The Black Tapes podcast review
I have listened to four episodes of the Black Tapes podcast and I find myself going back and forth about how I feel about it. The ghost stories themselves are interesting (The Tall Man/Slenderman, the Hum/Unsound and then Upside Down Face Carrie in particular, was my favorite for spookiness) but the dialogue could use some tweaking. Or perhaps it’s just the acting.
Our narrator, Alex, doesn’t seem to take any of these stories very seriously and when she talks to family members and victims of extremely sensitive events—she sounds like she’s asking about their favorite ice cream flavors. It’s just—very little of what she says and asks sounds genuine. She doesn’t have the sound of a journalist, a reporter—as someone who cares about the truth and is accustomed to dealing with people. Whenever Strand is condescending to her—she never once brings up the point that she investigates supernatural occurrences and takes an interest in them because she’s simply keeping all avenues of questioning open. And that journalists get stories from people—she can talk about the truth until her face turns blue—but she’s a journalist. Her stories are, in the end, about people. She’s looking into unsolved hauntings—not murders. And the people she interviews should be the “interesting people” she’d initially planned to do this podcast about. Strand is simply the liaison to these people.
But then—I guess I don’t actually know what her focus is or ‘should’ be. Several times, she’s brought up her “other” podcast: the Pacific Northwest Stories. No clue what it’s actually about. This was just a spin off. I don’t think this “other” podcast is real—but they bring it up so much that I’m wondering if I missed a detail somewhere where they explained what the PNS actually is and what its about and why it gives Alex Reagan this supposed clout of a “respected” journalist of a “famous” podcast “worldwide” (haha, reaching there a little bit). If she was really so well-known and respected, I’d have thought she’d be better at her job. Her interviews sound so stilted and awkward that it’s like she’s reading from a script. Which I get it, she is—but this is acting. Not reading. The conversations with Richard Strand are the worst, though. Of all the awkwardness with ‘interviewing’ family members or victims—nothing quite amounts to the strange, stiff conversation that Strand and Reagan have in every episode.
Strand would be almost all right by himself—but his dialogue is, again, weird. I mean, a guy who has looked into the Dark Web but doesn’t know what a torrent file is? Who is so smug about being able to debunk any ghost story but he doesn’t understand media sharing but he’s supposedly super into the latest and greatest technology? He sits in a café with a young twenty-something. She leaves the table and leaves her phone—and he gets up and leaves too—leaving her electronics unattended. People don’t do that if they’re trying to be on someone’s good side. When he’s talking with the sheriff in episode 04 and Alex points out (with a strange, out-of-place giggle in her voice in the middle of their interview about grisly murder) that he’s smiling---because the sheriff talks like he does and thus, Strand kind of respects him or something. But the sheriff doesn’t know that. For all he knows, they’re a couple of dicks laughing at a horrific murder.
I know the excuse was given that Strand agreed to see her again because he wanted her clout as some kind of platform—but every time he goes anywhere with her, all they do is disagree on everything. Everything about him suddenly apologizing and wanting to meet with her feels wrong—it feels like an excuse. Not a real reason. She doesn’t seem very suspicious of that anymore—but I still would be. He has some kind of ulterior motive, I assume (hope) because otherwise the action doesn’t fit with anything else he’s done.
Side note: that whole five minute bit about Nick the Producer talking to her about journalistic ethics and whether or not she violated them. She didn’t think she’d crossed a line. He didn’t either. Nothing changed. So why was it brought up? The reason given was that she wanted him to question her method—but…I mean, she’s supposedly this really respected journalist—so doesn’t she know how to be a journalist? Is she new to this or is she a pro? The vibe she gives off is like a kid in college still learning the game.
There are several times where lines are used in an attempt to bring in humor or lighten a mood—none of them work. They all fall flat. They are done at inappropriate times or places. Hey, guess when it’s not appropriate to mention how gosh-darn cute this little kid is? When you’re telling the audience about how he might be being stalked by a murderous shadow man. The audience is supposed to care about this little kid and the Slenderman—when a lighthearted comment is crammed in like that at an inappropriate time—all it says is that Alex doesn’t take this very seriously. So why should the audience? The tone is inconsistent. Is this a young adult just telling ghost stories or is this an investigative journalist who wants to find the truth?
