Fri, September 29, 2006
60 Seconds
In some circles I've already become known as a Studio 60 "apologist." I'm not sorry about that; I love the show and I'm happy to sing its praises. But I don't want to seem obsessive about others liking the show as much as I do. (Does a second column devoted to it in one week seem obsessive?) I like being able to like the shows I like without anyone giving me a hard time, and I want others to have the same freedom. I adore Studio 60 and I very much want it to find a big audience and succeed – but I don't think it's perfect. Early on, I was a little defensive on the topic because Joe gave me a scare by indicating he wasn't head-over-heels for it like I was. (I'm a lot calmer now that that's been rectified.) As my initial review indicates, I can be honest about the show's shortcomings – but maybe I will boost my excitement by 10% or so when discussing its successes, just to be on the safe side.
I'm not going to lay down my life or anything, but I do think it's a great show and it deserves a fair shake. Ken Levine has been tearing into the show since it started – while insisting he still likes it – and he's posted yet another list of grievances. (For the uninitiated, Levine is a former sitcom writer. I occasionally check out his blog because he's mentioned by Kung Fu Monkey's John Rogers – a personal favorite – and he's written for lots of shows I've loved, like Cheers, The Simpsons, Raymond, and Frasier. Only lately have I realized he's kind of a bitter washout who enjoys sniping at the industry, and not in a particularly intelligent – or, more importantly, funny – way.)
So, while an abridged version of my response has already been posted elsewhere... I thought I might as well cover the key points here, too.
I'm waiting to see Aaron Sorkin write an actual funny sketch. Maybe that Krazy Kristians sketch we've heard so much about for two weeks.
Two points, here. He's not a sketch show writer. He primarily writes dramas, albeit dramas with many funny or hilarious moments. So, we shouldn't hold our collective breath for a funny sketch. It'd be great to see, but I don't think it's an immediate priority for Studio 60, and when they do air a funny sketch-within-the-show-within-the-show, there's every chance Sorkin will bring in sketch writers to write it.
Further, I'd be flabbergasted if they ever showed us the Crazy Christians sketch, because a) it could never live up to the build-up at this point; b) they said it'd be in the first show, and that's already happened; c) like the shark in Jaws or that famous titular Alien, it's holds the greatest power when the audience imagines it on their own.
When have you ever seen a press conference to welcome new showrunners?
This one's easy. Whenever the on-air meltdown and departure of the previous showrunner was the biggest entertainment story of the weekend, and was plastered all over the news on every channel two nights ago.
Brad Whitford, as great as he is, is still Josh from WEST WING to me.
This is really more a Ken Levine problem than a Studio 60 problem. We're all thrilled Perry is playing Matt Albie without dipping into the well of performance quirks he's used for Chandler, but Whitford is playing another smart, sarcastic guy. It's going to be a fine line (and maybe we should give him more than two episodes to flesh out the portrayal). I have to agree with one of Levine's commenters, though. This would be a total non-issue if they'd dress him less like Josh Lyman and more like Tommy Schlamme.
The weeklong countdown clock that Matt Perry says would drive anyone nuts – try having to reset it every 108 minutes and then come talk to me.
Ooo! A Lost joke! This is the hack comic equivalent of photographing a hostage holding today's newspaper. "I'm relevant! I'm aware of things that have happened on TV in the past year!" Please.
(Sorry; didn't mean to get off on a rant, there.)
If you polled a studio audience of SNL and asked who Gilbert & Sullivan were, I bet most would say two of the Chipmunks.
Har! Probably not, actually. Don't impugn SNL fans' knowledge of the Chipmunks. The point is, on both Studio 60 shows (NBC and NBS), the writers are choosing not to talk down to their audience. Challenge the audience (not that G&S represent a challenge; I'm following his premise) and allow them to rise to meet you. Saying Gilbert & Sullivan are too high-minded or obscure for today's TV audience is to play into the very mindset that Jordan, Matt, and Danny are working against. If you don't understand the point of a show, fine; but don't launch criticism from that ignorance.
