This scene is perfection.  Really.

– carmhelga

Dialogue and storytelling go hand-in-hand.  We can learn about a character by what he says, which reflects on what he does, proving if he’s really a Hero or simply a braggart.  And good dialogue can advance the story and add depth to any scene.  And few can pull magic out of words like the playwright and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin.

One quote of his, I think, best captures his talent for the Word:

For me, the writing experience is very much like a date. It’s not unusual that I’m really funny here and really smart here and maybe showing some anger over here so she sees maybe I have this dark side. I want it to have been worth it for everyone to sit through it for however long I ask them to.

And then there’s this quote, which might explain his eye for drama, as anyone who’s watched A Few Good Men can testify to:

[T]he trick is to follow the rules of classic storytelling. Drama is basically about one thing: Somebody wants something, and something or someone is standing in the way of him getting it. What he wants—the money, the girl, the ticket to Philadelphia—doesn’t really matter. But whatever it is, the audience has to want it for him.

One of the things I’ve enjoyed about Sorkin is that his dialogue is musical in its quality.  It’s a treat to recite, but that doesn’t mean it’s empty of content.  And it helps that he tends to find some great actors who can carry his words off, especially if he’s throwing out SAT words and Shakespearian monologues that you’d be hard-pressed to find anywhere on TV or the silver screen.

He also makes his characters come alive in a way that speaks to their basic desires, whether it’s a President’s inner struggle with his intellect and his political intuition, or a TV producer wanting desperately to make a quality show while trying to appease the executives above him/her.  Everyone struggles to succeed, and to do so without sacrificing their integrity.  As President Bartlet of The West Wing puts it: “They want to win.  So do we.  The only thing we want more is to be right.  I wonder if you can‘t do both.”

So here’s to you, Mr. Sorkin.  Keep showing us what Shakespeare is the way it was meant to be heard.

—

Here’s a quick list of Sorkin’s films, plays, and TV shows:

Removing All Doubt (1984 play)

Hidden In This Picture (1988 play)

A Few Good Men (1989 play)

Making Movies (1990 play)

A Few Good Men (1992 film)

Malice (1993 film)

The American President (1995 film)

Sports Night (1998-2000 TV series)

The West Wing (1999-2006 TV series; wrote for Seasons 1-4)

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (2006-2007 TV series)

The Farmsworth Invention (2007 play)

Charlie Wilson‘s War (2007 film)

—

Join me for the next installment, when I launch myself into madness while reviewing that zany postmodernist writer and producer of a million headaches, Thomas Pynchon.

This is the Scriptorium signing off!

There’s a parable from the show “The West Wing” that resonates with me about living a life of service to others.  I’ve used it almost as frequently as I do my favorite Margaret Mead quote.  I don’t often get to tell it with the appropriate setup, however, because usually the setup gets in the way of the point. 

If you haven’t watched “The West Wing”, it’s from the last few minutes of a second season episode called “Noel.”    One of the key characters, Josh Lyman, is suffering from post-traumatic stress as a result of being shot.  In the episode he is in a therapy session with a psychologist and when he walks out, his boss, Leo McGarry, is waiting for him.   Leo tells him this:

This guy’s walking down the street when he falls in a hole. The walls are so steep he can’t get out. 

A doctor passes by and the guy shouts up, ‘Hey you. Can you help me out?’  The doctor writes a prescription, throws it down in the hole and moves on.

Then a priest comes along and the guy shouts up, ‘Father, I’m down in this hole can you help me out?’  The priest writes out a prayer, throws it down in the hole and moves on

Then a friend walks by, ‘Hey, Joe, it’s me can you help me out?’ And the friend jumps in the hole. Our guy says, ‘Are you stupid? Now we’re both down here.’ The friend says, ‘Yeah, but I’ve been down here before and I know the way out.’”

Leo tells Josh “As long as I have a job, you have a job.”  The parable gains something when you realize it’s being told by a character that is a recovering alcoholic, being played by an actor that was a recovering alcoholic, whose lines were written by someone struggling with drugs and alcohol himself.   That’s the part I don’t usually get to tell.

Occasionally, you just have to jump in the hole to help someone out.

Ira Sorkin Got Paid… For What?

What exactly did Bernie Madoff’s lawyer, Ira Sorkin, actually do?

Madoff turned himself in.  Sorkin didn’t try Madoff’s case.  Sorking didn’t prepare for trial; sort through boxes; have armies of associates write motions and writs; prepare witnesses; hire priviate investigators; and, for good measure, pad bills.

Sorkin had to fight to keep Madoff out on bond.  How many hours of work does that require?