Why was Robert so angry at Strand for not being able to ‘prove’ that the Tall Man wasn’t real? Every other investigator he spoke to said the Tall Man was real. Robert seeming to blame Strand for his marriage falling apart because Robert didn’t believe that his wife was seeing this creepy shadow man seemed so forced. And I thought that was a shame because of all the voices who did interviews—Robert felt the most real, the most genuine. I was totally digging how resigned and defeated he sounded—until he started getting angry at Strand—which seemed so out of place. Yeah, I can see initially being angry at Strand---but holding this grudge is weird and then blaming him for his marriage falling apart seemed even weirder.
Strand is initially described as being a direct, straight-forward man of few words who comes off smug sometimes but doesn’t really mean to and doesn’t waste time with chit-chat and bullshit. If that’s the case—why does he lead Reagan around by the nose so much? He’s got some dramatic flair—presenting a guessing game for her when he shows her Robert’s two videos instead of just telling her what they are. He seems more interested in showing off, being right and having people stroke his ego. His condescending attitude could be easily argued against if Reagan was an actual pro veteran journalist. That choosing to not believe or disbelieve doesn’t mean she’s ‘pliable’ or weak in her fortitude. All it means is that she’s willing to suspend judgment until evidence comes that convinces her otherwise. Whereas Strand is so adamant that nothing supernatural is real—that he’s exactly the same as the people they interview. They “expect” to see ghosts and such, so they see them. He expects to not see ghosts and such—so he never does. Everything is very black and white for him---whereas Reagan should be able to easily point this out as being shades of grey. But she never does and so he continues to walk all over her. I could understand if she could debate with him and he was interested in hanging out with her because he actually respected her as having an agile mind that was choosing to be the objective observer rather than choosing one side over another---but despite being this respected journalist—she’s not able to debate with him and so he simply patronizes her, treating her like a child. So rather than respecting her—it just comes off like he has some ulterior motive or is just enjoying the spectacle because I guess he has nothing else to do.
Are Strand and Reagan supposed to be around the same age? There are a few moments of forced jokes where it’s implied that he’s older (“This is what passes for music nowadays” – yes, you hipster, geez) and Reagan sounds like she might be in her early twenties.
Strand’s wife’s parents. They (the father, at least) is convinced that Richard killed her. Reagan passes this off as, “Well, lol, my parents didn’t even like my last boyfriend so of course his father and mother in law assume that he killed their daughter.” Dude….no. Unless there were problems of a violent or abusive variety before she disappeared—there would be no reason for her parents to instantly say that Richard killed her. But the parents never really say what they thought of Richard prior to her disappearance. Did they not like or trust him from the beginning? Parents being protective of a child is not an adequate reason for them to assume the spouse killed them---unless there were problems beforehand. People who have healthy relationships, tend to at least get to know their in-laws at least a little bit.
And—I have to laugh at Reagan sometimes: she comments on things in odd ways. The best one was episode 04. Rich shows her the video of the hooded figure standing in front of the bank.
Reagan: Is she waiting for someone? What’s--
(she seriously does that every time he shows her a video. She always gets impatient and jumps the gun.)
But then Reagan mentions that figure is wearing a long, black cloak. Like—why wasn’t that the first thing she noted was out of place. Like, “What the—is she wearing a cloak? Does she know those went out of style like, 300 years ago?” (<--Appropriate place for a joke, when she doesn’t know what’s coming and doesn’t know its serious)
Reagan: …..oh! Ah! What just happened! (And then take it seriously again, as a woman just dropped dead.)
Now I know I’ve spent some time getting on certain points—but I do this because I actually really want to like this podcast. There are some cool things about it.
I love the ghost story aspect. I love the black tapes. I love the wondering and researching and the interviews. The Upside Down Face—when the librarian revealed that it was Sarah wearing the other girl’s face—that was probably the best moment so far. It was genuinely creepy and eerie. It’s the moment this time where I was like, “Oh, dude!”
Part of the allure is that none of these cases can really be proven or disproven—so that’s just bread crumbs. The real meat and potatoes then—should be the characters and the relationships (platonic or otherwise) that they form. That seems to be forming now—as Alex learns more about Richard’s missing wife and—his child. I must have missed it because the first time I heard anything about Charlie was episode 04. And I was like: who the heck is Charlie? Reagan spends so much time reiterating points she’s already made and reminding us of people she’s already mentioned in one episode that for a potentially important character to suddenly be there and then dismissed was weird.
