327 replies to this topic

[Paladin of Ice]

mcb, on 26 June 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

A look from the outside: when Jeff Daniels' character started his "not the greatest country in the world" rant, and the audience was shocked and outraged... I found this reaction nothing short of fucking hilarious. Are Americans really that narcissistic, or is it just Sorkin's subjective view?

Depends where you are, and who says it. A nobody can say it and get away with it, particularly in more liberal parts of the country.

If someone prominent says it, especially a celebrity or a politician, they would get tarred and feathered in the news media and the constant faux outrage machine. A small segment might point out that his points are valid, but they would get overwhelmed by people whose jingoism has been singed by the comment.

Anyone who doubts this should see how any celebrity who offered any criticism to Us policy during the Bush years was treated by national media. Right wing tv, talk media, etc would crucify them, most other places would "report the controversy" and have bullshit non-stories about people being upset by the remarks without taking a position or bothering to note any facts, while a few places like the NPRs of the world would analyze both the facts and media response and likely give unspoken, tacit approval. MSNBC and liberal websites would be fully in favor of it, and probably say a few dumb, overreaching things along the way.

As for the show itself, I think the first episode showed both promise and flaws, and it'll be worth checking out a few more to get a better feel for it.

[Triskele]

That montage was great.  That final line by Sorkin himself was pretty damning.


I think it's unfair in the sense that you can mash up anyone's work to make it look bad these days., but that video really did contain a stunning amount of TV tropes.

[Ser Greguh]

WRT the mash-up video, most writers steal from themselves at one point or another, and all have recognizable tics, but Sorkin's rate is way above normal, and most people wouldn't recycle lines that are so specific at such a high rate.  It becomes an immediate distraction for anyone that's familiar with his work, and it's a valid point of criticism.  Sure, that video drifts into some innocuous non-load-bearing lines, but there are some whoppers in there too.

With regard to the "America is the greatest country in the world" bullshit, there are large swaths of America where saying such a thing could get you shot.  For a supposedly-neutral news anchor to say such a thing would be greeted by an unimaginable whirlwind of faux outrage and empty jingoistic grandstanding.  If anything the show avoids this by skipping three weeks ahead.  We are a country that elected GWB twice and came alarmingly close to nominating for President in one of our two major parties someone who thinks that birth control is evil.  We are not well swayed by rational arguments.

[BLU-RAY]

Oh. Apparently, I have to watch this- somoene I know has a part in ep 5.

This could be tedious.

[Triskele]

Ser Greguh, on 27 June 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

WRT the mash-up video, most writers steal from themselves at one point or another, and all have recognizable tics, but Sorkin's rate is way above normal, and most people wouldn't recycle lines that are so specific at such a high rate.  It becomes an immediate distraction for anyone that's familiar with his work, and it's a valid point of criticism.  Sure, that video drifts into some innocuous non-load-bearing lines, but there are some whoppers in there too.

Here's a response to the video giving Sorkin some breathing room:

http://www.grantland...imself-in-peace

[Istari]

I watched the show prior to reading the reviews and prior to reading this thread.
All I can really say is that I loved the premiere, and I do not understand why the show is receiving mixed reviews - in fact, I was surprised by how many people on the board were disappointed with the Newsroom......

[drawkcabi]

Mexal, on 26 June 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

And honestly, it is preachy but it's pretty entertaining so I can look past that given it's a TV show.

Yes, my feelings exactly. Watching the pilot was like slipping on a pair of good but well worn shoes. Well made and putting them on is for the most part a treat for my feet, and yeah so there's that part of one shoe that's starting to unravel a bit and when it rubs against my pinky toe it chafes a little, all in all they'r stiil really comfortable to wear.

When I watch the show I hear Sorkin preaching sermons and in the past his sermons have wowed me but now it's just Sorkin doing old hat. But around all that it's still enjoyable and well done TV for me and I'll keep on watching until it's not.

[mythsandstuff]

David Denby's review.http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2012/06/in-defense-of-aaron-sorkins-newsroom.html
Second paragraph: better than Paddy Chayefsky. By the last paragraph, he's Frank Capra (my words, not Denby's).

Quote

Sorkin’s complaint about America is that intelligence is in a semi-apologetic retreat, while emotionalism and stupidity are on the rise—in public policy and in the media. He’s setting up an ideal. He is an ethical writer—a moralist, if you like. He’s neither ironic nor self-deprecating; he dislikes that part of our derisive culture which undercuts, as a ritual form of defense, any kind of seriousness. He’s a very witty entertainer who believes that there’s a social value in truth. I don’t think this belief should be confused, as it has been recently, with self-righteousness.

I get Denby's point - my mom is in love with the opening rant, so clearly it strikes a chord with people. It's not the believing in truth part that bothers me about Sorkin. It's what he believes about women, and it's the feeling that he's not writing for characters - he's writing for himself.

[Triskele]

Istari, on 27 June 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

I watched the show prior to reading the reviews and prior to reading this thread.
All I can really say is that I loved the premiere, and I do not understand why the show is receiving mixed reviews - in fact, I was surprised by how many people on the board were disappointed with the Newsroom......

I saw it before this thread but after seeing some fairly negative reviews.  I agree that it was very entertaining, so I'm totally willing to continue to give it a chance.

I think the negative reviews are largely coming from people who, perhaps rightly, think that Sorkin is being a bit unfair, not in how he entertains, but in how he suggests things could be or ought to be when he has the benefit of hindsight.

