TWW S6 - Drought Conditions etc
Two nights left until exam results are out.
And I overslept again this morning, which makes it three nights in a row. I'm not that surprised, given that I was still staring at the ceiling when it was dawn outside, and only really drifted off once I heard athena25 get up to get in the shower. This morning, I heard my alarm, and I turned it off, and I got up, and I had a shower, and I got ready, and I had breakfast, and I got to work -
- and then I woke up and realised that I was still in bed and DREAMING MY FRAKKING DAY.
So, I got up, splashed some water on my face, skipped my shower and breakfast and got to work on time, and now all I want is to go home and have a long bath and not do anything for a bit. Unfortunately, it's show week, which means I have the panto tonight, tomorrow night, the night after and the night after that. If this spate of 1 hour of sleep per night continues, I fully anticipate dozing off in the middle of second act, which should make emergency costume repairs that much more Fun and Exciting (tm).
Last night I watched some S6 West Wing. Maybe it's the fact that I have a large enough sleep deficit to finance Switzerland, or maybe I'm Sekkretly Traumatised (tm), but in watching 'Drought Conditions' (the one with Senator Rafferty), I ended up bursting into tears during the key Toby scene. Not really that surprising, as I love Toby and anything that upsets him upsets me (same goes for CJ, actually), but still rather unexpected.
I have some thoughts on how S6 as a whole is progressing, and why I continue to be sceptical:
My main problem - and don't you just love it when people start off a review by enumerating the problems they have with a series, it guarantees a certain je ne c'est quoi, don't you think? - is with the writing. Or, rather, the lack of writing. At least three times during the series thus far there was a very, very obvious cut away from the political discussion proper. In solving the Middle East crisis, in the North Korean talks with China, and in the primary debate in New Hampshire, we didn't get to see what was happening. We didn't get to see the reasoning. We didn't actually get to see the politics, for crying out loud! I would have been very interested in just how the President worked out talks etc with China, and even more so with this Middle East peace plan. I mean, they don't have to be viable ideas in our world to make them viable ideas in Bartlett's world, so why we weren't even given a plausible storyline is beyond me. The West Wing - years ago - could be relied upon to put its money where its mouth is. You're having an episode about the Aids crisis in Africa? They'll come up with a plan. It won't necessarily work, and politics will get in the way, but they'll come up with an idea that is then debated and worked on. Problems are presented and then tackled on screen. We don't actually see any of that anymore. Can you imagine this season's Josh Lyman coming up with the Antiquities Act as a solution for a strip-mined area? Instead of a stroke of inspiration - and a display of just how well Josh knows his job - we get Josh presenting us with an ad involving chickens. It's up to santos to save the day, by going on air and appearing earnest. Wow, that really accounts for all those years Josh spent in the business - he gets his candidate's name and face out there by earnestness.
I'm sorry, but that wouldn't work in the real world and it wouldn't work in Bartlett's world either. It was startling when Bartlett did it in 'The Shadow of Two Gunmen', but he backed up honesty with knowledge. It was touching when CJ did it in 'The Women of Qumar', but the political reality clashed with what she personally believed, and that was what made it important. Watching a candidate that is so obviously going to do incredibly well despite a bad start (the underdog extraordinaire) through sheer force of personality - no. Bartlett got his job because he had several important factors going for him, not least of all an incredible team, a head-start in New Hampshire and money. He wanted the job - I'm not sure that santos does. He eventually cooperated with Leo and Josh, and I'm not sure that santos will. They're setting this candidate up to win despite the odds, and it really, really grates me. The only thing that could have won me around would have been watching the primary debate in New Hampshire. I mean, that was how Bartlett won Josh, right? I was jumping up and down in my seat in the S4 presidential debate.
Instead, we were cheated with an 'aftermath' episode, of 'stuff the debate affects'. Well, it's all very nice to see that Santos is picking up support, but why? I mean, the audience hasn't seen him speak. As far as we know, he's just a pretty face. He's unproven, and until we actually see him put some weight behind all that nervous energy, I'm not convinced that he can convince others.
Basically, the problem is that the writers are writing episodes for characters that are more intelligent than they are. This is a problem. It's difficult to come up with a likely discussion of nuclear proliferation in North Korea when your knowledge of North Korea is hazy at best. It's difficult to come up with a likely Sit Room scenario involving rebels, fighting and casualties when yadda yadda yadda.
It's even - and dare I say this? - it's even difficult to come up with a likely conversation between the UK and America wherein America is right and the UK is wrong that doesn't make the characters sound like bloody sainted martyrs, for crying out loud! I'm really pissed off at the protrayal of the UK prime minister, and even more so at the portrayal of Lord John Marbury. I'm sorry, but what the hell was that all about? He basically spends his entire time incredibly drunk, molesting the female staff, being completely useless, and he hasn't been fired from this rather important post? Erm. I think not. The entire episode makes me spitting mad.
Another thing. Notice the lack of 'process' stories? No economics stories. No domestic probems at all, it seems. Other than the primaries and international discord, there is nothing bad happening to the Bartlett administration. *rolls eyes*
Suffice to say that the latter part of the season better improve, pronto, otherwise I may not actually watch S7, due to having thrown something at the tv.
