Sigh, TV, Sigh...
Oct. 23rd, 2006 10:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatWell, on the bright side, I saw two entertaining tv shows tonight. One was an old Season 7 Buffy episode on DVD and the other was Heroes.
Studio 60? Ugh.
I came very close, this*close to switching to CSI: Miami.
After this episode? I don't know, maybe Studio 60 needs a two week vacation. Question is - will they have an audience when they return?
Sigh. I don't even know where to start. I hate writing critiques of things, as you probably have noticed since I rarely write about movies, books, or TV shows I don't like.
Confession time: I've been trying very hard to love Studio 60. Don't get me wrong, I like it. A lot. Because it is innovative and different and not about mommies, and daddies, and things that go bump in the night. But I'm not in love with it. I see its flaws. But I've been overlooking them, because of the potential and the bits that make me laugh out loud and I keep hoping it will find itself, especially since it has a killer cast and a fantastic dialogue writer. I really enjoyed the second episode for instance and the third, made me laugh quite a bit. The fourth, eh, it was okay, just a little on the sentimental, preachy side, but had some good comedic bits here and there - especially the Lauren Graham sketch they cut because they didn't think it was funny when it actually was. So I could ignore the preachiness and the occassional autiobiographical bits.
Sorkin does get preachy at times. I admit, I stopped watching West Wing in Season 3 or 4 due to some of the preachiness (that and Angel was on opposite) - Sorkin would often forget the characters and devote an entire episode to some lofty debate on some political issue as if the show had become his own personal soap-box. It's not that I didn't agree with him, it's that it bored me. If I want to see political issues debated - I will watch Crossfire, the McLaughlin Group, CNN, CSPAN, Book TV, or McNeil/Lehrer. I'm not going to watch a tv drama. Why? I don't want to be preached to. I want to hear both sides by people who've studied the topic and thought it through. That is not to say, however, that I do not think such topics should not be discussed on blogs (hello, do it myself all the time) or in fiction. But when you do it in fiction - you should "show" not tell the audience.
In tonight's episode Sorkin doesn't pick one topic to preach on, but ten. At least I think it was ten, after a while I lost count. The least offensive, but most boring might have been the McCarthy Blacklist - which I'm choosing because I've seen another television writer deal with the exact same topic and do it in such a way that I was moved by it, the characters progressed, and it is an episode, that while hardly one of my favorites - I've enjoyed watching more than once. This other television writer did what Sorkin doesn't - he showed, not told. Granted Sorkin's skill lies in moving action through dialogue, that's why I watch his shows, I appreciate that skill - but it isn't necessarily the best way to tell a story and he could have told this story through dialogue and visuals and made it interesting. Instead he wove it through an episode without connecting it to anything. It felt as if it came from nowhere.
The other TV writer - was Tim Minear and the episode was in Season 2 Angel, I think it was called "Are Now You Or Were You Ever" - the first question of the McCarthy Hearings. It was about a demon that created and feed off of paranoia. It was also about trust. Betrayal. And ultimately forgiveness. And Minear let the story show us these things, never told us what to feel. He did it with images and metaphors, and dialogue.
In tonight's episode of Studio 60 - we have a forgetful old man who wants to steal a photograph. Halfway through we find out he's a writer. Then at the end, not just any writer, but a writer blacklisted by the playwrite Clifford Odets. The story is not the focus of the piece, but one of many little subplots interwoven haphazardly throughout without much rhyme or reason. To the extent that I found the old man annoying and the time spent with him dull. I did not care about him or his story. I knew off the bat that he was a comedy writer from the past. But I didn't care. When the tale was revealed? Still did not care. Heard a far more interesting tale about the McCarthy hearings in an interview with Warren Beatty, where he discusses Elia Kazan - and how as a young liberal kid he shot his mouth off to Kazan about it and Kazan took him aside and explained exactly what happened and why he did it from his point of view. The information made Beatty feel ashamed for shooting his mouth off and realize that things are that black and white. Sorkin's tale unfortunately isn't as interesting or ambiguous.
