I see your point, and even agree with it to some extent, but I still think Studio 60 isn't quite what it wants to be (at least not yet).
I'm not looking for Studio 60 to be 30 Rock. 30 Rock is apparently going to be a "wacky workplace comedy" with Tina Fey as the harried head writer who tries to corral her nutcase cast while a supremely clueless network exec (Alec Baldwin, who is killing me in the commercials) adds an additional scoop of misery to her work week. It's not going to be a serious discussion of the issues surrounding an SNL-like show and how it impacts society.
Studio 60 is about the intersection between art and commerce. How a show like SNL affects American culture, how the nation responds, and how TV reacts to the pressures of reactionary elements within society who cannot abide transgressive art--in this case, comedy that pushes the envelope.
Sorkin has set up the framework quite well, and we see the pressures of commerce on art very clearly in the first two episodes. I especially liked the countdown clock in Wes' old office, a constant reminder of the bone-crushing pressure on Matt and Danny to put out quality product week after week after week.
But if you're going to show the battle between art and commerce, sooner or later, you're going to have to present the "art." You have to make me believe that this writing staff, this staff of comic actors, can put on a TV show that will thrill a majority of the viewing public--and piss off an angry minority, to the point where the Steven Weber and Amanda Peet characters have to step in. You don't necessarily have to show any of the sketches, but you have to judge from observing these people backstage that they're talented enough, funny enough, to pull it off.
Right now, I don't believe it.
The Big Three--Simon (D.L. Hughley), Harriet (Sarah Paulson), and Jeannie (Jeannie's #3, right?)--aren't funny. They sound like they'd be perfectly competent comic actors within a sketch comedy framework, but Sorkin hasn't invested them with the star quality, the unique personalities that draw the public to performers. At this point, Simon feels more Garrett Morris than Eddie Murphy; Harriet is Jane Curtain without the timing; and if Jeannie is supposed a Gilda Radner-type gamine, she's not even in the same universe.
I don't need to talk to you about "where art comes from". You know better than anyone. With Studio 60, I'm not getting the desperate need to please the audience, the sublimated bitter anger at society, the enormous appetites, or any of the other psychological motivations that fuel most transgressive comedy.
Sorkin has time to provide that psychological backing for his cast. But if he blows it off and just keeps telling us how funny Studio 60 is without giving us the funny, my suspension of disbelief will be permanently un-suspended.
no subject
I'm not looking for Studio 60 to be 30 Rock. 30 Rock is apparently going to be a "wacky workplace comedy" with Tina Fey as the harried head writer who tries to corral her nutcase cast while a supremely clueless network exec (Alec Baldwin, who is killing me in the commercials) adds an additional scoop of misery to her work week. It's not going to be a serious discussion of the issues surrounding an SNL-like show and how it impacts society.
Studio 60 is about the intersection between art and commerce. How a show like SNL affects American culture, how the nation responds, and how TV reacts to the pressures of reactionary elements within society who cannot abide transgressive art--in this case, comedy that pushes the envelope.
Sorkin has set up the framework quite well, and we see the pressures of commerce on art very clearly in the first two episodes. I especially liked the countdown clock in Wes' old office, a constant reminder of the bone-crushing pressure on Matt and Danny to put out quality product week after week after week.
But if you're going to show the battle between art and commerce, sooner or later, you're going to have to present the "art." You have to make me believe that this writing staff, this staff of comic actors, can put on a TV show that will thrill a majority of the viewing public--and piss off an angry minority, to the point where the Steven Weber and Amanda Peet characters have to step in. You don't necessarily have to show any of the sketches, but you have to judge from observing these people backstage that they're talented enough, funny enough, to pull it off.
Right now, I don't believe it.
The Big Three--Simon (D.L. Hughley), Harriet (Sarah Paulson), and Jeannie (Jeannie's #3, right?)--aren't funny. They sound like they'd be perfectly competent comic actors within a sketch comedy framework, but Sorkin hasn't invested them with the star quality, the unique personalities that draw the public to performers. At this point, Simon feels more Garrett Morris than Eddie Murphy; Harriet is Jane Curtain without the timing; and if Jeannie is supposed a Gilda Radner-type gamine, she's not even in the same universe.
I don't need to talk to you about "where art comes from". You know better than anyone. With Studio 60, I'm not getting the desperate need to please the audience, the sublimated bitter anger at society, the enormous appetites, or any of the other psychological motivations that fuel most transgressive comedy.
Sorkin has time to provide that psychological backing for his cast. But if he blows it off and just keeps telling us how funny Studio 60 is without giving us the funny, my suspension of disbelief will be permanently un-suspended.