The latest news is that Madoff is not going to appeal his 150-year sentence.  Story here.  This means Sorkin won’t have to write any appellate briefs.  Unless Madoff starts filing prisoner Section 1983 suits, Sorkin’s work is done.  Thus, now is the time to start asking questions.

It’s time for an audit.  So far as I can tell, Sorkin got paid with money that belonged to victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.  After all, what money did Bernie Madoff have that wasn’t tainted by his fraud?   How much work did Sorkin actually do?  How many millions was Sorkin paid?  How many of these millions should be returned to Madoff’s victims?

No one is asking any of these questions.  Why not?  Is there some sort of buddy-buddy arrangement that Sorkin has with the trial judge or prosecutor?  I’m far away from New York; so maybe I am missing something obvious.  Perhaps Sorkin has an “in” with everyone.

I did some Googling and did not see, as is usually the case, any evidence that the prosecutor tried preventing Sorking from getting paid.  If so, that would be highly unusual.  Whenever a defendant is charged with a crime, prosecutors freeze assets.  Prosecutors, as a matter of strategy, try preventing rich defendants like Madoff from spending money on lawyers.

Financier Madoff Appeal Defiance is a living prove of Global Financial Institutes and SEC Systemic Fallacy and a testament of FED’s systematic financial fraud with Lori Richards resignation as head of the Securities and Exchange Commission office that inspects money managers and brokerages after congress grilled her for Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. View Madoff logic of risques to monetize Ponzi scheme at WS
Inspector General Kotz’s eight-month inquiry exhaustive look at how the agency missed chances since 1992 to detect a $65 billion fraud that burned thousands of investors. The inspector faulted the agency for inadequately pursuing tips, assigning inexperienced staff to conduct reviews and failing to seek trading records that would have revealed the scam Madoff undertook for decades: http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2009/oig-509.pdf Madoff Defiance to appeal his absurd sentence to 150 years jail term for creating epic financial crime and accepts his guilt on 11 accounts but not conspiracy charge which reveals the substance of his crime deeds . PSEUDO HEDGE FUND ENTERPRISE PONSI PYRAMIDE SCHEMES OF FINANCIAL RISQUES EPITOMISES WALL STREET SYSTEMIC FALLACY.

Ex-financier Madoff statement – confession for being guilty for creating epic financial crime in the history of Wall street while rejecting only the conspiracy charge which illuminates escape conartist mindset due to cognitive psychoanalysis discovery method

Madoff statement at the NYC Court: ‘I am actually grateful for this first opportunity to publicly speak about my crimes, for which I am so deeply sorry and ashamed. As I engaged in my fraud, I knew what I was doing was wrong, indeed criminal. When I began the Ponzi scheme I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients from the scheme. However, this proved difficult, and ultimately impossible, and as the years went by I realized that my arrest and this day would inevitably come.To the best of my recollection, my fraud began in the early 1990s. At that time, the country was in a recession and this posed a problem for investments in the securities markets. Nevertheless, I had received investment commitments from certain institutional clients and understood that those clients, like all professional investors, expected to see their investments out-perform the market. While I never promised a specific rate of return to any client, I felt compelled to satisfy my clients’ expectations, at any cost. I therefore claimed that I employed an investment strategy I had developed, called a “split strike conversion strategy,” to falsely give the appearance to clients that I had achieved the results I believed they expected.
Through the split-strike conversion strategy, I promised to clients and prospective clients that client funds would be invested in a basket of common stocks within the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index, a collection of the 100 largest publicly traded companies in terms of their market capitalization. I promised that I would select a basket of stocks that would closely mimic the price movements of the Standard & Poor’s 100 Index. I promised that I would opportunistically time these purchases and would be out of the market intermittently, investing client funds during these periods in United States Government-issued securities such as United States Treasury bills. In addition, I promised that as part of the split strike conversion strategy, I would hedge the investments I made in the basket of common stocks by using client funds to buy and sell option contracts related to those stocks, thereby limiting potential client losses caused by unpredictable changes in stock prices. In fact, I never made the investments I promised clients, who believed they were invested with me in the split strike conversion strategy.
To conceal my fraud, I misrepresented to clients, employees and others, that I purchased securities for clients in overseas markets.’
The Judgement Day
Now a jailbird Bernard Madoff has committed financial fraud worth over $ 65 Blns and prosecutors reserved the right to pursue up to $170 billion in criminal forfeiture along with the 11 prosecution’s charges against Madoff carrie a maximum sentence of 150 years
Madoff Confession: ‘In more recent years, I used yet another method to conceal my fraud. I wired money between the United States and the United Kingdom to make it appear as though there were actual securities transactions executed on behalf of my investment advisory clients. Specifically, I had money transferred from the U.S. bank account of my investment advisory business to the London bank account of Madoff Securities International Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation that was an affiliate of my business in New York. Madoff Securities International Ltd. was principally engaged in proprietary trading and was a legitimate, honestly run and operated business.
Nevertheless, to support my false claim that I purchased and sold securities for my investment advisory clients in European markets, I caused money from the bank account of my fraudulent advisory business, located here in Manhattan, to be wire transferred to the London bank account of Madoff Securities International Limited.
Technologos Financier Madoff Appeal Defiance Global & SEC Systemic Fallacy Testament
There were also times in recent years when I had money, which had originated in the New York Chase Manhattan bank account of my investment advisory business, transferred from the London bank account of Madoff Securities International Ltd. to the Bank of New York operating bank account of my firm’s legitimate proprietary and market making business. That Bank of New York account was located in New York. I did this as a way of ensuring that the expenses associated with the operation of the fraudulent investment advisory business would not be paid from the operations of the legitimate proprietary trading and market making businesses.’