That's the problem with the whole episode - every segment is either set-up around a preachy point or an offensive joke, which makes the writer seem somewhat hypocritical and chauvinistic.
Besides the writer's blacklist, we have:
1. The dumb midwestern parents who worship the kid in Afghanistan and show disdain for the kid doing the comedy show. They are so dumb that they don't appear to know what their son does for a living nor have they ever heard of Abbott and Costello. Sigh. I'm beginning to think that in order to write a tv show about anyone in the midwest you should be forced to live at least two years in the midwest first. Also, who the heck do these writers think are watching tv? Hello? Half the population lives in the mid-west. Do you really think they are going to keep watching you if you keep telling them they are nitwits? And, I hate to tell you this, but people in the Mid-West watched TV and listened to the radio in the 1950s and know who Abbott and Costello are. Actually those comics are pretty popular out in the midwest.
I think this was supposed to be funny. It offended me. Which says something.
2. The African-American comics who tell jokes in the comedy club because one of the actors on the sketch comedy series has decided to tell his boss they need a black comic on said series. Uhm. No.
Sorry, do not see this happening. But okay, let's suspend disbelief for a moment, after all what do I know? So I follow them there. And damn, the black comics jokes are condescendingly bad. They are supposed to be of course. But, I cringe. Then we get another guy, who is supposed to be great but has horrid delivery. Someone who they pick up to be the next writer. And I'm thinking, okay, this is just a bit too over-the-top. Number one - I can't believe it. Number two - screams white liberal guilt. Number three - feels incredibly patronizing.
3. The jokes about the dumb women - first Jordan, the so-called with-it network exec, who gets drunk and silly and goes around saying she has no friends. To the actors of the sketch comedy series. Okay, Jordan is the NETWORK president. Not the head of the sketch comedy series. She oversees numerous tv shows. Why does she want to make friends with the comedians on this series? Especially considering the fact that she might have to fire their butts if the show does poorly?? While I can see her coming to the party to make an appearance, she wouldn't stay. Particularly if she is trying to avoid her boss, Jack Rudolph. (I think she has better chemistry with Jack by the way than Danny, but that's just me.)Also why would she get stinking drunk in front of said "employees" ? This isn't the type of party I can see her getting drunk at. She's still at work.
Two - the three groupies who don't know what a tv writer does? Right. I think I'd have found it funny if it hadn't followed both the Laura Graham scene with Matt and the Jordan scenes and the Harry talking about Matt with her girlfriends, to the point in which I was feeling a tad hit over the head with the general dumbness of women. And I tend to be pretty forgiving on this topic.
It would be one thing if the three items above related to one another in some way or pattern, but they don't. Except to the extent they are all preaching about some issue that the writer feels like ranting about and is using his expensive tv show as a platform for. The characters aren't moved forward. Nothing really happnes. The writer just talks at the audience through his characters as if he's on some sort of soap-box all evening.
I felt sorry for the actors in this episode. And wanted to wring Sorkin's neck. Or at least heckle him much like the audience members in the comedy club.
At the end of the show, we're told Studio 60 is on hiatus for two weeks. But will be back.
My question - after this episode, will the audience? Maybe si, maybe no.
Studio 60? Ugh.
I came very close, this*close to switching to CSI: Miami.
After this episode? I don't know, maybe Studio 60 needs a two week vacation. Question is - will they have an audience when they return?
Sigh. I don't even know where to start. I hate writing critiques of things, as you probably have noticed since I rarely write about movies, books, or TV shows I don't like.
Confession time: I've been trying very hard to love Studio 60. Don't get me wrong, I like it. A lot. Because it is innovative and different and not about mommies, and daddies, and things that go bump in the night. But I'm not in love with it. I see its flaws. But I've been overlooking them, because of the potential and the bits that make me laugh out loud and I keep hoping it will find itself, especially since it has a killer cast and a fantastic dialogue writer. I really enjoyed the second episode for instance and the third, made me laugh quite a bit. The fourth, eh, it was okay, just a little on the sentimental, preachy side, but had some good comedic bits here and there - especially the Lauren Graham sketch they cut because they didn't think it was funny when it actually was. So I could ignore the preachiness and the occassional autiobiographical bits.
