Review: 'The Newsroom' - 'The Blackout Part 2: Mock Debate': Help me, Rhonda
The power comes back on, but everything else continues to go wrong
Kelen Coleman and Alison Pill in "The Newsroom."
A quick review of last night's "The Newsroom" coming up just as soon as I'm in a conspiracy cahoots...
"You remember when I didn't care about the lives of the people who worked here?" -Will
"Yeah." -Don
"Those were the days." -Will
If last week's episode was an hour of "The Newsroom" where Aaron Sorkin largely kept his worst impulses in check, "Mock Debate" was Bad Sorkin on Parade. Way too much time spent on romantic triangles and rhombuses that are grating in the extreme. Way too much of Mac appearing to be a completely insane person in front of the entire staff (even if she was also presented as being right throughout the episode). More of Sorkin not understanding the Internet with the 4Chan subplot (which keeps being justified by characters like Sloan insisting it's a great story, when it was really a Who Cares? until Neal inadvertently stumbled on the death threat guy). More of the characters being wildly naive at best in expecting the RNC to like that debate format.(*) More of Will/the show being condescending towards women by referring to Lisa as a "15-year-old girl," along with the suggestion that it's mortifying that said 15-year-old-girl is braver than a man like Will McAvoy. It was an hour in which I hated pretty much every character (other than perhaps Charlie and Lonny), even ones I have previously liked (like Sloan).
(*) It would have been one thing if the characters from the start treated it like a noble but futile gesture that had a tiny chance of working, but would at least make their point; instead, everyone was stunned that Greg the haircut was offended by it, and they all come across like kids who just got told Santa Claus wasn't real.
Finale's next week — and, for the first time in Sorkin's TV history, his first season finale isn't called "What Kind of a Day Has It Been" — and I sure hope that Good Sorkin is much more on display.
What did everybody else think?
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
| Topic | Started By | Latest Post | Replies |
|---|---|---|---|
| sepinwall |
5 days ago
|
2
|
|
| sepinwall |
14 days ago
|
1
|
|
| Discuss Scripted Dramas on HitFix Message Boards » | |||
News From Our Partners
-
The CW's 'Cult' Returns from Cancellation June 28
'White House Down' Featurette: Roland Emmerich Revists White House-Based Mayhem
Jimmy Fallon Goes 'Game of Thrones' For 'Late Night's "Game of Desks"
-
'Fast & Furious 6': The Reviews Are In!
'Return Of The Jedi' Turns 30: Secrets Of Ewok Language Revealed!
'Fast & Furious 6' Expected To Lap 'Hangover III' At Box Office
-
What To Watch This Memorial Day Weekend
Is The New 'Bachelorette' Engaged?
Tavis Smiley Marks 10th Year On PBS
-
What to Watch This Weekend: Orphan Black, Behind the Candelabra, and Arrested Development's Netflix Debut
Do These Four New Arrested Development Clips Get You Excited for the Show's Return? (VIDEO)
Arrested Development Q&A: Alia Shawkat on Maeby, the Return of the Show, and the Canonization of Mitch Hurwitz
-
The Telefile - The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
The Telefile - Does Someone Have to Go?: Work Sucks.... If You Are On This Show
The Telefile - Save Me: Lightning Strikes NBC
-
Hear This: “Second Best” reflects a pivotal moment all serious bands face
Watch This: The wages and the fear remain high in William Friedkin’s Sorcerer
Cannes Film Festival: Cannes 2013, Day Nine: James Gray and Joaquin Phoenix reteam for a compelling period drama
-
Baz Luhrmann Passed on Directing 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'
Someone Just Paid $1.5 Million to Sit Next to Leonardo DiCaprio in Space
Tim Curry Is Fine After Suffering a Massive Stroke: Report
-
Weekly Ketchup: Fox and Marvel Both Courting Quicksilver for Comic Blockbusters
Critics Consensus: Fast & Furious 6 is Certified Fresh
Red Carpet Photos with Vin Diesel, Michelle Rodriguez, Gina Carano and More
Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching
Latest Posts
-
Steven Soderbergh biopic about Liberace is HBO's best movie in yearsFriday, May 24, 2013
-
Will gets lost in a case, and Lecter tries to protect Abigail HobbsThursday, May 23, 2013
-
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
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup- 1
- 2
Next 100 Commentschristy
August 20, 2012 at 10:14AM EST Reply to CommentAaron Sorkin definitely thinks that in order to troll, you have to insult a media professional.
christy Aaron Sorkin thinks that trolling hurts the person you're talking ABOUT, not the people trying to have a good faith conversation on the topic at hand.
August 20, 2012 at 10:16AM ESTMeg Sorkin has made his disgust for the Internet and lack of understanding for how people use it to communicate well known. As such, he should definitely never try building storylines around it. Unless maybe for comedy, since I did think the "LemonLyman.com" story on West Wing was pretty funny. Maybe because Sorkin stand-in Josh was the butt of that joke. The troll story has been ridiculous.
August 20, 2012 at 11:51AM ESTBix The Neal investigating trolling subculture sub-plot is so ill-defined and stupid that it's maddening. What is he ACTUALLY doing? He's not trying to infiltrate an "Anonymous" type group.
August 20, 2012 at 1:45PM ESTEven if it's supposed to be some sort of vague 4Chan /b substitute, trolls/the internet don't work that way. As far as I know, there's no big exclusive central troll club message board that trolls try to get into to by inciting flamewars on other forums to prove their worth. Especially since it's not exactly hard.
It comes off as nothing more than a Sorkin self-insert story about what he assumes was the lead-up to what happened with him at Television Without Pity: Since he's infallible, nobody could have a legitimate beef with him. Thus, people were trolling him to get into the super elite troll club where trolls brag about trolling.
Bix Of course there are places where trolls celebrate their pwning of n00bs, but it's not like there's one true magical secret society like the way these past 2 episodes portrayed things.
