Review: 'The Newsroom' - 'Amen': Who's the wild man now?
Mackenzie can't do math, Neal finds a kindred spirit and many people get injured
Dev Patel in "The Newsroom."
A few quick thoughts on last night's "The Newsroom" coming up just as soon as I keep walking into a glass door...
I didn't expect to see "Amen" for quite some time, due to press tour and traveling, but I got into the hotel early enough, and then decided to stay up late enough to watch it. Not going to write a full review, both because my issues with the show — the tortured romantic comedy stuff (and, in this case, the tortured physical comedy), the infantilizing of Mackenzie, the hero worship of Will — remain exactly the same, and because I have to head out shortly to the first tour panel of the day, but I do want to point out a couple of specific things.
First, I couldn't for the life of me figure out why Will kept insisting that the moment in "Rudy" that makes every man cry is the jersey scene — when, from both personal and anecdotal experience, the most emotional part of the movie takes place as the crowd bullies Dan Devine into putting Rudy into the game, and then as his loved ones react to that — until we got to the climactic scene. And then I understood — sort of. As with the final moments of the Gabby Giffords scene last week, it's a case of the show taking a very real, very violent news story and turning it into an excuse for Will McAvoy to be applauded (literally, this time), but I at least got that Sorkin was trying to set it up with that earlier scene. But the construction of it turns Will into Dan Devine, who's the movie's villain (even if in real life he wasn't such a bad guy), and then suddenly he's getting applauded like "Rudy" marching back onto the practice field after briefly quitting the team.
Second, for a show that wants to keep pointing out the real lies and mistakes being made by politicians and media members in the recent past, it either keeps intentionally misstating things or screwing them up. As friend of the blog Adam Bonin summed up nicely last night on Twitter, Will's description of what the Citizens United case was about was simply wrong.
I'd go on, but I don't want to feel like piling on. I was glad Dev Patel got a lot of (non-Bigfoot-related) things to do this week, but overall, this remains a very frustrating show.
Based on the tour schedule, I'm less confident in my ability to see episode 6 in a timely fashion, so I imagine I'll just skip writing about that (and maybe the next one or two after). But HBO is doing a "Newsroom" panel on Wednesday, August 1st, and I expect either Fienberg or I will be live-blogging an event that's going to go much differently from what HBO and Sorkin assumed when they planned it months ago.
What did everybody else think?
News From Our Partners
-
'Rush' Trailer: The Risk of Death Turns People On
Need for Speed Rivals Will Race onto Xbox One and PlayStation 4
Sonic: Lost World's Six New Characters are Teased
-
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Premiere of Rookie Blue and the Series Premieres of Save Me, Showville, and Does Someone Have to Go?
Nashville Season Finale Review: Funerals, Proposals, Car Accidents, Oh My?
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Finales of SVU, The Middle, Modern Family, Chicago Fire, Nashville, and Criminal Minds
-
The Telefile - Modern Family: Goodnight, Gracie. Hello, Series Highlight.
The Telefile - Critics' Choice Television Awards 2013: Nominees Announced
The Telefile - TV on DVD: Tuesday, May 21, 2013
-
Former Cast Member Bill Hader Reveals Justin Bieber Was Diva on 'SNL' Set
Rihanna vs. Nicki Minaj: Which Diva Has the Best Booty? – Readers Poll
Rita Ora Dyes Her Hair Bright Blue [Pics]
-
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day Eight: Blue Is The Warmest Color captures a relationship’s rawness and beauty
Hear This: Pantera’s “Walk” is the cry of aggrieved, disaffected youth
Watch This: Vanishing Point caters to car nuts and existentialists alike
-
Total Recall: Bradley Cooper's Best Movies
Parental Guidance: Epic and Beautiful Creatures
Comic Book Movies You Can Watch Online
-
WATCH: Jon Stewart Shuts Down Bill O'Reilly
'900 Pound Man: The Race Against Time': Is It Too Late?
Ashley Benson Is Not Dating All Of Her Friends
-
'Hangover III': The Reviews Are In!
Jennifer Aniston Breaks Bad, Strips Down In 'We're The Millers' Trailer
'Star Wars' Fans Still Love To Hate Ewoks 30 Years Later
Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching
Latest Posts
-
Announcing this summer's blog rewatch seriesThursday, May 23, 2013
-
The Dunphys and Pritchetts head to Florida for the funeral of Phil's momThursday, May 23, 2013
-
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
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup- 1
- 2
Next 102 CommentsCasselberry
July 23, 2012 at 10:36AM EST Reply to CommentI was ready to call this the best 'Newsroom' episode yet, and I still think it was. The storylines about reporting the revolution in Egypt and putting reporters in harm's way was riveting. But the ending was so sappy in trying to make Will the hero that it almost undercut the rest of the episode.
Gladly This was the first episode where I could actually see the bare bones of a good show. A producer goading his on-air talent to get down into the violent crowd? Trying to balance the Egypt story with the beginning of the Wisconsin protests? Those are compelling stories about reporting. Finding stringers willing to put themselves in danger? Great, dramatic stuff. I just don't think it's done very well here. And, yes, all that tension is totally undercut when it's used to canonize Will! Nothing is ever truly at risk.
July 23, 2012 at 1:11PM ESTDev Patel was very good, and he's very good with Sorkinese. I also loved the control room interactions w/ Mac and Kahled. This show really could be so much better than it is. And wasting Hope Davis as the gossip editor is a crime.
JimAbbott'sRightHandMan My gut feeling when I saw it: it's giving Will a momentary victory. Which blows up in his face when that charity is exposed as having terrorist ties and Will McAvoy's name publicly shows up as having given 50,000 dollars to a terrorist organization.