Sorkin does get preachy at times. I admit, I stopped watching West Wing in Season 3 or 4 due to some of the preachiness (that and Angel was on opposite) - Sorkin would often forget the characters and devote an entire episode to some lofty debate on some political issue as if the show had become his own personal soap-box. It's not that I didn't agree with him, it's that it bored me. If I want to see political issues debated - I will watch Crossfire, the McLaughlin Group, CNN, CSPAN, Book TV, or McNeil/Lehrer. I'm not going to watch a tv drama. Why? I don't want to be preached to. I want to hear both sides by people who've studied the topic and thought it through. That is not to say, however, that I do not think such topics should not be discussed on blogs (hello, do it myself all the time) or in fiction. But when you do it in fiction - you should "show" not tell the audience.
In tonight's episode Sorkin doesn't pick one topic to preach on, but ten. At least I think it was ten, after a while I lost count. The least offensive, but most boring might have been the McCarthy Blacklist - which I'm choosing because I've seen another television writer deal with the exact same topic and do it in such a way that I was moved by it, the characters progressed, and it is an episode, that while hardly one of my favorites - I've enjoyed watching more than once. This other television writer did what Sorkin doesn't - he showed, not told. Granted Sorkin's skill lies in moving action through dialogue, that's why I watch his shows, I appreciate that skill - but it isn't necessarily the best way to tell a story and he could have told this story through dialogue and visuals and made it interesting. Instead he wove it through an episode without connecting it to anything. It felt as if it came from nowhere.
The other TV writer - was Tim Minear and the episode was in Season 2 Angel, I think it was called "Are Now You Or Were You Ever" - the first question of the McCarthy Hearings. It was about a demon that created and feed off of paranoia. It was also about trust. Betrayal. And ultimately forgiveness. And Minear let the story show us these things, never told us what to feel. He did it with images and metaphors, and dialogue.
In tonight's episode of Studio 60 - we have a forgetful old man who wants to steal a photograph. Halfway through we find out he's a writer. Then at the end, not just any writer, but a writer blacklisted by the playwrite Clifford Odets. The story is not the focus of the piece, but one of many little subplots interwoven haphazardly throughout without much rhyme or reason. To the extent that I found the old man annoying and the time spent with him dull. I did not care about him or his story. I knew off the bat that he was a comedy writer from the past. But I didn't care. When the tale was revealed? Still did not care. Heard a far more interesting tale about the McCarthy hearings in an interview with Warren Beatty, where he discusses Elia Kazan - and how as a young liberal kid he shot his mouth off to Kazan about it and Kazan took him aside and explained exactly what happened and why he did it from his point of view. The information made Beatty feel ashamed for shooting his mouth off and realize that things are that black and white. Sorkin's tale unfortunately isn't as interesting or ambiguous.
That's the problem with the whole episode - every segment is either set-up around a preachy point or an offensive joke, which makes the writer seem somewhat hypocritical and chauvinistic.
Besides the writer's blacklist, we have:
1. The dumb midwestern parents who worship the kid in Afghanistan and show disdain for the kid doing the comedy show. They are so dumb that they don't appear to know what their son does for a living nor have they ever heard of Abbott and Costello. Sigh. I'm beginning to think that in order to write a tv show about anyone in the midwest you should be forced to live at least two years in the midwest first. Also, who the heck do these writers think are watching tv? Hello? Half the population lives in the mid-west. Do you really think they are going to keep watching you if you keep telling them they are nitwits? And, I hate to tell you this, but people in the Mid-West watched TV and listened to the radio in the 1950s and know who Abbott and Costello are. Actually those comics are pretty popular out in the midwest.
