The West Wing - 6x01 - NSF Thurmont
Oct. 16th, 2005 02:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
iainjclarkLike ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ajp I prepared some thoughts on the opening of The West Wing's sixth season. I started these with the best of intentions as the episodes aired in the US, but my enthusiam ground to a halt so there won't be many more of these!
The West Wing - 6x01 - NSF Thurmont
And so the season starts with…well, a direct continuation of the end of Season 5. Literally and thematically this picks up right where Memorial Day left off, and never lets up. Bartlet continues his increasingly isolated crusade to bring diplomacy, not missiles, to bear on the West Bank, in a story with deep relevance to the current political situation in the US. (And of course it aired right before the US elections).
This is an intelligent episode which manages to continue the debate from the season finale. It does however lack much of the subtlety of its predecessor, with the parallels with 9-11 and the war on Iraq drawn far more crudely. However, despite the lack of subtlety there's something quite satisfying about watching Bartlet's incredulous outrage at the idea of responding to a terrorist atrocity with an attack on an Iran, without any direct evidence of a connection between the two. :-) Partly I was simply relieved to have a clear signpost that Bartlet retained the moral high ground, because the season finale left me worrying that maybe he was headed for a fall.
Once again Leo is dead set against Bartlet's conciliatory stance, repeating like a broken record his insistence that Bartlet "have to" launch the proposed attack, until his truly riveting explosion in the Oval Office. And he comes up, full stop, against Bartlet's quiet challenge:"..or what?" This interpersonal conflict, downbeat (and arguably out of character) though it is, is superbly played by John Spencer and Martin Sheen. Leo, sadly, is for me at least a very unlikeable character, continuing a trend which began last year; it's a real shame to see such a well-loved figure descend into acrimonious conflict with his former friends.
In the background pretty much everyone is against the President, leading to a very nice scene with Abbey in which he ponders how easy it would be to give in, and provide an attack which would satisfy the craving for revenge in the short term, but achieve nothing but more bloodshed in the long run. His brainstorming session was also fascinating, as he more or less drags the staff into helping him by stubborn force of will. Time and again I thought Bartlet was going to have to relent, and time and again he stuck to his guns. If this episode achieved anything it's showing in no uncertain terms that peace can be the more courageous choice than war. It's just a shame that it does this at the expense of pitting friend against friend.
Thankfully, although I doubt that next week will see a true peace brokered in the Middle East, the story is now at a place where I can imagine the peace plan failing gracefully without Bartlet having to back down and go with Leo's hawkish approach. For that, I'm extremely thankful!
In the meantime Josh enters a realm of "Josh + Donna 4 ever" shippyness that begins to feel like a parallel universe. Fortunately Donna spends most of the episode unconscious, which prevents this from going anywhere. My money is on the whole plotline simmering back down to unrelieved sexual tension before this story is done. Mostly because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
The frustrating thing about this episode is that it stops, dead, right when you're desperate to see how it all turns out. I still sorely miss Aaron Sorkin, even one year on, but this very different show is still surprisingly compelling.
One other interesting thing to note - Mary McCormack, alias Kate Harper, is now in the opening credits. I assume this means she's a regular (though not necessarily, since others have hopped in and out of the credits before now). This is somewhat surprising, to me at least, but she's a decent enough character, so I guess we'll see how she fits in.
ajp I prepared some thoughts on the opening of The West Wing's sixth season. I started these with the best of intentions as the episodes aired in the US, but my enthusiam ground to a halt so there won't be many more of these!The West Wing - 6x01 - NSF Thurmont
And so the season starts with…well, a direct continuation of the end of Season 5. Literally and thematically this picks up right where Memorial Day left off, and never lets up. Bartlet continues his increasingly isolated crusade to bring diplomacy, not missiles, to bear on the West Bank, in a story with deep relevance to the current political situation in the US. (And of course it aired right before the US elections).
This is an intelligent episode which manages to continue the debate from the season finale. It does however lack much of the subtlety of its predecessor, with the parallels with 9-11 and the war on Iraq drawn far more crudely. However, despite the lack of subtlety there's something quite satisfying about watching Bartlet's incredulous outrage at the idea of responding to a terrorist atrocity with an attack on an Iran, without any direct evidence of a connection between the two. :-) Partly I was simply relieved to have a clear signpost that Bartlet retained the moral high ground, because the season finale left me worrying that maybe he was headed for a fall.
Once again Leo is dead set against Bartlet's conciliatory stance, repeating like a broken record his insistence that Bartlet "have to" launch the proposed attack, until his truly riveting explosion in the Oval Office. And he comes up, full stop, against Bartlet's quiet challenge:"..or what?" This interpersonal conflict, downbeat (and arguably out of character) though it is, is superbly played by John Spencer and Martin Sheen. Leo, sadly, is for me at least a very unlikeable character, continuing a trend which began last year; it's a real shame to see such a well-loved figure descend into acrimonious conflict with his former friends.
In the background pretty much everyone is against the President, leading to a very nice scene with Abbey in which he ponders how easy it would be to give in, and provide an attack which would satisfy the craving for revenge in the short term, but achieve nothing but more bloodshed in the long run. His brainstorming session was also fascinating, as he more or less drags the staff into helping him by stubborn force of will. Time and again I thought Bartlet was going to have to relent, and time and again he stuck to his guns. If this episode achieved anything it's showing in no uncertain terms that peace can be the more courageous choice than war. It's just a shame that it does this at the expense of pitting friend against friend.