TECHNOLOGOS CINEMASCAPES ON BERNI MADOFF’s PSEUDO HEDGE FUNDS ENTERPRISE AS PONZI OR QUANT MINDSET PYRAMIDE SCHEMES OF FINANCIAL RISQUES EPITOMISES WALL STREET ABSOLUTE SYSTEMIC FALLACY WHILE SEC AS FINANCES WATCHDOG IS EVIDENTLY IRRELEVANT. Madoff fraud exposes the SEC’s void of supervising the fund or even being directly IMPLICATED in the conartist scheme by covering it as it never examined his investment advisory business as $50 Blns fraud deal.
Technologos envisions creating an economic science institution to define a new financial order taking ni account cognitive insights of mental and psycho processes where information technology construct intelligent finance models infrastructure global topology and new financial theory of global monitoring framework analising phony market ideologies fallacies http://www.xmail.net/technologos/ALAN2.html View NOBEL PRIZE ECONOMY WINNERS WEBCINEMA AS ANTIDOTE http://www.xmail.net/technologos/ANASH.html and http://www.xmail.net/technologos/ALAN1. Greenspan legacy of financial meltdown with his acceptance of conceptual flaw in the financial monitoring system : The Fed Can’t Become Overseer of Financial Stability
http://www.xmail.net/technologos/ALAN.html

Bernard Madoff - a.k.a. “Inmate #61727-054″

Justice has been served…in his pants. A Jew that financially raped other fellow Jews? Wow, there’s gotta be a special place in Hell for this guy. Wait, do the Jews believe in Hell? 

I give much sympathy to the trusting investors who were taken to the cleaners, regardless of their prior socio-economic stature….wrong is wrong, and jail would actually be a kind fate considering the degradation of this man AND HIS WIFE. I just hope she gets her sentence in some way herself. Karma’s a bitch.

El neoyorquino Mark Zuckerberg hace mucho tiempo que consiguió lo que se proponía: el año pasado ya estaba considerado como el millonario más joven de Estados Unidos -el 14 de mayo cumple 25 años-  (con una fortuna, según Forbes, de más de 1.500 millones de dólares, 1.100 millones de euros) y su vida era un compendio de lujo y glamour, viajes en primera y restaurantes caros. Todo gracias a su criatura, Facebook, una página que empezó casi como un capricho de niño rico y que ha acabado conquistando a 70 millones de usuarios.

Pero Zuckerberg también ha descubierto que, como acostumbra a pasar cuando se alcanzan ciertos estatus, nada es gratis: el libro de Ben Mezrich sobre su subida a las cumbres de la popularidad, The accidental billionaires: the founding of Facebook, a tale of sex, money, genious and betrayal (Multimillonarios accidentales: la fundación de Facebook, un cuento de sexo, dinero, genio y traición), le presenta -según los fragmentos que han trascendido a los medios de comunicación antes de su lanzamiento, el próximo julio- como un inepto, que robó la idea de Facebook a algunos de sus compañeros en Harvard y cuya única obsesión eran las chicas y el sexo. Mezrich se hizo famosos por otro libro, Bringing down the house, en el que explicaba la historia de los estudiantes del MIT de Massachusetts que dedicaban su tiempo libre a contar cartas en los casinos, y que posteriormente se convirtió en el filme 21 Blackjack.

Además, Zuckerberg está envuelto en una batalla judicial después de recibir diversas querellas de sus ex colegas de Harvard, a causa precisamente de la paternidad del invento, y al mismo tiempo sufre la competencia de páginas de nuevo cuño, como Twitter, cuya influencia está minando el monopolio de Facebook, la red social por excelencia.

