The Newsroom

[domino harvey]

First trailer for the Newsroom AKA How Aaron Sorkin Got His Groove Back. Is it June 24th yet?

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm amazed it got bumped up so early. Thought it was starting later in the year.

[flyonthewall2983]

2nd trailer for The Newsroom

[flyonthewall2983]

New promo for The Newsroom. Okay now I'm really interested seeing that it's taking it's cue from recent events as opposed to being in it's own world like The West Wing was.

[domino harvey]

After the crushing reality of Studio 60's banal sentiment and misguided, well, everything, how refreshing it is to see a Sorkin show that gets back to his strengths. The pilot reminded me of the line from the fourth season of the West Wing where Toby realizes that the fact most people saw President Bartlett as arrogant was a gift, because then he could be. If people think a Sorkin show is too quickly paced, the dialog too witty and unrealistic, the moral compass guiding all actions too lofty, then he'll just double it and those who can't ride along be damned. This thing is a steam-train, pummeling clever line after line in an unending assault of joyous scripting. I like that the entire run of the show was produced in isolation, because it'll be put out there untouched by the criticisms already present and no doubt forthcoming-- there's no way this proves to be a popular show. Hell, I can picture half of the audience last night turning it off about halfway through the scream-fest that opens the thing (the first twenty minutes are literally nothing but yelling). The pacing is so exhausting and enrapturing in its immediacy-- the clip the show takes in its second half reminded me of the hilarious scene from Broadcast News where the segment is pushed into the tape deck at the last possible second, and that's not a bad reference point here in general. Apparently the critics already have their claws out. Fuck 'em, the show says, Sorkin has gone esoteric and insular and the audience who wants this is all the better for it. I am glad for the next nine weeks I get to once more experience lines like "I just want to make sure you realize you're on this side of the door" and "I will beat the shit out of you, I don't care how many protein bars you eat!"

[flyonthewall2983]

I'll say this much, I felt I regained the IQ points I lost watching True Blood.

[knives]

The first episode is also on Youtube for us who aren't millionaires.

[mfunk9786]

Millionaires?

[knives]

I can't afford HBO. It is a joke.

[flyonthewall2983]

You know...

[domino harvey]

I've spent the last two hours reading negative reviews and sniping comments on the internet and I just feel like right-click-deleting our society. I'm not calling this the second coming of Great TV Jesus, I can recognize some faults in the series thus far, but the overwhelming nitpicky negativity and condescension to Sorkin is surprising and sad (and no doubt indicative of the growing Internet style of feigned superiority, with bold and flashy negativity now passing as insight)

[knives]

I've only seen the opening scene so far, but it does suggest some bothersome things if the show goes whole hog with it. I really hope the show doesn't make Pullman, who is immediately affecting, into to steal from you television Jesus with his Tony Blair politiking being the holy grail of sanity in an insane world. Also the nostalgia piece of his big huge rant is comically unaware for someone who is playing the martyr of the moment. All that said these opening scene negatives could be turned into a positive adding complexity to Pullman's character as long as he is ultimately not made out to be television Jesus.

[Andre Jurieu]

I enjoyed the 1st episode much more than I expected based on the previews and trailers. Some part of me still can't really believe Daniels as a news-anchor, mostly because I can't buy that millions of viewers would watch a newscast that features his constantly sour, morose, dejected, generally disgruntled facial expression (don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed him in other stuff where that expression is used well). My only issue while watching it was that it just felt too familiar for me to fully embrace, like I was just watching Sports Night, West Wing, and Studio 60 plots, dynamics, dialogue, and topics, but just recycled into a different setting. I guess I wasn't wrong about that. Anyway, I'll tune in regularly for the rest of the season, but I really do think Sorkin is at his best when he's allowed to adapt material and infuse it with flashes of his own voice, because his tendencies start to get a little grating over time.

The other issue I had was that I might not be very normal in terms of how I consume news, in that I never really care who gets to a story first, so much as I enjoy getting a greater understanding of something after the fact. If the pilot is any indication, Sorkin is very concerned with getting the correct story first, while getting it exactly right almost immediately, in some sort of 4th Estate utopia. That really would be ideal, but in terms of creating compelling drama, that also might become grating over time.

