Studio 60: Fight the Culture Wars, But Hit Below the Belt
Filed Under Sketch Comedy
I’ve expressed my fatigue with TV shows about TV shows, but Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip has intrigued me simply because Aaron Sorkin’s purpose has been more to use sketch comedy as an exploration of the “culture wars.” Sadly, I think that intent is destroying the credibility of the show within the show, making it incredibly unfunny.
The entire show hinges on the pair of writers coming in to restore a tarnished sketch show to greatness. Either you don’t show us and we take it on faith, or you do and you show sketch comedy as it should be. Sorkin chose the latter. The prior week’s episode showed a cold open that used a Gilbert & Sullivan tune to make fun of the show’s failures in the past. The bombastic splash of a giant orchestra and production number came off as more desperation than humor. This week’s episode saw a sketch called Science Schmience, which was so heavy-handed with fact-spouting against its targets that it played incredibly self-important and holier-than-thou. Many references were also made to a sketch where a player performed as a member of a commedia del arte troupe stuck in modern times that probably required one to read the term’s wikipedia entry for an audience to get what’s funny about it.
The rap on the West Wing was that Sorkin was portraying an idealized White House and here, perhaps, an idealized TV Network and sketch show. The idealized TV Network stuff is great - I loves to live in a fantasy world where execs are backing up producers this much against protesting interest groups. But an idealized sketch comedy show definitely has one thing missing here:
Dick jokes.
I’m not saying change the name of the show to Studio 69, but the culture wars can easily be explored by a sketch such as SNL’s legendary Penis song. In fact, the show would have far less straw man arguments if it explored sketches that are not necessarily baiting conservatives, but rather taste. What is the interest in doing a sketch like that? Is something like that just comedy writers just seeing what they can get away with? A sketch like that might almost be indefensible logically, but it has merit and having characters attempt to verbalize that merit could be incredibly entertaining to watch. Couch the argument in Aristophanes and phalluses if you must, just don’t get so literal that Nate Corddry and D.L. Hughley have to wear enlarged codpieces.
Comedy can be both high and low and the best thing about it is that you can mix the two. A lot of an intelligent points can be made in a sketch can be made by using very crude metaphors - in fact, it’s how the ideas sneak in usually. Word is that Mark McKinney is advising on the sketches for Studio 60, but it’s kinda obvious he’s not writing them. Get a dream team of sketch comedy writers, folks like Bob Odenkirk and Robert Smigel comes to mind, tell them what issues you want the show to reflect and then let them create a sketch that does it without belaboring the ideas.
If Sorkin fears that such a move would not reflect his premise of relevant, brave sketch comedy, he needs only to look at the Daily Show. Jon and company are never afraid to let satire get in the way of a classic dick joke. Or in the following case, somewhere between a dick joke and an ass joke:
Do you think the show is too high minded about sketch comedy?
The “Science Schmience” sketch gave me a rash, too. They only show a few lines here and there, but you could tell it was preachy and unclever—astonishingly so. Would you want to watch this show within a show? I’m not sure I would.
The one thing I did appreciate, however, was Meathead as the guest host. Remember when SNL welcomed hosts that weren’t just schmucks with imminent movies to promote? (Did we need Dane Cook twice in 2006? Once?)