Monday, June 25, 2012

News To Me

I watched Aaron Sorkin's much-publicized The Newsroom last night.  It's about Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels), anchor of a popular news report.  He's a guy who plays it down the middle but breaks down at a public forum, making a speech about why America is not the greatest country in the world.

He takes a vacation and most of his staff quits to work at another show on the same news channel. (Not just due to the controversy, but also because they don't like him and also, oddly, think he's too weak on his show.) The president of the channel, Charlie Skinner (Sam Waterston), brings in an old acquaintance, Mackenzie MacHale (Emily Mortimer), to be executive producer, even though she's got a fiery relationship with McAvoy.

As they're about to go on the air for their first broadcast (is that word still used in the cable era?), the BP oil spill hits (this takes place in 2010) and they decide to dump everything and run with it, pulling it off beautifully.  Will is reenergized and plans to be his old, incisive, no-nonsense self on the air again.

Sorkin is a highly-regarded writer, but the reviews for The Newsroom have not been great.  Perhaps it's because most critics work for the media of which Sorkin's show is quite critical.  Or maybe it's because the show is no good.

We've certainly seen this sort of stuff from Sorkin before.  For instance, this is his third show set behind the scenes at a live broadcast.  And having a main character get fed up and finally speak the truth in public is in The American PresidentA Few Good Men, Studio 60--I guess it's in about everything Sorkin's ever written.

Sorkin's greatest strength--really the reason he writes--is his banter (though it seemed in shorter supply than usual last night), though, as always, it's a bit odd that every character talks the same way.  But I could enjoy it if it weren't joined to a rather pompous, self-righteous attitude on The Newsroom.  Let's look at the big speech by McAvoy that opens the show.  He's at Northwestern and a 20-year-old female student in the audience asks why is America the greatest country in the world. (It's not impossible a college sophomore would ask such a question, though I think we might have to live several lifetimes before we heard it.) There are three parts to his answer, all telling.

First he addresses a few words to the Democrat and then the Republican sitting on either side.  Next, he cites a bunch of statistics that show America isn't #1.  Finally, he notes some of the ways we were great in the past.

The first part seems to be Sorkin's gesture toward even-handedness, but what McAvoy says to the Democrat--in essence, liberals are right about everything, too bad you're so decent and honest that you lose elections--and to the Republicans--conservatives today are morons who should be ashamed of themselves--demonstrate where the show's heart lies.

Then the stats.  Some are questionable, but all are generally irrelevant to the question at hand. As I've noted before about this sort of argument, it's what dumb people say to sound smart, and what cowardly people say to sound brave.

Finally, the nostalgia.  Later in the show, during the fallout from the controversy, McAvoy asks why no one is paying attention to this part of his answer.  Actually, it's the dumbest part.  It's just tiresome mooning for a past that never was. Or let me put it another way: most of the great things about the past that McAvoy extols (our innovation, our openness) we still have in about the same degree, and most of the bad stuff (divisiveness, small-mindedness) we had plenty of back in the good old days.  We get an echo of this hokum later when Skinner spreads it on about the days of Murrow and Cronkite, exaggerating their wisdom, judgment and power.

But that's what the show wants to be about.  It's a wakeup call to the media about how things should be done.  And The Newsroom's climax is that solution in action. It's meant to be stirring, of course, but the idea that McAvoy could wing a major, breaking story while his new, untested staff get scoop after scoop is fairly ridiculous.  But that's the dramatic side, I suppose, and I guess we're used to heroes overcoming long odds. (Maybe it just seems weird because it's about an actual news story, so we're more sensitive to how far from real life it is). More troublesome is the slant.  Sorkin wants to show us how real news is meant to be reported, without the fluff and getting to the heart of the matter.  But as far as I can see, the actual point is the news must never be reported straight, but always with a message--in this case (and in most cases), that we need bigger government. (Sorkin seems to be one of those people who believes the only reason a Democrat ever loses an election is because he didn't speak slowly enough for the voters to understand.)

The on-air segment is hardly the whole show.  It looks like we're going to get a whole lot of cute banter between talented, hard-working people who care for each other but often have trouble getting along--once again, like everything Sorkin's ever done.  But it appears each episode will feature Sorkin chewing over another old news story to show us how it should have been covered.  This literally is unbearable.  Yesterday's news is boring enough, but being lectured each week by someone who, as far as I can tell, has no special insight is more than I think I can stand.

It's not that Sorkin can't deal entertainingly with politics, as The West Wing showed.  But there the characters were doing things, not reporting on them, and didn't pretend they weren't unabashed partisans (who'd occasionally let the other side speak). And even then the show could sometimes be insufferable.  But on The Newsroom, the characters believe they're charged with delivering the unfiltered truth to the great unwashed, and in-between keep making speeches about how what they do is so important.

