West Wing Special (1 Viewer)

[Brent Hutto]

Chris sez...
> It is unfortunate that some treat WW as though it were
> news.. but a lot of people do.. and last year made it
> difficult to successfully talk to people about certain
> issues.. because both people on left and right had a hard
> timegetting around scurilous facts someone "just heard"
> which were not facts at all...
Since no one else will bring up the obvious analogy, I guess I'll do it.
It's the same concern that some people have with Oliver Stone's JFK assasination fantasies (among other Stone products). When a sufficiently skillful movie or TV show maker achieves the optimum mixture of fact, urban legend, supposition and sheer dramatic license, the resulting product can have a very powerful effect on the assumptions and prejudices that a some subset of viewers will carry around for the rest of their lives.
There are some people who can be very powerfully influenced by what "news" Dan Rather chooses to present and how he presents it. Other people don't watch the "news" anyway except for in times of crisis. There is some other set of people who can be very powerfully influenced by a movie that utilizes commonly-accepted (whether correct or not) historical facts or current events to engage the viewer's sense that "this is just like reality".
I suspect that a weekly television show could exert more influence on a larger group of people than either of the above examples. Think of how many total hours of "The West Wing" or "Law & Order" a fan of the show will absorb over the course of several years. If the maker of such a show chooses to manipulate the audience's assumptions and biases by using "ripped from the headlines" material to slip in under the viewers' radar, that amount exposure in regular doses, delivered over a decade or so, could be wicked effective.
There is of course a large portion of the population whose attention is never engaged at a level sufficient to allow any manipulation at all. Then there are those of us who are born critics and skeptics who disbelieve everything as a matter of habit (which isn't necessarily a good thing, either). The most likely outcome, though, is that the people who think "The West Wing" is just like reality are just people whose view of reality was already pretty much in sync with the show's creators. We all enjoy experiencing art that validates our own feelings and there's certainly nothing wrong with that.
Brent Hutto

 

[Brent Hutto]

Rey L sez...
> As far as Mr. Sorkin sharing his understanding of
> government in an unbiased way, I'm sure that he will
> freely admit that he has used some storylines or rants
> in the past as his own political soapbox. Can you blame
> him? If I had that much control over a show that had
> millions of viewers week in and week out, I'd probably
> do the same.
There are two kinds of people in the world. Some people use a high degree of visibility or influence to put forward their own world view as loudly and forcefully as possible.
The ones we agree with we think of as visionaries, the ones we disagree with we think of as blowhards.
The second kind of person is someone who treats a high degree of visibility or influence as a terrible responsibility since anything they say that turns out to be wrong could end up messing up the mind of some person or persons they've never even met.
I tend to be the second kind of person. I suspect persons of the first kind are more likely to find themselves producing television shows. People of the second kind tend toward paralysis by analysis, which I doubt very much is adaptive in Hollywood.
Brent Hutto

 

[Rich Malloy]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, Brent, but JFK is hardly an "obvious analogy". JFK represents a particular perspective on an actual historical event, muddled beyond reason by the conflation of fact and fantasy, whereas WW represents a particular perspective upon current issues, but which occur in what can best be described as an alternate reality. Only the densest viewer could conclude the events in the WW are in anyway "historical" in the sense that Stone expects us to presume the events presented in JFK are.
And Sorkin very clearly reflects his own political views in his scripts. This should hardly come as a revelation. I mean, are you making a criticism on the basis that some viewers would not be aware of this? If so, I think you're seriously underestimating the capacity of the average person to distinguish fact from opinion. And even if you could justifiably presume that most viewers haven't that capacity, what's the alternative? Some vague notions of "objectivity"? Surely you'd concede that "objectivity" is never perfectly achieved even with the best of intentions. And I'm not quite convinced that it's an ideal worthy of striving for in the arts. I think there's something to be said for an opinion, honestly put, even when one disagrees with it. Indeed, I think we're all quite adult enough to confront an opinion, a subjective perspective, and in so doing participate in the ongoing civic discourse.
All of which is quite apart from the easy conflation of fact and fiction concerning actual historical events that makes Stone's JFK such an abomination.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Al Brown sez...
> All of which is quite apart from the easy conflation of
> fact and fiction concerning actual historical events that
> makes Stone's JFK such an abomination.
Well, I am concerned with the same questions. But in fairness, "The West Wing" is not an obvious abomination, as you correctly termed "JFK". To put it more clearly, I'm pretty certain that "JFK" was a Bad Thing. It crossed the line into messing with people's minds, IMO (and please, no one construe that as meaning that I think Oliver Stone shouldn't be allowed to make movies). I don't really believe that "The West Wing" either intends or delivers that level of manipulation.
But my point remains that a series which is on the air for a couple hundred hours over a decade or so has the potential to be very persuasive. This is even more true when it is primarily the product of one individual and, as such, probably has a very consistent world view underlying it.
I've hijacked the topic too much for this digression. I'll try to refrain from further pursuit of this thread of discussion here.
Brent Hutto

