Live blogging begins at 10:00. Updating throughout the show.
8:20 Pre-game: Last week, after the second episode aired, Ken Levine wrote, "Notice when people talk about STUDIO 60 they don't start the conversation by saying, 'I really liked it' or 'I hated it'? Instead it's always, What did you think?' I suspect no one really knows what to make of it."
I don't know if no one knows, but I sure don't. I'm hoping that this week's episode wins me over because I'm pretty sure I'll be watching, although I promise not blogging, at least the next four or five, and I hate to think that I'll be watching and hating it.
I've decided I don't ever want to see the Crazy Christians sketch. It's too much like the inside of Snoopy's doghouse now, better in the imagining than it could ever be realized. Plus, knowing Sorkin, the deck would be stacked. The sketch wouldn't be the least bit offensive to his brand of intelligent people's---that is, to us godless liberals'---way of thinking, allowing us to sneer at the priggish and humorless Christian types who don't know good comedy when it reaches up and bites them in the Scripture.
I do want there to be jokes. I want to hear the writers come up with a few good ones, I want to see bits of the sketches. Some commenters on last week's post argued that it isn't necessary, it's part of the show's charm or smartness or seriousness or something that we have to imagine the proof of these people's talents, but that's spotting Sorkin an awful lot of runs.
Ken Levine's waiting for Sorkin to provide some funny too. Maybe that's what's keeping Sorkin from trying, knowing that Emmy Award winning comedy writers like Ken are waiting with folded arms and set jaws, saying, "Ok, smart guy, you think it's so easy. Show us what you got."
Ok, if you're early and want to warm up while you're waiting, you can read Ken's take on last week's episode and this post by Dennis Perrin, another real comedy writer. Dennis' post riffs on a number of things besides Studio 60, including SCTV, Dana Carvey's short-lived show, and Mr Show, and ends with the news that, when it comes to the Stooges, Dennis is a Shemp man. Sad, really.
Also, read Ken on doing improv with Robin Williams. Ken says it's like being Fred Astaire's cane.
9:50. Friday Night Lights premieres tomorrow??? Friday Night Lights is on on Tuesday Nights?
Heroes had a shot of a map superimposed over a car driving down a lonley desert road. Always liked that trick, hokey as it is.
This is not Heroes blogging. Don't worry. Or don't get your hopes up. But there's a guy on a roof looking like he's going to jump and didn't last week's episode end with a guy jumping off a roof?
9:59. We're in. The Focus Group.
We're starting with people talking about the last show.
Amanda Peet's listing great shows of the past that focus groups didn't like. Point: we're up there with All in the Family.
Oh good. 9/11. We're an extremely polarized country right now, did you know that?
Republicans hate comedy.
Please tell me this is just Sorkin looking for relevency and not something that's really going on backstage in the real world.
Audrey Hepburn's dancing. Is Blue Girl here?
10:06. A sketch! A sketch! Tom Cruise and a witch. Nice pairing.
Rob Reiner's the guest host? Their second show? Rob Reiner's that hip?
I want Sarah Paulson to spend the show talking like Holly Hunter. Actually, I want Holly Hunter to spend the show talking like Holly Hunter.
Sinners get rich, saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot, says Steven Weber. Amanda Peet should have smacked him.
DL Hughley. How long before he mentions he went to Yale again?
Now I know why Sorkin chose to do a show on a comedy show. He can have his characters lecture---um, talk---about current events.
Charlotte's husband from Sex and the City is not long for the show.
Brad Whitford is shocked that the focus group was asked if the show's patriotic. "This is a TV show, not the Iwo Jima Memorial." Commercial for Flags of Our Fathers follows. Coincidence? You make the call.
No one's ever going to ask if Friday Night Lights is patriotic. Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
10:20. Matthew Perry's a pussy boy.
No, he's not. He's moving the Rumsfeld sketch.
Sexy brunette flatlined with the commedia dell'arte sketch. This gives Sarah Paulson a chance to remind us that sexy brunette's sleeping with Matthew Perry. Good. Because I'd forgot. There's not a lot of romantic charge in this love triangle.
Perry and Whitford are a great team though. Whitford seems to be enjoying being the straight man.
Timoyhy Busfield's job is to be the only sane human being in television.
10:30. You know, I don't know if this guy's doing a good impression of Tom Cruise. Was the last Tom Cruise movie I saw Rainman????
The President's approval rating is 7 guys in Tupelo, Mississippi, says Brad. "I imagine the water feels a little safer." Boy, is Charlotte's husband toast.
Amanda Peet's still dealing with the old DWI. Sorkin can't get over the fact that people made a big deal over his drug problem.
Whoa!!!!! Amanda Peet's husband is Jack Ryan! That makes her Jeri Ryan. Where's her silver jump suit?
"Can we have this conversation moving?" A walk and talk at last!
"No comedian you admire has ever been afraid of silence." WC Fields would like that one. He advised when ever you feel like doing more, do less. Something like that.
