Raw Data: Willie Pete

Initial thoughts and observations for Newroom episode 2-03 "Willie Pete" written by Aaron Sorkin, and staff writers Michael Gunn and Elizabeth Peterson.  Interesting how many of the writing credits are going to writers who have few credits to their name.  It is possibly due to Sorkin's tendency to use the writing staff primarily as researchers and writing most of the script himself.  Lesli Linka Glatter has of course directed a ton of stuff over the years, but is also named on the upcoming first two episodes of Homeland Season Three.

• Why not "Whiskey Papa"?  "Use the NATO phoenetic alphabet!"
• Nothing like deadpanning a candidate's exact words to show how silly they sound
• The DADT debate question is a moment exactly ripe for this show, where the GOP primary showcased the despicable character that led Will to where he is today
• And how about condemning them to hell "not soon enough"?
• The whole thing is very Olberman-esque, particularly "witless bullies and hapless punks"
• For all Will's indignance, Sorkin balances it with Liam's * "So what?" reaction, where he reminds Will the contempt Will has for the Tea Party mirrors the contempt Liam has for Will.  Also Liam is Will's boss.  Or his boss's boss, but in practice, his boss.
•  They are doing a good job here conveying the lack of reporting that goes on during the campaign.  Partially due to laziness, partially due to a go-along-to-get along attitude (and a desire to be friends with these guys? **) most of the young reporters are content to regurgitate the packets provided by the Romney spokeswoman.  Showing the absence of something, while still conveying the message, is a difficult thing to do in television.
• All the same, Jim's coup didn't unrealistically work and the Mod Squad is left on the side of the road to be eaten by zombies.
• Sierra de la Ventana is really wanting this story to be true, and is really focused on winning his reporting prize, commandeering (Mac's) associate producers to help with his project
• Sierra is also really terrible at hitting the recycling container with his crumpled up pages.  If he worked near me I'd be all like DUDE PICK UP YOUR GARBAGE OR MOVE CLOSER TO THE GARBAGE CAN YOU ARE THE WORST SHOT EVER.

• Maggie (the terrible one) feels some placebo like side effects but no one bothers to tell her it's probably because her default setting is unbalanced.
• All she needs is something to make her more unbalanced.  Maybe it'll work out though like all the diseases in Mr. Burns's body being in perfect balance so as none of them can take effect (Three Stooges Syndrome), and the weird side effects will make her normal
• Probably not
•  Did they bring the funny?
• "I'm delightful." - Olivia Munn nails the delivery
• "Book agents beat their wives." - true facts from Don Keefer
• Don and Sloane remain one of the best pairings together and best characters, individually

* Very much struggling to remember names this season but I feel like Chris Messina's character has one of those somewhat recently popular names like Rory or something.  Regardless, he's Ellen's friend from Damages *** ** WHY?! *** This presents a problem in the Newsroom-Damages crossover where Will hires Patty Hewes, though I'm not sure why Ellen's boyfriend would have to be involved so maybe it's okay. What people (media) will be angry about:
Will's mission to civilize the Internet pops up again.  No doubt this will cause scorn among everyone in the tubes who believes Aaron Sorkin is communicating directly to them, about them (but not you specifically.  You're too small time).  Paraphrasing some old quotes about profanity, Will states "Snark is the idiot's version of wit."  This storyline is particularly a target of scorn because it focuses on the Internet and the media.  Internet media should sit in the quiet room for a little bit before reacting so they don't hurt themselves further.

Plot Not to Be Foiled - Part 2

This is Part 2 of posting about how shows, specifically Justified and their new approach, plot their seasons.  Part 1 included some background.

Why Justified is the Best


Season Four is a whole new approach to plotting a season. it carries an underlying story throughout the season, a mystery, while allowing for detours throughout.  Some plots last an episode, some plots take a few or four episodes for their own arc.  One starts in the premiere, only to be revisited in episodes seven and eight in near complete detour that somehow still manages to be a character study of Raylan.  Some of them tie back into the main mystery and some do not.  The kicker is that the mystery is resolved not in episode 12 or 13 but in episode 9!  How does one tell a thirteen chapter story by resolving the underlying question in episode 9, you ask?

Fallout and reactions.  The world constructed by Graham Yost & Co. is such a well developed, organic creature that revealing the mystery demands fallout and reactions from the characters.  The characters created by Yost & Co. are so well fleshed out, even if they are new to the scene in Season Four, that the audience is better served and more interested in seeing the reactions to the unfolding events than by simply playing up the mystery at hand and making the climax the reveal.  Instead, the climax of the season is when all parties, deftly tied together, react and converge in a not only believable but expertly plotted way.

The approach could have been inspired partially by the format of Raylan, the most recent book by Elmore Leonard which contains three stories.  Each story is about 100 pages long, too long to be a short story but too short to be novels unto themselves.  While the entire book tells a story of Raylan's marshal adventures in his hometown, each story has a beginning, middle and end similar to the detours taken in Season Four*.

* Started this post only talking about Justified ("Why Justified is the Best"), but realized I could not properly explain it without the context of other plotting examples. 

We discuss and analyze and recap shows on an episode by episode basis out of the natural convenience of shows broadcasting one episode on a weekly basis.  However, the cumulative effect a show cannot be felt by discussing a single episode, especially early in a season, without considering "all the pieces" as David Simon would.  If someone (who had not yet seen the show) were to re-cap The Wire now, it would not make sense to write four articles for the first four episodes.  Even the most ardent Wire fan would not claim the show grabs you from the start.  Instead, it takes a few episodes before you are "in it" *.  Rather, if I were writing about The Wire, I would probably take it four or so episodes at a time, at least to start.  There is a reason the show gained traction and attention in the media when HBO decided to send critics the entire season prior to it airing.

* Like Natalie Portman's character in Garden State would say.

