Un-TV

Brilliant "Sports Night" is a sitcom like no other.

Read past Reckless Eyeballing columns:

 

 

In most instances, the term "intelligent TV" is truly an oxymoron. Nonetheless, I’m a giant fan of the genre. After all, most 30-minute laugh-track contrivances don’t hold my attention because they’re exceptionally funny, but because a single character (generally the show’s star) is familiar, flawed and genuinely likable. Drew Carey, Ellen Degeneres, Ray Romano in "Everybody Loves Raymond" and Brett Butler in "Grace Under Fire" are a few such favorites. Each portrays, or used to portray, an ordinary-seeming person with an ordinary job, clothes and life, who knows that the joke is usually on them and willingly laughs along.

But about once a decade, a show comes to light with an entire cast that demands our full attention. Obviously, "Seinfeld" was that show in the ‘90s. "Cheers’" ratings soared in the ‘80s (though I preferred "Roseanne") and, as for the ‘70s, this proud member of the TV generation picked "M*A*S*H." It should be clear that I piddled (and still piddle) a good portion of my youth (adulthood) before the big blue screen. Consequently, this semiliterate has grown to be a true telly connoisseur.

So trust me when I say that the sitcom of this new century is the brilliantly written, surprisingly underwatched "Sports Night." This is not merely intelligent TV, my friends; it is pure genius. And, no, I have not gone too far with this unabashed endorsement. When it comes to prime-time, "Sports Night" (Tuesdays, 9:30 p.m., WXYZ-TV Channel 7) is a whole new ball game – and ABC should be thrilled to have this fledgling series, now well into its second season.

It’s creator-producer-writer is Aaron Sorkin (also the brains and imagination behind NBC’s "West Wing" – another giant step forward for TVkind). The man has a gift. He also worked on A Few Good Men and Enemy of the State, but his talent does not lie in movie making. Sorkin has a knack for fast-paced, witty, insightful, highly educated dialogue. And the "Sports Night" cast eloquently delivers every line; it is truly captivating.

There’s no room for pauses punctuated with predictable jokes. Even the canned laughter is muted and barely noticeable. (Sorkin, like the "M*A*S*H" creators, went to the mat to ensure his show was not polluted with cues directing viewers when to belt out a hardy-har-har. "M*A*S*H" ultimately lost that battle.)

None of this means that "Sports Night" is a quiet or sedate series. Quite the opposite. It is in constant verbal motion. Not even a sports announcer could call plays at a clip commensurate to its perfectly timed prose. However, the strength of "Sports Night" doesn’t simply rest with its pace, but the language itself. Jerry Seinfeld said the same of his show and I have to agree: Gems like "the volt," "hipster-doofus," "master of my domain" and "soup Nazi" raised the creative bar of sitcom humor. ("Frazier" did the same and Kelsey Grammer had loads to do with that. The brilliant thespian pleaded with the show’s writers not to dumb down the dialogue – which is also why the show is so successful.)

But unlike "Seinfeld," "Sports Night" is not amoral, detached or unsentimental. Nor is it superficial like "Frazier" tends to be. Sorkin’s characters embody compassion, depth, warmth and intelligence, and are closely bonded to those they spend most of their day with: their co-workers. Their relationships are based on a mutual passion for their work, though it entails making a sports talk show for a cable network. Go figure.

Despite the rave reviews – not just from me, but real critics – one wonders why so few people are watching "Sports Night"? I have two theories: First the title turns people off, making viewers think they’re in for a dry commentary about who’s on first. Second: It’s smart. It’s unique. The characters are not as grossly self-involved as those on "Seinfeld," or caricatures of themselves, as the "Frazier" cast sometimes seem to be. Nor is it 30 minutes of schlemiel or schlimazel. It demands concentration and, even then, a few nifty quips will pass you by. And because "Sports Night" ultimately engages its audience, rather than anesthetizing them, it fails as the sitcom America has come to expect and love. (After all, as the true opiate of the masses, TV is for draining the brain, not straining it, which is why it’s my favorite fix.)

TV Guide also has a theory about why no one is watching "Sports Night." It recently featured the new series on its cover as the "the best show on television that nobody is watching" or words to that effect. I couldn’t tell you what TV Guide concluded because I didn’t bother to read the article. (If you haven’t figured it out, I don’t read. I watch.) And if you’re thinking that you still have no idea what "Sports Night" is about after reading this nearly 900-word review, take after me – don’t read about it – watch it. I promise, it has nothing to do with sports.

Ann Mullen is a Metro Times staff writer.