July 23, 2012 at 3:44PM ESTjack_is_laughing @Gladly: Completely agree on Hope Davis being wasted in a two-bit role. That moment where she has to look on in disgust while Will gets to shut her down was painful to watch. It's one of those cliched "And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids" moments that should be stricken from any good TV writer's quiver. Sorkin has trotted those moments out on all of his shows, but it's rare that he subjects a talented veteran actor to the shame of doing it.
July 24, 2012 at 12:51PM ESTDan3320 Actually, didn't Will give $250,000? He was going to pay the gossip columnist $50,000. But I'm pretty sure the "ransom" for the kid was $250,000.
July 27, 2012 at 8:50AM ESTAnonymous
July 23, 2012 at 10:41AM EST Reply to CommentAt the end of the season, someone needs to edit all the junk into 10 episodes while also editing all the awesome into 2 episodes. I'll look forward to re-watching at that point.
Was that a "Speed" reference when Jeff Daniels was impressed about not needing to leave a bag of cash in a garbage can?
Nic It must be. Nice catch. And if it wasn't Sorkin's intention...still, nice catch!
July 26, 2012 at 10:00PM ESTSaveFarris
July 23, 2012 at 10:45AM EST Reply to CommentSo, to recap:
* Sorkin slogs the real-life news organizations that didn't realize the depth and scope of the BP blowout mere hours into the story.
* Sorkin slogs NPR and the other news organizations who run with incorrect information for about an hour or so before they correct course.
* Sorkin has no problems whatsoever with "mis-reporting" the Citizens United verdict 2 1/2 years later.
That about sum it up?
Avel Certainly does.
July 23, 2012 at 12:46PM ESTOh, but also- women need to be taught things.
AdamInOttawa The MacKenzie doesn't know a thing about economics storyline was particularly distasteful. It reminded me of a season 1 West Wing storyline about C.J. not knowing what the census was. As in, not even really knowing what the word means after sitting through numerous meetings with high level staff - and had to have Sam explain it to her, as if she didn't have a small army of staffers who could write briefs about it.
July 23, 2012 at 6:16PM ESTIf good writers borrow from other writers and great writers steal outright, what kind of writer steals from himself?
ccarmichael
July 23, 2012 at 10:47AM EST Reply to CommentHow has no one mentioned Mackenzie's incredibly awkward "They all wanted to shower with Rudy" line? I understand the characters are living in 2010 but the editors aren't. In light of Penn St how was that line not cut out?
Nussy Because Rudy was a college senior and the "they" were also college students?
July 23, 2012 at 10:58AM ESTDan3320 Agree 100%. As soon as she uttered that line I turned to my girlfriend and said "did they really leave that line in?" #Sanduskied
July 27, 2012 at 8:51AM ESTrev1619
July 23, 2012 at 10:51AM EST Reply to CommentNice to see that women STILL can't use cell phones, act professionally at work, or do anything without needing Will to save them. The line of people who were literally applauding Will (Sorkin) was sickening. This is one of the worst 1 hour dramas that I've ever seen.
Rhonda84 With you all the way. I'm done with this show.
July 23, 2012 at 1:56PM ESTJinjee And can't do math.
July 23, 2012 at 2:19PM ESTAvel I was going to mention Mackenzie not knowing about the economy- which is just so unbelievable- was it meant to be funny?
July 24, 2012 at 1:47AM ESTBut as JINJEE pointed out, apparently they can't do math. Which means expecting them to know about the economy is a bit too much.
jack_is_laughing I think enough has been said about the sexism in Sorkin's dialogue and characterizations, but I couldn't help feeling like having four of the male characters get injured on the job isn't just adding fuel to that fire? It fit his rather silly narrative for Will to tout out for Nina, but it also implies that the men work harder and sacrifice more than the women. If it had been one male character or even two, it might not bother me, but FOUR? Seriously, Sorkin, give me a break.
July 24, 2012 at 1:04PM ESTDevin McC
July 23, 2012 at 10:53AM EST Reply to CommentAm I the only one who was really bothered by Will's line about "I'm just a middle-aged guy who never lived up to his potential.", followed by a threat that he might? To me, it sounded like a reference to what is usually called "going postal", and seemed terribly inappropriate in light of what happened last Friday. (Since it was the end of the scene, I would think HBO could have just lopped it off before broadcast.)
Or am I just reading way too much into that line? I'm not at all sure my instinct was right.
Evan Thought didn't even cross my mind. And even if it did, the show was filmed, written and edited months ago. I'm not sure it'd be right to edit it this late in the process simply because something unfathomable happened and someone might take offence to the unrelated comment.
July 23, 2012 at 11:12AM ESTGuest Reading waaaay to into it. He meant that if he does live up to the "Kronkite" potential he supposedly has, he will have much more media power than her. This was compeltely appropropriate and in no way was the "threat" violent in any way.
July 24, 2012 at 9:09AM ESTnic919
July 23, 2012 at 11:00AM EST Reply to CommentI wonder if that HBO panel is going to turn into another Broke Girls situation.
sepinwall Difference is that the Broke Girls panelists were completely blindsided at what they thought was going to be a lovefest. Sorkin and the actors all know what they're walking into.
July 23, 2012 at 11:11AM ESTErika Herzog i don't know. it really seems like Sorkin doesn't get or care how awful some of the elements of this show are -- for what i would loosely generalize as a captive audience.