As plotting becomes more and more complex, not just in the sense of following a season long storyline, but integrating vingettes and side adventurs like Justified did, the question will be if analysis and discussion can find a new paradigm as well to best suit the new format.  Otherwise it will become like recapping a book chapter by chapter and comparing the chapters to each other (if it isn't already). 

And we already see the format changing again.  With Netflix recently releasing all thirteen episodes of House of Cards and all fifteen episodes of Arrested Development, viewers are more able to get the whole picture in a manner more appropriate to the format.  When House of Cards was released, a bunch of articles popped up about this new phenomenon called "binge watching" that has been around for quite a while.  In fact, binge watching, which was just called "watching DVDs" played a big part in revival of dead shows like Family Guy and Futurama.

The reason this now has a name is because of the demographic shift in who is doing it.  Rather than college kids (with no money) watching a DVD collection they got for Christmas, these are adults watching a high minded show via a subscription service.  A Venn diagram of the audiences may actually show that many of these adults are simply the aged 2013 version of the Family guy watching college kids from 2004.

You could build a house, or at least a nice shed, out of the brick jokes flung about in the new season of Arrested Development.  The serialized and simultaneously released nature of the House of Cards episodes lend to show predicated on the long, long con at the highest stakes.  So not only has the way we watched television allowed us to enjoy the shows in ways not previously available, it is actually influencing the way shows are produced.

Middle America

Conan had a particularly hilarious time last week with Andy returning from a brief, mid-week hiatus, Conan's former roommate and longtime friend, Jeff Garlin, and Olivia Munn.

Olivia Munn is talking about how her Asian mother would beat her and wonders if perhaps white people don't beat their kids as much? 

Munn: You don't hit your children, do you?
Conan: no, I do not hit my children
Munn: No, white people don't normally hit their children.  But Asians...
Garlin: Haev you been to the South?
Andy: Have you been to Wal-Mart?

Which I found hilarious, as did the audience.  But I can't help but think a Wal-Mart joke would insult a lot of people if it were on The Tonight Show* especially the manner in which it's delivered.  A good portion of the book, The War for Late Night, and a large part of the underlying thesis is that Conan was a bad fit for most of the country , meaning the middle parts, (thought a good fit for the Coasts) where most people live and watch the show (because it comes on at 10:35 p.m. Central Time).

* I've never watched Tonight with any regularity, with Jay Leno hosting most of my life, so maybe I'm wrong. 

Anyways, it was a fun show especially if you're familiar with Conan's and Garlin's roots, but also was a little reminder who the average viewer is.   Conan and Colbert do the best interviews and this was particulary fun to have the primary guest out there b.s.-ing with the secondary guest. 

Emmy nom nom noms

Something is seriously wrong with the Emmy nominations, but when isn't there?

How Justified could be completely shut out is beyond me.  Frankly, you are splitting hairs these days when you talk about which top tier drama is the best, but Justified certainly deserves to be in the conversation with Mad Men and Breaking Bad. 

Either male lead, Timothy Olyphant and Walton Goggins, could replace any one of three nominees between Kevin Spacy, Jeff Daniels or Huge Bonneville*.  And those are three actors who I enjoyed this past year.  But movie stars get a pass when they do television in the eyes of the voters. 

* There's a trend of anti-heros on television (obviously) where actors play characters who should be unlikeable but make them likeable.  I don't know if Hugh Bonneville decided to go for the exact opposite this year or that's just how it was written but Lord Grantham seemed both incompetent and unlikeable all season. 

Goggins could hypothetically submit as supporting and easily take out Bobby Canavale from Boardwalk Empire or Jim Carter from Downtown Abbey.  They did a good enough job in their respective roles, but none of the shake the Earth like Boyd Crowder, whether he's daring a preacher to use risk a snakebite or smart mouthing the Detroit hitmen who want to kill him.

Linda Cardellini gets a nomination for playing Don Draper's least interesting mistress.


Rupert Friend from Homeland gets a nod.  If he survives this series, I see no reason he can't get a spin off.  If he's killed on Homeland, I see no reason he can't get a prequel show giving us the origins of Peter Quinn, Season Two MVP.

The Emmy's need a catergory for best single episode.  Until then, the closest they have are the writing and directing categories.

For writing, going for a "smaller" episode, like a play*, is a good way to get in here.    Because voters aren't required to watch the entire series of shows they are voting on, season premieres and season finales are often nominated because they can be better understood by the voters out of context.

* Think "The Suitcase" from Mad Men Season Four where Don and Peggy have an adventure following their spat.

Homeland's "Q&A" (which also got a directing nod) contained one of the Peter Quinn MVP-esque moments when he fucking stabbed Brody in the hand.  Largely a play between the interviewer and the interviewee, it took us through the whole game that Brody and Carrie were playing.  Their conversation put it on both the big scale of the United States versus the terrorists and the small scale of Carrie versus Brody, and sometimes even examines the personal relationship between Carrie and Brody and all the messed up-edness they've slogged through.  And the viewer is unsure how much of it is Carrie being honest and how much of it is Carrie trying to get Brody's guard down.  How calculated could this mental case possible be?

Then there's "The Rains of Castamere" which.... just....

Breaking Bad has two nominations in this category for "Say My Name" and "Dead Freight" which provided the gut punch of 2012.  While "Dead Freight" has the single plot running throughout the episode making it a likely candidate for nomination, I need my memory jogged a bit on "Say My Name"

In the directing category, while it's hard to believe Game of Thrones didn't get anything for their annual ninth episode extravaganza, I want to pull for Breaking Bad's "Gliding Over it All" just for the use of "Crystal Blue Persuasion" which must have been hard to not use in each of the previous year's, waiting for the right moment.

"Episode 4" of Downton Abbey also received writing and directing nominations.  The episode included a plethora of significant moments in the season but knowing that characters bite it often because of the actors' other interests seems to cheapen it a bit.  Considering the episodes of television that did not receive one writing nomination or one directing nomination (like Justified * and **) it seems ridiculous to honor Downton Abbey with that distinction.

