This show needs to stop telling us how great it is (seriously, every other scene is about how Matt Albie is the bestest writer ever, or how Sarah Paulson's Harriet Hayes is the most talentedest performer ever, or how Studio 60 is the greatest show ever), and focus on actually being great.
There's a point here, but also a counterpoint.
The point about constant self-promotion is warranted. It's classic "tell, don't show." And it's annoying.
But here's the thing. Sarah Paulson isn't Eddie Murphy. She does a couple mean impressions and she's a natural on camera, but she's not a comic genius, and you can't just throw her out there and have her be a comic genius. This was going to be a problem no matter who was playing the role. On the same level, Aaron Sorkin is a GREAT dialogue writer, but he's a shitty sketch comedy writer (although the most recent sketch, the Nancy Grace one, was tolerable).
So, the "they're the bestest ever" syndrome is permissible - to an extent. They're starting to gradually phase out the telling us of "these are seriously awesome performers, guys" and instead opting to just tell stories using the show as a backdrop. (The wonderful touch on the most recent episode of just sticking Nate Corddry in a giant lobster costume for half the episode, for example, was exactly the level they should be going for.) But they needed a bit of exposition at the beginning.
I agree that it was fine for the first couple episodes to establish that these are talented performers by having other characters talk about it, but they're still doing it, and it bugs. It bugs me more when they keep talking about how great Matt is, because it comes off as Sorkin telling us how great Sorkin is (since Albie is his surrogate). Also, because the sketch scenes have often been weak, we have less and less proof of Matt's excellence.
As for the Nancy Grace sketch, I'll admit that it may have been funnier if I ever watched the real Nancy Grace. But it still sounded too long and dialogue-heavy, which I think has been the problem with most of the sketches they've shown us. What works great in Sorkin's dialogue for his characters behind the camera doesn't work for sketch comedy.
There's a point here, but also a counterpoint.
The point about constant self-promotion is warranted. It's classic "tell, don't show." And it's annoying.
But here's the thing. Sarah Paulson isn't Eddie Murphy. She does a couple mean impressions and she's a natural on camera, but she's not a comic genius, and you can't just throw her out there and have her be a comic genius. This was going to be a problem no matter who was playing the role. On the same level, Aaron Sorkin is a GREAT dialogue writer, but he's a shitty sketch comedy writer (although the most recent sketch, the Nancy Grace one, was tolerable).
So, the "they're the bestest ever" syndrome is permissible - to an extent. They're starting to gradually phase out the telling us of "these are seriously awesome performers, guys" and instead opting to just tell stories using the show as a backdrop. (The wonderful touch on the most recent episode of just sticking Nate Corddry in a giant lobster costume for half the episode, for example, was exactly the level they should be going for.) But they needed a bit of exposition at the beginning.
Reply
As for the Nancy Grace sketch, I'll admit that it may have been funnier if I ever watched the real Nancy Grace. But it still sounded too long and dialogue-heavy, which I think has been the problem with most of the sketches they've shown us. What works great in Sorkin's dialogue for his characters behind the camera doesn't work for sketch comedy.
Reply
If Aaron Sorkin wrote a show about baseball...
Reply
Leave a comment