Matthew Perry just had to remind us that he and Sarah Paulson used to be an item. This is not a hot romance.
She's right about the joke but she's not right. The people in that town aren't rich and powerful. Picking on them is not the same as picking on Bush and the Christian Right's leadership. But then they are people whose attitudes about Grease and their votes for Bush are pretty much cause and effect.
10:45. Pretty good Nicolas Cage.
Montage of show reminds me of SNL in the David Spade Chris Farley years. Professional, slick, sort of funny, predictable, a little desperate.
I don't believe for a moment Sarah Paulson could make that bear roaring joke work.
Ah, at last, Matthew Perry and Sarah Paulson are finally having a "moment."
Nope, moment's over. Bigger moment with Brad and Matt.
Numbers are in. They went up 9 per cent over last week. Rob Reiner is that hip!
Doesn't this network have any other shows for Amanda Peet to worry about?
DL Hughley just gave his blonde to the nerdy guy. What's up with that? Is DL gay?
Sexy girl's got to wear the t shirt. Will we see it?
Nope. Matt Perry's leaving and we're going with him. Is this going to be the ending of every show? Matt/Aaron all alone with his deep thoughts and all that writing to do?
All done.
Wrap up tomorrow morning. Thanks for playing. Those of you in the west, please leave your thoughts overnight.
I'm glad I don't have a focus group.
Oh, wait...
_________________________________________________
Thanks for reading. Please help keep this blog up and
running by donating to the Tip Jar in the upper right hand corner, using
either PayPal or Amazon. If you'd prefer to donate by snail mail the
address is Lance Mannion, PO Box 263, New Paltz, NY 12561. Make checks payable to E. Reilly. Also be
sure to
visit our advertisers and consider buying an ad yourself through The Liberal Prose network at BlogAds. Or consider joining the Lance Mannion Tall Tale of the Month Club.
Interesting comments over at Ken's...
Posted by: Jennifer | Monday, October 02, 2006 at 09:53 PM
I want Sarah Paulson to spend the show talking like Holly Hunter
That got on my nerves. Sorry.
Sinners get rich, saints get shot, and God don't answer prayers a lot, says Steven Weber.
That also got on my nerves.
It surprised me last week how people sounded surprised that Matthew Perry is so good on this show. He was great on Friends. Although I know that's politically incorrect to say that.
Back in Black! Or at the next commercial break.
Posted by: Audrey H. | Monday, October 02, 2006 at 10:23 PM
Once that female character who had been wearing a witch hat starting griping about her Christian values being offended, I turned this show off forever.
Posted by: putnam | Monday, October 02, 2006 at 10:43 PM
Matthew Perry's timing is great. And West Wing guy is really cute.
Still don't like the Wings guy.
Idiot Boys!
That's my favorite line from the show so far and I plan to use it.
A lot.
Posted by: Audrey H. | Monday, October 02, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Ok... I was NOT expecting the show montage thing...
I'm not sure if I like it, but I'm not sure if I don't.
Posted by: Dylan | Monday, October 02, 2006 at 10:48 PM
Matthew Perry just reminded us that he and Sarah Paulson used to be an item. This is not a hot romance.
You're right. It's not. As a wise SATC-related person once said, He's just not that into her.
And neither am I. I don't like her character.
I don't know if this guy's doing a good impression of Tom Cruise.
The voice was pretty good. But, I think the whole Tom thing is over already.
I like the show. I'll watch it again. If I can remember it's on next week.
Thanks for the reminder this week.
Posted by: Audrey H. | Monday, October 02, 2006 at 11:06 PM
Caught the first two weeks of this show on the Bravo re-runs, watched half of this week and turned off the tube. This show is Oakland. There is no there there. Trite and safe but with some semi-snarky reparteé.
Posted by: CK | Monday, October 02, 2006 at 11:25 PM
I thought the montage fell way short. A little cringe-worthy, like the current SNL. To make this show happen, Sorkin has to prove that he could write a great sketch comedy show. Because otherwise it's hard to give a shit about Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford's triumphs. Otherwise, people should just watch the Daily Show and Colbert.
Not that Perry & Whitford aren't great, and their characters interesting. The West Wing cast says (on the DVD extras) that the core of WW was the non-sexual romance between Bartlet and Leo McGarry. So that's one big thing Studio 60 has going for it.
Obviously Sarah Paulson's character is a problem. I wonder if the root cause of Sorkin's mistakes with that character is that he thinks his liberal audience will think it's daring, thoughtful, and clever to give the Christian actress a sense of humor. I'm a devoted WW fan and I don't think Sorkin's moves on this are any of those three adjectives.
Nor will the character work if Sarah Paulson doesn't start being funny. The West Wing's Repubs, like Matthew Perry's brief WW character Joe, were effective because their interesting quality -- in Joe's case, integrity -- were demonstrated by the plot, not told to the audience ad nauseum.
