The boys' club: There is an underlying patronising attitude to the female characters, which I can't stand. It would have been nice if the writers had put more effort into making these characters more authoritative and credible rather than go for the good looks, shrill voice, 'I'm just a girl' character. That’s entertainment, I suppose.
However, I believe one can still be funny and goofy while making intelligent statements, such as like spilling your tea while pontificating about Rawls, a regular occurrence for some :).
The only ones who do not succumb to this fate are C.J., the First Lady and, to a lesser extent, Donna. Had it been a bit more female-oriented they could have developed the character of Donna, have a little more clash and attraction between Donna and Josh (Mary-Louise Parker as Amy Gardner can’t pull it off). C.J. should have become Chief of Staff at the end of the fourth series with Leo elected to something. With Donna working for the First Lady, the role of the First Lady could have been expanded too. They sort got stuck with a formula and didn't attempt to develop it. Shame.
It’s the economy, stupid: not in the West Wing obviously! The President is supposed to be a Nobel Prize winner in economics (whatever!), but economics and finance are hardly ever spoken of. When they are, the approach is so superficial to the point of irrelevance. I might be biased. I tend to think that there’s an economic aspect to nearly all things, especially in politics, but isn’t there? :)
The smartest kid in the class: there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of genius as dissociated from hard work and perseverance. Luckily, Martin Sheen has gravitas, charisma and tries to be a good guy so he can pull it off.
The retro feeling: the politics of the West Wing seems firmly set in the 1980s. I don’t know much about American politics, but the screen-writers seem to be living in their own bubble and enclose their characters in the West Wing bubble. No wonder the following of the show ended up being restricted to a particular section of society. No wonder only a few bother to vote if politics is so distant.
Everything seems to be happening inside the White House with Congress only getting a mention in passing, never mind the rest of the country. Unbeknown to the authors, theories of government/governance have changed profoundly and gone beyond the State vs. Free Market dichotomy. I don’t expect Aaron Sorkin to know about Public Value Management Theory, but a better grip, even on traditional politics, wouldn’t go amiss. I would have certainly liked more on Congress, the Cabinet and state politics across the US, which is steadily gaining prominence.
The other two big issues, which we are witnessing in the American primaries now, race and gender, are treated with lack of understanding and superficiality. I can’t believe that Amy Gardner, the head of the women’s lobby (whatever!) is asked to comment on the dichotomy ‘stay-at-home mum’ vs. ‘career-girl’ and after thinking about it (yep), she comes out with ‘I don’t care who stays at home as long as it’s their choice’ type of reply. Err … how about some research? How about the fact that the US are one of very few countries were statutory parental pay is not provided? Who can actually choose? What determines choice? How about the fact that women managers have started giving up their careers? Why not taking a look elsewhere where men are starting to value fatherhood and flexible working? Is there a class divide? Is there still a culture of division between work (public sphere) and home (private sphere)? By the way, the ‘fatherhood’ mantra from the feminists was full blown in the 1990s in the States. It needs better articulation in terms of policies and rights, but it has been there a long time.
The West Wing chickens out from the big questions and the difficult issues such as immigration, unemployment, finance and economic and social inequalities. They like international crises too much and don’t manage even to grasp the issues there. What happened to the old saying ‘write something you know about’?
I still enjoyed it though (notwithstanding intense moments of irritation). What I found interesting is the attempt to convey the idea of the American dream, in the tradition of Frank Capra. At first, it feels ... well ... American! It makes you cringe and wince, but then it seeps into you and lets you see a bit more.
It’s the sincere belief in America as an idea, as a country to be built, not inherited. It’s the mentality of a settler society, which is perhaps rather alien to us. Nevertheless, we face similar dilemmas. We would like our country and ourselves to be hospitable, to do the right thing, to uphold the law and defend minorities but we are faced with a very heterogeneous society where 'values' need interpretations that go deeper.
Governments look for answers in definitions of Britishness or Europeanness (remember the Constitution preamble?), and so do religious figures (see previous posts 1 and 2), but I feel they miss the point. They look at the past not for guidance but to pin down who we are and should be. I feel very European (which includes British) in my ways, habits, political philosophy etc. but I am a human being and my values, I believe, are human values. Freedom and equality do not stop at the border and we do not have the copyrights. As a wise man once said:
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."- Sir Ernest Benn
5 comments:
I preferred "Commander In Chief" - a little less pleased with itself.
