Fractionally remembered things and fresh perspectives
The West Wing - 3.15 Dead Irish Writers
I did remember the whole Donna being briefly Canadian thing.
Poor Abbey, avoiding facing up to tomorrow’s decision about her professional misdeeds, in a foul mood, with Jed not particularly helping, although he was trying, while having to celebrate her birthday bigtime with total strangers. And it took the drunk/tipsy posse of laydeez to call her out, although I was once again obsessing over Abbey’s friends, in an episode that referenced one of them recusing himself from deciding what her punishment should be because of the conflict of interest (as he should.) Whither her oncologist friends now, or any other friends - wouldn’t the surgeon-general, at least, have had an interesting perspective? I mean, I loved tipsy!CJ, Amy’s wanting to remember it for her future book, and Donna getting the devastating blow. CJ and Donna’s confusion over whether they were talking to the First Lady or Abbey was interesting (and a reflection of that line the staff have with the President and Jed Bartlet) and I thought the podcast was insightful about the episode using names and titles to explore the confusion between roles and people, particularly the point about how that sometimes tips over into our appreciation of the regular staff characters. When watching, I was mentally stuck on how if I had a birthday party where my nearest and dearest were my husband’s colleagues, however great they are, I’d be narked too.
I felt I understood the Northern Ireland stuff to the point where I didn’t see the wood for the trees. I was too busy parsing real-life equivalents and differences, going off on mental tangents about watching an Englishman played by a Welshman as written by an American (helped by other Americans) discuss this so the podcast’s take on it, where they went after the parallels between the Israeli-Palestinian situation and Northern Ireland and the importance of dialogue that I felt a little abashed. Also, my take-out was that one thing Toby might have got out of the conversation was that they could have met the terrorist turned politician somewhere other than the White House and satisfied their allies, but they didn’t jump on that as a solution in the podcast. I agreed that it was good that Marbury called Toby out on his different stance here to the one he’d taken on the Muslim world and Islamist terrorism. Even if it didn’t get developed, it was acknowledged (possibly proving that Andi’s arguments had sunk in in the aftermath of the speech.)
Er, anyway, I was just thinking ‘My, there’s a lot of drinking and smoking going on,’ when we had an overdone transition from Toby smoking his cigar to Hector Elonzo’s scientist going on about the joys of smoking. Otherwise, I liked his character for not even pretending to go along with Sam’s ‘I could have been a physicist/scientist’ delusion, and he did acknowledge the good political operative work. There was a bit of circularity with Sam coming back to the point that the supercollider was about Discovery after all the roundaboutation. (I feel validated that the podcasters jumped on this too.) Very good call that Sorkin uses sons and dead/dying father figures a lot to make causes personal for the characters, most especially Sam. The podcasters went after this being a touchstone for Sorkin, but it’s interesting that it is often associated with Sam, who’s father fell from his son’s grace so spectacularly.
On the Josh/Amy front, she was making a perfectly valid point about hiring too few women to the campaign, and Josh was making a perfectly valid pint that she was using girlfriend privileges to make the argument, except he made it in an irksome way that subtly backed up her point: in Josh and his club’s world, women don’t get to run campaigns, just be the wives/girlfriends of the men that do. AND MAYBE THAT’S A PROBLEM. (The podcast getting an actual prime minister on, making the same point from somethingteen years later, was quite something, no?) So, Amy reverted to her default move of getting the First Lady to make the case, but again, because of how Josh handled it, I was more sympathetic with Amy.
Poor Donna, barred from the party, and Josh only brought her olives, while flaunting his relationship in her face. CJ and Sam didn’t get to the fancypants party much either, but that was work, not citizenship issues. Which, yeah, is a silly plot.
Jed and Leo got to pay Abbey their compliments to her in private. The contrast between public celebration of someone who was going to get rightly reprimanded publicy for wrongdoing was fertile ground, and Abbey was never more likeable than when having to face that she’d done wrong (and even more wrong professionally than her husband) and ought to face up to it.
3.16 The Poet Laureate
The thing I vaguely remembered the best about this episode was the Lemon Lyman debacle, which I knew came from Sorkin’s own interactions on MBTV as it was then (a chapter in the textbook about creator-fan interaction?) Interesting to hear the site creators’ take on it on the podcast. Aside from the fact that one would go ??? at a fansite for a political operative and wondering how C’sJ blood pressure would react to Twitter if she were transported forward a few years, this whole plotline was the loser when contrasted to Toby and the titular Poet Laureate’s interaction, where Toby did change the mind of someone who was very much engaged, if from an amateur perspective. (Fair point that it was about her wanting to use her platform to make a statement rather than her poetry being political, which would have changed things rather.) That was mainly because we saw the interaction, what interaction there was in Josh’s plotline was between him and an unimpressed Donna telling him that he was wasting his time and forecasting rightly this wouldn’t end well, but he INSISTED ON HAVING HER SIT DOWN AND TYPE WHAT HE DICTATED, which feels very twentieth century. A nice try by the podcast that this was about Josh needing to verbalise because he’s a talker not a writer, and it was the best dramatic device for the scenario. But we know Josh can type from the filibuster episode. The podcast decided that it was more about tweaking Josh, but it just reinforced for me that Sorkin was on the wrong side of the debate about sexism on TWW…
Still, CJ OWNED Josh.
