Aaron Sorkins..."The Newsroom"

[onmyknees]

This might not go down the way you had hoped , so if you're one of those many progressives on here....you may want to back out of this now...famed screen writer Alex Pareen writing for Salon.com on Aaron Sorkin's progressive new series, The Newsroom writes


http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/aaron-sorkin.jpg (http://www.mediaite.com/online/liberal-salon-writer-trashes-aaron-sorkin-he-is-why-people-hate-liberals/attachment/aaron-sorkin/)Liberal Salon.com writer Alex Pareene (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Alex+Pareene) did not mince words Thursday (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/19/aaron_sorkin_versus_frivolity/) while inducting The Newsroom and The West Wing screenwriter Aaron Sorkin into Salon‘s annual “Hack List.”
“Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals,” Pareene began. “He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy.”
The famed screenwriter, Pareene argues, further fuels the “delusional self-regard” that harms the image of modern progressives: “He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic ‘everyone would agree with us if they weren’t all so stupid’ attitude of the contemporary progressive movement. And age is not improving him.”
Pareene goes on to decry Sorkin’s “increasingly curdled and miserable worldview,”



I've read the article several times and substituted Prospero, Buttslinger, Trish, and BlueGasCat for Sorkin, and I'm afraid it describes each of you perfectly. And the beauty of it all ?? You can't blame your usual whipping boy Fox News or me for any of it...Pareene is hardly a conservative or libertarian....but he sure the hell has an insight as to why the rest of us hate liberals. Enjoy the rest of the review.........:dancing:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/liberal-salon-writer-trashes-aaron-sorkin-he-is-why-people-hate-liberals/

[trish]

"OMK feints toward open-mindedness, he is transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy.” Yeah that's works.:dancing::dancing:

[Stavros]

This might not go down the way you had hoped , so if you're one of those many progressives on here...



Just out of idle curiosity, what is a 'Progressive' -in its American context? Wasn't Theo Roosevelt a Progressive? And, if one is not 'Progressive', what are the alternatives? Regressive? Static?

[loveboof]

It's hard to see how being 'progressive' could be a bad attribute...

Doesn't that simply mean making progress? wanting things to be better?

[Prospero]

OMK....Ha .... Goebbels in full flight, but without the club foot or the brain

[Prospero]

As a British progressive and one of those who OMK loathes... (what a life he leads, so full of fear and loathing) - I'm happy to say that I have watched now four episodes of this new drama and it is actually very smug and a huge disapointment after the excellence of The West Wing. The political attitudes are totally on the money - but Sorkin and his co-writers have sacrificed art and subtlety to create a vehicle for a full throated attack on the poison of the tea party, on the way that a fine political party, the GOP, has been hijacked by extremists, the ludicrous lies of Rush Limbaugh, Fox and their ilk.... and the other ills of the new Right in America. It sure as hell isn't art, but his targets are well chosen.

However in the media landscape of contemporary America this is a murmur to place alongside the hysterical shrieking of the ignorant louts of the Right - represented in all their griminess on this forum by OMK - a convicted felon as well as a fool.

[hippifried]

Just out of idle curiosity, what is a 'Progressive' -in its American context? Wasn't Theo Roosevelt a Progressive? And, if one is not 'Progressive', what are the alternatives? Regressive? Static?
I've been asking the same question for years now. I know what it means as an adjective, but its use as philosophical or political descriptive noun has me baffled. It makes no sense in the "American context" or any other context. It's not a synonym for liberal. Liberal is an attitude, not a political stance. "Progress" describes the various incrimental accomplishments in striving for success of a specific goal, regardless of what the goal is. All political bents yammer on about "progress". Everybody's "a progressive"? That doesn't work. If you really need a word, make one up. I wish everybody'd just quit fucking with the dictionary.

[Stavros]

I agree; at one time in Europe people who used the word progressive were often Communists or sympathisers: 'I admire the progressive and freedom-loving peoples of the USSR'...if it did have a meaning in the USA in the 'Progressive era' I assume it was a reference to industrial and urban change as a positive thing, to be distinguished from a past coloured, as it were, by slavery. Whether or not the US was Progressive in 1910, I think the word sounds too odd to make sense these days.