Thankfully, although I doubt that next week will see a true peace brokered in the Middle East, the story is now at a place where I can imagine the peace plan failing gracefully without Bartlet having to back down and go with Leo's hawkish approach. For that, I'm extremely thankful!
In the meantime Josh enters a realm of "Josh + Donna 4 ever" shippyness that begins to feel like a parallel universe. Fortunately Donna spends most of the episode unconscious, which prevents this from going anywhere. My money is on the whole plotline simmering back down to unrelieved sexual tension before this story is done. Mostly because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
The frustrating thing about this episode is that it stops, dead, right when you're desperate to see how it all turns out. I still sorely miss Aaron Sorkin, even one year on, but this very different show is still surprisingly compelling.
One other interesting thing to note - Mary McCormack, alias Kate Harper, is now in the opening credits. I assume this means she's a regular (though not necessarily, since others have hopped in and out of the credits before now). This is somewhat surprising, to me at least, but she's a decent enough character, so I guess we'll see how she fits in.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-16 07:04 am (UTC)... It is? Doesn't it just parrot the tired and well-aired observations about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without offering anything new? The episode treads water, and by its end I'm nowhere near convinced that the summit should be taking place, because there doesn't seem to have been a political breakthrough of any kind. No new thoughts or ideas are espoused, and the whole episode is like reading one of those '60-second Briefing' sidebars you get in most newspapers these days.
I was simply relieved to have a clear signpost that Bartlet retained the moral high ground
True, and I agree that this was a relief given the show's drift to the right for most of its characters, but this Bartlet still isn't the Bartlet we grew to love. Oldschool!Bartlet would have managed to get this summit without alienating his entire staff. He would have an inspiring speech (of which today's writers are incapable), or given us a folsky story to convince us that trying is better than giving up - that war is always a resort, but that opportunities for peace come but rarely. Here, he does says, 'I am Pres, hear me roar!' and steamrollers everyone into it. I didn't find this particularly heart-warming leadership, to be honest.
The Josh and Donna stuff is downright ridiculous, but is worth it for 'Nice Hat' (though that is immediately spoiled, of course, by 'Scared').
What this episode does is keep the conflicts, disasters and obstacles coming, never giving us a moment to sit down and think. That's how it remains compelling. As a piece with anything very interesting or consistent to say about, um, anything, it's not all that.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-16 07:34 am (UTC)To be fair, Sorkin's approach to discussing issues was basically to trot out all sides of the established argument and give them a thorough airing, without necessarily adding anything or reaching a conclusion.
I was actually quite impressed by the S5 finale because, at the very least, it gave me the impression that the writers had bothered to do the research and knew whereof they spoke. While this episode is blunter, it does still convey some of that depth, and there's a clear sense that the writers are trying. It wasn't just written off the top of someone's head between bashing out ER scripts.
And yes, this is debate in the midst of melodrama and out-of-character shouting, but it is still debate, and it is still intelligent. Maybe not Sorkin intelligent, but better than the bulk of Season 5, and smarter than most TV drama.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-16 07:38 am (UTC)Well, I think I could counter-argue that, but, even if we assume you're right, the characters' solution to these debates was always more hard-fought than what happens here, and it was in that engagement with complexity that the show added something new. Elsewhere, Graham has argued that S6 is more realistic, but it seems to me that, when the gang basically 'win' every week (as they do here, and rarely did under Sorkin), realism is out to lunch more than it ever was. Sorkin asked new questions; Wells is happy to answer the old ones in all the old ways.
better than the bulk of Season 5, and smarter than most TV drama
I don't see how this is any defense at all. It's essentially David Cameron's current campaign slogan - 'less uninspiring than the other guys'. Well, big whoop.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-16 07:51 am (UTC)Well yes; but that's my argument too. It might be a poor relation to what went before; but it's still worth watching – IMHO.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-16 07:37 am (UTC)Watching Josh and Donna I felt like I was in some sort of time warp where nothing had happened since season 2. Enough of the UST. I do like the resonance with In the Shadow of Two Gunmen and the Josh/Donna role reversal, but that's about it.
Are you going to post the second episode write-up soon? I'm very interested to hear what people think of that.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-16 07:46 am (UTC)It was shouting as a substitute for drama... :-(
"I do like the resonance with In the Shadow of Two Gunmen and the Josh/Donna role reversal, but that's about it."
Indeed – they had nothing to say here...
no subject
Date: 2005-10-16 07:56 am (UTC)No sooner said...
(I hadn't realised thta they'd aired it as a double bill.)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-16 07:41 am (UTC)I agree. It's just not Leo. My initial reaction (which I hinted at in my thoughts) was who is this, and what did he to with Leo? This is Neo-Con West Wing... :0(
"One other interesting thing to note - Mary McCormack, alias Kate Harper, is now in the opening credits. I assume this means she's a regular (though not necessarily, since others have hopped in and out of the credits before now). This is somewhat surprising, to me at least, but she's a decent enough character, so I guess we'll see how she fits in."
I think this fact says a very great deal about the new direction of the show.