January Meme: The West Wing and Borgen: Compare and Contrast

Jan 16, 2018 17:18

To get the obvious out of the way: two (not the only, but) key differences are a) European political system versus American political system and b) female head of government versus male head of government.



The later point to me manifests most obviously when you compare and contrast how Bartlett temporarily removing himself from power in The West Wing when his daughter Zoey was kidnapped to Birgitte temporarily removing herself when the media attention on Laura made things unbearable for Laura and Laura's fellow patients were handled; in both 'verses, the opposition tries to make the most of it, but the sexism as a weapon (i.e. Birgitte is critisized first because Laura became ill at all - is she a bad mother? - and then for prioritizing her - being a good mother means she can't be a good head of government!) can only happen with a female PM. Even the meanest Republican doesn't use "is Jed Bartlett a good father?" as a weapon.

It's there in other storytelling choices, too. Jed and Abby Bartlett go through a marital crisis in The West Wing, which they eventually wheather. Abby struggles with the reduction of her identity as Dr. Bartlett to Mrs. Bartlett, First Lady, and also with the way she compromised her medical ethics for Jed, but that's actually not what their biggest crisis is about. At no point, there's the question of divorce, and not just because Jed's a practising Catholic. Meanwhile, over in Borgen, Birgitte's husband Philipp struggles with the reduction of his identity to First Gentleman (not that the term exists), the loss of professional opportunities (so that the question of corruption doesn't arise), the lack of attention from his wife due to her job, and this, specifically, is what their big crisis is about (they eventually separate). This strikes me gender role related not least because two shows I watched in recent months, Victoria and The Crown, both chose to go for a "wife as ruler & husband in traditional feminine spouse role = big mascuiline identity crisis" plot. (Now tv needs drama, endless marital harmony is no drama, but I can't help recalling that if Dennis Thatcher and Joachim Sauer (that's Angela Merkel's husband), both married to long-serving heads of government dubbed the most powerful women of their era, ever had big masculine identiy crisis about this, the tabloids never found out. Maybe (some) men can cope, after all?

Europe versus America is the biggest difference, though, on various levels. The political system of Borgen is one where the PM isn't elected directly, where there are multiple parties and the PM can't govern simply with her/his own party, where coalitions have to be constantly negotiated and renegotiated, which means negotiations with people who are neither members of your own party nor members of the opposition (though they could be, if the negotiations fail), a system where a minority government can happen and where the deep reverence for the head of government that the US President used to invoke (I'm womanfully resisting the obvious aside here) isn't there, either. Not so coincidentally, during the time Birgitte is PM, her relationships to various members of her cabinet, some of whom are long time allies and some are former or future enemies, and some are both, all get featured on screen and are part of the overall narrative.

Meanwhile, The West Wing focuses on the White House staff. The two Vice Presidents are reccurring supporting characters, but not nearly as important as any of our regulars. And I can't think of a single member of Bartlett's cabinet in either of his terms whom I could name. Granted, it's been a while, and I bet the attorney general shows up once in a while, or the secretrary of health, but again, they're not important to the overall narrative. And yes, I know, it's in the title - The West Wing of the White House. Of course the staff are the core characters. However, I also think this is specific to it being a US show. "I serve at the pleasure of the President" says more than one character (Josh saying it is what I recall immediately), and you would not catch any of the Borgen characters express themselves this way, though Birgitte has loyal staff as well, and her relationship to Kasper, her spin-doctor in seasons 1 and 2, as well as her relationship to Katrine (who is her spin doctor in season 3 when she's no longer PM) are very important to the narrative. The whole idea of public service, of the President as a venerated embodiment of the state, that works as a red thread holding the show together simply would not be possible in Borgen (or, btw, in a show set in Germany). It is so very American. (Used to be.)

The Bartlett government clashes with the Republican opposition, and while negotiations are a feature on The West Wing, they don't happen from the same position they would in a political system where more than two parties are available as government options. Josh, argueing with Amy and the organisation she represents, can tell her early in the relationship that feminists wouldn't get any anything from a Republican government at all. He certainly couldn't use that argument were he a member of staff of a Danish government party.

Another part where the US versus Europe (section Denmark) difference comes into play are daddy issues (or the lack of same). Jed Bartlett is a leading male character of a US tv series; of course he has them. And you could argue that as he works as a father figure (of sorts) for various staff members, they have them in a different way. Meanwhile, Borgen is daddy issue free, and Birgitte is no one's mother figure, either. (Sidenote: the one character whose parents deeply affect him in a very negative way is Kasper, and I wouldn't call "was sexually abused by his father, then pimped out to other men while mother looked the other way" "having daddy issues". )

Moving on to differences not - imo as always - due to US versus Denmark or male versus female head of state: Borgen puts a whole different emphasis on the media from the get go. The West Wing deals with the media via CJ, whose job it is (until season 6) to deal with them. Danny Concannon, the only journalist of note to be a recurring character, is written sympathetically, and not just because he's CJ's love interest, but there's no question whose pov the show privileges if there is a conflict between Danny's goals and the White House goals. Meanwhile, Borgen made the second lead a female journalist who doesn't have a poster of All the President's Men in her study for nothing. Katrine has an overall positive opinion of Birgitte Nyburg as PM, but she also occasionally sharply disagrees, or uncovers things the government doesn't want uncovered, which is presented as heroic by the narrative. She has professonal conflicts and ethical dilemmas of her own. The main villain of the first two seasons, the only one dimensional boo-hiss villain during that time, is former party leader goine tabloid czar Laugidson, who gets to embody the destructive side of the media, and the boo-hiss figure of s3 is tv king Alex who embodies the same from another angle. That the third most important character is Birgitte's spin doctor Kasper in s1 and s2 and chief tv editor Torben in s3 further heightens the importance of the media to the overall story.

(Again, The West Wing does deal with the media, both its darker and positive incarnations, but never to this extent in the overall story.)

Lastly: fannish osmosis told me The West Wing toyed with the idea of letting the Republican candidate Arnie Viinick win the election that forms a big part of s7's storyline, but because Leo McCarey's actor unexpectedly died (and thus also Leo on the show), TPTB decided that the Democrats losing in additon to Leo's death would be too much of a downer ending. Now I don't know how true or false that story is; Arnie Vinick was certainly written sympathetically enough for it to have been a bittersweet ending, and it would have been plausible. But I am somewhat suspicious simply because The West Wing, as a show, was too optimistic for that - there were set backs and tragedies, but by the end of the season our heroes usually carried the day. Borgen, otoh, let Birgitte lose her campaign for reelection between seasons 2 and 3 and gave her in s3 a storyline where, after seeing her original party had moved far too much to the right for her to identify with it any longer, she forms a new party and by the end of the season has managed to make it into one powerful enough to participate in a government coalition. Her final dilemma is whether to return to where she started, as PM, but at the price of including another newly strengthened party, the extreme right wing party of Denmark, in her coaltion, or do what she ends up doing - form a different coaltion, this time with the PM she replaced in the show pilot, and become a part of his cabinet. And yes, that falls also in the "Europe versus US" category of storytellingt. But in addition, it's "do we end our political show with a resounding victory for our heroes or with a compromise in power (though a victory in ethics)? And Borgen, having earlier made the choice to let its heroine actually lose a campaign, was the kind of show to choose the later for its finale.

The Other Days

This entry was originally posted at https://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1267188.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.

west wing, january meme, borgen

Previous post Next post
Up