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I didn't like the episode... everything was presented from this ultra-liberal p.o.v. Now, I know you're never going to have a moderate administration, but it just seemed like an hour preaching of the liberal view of the issue (or more precisely, the issues surrounding the issue).
------------------
My DVD Collection
My Preorders
My Wishlist

 

[Ken Chan]

If The West Wing is ultra-liberal, I'm not sure what you would consider to be moderate. In fact, I don't recall all that much about last night that was particularly liberal (but then I'm not particularly reactionary).
I did like the president's explanation of the difference between martyrdom and "dumbass murder".
And perhaps the biggest factual error was the premise: a suspected terrorist entering the U.S. at the Ontario-Vermont border. Vermont abuts Quebec, not Ontario
//Ken

 

[Bryan Farris]

I didn't like the episode... everything was presented from this ultra-liberal p.o.v. Now, I know you're never going to have a moderate administration, but it just seemed like an hour preaching of the liberal view of the issue (or more precisely, the issues surrounding the issue).

The characters are self-professed liberals, but the episode I saw last night was fairly down the middle. CJ seemed to be very much in favor of giving the CIA carte` blance to go after the bad guys: not exactly a liberal doctrine. Josh made sure to exonerate the Religious Right when it would have been an easy opportunity to take a cheap shot at Falwell, et al. And everyone in the administration put forth the posture that they WOULD fight back and not "give peace a chance".
The one thing that bothered me: If there is a suspected terrorist in the White House, the LAST place I'd allow POTUS to be is roaming around the halls freely. After taking Rahim into custody, shouldn't they have sent the First Family to Camp David or something?
Otherwise, another outstanding effort from Team Sorkin.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I watched enough of it to be upset. Who were the high school students supposed to be? Oh yes, America, with Aaron Sorkin teaching us. No thank you. I am tired of Hollywood and their ilk trying to put this into perspective for us poor ignorant commoners. Firefighters and cops and servicemen and women were heroes to me 4 weeks ago and they still are now. This show wasn't poorly done or developed. I feel it was poorly conceived. I don't need a one-hour fictional drama to teach and comfort me. It's a noble intention, for certain, but also a condescending one.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[BobV]

Mr. Sorkin also misquoted the Bible when he had the First Lady talking about, and quoting, the story of Isaac & Ishmael (the pointed pinnacle of the show)...
Abraham did not tell them to, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son...", Sarah, his wife, did. And God told Abraham to listen to her.
...and with that missed the whole point of the conflict's beginning.
Another thing I wasn't in total agreement with was when the Afghanis are compared to Jews in concentration camps because of the Nazis in Poland. Er... nope, can't swallow that one, sorry. Not one of those Jews in there supported the Nazis, but from what I understand, many Afghanis support the Taliban. Mentioning the comparison is no big deal, and I'm not gonna lynch anyone for saying it, but it ain't the same, sorry.
Myself, I thought it was an ok show. Ok.. not great.. but ok. I also felt it came across as "preachy-like", but I accept the whole series as that so it was nothing out of the norm. That said, it is still one of my all time favourite shows on TV... watch it every week and won't miss an episode... so go figure .
[Edited last by BobV on October 05, 2001 at 01:44 AM]

 

[Gerard Priori]

Hhmm... I must have missed something. I thought it was dull, preachy, plodding, and repetitious. A weak effort.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I love the show and I thought this "special" episode was just awful.
I found the general tone to be condescending (I haven't been in high school for a long time and I don't relish being talked down to like a student). This is the single weakest episode of the show so far. I found all the arguments to be simple and obvious--no one had a unique perspective on anything. And when all those simple arguments had been exhausted, in walks Stockard Channing to tell us bible stories as if they explain anything. I couldn't have hated it more.
I have every confidence that the real season will be as strong as the last two, but as far as I'm concerned they could have saved the effort on this nonsense.
-Jerry

