"The Newsroom" Review: Not The Greatest Show, But It Can Be

By Sarah Carlson | TV Reviews | July 3, 2012 | Comments ()


episode-01-will-mcvoy-600.jpg

Not long after the Supreme Court ruling regarding the Affordable Care Act was handed down last Thursday came the jokes tying in Aaron Sorkin's new HBO drama, "The Newsroom." "I can't wait to get the best Obamacare reportage from Will McAvoy in a year and a half," a friend tweeted, referring to the lead character and news anchor played by Jeff Daniels. The barb isn't undeserved. For a show set in the world of news, the biggest complaint against it has been the way it fictionally covers news. Sorkin, who has brought us memorable TV and films from "The West Wing" to The Social Network, has set his latest project and the TV follow-up to his general failure of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" in the past. Spring 2010 is ripe for the picking, from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to the passing of Arizona's strict immigration law, but it just as easily is ripe for revisionism. Here is Sorkin's biggest flaw in what nonetheless is a solid if in-need-of-work drama: rewriting the past is too easy. Hindsight hampers our ability to examine how best to report a past and already well-reported on story, especially when that analysis is interwoven in a larger narrative concerning just what modern reporting is and should be. The new executive producer of the fictional "News Night," Mackenzie MacHale (Emily Mortimer), declares in the pilot that she wants to "speak truth to stupid." That's not necessarily a bad sentiment when you consider some of what passes for journalism these days, but it does smack of too much pretension when you realize the dialogue Mortimer is delivering is written with the knowledge that MacHale, if real, wouldn't have. Granted, there's room for abuse when using fiction to tell a point -- just look at dim Gov. Ritchie of "The West Wing," an in-no-way-veiled commentary on George W. Bush -- but at least trying to tell original stories would have been braver. Still, "The Newsroom" isn't one giant sermon, and even a less-than-great entry from Sorkin is better than much of what graces the airwaves. That's underselling the drama, though; it is flawed, but it is still good. Most importantly, it is a show worth dissecting and debating -- one that, like its fictional counterpart "News Night," is still developing. They both deserve a shot at greatness.

Despite the issues regarding the news coverage in "The Newsroom," the news isn't the star. It's the people who work in the news business -- the ones crazy enough to stick with it, the ones who feed off the news and the race to deliver it like a drug. Newsrooms are ideal settings for both comedy and drama, and only two episodes into "The Newsroom," Sorkin has presented viewers with a mix of both. A character will pontificate quite verbosely on a current event one minute and fall down or accidentally send an embarrassing email to thousands of employees the next. It helps to know Sorkin was a musical theater major and that that medium is his ultimate love. He likes to operate in a heightened sense of reality, one in which characters, even though not technically singing, burst into lightning-fast dialogue on a whim. Their back and forth is a form of music. To deliver his Sorkinese, the creator has assembled an impressive ensemble -- "There's something like 13 Tony nominations in this cast," he said in a recent Vanity Fair piece. Leading the pack is Jeff Daniels, and often overlooked actor who only two episodes in has said more with his facial expressions than most actors say in dialogue in an entire season of TV.
 
His Will resembles Keith Olbermann to a degree, a hard-charging curmudgeon who is convinced his way is the best way. Will, however, has kept this side away from the public, portraying himself as an even-keeled, polite and ultimately unopinionated everyman -- the "Jay Leno of news," as he is dubbed. When he finally loses his cool at a forum, however, informing the audience and soon countless online viewers that America the Beautiful just might need a little work, his luck changes. Most of his staff, including executive producer Don (Thomas Sadoski), defect to a new show, leaving behind a few staffers including Will's assistant, Maggie (Allison Pill) and his blogger, Neal (Dev Patel). In to revamp "News Night" is EP Mackenzie MacHale (Emily Mortimer), an experienced journalist recently back from covering Afghanistan who also is Will's ex. She brings along one of her top producers, Jim Harper (John Gallagher Jr.), and grand ideas on reshaping the dialogue of cable news. (Her reference to Cervantes and Don Quixote is one of the several ways Sorkin self-plagiarizes; such topics also used in his show "Sports Night" in the 1990s.) "That studio is a courtroom and we only call expert witnesses," Mackenzie tells the staff. "Will is the attorney for both sides, he examines the witnesses and reveals facts." While the way in which Sorkin is examining the news -- by working in the past -- is questionable, the actual questions his characters are voicing regarding the news world are not only valid but believable and necessary. "I'm looking at an oil rig sinking into the ocean. That's pretty good television," Will tells Mackenzie in Episode Two as he pushes to lead the hour with more oil spill coverage and she wants the immigration bill at the top. "We don't do good television; we do the news," she replies. These are the types of discussions that are happening in newsrooms worldwide, no matter if they are for print, broadcast or online products. The future of journalism is still being written, and if you aren't interested in debating it, or even considering it, you probably shouldn't watch "The Newsroom."
 
