Never miss a post! 
Studio 60 Thoughts
As a reviewer, I've found my sweet spot--what gives me most pleasure--is writing about works that are almost good. Oh, I have fun really tearing into something now and then, and I also really enjoy waxing enthusiastic about something truly brilliant and fine and welcome in the world, but I really like to dissect the stuff with flaws, the stuff with lots of potential and only some of it realized. There really is a fine line between bad and good, a dotted line, maybe. I don't mean great, but good. Good is enjoyable, soid entertainment. Good is something to aspire to, and there be no shame if greatness isn't achieved. Bad isn't terrible, although it can come close, just like it can be very close to good.
Studio 60 is a bad show. It's a fascinatingly bad show, that often has some good moments sprinkled in amongst the bad, overwrought, unfunny, pretentious, sluggish, phony, tinny moments. A given scene can have a good dialogue exchange but then derail into whatever important issue Aaron Sorkin and his writers want to work in. It seems to be a show from a guy who's used to delivering greatness (early West Wing) but who forgot how to achieve goodness (like Sports Night). Let's end this setup and just look at tonight's show and its specific problems as well as how they reflect the general flaws with the show, shall we?
1) Matt's flashback to the fired writer Tim Batalee. I'm cool with Matt developing a pill problem and Matthew Perry is a good actor with experience with this problem and he could do a nice job with this storyline. However, Matt isn't "developing" a pill problem at all--all of a sudden, here it is, and it's so bad that his brain is damaged to the point he imagines a coworker with a pill problem in his past as a subconscious way to tell him he's in trouble. Even that isn't terrible if well-executed, but I saw this one about 20 minutes in, and the reason I spell Battalee that way is because I think Tim Batalee must be an anagram of Matt Albee, or close to it. It just felt clunky and unnecessary--can't the character just be sad because he lost his girl and has to work with her, without having to develop an addiction?
2) The ads for this episode promised something romantic--the start of the relationship with Harriett and Matt. Instead, it's a downer and he comes off no better than his rival. They both vie for Harriett's affection by writing her a sketch, and Luke wins because his is funnier. That's it. Why Matt falls for Harriett is unexplained other than that she's really pretty.
3) As usual, the sketch ideas are all bad.
4) The timeline for this flashback is really unclear, perhaps intentionally. Matt is a struggling writer on the show when Harriett arrives. Now he's the head writer and she's the big star of the show, but is only now doing a movie, his best friend is now the producer of the show, and they're still doing sketches for "Singing Teacher," that debuted from Luke's pen however many years ago. Now, Saturday Night Live does run a premise into the ground if it's a hit, it's true, but how many of them last more than a year? Very few. I understand the point--Matt inherited Luke's leftovers and Luke is now directing feature films--but it still doesn't work.
5) The Jordan/um, Bradley Whitford (what's his character's name??) romance was creepy the past couple weeks as it developed, but now that they're together it's suddenly just...dead. These are two sharp-tongued people, and now that they're together that spark is gone, or at least it was this episode.
Okay, now the general problems.
6) Aside from Whitford, Perry, Peet and the woman playing Harriett (who I like more and more), the rest of the cast is utterly wasted or just aren't any good. Nate Corddry shows he's pretty appealing, as is the Lucy character played by the receptionist fromt the British The Office. D.L. Hughley is the least funny comedian character ever. He's smooth, he's mildly charming, but does he ever crack a joke or make a face now and then? He's like Eddie Murphy NOW, not when Eddie was on SNL. And the black writer, I feel bad for that actor, having to be the token uptight, well-educated black comedy writer. It's funny that 30 Rock has the same character and immediately made fun of how stereotypical that is, calling him "Twofer" because he's both black and Harvard-educated, ie the best of both kinds of comedy.
7) Nearly every attempt of the show to push those liberal values like West Wing did (and believe me, I'm a liberal guy) ends up nearly cringe-inducing or just dull. This probably highlights a core flaw in the show in that, yeah, we get that putting on a show is hard, stressful work--even and especially a live comedy show...but that doesn't mean the characters shouldn't be seen having a little fun with it. Where are the goofy stunts to blow off steam? Elaborate pranks? Wild, pointless flirtation? How about a cast party where something unusual happens? All we ever see is this no-doubt expensive but dull studio set.