"The retro feeling: the politics of the West Wing seems firmly set in the 1980s." - This might be because Sorkin was drawing heavily from administrations in the 80's and early 90's for plot ideas for the show. It depends upon what you mean.
"No wonder the following of the show ended up being restricted to a particular section of society." - Oh come now, credit where it's due it was by far the most watched political drama series there has ever been and HOPEFULLY might be able to act as a precedent for similar shows of a similar model. Yes it had a bias, but so did Yes Minister; except that Yes Minister was less honest about its bias which made it all the more creepy when it loomed too large. ('Er... why is Anthony Jay trying so hard to convince me that everyone in Westminister and Whitehall is petty and money grubbing?')
"There’s a fundamental misunderstanding of genius as dissociated from hard work and perseverance." - Hooray! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Then again, look at Michael Kearney. Sorkin does, however, make his President a bibliophile which I rather like; I don't think the show ever makes the suggestion that Barlet got to where he is by some kind of preternatural 'insight' as opposed to genuine application.
"...as a country to be built.." - "Annuit coeptis" and whatnot. I think Sorkin avoids discussing economics because he knows nothing about economics (seems a fair reason); he didn't know very much about the American political process when he wrote The American President and was justly criticized for it. You can't blame a guy for being finite; but I think he wanted a economist (and a Nobel Laureate at that) to be President for the simple fact he thought someone competent should be running the country (in contrast to reality, for instance).
The slightly creepier moments in the West Wing are when it tries to defend policies which have entered into the democratic party platform but which are essentially illiberal. It would be strange if it didn't do this, as after all the main characters are supposed to be shapers /of/ democratic party policy, but the facetious arguments offered for these positions are rather... unsettingly (sorry I can't give concrete examples, I'm not inclined to go rifling through my DVD collection just at present). When the show starts recovering from its massive quality decline, in season six, an attempt seems to be made to put this right by having someone that is essentially a libertarian speak for 'the other side'.
I agree, but where is Congress? What about state governors?
Also, the advisers are portrayed as geniuses as well, but they lack vision. I would have employed some people from think tanks to beef up the script, in particular the women's angle. I do like the show though. It's one of my favourite TV programmes. The best is still Yes, Minister!!! Yes, sometimes I disagree (the episode on local government and the one on equal opportunities), but it's still great. Civil servants are not that cynical, but they are risk averse, so it's great to see the Minister succeeding as in 'a victory for democracy' or 'big brother' :))
I agree with most of what you write, with one exception.
I find it, sadly, perfectly believable that Amy Gardner completely ignores the issue of statutory maternity pay. I see a tremendous disconnect between lefty feminists, usually upper class women educated at Vassar (in the US) or Cambridge (in the UK), and the women they claim to represent. Take a look at the transcripts of Democracy Now's V-to-the-Tenth episode, with feminist activists, writers and intellectuals talking seriosuly about providing New Orleans homeless single mothers with brunches and free yoga meditation classes, or teaching them to rewrite the history of their communities from their vagina's viewpoint.
If anything, the picture painted by the West Wing is too generous.
There are many feminisms. I don't think there's a mainstream feminism anymore. I haven't kept up to date with the development, however, most of what I've come across is pretty sensible. Leaving specific policies and solutions aside, I can't believe that there is no reflection on the effect of a long working hours culture (which sounds to me just inefficient and detrimental), on the 'macho' approach to work which does not take into account who supports that and how. It's not just women, what about carers (caregivers)? All those people who do the caring (without receiving pay) for their family and friends? What about our contracting out caring responsibility such as child rearing or caring for our elderly to immigrant workers who have to leave their own families? I believe this was one of the topics the Pope discussed with George W. Bush. As I previously argued, we need a feminism that is partnership, that aims to improve the relationship between human beings and that is founded on the recognition of men and women as human beings. It needs to suggest solutions that require partnership and avoid competition. Recognising women as human being, having equal vaule, is also the only way to combat overpopulation, the famine, disease and strife resulting from it and even climate change. I'm happy to call it something else rather than feminism. :) I just wish people started taking it seriously, which includes the media as they are opinion formers. http://paswonky.blogspot.com/2007/03/reluctant-feminist.html
Post a Comment