The Sorkin That Was: Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip

  • 17 Comments
 
The Sorkin That Was: <i>Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip</i>  

Tomorrow sees the much-anticipated debut of The Newsroom, which marks not only Aaron Sorkin’s return to television but also his first non-broadcast network show. But, before we get there, let’s consider the show that marked the end of his relationship with broadcast, the short-lived Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip.

There were comments, earlier this week, to the effect of “Studio 60 wasn’t Sorkin’s downfall, it was an interesting and entertaining show!” which I can agree with up to a point; there were certainly a lot of good things about Studio 60 – The pilot remains a thing of greatness, with a tight script and a lot of promise – the series as a whole was something that struggled in many ways, and never quite managed to come together in the way that The West Wing, or even Sports Night, did. But why?

Part of it was that the show wasn’t actually about what it was about. Which is to say, while the text of the show was the lives and work of the people involved in the making of a television show (also called Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip), the subtext of the show was Sorkin’s attempts to come to explore the culture war between conservatives and liberals in an America that was becoming increasingly fragmented, with the show’s cast being essentially split between the liberals making the show and the conservatives being the ones who (a) own the network, (b) those who want to censor the show for whatever reason and (c ) everyone else that Sorkin wanted to go after that week. It’s not necessarily a bad idea – If he had managed to pull it off with anything resembling subtlety, it would’ve been a crowning achievement – but the execution of said idea was all over the place, careening around the show with little throughline other than the repeated use of straw man arguments and charicatures when it came to the conservative viewpoint. Whereas West Wing was angry but nuanced, Studio 60 was simply angry; it took on not just the culture war but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, too, as well as all manner of other massive, important targets: Racism! Voyeuristic journalism! Drug addiction! And more!

Studio 60‘s problem clearly wasn’t ambition; if anything, it was far too ambitious, and lacked an editor or someone who could tell Sorkin to sit down and rework his ideas until the end result was strong enough to carry the weight it was being asked to deal with. It didn’t help that so much of the character work in the show was familiar – After four years of West Wing and two of Sports Night, the inter-office romance of Jordan and Danny seemed especially stale, as did the “they still love each other but can’t make it work” relationship of Matt and Harriet – or that so much of the banter and dialogue had the cadence and rhythm of Sorkin’s earlier work, but without the bite or immediacy.

Perhaps the final nail in the coffin for the show, which barely finished out its first season, was that it seemed out-of-step with popular culture, which for a show about popular culture is a horrible failing. Compare this show to the first year of 30 Rock – Tina Fey’s take on, essentially, the same idea, only funnier and feeling like it’s created by someone who understands mass culture as a participant, not someone who’s read some New Yorker reviews and thinks they can wing it – and the difference is not only obvious, it’s painful. Perhaps if 30 Rock hadn’t existed to show up the ways in which Studio 60 failed to fulfill its very own stated aims, the show might have made it to a second year and found its footing, but as it was, Fey’s show roundly humiliated Sorkin’s on that level, making its failings elsewhere even more apparent.

Studio 60, when watched with the benefit of hindsight, is an oddly instructive lesson on how not to do this kind of TV show – Unusually for a serialized story, watching it in chunks just underscores the uneven pacing and abrupt changes in direction, as well as repetitive attempts to get to the same idea. From that point of view, it’s worth revisiting. But if you’re looking for a “good” show about television and pop culture and the people that make it, you’re looking for 30 Rock; the good Sorkin was sadly replaced by overworked and underdeveloped Sorkin this go around. Here’s hoping that The Newsroom sees him refreshed and ready for a second take on the same ideas.

  • http://profiles.google.com/bmiddleton2 Brian Middleton Jr

    I really enjoyed this show, and found it to be an enjoyable ride.  The actors were extremely capable in their roles.  That being said, it’s my only Sorkin experience, so I can’t compare it to what he’s done elsewhere.  For what it’s worth, I thought it was a decent watch.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Art-Salmons/100001016539462 Art Salmons

    And now here’s his new show, also about evil uptight rich conservatives and honest, lovely hard working liberals. THAT’S A TOTAL SHOCK I DIDNT SEE COMING.

