Aaron Sorkin's "The Newsroom" is a well-organized, professional mess. Nevertheless, the show was recently renewed for a second season, after the airing of the second episode. HBO lurches from feast to famine and sometimes from famine to famine as appears to be the case, here.
The premise, a network news anchor at a cable channel struggling between telling the truth or gaming ratings, is not remotely believable. Sorkin apparently wants to do for Nightly News what he did for the West Wing: in a high place, find the pizazz, sex and moral struggle between base motives and a higher purpose and lay it all bare for viewers, as though we are ogling through a keyhole at well-drawn characters who operate at a pace the camera struggles to catch.
Sorkin knows exactly what he is doing, God knows he is a huge talent, but imposing a moral premise on TV news is like pasting hair on a hairless dog. The idea of a struggle for the heart and soul of Television news is ridiculous at face value: of course the ratings game has wrecked the joint. Put another way, I know West Wing and TV News: and "Newsroom"; you are no West Wing. The only place that gets Television news right is the "Daily Show" which gives the appropriate comedic frame. (Speaking of which, here is an idea for Sorkin: in season 2 -- change "The Newsroom" to a fictional comedy news channel and you have a horse to run.)
In "The Newsroom", the ensemble cast are all talented, but it is dismal to watch actors papering over the premise's weakness by overacting each blessed moment. (Interestingly, in contrast, the actors in "Veep" -- the HBO comedy about a fictional vice president's office with echoes of the West Wing standard -- play their roles muted to a comedic fault except for the lead, Julia Dreyfus, who plays like a dingbat Auntie Mame.)
In "The Newsroom", the romantic sub-plots work overtime to paper over the implausibility of the premise. No matter how well staged, the romantic tension is thin gruel. The actors are pushing as hard as they can, like the Little Train That Could.
There is one reason to keep watching: Jeff Daniels. A phenomenal talent who made interesting choices throughout a distinguished career as a stage and film actor, a musician, and writer, this is his first lead on a TV series. Daniels' character is the implausible heart of the series -- the lead anchor-- , and it is fascinating to watch Daniels inhabit the role completely. If building a TV series around excavating the heart of a true news man on Television in defiance of the decay wrapped in the trappings of wealth doesn't work, it is not Daniel's fault for trying.
Daniels is one of the best and least visible actors of his generation. I can't think of anyone else -- maybe Sam Shepherd -- who has built an acting career on his own terms; darting in and out of the major leagues from a home base in theater and music. But unlike Shepherd, Daniels never went through the leading man mill. He has toiled on the margins of fame; a superb character actor with a wicked comedic streak. I adore that comedic streak, of course. One would be dumb, not to.
But maybe that is what Daniels fled from. Maybe he had been shown a hundred TV sitcoms and rejected every one until a writer of Sorkin's stature and talent came calling with a Serious character and a Serious lead role. It's too bad the premise is so wrong. I get what Sorkin is attempting. I appreciate HBO making the choice and putting Jeff Daniels in the slugger position. To HBO: as hard as it is to know you shut down "Luck" and are letting "The Newsroom" limp into a second season; make it a comedic "Daily Show" newsroom. If Jeff Daniels does it, you will have a hit.
The premise, a network news anchor at a cable channel struggling between telling the truth or gaming ratings, is not remotely believable. Sorkin apparently wants to do for Nightly News what he did for the West Wing: in a high place, find the pizazz, sex and moral struggle between base motives and a higher purpose and lay it all bare for viewers, as though we are ogling through a keyhole at well-drawn characters who operate at a pace the camera struggles to catch.
Sorkin knows exactly what he is doing, God knows he is a huge talent, but imposing a moral premise on TV news is like pasting hair on a hairless dog. The idea of a struggle for the heart and soul of Television news is ridiculous at face value: of course the ratings game has wrecked the joint. Put another way, I know West Wing and TV News: and "Newsroom"; you are no West Wing. The only place that gets Television news right is the "Daily Show" which gives the appropriate comedic frame. (Speaking of which, here is an idea for Sorkin: in season 2 -- change "The Newsroom" to a fictional comedy news channel and you have a horse to run.)
In "The Newsroom", the ensemble cast are all talented, but it is dismal to watch actors papering over the premise's weakness by overacting each blessed moment. (Interestingly, in contrast, the actors in "Veep" -- the HBO comedy about a fictional vice president's office with echoes of the West Wing standard -- play their roles muted to a comedic fault except for the lead, Julia Dreyfus, who plays like a dingbat Auntie Mame.)
In "The Newsroom", the romantic sub-plots work overtime to paper over the implausibility of the premise. No matter how well staged, the romantic tension is thin gruel. The actors are pushing as hard as they can, like the Little Train That Could.There is one reason to keep watching: Jeff Daniels. A phenomenal talent who made interesting choices throughout a distinguished career as a stage and film actor, a musician, and writer, this is his first lead on a TV series. Daniels' character is the implausible heart of the series -- the lead anchor-- , and it is fascinating to watch Daniels inhabit the role completely. If building a TV series around excavating the heart of a true news man on Television in defiance of the decay wrapped in the trappings of wealth doesn't work, it is not Daniel's fault for trying.
Daniels is one of the best and least visible actors of his generation. I can't think of anyone else -- maybe Sam Shepherd -- who has built an acting career on his own terms; darting in and out of the major leagues from a home base in theater and music. But unlike Shepherd, Daniels never went through the leading man mill. He has toiled on the margins of fame; a superb character actor with a wicked comedic streak. I adore that comedic streak, of course. One would be dumb, not to.
But maybe that is what Daniels fled from. Maybe he had been shown a hundred TV sitcoms and rejected every one until a writer of Sorkin's stature and talent came calling with a Serious character and a Serious lead role. It's too bad the premise is so wrong. I get what Sorkin is attempting. I appreciate HBO making the choice and putting Jeff Daniels in the slugger position. To HBO: as hard as it is to know you shut down "Luck" and are letting "The Newsroom" limp into a second season; make it a comedic "Daily Show" newsroom. If Jeff Daniels does it, you will have a hit.
4 comments:
Jeff Daniels was a part of Circle Rep Theatre in New York in the early 1980's, doing such plays as Lanford Wilson's "Fifth of July" and other works.
He grew up in Ypsilanti, Michigan (where is family ran a lumber yard) and with his earnings from his film career he started the Purple Rose Theatre Company in Ann Arbor. (The theatre is named for the Woody Allen film he starred in, "The Purple Rose of Cairo.") It is dedicated to doing new plays, including some of Jeff's own works ("Escanaba in Da Moonlight") and commissions; Lanford Wilson's "Book of Days" got its world premiere there.
I've had several phone conversations with him having to do with my research on the Circle Rep for a book I wrote about the company. My impression is that he is not interested in stardom; he's an actor, writer, and director, and he'd rather do a good job of creating good art than being a celebrity.
"The Newsroom" attempts to be as relevant as "The West Wing" was. The first two episodes remind me of the opening shows of The West Wing. Characters have to be established and premises lain. Not an easy task for any writer, but Sorkin can handle it and has already shown that he can.
Jeff Daniels and Sam Waterston were good choices and have the dramatic heft to carry this series.
I applaud HBO. NBC would have already cancelled this show after 2 outings and ABC and CBS would have shuffled it in their line ups. It's on my Xfinity On Demand que. I'm looking forward to seeing how these characters change and grow over the next two seasons.
Dan Rather begs to differ:
http://gawker.com/5922830/dan-rather-every-anchorman-is-an-ass-sometimes
Bad Sorkin is better than 95% of the crap on tv, so I'm going to keep watching.
I loved Daniels in the Purple Rose of Cairo, my favorite Woody Allen picture. He didn't even get to prepare. That movie started filming with Michael Keaton playing Tom Baxter (of the Chicago Baxters. Poet, adventurer, explorer) but Allen felt he wasn't working out Daniels was offered the part and had to show up immediately since production had started. Amazing.
Post a Comment