Here's where I get a little crazed: Last night, it was about 11 p.m. when the bride and I got back from the screening of "The Departed," and I just couldn't relax. Too much Diet Coke at the movie — it was in one of those cups you could float a paper sailboat across — and I was just wired from watching and thinking about the movie. So, after a feeble attempt at sleeping, I settled down with my recording of the third episode of "Studio 60."
Which didn't help me sleep either.
I fear the wheels are falling off the bus with this one. The biggest reason is that Aaron Sorkin keeps insisting on showing us comedy sketches within the show and it's now absolutely clear that Sorkin can't write sketch comedy. (Maybe he should send a distress call to Tina Fey.) We're supposed to believe that something remarkable is happening with the show, but we have no on-camera evidence of that — and at some point viewers are going to catch on.
It's my secret hope that the dour, show-ending expression on the face of Matthew Perry — one of the two best things in last night's show — means that his character at least knows that the show isn't very good. That it's not just that the ratings will decline, or that the media scrutiny will get more intense. He knows as well that the laughs are artificially generated and will dry up soon enough. But nothing other than Perry's face (and our own view of the sketches) makes that point, so I may be giving it too much credit.
More gripes: An 8-year-old DUI for a network entertainment division president isn't going to generate much of a frenzy — and a book about her would lie dead on the shelves. The focus-group research was oversimplified. The speech about a DUI being worse than a coke problem was absurdly self-righteous.
Second best thing in the episode (after Perry's performance): The Tina Fey-Alec Baldwin promo for "30 Rock." Now, THAT's comedy.
Maybe this is the late hour and the caffeine talking — although, based on some conversations with other viewers this morning, I doubt it. Your thoughts?
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Honestly, I recorded it and may or may not watch it tonight. However, I did see enough of the beginning to recognize Lucy Davis from the original version of The Office as one of Matthew Perry's assistants. That was a nice surprise.
I have to respectfully disagree with you. The two sketches we've seen so far, were far funnier then anything on SNL's season premiere. Also, having recently seen 30 ROCK – I expected much more from the likes of Tina Fey. Alec Blaldwin was the only entertaining thing in the entire pilot. I was incredibly disappointed with it.
I taped it as well but haven't watched it yet. I'm kind of on the fence on this one so far, but will give it a chance.
Gus and Gwen, you recorders aren't alone; we've had a Cone of Silence in my office because a co-worker recorded the show and hasn't watched yet. And after the second episode, Gwen, I was prepared to give it an extended chance; this week I'm less enthused.
Yes, we do respectfully disagree, TVaddict. I liked the pilot for "30 Rock" and have seen a second episode I also considered pretty funny.
What's so annoying is that they're so much funnier when they're not doing sketches. Harriet playing a witch? Not funny. Harriet imitating Holly Hunter for no reason? Funny.
Sorkin has Mark McKinney, but he needs more actual comedy writers and to keep his hands off. Or to just ignore the sketches altogether and show the performers before or after with an occasional montage.
To be exact, Lucy Davis is playing one of the writers.
Interestingly enough, both of Ricky Gervais' female TV sidekicks are working in American TV this season–Ashley Jensen from "Extras" is on "Ugly Betty." Since I haven't seen it yet, is she doing an American accent or keeping her own Scottish accent?
I couldn't agree more Rich. I thought I was the only one. The sketches simply are NOT funny, the Science Schmience thing? Not funny. The choir angels thing of episode two? Not funny. And while I do like the show, I do not buy Harriet as someone who would be the star of an SNL-type show, she simply doesn't strike me as someone who is funny. And frankly those sketches, and I use the term loosely, are only proving my point.
Thanks for the ditto, Funny Girl. (And my colleague Alan Sepinwall shares our dismay.) My memory says she's got the Scots accent, Mark, but I can't say for sure; they've got the episode on video over at abc.go.com if you want to check. It just froze when I tried to look. And Mac, you reminded me of the Holly Hunter bit — which was funny but not, as you said, in a sketch.
I agree with you in toto, Rich. So far, only one comedy bit in "Studio 60" has made me laugh, and that was the golf spectator who kept yelling "Get in the hole!" A nice, simple piece of silliness… no over-thought, over-worded, self-impressed Sorkinisms.
The disappointment to me, as a fan of behind-the-scenes books about "SNL," is that the reality of how sketch comedy is created — that pressure cooker with lots of strong-willed, sharp-minded, talented people — is rich with dramatic potential. Jealousies among cast members, political gender wars among the writing staff, foxhole romances, let alone the creative conflicts over what is funny…
Aaron Sorkin seems wholly uncurious about this reality, and uses the sketch-comedy backdrop to trot out his same old politcal warhorses… the Christian right? My God… that is so Clinton-era. I could better tolerate the unfunniness of the show-within-the-show if Sorkin the dramatist was giving me a rich look into the process of trying to create comedy.
There are problems with this show to be sure but to say the major one is that the PRETEND comedy sketches, of which we only see fleeting glances, aren't funny enough is one of the most idiotic things I have read. Its like saying the West Wing's audience shrank in the final year because of President Bartlett's weak legislative agenda.
Let's remember, this is a drama first and foremost. Thats where it'll succeed or fail. While I have found the last two shows fairly intesting, the pilot was pretty much a bust which probably turned off a lot of would-be viewers who will not return.
This show is clearly a work in progress that probably should have been given more time to develop before being put on the air. It will certainly improve if it survives but I think it may have blown its chances to garner a sizable audience with a weak pilot and a premise that was not fully fleshed out.
All due respect, Paul C. … but suppose this show was a behind-the-scenes look at the Brill Building or some other pop-music hit factory, yet all the "pretend" singing stars we heard were tone deaf, and all the "pretend" songs we heard sucked?
That's the problem. The unfunniness spoils the fantasy world that Sorkin is trying to create.
Picture it the other way: Suppose the show-within-a-show on "Studio 60" WAS laugh-out-loud funny, and the "pretend" sketch-comedy stars genuinely crackled with comic brilliance like John Belushi or Eddie Murphy or Will Ferrell or Amy Poehler. Imagine us wanting to see MORE of the sketches, instead of less. Don't you see how that would make the drama so much more compelling?
Actually, the only way in my view to make the drama of Studio 60 more compelling is to actually show us why the behind-the-scenes view of a television show like this is actually interesting and able to drive good stories. I don't think they have achieved this. I'd rather them work on that aspect of the show than fiddle around with the final look of the show-within-a-show sketches.
Sorkin managed to make the behind-scenes view of the White House (no matterhow off the mark or far-fetched it might have been) interesting for a large audience. He has not done so with this concept. Completely boring the audience in the first week probably doomed this show to either a middling existence or a very short one. Which is a shame, because I think it can become better. It just may not have the chance.