The Newsroom (new HBO Sorkin show) gets shitted on
Moderator: drizzle
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
The Newsroom (new HBO Sorkin show) gets shitted on
Sounds like Sorkin following all of his worst instincts.
Will still check it out, but this read was disheartening (just b/c all the complaints sounds pretty fucking on point with his predilections).
[quote]ON TELEVISION
Broken News
The artificial intelligence of גThe Newsroom.ג
by Emily Nussbaum
JUNE 25, 2012
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/t ... z1yI5gQnH8
גIגm affable!ג Will McAvoy yells in the pilot of גThe Newsroom,ג Aaron Sorkinגs new HBO series. McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) is an irascible anchor whose brand is likability, and itגs a good line, delivered well. It is also a rare moment of self-mockeryגand one of the last sequences I was on board for in the series. In גThe Newsroom,ג clever people take turns admiring one another. They sing arias of facts. They aim to remake television news: גThis is a new show, and there are new rules,ג a maverick executive producer announces, several times, in several ways. Their outrage is so inflamed that it amounts to a form of moral eczemaגonly it makes the viewer itch.
This is not to say that גThe Newsroomג doesnגt score points now and then, if you share its politics. It starts effectively enough, with an homage to גNetworkג גs galvanizing גIגm mad as hellג rant, as McAvoy, a blandly uncontroversial cable big shot whom everyone tauntingly calls Leno, is trapped on a journalism-school panel. When the moderator needles him into answering a question about why America is the greatest country on earth, he goes volcanic, ticking off the ways in which America is no such thing, then closing with a statement of hope, about the way things used to be. This speech goes viral, and his boss (Sam Waterston) and his producer, MacKenzie McHale (Emily Mortimer), whoגs also his ex-girlfriend, encourage him to create a purer news program, purged of any obsession with ratings and buzz.
Much of McAvoyגs diatribe is bona-fide baloneyגfalse nostalgia for an America that never existedגbut it is exciting to watch. And if you enjoyed גThe West Wing,ג Sorkinגs helpful counterprogramming to the Bush Administration, your ears will prick up. The pilot of גThe Newsroomג is full of yelling and self-righteousness, but itגs got energy, just like גThe West Wing,ג Sorkinגs גSports Night,ג and his hit movie גThe Social Network.ג The second episode is more obviously stuffed with piety and syrup, although thereגs one amusing segment, when McAvoy mocks some right-wing idiots. After that, גThe Newsroomג gets so bad so quickly that I found my jaw dropping. The third episode is lousy (and devolves into lectures that are chopped into montages). The fourth episode is the worst. There are six to go.
Sorkin is often presented as one of the auteurs of modern television, an innovator and an original voice. But heגs more logically placed in a school of showrunners who favor patterspeak, point-counterpoint, and dialogue-driven tributes to the era of screwball romance. Some of this banter is intelligent; just as often, however, itגs artificial intelligence, predicated on the notion that more words equals smarter. Besides Sorkin, these creators include Shonda Rhimes (whose Washington melodrama, גScandal,ג employs cast members from גThe West Wingג); Amy Sherman-Palladino, of גThe Gilmore Girlsג (and the appealing new גBunheadsג); and David E. Kelley, who created גAlly McBealג and גBoston Legal.ג Sorkin is supposed to be on a different level from his peers: longer words, worldlier topics. And many viewers clearly buy into this idea: years after Sorkinגs terrible, fascinating גStudio 60 on the Sunset Stripג was cancelled, I still occasionally run into someone who insists that Americans were just too stupid to get it.
As Dan Rather might put it, that dog wonגt hunt. Sorkinגs shows are the type that people who never watch TV are always claiming are better than anything else on TV. The showsג air of defiant intellectual superiority is rarely backed up by whatגs insideגall those Wagnerian rants, fingers poked in chests, palms slammed on desks, and so on. In fact, גThe Newsroomג treats the audience as though we were extremely stupid. Characters describe events weגve just witnessed. When a cast member gets a shtick (like an obsession with Bigfoot), he delivers it over and over. In episode four, thereגs a flashback to episode three. In a recent interview, Sorkin spoke patronizingly of cop shows, but his Socratic flirtations are frequently just as formulaic, right down to the magical גAsk twice!ג technique.
Thereגs no denying that Sorkinגs shows can be addictive: I couldnגt stop watching גStudio 60,ג which was about the making of a גSaturday Night Liveג-style sketch show, no matter how hard I tried. That thing was alive! It was lit up with payback, as well as with portraits of Sorkinגs exes so glowing that they were radioactive. The showגs deliriously preening heroes were so memorable that they inspired a set of fictional Twitter feeds, in which the characters live on, making remarks like גDeciding if the satire Iגm about to write should be scathing or whip-smart.ג
גThe Newsroomג sounded more promising, journalism being a natural habitat for blowhards. But so far the series lacks the squirmy vigor of גStudio 60,ג particularly since Sorkin saps the drama with an odd structural choice. Rather than invent fictional crises, heגs set the show in גthe recent past,ג so that the plot is literally old news: the BP oil spill, the Tea Party, the Arizona immigration law. That sounds like an innovative concept, but it turns the characters into back-seat drivers, telling us how the news should have been delivered. (Instead of גBroadcast News,ג itגs like a sanctimonious גZelig.ג) Naturally, McAvoy slices through crises by גspeaking truth to stupid,ג in McHaleגs words. But he also seizes credit for גbreaking storiesגגlike the political shenanigans of the Koch brothersגthat were broken by actual journalists, all of them working in print or online. In the fourth episode, the show injects a real-life tragedy into the mix, pouring a pop ballad over the montage, just the way גE.R.ג used to do whenever a busload of massacred toddlers came crashing through the door.
There are plenty of terrific actors on this show, but they canגt do much with roles that amount to familiar Sorkinian archetypes. There is the Great Man, who is theoretically flawed, but really a primal truth-teller whom everyone should follow (or date). There are brilliant, accomplished women who are also irrational, high-strung lunaticsגthe dames and muses who pop their eyes and throw jealous fits when not urging the Great Man on. There are attractively suited young men, from cynical sharpies to idealistic sharpies, who glare and bond and say things like גThis right here is always the swan song of the obsolete when theyגre staring the future paradigm in the face.ג
The show features three people of color. The most prominent is an Indian staffer named Neal Sampat, played by Dev Patel. The dialogue makes fun of McAvoy for calling him Punjab and referring to him as גthe Indian stereotype of an I.T. guy,ג but the show treats Neal with precisely that type of condescension. Neal is a WikiLeaks fan who writes the showגs blog, but heגs a cheerful cipher, a nerd who speaks nerd talk. There are also two African-American producers, who are introduced to the audience when McAvoyגwho is publicly memorizing the names of his staff, having been accused of not remembering themגsays, גGary. Kendra. Garyגs a smart black guy who is not afraid to criticize Obama. Kendra got double 800s on her S.A.T.s, makes Gary crazy. I studied.ג
Nobody reacts, and I suspect weגre supposed to find his behavior charmingly blunt or un-P.C. But, again, neither Gary nor Kendra is at all developed, or given any role in the showגs wince-worthy set of love triangles. It gave me flashbacks to one of the worst plots on גStudio 60,ג in which the comic played by D. L. Hughleyגthe גsmart black guyג who was always reading the newspaperגwent to a comedy club to anoint the one true young black comic among the hacks and mediocrities. Sorkinגs shows overflow with liberal verities about diversity, but they reproduce a universe in which the Great Man is the natural object of worship, as martyred by gossips as any Philip Roth protagonist.
Despite a few bad bets, HBO is on a truly interesting run right now. It has built a solid Sunday lineup, with גGame of Thrones,ג the excellent גGirls,ג and גVeep,ג a political sitcom that just ended its funny, prickly, but also rather dead-hearted d
-
- Posts: 12266
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:16 pm
- Location: burn pile
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
-
- Awesome Vatican Assassin
- Posts: 55482
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:55 pm
- Location: where people throw ducks at balloons and nothing is as it seems
not surprised at the reviews at all. i have no strong feelings on sorkin one way or another but the trailers looked terrible. stilted pretentious dialogue and eyerolling attempts at 'edginess', and not a single note of funny anywhere. i thought maybe they just did a shit job putting promo together, guess not.
