![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
West Wing Season 5
Aka the one nobody likes.
With all my tendency to root for the fannish underdog - that would be not the character written as an underdog but those characters, shows, movies or seasons whom fandom ignores or dislikes - I can see why, and if I hadn't had the whole thing on dvd, I might have disliked it, too, waiting week after week or month after month for new episodes. As it is, I don't feel ire (except for one particular retcon, more about that later), but I don't feel the urge to rewatch episodes any time soon, either, except maybe The Supremes. And I do look forward to the new (writing) team finding its feet next season.
The rapidfire style of dialogue that was Sorkin's trademark noticably doesn't come easily to the other writers, but I think that's not really the reason why this season feels odd. For starters, most of the episodes and storylines are rather dark, which btw makes the upbeat cheerful credits music sound disconcertingly wrong. But most importantly, several of the relationships feel harsher. This is not necessarily a bad thing - but had I been the headwriter, I probably wouldn't have chosen to let it happen at the same time. So Leo comes down hard on Josh and CJ. Josh at one point orders Donna to spy on Toby via Toby's new assistant (which she rightly ultimately refuses, but he did order her), and is a complete jerk towards his intern Ryan. Toby has his big fallout with Will. Abbey blames her husband for Zoey's kidnapping and freezes him out for half a season. Amy Gardner seems to be the newest victim of the WW "character gets written out unceremoniously" syndrome (though maybe I'm wrong and she'll be back next season - if it's true, though, I'm really annoyed, both because I like Amy and because I wanted more of her relationship with Abbey Bartlet), though at least she gets given some vague on screen reasons for this. Now, I'd call none of those things ooc, and I can see in each individual case where the characters come from. But as I said - I wouldn't have let it all happen in the same season.
The one thing that did strike me as ooc and a really irritating retcon was the Hoynes episode. Now, Hoynes through four seasons has been presented as ambitious, absolutely, but basically an honorable man (which is one reason why Bartlet when the rest of the team wanted to ditch him pre- reelection wanted him to stay despite them not being friends). He came through for the administration when it counted. And they basically did a Dukat on him. (For non-DS9 watchers: this is what I call making an ambiguous character EVIL (tm) so our heroes can loathe and fight him without any reservations. Tends to come with either sudden outbreaks of lunacy or sexual misdemeanour, or both.) With the suddenly revealed one night stand with CJ a decade ago being the equivalent of Dukat's cult leader impregnating his followers turn. Given that Hoynes and CJ had some none too friendly interaction early in s1, where something like this in all likelihood would have come up, I find this even harder to believe than Hoynes being stupid enough to think a tell-all book would relaunch his career.
On to more fun matters. The new VP being played by Gary Cole is a great bonus, since the two very different roles I've seen him in - as Sheriff Lucas Buck in American Gothic and as Captain Matthew Gideon in Crusade - had endeared him to me as an actor. The conception of the role is also good - making Bob Russell a lightweight nobody at the start takes seriously and thus underestimates as opposed to Hoynes who was a heavy weight and the Democratic champion pre-Bartlet, thus avoiding a doubling of characters. Although the President's willingness to nominate a VP he thinks off as mediocre probably looks worse today than it did then. *bites tongue at parallel in recent campaign* Also, Russell wooing Will away shows an advantage of Sam being replaced as a character. It wouldn't have worked with Sam and his being a devoted Bartlet follower from if not the first, then the second hour. But Will is new to the White House. He has no personal ties to the President, and it's probably news to him that working for the VP equals high treason for most of the White House staff, and certainly for Toby. BTW, loved CJ equalling this with Toby asking Will to be his date at the Prom and being told Will has another date already. Or that Toby intended to move on to higher things. And he does a future to think of, so Will deciding to take Russell up on his offer was completely understandable. In earlier season, he'd probably have been back indignantly and at once when discovering Russell (or his wife) had leaked the oppositional research, but this is when everyone gets a bit less idealistic, and so he decides to stick it out for now. Since this gives us more Gary Cole, I'm all for it.
