I kinda enjoy Studio 60, it's better than a lot of network tv out there..but it's got its flaws.
First of all, I consider The West Wing to be one of the greatest shows ever made. Its style was similar to Studio 60's, but it had more enjoyable characters and far more tension and excitement.
Maybe because Sorkin's writing was tighter back then, or maybe because it being the White House, the stakes were higher, world-changing decisions being made in each episode, I don't know.
The thing I always loved about The West Wing was its realism. Or at least what I considered to be realism. The idea that this was a pretty accurate (albeit dramatised) account of how the White House works. I felt like I was learning something. But the thing is, back then I hadn't really watched stuff like The Wire (or wven in its own way, Deadwood) where realism reaches whole new levels of authenticity.
In view of these incredibly realistic shows on HBO, Sorkin's shows all seem a little utopistic to me.
In Sorkinland, incredibly talented people all come together, working as a team to create something wonderful and historic. They all have the same goal and are all amazing at their jobs. The tensions between characters stem from personal relationships, not from having conflicting goals. The only characters in Sorkin's shows who have a different agenda from the protagonists, are usually portrayed as sleazy, cold or just plain stupid. It's a little preachy to be saying "all good and smart people want things THIS way, and anyone who doesn't is either stupid or a jerk".
The Wire, Deadwood (and even the soap opera-like OZ) all have characters who have goals that are in conflict with other characters, and not because they're evil or dumb, just because their own situation forces them to pick a different side, or a different way of doing things. The characters a re far more complex.
Also another thing I realise I don't like about Sorkin's writing (and Studio 60 made me notice how this was true even for West Wing) is just how good everyone is at their jobs. Sure, they mess up, but the thing is they always seem pretty much in control of everything. In a crisis, all a Sorkin character really needs to do is believe in himself and his own talent and he'll fix even the worse problems.
I just prefer shows that portray the reality I believe in, i.e. sometimes things are just beyond your control, there are forces out there that are just too powerful for you to face with just your talent, or with an inspiring speech.
You know how a lot of action movies have the "just how badass is he" speech? "[Rambo] is trained to eat things that'd make a billy-goat puke" and the like, well Sorkin does a little too much of that, albeit an intellectual version. Y'know, where "every time Amanda Peet wakes up Nasdaq gains 6 points. When she sips her coffee Rupert Murdoch trembles, and when she farts, the gods bow down, humbled". A little less awesomeness would be better. Notice how everyone raves about Matt's writing, like it's the best thing since sliced bread? It's a little annoying how Sorkin wants us to believe that everyone has the capacity to appreciate it, and recognise how unique it is. And the big three, why exactly are they so revered? Harriet acts like she's so good she could make any show work, but Sorkin never really showed me why.
A show that worked that way was The Larry Sanders show, it really convinced you that Larry, despite his flaws, was a great show host, and that Hank Kingsley, despite all his, was a perfect sidekick.
I realise all this makes it sound like I hate Studio 60, I don't, in fact I'm enjoying it. I simply think Sorkin went a little overboard, and accentuated the flaws he displayed in West Wing, and brought over fewer of the good qualities that made WW so amazing.
reply
share