Could there be a Progressive Transexual? Discuss, with examples.

PS. For the record, I have no idea who Aaron Sorkin is.

[trish]

I have no idea who Aaron Sorkin is.Me neither, but if OMK hates him he must be a pretty admirable producer.

[Prospero]

Aaron Sorkin wrote the bulk of the long-running political series The West Wing and then wrote two screenplays, The Social Network (about Facebook) and Moneyball - about baseball. He is the main force behind this new series.

[Stavros]

I haven't seen either The Social Network or Moneyball, although both were well reviewed; I did once watch I think the last 10 minutes of a West Wing episode but it was embarrassing to listen to such badly written drivel wrapped up in as many visual cliches as mainstream TV could manage; and I didn't bother with it again. The Wire is the only US tv series I have seen since watching, appropriately enough, Homicide-Life on the Streets in the 1990s-having not bothered with the Sopranos, Mad Men, and all the other ones. Life is too short to waste watching tv programmes.

[broncofan]

He also wrote a Few Good Men and Charlie Wilson's War. I did like a Few Good Men but there is something about his dialogue that is grating. I'm not sure what it is, but his characters come across at times as glib and their sentiments very high falutin. They speak in platitudes frequently espousing the most contrived and ideologically driven monologues I've heard.

The fact that I agree with a lot of these ideas does not make it any less condescending to hear his characters regurgitate his beliefs in soapbox speeches. That said, just because he's a liberal doesn't mean all liberals are like that. I think someone in my family called his shows "liberal pornography."

Don't get me wrong though. Sometimes the speeches are moving or appropriate but they're frequently overwrought and preachy.

[broncofan]

As a British progressive and one of those who OMK loathes... (what a life he leads, so full of fear and loathing) - I'm happy to say that I have watched now four episodes of this new drama and it is actually very smug and a huge disapointment after the excellence of The West Wing. The political attitudes are totally on the money - but Sorkin and his co-writers have sacrificed art and subtlety to create a vehicle for a full throated attack on the poison of the tea party, on the way that a fine political party, the GOP, has been hijacked by extremists, the ludicrous lies of Rush Limbaugh, Fox and their ilk.... and the other ills of the new Right in America. It sure as hell isn't art, but his targets are well chosen.

However in the media landscape of contemporary America this is a murmur to place alongside the hysterical shrieking of the ignorant louts of the Right - represented in all their griminess on this forum by OMK - a convicted felon as well as a fool.
Well said. I think smugness is the word I was looking for to describe much of his dialogue.

[Stavros]

He also wrote a Few Good Men and Charlie Wilson's War. I did like a Few Good Men but there is something about his dialogue that is grating. I'm not sure what it is, but his characters come across at times as glib and their sentiments very high falutin. They speak in platitudes frequently espousing the most contrived and ideologically driven monologues I've heard.

The fact that I agree with a lot of these ideas does not make it any less condescending to hear his characters regurgitate his beliefs in soapbox speeches. That said, just because he's a liberal doesn't mean all liberals are like that. I think someone in my family called his shows "liberal pornography."

Don't get me wrong though. Sometimes the speeches are moving or appropriate but they're frequently overwrought and preachy.

Two more films I didn't see, although I think A Few Good Men is the one where an irate no-nonsense, hang'em 'n flog'em Jack Nicholson yells The truth? You can't handle the truth!

The mere fact of what Charlie Wilson did in Afghanistan was a reason not to see the film, the other being Tom Hanks. Somehow I don't think I have missed very much with this Sorkin fellow.

[broncofan]

Two more films I didn't see, although I think A Few Good Men is the one where an irate no-nonsense, hang'em 'n flog'em Jack Nicholson yells The truth? You can't handle the truth!

The mere fact of what Charlie Wilson did in Afghanistan was a reason not to see the film, the other being Tom Hanks. Somehow I don't think I have missed very much with this Sorkin fellow.
I think you're probably right. Yet some people I respect get very addicted to his films/shows. I must admit I haven't seen West Wing except in clips. A few of my friends from school wanted to have a West Wing marathon, but I declined. I really don't like to be told how to think by fictional characters. He manages to write very stirring yet highly irritating stuff. I have decided to include the entire speech from A Few Good Men so that you can judge for yourself. At points insightful, but there's just that indefinable something:).



