The Newsroom

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Just watched the pilot. Sorkin bothers me as much as he impresses me, so with all the negative reviews I wasn't expecting much. I figured it would be as forced as "Sports Night" (which I didn't like as much as everyone else), with fifty characters all much smarter than they needed to be and all talking much more quickly than they needed to be talking. When it works it works beautifully (West Wing), when it doesn't it's just painful to watch.

"The Newsroom" has moments that feel forced and over-written, but not nearly as many as the reviews would lead you to believe. It was nicely done. The key with Sorkin's "language" is casting. If you don't have the right people (like in Studio 60) it's painful and tinny. But "Newsroom" is nicely cast. Especially Jeff Daniels, who has the gift of making Sorkin-Speak his own.

The big bugaboo has been how Sorkin presents the news industry. But he didn't care much about presenting an actual White House, or for the actual facts surrounding the events in Afghanistan (Charlie Wilson's War) or Facebook (The Social Network), and those films "played". They worked. And "The Newsroom" works.

Of course, I said the same thing about the pilot for "Studio 60", and that show held me until Sorkin wrote that horrible, terrible episode where they sang Gilbert and Sullivan, so who knows where this show will go. I've only seen the pilot -- and it's better than you're hearing.

 

[mediocre]

Didn't they sing Gilbert and Sullivan in the first episode for the "cold" open?

 

[busybody..]

STFU, you are boring us

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Didn't they sing Gilbert and Sullivan in the first episode for the "cold" open?

It was the third or fourth episode I think. Really awful.

 

[KRCummings]

I watched a pilot once. That was back when they let people in the cockpit and kids got those little wings and stuff. It reinforced my fear of flying instead of easing it. I'm glad they don't do that anymore.

 

[Quoll]

Youtube link to song with pilot in lyrics.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I watched a pilot once. That was back when they let people in the cockpit and kids got those little wings and stuff.

I see what you did there...

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Saw the second episode. The Sorkinisms are wearing on me, but I'm still in, mostly because he seems to be so aware of them and puts that awareness into his scripts. Self deprecation is the new sexy.

I don't care if he's dramatizing a classroom, he's the only person talking about the unbearably horrific state of our newcasts and their inability to inform us and classifying that condition as a threat to our democracy --- and that's a conversation we should be having.

Now say something arch so I'll think you can land planes with your awesome.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

I watched a pilot once. That was back when they let people in the cockpit and kids got those little wings and stuff. It reinforced my fear of flying instead of easing it. I'm glad they don't do that anymore.

Did the pilot ask if you like gladiator movies?

 

[Lorilei]

I'm watching what I presume to be the pilot right now, on a free preview thingy on Dish. I really, really like it.

It's like Broadcast News/Sports Night/West Wing all mixed up with a shot or five of scotch.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I'm watching what I presume to be the pilot right now, on a free preview thingy on Dish. I really, really like it.

It's like Broadcast News/Sports Night/West Wing all mixed up with a shot or five of scotch.

Same.

I liked Sports Night and was bummed when it went off the air. Newsroom has promise.

 

[IndieSnob]

After one episode I'm out.

No surprise as I'm not a fan of Sorkin at all.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I don't care if he's dramatizing a classroom, he's the only person talking about the unbearably horrific state of our newcasts and their inability to inform us and classifying that condition as a threat to our democracy --- and that's a conversation we should be having.

Why is it a conversation we should be having when, in fact, it is a conversation "they" should be having in newsrooms around the world and apparently aren't?

How might we get that conversation started?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Why is it a conversation we should be having when, in fact, it is a conversation "they" should be having in newsrooms around the world and apparently aren't?

How might we get that conversation started?

Good question.

I think the answer is that power is never relinquished, only taken. CNN and Fox and MSNBC aren't going to have any conversations, between themselves or behind corporate doors, that fucks with their business models (though CNN may be doing just that right now, in a rare moment of ethic and moral reflection). I think, rather, we need to talk to each other, decide what we want, and then demand it (via subscriptions, boycotts, and public discourse). We have to change the business model that is most profitable, and the cable yahoos and networks will follow the money.

I think that's Sorkin's hope, high flung as it is.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Up to Episode 3. More and more it's clear that Sorkin doesn't give a shit about presenting a docu on the inner workings of an actual cable newsroom, one that might actually exists, anywhere. He's showing us an ideal so that we have something to compare reality to.

By clarifying and putting into context the the information of the last two years and the delivery systems with which we've received them he's hoping to create -- or recreate -- our desire to actually be informed.

Still. It's HBO. He can't get a girl to take her shirt off once?

 

[CHNOPS]

After one episode I'm out.

No surprise as I'm not a fan of Sorkin at all.

From what I've seen of his, though I like his "lines between the lines" style of dialogue, I get exhausted by everyone being exactly as articulate as everyone else, in exactly the same ways. It's Wes Anderson disease: I get it, you're smart and quirky and clever and you write careful dialogue, but do you think you could maybe let a story exist in its own space for, say, three seconds or so?

