Primetime TV
ISBS TV Review: Studio 60
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006Studio 60, the latest Aaron Sorkin drama, debuted last night on NBC. The premise is a backstage look at the people who produce a live sketch comedy show (read: Saturday Night Live) on the NBS (read: NBC) network. There’s even an announcer with a distinctive voice (read: Don Pardo) and a snappy combo band (read: G.E. Smith and the Saturday Night Live Band). The show’s executive producer (read: Lorne Michaels) gets fed up with the Standards & Practices board during the taping of a live episode, and goes out on stage and rips the network to shreds. He’s immediately fired and replaced by two former Studio 60 writers, one of whom just ended a romantic relationship with one of the show’s stars, and the other of whom has just lost a movie deal over a failed drug test. Not only that, but the woman who hired them has just assumed the role of Network President, and her brand new boss (the Network Chairman) fired them some time earlier over creative differences.
My expectations were high, given how much I’ve enjoyed Sorkin’s work on The West Wing and given the presence of a few West Wing Alumni – Bradley Whitford, Timothy Busfield and Matthew Perry, as well as Tommy Schlamme and Chris Misiano (directors). Suffice to say, the pilot exceeded all of those high expectations.
The writing is sharp, brisk, and contains that under-current of wit that made The West Wing so good. Sorkin doesn’t just throw in a joke here and there, he adds funny lines in the middle of serious drama (example: Jordan McDeere, brand new network president, who says to her boss in a tense meeting, “Let’s talk about this in my office!”, stomps out into the hall, and then confesses to him that she doesn’t know where her office is). He also creates some genuinely funny sitcom-like scenes, without overshadowing the dramatic tone of the show (example: Perry’s character wins a writing award while he’s talking about his break-up with the Studio 60 star. Whitford hugs him (for winning the award), and Perry thanks him for being such a good friend at this, his time of need). That kind of “mis-understanding gag” is straight out of Three’s Company, but it’s subtle enough that it works in the drama.
And there’s plenty of drama. All of this subtle humor serves as highlights to some deliciously complex ironies that are weaved into ongoing story lines. For example, see if you can follow this: Perry’s character is hired because the previous producer lost a fight with the standards board, but we find out that he broke up with the show’s star because she offended his morality while promoting her album of religious Christian music, given that she’s a religious Christian and he’s not, and that he wrote the sketch the standards board found offensive, and that she sided with Perry on the sketch and has defended it to the press, even though it was called “Those Crazy Christians.” Insiders may also relish in the fact that the religious Christian who records Christian music is loosely based on another West Wing alumna, Kristin Chenowith, who Adam Sorkin dated at one time.
This kind of backstory gives the writers a great deal of meat to chew on as the show progresses. It also makes the characters very interesting very quickly. I found myself caring about these characters within minutes of meeting them, which is the bottom line when it comes to a good TV drama.
And this is a very, very good TV drama.
Categories: ISBS Reviews, Primetime TV | Comments Off on ISBS TV Review: Studio 60
John Stewart and Bill Clinton: Good Questions and Good Answers
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006I’m a relative late comer to the juggernaut that is The Daily Show with John Stewart, having only watched it regularly for the last few months. So when I heard that Monday night’s guest was going to be Bill Clinton, my reaction was, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Seriously?!?!?” You can only imagine my surprise when Stewart introduced him by saying, “Please welcome back to the program…”
A couple of thoughts on the Stewart/Clinton interview, if I may (and heck, it’s my blog, so yeah – I may):
— Kudos to John Stewart. After Clinton touted the success of his current project, the Clinton Global Initiative, Stewart asked the former President three exceptional questions. First, given all of the initiative’s apparent success, he asked Clinton where he thought he did more good & had more fun: private life or public life. And then second, after discussing his good relationship with George H.W. Bush (Tsunami & Katrina relief) and Rupert Murdoch (a CGI sponsor), Stewart pointed out that it seemed easier to work across party lines when politics were removed from the equation, and asked if knowing this now made Clinton wish he had done things differently when he was in politics. Finally, in what Stewart is now calling “The Daily Show Seat of Heat,” he suggested that Hillary Clinton could very well run for President, and asked Bill Clinton what the key was to defeating her. Probing questions with no personal agenda and a touch of humor. Katie Couric, are you listening?!?
