(S01E15) Tim Batale = Matt Albie.Dave I. Bradey = Very Bad Idea.
I watch TV with the closed captioning on (my mother-in-law is deaf so my wife is used to it and besides, it's helping me learn how to read) so it was fairly easy picking up on the anagram.
What wasn't so easy was figuring out what purpose the Tim Batale plot device actually served...
One of the more... shall we say "aggressive" commentators criticized my last few reviews for not taking into account what the show was trying to achieve. I'm paraphrasing, but he said something to the effect that it's not just my personal bias that should be the foundation of the review, but rather how well the show fulfilled its goals. Also that I was stupid.
Now usually I take a critical comment and just forget about it (after denial, anger, bargaining, and depression) but this one kind of stuck with me. I think he made a good point, so I tried to think about what the goals of the show were tonight and how well it went about fulfilling them. These were my findings:
1. Matt is depressed. Did we feel for Matt? Yes, but I think it has less to do with the writing than it does with Matt Perry's excellent acting. If I were Perry's agent I would have this episode sent to the Emmy nomination people ASAP. (I would also advise Mr. Perry to consider some sort of bag-under-the-eye removal therapy.) He was phenomenal tonight.
I think for the first time since the beginning of the show I actually cared about Matt and Harriet. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't big time cared (like for the Superbowl and, to a lesser extent, my family and friends), but it was a start. Seeing just how busted up he was about the finality of their break-up went a long way for me.
I thought the drug thing was a bit over-the-top, though. I mean, his best friend is a recovering coke-fiend and his solution to get through the week is to pop pills? It seems out of character for Matt. It's something that you see a lot among people who are funny for a living (I'm a comic and I know more than a few people who use chemicals to help get the funny out), but it doesn't fit what we know about Matt.
I will say this, however, if all drug dealers were super-hot singer songwriters in their underwear, I'd probably have succumbed to reefer madness a long time ago. Did anyone else think that the scene with Valerie was... uh... rather oddly directed? I mean, it seems weird that Sorkin would have Jordan McDere call attention to the fact that the show-within-the-show was too boob oriented just a few minutes before the show itself made those boobs the focus of an entire scene. As a man, I'm not complaining. As a reviewer, they didn't fit. As a comic, I want to throw in a cheesy line after "they didn't fit"... literally! There we go.
Verdict: Goal accomplished (barely, mostly due to Perry).
2. The Friday Night Slaughter. For the first time in what feels like nine years, we return to seeing the inner workings of a TV show. In fact, the show opened with the wonderful Timothy Busfield (has my love of TB turned mancrush? Quite possibly) doing one of those fast-paced director in the booth of a live show things. I love that stuff. Honestly, they should have a channel devoted simply to a static camera in the back of a control room. Think about it, what would you rather watch, thirteen hours of boring speeches at the Oscars, or a guy having four heart-attacks backstage trying to film those boring speeches?
Also, we got to see the Friday Night Slaughter itself, with Tom and Dylan desperate to get their stuff on the air. It was good to see Dylan with a little ambition. After he refused Simon's seat on News 60, I thought the boy had no backbone! Actually, it was good just to see Dylan. For my money, he's owned every scene he's been in since day one. Definitely an under-utilized character. (Big Sketch!)
In the flashbacks, we got to see the writer's room as it was under Wes's regime. We're reminded just how many writers it takes to get a show like Studio 60 written and it again begs the question "Why hasn't Matt hired any more writers!?" I realize that there are a few shows out there that are written by pretty much just one guy (Sorkin is a pretty good example of that), but surely NBC can afford just a few extras in sweatshirts milling about the writer's room. This show purports to be a fairly realistic look at just how much effort is necessary to produce an SNL-like show. I just can't believe Matt, Lucy, Darius, and Andy can do it alone.
The politics behind what sketches get on and who writes for whom were pretty interesting as well. Harriet holding out for a more experienced writer and Matt being better off writing for some more established talent is the kind of thing that we don't get to see on the modern-day show because (as mentioned), there are only four writers.
(One quick point about the flashback: Luke's beard was amazing. I couldn't tell if it was glued on or actually grown. If it's glued on, kudos to the make-up people! If it was grown, how long did it take for him to grow it? Did he grow it over Christmas break, then film the flashback scenes, then shave for the modern scenes in the last few episodes? Or is he part Sasquatch?)
I liked the touch about Wes making people wait to audition. Having read Tom Shales' excellent oral history of Saturday Night Live, I immediately thought of Lorne Michaels. He's apparently famous for making people wait like that. Simon sitting out there annoyed was exactly the kind of insidery (but not too insidery) look at SNL I was hoping for when the show was first announced.
