I thought the episode was nowhere near to the quality of the first part of the story. The fact that no one here can give a simple explanation about why Nate Corddrey was speeding is a sign that the storytelling was sloppy; I’m not sure myself (Was he driving to visit his brother? Was his brother driving and he took the rap?).
The gay marriage debate was tedious.
The subplot about Nate Torrance (from the Capital One ads, BTW) being nervous about playing himself was interesting, but got short shrift; there was just too much going on.
I think the problem is that Sorkin is trying to recreate The West Wing when he should be trying to recreate Sports Night.
In this country, people. C’mon. I thought that was a common expression…I know my friend T.J. used to joke in college about having been oppressed for 400 years. Of all the nits to pick – and I didn’t think this was a particularly strong episode – that isn’t one of them.
Exactly. I kept waiting for Harriet to trot out some kind of argument against gay marriage. I mean, you don’t have to agree with her, but if she is a serious Christian (as we’re led to believe), there are serious theological and ecclesiastical arguments to be made. “Things are changing too fast” is not a reasonable argument from any perspective. In each scene Matt would harangue her about being a homophobe, and I kept waiting for the payoff when she would defend herself. And it never came.
I was hoping that when they made such a big deal of a major character being a Christian, that she would be used for more than target practice.
I agree that religious arguments should not influence the political debate – but this was a case of a reporter asking for her personal opinion on the topic, which would certainly be influenced by her religious views.
I assumed that Tom was a passenger in the car with his brother driving. They probably switched IDs and he got the ticket so his brother wouldn’t have it hanging over his head. I actually like that the show doesn’t feel the need to spell out everything in great detail, they gave enough to make it work.
Goodman was a classic Sorkin too good to be true character. He looks like a redneck and acts superficially like one, but down deep he treats all people pretty much the same. He’s smart enough to figure things out and wise enough to do the right thing with a sense of humor. He knows people underestimate him and uses that to his advantage. Very similar to the character he played on West Wing, only there he was in a suit.
The Harry and Matt show is not doing a lot for me. But I loved that a minor character (the rookie) gets good airtime and a bit of fleshing out. And frankly, I just love hearing intelligent dialog, even if the plot is somewhat heavy-handed and obvious. Heroes and Studio 60 back to back is a good combo.
Okay, this has been bugging me since last night. What was on Tom’s wrist that indicated he had a brother in the military? And how did the judge know to look there??
I also was confused about the specifics re: the speeding, but assumed the brother had been driving and Tom took the rap. But it was far from clear. As was how the judge figured that out in the first place. The DA whispered something in the judge’s ear, after which the judge asked to see Tom’s wrists and he appeared to be wearing some sort of metal bracelet. Given their - um - hamhanded way of expounding on some social issues, I thought this integral bit of plot development kinda flew by.
Re: the paintball gun - that was a highlight in casa Dinsdale because my son immediately noticed the DA was carrying my exact gun. I guess there may be a couple of yahoos out there who do not use a barrel sock or plug when not shooting, but I have never encountered them. And my son and I were observing that we had never personally encountered red paintballs. Not saying they don’t exist - I’m sure they do. But they aren’t what we have encountered. Then my son got off on explaining the style of camo the DA was wearing, and contrasting it to his camo, and discussing the relative merits of each given the desert environs where they were presumably playing. Like I said, this was the highpoint of the ep for us - which says something about the rest of it.
My 15 year old daughter, who has criticized my wife and me for overanalyzing TV shows, repeatedly commented on how much she hates the Harriet character.
The social issues seem to be presented a little heavy handedly. And I don’t understand how a couple has the hots for each other when they openly accuse each other of homophobia and the like. Just different dynamics than any relationship I have ever been in.
Did the “interpretation” goof at the end make sense to everyone else? She first said Jordan dishonored the network. Then she said she meant Jordan’s ex-husband dishonored - who? Jordan? The network?
Last night I thought a couple of times that I’d rather be reading a book in bed. I watched it because the rest of my family does, and it passes for low-level family time. Not sure how long that will continue.
Stuff that I liked - the general attempt to have a show about ideas as much as character and plot. Some of the characters.
Stuff I didn’t:
the Deus Ex Machina resolution - the Judge asserts his control, then at the last minute, figures out Tom is a Good Guy™ and let’s everyone off.
Steven Weber’s Honor speech - great job by him, but it was waaayy too Scrooge “god bless us everyone” - so now he is a good guy, too? He is much more fun as a complex, Machiavellian strategizer. At the very least, it would’ve been great if, after the speech, he winked at someone and made it clear that he knew it would work but he didn’t believe a word of it himself.
the “cake and eat it, too” positioning for Gays/Evangelicals and Midwesterners are idiots/no, they are not. It doesn’t feel like two sides of a complex argument are being presented in a rich way - it just feels like stuff that positions the characters for dramatic tension…
I assumed that the brother was scheduled for deployment so soon that the only way that Tom could see him before he left was to speed to Nellis Air Force Base. So he could have told the cop who stopped him that he was on his way to see off his brother, but didn’t for the reason mentioned by the judge. And then why didn’t he pay the ticket? He said last week that it was simply an oversight; he forgot.
And in this case, I assume that the daughter insisted on returning to the studio so they could watch the show live, probably from backstage. They were already there in LA, so it would delay their departure by only a couple of hours. (Except didn’t the father have a weird quirk about only flying eastward?)