(Remember, also: an audience can enjoy a song and laugh at its jokes without knowing it's a reference to Gilbert & Sullivan. Sometimes comedy works on many levels.)
Is John Mauceri considered stunt casting? Jesus, when we were doing ALMOST PERFECT the network said no to Angie Dickinson.
This is not funny. (Mauceri is the guy conducting the orchestra; I had to look it up.) Obviously, Levine knows why he was cast. He's just taking an ill-advised opportunity to remind us of his association with Almost Perfect. (I love you to death, Nancy Travis, but... seriously.)
It's hard to root for people who are all beautiful, talented, rich, and could get another job in a minute. At least if the gang from WEST WING screwed up there'd be thermonuclear war. Here, the affiliate in Jewhate, Arkansas pre-empts the show.
Levine wasn't the first to level this criticism against Studio 60, but he's the most persistently obnoxious. I'll say it again: Americans seem all too eager to root for adulterous, despicably self-centered surgeons in Seattle and kooky forensicologists in Vegas. Thermonuclear war isn't high on the list of consequences for their gaffes either. A good show is a good show regardless of what its characters do for a living – Sorkin fascinated us with a behind-the-scenes look at the White House in The West Wing, but now that's done. He's moved on to fascinate us with the backstage workings of a late-night comedy show. Future endeavors may also lack any mention of the nuclear launch codes; try to enjoy these shows anyway.
But for all its flaws I still find STUDIO 60 fascinating and will watch again next week.
He's a saint, isn't he, folks? I know I was on the edge of my seat.
And yet, at the end of the day I bet the Tina Fey show will be more realistic and funnier.
God, I hope so, considering it's a comedy show. As such, I expect it to focus more on laughs than drama or characterization (and I expect the opposite from Studio 60). Given the comedy focus and the half-hour running time, I doubt there'll be much room to focus on realism, but – as one of Levine's commenters points out – cops, doctors, and lawyers manage to watch their professions portrayed unrealistically in plenty of shows. There's such a thing as dramatic license – or does every divorced talk-radio shrink in America give Frasier the gold stamp of 100% realism?
Not that I am bitter.
© onebee · all rights reserved
"Ken Levine" — Fri, 9/29/06 12:43pm
Enjoyed your discussion of my STUDIO 60 post.
Bee Boy — Fri, 9/29/06 2:37pm
Hee! Busted! I should've held back on that "bitter washout" crack. Now I'll never work in television.
(A mixed blessing, since my favorite sitcom idea takes place behind the scenes of a sitcom – I don't know if I'd survive Ken Levine's onslaught of posts decrying its lack of realism.)
Thanks for the kind words!
Brandon — Fri, 9/29/06 2:39pm
Okay, I have to call you on this one, because we've got two years worth of Lost entries and comments that contradict this sentiment (unless you're going to get all Clintonian on me about the definition of "giving a hard time"). You of all people should be able to relate to the mindset of "I like the show, BUT..."
I think it should be. Sorkin has created the need for it himself by touting the greatness of Matt & Danny, the comedic brilliance of Harriet, and making a point of how bad Ricky & Ron are supposed to be. He's put that out there, at some point he has to back it up. He did it with Sports Night (we saw plenty of on-air sports and we're given the chance to see their skills rather than just be told about them) and in spades with The West Wing. Yes, it's a drama, but he's chosen to set said drama around a comedy show, while taking not-funny-anymore shots at the real-life model for that show. I don't think he can get a free pass on that for too much longer. (And, as always, I say these things from that "I like the show, BUT..." mindset.)
Good and bad news on the ratings front. Reports are that the ratings fell off from the pilot to the second episode, but the demographics appear strong and it's doing better than Medium did in the same NBC timeslot last year.
Bee Boy — Fri, 9/29/06 2:54pm
That's different. All the stuff I said about Lost was 100% true. Good try, though!