— Kudos to Bill Clinton, who gave three excellent answers. At first, he dodged the first question – saying he was having more fun as a private citizen, making a quick joke, and leaving it at that. Later, though, in the midst of discussing something else, he found the thought he was looking for, stopped, and said to Stewart, “you asked me another question before” and then answered it. He said that he is doing more across a narrower scope of influence as a private citizen, but had a larger impact on the entire country as President. He reasoned that as a private citizen, he didn’t have to be distracted by the day’s headlines, but as President, he had the full force of the government behind him to affect change across a broader spectrum on a daily basis. Regarding the question about politics, he mentioned his disagreements with the current administration, but resisted the cheap applause from the liberal crowd, quickly adding that he has always been committed to having a good relationship with the current President (not just his father), and while he makes it clear when he disagrees with him, he always seeks to work with him constructively. He also praised some of the “rich, white males” that liberals often rile against, saying that the world owes Gates and Buffett a huge debt of gratitude for their extreme generosity. On the Hillary question, he gave a pretty lame answer (“get more votes than she does”), but then struck the right tone by saying he didn’t know if she’d run, or if she’d win if she did run, but that he thought she’d be a great President if given the chance. Can’t ask for more than that…
— Clinton comes off even smarter today than he did as President. After listening to Bush stumble through speech after speech for six years, just the fact that Clinton speaks in complete sentences is a welcome relief. And the fact that he’s willing to chain more than two thoughts together at a time (as he did when contrasting public and private life) is completely and utterly refreshing. The man is a deep thinker, he doesn’t need to hide behind soundbites or talking points, he’s well versed in the subjects he’s discussing, and he’s blessed with the ability to communicate his thoughts clearly without talking down to people.
— Given his raw abilities, it is such a shame that he could never control his private life as well as he controls his public persona, and that this failing will forever taint his Presidential legacy. But it’s gratifying to see him applying his strengths so well today. He seems poised to be the best ex-President since Jimmy Carter, and that’s a very good thing.
Categories: Political Rantings, Primetime TV | Comments Off on John Stewart and Bill Clinton: Good Questions and Good Answers
Note to Bill Maher: It’s OK to Cry
Tuesday, September 19th, 2006I finally got around to watching Bill Maher’s Real Time from last Friday night. The show is always provocative and funny, but this week’s offering had a couple of things worth commenting on.
First there was Gloria Steinem who, at one point, said this:
This world is divided into two kinds of people: those who divide people into two kinds of people, and those who do not.
I honestly don’t remember what she was talking about, but I think that’s just a fantastic line, so I felt the need to write it down.
Then there was Maher’s mid-show comedy bit. He usually stops his panel discussion for a Jay Leno-like comedy bit (fake products, phony headlines, etc.), before finishing off the discussion and moving on to the hilarious “New Rules.” This week, the bit was about Bush’s “seven minutes in the classroom,” a topic that Maher has relentlessly pounded for five years now. Apparently, the children who were in the Florida classroom with the President on 9/11/01 (now ages 12-15) were interviewed about their experiences that day. Maher quoted one of them as saying, “His face just started to turn red. I thought, personally, he had to go to the bathroom” and another as saying, “He looked like he was going to cry.” Then he mocked the President for crying and showed fake children’s drawings of the President peeing in his pants and planes flying into the World Trade Center.
I realize it’s a comedy show, and I’m not the kind of person who is easily offended, but this really bugged me. First of all, he conveniently left out some of the kids’ other quotes, like “You can’t judge a man on seven minutes. What he did is what he could do” and “I learned a lot. I learned anything can happen at any given moment.” Also, he glossed over the distinct change in tone from the original story to this one. Maher (and many others) have suggested repeatedly that Bush stayed in the school for seven minutes because he either didn’t comprehend the enormity of the attacks, or didn’t consider them important enough to disrupt his photo op. The kids’ version tells a very different story, though. I don’t think any of the released pictures from that day showed the emotional reaction that the children described seeing on the President’s face. This, coupled with the 9/11 Report’s description of why he sat there for seven minutes give us a pretty good sense of what was going through his mind at that fateful moment.
Finally, it just takes an unbelievable amount of chutzpah to mock the President of the United States for being moved to tears on September 11th. Given how much the rest of us cried that day, and given the fact that we weren’t responsible for the security of 300 million people at the time, I think we can spot the guy a few tears, no?
