The Idiot's Lantern
Oct. 31st, 2006 11:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
iainjclarkStudio 60 near cancellation. Sorkin's frustratingly misfiring series is seeing a massive ratings drop-off from Heroes, and looks to be not long for this world. As the article says: "There's nothing wrong with the acting, directing, or dialogue writing. But the premise is faulty. No one cares whether a bunch of over caffeinated, well off yuppies, some with expensive drug habits, put on a weekly comedy sketch show from Los Angeles." Disappointing, but true.
Speaking of Heroes, we've now seen the first five episodes and I'm finding it highly enjoyable. The early episodes stumble slightly under the weight of trying to sound portentous (episode 2's "Previously on..." narration is so cheesy it has to be heard to be believed), and the science is uniformly of the stupid kind, but ultimately the story and the characters are interesting enough to rise above the scripting flaws. The ensemble cast of characters is intriguingly diverse, and the unfolding mystery of who has what powers and, more interestingly, what they'll choose to do with them, is very absorbing. It's also a show which deftly deploys little reversals and unexpected SF elements to keep your attention. Whether it'll remain this tightly plotted when it runs beyond its initial 13 episode order or whether, like Lost, it'll find itself adrift in uncharted territory remains to be seen - but so far the evidence is that this is a very good show indeed. Wonderfalls and Dead Like Me creator Bryan Fuller is on board, which is generally a good thing.
Speaking of Wonderfalls, showrunner Tim Minear's new series Drive has the greenlight for 13 episodes (12 plus the already filmed pilot). Given Minear's track record with Firefly, Wonderfalls and The Inside I doubt that anyone would be taking bets on this show outlasting 13 episodes. I can't say that the premise of Drive - an illegal cross-country road race focusing on an ensemble cast of characters - fills me with excitement; it comes off sounding like a cross between Cannonball Run and Lost. However Minear has a great eye for characterisation and a sharp genre sensibility, and I can see the potential for the show to subvert its premise in interesting ways. Mention of the excellent David Fincher movie The Game bodes well in that respect.
Lastly, having watched both Torchwood and Spooks recently it's clear to me that Torchwood thinks it's as gritty as Spooks, but is actually as gritty as Blake's 7. This is an important distinction. Spooks is always ludicrous, increasingly so with each passing year, but somehow manages to ground its cartoonish plots and outlandish 24-isms in a world which feels adult and real. Torchwood is in many ways no less dark in concept, but it remains persistently adolescent in feel, as if the writers are instinctively hewing too closely to the conventions of the genre rather setting their own rules. Episode 3 of Torchwood was a distinct improvement on episode 2, and went some way to redeeming the unlikeable Owen's behaviour in the pilot by placing him on the flipside of the abuse of women. His flashback scene was very effective, and there were some atmospheric moments throughout, but the pacing and tone of the episode were uneven, leaving the series to date feeling bitty, superficial and predictable. The team remain insubordinate and unprofessional in ways that do make you wonder who's paying the bills and what they're getting for their money. Probably the most enjoyable scene in the episode was the bizarrely out of context sequence - all but dropped in from a different episode - in which Gwen becomes a crack markswoman while flirting outrageously with her boss; cheesy but successful fun. We also learn that Captain Jack is apparently not just immortal but also doesn't need to sleep, making him more Angel-like than ever but sadly without much sign of the existential angst that made Angel a compelling character. I want to like this series, but sometimes I feel like the show doesn't want to like me back. Although to be fair it's 100% more enjoyable than the BBC's new version of Robin Hood which has already exhausted my patience.
Speaking of Heroes, we've now seen the first five episodes and I'm finding it highly enjoyable. The early episodes stumble slightly under the weight of trying to sound portentous (episode 2's "Previously on..." narration is so cheesy it has to be heard to be believed), and the science is uniformly of the stupid kind, but ultimately the story and the characters are interesting enough to rise above the scripting flaws. The ensemble cast of characters is intriguingly diverse, and the unfolding mystery of who has what powers and, more interestingly, what they'll choose to do with them, is very absorbing. It's also a show which deftly deploys little reversals and unexpected SF elements to keep your attention. Whether it'll remain this tightly plotted when it runs beyond its initial 13 episode order or whether, like Lost, it'll find itself adrift in uncharted territory remains to be seen - but so far the evidence is that this is a very good show indeed. Wonderfalls and Dead Like Me creator Bryan Fuller is on board, which is generally a good thing.
Speaking of Wonderfalls, showrunner Tim Minear's new series Drive has the greenlight for 13 episodes (12 plus the already filmed pilot). Given Minear's track record with Firefly, Wonderfalls and The Inside I doubt that anyone would be taking bets on this show outlasting 13 episodes. I can't say that the premise of Drive - an illegal cross-country road race focusing on an ensemble cast of characters - fills me with excitement; it comes off sounding like a cross between Cannonball Run and Lost. However Minear has a great eye for characterisation and a sharp genre sensibility, and I can see the potential for the show to subvert its premise in interesting ways. Mention of the excellent David Fincher movie The Game bodes well in that respect.
