One More To Go
One more episode and Studio 60 will never trouble prime time again. Someone asked me why I thought it failed and I said in TV, you never need to explain failure, it's the norm--success is what's hard to understand.
I guess the show lived or died on Aaron Sorkin's writing, which just didn't work in this context. His style works better with "serious" issues, like politics and court martials.
Of the "big three," Matthew Perry was fine as the head writer, and I've always liked Amanda Peet, who played the network president. However, Bradley Whitford, so memorable in West Wing, didn't really have much to do as the producer.
I thought Timothy Busfield's director (not a regular?) stole the show. He demonstrated what the program could have been--a fun look behind the scenes at an SNL proxy.
The biggest surprise was Steven Weber as the network's chairman. I've never been a big fan, but he really showed something here. (Though it was tough to force him into the plot--it's hard enough to have the network president constantly hanging out at one show.)
The other leads who played the "big three" on the show within the show never really found their place. They did drama, they did comedy, they did sketches and we were never quite sure where we were with them. (The recurring characters who played the writing staff were far more interesting). And I think most people agree the biggest mistake was Sarah Paulson as Harriet Hayes. We don't buy her as super-talented, we don't buy her as really sexy, we don't even buy her as deeply religious. Her relationship with Matthew Perry, which seemed to be the centerpiece of the show (the centerpiece should have been the show within the show), laid an egg. I don't know if any other actress could have pulled it off, but Paulson sure didn't.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:12 AM
2 Comments:
Spot on.
You and I may be two of the only people in North America still watching "Studio 60". I have, in fact, seen every episode...
...despite the fact that I don't love the show. Then why stick around? Because Aaron Sorkin is almost always worth watching. Yes, he runs hot and cold - great at some things, not so good at others - but for me, the chance at a glimpse of greatness is worth wading through some mediocrity (at least in the case of "Studio 60"; I quickly got fed up with "Sports Night").
Point by point:
1. I agree that Sorkin's writing really didn't work in this context. I kind of hate what the show has become in these last few burn-off episodes: Inappropriate Melodrama. I, too, had the thought that this serious stuff played much better on the "West Wing". He needs to find a more dramatically appropriate soapbox where, as a somewhat ironic bonus, the comedy will undoubtedly play better as well.
2. I agree totally with your assessment of the character Big 3, though I would go even further with Bradley Whitford. He went from mildly intriguing to puppy-dog pitiful (not to mention the fact that he's uncomfortably too old for Amanda Peet). By the way, did Perry and Whitford BOTH have to have a drug problem? Only one mea culpa character allowed per show, Aaron.
3. Timothy Busfield. Right on. He was the tone the show SHOULD have been. [As an aside, I had lunch with the guy once while he was shooting an episode of a friend's TV show. The movie of the moment was "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and I had some problems with it. After I completed a long-winded dissertation of the movie's short-comings, Busfield stopped chewing, took a perfectly measured beat, and said, "I've seen 'Crouching Tiger' six times." CLANK!]
4. Steven Weber. It's actually amazing how simpatico we are on "Studio 60" - I was thinking the precise thing you wrote during last week's penultimate episode: "Hey, you know what? This guy from 'Wings' may be the best character on the show." Whenever he's onscreen, I'm engaged. This was true for many characters on "West Wing", not so many on "Studio 60".
5. Sarah Paulson. Right on. Don’t buy her as:
a. Super-talented
b. Really sexy
c. Deeply religious
To which we might add:
d. Likely to snag another lead role.
Anyway, I'll play out the series and watch the final episode - AND I'll still look forward to Sorkin's next project.
I know the guy has problems in real life but, arguably (remember, I said "arguably") - take a deep breath - he's the best writer in the history of television.
Todd
Thanks for your comments. There's not much to add since we essentially agree.
I didn't like Sports Night that much either. Maybe because it was ostensibly a comedy, and Sorkin plays better when the comedy is incidental.
By the way, Bradley Whitford too old for Amanda Peet? Bite your tongue, this is Hollywood.
Is Sorkin the best writer TV's had? I don't know if I'd go that far, but he's up there. He certainly has a recognizable style, which is something a lot of TV writers actually avoid.
Turns out I may be busy this Thursday and have to miss the final episode. Somehow, I doubt it'll be repeated.
Post a Comment
<< Home