Josh Charles apathetic toward Aaron Sorkin; Interviewer crushed

… Obviously, me and Peter developed such a good friendship, Josh Malina and I. And I love the dynamic of me and Isaac's characters. There was one where I couldn't pronounce the guy's name or something, and I was getting the yips. That was really kind of brilliant. There were so many times where it was like this writing is incredible. And then there were other times where I would say this writing's very aware of itself and it's very much in the room with you always. I guess it just became a taste thing. People respond to it, but performing it on a weekly basis, I found it not my cup of tea.

His frankness and honesty are very refreshing in a world where most interviews sound like predictably scripted PR hype.

The interviewer sounds like a tool.

I officially love Josh Charles.

Have been a fan since Don’t tell mom..

Why would self-conscious, faux-screwball comedic dialogue with none of the sparkle and with added Very Special Lessons be a joy to perform? It would be more difficult if anything.

It’s significant that Sorkin’s most iconic speech is performed by none other than Jack Nicholson at his most blustery, who knew the only way to make it work was to go big. And Nicholson is an expert actor who knew how and when to play small.

Is this the Sorkinian writing that actors find so effortless to perform, that is so much fun to say?

The interviewer is the gay former MTV VJ Dave Holmes.

R8 The fat lame one.

His interview with Danny Roberts is actually pretty great.

Not sure why it wasn't singled out on DL. Maybe two middle-aged gay guys doing something good is too much for DL to handle.

But they went deep into what it was like to be young and gay in that era. I'm the same age, and it hit hard.

Non writers tend to go gaga over Sorkin. They get fooled by his rants.

Most writers (and Josh Charles!) find him laughably try-hard. Like, we get it Aaron: You have access to Wikipedia and all of your characters are able to quote Plato, Kelly Clarkson, and Patton in the same sentence as a result.

His best work was A Few Good Men. Great dialogue. Fantastic story. He DOES have tons of talent. But he's just wasted it. Even with all his accolades.

(I will say West Wing was the one show where his endless monologues actually worked.)

I watched Being the Ricardos against my will, with a friend who really wanted to see it.

And — it worked. It's not great cinema. But it's effective. Sorkin, when he's good, knows how to construct a screenplay, write conflict, and move things along. He is like this machine that can churn out a slick, efficient heightened reality that delivers something satisfying in 60 or 90 minutes.

At his worst—The Newsroom and particularly Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip—he's just relentlessly artificially awful, enabled by producers who won't rein him in.

I guess the studio money that came along with Being the Ricardos made him more willing to listen to notes.

Everyone needs to see this if they're going to discuss Aaron Sorkin.

Eh, he was only any good in "Threesome" - I wonder if he fucked Stephen Baldwin's ass back when they were young and pretty.

I thought his very worst was "The American President."

I also appreciate Charles' candor and I find the Sorkin-worshipping to be exhausting. Also, I think Charles is also saying that some scripts are better than others. Not all of Sorkin's work can be 100% amazing all the time.

I wish Charles would be more candid about that cunt JM.

The Esquire writers obvious disappointment is tragic and hilarious. Sorkin has done some excellent work but I do get what Charles is saying. Some of the lines do seem a bit too over the top for natural speech. While it works well in shows like the West Wing sometimes it went terribly wrong ( see Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip).

I love that the writer was obviously trying to shape the interview and Josh Charles was not having it.

My favorite Josh Charles roles were the Friday Night Lights skit about rape on Amy Schumer's show and his guest starring on Kimmy Schmidt as the son of the Redskins owner. Loved him since Dead Poets Society

Sorkin’s casting of the lucy movie proves he’s an idiot. A star fucker. Kidman was impossible to look at.

[quote]I feel like you always notice the writer's in the room, and I acknowledge that there's a brilliance in that. He has a gift and it's remarkable. But when you're performing it, at least on a television show where it's a weekly thing, I found that tricky. I find it very self-conscious if you want to know the truth.