Para rematar la situación, y como reza la inalterable ley de Murphy (“Si algo puede ir mal, irá mal”), Aaron Sorkin (creador de El ala oeste de la Casa Blanca y guionista de películas como Algunos hombres buenos) anunció recientemente su intención de hacer un filme sobre la compañía. No hubo reacciones oficiales y sí mucha sorna: algunos medios de comunicación estadounidenses llegaron a proponer un musical sobre Blackberry; otros muchos ironizaron sobre lo perdido que andaba Sorkin últimamente, después del fracaso de su último proyecto televisivo, Studio 60, y casi todos coincidieron en que allí había poco que contar.

Las risas se han acabado cuando han empezado a filtrarse detalles de la película: Sorkin está hablando con los ex alumnos de Harvard que han denunciado a Zuckerberg y con empleados y ex trabajadores de la compañía dispuestos a airear trapos sucios. Finalmente, sí que había una historia que contar y Sorkin está dispuesto a hacerlo. Detrás, como productor aparece el férreo Scott Rubin (No es país para viejos, Revolutionary road), y como director, Thomas Schlamme, colaborador habitual de Sorkin en televisión.

Zuckerberg, asustado por la reputación y profundidad del proyecto del guionista, ha enviado una circular a todos sus colaboradores (incluyendo aquellos que ya no trabajan en Facebook) advirtiéndoles de que se abstengan de hablar con “terceros” sobre las tripas de la compañía. En el comunicado no se menciona a Sorkin.

La CNN ha desvelado la carta sin que nadie hasta el momento lo haya desmentido. Es más, Facebook admitió haber enviado la circular, pero “sin que ésta fuera una respuesta a ningún proyecto en concreto”. Tomando como punto de partida artículos demoledores como el de Claire Hoffman en la revista Rolling Stone, donde Zuckerberg es retratado como un gánster cibernético, un freak con ínfulas, que se limitó a reescribir lo que cuatro de sus colegas esperaban convertir en una mina de dinero, la película sobre Facebook empieza a lucir como un retrato oscuro, desagradable y puntilloso del éxito, en lugar del cuento de hadas que a los accionistas les gustaría ver.

Fuente: El país

74.

The Dame;

Anna Friel.

Though she began acting at 13, it would be 5 years and a variety of appearances on numerous television shows before Anna Friel got her big break, hired to Channel 4’s  Brookside. Though only on the show for 2 years, it was a memorable 2 years, Friel entering into television history by partaking in the first pre-watershed lesbian kiss ever broadcast on British TV. Following her departure from the show her first work came in Stephen Poliakoff’s television movie  The Tribe, she courted controversy once again after much nudity and an infamous threesome scene proved to be what the show was most directly remembered for. Over the next decade, her most notable work came probably as Hermia in a starstudded production of  A Midsummer Night’s Dream, alongside such luminaries as Kevin Kline, Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett and Calista Flockhart. It was only in 2007 that her next real breakthrough came, landing the role of Charlotte Charles on ABC’s  Pushing Daisies, providing the sweet, but sparky love interest at the shows heart. Her easy charm, dry wit, telling, emotive eyes and her common but not TOO common voice making her an easy to love actress with underrated abilities.

The Dude;

Martin Sheen.

In spite of his fathers disapproval of the craft, Martin Sheen, bitten by a desire to act, deliberately flunked the entrance exams to the University of Dayton, borrowed money from a Catholic priest and headed to New York City. Early success came his way when in 1965, aged 25, he was nominated for a Tony for his supporting work in Pulitzer Prize winning play  The Subject Was Roses. The following years were filled mainly with work in TV movies and TV shows, before in 1973, he was hired to star in the feature film debut of Terrence Malick. Badlands was a resounding critical success upon release, playing at the New York Film Festival where it is said to have stolen the spotlight even from Martin Scorsese’s  Mean Streets. Despite the attention the film garnered, Sheen’s real breakthrough would not come until Harvey Keitel was fired from the lead in  Apocalypse Now after just 2 weeks shooting and he was drafted into replace him. The shoot lasted for 16 months and in the midst of production Sheen suffered a heart attack, the payoff came though, when the film won the Cannes Film Festival Palme D’Or, was nominated for Oscars and Sheen himself recieved a BAFTA nomination for his work. Movie success finally reached, Sheen worked steadily for the next 2 decades, won an Emmy, appeared in  Gandhi, played JFK in an NBC miniseries, acted as narrator in Oliver Stone’s  JFK, however it was not until 1999 that real superstardom came his way. Cast by Aaron Sorkin to play the President of the United States in  The West Wing, the role was initially intended only intended as a minor one, planned to appear in just 4 episodes a season, however after the pilot this plan was rethought and Sheen’s commanding screen presence benefited the show greatly. Easily, naturally switching between loving family man, mighty commander, poetic muser, or witty old soul, Sheen nailed every facet of the character, creating a President anybody could love, capturing his strengths and his weaknesses, his telling physicality and his complex web of emotions, nailing Sorkin’s trademark dialogue naturally, and finally sinking his teeth deeply into a role worthy of his talents, one that proved once and for all just what he could do.