July 23, 2012 at 8:08PM ESTi mean, people who watch HBO will watch and love almost everything on there, and Sorkin had everybody at THE WEST WING. but to blindly fritter this away to me seems like the work of someone who is not in touch with audiences -- and their responses to the show.
i predict it will be a horror show. i feel bad for the actors already.
lztouchthedream I heard a bit of a Fresh Air interview with Sorkin about two weeks ago, and I think he gets the criticism, but doesn't care, and really seems to feel like people just don't get what he's doing. I hate to compare the man who created The West Wing to Veena Sud, but he's really forcing me to.
July 24, 2012 at 12:12PM ESTDan3320 It's funny what expectations can do. No one expects anything from network TV these days. So when shows kick off and they are poorly written/acted/executed, no one really cares. However, since this is Sorkin and HBO, expectations are way higher. And you get comments like this thread talking about how "awful some of the elements of the show are" when in reality, the show is GOOD...just not FANTASTIC and life-changing. If Sorkin and the actors really do get bashed at the HBO panel, shame on whoever is in attendance doing the bashing. Constructive criticism, sure. But this show does not need to be bashed.
July 27, 2012 at 8:55AM ESTjgordon
July 23, 2012 at 11:19AM EST Reply to CommentAt an early point in the story I thought we were going to have a nuanced point/counterpoint of the two journalists covering the same story. The big celebrated American journalist who doesn't get the story, but is celebrated by his colleagues for getting his bones broken vs the local reporter who knows the story and gets video and interviews and gets killed and generally thrown away and forgotten (since he isn't one of our own)..... Instead the drama is minimized and Will gets to be the hero by paying a huge bribe which he can afford. What a missed opportunity....
NM He wasn't killed, he just went missing, but the money Will sent allowed for his release.
July 23, 2012 at 1:05PM ESTJGordon He wasn't killed, he just went missing
July 23, 2012 at 1:30PM ESTexactly my point. "He just went missing" Not exactly high drama there....
and in fact doesn't appear to have even a scratch. But at least our own Newsroom man is the one with the broken hand! To show how much he cares.
AdamInOttawa If it matters, I'd be interested in watching the episode you described. And if you cut out the valentines day piece, the MacKenzie/Math/Economics piece and the Rudy piece you'd have plenty of time and a much better show.
July 23, 2012 at 6:20PM ESTLiz
July 23, 2012 at 11:20AM EST Reply to CommentAlan, please, please ask Sorkin how or if he would cover the Aurora shooting in an upcoming season. (Yes, it's a train-wreck question, but an entirely legitimate one.)
Gatrios Let me guess how Sorkin would cover Aurora: Brian Ross' fantasia of James Holmes as a Tea Party Member would be presented as fact.
July 23, 2012 at 11:35AM ESTJimAbbott'sRightHandMan I suspect the episode would involve someone (probably Neal) getting geeked up about the premiere, dressing up in a Batman costume to go to a midnight showing.
July 23, 2012 at 3:56PM ESTJohn
July 23, 2012 at 11:46AM EST Reply to CommentI think using super-Sorkin hindsight and getting Citizens United factually incorrect pretty much sums up this show in general
RB They did get it wrong, but people are just piling on at this point...
July 23, 2012 at 12:38PM ESTWill says CU gave corporations the right to donate unlimited money to candidates without anyone ever knowing... change that "to" to be "on behalf" and it is totally accurate. Plus, you can easily argue that with a lack of transparency (as well as the FEC being hopelessly inadequate to enforce the laws we have) there is nothing stopping coordination between 501 c(4) superpacs and the actual campaigns of candidates. That is not an excuse for not getting the nuances right, but if you think super pacs (with undisclosed donors who can give as much as they want) aren't coordinating with candidates, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you...
Plus, as far as I know, everything else in the episode was accurate, including the Koch brothers funded amicus curie briefs, their fighting transparency laws, the conflict of interest pertaining to Scalia and Thomas (as well as Will's observation that CU would have lost had those recused themselves.) Since there is no transparency, we don't have hard facts, but again, you have to be extremely naive to believe the Koch brothers aren't taking full advantage of the new CU landscape. My point is the episode is far less inaccurate than all you people screaming "they got CU wrong!" are making it out to be.
John The level of inaccuracy is irrelevant. Considering the show is very preachy about events that happened YEARS ago, the least Sorkin could do would be to get the facts correct.
July 23, 2012 at 12:52PM ESTRB So you are getting hung up on one line, that while inaccurate, I can, again, easily argue is a distinction without difference. So yes, the show is wrong to say corps. can give unlimited money "to" candidates, but it is a bit pedantic to say that means they got everything wrong when the larger point is right on, CU blew open the doors to unprecedented corporate influence in politics, and again, if you think there isn't coordination between candidates and the groups that corps can give unlimited donations to, you are more than a little naive. It sounds like you just want to pile on Sorkin, which hey, is what everyone else is doing on this show, so go right ahead.
July 23, 2012 at 1:00PM ESTbrentalistair I here you RB. I am certainly not going to put myself in the position of being a defender of this show. I have already stated below that I am done with it. But the focus on this particular "error" seems more than a little overblown given the political realities.
July 23, 2012 at 1:14PM ESTJohn I am not 'getting hung up on one line'. My issue is far more with the show as a whole than this one error. I am getting hung up on the fact that if you are going to berate us about how certain things should have been done better two years after the fact you should get all the facts correct. The reason the show utilizes the near past is so that it has the benefit of hindsight (regardless of whatever gobbledygook reason Sorkin gave NPR), so if you utilize that hindsight super-power when you get factual things wrong, it just makes you look dumb.
July 23, 2012 at 1:25PM ESTAvel I have to agree with John. A really problematic area for the show is the "showing 'em how it's done" theme. The attitude of all the characters we're supposed to like is one of extreme smugness- these are people that are supposed to be very, very smart, but somehow don't wear that intelligence with grace. For a show that's constantly berating real-life professionals for getting it wrong minutes into a story, the lack of effort put into getting this particular story right is particularly disturbing.