August 20, 2012 at 7:17PM ESTIs it possible that Sorkin "understands" the internet on a basic level? Of course he does, he's a smart guy. But he clearly loathes the idea of the unwashed masses having a public voice; again, stemming from the TWoP thread.
Also that's not what happened with the "Internet girl" incident at all. The issue was that he was being sexist, not anything to do with the internet beyond the fact that Aaron Sorkin saying it made it even more obviously condescending.
LN
August 20, 2012 at 10:15AM EST Reply to Commenti liked it better than Alan but either Emily Mortimer (generally a gifted actress) can't deliver on those public meltdown scenes or they are just to ridiculous for any actor to get away with. Also Olivia Munn delivered one of the better FU's on television recently.
gladly I've seen Emily Mortimer in several films and liked her. I thought she was genius as Jack's avian bone syndrome-suffering fiancee in "30 Rock." I like Emily Mortimer. I think Mac is awful, and in this episode she was literally braying like a jackass. For some reason, Mac the character is making me loathe Emily Mortimer's accent, her mannerisms, everything! But her hoarse yelling during her breakdowns grates so much, Mac may have exhausted all the goodwill Emily Mortimer built up as a performer.
August 20, 2012 at 1:02PM ESTnath I vote ridiculous.
August 20, 2012 at 1:46PM ESTBrubarian
August 20, 2012 at 10:21AM EST Reply to CommentAre there ANY positive critical reviews of this show?
keith
August 20, 2012 at 10:31AM EST Reply to CommentThe relationship stuff is JUVENILE and ANNOYING. Sorkin: STOP IT.
Can anyone else still not tell the difference between the two young jerks?
dead souls
August 20, 2012 at 10:31AM EST Reply to CommentWow, this was one of the worst episodes of television I've ever seen. A complete disaster from start to finish.
MBM I am hate watching this show, can't wait to bury it in the back yard after next week. If I even watch next week.
August 22, 2012 at 12:29PM ESTJon88
August 20, 2012 at 10:36AM EST Reply to Comment"What did everybody else think?" I think you just gave me back an hour of my Monday. Much obliged.
Adam
August 20, 2012 at 10:40AM EST Reply to CommentIt was awkward to see Will having his therapy session with guy-playing-Adam-Arkin-from-West-Wing only to see Adam Arkin show up a few scenes later and basically do nothing.
Adam Arkin is a fine actor, and he really suits the Sorkin style banter. He was wasted here.
Also, Will gets much more feedback from his therapist than I ever got from mine. They spar, and the therapist tells him the answer. All I ever got was 'it sounds like you're saying it was very frustrating for you', etc.
keith Television therapists have a million times more insight than real world therapists. It's one area that writers consistently get wrong, which is odd considering how many of them have therapists. I suppose story typically requires characters with insight, but therapists in TV are usually dei ex machina.
August 20, 2012 at 10:52AM ESTNoa I, too, was a tad peturbed at seeing Adam Arkin stroll into the episode minutes after Krumholtz just finished playing...Adam Arkin. I'm floored by Aaron Sorkin's complete lack of self-awareness and blatant disregard for character-model repetition. Sorkinland has turned into a unintentional and poorly executed Charlie Kaufman vehicle. Or worse...a horrendous, visual/aural representation of great song covered 3x (twice well, once not so well) and ALL versions of that song made into a "Glee"-style mash-up w/ pratfalls subbing for dance numbers & lobotomized shrieking harpies replacing diva-solos. This needs to stop.
August 20, 2012 at 2:57PM ESTzzk Maybe billionaire Will McAvoy can afford a better therapist than you.
August 21, 2012 at 10:46AM ESTRobert
August 20, 2012 at 10:51AM EST Reply to CommentI am almost starting to wonder if Sorkin is messing with us in some sort of enormous practical joke. This had to have been one of the most grating, ridiculous hours of television I have seen in a long time. I agree with Alan that every character on this show is annoying. I thought some of the most irritating scenes Alan didn't even mention either. OF COURSE Lisa went to high school with Casey Anthony because exclusives fall into these peoples' laps like leaves from a tree. If people like Jim and Maggie came to my place of business to harass me into appearing on their show I would have called the police. And then Lisa refuses, refuses, refuses but then conveniently has a controversial position to take about Casey Anthony? But we are supposed to have sympathy for her job being in jeopardy as a result? But I loved how Will was the white knight to save the day, literally emerging from a smoky background, to help Lisa, because it was the right thing to do. The right thing to do would have been to not threaten your producer to put her roommate on TV at all costs. Ridiculous.
And before people tell me to change the channel, I used to like Sorkin a lot, West Wing, Sports Night, etc, but I guess I hang in there hoping things will change.
sepinwall Yeah, there were so many irritating things in this one that I simply forgot to mention Lisa as Casey Anthony's roommate when listing them all. Journalism 101, per "The Newsroom": Don't bother developing sources, because chances are, someone in your circle of close friends and family will be connected to every story you cover.
August 20, 2012 at 11:57AM ESTMeg I also found it weird that Lisa suddenly used the platform to launch into a pro-choice speech. I mean, I am firmly 100% pro-choice and I was totally creeped out by that. Also ridiculous that she was so confident and articulate. Sure she messed up the 80 million vs 800,000 stat, but for the most part she was poised, aggressive, and clever. Not buying that from what we've seen of her character, most people without media training aren't going to be like that their first time on television sitting across from a seasoned news anchor. God, this show.
August 20, 2012 at 12:51PM ESTBix Was there ANY reason for the Lisa subplot to veer off in the direction it did? In the end, nobody was acting like she tanked the segment with the abortion talk. She didn't lose her job. All it really accomplished was to establish that Will had been going out without Lonnie protecting him, which could've been done in a number of much more simple ways.
August 20, 2012 at 1:12PM ESTrb But wasn't the whole point that Lisa really didn't have anything of worth to say about Casey Anthony? I saw it more as a criticism that when these infotainment type stories pop up, news outlets will throw anyone out there in order to "promote an exclusive."