In conclusion, Will and Donna, wtf?
And I overslept again this morning, which makes it three nights in a row. I'm not that surprised, given that I was still staring at the ceiling when it was dawn outside, and only really drifted off once I heard athena25 get up to get in the shower. This morning, I heard my alarm, and I turned it off, and I got up, and I had a shower, and I got ready, and I had breakfast, and I got to work -
- and then I woke up and realised that I was still in bed and DREAMING MY FRAKKING DAY.
So, I got up, splashed some water on my face, skipped my shower and breakfast and got to work on time, and now all I want is to go home and have a long bath and not do anything for a bit. Unfortunately, it's show week, which means I have the panto tonight, tomorrow night, the night after and the night after that. If this spate of 1 hour of sleep per night continues, I fully anticipate dozing off in the middle of second act, which should make emergency costume repairs that much more Fun and Exciting (tm).
Last night I watched some S6 West Wing. Maybe it's the fact that I have a large enough sleep deficit to finance Switzerland, or maybe I'm Sekkretly Traumatised (tm), but in watching 'Drought Conditions' (the one with Senator Rafferty), I ended up bursting into tears during the key Toby scene. Not really that surprising, as I love Toby and anything that upsets him upsets me (same goes for CJ, actually), but still rather unexpected.
I have some thoughts on how S6 as a whole is progressing, and why I continue to be sceptical:
My main problem - and don't you just love it when people start off a review by enumerating the problems they have with a series, it guarantees a certain je ne c'est quoi, don't you think? - is with the writing. Or, rather, the lack of writing. At least three times during the series thus far there was a very, very obvious cut away from the political discussion proper. In solving the Middle East crisis, in the North Korean talks with China, and in the primary debate in New Hampshire, we didn't get to see what was happening. We didn't get to see the reasoning. We didn't actually get to see the politics, for crying out loud! I would have been very interested in just how the President worked out talks etc with China, and even more so with this Middle East peace plan. I mean, they don't have to be viable ideas in our world to make them viable ideas in Bartlett's world, so why we weren't even given a plausible storyline is beyond me. The West Wing - years ago - could be relied upon to put its money where its mouth is. You're having an episode about the Aids crisis in Africa? They'll come up with a plan. It won't necessarily work, and politics will get in the way, but they'll come up with an idea that is then debated and worked on. Problems are presented and then tackled on screen. We don't actually see any of that anymore. Can you imagine this season's Josh Lyman coming up with the Antiquities Act as a solution for a strip-mined area? Instead of a stroke of inspiration - and a display of just how well Josh knows his job - we get Josh presenting us with an ad involving chickens. It's up to santos to save the day, by going on air and appearing earnest. Wow, that really accounts for all those years Josh spent in the business - he gets his candidate's name and face out there by earnestness.
I'm sorry, but that wouldn't work in the real world and it wouldn't work in Bartlett's world either. It was startling when Bartlett did it in 'The Shadow of Two Gunmen', but he backed up honesty with knowledge. It was touching when CJ did it in 'The Women of Qumar', but the political reality clashed with what she personally believed, and that was what made it important. Watching a candidate that is so obviously going to do incredibly well despite a bad start (the underdog extraordinaire) through sheer force of personality - no. Bartlett got his job because he had several important factors going for him, not least of all an incredible team, a head-start in New Hampshire and money. He wanted the job - I'm not sure that santos does. He eventually cooperated with Leo and Josh, and I'm not sure that santos will. They're setting this candidate up to win despite the odds, and it really, really grates me. The only thing that could have won me around would have been watching the primary debate in New Hampshire. I mean, that was how Bartlett won Josh, right? I was jumping up and down in my seat in the S4 presidential debate.
Instead, we were cheated with an 'aftermath' episode, of 'stuff the debate affects'. Well, it's all very nice to see that Santos is picking up support, but why? I mean, the audience hasn't seen him speak. As far as we know, he's just a pretty face. He's unproven, and until we actually see him put some weight behind all that nervous energy, I'm not convinced that he can convince others.
Basically, the problem is that the writers are writing episodes for characters that are more intelligent than they are. This is a problem. It's difficult to come up with a likely discussion of nuclear proliferation in North Korea when your knowledge of North Korea is hazy at best. It's difficult to come up with a likely Sit Room scenario involving rebels, fighting and casualties when yadda yadda yadda.
It's even - and dare I say this? - it's even difficult to come up with a likely conversation between the UK and America wherein America is right and the UK is wrong that doesn't make the characters sound like bloody sainted martyrs, for crying out loud! I'm really pissed off at the protrayal of the UK prime minister, and even more so at the portrayal of Lord John Marbury. I'm sorry, but what the hell was that all about? He basically spends his entire time incredibly drunk, molesting the female staff, being completely useless, and he hasn't been fired from this rather important post? Erm. I think not. The entire episode makes me spitting mad.
Another thing. Notice the lack of 'process' stories? No economics stories. No domestic probems at all, it seems. Other than the primaries and international discord, there is nothing bad happening to the Bartlett administration. *rolls eyes*
Suffice to say that the latter part of the season better improve, pronto, otherwise I may not actually watch S7, due to having thrown something at the tv.
In conclusion, Will and Donna, wtf?