i like the first review itself a lot though, very sharp. feel like i should read more of her writeups
i like the first review itself a lot though, very sharp. feel like i should read more of her writeups
http://www.steadybloggin.com - some of these are my thoughts yo
-
- Posts: 2662
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:56 pm
- Location: Quiet Car
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
Really liked everything I've read from her. First took note of her in her write up of The Good Wife (about how it is the first network TV show to regularly incorporate the topic of new technologies into its plot lines in non-magical, non-fanciful and non-idiotic ways).drizzle wrote: i like the first review itself a lot though, very sharp. feel like i should read more of her writeups
I think it worked for its place and time, but shit has aged horribly, IMO. Even as somebody who mostly agreed with the politics of the show (if not left of them on a lot of stuff), it was sanctimonious as fuck. It was basically white liberal wonk porn; well written for sure, but even in WW Sorkin had an amazing ability to get in the way of himself. Still though, this is all in retrospect. I really liked it at the time.citizen wrote:.ric wrote:not really a fan at all of this guy. west wing has some ok episodes but reallyEmployee wrote:Sorkin fell the fuck off.
:elil:
ok, i really view it more as a comedy. i could care less about the politics or message of it although i do find some moments like the 911 episode horribly over the topPopeyeJones wrote:Really liked everything I've read from her. First took note of her in her write up of The Good Wife (about how it is the first network TV show to regularly incorporate the topic of new technologies into its plot lines in non-magical, non-fanciful and non-idiotic ways).drizzle wrote: i like the first review itself a lot though, very sharp. feel like i should read more of her writeups
I think it worked for its place and time, but shit has aged horribly, IMO. Even as somebody who mostly agreed with the politics of the show (if not left of them on a lot of stuff), it was sanctimonious as fuck. It was basically white liberal wonk porn; well written for sure, but even in WW Sorkin had an amazing ability to get in the way of himself. Still though, this is all in retrospect. I really liked it at the time.citizen wrote:.ric wrote:not really a fan at all of this guy. west wing has some ok episodes but reallyEmployee wrote:Sorkin fell the fuck off.
:elil:
i just enjoy the acting and the dialogue, i could rewatch it forever
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
-
- Posts: 13774
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:18 am
- Location: boston
- Contact:
so did anyone watch this last night?
i thought it was ok. i thought the performances were pretty strong and SOME of the dialogue was very snappy and typical Sorkin territory. That being said, his dialogue can get a little preachy, pretentious and extremely verbose when EVERY character (except maybe the redhead) speaks like they're giving a monologue.
i'm hoping it gets better. the premise is something i'm interested in and I think the people involved make it worth checking for, but I was a little underwhelmed with the pilot overall.
i thought it was ok. i thought the performances were pretty strong and SOME of the dialogue was very snappy and typical Sorkin territory. That being said, his dialogue can get a little preachy, pretentious and extremely verbose when EVERY character (except maybe the redhead) speaks like they're giving a monologue.
i'm hoping it gets better. the premise is something i'm interested in and I think the people involved make it worth checking for, but I was a little underwhelmed with the pilot overall.
Aside from that, I actually liked it.samdoom wrote:so did anyone watch this last night?
i thought it was ok. i thought the performances were pretty strong and SOME of the dialogue was very snappy and typical Sorkin territory. That being said, his dialogue can get a little preachy, pretentious and extremely verbose when EVERY character (except maybe the redhead) speaks like they're giving a monologue.
i'm hoping it gets better. the premise is something i'm interested in and I think the people involved make it worth checking for, but I was a little underwhelmed with the pilot overall.
The initial review in this thread is too kind.
I tuned the fuck out when Sam Waterston's character was introduced and he started puking out some story about being embedded in Vietnam. None of the characters are interesting enough to care about.
As a huge political junkie I am very disappointed. This show is for moderate faggots or people who think Fareed Zakaria is an intellectual.
I tuned the fuck out when Sam Waterston's character was introduced and he started puking out some story about being embedded in Vietnam. None of the characters are interesting enough to care about.
As a huge political junkie I am very disappointed. This show is for moderate faggots or people who think Fareed Zakaria is an intellectual.
-
- Posts: 13774
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:18 am
- Location: boston
- Contact:
I don't hate it as much as Employee but the show came off really corny to me. A lot of the dialog seemed forced and the little love stories aren't interesting in the least (Let me guess, the chick leaves the dude who doesn't want to meet her parents and gets with the new guy who coincidentally has the 2 inside sources). I literally cringed at the "Wait....... I have a blog?" line. I'll give it another week but that's probably about it.