July 24, 2012 at 1:43AM ESTIf, on the other hand, the show centered on complex characters and top-class professionals who sometimes got things wrong, who weren't so smug about how smart and ethical they were, getting the citizens united thing wrong could have contributed to a sophisticated storyline about how the show within the show tries to fix it.
JMD
July 23, 2012 at 12:38PM EST Reply to CommentSigh. Another Sorkinism last night, as well, with Will indicating that he would "dedicate the rest of his life to ruining [the gossip columnist's]" if he messed with his staff. That is nearly verbatim to what Sam Donovan (William H. Macy) told the network suits as he escorted the network suits out of the "Sports Night" studio after relating his "glass tubes" story. That threat was made on behalf of Isaac (Robert Guillaume).
Adam Haha, that was the first thing I thought of when I heard that line, too.
July 23, 2012 at 12:45PM ESTAdditionally, the Mackenzie storyline immediately reminded me of the West Wing episode in which CJ admits to not understanding anything about the Census and has Sam explain it to her.
hamco And that's exactly what I said to my husband as soon as I heard that line. "Hasn't he used that exact phrase before?"
July 26, 2012 at 2:18PM ESTRB
July 23, 2012 at 12:49PM EST Reply to CommentI also don't get how the show gets criticized so much for its portrayal of Will... it is now wrong to portray your protagonist as heroic? The male/female dynamics of the show need to be changed, but I am fine with Will being celebrated in this episode... even if you want to pick holes in the story, is it wrong that a guy who put up a quarter million of his own cash to get back a reporter he had never met in person get celebrated at the end of the show?
Plus, I thought this episode earned its moment of "we're doing the best coverage out there" much more than previous episodes, the pilot in particular. Going to a young Egyptian reported would allow them to get better material and cover the story better than outlets relying on Americans, so that is much easier to buy than the 2 magic sources rolling over.
Finally, I have to disagree with Alan on the Rudy point. For me, and most people I have talked to at various points on this issue, the "jersey" scene is the best moment in Rudy. The whole team finally stands up for Rudy, recognizing all his hard work and dedication, which, considering he had minimal accomplishments on the field in actual games, is the larger, more important point than the crowd cheering for him.(and also more believable... chants for players that 99% of the people in that stadium haven't heard of don't just materialize from thin air; however, we know that Rudy's teammates have seen him up close and appreciate his dedication and will.) The crowd chanting for Rudy maybe is the climax of the film, but just in terms of emotional pay-dirt, it has to be the jersey scene.
rolla I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. The team-lining-up-in-support scene also just fits better within Sorkin's ongoing theme of workplace-as-family than does the crowd-chanting scene.
July 23, 2012 at 3:24PM ESTAdamInOttawa Nope. I agree that the jersey scene works better for this story in this episode, but the best, most heart-aching scene in Rudy is when he gets put in the game for the last two plays, gets the sack and is carried off the field on his team mates' shoulders. The air gets dusty in my house any time that scene is on.
July 23, 2012 at 6:28PM ESTbrentalistair
July 23, 2012 at 12:53PM EST Reply to CommentI have watched every episode so far even though I don't think its a very good show. Its been watchable enough that, despite some pretty glaring flaws, I haven't minded spending an hour with it. This episode ends that habit. Every single thing about it was horrible to me (the Valentine's day nonsense was probably the worst of it) and it just seemed to get worse as it went along.
The scene with Hope Davis was actually so horrifying to me that I felt embarrassed for everyone involved. So... no more.
keith
July 23, 2012 at 12:59PM EST Reply to CommentStopped watching last week but worth noting that Sorkin has replaced most of the writers for season 2. Although surely the worst parts are him.
RB Alan said somewhere, a tweet I think, that Sorkin's "writing staff" are mostly researchers types, he does all the dialogue himself. So, maybe this was a PR move? Who knows, but unless Sorkin changes himself, the dialogue in S2 will be like what we've gotten so far.
July 23, 2012 at 1:02PM ESTgaryinfh So, Sorkin effectively said to his writer's room: "You didn't write that."
July 23, 2012 at 6:50PM ESTJoe
July 23, 2012 at 1:06PM EST Reply to CommentI become an emotional wreck every time I watch "Rudy" so I agree with both you & Will, plus I'd throw in the groundskeeper's speech. It was definitely weird that Will was in the Devine role though.
Joe W
July 23, 2012 at 1:44PM EST Reply to CommentI don't think I've ever hated a character more than Alison Pill's. Anytime she's on screen I want to leave the room. Although Mackenzie came close with her crying her eyes out to Sloan while she explains the economy to her. I'd never thought I'd say "shut up so Olivia Munn can explain the financial crisis to me!". And the roommate storming into the newsroom to yell at Jim for standing her up. Really Sorkin? REALLY?
This show is beyond frustrating for me. But bad Sorkin is better than no Sorkin I guess.
ds I totally hear you. For me the show consists of women storming in, women storming out...switch genders. All high volume. We didn't need that to show Maggie with a pre-existing anxiety condition, did we? As another poster said, more piling on. What's next, someone's going to have a stroke? On air?
July 23, 2012 at 2:35PM ESTAW Completely agree. Feel like I'm watching Gilmore Girls at times with the rapid pointless back and forth, as if that's how people actually talk. Dunno where the Allison Pill from In Treatment went, but I want her back.
July 23, 2012 at 3:45PM ESTStarno It's the same Alison Pill. The best acting in the world can not eradicate poor writing. For another excellent example of this, see Natalie Portman in the Star Wars prequels.