Classic Deus ex Machina plot device there. He’s screwed, Simon’s screwed, they have established absolutely no chance that this judge will let the guys go, because he has no reason to, they have totally confessed to their crimes, and then his flunky points out that Tom’s wearing a bracelet that says his brother’s in a high-risk military unit so speeding through Pahrump on his way to see his brother off for his third tour in Afghanistan is okay, and the willingness to sacrifice himself makes Simon noble, and let’s all break out the ribbons and confetti because…
Yeah. That makes about as much sense as “nosy japanese telemarketer scene” is funny.
However, I’m a big, stupid softie at times. I totally fell for it when Matt was saying that it was supposed to be him standing between Harriet and the bad guys, not Tom.
And what the hell with the british writer? Was she the anti-comedy relief? The heartbreak relief they shoved in there to bring the show down because they figured people were going to be splitting their sides laughing and needed a break?
Well, have you ever heard an argument against gay marriage that wasn’t based on interpretation of Scripture? I haven’t, and I don’t expect Sorkin to give her a good reason anyway. Harriet is a target in this context, and Sorkin can’t give her a non-secular reason if he wants to make his point in this debate. It looks to me that he wants to portray the argument as ridiculous and without merit.
IIRC, Mandy did show up once more in the 3rd or 4th season for one episode. She was trying to get the White House to sponsor a new panda for the Washington DC Zoo. I remember her talking with either Toby or Josh about it, but I can’t come up with the specific episode. And they never once said anything about why she wasn’t working there anymore, but it was pretty clear to me that she was working for an organization outside of the Barlet Administration.
I was thinking last night that this show is trying to combine the insanity that can happen putting on a live television show (Sports Night) with the gravitas required to do an Important Job (The West Wing.) For me, the mix usually works, but at times it seems forced.
Okay, enough analysis. I’m glad to see that Danny is taking a more active role in the show (“If you had my job for a day you’d be sitting in the middle of the room crying,”) and handling the English writer who was sobbing uncontrollably on Matt’s shoulder (To her: “Put it in the writing.” To Matt: “See how I did that?”)
I thought that Steven Webber owned his scenes last night. He should have shown a little more humility after the Chinese dad came up with the “mistranslated” reason, but I guess that can be waved off due to unfamiliararity with the concept of “face.” And I’ll be the lone voice in the wilderness and say that Sarah Paulson keeps getting better and better for me. Yeah, she’s got some crappy lines at times, but I believe in her portrayal of a woman conflicted between long-held, firmly held beliefs and her love for a guy who is basically decent and kind but has radically different beliefs.
And I agree that the reason why Tom was speeding should have been more clear. I’m going to try to watch that last bit again today and see if it reads clearer the second time through.
I think they might have wanted to check with Amanda Peet concerning her procreation plans before embarking on the whole “Jordan doesn’t want to have kids” plot device, although it would be hilarious if they didn’t bother hiding the fact the actress was pregnant, and nobody talks about it. Or, Jordan doesn’t.
Harriet: So, when are you due?
Jordan: Excuse me?
Harriet: the baby? you’re… umm…
Jordan: What?
Harriet: Pregnant? Never mind…
Are you suggesting that the dad originally said what was initially translated, but then only claimed he had been mistranslated to save face? If so, that completely blew past me.
Nope, the panda plot was also in season 1. She was gone after that (in the Sorkin years. Perhaps she showed up in seasons 5-7)
That’s the show I wanted to see - the ones about writers and directors and actors and producers writing and directing and acting and producing. Things like the Lucy Davis storyline or the guy who was not sure about being at the anchor chair. For me, that’s the right direction w.r.t. subject matter. Talks about their job or their co-workers or their home lives or stuff that people actually talk about at work.
No kidding. The plot about the guy who really didn’t want to do the news was great. That is a great actor playing a bad comedian, which is a hell of a lot harder than a great actor playing a good one.
Re: Harriet, I think Sorkin wants to give us a token “conservative Christian” character so that she can have debates with Matt (Surrogate Sorkin) and he can also make it seem like he’s showing both sides by letting her give the religiously conservative point of view and sometimes (in Sorkin’s mind) allowing her to win a point.
The problem is that (as skammer said), she doesn’t really sound like a Christian conservative. Sorkin doesn’t have the guts to let her say anyting really controversial or risible or politically incorrect. I think it would work better if he went all the way with it and let her be an unapologetic, screw you, right wing, religious conservative. I think he’s afarid she wouldn’t be sympathetic if he did that but you can’t have it both ways. If she’s really such a fundy then she should act like one.
If he wants her to be a liberal, tolerant, enlightened Christian, then that’s fine as well but then let her ACT like that. Let her give a Biblical or theological defense as to why homosexuality is NOT automatically a sin (I know she quoted “judge not,” but come on. That’s insipid and obvious and more indicative of a writer who doesn’t know many Bible verses or how scripture is debated between Christians than of anything a real world, serious Christian would say. It’s something a NON-Christian would say to a fundy, thinking he was being really clever and putting the fundy in a box).
If Harriet was actually that serious about her faith she should show a little more thought and study behind her opinions on homosexuality. Right now her faith seems very nominal and shallow.