 

[Rich Malloy]

Yes, pedantic and sanctimonious - not exactly good drama!
quote: Another thing I wasn't in total agreement with was when the Afghanis are compared to Jews in concentration camps because of the Nazis in Poland. Er... nope, can't swallow that one, sorry. Not one of those Jews in there supported the Nazis, but from what I understand, many Afghanis support the Taliban. Mentioning the comparison is no big deal, and I'm not gonna lynch anyone for saying it, but it ain't the same, sorry.[/quote]
What struck me about that sequence was how it was nearly word-for-word from an e-mail that was going round from an Afghan-American named Tamim Ansary (reprinted http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html
[Edited last by Al Brown on October 05, 2001 at 08:44 AM]

 

[Bryan Farris]

Wouldn't be the first time Sorkin cribbed dialogue from an e-mail. Remember the Dr. Laura diatribe from last year?

 

[MickeS]

The only part of the show I saw was the "Islamic extremists are to islam what KKK is to christianity". I read that statement, word for word, somewhere else on the web before this episode.
I watched a few minutes of this show before, but was completely turned off by the "X-Files" lighting used in the show (White House meetings in half darkness, I don't think so) and the constant blather (posing as clever dialog, I think), but I tuned in om Wednesday to see what the fuss was about. Dreadful, preaching, condescending, pretentious and pointless is how I would describe it. I'll stay away from it in the future too.
Oh, and I'm a liberal!
/Mike

 

[Jon Bell]

I thought it could have used a musical number, a la Schoolhouse Rock.

 

[Rich Malloy]

They shoulda shot it in 3-D.

 

[Rob T]

here's an article on the ratings for the episode. I got it from my sprint homepage. lol
Oct 05, 2001 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- 'THE WEST WING'
Wednesday night's special episode of "The West Wing," which addressed issues of terrorism and racial profiling, attracted the second-largest audience ever for NBC's White House drama.
The network said the episode -- written by series creator Aaron Sorkin and produced in less than three weeks -- drew 24.55 million viewers. The season premiere, a two-hour special, drew 25.05 million viewers.
"This is one of those mornings when it feels great to be a broadcaster," said NBC Entertainment President Jeff Zucker in a statement issued Thursday. "We are thrilled by the fact that millions of families gathered around their televisions to watch such an intelligent and thought-provoking program."
Airing immediately after "The West Wing," the Emmy-winning drama "Law & Order" attracted the largest audience in its 12-year history. NBC said 22.7 million viewers tuned in to the show.
(Thanks to UPI Hollywood Reporter Pat Nason)

 

[Brad Grenz]

quote: Mr. Sorkin also misquoted the Bible when he had the First Lady talking about, and quoting, the story of Isaac & Ishmael (the pointed pinnacle of the show)...
Abraham did not tell them to, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son...", Sarah, his wife, did. And God told Abraham to listen to her.[/quote]
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the First Lady did say it was Abraham's wife who asked Abraham to get rid of them. I think you might have misheard the line.
quote: Another thing I wasn't in total agreement with was when the Afghanis are compared to Jews in concentration camps because of the Nazis in Poland. Er... nope, can't swallow that one, sorry. Not one of those Jews in there supported the Nazis, but from what I understand, many Afghanis support the Taliban.[/quote]
Well, there were certainly non-Jewish German citizens who supported the Nazi regime. In that way I think it's a completely valid comparison.
I do agree that it was perhaps an uneccesary excersize to produce the episode. But they're donating proceeds from the episode to charities and that alone justifies the effort. I did appreciate the way they approached the subject. Instead of trying to recreate or dramatize the incident on screen simply reflecting on the situation the nation now finds itself in. But I do think that just about everything that was said was stuff everybody had already learned or realized for ourselves over the last few weeks. (save for nutjobs who say we got what our corrupt nation deserved, or who are protesting a war that doesn't exist yet. there's just no reasoning with people who live in their own little fantasy lands)
------------------
Brad Grenz
Link Removed
the Widgets
[Edited last by Brad Grenz on October 06, 2001 at 03:43 AM]

 

[BobV]

Well, there were certainly non-Jewish German citizens who supported the Nazi regime. In that way I think it's a completely valid comparison.

...and if that's what would have been said, it would have been more valid, but it wasn't. It was stated the Jews in the concentration camps, not those out of them and supporting the Nazis. But I may have mis heard that too... I am nothing if not able to admit I'm probably wrong .