The Director;

Krzysztof Kieslowski.

Kieslowski’s artistic origins emerged with an interest in theatre, a desire to be a theatre director was quickly quashed upon discovery that no training program for such desires existed at that time, thus film became an intermediary step, applying to the Lodz Film School, an institute that counts Andrsej Wajda and Roman Polanski amongst its alumni, rejected twice he was found himself third time lucky and attended between 1964 and 1968. His interest in theatre quickly subsided as his interest turned to filmmaking, particularly documentaries portraying every day Polish life. He quickly ran into all manner of difficulties, the heavy censorship of his film  Robotnicy 1971 leading him to doubt the ability to tell literal truths under an authoritarian regime, and following this, footage from his film  Dworzec being considered for use as evidence in a criminal case, pushed him towards a belief in the greater artistic freedoms of fiction filmmaking. He worked steadily across the next decade, before international acclaim came his way for his epic display of artistic ambition, Dekalog, a television series of ten hour length episodes, each exploring one of the ten commandements through ambiguous tales set in modern day Poland, two of which were expanded into individual features and played to international audiences, Krotki film o Zabijaniu, and  Krotki film o Milosci, (A Short Film About Killing and A Short Film About Love). 1991s  La Double vie de Veronique, again reached international acclaim, and worked as a perfect example of the directors reliance on telling his story visually rather than through words. However, it would be the last 3 works of his career that would bring him the widest spread fame. His  Trois Couleurs trilogy each encompassed one of the political ideals of the French Republic, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Bleu, told the hauntingly sad tale of a woman coping with life after the death of her husband and child. Blanc, a blackly comic tale of improving ones standing in life, and of gaining revenge for a great humiliation. Finally, Rouge, a visually gorgeous feast, that slowly intertwines the lives of its seemingly complete opposites of characters. Kieslowski died of a heart attack 2 years after the completion of this trilogy, aged just 54, but he had established himself as a master understander of the purest senses of cinema, as a man of grand poetic, artistic ambitions and ideas.

The Picture;

Do the Right Thing (Spike Lee, 1989)

Spike Lee made his feature debut with 1986s  She’s Gotta Have It, following it up with  School Daze in ‘88, he displayed his knack for telling provocative, social tales, calls to action, and the following year he took that to the next level. Do the Right Thing brings Bed-Stuy to life, gorgeously shot, using red and orange filters to bring that 100 degree day to life in sun drenched visuals. Utilizing, in controlled measure, handheld camera work to drop you right into the action, to bring it viciously to life, occasionaly throwing the framing out of alignment, the disorientating nature of the heat put into visual perspective. The editing giving the film its heartbeat, from long takes and slow cutting to brisk, breakneck cutting, rising and falling with the pace of the picture. The performances all work, all imprint themselves on the brain, from Rosie Perez’s neglected girlfriend, Paul Benjamin, Robin Harris, and Frankie Faison sitting on the sidelines, watching the world go by with the bitter comedic rantings of the unemployed, John Turturro’s lost soul, consumed by confused hatred, Danny Aiello, trying desperately to keep the peace in an unravelling world, and Ossie Davis as the wise old sage of the streets, a king in tramps clothes. The film deals in race relations with an unfiltered, uncompromised view, there is no attempt at poetic profundity, no simple, easy answers, no epic revelations handed to the audience on a plate, no monologuing. The film eschews pretension, it handles its material in simple, straightforward fashion, it doesn’t lecture, it just is, and you soak it in.

This contribution is from friend and colleague Lucas Graves, Columbia Communications graduate researcher, COI affiliate, and journalist extraordinaire.

Wherever you stand on the AIG retention bonuses, or the bank bailouts in general, it’s impossible not to notice how our ideological seams start to show in moments of high unsettlement. Here’s Thomas Friedman weighing in on why the AIG bonuses have to be returned voluntarily or not at all:

“We do not want the U.S. government abrogating contracts — the rule of law is why everyone around the world wants to invest in our economy.”