If we're talking about actors: this was the season of familiar faces. Bob from Heroes! Terry O'Quinn! Jason Isaacs! And zomg Glenn Close! OMG Robert Picardo! And was that Christopher Walken? Much as I love Terry O'Quinn, though, I can't help but notice not one but two recurring black characters were replaced by white characters, which I'm more conscious of now than I would have been a decade ago. Pity. (Except for the part where I always enjoy Terry O'Quinn on my screen, but still.)
Other developments I noticed: CJ seems to have taken over the Jed Bartlet's conscience role a bit from Toby this season. And she finally articulates what would have been my problem had I been watching the show as broadcast, or rather, the reason why I wouldn't have been shipping Josh/Donna back then: "You need something in your life that doesn't revolve around Josh Lyman." Because by working for Josh basically 24/7 and being in increasingly more obvious love with him, Donna really hasn't something else. Incidentally, this is also why I don't ship movieverse Tony/Pepper in Iron Man (the "I have no one else" was a turn-off rather than a turn-on for me), whereas I think comicverse Tony/Pepper might work now (because at this point, she has a happy - no bad pun intended - marriage behind her, they have plenty of alternatives, and a lot of other important relationships in their lives).
Individual episodes: the fake documentary was okay, but nothing special - I'm used to experimental episodes being something like what Joss Whedon pulled off with Hugh, Restless or Once More With Feeling - but I did love The Supremes, and not just because of the guest stars. It was a great mixture of idealism and realism, and the guest stars interacted beautifully with the regular crowd and it build on earlier episodes. The other episode that I bet was controversial but which sticks in my mind and I thought was really well-written was Gaza. I was a bit afraid of this very messy subject being tackled in a black and white way, but I thought the script pulled it off, allowing both Israelis and Palestinians to make their case.
What struck me about the finale: as opposed to the s3 finale - where Jed Bartlet giving the order for the secret assassination was what the storyline had led him to - here the crucial challenge he rises to is NOT to give the order for a bombardment, despite public feeling but with the awareness of the consequences to the entire world if followed "bomb the hell out of them" urgings. Can't help but wonder whether this was meant as a deliberate contrast to Bush at the time.
In case I didn't mention it before: I approve of Debbie. And Lily Tomlin in the role.
Lastly: at one point I thought "what a pity Leo isn't a woman, then he and Abbey would have passed the Blechdel test" - because as opposed to how fanfiction would have done it when they were locked up in a room together, they didn't talk about the mutual man in their lives and their respective relationships with him, or had angry arguments about who is closer, but talked about Abbey and her career.
With all my tendency to root for the fannish underdog - that would be not the character written as an underdog but those characters, shows, movies or seasons whom fandom ignores or dislikes - I can see why, and if I hadn't had the whole thing on dvd, I might have disliked it, too, waiting week after week or month after month for new episodes. As it is, I don't feel ire (except for one particular retcon, more about that later), but I don't feel the urge to rewatch episodes any time soon, either, except maybe The Supremes. And I do look forward to the new (writing) team finding its feet next season.
The rapidfire style of dialogue that was Sorkin's trademark noticably doesn't come easily to the other writers, but I think that's not really the reason why this season feels odd. For starters, most of the episodes and storylines are rather dark, which btw makes the upbeat cheerful credits music sound disconcertingly wrong. But most importantly, several of the relationships feel harsher. This is not necessarily a bad thing - but had I been the headwriter, I probably wouldn't have chosen to let it happen at the same time. So Leo comes down hard on Josh and CJ. Josh at one point orders Donna to spy on Toby via Toby's new assistant (which she rightly ultimately refuses, but he did order her), and is a complete jerk towards his intern Ryan. Toby has his big fallout with Will. Abbey blames her husband for Zoey's kidnapping and freezes him out for half a season. Amy Gardner seems to be the newest victim of the WW "character gets written out unceremoniously" syndrome (though maybe I'm wrong and she'll be back next season - if it's true, though, I'm really annoyed, both because I like Amy and because I wanted more of her relationship with Abbey Bartlet), though at least she gets given some vague on screen reasons for this. Now, I'd call none of those things ooc, and I can see in each individual case where the characters come from. But as I said - I wouldn't have let it all happen in the same season.