That said, it is important for fans of Sorkin like myself to admit that part of why I love what comes out of his characters' mouths is because I agree with what is coming out of their mouths. "The West Wing" is liberal porn, and already "The Newsroom" has had its moments. Look at Maggie's tirade against the way the Arizona immigration debate was being handled: "The rhetoric we use to talk about these people who risk their lives to have a shot at picking oranges so their kids have a shot at not being dead makes it sound like we're talking about scraping gum off our shoes. These people choose to take a huge risk to become Americans and they deserve a better descriptor than 'illegals.' " Or take this exchange between Mackenzie and financial reporter Sloan Sabbith (Olivia Munn). Mackenzie: "What's the difference between a corporation and a person?" Sloan: "Have you ever held a door open for someone?" Mackenzie: "Yes." Sloan: "Did you ask them for money first?" Mackenzie: "No." Sloan: "That's the difference." Will, at least, doesn't come across as a raging partisan; based on his conversations he is hard to peg politically. That combined with his cynicism toward Mackenzie's idealistic views actually help save the show from being bogged down in self-righteousness. Not everyone here is on a crusade.
 
Will and Mackenzie's dynamic is fascinating. She broke his heart, we learn in Episode Two, by cheating on him after two years. That was three years ago, and her reappearance in each his life isn't reopening an old wound -- the wound never healed to begin with. Their battles are much bigger than the news they are covering, and every line and every look is weighted with the kind of importance and in many ways heartbreak usually seen on shows such as "Mad Men." Mortimer, also quoted in the Vanity Fair piece, nailed it when she described the sexiness of a good argument: "The great writers and directors of the past have understood that sexual tension can be so brilliantly depicted in the way that people talk to each other -- Billy Wilder and (George) Cukor knew that, Shakespeare knew that, and Jane Austen knew that. And it's so rarely investigated these days, partly because the world has to be where people talk fast and funny. And one of those worlds is the news." You can tell Will and Mackenzie get under each other's skin, and they both love it and hate it. On the other end of the tension spectrum is Maggie and Jim, two twentysomethings with obvious chemistry and Don, Maggie's boyfriend, in the way. Also in the way is Maggie, a young woman still coming to terms with herself and her talents who, yes, is making bad decisions when it comes to men. Despite all the hubbub that has been made against her and Mackenzie's characters being considered "weak," these women aren't pushovers. There are definite touches of CJ Cregg and Donna Moss of "West Wing" fame in them, from the goofiness to the compassion to the ability to get a man to stop dead in his tracks and wonder just what the hell is happening to him now that she is in his life. Not a one of them is perfect, and that is how it should be. Daniels, Mortimer, Pill and Gallagher Jr., however, are pitch-perfect.
 
Sam Waterston rounds out the cast as Charlie Skinner, the bow-tied head of the news division and the orchestrator of the Mackenzie-Will team who pops in to encourage the new drive toward excellence. He also wants Will to stay away from Reese (Chris Messina), the numbers guy and little red devil on Will's shoulder reminding him of ratings and encouraging him to ditch Mackenzie's new directives. The guidelines for determining what goes on the air are simple: 1. Is this information we need in a voting booth? 2. Is this the best possible form of the argument? 3. Is the story in historical context? And 4. Are there really two sides to this story? Those principles aren't necessarily the makings of what ratings guys consider good TV, but Mackenzie has already spoken her piece about such an idea. Critics confused with the importance placed upon such debates are either unaware of the state of the modern newsroom, choosing to ignore it or feeling guilty for being complicit in it. "The Newsroom" isn't for everyone, and it isn't claiming to be. But the issues broached in the series are ones that influence everyone's lives, whether realized or not. Sorkin would be wise to return his drama to the present (he has the time; it was picked up for a second season), but viewers shouldn't disregard the messages based on seeing them played out in the past. The style of "The Newsroom" may be somewhat old-fashioned, but it's as current of a show as we will ever see.
 
