Studio 60

I have a weak spot for narratives about male friendship that aren't conventional buddy films (I still think about the slowly evolving friendship between the two brothers in Six Feet Under season one), and so I'm naturally predisposed to like Aaron Sorkin's new series, Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip, given its focus on the working friendship of Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford. For the most part, I was completely delighted with the premiere last night; it's stylized and not entirely believable of course, just like The West Wing: everyone is just a tad too clever, and of course everyone talks too fast. But if we're going to have fictions in our fictions, I'd rather they revolve around people being too clever, rather than, say, being genetic mutants with superpowers. (Paddy Chayefsky's Network, which gets several explicit nods in Studio 60's premiere, suffered from the same problem, if it is indeed a problem.)

But I do think there was some irony in the rampant television-bashing that ran through the episode, and presumably will continue through the season. Alessandra Stanley got it exactly right in her review in yesterday's Times:

“Studio 60” is a polemic about television as a cultural wasteland at the very moment the industry is entering a new golden age. There is a lot more television than ever before, much of it bad, but it is hard to remember a time when there were so many good shows pushing up against the worst. Dramas especially, whether on cable or on broadcast networks, have never been as beautifully or thoughtfully made; few Hollywood movies come close. And “Studio 60” serves as exhibit A...

Comments

[Patrick Hunt]

I enjoyed the show as well, partly because I'm a fan of "behind-the-scenes" stories, even fictional ones. (I loved it when ESPN ran a behind-the-scenes SportsCenter on one of its channels, and the actual broadcast on another.)

I completely agree with A. Stanley in re today's television shows, particularly dramas. I begrudgingly admit that I like to watch 24, House, Grey's Anatomy, Lost (via iTunes + iPod while traveling) and others, and I hate more that I'll likely be adding Studio 60 to the list. Luckily, for most shows, the freshness wears off within 1-2 seasons for most series (Sopranos, Six Feet Under, CSI), so I only have a few going at any given time. ;-)

[Chris Clark]

You're right about the irony - it's difficult to take seriously a scene where the drama comes from whether someone denouncing television in a furious polemic will be censored or not when you're actually watching it on television and not in the cinema.

I'd also like to see hard evidence that they can themselves write a funny satirical sketch instead of characters waving a script and announcing how clever, brave and brilliant it is.

PS - was it a coincidence that the polemic against dumbed-down TV was made on an Oval Office set?

[apolaine]

I'd be interested on your thoughts about how this relates to the 'meta media' you describe in Interface Culture. Is this a really well-developed, grown up version of this phenomenon? Or is it something else entirely?

[Rufus]

i liked Studio 60 and will continue watching it, but I was disappointed. The show has the old fashioned, predicatable humor patterns of Friends and its predecessors alongside the innovative, narrative strategies of the west wing (that steven describes eloquently in Everything Bad ...) it feels schizophrenic to me. Perhaps the biggest single failing, imo, is that amanda peet needs to be the ballast of the show (much as CJ -- Allison Janney was for west wing) and she simply doesnt have the intelligence /gravitas to pull it off. the leaves the show a bit, well, ballast-less.

forgive me for pitching my own website, but i think pete smith did a great job of reviewing the show on nerve.com recently:

http://www.nerve.com/screeningroom/tv/studio60/

[Steven Johnson]

First: last night's episode is sitting unwatched in my DVR queue, so no spoilers please.

I had the same initial thought about Amanda Peet. In fact, my first thought was that it's tragic that West Wing alum Mary-Louise Parker already had a gig on Showtime with Weeds, because she would be beyond perfect for this role. (I think she's my favorite television actress going right now.) But I have to say by the end of the episode I was starting to be convinced that Amanda Peet could pull it off.

I think there were a few Chandler-sounding lines that Matthew Perry delivered, though that seems entirely plausible to me that a present-day comedy writer would have some of Chandler's cadences. But of course, the show broke from Friends immediately by acknowledging all the stuff that Friends would never dare mention: a cocaine and Vicodin problem, etc.