I really hope the show doesn't make Pullman...

Poor Jeff Daniels. He's just so Bill Paxton sometimes...

[knives]

They all look the same to me. I'm so sorry, wow.

[Andre Jurieu]

They all look the same to me. I'm so sorry, wow.

Hey, who among us hasn't done the exact same thing in the past 20 years of watching their movies.

[knives]

Literally on that first closeup I was having flashbacks to Pullman's cameo in Igby Goes Down. I guess I should watch Malcolm McDowell in Superman now.

[domino harvey]

My only issue while watching it was that it just felt too familiar for me to fully embrace, like I was just watching Sports Night, West Wing, and Studio 60 plots, dynamics, dialogue, and topics, but just recycled into a different setting. I guess I wasn't wrong about that.

Some of those were a bit unfair (though I admit I noticed several of their better examples) but Sorkin has a long history of recycling, even from SportsNight to the West Wing. I was surprised my favorite Sorkin tic, "the thing," hasn't surfaced yet!

[mfunk9786]

I'm a big fan of Sorkin when he can reign in his self-righteousness (Sports Night, The Social Network, even The West Wing) but this show strikes me as tremendously ill-concieved.  What exactly does it have to offer that we haven't seen time and time again from Sorkin, done far better?  Surely, the muddy intraoffice dynamics between equal parts hokey and unforgettable characters won't keep viewers coming back. Neither will Jeff Daniels' tremendously vanilla performance during off-newscast scenes. And I would hope that no one is tuning in for revisits of the last 2+ years of notable headline news, gussied up as if every bit of statistical data pertaining to it was available to savvy news viewers within hours of the stories breaking. So we're just here for warmed-over Sorkin leftovers, performed by his least charming cast by far in his least engaging setting by far? This'll get renewed quickly since it's on HBO, but I don't know that the pilot even suggests a show that deserved to get picked up in the first place. If musicians, bands, directors, actors, painters, etc are supposed to evolve and change as they move along in their careers, how does this slimy docudrama exercise in phoning it in get a pass simply because it's more Sorkin? I'll choose quality over quantity and fire up my Sports Night DVDs whenever I get the urge for some, thanks.

So in summation: I like Sorkin. I don't have an axe to grind, I'm not riding on a wave of backlash, and I have no one to impress. I just don't think this is a particularly good or even decent show, and I am not going to clap like a seal just because Sorkin put pen to paper, especially if, in this case, I'd prefer that he hadn't.

[Murdoch]

I'm not as familiar with Sorkin as others here, having only seen the Social Network and snippets of Studio 60, so I suppose that helped me since I really enjoyed the pilot, although the music cues could be grating (the piano during Daniels' rant, for example). Still, I hope this won't just recycle news stories from the past but rather keep up-to-date on current events and inject those into the story like I've heard the BBC's Twenty Twelve has been doing with the Olympics. I'll have to wait for this to hit Netflix to weigh in further, as I am also not a "millionaire," but with this and Veep my interest in watching HBO has been rekindled after a slight dry-spell.

[domino harvey]

First I want to be clear that I wasn't saying all negative responses to the show are somehow ideologically based or serve ulterior motives-- especially not on this board. But it's a pattern I've noticed emerging elsewhere.

To answer mfunk's question: What does this have to offer? Well, personally, more of what I've always loved about Sorkin. Beyond his unparalleled gift for witty verbosity, I think Sorkin's works present reflections of an impossible ideal, a world where intelligence and ability are valued above all else and he then places these superior characters/archetypes/whatever in places of some power so as to impart a vision of goodness and guiding hand that he sees as absent from the world we currently live in. It's idealism that was once embraced by liberals who longed for the Bartlett White House but is now seen as condescending, I think in part because we live in a society right now that is so "plugged in" that everyone now believes themselves to be an "expert" because they have Wikipedia at their fingertips. And there's nothing an expert wants less than to be lectured at. My position is and has always been: Why wouldn't I want to be lectured at by someone clearly smarter than me? This is not an ideologically-based position, for me at least. There are plenty of conservatives far smarter than me whose politics I don't agree with but who I would gladly consent to be lectured by because I can at least respect an opposing viewpoint argued well. Now, in a Fox News World, these types are increasingly pushed to the margins, but I digress. The newest buzz-criticism for Sorkin now is that he's paternalistic-- it rubs against the Girls narrative wherein Lena Dunham is praised for bringing an "every(wo)man" approach to TV, so it must be stopped. I'm not saying this is where every negative review is coming from, but as stated earlier, I spent too long looking at the same specious argument being made as though there were talking points distributed beforehand, and it's beyond me.