* Breaking Bad and Mad Men have some candidates that could be inserted here as well.  Just as Major League Baseball expanded it's playoffs due to the expansion in teams, the Emmy's need to expand the nomination slots due to the number of networks now in the game, programming year round instead of September-May.

** Any episode 9-11 of Justified could be inserted here to either category: "The Hatchet Tour" "Get Drew" and "Decoy".  "Decoy" should certainly be in the directing category regardless.

For best series, it's difficult to argue with most of the nominees, but again, Justified is head and shoulders above at least two of the nominees.  House of Cards, while good, is at least partially benefiting from Kevin Spacey's name and the novelty of Netflix.

Raw Data: The Genoa Tip

Initial thoughts and observations for episode 2-02 of Newsroom, "The Genoa Tip" written by Aaron Sorking, Dana Ledoux Miller and Adam R. Perlman.  Miller and Perlman have been working on the Newsroom staff. The episode is directed by Jeremy Podeswa who directed this episode of Homeland.

• Thinking more about these new credits...they show more mundane locations and activities associated with New York and the newscast, almost generic, where as the old one evoked old timey broadcasters like Murrow.  The theme was also more sweeping.  This kind of lies there.
• The episode begins August 25, 2011 and will span several weeks.  
• Did they bring the funny?
• "Ask A-Rod." is great for a throwaway
•  Maybe I am a sucker but it seems particularly shortsighted to not help a fellow reporter frame their shot when you clearly have the time.  It's small thing that is going to get done anyways and may help you in the long run.  Or maybe it's just expected people know how to take care of themselves and it's obnoxious to ask someone to do that for you when everyone else is managing on their own.
• This girl looks like one of the girls that got eaten by zombies in the Season One of The Walking Dead.  Being out at these rallies in East Chabumble, New Hampshire, I can't help but picture "walkers" stumbling out of these trees and attacking the Romney campaign.  Aaaaaaaahhh! 
• Interesting that Will has only been doing the anchor desk for 10 years.  It means he had a rocket ascension with a near immediate disenchantment.  Considering the show starts in 2010 and he's already the Jay Leno of newscasters at that point, he became complacent pretty quickly
• The footage of Charlie and Will is a new approach to an old tool, the flashback
• Charlie's wearing a necktie and not a bowtie and appears to be in a more hands on role at the time.  Or it could be he's doing what he can in a crisis.
•  Stuck some good music * in the bar scenes
• "Take it on the Run" - REO Speedwagon
• "Always on my Mind" - Willie Nelson version
• "Hold the Line" - Toto
• Brian Fantana is doing some good old fashioned process of elimination journalism in tracking down a member of this black ops team
• Their whiteboard running down possible stories includes "Bachmann HPV nonsense"
• Would have liked the two rings to Jim's phone go unexplained, but no, Maggie, who is awful, had to ruin that too.  It's unlike a Sorkin piece to drop that obvious bit on us via dialogue
• Is she going to get kidnapped and make everyone feel sorry for her?  I hope not.
• Her roommate, whose name may or may not be Lisa, was a bit dramatic with her hug of death.  Still, it was nice to see her call Maggie (who is awful) on all her b.s.

 * I'm always really proud of myself either for recognizing the song (thanks WDVE) or deciphering enough lyrics to Google them.  

What People Will be Angry About
Accusing Sorkin of manipulation regarding the Troy Davis case.  I thought this was well done and gave depth to Don and Will.  Will refuses to re-try the case on the air partially due to his background as a prosecutor.  He could have gone one way or the other in terms of his views on the case, but he separately believes one thing about the case and feels it's his duty as a journalist to act in the exact opposite manner.  With Don, it gave him a passion piece that he's followed consistently for a decade, presumably before his own show went soft.   

Ultimately, Sorkin can't re-write what happened and the newsroom is toothless to provide any help.


Evoking Past Works

I can't help but think of Danny Concannon running down the flight schools looking for the pilot of Abu Nazir's plane which mysteriously disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle.

All the scenes of Jim on the campaign trail, especially drinking and working, bring to mind "Manchester Parts I & II".

Will and the news team being hit in the face repeatedly but impotent to do anything, he takes the most solvable problem of bailing Neil out of jail, not unlike Jed Bartlet beating the Teamsters negotiations into submission in "The State Dinner" while he looks helplessly at the other things flung at him that day.

The Troy Davis case...there is an episode of SportsNight "Dear Louise" where a friend of Issac's (whose name he did not initially recognize), a former Negro League baseball player, is carjacked and beaten.  Casey and Dan report on the man's hospitalization.  Later in the show, a note is passed around and the control room becomes solemn as they ready a graphic to report that he passed away.  It is incredibly well done and packed an emotional punch SportsNight mangaged to dish out nearly once an episode.  The mood and Don's frustration echo this.

Plot Not to Be Foiled - Part 1

In the 1980s, shows like Hill Street Blues extended story arcs beyond an episode.  In the 1990s, Buffy the Vampire Slayer used a Big Bad * each season.  At the turn, The Sopranos plotted a thirteen episode, season long story that had a clear beginning, middle and end, and launched the new paradigm that would become prevalent among cable drama.   Various models are used but by and large cable drama** tells a thirteen episode story each season.  David Simon***  has spoke about constructing his seasons like a novel, and each episode like a chapter.


* “I’m not the new Big Bad everybody needs to be afraid of.” said a villain on True Blood who was recently introduced at the top of the new season

** One network example (when it was exclusive to NBC) was Friday Night Lights which would take viewers through the naturally occurring timeframe of a football season and the milestones throughout.  Due to the writers strike and a half renewal and custody sharing with DirecTV, only Season One had the classic 22 episodes.  It speaks to the advantage of plotting the new standard 13 episodes compared to old model of 22.