August 20, 2012 at 6:55PM ESTAs for Will's involvement, the show threw out some other theories: the idea that Will isn't pandering to a debate, that he somehow assuages his loneliness, or boosts his ego, by getting big ratings. I didn't really get the end either, though, but unfortunately, it's not really impossible to buy that someone would scan social media and act out like that.
Bix But why did it even turn into "Lisa starts talking about abortion and then someone vandalizes her workplace"? They literally had nothing to say after they made the point of having Lisa talk about Missing White Women's Syndrome.
August 20, 2012 at 7:07PM ESTJames
August 20, 2012 at 11:01AM EST Reply to CommentI still can't ever see a Sorkin internet subplot (especially one about trolling) without thinking about how he's viewing it through the lens of his infamous dealings with Television Without Pity.
I'm just amazed that he still really doesn't have a grasp on how things really work.
nath He seems like the kind of guy who actively refuses to learn how things really work, because they're not how he thinks they should work.
August 20, 2012 at 1:50PM ESTTom
August 20, 2012 at 11:01AM EST Reply to CommentI don't think this has been brought up, but I think it's worth pointing out: This episode featured a montage set to a Amy Winehouse's cover of "Will you love me tomorrow." "The Focus Group," the third episode of Studio 60," ended with a montage set to Dave Mason's cover of the same song...
But I loved The Social Network
August 20, 2012 at 11:03AM EST Reply to CommentBlackout part 1 hinted at becoming a good show, last night was THE WORST
These characters are terrible sound a like morons. Tried liking Don, cause he was a jerk, but if he puts up with Maggie, he's just as dumb as Jim- the dumbest news producer ever
nic919
August 20, 2012 at 11:12AM EST Reply to CommentIt is one thing if the mock debate format was created by high school or university students who are incredibly naive about the political system. It is quite another when alleged professionals who have been in the business actually think that it was going to fly. I think Sorkin was trying to make it look like it was the evil GOP guy who thought it was ridiculous, but I cannot see any party agreeing to willingly expose its candidates as charlatans. Sure it's a sad state on political commentary today, but I would have been more impressed if Will pretended to their rules and then went rogue on the actual debate day. And this new format was mostly about Will's ego, so GOP guy was not that far off the mark there either.
These people are so insulated in their own little world, it would be better if the real life minus 18 months format is scrapped for next year and we place them in a fantasy universe.
AG Actually, I do not even think it reflects poorly on the state of politics today. What Sorkin (and the characters) all missed is that the guy WORKS FOR THE RNC. He is not supposed to be unbiased. Yes, it is sad that the news organizations do not try to ask tougher questions, but the RNC (and DNC) are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing- protecting their candidates. It is not their fault that the groups running the debates let them get away with this stuff. So of course the guy was going to refuse the new debate format when he could just go elsewhere to get a friendly debate.
August 20, 2012 at 12:15PM ESTgladly The whole RNC debate plot worked better before we saw what ACN wanted to do with their debate. That whole idea could have worked if Sorkin had written is from the perspective that Maggie mentions when she and Don are talking about it later. Why not have ACN trying to rally other outlets to unite on tougher debate rules? Why in heaven's name would the RNC (or the DNC for that matter) want to up its candidates negatives on televion? And, yes, it makes the ACN staff look like idiots that they thought their format had a chance of succeeding.
August 20, 2012 at 1:11PM ESTBut, like Studio 60's sketches, the new format that Will wants is so self-aggrandizing, even to viewers it sounds like a stupid idea.
Kevin Michaels Absolutely correct about the whole mock debate - maybe in some "idealistic" world this debate might have taken root and been meaningful (especially if other news outlets would have gone along with it), but to think that the RNC would embrace it in any way, shape, or form is just so terribly naive. It's just not real world. The Don Quixote angle is great and I think it's wonderful that Mac and Will and everyone else wants to chase the dream of bringing accountability and integrity back into politics and news and every day life, but let's be objective.....this isn't fantasy land.
August 21, 2012 at 11:26AM ESTI still enjoy the show but it is so hit or miss, week after week. We go from the highs of last week's show to the lowest of the lows this week.
CJ
August 20, 2012 at 11:23AM EST Reply to CommentI'm generally a Sorkin apologist (I'm that guy who liked Studio 60.) but even I thought this episode was terrible. I mean, it was just too far beyond any hope of realism.
Espo
August 20, 2012 at 11:27AM EST Reply to CommentEven though Alan and most of the commenters have justifiably pointed out the flaws in this episode, I'd like to add that the Jim/Maggie/Lisa scene in the dress shop was the worst thing I've seen on television all year.
Hatfield And it just kept going!
August 20, 2012 at 11:38AM ESTMeg I didn't think I could hate Jim more until he kept going and going and going, essentially implying that Lisa's job was not at all important. Because of course not, it's just clothes. He's a JOURNALIST. I wanted to barf. Between that and his "Jim to the Rescue" affirmation that she needed to shut her Facebook page down immediately (she could never have figured that out on her own, just like Maggie would never know to carry xanax with her for her panic attacks if he didn't tell her so), I wanted to punch him all night.
August 20, 2012 at 12:54PM ESTkeith That scene made me SO angry. She said no really clearly and politely hinted that you're messing up her job. Leave her alone. The main characters here are just so detestable.
August 20, 2012 at 1:15PM ESTbrentalistair That was an astonishingly awful scene capped by Jim's question: "Do you think their kissing in there?"
August 20, 2012 at 7:45PM ESTI haven't watched the last few episodes and I am not quite sure what made me watch tonight but that line made me very sorry I did.
Robert
August 20, 2012 at 11:38AM EST Reply to CommentI stuck with this show this long because it seemed to be getting better and I still think there is a skeleton of a good show but man, was this hard to watch. I literally groaned out loud when Will fell over because he couldn't put his pants on correctly (what is he, 5 years old?). It seemed like lazy writing. I will watch the finale for some closure but doubt I will tune back in.
weed4504
August 20, 2012 at 11:55AM EST Reply to CommentAll of the comedy in the episode was PAINFUL to watch. Will putting his pants on being on of the worst.
