Contributor: Edmund B.
Written by Aaron Sorkin
Directed by Alex Graves
“We don’t do good television. We do the news.”
-MacKensie MacHale
It’s a cheeky line, intended to get Will, and perhaps the viewers, to cut the show some slack while they try something new. While true of “News Night”, it’s less true of “The Newsroom”, with its plethora of familiar Sorkin archetypes. We expect good television from Mr. Sorkin, and this show continues to mirror its fictitious subject. They both have good bones, but are going through some teething pains as they try to build on that potential.
While the pilot built towards a breakthrough newscast, this episode goes in the opposite direction, as they try to build on that success. MacKensie wants to establish a new order, one built on which stories are relevant and important, not which ones will draw ratings. Will is trying to re-ingratiate himself with the staff, while still meeting with Reese, the ratings guy. And Charlie Skinner is trying to run interference, ordering Reese to cease and desist, and give the show room to grow.
With the preliminaries of the pilot out of the way, it’s time to settle into the familiar rhythms of Sorkin’s workplace banter. Will and MacKensie show flashes of it, as he tries to lay down rules about their break-up, which we know will get shattered long before they do. There is more in the run-down meeting, where Will channels Dan from “Sportsnight”, trying to show off his new-found familiarity with the staff. (“Fox News hired a guy with three Muhammads in his name?” was my favorite.) Some other stuff in that meeting doesn’t go so well, but more on that later.
The dialog really hits its stride with Maggie and Jim, as he tries to prep her for a pre-interview with Gov. Jan Brewer’s office. The sparring is delightfully done, as is Dev Patel’s background antics as Neal, tempted to intervene, but too transfixed to step in. Their chemistry is making the putative love triangle very unequal. Don hasn’t done anything except be a jerk so far, but I suspect that imbalance will be addressed down the road.
Maggie’s pre-interview goes disastrously wrong, due to her inability to separate the personal from the professional. This results in a train-wreck of a segment about Arizona’s SB1070 immigration law. Presenting cardboard cut-outs of conservatives is a problem for the show, but the upshot was still as entertaining as it was uncomfortable. Will’s fumbling of his Palin apologia, however, just felt clumsy. Even given what went before, it’s hard to believe a veteran anchor would get that tongue-tied.
Olivia Munn makes her first appearance as Sloane Sabbith, bringing to mind Melanie Griffith in “Working Girl” with her “head for business and bod for sin.” Here her credentials are amped up with a Ph.D. in economics and adjunct professorship. Ms. Munn has said she may be the first actor in a Sorkin show asked to slow down her delivery. That bodes well for her as the show progresses.
Here her opening scene with MacKensie starts with more of the trademark banter. I’ve always liked the Sorkin tendency to play grammar cop. After that, their exchange is a little strained as it re-introduces Will and MacKensie’s break-up. I don’t hate this storyline as much as Matt and Harriet’s on “Studio 60”, where Sorkin was way too concerned about working out his issues with his ex, Kristen Chenoweth. But Reese’s closing expletive earlier already conveyed more in one word than this entire scene did.
This is one of my biggest problems so far, and an odd complaint for a Sorkin show. He is not trusting the audience’s intelligence enough. MacKensie’s mis-sent email didn’t have to be telegraphed by her previous botched attempt. Leave it as a quick aside in the meeting, then let it lie until she tries to send the crucial one. We would have remembered the asterisk, etc. It’s still predictable, but far less so.
The other thing that could have waited was MacKensie’s defense of inexperience. Putting that up front detracted from the Maggie-Jim storyline. We don’t wonder why someone so inexperienced is handling something so crucial, we’ve already been told why. Why not move the explanation to the end, while MacKensie’s defending the missteps to Will? “Show, don’t tell” is a basic storytelling adage. “Show, then tell” at least lets the audience puzzle it out before the reveal.
Of course, Sorkin wanted that final exchange to hang on MacKensie’s challenge of, “Are you in, or are you out?” I don’t think the inexperience argument would have detracted from that, but, in the end, my response is the same as Will’s: I’m in, but expecting better. Yes, to the drink, but I’ll pass on the tuna jerky.
Writing: 1/2
Acting: 2/2
Directing: 2/2
Style: 2/4
Score: 7/10