I thought Smith's review -- while beautifully written -- was pretty far off in its assessment: yes, it takes time for a show to get its rhythm and voice, and Studio 60 is certainly going to evolve. But I thought there was a pretty masterful development of the major story arcs and tensions in a very short amount of time. But we'll see how it plays out...

[Rufus Griscom]

i have not seen the second episode either (time warner problems) and i am hopeful that it will deliver. I think Smith was more interested in the acting and comedy writing than the story arc, and i agree with you that the show's strength / greatest intrigue lies in the narrative (at least thus far). 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 not doubt that this good television on a fascinating subject ... i am believer in the encouraing trend lines you describe in Everything Bad ...

[shiloh]

why they chose Missoula, Montana to represent one of the markets that would be offended by the 'Crazy Christians' sketch is beyond me.

the University lives in Missoula & typical of university towns, its probably the most liberal population center in the entire state.

i just thought it odd.

[Mike]

No spoilers on second episode, but everything wrong with the first is there in the second. Like you, I enjoy the show, but I'm also annoyed with the Sorkin-isms (walking and talking, quippy tv banter, etc.) And the Harriet character is just like the "Crazy Christians" sketch - purportedly hilarious but nothing there yet. I think they should have found a better actress, honestly, she doesn't do it for me.

[Rollen]

There's two things to note about the show, methinks, that haven't been said. One's that the show's rather explicitly about power and its varying forms, whether it's Danny and Matt arguing over office space, art fighting for a place in a commercial realm in Wes's rant, or the impromptu board arguing with Jordan about the loss of advertisers and markets versus her contention that "Studio 60" is associated with the market that the advertisers want - and therefore which the affiliates need, too.

The second's that, just like Sorkin's other shows, "Studio 60's" trying to educate its viewers about something - namely, the process and politics of cultural product, even on television. I know, I know, it's pretty obvious, but it bears mention. It seems pretty obvious to people posting on a blog affiliated with a noted popular pop culture writer/theorist, but it may not necessarily be clear to the total audience yet. (Or at least Sorkin thinks so.) It's a little pedantic, but he's probably building up the basic vocabulary of the viewership so that they don't have to be reminded again about all the different technical elements that have to wait when the script's not really ready. I know, I know - too much exposition can kill a show. So there's a little bit of Sorkinesque dialogue and action to keep things moving.

I've found more and more in Sarah Paulson's take on Harriet each time. Maybe she'll work for you with time, maybe not, but I think she's one of the best things in the show to date. If you can, watch her presence and intonation when she tears into the drunken rookie at the bar in the first episode again - I thought that it was pretty strong, especially for a small scene in the pilot.

And sure the title of the contentious sketch is dumb - why waste good words on something people aren't supposed to know? Considering the dumb quip that Josh had as his faux pas back in the first episode of "The West Wing," I almost hope they never bother to present the sketch!

[Veni]

You could be right Mike. The show has something got to do with power as each episode it becomes more and more obvious just like the episode I watched last night,where the studio did actually have problems with the power.
I don't know if eventually I am going to stop watching the show, but I know the show has got tallented actors but on the other hand it fails to entertain. Ive not watched an episode of " West Wing" nor did watch any of Sorkin's creations. Hopefully I could be wrong.

[Veni]

You could be right Mike. The show has something got to do with power as each episode it becomes more and more obvious just like the episode I watched last night,where the studio did actually have problems with the power.
I don't know if eventually I am going to stop watching the show, but I know the show has got tallented actors but on the other hand it fails to entertain. Ive not watched an episode of " West Wing" nor did watch any of Sorkin's creations. Hopefully I could be wrong.

[Ashley]

I love Studio 60! I think its fresh and has good writing. None of the characters fall flat they all have some form of dimension. For the people who don't like this show they probably love The Office. This show is able to do its job- entertain. I am not asking for information or to walk away learning something- just not walk away worse than I was before and Studio 60 is that for me- great entertainment!

