I succumbed to the hype and watched this sweeps-month live “event.” almost as dull as a real debate and almost as “beside the point” as a real debate where everything about American life gets reduced to “the economy.” nevertheless, interesting as an experiment. they must have known it would be somewhat dull in order to include the heckler about halfway through. many discussed the possibility that an event like this might have some actual impact on real television debates–that they might follow the fictional model and dispense with “the rules.” fat chance, since nobody does anything without a rehearsed script. even the coughs and gestures are scripted I imagine (here, George should lean forward to express intimacy and suggest that folksiness always trumps the need to be articulate, etc. etc.) also perhaps, too, this always rather self-important show undercut itself with the cutesy ellen degeneris bits, which more than anything in the actual show, demonstrates what politics is all about now–the short con and corporate control masquerading as “lifestyle” choices. demonstrating further that the show–by featuring as a kind of ‘anti-ad’ ad the cool lesbian chatting amiably with us, the purportedly open-minded and educated West Wing viewers–is heavily invested in the kind of imagery of dualism, the liberals vs. the conservatives regarding “issues,” that you wish it would critique and take apart; the issues march happily by in their pre-determined places(education, jobs, health insurance….) fragmenting real life into pieces while covertly homogenizing it. or should I be less grumpy and praise the attempt to “raise” the level of civility in politics in this kind of episode and acknowledge its attempt to advocate for less constrained political discussion…
p.s. anyone else find it strangely totalitarian that the audience gets chastized by a TV news talking head for “inappropriately” reacting during the course of the event. screw you, Forest or Chad or Don or whatever the hell your name is.
I am fascinated by the way the show desires to reimagine a fictive America where ideological debates seem smart on both sides of the fence. It was a noble dud of a show, but there were a few sparks (and I have been a big fan of the show over the last twenty episodes or so). I was surprised by how much I bought into Vinick’s (Alan Alda) plea for free-market egalitarianism. Hmmm . . . I wonder if I would be a Republican if all the neo-con warmongers and evangelical body haters weren’t so ubiquitously privledged?
I found it pretty dull too – but other than that I disagree with most of Michael’s points.
-The heckler was dumb to include, but wasn’t there to liven things up, but to acknowledge the fact that there’s almost always a leftist who does just that when Republicans speak. It was to play up the people who sneak into Cheney / Rumsfeld events (or Warren Beatty sneaking into arnold events) to yell at them at some point.
-And I think the REAL debates – esp. the first one between Kerry and Bush were anything BUT pefectly scripted. It was a mess. Bush stuttered and stammered, said the job was “hard work” 13 times, and actually whined about stuff. The fact that he actually won after that miserable, terrible performance is bizarre. That alone should have destoryed his chance of re-election, but the Dems had someone singularly unable to take advantage of it.
-Finally, I turned off the commercials; I dont care if there’s 3 or 12 or who’s on them – they still annoy me. But your description of Ellen seems rooted in 1995. She’s now totally accepted; she hosts the big awards shows, and she has a huge daytime TV show. She’s been the spokeswoman for AmEx for a couple of years now, AND she replaced their previous spokesguy, Jerry Sienfeld. If replacing Sienfeld doesn’t make you totally mainstream, nothing will.
Oddly though, Vinnick won the debate I think. But tonight I came across Gov. Bill Richardson on Charlie Rose. This guy is is the model for Santos in a lot of ways. Except that if Santos had all of the experience that Bill Richardson had, I don’t think there would even be a challenge.
Mark my words here: Richardson is going to have a very strong shot in 08.
Jeff–I find it a little bizarre that the show totally overlooks the whole extreme wing of the republicans–I don’t think it’s “realistic” at all that a candidate who didn’t pay at least lip service to the religico’s and the rest would even get nominated.
mark–you’re right about the kerry/bush debate, though I imagine their “handlers” had wished the candidates could have successfully stuck to the scripts. the hard work thing seemed like some speechwriters idea of what would go over with “hardworking Americans” and obscure the fact that bush never worked a day in his life. while of course kerry kept trading on his war hero status–strangely since he claimed to oppose the war. “reporting for duty”!!?
as for ellen, my point depends on her being mainstream–i believe the show buys too much into mainstream liberalism and fails to identify any deeper forces at work. one line of thinking might find it great that a lesbian has the opportunity to hawk credit cards for a major company–but I wonder if this so-called tolerance isn’t helping to make corporate power a little too comfortable, that the image will be all cuddly melting-pot warmth while the reality is that credit card companies, with the willing assistance of congress (liberals included), have just made it impossible for even the most financially devastated (by medical bills, etc.) to get out of debt. I wanted to connect (in my badly explained post)this problem to the idea that the show’s focus on separate “issues” prevents anyone from evaluating the “mainstream” comprehensively.
