Review: Aaron Sorkin's 'The Newsroom' too sanctimonious for its own good
HBO drama at least features strong performances by Jeff Daniels and company
Thomas Sadoski, Sam Waterston and Jeff Daniels in "The Newsroom."
Credit: HBO
Having seen four different television series created by Aaron Sorkin — "Sports Night," "The West Wing," "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip," and now "The Newsroom," a new HBO drama that premieres Sunday night at 10 — I feel I understand some of the man's core beliefs and guiding creative principles:
He is a man who loves the notion of a workplace as a surrogate family.
He is a man who loves characters who talk fast — preferably while walking fast — and think even faster.
He is a man who loves the process of making television itself, having set one series at a cable sports network, another at a live sketch comedy series, and this new one at a cable news channel.
Most of all, though, Aaron Sorkin is a man who has things to say.
His shows are vehicles for entertainment — at his best, Sorkin is on the short list of the most purely entertaining storytellers this medium has ever known — but they are also vehicles for Sorkin's ideals about how the world should be, how often it falls short of those ideals, and how noble it is to keep trying to make them into a reality.
There is a very clear Sorkin formula by now — if you've been watching his shows since "Sports Night," it's almost amusing how many character types and storylines from the three earlier shows have been mashed up into parts of "The Newsroom" — but it's one where he can't always properly balance the ingredients.
There were occasional moments on "Sports Night," for instance, where the matters being debated felt too weighty for a series about a thinly-disguised "SportsCenter," and that problem only became larger and more consistent in the faux-"SNL" setting of "Studio 60." "The West Wing" — particularly the first two of the four Sorkin-written seasons — proved to be the perfect synthesis of the Sorkin formula. If staffers at the White House — if the President of the United States himself! — can't debate who we were, what we've become and where we're going as a nation, who can?
By returning to a behind-the-scenes TV show setting with "The Newsroom," Sorkin is seemingly stepping away from the "West Wing" pulpit. But in many ways, the stakes of "The Newsroom" are higher than anything he's done before on television, because he's no longer operating in a parallel universe filled with fictional athletes, politicians and comedy stars, but the world right outside our window.
Jeff Daniels stars as Will McAvoy, a cable news anchor whose career has been built on never expressing an opinion or otherwise offending his audience. He's referred to as "the Jay Leno of news anchors" — an approach his corporate bosses love, and his critics mock. But in the series' opening scene at a journalism school Q&A, Will has his "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" moment, and unloads on a college student with a rant about how America isn't the greatest country in the world anymore, but could be again if we returned to a mindset where "we reached for the stars, acted like men. We aspired to intelligence. We didn't belittle it. It didn't make us feel inferior."
Given how polarized we are as a nation, where everyone goes looking for an opinion that confirms their own, the conceit that a news anchor in this day and age would derive his popularity from being middle-of-the-road is tenuous at best — even Sorkin admitted, "It may be that the biggest leap that we have to make," when I asked him about the idea. But the Jay Leno persona dies with that rant, and Will's boss Charlie (Sam Waterston, enjoying the hell out of himself in the same way Robert Guillaume and the late John Spencer did in the analogous roles on "Sports Night" and "West Wing") shakes up his career even further by hiring Will's former producer — and ex-girlfriend — Mackenzie MacHale (Emily Mortimer) to run the show.
Mackenzie, born of British parents but possessed of more patriotism than any of her American co-workers, is on a mission. In a phrase that will be repeated throughout the series, she insists "There's nothing that's more important in a democracy than a well-informed electorate," and she tells Will that her goal in revamping his newscast is nothing less than "reclaiming the fourth estate. Reclaiming journalism as an honorable profession. a nightly newscast that informs a debate worth of a great nation... Speaking truth to stupid."
Though Will, Mackenzie, Charlie and even their employer, the Atlantis Cable Network, are fictional, the country they're trying to educate, and the stories they cover, aren't inventions, or even ripped-from-the-headlines allegories from stories and politicians we know. The series opens in the spring of 2010, and the first story we see Will and his team — including brainiac producer Jim (John Gallagher Jr.), nervous rookie Maggie (Alison Pill) and blogger Neal (Dev Patel) — cover is the BP oil spill off the Louisiana coast. Later episodes deal with Arizona's controversial immigration law and the wave of Tea Party candidates in the mid-term elections that year.
By commenting on real people, real stories, real tragedies, "The Newsroom" raises the stakes for itself above anything "The West Wing" ever did, but it also raises the degree of difficulty to a level that Sorkin often has trouble clearing.
Like the cable news industry "The Newsroom" relentlessly critiques, Sorkin's work tends to preach to the converted. His characters speak about issues with such passion and eloquence that you're meant to feel smarter and better about yourself for agreeing. But he often pushes things so far that even if you happen to agree with him politically — as I suspect I do on most issues — it can be uncomfortable to watch the deck being stacked in your favor.
And as strident as "The West Wing" could be in crafting its cartoonish Republican villains (let me remind you of Republican presidential nominee Robert Ritchie, who once so eloquently said, "Crime. Boy, I don't know."), that's nothing compared to the feeling created as Will McAvoy lectures Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, et al.