The rule of law creates an inviting climate for business. That sounds eminently reasonable, even obvious, until you consider the equally common claim — made by Friedman and countless others — that it’s precisely the lack of certain onerous laws that draws entrepreneurs to the land of opportunity from more rule-bound societies. (Like, say, France, Friedman’s favorite bête noir.) When laws seen as unfriendly to business do make it onto the books, the Chamber of Commerce and industry groups will argue quite openly for laxer, more “reasonable” enforcement, for instance of labor or environmental standards. Suddenly the rigidity of the rule depends on the nature of the law.

Meanwhile there are entire worlds of meaning in this beautifully parenthetical dismissal, from Andrew Ross Sorkin’s NYT column one day earlier, also arguing for the inviolable sanctity of contract where AIG bonuses are concerned:

“If government officials were to break the contracts, they would be ‘breaking a bond,’ Ms. Meyer says. ‘They are raising a whole new question about the trust and commitment organizations have to their employees.’ (The auto industry unions are facing a similar issue — but the big difference is that there is a negotiation; no one is unilaterally tearing up contracts.)”

An excellent if inadvertent reminder that contracts are legitimately broken all the time; that legitimacy is precisely the contested issue here; and that invoking the abstract principle of upholding contracts actually, and paradoxically, does the rhetorical work of claiming that in this case, as opposed to others, contract must be upheld. Likewise, it goes without saying that what constitutes legitimate bilateral “negotiation” is a matter of argument, not fact, as any auto worker can attest. No doubt “renegotiating” AIG bonus contracts a la Luca Brasi (i.e. at the point of a gun) would be perfectly acceptable to the bloodthirsty masses.

During the G.W Bush Presidency an Australian television network broadcast “The West Wing“.

I was quite a fan of this show, it allowed me to drift off and wonder what it would be like to have a Democrat as President instead of that churlish ne’er-do-well who had the reins of power at the time. It was a niche programme, appealing to those who

(a) had some interest in politics

and/or

(b) had some interest in US politics

That was always going to be hard for my local station to keep on the air. This was well-scripted, well-directed and well-acted – a fine example of what television could be. It also didn’t matter where one’s politics lay (on the left or  the other side). But for whatever reason they experimented with an 8.30pm start, changed the days it was broadcast, gave it ’special’ viewing times, rested it for weeks on end then it just seemed to disappear, came back again and then it was finished. To this day I don’t know why or by whom Josh Lyman was shot

Anyway the series ended and an Hispanic guy was elected the new President, and whatever his name was (the actor not the character) went on to play a serial-killing psychopathic district attorney in “Dexter”.That was the last I ever heard of the production team and the writers until a pal said to me “have you had a crack at Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip ? – it was made by the people who made that TV show about the American president” he always used too many words that pal o’ mine I think it’s a confidence thing, where if you speak a lot the irrelevancies give you that little bit of time to think about what you actually want to say. Politicians do that a lot, maybe it has something to do with that ‘lot of hot air’ descriptive term that people often apply to pollie-speak. They either speak for too long (so they have time to think) or for too little (they are only interested in a 30 second  sound bite). I replied in the emphatic negative and he lent me a DVD,  I was caught up in this show as well.

Recently a guy asked me if he could borrow some TV recordings, he has a wife who is ill or something I gave him this show, but before I di I decided to revisit Episode 1 for it’s brilliant monologue which set the tone (and content) for the whole series.

To set the scene “Studio 60″ is a comedy TV show broadcast on Saturday evening in front of a live audience from … well you can guess where from the title. Episode one opens with the Producer of the show in a heated argument with a network executive about some sketch which had some Christian connection. the network wants the sketch cut, the producer is arguing that free speech means that sometime people are offended, watch it, you might like it (if you work in television, as I do, then it will have further resonance that fine line between commercial realities (censorship) and artistic expression (freedom of speech))

He (the producer) relents and orders the segment be removed from the running list, while watching the broadcast from the wings what is replacing the cut sketch is un-funny, lame and offensive to him, he storms onto the set and orders the actors off. this is as much of that section of the script as I can find on the internet as a monologue wikipedia has a link to a script draft but watch it yourself the show transcends the page. If I have got any of  it wrong I apologise to Aaron Sorkin and Thomas Schlamme

Opening

Wes Mendell:

It’s not going to be a very good show tonight. *audience laughs*

I think you should change the channel, change the channel right now or better yet turn off the TV, ok?

No, no, I know it seems like this is supposed to be funny, but, uh, tomorrow, tomorrow you’re gonna find out that it wasn’t and by that time I’ll have been fired. *audience laughs*

No, this is not a sketch. This show used to be cutting edge political and social satire, but it’s gotten lobotomised by a candy ass broadcast network, hell-bent on doing absolutely nothing that might just challenge their audience.

