awmperry

Yes, it's that time again. I've made another of my rare but incredibly deep, wise and meaningful contributions to the Studio 60 mailing list.

Well, at least lengthy. But it's well written, too. Or at least perfectly spelled, which is a start.

--- In SunsetTalk@yahoogroups.com, [NAME] wrote:
>
> When I say I didn't like the show, it's not because I didn't
> get it or because I didn't understand the storylines. I can
> do all three at the same time. So I sympathize with those who
> loved the show, but I won't say I'm sorry to see it go.

I did, and I am, so I will.

That said, you're absolutely right; S60 was, in a purely commercial sense, fatally flawed from the start. Writing comedy about drama probably works better than drawing drama from comedy, and I have no idea what relevance that has; it's just a remark that popped into my head just now that will hopefully, some day, be remembered by someone and thought profound.

Studio 60 had three main failings, in my view. Firstly, the melodrama. A lot of the drama during the first half of the season felt strained, as though they were forced to find the most trivial things dramatic. In contrast, the last few episodes, where the drama arguably escalated, still felt more plausible because the situations the drama came from were inherently more dramatic.

Secondly, the comedy. Sorkin's great at writing funny scenes, comic drama, or just perfectly-judged injections of dry wit (cf Toby Ziegler). But he really can't write a sketch. Of all the sketches shown on the show, I can't remember a single one I found funny. And you know what? It's not because they were too "highbrow", as a number of American critics have said. It's because they were too *lowbrow*, too unsubtle, too obvious. Good heavens, if American networks consider comedy like those sketches "highbrow", no wonder they can't produce a decent show without Sorkin's help!

Sorkin's usual comedy is highbrow, but accessible highbrow. Highbrow is *good*. Highbrow gives people something to aim for, something more to learn. Otherwise it's just chicken jokes and whoopee cushions. As Terry Pratchett once said, though about the publishing industry rather than TV: "English readers say 'I don't understand this, what's wrong with me'. American readers say 'I don't understand this, what's wrong with him'."

Comedy *should* be subtle. It should be elegant, sharp, witty, like The West Wing and Studio 60 at their best. Quiet and understated gives the occasional slapstick more impact.

Okay, so I may have digressed a tad there. Aaanyway...

Thirdly... um... Ah yes. Thirdly, as usual, Sorkin injected his politics far too much into the stories. It became too much for me, and I agree with him - I can only imagine what it must have been like for those who don't share his views. (Speaking of which, I don't agree with him on grenade launchers. We have too many rabbits at home.) So that's half the country out right there.

It was a great show while it lasted, but with those strikes against it it never really had a chance.

Andrew