It doesn't matter that, again, I agree with much of what the show is arguing — even more about the toxic state of the TV news business(*) than about our combative political system — because the arguments are placed in the mouth of a smug, preening jerk whom the show (or, at least, Mackenzie) keeps insisting is secretly the best guy in the world, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
(*) "The Daily Show" has been effectively attacking the media, and politicians, for years and years, and managing to do it in a way that rarely seems like Jon Stewart and company are patting themselves on the back as they do it. "The Daily Show" is also comfortable critiquing both sides of the aisle, where in the four episodes of "The Newsroom" I've seen, the targets are all conservatives.
Sorkin tries to make a case for know-it-alls on many occasions — when Will introduces his viewers to the show's new approach, he tries to reclaim the phrase "media elite" as something to be proud of — but there's a way to be right without coming across as every bit the bully as the people you're attacking, and "The Newsroom" struggles to find that.
Dealing with familiar stories from real life also allows Sorkin to use 20/20 hindsight to make his heroes look even smarter, and their opponents dumber. In the pilot, for instance, Will's former producer Don (Thomas Sadoski) spends a good chunk of time trying to shut down Jim's attempt to report the BP spill as anything but a search-and-rescue mission, ensuring that we will view him as an obnoxious moron and Jim as a noble genius. In the Tea Party episode, Will and financial reporter Sloan Sabbith (Olivia Munn, amusingly dry on the few occasions she gets anything to do) somehow are able to intuit on election night that a crisis with the debt ceiling is on the way, but none of the winning candidates understand what they're talking about.
Will is presented as a moderate Republican – very much in the vein of Arnold Vinick, the Alan Alda character who highlighted the post-Sorkin "West Wing" years — dismayed at what his party has become, and on occasion, Sorkin will introduce us to like-minded characters, including a (fictional) Republican congressman who lost his primary to a Tea Party candidate after refusing to label President Obama a socialist in a debate. But even though Will and Mackenzie insist over and over that their goal is to make a high-minded news show that doesn't resort to the mud-slinging, name-calling and other shenanigans of modern TV news, and that they want guests of substance, rather than the most outrageous voices they can find, "The Newsroom" and the fake newscast it depicts will from time to time stoop to those same tactics.
In the second episode, a plan to get Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on the show to discuss the controversial immigration policy falls apart at the last minute, and the only guests they can find at the last minute to defend Brewer's side are a collection of the worst right-wing caricatures you can find, including a vacuous beauty pageant contestant and a militia leader who insists on having his rifle (named "Jenny") appear on camera with him. Will makes an attempt to present the rational side of Brewer's argument when his guests utterly fail to, but it's half-hearted by both him and the show. Will declares in the second episode that Sarah Palin is no longer politically relevant, and that news shows only discuss her because she's good for ratings, yet "The Newsroom" keeps working sound bytes from Palin into the show-within-the-show.
Sorkin would and does argue throughout "The Newsroom" that there often aren't two sides to every story — Mackenzie insists, for instance, that the news media isn't biased towards right or left, but towards fairness — and that sometimes you have to call out a ridiculous argument as exactly that, but the series is rarely graceful in how anyone does it. The second episode features a series of wonky arguments among the staff about what the newscast will look like, until Don — who, again, we're not meant to trust on anything at this point, even when he's making sense about both the real and the fictional show — insists, "Nobody's going to watch a classroom. They'll either be bored or infuriated, but they'll bleed viewers." And a classroom is exactly what the second and third episodes feel like; they're a string of political, moral and ethical statements presented without any dramatic weight.
For all the clumsy and/or self-righteous moments that pepper the first four episodes of "The Newsroom," Sorkin is a talented enough craftsman that the show is often compulsively watchable even when it's being aggravating. TV news is a much better setting for Sorkin's skill set, and this debate, than a sketch comedy show was. When we see extended glimpses of Will's show, it's believable in a way that the "Studio 60" show-within-a-show never was. And it's fun to watch actors as gifted as Daniels, Mortimer and Waterston banter in that familiar, rat-a-tat Sorkin fashion.The extra-long pilot episode, which climaxes in a long segment depicting Will's first newscast about the oil spill, has rough edges but is on the whole evocative of Sorkin's better TV work. (It's the later episodes where the show really begins to fray.)
On the other hand, the high level of sanctimony isn't the only familiar Sorkin sin on display here. His sense of gender politics has always been iffy, in that he creates strong female characters who nonetheless often need to be told by men how the world works. Will McAvoy spends much of the early episodes lecturing various woman about how their shallowness symbolizes the downfall of this once-great society. (In the fourth episode, Sorkin at least has the grace to have these women throw drinks in his face, even as he's presenting Will's argument as the correct one.)
Among the many familiar bits from earlier Sorkin series, the potential relationship between Jim and Maggie very much echoes Jeremy and Natalie from "Sports Night," which also involved a man with a database of obscure knowledge in his head always managing to be right in every argument. But where "Sports Night" at least balanced the scales a little by making Natalie a veteran producer and Jeremy a naïve rookie, here it's Jim who's worked with Mackenzie for years, and Maggie who's just starting out, so he gets to be smarter than her about absolutely everything.