I think this was supposed to be funny. It offended me. Which says something.
2. The African-American comics who tell jokes in the comedy club because one of the actors on the sketch comedy series has decided to tell his boss they need a black comic on said series. Uhm. No.
Sorry, do not see this happening. But okay, let's suspend disbelief for a moment, after all what do I know? So I follow them there. And damn, the black comics jokes are condescendingly bad. They are supposed to be of course. But, I cringe. Then we get another guy, who is supposed to be great but has horrid delivery. Someone who they pick up to be the next writer. And I'm thinking, okay, this is just a bit too over-the-top. Number one - I can't believe it. Number two - screams white liberal guilt. Number three - feels incredibly patronizing.
3. The jokes about the dumb women - first Jordan, the so-called with-it network exec, who gets drunk and silly and goes around saying she has no friends. To the actors of the sketch comedy series. Okay, Jordan is the NETWORK president. Not the head of the sketch comedy series. She oversees numerous tv shows. Why does she want to make friends with the comedians on this series? Especially considering the fact that she might have to fire their butts if the show does poorly?? While I can see her coming to the party to make an appearance, she wouldn't stay. Particularly if she is trying to avoid her boss, Jack Rudolph. (I think she has better chemistry with Jack by the way than Danny, but that's just me.)Also why would she get stinking drunk in front of said "employees" ? This isn't the type of party I can see her getting drunk at. She's still at work.
Two - the three groupies who don't know what a tv writer does? Right. I think I'd have found it funny if it hadn't followed both the Laura Graham scene with Matt and the Jordan scenes and the Harry talking about Matt with her girlfriends, to the point in which I was feeling a tad hit over the head with the general dumbness of women. And I tend to be pretty forgiving on this topic.
It would be one thing if the three items above related to one another in some way or pattern, but they don't. Except to the extent they are all preaching about some issue that the writer feels like ranting about and is using his expensive tv show as a platform for. The characters aren't moved forward. Nothing really happnes. The writer just talks at the audience through his characters as if he's on some sort of soap-box all evening.
I felt sorry for the actors in this episode. And wanted to wring Sorkin's neck. Or at least heckle him much like the audience members in the comedy club.
At the end of the show, we're told Studio 60 is on hiatus for two weeks. But will be back.
My question - after this episode, will the audience? Maybe si, maybe no.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 05:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 02:20 pm (UTC)Read
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 06:18 am (UTC)Luckily BSG, VM, and other old favorites still believe that women have brains and personalities....
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 02:55 pm (UTC)Also agree on lack of strong women on current TV shows. The only new TV shows with strong female characters are: Ugly Betty, Brothers & Sisters, and The Nine. Everything else feels very male dominated. Heroes has the stripper and the cheerleader. Ugh. "The Stripper??" and "The Cheerleader??" Plus the slogan is "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World?" So once again it's about "saving the poor girl"??? Why couldn't it be save the politician save the world? Save the comic book geek save the world? Or save the cop save the world? But nooo, it has to the little girl? Although, I have to admit, every time I see or read "save the cheerleader, save the world" - I smile or laugh. It is funny in a way. But, You can tell the show is written by male comic book geeks - not a woman writer in sight. I read the credits, it's depressing.
This is why I love Grey's Anatomy. It makes men the sex objects, supporting characters, and romanticizes them. While women are front and center struggling, complex, doctors. Nice twist. The writer set out to do a show that was the opposite of Boston Legal and ER. Something that showcased women and romanticized and objectified men. Ugly Betty in a way does the same thing - it also is headed by a female writer.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 02:15 pm (UTC)The rest of the episode was so cringey. There wasn't a single moment that wasn't telegraphed a mile away and the arrogance when they offered the young comic a job! Oy. Maybe he should have asked about pay, contract length, etc instead of an awestruck "yes sir" - the problem isn't diversity Mr. Sorkin, it's the air of entitlement. Sigh.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 02:40 pm (UTC)Much agreeage: "the problem isn't diversity, Mr. Sorkin, it's the air of entitlement"!