[Burtonski]

I just don't see how folks can't see how Peet will pull off acting smart. In a number of previous gigs she's played the straight man to folks like Perry and Bruce Willis pretty darned well. Ask George Burns about how smart Gracie was. Tell me that Tommy Smothers isn't really the smarter of the two. I think that she has the chops.

I like the following, but I dislike these things at the same time: I could have predicted that there was going to be a musical number featuring Gilbert and Sullivan (but not so early). That many of the same players from West Wing and Sports Night were going to be in the cast. The "Walk 'n Talk".

I'll watch plenty more. There just isn't enough mentally challenging programming.

[Charles Perry]

I don't think its going to make it. The network president is mis-cast and miss-dressed throughout. She gets much of the airtime, along with an un-defined overling-censor who basically seems to spend all of his time going around hitting her over the head with a shoe.
No time is spent with the other characters, resulting in their seeming superficial.

[Rollen]

Charles Perry: Are you sure you're watching the same show? I've yet to notice any shoe-thwapping of a literal sort, let alone metaphorical. And what censor? Do you mean the Chairman of the company (who wasn't even in the latest episode)? As for the issue of overattention to any one character, I'd say that it's Harriet and Matt that are getting a shade too much, not Amanda Peet's Jordan.

As for Veni's joke about the power, take another look at tonight's episode - the question is asked as to which viewers are better viewers (i.e., have more power over programming) and Danny quickly opts to go with the "Vanity Fair" piece in hopes of nailing down Alpha-consumers. The role of authenticity makes a showing, too, with the main plot.

It may not be the best thing on TV, but it's the best thing I've found so far on basic cable this year.

[susie northcutt]

I love Studio 60. I love the story lines that show HEART without mush. I am a 45 year old Christian conservative who loves the writing, the characters and the people playing those parts. I love Bradley Whitford but I wouldn't watch "West Wing" because it was too liberal. Please don't take it off. Give people a chance to see how smart and fair it is to different views.

[toleryroo]

No way is this going to make it.

I've watched all the episodes--my wife says I'm trying to recapture TWW's glory days--but truthfully, I just don't care about these people. Sure, it's snappy dialogue; the jokes are funny; the acting is generally very good. But all three shows have basically been the same show. Will they pull it off? Will they kiss? Will they be shut down by the cruel powers that be? Tune in as our spunky cast puts on a show!!
I'm boring myself just writing about it.

[Traci]

Too bad that an intelligent, funny, quick-witted show gets either overlooked or blasted.
It's so very refreshing to see Matthew Perry at his best-healthy, fresh, incredibly talented and perfectly capable of delivering lines that, on one hand, remind us of his genius as Chandler, but on the other hand, show his versatility and true acting talent.
If Studio 60 does get cancelled, I can only hope that Matthew quickly finds another venue to display everything he does best-and continue to bring incredible entertainment and intelligence to those of us who will seek out his work-gotta love him...and sure wouldn't mind enjoying the 2007 U.S. Open sitting next to him...

[kat]

I can't stand Amanda Peet's character; and I blame it mostly on bad writing. She's a studio exec. What's she doing asking permission to drink in front of someone? In a bar, no less.

[Katbird in Flyover]

I am totally depressed about this show is being cancelled. I NEVER, and I mean never, care much one way or another about a TV show. I generally hate the tv shows that are one these days, they are boring and predictable, and the reality shows are just plain bizarre. I mean, they actually start to scare me. This was acually one show that I truly enjoyed and actually looked forward to. I was surprised when it wasn't on last night, and when i did a search and discovered that CANCELLATION IS IMMINENT (from Fox News) I just shook my head. All the crap that is on these days, and they would take this show off??? What's the deal? I never watched Friends, but I respect Matthew Perry's talent and enjoy this show immensely. I dont really care about all the analytical babble of why or why not the show was not perfect. God knows, tbe characters in Law and Order have had a chance to develop over the 500,000 plus episodes, haven't they? It was smart, intelligent, (wait that means the same thing) and even I, a die- hard conservative in fly-over country, was impressed that a liberal show (I always assume this) had a Christian character that was actually portrayed as something other than a socio- or psychopath. PLEEZE tell me it is not going to be cancelled. Ok, I confess, I watch the history channel 10 or more hours a week, so maybe I am not maintstream. But to put it after Heroes (come on, people) and say it is losing those viewers, come on. Is it the same audience??? NOT!