Even with actors as talented and charming as Gallagher Jr. and Pill, it's patronizing in the extreme – which is unfortunately how I feel about much of "The Newsroom."
I will say this for Sorkin: he doesn't do things halfway. "The West Wing" is among the best dramas to ever air on network television, while "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" is among the most riveting failures I've ever seen. His scripts for "The Social Network" and "Moneyball" didn't feel exactly like everything else he's written, and I'd hoped the time away from television might have recharged his creative batteries. Instead, "The Newsroom" is a mess — albeit a fascinating, and at times genuinely entertaining, mess.
In one of those debates in the second episode, Will wants to stick to covering the oil spill because the footage makes for good television. Mackenzie tells him, "We don't do good television. We do the news."
"The Newsroom" is convincing as a faux newscast. It's less convincing as good television.
Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
----
NOTE: A show like this makes it very hard to enforce the No Politics commenting rule for the blog, but it was put in place in part due to the lack of civil discourse that this show is complaining about. (If not always well.) I'll just remind you that the goal is to discuss shows within a dramatic (or comedic context) and not get sidetracked with debates about ideology. Keep it civil, no matter which side of any issue you're on — and, again, avoid discussing issues outside the context of these characters and this show — or comments get deleted. My goal is to cover this series weekly, but if the conversation gets ugly, it may be a series of reviews without comments. We'll see.
Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
| Topic | Started By | Latest Post | Replies |
|---|---|---|---|
| sepinwall |
3 days ago
|
2
|
|
| sepinwall |
13 days ago
|
1
|
|
| Discuss Scripted Dramas on HitFix Message Boards » | |||
News From Our Partners
-
Justin Bieber's 'Baby' Is Highest-Certified Single in History, But His Monkey Is No Longer His
Son Ho Young's Girlfriend Found Dead
Listen to The-Dream Collaborate With Beyonce on 'Turnt'
-
Charlotte Robinson: Somer Bingham Talks LGBT Issues and Life After The Real L Word (AUDIO)
PHOTOS: Has Ellen Had Enough Of LA?
Jennifer Aniston On 'Friends' Reunion: 'We All Miss Working Together'
-
The Telefile - Critics' Choice Television Awards 2013: Nominees Announced
The Telefile - TV on DVD: Tuesday, May 21, 2013
The Telefile - Veep: The Episode's Best Insults
-
'Metallica Through the Never' Trailer: Angry Mobs and "Master of Puppets"
'Timecop' Being Remade, As All Movies Eventually Must
'We're The Millers' Red Band NSFW Trailer: Jennifer Aniston and Jason Sudeikis Smuggle Drugs
-
'Man Of Steel': Is Zod Superman's Khan?
New 'Man of Steel' Trailer: Watch Now!
'The Hangover': Retracing The Success Of A Few Crazy Nights
-
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Finales of SVU, The Middle, Modern Family, Chicago Fire, Nashville, and Criminal Minds
The Critics Choice Awards Nominations Choose Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad
The Weirdest, Grossest, Bestest Moments from Netflix's Hemlock Grove, in Pictures and GIFs
-
'The World's End' Trailer: Pints, Pals, and Killer Robots!
Francis Ford Coppola Directing New Italian-American Saga
'Don Jon' Trailer: Joseph-Gordon Levitt and Scarlett Johansson Go Jersey
-
Total Recall: Bradley Cooper's Best Movies
Parental Guidance: Epic and Beautiful Creatures
Comic Book Movies You Can Watch Online
Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching
Latest Posts
-
If picked up, would be first regular TV job in decades for the 'Soap' and 'SNL' alumWednesday, May 22, 2013
-
A Showtime leftover doesn't really fit at NBCWednesday, May 22, 2013
-
Will's gift takes an increasing toll; can the bad Dr. Lecter help him?Tuesday, May 21, 2013
-
Cathy and her family prepare for the end as the Showtime dramedy concludes on a strong noteTuesday, May 21, 2013
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup- 1
- 2
Next 150 CommentsJohnG
June 20, 2012 at 9:17AM EST Reply to CommentThis is disappointing. Was really looking forward to Sorkin's latest.
Greg
June 20, 2012 at 9:18AM EST Reply to CommentWhat about the Résumé Spout? Please tell me someone rattles off their credentials to a co-worker the way no one does.
MACKENZIE MACHALE?! Yeah, I'm not watching this.
sepinwall Jim recites Mackenzie's resume in the pilot, so, yeah.
June 20, 2012 at 9:21AM ESTCharlotte I don't want to be nitpicky before I've watched the show, but I don't think British parents would name their kid Mackenzie. I think turning last names into first names is more of an American thing.
June 20, 2012 at 10:50AM ESTLiz It feels so petty to complain about a name, but Mackenzie McHale just annoys the hell out of me.
June 20, 2012 at 11:21AM ESTdr_lha Charlotte: Mackenzie Crook's (British Office, Pirates of the Caribbean) parents disagree with you, although he's a guy obviously.
June 20, 2012 at 12:19PM ESTRyan Mackenzie Crook's first name is Paul. Mackenzie is his middle name. Mackenzie is certainly not a first name I have ever seen in the UK.
