PacMags’ Under The Covers and ACP’s Park Street is women against girls
This weekend, I mostly watched episodes of Under The Cover, the fly-on-the wall doco following Marie Claire editor Jackie Frank.
I must confess that my hopes weren’t high, but I felt duty bound to catch up with the contents of my Foxtel box.
A major reason for my pessimism was the experience of watching Park Street, the version that followed editors at rival ACP.
Now before I put the boot into the good folk of Park Street, it comes with this caveat. When I talk about the people who featured in it, I am talking about how they were characterised in this show. I’m sure that in real life, they are lovely, highly professional women of substance.
But as for the show… Oh, lordy.
To a certain extent, it’s a pity Park Street was on pay TV and failed to find much of an audience. (You may recall that the first episode of Park Street rated zero in Melbourne and Adelaide.)
Its content was absolute water cooler viewing, in that I was dying to say to colleagues the next day “Did you see that?”
With just one or two exceptions, the characters (and remember, I’m talking about the way they were portrayed… probably wonderful people in real life etc, etc) were a mixture of the hateful, the insipid and the idiotic.
I began to strongly suspect that those making the TV show had developed a healthy dislike for their subjects. One excruciating episode featured Cleo editor Gemma Crisp explaining the sub editing process. Arguably it wasn’t her fault – it’s an inherently boring thing to talk about. But the apologetic look on her face was much like that of Tim in comedy The Office when he explains the process of ordering paper before tailing off and admitting “I’m boring myself.”
Other vignettes featured an editor talking about how tense everybody was, over the top of B-roll of somebody filing their nails and looking at Facebook.
They also came across as powerless and girly. Trotting off nervously for covers to be approved by somebody (presumably boss Phil Scott) who remained entirely off camera. These were not confident, empowered editors. They came across as nervous young women swimming out of their depth.
But the pantomime villain was the character played by Carolyn Innis. (Did I mention that in real life she’s probably marvelous?) ACP’s creative director of advertising came across as a self obsessed, shouty princess who treated her underlings with maximum disrespect. She became a fascinating, and truly dislikable character to the viewer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4CjZuMyHEU
And all of this from branded content aired with ACP’s approval.
So it was hard to expect much more from Under The Cover, which is currently airing on 7Two
But it couldn’t be more different – and I’d love to know if the difference is in the people, or in the way it’s filmed.
For starters, viewers come away with a sense of why Jackie Frank’s magazine is so successful.
What comes across is that when it comes to editing decisions, she’s bloody minded. She refuses to allow a certain image into a picture spread, even small, even though the subject is going to be offended as she simply doesn’t like it. There are a series of small, similar battles. She wins most of them. The effect on the magazine for each individual battle are tiny, but overall, they are perhaps what makes the difference. Most good editors I’ve been lucky enough to work with are similarly single minded when it comes to their title. It’s usually about fighting a series of small battles rather than taking the easy path with seemingly inconsequential details. In the end, it adds up.
The staff she surrounds herself with also come across as similarly tough minded to get the perfect spread. Creative director Adriana Cortazzo does similar battle to get the shot she has in mind for a hospital shoot.
And perhaps the most insight into work-life balance comes in the episode where Frank races to Melbourne for a Myer opening to keep the advertisers happy, before dashing for the last plane home for a family commitment the next morning. When she talks about the compromises involved, she tears up.
But the big difference between the two shows is that after watching Park Street, I thought less of the editors. And I watch Under the Cover, I admire Frank all the more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Mq2IW8mNk
Tim Burrowes
Linkedin
I saw Park Street and that is my main reason for not looking at Under the Cover. Maybe I will give it a go…
User ID not verified.
I’ve seen both and i actually think they are both very similar, if anything the main differences are Under The Cover focusses on one editor and Park St has to cover five. Jackie’s probably just a better actress and the Park St editors have been just a bit too real !
I thought they were both ok.
User ID not verified.
Having worked for both companies, it seemed to me that the ACP editors were all terrified to look bad on TV and instead came across as insipid and boring. Jackie, however, clearly views the whole thing as a PR exercise and is proving to be a marvellous actress. Bloody minded is a very good term for her, but in life I wouldn’t use it with any respect. Which is quite the opposite of how she comes across on the show. In particular the scene where she was giving a thank you speech to a group of women who had turned their lives around rang screamingly untrue.
User ID not verified.
I must say I agree. I started watching Under the Cover with a fair bit of trepidation and fully expected to turn it off in 3 mins. But I landed up watching teh whole show and the one after as well. Interesting and a good balance of fluff (style) and character – which epitomises the magazine.
User ID not verified.
The interesting difference between Park St and Under the Cover is that the women from Under the Cover are not all young, beautiful and well dressed. Instead they come across as professionals who have the actual experience in editing, fashion, subbing and art direction you need to produce a quality magazine.
User ID not verified.