Verdict: Goal Accomplished! Haven't seen this much of the show in a while!
3. The Other Stuff. Let's take this one at a time:
Jordan and Danny: They're crazy about each other -- great! Danny talking to Jordan's unborn baby in a way to imply that he will be a stepfather -- creepy! They've only been dating a week and a day, for the love of God! Jordan thinks this is cute?
(Why does Sorkin insist on taking a great character expertly acted by Bradley Whitford and making him into someone I don't like? Why? Why can't he just go back to being the absurdly calm eye in the center of the Studio 60 hurricane? That'd be so nice.)
Hailey and Jordan: Hailey tries to undermine Jordan and Jordan has to use her Psych-like powers of observation to figure it out. It's twice now and I'm already tired of it.
Timothy Busfield: awesome.
Dialog: do we really need to address this? Like sex and pizza, always good, even when it's bad.
Flashback: Hey remember Y2K and Smashmouth? Best just to move on here.
Crazy Christians: if that's the premise of the sketch of the same name that caused all the problems in the first few episodes, I think all the fundamentalist groups were protesting not out of anger over the indignity done to their religion, but rather because God probably hates bad comedy just as much as the rest of us. A radio call-in show? Wow, really bad.
Verdict: More bad than good here, so no, Goal Not Accomplished!
4. Tim Batale. Okay, I saved this for last because I'm really torn here. You'd have to be pretty brain dead (or a fan of M. Night Shyamalan's The Village) not to have figured out that Tim was a figment of Matt's imagination by about half-way through the episode. So it didn't work all that well as a twist.
"But Jay," you say, "don't think of it as a plot twist. Think of it as a symbolic counter-point to what Matt is going through! Also, this review is getting really long and I've got work to get back to, so if you could please, hurry it up."
Fine, I agree that it's a symbolic counter-point, but what does it represent? That Matt is going to lose his job if he keeps doing drugs? That drugs are bad? That he needs to go back to writing while wearing khakis and a blue Oxford? Unless there's something deeper here that I'm missing (which is entirely possible), Tim's existence was a shallow one. If you're going to go so far as to have an imagined character with a weak twist ending, you need to make that character count for something more than "Oh, I'm doing drugs and that's a bad thing."
On the other hand, I was legitimately moved by it. Shallow as it was, it worked emotionally on me. It's like all of those Motown montages in Remember the Titans. They're cheesy and designed to pull my heartstrings, but I find myself smiling every time I watch the movie (and thanks to TNT, that's approximately 4 times a day).
So, I'm torn. Aesthetically, I think the character stunk. Emotionally, I was moved. Did Sorkin accomplish his goal? I'm going to say...
Verdict: Maybe. Kinda. Sorta. Yes? I don't know. Leave me alone!
Based on my four verdicts, I'm going to say that the show accomplished most of its goals, and is therefore a good episode. This isn't a 100% return to form, but it's getting there.
Six shows that I am watching pretty regularly this season
Five other TV shows where Sarah Palin should appear
Brought To You By ... - VIDEOS
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
2-13-2007 @ 1:04AM
Borat said...
What is this, Fight Club?
This episode was much better than the previous ones...it was interesting to see the early years. The atmosphere looked more realistic too...the current one doesn't look realistic at all (probably Sorkin's ideal writers room).
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 1:06AM
David said...
You really go in depth with it to the point in wish halfway down I just stopped reading most of it. I feel like I'm in high school again.
I figured out what I don’t like about Studio 60 and figured out what the show is about. This isn’t a show about the behind the scenes look at an SNL show, it’s the love stories behind the scenes of a SNL show. Sports Night had a lot of relationships but they also did the show parts too, they showed the storyline about getting read for the show and it somehow flowed. They would be writing about it and then something would come up to mess it up like todays Studio 60 but it somehow felt more like a show and less like a soap opera. He needs to get the relationship and TV show part of the show to blend better like he did for Sports Night. I’m afraid through Sorkin can’t do that because this fake show is only on Fridays while Sports Night was on every weekday and then for specials so it feels like they could do more there. Balance would work great, balance the lame love stories that we can’t get into, blend in the rants better too, and blend in the fake show better and it might be ok.
All that said that, thar no one here listen to or understood anyways, the twist at the end was a lot better on Studio 60 today than on BSG yesterday. Oh wait there was no twist of any kind on BSG yesterday. Of course this “twist” didn’t really have a point… hmmm…
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 1:08AM
David said...
