First episode last night (Oct 6, 2019) in my area.
From PBS site:
I was hoping for Lou Grant, but got something closer to The Newsroom. Generally agreed to be based on principled The Guardian v. entertainment/shock-oriented The Sun (or Mail). Mixed reviews on IMDB. It’s a little too ripped-from-the-headlines for me. Competent, respected, black (female) govt minister forced to resign over indiscreet (sex & drugs) photos from 30 years prior. Isn’t there an expiry date on Dumb Shit We Did in College? Apparently not. Cutthroat editor who pushed her to resign vewwy vewwy proud of himself. Ugh.
Might give episode 2 a look-see, as Sunday night is a vast wasteland on the telly.
I watched it on original broadcast on the BBC last year. It’s OK - the character beats get better and more complex as it goes along - but it’s only OK. The BBC put it out on a Thursday I think, so it wasn’t in one of the prime drama slots.
I watched episode 1 and will give episode 2 a try, too. So far it’s not hitting me as similar to The Newsroom, but then I tend to find Aaron Sorkin massively irritating and am not, thankfully, seeing Press that way.
It may not be the most insightful-about-journalism show ever made, but so far it’s sufficiently entertaining for me to give it more time.
I watched it, too. I’ll give it another Sunday. I did find it a bit on the nose and the characters caricature-ish.
Mostly I spent the episode trying to work out from which other film(s) I remembered Ben Chaplin. Finally had to look it up: The Truth About Cats and Dogs. He’s been in other stuff I’ve seen, too, but I remembered him in The Truth About Cats and Dogs.
Sherrerd, you and I agree on Aaron Sorkin. The dialogue gets too cute and snappy for my taste.
I’m a big fan of Aaron Sorkin. “Cute & snappy dialogue”?? The West Wing? Sports Night? A Few Good Men, FFS??
The Newsroom started out okay, but ultimately was not good Sorkin, esp when Mackenzie went into full hysteria mode. I can’t watch Emily Mortimer in anything without remembering her in that show.
Aspenglow, whenever I watch anything, I have IMDB.com open on my kindle, so I can instantly solve the “where have I seen this person before” problem. I watch tons of British mysteries, and it’s almost like a repertory company with all the cross pollination.
Yeah, and he’s so focused on getting that cute-and-snappy effect that his characters become mere puppets, unconvincing as human beings.
Also he’s clumsy with product-placement. Remember how everyone in The Newsroom was always talking about ‘my Blackberry’ and ‘your Blackberry’—at a time when the company clearly desperately needed promotion (2012-14)? It was kind of ridiculous.
Anyway, Press actors. I watch a lot of UK-made entertainment and do enjoy seeing how versatile a lot of those performers are. The lead actress in this, Charlotte Riley, has had three other roles that I recall clearly, and all are wildly different: Nance, the lone female in the military unit in the sci-fi Edge of Tomorrow; Arabella, in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell; and the former Kate Middleton, now Duchess of Cambridge, in King Charles III.
I remember Ben Chaplin best as Sandra Bullock’s partner in Murder by Numbers, as well as the tormented Basil in Dorian Gray. And of course David Suchet is always a pleasure to watch.
So, we’ll see. At least there won’t be any Blackberries in it.
I’ve only ever owned seven-bucks-a-month (a 90-day card is $20) flip phones. So I don’t know from either Blackberries or iPhones.
As for Sorkin: I was totally enthralled by the first season of The West Wing. As the series went on I became less enthralled and more disappointed by what seemed to me to be predictable and formulaic writing (I still thought the cast was great). When The Newsroom debuted I was willing to give it a fair try, but…puppets being pushed around. That’s how it seemed to me. Mileage obviously varies.
For progressive-viewpoint filmed entertainment, I much prefer Mike Leigh. For commentary on journalism as a profession, I like Network (1976), Absence of Malice (1981), and Broadcast News (1987). Honorable mentions: The Odessa File (1974) and State of Play (2009).
Will Press turn out to be as incisive as any of these? I’m interested to find out.
Yeah, flip phone here, too, and never turned on except when I travel.
I know I missed a phenomenon, but I never watched West Wing. Never saw Sports Night – never even heard of it till you mentioned it, ThelmaLou.
A Few Good Men I watched once. I didn’t find it all that compelling. But then I’m not a big Nicholson fan except for his work in As Good As It Gets. He was kinda charming in that one.
By the way, in Press, did you clock Leonard (Al Weaver) from Father Brown as James? Bet you did.
…which seemed to imply that any criticism of Sorkin for promoting Blackberries must be rooted in iPhone-partisanship. I was pointing out that I hadn’t written out of iPhone partisanship.
Anyway, in re Press: episode 1 seemed to be themed along the lines of ‘problems with staying afloat financially are all about journalistic ethics.’ I’m not sure that theory holds up. It’s true that some financially-successful newspapers do have good reputations, ethics-wise—but their success isn’t due to operating ethically. It’s due to operating ethically while keeping their content behind a paywall.
I wonder if that particular aspect of the business will become a plot point; I have a feeling it won’t, because it’s tough to cast it in Noble terms.
OK. So I’m the only one who thought the Blackberry thing was foreshadowing that the Corporation had stopped investing in their program? LOL! Totally thought that was a plot device.
I haven’t seen “Press” yet, but I’m looking forward to it.
There’s a subplot with the current editor of the “responsible” newspaper that I’m finding interesting. It may be that the writers are making points about being overly-mired in traditional priorities in journalism; or it may be that I’m seeing something that’s not there. Future plot developments will reveal which it is.