I love Under the Cover.. having been in the publishing/magazine industry for 20 years I find this show an insight in to the day to day things that happen with putting a magazine together. Whilst I have not met Ms Frank she comes across as a strong editor with little time for crap, whilst still being grateful to those who work hard. No wonder Marie Claire is such a great magazine. I haven’t seen Park St so can’t comment on that show.
User ID not verified.
(Edited by Mumbrella) what you see is what you get.
Perhaps its acceptable in magazines?
User ID not verified.
If Jackie Frank was a man she wouldn’t have to put up with all the speculation about whether she’s nice, not nice, a bitch etc. She’d just be judged on the results. Good on Pacific for having enough balls to let her loose on TV!
User ID not verified.
Utter dross. Her industry is staffed by idiots and read by idiots. Why glorify these types of pointless narcissists? Fashion only serves to bring out the superficial in people. There is zero substance, and just another example of a show that feeds the lowest common denominator. This will be consigned to the same scrap bins as Park St in good time.
User ID not verified.
” Fashion only serves to bring out the superficial in people” – what a load of balony!!!! Fashion gives people the ability to express their individuality (even if a lot of the fashion looks the same), I don’t think it brings out the superficial side of all people – very generalised there!
User ID not verified.
@Claire – “Fashion gives people the ability to express their individuality (even if a lot of the fashion looks the same)” – thank you for that piece of paradoxical wonder! So you are saying that hordes of women queuing up for clearance sales and store openings (think the barnyard rush when Target released its Stella McCartney range), all looking to get the same pieces of clothing, reeks of individuality? More like a bunch of clones who can’t think for themselves, so they let a bunch of uneducated battleaxes from magazine land tell them what to wear this season.
My comment stands. Those who wear and talk about clothing brands like some kind of badge of honour are superficial and do so to fill the massive void where their personality and talents should be.
User ID not verified.
@ Marto- people can still buy the same fashion pieces and make them individual with accessories etc. hence the reason for my comment within the brackets. I am not going to get in to an arguement with you here because to be quite honest I have better things to do with my time. You are entitled to your opinion however you seem to have generalised people with regards to fashion in your first comment and then have been more specific about it in your second. And I am sure these women you refer to as battleaxes are not at all uneducated… but then you are entitled to your opinion..
User ID not verified.
Hey Marto – what are you wearing right now? Bet you bought it from a store and someone else out there is wearing EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!! Best you start knitting yourself a jumpsuit so you can show the world how individual you are…
User ID not verified.
@Lisa – re-read my posts again. We all wear clothes you dropkick, so your argument is redundant. My point relates to clones who think the brand of clothing on their back is some kind of status symbol to be applauded, and the fact that so many people (like you) place so much emphasis on who is wearing what. Harpies like you though who have probably jumped ship momentarily from the Vogue forums to defend clothes, well you are literally too stupid to insult. Time for your next shear you sheep. Baaaaaaa..
User ID not verified.
@ Marto – wow, so intelligent of you to resort to name calling and insults. Grow up.
User ID not verified.
@Marto – obviously knitting will not be an option – someone with that much rage shouldn’t be holding sharp objects. I suggest you macramé yourself a cape from torn strips of rubbish bags instead.
You are definitely not too stupid to insult. You are just stupid enough.
User ID not verified.
I’m surprised Marto’s last comments/personal insults were published/accepted in this thread. Any comments Mumbrella moderators?
User ID not verified.
Hi Alison,
Agreed that Marto’s tone is uncivil and close to being moderated.
If Claire was fully identified I probably wouldn’t allow Marto to make the dropkick comment.
As it is, I suspect his tone weakens his own argument.
Cheers – Tim, Mumbrella
User ID not verified.
Marto – the magazine industry is actually full of smart, commercial people who all work hard to deliver to their audiences. You might not read these magazines, you might not like them but the staff are not idiots.
User ID not verified.
Settle people! Way too serious.
I’m already sitting here worrying why the clothes I’m wearing are just so…like..like…last season! And why my wife doesn’t have a body like Kim Kardashian or a new nose like Jennifer Anniston. I’ve never fully recovered from Brad dumping her and I fret about George Clooney dumping yet another girlfriend and fear he may just like batting for the same team anyway. None of the top 10 mince recipes worked and even Dr. Harry’s tips won’t stop my cat scratching the damned couch.
Mags are sometimes great…other times full of fluff and BS. Great people work at some and air heads at others. Sounds a bit like agencies really. Time to take chill pill people.
User ID not verified.
I nearly swallowed my tongue watching that one clip. There should be an award for sitting through a whole episode.
User ID not verified.
Carolyn innis was a wonderful gift and I loved every minute of her
User ID not verified.
After watching Park St aka in most media circles as “The Devil Wears Target” and roaring with laughter at the creative director/fashion stylist/record producer I was hesitant to watch Under the Cover.
Thankfully it has delighted me. The only thing I regret not taking a job at Pac!
User ID not verified.