Sarah Carlson is a TV Critic at Pajiba. She lives in San Antonio.



Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Because every time you do an angel does the Paul Rudd dance

Around the Web


5 Shows After Dark 7/3/12 | Katie Holmes, We Underestimated You





Comments Are Welcome, Jerks Will Be Banned


  • Diane

    I agree that this show is more about the characters and that the news is not the star. Hopefully people will concentrate on this more than on the fact that they were wrong about the verdict on the Supreme Court decision. I agree that Sorkin has delivered viewers with both comedy and drama; it makes for an interesting show. I wasn’t able to see either episode live, but I did watch the recording on my Hopper. I was excited when my Dish coworker suggested the upgrade and the show, playing it back saved me a ton of time, I was able to start watching in my kitchen and continue watching in my living room.

  • Uriah_Creep

    Wecome to Pajiba, DianeBot.

  • MonkeyHateClean

    I've liked the first two episodes but feel like it's gearing up for romantic drama aplenty which I typically loathe.

    The one thing I really dislike about the show: the music. The music director is trying way too hard.

  • Lbeees

    He should have used W.G. Snuffy Walden!

  • annie

    I'm kind of annoyed that I don't hate Olivia Munn in this. How the hell do I handle that? Honestly, I care a little less about Mac and Will's dynamic knowing that she cheated on him and blah blah blah, but both actors are fabulous. Mortimer is adorable as always. And Dan Rather said that the show nailed it on the quibbling over the night's show lineup, the younger professionals getting laid (or trying to) and anchors having their asshole moments, which made me love Rather a lot.

  • Lbeees

    She was pretty excellent in this last episode! I never watched SNL or anything else with her in it, but I do read the Internet & there seems to be a strong amount of hate for her. Can I say I'm not opposed to her? That I actually kind of rather like her?

  • annie

    If you can, then I will, too, as her character was the most capable-seeming female on the team, and she wasn't so bad in Magic Mike either. As long as she stays away from attempts at comedy from now on, especially "The Daily Show."

  • John W

    S far I just kept thinking to myself, "AAARRGH shut up! and let him/her finish talking!!"

  • logan

    I liked this show since Daniels monologue in the first 10 minutes of the first show. I thought that was excellent. Also Daniels is an excellent actor he just never wanted to be a star. This might make him one.

  • John G.

    One of the top producers is Jim Halpert from The Office? That's a weird crossover. They really are running out of ideas.

  • thaneofmemphis

    I always thought Gov. Ritchie was a Reagan analog, not Dubya.

  • Lbeees

    The Newsroom is still getting its sea legs. I think the writing will even out in a few episodes and the frenetic dialogue--which comes off as forced from time to time--will seem more natural.

    I love Sorkin, adored the West Wing, and I realized last night that I would rather watch another episode of Newsroom than the new episode of True Blood! And I'm a big True Blood fan.

    A few things, though, kind of bother me. In the first episode, Mackenzie promotes Maggie and explains that "she's me twenty years ago" or something to that effect. And that felt disingenuous because the two women had only had one conversation, and not a truly substantive one. In my experience, bigwigs don't just pull you up from the basement because you have a fight with your boyfriend.

    The other thing, which also involved Maggie, was her speech regarding immigration. I agree with what I think she was getting at--people deserve respect and respectful discourse--but her comment about parents bringing their children to the U.S. so they have a chance of not dying just rang as so much BS.

    Literally millions of people work and live in Mexico and Central America. It's an insult to them to say that all of those people are in imminent danger of being killed. It smacks of colonialism--the benevolent white man--to assume that the only way people can be safe is if they come to America. That perspective completely turns me off. These people don't need the great white savior to protect them.

