Watching Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip again.

One of the many things I really enjoy about Studio 60 is its serious treatment of comedy. Matthew Perry's character Matt Albie is the head writer of a sketch comedy show, and Aaron Sorkin's teleplays always emphasized the tight relationship between the writer and the actor, and the technical chops it takes to be funny. Both Matt and the actors have a rich understanding of the history of television comedy--of comedy in general--they smart, and they have frame of reference. I like that.

I started rewatching the series again tonight. Matt Albie rarely smiles. He's usually bitingly sarcastic and cynical, and his personal humor is very dry. The sketches are witty and sharp, often ironic, and a little wicked. He takes comedy seriously, and knows that writing funny stuff doesn't require him to be a funny person; frequently, it requires him to be bold and brave. He knows how to deconstruct something and find the joke in it; he understands the importance of timing and the proper placement of a punchline. The actors credit the writing--Matt puts the words in their mouths--and he credits their delivery. It's both, though, and it's also more than that.

"I don't want her to have to make it work. I want it to work when it's handed to her," he says of one sketch. From the writer's point of view, it shouldn't take any work on the actor's part for the sketch to be funny. It should just be funny. Yet, in order to simply work from the beginning, it has to be something the actor can deliver. It has to play to their strengths. I love that this show points that out. There's one arc that chronicles the relationship between Matt and the leading actress Harriet, and the story is that he was a staff writer for two years before she came to the show as a young unknown. They both became big at the same time--when he started writing sketches for her. He responded well to her comedic talents, her timing, her rhythms, and he was able to capture that in his writing. That's one of the reason's he's a good writer: he can identify an actor's strengths and tease them, nuance them, to get the best performances possible.

In that sense, I think it must be easier to write with a performer in mind. There's a romantic comedy that I particularly enjoy by Nancy Meyer called Something's Gotta Give, starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton. They play their roles perfectly and their chemistry is excellent. I think this is largely in part because the roles were written for them. Same with the new movie The Wrestler. The screenwriter, Robert Siegel, used to be an editor for The Onion. Almost as soon as he started writing, he had Mickey Rourke in mind for the lead, and could never imagine someone else in that role. After seeing it, I really can't see anyone else playing Randy "the Ram" the way Rourke did--I can't see anyone else in the role at all. I've heard rumors of a few other potentials that casting came up with when they thought they wouldn't be able to get Rourke (largely for insurance reasons)--Nicholas Cage, Bruce Willis--but neither of those would be anywhere close to right. No matter how good their performance was, it wouldn't have been remotely good enough to carry the film the way Rourke does.

On a separate note, Studio 60 always had great music. "Under Pressure". Paolo Nutini's "New Shoes". A cover of "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?". Excellent.

Also, I really like ginger ale.

Also, happy new year.