And that huge ten minute speech from Mac at the beginning of the show? Jesus it went on forever and then suddenly the lights came back on, just as expected. Sorkin knows like 7 jokes and just keeps using them.
The entire dress shop scene was clearly supposed to be hilariously witty and quick banter (which of course becomes a speech on how if she does this it will give them a chance TO CHANGE THE WAY WE DEBATE FOREVER!!!)
And every scene with Sloan being "uncomfortable" when Neal is talking about Trolls is painful. Although her scene this week wasn't nearly as bad as last week when she threw him into a wall when he suggested he'd troll about the size of her butt. Ridiculous.
KobraCola
August 20, 2012 at 12:47PM EST Reply to CommentI can't tell if it's the constant hate I read on here and seemingly from every other critic wearing me down or perhaps the show is ACTUALLY getting worse, but this episode began to annoy me, and I've liked every episode of The Newsroom so far to varying degrees. This was probably the episode I liked the least all season. Every negative point that Alan and ROBERT brought up is completely right. I mostly, however, wanted to touch on the internet troll thing again: Not only is 4Chan nothing like what Neal claims it is (if he even is talking about 4Chan), there is no online community of trolls such as the one Neal claims there is. Not only that, but even if he did gain access to this imaginary online community of trolls, what would his story be??? Will would report that there's an online community of trolls on the internet that do stuff? So what? Who would care? That's not news in the LEAST. Until the "reveal" that Neal stumbled upon the guy who sent the death threat to Will, this entire troll thing was completely and totally unbelievable on every level. And the fact that anyone thinks the RNC (or DNC for that matter, as someone else mentioned) would ever in a million years agree to a debate with questions like those is absolutely insane and, I guess, shows the power of mob mentality or perhaps how cults fool everyone into thinking something that obviously isn't true is true. This episode was just a disaster all around. Hopefully the finale is better.
rainman90
August 20, 2012 at 12:59PM EST Reply to Comment"More of Sorkin not understanding the Internet with the 4Chan subplot (which keeps being justified by characters like Sloan insisting it's a great story, when it was really a Who Cares? until Neal inadvertently stumbled on the death threat guy)."
No kidding.
"Hey, I've got a great story. I heard a rumor that people like to act like jerks on the Internet."
"Wow, what a scoop! Go with it!"
sfingerhut
August 20, 2012 at 1:01PM EST Reply to CommentI really love The Newsroom, but sadly must agree last night's ep was bad. It relied too much on jim/maggie/don/lisa mess (BIG mistake as those characters are just silly), the 'debate' scene was HUH?, and Mac totally overplayed her meltdown. Oh,
and Maggie is the MOST ANNOYING tv character ever. The rest of the newsroom staff are soo much better, LOVE Charlie, Sloan, Will's bodyguard, and Will. And Jane Fonda (her scenes with Charlie are THE BEST). More of that, please.
JimAbbott'sRightHandMan
August 20, 2012 at 1:17PM EST Reply to CommentAlan, I'm not entirely sure the debate thing was supposed to have been futile. We, the audience, knew it couldn't happen (because in reality we know that Jeff Daniels never moderated a debate, so obviously the show couldn't feature that story ever actually happening).
But the way it was written, it seemed like it was maybe a little more possible than some characters made it out to seem. Seemed like the kind of thing a lot of the guys in politics actually want. Not unlike a lot of the people in journalism want that profession to conduct itself a certain way, and sometimes they're actually able to make it happen when a person with a little power "just decides to" do it that way, like how Charlie decided on a whim to change "News Night." vIt just turns out that the RNC sent two people, and only one of them liked the format and he was unwilling to stand up for it.
Also, knowing what we know about how the Republican primary debates went in reality, we know that there were a comically large number of them. Many of them hosted by moderators or on channels (or other venues) that seemed to have not much business landing a debate.
So, given how they were letting just about anybody host a debate, it probably wasn't supposed to seem futile to think this debate pitch might work.
I think it just would've played better if you had cynics like Don bracing the audience for the fact that no major party really wants their candidates to face serious questioning.
And it'd have been nice if they dropped more bread crumbs about where the story was really going. Mac's boyfriend was right -- this debate format seemed mainly about the moderator looking good while hammering away at candidates he doesn't like. It's basically a classed-up version of the "takedown piece" that Will hated to hear that gossip columnist reference in an earlier reference.
rcade "We, the audience, knew it couldn't happen (because in reality we know that Jeff Daniels never moderated a debate, so obviously the show couldn't feature that story ever actually happening)."
August 20, 2012 at 1:55PM ESTThat's an odd way to look at things. Everything Will McIvoy does in the recent past never happened because he doesn't exist. In the fictional reality he inhabits, he could've hosted a debate the same way he reported the BP story first.
JimAbbott'sRightHandMan They can do stories like B.P. or Casey Anthony that only involve Will interviewing talking heads who are nobodies. Like the BP story had him interviewing a fictional spokesperson from BP. And the Casey Anthony coverage has him speaking to a fictional person who went to school with her, but who knows nothing new and isn't contributing fictional facts about the case.
August 20, 2012 at 2:40PM ESTShowing Jeff Daniels moderate a debate would be impossible. He can interview generic fictional staffers of real-life politicians. He can read a text message he gets from a real politician. He can't actually interact with them in person unless they come on the show. So the debate was never going to happen because HBO can't conjure images of Daniels moderating a debate with those real-life politicians.
The only way they could do a debate would be if it wasn't face-to-face. A chatroom or twitter kind of thing, basically. But knowing the Will's attitude toward the internet, that wouldn't really be plausible either.
StephenH2OMan
August 20, 2012 at 1:54PM EST Reply to CommentI'm actually okay with the Sorkin-style personal relationships and love triangles, but the show within the show has devolved into the worst produced news program ever conceived.