I fully expect comedy sketches to show up on Studio 60, but I don't think they're absolutely essential to the show. (They should do it, I'm sure they will do it, but no one has a right to get uppity if they don't do it early or often.) After all, until America fell in love with him, Martin Sheen was meant to be a supporting player in West Wing – rarely seen because we'd be focusing on the behind-the-scenes stuff. Sorkin himself has said the behind-the-scenes stuff is his main focus on this show, too. I guess my point was: the fact that we haven't seen a funny sketch-within-the-show yet shouldn't necessarily be construed as Sorkin's inability to write one. There's other stuff to focus on. (Like the power failure! I keed!)
And, more importantly, when it's time to write funny sketches for the show, there's no law that says he has to be the one to write them. What I should've said was, "You're 'waiting to see Sorkin pen a funny sketch'? Produce Sorkin's affidavit promising to write one for you, or shut yer yap!"
Brandon — Sat, 9/30/06 7:26pm
Was over at tvsquad.com and found a review of episode two that didn't like the G&S parody cold open either.
At the end, the post's author basically does an informal poll, asking readers to voice their opinion on the song in the comments. Since this has been a big point of contention between us this week, I tallied up the comments (including counting the author's vote of dissent) and got this:
Good/Funny - 22 of 44 (50%)
Bad/Not Funny - 22 of 44 (50%)
Figures, huh?
One comment post that I thought made some good points against my point of view (here I am doing your work for you...)
Bee Boy — Mon, 10/2/06 11:02am
I kind of agree/disagree with this comment. But I liked the cold open, so I don't think it needs defending. I love the Roy Zimmerman/Ogden Nash style of moving the break between two lines a syllable or two in either direction in order to accommodate the rhythm/rhyme scheme, so I was humming all last week:
I don't think the audience of NBC's Studio 60 is responsible for considering the context of the NBS Studio 60 when deciding whether or not to laugh at its jokes. I agree that the context would make them funnier, but I don't think they should be written with that in mind. If they're meant to create a laugh, they should make us laugh, not just the NBS audience. (I laughed, so I say, job well done.)
However, part of my enjoyment of the cold open was that I was thinking about what it would be like for the NBS audience. From an earlier e-mail exchange with Brandon (you guys totally missed out):
So I think that did contribute to my appreciation of the material. (I don't think Sorkin can expect his viewers to do this, but it happened that I did it.) I think "funny" and "good" kind of need to be separated here, though. Whether or not you laughed decides whether it was funny to you. The quote above helps explain why it was good even if you didn't laugh – within the Studio 60 show, it was what was needed. Albie delivered, and everyone was happy. Standing ovation from the studio audience.
Bee Boy — Mon, 10/2/06 3:55pm
I hadn't bothered to read the comments on the referenced post, since you did such a nice job tallying the appropriate info. But I'm reading a few now, and here's one that adds to the point I was trying to make:
And here's one "bad/unfunny" vote that speaks to another problem we discussed over e-mail:
The repetition is a reference to Gilbert & Sullivan's ridiculously repetitive lyrics, and there's even a "repetition joke," where Harriet glares at the conductor for his choir repeating the phrase incorrectly. This was great, but carried with it the risk of missing viewers who don't have a passing familiarity with G&S.
Someone pointed out that Conan's musical number at the Emmys (to the tune of The Music Man's "Ya Got Trouble") was much, much better. You'll get no argument from me!
Someone else said:
An excellent illustration of why you should never base any findings on blog comments. [Is that a black fly in my chardonnay? –Ed.] How does this idiot manage to draw breath? The excitement of bloggers is what caused Arrested Development to be canceled? Does this mean the show was good, but Fox got rid of it because bloggers were too happy? Or that the show was good, but it got bad because bloggers liked it too much? Better not to think about it, I guess. In the meantime, nobody watch Studio 60 – maybe it'll survive!
One thing's for sure: people are talking about Studio 60! More irrationally exuberant defenses to come... after we all watch tonight's episode!
"Mike" — Mon, 10/2/06 11:29pm
Asked and answered!
We saw funny sketches, we saw interesting things about backstage inner-workings of a late-night TV show.
Best show yet for Studio 60. I'm hooked.
Brandon — Tue, 10/3/06 3:09am
I agree, great show tonight. Don't show full sketches, just give us a taste, that's the key - and exactly what I said they should (or shouldn't) do in the email exchange Jameson referenced earlier.