We’re about to do a sketch that you’ve seen already about 500 times. Yeah, yeah, no one’s gonna confuse George Bush and George Plimpton,

now we get it.

We’re all being lobotomised by this country’s most influential industry. It’s just thrown in the towel on any endeavour to do anything that doesn’t include the courting of 12 year-old boys. Not even the smart 12 year-olds, the stupid ones, the idiots. Which there are plenty thanks in no small measure to this network. So why don’t you just, change the channel?

Turn off the TVs do it right now. (they cut to the control room, then back)

The struggle between art and commerce. Well, there’s always been a struggle between art and commerce and now I’m telling you art is getting it’s ass kicked and it’s making us mean and it’s making us bitchy.

It’s making us cheap punks.

That’s not who we are!

People are having contests to see how much they can be like Donald Trump. (cuts to the control room then back) We’re eating worms for money. “Who wants to screw my sister?” Guys are getting killed in a war that’s got theme music and a logo. That remote in your hand is a crack pipe. Oh yeah every once in a while we pretend to be appalled. (cuts to the control room then back)

(pause)

Pornographers! It’s not even good pornography. They’re just this side of snuff films, and friends that’s what’s next because that’s all that’s left. And the two things that make them scared gutless are the FCC and every psycho religious cult that gets positively horny at the very mention of a boycott. These are the people they’re afraid of. This prissy, feckless, off-the-charts, greed-filled, whorehouse of a network. And you’re watching this thoroughly unpatriotic mother-fu….

Sadly despite the fact that this was, too, quality TV it never had an airing here and was pulled in the US and replaced with the very type of television that Studio 60 railed against “The Real Wedding Crashers” It went on ‘holiday’ was promised to return to TV sets May 2007 but it appears to have not made that return October 2008 the official web-site for this fine programme was pulled.

If you read down towards the end of the Wikipedia entry for Studio 60 (it’s a link up above somewhere) you will notice

On July 19, 2007, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences announced their nominations for the 2007 Primetime Emmy awards. Studio 60 was nominated in five categories. The pilot episode earned three nominations: Outstanding Directing (Thomas Schlamme), Outstanding Cinematography For A Single-camera Series, and Outstanding Casting in Dramatic Series. Both John Goodman and Eli Wallach were nominated Outstanding Guest actor in Dramatic Series. Even with some criticism, Studio 60 nominations surpassed critics’ darlings such as Friday Night Lights and Dexter, which got two and three respectively. The show also tied with hits like CSI and 24.

It looks like US TV is a medium that doesn’t appreciate the cameras being turned in on itself

I hope my friend’s wife gets better and I hope I get the disc back

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc1Ti-ehJ00&feature=related

There are interesting parallels between Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing and the realities of the new Obama administration’s story. In West Wing’s final season (2005/2006), Senator Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits) is running for president against Senator Arnie Vinick (Alan Alda).

In Sorkin’s prescient scripts, Santos is the first “non-white” running for president. He’s espousing a message of change, as well as racial and political congress. Vinick is a seasoned Republican who is well respected on both sides of the aisle and overseas. He’s also over 70 years old.

While the parallels seem (and many are) prophetic, Sorkin’s people do admit to using Obama as the model for their Texas junior senator who was also a big-city community organizer after law school. After they had cast Smits in the role of Santos, one of their writers heard Obama’s convention speech and decided to learn more about the young Senator. So to quote the London Observer: “This is a bizarre case of art imitating life – only for life to imitate art back again.”

In terms of the prophetic: Santos faced steep primary opposition from a Democrat with close White House-ties. When he ran in the presidential race, his inexperience was placed front and center as an issue. One of the reasons that Santos won was his youth-driven development and use of an incredibly dynamic grassroots network whose volunteers webbed throughout the country. The race was close but Santos actually won because of a nuclear explosion that sullied the Republicans’ image in the minds of the voters (after all, they were pushing the nukes).

Oh yeah, Santos offered his rival the office of Secretary of State. (Vinick accepted.) To quote the final episode: “perhaps eschewing his own chances of running in four years.” I think we’ve heard that before.

While you can argue that some insiders could have forecast of few of these occurrences back in 2005, many were just dumb luck or ultimate prescience. In the case of Aaron Sorkin, I think it was a little of the former and a lot of the latter.

Now I wonder when we’ll see a female chief justice or presidential chief of staff…

Madoff Remains Free as Judge Considers Prison Request (Bloomberg)

Bernard Madoff, awaiting trial for securities fraud, remained free on bail while a federal judge considered a request by prosecutors to send him to prison for mailing $1 million of valuables in violation of an asset freeze.