Having said that, overall I thought Social Network and Sports Night were both good.

 

[Phelia]

Watching. I like it. It gives me the occasional eye-roll or rage-on, but sometimes that endears me to a show even more. I've always romanticized/vilified "The News" (said all Sam Waterston-y), so I connect to it and agree that it opens an important conversation. I may give up on it because I don't have much time or patience for TV, especially if I don't smell a payoff pretty early, but I'm enjoying it for now.

Aside from The Social Network and an ill-advised episode of Studio 60, I haven't seen anything of Sorkin's (I know, I know - I was too much of an airhead when The West Wing came out to pay attention. I'll rent it sometime).

Is he always so clumsy writing women characters? Mac and Maggie are endearing, I'll give them that, but a little outrageous and obvious. Everyone seems larger-than-life, of course, but they get extra silly. Maybe I just notice it more and am being sensitive because I have bazoongas; I suppose every character can be a bit clownish.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

From what I've seen of his, though I like his "lines between the lines" style of dialogue, I get exhausted by everyone being exactly as articulate as everyone else, in exactly the same ways. It's Wes Anderson disease: I get it, you're smart and quirky and clever and you write careful dialogue, but do you think you could maybe let a story exist in its own space for, say, three seconds or so?

I absolutely agree. And after three episodes in I no longer care.

Opera is an art form where everything is overdone in a grand, overtly theatrical manner -- on purpose -- like a volcanic eruption -- to sear off our fat, jaded, contented skins and allow some actual human emotion to rise. That's what Sorkin's doing, and it's become more important that his recycling of yet another West Wing joke.

 

[CHNOPS]

I absolutely agree. And after three episodes in I no longer care.

Opera is an art form where everything is overdone in a grand, overtly theatrical manner -- on purpose -- like a volcanic eruption -- to sear off our fat, jaded, contented skins and allow some actual human emotion to rise. That's what Sorkin's doing, and it's become more important that his recycling of yet another West Wing joke.

I haven't seen the show. I think your point is, whether it's intentional or inadvertent, the style works here.

I still doubt I'll watch it, but you never know. It sounds like good plane-trip material.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I haven't seen the show. I think your point is, whether it's intentional or inadvertent, the style works here.

It works on the entertainment levels, yes. But I've been more entertained by other movies and shows that deal with the news (Broadcast News, Lou Grant, The Insider, Good Night and Good Luck, etc). The style here is all about serving the agenda: How do you dramatize the idea that we've lost touch with how important a well informed populace is to the security of a Republic? In that respect the style "works".

It sounds like good plane-trip material.

It's terrible plane-trip material. Everybody Loves Raymond is good plane-trip material.

 

[CHNOPS]

spellingness

It works on the entertainment levels, yes. But I've been more entertained by other movies and shows that deal with the news (Broadcast News, Lou Grant, The Insider, Good Night and Good Luck, etc). The style here is all about serving the agenda: How do you dramatize the idea that we've lost touch with how important a well informed populace is to the security of a Republic? In that respect the style "works".

I hear you, but I find it all too redolent of "Industrial Savior Complex." Sorkin is successful on the back of a media machine whose gasoline is fluffy pap. The hand-wringing and Deep Concern is easy to affect from that perch--and overtly disingenuous. His smart, peppy dialogue is no less a bowl of pre-engineered sugar candy than Peter Boyle's version of Grumpy Out Of Touch Dad Number 17,985 on...

Everybody Loves Raymond is good plane-trip material.

...which is why they show it on planes. And also why I bring my own stuff. I rarely focus on thinky, dialogue-heavy shows or movies unless I'm on a plane. I'll check it out, but I highly suspect I'll find it hypocritical and self-impressed.

 

[Phelia]

Heyyy, why are you ignoring me? I'm a person you've never met giving an opinion you never asked for on a porn forum. Doesn't that entitle me to anything?

SCHNAPPS doesn't even have tits. This is NOT how the internet is supposed to work. I'm telling Al Gore.

 

[Phelia]

I highly suspect I'll find it hypocritical and self-impressed.

It is. You would.

Sorry I brought up that you don't have tits. That was insensitive.

 

[revelator]

Still. It's HBO. He can't get a girl to take her shirt off once?

I'd pay cash money to see a Rebecca Welles / Amy Gardner / Sloan Sabbith wet t-shirt contest.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I hear you, but I find it all too redolent of "Industrial Savior Complex." Sorkin is successful on the back of a media machine whose gasoline is fluffy pap. The hand-wringing and Deep Concern is easy to affect from that perch--and overtly disingenuous. His smart, peppy dialogue is no less a bowl of pre-engineered sugar candy than Peter Boyle's version of Grumpy Out Of Touch Dad Number 17,985 on...

I swim in snark and celebrate it with black, deflated balloons -- but you can't dismiss Sorkin's writing that easily. Not unless you really, really want to.