If you don't like the show, I understand. As I said in my initial thoughts, it seems pitched at the true believers and doesn't make great strides to convert those resistant to Sorkin's charms. There are many logical reasons for a viewer to decide this isn't worth their time. But the critical arguments against the show which strike me as anti-intellectual at best make me legitimately depressed and have put me on the offense.

[knives]

So I finally finished the thing and while my mixed reaction is still mixed the whole seems to prove itself way more interesting than the first scene suggests. It's very good that Daniels is such an oaf and tired buffoon rather than an epiphany having Peter Finch. That would have been hell on earth. The show really comes alive when it allows the human drama of the characters come alive through their work with those last twenty minutes over the BP story being just perfect. Jack McCoy aside though the show is just tired and stupid when it's big important people shouting big important monologues about how big and important they should be. It was shit when Chayefsky was doing it and it's shit now. The worst coming when Daniels and British woman are shouting at each other. I'll probably rent the series when it comes out on DVD, but it has just as good a chance to be god awful as great at the moment.

[Andre Jurieu]

Some of those were a bit unfair (though I admit I noticed several of their better examples)...

Agreed. They are certainly stretching to find some of those matches. However, despite some rather weak examples that only marginally resemble each other, I do believe the basic premise of their argument has some merit.

...but Sorkin has a long history of recycling, even from SportsNight to the West Wing.

I'm not sure that having a standard operating procedure is really a great excuse for what amounts to a creative holding-pattern (please excuse me while I mix a bunch of metaphors). Sorkin certainly has a specific and often successful signature style, which I've really enjoyed in the past, but at some point - at least for me - it starts to become slightly redundant and stagnant. I thought it became somewhat tiresome during Studio 60 and Charlie Wilson's War, but after his recent success with adapting non-fiction source material, I figured I'd watch him attempt another of his TV concoctions. Again, I enjoyed the 1st episode a great deal more than I expected based on the initial previews (I think it might be mostly because of Mortimer actually being interesting for once), but I sense myself already dreading that I'll basically be watching the same show again, just in a different setting. I share mfunk's opinion that it's far more interesting to watch an artist evolve and attempt something new, but I don't sense that Sorkin has any interest in doing so. It's beginning to feel like Sorkin wants to beat his audience into submission because we were just too stubborn or stupid to get it the first 3 times, yet he doesn't seem to understand that he's basically preaching to the choir and the choir is getting exhausted and bored. What's possibly worse is if Sorkin doesn't actually respect the intelligence of his loyal audience enough to present us with anything novel or surprising.

And I would hope that no one is tuning in for revisits of the last 2+ years of notable headline news, gussied up as if every bit of statistical data pertaining to it was available to savvy news viewers within hours of the stories breaking.

This is the potential reoccurring aspect of the show that I'm dreading the most. Sorkin feels like he's lecturing us on how news should have been reported in an ideal world, except he's doing so with the benefit of all the information that's been discovered/uncovered as time has passed and greater perspective is gained. While I probably share a great deal of his viewpoints on the deterioration of the 4th-estate, the ideal he's presenting isn't just unattainable, but almost verges on ludicrous.

...Sorkin's works present reflections of an impossible ideal, a world where intelligence and ability are valued above all else and he then places these superior characters/archetypes/whatever in places of some power so as to impart a vision of goodness and guiding hand that he sees as absent from the world we currently live in. It's idealism that was once embraced by liberals who longed for the Bartlett White House but is now seen as condescending, I think in part because we live in a society right now that is so "plugged in" that everyone now believes themselves to be an "expert" because they have Wikipedia at their fingertips. And there's nothing an expert wants less than to be lectured at. My position is and has always been: Why wouldn't I want to be lectured at by someone clearly smarter than me? This is not an ideologically-based position, for me at least. There are plenty of conservatives far smarter than me whose politics I don't agree with but who I would gladly consent to be lectured by because I can at least respect an opposing viewpoint argued well... But the critical arguments against the show which strike me as anti-intellectual at best make me legitimately depressed ...

