(S01E08) After seeing this episode (which just confirmed something I thought anyway), I'm not quite sure while people are so annoyed by the show's supposed liberalism and "east and west coast" mentality. This show is doing two things. One, it's sparking debate about a lot of serious issues (religion, gay rights, tolerance, politics), and two, it makes sure it dumps on liberals and Democrats and Hollywood just as much as much as they do flyover country, religious people, and Pahrump, Nevada. There's enough to go around on both sides.
I think a lot of viewers who don't like the show (and I truly don't understand why they're watching it week after week if they can't stand it) don't get the fact that just because the show dares to bring up the above topics, that it dares to even suggest that these topics are a hot-button issues and there might be a way to actually get along, doesn't mean that it's "against" anything.
While Tom and the gang are still in Nevada, waiting for the Assistant D.A. to arrive to the judge's office, Matt and Harriet argue about her comments to the NY Post, Jordan is having problems of her own about her "I don't want children" comments, and Dylan doesn't want to fill in for Simon on the news segment if he doesn't want make it back in time.
I'm not quite sure I'm really into this whole plot about Jordan and her ex-husband writing the tell-all about the sex. Seems like the cast has enough tension and pressure and scandal to deal with. Maybe this will be like the first season story of The West Wing where Sam dated the hooker. It was a fairly major plot in several eps that first year then never mentioned again. Maybe they put this plot in just to get the Macau father and dad into the plot, for a connection to Mr. White and a big deal for NBS?
Matt and Harriet are arguing about her comments to the Post, and it has gotten to the point where Jordan wants her to sit out her 6 week concert tour. But she doesn't have to, as the concert organizers cancel the gigs anyway, because of the publicity.
Lucy and Darius get to know each other while writing a sketch (oddly, none of the others are even around). The whole scene with Lucy crying to Matt about her ex-boyfriend was the worst scene in the whole show so far, but hopefully it's going somewhere.
There's a nice moment (a couple, actually) between Jack and Danny. Danny is trying to convince Jack to stick up for Jordan and stand behind her. When the daugther of the Macau businessman alerts him to the gossip about Jordan (on her Blackberry, of course), he wants to end the deal. This pushes Jack into a rant about how the man should go with Time-Warner instead of NBS. He sticks up for Jordan, Tom, even Danny. Steven Weber is doing nice work here, playing a business exec who sometimes can't help to someone also want to do the moral, right thing, even when he's trying to please his bosses and make money for the studio.
Back to my point at the beginning of this review: after the Assistant D.A. finds out that the reason Tom was speeding was because he was coming from Nellis AFB, where his younger brother was deployed from (he's on his third tour in Afghanistan - nice nod to the episode where Tom's parents visited the studio), the judge has sympathy for what Tom did, maybe even admires it a little, and shows that the guy wasn't just going to follow some typical stereotype and throw the cast in jail just because he doesn't like Studio 60. And Sorkin throws in a nice line from the judge about how they have to stop thinking that everyone between Fifth Avenue and Hollywood Blvd. is out of Hee Haw.
And as for Harriet and her comments, she actually defends herself really well to Matt at the end. I think the show is trying to say there's more middle ground than we think. Whatever it's trying to say, it's just great that a show like this is actually talking about the issues. This show could have been just a really predictable, by the numbers show about a late night variety show, showing sketches, having the typical set up-joke-set up-joke-resolution structure we see in a lot of comedies, or the one dimensional characters we see in too many dramas. It's doing something different.
And doing it really well.
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Have any questions for Vik Sahay of Chuck? Ask them here!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
11-13-2006 @ 11:50PM
Al said...
I think people are annoyed that the show is so bad.
Reply
11-13-2006 @ 11:56PM
Doc said...
Great show. I look forward to it every week. These last two shows have been my favorites so far!
On a side note.. Bob, for the love of god proof read your reviews before posting them. There were enough large errors in your review as to make it difficult to even understand at times.
Reply
11-13-2006 @ 11:59PM
ooda said...
