I've been told that Sorkin modelled Harriet on Kristin Chenoweth, a Broadway singer/actress who came on board to The West Wing during S6 and became ad regular in S7. She's also been outspoken about her Christianity.
I have no idea either as to why Sorkin picked Amanda Peet for that critical role. It's a tricky part, but Allison Janney or Felicity Huffman could have pulled it off -- not that I'm saying Sorkin should have recycled his actors even more than he is doing now, but that part requires that kind of charisma and acting calibre, which Peet doesn't have. She's decorative to be sure, but I feel like there is nothing going on behind her smirks. And her line readings are TERRIBLE.
I hear Peet is pregnant. Maybe Sorkin will find a way to write her out of the show.
I've been told that Sorkin modelled Harriet on Kristin Chenoweth, a Broadway singer/actress who came on board to The West Wing during S6 and became ad regular in S7. She's also been outspoken about her Christianity.
Interesting -- well, that gives me hope that she'll at least come across as a plausible human being. If she's inspired by Chenoweth, she'll probably be pretty evangelical in her style, but it remains to be seen if Sorkin is trying to say, "See, conservative evangelicals can be fun, good-hearted people!" or if it's "See, not all evangelicals are conservative!"
Timothy Busfield never annoys me, but other than that, I agree with you 100%. My biggest concern is for Harriet, too; I really don't know why he decided to have a Christian character front and center (P. speculates he may be trying to redeem himself to the audience he lost in the West Wing pilot), but if he wants us to buy an evangelical Christian appearing on the equivalent of Saturday Night Live, he's going to have to work a lot on her character and how her religion does and doesn't inform her work. We don't, of course, know whether she's evangelical or not; I'm wondering if her line about accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior was real for her, or merely a way of brushing off Drunk Guy. I have an uneasy feeling Sorkin's going to try to have it both ways.
Re Amanda Peet: Sorkin had her in mind? We wondered, because we both found it implausible that someone that young could be the head of the network.
Oh, sorry -- Tim Goodman is the Chronicle's TV Critic. He's refreshingly snarky and opinionated. He's even got a blog going over on SFGate.com -- it's called The Bastard Machine.
Um, I have actually been to people's weddings where the joke was the groom couldn't get married (or that the wedding wasn't valid) because he was already married to his best man/best friend/guy pal
( ... )
Interesting points. As I said to Vonnie above, my biggest issue with Jordan as a character was that she was able to wangle Matt and Danny because she had inside information -- information that she got because some guy working at the treatment center wants to fuck her. Not because she's smart and competent, but because she's fuckable. ::sigh::
That said, I didn't get the sense you did that Harriet was a twit, and I quite liked the women in minor roles and am looking forward to seeing how they develop.
I don't think Harriet IS a twit or that Sorkin is setting her up to be one. I think her ex-boyfriend treats her like she's a twit because he doesn't respect women. That's an important difference.
ITA about Amanda Peet! I understand that the character is supposed to be young and beautiful, but she sould also be intelligent, and AP doesn't come across as smart to me at all! Way to cheerleader/bimboesque. She's absolutely unbelievable in that role to me. I also don't think her acting is up to par with the other cast members.
Sorkin did okay with Jed's catholicism, so I'm willing to see where he goes with Harriet for now. I'd *love* to see a liberal, intelligent christian character on tv, but I'm not holding my breath. What I was *not* happy with was her hitting him. It is *not* okay for women to hit men, anymore than it is for men to hit women.
Comments 24
I have no idea either as to why Sorkin picked Amanda Peet for that critical role. It's a tricky part, but Allison Janney or Felicity Huffman could have pulled it off -- not that I'm saying Sorkin should have recycled his actors even more than he is doing now, but that part requires that kind of charisma and acting calibre, which Peet doesn't have. She's decorative to be sure, but I feel like there is nothing going on behind her smirks. And her line readings are TERRIBLE.
I hear Peet is pregnant. Maybe Sorkin will find a way to write her out of the show.
Reply
Interesting -- well, that gives me hope that she'll at least come across as a plausible human being. If she's inspired by Chenoweth, she'll probably be pretty evangelical in her style, but it remains to be seen if Sorkin is trying to say, "See, conservative evangelicals can be fun, good-hearted people!" or if it's "See, not all evangelicals are conservative!"
Reply
Re Amanda Peet: Sorkin had her in mind? We wondered, because we both found it implausible that someone that young could be the head of the network.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I like Busfield and thought Cal (Kal?) was an interesting change for him.
Am not wowed by Jordan. We'll see, I suppose. But so far I'm not engaged by her--she's too far outside my experience zone.
Reply
Reply
That said, I didn't get the sense you did that Harriet was a twit, and I quite liked the women in minor roles and am looking forward to seeing how they develop.
Reply
Reply
Sorkin did okay with Jed's catholicism, so I'm willing to see where he goes with Harriet for now. I'd *love* to see a liberal, intelligent christian character on tv, but I'm not holding my breath. What I was *not* happy with was her hitting him. It is *not* okay for women to hit men, anymore than it is for men to hit women.
Reply
Leave a comment