I'm in agreement with a great deal of what you're saying, domino, particularly in terms of valuing an expert opinion. However, I've often been troubled by how easily Sorkin's protagonists often drown out viewpoints that differ from their/his own by simply out-shouting their/his opponent, or simply shutting down any descent with a witty retort, rather than provide greater substance. It's also starting to become frustrating how often Sorkin decides being the most knowledgeable person in the room excuses persistently brutish behavior as long as the greater good is being served (which somehow tends to conveniently align with his protagonist's best interests), or as long as the arrogant protagonist feels appropriately bad about it afterwards or at least is trying to improve just ever so slightly.

[mfunk9786]

Domino, I just think you might be giving the show itself, as it currently stands, too much credit. I completely understand what you mean regarding the Bartlett White House, and I think that audience (that anticipates that sort of sharpness from a Sorkin project) still exists and is still excited to throw themselves into his work. The West Wing was wise enough to create three-dimensional characters, we were able to connect to them in some way. Where we were able to plug into Josh Lyman or Charlie Young or C.J., The Newsroom's characters are missing their outlets altogether - or worse, have the sort of crazy Czechoslovakian ones that continue to baffle Patty and Selma Bouvier on their vacation. More importantly, Sorkin once knew that it'd be dull (in both of his simultaneous projects at the time) to simply present us the news without creating a fluctuating level of fiction in order to tell a story that's capable of presenting the viewer with legitimate drama rather than Jay Roach-level playacting of actual events, in which everyone is able to see into the future and adequately piece together their moralizing within a matter of a couple of hours before a newscast. The newscast in this program made me nostalgic for the days of Sports Night, and worked quite well in terms of retaining the kinetic energy of that show's climaxes, but was missing the actual suspense or surprise that it was able to deliver since, well, we know where this is going. I'm not saying that the BP oil spill (or whathaveyou) is not a big deal, is no longer important to discuss, etc. But what I am saying is that I'd much rather watch a documentary about what's gone on since then watch a Rachel Maddow Show rerun from late 2010 from multiple camera angles. I don't know if it's just a failed experiment, laziness, or delusion - but Sorkin in the late 90s would have known better than to think this is going to work and isn't going to become tremendously stale over the course of a season, let alone a series. I don't think you're allowing people (those in the media since you let people here off the hook) to dislike the show without thinking there's some sort of ulterior motive at work - that this is somehow akin to The West Wing getting mixed reception upon its debut. I contend that there's a reason why that show was so well-liked and The Newsroom isn't, and it has more to do with the quality of the actual product than shifts in society or some sort of perceived anti-intellectualism.

[knives]

And you're basing this off of one episode? Television shows always take time to develop their characters in the way that we are invested in them the most.

[domino harvey]

A pertinent defense of the show from Vulture's review of the series

But mostly I like Sorkin's optimism, the very quality that many of my colleagues are hanging him with. He seems convinced that no matter how bad things get, they can always be made better, provided we're willing to do our homework, engage in civil debate, put common sense ahead of ego, and work together. There's a whiff of Ivy League liberal sexism and racism to a lot of his work, he's too in love with rhetoric, and he's too eager to show us his homework. But he's also a common-man idealist in the Capra mold who wouldn't know "cool" if it ran him over with a truck, and I love that about him. When MacKenzie tells Will in an upcoming episode, "We don't do good television, we do the news!" and "Be the leader; be the moral center of this show," or when Will's boss, an alcoholic ex-UPI reporter played by Sam Waterston, growls, "The American people need a fucking lawyer!" it's a tonic. People don't talk that way anymore for fear of being thought softhearted or softheaded, but it's that kind of language that neutralizes gloom and makes moral courage possible. When I read sneering pans of The Newsroom that treat Sorkin as if he's a highbrow David E. Kelley, no more sophisticated than an old-movie rube stepping off the bus in the big city with a stickered suitcase in each hand and a blade of grass between his teeth, it's more depressing than much of what currently passes for journalism. It suggests that we've become so comfortable with cynicism and despair that we can't even dream anymore.