With the double-bill as its own framework
The West Wing
3.17 Stirred
I felt I remembered more of this episode and the next than I’ve done with past eps. My other strong feeling having watched this was that John Hoynes kept having to take being kicked.
I managed not to get distracted by tangential thoughts about James Bond, of whom we’ve had a lot over this autumn and winter. Charlie may not think he’s problematic, but he so is. Is it a leap to say that Ulysses Grant was the James Bond of the meeting in the room?
Bartlet seemed to be in a chipper mood in how he addressed everyone, but especially Charlie and his tax issues (I remembered the whole advance thing where Charlie was responsible and didn’t go on a spending spree, but got a gift from Bartlet in acknowledgement of his choices re philanthropy. Aww.)
It struck me that the meeting of crotchety alcoholic political operatives was all middle-aged to elderly rich white men. Hoynes might have been the youngest, although he had the power to insist Leo stayed. There were so many awkwardnesses about Leo asking Josh to moot the idea of taking Hoynes off the ticket to Toby, CJ, Ed and Larry, and eventually righteously wrathful Sam. When Bruno and Doug were mentioned I went, ‘Remember them?’ For all the attention they got at the start of the season, they have been comprehensively dropped for most of it.
I enjoyed how quickly the people in the room moved from being aghast at the very thought of asking someone else to run, not to mention Josh for proposing it, because they were all aware of the history between Hoynes and their campaign, to getting stuck into it. Sort of. I also liked the callback to Toby’s quote being leaked, and how that quote had now become subverted by events and the threat Ritchie posed.
And then Donna was adorable in trying to get special treatment/a Presidential proclamation for her retiring teacher through Josh. There was that weird ‘the President knows everything’ bit - even beyond his pointedly knowing more than Leo about the radioactive material accident - in that he seemed to know what Josh had been saying about Pulaski. Of course, he knew what Donna had been saying about her teacher, because, despite his resistance to Donna’s face, Josh had listened to her and even gone to the effort of writing up a memo himself (presumably. Let’s hope he didn’t dictate it to yet another woman working in the West Wing to type.) And Donna talking to her former teacher from the Oval Office, with the President, who then got to be himself in his still upbeat mood was recognition enough, right? (Also, aww, Josh did that for Donna.)
But the heart, and another reference to the ‘Let Bartlet be Bartlet’ napkin, in a way, not to mention ‘In The Shadow of Two Gunmen’, was Bartlet’s response to Hoynes’s disclosure. In the first half of it, Bartlet seemed a bit insensitive - Hoynes probably knows more about his alcoholism than you do, dude and comments about drinking in your 20s aren’t helpful. They upped the tension by with-holding what the note contained until Josh got to read it out to the others, and its simplicity saved everything. It felt deserved, because both Bartlet and Hoynes had risen to what was demanded of them in their roles, for all that their fallibilities/sickeness were on display.
The podcast was more interested in other aspects of the episode and picked up on mistakes that mostly slid tight past me. I’m not sure if I’d noticed Bartlet saying ‘Calvary’ instead of cavalry, but I do know what it signifies.
3.18 Enemies Foreign and Domestic
This episode happened over a period of a few days in a week, while the previous one had happened over one night. And we got another introduction of names and job titles instead of a plot-related ‘previously’.
Some of Bartlet’s jovial mood carried over, especially when addressing Fitz (striking for me because Fitz had been discussed as a potential Veep in the previous episode. Less so for the podcasters, although they did find it funny that Bartlet was trying to be ‘one of the fellas’ with Fitz and was getting nowhere by doing so.) Also, although it was lampshaded, it was weird that it wasn’t Nancy or someone else who was delivering this intel on Iran. It’s notable that real Middle Eastern places were namechecked in this episode, given how the Middle East/the Muslim world had been painted in this post 9/11 season so far. As the podcast noted, Sorkin and CJ seemed to have learned their lessons after ‘Qumar’, although the podcast really brought home for me that there ought to have been some political/diplomatic heat for CJ for making her personal criticism in the press room, but it was all about setting up the death threat plot, in a packed episode.
