There were more brackets in an earlier draft
The West Wing 2.17 The Stackhouse Filibuster
I think my heartstrings were tugged less than they would have been the first time around, because while I really admired the structure of staffers telling the story via e-mails (even if I had a niggling doubt about the timeline, backed up by the podcast, which also raised other criticisms), I had two concerns at the end about Grandpa Senator Stackhouse. First, he could have been a much better advocate for autistic children (though I was interested in the podcast rasing that just talking about autism on a TV drama was novel then) than this last-minute move. Even without bringing his grandson into it, he could have been campaigning in other ways for what he was calling for, and should have been. (Though it now occurs to me that it could have been a very recent diagnosis.) Typically, it took Donna to be curious about why he was doing it.
Secondly, I was irked by the bias towards grandfathers and fathers. What, there were no grandmother Senators? (Possibly not, which is another aspect of sexism.) And CJ writing to her dad because it was his birthday was fine, and okay, Sam rebuilding his relationship with his father was fine, because that was a relationship that needed to be rebuilt, but by the time Josh came in (it took me a moment to realise that we just had to assume Josh had talked with either CJ or Sam and been inspired to write his own e-mail while the filibuster continued, Sorkin decided we didn’t need to see it) but it sort of came across as him only writing to his mother because his father was dead and isn’t that the worst, and mothers (and grandmothers) are only afterthoughts? Or am I being too touchy?
Sam admitting to being pwned by the intern took out some of the sting - there were echoes of Ainsley’s introduction in this scene and the fallout - but I loved loved loved Winifred’s exit line, which also shows that Sam was of course assuming there’d be a second term.
Otherwise, I was along with the sheer pleasure of the storytelling, because weaved into the story were CJ and the curse of Bast (never resolved) which I half-remembered although I hadn’t remembered it was in this episode (and I half-remembered the Stackhouse filibuster, because I remember perking up when the Senator’s name appeared in an earlier episode.)
The viewers were ahead of the characters about why Hoynes was willing to criticise his oil buddies publicly. (Or was I half-remembering again?) Hoynes makes a great antagonist, certainly able to handle Toby here. He’s a plausible candidate for President, as we see, but he’s not one of ours.
Bartlet’s continued dislike of ‘ornery grouch’ Stackhouse was fun, and it was a nice emotional journey. First the filibuster frustrated them (with CJ’s woes being worse than all the guys for all their complaining; Donna put down Josh’s trip beautifully). Then we saw they (Josh) were ismissing of Stackhouse’s request that they reopen the Bill simply because they’d got this win, adulterated though it was. Stackhouse’s line about some of the definitely not paediatric conditions covered by the Bill was spot on; he had a good case. Then they ended up supporting him and the filibuster succeeding. (Although the podcast’s critique that it was because the guy was doing it for his grandson, not because he was right, was entirely valid.) We also got nice little character revelations. But I preferred the next episode.
2.18 17 People
My only big quibble was: where was CJ? I hope she enjoyed her night off, but the situation with the terror threat, which was perhaps the least important subplot, would eventually be a matter for her to handle, no? (And then I listened to the podcast pointing out this was a bottle episode, which still doesn’t explain why they didn’t use a regular at all, but then, given Emily Proctor’s anecdote about Rob Lowe envying her as a part-timer, maybe they thought Janney needed a break?)
Anyway, excellent relationship stuff in two contrasting modes. And the opening. For some reason, I kept translating the title cards into nights of the week. Great use of the ball bouncing of a few episodes ago to punctuate it, as Toby played detective. It had to be Toby, who was in on the re-election, who we knew had been the first staffer on the campaign, and who has been explicitly dscribed as Bartlet’s conscience.
Although there was also the sense that it was only going to break further, which Bartlet knew, as Josh finally picked up on the First Lady being mad enough with her husband to stay in New Hampshire (which had been introduced for LOLs in the previous episode with Jed and Leo’s dinner.) Let alone, like Toby said, Hoynes was leaving breadcrumbs, probably irritated by the state of the union address, or the simple fact that one more person knew made it more likely that it would get out. I had remembered the significance of the title, i.e. that it was Bartlet’s decision about keeping it secret and his decisions subsequently that kept being raised.