Meanwhile, in the other plotline, we had the detectable fun of Toby crushing a little on Tabitha, and how deftly they played him removing handsome young Sam and how Schiff played his response to this poet he admired liking his writing. And the extra charge every time he crossed paths with CJ, who knew what was going on. I liked the playing of the revelation of Tabitha’s personal experience around landmines, and that they found a way for both parties to et what they wanted, because unlike the podcasters, I didn’t anticipate it. The parts about art and truth felt like Sorkin talking at his best, unlike Sorkin using him telling fans they were parsing him wrong as material.
So, Toby’s mind being somewhat captivated by Tabitha must explain why he didn’t make the connections that CJ did. I think I half-remembered that Bartlet called Ritchie stupid on purpose quite soon, or figured it out. The previouslies reminded us of the build-up abut Ritchie (and heh, we still haven’t seen him. I can’t remember who played him and I’m not going to go searching. I look forward to going ‘Oh, HIM!’ when he turns up.)
Interesting that they made the battleground of ill-informed claims and actual facts around ‘cleaner’ energy and a natural habitat. Charlie got to vocalise some of stupid Ritchie’s arguments to CJ, which ended up making the administration suddenly seem green, which they’re not really, and aren’t here if you listen carefully.
The many press conferences and how the team marvelled at how badly the other side were playing it was a nice build up to the beautifully played mutual approval in closing between CJ and the President. As it’s been satisfying to see him on form since Hartsfield’s Landing, it was really nice to see her shine professionally, especially after the previous episode’s admission that her job was Her Thing. I don’t remember finding the last two lines overkill as the podcasters did. I think I’d still cling on to her saying ‘that was oldschool,’ because it made an explicit tie to their first campaign.
The podcast drew my attention to the fact that, even as she’d been gifted a promotion, that’s the last substantial time we’ll see Ainsley. Aww. She was absolutely in the same weight category as everyone else. This is one of those times when the vagaries of how network TV and careers work sometimes are to the detriment of the bigger story, because she offered a bit of grit in the West Wing’s corridors.
This entry was originally posted at https://shallowness.dreamwidth.org/479666.html.
I did remember the whole Donna being briefly Canadian thing.
Poor Abbey, avoiding facing up to tomorrow’s decision about her professional misdeeds, in a foul mood, with Jed not particularly helping, although he was trying, while having to celebrate her birthday bigtime with total strangers. And it took the drunk/tipsy posse of laydeez to call her out, although I was once again obsessing over Abbey’s friends, in an episode that referenced one of them recusing himself from deciding what her punishment should be because of the conflict of interest (as he should.) Whither her oncologist friends now, or any other friends - wouldn’t the surgeon-general, at least, have had an interesting perspective? I mean, I loved tipsy!CJ, Amy’s wanting to remember it for her future book, and Donna getting the devastating blow. CJ and Donna’s confusion over whether they were talking to the First Lady or Abbey was interesting (and a reflection of that line the staff have with the President and Jed Bartlet) and I thought the podcast was insightful about the episode using names and titles to explore the confusion between roles and people, particularly the point about how that sometimes tips over into our appreciation of the regular staff characters. When watching, I was mentally stuck on how if I had a birthday party where my nearest and dearest were my husband’s colleagues, however great they are, I’d be narked too.
I felt I understood the Northern Ireland stuff to the point where I didn’t see the wood for the trees. I was too busy parsing real-life equivalents and differences, going off on mental tangents about watching an Englishman played by a Welshman as written by an American (helped by other Americans) discuss this so the podcast’s take on it, where they went after the parallels between the Israeli-Palestinian situation and Northern Ireland and the importance of dialogue that I felt a little abashed. Also, my take-out was that one thing Toby might have got out of the conversation was that they could have met the terrorist turned politician somewhere other than the White House and satisfied their allies, but they didn’t jump on that as a solution in the podcast. I agreed that it was good that Marbury called Toby out on his different stance here to the one he’d taken on the Muslim world and Islamist terrorism. Even if it didn’t get developed, it was acknowledged (possibly proving that Andi’s arguments had sunk in in the aftermath of the speech.)
Er, anyway, I was just thinking ‘My, there’s a lot of drinking and smoking going on,’ when we had an overdone transition from Toby smoking his cigar to Hector Elonzo’s scientist going on about the joys of smoking. Otherwise, I liked his character for not even pretending to go along with Sam’s ‘I could have been a physicist/scientist’ delusion, and he did acknowledge the good political operative work. There was a bit of circularity with Sam coming back to the point that the supercollider was about Discovery after all the roundaboutation. (I feel validated that the podcasters jumped on this too.) Very good call that Sorkin uses sons and dead/dying father figures a lot to make causes personal for the characters, most especially Sam. The podcasters went after this being a touchstone for Sorkin, but it’s interesting that it is often associated with Sam, who’s father fell from his son’s grace so spectacularly.