But the Harriet thing is getting ridiculous. Not once but twice with the bear joke not being funny and then they simply write it off with "Oh, she'll make it funny when we're live." Cop out. COP. OUT. Coppity coppity coppity. Yes, it was a good Holly Hunter impersonation, but that doesn't mean she's funny; it just means she does a good Holly Hunter impersonation. They screwed up with her character - way too much hype.
Bee Boy — Tue, 10/3/06 8:35am
Certainly a triumph. And it wasn't a good Holly Hunter impersonation. It was a FANTASTIC Holly Hunter impersonation and she was dryly funny and quick while she did it. This was the episode that put to rest any question about the Harriet character.
The bear joke wasn't funny. That was the point. She's not a machine; she's just a funny person. When she's desperate, she sometimes throws a clunker. But they respect her enough to go with her on cutting the other joke, and you know better than any of us that once you're up in front of a live audience, you can corral their energy and make it work for a punch line as stupid as "Rowr!" (What they should've added was a line like, "...and if she doesn't sell it, it's one joke in an hour-and-a-half show. We'll survive.")
More importantly, I thought the stuff with Jeannie was great. The behind-the-scenes stuff, the on-air stuff, all of it. I'm liking her a lot. It would've been easier to write her off as the dumb hot girl, but they've made her smart and committed (which I suppose I have a weakness for). I like it – although I suppose it could be argued that the show needs a hot ditz.
Brandon — Tue, 10/3/06 1:18pm
Yeah, see, none of these things you are saying result in us actually seeing Harriet be, in effect, the funniest woman in Los Angeles. This episode didn't put the Harriet question to rest; it merely added more fuel to the fire that created it in the first place. I'm not expecting her to be a machine, but I am expecting her to be the talent Sorkin hyped her up to be.
How hard is it for them to show Harriet doing the bear joke live? It would've taken up 10 seconds of the show montage. At this point, we've seen a lot more genuine funny from Jordan than we have from Harriet.
Bee Boy — Tue, 10/3/06 2:31pm
We've seen a lot more everything from Jordan than Harriet – she's a main character! I didn't need to see the bear joke live (same reason not to show Crazy Christians) but I do think it would've been nice to have someone say to her at the after-party, "Yeah, so that bear joke bombed."
The whole opening rehearsal scene brought the funny in a way that, for me, settled any outstanding doubts about whether the sketches could satisfy. Maybe I'd still be on the fence about Harriet if she'd done the impression only once, or if she did it in the context of playing Hunter (the way the Tom Cruise guy did), with someone else giving her the funny lines. Instead, I fully embrace her. Maybe we've interpreted the hype differently.
Brandon — Tue, 10/3/06 4:33pm
In your initial review of the show, you called the Jordan character "utterly implausible;" I actually think that Harriet is more implausible than Jordan. It's hard enough to believe that a devout, outspoken Christian would successfully navigate the often excessively foul and decidedly non-Christian world of comedy (and don't throw Victoria Jackson at me, because one, she back-doored her way in, and two, she wasn't funny), but even if she could handle that, her constant lecturing makes her such a comedic killjoy that no one would have wanted to work with her, she would've been outcast long before she got to this level. So far, she's done more scolding than scene-stealing.
But I probably could've swallowed all of that if they hadn't made the decision to push it even further and declare her the biggest talent on the show. That's was the really big misstep, in my opinion.
"Mike" — Tue, 10/3/06 4:53pm
Yeah, but the reason (I think) Sorkin has built up her talent is precisely because she's a Christian. Sorkin loves to provide examples of, for lack of a better term, fundamentalist Christians who are not what you think. It shames his liberal fans who think they are so welcoming but are quick to exclude/shame/pity fundamentalist Christians. It is a neat, if a bit overused in his own work, choice.
I thought that Harriet's Holly Hunter was great. I immediately thought of Jameson's posts about this when she was doing it. Still, I agree with Brandon that they copped out with the bear thing. She should have roared and it should have been friggin' awesome.