July 23, 2012 at 4:54PM ESTPatrick The roommate storming in was absurd. Besides being another annoying example of a hysterical woman, it's implausible. This is supposed to be a major national newsroom. As if she would ever make it past security.
July 23, 2012 at 8:10PM ESTErika Herzog wait, best acting and Natalie Portman?!? that doesn't compute. at all. she's been lost ever since her star-turn in LEON. i give her props for trying but unless she is perfectly cast she's about as nuanced as Keira Knightley.
July 23, 2012 at 8:13PM ESTto me this is both a casting and a writing issue. but more of a casting issue.
i like Alison Pill okay but we really needed someone else, someone more screwed up and darker, in the role. but then the role itself is unsalvageable, so.....
Espo
July 23, 2012 at 2:07PM EST Reply to CommentSomeone should ask Emily Mortimer how she musters up all that sweat before her scenes.
weed4504
July 23, 2012 at 2:32PM EST Reply to CommentWhat is the readership for TMI like?
They do in-depth pieces on The Real Housewives of Wherever and also do op-eds on ethics issues in news broadcasting?
Also, for those keeping score...
1) The imbedded American journalist getting in trouble why "getting the story" was used in The West Wing.
2) Someone being kidnapped by terrorist and asking for a money exchange was used in, yes, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. You know, the show about comedy writers.
weed4504 while "getting the story"*
July 23, 2012 at 2:33PM ESTSL I thought the same thing last night. Why would a celebrity hit site (TMI/TMZ) write pieces concerning the ethics of a relationship of a newsroom producer? Sorkin should have made her work for a Politico type site and not a TMZ site. It made sense when he ranted on that style of non-journalism on NYE but not now that they are apparently doing pieces on the producer of a news show.
July 23, 2012 at 3:48PM ESTZima I've been thinking of it as a kind of Gawker-esque sitie.
July 24, 2012 at 1:24PM ESTMac
July 23, 2012 at 3:34PM EST Reply to Comment>>> For me, and most people I have talked to at various points on this issue, the "jersey" scene is the best moment in Rudy.
You had me until you made this point, RB. The sack -- and the moments after it, with father and brother and friends and mother celebrating -- is the scene where all the men cry, not the jersey scene.
As for portraying your protagonist as a hero, there's nothing wrong with that, per se, so long as he is acting heroic. Having worked in newsrooms, though, I can say with some confidence that there are very few moments where everybody stands up and claps for somebody -- and that's usually a Pulitzer, or a going-away cake.
So, now we have Will paying for the release of some dude from Egypt, and paying for the taxi cab bills of some dude in Oregon or whatever. Yes, we get it -- he is quietly generous, except with restaurant investments.
Aside: Wasn't Rudy just hit with some FCC / SEC violations for mis-marketing his sports drink?
Dwayne Mendoza
July 23, 2012 at 4:12PM EST Reply to Comment1. I can't believe the number of references to works of popular culture that blow big baby chunks. Some writers drop references to artists who are unknown and really worth checking out.
Not Sorkin. Far be it for him to quote Reinhold Neibuhr or Jorge Luis Borges if he can drop an allusion to a cheesy movie that runs nonstop on TNT during the football season.
2. The cheesy movie adds to the mythologizing of college football. Granted Sorkin didn't know the show would air on the day that State Penn took down the statue of Coach Rape-Enabler, but the problems in college football have been known for years. Apparently the amount of reverence given to it isn't an issue to Sorkin-- it's just OK to make jokes about NASCAR.
3. If you click on the informational link about "rudy" that Alan provided, you'll see that the movie is a steaming pile of crap when it comes to presenting accurate information.
It's acceptable to use composite characters to simplify a story (Rudy had a dozen sibling) but there are many characters who don't exist (Charles S. Dutton, to name one). Also Rudy's tuition should have been covered under the GI bill (he was in the military prior to enrolling).
Both subplots about Dan Devine are lies. Devine had a few seventh-string guys dress for every game-- he announced that "Rudy" would be on the 'dress list' during a midweek practice. And he would ask one of his assistants, as the game clock ran down, to make sure everyone who had dressed went in.
There was no "I'll refuse to play" parade of players and they didn't have to score a touchdown in garbage time to get him in the game.
Both the movie in general and the scene Sorkin hinges the hour on are as false as anything that has ever come out of Sarah Palin's mouth. The movie makes Dan Devine (who's in the College Football Hall of Fame and was considered one of the most decent of the good coaches) look like a complete ass.
So it's OK to fudge that.
4. Jeff Daniels (whose mission is allegedly speaking truth to stupid) fudges, misstate, oversimplifies-- or, my choice, grossly distorts-- the impact of Citizens United.
If Citizens United allowed corporations to donate unlimited money directly TO candidates, that would be considerably BETTER than what it does. Candidates have to run commercials with "I'm Mitt Obama and I approved this message" on their commercial and you can hold them responsible for what the ad says.
CU lets corporations donate unlimited money to groups which can run attack ads that can be MUCH worse. But because they aren't being made by the candidate, the candidate can duck blame for anything it says.
Not clear on the difference and the practical effect? Here's the most famous historical example. In OCTOBER of 1988 George H.W. Bush ran a commercial that said Massachusetts had a prison furlough program that gave weekend passed to inmates who'd shown good behavior. Some inmates had been convicted of violent felonies-- and a few committed crimes while they were out.
Because this was an official Bush campaign ad, the commercial didn't claim Dukakis had created the program (he hadn't; he inherited it when he became governor) or mention names or details. They did show minorities in prison jumpsuits pushing a revolving door, so it wasn't uplifting. But it probably would have been ignored-- it wasn't that memorable.