The one thing that did strike me as ooc and a really irritating retcon was the Hoynes episode. Now, Hoynes through four seasons has been presented as ambitious, absolutely, but basically an honorable man (which is one reason why Bartlet when the rest of the team wanted to ditch him pre- reelection wanted him to stay despite them not being friends). He came through for the administration when it counted. And they basically did a Dukat on him. (For non-DS9 watchers: this is what I call making an ambiguous character EVIL (tm) so our heroes can loathe and fight him without any reservations. Tends to come with either sudden outbreaks of lunacy or sexual misdemeanour, or both.) With the suddenly revealed one night stand with CJ a decade ago being the equivalent of Dukat's cult leader impregnating his followers turn. Given that Hoynes and CJ had some none too friendly interaction early in s1, where something like this in all likelihood would have come up, I find this even harder to believe than Hoynes being stupid enough to think a tell-all book would relaunch his career.
On to more fun matters. The new VP being played by Gary Cole is a great bonus, since the two very different roles I've seen him in - as Sheriff Lucas Buck in American Gothic and as Captain Matthew Gideon in Crusade - had endeared him to me as an actor. The conception of the role is also good - making Bob Russell a lightweight nobody at the start takes seriously and thus underestimates as opposed to Hoynes who was a heavy weight and the Democratic champion pre-Bartlet, thus avoiding a doubling of characters. Although the President's willingness to nominate a VP he thinks off as mediocre probably looks worse today than it did then. *bites tongue at parallel in recent campaign* Also, Russell wooing Will away shows an advantage of Sam being replaced as a character. It wouldn't have worked with Sam and his being a devoted Bartlet follower from if not the first, then the second hour. But Will is new to the White House. He has no personal ties to the President, and it's probably news to him that working for the VP equals high treason for most of the White House staff, and certainly for Toby. BTW, loved CJ equalling this with Toby asking Will to be his date at the Prom and being told Will has another date already. Or that Toby intended to move on to higher things. And he does a future to think of, so Will deciding to take Russell up on his offer was completely understandable. In earlier season, he'd probably have been back indignantly and at once when discovering Russell (or his wife) had leaked the oppositional research, but this is when everyone gets a bit less idealistic, and so he decides to stick it out for now. Since this gives us more Gary Cole, I'm all for it.
If we're talking about actors: this was the season of familiar faces. Bob from Heroes! Terry O'Quinn! Jason Isaacs! And zomg Glenn Close! OMG Robert Picardo! And was that Christopher Walken? Much as I love Terry O'Quinn, though, I can't help but notice not one but two recurring black characters were replaced by white characters, which I'm more conscious of now than I would have been a decade ago. Pity. (Except for the part where I always enjoy Terry O'Quinn on my screen, but still.)
Other developments I noticed: CJ seems to have taken over the Jed Bartlet's conscience role a bit from Toby this season. And she finally articulates what would have been my problem had I been watching the show as broadcast, or rather, the reason why I wouldn't have been shipping Josh/Donna back then: "You need something in your life that doesn't revolve around Josh Lyman." Because by working for Josh basically 24/7 and being in increasingly more obvious love with him, Donna really hasn't something else. Incidentally, this is also why I don't ship movieverse Tony/Pepper in Iron Man (the "I have no one else" was a turn-off rather than a turn-on for me), whereas I think comicverse Tony/Pepper might work now (because at this point, she has a happy - no bad pun intended - marriage behind her, they have plenty of alternatives, and a lot of other important relationships in their lives).
Individual episodes: the fake documentary was okay, but nothing special - I'm used to experimental episodes being something like what Joss Whedon pulled off with Hugh, Restless or Once More With Feeling - but I did love The Supremes, and not just because of the guest stars. It was a great mixture of idealism and realism, and the guest stars interacted beautifully with the regular crowd and it build on earlier episodes. The other episode that I bet was controversial but which sticks in my mind and I thought was really well-written was Gaza. I was a bit afraid of this very messy subject being tackled in a black and white way, but I thought the script pulled it off, allowing both Israelis and Palestinians to make their case.
What struck me about the finale: as opposed to the s3 finale - where Jed Bartlet giving the order for the secret assassination was what the storyline had led him to - here the crucial challenge he rises to is NOT to give the order for a bombardment, despite public feeling but with the awareness of the consequences to the entire world if followed "bomb the hell out of them" urgings. Can't help but wonder whether this was meant as a deliberate contrast to Bush at the time.