-
- Posts: 9486
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:03 pm
- Location: Where one of the greatest MC's was a local cat
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
^^^Which is especially weird coming from someone clearly on the left, as fanatically fanciful nostalgia tends to be a conservative trope (people on the left tell themselves fanciful stories about the future, people on the right tell themselves fanciful stories about the past). The real head scratcher is that if he wanted to slot in one of his signature didactic elegies, the show is about the fucking news media. Why not make that shit about the crisis in news journalism (which is very real) instead of an overblown statement about what the entire country "used to be"? Shit doesn't make any sense.
Impressions so far:
*Really don't think I like the decision to dramatically rebroadcast the imaginary inner-workings of old news. The WW was criticized for being a fictive white liberal wonderland, and it's almost like he actually wants to re-dramatize recent history and change it to be the way he wishes it was; like he wants a second pass at teaching us what we should think about news stories. At least on WW the fantasy of it was acknowledged, but it's like this shit is striving to be pure simulacrum with Sorkin as puppetmaster.
*This might be petty and unfair of me, but the supporting cast all being relatively young and relatively good looking doesn't bode well. The heart of the WW -- and the best acting on the WW -- was the inner workings of the footsoldiers behind the scenes. Instead of CJ, Toby, and Josh we get three twenty-somethings in a love triangle. That Olivia Munn is still coming as the final main character doesn't bode well in this regard either. Despite this, so far it seems like the dude who plays Jim is better than the rest of this show.
*I like Sam Waterston, but his character doesn't make any sense. On several occasions he just started screaming out of nowhere, and then stopped as soon as he started. Why the network pres acts like a crazy old man in the park when Daniels is supposed to be the one with the temper problem is nonsensical.
*It might have been a combination of the huge empty newsroom for most of the ep (a weird decision) and Sorkin's penchant for soliloquy and character's exchanging monologues instead of actually talking to each other, but everything about this read like more of a filmed stage play than an actual TV show. Can't put my finger on it, but the set just felt really "off" somehow.
*If I stick with this show and it ends up being decent, the cold open from last night (the debate before the credits) is gonna need to get a Jar-Jar Binks edit and just be removed from the canon by fans. Shit was atrocious, and Sorkin at his absolute worst.
* Sorkin has always borrowed from himself too liberally, but it's REALLY not a good sign when he does so this much in the fucking pilot (Vulture did a good write up of them: http://www.vulture.com/2012/06/newsroom ... arism.html).
Overall I'll keep watching, but at this point I don't really have any expectations that this will be anything more than mediocre.
Impressions so far:
*Really don't think I like the decision to dramatically rebroadcast the imaginary inner-workings of old news. The WW was criticized for being a fictive white liberal wonderland, and it's almost like he actually wants to re-dramatize recent history and change it to be the way he wishes it was; like he wants a second pass at teaching us what we should think about news stories. At least on WW the fantasy of it was acknowledged, but it's like this shit is striving to be pure simulacrum with Sorkin as puppetmaster.
*This might be petty and unfair of me, but the supporting cast all being relatively young and relatively good looking doesn't bode well. The heart of the WW -- and the best acting on the WW -- was the inner workings of the footsoldiers behind the scenes. Instead of CJ, Toby, and Josh we get three twenty-somethings in a love triangle. That Olivia Munn is still coming as the final main character doesn't bode well in this regard either. Despite this, so far it seems like the dude who plays Jim is better than the rest of this show.
*I like Sam Waterston, but his character doesn't make any sense. On several occasions he just started screaming out of nowhere, and then stopped as soon as he started. Why the network pres acts like a crazy old man in the park when Daniels is supposed to be the one with the temper problem is nonsensical.
*It might have been a combination of the huge empty newsroom for most of the ep (a weird decision) and Sorkin's penchant for soliloquy and character's exchanging monologues instead of actually talking to each other, but everything about this read like more of a filmed stage play than an actual TV show. Can't put my finger on it, but the set just felt really "off" somehow.
*If I stick with this show and it ends up being decent, the cold open from last night (the debate before the credits) is gonna need to get a Jar-Jar Binks edit and just be removed from the canon by fans. Shit was atrocious, and Sorkin at his absolute worst.
* Sorkin has always borrowed from himself too liberally, but it's REALLY not a good sign when he does so this much in the fucking pilot (Vulture did a good write up of them: http://www.vulture.com/2012/06/newsroom ... arism.html).