By the way, it turns out McAvoy is a Republican.  So I assume in future episodes he'll give a ringing endorsement of Citizens United, do an editorial explaining how abortion on demand demeans a society, and offer learned analysis regarding the contribution of over-regulation to the crash of 2008.  Nah, just kidding.  He's Aaron Sorkin's favorite kind of Republican---a Democrat.

6 Comments:

Blogger Todd Trumpet said...

Excellent review...

...but I'll still probably check out the show when I get the chance (i.e., when it's not on HBO).

Just to let you know where I'm coming from:

PRO SORKIN

- I think Aaron Sorkin is arguably the best scriptwriter who ever lived.

- I think (the first 3 seasons of) "THE WEST WING" is arguably the best (first 3 seasons of) scripted television ever made.

CON SORKIN

- Not everything Aaron Sorkin touches is TV gold. I had mixed feelings about "SPORTS NIGHT". And "STUDIO 60" died after one season for a reason.

- Aaron Sorkin is unabashedly Democratic/Liberal, which is okay, but any claims of balance are illusory...

...which is a shame, because if he could actually balance his insights/criticism of both Republicans and Democrats (two sides of the same coin IMO), we'd be talking not just Brilliance, but Meta-Brilliance.

Instead, his "My team, right or wrong" mentality too often damages the drama, which you seem to indicate may be the case with "THE NEWSROOM".

[A related aside: I find it remarkable just how hands-off the late night comedians are these days in relation to the highest comedic office in the land, i.e., the presidency. Some, of course, wear their bias on their sleeves, refusing to make a single joke about Obama. Others feign balance by offering "barbs" along the lines of, "Gosh, Obama is so handsome that [punch line]" or "Obama is so charismatic that [punch line]." Sorry, guys, these aren't jokes. And when you put politics above punch lines, you abdicate your responsibility as a comedian.]

Anyways, I'm surprised to hear you say the reviews have been "mixed", especially after chancing upon the local (NBC?) newscast yesterday where an entertainment reporter guaranteed that Jeff Daniels would win the Emmy next year for Best Actor.

Which, from a media standpoint, lends some credence to the "America is not #1" argument.

Though it sounds like Aaron Sorkin may be advocating more opinion in news reporting, rather than less...

...as long as it's his opinion.

"You can't handle The Truth!"

Personally, I'd prefer The Facts.

There's enough drama there already to fill a newsroom.

Todd

8:33 AM, June 25, 2012  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I could enjoy it if it weren't joined to a rather pompous, self-righteous attitude on The Newsroom."

"But on The Newsroom, the characters believe they're charged with delivering the unfiltered truth to the great unwashed, and in-between keep making speeches about how what they do is so important."

Have you ever spent time around media people? That sounds like he nailed them. (Of course your criticism is not necessarily that its inaccurate but that its no fun to watch, which I understand)

8:47 AM, June 25, 2012  
Blogger LAGuy said...

Todd: I think Sorkin is a special writer, though the greatest? Not quite. Same for West Wing, which was a good show, and a distinct one, but wouldn't make my top ten of all time. (On the other hand, I admit I had a fondness for Studio 60 and was sorry it was canceled.)

Worse than lack of balance, Sorkin isn't about "My team right or wrong" so much as not recognizing there's another side. He believes he's not partisan, he believes he's simply telling the truth, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid or evil.

Anon: I only wish Sorkin were mockng their pomposity, rather than celebrating their/his importance.

9:43 AM, June 25, 2012  
Blogger Todd Trumpet said...

LAGuy:

I didn't say Sorkin was the greatest "writer" (I hear there's this dude named "Shakespeare"...), I said he is "arguably the best scriptwriter who ever lived".

I could narrow it down further and say "TV scriptwriter", but Sorkin has written terrific movies and plays as well.

The question, then, I'll ask you is this: Who better?

As for "THE WEST WING", even with Sorkin gone in Seasons 5-7, the first 3 seasons (and some of Season 4, which was his, ahem, "transition" season), were so strong that I'd still easily rate the series in the Top 10 of all time.

I'd ask what are in your Top 10, but I think I already know #1. It may, in fact, be the same as my #1. For despite some problems I had with the ultimate resolution of the series ("It was magic.")...

...I still think the best scripted TV show of all time is probably "LOST".

[I say "probably" because I haven't seen them all, and I know many people think "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" top the list.]

In any case, back to Sorkin, I sometimes wonder what he might have achieved were it not for the addictions.