*** What we were asking was, “What should we spend 12 hours of television saying?”

 What was once cutting edge is almost a prerequisite for (cable) drama these days.  Viewers expect a cohesive story.  What was new and exciting in 1999 on The Sopranos is almost conventional by now.  A season may depend on a theme, an idea, the introduction and defeat of a new villain or any number of things.   Even getting a character from point A in episode 1 to point Z in episode 13 is a large change from former drama models.  Before The Sopranos, you'd see a character move from place to place from season to season, but rarely was it a meticulously plotted season long journey.  More often you'd see a three episode arc that happens to coincide with the end of season/sweeps.  The only long term plot line one was likely to see was a pregnancy in the fall meaning a birth in May sweeps.

The new, hyper serialized television demands viewers' attention, and thus rewards them.

At the same time, these meticulously plotted shows can suffer from slower, table setting episodes that are necessary but less attention grabbing.  Case in point, watch episodes in the 5-8 range for the first three seasons of Game of Thrones.  If you are someone who watches a show for the season long story, you are not as likely to be bothered by slow moments as someone who is amazingly able to still be viscerally upset by the end of the Sopranos while simultaneously breathing through their mouth.  However, even knowing there is a payoff, the middling episodes cause an evenness in the season.

Breaking Bad has been a great example of a show that has beginning and end points in mind for the series, as well as clear progress each season*.  The end point for each season accumulates everything that has happened thus far and contributes to the ultimate goal of Walt becoming Scarface. They are like landings on a staircase until you reach the roof. 

* Group Season One and Two together due to the writers strike, and consider two halves of Season Five as separate seasons, a la Sopranos. 

While The Sopranos often introduced a new foil to Tony each season* , a show doesn't necessarily need to schlep in new villains or a whole host of characters each year to plot out that season's novel though.  Justified** spent Season Four (possibly its best) on a mystery.  Finding it's way midway through the first season, introducing the baddest of the big bads Mags in Season Two, piling on two new guys in Season Three.

* Again, formerly cutting edge, now conventional.

** Something that Justified and Breaking Bad have in common is the relatively slow passage of time on the show.  Debuting in 2010, only about a year has passed in Justified's Harlan County (including about 10 days in Season Four), and debuting in 2008, Breaking Bad's ABQ has only seen two years pass from the pilot to the (still not seen in a real time context) flash forward of bearded Walt on the run, purchasing a BFG.*

*  Footnoting for the explanation of that term because the text isn't hidden when hyperlinked. 


Coming in Part 2 is the innovative approach Justified took in Season Four, which was originally the whole point of this post.

Raw Data: First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers

These are initial observations for Newsroom episode 2-01 "First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers" written by Aaron Sorkin and Ian Reichbach, and directed by Alan Poul.  There are a few credits for these guys you may find interesting.

Reichbach has worked on numerous Sorkin projects including as a writing assistant on Studio 60 and story editor on the first season of Newsroom, as well as working on features  including Charlie Wilson's War and The Social Network.  IMDB.com also says he acted on Saved by the Bell*.  Poul's resume includes directing episodes of Rome and of Six Feet Under, and executive producing Six Feet Under and My So Called Life.

* Which I have never seen.  This fact invokes ridiculous reactions when it becomes known.

• We're treated to a new opening credits.  The theme sounds altered as well
• The title refers to a Shakespeare quote, which I believe people commonly misinterpret as being serious.  I believe it comes from a foolish character in order to demonstrate the rule of law is important and only a fool would actually get rid of lawyers.  I do not remember the play or character or even if that is correct context.
• Marcia Gay Harden was great as the general counsel for UNR on Damages, but if we are going to do lawyer speak and depositions and such in conference rooms, then we need Patti Hewes to visit.  It should not be difficult, they both are located in New York City.
• MacKenzie has some uber-competent moments during the show (so the "pajama people" will look for other stuff to complain about) splicing in sound from a reporter correcting ill-checked information that would probably open the door to a law suit, while still maintaining the piece.  
• No surprise Maggie, who is awful, fucked that up.
• Everything (Blue coat, khaki pants, yellow tie...his fucking haircut) about this prick Romney guy screams prick Romney guy and would be thought of as a stereotype if we hadn't spent twelve months watching Mittens and his supporters.  
• Maggie (who is awful) is so lame that Jim would be lame by association if he weren't lame on his own merit.
• The new producer replacing Jim, Rand McNally, or whatever, has more of an agenda and seems to be more of a climber than Jim.  As much as I don't like Jim's personality, he is uber-competent and his loyalty lies with the news, the viewers, and MacKenzie.  I get the sense Mr. McNally's loyalty is not to his constituency but to himself.  
• McNally has a similar trait to Neil where he seems like he may push a story because he wants it to be real, not because it is real.  Or because it may win him some prize.  
• I was going to say ol' Rand boy here seems more forceful than Jim, but the more I thought about it, Jim has an effective way of getting his point of view across.  It is just in a whinier, more righteous tone.
• Randle's friend, Cyrus West, or whatever, seems to also suffer from a version of climberism.  He wonders if he'll be asked back on the show.  It seems to be a no so Cy wonders to himself, if he dresses up as a woman maybe he can comeback as a whole new person, Myrus Best.
• Maybe not climber-ism where he steps on people but he is clearly a parasite of sorts.  Cy wants to feed him a story and latch onto it, riding it for more exposure.
•  Will almost takes a backseat in this episode to the other machinations of the newsroom.  He serves as an occasional narrator and tier of things together but does not exactly have a storyline
•  Nice to see Sorkin employing the vehicles that made West Wing so good, like flashbacks.  
• The structure of this episode is a lot like The Social Network, and I would not be surprised if that continued this season
•  Did they bring the funny?  These were hilarious
• Sloane using a blank paper as a prop
• "Ben Franklin.  Nailed it!"
• Will singing "Friday"

Evoking West Wing
Sam Seaborn once mentioned he billed at $500 an hour (in 1999 dollars).  This lady bills at $1,500.  Even accounting for inflation, she bills at $800 more than Sam.  Who is a genius.  So they are in some stuff here.