In case I didn't mention it before: I approve of Debbie. And Lily Tomlin in the role.
Lastly: at one point I thought "what a pity Leo isn't a woman, then he and Abbey would have passed the Blechdel test" - because as opposed to how fanfiction would have done it when they were locked up in a room together, they didn't talk about the mutual man in their lives and their respective relationships with him, or had angry arguments about who is closer, but talked about Abbey and her career.
no subject
And she finally articulates what would have been my problem had I been watching the show as broadcast, or rather, the reason why I wouldn't have been shipping Josh/Donna back then: "You need something in your life that doesn't revolve around Josh Lyman."
I have big issues with this entire episode. Naturally. I think the problem of Josh and Donna is not one that DONNA is unaware of, prior to this episode. She's just unwilling to pursue drastic action about it because the situation from her perspective is complicated. (She loves him, they have a deep relationship absent acknowledged love, she actually genuinely seems to enjoy her job but is outgrowing it rapidly. Which is actually, something you could say of Josh in that season as well.)
So here comes CJ, who knows about the problem because EVERYONE in the White House knows what's going on with Josh and Donna. However, unlike Toby or Leo or Bartlet, she gets CJ who is coming off her own feelings of inadequacy in regards to women and men and sexual relations in the White House. A lot of her assessments of the situation are in fact, not really correct* and seem like projections from her own experiences onto Donna. I actually think she uses a lot of language and tone in that scene which shows she thinks very little of Donna, and she might be the only character on the show to ever do so. It's a sequence that deeply polarized the fandom against CJ -- and sets a pattern for how they'll be characterizing her from the future. She ends up one of the least favorite characters on the show by the end. Deep, deep problems abound, not just for the ship of Josh and Donna.
*The number one being, I believe, that CJ seems to be under the impression that Donna's crush is one-sided when it's just about anything but that, and the other men in the office know it so why doesn't she? And the only thing I can get to explain that Watsonian is that she's projecting based on her relationship with Hoynes.
no subject
*The number one being, I believe, that CJ seems to be under the impression that Donna's crush is one-sided when it's just about anything but that, and the other men in the office know it so why doesn't she? And the only thing I can get to explain that Watsonian is that she's projecting based on her relationship with Hoynes.
I think her "relationship' and feelings for Danny effect her in this situation as well. But that whole season was wacky. It was almost like she (and others) was deeply depressed and it came out in her words. But then she was dating a man she really no longer had feelings for because it felt safe and comfortable and she knew him - and she was lonely.
CJ spent much of the rest of series very lonely and so sad she almost pushed away the best thing that happen to her.
no subject
Too true. The end of the conversation is pretty blatant:
DONNA
I think Ben's great. I think you guys are great together. I hope it works.
C.J.
Have you seen us together?
DONNA
Not really. [pause] What should I be doing? Instead of this?
C.J.
Anything. You should... go to lectures and symposia and look for opportunities with non-profits and have one-night stands with reporters from the Post-Intelligencer and go on dates with what's-his-name from the Solicitor General's office, and anything that doesn't have to do with Josh Lyman.
DONNA
Wow. Okay. Let's not do this.
And all of those things CJ says sound very much like things CJ wants to do, and not necessarily what Donna wants from her life. (Indeed, she doesn't look particularly thrilled with the one night stand with Colin.)
But then, that is kind of a subtext of the episode. Everyone in that episode is projecting what they want onto other people, rather than being more realistic.
no subject
I agree. It's all the things CJ wants to do, but she feels an obligation to Bartlet. Same goes with her 'position' change in season six. (trying to be vague here)
And even echos in her final scene with Danny. "Do you want to work in the White House?"
I wish we had more of them, for sure, but their arch does make me happy. But we can talk more about that when Selenak see's season 7. I look forward to it.
no subject
I actually don't think it is; I think there's a fair amount of strong episodes. The one where Toby goes off on a La Mancha-esque quest to save Social Security, and of course, the Supremes. I like the Carrick arc, even though I think it does a disservice to the character of Leo, because it does good things for Bartlet and Josh.
There are other things in No Exit I object to a lot. (Abbey Bartlet is popping pills to 'reduce stress'?)