    Anyway, that aside, I adore Jim and can't wait for Don to GTHO. Don has the making of a smarmy, evil antagonist.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    yeah, it is an insult. Interesting character flaw in McKenzie, or real-life Sorkin didactic flaw?

  • Lbeees

    I think its indicative of Sorkin's real-life beliefs. In the West Wing, many of the characters (most of them) were dyed in the wool liberals. He threw opposing opinions in there as foils, to great effect, but I think his default perspective is very lefty.

    I don't mind it, but that particular monologue left me shaking my head.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Nah, that's actually a great point - preachiness can be annoying when we feel the same way. It's downright alienating when we disagree, and are made to feel that we are mindless/naive for doing so.

  • QueeferSutherland

    Im not sure telling original stories would have been braver. If anything, Sorkin would have been attacked for fashioning fictional news stories designed to make his characters seem precient and intelligent. Seeing how journalists should have reacted to real news stories makes for a powerful commentary on the state of the profession.

    Good review.

  • Wednesday

    I'm not yet in love with this show. It hasn't yet found its feet, I think. The speechifying is too egregious. The characters are too broad. In the first ep, wasn't it just a *tiny* bit too fortunate to have the brand-new guy be roommates with one awesome source and related to another? And in this ep, we're supposed to believe that Maggie screwed an interview because she had dated someone in the governor's office.

    It is a small world, but it's not THAT small. Journalism may have an element of luck to it, but most if it's just plain work.

  • John G.

    totally agree. The speechifying is so proud of itself for stating obvious facts. But that's kinda how Sorkin sounds in all interviews, so whatcha gonna do.

  • hapl0

    Did anyone catch Sorkin's interview on Colbert? Hilarious. : http://www.colbertnation.com/t...

    I can't wait for something horrible and permanent to happen to Sloan so I can start watching this.

  • Patrick Garcia

    Finally, an HONEST review on The Newsroom. And not written by a critic who seems to have a personal vendetta against Sorkin.

  • Bennetttt

    As always it is unfortunate that the people that most need to see it are conservatives, but they've already branded it as liberal biased scum so they won't. Lots of people do not understand how much of the news is entertainment and chosen behind the set.
    This show may have some issues, but I believe it has lots of freedom to grow and it is still quite early.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Haven't seen the second ep yet, but this writeup makes a few salient points - mediocre Sorkin tends to be better than 75% of other scripted stuff.

    When people say they consider the female characters weak...how annoying. To be lacking in self confidence because you're aware of how little you know - that's not weak. I'd like to see an over-confident, stubborn male character (or politican, for that matter) called weak for once.

  • Fitzy

    I don't think the female characters are weak, but the writing for them in the 2nd episode is very weak. Sorkin played into the "the women need weaknesses and I can't make them unattractive or stupid so let's go with klutzy and bad with technology" trope. Lazy writing from someone whose stuff usually is better than other scripted stuff.

  • wsapnin

    Haven't seen the second episode yet, but liked the first one so much I watched it twice. I love Sam Waterston's character. While this is supposed to be a drama, I laughed more than I ever did at VEEP. Immensly superior show.

  • letsspoon

    Funnier than Veep? IMMENSLY SUPERIOR? First of all, they are two completely different shows and I'm not sure why you feel the need to compare them. But if we're gonna go down that road, and with the two episodes aired of Newsroom so far, this show ain't got shit on Veep.

  • wsapnin

    I'm just sayin' Veep is supposed to a comedy and this show was funnier.

  • Sara_Tonin00

    Oh yes - I LOVED Sam Waterston. I love how convincingly slightly drunk he constantly is, and he's absolutely convinced me he's not just playing Jack McCoy.

  • I really couldn't disagree more about Will and Mackenzie's relationship. There might have been something valuable there before the second episode, but the e-mail subplot was handled so badly that I just have no interest in learning more about their past, or dealing with their current dynamic. The characters by themselves are great, but the 'drama' between them is bad enough to undermine the rest of the show if it continues as is.

blog comments powered by Disqus





Follow Us



Related Posts




Viral Hits
Celebrity Facts

The Best TV & Movie Quotes

The Walking Dead

How I Met Your Mother

True Detective

Parks and Recreation

Cosmos

Hannibal

30 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Children

25 Practical Tips About the Horrors of Raising Twins