Categories: Political Rantings, Primetime TV | 10 Comments »
The New Women of TV
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006Yesterday saw two-thirds of the big 3-player trade that took place on network TV recently: Couric-for-Vieras-for-O’Donnell. So what did I do? I Tivo’ed both The Evening News and The View, that’s what. Here’s a couple of quick reviews:
Katie Couric on The CBS Evening News: The intro sounded exactly like The Today Show intro, except they didn’t force-fit the words, “Today, September 5th, 2006” at the end. I suppose that feeling will pass, but for now, there it is. The show itself sufferred from the same problem that is killing all the evening news broadcasts – I sit in front of the internet all day, so by 6:30, any recap of the days events is old news. Sometimes 24 hours old. To her credit, Katie tried a couple of tricks to shake things up – a face-to-face interview with a NYTimes reporter (also very “Today Show”), although I was surprised how much editorializing the Times guy did – no attempt at objectivity at all, the “free speech” segment (a throwback to the old “Commentary” segments they used to do when we were kids, although now they just sound like videotaped blog posts), and a contest to choose Katie’s catch sign-off phrase (one of many advertisements for the CBS News website). All in all, it seemed like she knew everyone was watching her first show, and she was pleading with them to watch at least one more. That’s fine, but this is the news. If it tries to be entertainment, it’s going to fail. Of course, it’s going to fail at being informative too, so there you go. Good night & good luck, Katie…
Rosie O’Donnell on The View: Yuck. Don’t get me wrong, Rosie was fine & all, but I could not bring myself to watch more than five minutes of that show. Here’s Barbara Walters – a woman who has interviewed Presidents – a woman who has accomplished what Katie Couric is attempting to accomplish right now, and in the first five minutes, she’s talking with three other women about sitting in a bathtub full of urine with their daughters. When Rosie quoted her daughter as saying, “Mommy, when will I get my fur?” I shut it off (I don’t mean to be crude – that’s an exact quote). The best thing I can say about this yenta-fest is that it’s geared directly at it’s target market. That’s clearly not me, and so I won’t be watching again. Ever.
Categories: Primetime TV | Comments Off on The New Women of TV
Apparently, Kenny wasn’t the only one killed…
Tuesday, March 14th, 2006Isaac Hayes, rock & roll icon and voice of the Chef on South Park, is suddenly offended by the cartoon and wants out.
I don’t watch the show, but I wouldn’t think it would be a place for sensitive folks. This (rather angry sounding) quote from co-creator Matt Stone might have it right:
“This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology,” Stone told the Associated Press. “He has no problem–and he’s cashed plenty of checks–with our show making fun of Christians.”
Categories: Primetime TV | Comments Off on Apparently, Kenny wasn’t the only one killed…
No Whammies, No Whammies….Stop.
Tuesday, March 14th, 2006This guy died.
Bummer…
Categories: Primetime TV | Comments Off on No Whammies, No Whammies….Stop.
Trump Rediscovers The Wharton School – and then goes to far…
Tuesday, February 28th, 2006Of special note to UPenn alums who missed the debut of Apprentice #5 tonight:
Trump picked the project managers for the first task himself. One of them was a Harvard MBA, to which he said, “I have great respect for Harvard Business School. It’s the second best school in the country, behind Wharton, which is where I went.” I assure you, cheers went up around West Philadelphia when he said that.
Later in the show, the reward for winning the task was lunch with Donald Trump in (what he called) “The Wharton Club.” Turns out, the “Wharton Club” is actually the Penn Club in midtown Manhattan. The slip probably would have cost him all the goodwill he built up on the Penn campus from the first remark, except for the fact that most students probably don’t know the Penn Club exists (after all, it targets alumni, not students).
At any rate, for a guy that hardly ever talks about where he got his education (or, for that matter, his money), it was nice to see him recognize his roots for a change…
Categories: Primetime TV, University of Pennsylvania | 2 Comments »
The World Series – When’s That On?
Friday, October 28th, 2005The TV ratings are out on the 2005 World Series, and they’re the worst they’ve ever been. Before you write off the Fall Classic, though, think about this:
Despite rating so low in comparison to other World Series, the four games of this series were each the highest rated prime-time network programs on their respective nights.