Overall I'll keep watching, but at this point I don't really have any expectations that this will be anything more than mediocre.
hahaha fareeds cv is probably insane. his father was an indian politican for christsake.Employee wrote:This show is for moderate faggots or people who think Fareed Zakaria is an intellectual.
that said i love fareed and think 0 of sorkin, even though fareeds articles can be hit or miss sometimes. his authorship is impressive
hahaha ok back to actual thread.
-
- Posts: 543
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:42 pm
I thought they made it pretty clear that he's an alcoholic in the show.PopeyeJones wrote:
*I like Sam Waterston, but his character doesn't make any sense. On several occasions he just started screaming out of nowhere, and then stopped as soon as he started. Why the network pres acts like a crazy old man in the park when Daniels is supposed to be the one with the temper problem is nonsensical.
I didn't hate the pilot. It wasn't shit nor excellent. I'll keep watching, but I say no fuckin way this gets renewed for a 2nd season.
-
- Posts: 9507
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:44 pm
- Location: Beaumont-sur-Mer
^^^ Must have missed that somehow, or not connected the bread crumbs. So he's supposed to be drunk? Will watch the next ep with that in mind. Thanks.
[tangent]
David Simon had an excellent fucking blog post last week which also got me thinking about this show. Sorkin is making a show about the crisis in news journalism, but focuses on the back end partisan bickering whereas the real crisis -- and much more interesting crisis IMO -- is about the failing business model itself and what's happening to in depth investigative journalism. Simon really fumbled his last season about this, and I wish Sorkin had picked it up instead of making a show about how partisanship and people yelling at each other (instead of yelling about partisanship and yelling at each other about partisanship I guess) is the problem. The Daily Show and Colbert already tackle that problem and expose the emptiness behind it four nights a week, and really well, and for years now. If Sorkin wants to make a show about that, he's preaching to the choir and picking an extraordinarily safe target, as everyone already knows these things.
Only tangentially related so I won't cut and paste the full Simon thing, but this shit is a great read and there's not really another appropriate place to link it (no biko): http://davidsimon.com/dirt-under-the-rug/
[/tangent]
[tangent]
David Simon had an excellent fucking blog post last week which also got me thinking about this show. Sorkin is making a show about the crisis in news journalism, but focuses on the back end partisan bickering whereas the real crisis -- and much more interesting crisis IMO -- is about the failing business model itself and what's happening to in depth investigative journalism. Simon really fumbled his last season about this, and I wish Sorkin had picked it up instead of making a show about how partisanship and people yelling at each other (instead of yelling about partisanship and yelling at each other about partisanship I guess) is the problem. The Daily Show and Colbert already tackle that problem and expose the emptiness behind it four nights a week, and really well, and for years now. If Sorkin wants to make a show about that, he's preaching to the choir and picking an extraordinarily safe target, as everyone already knows these things.
Only tangentially related so I won't cut and paste the full Simon thing, but this shit is a great read and there's not really another appropriate place to link it (no biko): http://davidsimon.com/dirt-under-the-rug/
[/tangent]
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S78RzZr3IwI?ve ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S78RzZr3IwI?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
this is pretty ridiculous..
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/06/sup ... -something
also at the comment: "Aaron Sorkin is Tyler Perry for liberal arts majors"
this is pretty ridiculous..
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/06/sup ... -something
also at the comment: "Aaron Sorkin is Tyler Perry for liberal arts majors"
Last edited by Guun on Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Awesome Vatican Assassin
- Posts: 55482
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:55 pm
- Location: where people throw ducks at balloons and nothing is as it seems
huh, had no idea he wrote malice, american president and a few good men
http://www.steadybloggin.com - some of these are my thoughts yo
Guun wrote:<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S78RzZr3IwI?ve ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S78RzZr3IwI?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
LOL, wow. Really makes this guy look like a complete hack.
@the sorkin cut up
i kinda disagree that that is the hack in sorkin. self reference is perfectly acceptable and if you have good source/material, go for it. sure it strikes you/me as less artful but youre already vastly overrating him if you think the guy is picasso or walt whitman or even salinger (eewww)
i kinda disagree that that is the hack in sorkin. self reference is perfectly acceptable and if you have good source/material, go for it. sure it strikes you/me as less artful but youre already vastly overrating him if you think the guy is picasso or walt whitman or even salinger (eewww)