Rise and Fall
Jul. 23rd, 2021 12:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shallownessThe West Wing - 2.19 Bad Moon Rising
Enter new top lawyer Babbish, who got a nice introduction as someone his staff teased (wonder if we’ll see him interact with Ainsley), and the build-up to his smashing the Dictaphone. There was an echo of Bartlet and Toby as the story was told and questions were asked. There was also another dimension of Bartlet’s overcompensation, as seen over his lack of military experience, now around facin a lawyer. But there was also the sense that he had done wrong, while whether he’d committed a crime remained hanging, and Babbish was the next step in facing that.
It was noted that Leo had got Babbish the job, (oh hai, nepotism, again), but although Babbish was one of ‘our guys,’ Bartlet was showing some attitude, although it was fairly obvious that Babbish’s questions were trying to get a clearer picture.
The scene that got to me the most – as it should - was between Bartlet and Charlie, the boy he gave his forefathers’ knife to. Charlie got a lot of quality screentime in this ep, as the character who’s normally the most short-changed of that, from being able to impress Sam with his academic ‘game’, to then proving how smart he was by seeing the form that was the smoking gun that Babbish was looking for. Plus to a lesser extent, Charlie had worked Bartlet’s MS out from what he was to look out for, which played beautifully to his particularly blurred personal/working relationship with the President.
But of course the subplots all added to the main confrontation. We knew why Toby was so annoyed that he made CJ carry out the pointless leak inquiry, which provided a lot of the lght relief, until he gave CJ cause to be really worried when she got to ask him why he really was so angry about it. (I was surprised that on the podcast Molina didn’t seem to have made he connection. Well, perhaps I thought that Toby was projecting his anger at Bartlet on the leaker, more than worrying about what was to come.)
I rolled my eyes when Josh descended to invoking the Nazis, kinda, to win his argument against Donna about using her tax dollars to help Mexico, especially because he cited Austria in 1939 and the US only directly got involved in the war effort after Japan attacked (I see his broad strokes description of the events of WW2 and raise it with my own.)
Sam ended up seeking his own legal advice over his actions as a lawyer in the past. He must have known what Ainsley would say, but it was clear that he just needed someone to talk to about it. I loved that this was a callback to the start of the season. I’d remembered when the leaking oil tanker was first mooted, though Sam didn’t react obviously, that that was the very ship he’d been working on the legalese of buying. I liked that he couldn’t now remember why he’d had a change of heart, because we remembered (well, I do) it was Josh talking about going to see Bartlet that had inspired Sam to do the riht thing. It hadn’t worked, and we knew, unlike Sam, that his President was further short of his ideal than he’d thought.
And yet, there was Bartlet, telling his filial figure that he’d better not compromise the truth out of love, or they’d be done. There he was, depite everything, urging Charlie in that way.
I had registered Josh being inappropriate to Donna about the ‘equipment’, but gave them a Josh/Donna bye, and Ainsley had smacked down Sam’s ‘a woman’s touch’ but the whole g-string line hadn’t registered with me until the podcast called it out. Oh, Sam, no.
2.20 The Fall’s Gonna Kill You
And so the fallout continued, with Claudia Jean (it felt like an ep where I wanted to use her full name) was up first thing, and her meeting with Babbish appeared to have lasted all moring, being interviewed six hours after finding out. Although I was willing to cut her slack because she’d just found out, CJ’s attitude felt as unwarranted as Bartlet’s had, (the audience might also be a little more geared to view him kindly because we’d seen him having to go through his own version of absorbing the news and then deal with Bartlet’s ‘tude in the previous ep.
I didn’t buy CJ’s claim that she wouldn’t be aware of how she’d phrased her question to the President, because words and communication are such a big part of her job. So, it was a relief that she admitted as much to Abbey. It was hard to sort out the genuined ‘I don’t remember’ from not the wanting to remembers. But the reveal that CJ had seen Abbey inject Jed was powerful. (I was more lenient with CJ on this than the podcasters.) So, both women were under particular clouds from what had come up.
