West Wing Season 5

[selenak]

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.

Comments

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

I can never remember which season is which - not helped by the fact that I'm currently watching the start-to-finish weekly reruns on More4, which means they all blur into one another.

But I do like The Supremes, even though people have tried to persuade me it's a re-run of the one with Edward James Olmos.

[nomadicwriter]

Yeah; I saw s5 in marathon form too (an Irish friend sent it to me on videotape) and while I didn't think it was particularly bad, I did think that as a whole it was very downbeat. The loss of the pace of Sorkin scripts at the same time as the shift into so many darker storylines made the whole thing come across kind of... grey. It wasn't a heinous ruination of the show or anything, but it wasn't exactly inspiring viewing, either. As you say, basically: watched it, didn't hate it, but have no real desire to see it again. Well, apart from The Supremes. (The traditional s5 refrain. Everybody loved The Supremes.)

Which I guess is why I still haven't seen seasons six and seven. If they'd aired on terrestrial TV over here I'd probably have tuned in, but I just wasn't motivated enough to go out and buy the DVDs. S5 didn't ruin the show for me, but it did cool off my fannishness. And it was pretty rabid fannishness, back in the day.

[kangeiko]

The Supremes is the one episode from S5 that everyone - including me - loves, and with good reason. It's hard not to love Glenn Close, but also the characters feel more like themselves than they do in the rest of the season.

I think the reason this season feels weak compared to the ones that follow is because, as you said, the new writers had trouble writing in 'Sorkinesque'. They improve later on, and so the characters seems to speak more 'normally'. More to the point, the new characters that are introduced are more developed in the later two seasons, which allows the writers to display strengths there, rather than delivering half-hearted versions of the established cast. I do get what you mean about the growing white-isation of the cast, though, I noticed that too, and was particularly irate on Nancy McNally's behalf (also because there's no particular reason why Nancy wasn't utilised more in earlier seasons, given how much Kate is used in S5-7).

Will made me ridiculously angry, I think more in S6 than in S5 - I liked his friction with Toby in S5, but he seems to become more corporate and slick in S6 than he was when we first met him. The difference between mid-S6 Will and S4 will is immense, and not to the character's credit, I don't think. Again, I partly attribute this to the directions that S5 started to take him towards, and how he developed as a result of those. (Weirdly, S7 Will seems to have recovered, and I like him just as much as I liked him in S4...)

The Hoynes episode was the retcon that I was mentioning earlier that had me tearing my hair out in rage. It really pissed me off - and on CJ's behalf more than anything else, because I think that it really weakened her power in the eyes of the viewer. Essentially it was saying, "look, she makes mistakes too, she's human!" But whereas Josh had those same mistakes, they related to tobacco; Sam passed on an ad during S3 that he shouldn't have; Toby got messed around by Ann Stark -all work-related mistakes. CJ's mistake was in regards to her sexuality (as was Donna's, in early S3. But whereas I can understand the Donna/Cliff mistake, what with Donna being relatively junior, the damage this did to CJ's standing was considerable, and it makes me really mad.). It's a stereotype, and it is *not* ok.

The other reason it made me angry was, as you mentioned the Dukat-effect. Given how much I liked Hoynes, especially in relation to his relationship with Leo, it pissed me off. (And it makes absolutely no sense in relation to his later moves in the series - yes, he's back, but you'll wish that he wasn't...)

The Bob Russell character - the only I liked him was because of Gary Cole, although I kept squeaking every time he came on-screen. *g*

I gotta say, I wasn't that fond of Gaza. Not because there was anything wrong with the story - it was great, and I loved Jason Isaacs - but because it felt like an ER finale, not a WW finale. S1 closed with a shooting; S2 closed with politics; S3 closed with politics (albeit illegal ones!); S4 closed with DRAMA!!ZOMG! with the Zoe plot; S5 closed with terrorist bombings that WW staffers just happen to be caught up in. It just... the drama of S1's ending was unexpected, and strong because of it, but S2 was nonetheless more powerful IMO. Having something put a loved character in peril at every season ender felt cheap, and unrealistic. That said, what this allows them to do with Donna's character is great, so I can't complain *too* much.

Btw, if you're looking for someone to pass the Blechdel test, CJ and Kate in S6-7 do it with aplomb.

[crossoverman.livejournal.com]

Yes, the Hoynes retcon is not good - nor do I like what it says about CJ as a character, either. That story is just too random.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

selenak says it right. I have no real objections to the new writers being unable to provide lightning fast Sorkin banter. What I do object to is the sudden abrupt tonal shift which makes everyone in the West Wing suddenly more suspicious and angry with each other. Especially in light of four seasons of the show showing AND telling us that this isn't how they operate. I will basically never forgive them for turning Leo into the season's villain.

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.

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

I would have loved The Supremes but for one thing: THEY FORGOT ABOUT MENDOZA. Roberto Mendoza, the liberal lion they fought so hard to get on the court in S1. I'm usually willing to fanwank continuity errors, but I really liked Mendoza and his storyline and it was a recurring theme of S1.

Also, you just can't compare with the Whedonverse when it comes to experimental episodes, can you?

[thepandorarose.livejournal.com]

I think you totally hit the nail on the head. I also blame John Wells and his ER "let's throw in a helicopter, etc" to make drama ideas - but yes the change in tone was so drastic sometimes you weren't sure these we're the same characters at time. Yes, Sorkin has a distinct dialogue pattern, but what he could do was mix the Comedy and the drama. For me once the writing crew was pared down and they tried to be themselves and mix the comedy and the drama, it stuck for me.

I do have to say I did like the idea of Donna seeing didn't have to be at Josh's beck and call, and I don't ship them. I am not however a fan of the Hoynes/CJ episode, but the confession at the end by Allison Janney was spectacular. I know from interviews Allison seem to hint (with out being professional) that she didn't like the idea either and joked she had to warn her mother.

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.

Sure makes you look at CJ going to Hoynes to see if he was Danny's source a hell of a lot different. It however does fit into the CJ we met before Bartlet - very unhappy and not too sure of her self.

except maybe The Supremes.

Welcome to t he glory that is Debora Cahn - her episodes for two years we're the only ones I wanted to watch over again... well, maybe Lift off from season 6 - but I adore C.J. Curious your take on that little development.


And was that Christopher Walken? </>

Do you mean Christopher Lloyd?

In case I didn't mention it before: I approve of Debbie. And Lily Tomlin in the role.

How can you not. :)

[redfiona99.livejournal.com]

>>but talked about Abbey and her career.<< I never got to see season 5, but I'm assuming that was because Abby needed to talk about her career, and Leo knows how to make people talk about what they need to talk about, because Leo is awesome.

>>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), << It must be said that's one of the things that I liked most about the film, because they flirted with going there, but Pepper realised it would only ever end badly. Also that it paid a few moments thought to Pepper thinking how bad dancing with Tony would look for her as a professional person.