The Cult Of Mac seems to be blissfully unaware that they are not only making a bad entertainment program, but a bad *news* program, as well. All the outsiders seem to know this (Brendanawicz, particularly, who was the best thing this episode offered besides Sloan's "Fuck you.") and if you consider it this way, it's almost the sad story of a once successful newsman who's getting seduced by a cult that has no idea how to do their jobs well, despite having an incredible source for every single newsworthy event.
rcade
August 20, 2012 at 1:56PM EST Reply to CommentI'm beginning to love Don because he's one of the only journalists on the show who doesn't resort to histrionics. I hope his weird second girlfriend who sends flowers to a man knows she has a keeper.
jason
August 20, 2012 at 2:00PM EST Reply to CommentI have finally caught up on this show. Last night was the first one I saw in real time. I have been reading Alan's reviews forever and a fan back when Deadwood was on the air or the Wire in real time... I have also read all the comments now on all the episodes etc for this show...I should also add that this is the first Sorkin show I have ever watched. I have seen some of his movies he has been involved in of course..I am not trying to derail anyone here but it just seems that everyone takes this show a little too seriously and that without the knowledge of his other shows to compare to I don't feel the same as you all. I am entertained when I watch this show. I laugh a little, think a little even if I see it's faults..Simple as that.
Meg I think Sorkin's fans (and I am one) hold him to higher standard. The Newsroom is still better than a lot of the crap that's on TV (well, network TV anyway, I definitely don't think it's even in the top 10 of cable dramas), but when you hold it up to his other work it doesn't pass muster.
August 20, 2012 at 2:40PM ESTBut yes, I still watch because I am still entertained. I just see the glimmers now and then of the reeeeally good show it almost is, and it's frustrating!
Dan3320 I've seen most of Sorkin's stuff in the past, yet still agree with you. People take this show WAY too seriously. I can never understand people that literally get ANGRY at a TV show for not living up to their own sel-made expectations.
August 20, 2012 at 2:44PM ESTMy theory: everyone is waiting for the next West Wing or The Wire or whatever show you feel was one of the best of all time. So, when they hear Sorkin, they get their hopes up that this show will be an all-time great. Then, when it's just a solid, but unspectacular show, they feel slighted and get angry.
Silly.
Brian This is how I feel as well. I was a huge fan of the West Wing and think the first 4 seasons of that show (when Sorkin was involved) is as good as anything that has ever been on TV (including the Wire, Sopranos, etc...). So my expectations for the Newsroom was high. Has it lived up to those expectations, not even close. But that doesn't mean I don't generally like the show and/or don't care if it goes off the air. Its probably a B level show right now, with the chance to get into A territory if given some time. I worry, however, due to how passionately people seem to critcise this show, if it will get that chance.
August 20, 2012 at 3:01PM ESTRobert I can only speak for myself of course, but I do not get angry because I take Sorkin, this show or TV in general too seriously. I get angry because Sorkin does not take his viewers seriously. This is lazy writing, cliched love triangles, insulting rear-view mirror media critiquing, and ludicrous characters who were are supposed to believe are unrelentingly intelligent but act in consistently irrational, non-sensical manners.
August 20, 2012 at 6:16PM ESTPerhaps that sentence in of itself reveals I am taking it too seriously, but I agree with others that there could have been a good show in here somewhere about the increasingly ideological, sensationalistic condition of cable news. But after seeing the well-done YouTube montage of Sorkin tropes and reading here of Sorkin's hubris in the face of on-point criticism at the recent media roundtable, much like the characters on his show, Sorkin clearly lives in some kind of bubble.
TJ123 I also agree. People take this show way too seriously and hold it up to standards that no other show would have. It's a fictional interpretation of actual events.
August 21, 2012 at 1:37PM ESTI get the love triangle problems. I don't care for them either.
The problem people have is unmet expectations. People heard Sorkin was doing HBO, so they conjured up dreams of the greatest show ever. So, having felt let down, the show has become a trainwreck to them. It then gets picked to the bone for doing everything "wrong" about producing the show, reporting, naivete, etc. Such criticism is unwarranted unless told you exactly how the show was supposed to be only that it was completely different after you tuned in.
pe8ter8 I agree with Robert. It's lazy writing with intelligent characters doing stupid, implausible things. It's not being too serious or expecting too much to comment on such an obvious problem. I want the show to work. I like most of the characters and the newsroom setting can be very compelling. Sorkin has to pick up his game. It's hard to believe this is the same writer that wrote The Social Network.
August 21, 2012 at 7:23PM ESTRobert B I've never watched another Sorkin show besides this one, but I did go in with certain expectations given that this is an HBO show with fairly serious subject matter. HBO originals have a well-earned reputation for quality and treating important topics with some level of gravity, so holding it up to a somewhat elevated standard is not completely unjustified.
August 24, 2012 at 11:42AM ESTAlso, the characters on this show take themselves seriously, and indeed, the work they're doing is important. The writing depicts these characters as being competent within their areas of expertise, so again, the show is asking to be taken seriously. Also, the show is promoted by HBO as being a "behind the scenes" look at the production of a cable news show ... so expecting some attention to be paid to how the journalists and producers do their jobs is completely justified.
And the thing is, the show doesn't have a saving grace. If the love triangles and other relationships on the show were compelling, or more of the characters had some actual charisma, that would be one thing. The show could work then as a romantic-comedy with the newsroom serving merely as a backdrop. But those elements of the show are liabilities, and because the newsroom aspect of the show is handled lazily, this show sucks.
cap
August 20, 2012 at 3:12PM EST Reply to CommentAs terrible as that episode was for some reason I keep watching this show. And I can't quite understand why. I hate most of the characters (and the ones I don't hate I'm just indifferent towards), the humor is just embarrasing (pants joke? are you serious Aaron Sorkin?), the storylines are either preachy or unbelievable... an yet I'm still watching.
So here's my propostition: let's just all skip it next summer and rewatch West Wing. Alan can do his rewind reviews and we will all regain the respect that we once had for Sorkin. No more hate watching and wasting our time on terrible television.