So the World Series was the most popular show on television last week, but also the least watched World Series in history. I think what we have here is a commentary on the number of choices on television, not the popularity of the Series itself. Don’t forget – the last time the White Sox were in the World Series (1959), most TV’s had fewer than ten channels to choose from. The other two times they were involved (1917 & 1919), TV’s didn’t exist (but that’s another story).
The other variable here is the fact that each World Series is not created equal. When the teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, or Braves are involved, there’s a much wider “hometown” audience to draw from, which has got to boost the ratings. Heck – if the Cubs were in the series instead of the White Sox, I bet the number of viewers in Chicago would have gone up tremendously. So comparing TV ratings between World Series is like comparing homeruns in Yankee Stadium to homeruns in Fenway Park – apples to oranges…
Categories: Primetime TV, Sports Talk | Comments Off on The World Series – When’s That On?
Commander in Chief – A Review
Friday, September 30th, 2005Two years ago, my wife and I became so inundated with the number of primetime TV shows we were taping & watching later, that we instituted a “no new shows” policy. We would only watch the ones we were currently hooked on, and avoid all others, despite any rave reviews. This is how we escaped shows like CSI and Desparate Housewives. Last year, a couple of our shows went off the air, and we got a digital video recorder, which allowed us to watch while taping (so we didn’t have to wait until 10pm to watch The West Wing if the kids went to bed at 9:05). So, this year, we added a show to our repertoire – ABC’s Commander in Chief.
I was impressed when I watched it, and have grown more impressed the more I think about it. Obviously, a show about the first female President of the United States is going to deal head-on with the issues of feminism and sexism. That’s to be expected. What impressed me was the unique way the writers went about it in this case.
Only one character on the show (the Speaker of the House, played by Donald Sutherland) is a blatantly sexist man (in the traditional “male chauvinist pig” fashion), and his character comes off as a cruel, ignorant, assinine sonofabitch. He tells the new president (Gena Davis), who has assumed office after the death of the president, that her nomination as vice-president was just “theater,” and that we couldn’t possibly expect the world to accept a female president. When Davis mentions the whole “might invade another country once a month” problem, he misses the sarcasm entirely, and invokes menopause as the saving grace, insulting her age as well as her gender with “it’s OK – in a couple of years, that won’t be a problem for you anyway.” We all think the same thing: What a jerk!
So we’ve established that MCP’s are jerks. No shock there. What is fascinating is the inherent struggle the rest of the cast has as they trip over themselves to redefine gender roles, pronoun usage, and stereotypes. One of her aides calls her “Madame President” and “Sir” in the same conversation. Her husband, who was her chief of staff when she was vice-president, is referred to as “FLOTUS” (taking the POTUS acronym, made famous on The West Wing, and extending it into something right out of a Japanese garden), is asked to set the dinner menu for the White House, and is warned against participating in speech writing or spending too much time in the west wing. His chief of staff keeps warning him that Hillary Clinton did those things and they “didn’t go over well.”
In addition to the many levels of irony here, I was impressed by the writers’ willingness to define two kinds of sexism – the mean, ugly kind that is generally driven by ignorance or stupidity (or both), and the structural kind, committed by well-meaning folks who are being asked to adapt to a situation that goes against their long-reinforced instincts. This second kind of sexism affects both the men and women on the show, and takes the form of over-compensation almost as often as it takes the form of pure prejudice. We feel for these people; we don’t hate them the way we hate the Speaker of the House (who, by the way, should be the SOTH, no?)
This approach gives the writers a huge advantage. They are in a position to make the politically correct Hollywood point (men who treat women badly are evil), without allowing that message to hijack the show. They can simultaneously make a second point – that we all have preconceptions about how the world works, and when these preconceptions are shattered, well meaning people may act insensitively without actually being evil. More importantly, being able to explore both paths will allow them to keep the show interesting for a much longer time, which will keep me watching. And that, after all, is the point.
Categories: ISBS Reviews, Primetime TV | Comments Off on Commander in Chief – A Review
Primetime TV Update #3
Wednesday, May 25th, 2005I went with Bo for American Idol, but it seems Carrie pulled it out. I stand by what I said, though – the winner got a recording contract, fame and fortune. The loser will get, well…a recording contract, fame and fortune.
On the upside, the fall season is now basically done. What will I do with all my free time? Probably post a little more around here, I bet…
Categories: Primetime TV | Comments Off on Primetime TV Update #3