Not the greatest episode, but still good.
I like to think of the naysayers as "tall poppy syndrome". That and because they don't like the show, they are more inclined to look for faults, and make sure everyone is as miserable towards the show as they are.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 7:44AM
RnR4ever123 said...
I absolutely LOVE this show! Matt Perry and Bradley Whitman are wonderful together. The rest of the cast are equally talented. I remember the early days of SNL ( their best days in my opinion) and this show does a great job of showing what it may have been like behind the scenes. SNL was always upsetting SOMEONE! I say thank you to NBC for keeping this program on. There are not a lot of programs out there I enjoy anymore.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 12:33AM
Porchland said...
I'm still watching every week, but I think I WANT to like the show more than I actually do.
My biggest gripe -- as with a lot of episodes -- is that the good bits were separated by long stretches of boringness.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 1:13PM
Tom said...
Its a damn fine show. Its not TWW, but its damn television none the less.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 12:51AM
AlanVD said...
I like the show a lot. But though I'm a liberal and support gay marriage and all that jazz, I see where the thoughts of this sometimes being a liberal showcase-program come from.
I thought it was poignant that we only really got to hear the arguments for gay marriage today. While I agree with every single one of them, Matt got to rant all he wanted today without anyone from the other side having a say. Harriet was allowed to say a few words before being interrupted, but she's, as he said, on the fence. We even had the religious singing-group-thing she was going to be on cancel her show for not being anti-homosexual enough...
I don't know. I love the show and love the acting in it, but Sorkin could do with a little more nuance if he doesn't want to be branded the next Oliver Stone. On the other hand, I must say that the little jab John Goodman's character gave the NBS people and the one Jack gave Danny, both about Studio 60 being elitist, were pretty cool today :)
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 1:07AM
Evadne said...
My problem with the show isn't that it "dares" to introduce these shocking topics. I don't really see how the show's going to spark any debate about anything--frankly, I think what we see, at its worst, is a lot of smugness. Not liberal smugness or conservative smugness, but I-think-I'm-the-smartest-guy-in-the-room-smugness. Sometimes there's even outright contempt for the audience (the throwaway line this week about "the public" being unable to appreciate the complexity of Harriet's choices, for example, or the gum-smacking louts they picked up for "The West Coast Delay", or, um, all that stuff about bloggers), like we have to be hit on the head repeatedly with ideological mallets (liberal, conservative, whatever; I'm a veryliberalfeministetcetc and therefore theoretically in sympathy with Sorkin, et al, and I still find it hard to take) until we swallow a particular brand of condescension--like Sorkin's gonna spoonfeed us commedia dell'arte even though he thinks there's no way we'll ever -really- get the joke. I really don't remember West Wing being this way, although I drifted away from the show around season three or so. I've been watching because I know that Sorkin can be great and some of the actors can be great, and hell, the premise is killer. Sometimes there's some flashes of a great show, like Matt sticking up for gay marriage so passionately and then getting called on his own heterosexual panic, or John Goodman playing up the hick stereotype and just as soon as Jack & Danny start to buy it, telling them to stop looking for Hee Haw. That's why I've stuck it out so far. Or maybe I like making the other poppies miserable (!).
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 1:42AM
Heather said...
Harriet and Matt have NO CHEMISTRY. Those last moments were painful for me to watch.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 1:39AM
gK said...
Exactly what Evadne said =D
The qoute "I-think-I'm-the-smartest-guy-in-the-room-smugness" pretty much summurize this show quite well.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 3:30AM
John said...
