Was that The Newsroom I watched last night, or was it the TV equivalent of running on a treadmill? A lot of talk, but basically very little in the way of plot developments. I’m not quite crawling out on a limb to say that nothing happened, but the ingredients necessary for a fine episode were mostly MIA. I guess Sorkin is saving the ‘firing’ of Will McAvoy for the season-ending, cliff-hanger finale for the next and final episode coming next Sunday.
Or maybe it will be a shooting instead?
So opinions must be set aside – I’ve a recap to do. Wait – more opinion: All the groundwork of the last few episodes was undone.
First the blackout itself. They managed to get the word ‘blackout‘ into the titles of two most recent episodes, including this one. Last week the blackout arrived as the episode ended. This week the blackout left as the episode began. When the blackout was in force, Mack was making decisions, rallying the troops, and calling out that they would drop ‘the rundown‘. Didn’t quite workout did it? Cue Sandy’s Weiner-Tell-All.
Solomon Hancock: He fails the white glove test. His vetting turned up mucho problems. His psychiatric review came back looking very spotty, so the NSA lowered his security clearance. He was arrested (nearly 30 years ago) on a solicitation beef, and has been charged as having been in violation of a restraining order which his ex-wife had requested. So is the guy for real, and more importantly, can Charlie Skinner trust him?
You know those Presidential Candidate Debates that the ACN team wanted so badly that they had to wade into the dark waters of Congressman Weiner and Casey Anthony – well, their efforts failed. Will and Mack actually wanted to ask tough questions, and follow ups, but this ‘revolutionary idea‘ was shot down. Some ass-hat, a GOP/RNC big shot called Tate Brady felt the questions, (in the mock debate) were too tough. The questions would embarrass the candidates. He felt that Will was asking the questions as a grandstanding, self-promoting act. So this Brady wasn’t buying into the ACN debate format. He was of the opinion that if they would go for a kinder and gentler format, that might work. But Brady wanted Mackenzie McHale to replaced by someone else.
Which was an unacceptable condition, so Will told Brady to go to hell. So Brady played another card, asking Sloan Sabbith if she would be the debate moderator. Sloan was very succinct when she said, Me? Fuck you!
Speaking of Sloan, and Neal Sampat. Are there any two actors working today who speak so rapidly? The troll hunt seemed like a big story to Neal, but as we found out, not the way he thought.
Today’s trolls are like yesterday’s newspapers – ready to be forgotten. Only in this case Sampat’s chat got him in contact with Charizma, the troll who may actually have Will McAvoy in his sights.
That’s on hold until next week. Maybe Will gets fired by Leona and then in a separate event, he gets shot. One from column A and one from column B.
Speaking of Casey Anthony – we thought we were done with her, but just when we thought we were out, we get pulled back in. Maggie’s roommate Lisa went to high school with Casey. They ask Lisa if she’d like to come on to News Night and give some first-hand insight about Casey Anthony.
Well, Lisa wouldn’t come on board. So Jim and Maggie head off to where Lisa works. She’s a saleslady in a women’s clothing boutique. Sorry – that scene at the boutique with Jim and Lisa and her shopper was a) far, far too long, b) cringe-worthy, c) a five-minute segment that made my eyeballs glaze over. Surely, it was not all that funny – that is except for the fact that Jim was making himself into a jackanapes by trying to hustle Lisa’s customer into buying clothes that didn’t look right on her, but quite likely wouldn’t look good on any woman.
But mission was accomplished as Lisa did agree to come on the show. Sadly, as Will tossed some softball questions at her, Lisa crashed and burned by dragging unfit mothers, unwanted children, and abortion into the discussion. Eyes on the News Night set probably rolled. I know mine did. I think all of us were relieved when Will, that is the on the air Will said to Lisa, Can we get back to Casey Anthony for now?
So it was no surprise that the store where Lisa worked had its windows broken, and epithets like Baby Killer were spray painted onto the store front.
But returning to Lisa, and Jim, and Maggie, and Don – the merry-go-round continues. Lisa gave Jim a major opening when she said, Don doesn’t love Maggie, you’re on deck. But lame Jim said, I’m no one’s second choice; to which Lisa replied – Neither am I. A remark which seemingly sent us back to square one. Only it didn’t.
