arguably doubles the potential newsworthiness), and has its own juicy behind-the-scenes drama (another hook), and is just so confusingly bad for a prestige network. So there is material there. There’s definitely some great shows that don’t get a lot of coverage, but comparing it to the coverage of the Bear, which was only out for a week when this article dropped and has spawned at least three articles here since (much weightier ones than this), is kind of silly.I think a few articles about this show while it’s new is a hell of a lot more acceptable than decades of obsessive discussion of the fucking Room, or any number of other bad pieces of art that spawn more discussion than good ones.But yeah, would it kill the site to acknowledge that Silo exists?
No, he’s right. This media-focused outlet continues to focus on this one single piece of mediocre media while it ignores completely all of the good media and major shows airing new episodes out there and there are plenty. Emmy nominated The Bear only got one article. Silo and Black Mirror just one as well. Meanwhile they’re on their third article for this one show.
Don’t worry, Darling. The season will be over soon, and the site’s collective attention span will move on to another topic which is unworthy of the over-coverage it will inevitably receive.EDIT: Now I’m trying to remember if “Don’t worry, Darling” was the Florence Pugh film the site overcovered, or the Anna Kendrick film the site overcovered.
An entertainment website writing about a popular yet troubled and troubling show… gobsmacking stuff.
I’ll never understand people who go on websites with tonnes of new articles on a daily basis and moan like this. If you don’t like it, don’t click on it. Simple, innit?
My interpretation of the comment was not that the poster found articles on the show to be problematic per se. The problem is that all of the articles say the same damn thing. Will this enhance your understanding, or are you just stupidly snarky? “I’m sure this will have something of substance in it that hasn’t already been covered by every single outlet for the last month!”
I remember the days when the AV Club had the balls, brains, and backbone to stop covering something that was shithouse.Katie Rife, IIRC, famously walked out of Outlander, and whoever used to recap The Blacklist got done with it about the same time I did.
I miss Katie!
She flat-out said she was done with the use of sexual violence as a plot driver in that show, and openly declared she would no longer review it. That’s balls, brains, and backbone, right there.
Yep! And it was completely justified.
And yet Walking Dead shambled on for what, eight seasons worth of reviews?What’s missing now is the quantity. They reviewed some pretty minor league shit at times, but instead of 5-10 separate reviews daily we get maybe three a week.
Three a week if we’re lucky. Most of the time now it’s just a quick, poorly written and realized recap of the entire season and that’s it.
What the hell is the point of a recap? It’s not a review, so it doesn’t provide the reader with any value that wouldn’t be better served by…y’know…watching the damn show.
it’s just a quick, poorly written and realized recap of the entire season and that’s itThe AVClub
And at least you got the impression that they were doing it because they thought the show was worth reviewing and discussing, and not “The Production Company said we have to review this else we won’t get pre-release screeners in the future and they’ll stop sending us merch”. I like to think that TWD reviews were postmodernish meta-commentary, but.
I keep seeing stuff about how this supposedly shines a light on the seedy underbelly of pop stardom is or how abuse makes better art or whatever but I’m struggling to think of a pop star this applies to? Obviously there could be stuff like this behind the scenes that we have never seen or known about, but the only one I can think of is Britney Spears. Are there any other pop stars that seem to be powerful or famous *because* they were manipulated or abused by a weirdo like Tedros?
Kesha, Lindsay Lohan, Lady Gaga, Jessica Simpson, any of the Nickelodeon girls, etc. I think any teen star, especially from that aughts era were often victims of abuse, whether sexual or financial, and then vilified by the media for being “crazy” because of it. Even someone as big of a star as Janet Jackson, who you would think should be able to wield a lot of power in the industry, basically had her career tanked when she tried to come forward about sexual harassment by Les Moonves. So I’m sure if someone as well known as Janet Jackson was silenced, than a lot of pop stars said “message received” around coming forward.
Right, I’m aware of all that, I’m more questioning the premise of the show itself, that apparently this kind of abuse and manipulation exists as some kind of like, encouragement? The show’s message seems to be “being abused by a disgusting weirdo makes your art better” and I can’t imagine that’s ever been true. I mentioned Britney Spears because her meltdown was so extremely public compared to a lot of others.
I think it’s an amalgam of exploited pop stars and the writer’s “great idea” to use a Charles Manson-like persona and his talented sex cult as an attempt to make the series more intriguing.
Tedros is supposed to be a sort of sketchy charismatic cult leader who mesmerizes a young, fragile pop star (i.e., Britney), but the writing, directing, and acting is SO BAD that the execution fails spectacularly.