They (the fake show) don't hire more writers because they don't have the bugget!
People seem to forget that.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 2:21AM
Colleen said...
I miss Bob's reviews of Studio 60.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 2:24AM
Anna said...
I think the significance of the Tim Batale "twist" is that Matt hasn't just suddenly started popping pills - he was already an addict when Harriet joined the show. Then she showed up, made his life worth living - they've addressed before how he only started to succeed at Studio 60 when he was trying to write for her - and he was able to shove all that under the rug. But it was still there, dormant, for the better part of eight years as he and Harriet went back and forth. Now he knows it's for real, and his old demons are popping back out.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 2:28AM
Bill said...
In addition to the budget (which was the reason... Ricky and Ronnie?... were let go early on), the early episodes, in one of the many Sorkin autobiographical touches, made it sound like Matt was notable for writing so much himself. So I think that many writers would be inconsistent.
The review was pretty long, but right on target (except the fake beard tangent was kinda weird). The actual slaughter portion of the story worked better than anything's worked on Studio 60 since the first few episodes. It gives us funny moments, behind the scenes stuff, and included all the characters that don't suck.
I can put up with the crappy parts if the Studio 60 elements of Studio 60 are this good.
http://popculturejunk.blogspot.com
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 2:37AM
Anna said...
Dang, that wasn't supposed to post yet.
Aside from the significance of the plot point, I didn't really like the way it was handled. Up to this point, there hasn't been many clues that Matt might have problems like this, so it came out of left field.
I also wanted to say that I didn't like the cinematography. Who directed today? I've noticed this once or twice on other Sorkin shows/episodes. The hand-held camera action just doesn't gel with the atmosphere of Aaron's World.
Also, as to the crappy writing... At least Sorkin isn't actually to blame for this one. One Melissa Myers was credited with the story. We should stone her.
Oh, and anyone want to bet that the season finale, titled "What Kind of Day Has It Been", will involve Harriet announcing she's leaving the show (or at least thinking about it), Jordan having her baby, and Matt dying of an OD? They can leave the death up in the air - he can flatline as the episode ends, and if the show comes back they can save him; if it doesn't we can assume he's dead. There will be the balance of life and death, plus it's one heck of a day to recap.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 2:43AM
Justin said...
"it doesn't fit what we know about Matt."
in the very first episode, when first introducing Matt, he's coping with the loss of Harriet by getting high on pain pills from his back surgery.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 3:02AM
ironcladlou said...
Wow, am I the only one who felt like Sorkin completely shit in my cereal with this episode? The Tim Batale plot was hackneyed and predictable (even sans closed-captioning), we got more Harriet (retro-Harriet!) crammed down our throats (aside: I didn't think it was possible for her character to get even more obnoxious. Anti-kudos, Sarah Paulson.), and Jordan went from neurotically-hormonally-cute-eating-machine-pregnant-woman to shrill-harpy-paranoid-pregnant-woman in the span of 5 minutes, apparently. Now, I do have a child, so I know that pregnant women are wont to do this sort of thing, but this is FICTION. I watch Studio 60 to be entertained, not to have flashbacks to incidents of "Go out in a raging blizzard and get me some twinkies because you put this thing in me, you fucker!"
Compared to last week's episode, this one was an absolute pile. Last week we got the continuation of "The Old Studio That Swallowed A Fly, er, Snake", the awesome exchange between Tom and Lucy, which was strongly reminiscent to me of the Sports Night "you have three sevens, and I have a straight" moment, Jordan and Danny on the rooftop (lame as it was that they were up there) and the Matt/Harriet crap was kept to a minimum. Hell, this episode didn't even have any hot, drunk asian jailbait!
The show is good, but it would be a lot better without Harriet. Let's hope her character quits the show in the season finale, and Sorkin hires Felicity Huffman to give Matt something to do.
Also, this episode did not have nearly enough Timothy Busfield in it.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 5:20AM
Matt said...
"Did we feel for Matt? Yes, but I think it has less to do with the writing than it does with Matt Perry's excellent acting."
Of the classic TV shows, "I Love Lucy" probably had less ad-libbing than any similar show in a 30-year period. Lucy was known to rehearse scenes over and over and over and over again until she got it *just* right.
Why is this relevant? Because the TV critics of the 1950s were noted for saying how crappy the writing was, and that the shows were saved only by the "brilliant" ad-libs of Lucille Ball - when every twitch and trademark move was in the script the entire time.