Gunde
August 20, 2012 at 3:18PM EST Reply to Comment"Elvis or Johnny Cash?" Seriously? That was a question on a real debate!? Fucking embarrasing America.
I don't care what the show is about outside of News, but stuff like that needs to be called out and ridiculed.
Joshua
August 20, 2012 at 3:51PM EST Reply to CommentThey thought that there were some Republicans who don't like the "clown car" candidates as much as others, that's why they believed the format might work including the fact that one of the people who was supposed to sign off on it was a close friend of Will's.
Seriously Alan, if you don't like the show then don't watch. This "I watch it because I HOPE Sorkin gets good again" passive-agressive tone that you and some other TV bloggers have adopted is obviously just an excuse to belittle it.
Go back to watching passive, complacent shows like GIRLS, they obviously make you feel good. You shouldn't have to subject yourself to such a horrible, life-destroying show like THE NEWSROOM.
NEW RULE, Hollywood, don't make anything that includes characters who are smart, proactive, and actually care about other people. Stick to weak, selfish, grown children - They're more real. Your audience is the "Waitin' on the World to Change" generation; any type of conviction that is suggested or expressed is automatically suspect. You must bring the characters down to their level. The biggest social "movement" right now is not doing anything. Television must not betray this constant protest. Every side has its reasons. Someone says the world is flat? Your response cannot be some variation of "That is just plain wrong". No, the correct reaction is "Shape of World: Opinions vary".
All hail Hannah.
Brian I agree that the hate has gone a little too far. But, come on "Seriously Alan, if you don't like the show then don't watch." He writes about TV for a living and this is his site. He can write about whatever he damn well please, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
August 20, 2012 at 5:01PM ESTsepinwall Joshua, I can agree with a show's message while thinking it expresses that message terribly, in ways that sabotage its own characters, sense of realism, and that self-same message. My dislike of The Newsroom — and anyone else's here, for that matter — does not equate to a belief that no one should bother trying to do anything for social change. That is a lazy strawman of an argument. I don't want the show to be about other things (other than my desire to never again hear anything about the love lives of the staff); I want it to be better at what it does. Period.
August 20, 2012 at 5:25PM ESTRalph Sloane Is "JOSHUA" just Neal Sampat trying to join the brotherhood?
August 20, 2012 at 8:36PM ESTpe8er8 Alan's just calling it like he see's it. I've read all the reviews he's done of this series and they've all been fair and objective. HE'S A TV CRITIC! He's not supposed to write about something unless he likes it 110%? How about you just skip the review?
August 21, 2012 at 7:31PM ESTDr. Dunkenstein
August 20, 2012 at 4:58PM EST Reply to CommentI don't want to draw this comparison too often but like season Five of the Wire it seems as though the Newsroom is in the sort of unlucky position of trying to be an intensely critical show of an industry that, by and large, then covers the show negatively.
While I think some of that is a little bit overly defensive I also sort of think that it's just kind of a by-product of fiction bleed into areas where critics actually have first hand experience and are then bound to be particularly wonky. Try watching Moneyball with a baseball stat nerd and you'll hear about all of the things wrong there too.
It is getting to be a little bit on the heavy side though. Their instincts are too often right? They get too lucky with their connections? Sure, probably. But every Cop thinks that just about every police show ever made also relies on Cops acting nothing like they do in the real world and being in situations where they pull their guns 100 times more often than they really do. Same with Doctors and hospital shows.
I think at some point people are either going to be able to buy those aspects of the show or not but, if not, it's really because they're just not willing to cut this show the slack that basically every other show on TV gets.
Mike A couple things. First of all, I don't think your Wire comparison is particularly appropriate here for 2 reasons. One, as an indictment of Alan, it completely falls down. Alan was actually alarmingly positive towards S5 of the Wire in my personal opinion, since I actually liked it less than he did, so I'm not sure why this show would lead him to rush to the defense of the media and be critical, but S5 of The Wire did not.
August 20, 2012 at 6:09PM ESTSecondly, season 5 of the Wire actually WAS a bit of a step down. Yes, Hamsterdam was arguably just as bad as McNulty serial killer. Yes, Klebanow and Whiting were no less one dimensional villains than Michael Steintorf, Clay Davis, or Maury Levy. But those weren't the problems many people covering the show had. The pacing was worse in S5 (not totally Simon's fault, he only had 10 episodes), the writing was way more didactic (Remember, "Americans are stupid people by and large. We pretty much believe whatever we're told." Aka the worst line in the history of the show), and the newsroom characters, outside of Gus, weren't as well developed as the dock workers or the kids or the Barksdales or Marlo's crew.
Secondly, I don't think people are being critical because them luckily having every source be someone they know is unrealistic, I think they're being critical because it's predictable, piss-poor writing.
rb There are other problems with Newsroom as a show, the romance stuff sticks out like a sore thumb, but I think this is a valid point. No one is saying Alan has an ulterior motive, he is one of the best out there, but that doesn't mean it's not a legit to make in how people cover this show.
August 20, 2012 at 7:15PM ESTIt is certainly true of S5 of the Wire. It's funny, everyone loved the Wire until it turned it's focus to their neck of the woods. Politicians praised the show until we got into S3, when the Wire starts to develop more overtly its political characters and storylines. I have heard several teachers take issue with the deified season 4, and sure enough, when they got to media in S5, people in media repeated the common refrain, "the wire WAS an accurate show, until it started dealing with (blank)." We have had 2 high profile cases of media members making up quotes or stealing material (lehrer and zakaria) in just the last few months, and people still want to argue that the Wire was out on a ledge with Templeton!?! As you point out, the Mcnulty/serial killer storyline is no less believable than that an open air drug market could go on undetected for weeks, and S3 is held up as gospel. You are right to mention the 10 episode season hurt the pacing and character development, but s5 was no more didactic than other seasons... it is a didactic show, that's the point. How could you take issue with that particular line also? Can you understand the Wire without believing in the truth of that expression? I'd say no. What problem on the Wire wouldn't be solved if we had a well-informed citizenry? Cops could no longer juke the stats and claim progress, nor could teachers. Cops couldn't rely on "dope on the table" moments to define their careers. Media would never be able to pass sensationalism off as journalism, nor ignore the real stories to chase pulitzers. Hell, S3 is one long comment on how the American people were sold a war on totally false pretenses and why they bought into it!!