June 20, 2012 at 2:21PM ESTsimon Kenzie (which I'm assuming is the shortened version of Mackenzie), while not popular, certainly isn't unheard of in Britain (but it's usually a male name)
June 20, 2012 at 4:44PM ESTseenonflickr
June 20, 2012 at 9:22AM EST Reply to CommentI want to love it, because, Sorkin! I have so much live for most of Sports Night and early West Wing. The man can write!!
But this just sounds ... kind of awful.
seenonflickr So much *love*, that is. Stupid autocorrect.
June 20, 2012 at 9:23AM ESTBen
June 20, 2012 at 9:25AM EST Reply to CommentAaron Sorkin's the Adam Dunn of elite writing. He walks once in a while, but 95% of the time he either hits a home run (THE WEST WING, THE SOCIAL NETWORK) or strikes out (STUDIO 60). At least he gets up there and takes the big swings.
Andrei Considering Adam Dunn's last contract, that's not a bad way to be!
June 20, 2012 at 9:53AM ESTDr. Dunkenstein I don't know about that. I think Charlie Wilson's War qualifies as a bloop single, The American President probably ranks as a fly ball that gets lost in the lights and Moneyball represents a stand-up triple.
June 20, 2012 at 3:20PM ESTsangs Hit a pretty big home run with a little thing called "A Few Good Men" too.
June 20, 2012 at 3:45PM ESTmcm99 Hey, I love The American President. Michael J. Fox is fantastic. He even pulls off that "drink the sand" speech.
June 20, 2012 at 5:06PM ESTsangs
June 20, 2012 at 9:31AM EST Reply to CommentI always felt in his best years of "The West Wing" that - aside from Ritchie and Mary Marsh - Sorkin didn't make the opposition too cartoonish. And he also didn't shy away from showing the warts on Bartlett and Co. It certainly helped make it one of my favorite shows of all time, even when I didn't agree with it politically - of which there were many occasions. It's more than a little disappointing to read that the "villains" of The Newsroom are more cartoonish. Have you watched anything past the first four episodes? Maybe he irons it out a bit more later in the season? Either way, I'm still looking forward to watching.
MK I can't imagine the villains could be any more cartoonish than what we currently deal with in our real life politics.
June 20, 2012 at 10:34AM ESTPaul Doro
June 20, 2012 at 9:33AM EST Reply to CommentWe need a good show (or movie) about this subject. So unfortunate that apparently this is a missed opportunity. I too probably agree with Sorkin on most things political, but I am not looking to be preached to or have my beliefs confirmed so I can feel better about myself. I want to be provoked and challenged and engaged. I'll give it a chance because it looks like a great showcase for Daniels and I love the subject, but I am lowering my expectations.
Ben well said. i disagree with sorkin on a lot of things politically, but like you i want to be provoked, challenged and engaged. you hit the nail on the head. here's hoping the show finds its feet.
June 21, 2012 at 3:19PM ESTbryanadams
June 20, 2012 at 9:34AM EST Reply to CommentI was worried about this show when a recent promo featured the "big shot talking to therapist because he can't sleep" plot point -- ripped straight from WW, including the "any additional stress at work?" banter.
But I was actually surprised by your Daily Show comments. I'm left-of-center too, but I've felt DS has exhibited "bias to fairness" as well -- they're trying so hard to *also* rip Democrats that the show comes off as insufferably cynical. (And Jon Stewart is probably the single worst interviewer this side of Adam Carolla.)
dead souls Agreed. I gave up the Daily Show because I got so tired of Jon's 'both sides do it' false equivalency BS.
June 20, 2012 at 9:41AM ESTColbert is still a genius so he's the only late night show I still DVR.
MK It's hard to remain unbiased when one side is so much further outside reasonable than the other, so it's very difficult for DS to find that balance without appearing to be just another left wing podium. I feel like Stewart tries so hard to maintain DS as a comedy show but can't help but come up short oftentimes because of this humongous gap. I think he's a solid interviewer when it is someone (like Jim Cramer) that he really wants to expose or question seriously. Other times he's just trying to goof off to keep things light and funny.
June 20, 2012 at 10:38AM ESTMuh Stewart slams the right WAY more than he does the left. Which of course he should, the right seems to be crazier. But if you don't think "both sides do it" than you're biased too. Because they both do.
June 20, 2012 at 4:08PM ESTAnd I think Stewart can be a pretty great interviewer. He's had on guys and absolutely held their feet to the fire in a way no one else does, and even gets them to agree with his points a lot of times even though they tend to fall back on their usual talking points. It's usually die hard liberals who dislike his interviews because they want him to be nastier and meaner, and he does want to be fair.
Dr. Dunkenstein But I think that if you asked someone who worked on the Daily Show they'd say that what dictated what person/issue/topic they covered was entirely decided based on what they felt was the funniest regardless of what side of the aisle it happened to fall on. The idea here seems to be that the Daily Show lets their politics or, alternately, their interest in appearing even handed lead and then try to work in the humour later. I think that would be a disastrous way to run a comedy show.
June 20, 2012 at 4:19PM ESTbryanadams @MK -- The Cramer interview was fascinating. I was disappointed Cramer didn't fight back. Doesn't JS do for politics exactly what Cramer does for finance?