[salt]

Ser Greguh, on 27 June 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

With regard to the "America is the greatest country in the world" bullshit, there are large swaths of America where saying such a thing could get you shot.

Uh, no.

[Harry the Heir]

Quote

Sorkin’s complaint about America is that intelligence is in a semi-apologetic retreat, while emotionalism and stupidity are on the rise—in public policy and in the media. He’s setting up an ideal. He is an ethical writer—a moralist, if you like. He’s neither ironic nor self-deprecating; he dislikes that part of our derisive culture which undercuts, as a ritual form of defense, any kind of seriousness. He’s a very witty entertainer who believes that there’s a social value in truth. I don’t think this belief should be confused, as it has been recently, with self-righteousness.

Honestly, I don't see this defense of Sorkin. I don't have a problem with idealistic shows about people who are basically good. (Friday Night Lights, for example, isn't some cynical show filled with hipster irony.) The problem with The Newsroom is twofold: first, that Sorkin isn't imagining a better world for everybody so much as he's imagining a world in which he himself is proved right on a regular basis; and two, that Sorkin's desire to make Will right all the time undercuts real drama and any sense that doing the right thing might involve struggle.

[Commodore]

http://sultanknish.b...d-news-for.html

Quote

The Newsroom is Sorkin's sad attempt to win an argument by rewriting history and coming up with all the comebacks that his side couldn't think of two years ago. It's the sad and pathetic spectacle of an ideology creating its own fantasy version of its reality in which it won the argument.

Unlike The West Wing, The Newsroom isn't set in an alternate world in which the universe innately favors liberals. Instead it's set in an alternate version of the past, in which liberals were smarter and won all the arguments that they ended up losing here. And the existence of The Newsroom is the greatest possible concession that the argument was lost.

There's no reason for Republicans to look down on The Newsroom. It's a safer outlet for liberal anger than Occupy Wall Street. It's a miniature universe in which they are smarter, nobler and better than everyone else. Children have fantasy worlds like that. There's no reason that liberals shouldn't. Not only does it give them the security of believing that they really were superior, but it prevents them from learning any useful lessons from their defeat...

...If liberals acted in public life the way that they do on The Newsroom, they would be signing their own political death warrant. The Newsroom's message to the media is to be more openly biased. And who wouldn't welcome that? The media's last shreds of credibility come from its pretense that it is neutral. The day that news anchors routinely take to the air, announce their political affiliation and begin to rant about Republicans is the day that the last pieces of their empire come crumbling down. The day that every news channel is MSNBC is the day that they will all have to divide the MSNBC audience among themselves.

[Mexal]

I just have to say, all this Sorkin talk has made me go back and watch The West Wing. I only caught it late in it's run and missed all the early seasons. I'm excited.

[Paladin of Ice]

If anyone was curious to see the episode but missed it, HBO has the entire episode up on youtube.

Link.

[Triskele]

Mexal, on 28 June 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

I just have to say, all this Sorkin talk has made me go back and watch The West Wing. I only caught it late in it's run and missed all the early seasons. I'm excited.

I have actually never seen The West Wing or Sports Night.

[Arataniello]

Mexal, on 28 June 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

I just have to say, all this Sorkin talk has made me go back and watch The West Wing. I only caught it late in it's run and missed all the early seasons. I'm excited.

And rightly so.  I myself am tempted to go back and start watching it from the beginning as well.

[Renasko]

Paladin of Ice, on 28 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

If anyone was curious to see the episode but missed it, HBO has the entire episode up on youtube.

Link.

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure if I'd give the show a chance or not, after reading the reviews. I can definitely identify with the critics calling it 'preachy', which it outrageously and most assuredly is, and I can kind of see where someone might be coming from when they accuse the show of being 'intellectually self-serving', but screw that. I despise the notion that it is an offense to be idealistic. If the first episode is anything to go by, I'll be eating this up.

Keep 'em coming, Sorkin.

Edited by Renasko, 28 June 2012 - 01:58 PM.

[Harry the Heir]

Renasko, on 28 June 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

I despise the notion that it is an offense to be idealistic.

Who exactly is saying that?

[mythsandstuff]

Linda Holmes argues this way better than I can (http://m.npr.org/sto...ce-for-optimism), but Sorkin's a cynic, which kind of idealism (that is, idealism + pessimism) we have in spades. If I'm looking for idealism, I prefer the optimistic kind we get in, say, Parks and Rec, Community and Friday Night Lights, or at the very least, the self-aware cynicism of 30 Rock.

[Grogsmash]

Renasko, on 28 June 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

I despise the notion that it is an offense to be idealistic.

I don't think really anyone is saying that.


From mythsandstuff's link http://m.npr.org/sto...ce-for-optimism
"The underlying thesis of The Newsroom is that the problems of TV news – no, the problems of news media – no, the problems of American political life – are really pretty easy to solve. What could turn things around, the story suggests, is one newsman who will look into a camera and speak the objective and easily discernible truth. And, it suggests, the only reason that hasn't happened anywhere (and is thus so revelatory) is that everyone in every media organization in the country is so obtuse that they've never thought of offering objective facts in a civil manner before, and is such a money-grubbing coward that they'd never do it if they did."

I find Sorkin's thesis offensive, not his idealism.

What makes it even worse is that he uses real life news stories tailored with "secret" sources that no one has and impossible 20/20 hindsight to lecture all the other media outlets. It is just deeply insulting.

Edited by Grogsmash, 28 June 2012 - 05:25 PM.