Posted by: jmaynardk | Monday, October 02, 2006 at 11:43 PM
Mad props to Sorkin and the rest of the company for incorporating Lance's notes from last week in their very next episode! Either that or the plan all along was to let us get to know the characters and what they were up against before we get to see them start to put it together. But what the hell do I know?
I thought tonight's show was captivating, but then again, I liked last week's too, so -- worth repeating for this topic, since Sorkin usually goes by the rule of three -- what the hell do I know? (I know! The hell?)
Posted by: velvet goldmine | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 12:00 AM
funny line about the focus group being out of work writers and actors trying to impress the producer behind the glass. Rings true. Is it?
Posted by: jazmac | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 01:05 AM
second commercial break. Not very compelling yet, I have to say. I was a huge Sports Night fan, and lots of West Wing (didn't see the last couple of seasons). Back during Sports Night I used to wonder what Sorkin would do with a whole hour. I was amazed at what could be packed into that half hour. Gotta say, half way through this one (the first I've seen, BTW) I miss that pace and focus.
Posted by: jazmac | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 01:28 AM
Uh, the fact that half the actors were on West Wing, which I stopped watching years ago just bores me--no matter how good they are. Repeat ensemble casts work in film for me, but not in TV for some reason. Perhaps its just the limits of the format--character development takes an entire season. Plus, they mentioned "Gwen Stefani!" That's enough to prevent me from ever watching again right there.
Posted by: Myrna the Minx | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 01:53 AM
Um, it seems like the first episode these guys wrote opened with a Gilbert & Sullivan parody and then, going from strength to strength, had a commedia dell'arte sketch. What the hell?
They wouldn't have put that on "The Alan Brady Show"; "Omnibus" would have said that was too highbrow; it would be the worst PBS pledge drive ever.
I am, however, looking forward to the show being renamed "Studio 60 on the Shavian Tip."
Posted by: Delicious Pundit | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 02:12 AM
I hated it.
Posted by: monkyboy | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 02:58 AM
Make it stop. Please.
Posted by: Laura Petrie | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 03:12 AM
Fun to read Lance, though without TV I've not seen the show. I may, um, locate them somewehere and give it a whirl.
Just based on your notes, though, I have one observation. It seems like there's too many mentions of people's various backstories, especially if they were once an item with another character. Who cares?
I'd think you'd want to concentrate on the making of the program and let the personal stuff develop organically as the cast settles into Studio 60. Prior relationships could just stay backstory until actually needed for plot or character development later.
Is it not possible to set up a new show too much?
Posted by: Kevin Wolf | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 07:14 AM
Kevin, In general I agree with you. But the main backstory in this show is Harriet and Matt, and that breakup has happened very recently. And now they're working together again. And he's her boss. Oh, and she just found out that her castmate is his longtime friend-with-benefit. (See? I can work clean when I have to.) So in that case it's not going to be a subtle undercurrent, I don't think, especially since Harriet and Matt clearly would love to find enough common ground to be able to get back together.
Posted by: velvet goldmine | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 08:02 AM
The blogging is lovely. Whish I'd known about it as it was happening.
Two things:
Paulson's character SHOULD be a funny woman who happens to be Christian. Instead, she's a Christian who's being sold to us as funny, though she has yet to prove it. Someday, Aaron will figure that out.
The best of later-years SNL is the skewering of liberal, wine-and-cheese, PBS-subscribing stereotypes. (Will Ferrell did this exceptionally well--see also Tim Robbins in "Ron Burgundy") This is both harder and more fun than going after conservatives. Can Sorkin do it? What about a WW parody on Studio 60?
Posted by: Babzie | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 01:56 PM
For the record, the sexy one did hold up the t-shirt and we did get brief looks at both sides of it.
Posted by: Ed Dravecky | Tuesday, October 03, 2006 at 08:24 PM
About the t-shirt, I think Lance meant we didn't get to see her wearing it, which might have been a treat since she's the sexy one.
I actually like the show, but I never saw much of West Wing and therefore didn't have a chance to burn out on Sorkinisms. What does bother me about 60 is that Matthew Perry's brilliant comedy sketches seem pretty ordinary. Probably the less we're shown of them, the better. The "Science, Shmience" bit seemed like an average SNL sketch crossed w/ an average op-ed piece. And w/ SNL comedy or op-ed columns, average is not the same as good.
Also, the character of Harriet (the Christian, rikght?) does suck. But I don't mind the network pres, and I really like Steven Weber, including when he said, "Thieves get rich," etc.
Posted by: Kyle | Thursday, October 05, 2006 at 12:21 AM
umm, wasn't WW criticized for running montages with music? A dearth of talent after sorkin left.
Get rid of amanda peet and sarah paulson. nobody would really want to sleep with either -- they are both head cases.
Posted by: charlie | Friday, October 06, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Hmmm, you left out discussion of the commercials which filled about 40% of the first 30 odd minutes at which point, well, I turned it off due to the extremely low signal to noise ratio.
Posted by: Steve | Monday, October 09, 2006 at 02:36 AM