2 hours ago
2
It’s been almost a decade since Laura Byrne first appeared on Australian screens, as a contestant on the 2017 season of The Bachelor. This year she returned to reality TV in a very different capacity.
For the new companion series MAFS: After the Dinner Party, co-hosting with Brittany Hockley and Jules Lund, Byrne was on the other side of the drama: unpacking the week’s biggest moments on Married at First Sight and interviewing the season’s most contentious stars. She was at the heart of every controversy playing out in real-time, and – as a first-time TV show host – she became known for her ability to call out bad behaviour while also bringing empathy and a sense of calm.
Deputy TV editor Meg Watson spoke to Byrne about her anxieties about the series, why she disagrees with Tanya Plibersek’s take on the show, and why fans who also “fed the beast” should now “lead with kindness”.
Congrats on the end of the season! How are you feeling now you’re free from MAFS?
I’m feeling great. It’s nice to see my kids and my husband again! It’s been really full on. Even though we only did one episode a week, I feel like I’ve been stuck to my TV [watching the series]. Plus keeping up with all the TikTok, social media and media stories. We really wanted to reflect what the audience was saying and thinking about each step of the experiment.
How did the show come about for you?
I got approached for it. Britt also got approached. Then we did a chemistry test – with other people as well, not just with each other. Britt and I have worked together for almost eight years now, so it felt like a really organic progression of what we already do. MAFS is such a juggernaut. It takes over the media cycle for the entire season, and we’ve always had conversations about it on our podcast Life Uncut. For us, this felt like a bit of a no-brainer.
At first, we thought it was going to be more of a recap show. But all the behind-the-scenes content adds so much more. There is this level of accountability with the way in which participants tell a story after the show’s finished. They can’t blame all of their behaviours on production or “a bad edit”. There were actually things so much worse that people had done off-screen that didn’t make the cut – even worse than what we aired on our show.
That behind-the-scenes video of Danny talking about Bec was obviously a big bombshell dropped on After the Dinner Party. What kind of additional clips didn’t make the cut?
I think when [any contestant’s] bad behaviour has been established, there’s no benefit in showing more of the same bad behaviour. People already understand. We made the call to not have a pile-on situation on certain participants.
MAFS has been a big conversation-starter on Life Uncut, but this series (aired by Stan, which is owned by Nine*) has an association with the show itself. Were you worried about being able to keep your authentic voice and independence when discussing a series which can be so controversial?
The only reason Britt and I said yes to this is because we were told – and it was absolutely the truth – that we were chosen to do the show is because they wanted our opinions. Good or bad. We had every right to challenge the participants, to challenge the experiment in different ways. We could speak the way that we wanted to speak about it.
My biggest apprehension about the show wasn’t about maintaining my own integrity, it was about the interview aspect. We’ve done hundreds of interviews for Life Uncut, but I’ve never been in a situation where I’ve had to interview someone where I really don’t believe in their values. I went into this wondering how I’m going to go with someone like a Tyson or a Danny. But actually, I think it’s the thing I enjoyed the most.
I really enjoyed being in those situations where there was a debate or a discussion – and figuring out how to navigate those types of conversations with accountability, but also with empathy.
That interview with Tyson, where he talked about wanting a “submissive” woman, was a flashpoint of the series. I think everyone agrees you did a great job holding him to account. But there was a big debate about the amplification of his comments. Social services minister Tanya Plibersek even weighed in, playing footage of your interview on social media, and saying this kind of rhetoric shouldn’t be on our TV networks at all. What was your response to that?
I don’t know if I agree with that for a couple of reasons. I understand why we say this, and I understand why people have a strong reaction to MAFS. But I don’t agree when people say, “Oh, it’s promoting bullying or XYZ.” I actually think it does the opposite. It creates so much online conversation around why something is problematic behaviour.
The reality is, people like Tyson who have those belief systems are out there. They are real men who speak like this in everyday life all the time. People are dating them. They’re walking among us. The producers don’t have to look hard to find those people. So I think it’s important for a social experiment like this to show the full breadth of different types of personality traits and belief systems. It brings those conversations to the forefront.
I think for younger audiences that are watching it, or people who are dating, it gives them an understanding of certain behaviours. It’s like, “Oh, that’s the red flag I’m going to look out for.” That’s why we all can relate so much while watching MAFS. Yes, we watch it for the drama. But we also relate to at least one couple or experience on there.
Where do you think the line should be drawn, though? It’s one thing to have problematic language or beliefs, but then there are issues like broader coercive control. And last season there was a physical incident with one groom punching the wall. Is there a line for what should be up for discussion in this “social experiment”?
Absolutely. There is a line – and I don’t think that line has been crossed. But also, it’s not scripted. The production has not sat down and been like, “This is what’s going to happen.” There are also so many safety protocols on these shows, so I do believe that they have a good duty of care for their participants.
If you had to put a percentage on it, having now met them, how many MAFS contestants are there for love and how many are there for the drama and fame?
Honestly, I don’t know! It’s really hard to tell. Sometimes people go on these sorts of shows genuinely wanting to meet someone, but then if they don’t meet a great match, then their fallback is fame – to get something out of it. It’s the next best thing.
We do still see incredible relationships, like Stella and Filip. They’re engaged, living together and so happy. There’s been quite a few success stories of people who are now married and have beautiful babies, but that sometimes gets lost among the drama.
As a former reality star yourself, do you feel like viewers are too hard on contestants?
I think that audiences see contestants as two-dimensional people. An edit can portray someone that way. But we’re not characters. We’re not all bad or all good. That doesn’t exist. People are complex. And I think the thing that was so great about our show is sitting down and having conversations about people’s faults and vulnerabilities and insecurities.
Audiences love to have a villain – and there is such little empathy for the fact that they’re also a human. The pile-on is way worse than anything that that person did on the screen 99.9% of the time. Some of these contestants receive death threats afterwards. They get told that their lives are not worth living. There’s nothing that anyone has done on this season of the show that warrants that.
Sometimes people need to step away from a little bit and be like, OK, you know what? These people entertained us for the last eight weeks. Love them or hate them, you were entertained. You watched every episode. You fed the beast as well. Leave them alone.
It doesn’t make me keen to go on a reality show ...
It’s a gamble! There is really awesome stuff that does come out of it, for some of these people, like Filip and Stella, and there will be people whose lives are forever changed. The contestants from this year are still in the washing machine of figuring out what life will hold for them. And I think that we can all probably lead with a bit of kindness towards it on social media.
Will you be back next season?
We don’t know yet! We have no idea whether it’s being commissioned for next season but yeah, watch this space. People have such an appetite for more.
MAFS: After The Dinner Party is streaming now on Stan*.
*Stan is owned by Nine, which also owns this masthead.
Want more TV? We’ve got you.
- Newsletter: Find out the next TV, streaming series and movies to add to your must-sees. Get The Watchlist delivered every Thursday.
- The Pitt: Watched the season two finale? Unpack all the action (and the wild fan response) here.
- Mick Molloy and Glenn Robbins: How the comedians recruited Aussie celebrities for public humiliation.
- Beef (season two) review: The award-winning Netflix series returns with an all-new story.
- Kids TV: This new ABC show is part Wes Anderson, part Matilda.
- True crime: Inside the dark secrets of Australia’s so-called ‘murder highway’
- Streaming guides: What to watch this week and this month.
