Not a member? Sign up now
September 18, 2006
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Send to a Friend | |
|
 |
Printer Friendly Format | |||
 |
Leave Feedback | |||
 |
Read Feedback | |||
 |
Nerve RSS | |||
 |
|
 |
||
|
||||
f you doubt that backstage drama at a Saturday Night Live-esque show could sustain a prime-time TV series, you have perhaps never read Live From New York, an encyclopedic oral history of the sketch-comedy juggernaut that details more feuds than all of hip-hop, and a startlingly high mortality rate to boot. Reading Live From New York made me realize that SNL has often been more successful as drama than as comedy. Hell, older brothers have been complaining that "it hasn't been good since Aykroyd/Murphy/Myers/Hartman/Ferrell left" for decades now; the fact is the comedy has been spotty all along, but the backstage stuff could be riotous. Example: A sketch where Jon Lovitz plays "Mr. Monopoly," who gets out of prison using a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, is not funny. But watching a young and frustrated Damon Wayans destroy the sketch (and get fired later that night) by playing his cop character as flamboyantly gay — well, that's something to see. In recognition of this dramatic potential, two shows set backstage at SNLs-a-clef premiere this fall. Both on NBC, no less. One, 30 Rock, comes from Tina Fey, a longtime SNL veteran, and is accordingly more pitched towards comedy, at least inasmuch as Fey plays a character named "Liz Lemon." The second, until I watched it, showed significantly more potential: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip stars a cadre of big-name actors and comes from Aaron Sorkin, who has two acclaimed series under his belt (the cult favorite Sports Night and The West Wing). It would seem to write itself, no? You've got your intra-cast shenanigans, censorship battles with the network, drug abuse and the ever-present time pressure. If this concept were a cake, it'd be Betty Crocker.
|
And yet, somehow, it has come out of the oven half-baked! The first bite is promising: Wes Mendell (Judd Hirsch), the long-time producer of a late-night sketch comedy show, argues with a network censor over the cutting of a divisive sketch (amusingly, the censor suggests subbing in a sketch called "Peripheral Vision Man," which sounds like a dead ringer for the kind of sketch SNL delights in running into the ground). When the censor wins out, Mendell walks on stage, interrupting the show's opening bit, and delivers a scathing rant against the network, the FCC and television as a whole. It's a tense and well-acted opening, particularly as the furious censor tries to force the control-room director, loyal to Mendell, to cut to a commercial. The witty montage that follows shows part of the publicity fallout; four or five news anchors independently compare the outburst to Peter Finch's on-air explosions in Network.
So far, so good: Hirsch is a fine actor, and Timothy Busfield (whom you may remember from Sneakers or Field of Dreams) plays the conflicted control-room director with sympathy. But for all their efforts, it's acting that first gets Studio 60 in trouble, in the form of Amanda Peet, Sarah Paulson and Matthew Perry. Perry, I understand, spent some time on another popular television show whose name escapes me at this point, but despite (or perhaps because of) his experience on that show (Buddies? Chums? Attack of the Tittering Yuppies?), he seems unable to act without mugging. His performance, as Matt Albie, one half of the creative pair brought in to save the show, has some appeal, but he's constantly undercutting it with his irritating tics.
In his defense, the writing's not helping him. In one cringeworthy bit, wild Matt spills the beans on his writing partner's coke addiction to a room full of network execs:
Matt: Are you people using the confidential information that Danny failed a drug test to force him into taking over Studio 60 to deflect attention from what happened on the air tonight?
Studio Exec: He failed a drug test?
Amanda Peet: Yeah, actually, Matt, I was the only one who knew about that.
Matt: [to Danny] Sorry about that. That one was all me. [To all] Ironically, I'm the one who's high as a paper kite right now . . . Stop talking now? You bet.
Did Studio 60's creators have Matthew Perry in mind for this part when they wrote it? 'Cause this sure sounds like dialogue from Attack of the Tittering Yuppies. Real people do not talk like this, except in badly written sitcoms, and with Aaron Sorkin at the helm, Studio 60 is supposed to be anything but. This lazy style results in a lot of telling instead of showing; we hear a lot about how brilliant Matt and Danny are, but their actual output is, to all appearances, less than inspired. Take for example the "controversial" sketch, written by Matt, that Wes Mendell fights to keep on the air. There's a lot of build-up about how this sketch is "of a level we haven't had in years," "inspired," "smart." And what does it turn out to be called? "Crazy Christians." Sounds really hard-hitting, right? How about, I don't know, "The Pope Takes a Shit?"
We never see the searing religious satire that is "Crazy Christians," but in the second episode, we do follow a sketch from conception to execution. Matt, Danny and a few cast members conceive of a bit of musical theater to apologize to the audience for the prior week's on-air rant. Besides being an aesthetic miscalculation (Studio 60 should learn from SNL — nothing is more likely to fall flat than an elaborate song-and-dance number with "wacky" lyrics), this is probably a political miscalculation as well; since the on-air meltdown was clearly the most interesting thing to happen to the show in years, there's really no point in apologizing. "We'll be the very model of a modern network TV show," to the tune of Gilbert and Sullivan's "Major General's Song"? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what Studio 60 — the fictional and non-fictional shows alike — wants to be? But never mind. The point is, dramatic law demands that the musical bit kill when it airs, and the studio audience reacts with much enthusiasm, but in my living room, it was a flop. And this disjunction is a particular problem; a studio audience that laughs on cue to something that's plainly not funny compounds the sense that Studio 60 is dramatically rigged, a show that has made its conclusions (Matt's a "creative genius," Amanda Peet's character is "instantly likeable") without ever earning them.
Studio 60 still has potential, and will likely keep a fanbase even if the writing and acting fail to improve. It's slick, it's snarky and it's got buzz out its ears — two or three fan sites went up before the pilot even aired. After all, Matthew Perry's last show was written and acted pretty badly, and it lasted for ten years. But Aaron Sorkin fans and SNL fans have the right to expect more. I know I did. The damn thing hasn't been good since Wes Mendell left. n°
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR: | |
 |
Peter Smith is like the lead character of Irwin Shaw's The 80-Yard Run, except less athletic. He's an associate editor at Nerve. |
Commentarium (26 Comments)
Actually, I remember Timothy Busfield from 30-Something and Revenge of the Nerds. But I guess I'm dating myself, huh?
discouraging, but i will tune in anyway, and i hope that they read your review.
p.s. i miss the west wing.
Way to review!
I'm not saying it was perfect- you're spot-on about Matthew Perry needing to tone down his Chandlerness- but I quite liked the premiere. If I wanted 100% realism, I wouldn't be watching television.
Few things: I miss the West Wing too. Also, I also remember Timothy Busfield from Revenge of the Nerds. What few people also remember is that Bradley Whitford played antagonist Rog in Revenge of the Nerds II. Also, having seen Matthew Perry in things other than Friends, the question that begs to be asked is: How much of Matthew Perry is in Chandler that maybe he's also bringing to Matt Albie? Having also seen the second episode -- I'm lucky -- He does tone it down a bit, playing a bit more on par with his role opposite Bradley Whitford in the West Wing. Now THAT was a Matthew Perry performance!
Tell, don't show - exactly! This is typical Sorkin. What was the West Wing except bluster about their genius political manuevering and brilliant speeches, that the audience never got to see?
And I'm really starting to hate Sorkin's "breathing guts."
Though I'd never heard it before, I liked it when Natalie said it about Jeremy in Sports Night. He earned it, and those two had some chemistry, boy. So it sounded like a a Natalie-ism. Then Donna said it to Josh on the West Wing, and she barely meant it. Now we have a character we don't know yet (and probably won't like -- an inspirational CD? the 700 Club? This is a comic? Oh, I get it - this a play on Kristin Chenoweth. Got a little crush, Aaron?) -- saying it about a character who hasn't even been introduced yet. So this is telling me that Sorkin's ladies are pretty much interchangeable, and not the unique, quirky characters I was smitten with on Sports Night.
And don't even get me started on Gilbert & Sullivan... Ugh!
(But I'll watch it, 'cause there's nothing else on.)
here's the problem for me: the show has the predictable -- but reliable -- humor patterns of Friends and their ilk alongside the innovative, irreverent narrative strategies of the west wing ... it feels schizophrenic. Perhaps the biggest single failing, imo, is that amanda peet cannot project the kind of intelligence and gravitas that the woman who plaid the press secretary and then chief of staff projected in the west wing. the one thing an actor cannot fake is intelligence/wisdom, and the west wing worked because the cast genuinely seemed smart enough to be the creators of the words coming out of their mouths. the chief of staff woman in west wing was the ballast of the show ... amanda just doesn't have the weight of personality / believability to provide that ballast.
but i will keep watching it ... much as a restaurant with mediocre food but a great atmosphere works for me, if they can deliver interesting narrative and cultural commentary, i will lap up bland humor and overstretched actors.
Don't quit your day job as a painter/cover band idol. I think this review sucks! I saw the pilot for Studio 60 and it ROCKED! Great writing from Sorkin & Schlamme (as expected - I'm a huge fan of The West Wing) and I thought Matthew Perry and the rest of the ensemble were very well cast. I had my doubts about Mr. Perry, but he really surpised me. He has range. Not for a minute did I think of Chandler Bing. But then again, I tend to like snarky, cleverly written dialouge. If you're looking for loser with a CAPITAL L...try Kidnapped. Oy! there is an hour I wish I could have back. Oh and by the way, there are in fact people who speak with an air of witty sarcasm but i wouldn't expect that you'd know any of them.
Your objection for "Studio 60" seems to stem from the fact that you didn't know everything and see everything in the first two episodes -- or however many you may have screened. Your's is basically a form of t.v. gluttony, wanting instant comsumption and stereotypes for the mold. Real stories -- and really good writing -- unravel characters, not vomit out information than attempt to collect it all back for presentation. And within your critique you seem to have stumbled into thinking that by providing you with two personality traits for two characters, you have some how reached the end of their depth. To that I would say that Sorkin will probably demonstrate that they are more than two simple assumptions as "likeable" and "talented." But mostly I think your true objection is that the writing is such that you can't get your arms around it, leaving the illogical assumption that the writer is the one at fault for this. I'd say it's probably you.
By the way, Timothy Busfield was on the West Wing (for that matter so was Matthew Perry) and his character dated that Press Secretary/Chief of Staff lady (Allison Janey)They eventually got married and had a baby.......I saw the preview version of Studio 60 and thought it wasn't perfect, but not bad. Like West wing it will tighten upo and find it's legs. Even at it's worst, it is better than most of the rest of TV. The thing I absolutely hated was that they cut the moment when Tim Busfield's character cut to the Studio 60 opening credits. The preview played the great jazz tune and let the credits of the show roll, but the tv version, cut to the next scene way to soon and they lost the set up for the next scene.....in cutting the music they lost the rythm and that is something that the show itself will have to find. I just hope NBC gives it the chance.....
SNL has been so bad for so long, and Studio 60 helps explain why, I guess. M Perry needs better writing, just like you said. Here's the big question.... WHY is SNL so unfunny? I know funny people all over the place. Is SNL dooming funny people? I think more likely the answer is Lorne just doesn't know funny.
You seem sidetracked by the SNL phenomenon itself. Studio 60 cannot be a documentary about SNL, it only uses the SNL-idea to set up it's own fictional glitz and to expose what is behind the glitz... If the show within the show gets too interesting then behind the scenes may be unnecessary, or if the show within the show is really bad, then we have no more interest in the people who are putting on the show. This built-in ambiguity may be more than some viewers will be able to tolerate. It also may be more than the writers of Studio 60 are able to handle themselves, but time will show - as well as expose what they are really trying for - if anything..
Timothy Busfield is more often remembered for his role as Elliot on ABC's "Thirtysomething", which was also run on Lifetime for several years.
i have not seen the second episode (time warner problems) and i am hopeful that it will deliver. I think the show's strength / greatest intrigue lies in the narrative -- it's certainly intereting subject matter and I am looking forward to episode 2, but not with the degree of anticipation that i await the best of the HBO shows -- 6 feet under and Deadwood in my opinion, which deliver on all fronts -- or west wing, for that matter.
of course to be fair its a different animal because it is written and cast for a larger audience --smells like a big head product rather than a long tail one -- and therefore there is a higher priority on characters' *likeability*. Amanda Peet makes sense because she is endearing in that position -- she is eminently likeable -- but she is as believable as a studio head as a 9th grader reading old english. my read is that Sorkin made a conscious decision to cast a more likeable collection of characters in order to make the show more commercially viable, much as Cormac McCarthy chose to create his first likeable protagonist in All the Pretty Horses, which sure enough busted him out of obscurity (albeit Macarthur genius grant obscurity). compared with the West Wing cast, the studio 60 cast has a higher ratio of sugar to nutrition ... west wing was a bit more of an acquired taste. but there is no doubt that this good television on a fascinating subject.
From your review, I'm guessing you were the head of LemonLyman.com, and will never be happy with anything on TV...bad acting my Matthew Perry? Have you ever been on painkillers? you don't talk like a normal person (or even a normal tv character). "Crazy Christians" is a bad sketch title? How does the title of a 2 minute sketch have anything to do with how funny it is? You think they finish the sketch and then sit there trying to think of a good title? Its not a movie, whose title has to grab people...its sketch comedy, people are watching already. Let Sorkin develop these characters before you start saying how unbelievable they are. The show is good, and showtunes might not be your cup of tea but I laughed harder during that opening sketch than I have at SNL in years.
You say the Gilbert and Sullivan number was to apologize for the previous weeks rant, and that being "the very model of a modern network TV show" is not what either Studio 60 wants to be...you miss the point. Just because your humor is self-depricating, does not mean its an apology. In Judd Hirsch's rant last week he called the networks whorehouses whose content is just this side of snuff films, yet they are controlled to a point by interest groups, particularly evangelicals. "We'll be the very model of a modern network TV show" was a mock apology whose true meaning was closer to "Judd was right, network TV is crap, we arent gonna play to the special interests who drain TV of its life and message in the quest for non-offensive content." The best humor always offends people...they weren't saying I'm Sorry, they were saying We're gonna make people laugh and not care that a minority of people who don't even watch the show are gonna be offended....and by the way, we hope you don't mind our producer got caught doing blow....
You obviously have absolutely no idea what your talking about and dont get sarcasm at all.
uh oh. looks like the aaron sorkin fanboys are out in force. hate to snap you out of denial, but this is not 'the west wing' or 'sports night' - not by a long shot. it's the worst kind of satire: one that purports to skewer but patronizes instead. a takeoff on 'network' might have had bite or relevance ten years ago, but not now. today, movies are lowest common denominator; tv is actually better than ever. i found studio 60 to be ill-conceived, fatally miscast and just not entertaining. looks like most of america agrees: the ratings have dropped week to week, and each successive half-hour has rated lower than the previous one. not a good sign.
Guess we watched a different show. I thought the G&S bit was hysterical and loved the way Sorkin keeps you guessing about everyone's back history. We TiVo'd the show and have watched it at least once a day since it came on -- can't wait to see what they do next. I thought that Matt Perry was almost the anti-Chandler on this -- way more serious and deep but I did see a lot of the Josh Lyman stuff in Whitford's talks to the writers and cast. I think this is the best thing to come on since the first couple of season of West Wing
There are 2 major flaws with Studio 60: 1. Amanda Peet can't act 2. the show-within-a-show isn't funny. It has a lot of potential and I think it's gotten better every week. But in this reviewer summed up the pilot very well. It's clearly no West Wing. Not yet, anyway.
I think you're wrong about Friends. It was, at least for a few season, sharp, funny and fast paced. Yes, it was self-indulgent and inconsequential. But not everything has to be brain food. It was a show that captured the moment and that had a lot of laughs. Yes, Studio 60 isn't as thoughtful as the West Wing. And yes, Perry mugs it up. But I spent an entertaining and lively hour with Studio 60 and I think there's nothing wrong with that.
You are all wrong. Written very well with refereshing acting. Doesn't anyone give a TV show three or four episodes before they call it bad? Amateurs!
What is it about "Studio 60" that has critics, fans and even Sorkinistas so confused? I've yet to read a single cogent entry on the Danny-Jordan relationship yet that's the most compelling thing going for the show. That they would hook up has been obvious since at least "The Focus Group" when she kisses Matt on the cheek but plants a long one on Danny's mouth after the ratings come back at 109% of the 1st week audience. The first thing my wife and I discuss after each episode is whether or not they're doing it yet.
The turning point for me is their meeting at the bar. When Jordan asks Danny if it's ok that she's drinking in front of him it implies a lack of emotional intimacy that would be present between these characters had they already become physically intimate. But the meeting at the bar implies a mutual interest in one another that they want to explore but do not want to broadcast in front of their co-workers.
That's what all the fans are missing: Sorkin already *told* you (in this scene) that he isn't going to show you the hook-up. It is subtext. You need to be an active viewer and figure it out for yourself, not a passive viewer that has everything exposed for you as if this were just another daytime "drama."
That the fans would miss this doesn't surprise me. That the critics and Sorkinistas would does but probably shouldn't. This show isn't about the making of comedy anymore than "Sportsnight" was about the making of Sportscenter or "The West Wing" was about the making of public policy. Sorkin, even when he's feeling a bit misanthropic, loves people and the people he loves most of all are actors. Ask any decent actor and they'll tell you that what they lack the most is well writtten characters. One can perform only so much WS.
NBC and CBS reportedly got into a bidding-war for the rights to S60 and Sorkin is only too happy to share the wealth with his actor buddies, Tommy Schlamme's wife, et. al. This is a character driven show, just as Sorkin's previous efforts were, and it is about those characters, not the making of comedy, television, public policy or sausage.
Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is available on Netflix Instant now. I finally caught up with it and have to agree to a lot of these criticisms. I try to imagine how it could've stayed on air for more than a season, and that calls for Matt Perry being recasted. Probably D.L. Hughley too and throw in Nate Corddry too.
There's almost nobody to really connect with in the show. People who don't work get most of the screen time (Perry and Whitford, Peet).
All the things it could've been. I thought the pilot was good, not West Wing pilot great, but good. In hind sight to the series, it was really great.
Now you say something