One more little chime-in thing for the day: Alan Alda last night in the West Wing gave the kind of performance that gets Emmy nominations. I think. Because I generally don’t watch dramas, so I don’t really know what gets nominated, and it was nicely underplayed, and maybe no one gets an Emmy nod for underplaying anything.
Since Alda’s Vinnick lost the election, I’ve been wondering how they would bring him back in the end, and they did it very nicely last night. As Dayna said, “He’s really good at this.” And he is. When the kid at Starbucks asks Vinnick his name he starts to say “Sentaor,” catches himself, and says “Arnie.” The kid yells, “Venti coffee of the day for Ernie!” and Alda’s face and gaze go off in just the right direction.
And if that was understated, then Jimmy Smits was downright Fiennes-esque. The sense of being overwelmed by the job and responsibility, and not feeling as confident as he knows he should be – and has to be – was apparent in his demenaor. A really good hour of TV that didn’t try to make me cry about poor John Spencer or try to scare me with talk of war in Khazakstan.
Really? No one else? All right then.
First off, NBC sucks for not letting the cast get together and talk about their seven years on air for a while. They couldn’t agree on the money, so insterad they re-ran the first episode. And guess what – Bravo re-ran that first episode about 3 weeks ago, and I had happened to catch it, so my proposed 2 hour love fest with West Wing got doubly-muddled: By not letting Whitford and Sheen and Janney talk about the series (and John Spencer), and then by showing something I’d just seen.
The episode itself was not as good as the one right before it. Or the excellent Alan Alda episode two weeks ago for that matter. They didn’t show Santos’ speech at all. I know; West Wing never shows the speech – they play the run-up to the speech, then fade to black, but I think here it was a mistake. We’re not going to see the Santos presidency, so we should have at least seen the speech to get a better sense of it.
The brief moment of Rob Lowe and Whitford verbally analyzing a situation in front of the (new) President in the Oval Office was a nice throw-back to all those previous scenarios. Sheen constantly holding Stockard Channing’s hand would have been a bit much any other time, but was sweet here; as well as her short line, “You made it; you’re still here” speaking a lot beyond the line itself; that she really didn’t expect him to survive two full terms in office, physically, let alone politically.
Then seeing that napkin in the last scene on the plane… I remember that scene when Leo originally wrote those words on the napkin and slid it across the table, written side down. Nice. Great series. Up there with St Elsewhere.
Sorry. At the beginning of last season, I gave up–the first two episodes were wildly melodramatic, written with a tin ear for politics let alone for speech.
Then I heard how great the show got. Kris and I are now watching last season on dvd, and — yup — after that second crap episode, there’s a definite clear uptick in quality when Smits comes aboard. I’m keen to see where things go, but–hell, I’ll go ahead and agree already. Even if just for the Sorkin years, the show was astounding; if these last two seasons are as strong as you indicate, then the show is simply more consistently excellent than expected.
And I’m really, really keen to see Sorkin’s new show.
While Sorkin’s new show will certainly get watched by me (at least giving it a chance), the darkhorse I’m more looking forward to is Tina Fey’s similarly-themed comedy; starring Rachel Dretsch, Tracy Morgan, and perhaps the 2nd best SNL star of the 90s after Will Ferrell, Alec Baldiwn, who plays the Lorne Michaels role.
Yeah, the last 26 episodes or so (once the campaign went into full gear) were great “West Wing” eps, primarily because we broke out of that claustrophobic White House set and sent all of our favorite characters scurrying to and fro to work on various election staffs. This choice literally reinvented the series and revitalized the characters. The last season and a half has been very fun to watch. On the finale: I did like the moment between Charlie and the President. I never really understood Charlie’s character but this was a well-earned piece of sentiment. But the final ep was so noble, so heightened in its importance as the “final episode” (and it did have a hell of an ending to exploit). Still, is it me or did the all of the long shots of the inaugeration (and all of the attention paid to building up to the event) put the viewer on the defensive for fear somebody was going to get shot? Three or four times I literally feared for the shock ending about to come but never to be realized. How has it come to this?
