A Moment About Television
JJ Abrams is taking a lot of shit for making "Mission: Impossible 3" look like a great big episode of "Alias." I've seen three articles already about the specific parallels in plot, story structure, and character between both projects.
At the same time, the papers are also going on about Aaron Sorkin--the last episode of "The West Wing" is on Sunday, and he has new show for the fall that takes placce behind the scenes of a fictionalized "Saturday Night Live." Everybody talks up his unique dialogue rhythms and erudite literary and historical references.
Basically, the thing about these guys (and guys like them--David E. Kelley comes to mind) is if you've seen one thing from them, you've seen it all. Or most, anyway. It's not that they're one trick ponies--far from it. Any one of them is five times the writer I will ever be. They're certainly better paid than I will ever be, and deservedly so.
It's just that they've all put multiple shows on the air that have lasted multiple years. Some TV auteurs have three shows on the air at a time. That's hundreds of characters, hundreds of stories, and they have to be ready week after week or else the network is showing dead air (or even worse, a reality show). Even if they aren't running the shows themselves, these guys are routinely drowning in deadlines. And when you're drowning, you grab onto the first thing that comes floating along.
Those things are the things that work for them. In Sorkin's case, it means back-and-forth zingers about George Bernard Shaw before a monologue about Why This is So Important. In Abrams' case, it means first-and-last-scene-bracketing-a-recent-flashback about characters who can't really communicate, although they Deeply Love Each Other. David Kelley shows reuse character tics, plots, whatever. They're all just supposed to be off-center and politically correct and incorrect at the same time.
You'd do the same thing if you were under the pressure these people are under. If companies gave you a limited amount of money to spend and a limited number of days to write and shoot and a need to fill 22 hours of TV--or 44, or 66. No wonder things look so familiar after a while.
(When Sorkin had to do a season of "West Wing" and "Sports Night" at the same time, one character on each show discovered his father's long term infidelity and had the exact same reaction to it. This was within weeks of each other. He cashed his checks from both networks.)
JJ Abrams is the current it-guy. He'll have five shows on the air in a three year span and they'll all look different but the same. I have higher hopes for Sorkin. He's had three years with nothing else on the air. Hopefully, time to recharge and find some new stories for his voice.
What voice?
You know, that voice that kinda sounds like Mamet, but not as edgy.
Oh, that voice.
Yes, that voice.
At the same time, the papers are also going on about Aaron Sorkin--the last episode of "The West Wing" is on Sunday, and he has new show for the fall that takes placce behind the scenes of a fictionalized "Saturday Night Live." Everybody talks up his unique dialogue rhythms and erudite literary and historical references.
Basically, the thing about these guys (and guys like them--David E. Kelley comes to mind) is if you've seen one thing from them, you've seen it all. Or most, anyway. It's not that they're one trick ponies--far from it. Any one of them is five times the writer I will ever be. They're certainly better paid than I will ever be, and deservedly so.
It's just that they've all put multiple shows on the air that have lasted multiple years. Some TV auteurs have three shows on the air at a time. That's hundreds of characters, hundreds of stories, and they have to be ready week after week or else the network is showing dead air (or even worse, a reality show). Even if they aren't running the shows themselves, these guys are routinely drowning in deadlines. And when you're drowning, you grab onto the first thing that comes floating along.
Those things are the things that work for them. In Sorkin's case, it means back-and-forth zingers about George Bernard Shaw before a monologue about Why This is So Important. In Abrams' case, it means first-and-last-scene-bracketing-a-recent-flashback about characters who can't really communicate, although they Deeply Love Each Other. David Kelley shows reuse character tics, plots, whatever. They're all just supposed to be off-center and politically correct and incorrect at the same time.
You'd do the same thing if you were under the pressure these people are under. If companies gave you a limited amount of money to spend and a limited number of days to write and shoot and a need to fill 22 hours of TV--or 44, or 66. No wonder things look so familiar after a while.
(When Sorkin had to do a season of "West Wing" and "Sports Night" at the same time, one character on each show discovered his father's long term infidelity and had the exact same reaction to it. This was within weeks of each other. He cashed his checks from both networks.)
JJ Abrams is the current it-guy. He'll have five shows on the air in a three year span and they'll all look different but the same. I have higher hopes for Sorkin. He's had three years with nothing else on the air. Hopefully, time to recharge and find some new stories for his voice.
What voice?
You know, that voice that kinda sounds like Mamet, but not as edgy.
Oh, that voice.
Yes, that voice.
posted by Matthew at 4:35 AM
<< Home