Honestly, I tried to like this show. I gave it a BIG chance. I've watched every episode, but here we are (something like) 7 or 8 episodes in and I still just don't feel anything for this show. IT could disappear and I could care less. I'm tired of it's liberal Hollywood "we are more enlightened and smart than middle America" bent. John Goodman's character was vain attempt to defuse any anticipated criticism, but a poor one. Also, the show's casting is laughable! Steven Weber as a network chairman? No. Sarah Paulson (Harriet) has all the sex appeal of a cold brick wall (The poor chemistry issue w/ Matthew Perry is mostly her shortcoming).... and her lispy, square-jawedness annoying. Worst casting of all... Amanda Peet as a network president. I scoff out loud when she delivers her lines. It's like watching my 8-year old play Abraham Lincoln in the 3rd grade school play. Sure she's speaking the lines, but does she feel or relate to the role? Hence, my amusement. Sorkin should leave this show off his resume. Sadly, a better show on CBS (Smith) was cancelled after 3 episodes and this drivel has managed 8 episodes of sub-mediocrity.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 7:17AM
David said...
The saying is I couldn't care less.
Anyways I agree with Porchland, it's we want to like the show and we cannot. The show is not daring at all, it tries to make itself look smarter than it really is. Sports Night and West Wing brought up the same topics, but those shows were enjoyable and this one feels like he is trying to preach his point instead of making a show.
And if NBC wants the show to continue they need to get rid or Harret.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 7:19AM
John said...
I watch "Studio 60" every week because Weber, Perry, Paulson and some of the other actors are doing some really wonderful work, but Evadne completely nailed the things about Sorkin's writing that really drives me up the wall with this show -- and it didn't bug me like that on either "West Wing" or "Sports Night." I "get" the allusions and what passes for the jokes, but far too many of them seem smug and condescending to me.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 8:08AM
Doug said...
Well it looks like most bloggers don't really like this show, so please start reviewing NCIS. I'm sure it would receive more favorable comments.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 2:33PM
David said...
Someone tell me if you get this joke....
If you go to college you are smart, if you are a soldier and go to Iraq you are a dumbass.
No? No one "got" the joke? I feel that's the same thing Sorkin is doing. Making fun of everyone besides him and then go "it's only a joke".
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 8:51AM
Jim said...
The two problems with this show, one of which has been addressed here many times before:
1. It takes itself WAY too seriously. This is supposed to be late-night sketch comedy; they're not changing the world, for Christ's sake.
2. The characters all *look* different, but they all talk the same. The lines are so Sorkin-esque, they're interchangeable. "Interchangeable?" Interchangeable: capable of being put or used in the place of each other. "Oh, interchangeable."
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 8:58AM
woot said...
matt and harriet have no chemistry? what are you talking about? You just want someone with bigger breasts and better hips. Jesus, not all female leads need to be curvaceous.
did you see the part where Paulson had to make Fatman laugh? Now that is endearing.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 8:55AM
gail said...
I love the show and like that it does raise serious issues. It's preachy, but I go from the Bachelor to Studio 60 and love the contrast.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 9:08AM
BR said...
Similar to what Jim said, I agree that one problem is that there is really no difference between any of these characters. Any line or event on the show can happen to any of the characters and it wouldn't make a difference. With Sorkin's previous shows, there were characters with very distinct flaws and strengths and that's one of the things that made it interesting. Maybe there just hasn't yet been enough time to develop the characters yet.
Reply
11-14-2006 @ 10:37AM
Jim said...
I'm a fan of the show, but I think the John Goodman characterization was laid on way too thick. Overcompensation by Sorkin, IMHO: "Okay, I'll give you an intelligent person who lives in flyover country, but he's still going to drive a pickup truck and be folksy and go over to the diner for pie." I still don't see him being capable of portraying middle America accurately.
And can I put in a word here for paintball players? That may have been the most cartoonish reach of the evening. I play, and the idea that the ADA would (a) show up without having changed his clothes (b) take his marker into the diner and (c) accidentally shoot a paintball inside is just not the way it works. At the outside, he might not have changed if he were in a rush, but he'd take off his protective gear and leave the marker and stuff in the car.
That characterization belonged in a skit -- "PAINTBALL PLAYER enters stage left, does pratfall, makes joke" -- not in a scene from a drama.
Oh, I'm sorry... "sketch."
Reply