Somewhere in the second half of the episode, Mackenzie said something to Jim, and the idea of really, really, going after Maggie occurred to him. I think Mack said, Gather thee rosebuds while ye may. So he rushes over to Maggie and Lisa’s apartment only to find who else but Don there. Jim wanted to say something meaningful to Maggie – but, there’s always a but – there’s Don. And it looks like Don has a good sense of what Jim was going to do. So Jim says nothing, and that gives Lisa an opportunity to step into his arms and kiss him.
As I said, the merry-go-round shows no signs of slowing down.
Speaking of slowing down, Mackenzie threw a healthy tantrum or was it a meltdown (Gee – thanks Mr. Sorkin – Mack needed to get trivialized once more)? How about breakdown?
And the Brian-Mackenzie-Will merry-go-round was about to go careening off the tracks yet again.
Brian – you cheated on me with Will -
Mackenzie – I cheated on Will with you -
Will – talking to Jake Habeeb – Why can’t I apologize to Mackenzie?
Jake – [Who has read his Dad's voluminous notes on Will - enough of them to a fill a box-car on a train] – You won’t apologize to Mackenzie because Mackenzie rejected Brian but she betrayed you…
Brian – Will does what he does because he’s lonely. The viewers make him feel less lonely…
Mackenzie – I don’t think you’re the right one to do the story…
Will – Brian, just write the truth
Yadda, yadda. Sorry for the condensed version of the Brian/Mack/Will troika readers, but I just wasn’t all that giddy about this stuff which seems like tv version of getting one’s mouth washed with soapy water as a punishment.
To put a capper on this episode which, at best was a major let down from the previous week, or at worst was a near disaster of a show made up of filler, the cotton candy of Sloan seething, and verbal lint. Adam Roth and Tate Brady (the RNC guys) are sitting at a bar. Roth presses a button on his laptop and turns the screen so Brady can see it.
What we see is another Q&A (or Debate) between some wanna-be Presidential candidates. We hear: Congresswoman Bachmann – to you: Elvis or Johnny Cash? Her reply: Oh that’s a tough one, really tough…
Roth’s eyes don’t exactly roll, but you can see that he is very pleased, that because Brady didn’t go for Will’s format – this debate (on CNN) per Brady’s structure was nothing but a waste of time. It wasn’t a debate – it was just filler.
Speaking of filler, we’ve had enough of that this week – so, I’m waiting for next week, aren’t you? Odds makers are trying to figure the over/under as to the time in the episode when we first see Leona next week. If the line is 37 minutes in, I’m taking the over. At this point feel free to voice your opinions.
Comments
I LOVED IT! Blackout is the metaphor for contemporary news broadcasting. Mock debate describes how the news media dilutes our political discussion.
The characters are growing more complex each week and the rhetoric sizzles.
The acting is incomparable. Maybe Streep would raise the bar a smidge.
Fonda’s preview line for the finale… “The night we killed Bin Laden, you were really good! And, you’re fired!” A great line, perfectly delivered.
I’ll be in the newsroom next Sunday night for sure!
Clearly, this an opposing viewpoint than mine. I thought the episode was weak. Not sure about the complexity of the characters growing each week either. Every time Sorkin gives Mack something sturdy to do, right after that he knocks her back down. Where’s the character growth?
I will surely be in attendance for the Season One finale too. Hoping Will is able to put his pants on without falling over.
To FD or JustMeMike: Again, any thoughts on the possibility that Will’s TWO demonstrated instances of misreading a name (on the air and with Don’s card) are a set up for some sort of physical ailment (or drug addiction). This isn’t a spoiler because I know nothing.l
possibility of ailment or habit – maybe
Chance of being fired – quite likely
Chance of the firing sticking – none
I agree with you, @FD, that the true colors of the characters are starting to show more and more! My only complaint would be Mack’s portrayal, which was touched upon in the article. I just hate how she has a complete break down in every episode. I couldn’t imagine if my bosses at Dish were screaming at each other in the office over their past relationship. Other than that, I thought this episode was, dare I say, flawless and left me dying to see what happens in the finale! I haven’t gotten around to watching it yet, but I plan to ASAP! It’s safely stored on my Hopper DVR, with such a large memory space that I never have to worry about my shows getting deleted, so all I need to do now is find the time to tune in. Have you seen it yet?
