Why Do We Suddenly Hate Auteurs?

“au·teur

noun

a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp.”

----------

Aaron Sorkin’s new show “The Newsroom” premiered on HBO last week to big ratings and a massively polarizing reception. Many of the negative reviews focus on his distinct writing style in particular and cite both characters and plots that are similar to his previous shows like “The West Wing” and “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.”

My question is, why is this a bad thing? I thought that writers everywhere aspired to have a unique and instantly recognizable voice in their work. Say what you will about Aaron Sorkin, but if anything he’s ever written comes on television that fact becomes immediately obvious after only a few minutes of watching. This is most certainly not easy to do, and it used to actually mean something.

A similar backlash (albeit a significantly smaller one) happened earlier in the summer with Joss Whedon’s “The Avengers.” While the film broke box office records and got stellar reviews, a certain vocal minority criticized the film for Joss Whedon’s trademark style. Whedon is another writer with an instantly recognizable style. The way his characters speak, particularly to one another, is a style unlike that of any other writer out there. And yet people see this as a negative for some reason.

These are two of my favorite writers for that exact reason. They’re both masters of their craft, and there’s something particularly comforting to know that I’m about to sit down and watch someone who is absolutely wonderful at their job. There are few people out there who are more consistently entertaining than these two.

Other examples of writers with unique voices are people like Joel and Ethan Coen, Kevin Smith, Diablo Cody and William Goldman. It’s perfectly acceptable to say that you didn’t like their particular style, but to say that they’re “bad writers” simply because they have a style is preposterous. They’re supposed to have a style. They’re supposed to have a voice. They’re writers. That’s what writers do.

I’ve heard certain people in the past criticize both Whedon and Sorkin for not writing “the way people talk.” While I certainly can understand this point of view, I absolutely don’t agree that it’s a negative. People in real life may not talk like they were written by Joss Whedon or Aaron Sorkin, but I for one wish they did. People would be a lot smarter, and would certainly be a whole lot more fun to argue with.

A video appeared online recently called “Sorkinisms – A Supercut.” It collects together clips from Aaron Sorkin’s various television shows including “Sports Night,” “The West Wing,” “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” and a few of his movies. The collection is designed to show off reused dialog and thematic elements across his body of work. Though the author of the video claims that it was done out of respect, a lot of people online have jumped on it as if they now suddenly have “proof” that Sorkin is a hack.


My response is a bit different. Every single clip is instantly identifiable as having been written by Sorkin. It’s all in his voice and style, and it’s all immediately recognizable. There’s that “auteur theory” again. And secondly, the man wrote hundreds of hours of television (allegedly) by himself. He was writing the first season of “The West Wing” and the second season of “Sports Night” at the same time. If you want to hate on the man, you’re going to have to try a little harder than just to pull together seven minutes of clips that span hundreds of hours of work.

So what is the problem, exactly? Why, now of all times, do people suddenly hate work that stands out from everything else? Why do we suddenly want more movies and TV shows that blend in with all other movies and TV shows ever made? Does nobody like that feeling they get when they’re watching something wholly unique? Because I do.

And why didn’t anyone bother to tell me? It could have saved me a lot of time.

The Top Ten Cancelled TV Shows of the 2000s

Television has been changing drastically over the last decade. If you're not an instant hit, the writing is on the wall almost immediately. Out of all of the shows that were prematurely canceled in the last ten years, these are the ones that broke my heart the most.

10. Clerks: The Animated Series (Kevin Smith & Scott Mosier & David Mandel, 2000)

In concept, an animated "Clerks" show doesn't really make a lot of sense. In execution, however, we were treated to something pretty wonderful in the way of adult animation. A mixture of classic "Simpsons" and Kevin Smith's famous characters, "Clerks: The Animated Series" was killed after only two episodes aired (with one being aired out-of-order, really confusing the then 15-year-old Me).

9. Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (Aaron Sorkin, 2006-2007)

After one of the best hour-long television pilots of all time, Aaron Sorkin's "Network: The Show" really struggled to find itself for the better part of a season. It didn't help that "30 Rock" premiered the same year on the same channel. Axed as it was just starting to find its footing, I still miss Matt Albie and Danny Tripp dearly.

8. Angel (Joss Whedon, 1999-2004)

This is an odd one - "Angel" may not be as great as it is if it hadn't been canceled prematurely. "Buffy" had gone off the air and "Angel" was beginning to truly stand on its own when it was canceled, which caused Joss Whedon to end the show in the most frustratingly brilliant way possible.

7. Undeclared (Judd Apatow, 2001-2002)

Not as good as Apatow and Paul Feig's brilliant "Freaks and Geeks," "Undeclared" was still a great character-driven show. Yet again, another show that followed the rule "Just when it starts to become a truly great show, it gets canceled."

6. Stella (Michael Ian Black & Michael Showalter & David Wain, 2005)

"Stella" is definitely not for everyone, but those that love jokes about how funny words sound and obscure literature references really understood how great the few episodes we saw were. "Stella" was able to effortlessly move between extreme high brow humor and low brow, sometimes within a matter of seconds. This, coupled with the show's "Anything can happen at any time" attitude lead to a show that was always fresh and unpredictable, and consistently funny from the beginning of its short run to the end.

5. Veronica Mars (Rob Thomas, 2004-2007)

Who doesn't love a film noir detective story set in high school? People will Neilsen boxes, apparently.

4. Andy Richter Controls the Universe (Victor Fresco, 2002-2003)

This was a great little show that tried to be nothing but fun from beginning to end, and succeeded in a really great way.

3. Arrested Development (Mitchell Hurwitz, 2003-2006)

Proof positive that there are original ideas left in Hollywood. Though they did end up going a little too far into "meta, trying desperately to save the show" territory, "Arrested Development" stands proud as one of the finest comedies ever forged. Luckily the show's popularity is unwavering, and Netflix is bringing back "Arrested Development" for a fourth season to proceed a feature film in 2013.

2. Firefly (Joss Whedon, 2002)

There really isn't anything that I can say about this show that hasn't already been said. Consider this proof of the age old theory that "good things are not allowed to happen to Joss Whedon."

1. Freaks and Geeks (Paul Feig & Judd Apatow, 1999-2000)

I'd rank the pilot of "Freaks and Geeks" up with some of my favorite movies of all time.  Though it did have a few missteps as it neared cancellation (the hermaphrodite subplot doesn't really work in any show, let alone this one), the entire 18 episode run is largely perfect, and is one of the best American television shows of all time.

Honorable Mention:

That's My Bush! (Trey Parker & Matt Stone, 2001)

This one gets an honorable mention because, while being officially canceled, it probably shouldn't have run longer than the six episodes it did. What we got was the perfect execution of a great concept, and anything more probably only would have weakened it.