I wish we had more of them, for sure, but their arch does make me happy. But we can talk more about that when Selenak see's season 7. I look forward to it.
Yes, we can. I'll say it only makes me happy because it resolves well, but it's a miserable three years for CJ Cregg.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Season 6 was all about CJ for me and the only reason I bought season 6 - (I don't even own season 5) and it had a CJ featurette. But then I've driven across states to see Allison on stage.
I was also on TWOP at the time and I never saw any negativity toward CJ. I know Toby/CJ shippers hate Danny, but I never heard otherwise.
I sure wish I had a ww icon about now. :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think the only comparable period earlier was at the start of s3 when everyone was mad at the President for the MS thing but repressing it (as Bruno pointed out), but even then we didn't get everyone else treating each other angrier at the same time. (Instead, they vented by being mad at Bruno & Co.)
Re CJ: first of all, I didn't get the impression she thought little of Donna. I do agree she was projecting with the list of to do things, but I doubt it is anything Hoynes-related. Even with the one night stand a decade ago retcon, she never worked for him, so the situations aren't remotely comparable. (The one situation where she has experience of work offering a conflict of interests if you pursue romance is Danny, not Hoynes.) I didn't get the impression she thought Donna was crushing unrequitedly, either. But she did think that Donna's entire professional and emotional life circles around Josh, which, you know, it does. (For myself, I think I would have shipped Josh and Donna retrospectively if they didn't work together, because the banter is cute and they do fit. Or I would have adored their working relationship if they never had romantic subtext, a la Leo and Margaret or the President and Debbie. But both at the same time make me think, kids, get other jobs, then I'll root for you.)
Lastly, I'm sad to hear CJ gets unpopular, since I do love the character. But then, I seem to love other characters on this show you told me are hated by shippers - Andi Wyatt and Amy Gardner - so it sort of becomes a pattern...
no subject
Actually, these days I might be more even tempered towards Amy than CJ, because I love Mary Louise Parker. Make of it what you will.
(Instead, they vented by being mad at Bruno & Co.)
Well, they don't have anyone else to vent about, do they? The show never does give us a clear cut answer as to whom exactly was responsible for Zoey's kidnapping.
Even with the one night stand a decade ago retcon, she never worked for him, so the situations aren't remotely comparable.
There are plenty of other episodes where I don't exactly understand why CJ's ire has been drawn. She lashes out on the World War Two vets in 'Women of Qumar' because she's angry about a decision made by Nancy to reup their treaty, and yells at Toby because she feels her father's been passed up by affirmative action (!) while the episode makes it quite clear that she's actually deeply angry and upset about her father's condition.
'Women of Qumar', is in fact, another episode I can't watch because I really loathe CJ in that one. I've had a lot of debates in the past as to if that's a gendered perception of the show because Josh and Leo and Toby all have similar blowups. But to my mind, I can't think of a situation in which Josh, Toby or Leo went after a random public citizen to quite that degree.
So you might say that I was prone to disliking her prior to 'No Exit'.
But both at the same time make me think, kids, get other jobs, then I'll root for you.
I like that it's a bit messy, but it's a perfectly valid reason not to like the ship. Josh Lyman is no saint, by any means, and many of CJ's accusations about both of them are true, for all that they're also a bit wrong.
Re CJ: first of all, I didn't get the impression she thought little of Donna. I do agree she was projecting with the list of to do things [...]
I don't know about the Hoynes thing either, but having watched it sequentially over the weeks, that's the impression that first struck me and it has remained.
As for CJ, well, I think she's confused because outwardly she faces as a confident career woman who is glad she gave it all up for the job, but inwardly we know she feels a great pressure and guilt towards her personal life. (Both her father and romantically.) But I think it's equally obvious that she thinks of taking care of her father, at least, with a bit of disgust. It's something to which CJ would, like a martyr, give herself over to and get no joy in and as soon as she's able to run, she does it.
So to the extent that I think she's belittling on Donna's choices, I also feel she's lashing out with self-loathing towards the bit of her that feels torn about her own choices and that in the end, it's really more revealing about her and her priorities and how she judges herself than it ever was about any decisions Donna made in reality.
This was long. My apologies.