MacKenzie gets a fax (which I only use when I'm dealing with local government agencies like the DMV or tax office, so it is probably surprisingly appropriate here) about the protests in NYC and it reminded me of a fax from NASA that Donna is concerned about, which states a Chinese satellite is crashing into the Earth ("The Fall is Gonna Kill You").

EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, this is structured more like "Celestial Navigation" where one character is recounting an odd sequence of events.  Josh Lyman mentioned a news cycle that wouldn't end which "started either with a cabinet secretary losing her temper, a committee chairman baiting her during a hearing, the President answering a question he shouldn’t have, a dentist appointment, or me being stupid."  Will recounts some of the things that transpired to bring about their apparent Operation Tailwind-esque mistake. 


 Sometimes I try to guess what everyone's going to be angry about this week:

• "...women try things" regarding Maggie's* horrible haircut.  Thanks for giving us another reason to ridicule Maggie*, I was worried it'd have to rely on her personality again.  Also, Sorkin hates women
• "Money Skirt" regarding Sloane, which should be written at "$kirt".  Remember, this has everything to do with Sorkin hating women and this has nothing to do with the funny way his characters, Sloane (maybe the best character on the show) and Charlie, express their fondness for each other via hijinks and japes
• "Pajama people" which I assume refers to people who write or comment on the Internet from the comfort of their homes and in their sweats.  Sorkin hates the Internet!
• This will conveniently ignore Neil citing Reddit and Twitter as evidence a story is gaining traction later in the episode.  Also Sorkin writing a whole movie about Facebook
• Given the strong desire out there by many people to never be happy with anything, I don't find comments like these out of line

* Who is awful

Hill Street Blues was a Network Show - Part 2

Part I - Hill Street Blues was a Network Show

 The thing about network shows is they are simply so much more watched than cable.  While watching television is done much less often by watching television than it has in the past, and even more less often at the appointed times on channels seen by most, the best way for a lot of people to watch a single program is on the networks.

As ubiquitous as ESPN is, there is a reason Monday Night Football Ratings dropped when they moved from ABC to ESPN, and Sunday Night Football became the most watched show on television after moving to NBC.  Part of the fun of watching shows is talking about them the next day and the way we watch television now does not lend ourselves to doing that.

The last network event was the Lost series finale in 2010 was somewhat tame compared to the big ones like Seinfeld or Friends.  But still, you could not avoid running into the accompanying media coverage.  Series finales of classic shows like that always draw huge audiences and there is a reason M*A*S*H finale remains and will remain the most watched program in the United States.

The Office had a finale of similar nature.  It turned in a solid ratings boost for the finale, though by no means was a ratings boon.  In the retrospective for that very show, the actors interview about how the show began as a ratings (and critical) disaster, but it was saved by iTunes, being the number one show on that service.

The point is The Office finale was one of the rare shared viewing experiences that people can talk about, whether it be friends, co-workers or mere acquaintances.  Most conversations about television now go something like this:

Do you watch Breaking Bad?
Yes, but I just started, so don't tell me anything.

or

How far are you?
Season two.
Oh man, just wait until season three!

or

This isn't a spoiler but...[spoiler!]

With the release of House of Cards, critics began more broadly using a term for an action that had already been going on for years: binge watching.  This is something any West Wing fan who received Bravo on their cable system was already familiar with (every Monday in the mid-2000s!).

While the convenience of a la carte/on-demand viewing cannot be beat, there is something to be said for a shared viewing experience, taking a show one week at a time with a whole lot of other people at the same time.  The Internets do allow for us to read articles from and talk with a lot of people we don't know about shows currently airing, so maybe the point is moot.

More outlets for writers and actors to work on*, and more choices for viewers are indisputably a good thing.  More flexibility for viewers on when to watch whatever they want is indisputably a good thing. 

But that doesn't have to mean there are so few quality options on the networks.  And it doesn't mean that networks can't produce quality television because they can't say "god damn."

Maybe one approach is re-thinking up-fronts.  There's no doubt that would cause an up-rising among advertisers, but if they coupled it with a smarter ratings system and showed them why it would stretch their ad dollars farther, maybe some wouldn't object.  Surely there has to be a better way than rolling out a host of new shows each year with the hopes of one or two sticking, while axing the rest by October.

Keep at it ABC.

* Cable seasons, generally 13 episodes, also give actors the rest of the year to work on other stuff.  Two very popular movies from this past year were boons for actors you recognize from outstanding cable shows: Argo and Lincoln.

In Support of Newsroom - Part 2

This is part 2 of supporting Newsroom, which returns to HBO Sunday July 14.  Read Part 1

The New Age and Paradigm of Television
West Wing came on the air in 1999, when many networks began making the switch to cheaper, but highly rated, reality television which was spawned from prime time game shows.  This was also the year The Sopranos debuted, and the gritty cable drama wave was still a few years away.  West Wing filled a large percentage of quality, intellectual television at the time.

Only a few years later, when Studio 60 debuted in 2006, the landscape of television was very different and Sorkin comments on the state of television and the low expectations of reality tv often in the show.  The drama work was going to cable and premium cable in the form of The Shield and Rescue Me on FX in 2002 and 2004 or Six Feet Under on HBO in 2001.

Look at the change, not only in the winners of Best Drama*, but the nominees, and you'll see they slowly creep and crowd out the networks, both from the high quality produced on cable and the lack of initiative from the networks to bother producing such shows. 


* I almost hesitate to point this out being that the award shows often do not represent the truly best in television, particularly in the comedy categories.  One of the big flaws is that the awards seem to function highly on inertia.

Golden Globe nominees and winners 2000-present

Emmy nominees and winners 2000-present

The point is Studio 60 partially failed due to it using the old paradigm of 42 minute episodic, commercially interrupted, shows.  Newsroom adapts to the current model and is better set up for success, especially as compared to contemporary shows.  For the first time in Sorkin's television work, he's including a season long arc which is one of the major characteristics of how television is modeled today.  From reading coverage, it sounds like there is a legal battle, either at the center of, or in addition to the season long arc.  Sorkin is at his best when writing some version of a courtroom *drama, whether it be hearings, depositions ** or an actual courtroom.***  ****

 * Or a psycho-therapy setting

** Thinking about this makes me realize The Social Network and "Bartlet for America" have a very similar story structure.

