Oh, fabulous news, everyone! Aaron Sorkin is making yet another TV show. No, wait, hold the phone: Aaron Sorkin is making yet another TV show… about Keith Olbermann.
I know! I know! I thought I was making it up, too! But I have checked, and this is not in fact my own personal nightmare: This is a real TV show, that is being made, and will probably be shown in the real world, and then people will watch it.
Now, we all know about my issues with The Sork. Oh, we don’t? Well, what a wonderful and unexpected opportunity for me to explain them: I believe The Sork to be a petulant, Internet-trolling, credit-stealing, narcissistic man-baby whose dialogue is composed of endless speechery, whose claim to “intelligence” is based on the constant dropping of migraine-inducingly obvious and middlebrow “references,” whose “politics” are always straight-up middle-of-the-road liberal sanctimony, and also, when people complained that The West Wing was sexist, he produced an episode of The West Wing where a sexy girl got sexually harassed, sexily, and then some plain un-boner-producing lady was all like, “this creates a social and professional environment in which women are valued primarily for their appeal as objects of the male gaze, and/or their compliance in response to sexual attention, and women may therefore be coerced into compliance out of fear for their jobs, or be pressured to present themselves in a highly sexualized manner in order to get productive attention, which eliminates the possibility for true sexual consent given the power dynamics in play, and also, recreates and perpetuates the eroticized imbalance of power between men and women in society itself,” and then everybody was all, “shut up lady, you’re ugly.” But then, which is the REAL ISSUE HERE, there came the stupidest slice of dialogue ever written by man, woman, or magical typing capybara, which, according to a transcript from www.menstuff.org (“The National Men’s Resource”), goes like so:
Ainsley: I like it when the guys tease me. It’s an inadvertent show of respect. I’m on the team and I don’t mind it when it gets sexual and you know what, I like sex.
Charlie: Hello.
Ainsley: I don’t think whatever sexuality I have diminishes my power. I think it enhances it.
Celia: And what kind of feminism do you call that?
Ainsley: My kind.
Woman in background: It’s called lipstick feminism. I call it stiletto feminism.
Wow. How could anyone ever call Aaron Sorkin a sexist? He knows how women think so very, very well. For example, they like shoes! And sexual harassment. And shoes! So, whatever. Sexual harassment is an “inadvertent show of respect,” which shows that one is “a part of the team.” Which is why there was that one episode of The West Wing where President Bartlett (Martin Sheen) was all, “DAMN, Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe), I am going to have to issue a Presidential pardon for your ass, because it is KILLING ME.” And Rob Lowe was like, “thank you Mr. President! I sure do feel like ‘one of the boys!’ Though your respect for me be inadvertent, it is no less profound!”
(Also, “you know what? I like sex.” Oh, hey, ME TOO! What an incredible coincidence! Let me tell you about my long and productive history with the act known as “cunnilingus!” Or, on second thought, let me not do that, because we are AT WORK and the subject is SEXUAL HARASSMENT, Captain Non Sequitur.)
Anyway. The Sork, whose work has oft caused him to come across as a petulant, narcissistic, sexist blowhard of a man-baby, is making a show about Keith Olbermann, whose work has oft caused him to come across as a petulant, narcissistic… oh. OHHHHHHHH.
Well. So far, so hideously inevitable. But what if I told you that this show by The Sork, about a hard-edged, Twitter-loving newsman along the lines of Keith Olbermann (oh, God, I can’t wait until the “OlbermannOlberwomann.com” episode. I CANNOT) was also rumored to be starring… Olivia Munn????
Yuh-huh. As per Deadline, via Vulture, the Munn is in talks to play “a sexy financial analyst.” Which, you know. Good for her? I’m glad that they took the time to specify that her brand of financial analysis is “sexy.” Otherwise, I might remain under the false impression that she gave dour, puritan financial analyses, with not a hint of the sensual deliciousness that a good financial analysis can convey. “This just in: The Dow is up. Up, up, pulsating with profit, its rock-hard security searching and probing the tender moisture of the American investor’s financial future, as their lush, ripe profiles quiver with delight. Or something. No, wait, it’s down and everybody is broke again.”
So, just to repeat: A TV show by Aaron “Stiletto Feminism” Sorkin, about Keith “Until This Frenzy Is Stopped” Olbermann, may feature Olivia “Take The Goddamn Fucking Sandwich Out Of Your Mouth, Bitch” Munn, because you see the thing is that sexist men valorize each other, and also feel the need to surround themselves with women who are complicit in said misogyny, because those women are less threatening to them, and this helps them to create and maintain an illusory world in which sexism is not a problem, or does not exist, because there is always a woman willing to say that misogyny makes her feel like a ‘part of the team,’ and it’s really interesting how sexism and sexist culture is built around the creation and maintenance of said illusions, because… oh, fuck it. I’m watching every episode of this monstrosity. Recap series, anyone? I JUST WANT TO WATCH IT BURN.