The message of the show is the opposite of what you said it is. If the villain of the show expresses something it probably isn’t the message you’re meant to be taking away from it.
Normally yes, but isn’t the show sort of implying that the abuse/manipulation actually is making Jocelyns art better? I think that’s what’s so unpleasant about all this.
Oh yes, I don’t think the show has much depth in its commentary. I think Lily-Rose is actually delivering, and what’s more interesting is how management abuses its stars or facilities their abuse by others (when usually perception is the opposite when you reach a certain level of fame) and how that hinders these pop stars art.The Weeknd storyline has nothing insightful.
Kesha, Lindsay Lohan, Lady Gaga, Jessica Simpson, any of the Nickelodeon girls, etc. I think any teen star, especially from that aughts era were often victims of abuse, whether sexual or financial, and then vilified by the media for being “crazy” because of it.The big difference between those (and so many others) and Jocelyn in the show is that the people closest to them were overwhelmingly in-concert with the person/people treating them poorly, so they often had no refuge from the mistreatment because even the people they thought should be trusted also had their hands in the cookie jar.
With Jocelyn, the people truly closest to her have thus far been working in her best interests (albeit slowly). It’s not surprising that Nikki (who runs the record company) is willing to give away her single, but that relationship is fundamentally business (and Jocelyn is admittedly fucking up the record company’s money). But Chaim? Destiny? Leia? They’re all firmly in her corner, even though they’re taking in Tedros rather slowly (but between Euphoria and The Idol, Levinson is one of those creators who does a piss-poor time of showing exactly how much time passes between episodes).
That’s why I think there’s a disconnect with Jocelyn, because she seems like less of a naive victim and more like someone who is simply being stupid, even though she has the structure(s) in place to prevent that stupidity from becoming calamitous, so long as she chooses to use them. She, thus far, isn’t, and at a certain point, you have to give some agency to a person who simply wants to do what they want, and to have done to them what they want, even if its detrimental in the aggregate.
She isn’t a pre-teen. She’s a grown-ass woman. Because of that, it’s difficult to assess whether it’s abuse, or whether it’s desired by someone who has a particular penchant for pain or the exercising of her own inner-desires vicariously through someone else.
(The last sentence is something I believe the latest episode was getting at, albeit muddled. That is to say, that Jocelyn either doesn’t care, or actively enjoys seeing people be mistreated, but she doesn’t want to get her hands dirty, so she stands idly by or convinces others, such as her mother or Tedros, to do the proverbial dirty work.)
Isn’t the problem that we don’t know what goes on because (for a variety of reasons) no one wants to talk specifics? Like how pre-Weinstein/#MeToo no actress wanted to talk specifics about an industry everyone suspected was full of scumbags. Kesha talked about being abused by Dr Luke and he’s worked with everyone from Katy Perry to Doja Kat. Given what we know about the music industry and how unregulated it all is, I’d be shocked if there weren’t a lot of abusive assholes in positions of power.
not necessarily pop, but kim fowley comes to mind.phil spector was another famous weirdo/murderer.
This is not new not by a long shot, hell you can go all the way back to the Jackson 5 and this kind of abusive shit was happening, probably even before that.
You’re not seeing that from anyone who’s not connected with the show, or writing for a tiny niche website, though—are you?
Consider the source.
Tedros is a personification of that old advice for creatives ‘don’t get in your own way’.
Dude always looked/seemed to me like someone who would be perfectly fine with fucking an unconscious body.
That isn’t prejudice at all. At all!
Huh. Going off the reviews, I though reductive writing and characterizations, horrid sex scenes, poor directorial choices and a general sense of not making a good product and being pretty aware of it would play a factor.
everything i read about this show makes me think it’s the mildest and laziest form of edgy.
like how hardcore porn still uses a husband-wife dynamic and anything beyond that is TABOO.
It’s basically “Hey! Everybody! Look at Lily-Rose’s tits! But know that looking looking at Lily-Rose’s tits is bad, you monster.” That’s apparently some sort of quality soci0-cultural commentary.
I don’t know what sites you’ve visited lately but unless you think everyone lives in cliche Appalachia there are really no husband-wife dynamics. It’s largely step-this-and-that.
The irony of course, is that I suspect much of the truthfulness and realness of the music industry stuff comes from The Weeknd being a popstar himself.He just does not have either the acting ability or the actual inherent menace to play his character though. And it’s a shame that he forced himself into the role instead of casting someone better suited.