*** Another strength of Sorkin's is flashback use or in medias res.  He played with the structure for Season Two so much that he went to HBO about scrapping and starting over after a few episodes had been filmed.  HBO, showing their commitment to quality yet again, said yes.

**** Marcia Gay Harden is cast in a lawyer-y part, and if she brings it like she did in Season Two of Damages, we're in for a treat
 
Comparisons to West Wing are inevitable, and while there are some aspects of television that are timeless, it is difficult to judge shows from today fairly against shows from even just ten years ago.

I wondered how/if Sorkin would adapt do the new model of hyper serialized dramas with anti-heros or centered around conflicted or even bad guys, considering how his protagonists are not only actual protagonists, but idealized versions of such. These days, only Raylan Givens wears the white hat, and even he goes hatless sometimes.

One thing he may have in common with Justified, if we listen to comments he's made promoting Season Two, is the ability to weave a season long story line* while still producing strong self contained episodes that also support the larger arc.

* The plotting on Justified (the best there is) is the subject of an upcoming post.  Or two.  We'll see.

Will Macavoy is Sorkin's first shot the new version of a lead. Will is a dick, or at least starts out that way. Unlikeable. Disenchanted, aloof, checked out, difficult, rich and really just not very nice. I am searching for his redeeming qualities (newfound honesty, sincere affection developing for his crew?) The "Jay Leno" of newsreaders, which is a great description of a lowest common denominator. Except his bitterness goes to such an extreme, it comes back around to start lashing out at those around him, all regarding the basis of his bitterness in the first place.

This is the impetus for the central conflict... the anti-hero awakens to finally create a cable news (not commentary) show that will seek to raise the level of debate, addressing a dire need and a severe dearth caused by the current state of media...and that is the Sorkin-trope to focus on with this show.

In Support of Newsroom - Part 1

Yosemite?!
-Will McAvoy


Newsroom premiered last year, Aaron Sorkin's return to television since leaving us with a single season of Studio 60 and spending some time writing movies.  It premiered in the same manner as Studio 60 in the form of a character ranting about the state of things.

It's difficult to avoid all the Newsroom-related hate spun toward Sorkin.  There could be two reasons for this.  One is the media is getting a harsh look at themselves and doesn't like it, and secondly, expectations are impossible to overcome.

Why though?  Newsroom is done in the exact same vein as West Wing.  It takes an important, behind the scenes setting and creates and idealized, fictional version of it.  

Generally, Newsroom catches a lot of flack for being preachy, and of course this is the first work of Sorkin's to be preachy?  Have you seen West Wing?  The show many Newsroom-haters profess to love so much?  It was on Wednesdays at 9 p.m. on NBC from 1999-2006.

West Wing was not without flaws.  It could be accused of posessing straw often set up to allow the main characters to succeed.  It also focused two seasons (post-Sorkin) on a completely self-righteous candidate (Santos) who could do no wrong. 

I imagine the same people who criticized Stephen Colbert for his Correspondent's dinner roast, or Jon Stewart and Colbert for their Rally to Restore Sanity, or Season Five of The Wire * (immediately after heaping unadulterated praise on Season Four)  are the same people criticizing Newsroom.  That's because all target the media and it's unlikely the butt of the joke is going to find it very funny.

* Even the title of articles like this one rubbed me the wrong way.  Phrases like "Our show" (which it's not, it's Simon's) lead to the sort of thinking that a personal preference is the same as a "correct" interpretation.  Also, if everyone who claimed to watch The Wire from the start had been watching it from the start it never would've been in constant cancellation danger.  Kind of like how if everyone who claimed to have ancestors on the Mayflower actually had ancestors on that ship, it would've been way over capacity and never made it out of English waters. 

Drama vs. Reality
Q: Newsroom doesn't accurately portray how a newsroom functions.
A: That's not a question.  And, well, yeah...  Life doesn't happen in scenes and people do not speak in dialogue.  You know the pithy comeback you think of hours after a conversation is over?  That is dialogue...how people would talk if they had time to write, re-write and mull over words.  If television dialogue mirrored real life dialogue, no one would watch.

Newsroom is fiction after all, not a documentary.  I did enjoy this backhanded version of the old "it's not realistic" argument, from Dan Rather which is true of most interesting television characters:

"...average newsroom people are seldom as smart or as high-minded as most of the lead characters in this fictional drama"

Additionally, the show takes a lot of guff for including dramatized reactions to real life events.  It is historical fiction.  I do not think historical fiction has to be confined to history from hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Much like West Wing employed Dee Dee Myers and Gene Sperling to add realism, Newsroom's consultant list reads like the panel guest list from HBO colleague Bill Maher's Real Time.

Impossible Expectations
Expectations are so incredibly high for showrunners who have successfully produced much loved movies or television shows.  Look at reactions to David Simon's Treme.  Wait until everyone hates Vince Gilligan's next show.  I think it follows how series finales are criticized so much, especially in cases open to interpretation like Lost or The Sopranos.  The shows are an institution unto themselves and there is no way to please everyone with an end.

That is why the showrunners should continue follow their own creative path of what makes them happy and what they are trying to create.  It may not please everyone.  But being upset at the new product from one of these guys, or at the way they choose to end a series is like being upset at a chef in a four star restaurant because they cooked food the way they like to cook it as opposed to the way you like to cook it, with extra ketchup.  It's possible for a show to both be good and not within someone's personal taste or expectations.

Bias of Objectivity - finally addressed!
With the cable news setting, Sorkin addresses one of the concerns that prevented Studio 60 from succeeding.  It tried to address big issues occasionally but with the backdrop of a sketch comedy show, the stakes were simply not high enough and the characters could not affect change on a meaningful enough level.  That is addressed in Newsroom with the Fourth Estate. 