  • kentonindy

    I adored SPORTS NIGHT and WEST WING, so I expected to love this show — and while the cast was very very strong and supremely likable, the creative decisions and especially the pacing really killed it.  I was horrified when the end credits rolled and I realized that the “John Goodman as homespun Nevada judge” plot was drawn out to two episodes, for far too little payoff.  Then there was the two-parter with Jordan & Danny stuck on the roof of the building, a plot so implausible that I still shudder.  And finally the *four*-parter that closed out the show, with Tom’s airman brother being held hostage.  Sheesh, that plot was so totally inappropriate for the tone of the show, and by the third “to be continued” I wanted to scream.  And then there was the skit with the re-written version of the Modern Major-General’s song — which was so pretentious and pompous that it was like a caricature of what right-wing authoritarians *think* liberal elites like Sorkin act like.

  • Armchairprogrammer13

    I have to agree with almost everything you wrote, Graeme, especially the quality of the pilot.  The only point that I would amend is the thought that “Studio 60″ might have gotten a renewal if the by-that-time superior “30 Rock” hadn’t existed as a counterpoint.  “Studio 60″ debuted on September 18, 2006 with an 8.6 rating and a 14 share (a solid second to “CSI: Miami’s” season premiere), but had dropped to 4.8/8 by the first week of November sweeps.  By February 19, 2007, when it was finally yanked from the regular season schedule, it was down to 4.1/7, and barely staying ahead of ABC’s awful “What About Brian?”  Its lead-in, “Heroes,” was running 8.2/12 to 8.7/13 at the time.  It was woeful ratings that doomed “Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip,” not anything that Tina Fey and crew did.

  • Hosstbl1

    I remember the cancellation being not just because of ratings but also due to the fact that it was an extremely expensive show to produce.

  • Rob III

     The argument that the sketches weren’t funny holds no weight. Firstly, comedy is extremely subjective. Second, that’s like complaining that 30 Rock’s off-air scenes aren’t serious enough and that the people who work there should have been fired long ago for being incompetent.

  • darthtigris

    Add me to the list of those that LOVED this show.  As someone that’s generally not like this, I was emotionally impacted by the ending of the episode with Sting and ended up making my only iTunes purchase ever.  I have strong, fond memories of this show and think it’s definitely worth watching.  Is it still on Netflix?

  • ahlhelm

    The show failed on two levels. One, it failed to appeal to anyone but the liberal core audience because any attempt to get anyone else to watch it was immediately destroyed by how one dimensional anyone that isn’t a liberal is presented. And yes, that included Harriet. 

    But the show also failed on the level of what it was supposedly ‘about’. Sorkin wouldn’t let anyone else write on the show despite the fact that he clearly can’t write sketch comedy. I think there was exactly one sketch over the entire run of the show that was amusing – and that was the Christmas/To Catch a Predator bit. 

    It just came off as frustratingly bad to someone that hoped for something on the level of Sports Night. 

  • Logossun

    I think we can whittle the reasons why the show was disappointing to two things: 
    1. It REALLY wasn’t funny.
    2. Whereas in West Wing we sort of expected (or at least plausibly imagined) that most or all the people in it were smart, in “Sunset” that seemed SO out of place that it very quickly turned into a forced thing (especially D.L. Hughley – Simon Stiles).
    Oh, yes, and everything else the author of the article mentions. 
    I really wanted it to work, and felt ridiculous for it afterwards.

  • Nytwyng

    I enjoyed Studio 60 far more than 30 Rock.  The latter is just plain painful, unfunny and unentertaining to watch.  Give me Studio 60 any day of the week.

    That said, The Newsroom appears to be the show that Studio 60 *could* have been, with a setting far more appropriate to the content than behind the scenes at a weekly sketch comedy show.

  • Sorkin Rocks

    For someone with an an entertainment blog, you really don’t understand entertainment.