Anyway, enough of this. I'll be back watching this bad show next week.
Studio 60 is a bad show. It's a fascinatingly bad show, that often has some good moments sprinkled in amongst the bad, overwrought, unfunny, pretentious, sluggish, phony, tinny moments. A given scene can have a good dialogue exchange but then derail into whatever important issue Aaron Sorkin and his writers want to work in. It seems to be a show from a guy who's used to delivering greatness (early West Wing) but who forgot how to achieve goodness (like Sports Night). Let's end this setup and just look at tonight's show and its specific problems as well as how they reflect the general flaws with the show, shall we?
1) Matt's flashback to the fired writer Tim Batalee. I'm cool with Matt developing a pill problem and Matthew Perry is a good actor with experience with this problem and he could do a nice job with this storyline. However, Matt isn't "developing" a pill problem at all--all of a sudden, here it is, and it's so bad that his brain is damaged to the point he imagines a coworker with a pill problem in his past as a subconscious way to tell him he's in trouble. Even that isn't terrible if well-executed, but I saw this one about 20 minutes in, and the reason I spell Battalee that way is because I think Tim Batalee must be an anagram of Matt Albee, or close to it. It just felt clunky and unnecessary--can't the character just be sad because he lost his girl and has to work with her, without having to develop an addiction?
2) The ads for this episode promised something romantic--the start of the relationship with Harriett and Matt. Instead, it's a downer and he comes off no better than his rival. They both vie for Harriett's affection by writing her a sketch, and Luke wins because his is funnier. That's it. Why Matt falls for Harriett is unexplained other than that she's really pretty.
3) As usual, the sketch ideas are all bad.
4) The timeline for this flashback is really unclear, perhaps intentionally. Matt is a struggling writer on the show when Harriett arrives. Now he's the head writer and she's the big star of the show, but is only now doing a movie, his best friend is now the producer of the show, and they're still doing sketches for "Singing Teacher," that debuted from Luke's pen however many years ago. Now, Saturday Night Live does run a premise into the ground if it's a hit, it's true, but how many of them last more than a year? Very few. I understand the point--Matt inherited Luke's leftovers and Luke is now directing feature films--but it still doesn't work.
5) The Jordan/um, Bradley Whitford (what's his character's name??) romance was creepy the past couple weeks as it developed, but now that they're together it's suddenly just...dead. These are two sharp-tongued people, and now that they're together that spark is gone, or at least it was this episode.
Okay, now the general problems.
6) Aside from Whitford, Perry, Peet and the woman playing Harriett (who I like more and more), the rest of the cast is utterly wasted or just aren't any good. Nate Corddry shows he's pretty appealing, as is the Lucy character played by the receptionist fromt the British The Office. D.L. Hughley is the least funny comedian character ever. He's smooth, he's mildly charming, but does he ever crack a joke or make a face now and then? He's like Eddie Murphy NOW, not when Eddie was on SNL. And the black writer, I feel bad for that actor, having to be the token uptight, well-educated black comedy writer. It's funny that 30 Rock has the same character and immediately made fun of how stereotypical that is, calling him "Twofer" because he's both black and Harvard-educated, ie the best of both kinds of comedy.
7) Nearly every attempt of the show to push those liberal values like West Wing did (and believe me, I'm a liberal guy) ends up nearly cringe-inducing or just dull. This probably highlights a core flaw in the show in that, yeah, we get that putting on a show is hard, stressful work--even and especially a live comedy show...but that doesn't mean the characters shouldn't be seen having a little fun with it. Where are the goofy stunts to blow off steam? Elaborate pranks? Wild, pointless flirtation? How about a cast party where something unusual happens? All we ever see is this no-doubt expensive but dull studio set.
Anyway, enough of this. I'll be back watching this bad show next week.
Posted by ChristopherAllen at 11:41 PM [Link to this post]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home