"Sasquatch" weighs in on Studio 60
I've been thinking about posting something about how dissapointed I was with Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip's second episode. Themes I was thinking of including were: "why so much camera-swooping?" and "what's with the music? is this Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" and "why no fun?"
Then Aspecialthing.com's beloved pater familias, In Search of Sasquatch (known in the real world as podcast producer Matt Belknap of AST Radio and Never Not Funny), said it better than I ever could have. Like me, he was a big Sorkin fan (love that Sportsnight) and defended the first episode, but like me, he's gone sour on the whole proposition.
Here's what Matt had to say:
"I don't think Aaron Sorkin would know good sketch comedy if it shit in his mouth. We've seen what he thinks is funny (snobby historical references, obvious social, religious and political jabs), so why would he want real comedy writers coming in to muck up his genius?
I will hang in there until the bitter end with this show, but it's fast approaching indefensible. You can't write about comedy if you don't know what makes good comedy. Sorkin could probably take on anything else in the world and make it work, but this is his Achilles heel. His humor only works when the characters aren't meant to be funny for a living -- CJ Craig is funny for a press secretary, but if she were running a network comedy show it would be a disaster (well, it would be Studio 60).
Also, these characters are incredibly pompous and self-absorbed, which would be fine (and realistic) except Sorkin's presenting them as people we're meant to like, admire and respect. Again, I don't mind high-minded and principled characters on a show about the White House, because I want our leaders to be high-minded and principled -- Bartlet being a proud intellectual was a reaction to Bush, and it made sense. But in the TV business, it's ludicrous. These characters have no perspective on what they do for a living, and act like they're saving the world by producing empirically bad sketch comedy. If the comedy they were doing was good, the rest might be permissible. If they acknowledged what they were doing was bad (or at least unimportant), it might be tolerable. If any aspect of the world Sorkin & Co. are creating rang true, maybe the show would work. So far, though, they're moving further away from all that with every new episode."
"Hear hear!" says I.
Like this post? Click here to subscribe to the blog.
Then Aspecialthing.com's beloved pater familias, In Search of Sasquatch (known in the real world as podcast producer Matt Belknap of AST Radio and Never Not Funny), said it better than I ever could have. Like me, he was a big Sorkin fan (love that Sportsnight) and defended the first episode, but like me, he's gone sour on the whole proposition.
Here's what Matt had to say:
"I don't think Aaron Sorkin would know good sketch comedy if it shit in his mouth. We've seen what he thinks is funny (snobby historical references, obvious social, religious and political jabs), so why would he want real comedy writers coming in to muck up his genius?
I will hang in there until the bitter end with this show, but it's fast approaching indefensible. You can't write about comedy if you don't know what makes good comedy. Sorkin could probably take on anything else in the world and make it work, but this is his Achilles heel. His humor only works when the characters aren't meant to be funny for a living -- CJ Craig is funny for a press secretary, but if she were running a network comedy show it would be a disaster (well, it would be Studio 60).
Also, these characters are incredibly pompous and self-absorbed, which would be fine (and realistic) except Sorkin's presenting them as people we're meant to like, admire and respect. Again, I don't mind high-minded and principled characters on a show about the White House, because I want our leaders to be high-minded and principled -- Bartlet being a proud intellectual was a reaction to Bush, and it made sense. But in the TV business, it's ludicrous. These characters have no perspective on what they do for a living, and act like they're saving the world by producing empirically bad sketch comedy. If the comedy they were doing was good, the rest might be permissible. If they acknowledged what they were doing was bad (or at least unimportant), it might be tolerable. If any aspect of the world Sorkin & Co. are creating rang true, maybe the show would work. So far, though, they're moving further away from all that with every new episode."
"Hear hear!" says I.
Like this post? Click here to subscribe to the blog.
posted by Jesse Thorn at Wednesday, October 04, 2006
6 Comments:
I think the second episode was good, but the third episode was weak. Definitely the quality of the comedy shown on the fake show has to improve, and they have to move away from the religion angle. But I don't think that brings the show down to "indefensible" levels. Still, the chemistry between Perry and Whitford is phenomenal, and that, and the gorgeousness of Amanda Peet, will always make it worth watching.
I'm holding off on jumping in the pile for the moment, but I'm afraid matt is right on. Except for a minor point, the Bartlett character predates Bush, as in show began while Clinton was in office. West Wing was most relevant and believable in the Clinton years when it was an idealized view of the presidency. By it's end, it was a very distant fantasy. But speaking of funny, Tony Snow is as funny and quick-witted as any of his predecessors, as much as i hate to admit it.
the show flat out sucks and that was obvious from episode 1.
i gave episode 2 a go because my wife has a relative who's an extra on it so we were watching for him to show up.
it's just so ridiculously phony.
could episode 1 have possibly had any more scenes that end with amanda peet staring off into space with a gleam in her eyes? i could have used like 3 or 4 more of those.
Sass is dead-on in his remarks - I was about to make some more comments in that thread, and then he came along and just nailed it, making everything else redundant. I feel exactly the same way about the show - I was also defending it at first (big fan of Sorkin, generally), but I can't believe how bad it's turning out to be.
I'll probably watch it 'til it gets cancelled though. I'm stupid that way.
I watched it for the first time tonight. What's up with the fucking mood lighting? I don't know much about show business, but I have a feeling that TV studios look absolutely nothing like that. Striped shadows of late afternoon light strained thru window blinds. What is this, Raymond Chandler? And then they had that whole riduculous business with the plagarized joke. Everybody freaks out and treats the plagarized joke as if it's a deadly virus that has to be contained. The cameras swoop around a lot! Dramatic music! It's like NYPD-CSI-SVU except they're on the trail of a plagarized joke instead of a serial rapist! And then at the end it gets all cutesy with a triple-reverse twist about the joke's provenance. Fucking ludicrous. I'm not close to the industry like some of y'all who read this Blog, but it seems pretty obvious Matt Belknap is right: Sorkin has no idea what he's talking about. What is the deal with this show? Maybe "30 Rock" will be better ... but I'm already mad that they demoted Rachel Dratch. I'm sure it's because the network suits thought she wasn't pretty enough. Fuck that. Ever since "Friends", comedy has been diluted by the media's demand for beautiful people. Ugh. Enough ranting.
Here, here Dave.
As dissapointed as I was with Dratch's demotion, there's a 10-or-so-minute preview of 30 Rock on Youtube, and it's hilarious. So, hopes are high.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home