For the one of you who's been following this blog in hopes that one day I might disclose the full report on WMDs in Iraq, you know that I'm quite taken with Studio 60. I've followed it all season and watched it every Monday, but now the industry papers and everyone's second aunt is saying that last Monday's show was very likely its swan song, despite that there are actually about three more episodes that have been ordered by NBC, and have probably filmed or are in the process of final production. Right now the show is not officially pronounced cancelled by NBC, even though the timeslot next week will be occupied by a different sow.
As I do with most movies and TV shows, I like to try to figure out why some shows succeed, and why some fail. So, here's my two cents.
Casting
Interestingly, the casting is part genius, but also part faulty. The casting of Matthew Perry works for me, because I'm willing to accept him as an actor who does other things, and he does Matt Albie quite well. His character however, is flawed - he's quite an ass when it comes to relationships, even though he's pretty likeable otherwise. He torments his love interest to the point whereby it can be considered abusive. Now in that respect, there are a lot of people who know him as Chandler, and they've known him as that character for ten years. To see him not act like Chandler can throw some folks off - I wouldn't know any of those folks who can't separate actors from their roles, but they are out there for sure.
Another big wrench in the gears is the casting of both Sarah Paulson and Amanda Peet. I can certainly see her as Harriet the character, both I'm not entirely sure why everyone would be so crazy for her. She seems like an interesting secondary character, but as a love interest - not so much. And her as the lead actor in a SNL type show? Can't buy that. As for Amanda Peet, who is supposed to be the president of a network, worked for about the first two episodes - but after that she seemed like she was pretending to run the network, and during her off time she seemed like a needy, trolling loser who just wants a friend. Wait, the president of a network who wants to hang out and make friends? Hmmm.
The Writing
I like the writing. It's stylized for sure, like a David Mamet movie whereby the characters talk kinda funny. A lot of the characters are hyper intelligent, which isn't a bad thing, and the sketches they present on the show are funny in its own way, but not in a broad way. More in a scholarly, snobby professor's lounge humor sort of way. A show like that running on an actual network would fail. SNL's biggest hit as of late as called, "Dick in a Box." Not if Jesus Christ was the head of Standards and Practices. That was funny in its own way, but I think nobody would watch that on TV.
I think there is a lot of great humor in the show - I like the banter between the characters and the chemistry between Matt and Danny is awesome. The Jordan/Danny and Matt/Harriet relationship was rushed and forced, as if Sorkin was trying to make us care about the characters, as if someone said to him, um... They need a romantic interest.
Sorkin's writing is quite self-referential, to the point that it pokes fun of itself. In this last week's episode, Studio 60's ratings have been slipping since they've taken on from a high debut - much like the the actual show itself. The relationship with Matt and Harriet and Matt and Danny are derived in part from Aaron Sorkin's relationship with Kristin Chenoweth and Thomas Schlamme, so basically Matthew Perry is Aaron's alter ego. Which is a problem because Matt sometimes acts in ways that are terrible and abusive but his actions are too often justified. I've written myself as a character before and trust me, it's tough to write a role for yourself. You get the best lines, and your character always comes across too dignified and self-righteous.
Sorkin also has a bit of a mean streak in him, and it shows a lot in Matt and Simon's characters. The way D.L. Hughley's character insulted a Black writer after he refused to write a script about a Black militant Fruit of the Loom was downright nasty and uncomfortable. Or the way Matt constantly sabotages Harriet with his behavior gets to be a bit creepy. Head writers can be stalkers too. I have no problems with Steven Weber's character being mean, or the relationship between Matt/Danny and the cast - that's understandable, but the two mentioned above does leave a bit of a bitter aftertaste.
Perhaps one of the most telling of all is the way the show likes to refer to how Matt can write scripts for his show week after week, with minimal input from the writer's room, which consists of two writers and a supervisor. Which is what Sorkin does. For example, sitcoms like Friends and Cheers have usually multiple writers, SNL has quite a number of writers. What other writers contribute is more than ideas, but criticism when the material needs more work. I think Sorkin is a good writer, I actually enjoy it a lot with the subtitles on, but when the faults come through, they push the audiences away in a big way.
Well, I hope the show comes back. I really do like the show, I'm just trying my hand at analyzing why audiences are drifting away.
Oh, and there are no WMDs in Iraq. Even I could've told you that.
No comments:
Post a Comment