Lucy was great, Matt Perry is great, and the mark of a great actor is that you think the writing is crap. If you admire the writing more than the acting, the actor didn't do it right. Of course, many people are determined to make everything about "Studio 60" into a personal critique of Aaron Sorkin, so don't let me interfere with that particular form of dementia.
Also, by the way, can we just stipulate that a lot of you think Sarah Paulson is ugly so you can quit masking it in "there's no chemistry" and "I hate Harriet" when you really mean "I don't think Sarah Paulson is hot therefore no one else possibly could and her character is a total loss?"
If you don't think there's anything to Harriet Hayes, you've never known someone talented who didn't fit in but wanted to without giving up who she (or he) is. Don't blame Sarah Paulson or Aaron Sorkin for presenting a dead-on portrayal of someone you'd probably make feel like an outsider, too.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 5:51AM
Geoff said...
Since I seem to be the only one in the comments crapping on Harriet, and since this comment came right after mine, I feel the need to defend my Harriet-hating stance:
She's not funny. The character of Harriet is supposed to be gut-bustingly hilarious. Whether this is a failure on the part of Sarah Paulson or Aaron Sorkin is irrelevant, really. It makes the character completely unbelievable from go. Also, she rarely does anything other than bitch at Matt (and others). This appears to be more of a writing failure than an acting one, but regardless, it's a failure of the Harriet character, and it makes me desire the character to go the hell away. Harriet as a character is entirely one-dimensional. All she is written to do is harp on and on and ON about her religion. And since the previous commenter brought up her looks, I don't find them to be objectionable in any way. She's perfectly generic in her appearance. Not "hot" per se (which calls into question the believability of her requested appearance in a men's magazine), but I certainly wouldn't kick her out of bed. I'd kick her off the show, but not out of bed.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 7:08AM
Christian H. said...
They could solve the "no writers and no budget" problem very easily: Interns.
That's what we do here with everything. Someone has too much to do? Hire an intern. Someone was fired and there is not enough money for a new employee? Hire three interns. We had a meeting a few weeks ago where our hole department got together and my boss realized that 60 percent of the people in the room were actually interns. They get paid next to nothing (doesn't even cover my rent) and work their asses of... I must know, because I am an intern ;-)
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 7:27AM
Bash said...
Hmm I guess I don't get your point.
I believe Matt having a drug problem in a heartbeat because Matthew Perry had that problem. He is basically playing himself six years ago. And why should he not take drugs because his friend was caught? They both worked and work similar jobs and usually you do what your friends do.
What I didn't get was why the musical guest of the show caught that Matt was high and Danny does not (!).
I'll give him another episode to notice because he is so in love and everything but if this doesn't surfice within the next two episodes and is dealt with then I'll have to drop Studio 60 because it just isn't interesting.
I don't feel for anyone in this series at the moment. Matt's lovestory is annoying, Denny and Jordan have no chemistry whatsoever, the two black guys storyline is not half as interesting as the totally over the top stuff Tracy Morgan plays on 30 Rock, the Nate Corddry storyline is boring because, you know, that english chick is just totally neurotic and not that beautiful (I could say ugly but that would be too harsh I guess).
Honestly I don't get why this is on the air. It has to get better and it has to get better fast. I have to admit I was interested in finding out what was behind that whole Tim Batale thing but every time other sidestories were shown I got more and more angry that the main storyline wasn't progressing and when at the end Matt took those pills I was just angry and frustrated because I am reaching the point where I just can't take this whole sh*t anymore. This show is simply portraying the life of a saturday night show too closely and too exact. It hurts. That life isn't fun and it's no fun to watch it.
But then I guess I am simply annoyed because 30 Rock is the same but funny and Matthew Perry was a comedy actor and I expect him to be in a series where he is funny and not serious while this is an Aaron Sorkin series. I guess the fault lies with me.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 8:06AM
Mike Farrell said...
I have to say, I don't really think they have ever tried to say Harriet was really funny in the way that you all seem to mean it. She isn't Eddie Murphy, in fact she can't even tell a joke (which was actually a funny episode, to me anyway). The point that they seem to try and make (which I guess they failed because it seems a lot of you don't get it) is that the material Matt (not Aaron) gives her, she delivers perfectly which makes her funny to him. She is an actress which should be obvious from all the talk of the character getting acting gigs outside of studio 60, and she is not a comedienne which should be obvious from the fact that she can't tell a joke without blowing it. The fact that a lot of people don't like Harriet in the shows seems to stem from those people thinking a non-comedian has no business being on a sketch comedy show, and I don't think we can automatically say Harriet Hayes is not good since we have never seen an episode of the show within the show. I suspect this simply belies the real reason people don't like Sarah Paulson / Harriet Hayes, but I honestly don't know what that is. I think what we really need is a Harriet focused episode that makes her seem like a complete person, because I do agree on one point, her purpose so far has just been to make Matt miserable (and that's not good for a central character). We need to see her away from that relationship, having a day or week at Studio 60, and maybe people will like her more.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 8:25AM
Stu said...
I watched this Episode last night with my wife (gotta love the Canadians - Us Londoners get to watch it the same time as the Americans) and we didn't enjoy it.
We both loved the West Wing and we had such high hopes for this series (basically because almost all British TV is shite, and Lost is complete bollox - I know there are other shows but over here It's crap British TV, 24 or Lost - Thank christ for Bitorrent)
Anyway this series has slowly gone downhill and this episode caps it off. I will keep watching as I enjoy Mathew Perry and Brad Whitford but it's not as clever as it thinks it is. I don't really care for almost all the characters in the show. The Black Guy duel - Erm yeah whatever. Danny/Jordan - It's a shame this one aint working because both are good actors and are funny but the storyline has gone into sitcom territory.
And the big one Matt/Harriet - Who cares? She is annoying, not funny and fucking Christian not all that hot and did I mention she is annoying. Also she picked the guy who wrote her a sketch which got on the air - What a catch? In the current episode I felt Matt's pain and Matthew Perry was amazing but the whole slipping into drug fuelled depression and seeing people was a bit clichéd. Also how did his best friend the recovering coke addict not notice he was completely off his tits?
Anyway sorry for the language but I have just got out of a boring crap meeting with a boat load of work dumped on me and I feel like punching someone.
I await next weeks pick me up episode. This show is calling out for a cameo from Fred Savage by the way ;)
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 9:22AM
sezura said...
I think Tim Batale was also an "angel" figure to disprove Matt's skepticism of Harriet b/c she explained that it wasn't clear what form they would take and then, he had a sort of angelic presence in the way he mirrored Matt's life. And then, in order to make it not too magical or fantasy, they kind of blamed it on the drugs.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 9:44AM
Allison Solow said...
The Harriet character is a drip. I just don't like her -- not Sarah Paulson -- Harriet. She throws her religion into everything, obscuing whatever great talent she supposedly has. Now, if it's true this character is based on Kristin Chenoweth, I think Sorkin is out to destroy Kristin's reputation. She's a brilliant actress and comedienne, a dynamic singer and until "Studio 60" started, I had no idea she was a devout Christian. I loved her on Broadway and on "The West Wing" and on CD. On "Studio 60" it seems that everyone knows all about Harriet's religion because she's constantly bringing it up.
This isn't an anti-Christian rant. I would say the same thing if she were a Buddhist or Jew or Muslim. In the text of a show like "Studio 60," a super-religious character doesn't fit in. Harriet should have left after the first season because she felt like an outsider. After seven years, she's still there and yet she's still squawking about sketches that offend her religion. Come on! The producers would have shown her the door, no matter how wonderful she's supposed to be. Life is too short, even in Hollywood.
Sorkin really has an axe to grind and we're the ones suffering by watching the show.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 10:33AM
Alicia said...
Oh where to start???
I was amazed at the pill popping Matt... until I read in the comments (and remembered) the back injury. I felt for him... I really did.
As for Danny not knowing the Matt was high... he knows that something serious is up with Harriet and Matt. There you go... besides he is in "Jondan Wonderland."
I think that the whole "flashback" episode was great because it explained why Matt hated Luke and how his realtionship started with Harriet. (They way he got on her bad side right off the bat. Wonderful!!)
Not as great as other episodes, but you can't hit it out of the park every single week.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 10:52AM
matthew m. barnes said...
i have to agree. everyone i was watching with agreed that this episode wasn't very good. it just felt weak and oddly paced.
i've been re-watching the first seasons of The West Wing and i've gotta say... Sorkin just ain't what he used to be. don't get me wrong... he's still great. he's just not amazing like he was. by the end of the pilot on TWW, you feel like you know and understand each of the main characters and the world they live in. i still can't keep the S60 characters names all straight.
the singer girl was hot though.
Reply
2-13-2007 @ 11:10AM
Brian said...
On a technical note: Was it just me, or did anybody else feel like the lighting and cinematography was different in this episode? At first I thought it was just the flashback sequences, but after I watched a bit closer I think the whole episode was show was shot differently. It felt more natural with less contract between the lights and darks. Or maybe my TV was just on the fritz... :-)
Reply