No wonder a tired CJ who, we knew, had also had less time to process than Josh, used ‘you’ instead of ‘us’, and rightly reprimanded him for his not-that-chirpy story about Donna’s satellite, which just felt like shoehorning something that had ticked along as a metaphor all episode. The podcasters objected to Donna’s one-liner about it to Abbey, which I didn’t mind. In fact, I felt sorry for Donna for having gone through all that angst and people like Charlie humouring/teasing herm end especially Josh for not putting her out of her misery sooner. Especially if he’d stopped and thought about how finding out about the President’s MS and keeping it secret was coming for her too. Most striking was Ed and Larry finding it hilarious, at a time when so few characters were finding anything hilarious.
I also didn’t mind Josh raising the anti-tobacco lawyer’s line about fraud to Leo. It felt like a valid character bit, that he wanted to dicuss it with Leo. In fact, I liked the different way we saw Josh dealing with this, abent seeing him being told by Bartlet.
I reflexively thought that there might be trouble from Toby deciding to shield Sam for a day, but there wasn’t, and if was really effective to see him go through exactly the process CJ told Abbey she had been through.
In between that, at least Sam questioned whether his ‘like a girl’ criticism of the writing was sexist, (yes, it was, Seaborn). As the podcast raised, it’s an accurate portrayal of a guy who would say he’s not sexist, yet just keeps on proving otherwise.
I got his broader point about the line they wanted in, athough he lost me as he told us how much he’d been earning and how he felt about paying his ‘fair share’ of taxes then (obviously earning less now, but still clearly sure there’d be hot water whenever he opened his tap).
The scene of Josh telling Joey was really powerful – the extreme close-ups because of the lip-reading leading to intensity and intimacy (and being a wonderful example of how diversity brings dramatic dividends), as Josh got to realise the enormity of what he was saying. I liked how Josh needed to trust someone when, in a way, Bartlet had broken their trust. The podcasters made an interesting point about Joey’s take, reflecting her own experience of disability (and greater distance from the President?) through her concern for him. Also, excellent points were made, particularly aot the paper napkin.
Overall, I like the way they’re handling the fallout here and the sense that there is so much more to come, but this was just a little baggier than the previous episode, and one or tow things didn’t quite pay off as much as they were intended to.
Enter new top lawyer Babbish, who got a nice introduction as someone his staff teased (wonder if we’ll see him interact with Ainsley), and the build-up to his smashing the Dictaphone. There was an echo of Bartlet and Toby as the story was told and questions were asked. There was also another dimension of Bartlet’s overcompensation, as seen over his lack of military experience, now around facin a lawyer. But there was also the sense that he had done wrong, while whether he’d committed a crime remained hanging, and Babbish was the next step in facing that.
It was noted that Leo had got Babbish the job, (oh hai, nepotism, again), but although Babbish was one of ‘our guys,’ Bartlet was showing some attitude, although it was fairly obvious that Babbish’s questions were trying to get a clearer picture.
The scene that got to me the most – as it should - was between Bartlet and Charlie, the boy he gave his forefathers’ knife to. Charlie got a lot of quality screentime in this ep, as the character who’s normally the most short-changed of that, from being able to impress Sam with his academic ‘game’, to then proving how smart he was by seeing the form that was the smoking gun that Babbish was looking for. Plus to a lesser extent, Charlie had worked Bartlet’s MS out from what he was to look out for, which played beautifully to his particularly blurred personal/working relationship with the President.
But of course the subplots all added to the main confrontation. We knew why Toby was so annoyed that he made CJ carry out the pointless leak inquiry, which provided a lot of the lght relief, until he gave CJ cause to be really worried when she got to ask him why he really was so angry about it. (I was surprised that on the podcast Molina didn’t seem to have made he connection. Well, perhaps I thought that Toby was projecting his anger at Bartlet on the leaker, more than worrying about what was to come.)
I rolled my eyes when Josh descended to invoking the Nazis, kinda, to win his argument against Donna about using her tax dollars to help Mexico, especially because he cited Austria in 1939 and the US only directly got involved in the war effort after Japan attacked (I see his broad strokes description of the events of WW2 and raise it with my own.)