Or perhaps they played a vital role in what he was able to achieve?

That, finally, is something I don't have an opinion on!

Todd

10:14 AM, June 25, 2012  
Blogger LAGuy said...

Sorkin is a distinctive talent. We can probably make him an adjective and call his writing Sorkinesque. It's an impressive talent, but to me it's like a special flavor that you're glad is available but wouldn't want to have every day.

The West Wing was a good show but it had certain problems. In addition to Sorkin's regular problem of everyone talking like a Sorkinbot, it also would occasionally go too far in its melodramatic plots. And it could also get pretty hokey--as David Chase once said (though he might have been bitter since West Wing kept beating the Sopranos for the Best Drama Emmy), it was a show about incredibly talented people who were just fighting so darn hard to make the country better that sometimes they went too far. I think Sorkin is proud of his idealism, but it really can be a bit much.

I do believe we've been living in a golden age of TV drama for a while now, and here are some hourlongs of the past few years that I'd rate above West Wing. First, as you guessed, is Lost, even with its disappointing final season. Then there's The Sopranos and The Wire, as you mention. In addition, we've now got Mad Men and Breaking Bad, both great and groundbreaking. For that matter, Game Of Thrones is pretty amazing. And at its best, House could mix intelligent drama, comedy and even complex technical plots as nothing else.

I'm sure I could name more, but the point is it's a crowded field and West Wing may be part of it, but it doesn't stand out as the best.

11:31 AM, June 25, 2012  
Blogger Todd Trumpet said...

Like your original post, your replies are nicely stated. I don't think we're in major disagreement about a lot of this, just some subjective odds and ends.

- Special flavors: True, Sorkin is one, but I doubt I'd want to have any one writer's "meals" every day. That said, one of the things I like best about Sorkin is that he can bat strongly in both directions, drama AND comedy. A rare combo. Yes, I know his characters can be incredibly similar in hyper-intelli-articulate-ness (who was the smartest character on "THE WEST WING"?? Was it really Bartlett? Or was it Sam? Or C.J.? Or Josh? Or Leo...?), but they were also characters I cared about.

- Melodramatic and Hokey: This didn't bother me on "THE WEST WING" as much as it apparently did you or Mr. Chase (although it's disappointing to hear a guy in Chase's position calling down his peers - I'm pretty sure I could tag a few scenes in "The Sopranos" as melodrama if I looked hard enough - or not very hard at all judging from some of the commercials). Sure, there were a few times I rolled my eyes (the death penalty episode in which the president prays with his priest in the oval office being one of them), but for the most part I figured that, sans sci-fi elements, if you can't go big on the reality of The White House, where can you?

More significantly, he also brought something to life for me that I normally find deathly boring.

- Idealism: This is the most amazing part of "THE WEST WING" to me: I don't necessarily agree with Sorkin's politics - in fact, I HATE all politics - but he made me love his show anyway.

- "LOST" disappointing last season: I didn't have a problem with the whole "sideways" concept, nor the oft-derided final episode of the series. My problem occurred one or two episodes from the end, when I realized the only explanation we were going to get for the island was a burning bush, or glow, or whatever it was. THAT was my only disappointment, though a fundamental one.

- "The Wire": I've read great things about it, but have never seen a single episode. That said, while critics revel in the dark side of humanity and "grit", I do not. So I'm dubious I'd have such a fawning reaction.

- "The Sopranos": I've seen only one episode, though some consider it the best (where Tony takes his daughter on a trip to visit various college campuses and happens upon a stool pigeon who he decides to whack). Good? Yes. Great? No. Worse, I have this particular pet peeve: No matter how much a story about The Mob shows the negative reality or the putative consequences, the very existence of such an entertainment ends up glorifying its subject. And I've got a problem with that.

Exhibit A: Its offspring "Jersey Shore"!

- "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad": I've seen only the pilot of each, but I've done enough criticizing for one post!

- "Game of Thrones": I look forward one day to reading the entire series, but only intend to when George R.R. Martin is finally finished with it. THEN I'll watch the adaptation.

[BTW, I just read a thick compilation of Nebula-wining stories that included George R.R. Martin's "novelette" titled "SANDKINGS" (1979). It was easily one of the best stories in the volume. It's hard to believe this guy took a detour to become an Executive Story Consultant on TV's "Beauty and The Beast"!]

- "HOUSE": I know. You really like this show. We all have our personal favorites...

...but never mention this in the same paragraph as "THE WEST WING" again!

Todd

P.S. I have to stop this dialogue now, or I'll keep leaving long-ass replies like this!

2:23 PM, June 25, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter