I was going to wait until after the season finale to discuss the latest show from Aaron Sorkin. However, I changed my mind after watching the penultimate episode of the first season tonight, and reading Scott Tobias' latest review of the show. Frankly, I felt like I couldn't wait, and the last episode of the season is quite unlikely to change my opinion.
The West Wing is one of my favorite shows of all time, and Sports Night isn't too far behind. I've enjoyed all of the movies Sorkin has written that I've watched, and I still think the pilot of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was one of the best pilots I've ever seen. In short, I'm most certainly a fan of the guys work.
I enjoyed The Social Network and Moneyball, so it was natural I'd be excited for The Newsroom. It being on HBO added to the excitement, as after all "It's not TV, it's HBO". On top of that, it was about a news show trying to stand up and restore the integrity and power of the fourth estate, a cause that I believe in strongly. In short, I was looking very much forward to its debut after Game of Thrones wrapped up for another season. Obviously, expectations were running very high.
So I watched the first episode and it was...OK. Unlike many critics throughout the internet world, I wasn't instantly hateful of the show, but I could clearly see it was not living up to its potential. I dearly hoped it would get better. And it did...eventually.
By the later half of the season, I was liking a lot of what they were doing. Sure, the relationship
As expected as it was, I still love Sorkin's "stumble and redeem" arcs. I loved "Let Bartlet be Bartlet" and "Mary Pat Shelby". I knew this would be one of those types of episodes, and in fact I kind of guessed how he'd do it. The big important debate format would be rejected by the hot-headed GOP official, making their wallow in the filth of Casey Anthony and Anthony Wiener's...um...picture worth very little. Having lost that battle, they decide to recommit, and do real news again. Obviously, this would lose viewers, and give Jane Fonda a reason to fire Will.
For a few glorious moments in the episode, it appeared that I would be wrong, and Sorkin had come up with a brilliant way to redeem the team. They would use the blackout to their advantage, doing a seat of their pants broadcast outside. As MacKenzie and the team got fired up for this, I was really looking forward to a taught, tense hour of TV as they tried to put on a news show outside. Of course, until the buildup clearly showed they were going for a joke on this. A fucking joke.
Granted, I did laugh, but I'm not sure if I felt it was truly funny, or I was just trying to find it funny. I tried to find it entertaining, through the obvious debate format setup (right down to the sensible, older moderate Republican and hard-headed vengeance seeking young radical conservative, the latter of which had the power of refusal)***. I tried to rationalize the romantic entanglements that made up far too much of this episode, which should have focused again on the news and not fluffy shit. I even tried to enjoy Neal's trolling attempt, hoping it was going to lead to him trying to get through into Anonymous (and thus segue into season two with OWS and the likes). Instead, I don't know what the hell he is doing, going deeper into the hole and trying to involve a bodyguard and death threats in his trolling. Both Jim and Will try to play Josh Lyman/Dan Rydell in the episode, and it really doesn't fit well. And the less said about Lisa's digression into a soapbox speech on abortion in the middle of her Casey Anthony related interview the better.
Frankly, I've gotten more down on this episode as I think more about it, especially after the AVClub review brought up the "could have been" of the blackout show. I truly feel there are parts I've enjoyed, but far too much has been stuff I almost feel like I am trying to enjoy it. I do so because I want so badly to like it.
I want so badly to the like the show because I enjoy TV shows, movies, music, and books that make real points about life and our society's institutions, provided they are also entertaining. It's why Parks and Recreation is my favorite show currently running. It's why I love Deep Space Nine (and Star Trek in general). It's why I loved The West Wing and Moral Orel. Sure, I enjoy shows that are entertaining without great meaning, but that meaning is a nice salty, savory, or even bitter counterbalance to the sweet entertainment.
Most of all, I want so badly to like this show, because I want to justify my continuing to watch it. Right now there are far too many great shows on. I only have so much entertainment time in a day, and only a fraction of that is devoted to TV (and current shows at that). I'm sure I'll watch next season, but if it continues to disappoint like this night's episode, I might not be around for long. Basically what keeps me here is the bigger picture part of the show and Sam Waterston's performance as Charlie. Oh, and the hope, however forlorn, that Sorkin can do this again:
* Hey look, Maggie knows an attendant to the prime minister of Austria! Now we can get the scoop on the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand! Oh, and Jim knows Clemenceau's great nephew? BULLY! We'll stop this war yet!
** Seriously, the kind of people who would love Newsnight 2.0 are the same kind of people who would HATE shows like Nancy Grace. I could see them moving to Anderson Cooper, or some other not Fox News show talking about Casey Anthony, but not Nancy Grace. Also, the debt ceiling was not being ignored, just badly reported upon.
*** I totally believe the debates should be more about making candidates defend their positions and answer the damn questions, and not use them as pivots to their talking points. After all it is a debate, and not a freaking joint press conference. Still, the "Newsnight Fantastic Super Revolutionary Debate Format", which was merely Will interrupting the candidates and yelling at them, probably is not the optimal format.
No comments:
Post a Comment