The items included cuff links, watches, a pin and a pair of mittens, Sorkin said. The cuff links are worth $25 and the watches are worth more, he added, without being more specific. He told the Madoffs on Dec. 30 to get the items back, Sorkin said.

The items were mailed to his brother Peter Madoff, his two sons, a daughter-in-law and an unnamed New York City couple now vacationing in Florida, Sorkin and Litt said. [Read more]

This is insane. Lock Madoff up already.  I wonder if they haven’t put him in jail in hopes that someone would have fed him to the fishes by now.

Aimee
Aim for Answers 

Amazing piece from the New York Times from a few weeks back.

Aaron Sorkin Conjures a Meeting of Obama and Bartlet

By MAUREEN DOWD

I used to be a fan of The West Wing. I didn’t obsess over it or anything, but with someone who is as political as I am, it was something I was likely to enjoy, and I did. It’s a pity the show kind of went all to crap and then dropped off the air, but while it was on, I mostly liked it.

Of course a good part of that was due to the character of Jed Bartlet, the fictional president who actually got to say what was on his mind instead of having to hold back like real politicians do. He was created by Aaron Sorkin, one of the best writers in Hollywood who’s latest series, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was not nearly as good as it should’ve been.

Anyhow, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times approached Sorkin and had him write up a fictional dialogue between Bartlet and Obama. Go read it. It’s pretty darn entertaining!

Un amico mi ha appena mandato un link fenomenale.

Dategli una letta, è stupendo.

http://www.freddynietzsche.com/2008/09/21/pit-bull-is-when-i-decided-to-kick-your-ass/

Today is “Uniter, Not A Divider Day” in honor of today — because today George W. Bush has achieved what was heretofore considered impossible: united the entire country.

Top Story: A Big Fat Goose Egg

According to a New ARG poll (via) the number of Americans who think the economy is “getting better” is: 0. Goose Egg. A Sausage. Nada. Zip. That’s 100% agreement that the economy is not getting better. In its own way, an awesome achievement.

Other tidbits from the poll, some of which I may have actually made up:

1. Bush’s job approval is now 19%.
2. A whopping 71% feel the economy is either “very bad” or “terrible”.
3. 23% of the population plans to “put their head between their legs and kiss their ass good bye”
4. 35% of the country is placing their money in “their mattress or other sleep platform”, while 23% favor “behind the toaster or other small applience”. 10% are undecided.
5. 15% of Americans are stockpiling “some kind of farm animal” for eventual use in barter.

Story: Damn You, Magazine Lead Times…

The McCain campaign, apparently not satisfied letting events conspire against them, published the following in an article in something called Contingencies Magazine, which is — really — the magazine for The American Academy of Actuaries:

“Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”

(via, among others). “We’d also like to let the market foreclose on your appendix,” they did not add.

In a stunning show of restraint, the Obama campaign waited nearly five full minutes before making sure every man, woman, child, and hamster in America knew about this article. Giving Contingencies Magazine it’s largest circulation boost since it spun off from the parent publication, Eventuality Quarterly.

The existence of this article raises several fascinating questions, not least of which is: actuaries have their own magazine? Actually, it’s great — they calculate the exact length to the month when you buy a lifetime subscription. A little creepy, but it saves big bucks over the long hall.

In an unrelated note, the McCain campaign thought now would be a perfect time to start running Rezko ads again, in a series of ads entitled “Hey, Look Over Here! Halley’s Comet”

Polls

Gallup has Obama up 48/44, same margin, but each candidate slipping one, which favors the candidate behind.

FiveThirtyEight has Obama at an essentially unchanged 74.4%, although PA has now taken over as the most critical swing state. Nate’s added an attempt to allocated undecided voters based on how much Obama under or over performed in that state, but it doesn’t seem to have moved the model much.

Finally: Does this Count As Slash?

As an unrepentant West Wing fan (is there any other kind?, I had to mention that Maureen Dodd turned her column over to Aaron Sorkin, who wrote a scene between Barack Obama and Jed Bartlet.

Highlights:

OBAMA I didn’t expect you to answer the door yourself.

BARTLET I didn’t expect you to be getting beat by John McCain and a Lancôme rep who thinks “The Flintstones” was based on a true story, so let’s call it even.

BARTLET Well, it seems to me your problem is a lot like the problem I had twice.

OBAMA Which was?

BARTLET A huge number of Americans thought I thought I was superior to them.

OBAMA And?

BARTLET I was.

OBAMA I mean, how did you overcome that?

BARTLET I won’t lie to you, being fictional was a big advantage.

There’s a long rant that I won’t quote in full.