Another thing that was really striking because I watched these episodes in a double bill was that Bartlet did essentially the same thing for Charlie as Donna, taking time to converse with one member of the public with a special relationship to one of his more junior staffers (although in this ep, like the last one, it felt as if Charlie was being asked to do things that A SECRETARY ought to.) So, it was heart-warming, and I didn’t angst over whether Bartlet was being patronising, with this added eerie letter out of time sense. I remembered that that’s what was happening, and never thought that that was mighty coincidental that Bartlet referred to the very speech from the time the letter was written. For me, the warm and fuzzies were blunted because of the similarity with Mrs Morello’s plot.
Has to be said as a British viewer (who never went on to watch Deadwood etc) that I was all ‘LOVEJOY is playing a Russian! Okay!’ as I probably did when I first saw it. (I must have watched a few episodes of Lovejoy, although not all.) I liked that it was language that clued Sam in, and, in this world, I’ll go along with two premiers with the best of intentions finding a way to communicate and defuse a high-stakes situation.
The opening from Carol’s realisation CJ was going to want to see this story (and needing colleagues to get off the printer, because it was circa two decades ago) to CJ’s reaction about it was strong, totally in keeping with the CJ we’d seen in ‘The Women of Qumar’ (and who’d previously worked for Emily’s list.)
I liked how the storyline referencing CJ feeling that she needed to be tougher as a woman ‘in a man’s job’, contrasted with Donna’s - well, everyone else’s reaction to the death threat. I viscerally enjoyed Josh and Donna being on the same page and having unified body language. Ron’s professionalism came into play, and CJ just has to deal with being Bartlet’s fourth daughter.
I know there’s going to be a romance, but here I am in 2021 several more years away from the teenager who went to see The Bodyguard, and I’m all, ‘Sure, start your job protecting someone who has been scared into accepting protection by sexually harassing her. Sure, talking about not seeing her naked, wink, wink, will make someone who’s feeling violated because someone who has threatened her life has sent pictures of him stalking her feel safe.’ (The podcasters only gave Simon a slight slap on the wrist for that.) I was still angry when the door handle business happened and battle for control began. So, I’m probably going to be a tougher sell on this as a romantic plotline than I was back in the day.
Meanwhile, Toby was amusingly jaunty and off and then naïve about how the free press might work in a very different context with the Russian The Sun.
This entry was originally posted at https://shallowness.dreamwidth.org/481655.html.
3.17 Stirred
I felt I remembered more of this episode and the next than I’ve done with past eps. My other strong feeling having watched this was that John Hoynes kept having to take being kicked.
I managed not to get distracted by tangential thoughts about James Bond, of whom we’ve had a lot over this autumn and winter. Charlie may not think he’s problematic, but he so is. Is it a leap to say that Ulysses Grant was the James Bond of the meeting in the room?
Bartlet seemed to be in a chipper mood in how he addressed everyone, but especially Charlie and his tax issues (I remembered the whole advance thing where Charlie was responsible and didn’t go on a spending spree, but got a gift from Bartlet in acknowledgement of his choices re philanthropy. Aww.)
It struck me that the meeting of crotchety alcoholic political operatives was all middle-aged to elderly rich white men. Hoynes might have been the youngest, although he had the power to insist Leo stayed. There were so many awkwardnesses about Leo asking Josh to moot the idea of taking Hoynes off the ticket to Toby, CJ, Ed and Larry, and eventually righteously wrathful Sam. When Bruno and Doug were mentioned I went, ‘Remember them?’ For all the attention they got at the start of the season, they have been comprehensively dropped for most of it.
I enjoyed how quickly the people in the room moved from being aghast at the very thought of asking someone else to run, not to mention Josh for proposing it, because they were all aware of the history between Hoynes and their campaign, to getting stuck into it. Sort of. I also liked the callback to Toby’s quote being leaked, and how that quote had now become subverted by events and the threat Ritchie posed.
And then Donna was adorable in trying to get special treatment/a Presidential proclamation for her retiring teacher through Josh. There was that weird ‘the President knows everything’ bit - even beyond his pointedly knowing more than Leo about the radioactive material accident - in that he seemed to know what Josh had been saying about Pulaski. Of course, he knew what Donna had been saying about her teacher, because, despite his resistance to Donna’s face, Josh had listened to her and even gone to the effort of writing up a memo himself (presumably. Let’s hope he didn’t dictate it to yet another woman working in the West Wing to type.) And Donna talking to her former teacher from the Oval Office, with the President, who then got to be himself in his still upbeat mood was recognition enough, right? (Also, aww, Josh did that for Donna.)