The ad everyone remembers-- the "Willie Horton ad"-- was aired in SEPTEMBER by an independent group (Floyd Brown's National Security PAC). It mentioned Willie Horton by name, showed his picture, explained that he was a convicted murderer and said he escaped and committed assault, armed robbery and rape thanks to Michael Dukakis's program.
When the Dukakis campaign complained, the Bush campaign could correctly state that they hadn't had any role in creating the ad. Bush 41 got the benefit and the "independent group" took the flack. (By the way, Al Gore originally mentioned the issue in a Democratic primary debate).
I don't consider that a trivial distinction. In fact, if I were writing a TV show that mentioned the issue, this "plausible deniability" would be one of the heinous aspects I'd drill down on.
I would, in fact, consider it so important that I would cut scenes showing hoes and bitches screaming at honest, decent, god-fearing White Christian men and slamming their faces into glass doors to make sure it was clearly understood.
5. The end result is to say, "I, Aaron Sorkin, am the only person in our society who is allowed to decide what facts are and are not important, and how they can and cannot be presented. If I want to do my part to help create an urban legend (that Dan Devine was an evil bastard), that's OK. If I don't want to discuss the true impact of a Supreme Court case, that's OK.
Some of the things I'll ask you to believe are real, others are not. But I expect you to trust me and repeat what I say, no matter what.
6. To demonstrate just how screwed-up Sorkin's sensibilities are, the final scene blew an opportunity to name-check a much better movie. And it was one that the script ACTUALLY SET UP.
During the bar conversation where Emily Mortimer displays, for the 'nth' time, her unfitness to produce a network news show, Olivia Munn tries to explain the difference between a commercial bank and an investment bank. An investment back is a bunch of gamblers, the commercial bank is George Bailey.
The reference is self-evident. George Bailey-- Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life"-- guardian of the pennies and dollars of everyone in Bedford Falls against the scourge of Lionel Barrymore's Mr. Potter.
So at the end of the telecast, when Daniels once again uses his money to do good for the little brown people (he pays for the illegal alien's cab rides)... a string of people who think he's sort of a crappy human being come in to drop checks on Daniel's deak... just like everyone does for Stewart.
For a brief moment, I thought I was watching a bit of really clever screenwriting. Because the movie had been mentioned, the audience is prepared. Daniels hadn't heard the reference, but Mortimar had-- and she was standing there as they trooped in.
For once an allusion that wasn't used as a bludgeon. And, if you want to go this far, you can even have Mortimer say, when Daniels walks out of his office, "To Will McAvoy, the biggest man in town." It's a much, much better springboard for applause.
(And if you want to beat the audience over the head with it, you can even have Mortimer complain that "Rudy" isn't as good as "It's a Wonderful Life" in the meeting. Not my taste, but better than all the personal information they were spitting at each other.)
Instead, Sorkin has the show badly re-enact a scene that never happened in real life.
7. This show is abominable. It isn't doing anything well. When you have to know the subject so you can vet the statements, it's no help as education. And as a work of televised drama, it's execrable.
Patrick I don't think anyone watches "Rudy" looking for a historically accurate docu-drama. People watch it because it is emotionally uplifting. All the best sports movies rely heavily on mythology
July 23, 2012 at 9:49PM ESTDwayne Mendoza That's nonsense. Any time a movie says "Based on a true story" or the more tenuous "Inspired by true events", they're playing with your emotions. The movie is saying, in effect "Don't blame us if this seems corny and implausibl, because IT REALLY HAPPENED."
July 23, 2012 at 10:29PM ESTYes, it's possible to make an uplifting and popular movie that is 100% hooey. A textbook example is the movie "Hoosiers." There was a very small school (Milan High School) that did win the Indians State championship in 1954, but all of the characters and events in the movie were made up.
"Rudy" uses real places, real names and wants you to believe everything in it happened. To the degree that it didn't, it's a lie-- and by endorsing the movie, Sorkin in putting his stamp of approval on something false.
Dr. Dunkenstein I can only speak for myself but when a movie says "Based on a True Story" I'm able to realize that I'm not about to get the absolute truth.
July 24, 2012 at 8:03AM ESTA lot of people like Rudy. Including people who know the truth. Same with the Social Network and Braveheart and any one of hundreds of movies "based on a true story". To somehow single Sorkin out for it seems more like a personal beef with him than anything else.
Dwayne Mendoza The issue here isn't my 'personal beef' with Sorkin, so much as your complete disinterest in facts.
July 24, 2012 at 12:13PM ESTSince one of the two movies you mention was written by Sorkin, let's consider the other. In "Braveheart", Isabella of France is shown meeting William Wallace at the Battle of York, having an affair with him and bearing his child, who becomes Edward III.
Isabella was three years old when the battle took place. She was nine, still living in France and not married to Edward (she hadn't even met him) when Wallace was executed. She married Edward two years after Wallace died and gave birth to Edward III seven years after Wallace died. Yet you classify that as "not the absolute truth."
I'm not one of those folks who gets upset that the Scots are shown wearing kilts (they didn't) in the late 13th century. I get that creative people sometimes take licenses with the facts to make the portrait of historical events more acceptable to the contemporary audience.
To use a fine example, people in towns like "Deadwood" didn't use obscene language. When they wanted to curse, they used BLASPHEMY. Milch tried that in a couple of drafts and had to abandon it for words like "@^#%$!!" and "@^#%$$%$" when people giggled at historically accurate phrases like "God's Holy Trousers."
Edward Longshanks is shown dying before Wallace is killed (he died two years after). Typical Hollywood nonsense showing that the bad guys are always punished, but it doesn't affect the story to any meaningful extent.
