How to put this: Studio 60 doesn’t know from comedy. (This isn’t just me shooting my mouth off. This is a lot of comedy practitioners I’ve talked to, shooting their mouths off. Advocates and detractors are fighting it out here.)
”Science Schmience?” Really? Where’s the joke? Where’s the punchline? (Note to Sorkin apologists: ”America’s willful dismissal of science is a shame and an embarrassment!” is not a punchline.)
”But it’s a drama, you dolt!” scream the faithful. Yes. It’s a drama about comedy. Except it’s not about comedy. It’s about (in this order) Aaron Sorkin, ”issues,” and ”television.”
Comedy (specifically, television sketch comedy, and even more specifically, Saturday Night Live)is supposed to be lens through which Sorkin examines the culture wars,the use and abuse of the glass teat, the politics of free expression ina commercial medium, etc. But the ”comedy” of Studio 60functions more like a barometer of the weather up Sorkin’s ownrarefied, um, argot. We’ll leave aside his main characters drugproblems, workaholism, and inability to relinquish control (is itreally heroic that Matthew Perry’s character insists on writingeverything? Or is it, I dunno, manic?), and focus only on the sketches.In Episode 3, we saw more of the show-within-a-show than we’ve everseen before (including the SNL-type newscast parody, featuring players D.L. Hughley and Sarah Paulson, pictured). And what we saw… was not comedy. Commentary, definitely.Wit, perhaps. But not comedy. Not even BAD comedy.This has nothing to do with ‘funny.’ There’s no debating ‘funny.’ ‘Funny’ iswhat makes people laugh. Which seems like these characters’ least pressingconcern. Which is why I say again: This is not comedy.
The sketches and/or sketch artists on Studio 60 have referenced or utilized the following:
Alfred Lunt
Groucho Marx (that legendary ”frat comic”)
Commedia dell’arte
Moliere
Gilbert and Sullivan
The erosion of science — its demotion to mere ”belief system” in Bush’s faith-based America
They have not referenced/utilized:
Pop stars
Funny fat people
Funny ugly people
Intentionally fake-looking spurting-blood effects
Testicles
Hoboes/pirates
Falling down and breaking something
Speedos on men who shouldn’t wear Speedos
”Cooter”: The word, the concept or the Dukes of Hazzard character
Boobs
Testicles again
In the fictional realm of the NBS network, does Studio 60 follow Masterpiece Theater’slead-in? Far be it from me to argue for the dumbing down of televisiondrama, but let’s keep our eye on the ball: Comedy is anarchy. AaronSorkin styles himself a philosopher king. He wants to will hisenlightenment on his audience. That’s not how comedy works. Comedy issomething the comedian is barely in control of. Comedy is somethingthat happens somewhere between the comedian and the audience. Sorkin writes essays-in-dialogue. In his view, comedy must mean something, and that ‘’something” must be the will of the writer.
That’s not comedy. That’s schmomedy.
Comments (1-30) of 59 Add your comment
I thought the first episode was brilliant. Although he did plagiarized, I mean, referenced himself twice with scenes that matched those on the WEST WING. When the West Wing came about, television seemed to be on a downward spiral, creativity and originality was only found on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and a handful of other shows. But, now, Aaron just seems dated and unoriginal. Yes, the snappy dialogue is there, but it no longer snaps… and for the most Part, since the West Wing, television has experienced a rebirth. There is better fare out there, better characters, funnier writers, smarter more original programming. It’s time for Aaron Sorkin to reinvent himself… he’s not the golden saviour of television his ego tells him he is. He’s right now sorta hacky and kinda of embarrassing.
i’m so glad i’m not the only one who didn’t find the comedic parts very comedic. i know they’re not showing the entire sketch, but what they are showing is just not funny. not one bit.
The problem with the G&S sketch is that G&S is pretty much lost on todays modern audience. If Sorkin wanted to make a similar statement for the show within a show (we’re ironic-funny and classy) then he probably should have used a big Lloyd-Webber production number … possibly with a giant rolled up hundred dollar bill regarding Danny’s addiction.
Oh come on! This show is smart, witty, provacative and that’s good for television. It’s already struggling for viewers, don’t trash it and put it in the grave, ok?!
I agree with most everything you said, except that they DID utilize a “funny fat guy” with the briefly seen golf sketch. Tellingly, that was the only bit that looked like it might actually be funny.
You know, some of that stuff on the show was as funny as anything you’d actually get on SNL. And pretty much par for the course of the types of skits they’d run.
In fact, some of it was BETTER, due to the fact that there’s a laugh there, but not enough to stretch a sketch to 60 seconds, or however long they run.
“The Nic Cage Show”? Its a skit around an impersonation. Deserves about as much time as it got. Funny little mimick there that the guy did. Lets move on. “Pimp my Trike”? Pretty funny concept. 5 seconds, I get the gag, move on. SNL stretches that to 90 seconds, easy. “Get in the Hole!!!”? Hysterical. Who IS that guy in real life? Does he just follow Tiger around between shots? Why does he need to shout it from the Tee box? Is Tiger really going to hole a DRIVE? It’s funny…
Meanwhile, Sorkin has a problem with the religious right, that’s pretty obvious. But I’ve heard the comedy element bashing on several sites now, and you know – it’s not THAT terrible.
It’s not a bad show, it’s a boring show. There are too many characters, of which a few are annoying (Sarah Paulson’s character makes me want to turn the channel), and Matthew Perry is not funny enough. I miss his Chandler one liners. I say they should just let him ad-lib and throw a lot of them in.
Amanda Peet is actually good… I haven’t liked her in anything prior to this show. It just needs to be funnier, or it needs more wit in the writing or something.
Wow, did you read my mind. Every week, i watch the show and want to like it (i did really like the 1st episode), but don’t. I’m on Sorkin’s side, politically, but I certainly don’t like how pedantic the show is. Stop trying to drop knowledge on all of us and make the comedy funny!
There have been two episodes now that has shown sketches. The G&S song was great. There was an earlier scene that set it up beautifully.
Last week, all the sketches were hinted at. Rob Reiner’s monologue (Rob Reiner as host?), and Gwen Stefani’s musical number (who we never saw) were implied.
I am a long time fan of SNL and wish Studio 60 would have more comedy. There are only seven people in the cast, so sketches may be in short supply.
The thing is, no comedy writer is going to use their best stuff for comedy bits that are in the background of a drama. They’ll use half-baked ideas and bits they couldn’t get on an actual comedy show.
I like the show, I never expected it to be funny, just witty, which it is.
It’s a fictional show, so it’s fantasy/fiction that a comedy show would be able to aim for high standards and that an audience would follow them through it. I say it’s fiction because we’ve seen too many great comedies (Arrested Development is of course the example that comes to mind) get cancelled before their time, while Two and a Half Men is somehow the highest rated “comedy” on the air. Let us enjoy the thought that an audience would catch on to this kind of thing and even grow from there.
If SNL had done bits on those 11 things you listed as not referenced, you would labeled it sophmoric. Studio 60 is a drama about the behind-the scenes of a late night show. They have shown sketches about intelligent subjects. Celebrate the improvement over 80% of what else is on and stop nit picking.
Dan – I was thinking the same thing. SNL isn’t funny, so I assumed that the writers weren’t trying to make the sketches funny, only to reflect those which would actually be aired on such a show. If there’s a show we should companin about not being funny it’s SNL. Speaking of which, I’m waiting for Studio 60 to implement some sort of Natalie Portman/Chronic-what-cles of Narnia type rap to really revitalize it.
I just watched a 3 minute preview of “30 Rock” on YouTube. Now THAT was comedy!
“Intelligent Comedy” (that happens to be not funny) … is neither.
somewhere Lorne Michaels is cackling to himself and oscillating wildly.
I WANT to like this show but I just don’t yet. I’m going to hang on long enough to see Lauren Graham guest star (she IS going to, right?).
Question: Does anybody else think that the characters talk so fast that some of the funniest comments are being lost in the shuffle? I’ve been having to rewind my TiVo to catch a lot of what is said.
Why does ew.com keep saying it won’t post my opinion because it thinks it might be spam?
Ned (not me; another Ned) said: “no comedy writer is going to use their best stuff for comedy bits that are in the background of a drama. They’ll use half-baked ideas and bits they couldn’t get on an actual comedy show.”
I totally agree. Which is why I didn’t really expect the sketches on this show to be funny (in fact, it’d be better if they just didn’t show them, and left it up to us to *imagine* they’re funny).
The same principle is true of songs written for fictional movie or tv show pop-music performers (for example “That Thing You Do”). They’re never any good — if they were, they’d be *real* pop songs!
not funny. has anyone seen snl lately that is not funny
When the New York Times said that there was nothing on television like Studio 60, I was in love with the show before I saw it. I eagerly awaited it, only to realize there had been stuff like this in television twice… it was called Sports Night and The West Wing. The New York Times love letter to Studio 60 now feels a little false, in view of how quickly the show is disintegrating into the same old Aaron Sorkin.
Dudes,
I think you all are missing the point of this show. This is not SNL. This is a show about what goes into making a show like SNL. There is clear drama in the fact that one of the guys HAS to take the job because he can’t make his movie because he flunked his drug test. These two guys have bad blood with the network and now the network has to beg for them to come back and save the show. The sketches are not what the show is about. The show is about these two writers wanting to unload the untalented guys who were making 30,000 an episode to write a bad show but they have to stick with them. Note to audience: Matthew Perry is not suppossed to be funny. He is suppossed to be under tremendous pressure to “write” funny which is actually dramatic. Note to audience: This is not SNL – it’s a show about behind the scenes….
I tend to agree, Scott. It’d make for a stronger show overall if the comedy (or at least bits we see of it) was better.