Sam ended up seeking his own legal advice over his actions as a lawyer in the past. He must have known what Ainsley would say, but it was clear that he just needed someone to talk to about it. I loved that this was a callback to the start of the season. I’d remembered when the leaking oil tanker was first mooted, though Sam didn’t react obviously, that that was the very ship he’d been working on the legalese of buying. I liked that he couldn’t now remember why he’d had a change of heart, because we remembered (well, I do) it was Josh talking about going to see Bartlet that had inspired Sam to do the riht thing. It hadn’t worked, and we knew, unlike Sam, that his President was further short of his ideal than he’d thought.
And yet, there was Bartlet, telling his filial figure that he’d better not compromise the truth out of love, or they’d be done. There he was, depite everything, urging Charlie in that way.
I had registered Josh being inappropriate to Donna about the ‘equipment’, but gave them a Josh/Donna bye, and Ainsley had smacked down Sam’s ‘a woman’s touch’ but the whole g-string line hadn’t registered with me until the podcast called it out. Oh, Sam, no.
2.20 The Fall’s Gonna Kill You
And so the fallout continued, with Claudia Jean (it felt like an ep where I wanted to use her full name) was up first thing, and her meeting with Babbish appeared to have lasted all moring, being interviewed six hours after finding out. Although I was willing to cut her slack because she’d just found out, CJ’s attitude felt as unwarranted as Bartlet’s had, (the audience might also be a little more geared to view him kindly because we’d seen him having to go through his own version of absorbing the news and then deal with Bartlet’s ‘tude in the previous ep.
I didn’t buy CJ’s claim that she wouldn’t be aware of how she’d phrased her question to the President, because words and communication are such a big part of her job. So, it was a relief that she admitted as much to Abbey. It was hard to sort out the genuined ‘I don’t remember’ from not the wanting to remembers. But the reveal that CJ had seen Abbey inject Jed was powerful. (I was more lenient with CJ on this than the podcasters.) So, both women were under particular clouds from what had come up.
No wonder a tired CJ who, we knew, had also had less time to process than Josh, used ‘you’ instead of ‘us’, and rightly reprimanded him for his not-that-chirpy story about Donna’s satellite, which just felt like shoehorning something that had ticked along as a metaphor all episode. The podcasters objected to Donna’s one-liner about it to Abbey, which I didn’t mind. In fact, I felt sorry for Donna for having gone through all that angst and people like Charlie humouring/teasing herm end especially Josh for not putting her out of her misery sooner. Especially if he’d stopped and thought about how finding out about the President’s MS and keeping it secret was coming for her too. Most striking was Ed and Larry finding it hilarious, at a time when so few characters were finding anything hilarious.
I also didn’t mind Josh raising the anti-tobacco lawyer’s line about fraud to Leo. It felt like a valid character bit, that he wanted to dicuss it with Leo. In fact, I liked the different way we saw Josh dealing with this, abent seeing him being told by Bartlet.
I reflexively thought that there might be trouble from Toby deciding to shield Sam for a day, but there wasn’t, and if was really effective to see him go through exactly the process CJ told Abbey she had been through.
In between that, at least Sam questioned whether his ‘like a girl’ criticism of the writing was sexist, (yes, it was, Seaborn). As the podcast raised, it’s an accurate portrayal of a guy who would say he’s not sexist, yet just keeps on proving otherwise.
I got his broader point about the line they wanted in, athough he lost me as he told us how much he’d been earning and how he felt about paying his ‘fair share’ of taxes then (obviously earning less now, but still clearly sure there’d be hot water whenever he opened his tap).
The scene of Josh telling Joey was really powerful – the extreme close-ups because of the lip-reading leading to intensity and intimacy (and being a wonderful example of how diversity brings dramatic dividends), as Josh got to realise the enormity of what he was saying. I liked how Josh needed to trust someone when, in a way, Bartlet had broken their trust. The podcasters made an interesting point about Joey’s take, reflecting her own experience of disability (and greater distance from the President?) through her concern for him. Also, excellent points were made, particularly aot the paper napkin.
Overall, I like the way they’re handling the fallout here and the sense that there is so much more to come, but this was just a little baggier than the previous episode, and one or tow things didn’t quite pay off as much as they were intended to.
no subject
Date: 2021-07-23 08:06 pm (UTC)It is a very good Charlie episode, and Dule Hill does such wonderful work in making it clear how much Charlie doesn't want to be admitting what he is, even though he knows he has to - all without words.