When the movie insists that Wallace was poor (he wasn't) and that he rebelled against the English after they raped and killed his true love (didn't happen), then you've changed the entire movie. Add things like Wallace inventing the use of spears against cavalry and the portrait of Robert the Bruce and then I pronounce it a steaming mound of dung.
The "personal beef" with Sorkin stems from his distorting events in "Charlie Wilson's War" and making up facts in "The Social Network"-- so now many people believe those events happened as depicted. It's not comparable to "The King's Speech" turning a year's worth of therapy into ten years of epic struggle-- it's Sorkin marking stuff up.
If you think it's fine and dandy for someone who does that to complain that people don't know what the truth is-- or, more precisely, what he claims it is-- that's your privilege. But you shouldn't think it odd that people who care about the truth find this practice repellant.
Dr. Dunkenstein No, I'm just able to distinguish between the aims and goals of a Hollywood film and those of a history text and know that "based on a true story" doesn't imply that they've crossed their wires.
July 25, 2012 at 7:35AM ESTDwayne Mendoza Sorkin also isn't getting the facts right about the news events he's covering, or his recounting of historical events. If he were more scrupulous about this, he might not show "a gossip columnist or the hosts of a morning show... talk about the executive producer of a news show like she were Jennifer Anniston... having Comedy writers being asked for autographs... or the people... thinking some random Tennis match was the biggest thing that ever happened. "
July 25, 2012 at 5:41PM ESTghoti
July 23, 2012 at 8:07PM EST Reply to CommentI actually thought the staff was applauding Will because he came through for the team and spurred them all to be a part of it. It was a nice moment seeing the "Coach" see his ranks pull together like that - like a family.
Then I found out Mackenzie told them all to do it as Will's freakin' Valentine's gift. The staff didn't want to be involved on their own, they had to be told. Thanks. Scene ruined.
Schmye Bubbula
July 23, 2012 at 8:28PM EST Reply to CommentSorkin got Glass-Steagall all wrong.
Although we’ve heard a great deal about how "deregulation" caused the financial crisis, specific cases of repealed legislation that would have prevented it are few and far between. The one some "Progressives" seem to have settled on is the "repeal" of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated commercial from investment banking. The "repeal" involved only one provision of the Act, the one preventing the same holding company from controlling both a commercial bank and an investment bank.
When we recall that stand-alone institutions, both commercial and investment, also failed during the crisis, and that all of them acquired mortgage-backed securities (which they had always been allowed to do, by the way), the Glass-Steagall "repeal" looks more and more like a red herring that appeals to people whose belief system requires them to find some way a Fed-fueled bubble could have been stopped had the right regulatory structure been in place.
(The problem with those who point to Glass-Steagall is not that they’re radical. It’s that they’re not nearly radical enough: They think the system as is, shot through with moral hazard at every level, and presided over by a market-defying central bank, is of its nature stable and without fault; we just need a few regulations.)
Because Glass-Steagall was passed during the Depression, it is assumed that it was addressing a pressing need of the time. In fact, the lack of government-enforced division between commercial and investment banking had precisely zero to do with bank problems during the Great Depression. The 9,000 bank failures during the early 1930s had far more to do with the damage done by government regulation — namely, the unit-banking laws that made it difficult for banks to diversify their portfolios (by limiting them to a single office and making branching illegal) — than with a lack of regulation. These were small banks, not the behemoths for which Glass-Steagall would have been relevant. Canada had none of these stifling regulations, and had zero bank failures. (Incidentally, Canada also avoided all the post-Civil War bank panics that struck the U.S., even though Canada did not have a central bank until 1934 — yet again, reality refuses to conform to the where-would-we-be-without-our-wise-overlords comic-book version of events.)
The Glass-Steagall-did-it crowd is the same crowd that likes to claim Canada avoided the worst of the U.S. crisis because it was so much better regulated. But they can’t have it both ways — Canada did not have a Glass-Steagall law!
PATRICK Agreed, I thought they oversimplified Glass-Steagall. And you make a lot of insightful points about it. But the problem in the context of the scene is that Sloan needs to explain the Act in a way that a kindergartener can understand (as Mac is portrayed as a moron in economics (not to mention math)). So of course the nuances couldn't be explained. I did find it a stretch that Glass-Steagall was the main reason for the country's 60 year economic expansion
July 23, 2012 at 9:02PM ESTPatrick
July 23, 2012 at 9:24PM EST Reply to CommentIt's tough to take Mac seriously as "the best EP there is". It's especially hard to believe she was a combat reporter. She is portrayed as an overly emotional, immature twit in every scene. It would be one thing if she were shown to be a mess in her private life only. Lots of people are successful at work while they are a mess away from work. But she is just a mess all the time, while not adding much of significance to the newsroom, other than her preaching about NewsNight 2.0. And she is shown to be intellectually lacking at every turn, whether in literature "the Don Quixote flubs", economics "everything" or math " she has to count with her fingers"
Dwayne Mendoza Agreed-- and let's not forget that she just got played by an opportunistic boyfriend, and she allegedly torpedoed a good relationship by cheating on Jeff Daniels. But other than Olivia Munn, there's no one who is competent at anything.
July 23, 2012 at 10:38PM ESTstringer_white "But other than Olivia Munn, there's no one who is competent at anything."
July 29, 2012 at 5:17PM ESTThat is a sentence that no one should ever utter.
REAL Producer
July 24, 2012 at 12:33AM EST Reply to CommentI just can't defend this show anymore. I work in a newsroom so for me, I was excited about this show. Not anymore. It's just too cheesy and completely unrealistic; both in the workplace dramas and "antics". There are parts that this show gets right about working in a newsroom but those are few and far between at this point.