Oh, and under the list of things not utilized/referenced, you forgot the alpha and the omega of funny:
Monkeys.
Agree w/previous poster…comedic bits are funny enough and not really the point. Point is, show is smug, condescending, and insufferable…characters are indistinguishable, banter could be inter-changable from character to character, all sounds the same…plots are ridiculous. Who CARES about network programming execs? NO ONE! Also, at least a decade too late. Should have done Studio 60 in early 90’s, Sports Night now that ESPN is so entrenched in national consciousness, but not run into the ground yet. Needs fresh, edgy, gritty approach, not high-sheen melodrama.
I’m beginning to lose interest in this thing because it’s just not compelling. Two weeks of seeing the behind the stuff was interesting, but where to go from here. I really don’t care about any of the characters and that’s the main issue. I agree with the comment that the show is all about Sorkin. I suppose it’s good therapy for him.
And who cares whether or not the snippets of comedy sketches are funny or not. It’s a montage to provide some context about what Studio 60 is all about.
How exactly is this show provocative when it’s just preaching to the choir every week? The only people who watch this show already understand that TV is mostly a cultural wasteland – some embrace it and some cling to the notion that their favourite show is so much better than everything else.
The power struggles involving network execs and the writers on Studio 60 are excellent, but the Studio 60 actors and their sketches are excruciating, just because every single one that we focus on is really just about America’s ongoing culture war. I don’t think very many people want this show to be a sit-com for all 44 minutes, but the momentary sketches have to start becoming believable as pure comedy. In what world would anyone laugh at the “Science Schmience” sketch? Essentially it’s designed to lecture and scold religious blockheads, by just reiterating basic facts. Ignoring its offensively superior tone, how is this sketch funny exactly? Is Sorkin trying to be ironic by constantly preaching to us? Plus, Harriet’s comedy-crusade was absurd, since both her bear joke and Simon’s joke were equally lame. Only in Sorkin’s fantasies could Italian commedia dell’arte become popular. What I do think is humorous is the fact that Sorkin fans are assuming this show is too intelligent for the general public. I didn’t realize that Sorkin lent out his high-horse to his admirers. Also, was that Lucy Davis from The Office UK just sitting there?
As a friend pointed out to me, Sorkin may have made a mistake by embracing an SNL back-drop. If he really is so concerned about the politics of network TV and the ongoing culture war in America, he should have probably picked a Daily Show-type format for his show-within-a-show so all his political and cultural preaching would make sense for the program… and might also have been funny in that context.
I think Sorkin should definitely hire some comedy writers to write the segments that require comedy. I mean didn’t he hire government experts for The West Wing?
Note to Mary Ann…
A show ABOUT the “behind the scenes” of SNL, that cannot even drum up jokes to make SNL’s “D” list, is, by definition, a failure. The bantor behind the scenes may be the point… but within the context of the show-within-the-show, the characters have to provide some evidence that it is capable of providing great sketch comedy.
Trust us, we get it. But you’re obviously hoodwinked into thinking that the show is too “smart” for us.
The sketches featured on “Studio 60″ are awful I’ll admit. They’re as bad as the crap “SNL” puts on the air.
Considering that this is about the behind-the-scenes drama, we don’t need to see them. It’s one thing to have a quick glimpse, but this week’s episode spent 3 minutes going through a montage of all the sketches. Why?
Look, I love “Studio 60″ but Sorkin needs to knock it off with wasting time on the sketches…
I’m going to start with an analogy to help make my point as clear as possible. Let’s take “Grey’s Anatomy” for instance. What is it about? It’s about doctors. Now, what is it really about? Relationships, people sleeping around and other assorted drama. Okay. What if we did “Grey’s Anatomy” but made all the scenes with the doctors in the operating room look really unrealistic? Like REALLY unrealistic, like they’re using kitchen knives to cut open chests, etc. That would probably make you less likely to believe these people are doctors at all, thus undercutting the belief in the show as a whole. That’s the “Studio 60″ problem.
I don’t believe in the sketches because they’re really not funny. Therefore, all that talking the writers, directors and actors do during the show seems false. If they are working on the show SO HARD, then why do we get sketches like “Pimp My Tricycle.” Really, “Pimp My Tricycle,” come on! We didn’t even get to see much of the commedia dell’arte sketch and I thought that sounded really interesting. I know people say the sketches are secondary but I think they’re primary, because isn’t that what the show’s background is (the real NBC show, not the fake NBS show) like in “Grey’s Anatomy” it’s a hospital.
Lastly (if this wasn’t long enough) if the writers can come up with good drama (which is what I think fans like) then they should be equally good at crafting some comedy. It’s really not that hard. Some of the funniest things are quite simple. (like SNL’s “Lazy Sunday,” two nerdy white guys rapping about their afternoon.) Plus, they’ve got D.L. Hugley (a “King of Comedy”) and Nate Corrdry (sp?) who was great on “The Daily Show.” (also, don’t hate on Sarah Paulson, watch “Down With Love” and enjoy…)