Dr. Dunkenstein
August 20, 2012 at 7:24PM EST1. I'd disagree that what you're saying here is true for anyone but yourself. Most of the criticism I've read of Season 5 of the Wire was based on the belief that the serial killer plotline was a major misstep, that the heavies at the newspaper were one-dimensional(not that there's a huge difference between one-dimensional and underdeveloped) and that a great deal of the season seemed to be David Simon working out a personal grudge. I disagree with a lot of your criticisms of Season 5 too(I think, for instance, the way Prez was walked through the NCLB testing in Season 4 was as clunky as anything as Season 5) but that just seems to be your personal interpretation and I was responding to the more popular criticisms.
2. I disagree here too. I think the idea that these people have all of these tangential connections to giant news stories that give them inside information is ludicrously coincidental which makes it essentially the opposite of predictable. It might become predictable through repetition but, again, I'd argue that something being ludicrously coincidental but then predictable through repetition is pretty common in TV. House, for example, basically contained nothing but.
Dr. Dunkenstein @RB
August 20, 2012 at 7:31PM ESTFor what it's worth i agree. I'm not saying the Newsroom is great or perfect and I'm certainly not saying it's as good as The Wire. I'm just saying that people are filtering their perceptions of it through their lens of "realism" in a way that they don't do with lots of other TV shows.
There's a lot of good in the Newsroom and a lot of not-so-good to downright terrible but I'd argue that's more or less par for the course for Aaron Sorkin shows.
Mike I think you're misinterpreting what I meant by didactic there. I'm using it in the context of being overt, on the nose, etc. Mad Men is a show that is overly didactic, which is why it tends to get away with beating you over the head with it's themes, since even at its best (Maidenform, many, many episodes this season) Mad Men was always really overt. The Wire never was. The Wire was a show that trusted it's audience. For the first 4 seasons, it was an exercise in subtlety and understatement. And that's why that line, among others, is so awful. Of course it's true, but you don't need to say it in those broad terms, because as you yourself just said, we all absolutely understood and believed in the truth of that expression already. (Even scenes that I quite liked on first viewing, such as Michael as Omar because of the badassery and coolness of it, feel a bit cheesy in retrospect because it's just being so unnecessarily obvious about the idea that 'the cycle just repeats over and over again!'... well yeah, but we already knew this, you spent 5 seasons telling us why this is the case... but before S5, it was done in a subtle, understated, giving credit to its audience, way that it lost in that season.
August 20, 2012 at 7:33PM ESTDr. Dunkenstein I think that's the first time I've ever heard the Wire referred to as subtle and understated.
August 20, 2012 at 7:43PM ESTMike I do think there's at least some difference between one-dimensional and underdeveloped. I'd say Clay Davis and Maury Levy were pretty well developed characters, but they were also pretty pure unabashed villains.
August 20, 2012 at 7:50PM ESTAs for your claim that many critics took issue with what you cited, that's certainly possible, but from what I remember of the time, the 'personal grudge' stuff was limited to either hacks or people actually working at Maryland newspapers (or people that didn't actually cover TV for a living, and were writing these stories in other sections of the newspaper). You directed your initial post in a thread on Alan's article, so to some degree you're applying it to him, and I can say with certainty that HE was not critical of the show as a personal grudge by Simon or about the Newspaper management being any worse than the other villains of the Wire, in fact, he defended it on both counts in his pieces.
I think the importance Sorkin, and in effect, his characters, place on what they are doing tends to make the show need to clear a higher bar of authenticity and realism. Law & Order and House are escapist entertainment. This show is presented as an indictment of the news media and a call for greater discourse, so it's unsurprising it's held to a higher standard of realism(not to mention it criticizing real events, and not just in a ripped from the headlines style, actual events with actual names of real people)... Not to mention it being written by one of the preeminent television writers of our generation who many people hope for and expect better from. If Sorkin wasn't writing the show, I'd have stopped watching ages ago, but the guy has done great stuff over the years (which in this case is a double edged sword. I'm still watching, which I wouldn't be otherwise, but I'm more critical, because I've seen the West Wing and Sportsnight).
Dr. Dunkenstein And I think you're wrong about that line as well. The Wire is littered with lines that are no less overt. That line in particular reads to me more or less exactly like Frank Sobotka saying "We used to make things in this country. Now we just have our hands in the other guys pockets."
August 20, 2012 at 7:52PM ESTMike @Subtle and Understated: What can I say, for television, relatively speaking, being subtle isn't a particularly high bar.
August 20, 2012 at 7:53PM ESTDr. Dunkenstein Mike, my initial post was just about the general criticism about the show. Yeah, it's on Alan's blog but that's just because that's where I come to talk TV. i agree Alan was relatively fair about Season 5 of the Wire but I think the point still stands about the way journalists are less forgiving about the problems with realism the show has than they are about shows in any other setting.
August 20, 2012 at 8:17PM ESTAs to the other point you make, I think it's fair to an extent that when something is preachy it's going to be scrutinized a little more carefully but at that point I'd really question anyone familiar with Sorkin's work. There isn't a single thing that Sorkin's done that I'd say is grounded in realism. Every single show of his, I'd argue, is identical in the way it sacrifices realism for idealism.
(except for Studio 60. While the West Wing characters were civil servants and politicians who seemed ideally suited to being in government Studio 60 people was a show about comedians...who seemed ideally suited to being in government)
I mean, if next up Aaron Sorkin announced that he was making a show set in a Pizza Parlor would you expect it to be about simple, friendly chefs who wanted to make a good meal or would it be about the top pizza chefs in the country(who constantly spouted their pizza making credentials) who were relentlessly dedicated to making the perfect pizza, not just for their customers, but for America, a nation built on the very idea of pizza.