On the Josh/Amy front, she was making a perfectly valid point about hiring too few women to the campaign, and Josh was making a perfectly valid pint that she was using girlfriend privileges to make the argument, except he made it in an irksome way that subtly backed up her point: in Josh and his club’s world, women don’t get to run campaigns, just be the wives/girlfriends of the men that do. AND MAYBE THAT’S A PROBLEM. (The podcast getting an actual prime minister on, making the same point from somethingteen years later, was quite something, no?) So, Amy reverted to her default move of getting the First Lady to make the case, but again, because of how Josh handled it, I was more sympathetic with Amy.
Poor Donna, barred from the party, and Josh only brought her olives, while flaunting his relationship in her face. CJ and Sam didn’t get to the fancypants party much either, but that was work, not citizenship issues. Which, yeah, is a silly plot.
Jed and Leo got to pay Abbey their compliments to her in private. The contrast between public celebration of someone who was going to get rightly reprimanded publicy for wrongdoing was fertile ground, and Abbey was never more likeable than when having to face that she’d done wrong (and even more wrong professionally than her husband) and ought to face up to it.
3.16 The Poet Laureate
The thing I vaguely remembered the best about this episode was the Lemon Lyman debacle, which I knew came from Sorkin’s own interactions on MBTV as it was then (a chapter in the textbook about creator-fan interaction?) Interesting to hear the site creators’ take on it on the podcast. Aside from the fact that one would go ??? at a fansite for a political operative and wondering how C’sJ blood pressure would react to Twitter if she were transported forward a few years, this whole plotline was the loser when contrasted to Toby and the titular Poet Laureate’s interaction, where Toby did change the mind of someone who was very much engaged, if from an amateur perspective. (Fair point that it was about her wanting to use her platform to make a statement rather than her poetry being political, which would have changed things rather.) That was mainly because we saw the interaction, what interaction there was in Josh’s plotline was between him and an unimpressed Donna telling him that he was wasting his time and forecasting rightly this wouldn’t end well, but he INSISTED ON HAVING HER SIT DOWN AND TYPE WHAT HE DICTATED, which feels very twentieth century. A nice try by the podcast that this was about Josh needing to verbalise because he’s a talker not a writer, and it was the best dramatic device for the scenario. But we know Josh can type from the filibuster episode. The podcast decided that it was more about tweaking Josh, but it just reinforced for me that Sorkin was on the wrong side of the debate about sexism on TWW…
Still, CJ OWNED Josh.
Meanwhile, in the other plotline, we had the detectable fun of Toby crushing a little on Tabitha, and how deftly they played him removing handsome young Sam and how Schiff played his response to this poet he admired liking his writing. And the extra charge every time he crossed paths with CJ, who knew what was going on. I liked the playing of the revelation of Tabitha’s personal experience around landmines, and that they found a way for both parties to et what they wanted, because unlike the podcasters, I didn’t anticipate it. The parts about art and truth felt like Sorkin talking at his best, unlike Sorkin using him telling fans they were parsing him wrong as material.
So, Toby’s mind being somewhat captivated by Tabitha must explain why he didn’t make the connections that CJ did. I think I half-remembered that Bartlet called Ritchie stupid on purpose quite soon, or figured it out. The previouslies reminded us of the build-up abut Ritchie (and heh, we still haven’t seen him. I can’t remember who played him and I’m not going to go searching. I look forward to going ‘Oh, HIM!’ when he turns up.)
Interesting that they made the battleground of ill-informed claims and actual facts around ‘cleaner’ energy and a natural habitat. Charlie got to vocalise some of stupid Ritchie’s arguments to CJ, which ended up making the administration suddenly seem green, which they’re not really, and aren’t here if you listen carefully.
The many press conferences and how the team marvelled at how badly the other side were playing it was a nice build up to the beautifully played mutual approval in closing between CJ and the President. As it’s been satisfying to see him on form since Hartsfield’s Landing, it was really nice to see her shine professionally, especially after the previous episode’s admission that her job was Her Thing. I don’t remember finding the last two lines overkill as the podcasters did. I think I’d still cling on to her saying ‘that was oldschool,’ because it made an explicit tie to their first campaign.
The podcast drew my attention to the fact that, even as she’d been gifted a promotion, that’s the last substantial time we’ll see Ainsley. Aww. She was absolutely in the same weight category as everyone else. This is one of those times when the vagaries of how network TV and careers work sometimes are to the detriment of the bigger story, because she offered a bit of grit in the West Wing’s corridors.
This entry was originally posted at https://shallowness.dreamwidth.org/479666.html.