Ugh.
Like you, I rant, because I care. I want this show to *succeed* dang it. But I think last night's episode lost everyone but die-hard fans.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 03:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 03:19 pm (UTC)The first week - he sends a drunken Matt home with Jenny, Harry's close friend, to sleep with.
The next week he suggests Matt visit the strip clubs? (There's a brief bit on the Roxie.)
Then, we have the women backstage, whose intelligence they mock, after they've mocked Lauren Graham just moments before and her show that is centered on two women (although I laughed at that line, because right now I think GG deserves to be mocked - LOL!).
There was an air of white male intellectual superiority and entitlement throughout the episode that made me want to leap through the screen and strangle Sorkin. Which is odd, since according to the front credits, there appeared to be a woman co-writing the story. I think Sorkin just did the teleplay. Or did I flip the two in my head?
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 03:53 pm (UTC)I feel bad ragging on the show so much, but I actually do want it to succeed. And it's more frustrating somehow to see the vague shape of what could have been great than having something that's just irredeemably bad.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-24 07:30 pm (UTC)(By the way - sort of off-topic, noticed Greg Beeman as one of the writers/producers on Heroes, name seems familar...do you know it?)
I'm right there with you on Studio. I enjoyed the joke about the stolen comedy sketch two episodes back a great deal (apparently Sorkin borrowed it from a real-life event that happened on SNL).
And I see where it can go. Tonight's episode could have been wonderful. I wish they'd stop spending so much money and time on stunt casting and focus more on story-building. It's frustrating, because I know what Sorkin can do. Maybe the problem is the insistence on writing the first 6 episodes himself? Not trusting anyone else?
C'Mon...
Date: 2006-10-25 06:51 am (UTC)Eli Wallach.
Simon: "The man works for a living, don't be an ass."
Comedian in club: I should be thinking, that he is high and has scissors pointed towards my head, but instead I am thinking, How can he afford to sell such excellent product at such a low cost.
(best that I can remember it.)
Eli Wallach.
I do think this episode should have waited until they'd built their audience better. The first three episodes had a central problem to resolve. Then there were a couple which were purely about the soap of the characters lives and the sketches. Now this episode which could have done with one or two less heavy plotlines.
I agree, Jordan should have been more confident going into the party, but we have seen established that she goes for a laugh when nervous and she has recently had her darker secrets opened up for the world. If you must find a CJ Craig I guess the closest is the journalist who was on the previous couple episodes.
Re: C'Mon...
Date: 2006-10-25 02:14 pm (UTC)What is the problem? Well you had to explain to me the joke about Eli Wallach. Because unless I was familiar with Eli Wallach (I am but vaguely) that will be lost on me. It will go over my head.
That is the problem with Studio 60.
It happened in two prior episodes, which had jokes that did hit my funny bone, because I was overly familiar with the subject matter. The copyright joke had me rolling on the floor with laughter and the Gilbert & Sullivan joke even more so. But how many people are going to get it?
The problem with the Simon bit - was three-fold: 1) Simon's backstory sounds as if it were copied from John Singleton film. Word for Word. Which is in of itself a stereotype. 2)Simon offers a job to a comic, Simon can't do that. Nor can Matt. But assuming they can, Simon offers the job within the brackets of - "oh I came from the "hood" too and if you work for this "white" guy, you'll get to the point I am" - which underlines what many viewers found offensive. We're doing you a FAVOR. Aren't you lucky. That following the comic routine about "slavery" was a bit ironic, don't you think?
The Eli Wallach bits were buried under that.
I don't want a CJ Cregg. What I want is a character who is believable. Amanda Peet's Jordan I'm having difficulty buying as a network president. To get to that level in the Entertainment industry, as a woman, you have to be a lot like CJ Cregg. I also want a female character who isn't a male sex object, which I know Sorkin can do - he did it with The West Wing and Sports Night. To be the female prez of a network - you can't come across like Jordan does and be taken seriously.