Writing Doesn't Make It So
On Monday, Aaron's Sorkin's Studio 60 had the show-within-the-show not only retaining viewers from its initial episode, but increasing them. Meanwhile, in the real world, Studio 60's ratings, never great to begin with, have been dropping. It's getting slaughtered by CSI: Miami and also lost to The Bachelor. For that matter, it's losing a lot of viewers from its lead-in Heroes.
This isn't the first time Sorkin's wish fulfillment has run contrary to actual events. One could argue that's all West Wing was: an alternate universe, with a Sorkian liberal running the country. The only time, though, it really stood out, was when President Martin Sheen would do something that wouldn't play that well in reality, and then Sorkin would pat him on the back by claiming polls (as part of the episode) showed it was popular. An even better example is Sorkin's script for The American President (1995). The climax has Michael Douglas, in the title role, making a big speech about how great it is to be a liberal. At the same time, Bill Clinton, who knew a thing or two about politics, denied he was a liberal and was easily reelected.
Studio 60 isn't bad, but with ratings like this it may be in trouble. I noted a few weeks ago that Sorkin's style fits best within a context of big things happening, such as he had on West Wing. The relative insignificance of running a comedy show undercuts his work, and I think the audience feels it.
But why talk about other shows when tonight is the third-season premiere of Lost?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:57 AM
4 Comments:
The liberal who stands up to Speak The Truth With Power, uncaring about popular opinion, who is then rewarded by popular opinion. A common idea in movies.
One of the most annoying examples to me was at the end of the awful "9 to 5" with Jane Fonda. The evil Corporation becomes Good, and gives massive benefits (health, day care, you name it) to its workers. And lo, its profits soar!
The interesting thing is that this totally deflates the liberals' argument. The real question is: is a corporation morally required (and if so, should it be legally required) to give these benefits even if it loses money therefrom? By assuming it gains money by this the whole moral point becomes irrelevant.
But regarding Sorkin's show -- it seems a bit much to ask him to have his show-within-a-show die immediately for bad ratings. Suppose the "outer show" actually had good ratings and survived: what would happen next?
*grin*
Speaking the truth (liberal or conservative) publicly and then being rewarded is a common Hollywood theme. Needless to say, in the real world, if you speak truths (or lies, for that matter) that are unpopular, the immediate result is you will be unpopular too.
I think the most ridiculous example of this type of story is The Majestic, a film starring Jim Carrey as an apolitical screenwriter during the McCarthy era. The big finish is him making a stirring defense of free speech at the hearings which turns everyone around. It's an insult to the intelligence of anybody at all familiar with the period.
As to corporate programs people want to legally enforce, I love it when they say the programs will actually make a business run better. For example, many claim diversity programs are good for business. My question is why should we help racists? Let the fools who don't adopt these programs fail while the good companies thrive.
If Sorkin's show lasts long enough, I'm sure at some point the ratings of the show-within-the-show will be in trouble.
"The relative insignificance of running a comedy show undercuts his work, and I think the audience feels it."
I agree but does Aaron Sorkin. The look and feel of the show makes it seem like he gives his comedy-writer characters as being underlying aura of Importance To The World just like the self-important staffers on the West Wing (who at least worked in the highest levels of government)
C'mon Aaron, ease up & make them matter a little less and we can all sit back and enjoy the one-liners
That may be the problem--that he's got a West Wing hangover, and has forgotten that characters don't have to be self-important. Or maybe he can't help but make all his characters self-important, just as he needs that back-and-forth banter.
Post a Comment
<< Home