Back to the show's inherent criticism of the media.  One of the issues it addresses is the bias of objectivity, which the show states is media's false objectivity where they pretend each story has two and only two sides to it, and that each of the two sides should be given equal weight and credence.  Sometimes there are three or four or more reasonable approaches to a story.  And sometimes, one of the arguments is so insane and unreasonable it should be stated as such, and the story should be reported more as facts from the sane side than as a reasoned argument from two sides.  For example:

It’s even more amazing to see [the media] pass along Republican outrage that Obama isn’t cutting Medicare enough, in the same matter-of-fact tone they used during the campaign to pass along Republican outrage that Obama was cutting Medicare.

This isn’t just cognitive dissonance. It’s irresponsible reporting. Mainstream media outlets don’t want to look partisan, so they ignore the BS hidden in plain sight, the hypocrisy and dishonesty that defines the modern Republican Party.

Part 2 coming soon

Oberyn

Benioff and Weiss recently announced they cast the part of "Oberyn Martell" and Pedro Pascal has the honor.

To familiarize the uninitiated...from Entertainment Weekly:


“This was a tough one,” say showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss about the casting. “The Red Viper is sexy and charming, yet believably dangerous; intensely likable, yet driven by hate. The boys love him, the girls love him, and he loves them all back. Unless your last name is Lannister. We found a fellow who can handle the job description and make it seem effortless. He wasn’t easy to find and he won’t be easy to stop.”

According to IMDB Pascal has appeared in television shows like Graceland, The Good Wife, and Red Widow.  The only show I've seen him in is a show about boxing called Lights Out, which lasted one season on FX.  He appeared in a few episodes.  After jogging my memory to who the character is, I remember one important scene that could not be much more fitting to his submission reel for Oberyn.  The following describes a scene in Lights Out, and alludes to a chapter in Storm of Swords which has not aired yet, but will no doubt feature prominently in Season Four.

Pedro Pascal plays a boxer, Omar Assarian, of (I believe) Armenian descent.  Omar has no shortage of bluster, bravado and confidence, and well as the skills to go with it.  He is the feature fight on a card in an early episode.  Omar clearly has the upper hand in the fight and is well ahead on the judges' cards.  However, he decides to make a show of it and mess with his opponent rather than knock him out and end the fight.  He moves around the ring carelessly, showing up his opponent until the all but defeated challenger lands one good punch, knocking out Omar and winning a fight Omar should have wrapped up several rounds earlier. 


This is the first character who I'm familiar with before the show cast him, and I was rooting for Naveen Andrews.  Though, it's important to remember the outstanding casting job done so far by Benioff and Weiss and have a lot of faith in them. 

EDIT (7/10): My Google Alert which notified me when Pascal was cast is also notifying me about poor reactions to his casting.  To which I saw, pish posh!  GRRM himself defended the casting.  I think this is a case where a fans' imagined image of a (fictional!) character has somehow morphed into there being a "correct" version that must be had for this adaptation.  Also, it's an adaptation!  Consider that GRRM acknowledges nothing in the books is a 1:1 version of its real life inspiration, it's understandable that the television series is not a 1:1 adaptation of the books.  Additionally, Weiss and Benioff said they do not look at Season Two as adapting A Clash of Kings, but as the second season of their larger adaptation of the Fire & Ice series. 

The point is, there is no "correct" version.  There are a bunch of "owners" in the show, as in people who for the most part own (pwn?) everyone they interact with, including Tywin, Blackfish, Jaqen H'gar, Khal Drogo and Queen of Thorns.  They are all cast perfectly.  One could throw Oberyn in that category as well, so maybe the benefit of the doubt is in order when talking about Pascal

The West Wing in Ten Episodes - Part 2

This is the second of two posts exploring the ten most representative episodes of The West Wing.  Here are the first five episodes

"In this White House" Episode 2-04
General Douglas MacArthur once said  "Duty, honor, country.  Those three hallowed words irreverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be."

The introduction of Ainsley Hayes is a landmark for the series because it provided a consistent, competent opposition voice to the liberal Bartlet administration.  Having a recurring conservative character probably made it easier for Sorkin to write her as likeable, than as the Republican Of The Week who sometimes, especially late in the series, drifted into straw man territory.  Considering her first scene is to completely smack Sam, who we know to be brilliant, up and down the Capitol Beat show they appear on, her credentials are well established.

Leo and Jed appeal to her sense of duty and public service to work for a Democratic administration.  Characters will often do things either against their political views in the interest of another, greater good or principle such as voting against a gun bill because it's not a strict enough or abstaining from a vote because of ethical concerns about being a lame duck.  It is again a "valentine to public service."  Putting politics aside for service is never more evident than when Ainsley joins the White House. 

"The Two Bartlets" Episode 3-12
Much of Season Three and Season Four focus on the re-elect and the common theme is intellectualism versus commonality.  Sorkin takes issue with intellect painted as aloofness and the implicitl argument that it's better to be folksy and accommodating.

This episode also raises a similar issue first explicitly stated "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet" where Leo challenges the staff to "raise the level of debate" though the idea is a major theme of the entire series.  Unfortunately, Season Three took a slightly more cynical tone where the practicalities of implementing such a vision are far from easy, especially when walking a tight line to re-election.  Much of the cynical tone may be a result of the show finding footing post-September 11th.  Compare the season premiere, written and produced before September 11th, and "Two Bartlets", written and produced after September 11th.

"Manchester Par II"
BARTLET
There's a new book and we're gonna write it.  You can win if you run a smart, disciplined campaign, if you studiously say nothing - nothing that causes you trouble, nothing that's a gaff, nothing that shows you might think the wrong thing, nothing that shows you think.  But it just isn't worthy of us, is it, Toby?

TOBY
No sir.

BARTLET
It isn't worthy of us, it isn't worthy of America, it isn't worthy of a great nation.  We're gonna write a new book, right here right now.  This very moment.  Today.

versus "The Two Bartlets"

BARTLET
I don't want to campaign today.