But the heart, and another reference to the ‘Let Bartlet be Bartlet’ napkin, in a way, not to mention ‘In The Shadow of Two Gunmen’, was Bartlet’s response to Hoynes’s disclosure. In the first half of it, Bartlet seemed a bit insensitive - Hoynes probably knows more about his alcoholism than you do, dude and comments about drinking in your 20s aren’t helpful. They upped the tension by with-holding what the note contained until Josh got to read it out to the others, and its simplicity saved everything. It felt deserved, because both Bartlet and Hoynes had risen to what was demanded of them in their roles, for all that their fallibilities/sickeness were on display.
The podcast was more interested in other aspects of the episode and picked up on mistakes that mostly slid tight past me. I’m not sure if I’d noticed Bartlet saying ‘Calvary’ instead of cavalry, but I do know what it signifies.
3.18 Enemies Foreign and Domestic
This episode happened over a period of a few days in a week, while the previous one had happened over one night. And we got another introduction of names and job titles instead of a plot-related ‘previously’.
Some of Bartlet’s jovial mood carried over, especially when addressing Fitz (striking for me because Fitz had been discussed as a potential Veep in the previous episode. Less so for the podcasters, although they did find it funny that Bartlet was trying to be ‘one of the fellas’ with Fitz and was getting nowhere by doing so.) Also, although it was lampshaded, it was weird that it wasn’t Nancy or someone else who was delivering this intel on Iran. It’s notable that real Middle Eastern places were namechecked in this episode, given how the Middle East/the Muslim world had been painted in this post 9/11 season so far. As the podcast noted, Sorkin and CJ seemed to have learned their lessons after ‘Qumar’, although the podcast really brought home for me that there ought to have been some political/diplomatic heat for CJ for making her personal criticism in the press room, but it was all about setting up the death threat plot, in a packed episode.
Another thing that was really striking because I watched these episodes in a double bill was that Bartlet did essentially the same thing for Charlie as Donna, taking time to converse with one member of the public with a special relationship to one of his more junior staffers (although in this ep, like the last one, it felt as if Charlie was being asked to do things that A SECRETARY ought to.) So, it was heart-warming, and I didn’t angst over whether Bartlet was being patronising, with this added eerie letter out of time sense. I remembered that that’s what was happening, and never thought that that was mighty coincidental that Bartlet referred to the very speech from the time the letter was written. For me, the warm and fuzzies were blunted because of the similarity with Mrs Morello’s plot.
Has to be said as a British viewer (who never went on to watch Deadwood etc) that I was all ‘LOVEJOY is playing a Russian! Okay!’ as I probably did when I first saw it. (I must have watched a few episodes of Lovejoy, although not all.) I liked that it was language that clued Sam in, and, in this world, I’ll go along with two premiers with the best of intentions finding a way to communicate and defuse a high-stakes situation.
The opening from Carol’s realisation CJ was going to want to see this story (and needing colleagues to get off the printer, because it was circa two decades ago) to CJ’s reaction about it was strong, totally in keeping with the CJ we’d seen in ‘The Women of Qumar’ (and who’d previously worked for Emily’s list.)
I liked how the storyline referencing CJ feeling that she needed to be tougher as a woman ‘in a man’s job’, contrasted with Donna’s - well, everyone else’s reaction to the death threat. I viscerally enjoyed Josh and Donna being on the same page and having unified body language. Ron’s professionalism came into play, and CJ just has to deal with being Bartlet’s fourth daughter.
I know there’s going to be a romance, but here I am in 2021 several more years away from the teenager who went to see The Bodyguard, and I’m all, ‘Sure, start your job protecting someone who has been scared into accepting protection by sexually harassing her. Sure, talking about not seeing her naked, wink, wink, will make someone who’s feeling violated because someone who has threatened her life has sent pictures of him stalking her feel safe.’ (The podcasters only gave Simon a slight slap on the wrist for that.) I was still angry when the door handle business happened and battle for control began. So, I’m probably going to be a tougher sell on this as a romantic plotline than I was back in the day.
Meanwhile, Toby was amusingly jaunty and off and then naïve about how the free press might work in a very different context with the Russian The Sun.
This entry was originally posted at https://shallowness.dreamwidth.org/481655.html.