He's right. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to have to try to make all that wordplay sound fresh and new every damn week, especially if it's a little clunky sometimes, which it inevitably will be. Not every quip and pithy remark and clever quote can land, and you're trying to make the less successful lines still work without ruining the scene (or the show) entirely.

R10 you could always have just posted it instead of insulting everyone else on the DL.

I swear I read it somewhere ( here or LPSG ) that he got a big dick seen from urinal peek.

"Is it like Christmas morning, the way I imagine it to be?" has to be one of the cringiest statements from an interviewer.

R15 that dramatic speech from Michael Douglas that ends with "and I AM the President of the United States" still causes an eye-roll from me.

R22, I didn't even notice it until this post! After which I went digging for the unnamed (gay) author and other things he'd done for Esquire.

DL has its priorities.

Yes, and one of them is DL posters bashing the DL.

Oooof that interviewer is lame….

Well, if you bitches (including me) can dish it, you can take it.

It's just silly to bash "the DL" when you are part of it, too. It doesn't have anything to do with the DL not being able to take an insult. YOU are part of what you are insulting, even if you think you are a special and unique snowflake amongst the rest of us trolls.

I saw John Charles’ massive cut cock in the urinal next to me at The Lucille Lortel theater in Manhattan. HUGE. I am not kidding, for a soft cut cock it was fat and THICK and had length enough to make me think it would grow to be a cucumber when hard. It was awesome.

I always liked Josh Charles over the years, he has big dick energy, he looks like he'd give it to you the naughty way... lol I'm 58, he looks damn good and still sexy. Yum! :-)

Josh for sure has BDF.

^^BDE...I'd voraciously make out with his sexy nose, Luscious lips, and strong chin while I gaze longingly into his intense deep-set intelligent eyes, he'd drill me like a jackhammer.. lol Josh Charles oozes unbridled sexual energy. Yum!!

Napkin, Madame?

I've seen Josh Charles in only a handful of things - one of the dancers in the original Hairspray, HBO's In Treatment, Threesome, on Broadway in The Minutes (with Armie Hammer), and now this - but I always thought he was good in whatever I've seen.

And, yeah, he certainly does have big dick energy.

Josh Charles has always been an actor I like, beginning with that three-way movie with Lara Flynn Boyle and Jeebus Baldwin. I was prepared from that point to believe he was gay IRL, but oh well. He's not.

I love Aaron Sorkin's writing, and Sports Night was my introduction to it. I loved Dan (Josh's role) and Casey at least in part because they were so articulate. What sportsball reporter was as smart as they were?

He looks great at age 50, and great in general. Glad to hear he's part of the penilely provident.

I think Sorkin is so overrated.. The dialogue he writes make his actors look like spaz. No one talks like that in real life. He writes dialogue like Amy Palladino from the Gilmore Girls.

It’s awful and cheezy as fuck.

Josh Charles = Hot Jew ;-)

Before a Broadway lover flings an "Oh, dear" at me:

I just realized I said The Minutes @ R36 when I meant to put Straight White Men.

He has the sexiest big nose. And you know what that means.

^^Big Nose = Big Hose lol ;-)

big thumb, big cum

He'll never do a Julian Fellowes show. Those actors are contractually required to rave about his writing. Because, face it, his writing is really shit, if you're honest.

Whether he loves or hates the scripts or is indifferent, his responses were not gracious.

People need to stop using "being honest" as some sort of badge of honor to get a pass for being a douchenozzle.

It is possible to be honest without being an asshole. His answers lacked any graciousness for, you know, having a job that many other actors would kill to have.

It is absolutely possible to be honest without being a sycophant or ridiculous with praise, just like it is possible to be critical without being strident.

Did all 90s threesome movies require a Baldwin and a Twin Peaks cast member?

[quote]When you're doing a steady diet of it I think it feels a little self-conscious to me, honestly. I find it very aware of itself.

He sounds like Peter Griffin discussing the Godfather - lol - "it insists upon itself."

[quote] People need to stop using "being honest" as some sort of badge of honor to get a pass for being a douchenozzle.