It was such a good confrontation, because you understood and sympathised with Jed’s claims that it was personal, but Toby was making excellent, inarguable, righteous points - about Bartlet and also Leo and the implications. Bartlet might be right that some of it might be wounded pride, but it was a relief when he conceded there was a reason to be sorry and that he had done wrong.
In beautiful contrast, we had the rest of the staff, mainly, trying to bring the funny, slightly complicated by Josh and Donna having what sounded like a domestic, looked like a domestic and smelled like a domestic over their ‘anniversary’. I loved that, at a time when our minds were being cast back to what we’d learned about the start of Bartlet and Hoynes’ campaigns, we learned a new detail about Donna working for Josh, and Josh learned something new too. (Excellent point raised on the podcast that it was a secret about Donna’s medical history in part.) I remembered the ‘stopping’ interchange (which was referenced on a Q and A session in an earlier podcast episode) but not that it happened here.
To a lesser extent, we had Democrat man Sam and Republican woman Ainsley bickering away. I was so chuffed that, thanks to Mrs America, I understood far more of the discussion about the ERA than I generally do about many America specificities on the show. Both got to make good points, but Ainsley’s closer, that being informed by a bunch of white older men that she hadn’t previously been equal smacked a bit of her not owning her privileges to me, as she was in an entirely white room, this had all started off because she was going to a debate at her alma mater - a fancy pants university.
Poor Ed and Larry trying to come up with jokes in the midst of all that, but Josh and Donna making up (and Donna probably devastating him with her ‘red lights’ line, but of course, she spoke from experience a little there and better knowledge of her feelings?) unloosened the creative juices so that they were in riotous mood when a Toby who was so not joined them.
Beautiful episode. (Also an excellent podcast episode with Richard Schiff really diving deep and enriching my thoughts about all that was going on here. The podcast was rewatching this in early 2016, I was rewatching the questions about how much the President was making decisions and the talk of potential impeachment from mid 2021. This entry was originally posted at https://shallowness.dreamwidth.org/464764.html.
I think my heartstrings were tugged less than they would have been the first time around, because while I really admired the structure of staffers telling the story via e-mails (even if I had a niggling doubt about the timeline, backed up by the podcast, which also raised other criticisms), I had two concerns at the end about Grandpa Senator Stackhouse. First, he could have been a much better advocate for autistic children (though I was interested in the podcast rasing that just talking about autism on a TV drama was novel then) than this last-minute move. Even without bringing his grandson into it, he could have been campaigning in other ways for what he was calling for, and should have been. (Though it now occurs to me that it could have been a very recent diagnosis.) Typically, it took Donna to be curious about why he was doing it.
Secondly, I was irked by the bias towards grandfathers and fathers. What, there were no grandmother Senators? (Possibly not, which is another aspect of sexism.) And CJ writing to her dad because it was his birthday was fine, and okay, Sam rebuilding his relationship with his father was fine, because that was a relationship that needed to be rebuilt, but by the time Josh came in (it took me a moment to realise that we just had to assume Josh had talked with either CJ or Sam and been inspired to write his own e-mail while the filibuster continued, Sorkin decided we didn’t need to see it) but it sort of came across as him only writing to his mother because his father was dead and isn’t that the worst, and mothers (and grandmothers) are only afterthoughts? Or am I being too touchy?
Sam admitting to being pwned by the intern took out some of the sting - there were echoes of Ainsley’s introduction in this scene and the fallout - but I loved loved loved Winifred’s exit line, which also shows that Sam was of course assuming there’d be a second term.
Otherwise, I was along with the sheer pleasure of the storytelling, because weaved into the story were CJ and the curse of Bast (never resolved) which I half-remembered although I hadn’t remembered it was in this episode (and I half-remembered the Stackhouse filibuster, because I remember perking up when the Senator’s name appeared in an earlier episode.)
The viewers were ahead of the characters about why Hoynes was willing to criticise his oil buddies publicly. (Or was I half-remembering again?) Hoynes makes a great antagonist, certainly able to handle Toby here. He’s a plausible candidate for President, as we see, but he’s not one of ours.