TOBY
What happened to writing a new book?

BARTLET
We will, but we don't...man we don't have to piss people off everyday...

The show explores the dynamic via Toby and Jed's conversations and Toby's point that there are "two Bartlets", each embodying folksiness or intellect.* 

Once the censure and the MS coverup was resolved, the show shifted it's storyline to re-election which included the underlying theme of the elite versus the everyman.  Other episodes would delve further into this including Jed's tete-a-tete with Richie in "Posse Commitatus" leading to one of the most epic lines of the series** and in "20 Hours in America" as Donna, Toby and Josh flounder their way through Real America.  But there are probably few episodes that set off an exploration of the life feelings of America, and liberals' disgust towards both George W. Bush, the media coverage of him and the scorn received for having any opposing opinions,*** than this one.

* It also has a bonus of Jed taking a speech that Toby was working on for him and using it, but simultaneously making it his own...a window into how the president relies on his staff but still is his own man.

** "Crime, boy, I don't know" is when I decided to kick your ass.

*** Say what you will about George W. Bush but he was the catalyst for a lot of great television, especially from the Davids Three (Chase, Milch and Simon) and even comedies like Arrested Development.  That is the topic for a post I'm currently working on.

"Twenty Five" Episode 04-23
Sorkin departed West Wing at the end of Season Four but not without symbolically taking away the leader of the free world.  John Wells took over as showrunner starting in Season Five.  He picked up the plot where Sorkin left it, where the Bartlet administration was no longer the Bartlet administration.

When Zoe is kidnapped in a scenario he foretold in Season One, Jed recuses himself from the situation so it can be dealt with effectively and impartially.  Unfortunately, that means handing over the keys to his political enemy, the Speaker of the House. The stakes of doing so show just how much respect Jed has for the office, and that he truly believes the office is bigger than the man occupying it.

Sorkin did not leave on the best terms and the show did not find its footing again for over a season and a half.  Even then it did not live up to its hey day of Season Two, albeit still a good show.  Season Five is most similar to Season Three in that it is darker and more cynical.  The sets even seem, literally, darker, as though Warner Brothers was saving money on electricity.  Not only that, but Season Five was almost completely devoid of humor.  Instead we saw infighting by the staffers as Jed retreated far into himself.  The series also for the first time introduced recurring political opponents in Speaker Haffley and Vice President Russell.

Twenty Five represented a turning point for the series, and possibly a symbolic middle finger as Sorkin walked out the door.

"King Corn" Episode 6-13
West Wing split time between the West Wing and the campaign trail beginning mid-Season Six.  On the trail they spent time mainly with three candidates, Vinick, Russell and Santos.  Vinick was a longtime senator putting the cap on a distinguished career.  Russell was an automaton who did whatever Will told him.  Santos was difficult for Josh to control as he tried to reconcile what he would have to do to become president in order to give the country the president he thought it needed.  "King Corn" split the episode into three vignettes "A Day in the Life of...." those three candidates.  It gave a peek into the grueling schedule candidates had to keep, the provincial events they had to attend and the compromises they had to make within themselves to get where they wanted to be.  It also showed the lives of the staffers and the sad Holiday Inn hotels they slogged through the snow to get to before crashing for a few hours until they had to get up with the candidate.  Details such as staffers receiving automatic wake up calls versus candidates receiving calls from actual people helped paint the picture of the different roles people filled on the trail and the direction the final season and a half went for the series.

"Tomorrow" Episode 7-22
The most one can hope for series finales is to do the show justice, and "Tomorrow" did just that.  Expectations for finales are so high they are near impossible to meet, but I would rate "Tomorrow" up there with finales like "Made in America" and "Everyone's Waiting"*. (**EDIT)

It covered a lot of ground, tied up loose ends, resolved longtime characters' threads and moved things into motion for the new administration (and sometimes did both at the same time).  The progressions felt natural and organic and in character, rather than forced.

While I think the goal of "-30-" was to show the never-ending cycle of destitution and institutional problems that inhabit American cities, and used characters as a vehicle to display that, "Tomorrow" took the other side of it, more optimistic.

It showed the idea and ideals of America are larger than one man or one administration, even a man as great as Jed Bartlet and used the naturally occurring courses of action in the supporting characters to show the idea that the country and the office continues. 
 
The show, originally conceived with the though of never showing the president, then only visiting the president periodically, clearly was about Jed Bartlet and the Bartlet administration through and through whether it be the president himself, his staff or the ideals they embraced and that the show conveyed through those characters.  The natural, and only possible, ending point for the show is the end of the Bartlet administration at noon on January 20th.

 As his final act he pardons Toby.  Then, he raps his fist once on the desk, like a judge ending court.

And in the final scene, it reminds us that for all the social studies lessons, pontification and calls to duty the show gave us, it would not be effective in the slightest if not for the strong characters and relationships Sorkin created. 

* "Everyone's Waiting" is up there not just in great finales, but in great episodes

EDIT ** Upon reflection, it is a bit of an exaggeration to put this finale in the category with those of The Sopranos and Six Feet Under.  Probably my own bias and favoritism of West Wing creeping in on that statement.

Honorable Mentions
"And it's Surely to their Credit" & "Posse Commitatus" both examine themes of duty to public service and the Office of the Presidency but those are covered in other episodes listed.

"The Supremes"
Noteworthy as the clear high point of Season Five, which is why it's not representative

"2,162 Votes" & "Election Day"
Both are frantic episodes involving counting.  "Election Day", and I am lumping Parts 1 and 2 together, represents the pinnacle of West Wing 2.0 and the viewer has sincere motiviation to root for both sides.  "2,162" represents both the end of the primary and the launching point for the final season, putting characters into place so they can fulfill their Season Seven roles, whether as candidates, or back in the West Wing, and notable for fulfilling an allusion from all the way back in Season Four's "Commencement".