24 Comments
So how long exactly did it take for Munn to get the boot from the Daily Show? I saw, like two segments, and then she just disappeared with zero fanfare. I liked West Wing and I’m hoping Sorkin can uncover some hidden talent in Munn, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Isn’t Aaron Sorkin the guy who made a movie about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook and managed to like, not notice that Mark Zuckerberg had been dating the same woman since before Facebook started, and that his sister Sheryl Zuckerberg has been involved with Facebook since forever, and that most women in Silicon Valley tech companies aren’t busty interns who do a lot of coke or underage high school girls who play video games but don’t understand them at all, but rather, are ladies who wear nerdy t-shirts and talk about code and gaming a lot, like me and the rest of my friends out here in California?
This is bad for my blood pressure.
I have been watching The West Wing and oh man, does Aaron Sorkin have a problem with women? Because he literally hates on every female character in that show, at one time or another. I heard that the show decreased in quality after he left, but to me it’s like, “Finally, female characters who aren’t being punished in every episode!”
I’m with Robin. It’s like all of my nightmares just collided and puked in my face.
I sure hope they can collaborate with the “House” writers sometimes. They are also SUPER EXTRA GOOD at writing fully-developed, complex, realistic story lines for the ladies.
Sigh.
I’m pretty sure I saw Olivia Munn on TDS a few weeks ago, and she’s still on the TDS website, she’s still working there.
What does it say about the quality of women TV characters that I think that, outside of Xena, CJ Cregg was the best female character ever?
But yeah, Ainsley annoyed the shit out of me, and I would have REALLY liked to have seen more of Amy Gardner but a feminazi (cough) dating the dep. CoS was WAY more niggly than Sam’s womanizing troubles… *sigh*
This “sexuality increases my power” is just another way of erasing older women. I can never understand why the young ladies can’t see what is going to happen to their careers once they get past a certain age.
On the West Wing, Ainsley is a Republican serving in a Democratic administration. Sorkin uses her as a mouthpiece for conservatives or what he thinks conservatives sound like. It’s extremely inaccurate to use lines spoken by her as an illustration of Sorkin’s views.
(also, CJ Cregg is the best ever)
Thanks, Hillary. I don’t watch TDS all that closely so I may have just missed her segments.
Maybe in protest I’ll watch reruns of The Good Wife whenever Sorkin’s show airs.
I thought you were against outright knocking Munn simply because she’s pretty?
@Jenny: And if you can find a place in the article where I knocked her “because she’s pretty,” I’ll PayPal you a dollar. As far as I can see, I made fun of (a) the fact that she acted like a douchebag and said misogynist, unacceptable stuff in an interview, and (b) the fact that, at least according to the press around this, her character’s only defining trait is “sexy.” And I think the phrase “sexy financial analyst” is hilarious. With a subtext of (c) I have seen several of her spots on TDS and that awful “Perfect Couples” thing and no, I don’t think she’ll be redefining the actor’s craft any time soon. Is that okay? Or do we need to LIKE her “because she’s pretty” now, too?
See, I think Sorkin has a million issues you have QUITE ABLY explained, but I have a lot of time for Ainsley as a character, and not just because Emily Procter is just so funny and appealing. I think her introduction works well as a more subtle illustration of sexist attitudes in the non-main cast White House and among the main characters (“Sam’s getting his ass kicked by a girl”, anyone?). I’m sure she’d hate me and everything I stand for, and her brand of privileged feminism pisses me right off (when she explains that she’s against the ERA because she knows she’s an equal citizen and finds a specific amendment saying so patronising, and “I went to law school just to make sure”, I always shout at the screen “that’s great for you, and how about all the people who DIDN’T GET TO GO TO LAW SCHOOL”). But, but. I think she’s a nicely drawn character as opposed to a person I agree with or like, I do like having a woman in the cast with such a drastically different point of view, and I do still glee a little when she manages to out-diatribe the mansplainy characters.
CJ is obviously still worth twenty of anyone else on that show.
I was referring to this actually:
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/07/08/you-are-all-going-to-be-deleted-the-munn-paradox/
@Jenny: And? Is your point that I was wrong in the FIRST post where I said she acted like a douchebag in interviews, or the SECOND post where I said she acted like a douchebag in interviews? I think you perceive a contradiction where there isn’t one.
@Carovee: She just did an episode last night, and it was distinctly awful.
