
I wrote this about a year ago but didn't know how to tag or publish to groups at that point.
As The West Wing came to an end (something I just finished watching via DVD's) I thought it was time to share some of the thoughts I collected about one of the best-written series ever.
What I learned from the series:
1. Topics as seemingly boring as census statistics can become absorbing, fascinating and interesting with the right script writer. The census was a major part of the storyline in Episode 1.6 - "Mr. Willis of Ohio".
2. Politicians, as depicted on the series, are much more articulate, thoughtful and, at times, inspiring than the real ones you read about in the newspapers.
3. Fictional presidents are easier to adore than real presidents.
4. Money, greed, and campaign donations do not have to be the deciding factors on issues and campaign decisions, unlike in real American politics.
5. The West Wing has an incredible number of hallways, often filled with people walking and talking. Such conversations, referred to as "walk and talks," were a staple of the show.
6. There are many thought-provoking, emotional conversations and circumstances taking place in The West Wing.
7. It is hard to keep a series fresh, especially after its best writer, Aaron Sorkin, leaves the show.
8. Shows can be rewritten when key characters die. In fact, not only were episodes changed when John Spencer, who played the White House chief of staff, died but the election results were even changed. Spencer's character was a Democratic vice presidential nominee. According to Wikipedia and other sources, the Republican candidate played by Alan Alda was originally written to win the election. However, after Spencer died, the producers decided they couldn't have the vice president die - both on the show and in real life - and also lose the election.
9. A bad episode - and I'm one of those who stopped watching for a few seasons when the show went downhill - is still better than most television shows and movies.
10. The West Wing actors - especially during the first four years when Sorkin was the main writer - often repeat comments and talk in an unusual cadence.
An unusual cadence? Yes, an unusual cadence unlike any I have heard before. A sample exchange between C.J., the press secretary, and Sam, Rob Lowe's character:
C.J.: Sam, I read my briefing book last night on the commerce bill regarding the census and there are certain parts of it I don't understand. Sam: I can help you out. Which parts?
C.J.: Well... all of it.
Sam: All of it?
C.J.: Yes.
Sam: You don't understand the census?
C.J.: I don't understand certain nuances. Sam: Like what?
C.J.: Like, the census.
Sam: C.J., we've been working on this commerce bill for three weeks, I hear you talk about the census all the time. C.J.: Yeah. Yeah.
Sam: Well...I don't understand. How could you-?
C.J.: I've been faking it.
Sam: You've been faking it?
C.J.: I've been playing it fast and loose there's no doubt about it, but sitting in on some of the meetings we've been having, and reading the briefing book last night, I have to say that the census is starting to sound to me like it's, well, important.
See how that not only is interesting and engaging as well as going on to give a decent primer on how the census works and why it matters?
What I learned from the actors playing West Wing characters:
1. It's possible to talk about issues like the census without looking bored (see #1 above).
2. It is possible to appear to almost never sleep, use the bathroom or go home without it showing.
3. Sick outs work. Key West Wing actors, like those at CSI and other series, have refused on occasion to continue the series without a pay hike. I thought about doing that at my job but I have a feeling I would be replaced. Whether or not that is good in the end is a topic I'll leave for another day.
4. A good television episode, thanks to great acting and excellent writing, can be better than most movies.
What I learned about NBC, the network on which the show aired:
1. Don't use ratings to make decisions. The pilot had 17 million viewers but the average episode this season is drawing 8 million viewers. But this season, with the campaigns and election of a new president, the series was picking up momentum and becoming more interesting. The network's decision to pull the plug on the series was a mistake.
2. Being cheap hurts you in the end. While I have mixed feelings about the actors asking for more money, the problem could have been solved if the network had just agreed to pay the actors their due. Not only does this upset fans of this series but it will probably lead to fewer retrospectives as series end, removing a nice piece of closure that used to be a staple as hit series end.
So, goodbye to the best political drama I have ever seen. Goodbye to a show that was an inspiration to this idealistic writer who is still crazy enough to think government can do good. Goodbye to characters who were so well-written and developed that they are easier to relate to than most actual politicians and their staff.
Goodbye, West Wing.
This was a victim of demographics. This one and JAG had rather large and loyal followings. The problem was that it was the older crowd that did not have a lot of 'disposable income' (they had budgets and stuck to them) and did not have brand loyalty (the generic would do just fine). The advertisers want the younger crowd who can still be swayed to make impulse purchases.
I actually think it ended at just the right time - and I'm also one of those few who don't think it's quality suffered overmuch with the departure of Sorkin (I might even say it improved). If it had continued, it would have had to go on at least another four years for there to be true closure - and that's unlikely. So, to me, it ended with the Bartlet administration, which seemed natural.
I have a question. How do you read all those books yet watch so much television as well?
If you liked the show you have to try Sports Nite some time.