My full rant is up. I found this the worst of the nine episodes.
It’s based on Sorkin’s flawed premise that the actual participants in the real GOP primary debates didn’t face tough questioning from moderators. In fact, between May 5, 2011 and March 3 2012, there were 27 such debates. Ask Rick Perry, whose promising candidacy faded as a direct result of the debates, if he felt they weren’t tough enough. Out of approximately 60 hours of debates, the episode cherry-picks ONE softball question posed to Michelle Bachmann and implies that it’s a representative sample. Sorkin is full of s***. And I mean that in a nice way.
ACN proposes a format that seems modeled after a Bill O’Reilly interview: fire questions at the candidate, don’t give them time to answer, and then quickly fire off a follow up question. Does anyone seriously think that representatives of either party organization would agree to such an arrangement?
Side note: I know Sorkin hates the Internet. But, in point of fact the unpaid administrators at Wikipedia would most likely have quickly noticed and corrected Neal’s alteration of Sloan’s page. In fact, a 2007 “New York Times Magazine” article more or less applauded the site’s ability to manage itself. It’d be interesting to see The Newsroom have at least one storyline on how the Internet mechanisms through which people now get their news actually work. But, to do that, one needs to actually know how these mechanisms work.
BTW, I wonder if Will’s couple of reading errors is a set up for some sort of physical ailment (or drug addiction). This isn’t a spoiler as I know nothing. But, the two instances in Episode 9 where Will has trouble with names made me wonder.
I know nothing about the actual debates, having watched none of them. But since I readily admit that I didn’t watch any of the debates – isn’t possible that Rick Perry blew up because he just wasn’t capable, rather than the questions being too tough. And if the questions are tough, and help to winnow out the pretenders, what’s wrong with that?
But I liked the idea of asking and asking follow ups that were tough. Maybe the style we saw was more of a poor editing choice or maybe there was another side like why have the mock candidates even answer at all. The point wasn’t their answers – the point Sorkin intended was the value of the questions themselves.
So it was entirely believable that the RNC guy Tate Brady wouldn’t go for it. Which sort of proves the point made in the prior reader’s comment – that the media dilutes the political discussion.
As for the blitzkrieg style of firing questions – sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t. But the ratatatat style has been a Sorkin trademark. I guess it comes down to what side of the topic you are on. When Will McAvoy’s questions come out that way – I like them. But when Stephen Colbert applied the same tactic in his interview with Sorkin – which I discussed here, I didn’t like it.
“And if the questions are tough, and help to winnow out the pretenders, what’s wrong with that?”
Nothing. That’s my point. The moderators and other GOP candidates on stage did a pretty good job at challenging each other on their positions over the 27 debates. Something that Sorkin totally (and deliberately, IMHO) discounts in the episode.
Since everyone except Romney eventually dropped out of the race, there must have been a lot of really tough questions posed — except for slower lobs to Romney.
I watched most of the debates and I never heard a tough question that any candidate responded to directly. If a candidate sidesteps as well as Romney, he wins. But there’s no real debate taking place.
The networks want to host debates, the candidates want a platform for scoring points. And the moderators want to look tough, but fair. If someone dodges a question, no one calls him out for being evasive.
As Bill Clinton said when congress questioned him, ‘it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.” Sorkin sees reporters throwing sliders. Matt thinks they’re screwballs. Once again, they’re both right!
FWIW, I agree with FD that the debate format we’ve been using for the last couple of decades tend to hinge more on selective sound-bites than substance.
That said, I don’t see the current format as a cakewalk. Romney may have sidestepped questions. BUT, that’s now part his image in the national discussion.
Even IF the parties agreed to it (which they wouldn’t) I don’t see Will and ACN’s in-your-face approach as providing more insight (as I said, that’s what O’Reilly does and I find most of those interviews useless).
Alas, I don’t have a third, better, option.