June 21, 2012 at 8:48AM EST@MUH -- You actually mentioned my least favorite part of a JS interview. His questions usually go "This is what I think. What do you think about what I think?" which I find irritating. To me, Bill Moyers is the greatest living interviewer. Maybe that's just a matter of taste.
@Dr. D -- See, I absolutely think that they try to be even handed and then work in the humor later. My impression is that they make legitimately spirited attacks against R's (with whom they deeply disagree) and make cynical jokes against D's (more of the "even my boys are idiots") to keep the score even. Ultimately, I wish they'd just take their point of view (I'm guessing pragmatic left-of-center) and make the best show they can, rather than trying taking half-hearted shots at Obama just because they can.
Of course, the danger is that you end up like the Newsroom -- sanctimony. I guess I just wish someone could make entertainment *with* a point of view, but *without* being preachy. Too much to ask?
Biggus Rickus I like the general assumption that the right in the US is somehow more unreasonable and more deserving of skewering. If you ask someone on the right, they think the exact same thing of the left. The truth is that "both sides do it", indeed, because both sides are populated by politicians, almost universally a self-serving class of elites whose main focus is on reelection. Those with ideologies carry them as far as voters will allow before turning on them. And so, we end up with a system where the government gives more stuff to people without openly raising taxes to pay for it, because people like getting stuff but don't like paying taxes.
June 25, 2012 at 12:15PM ESTchuchundra
June 20, 2012 at 9:42AM EST Reply to CommentI pretty much got most of this from the trailers, but I was hoping against hope that I was misinterpreting them. Thanks for crushing my dreams, Alan.
ToyWiz
June 20, 2012 at 9:47AM EST Reply to CommentThis is both disappointing and expected.
Having watched all his previous series, I am now inclined to recommend that people just watch the West Wing and skip the other two completely. At least in WW the arrogance, smugness, preachiness and self-aggrandizing made sense and felt like it belonged. When those same traits are shown as frequently in a sports show and a comedy program, it becomes a bit too much. Plus the 'Sorkin tropes' are recycled all throughout his catalog and instead of familiarity they breed annoyance.
Maybe see Sports Night before WW, but not the other way round.
Jim
June 20, 2012 at 9:50AM EST Reply to CommentA lot of people have theorized that Sokin created and timed this show (in conjunction with HBO) to impact the presidential election cycle. Your review seems to lend some credence to the theory. There are SO MANY things you could go after both sides of the political aisle on that the traditional news media tends to do very poorly, that Sorkin’s failure to even have a token episode going after the Obama administration – even if just for failing to live up to liberal-loved campaign promises like closing Gitmo or something – suggests that is equally interested in affecting ideology as he is in creating good television. As usual, it sounds like Sorkin’s intellectual narcissism will be his downfall.
JerseyRudy If anyone is actually going to change their vote in November based upon an HBO TV drama, then Sorkin's point has been made.
June 20, 2012 at 1:34PM ESTThen the next question would be why it is any worse to have a show like this affect the vote than Hannity or Limbaugh?
James My God what a brain dead comment. If Jim really believes his own drivel, Sorkin is most certainly correct about about America.
June 23, 2012 at 11:52AM ESTchuck
June 20, 2012 at 9:52AM EST Reply to CommentIn the future, if you're wondering... "Crime. Boy I don't know" was when I decided to kick your ass.
One of the best lines in WW history.
sepinwall It's a good line, sure, but only because Sorkin made Ritchie such an absolute moron that of course Barlet was going to kick his ass. Would have been a lot more interesting/fun if his opponent in that race had been a real challenge, instead of a caricature.
June 20, 2012 at 9:56AM ESTNJMark For that reason, it was one of the WORST scenes in WW history.
June 20, 2012 at 11:57AM ESTAnd that's counting the government shutdown episode where the TV reporter called it Day 3, the screen they were watching showed Day 3, and the show's graphics then identified it as Day 3.
Dr. Dunkenstein This is sort of what I mean. Sorkin is getting criticized here because in the early 2000's he wrote the Republican Presidential Nominee for saying something ineloquent and facile.
June 20, 2012 at 3:24PM ESTI mean, seriously, what can the guy do? He's trying to write about the lack of serious intellectual discourse on cable news and he's getting knocked around because he's depicting a lack of serious intellectual discourse on cable news.
tag8833 I see where you are coming from, but I think Ritchie was set up to be a good counter point to Bartlet.
June 21, 2012 at 8:57AM ESTI think there is good contrast to be made between complex-nuanced problem solving, and simpler more direct solutions. Unfortunately they didn't give Ritchie enough opportunity to show off the positives they seem to have intended for that character.
DC
June 20, 2012 at 9:57AM EST Reply to CommentWell I'm running out of tv to watch and I always enjoy a good train wreck. I guess it's either this or Snooki and JWOWW.
keith
June 20, 2012 at 10:10AM EST Reply to CommentAlways found it odd and confounding that Sorkin's really witty and compelling dialogue was matched with anvilicious, sophomoric politics.
Great review. I'll watch the pilot.