I don't know, I suppose I think that Aaron Sorkin would probably say that the fact that the show isn't very realistic is the whole point of the show.
Mike Well, honestly, I'm not entirely sure how I even got myself into the realism debate. The only realism angle that particularly rankles me is the fact that they seem to only get sources through personal relationships. You'd think if they were these great dedicated journalists, they might want to be more journalistic and develop some sources rather than lucksacking into them, but even that is more because it comes across as lazy writing than anything else. My real criticisms with the show tend to be more situated in the 'oh my God shoot me when any of these characters talk about their relationships,' (and it's not a particular aversion to relationships in general, Sorkin just writes really unlikable ones that are supposed to be charming and endearing but are instead cringeworthy and groan inducing... and with Sloan and Neal's interactions last night, we seem to be adding another one to the pile) or 'Unless Sloan, Charlie, Lonny, or Leona are on the screen, I hate all of these people and never want to see them again,' and of course the condescension towards the 'ladybrains' doesn't help either.
August 20, 2012 at 8:43PM ESTGuesser Re: The Newsroom, I'd venture this show would improve substantially if it were a half-hour show with virtually none of the love triangle nonsense. It'll never happen but hey.
August 21, 2012 at 12:56AM ESTRe: The Wire, I love it how on any site discussing any cop show or drug deal, commenters typically scoff with "That's not how a drug deal works. Hasn't this showrunner watched The Wire??" Funny how the actress who played Snoop, an actual gangbanger, got busted on dealing. So maybe The Wire isn't totally the foolproof how-to manual.
Bob Hope
August 20, 2012 at 5:23PM EST Reply to CommentI keep thinking thinking that this show would flow better if it was part of the West Wing universe. It would tie in nicely, and the writting could be less predictable. Even though I understand what was Sorkin going for, placing the show in the real universe just makes you expect the outcome.
Also, a West Wing connection would be a great way to bring back familiar faces.
natx
August 20, 2012 at 5:27PM EST Reply to CommentI'm of two minds about the mock debate. On the one hand i generally agree with everyone that it was ridiculous for them to think that the GOP would actually accept their version of a debate, but then when you see the clip at the end of the moderator asking Michele Bachmann "Elvis or Cash"? You realize how ridiculous and how much of a sham the real debates are.
So what does it say that all of us viewers found McAvoy's version of a debate so ridiculous? That many of us probably identified with the GOP dude in thinking "is this guy serious? like we are going to let this dude ask our candidates questions like that?"
if anything that shows how messed up the current media situation is. that some GOP flunkie can basically dictate the terms of debate to the people doing the debate. it's messed up that ACN (as our media) has to go out of its way to be acceptable to the political party. shouldn't it be the other way around, shouldn't it be hey candidates you do it our way or we don't give you any access to our airwaves?
to a certain i think directing our dissatisfaction at this show to sorkin is a little misplaced. yes does he do things that are unrealistic or ridiculous. But it is also true that the fact that they seem ridiculous says more about the current media landscape than it does sorkin's writing.
Mike Actually I just think Sorkin's rage (like it often is... see The Social Network. The Winklevoss twins, particularly, and Eduardo Saverin as well are the obvious chancers and charlatans in that story, not Zuckerberg. Zuck's line about "You're gonna blame me because you were the business head of the company and you made a bad business deal with your own company?" was actually pretty poignant, and yet Zuckerberg was clearly written as the bad guy in that scene) was misdirected here. It is not the Republican National Committee's job to try and push their candidates, it's the 4th estate's job. That's like getting mad at unions for protecting the people in that union. That's what they are there for. If the show was trying to get other networks to join in solidarity of a tougher debate format, but the other networks caved to pressure, you're damn right I'd be on Sorkin's side and would react with the reaction he wanted towards Arkin's buddy.
August 20, 2012 at 6:17PM ESTRB See, I thought the "sensible" republican (the one without the awful hair) made the key and correct point. It doesn't behoove the GOP to have a filed treated with such light gloves that they feel enabled to go on spewing nonsense. Having someone (like Will) hold them accountable would separate the real candidates from the fake ones, and, as also pointed out, the candidate who could stand up to this scrutiny would come out looking like diamonds, because people would recognize they actually could square campaign rhetoric with policy ideas and vision for the country. Not to violate the no politics rule, but I 'd argue the GOP is suffering right now for this exact reason. There is no one to filter out the crazy from the far right, and that reflects negatively on the 'silent majority' of sensible conservatives.
August 20, 2012 at 7:24PM ESTIf you view it in that light, particularly if you believe Will knew this guy and they had previously discussed the need to reform debates, it doesn't seem so crazy that they thought they could get this debate.
natx i guess i don't mean to say that i personally think that will's version of the debate is ridiculous but that it is ridiculous by current standards. it seems ridiculous in that it is so different from the norm of what debates are really like today, that it would be crazy to think that the GOP reps would even think of agreeing to that format.
August 20, 2012 at 7:43PM ESTit's just interesting to note that the all the negotiation leverage seems to be on the side of the political parties rather than with the media entities that are putting on the debates.
Guesser Despite this, that, and the other re: Sorkin's flaws and holier-than-thou-ness, I do buy the backbone of this show - news today is built to entertain first and foremost. The actual debates really highlighted that, unfortunately. Each was presented much like the NFL draft, basically, with fancy introductions and flashy graphics depicting the candidates.
August 21, 2012 at 1:02AM ESTTirey
August 20, 2012 at 6:52PM EST Reply to CommentAfter watching the Sorkinisms video on youtube, I fell out of my chair laughing at Lisa's "Not for nuthin'" comment at her store. What a great drinking game (along the lines of Robin's "but,umm" in HIMYM).
- 1
- 2
Next 100 Comments