And yet, there was Bartlet, telling his filial figure that he’d better not compromise the truth out of love, or they’d be done. There he was, depite everything, urging Charlie in that way.
It's a very "do as I say, not as I do" kind of scene, isn't it? That's the thing about Bartlet, that he's always striving to be better, and taking everyone in his orbit along with him, even when he stumbles.
CJ’s attitude felt as unwarranted as Bartlet’s had, (the audience might also be a little more geared to view him kindly because we’d seen him having to go through his own version of absorbing the news and then deal with Bartlet’s ‘tude in the previous ep.
I do love the banter between CJ and Babbish, though. "I have never in my life found anything charming." I think having to speak to a lawyer - even your own lawyer - when you know damn well you've done something unethical if not outright illegal, as CJ and Bartlet do, would put anyone on the defensive. Of course, it also just makes for worse tv if everyone is even-tempered and cooperative, but that's the more boring reason.
I also didn’t mind Josh raising the anti-tobacco lawyer’s line about fraud to Leo. It felt like a valid character bit, that he wanted to dicuss it with Leo. In fact, I liked the different way we saw Josh dealing with this, abent seeing him being told by Bartlet.
Yeah, I don't know why they got so salty about that line on the podcast. Of course they'd be sensitive to things like accusations of fraud at that time!
As the podcast raised, it’s an accurate portrayal of a guy who would say he’s not sexist, yet just keeps on proving otherwise.
I know I've said it before, but damn, does Sam's sexism annoy me more on every rewatch. Part of it is exactly that, that there's no way Sam would ever consider himself sexist, and in fact very strenuously objects to that accusation when it comes up. Yet...he is, and not in an entirely benign way. It's aggravating.
I got his broader point about the line they wanted in, athough he lost me as he told us how much he’d been earning and how he felt about paying his ‘fair share’ of taxes then (obviously earning less now, but still clearly sure there’d be hot water whenever he opened his tap).
Not to harp on Sam (okay maybe a little bit), his point isn't even that valid! Wealthier people can afford things like better water heaters or boiling water taps. And I know from experience that actually, police/fire/etc will respond much faster when you live in a wealthier neighborhood, so...be aware of your damn privilege, Sam.
Agreed the Josh & Joey scene is great, one of the best.
Overall, I like the way they’re handling the fallout here and the sense that there is so much more to come, but this was just a little baggier than the previous episode, and one or tow things didn’t quite pay off as much as they were intended to.
tbh the stretch of eps between 17 People and Two Cathedrals has always been my least favorite part of S2. But the payoff is worth it!
no subject
Date: 2021-07-24 10:42 am (UTC)The best and worst of him, yes, with the staff member where it's the most parent-childesque relationship.
Of course, it also just makes for worse tv if everyone is even-tempered and cooperative, but that's the more boring reason.
True, of course, but that's two defensive interviews with the same character in a row, no, three if you count Abbey, and though there are different levels of complicity and guilt, and we find out about them at different points, that's a bit repretitive. But, as you say the banter is great.
I know I've said it before, but damn, does Sam's sexism annoy me more on every rewatch. Part of it is exactly that, that there's no way Sam would ever consider himself sexist, and in fact very strenuously objects to that accusation when it comes up. Yet...he is, and not in an entirely benign way. It's aggravating.
It is more aggravating because of the hypocrisy, and there have been so many examples since the first time it came up that I agree that it's cumulative and I can sympathise with you feeling like that.
Not to harp on Sam (okay maybe a little bit), his point isn't even that valid! Wealthier people can afford things like better water heaters or boiling water taps. And I know from experience that actually, police/fire/etc will respond much faster when you live in a wealthier neighborhood, so...be aware of your damn privilege, Sam.
Nah, he deserves this response, and thanks for citing more examples. I was aware that taxes pay for different services in the States to what I'm familiar with, so I was hesitant to pick at specifics, but what he was saying certainly smacked of privilege.
tbh the stretch of eps between 17 People and Two Cathedrals has always been my least favorite part of S2. But the payoff is worth it!
Oh, that's interesting. Of course, the overall standard of the episodes is so high, that even its weaker eps are pretty good and entertaining.