Dan3320
June 20, 2012 at 10:15AM EST Reply to CommentI love how everyone overreacts to Alan's bland review. He's seen 4 episodes. Sorkin has time to recover. Some of the best shows of all time took more than 4 episodes to really get going.
That said - I agree it's disappointing to go into a showing with a preconceived notion that it is average....
Chardy If there can't be an expectation of hitting the ground running in this situation, when can there be? He's basically done the same show three times previously. If he hasn't seen fit to modulate his darker impulses by this point -- if they, in fact, stand out more than ever -- there's no reason to think he'll rein them in given a few more episodes.
June 20, 2012 at 12:12PM ESTkyle rovinsky 4 episodes is 40% of the season...more than an adequate sampling to reach a conclusion, Dan
June 20, 2012 at 3:09PM ESTDan3320 I'm not saying it isn't an adequate sampling for Alan to form an overall opinion of the show.
June 20, 2012 at 3:17PM ESTWhat I'm saying is that people should not overreact to Alan's review and write the show off simply because the first 4 episodes were not GREAT.
Jeff Dan didn't say the first four episodes weren't great, though. He gave the pilot a C, which, in class grading terms, is average (or maybe a little below average, as I've heard from some that C+ is average). It sounds like subsequent episodes are worse.
June 21, 2012 at 5:55AM ESTI'm not going to not watch the show based solely on Alan's review, but it's going to guide how I interact with it. I think anyone on this blog is here for one reason: he or she is a huge fan of TV. Any hardcore TV fan is going to watch a new Aaron Sorkin pilot no matter what any reviewer says about it.
Wizard64
June 20, 2012 at 10:17AM EST Reply to CommentI always dislike when characters become spokepersons for narrow point of views, regardless of the side. It's one of the reasons I quickly grew to dislike Harry's Law. Plays too much into the "media as biased" claim. Of course there is much about media that has become biased in recent years, on all sides.
I hope Sorkin reads your critique and in later episodes takes it to heart. And I generally would put myself on the same side you professed. Just don't like to see it too heavy-handedly expressed for one side.
Hannah Lee More likely, Sorkin will read Alan's critique and then script an episode featuring a bespeckled East Coast television critic who is taken down a few pegs by the brilliant Will McAvoy.
June 20, 2012 at 12:42PM ESTThough I think all this season's episodes are already in the can, so Alan's probably safe this year.
Chi @Hannah, so true! Ha!
June 21, 2012 at 11:57AM ESTbelinda
June 20, 2012 at 10:22AM EST Reply to CommentSo... is the banter and dialogue worth all the aggravation? They'd have to be significantly worthy if I'm to sit through all the other trademark Sorkin crap that makes me want to hurl things at the tv.
And what's the more aggravating component, the sanctimonious nature or the gender stuff, and how much worse/the same (which basically equals worse, simply because it's 2012 and things that might have been "acceptable" 10 years ago are less accepted now, like some of the iffy gender stuff) are those factors in this new show compared to SN/Studio 60/TWW?
belinda add: also, how sanctimonious is he WITH the gender stuff?
June 20, 2012 at 10:25AM ESTErin W Have you ever noticed how the female lead is almost always an ex of the male lead so that he can be unequivocally rude to her and it's written off as, "that's just their *familiarity* because they dated."
June 20, 2012 at 11:56AM ESTRuth G. And again another middle aged man with a much younger (ex-) girlfriend.
June 22, 2012 at 12:05PM ESTMK
June 20, 2012 at 10:32AM EST Reply to CommentI understand the critique that the "villains" of this show may be too cartoonish, but if what you're saying is correct, then Sorkin is only using real life people to target, so how can they be too cartoonish if that is what we currently deal with in our political debates?
The sad fact is a guy like Richie would be a moderate and too rational to compete in today's Republican political landscape. Though your other point, about the show being too smug and self satisfying, are exactly why I feel that MSNBC fails so often.
Jim In the second episode, a plan to get Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on the show to discuss the controversial immigration policy falls apart at the last minute, and the only guests they can find at the last minute to defend Brewer's side are a collection of the worst right-wing caricatures you can find, including a vacuous beauty pageant contestant and a militia leader who insists on having his rifle (named "Jenny") appear on camera with him.
June 20, 2012 at 1:45PM ESTJim If you don't understand how the above quote is cartoonish, then you don't care to have a serious conversation.
June 20, 2012 at 1:46PM ESTEspo
June 20, 2012 at 10:40AM EST Reply to CommentIt seems like people will be more interested in what stories The Newsroom will encounter on a weekly basis instead of the characters, which is fine if you don't have a talented writer, directors or actors. This show does, though, and that's a major problem.
There's an episode of South Park (a two-parter) involving a superhero named Captain Hindsight who will go to places after a disaster and tell people what they should have done. If Aaron Sorkin becomes Captain Hindsight then I think people in general (not just Fineberg) will be very insulted by the end of the year.
So now HBO has two shows on Sunday night this summer that people will begrudgingly watch if only out of false hope that they get better.
Meg
June 20, 2012 at 10:44AM EST Reply to CommentSorkin's problem seems to be that he's forgotten how to make his insufferable characters also funny and likable.