For instance, there is no way in hell some stood up date would be allowed to waltz right in and start screaming for Producer in the middle of the newsroom. Shoot, if a fellow employee did that, they'd be in major trouble. Punching a computer screen? You're fired.
The dialog is garbage. The characters are annoying and unlikeable. The gags are juvenile and sophomoric at best, insulting at worst.
I'm out.
bigc236
July 24, 2012 at 1:04AM EST Reply to CommentI usual agree with you on most of your reviews (i.e. The Wire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc.) and will continue to follow your site. But I really think you've missed the boat on this show completely. I agree, the continuous will they/won't they romantic story lines are the show's weak moments, but the characters just ring true to me. It's not overstating it, to believe the American public has issue with our main stream media and I admire the show for trying to take the higher ground. But you can't say we should all believe your buddy from Twitter who says Sorkin's interpretation of the Citizen's Untied case was wrong. You're just playing the same political game you perceive "Newsroom" is playing. True, it doesn't say anything about direct contributions by corporations & unions to political campaigns. But it does allow those same corporations & unions to spend unlimited amounts of money in advertising and media airtime in support of any candidate of their choosing. Which is essentially what the lion share of campaign money is spent on, correct?
Mike Bonin was merely stating a fact, not playing any political game. And the idea that facts that don't support your viewpoint really aren't facts is ironically one of the big things you could criticize the mainstream media about.
July 26, 2012 at 4:03AM ESTI don't believe Bonin's viewpoint on the issue was different than Sorkin's, and as Dwayne Mendoza stated earlier, what Citizens United did is even more sinister than what it would have been if it was what the show portrayed it as. What Citizens United did is that it allowed Super PACs to run reprehensible ads completely distorting reality while allowing the candidates themselves to wave their Victorian lady's fans in front of their faces saying, "I'd never do something like that, how dare those nasty Super PACs!" It basically let's these shadowy groups run these ads with absolutely no accountability whatsoever. That's a lot worse than if candidates had to put their names on all of this mudslinging. A lot worse.
KobraCola
July 24, 2012 at 2:29AM EST Reply to CommentThe physical "stunts" were comical, like I don't believe at all that Jim would walk into that glass door so hard that he had a god-damned huge gash on his forehead, but at least the part with Patel punching the computer screen was more realistic (even if I'm not sure he would've broken 2 fingers). I'm sentimental enough that the jersey-like scene with Will worked for me. The whole Valentines Day thing was pretty stupid, though. I've been single on a number of Valentines Days and I never didn't know what DAY it was on. It seems ridiculous that these well-educated people, most notably Jim, wouldn't even know that Valentines Day was on February 14th.
Dr. Dunkenstein
July 24, 2012 at 8:10AM EST Reply to CommentI've defended the show quite a bit so far but I think I'm nearing the end of my ability to take this show seriously as a particularly good piece of television. I still think that people are revealing more about themselves by taking issue with the politics or are unfairly casting everything every character says as Aaron Sorkin simply speaking for himself but there are issues that are popping up.
Chiefly, for me, we're getting the two biggest problems I've had with most of Sorkin's shows. The sainted perfection of his characters and the inability to present a world that I recognize as the one I live in. People before me have mentioned it but the idea that a gossip columnist or the hosts of a morning show would talk about the executive producer of a news show like she were Jennifer Anniston is dwelling on Studio 60 having Comedy writers being asked for autographs or the people on Sportsnight thinking some random Tennis match was the biggest thing that ever happened. It's hard for me to take a show seriously if it pretends to be representing something I should recognize but gets all of the nuances wrong.
That said, there are still multiple lines per episode that genuinely make me laugh.
Teklanika
July 24, 2012 at 10:30AM EST Reply to CommentI mostly like this show. A lot. But, there are 2-3 spots in each episode that are either cheesy, far too preachy, or both that cause me to shake my head and say, “Damn, they didn’t need to do that and it takes away from the rest of the show, which has been brilliant.”
Those spots in this episode were the scene at the end when the staff gave money to Will. This was a weak attempt to tie in the Rudy discussion from earlier and didn’t work in the context they wanted it to. Will’s a multimillionaire. 250k is peanuts to him. Thank him and respect him for paying the money himself, but having the staff make a donation was just silly and unnecessary.
The whole scene with the roommate barging in and screaming. They’ve been on 4 dates. Anyone making that big a scene after 4 dates is insane and the guy would run the other way.
Mac’s complete lack of economics was a poor excuse for Sorkin preach to us about economics. Did she have to be completely ignorant? Couldn’t she have just wanted to refine her economic skills? She’s supposed to be an educated woman.
Patrick I agree, it was a stretch to have her be completely ignorant. It was ridiculous that she answered "No" when Olivia Munn's character asked her if she knows how to balance a checkbook. Granted, a lot of adults spend more than they make, but I think anyone past the third grade is at least familiar with the concept of balancing a checkbook.
July 24, 2012 at 6:09PM ESTJMRII
July 24, 2012 at 1:06PM EST Reply to CommentI think the lack of comments on this episode is very telling.....
Mike
July 24, 2012 at 3:05PM EST Reply to CommentFrustrating really is a perfect way to describe this show. The pieces are there, there are elements that work, but there are just so many problems that it never comes together like it could.
Also, I know people love piling on Olivia Munn these days, but I do think she does quite well with the Sorkinese.
Oh, and as for the Citizens United thing, I do like that Sorkin's hindsight-o-vision is no match for anyone that watched a few episodes of the Colbert Report last year.
- 1
- 2
Next 102 Comments