Bartlet’s continued dislike of ‘ornery grouch’ Stackhouse was fun, and it was a nice emotional journey. First the filibuster frustrated them (with CJ’s woes being worse than all the guys for all their complaining; Donna put down Josh’s trip beautifully). Then we saw they (Josh) were ismissing of Stackhouse’s request that they reopen the Bill simply because they’d got this win, adulterated though it was. Stackhouse’s line about some of the definitely not paediatric conditions covered by the Bill was spot on; he had a good case. Then they ended up supporting him and the filibuster succeeding. (Although the podcast’s critique that it was because the guy was doing it for his grandson, not because he was right, was entirely valid.) We also got nice little character revelations. But I preferred the next episode.
2.18 17 People
My only big quibble was: where was CJ? I hope she enjoyed her night off, but the situation with the terror threat, which was perhaps the least important subplot, would eventually be a matter for her to handle, no? (And then I listened to the podcast pointing out this was a bottle episode, which still doesn’t explain why they didn’t use a regular at all, but then, given Emily Proctor’s anecdote about Rob Lowe envying her as a part-timer, maybe they thought Janney needed a break?)
Anyway, excellent relationship stuff in two contrasting modes. And the opening. For some reason, I kept translating the title cards into nights of the week. Great use of the ball bouncing of a few episodes ago to punctuate it, as Toby played detective. It had to be Toby, who was in on the re-election, who we knew had been the first staffer on the campaign, and who has been explicitly dscribed as Bartlet’s conscience.
Although there was also the sense that it was only going to break further, which Bartlet knew, as Josh finally picked up on the First Lady being mad enough with her husband to stay in New Hampshire (which had been introduced for LOLs in the previous episode with Jed and Leo’s dinner.) Let alone, like Toby said, Hoynes was leaving breadcrumbs, probably irritated by the state of the union address, or the simple fact that one more person knew made it more likely that it would get out. I had remembered the significance of the title, i.e. that it was Bartlet’s decision about keeping it secret and his decisions subsequently that kept being raised.
It was such a good confrontation, because you understood and sympathised with Jed’s claims that it was personal, but Toby was making excellent, inarguable, righteous points - about Bartlet and also Leo and the implications. Bartlet might be right that some of it might be wounded pride, but it was a relief when he conceded there was a reason to be sorry and that he had done wrong.
In beautiful contrast, we had the rest of the staff, mainly, trying to bring the funny, slightly complicated by Josh and Donna having what sounded like a domestic, looked like a domestic and smelled like a domestic over their ‘anniversary’. I loved that, at a time when our minds were being cast back to what we’d learned about the start of Bartlet and Hoynes’ campaigns, we learned a new detail about Donna working for Josh, and Josh learned something new too. (Excellent point raised on the podcast that it was a secret about Donna’s medical history in part.) I remembered the ‘stopping’ interchange (which was referenced on a Q and A session in an earlier podcast episode) but not that it happened here.
To a lesser extent, we had Democrat man Sam and Republican woman Ainsley bickering away. I was so chuffed that, thanks to Mrs America, I understood far more of the discussion about the ERA than I generally do about many America specificities on the show. Both got to make good points, but Ainsley’s closer, that being informed by a bunch of white older men that she hadn’t previously been equal smacked a bit of her not owning her privileges to me, as she was in an entirely white room, this had all started off because she was going to a debate at her alma mater - a fancy pants university.
Poor Ed and Larry trying to come up with jokes in the midst of all that, but Josh and Donna making up (and Donna probably devastating him with her ‘red lights’ line, but of course, she spoke from experience a little there and better knowledge of her feelings?) unloosened the creative juices so that they were in riotous mood when a Toby who was so not joined them.
Beautiful episode. (Also an excellent podcast episode with Richard Schiff really diving deep and enriching my thoughts about all that was going on here. The podcast was rewatching this in early 2016, I was rewatching the questions about how much the President was making decisions and the talk of potential impeachment from mid 2021. This entry was originally posted at https://shallowness.dreamwidth.org/464764.html.