No one was more arrogant and sanctimonious than pretty much every West Wing character, but he also made them funny, and human, and quirky, and interesting. You should have hated Josh Lyman, but you just couldn't.
I feel like he's lost that. Even with The Social Network, a movie I really liked, most of the main characters were just awful people, and they didn't have enough likability to save them. Luckily the movie was interesting anyway.
Also, yeah. The gender politics. I don't understand how the man who created CJ Cregg can be so tone deaf. And I'm sorry... "acted like men"? Eye-roll.
And yet, I'll still watch it. I want Sorkin to be West Wing Sorkin again, so I'll keep watching til he gets there.
gladly A few years ago Bravo was running WW re-runs, and I caught a few. It was painful how often CJ was lectured to by Danny, Toby, Josh. Any man around.
June 20, 2012 at 4:22PM ESTI think the biggest problem with Sorkin is that after a decade of complex, morally ambiguous characters dominating television, his characters sound dated and broad.
Eric You weren't supposed to like most of the characters in The Social Network. We were, however, supposed to like the awful characters on Studio 60, which is just one of the many reasons it's so awful.
June 21, 2012 at 10:54AM ESTvirginia Except that CJ ends up as Chief of Staff upon Leo's death -- and has the last laugh.
June 26, 2012 at 12:38PM ESTKmarko
June 20, 2012 at 10:49AM EST Reply to CommentSorkin can really be intolerable at times, and this sounds like the epitome of that. And honestly, politics aside, if he was looking to Keith Olbermann as an inspiration for anything, that's a pretty good sign the show's going to be awful.
Ruth G.r True that. And I say that as a very left of center woman.
June 22, 2012 at 12:07PM ESTBen Kabak
June 20, 2012 at 11:10AM EST Reply to CommentSo all Sorkin does is try to absh conservatives? I'm out.
NJMark Ability to spell and ability to type are two different things.
June 20, 2012 at 12:09PM ESTBut to the point, hey, it's Sorkin. There is *nothing* Alan has described that was unexpected.
(Many have noted that the 1st season finale will be called "What Kind of Day Has it Been?")
Col Bat Guano
June 20, 2012 at 11:13AM EST Reply to CommentSorkin's problem is that he thinks everyone who works in the fields he's doing a show about are as intelligent as he is (or thinks he is). It worked with Sports Night because the comedy cut the sanctimony and on The West Wing because we want to believe the people we put in high office aren't the puds they appear to be. Unfortunately, there's no evidence that folks in late night variety shows and cable news networks are particularly bright.
Shoe Money Tonight!
June 20, 2012 at 11:18AM EST Reply to CommentIt's just a review that seems to be more of an attack on the show creator than the show itself.
Watch for yourself and decide. I'm getting HBO for free .. so no loss.
Rob I don't think that's a fair comment at all.
June 20, 2012 at 7:34PM ESTIt's perfectly reasonable to discuss this show in the context of Sorkin's past work, especially since he repeats the same techniques, themes, and story structures frequently. Sorkin's voice is undoubtedly distinctive.
The word "attack" is especially unnecessary. It's called criticism. It'd be one thing if the review went after Sorkin as a person. I can't see any fair reading of the review that could glean that conclusion.
I was hoping for more from this too, and hope I disagree with Alan. I'll 'watch for myself and decide' (I always do anyway), but value Alan's thoughts (why else are you reading this site?)
Andy
June 20, 2012 at 11:26AM EST Reply to CommentMcAvoy... Mackenzie... MacHale... "A lot of alliteration from anxious anchors placed in powerful posts."
Chaz Winterbottom
June 20, 2012 at 11:35AM EST Reply to CommentBut in the series' opening scene at a journalism school Q&A, Will has his "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" moment
DonBoy
June 20, 2012 at 12:17PM EST Reply to CommentIn the Tea Party episode, Will and financial reporter Sloan Sabbith (Olivia Munn, amusingly dry on the few occasions she gets anything to do) somehow are able to intuit on election night that a crisis with the debt ceiling is on the way, but none of the winning candidates understand what they're talking about.
DonBoy OK, wait. I quoted that part of Alan's review and my comment on it got lost. It looks like the same thing happened to Chaz, just above me.
June 20, 2012 at 12:20PM ESTAnyway.
My point was going to be that Rachel Maddow, in fact, called the debt limit crisis on Election Night 2010, so it's not just hindsight in that instance.
TJ Lawrence O'Donnell identified this problem on election night 2010 as well. I suspect Alan's critique of sanctimonious hindsight is slightly askew his examples don't hold up.
June 20, 2012 at 1:34PM ESTDan The debt ceiling crisis was called by numerous people. The event happened a month after the new Congress got sworn into office, everyone (including those politicians, as evident from several interviews) knew it was coming. And many news sources reported on it, if not on that night, then in the next month.
June 24, 2012 at 2:35PM ESTRachel
June 20, 2012 at 12:34PM EST Reply to CommentIf Alan never gets to interview Aaron Sorkin again, this review is worth it (dayenu). I used to love Aaron Sorkin's work, but Studio 60 and this have really revealed he's more about furthering his ego than creating strong, believable characters. As an HBO subscriber, count me out.
