Further musings on The West Wing...
May. 3rd, 2005 04:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerOne of the main themes of The West Wing, more central even than the politics of its creator (which, let us say, are not noticeably in tune with the current administration of America) is the sharp moral distinction between those in power who use their power to serve the people and do what they feel is the right thing, and those in power who use their power to hold on to their power, or to gain more. The series makes clear that both kinds of people are to be found on both sides of the fence, and that even the best of the former kind can stray, or be pushed, into making a decision for the “wrong” motives. Whenever Bartlet or his staff do something that goes against their moral or ethical grain, or fail to do something they know needs to be done, it is in order to hold on to their position. Whenever an opponent of Bartlet’s does something from disinterested motives, it turns out to be the “right” thing to do. From the moment in the pilot when we see that Mary Marsh has no personal interest in Josh’s “insult” to her, but is merely using it to gain political brownie points, to the moment when Bartlet voluntarily hands the White House over to his opposition because he knows he is not at that point fit to govern, this dichotomy is at the heart of The West Wing. And it is why the series has not been the same since Sorkin left, and why it has not recovered despite that fact.
Sorkin, as I said, is a man with an agenda. Bartlet’s administration, I think, articulated a lot of his views, and this attracted some heat, both from the establishment and from viewers who did not like the overly “liberal” tone of the series. After the second and third seasons, the series’ world was progressively adjusted to bring it more into line with Bush’s America—impending war in the Middle East, deepening recession rather than the steady growth Sorkin had envisaged. Bartlet’s America was made not to work. The vision was deliberately occluded. And then he left, for a number of reasons one of which was apparently that he had always intended to, and the series fell into the hands of John Wells. I would be prepared to bet that John Wells does not have an agenda. I would surmise that he regards the West Wing purely as another TV show, like ER, and his motivation is simply to keep it going, to make it successful. To hold on to his position.
From what I’m reading, it’s not working. I’m not seeing that the show’s ratings have picked up since it became more “realistic”: rather the reverse. Under Sorkin, it had—not a message, but a direction, a vision and a voice. That vision, that voice, may have inspired outrage and hate in some, but it inspired others to love it. Now it is simply another TV drama, and television is the poorer.
Sorkin, as I said, is a man with an agenda. Bartlet’s administration, I think, articulated a lot of his views, and this attracted some heat, both from the establishment and from viewers who did not like the overly “liberal” tone of the series. After the second and third seasons, the series’ world was progressively adjusted to bring it more into line with Bush’s America—impending war in the Middle East, deepening recession rather than the steady growth Sorkin had envisaged. Bartlet’s America was made not to work. The vision was deliberately occluded. And then he left, for a number of reasons one of which was apparently that he had always intended to, and the series fell into the hands of John Wells. I would be prepared to bet that John Wells does not have an agenda. I would surmise that he regards the West Wing purely as another TV show, like ER, and his motivation is simply to keep it going, to make it successful. To hold on to his position.
From what I’m reading, it’s not working. I’m not seeing that the show’s ratings have picked up since it became more “realistic”: rather the reverse. Under Sorkin, it had—not a message, but a direction, a vision and a voice. That vision, that voice, may have inspired outrage and hate in some, but it inspired others to love it. Now it is simply another TV drama, and television is the poorer.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 12:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 06:38 pm (UTC)I'm here through several mutual friends, btw
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 08:05 am (UTC)(The exception: having "real world" events in JAG does make it more meaningful. But that's more of a 'docudrama' which is supposed to be in the "real world" anyway -- and the baddies don't win all the time, even though the good guys do get hurt...)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 08:19 am (UTC)I think that's why sf shows set against real-world events ("Dark Skies", "Odyssey 5") didn't work. You knew, in the former, the aliens weren't going to be discovered, because it didn't happen in the real world...
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 01:56 am (UTC)sigh... I don't want to hear that it is becomming just another show! foo! I'm not listening I'm not listening! la la la.... :-)(I'd have replied sooner but it is finals week for me too!)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 08:22 am (UTC)