[kstyle]

I love Studio 60. When Sports Night went off the air I was so depressed I stopped watching TV. I loved those characters. I didn't realize the West Wing was Sorkin (I didn't know Sorkin or that writers mattered) and I didn't watch. But I became aware of all that with Studio 60 and I've seen all 3 episodes.

It isn't perfect, but it is the best I've seen on TV recently. Harriet is great. Matthew is perfect and I like the other guy too. I am not crazy about the president or chairman. They've each had strong moments and several weak moments. I think those characters need to gel more.

It is smart tv. Someone told me the show viewers dropped dramatically from week 1 to week 2. I said that was a look in audience. With all the hype about Sorkin and the show, the 1st audience was artificially inflated. But they kept me and others like me.

Go Aaron!!

[Mira]

I like Studio 60. I'm a huge West Wing fan, so of COURSE I had to check this show out. Studio 60 is just lacking something that WW had...I can't put my finger on it. Studio 60 is more autobiographical (Matt Albie is obviously Sorkin,) and unrealistically preachy and self-righteous compared to WW, where politics IS preachy and self-righteous, so it fits in perfectly. I also liked the plots, set, and characters of WW better. Its politics, so there were sex scandals, drugs, fighting, DC-weirdness galore. But the characters (politicians included) were extremely likeable, so it was therefore an idealized version of the real thing. Studio 60...I have no idea what they're trying to do.

I also they're competing against so many other forms of the same type that its not measuring up when comparing. There is really only one show like The West Wing, whereas there are other TV shows, movies, etc about behind-the-scenes in entertainment. S.O.B. and Get Shorty were satires about the entertainment business, and Network is an incredibly BRILLIANT film about the decay of television. Murphy Brown, Larry Sanders Show, etc were all about behind-the-scenes of TV shows as well. Studio 60 is kinda muddled in the middle of those. Sketch comedy, but long-winded and self-righteous (Science-scmience?) instead of funny.

In regards to Harriet being annoying or not coming into her own yet -- it doesn't really matter if she doesn't. Remember Mandy from WW season 1? She was like the main girl in the beginning (and Josh's ex-gf), her character didn't work, she was shown less and less, and then suddenly *poof* gone without any explanation by season two, never to be mentioned again.

[Sharon]

I'm a huge West Wing fan. Was under impressed with Studio 60. After tonites episode and reference to Jesus Christ, Poof,
I wish the "Studio" would be gone! I miss
Josh

[Livio Lee]

I cannot stand anymore to hear the religious stuff on the show, everytime someone say "Jesus" or "Christ" I moved to another place or skip the dialogue to the next one. please, enough is enough, move to another theme.

[Dan]

I think the show is building. Right now, I think “Studio 60” is missing a lot of the good qualities of WW because most of the characters are still two-dimensional. I remember how I felt about Toby until the Christmas episode in the first season of West Wing. He set up the funeral for the homeless vet who died on a park bench, and we warmed up to him. I’m waiting to see something warm and fuzzy like that out of Jack Rudolph’s character and hope Sorkin doesn’t make the mistake of having a stereotypical corporate-type character in the plot. But that’s about all it is right now, Simon is the token black guy, Matt is a funny guy who writes funny sketches, and Danny is still basically Josh Lyman with a cocaine addiction and no degree from Harvard and Yale. I’m a little disappointed so far in the show so far, but I think this is why; the series hasn’t started hitting the third-dimension. I’m still watching for Sorkin’s style and the witty sarcasm. I’m holding on until Christmas to see how it goes, I hope by then the show picks up speed and I hope the network holds on to the show as well.