Oh, I've seen it. It's definitely Sorkin, and I loved it (with the exception of the hunting episode, which I found to be too preachy even by Sorkin standards). Also had walk-and-talks in that. I don't know if he originated those, or just popularized them, but I've seen them all over the place, since. I most recently noticed it on "Dirt".
Whether quality dropped or not is subjective, but it definitely became much more tense. What I liked most about seasons 1-4 was the playful banter that broke the tension. The show had a much more serious tone after Sorkin left.
I love Sorkin's flair for dialogue. You gave a great example in your article, Scott.
He also have very likeable, but flawed characters. You can see it in West Wing, Sports Night and Studio 60.
My only complain is that he can get a bit preachy from time to time.
Yes and I think that was one of the downfalls of Studio 60
I'd agree. I didn't even watch the finale episodes when they finally showed them for that reason.
Fictional presidents are easier to adore than real presidents.
I totally agree. Given the candidates for this election, I'd gladly take President Bartlett, Senator Santos or Senator Vinick.
So, which fictional character would you like to be president?
Actually, I got so far behind on my conversation tracker that I was overwhelmed so I just cleared it. Then I went to your profile because I knew you'd have some good seeds or articles for me to read.
I hope you finally got some sleep.
The West Wing is my all-time favorite television series. The West Wing Staff it depicts represent what I want out of my political leaders.
After being evacuated from the Virginia Tech campus on April 16th I went home and watched the Bartlett speech that begins "joy cometh in the morning" and ends "they weren't born wanting to do this."
I miss this series and the vision it represented.
Scott, a wonderful glimpse into my favorite show.
In some ways, it's the Star Trek of Politics. It has the same idealized dream: Wouldn't it be great if it was really this way, and it could be if we all get smart and learn to get along.
And make no mistake. I share that dream. Very much. Part of what makes these shows work is that they demonstrate that the dream is possible. Granted, we'll need cheap anti-matter to make the Trek dream possible, but the West Wing dream is within our grasp.
One distinction I may have from many who've posted here is that shows, like Star Trek and The West Wing, are so far above the normal and have so much to say that I cut them a great deal of slack.
I know it's possible to feel a sense of betrayal sometimes. A good example is what the first Mission Impossible movie did to Jim Phelps. Maybe I'm an easy sell, but the worst episode of Trek or TTW so far outshines most of the other crap that I can't imagine tuning out.
This is too interesting a topic for me to relegate to comments. I'll be back with a link someday soon.
So could we extend that theory to his other shows?
Interesting question! The American President certainly has another idealized President. It may be that he longs for politics to be better, so his politically-based scripts reflect that longing. Same as how Roddenberry longed for a better future for mankind.
Perhaps his other work falls more into the category of ripping good yarns.
As for Studio 60, that's hard to say. Didn't grab the audience, apparently. Highly intelligent shows often fail, sad to say. Or maybe Matt Perry just wasn't all that? I liked the show and was sad it didn't succeed, but it was no patch on TWW.
Maybe it's that Sports Night and Studio 60 were "just" really, really good shows with great dialog, whereas TWW was all that, plus it had something important to say.
Thanks for pointing me to this thread, Scott. I felt like the quality of the show did decrease slightly when Sorkin left. But the strength of the characters, and how the writers allowed the audience to know them, helped the series remain strong.
My favorite episode, for a couple of reasons, both painful, was Posse Comitatus. It was the first time I heard Jeff Buckley's "Hallelujah," and Mark Harmon's character was killed in the convenience store shootout.
I never watched West Wing when it was on, but a friend let me borrow the DVDs. I thought it was great, seems to explain the political process pretty well. My next door neighbor, who is very apolitical, also enjoyed the DVDs very much.
I thought Alan Alda did a darn good GOPer. Probably much credit for that goes to the writers. A very well written series overall.
It's like William Shatner. After I'd seen him in a number of other roles, he stopped being "Captain Kirk" to me.
Seeing Alda in some of the more notable ones, such as Same Time, Next Year or the Woodie Allen movies or Murder at 1600 all helped erase Hawkeye!
By the time TWW came around, it wasn't much of a problem (and he was really quite good in that, I thought).
I remembered Alda as a rather outspoken Democrat. I'm not finding much about that, other than "Briefly considered a run for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in New Jersey after Bill Bradley announced his retirement in 1995."
West Wing was not only a good series it was a great series. It was an education in how government works. It explained the various positions within the WH and surrounding the Oval office. It gave you a real insight into what happens in government. The trade offs, the intrigue, the corruption, the tensions. It was all in this series and I miss it also.
I think I am going to get the DVD series and rewatch it again. Thanks for the idea and the recall of a very pleasant time for me and TV.
I never watched the show when it was on and only discovered it through DVDs once it was cancelled. I've watched the entire series twice now and will probably watch it again very soon!
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |