Television Review: Aaron Sorkin's "The Newsroom"

Aaron Sorkin is the award-winning creator of such television shows as “The West Wing” and “Sports Night,” and the Academy Award-winning writer of films like “The Social Network” and “Malice.” He returns to television on HBO’s new show “The Newsroom,” which features a behind-the-scenes look at what goes on at a major cable television news network. The question on a lot of people’s minds is no doubt whether or not the show is actually good. Luckily, that question has an easy answer.

Sorkin’s trademark and instantly recognizable dialog is on full display in “The Newsroom” from the very start. As with most of his pilots, we are introduced to lead character Will McAvoy in the middle of a tirade that ends up landing him in hot water with both his network and his audience. McAvoy is a typical Sorkin character who is brilliant but opinionated and likeable but off putting. When most of his staff resigns as the result of his tirade at a public speaking event, his ex-girlfriend MacKenzie comes in and takes over the show. If you’re a fan of Aaron Sorkin, there’s a lot to like in “The Newsroom” from the very beginning.

“The Newsroom” assembles perhaps the best cast for an Aaron Sorkin television show to date, and that’s saying something. Jeff Daniels stars as McAvoy and plays him expertly. Emily Mortimer stars as MacKenzie and plays her with a stunning confidence. Though, as the character calls for, it is always clear that insecurities and neurosis rests right below the surface. Rounding out the cast of the first episode of “The Newsroom” are veteran actors like Alison Pill and Sam Waterston who bring the fictional news network to life. If there’s a problem with “The Newsroom,” it isn’t the cast.

The story of the pilot itself is a little more uneven than it probably should be. The first half deals almost exclusively with the fallout from Will’s disastrous public speaking fiasco. While the characters and the interactions are ultimately compelling, this whole section drags on for just a little too long. The second half, however, deals with the crew of the fictional news network as they learn more and more about a breaking news event. This section of the pilot is always riveting and compelling and ultimately shows exactly where the strengths of this show really are. If you can make it to the second half, it will likely be difficult to impossible to turn the show off before it ends.

If the rest of the series is anything like the second half of the pilot, “The Newsroom” shows an incredible amount of potential. As the characters are all fascinating and expertly played, the show seems like it can get a lot out of their relationships and interactions. Watching the staff of the fictional news network deal with real life breaking news events (the pilot deals with the BP Oil Spill from 2010) is also terrific entertainment. The only hurdle to overcome will be the preachy nature inherent in the first half of the pilot. If Aaron Sorkin can get off his political soapbox long enough to tell a good story, “The Newsroom” is going to be on the air for a very long time.

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.