    “But if you’re looking for a “good” show about television and pop culture and the people that make it, you’re looking for 30 Rock”

    Oh how wrong you are.  30 Rock is a terrible show.  It’s also not funny; it’s quirky, it’s silly, but it’s not funny.  It’s full of the funny people I liked, but they’re not being funny or likeable.  I love Tina Fey, but she didn’t “humiliate” anyone and certainly not Aaron Sorkin.  The comparisons were inevitable, but comparing 30 Rock to Studio 60 is like comparing apples to tractors. Gee, which show would win:  a 30-minute comedy with SNL ties that gets a comedy legend to guest star every other episode, or an hour-long drama that thinks Eli Wallach is their legendary guest-star?  

    I do agree about a few things…the relationships, especially the male-female ones, on Sorkin’s shows follow a definite pattern which can get annoyingly stale.  However, if you stop viewing them as merely characters, you’ll notice that these same relationships are being played in completely different ways than they were in The West Wing or Sports Night. 

    While I found some of the sketches to be funny but most not, everyone that complains about Studio 60 always fails to miss the point that the sketches were NOT IMPORTANT.  It didn’t matter whether or not they were funny.  Like the episode where they try to figure out who wrote a joke so people don’t freak out and sue them…it doesn’t matter if the stolen/not-stolen joke is funny because that’s NOT WHAT THE SHOW IS ABOUT.  I’d love to have seen Sorkin tackle all the backroom drama and turmoil present in most shows and especially a topical sketch comedy show.  Studio 60 was primed to be a fantastic show lasting many years, but it was abandoned because of the short-sighted nature of television audiences and “critics” and even Sorkin’s own fanbase that thought it wasn’t as good as The West Wing. 

    Studio 60 was NOT angry.  It was pointed.  It’s so sad that most people only view this show through the filter of 30 Rock or The West Wing.  It was never allowed to sink or swim on its own merits.  It could have easily dominated the award ceremonies, if it had been. 

    Oh, and love 30 Rock all you want, but I’d rather watch Studio 60 (the sketch comedy show) over 30 Rock or TGS…or SNL, in fact.  

  • Richardcasey

    Studio 60 was very entertaining, and had some great moments of drama as well as comedy, whether it be the animals under the stage or the hostage situation of the american soldier brother of one of the show’s cast. 

  • Guest

    I thought that review accurately diagnosed the problem with this show.  I think the gravitas worked on the West Wing, but not so much on a show which is supposed to be about comedy.  The sermonizing and political bashing got tedious and repetitive in the first few episodes, and once they focused on the relationships it was too late to care about the characters, who instead seemed like cardboard cutouts representing different political viewpoints. It didn’t help that the hot female lead got pregnant after a few episodes, leaving the show grasping at trying to find that sex appeal that was a key factor in the success of the West Wing. 

    Disappointingly, the reviews that have come out about The Newsroom (from liberal reviewers), reports that all of these problems and Sorkin’s excesses are magnified in the new show.  He’s put out some great scripts for movies so we know the talent is still there, when writing for others.

  • El_bryanto

    This wouldn’t have been as big a problem except that Sorkin set up Matthew Perry as the funniest writer in all the lands, and the main three as the funniest comedians ever (particularly what’s her name as Harriet).   He probably should have either brought in some talented comedy writers to do the sketches or positioned it as a crummy third rate show hanging in there (which is what 30 Rock wisely did – their sketches often don’t seem that funny, but since the show is supposed to kind of suck anyway, that’s ok).  

  • Guest

    Oh!  I just saw this takedown of Sorkin on uproxx.  Watch this video of Sorkin clips and your opinion of him may change:

    http://youtu.be/S78RzZr3IwI

  • goodhorse

     Good observation Elbryanto – imagine if they’d got Amy Poehler (sp?) to play Harriet? Imagine if they’d got some SNL wirters to help Sorkin bring the funny.

    Disappointing because I liked the dynamics between Whitford and Perry, and the other cast were great.

    My other complaint is that as a Christian I always had to grit my teeth a bit when Sorkin would paint us all with the same brush – really he was showing the sort of narrow-mindedness he accuses conservative Christians of!

  • H Gully