Of course, Sorkin could always argue that those who don't like Harriet's character are NOT among the 50 people who "actually understand how good she is." Perhaps her skills are things only writers love because her performance indicated to them that she is thinking what the writer was thinking when s/he wrote it. Though I think that's a cop out on Sorkin's part if that's his excuse for Harriet not actively being world-beating awesome on Studio 60 yet.
I don't find it as implausible that a devout Christian would be able to navigate the world of comedy in the way that Harriet seems to navigate it – which is to repsect what's funny. I've been in newsrooms, foul and decidedly non-Christian ones, where devout Christians also worked and things were fine among the devout folk who cared about news and the less- to non-believers who cared about news.
Was Jan Hooks a devout Christian? That'd be a good example if it were true. I have no idea. I thought of Victoria Jackson too, but she was awful.
Joe Mulder — Tue, 10/3/06 8:28pm
My big problem with the bear joke was that it immediately reminded me of this very, very similar and very, very superior Norm Macdonald "Weekend Update" joke from ten years ago:
Although I imagine less and less people remember chunks of old Norm "Weekend Update" bits vertatim (to be fair, I had to look up the setup, but I had the punchline), so Harriet and Simon on "60 News" are probably going to be more compared to Seth Meyers and Amy Pohler on this season's "Weekend Update." And, if we're grading on a curve, expect Harriet and Simon to be inducted into the Comedy Hall of Fame by this time next month. Jeebus. I didn't appreciate Tina Fey until she was gone.
Let's not forget that the "jokes" that Corddry and Hughley's characters came up with for the town that banned "Grease" were really unfunny. Still, it was hard to get on Harriet's side, since it was the school board that caved and pulled "Grease," and that's who they were going to be making fun of (and rightly so; feckless cowards!), not the good people at the East Bumfuck Breadworks or wherever.
My favorite part (since you asked)? That little bit of a certain type of Sorkin wordplay that can get a bit old when misused (which doesn't happen often) but is as delightful as good music when it works:
Busfield tells Whitford why the power keeps going out.
Whitford: Are they fixing it?
Busfield: In a manner of speaking, yeah.
Whitford: What does that mean?
Busfield: They don't know how to fix it.
My last point: it's become obvious that there's one famous person in the world at all times that everyone in the media just decides to lavish undeserved praise on, but that person is actually really good, so if you say the praise is undeserved people will say you're a douchebag, but really that person is really good but not as good as everyone says. And it's obvious that title can only change hands when the person starts to suck so bad that you can't even pretend to praise them anymore, so then there's got to be a new person in that slot. But there can only be one of these people at a time, and the title can go for years – decades, maybe even – without changing hands. It's like being Pope.
And clearly, the mantle has now been passed from Brett Favre to Sarah Paulson.
Kudos to the Onebee devotees (we really need a nickname, by the way; something along the lines of "Claymates" or "X-philes," if only because it would drive Jameson nuts; be thinking of one) for not completely swallowing the hype just yet.
Brandon — Tue, 10/3/06 10:19pm
Devobees works for me.
Bee Boy — Tue, 10/3/06 10:27pm
But "Beevotees" has the "bad suffixing" to do maximum damage.
I think I used "Beesketeers" at one point. I enjoyed "Bee Nation" (tm KOTC, of all people) especially since it sounds like "Colbert Nation," even though it technically came first by a couple of months. But I'm sure that's not the right answer. If it comes from me, it can't possibly drive me nuts to the appropriate degree.
On the Favrieness of Sarah Paulson: is the media lavishing praise on her, or is it just praise for Harriet Hayes from other Studio 60 characters? I'm impressed (with Hayes and Paulson both) after Monday's episode, but I hadn't really heard anything from the media either way. (Not that I've been paying attention; the entirety of reading I've done on the subject that didn't come from me or EW came from links you or Brandon sent me.)
I liked the Busfield exchange, too. (And I'm glad we're getting our Busfield in tiny doses, because he could clearly steal every scene if he wanted to. Leave 'em wanting more!) I also liked Jordan's appropriation of Danny's phrase "Don't worry about it." It was cute (and familiarly Sorkin-y, which I don't say as a criticism; hell, I tune in for Sorkin-y) and I didn't see it coming.