So Josh Charles said Aaron Sorkin is a great writer and a genius but because his reputation is so lofty, I can explain how his scripts were not ”Christmas present”-level joyful to read or perform in the sitcom format because the dialogue style is specific and self-conscious.

That’s being a “douchenozzle”?

I was a major Aaron Sorkin fan until I watched Being The Ricardos, now I totally understand Josh Charles' opinion.

We always want them to spill the beans until they open their mouths.

[quote]That’s being a “douchenozzle”?

Read the entire interview. You can also infer additional tone and subtext to his comments based on the reactions of the interviewer.

While the interviewer is obviously a fanboy, so probably tiresome, part of being gracious is reading the room and modulating your responses accordingly. Again, he can be honest and didn't need to fawn. But, he's not some award winning actor whose reputation and legacy will outlast Sorkin's, either.

I hate when interviewers try to lead their subjects. “Wow, working with Meryl Streep! You must have wanted to pinch yourself, right?”

[quote] Again, he can be honest and didn't need to fawn. But, he's not some award winning actor whose reputation and legacy will outlast Sorkin's, either.

I disagree that only “great artistes” are allowed to speak frankly about other great artistes.

[quote]I disagree that only “great artistes” are allowed to speak frankly about other great artistes.

Agree. That wasn't my intent and acknowledge that that comment isn't clear.

It ties to my comment about reading the room and recognizing that he can be honest without fawning. Being critical doesn't require that your reputation be comparable to the object of that criticism. However, it does require a strongly grounded foundation upon which that criticism is based - your opinion has to be based on something.

I mostly like (and lust after) Josh.

But....I don't get why straight dudes call everyone "brother."

He's saying what we're all thinking. Damn watch Studio 60 or whatever that dog was called. What a slog. A dog slog.

I hear you r54. But what you just wrote is general whereas what the interview discusses is specific. In fairness Josh Charles does have a expert foundation in his response to Sorkinesque scripts of that early-mid career period. It’s not like he’s a random podcaster pontificating.

Maybe it would read differently without that initial dismissive “Eh” which lead to the interviewer claiming “oh! It’s ok! I’m totally, absolutely not a fan, but I assumed those snarky one-liners and that witty banter is a joy! I’m fine. It’s fine” multiple times and Charles answering “Sorkin is a genius but he’s not for me” in multiple ways.

He didn’t offer false praise, but he wasn’t inappropriate.

The way that piece was written - or reads - once the interviewer realized it wouldn't be a Sorkin autofellatio fest he cut it short.

Here he is on Inside Amy Schumer.

Ever since “frank sinatra has a cold,” these interviewers want to make themselves part of the feature. Most of them are not interesting enough to pull it off. Write about the subject, not yourself.

Oh deal with it, Sharon/r52.

R16 said “ I wish Charles would be more candid about that cunt JM.”

JM? Josh Malina? If that’s who you mean they are very good friends in RL. If not, who are you talking about?

Julianna Margulies, r62?

uh yeah the "cunt" is Julianna.

Thanks R64. That makes sense. Josh Malina (my first guess) is truly a nice guy.

R60 a very astute point. It's all part of their "brand".

Hey, I’ve said it before. I know an actress who worked with Julianna on Good Wife and she loved her. I was fishing for dirt and she (who has her own stature in the industry) would only rave about Julianna.

Short-term Juliana is good. Long-term Juliana is torture.

Do you even need to ASK who the cunt "JM" is on DL???

Hit hard, R10? That interview was even dumber than the one with Charles. All Roberts said that it was hard being gay in the south before the internet. How insightful! Both he and Holmes were lucky to be on MTV when people watched it, but neither of them are smart or interesting.

[quote] Kidman was impossible to look at

I have to turn my head away whenever Mrs Plasticene comes on the screen.

Sorkin is a try-hard toad who can’t write for shit.

Is he still running around town with those ridiculous hilights?

[quote] Sorkin … can’t write for shit.

Sorkin knows how to write in the English language.

As Sophocles once said, "Let he who is without grammar set the terms for debate in the house of the Lord." **Walks furiously down the hallway**