Lastly, having watched both Torchwood and Spooks recently it's clear to me that Torchwood thinks it's as gritty as Spooks, but is actually as gritty as Blake's 7. This is an important distinction. Spooks is always ludicrous, increasingly so with each passing year, but somehow manages to ground its cartoonish plots and outlandish 24-isms in a world which feels adult and real. Torchwood is in many ways no less dark in concept, but it remains persistently adolescent in feel, as if the writers are instinctively hewing too closely to the conventions of the genre rather setting their own rules. Episode 3 of Torchwood was a distinct improvement on episode 2, and went some way to redeeming the unlikeable Owen's behaviour in the pilot by placing him on the flipside of the abuse of women. His flashback scene was very effective, and there were some atmospheric moments throughout, but the pacing and tone of the episode were uneven, leaving the series to date feeling bitty, superficial and predictable. The team remain insubordinate and unprofessional in ways that do make you wonder who's paying the bills and what they're getting for their money. Probably the most enjoyable scene in the episode was the bizarrely out of context sequence - all but dropped in from a different episode - in which Gwen becomes a crack markswoman while flirting outrageously with her boss; cheesy but successful fun. We also learn that Captain Jack is apparently not just immortal but also doesn't need to sleep, making him more Angel-like than ever but sadly without much sign of the existential angst that made Angel a compelling character. I want to like this series, but sometimes I feel like the show doesn't want to like me back. Although to be fair it's 100% more enjoyable than the BBC's new version of Robin Hood which has already exhausted my patience.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 12:22 pm (UTC)Sadly, I think the failure of Studio 60 might lead Sorkin to pen an even worse drama, say, one set in a sausage factory, a high-pressure environment in which troubled but brilliant sausage manufacturer Alex Sawkind yearns to make the relevant, political sausages he knows he's capable of, but is constantly brought down by the popularity of Walls' complacent, pork-stuffed additions to the genre.
As for the Robin Hood versus Torchwood debate - it's been raging on a lot of LJs recently. Personally, I thought Robin Hood was dull rather than bad - I could stand to have it on in the background, but as something I'm actively watching? No, my attention would tail off within about fifteen minutes. Torchwood, on the other hand, is actively making me laugh out loud with its woeful writing, painfully unatmospheric set pieces, embarrassing stabs at 'darkness' and 'adult content', not to mention the cast of prime hams they've assembled. Indira Varma blew her brains out so we could get more Burn Gorman?! Something's wrong with this picture.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 12:53 pm (UTC)I personally don't feel the writing treats the viewers as beneath contempt. Even at Sorkin's most preachy I usually feel that it's a particular character sounding off, and can take or leave the opinion on that basis - there's a huge difference between a dramatic character expressing an opinion and Mr Aaron Sorkin appearing on your TV and doing a monologue to camera, even if you suspect that the character is a sock-puppet. Although it's generally clear where his sympathies lie that doesn't mean that the show is getting at its own audience; rather it's taking digs at parts of society: generally those that promote intolerance or irrationality, sometimes just odd targets for the sake of humour or drama - them's the breaks. You can't crack jokes or make idealogical points without offending someone somewhere. From where I'm sitting he's pretty broad in the range of groups he takes a poke at, and those he defends - he even had Harriet making a defense of the small town school which was accepted by the other characters during the course of the episode. I submit that the fact that we're aware that one man writes the show and that it parallels his own experiences is colouring our perceptions of how much of a soapbox the dialogue is. Without that awareness it would look like a bunch of characters genuinely discussing issues.
All of which doesn't mean I think the show is great. I think the writing is sometimes stilted, the sketches mostly unfunny, the characters unsympathetic and the premise too slight to carry the series. I just don't have a big downer on Sorkin as an individual.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 02:07 pm (UTC)Well, if those viewers happen to be black, female, or from the American Midwest, they might feel a bit slighted by last week's episode.
Although it's generally clear where his sympathies lie that doesn't mean that the show is getting at its own audience; rather it's taking digs at parts of society: generally those that promote intolerance or irrationality
Which is only a problem if Sorkin's representation of those groups is cartoonish and unsophisticated, if he turns them into straw men for his characters to trounce. Again, I point you to last week's episode.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 02:39 pm (UTC)Clearly I'm none of those things so not necessarily qualified to comment. :-) However for what it's worth I didn't think the episode was offensive to any of those groups.
Yes, if you want to insist that every black character must be representative of all black people then last week's story failed because it chose one path involving escape from street violence. Maybe the backstory was therefore cliched and perpetuated a certain image of black culture. But it wasn't racist IMO because it's still a genuine and relevant story, and indeed the tale of the two comedians was very much about stepping beyond stereotypes of all kinds to get at genuine merit and genuine human experience.
As for the American Midwest I can see that example more, although it seems to me to be a popular thing to belittle on US TV and Sorkin is no worse than anyone else in that regard. I think I could argue that it was a broad portrait of a country family who valued actions and practicality over the arts, rather than something unique to the American Midwest - rather stereotypical but not necessarily specific. It was a familiar tale of parent and child having different mindsets, the child feeling under appreciated, and the attempt to find reconciliation. (I'd also take issue with Who's on First being timeless comedy but maybe that's just me.) I think the portrayal of the parents does have to be offset against the other stories in the episode. I enjoyed the way the father's attitudes to military service were mirrored in the respect given to the WWII vet, and conversely the way that the veteran mirrored the son's opinions about the value of the arts and the fact that courage can be found there too.
I think Sorkin could definitely be accused of lazily attacking easy targets and peddling overly-familiar stories. I'm much less sure that he's racist or even that his laziness has led to inadvertent bigotry.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 06:11 pm (UTC)By the way, as for Tom's parents being from the country - Columbus, Ohio, with a population of over 700,000, is the fifteenth largest city in the US.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 06:55 pm (UTC)I didn't know how big Columbus was! I still don't think the parents came off that badly - merely stolid and old-fashioned in a way that's as much a generational thing as anything else - but I suppose by making them from the Midwest the story does pander to the idea that the area is behind the cultural curve. I wouldn't say it's a major issue but it's the same attitude that US television often takes when portraying the UK, ironically.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 05:04 pm (UTC)