How awful… I didn’t even think about that. I still remember the first time I saw that shock ending of St. Elsewhere of course. But to have shot either president there just seems too horrible – maybe even too irresponsible – for them to have done.
You know, the message of the series has always been: The system works. When John Goodman took over the presidency. When Toby is found guilty (and then pardoned)… When the midterm elections – after all of the work – results in no changes to the numbers in Congress. It’s the lasting message of the series – That the American system of govt. really is an impressive thing, and that there are mechanisms in place for transitions of power based on people voting. Based on a lot of money and trickery too, but also people voting.
To have shown that transition of power as anything else – especially with the death of the Vice-President Elect (and all of the talk about how and who to name his successor in ways that are Constitutional) would have been beyond the pale. No one was watching anyway, so there was no reason to go sensational.
I have a strange attraction to this show, though its smugness always repels me. To my mind, one of the worst features of The West Wing was on display during its finale–its irritating sense of “Good People Doing Good Things Modestly and with an Occasional Self-Deprecating Witty Remark.” Everything is so high-minded that I tend to get fed up. The show lacks too often a sense of the chaos, lunacy, hysteria of real politics, not to mention its overt manipulation by forces who have more than winsome witticisms on their mind. I enjoy the show, I find it “well-done” and compelling enough, but it has an inner core of cornball self-regard that I often find hard to take. The finale was mostly a bore with ONE GOOD MAN taking over from ANOTHER GOOD MAN like a well-oiled machine where human control is superfluous.
after reading what you all wrote here i got a strong desire to watch the west wing again. i stopped watching into the second or third season — got fed up, mostly because i got really annoyed at how women were marginalized (as secretaries or wives or, in the case of janney, submissive and secondary players) and how, after the first couple of years or so of bush’s presidency, the show tried so hard to be “balanced.” but then i heard (here, i think) that the last two seasons were really good, that the show had become what it was at the beginning, maybe even better, so i’m now watching the sixth season and i’m just about in love with it. some of the acting is about as good as it gets, janney’s character is suddenly the second most powerful person in the west wing, and the alternative-universe presidency-as-it-should-be-instead-of-as-it-is, really, really works for me. it must be that i’m sick as could be of bush, who, these days, seems totally unable to hold it together even in the simplest moments, so much so that his lust for world dominance (almost) seems more pathetic than scary.
i’m glad janney earned for herself a preeminent spot on the show, and that she’s grown so much as an actress. i like her a lot.
unlike michael, i’m not bothered by earnestness or even sentimentality. in fact, i crave both with every fiber of my being. go west wing!
The problem with the West Wing, in its delicate concerns with People Wryly Doing the Right Thing (I know, I used this joke already), is that it’s almost totally unable to come to terms in any significant way with the real forces of current politics. I am imagine that a female press secretary or chief of staff would be as saddled with the task of transmitting lies and omissions as any male would, so the gender politics don’t strike me as in the least progressive, merely sentimental and tender-hearted in a fuzzy and dangerously apolitical way. Sorry, gio–just can’t get behind this show.
michael, it may have something to do with our respective personalities. i don’t mind it at all when the world as tv and the movies present it to me is a lot better than the world as it is (if it’s done with some semblance of realism, thus allowing suspension of disbelief). i mind it much more when the world as tv and the movies present it to me reinforces the same stereotypes, lies, and vile prejudices i find odious in the real world. in answer to a question you asked me elsewhere: no, i don’t listen to right wing radio. i can’t. reality is horrible as it is, without the added commentary of right-wing hate-mongerers. i need respite from war, corruption, endless poverty, and abuse. the right wing satisfies this need without insulting my intelligence, and i love it for it.
Gio,
I don’t think the fantasy that the West Wing presents is really a critique of the world as it is—I think its self-regard is more of an accommodation to the way things are, because the most complex issues are reduced to a matter of good intentions. Presenting issues and politics in a more complex way wouldn’t be the same thing as reinforcing the worst elements of the “real world.” I’m not sure I see the value in a show ostensibly about real world politics that presents a white-washed view of the issues of war, corruption, etc.—though, I guess I don’t have an objection to your view of it as a sort of comforting well-done soap opera–I just resist the idea of taking it more seriously which many commentaries about the show do, partly, I think, in reaction to the show’s own self-seriousness. perhaps it’s my problem–taking TV too seriously in this case. But I would love to see a show in the same setting with a more hard-edged satirical and difficult approach.