Finally: I think they've done a great job of making Jordan more plausible. They've shown Rudolph's readiness to hang her out to dry a few times, with moments less arch-evil than the ones in the first episode. The DUI and the tell-all book are a bit heavy-handed, but in terms of her "at work" time, I think they're adding complications that make her feel more real. I embrace Harriet partly because she does seem implausible to someone like me. I'm convinced that belief in a supernatural creator and an afterlife is a dangerous and destructive thing – and that goes double for organized religion. I'm not in the majority with those ideas, but I'm sure I'm right. And I'm just as sure that I'm dead wrong whenever I'm tempted to assume that every faithful Christian is a brainwashed, intolerant, humorless automaton incapable of fitting in with the rest of us hedonists. Harriet challenges that assumption and gives me hope. I have faith that a lot of her scolding so far has been self-deprecating sarcasm.
(If I'm proven wrong, I'll definitely think less of the character; even if I'm proven right, it's Paulson's failure if that sarcasm isn't coming across to the rest of you Bee-lievers. You're smart and well-versed in comedy. If she's missing you, she's doing it wrong.)
Bee Boy — Fri, 10/6/06 4:01pm
Wes said it best: "That remote in your hand is a crack pipe!"
Wear it with pride, kiddies.
Brandon — Tue, 12/5/06 3:39am
Let it be noted that on Monday, December 4th, Studio 60 finally did it - they aired a laugh-out-loud funny sketch idea, one that SNL must now be kicking themselves over not writing first. (I'm not going to specifically reference it in order to stay spoiler-free)
Let it also be noted that they aired one hell of an episode, worthy of Sorkin at his best.
Bee Boy — Tue, 12/5/06 10:10am
Can't wait to see it! (God bless you for remaining spoiler-free.) I'm a little under the weather, so I didn't want to watch it in a groggy haze. Instead I watched the Chevy Chase episode of Law & Order (I hadn't realized it was "ripped from" the Mel Gibson DUI headlines).
Pretty interesting. I've never really liked the writing of the show, and the cast is like when an aging rock band reconvenes and everyone except Waterston has gone on to other things – kind of sad. But it was interesting to see Chase in a different role (or any role these days). I've always liked him, and I think he did a good job. Let's hope this awakens America's clamoring need for more Chevy Chase and Hollywood is prepared to respond.
Bee Boy — Tue, 12/5/06 11:05am
The comments on this post are so fun, I decided to read over them all once more. And I got to thinking about this thread:
Time has passed, bringing with it some emotional distance, so I'm looking at this criticism in a different way. My slavering devotion to the show has waned a little (these days I'd rather just enjoy it than argue about it), so I can admit you guys were right. The bear joke should've aired and been awesome. Which led me to think, but how? It's just not that funny a joke – what can be added to it in performance that would make it awesome? Then it hit me.
In October of 2001, Drew Barrymore hosted a characteristically lame episode of SNL. One of the sketches involved a local TV station re-broadcasting the 1976 remake of King Kong, but editing around the scenes that placed Kong atop the WTC towers out of knee-jerk fear that images of the recently felled buildings would make viewers uncomfortable. So, office workers from the local affiliate acted out replacement scenes for WTC-related scenes in the real movie. (An utterly unfunny sketch, based on a brilliant premise that incisively skewers a very dopey thing that was happening on TV a lot at the time.)
Aside from a brilliant moment in which Will Ferrell's character must stage a death scene but refuses to destroy his actual office in the process, this sketch has one memorable instant: Barrymore screams "Kooooonnnng!" with ferocious intensity and sustains it for so long that it obliterates everything you thought you knew about lung capacity. It even gets a laugh from Ferrell and Hammond (and character-breaking laughter was pretty much the funniest thing SNL had going in those days). It's funny because it's such a surprise, and it's all in the performance (and none in the writing). So that's how I think Paulson/Hayes could've sold it and made it funny.