The Stupid Superiority of Studio 60

Watching last night’s episode of Studio 60 was a frustrating experience . On one hand, as others have pointed out, it was much better than the pilot episode (which I generally liked): tighter plotting, quicker wit, sharper characters, a much better finish. Sorkin’s pilot had its rather stunning “cold open”—that Network-alluding rant about the state of television—but otherwise played more like an introduction to some characters and concepts than an actual self-contained bit of open-and-close drama.

But, as I predicted, Sorkin’s bashing of flyover-country conservative Christians continued. But this time, instead of aiming his sprightly dialog-salvos at some of those who might arguably deserve it—the FCC-lobbying media censors at groups like the PTC—Sorkin tried to conflate the Hollywood bashers with rapture nuts and then expand the influence of those groups to include a huge chunk of mainline Christianity.

The plot points in question start near the beginning when a reporter from the unbelievably-named Rapture Magazine stands up at a press conference and questions the NBS President about the planned sketch “Crazy Christians.” That magazine, which we’re told has a circulation of four times Vanity Fair (so, roughly 4.4 million), pushes for a boycott, and some red-state markets look ready to drop the show. The execs all get worried and confused and dumbfounded by the concept of the rapture and the reach of the magazine, leading to a short scene where one exec helpfully explains that the magazine’s readers (apparently all 4.4 million, as well, presumably, as anyone who happens to pick up a copy on the newsstand, find one lying in a bathroom, or visit the magazine’s website) are all sitting around in giddy anticipation of the rapture because it means the ascendance of good Christians to heaven and the rightful banishment of everyone else—especially those bad ol’ Hollywood liberals—to the pit o’ fire. Right.

Where to even begin with this? Yes, mainline Christianity (and, I should add, me) does believe that at some point Christ will return and that, through some process (there’s much theological disagreement over how it will play out), it will eventually lead to Christians all going to heaven and many others not. But to suggest, as Sorkin does, that there’s a huge flock of people running around obsessing gleefully over this and getting nearly aroused by the possibility that all those nasty leftists are going to hell is absurd. Christians, on the whole, are distraught by the idea of anyone not getting to heaven. The whole point of evangelizing, preaching, trying to convert people, etc… is, even if Sorkin can't fathom it, not a controlling exercise in moral domination and authority, but an attempt to save people out of love. I’m sure there are individual exceptions, but Sorkin’s idea that most Christians fetishize the endtimes is ridiculous.

Worse, this is from the guy who pushed for tolerance and understanding after September 11^th, giving us that hyper-didactic (even by Sorkin standards) play-episode of The West Wing, “Isaac and Ishmael,” which compared the reach and scope of terrorist-prone Islamic fundamentalism to the KKK, an argument that’s only accurate insofar as each group is equally deplorable. Even if you could make the argument that the “active” portions of terrorist Islam are about the size of the active portions of the KKK (not entirely sure you can), the recent demonstrations against the pope suggest that popular support for Islamic terrorism is far more open and widespread in the Middle East than similar support for the KKK here. And, as despicable and ugly as the KKK is, its current “active” members aren’t sending suicide bombers to kill people by the thousands. Sorkin, it seems, wants us to have tolerance and understanding for communities that might foster terrorism, but thinks we should be outraged by Christians that stage boycotts of high-quality television shows?

Addendum: I know, I know, he did include the prayer at the end, and I won't say I don't appreciate seeing that on TV (though I'd argue that Battlestar Galactica is much more respectful of the place of religion in society overall). But Sarah Paulson's character is pretty clearly going to be one of Sorkin's "good" Christians: meaning one that has the decency not to push anything he or she believes on anyone else (which, of course, Sorkin would never do). Sorkin's always okay with people of different political and religious stripes as long as their politics or religion don't--gasp!--actually lead them to do, say, or believe anything he dislikes.