Letters to the Editor
-
There is no heat with Harriet and Matt
I'm glad to see I'm not alone. Every time these two are on the screen together, there is not a single spark. I didn't like "Friends" but I find Matt Perry believable in this role. Maybe it's the bloated, baggy eyed look that makes him seem believable.
But if the reason he is so crazy about Harriet is because of her comic genius, they sure haven't shown that. Sarah Paulson is not goofy enough, not caustic enough, not even loose enough physically to make herself believable as a comedic actor. She is however prim and re-born which are odd traits for an SNL type. So I don't buy her character as a comedienne and I don't buy the idea that those two had a hot relationship.
I will give the show another episode, but if I find myself yelling at the TV again, I'll have to stop watching. I have to save my voice for President Bush's press conferences.
DK
-
I must be going soft
I used to think I liked quality television until I read this review, as well as your extensive take on Studio 60 a while back. Now, I guess I am realizing I really really love a bunch of stupid, boring, "tiresome" shows. Thanks for illuminating this all for me.
Boston Legal never fails to make me laugh. Admittedly I'm a big Shatner fan, but if Legal isn't a perfect venue for his highly-honed campiness, what is? I could watch hours of Spader and Shatner telling each other "I love you" on that balcony, or wrestling over "Schmidt rights." If it seems that the writers this season are focusing more on Shatner, Spader & Schmidt (sounds like a law firm to me), the reason is probably that viewers want them to.
The "Shark" vs. "House" comparison posted by someone else is, indeed, far more appropriate than "Shark" vs. "Boston Legal." Boston Legal is a comedy with bits of drama. Shark is a drama with bits of comedy (as is House).
I have no idea where Studio60 is heading, but each time I tune in for the 42 minutes or whatever it is these days with commercials, I'm totally entertained. Granted, I was not a West Wing watcher, so perhaps this formula is a bit less old for me.
As for Grey's Anatomy, I think I'd probably have given up on this show were it not for it being one of my wife's favorite shows. I think most of the characters are despicable. Is this really what women want?
I am so out of touch...
-
Should Have Been "Meet the Reporters"
My problem with Studio 60 is that Aaron Sorkin's style is far more suited to weightier topics. (This is the same problem, by the way, that ultimately made Sports Night unsatisfying.") Ultimately, no important issues are addressed in each show so there's no inherent tension to act as a cointerpoint to the witty banter.
Sorkin would have been better off developing a show that goes behind the scenes at Meet the Press rather than Saturday Night Live. That would have provided the serious counterpoint to the trademark Sorkin dialog, as has been the case in Sorkin's better work, e.g. The West Wing and A Few Good Men.
-
Sorkin can write for women, just not here
For some reason I never watched The West Wing, but was totally addicted to Sports Night in large part because Sorkin saved some of his best writing and story arcs for the characters of Dana and Natalie (of course he had two terrific actresses to write for in Felicity Huffman and Sabrina Lloyd). I'm finding it tough to get into Studio 60 precisely because Sorkin seems to be mailing it in with the female characters. They're poorly cast -- Sarah Paulson, as others have pointed out, is not funny or appealing in any way. And Amanda Peet often seems to have wandered in from another show, or maybe from a drug trip; she can't seem to get that sappy look off her face. Peet has been a good actress in other things but is not credible as the president of a major network -- no edge, no gravitas, nothing (just think of what Huffman would have made of the part).
It's a shame, because there are good things about Studio 60, especially Bradley Whitford and Matt Perry. Timothy Busfield is predictably good, although his character has little to do. Sad to say, I think Sorkin's creative juices may have run their course. Exhibit A was the Gilbert and Sullivan parody, proving once and for all that if you're going to pen new lyrics for a G and S standard, you'd better be damn good. Earlier in his career I think Sorkin would have come up with something great; this was just lame.
But I'll give the show a few more weeks, because it's Sorkin. Maybe he's not dead yet.
-
You Had Me Until
You called James Spader on "Boston Legal" boring. I love "Boston Legal!" It is so deliciously twisted! Any, yes, the words "Denny Crane" are meant to be torture. Keep the roses - send me the thorns.
I do, however, agree on "Heroes." Caught it for the first time this week and was pleasantly surprised. It definitely has potential but will have to walk a very fine line.
-
What About SNL?
I caught one unfunny moment of the first SNL of the season and it included a defensive little joke about not being S60 or 30 Rock. What does it say about NBC that they have two shows taking a stab at aping its anti-establishment establishment comedy sketch show?
I know, Jeff Zucker, so it probably means he got a 2 for 1 special.
Seriously though, NBC has upped the ante lately with actual funny sitcoms, with The Office, Earl and 30 Rock. Too bad its other shows feature people eating spiders and losing weight (though not on the same show). I haven't seen Heroes yet, but they sorely need a new drama...otherwise it's all ER and Law and Order: The Prequel or whatever the hell all those clones are.
But back to SNL. This show is so weak. They had a few good years this century, but is it worth keeping around indefinitely?
By the way, props to all on your critique of S60. The problem is exactly as you say: for it to work, we've got to see that Matt & Danny's work is actually funny.