Feydaway
June 20, 2012 at 12:46PM EST Reply to CommentSorkin has time to recover...but, I doubt he will. Ainsley Hayes was the first and only believable conservative/Republican character he ever wrote. The key was, Sorkin respected her and she was as intelligent as the people around her. Ever since her introduction, Sorkin has allowed his own views to progressively taint his writing.
The result is that he now writes caricatures of what he thinks a Republican is like.
Rowlf But haven't the "real" republicans essentially disappeared thanks to Tea Party madness? Even if that isn't the case, the only ones you really hear about on cable news are the extremist caricatures, so it makes sense that they are who would be exhibited in a show of this kind.
June 20, 2012 at 1:41PM ESTHowever, that plays into Alan's problem: if your show is about a news show not playing to the extremes and *not* just taking shots at the wingnuts, why do you - apparently - only show wingnuts?
June 20, 2012 at 2:06PM ESTAnd, while you may hear about the 'crazies' on cable news - the Rush's and the Beck's - there are also crazies on the left (the Olbermann's, Maddow's, and Schulz's) that Sorkin (and you?) don't seem to mind or consider in the debate. Sorkin likely doesn't even consider them 'crazies'.
Dr. Dunkenstein Again, I don't want to get Alan involved in shutting things down but something similar to what Rowlf just said was very recently said by Jeb Bush. The position that the Republican party is becoming increasingly polarized is not something unique to people who identify as left-wingers.
June 20, 2012 at 3:16PM ESTRowlf Mea culpa on saying Tea Party madness. Poor choice of words. I definitely was trying to keep my critique on the show itself, and not on a political party.
June 20, 2012 at 7:07PM ESTI was trying to convey to Feydaway that my guess as to why Sorkin decided to write his characters so over the top, was a reflection on the fact that Cable News shows (left & right) focus so much on these "over the top types". I wasn't referring to Rush/Beck/Maddow/Olbermann et al; I was referring to the personalities these shows like to target. Thus it made sense for Sorkin to reflect that behavior in a show about how Cable News works.
I was bashing The Newsroom for going down that rabbit hole, when the whole point of the show within a show seems to be condemning that behavior.
Kensington There is absolutely nothing novel or compelling about squishy Republicans like Jeb Bush wetting their pants over more conservative Republicans.
June 20, 2012 at 10:18PM ESTSo, no, it's not significant that Jeb Bush hit the fainting couch over the Tea Party.
Prettok
June 20, 2012 at 1:01PM EST Reply to CommentHow soon will McAvoy declare that those Japanese nuclear reactors on the Pacific Rim are a disaster waiting to happen?
Dean Winchester In episode six, McAvoy goes on a tirade about Jamie Dimon's risky investments at JP Morgan.
June 20, 2012 at 1:14PM ESTTK
June 20, 2012 at 1:23PM EST Reply to CommentAlan, couple of thoughts.
I love your reviews but I think you've been a little unfair in this one. Here's why:
Sorkin always starts out of the gate with his characters being "right" and the other side wrong. But eventually, it tends to even out (a bit, never totally even handed) but much more than in the very beginning of a series. You've only seen 4 episodes...4 episodes into The West Wing I think most of your complaints would have been valid as well.
But then we meet Ainsley Hayes, among others, who present the opposite view and as I recall, never lost a debate. At most, Sam just gave up.
Point is, I would almost guarantee things even out once the characters are established more and the series progresses. Harriet was a very articulate defender of faith on Studio 60, but it took some time for that to be brought to bear. For a while, all you heard was how stupid religious people were.
That being said, Sorkin is used to 22 episodes versus what I assume is 13, so he might need to speed it up a bit.
One other note about the news coverage, it actually was discussed by Lawrence O'donnell on election night 2010 that the Tea Party would cause a debt crisis. Here's the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/03/election-media-coverage-video-of-msnbcs-apocalyptic-night.html
sepinwall It's easier to make that turn when all your characters are fictional. But when the people your heroes oppose are real figures who only appear in archival footage, you can't do that. Rush Limbaugh's not going to do a cameo where he puts Will in his place.
June 20, 2012 at 1:30PM ESTTK I see your point but those guys will never go on The Daily Show either, save for Bill O'Reilly.
June 20, 2012 at 1:40PM ESTI was more saying that I bet the show starts blasting MSNBC as well as Fox News. It will take on far-left voices, or at least I felt like Sorkin got there on West Wing.
And you never know about Limbaugh, he's made some pretty self-deprecating cameos on "Family Guy.
NJMark The debt crisis was caused by the running up of debt, not by people finally saying "hey, we're running up too much debt!"
June 20, 2012 at 5:52PM ESTLimbaugh has done cameos before, but not many. He doesn't need to. And he generally has some existing relationship with an executive producer or someone else involved with the show (e.g. Linda Bloodworth Thomason of "Hearts Afire" years ago.)
Sorkin really ought to examine the beliefs of people he disagrees with before he simply calls them stupid and plays off the same false media-generated stereotypes about them.
And he ought to examine his own beliefs too. But he won't, because it's easier just to mock people.
- 1
- 2
Next 150 Comments