Well, that’s possibly true—Weeknd contributing to the music industry stuff, but when that’s on it actually shows a level of insight and satire that’s completely lacking when he himself waddles in for his libido-deflating/suck-my-dick-bitch/STOP LOOKING AT HER I’M A FULLY DRESSED SEX GOD shit that completely destroys any positive aspects the show might have had. (And no pal, none of us believe for a minute that it’s intentional.) I mean, it’s all so poorly (re)written it might have worked with someone with actual charisma like Idris Elba, but Abel/Weeknd/Tedros has all the sexual energy of a baked potato. Even the most fucked-up traumatized gal I know would have thrown her drink in his face and walked.
Yeah, it very odd too because it’s not that The Weeknd is an ugly dude or lacks charisma as himself. He is actually a famous playboy popstar. He didn’t too badly playing himself as a horndog in Uncut Gems.He’s just not a good enough actor to fit whatever they’re trying to do here. Now that I think about it, it would honestly make more sense if he just played a version of himself. You wouldn’t even have to change a single thing other than his backstory.
“like Idris Elba”??? Thanks for the laughs!
So, everyone else in the show has to do more labour to make it vaguely competent at what it is and compensate for Tesfaye’s lack of talent?So what you’re saying is everybody’s…
Another article about how the Weeknd is bad in the Idol?
So brave!
I’m not at all supporting the site continuing to review this mess but I can’t stand this variety of response. Since when did entertainment news and commentary have to be “brave”? I feel like this particular word choice came into snark usage around the time of South Park’s Kaitlyn Jenner episodes and has refused to die the death it deserves. It was only ever *mildly* funny or interesting.
Of course cultural criticism should be brave. Warming over the consensus opinion on a show, over and over, is cowardly. Nearly anyone who’s watched any of the show agreed the premise was kinda intriguing and the supporting cast was fine, and everybody who’s watched any of the show agrees that it’s awful, the script is weak, the Weeknd isn’t a real actor, and that Sam Levinson needs to jerk off before coming to work.
Publishing an original thought about this universally panned show would be brave. Shutting the fuck up about it would be a reasonable alternative. Continuing to farm rage clicks about it is cynical and cowardly.
Emphatically restating your point in different verbiage doesn’t make it any more true. Bravery or cowardice are not substantive qualities of cultural criticism.Should I point out that bitching about the writing on the site is also pretty fucking unoriginal and thus by your metric “cowardly”?
Do you think cravenly rewording the same article every other critic wrote about the pre-screen every week is valuable commentary?
It’s weird to me that with all the shit you guys give them for how shitty Max is now, you keep covering this shitty show and writing about it when the ratings for it are abysmal. How much are they paying you to keep writing about it?
Calm down……..it isn’t that serious.
I am calm, and don’t call me serious.I mean, I am serious, but you can call me Shirley.Damn it.
Two words:Carteeey. Blancheey.
Hahaha…that part – was like nails on a chalkboard.
It’s telling that The Weeknd is such a bad actor that he failed at playing himself. The entire project was tailored around his successful Weeknd persona. The role isn’t pushing him into any uncomfortable territory, and doesn’t require any more range beyond what he does on stage. The whole thing is like if Prince somehow looked uncomfortable in Purple Rain.
He kinda did. Still worked, though.
The problem is that he’s not really playing himself. That’s why he’s so terrible.It’s pretty clear that what they are attempting is to portray the Tedros character as a social climbing grifter latching on to a much more successful, wealthier and more powerful star. And then feeding into her own insecurities and hidden desires in a parasitic but somewhat mutually reinforcing relationship. Because ultimately he’s not actually the one with the power in that dynamic, right?He’s just doesn’t have the range or the acting chops or whatever to play that role well. And it shows.
#ReleaseTheSeimetzCut
I was alarmed when, after I read all that setup, I got to the actual topic at hand, as indicated by the article title—and it’s just that the Weeknd is not a very good actor.I thought it’d be something more scabrous than that. But I suppose given what I’ve read of the show, that absolutely fits the criteria for tediously boring.
I’m genuinely not sure exactly what you’re trying to accomplish here, aside from drive page-views and up your word count for the month.
More like Tedrious, amirite?
Honestly, it sounds more like The Idol has a serious “it’s The Idol” problem.
Well, it’ll be over soon.This is one I wouldn’t be too upset about if they decided to delete it from Max, and we can all pretend this nonsense never happened.
“It’s just painfully dull and dangerously toxic.” – The AV Club
director Amy Siemetz’s exitYou should probably try to spell her name correctly.
Someone call an editor for this article!