You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

[broncofan]

Famous Speeches: A Few Good Men - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg)

The video version. Tremendous interrogation skills by Mr. Cruise.

[trish]

He also wrote a Few Good Men and Charlie Wilson's War. I did like a Few Good Men but there is something about his dialogue that is grating. I streamed the first show the other night to see what it's all about. You're right about the dialog. Immediately I thought I was watching a play remade into an old black and white movie, the kind where all the action takes place in a single drawing room filled with wags, wits and highly educated sophisticates. Some of my friends love that kind of dialog, but it always strikes me that playwright is showing off wit by having his characters showing off theirs. Nevertheless the show's overall assessment of teaparty, media coverage and partisan politics is not too far off. What doesn't ring true is the new born idealism struggling to burst from the breast of the main character.

[broncofan]

I streamed the first show the other night to see what it's all about. You're right about the dialog. Immediately I thought I was watching a play remade into an old black and white movie, the kind where all the action takes place in a single drawing room filled with wags, wits and highly educated sophisticates. Some of my friends love that kind of dialog, but it always strikes me that playwright is showing off wit by having his characters showing off theirs. Nevertheless the show's overall assessment of teaparty, media coverage and partisan politics is not too far off. What doesn't ring true is the new born idealism struggling to burst from the breast of the main character.
Interesting post as I haven't seen the new show. He is very good at encapsulating ideological conflicts. What he has Jack Nicholson saying above is what a lot of Marines would say if they spoke exactly like Aaron Sorkin. But Sorkin does too much telling and not enough showing. Everything is explicit; the rightwingers are eloquent but slightly unhinged, the liberals starry-eyed and always braced for the perfect rebuttal.

He raises the question of how much of oneself a writer should import into a character. He's created Saudi Arabian ambassadors who speak like he would, prosecutors, college students. Somehow he is able to re-create obnoxious versions of himself from every conceivable walk of life.

[Prospero]

I think the popularity of The West Wing might have been the way it idealised a Democrat Presidency as a sort of shadow reality alongside the appalling Bush years. Sorkin is given to too much idealisation and not enough cynical representation of the real thing.

[hippifried]

I think the popularity of The West Wing might have been the way it idealised a Democrat Presidency as a sort of shadow reality alongside the appalling Bush years. Sorkin is given to too much idealisation and not enough cynical representation of the real thing.
Nope.
It was well written, well directed, & well acted. The political bent was secondary. It could have been any administration. The book it was based on was written by someone who had worked in the first Bush Whitehouse.

[Prospero]

Hippiefried. NOPE. (lol) c'mon - this is opinion - not fact.

I can't argue with the fact it was well written and acted - but there is plenty of well acted TV drama. I still think that it was so popular with liberals by way of offering a contrast to the Bush presidency. Here was a good straight largely honest president. He wa san idealised figure. It was certainly the way we brits would like to see a presidency work - rather than the way it clearly did play under Bush.

[loveboof]

What doesn't ring true is the new born idealism struggling to burst from the breast of the main character.

I dunno. I got the impression that his idealism is not 'new born' at all - that he had suppressed it for years in the pursuit of ratings. With the arrival of his new producer (and old girlfriend), his true feelings began to resurface.

I think the struggle is with the things that stand in the way of his idealism...

[trish]

I dunno. I got the impression that his idealism is not 'new born' at all - that he had suppressed it for years in the pursuit of ratings. With the arrival of his new producer (and old girlfriend), his true feelings began to resurface.

I think the struggle is with the things that stand in the way of his idealism... That's a fair reading and I'm now tending to agree.

[Prospero]

I find the English executive producer figure deeply irritating - like some public schoolgirl and hardly the seasoned veteran of reporting foreign wars.

Also, some time back I used to produce the network nightly news in the UK - and I assure everyone that the newsroom portrayed in this is about as close to reality as ... well perhaps CSI Miami is to real police work.