@YAEL TIFERET: Yeah because The Social Network is an extremely accurate and objective retelling of the events as they really happened, objectively, and can be ranked alongside other objectively objective movies like Taxi Driver, The Hurt Locker and that commercial where George Washington rides a jeep into battle.
Sorkin’s an odd one for me because I’ve got the crazy opinion that he doesn’t really work on TV but he doesn’t really work in movies either, save for TSN. He needs someone to reign him in and stop him from getting carried away with his Sorkin-isms so I don’t really expect much from this.
That and the fact that it just sounds extremely uninteresting.
I think Jenny is deliberately being obtuse at this point. Where in that entire article did Sady ‘knock’, which I assume means attack, Olivia Munn? And beyond that, for her being ‘pretty’? You have to actually point it out or else you’re not really gonna be understood, Jenny.
Randomly linking to something and giving off one-liners isn’t very helpful for getting a point across. Stop me if I’m wrong but Sady was just pointing out that Olivia Munn is being put in a sexist role, which she has inhabited in the past, and that women in these roles are often used as tools to perpetuate sexism and misogyny. And that’s what is happening here.
If anything calling her the ‘sexy financial analyst’ as that deadline article notes ‘knocks’/insults her by reducing her to ‘oohh shiny object!’ (then again, so does the idea that women’s ‘great power’ is being sexy for men..) by focusing on that above all else. Which, again, Sady pointed out. Where was the simple knocking?
This is why you are awesome my love. I never could decide if you are the funniest smart person on the internet or the smartest funny person on the internet. I choose both!
Anyway. The Sork, whose work has oft caused him to come across as a petulant, narcissistic, sexist blowhard of a man-baby, is making a show about Keith Olbermann, whose work has oft caused him to come across as a petulant, narcissistic… oh. OHHHHHHHH.
At this point, I splorfled so hard that I spat my drink across my desk. You owe me a new keyboard, Sady Doyle!
I kid. I can clean it up. But hilarious and on-target as usual!
“It’s extremely inaccurate to use lines spoken by [Ainsley] as an illustration of Sorkin’s views.”
Leah, I agree that any one character’s words shouldn’t be taken to be a writer’s opinion, but it seemed to me that the way it’s filmed and the way he has other characters react to her statements about not needing feminism make it seem like he’s giving it far more credence than it deserves. I rewatched it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpcBWA1K9Xw
The way it’s presented, it seems like Ainsley keeps trying to take care of ~important, life and death issues~ and everyone keeps trying to distract her by talking about this totally silly thing. Her words and actions just back it up: ‘The point is that sexual revolution tends to get in the way of actual revolution. Nonsense issues distract attention away from real ones: pay equity, child care, honest-to-God sexual harassment and in this case a speech in front of the U.N. General Assembly,” Ainsley says, turning back to talk to Sam about the legal land mines she found in the document.’
I’ve been trying to express to people for YEARS how sexist Sorkin’s work is, CJ Cregg notwithstanding. (I feel the same way about a lot of Joss Whedon stuff, too, and if anything is “condescending,” Ainsley, it’s the idea that we should shut up and be satisfied with what we’re getting.) I was living at home when Studio 60 aired, and my parents were baffled and a little offended by my inability to stop saying “Oh, you’ve got to be KIDDING me with this!” ten times per episode.
Actually, in retrospect, post the Studio 60 debacle, I tend to think Sorkin has taken/gotten way too much credit for being lucky enough to work with some excellent actresses, who managed to transcend some of the crap and come off as strong and complex DESPITE his writing, not because of it. Because while I think Sarah Paulson is quite a good actress, and Jordan Peet is, well, harmless, I think they were both totally mis-cast in S60, and that really showed off the flaws in the design. Also, the episode of Studio 60 in which Harriet Hayes is “saved” from posing nude by her male co-stars, who have to explain Madonna/whore iconography to her–because a woman at the top of the industry would clearly have NO CLUE about this–is one of my most loathed episodes of TV ever.
(The fact that this is blatantly ripped from an incident in Sorkin’s real life relationship with Kristen Chenowith makes it even creepier. You’d get laughed off most fanfic sites for writing an obvious self-insert where you save your ex-girlfriend from her silly ideas about agency.)
Still if all goes well steadfast fans of 30 Rocks more serious big brother will get to see the first seasons five unaired episodes.Pondering the surprising fate of a show with such a solid pedigree crafted by Aaron Sorkin and populated by the likes of proven TV draws Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford Amanda Peet shrugs off talk that S60 tried to be too smart for the room. Because we were under a microscope from the moment we arrived it was very difficult for the creators to feel free to follow the strengths of the show and see that through. Peet can next be seen starring alongside two other members of the Underappreciated TV Show…..