On to season 3 of The West Wing
Aug. 14th, 2021 06:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shallownessAs Channel 4 did in the first run, All 4 just skipped right past ‘Isaac and Ishmael’! I’m…curious to see it, even if it doesn’t fit into the main continuity.
The start of the third season felt like long past time to try to get The West Wing icons.
3.1 and 2 Manchester (Parts 1 and 2)
While I like that we got most of the last scene of season 2 and a little extra – the superfluous ‘Yeah’ because we’d known what Bartlet had decided – and continued to pick up right where we left off, because I was watching after a fortnight not months of a break, certainly in the first part, the jumps to four weeks later didn’t quite work for me, although the links between timelines were as slick as in ‘In The Shadow of Two Gunmen’. At the end of Part 1, I muttered, ‘Wow, that was dense’ (and the podcast admitted as much, encouraging us to rewatch it to pick upmore, advice that I didn’t follow, as I’d watched both eps as a double.) I was more receptive to the future timeline by the second part, possibly because enough had been learned about that future to make me care whether there would be pay-off i.e. reconciliations between Bartlet and staff, Bartlet and CJ and Jed and Abbey. (And, again, the podcast pointed out that there were continual bumps and obstacles in part 1, indeed, that the whole reason they were in Manchester was because they hadn’t been able to capitalise on the rush of the announcement. I was relieved that Hrishi preferred Part 2 too, because we got more resolution.)
I was delighted to rediscover that Stockard Channing was in the credits now (I don’t remember if this was regularly the case in season 3, but obviously, there was a storyline for Abbey, and I’d always felt, once we met her, that she was such a vibrant presence that I missed her, back when the First Lady’s absence wasn’t seen as a signal for the state of the Bartlets’ marriage. I was also pleased to rediscover new-old faces, particularly the start of Bruno/Mararet, er Bruno, and a young Connie Britton.
Our regulars were still under pressure, with Bartlet’s MS disclosure and decision to run again CHANGING EVERYTHING, while the Haiti situation was ongoing. Their handling of that led to this speech four weeks later and the irritating invasion of Bruno’s people (this was mainly Doug, because even when he was right about the arrogance etc, he was irritating.)
I am worried about Charlie! Where’s he going to get $100,000 from? As Babbish laid out, he probably doesn’t have perfect recall and there are clear pressure points even if he tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth as urged by Bartlet. And yet he seemed relaxed as he made $20 in a pool game. Heh, I knew Toby was going to get hustled there.
Obviously, we were meant to be worried about CJ – something clearly wasn’t right with her in Manchester, and then they did a great job in showing the barrage that she was under from the press before she slipped. And I think the podcast was right, that had started in the repeated opening. ‘Relieved!’ as they all repeated, although I liked the sense that the boys (especially Sam) spoke up for her. She did look tired and she was hurting (and we knew she was carrying the weight of having witnessed the injection.) Plus she was having to deal with Abbey, although she did find a way offscreen to get her to introduce the President. Which was probably CJ trying to help the marriage via legitimate professional concerns too.
The line about Bartlet seeing her as a daughter from, what, season 1, rang out for me in his scene with CJ. Her raising her voice at him for lecturing her was great, letting loose the anger Bruno’s team had identified (see also Sam’s repeated raising of the fact that Bartlet hadn’t apologised to the public i.e. them). Bartle eventually acknowledged it and gave them their apology.
I loved the insight that Bartlet hadn’t run seriously at first. I don’t know how much of that is Bartlet lying to himself then and now, because if he recognised Hoynes needed to be ‘kept honest’, he must have recognised Hoynes wasn’t up to it, and we know Bartlet’s ego would rightly make Bartlet believe that he was, but as we now know the MS and pressure from Abbey were part of the mix of motives and thoughts back then. But revealing that the staff – and never forget it all started with Leo’s vision – believed Bartlet was the real deal and helped make it happen. aww.
But yeah, Sam got to give voice to the fact that some of them (him, CJ and even Josh) had known for a shorter length of time. And the podcast raised how frustrated the team were that MS had changed the re-election campaign they’d hoped to wage, but had to be pushed into admitting it.
Josh’s mistake over tobacco echoed CJ’s mistake over ‘relieved’, even if it wasn’t as public, and his reaction was equally violent as hers was when she left the briefing, although in the moment more frightening, because of the memories of his PTSD symptoms.
There was a lot of Josh/Donna – both being so exhilarated after Bartlet’s press conference, but sublimating in work; playing the couple arriving at the hotel and Donna resigning herself to a life of getting the bags even though he’s physically stronger; the bickering over the food that he should have seen coming and him just having to take it. I even found the latter charming, although my general attitude is that women should own their appetites and I don’t like how much media portrays this gubbins as a feminine trait. The Gilmore Girls aside.
But we’d had Josh clearly questioning the wisdom of his desire to leak the press release, because he asked two people, and both Joey and Sam told him to hold it. But he didn’t listen – Joey also identified why, but it took Bruno, seeing the act in the electioneering context, which Josh had TOTALLY blanked on, to reveal the extent of the error of his ways. So, political operative!Josh admitting to Donna that he’d helped make the re-election bid theyboth had been so exhilarated about more difficult (or challenging, if you will) was great, because of all the Josh/Donna.
And it obviously stayed with him, as he then recognised, with him referencing tobacco when he meant the FDA thing. I didn’t dislike that Freudian slip as much as the podcast did, although I loved their runthrough of the way that plotline had developed as it crossed seasons. Every time Josh whined he could fix it, I was like, ‘Josh, listen to yourself’. Fortunately Leo got him to listen to him.
And of course, we’d had the conversation between Bartlet and Leo in Part 1 recognising that the subpoenas would be landing as soon as he made an announcement (or repeated it) of his bid for re-election. Oh Toby, crossing out the posters: is that what a communication director should do?
Bartlet’s great confidence throughout that he would win again was striking. After he talked to CJ, it became clear that it was confidence in his team even if that had seemed in question because these new people had been brought in. Plus, I suppose it carried over from his epiphany in the Oval Office at the end of seaon 2, although I accept the podcast’s observation that Bartlet still hadn’t processed his wrongness.
There remained niggles about the state of him and Abbey – she had every right to be spitting fire, but here again, things developed in a more complex way. It seemed clear that they hadn’t been talking properly a lot, so had she even been allowed to discuss the legal isues she was going to face with her husband, let alone everything else? Although indeed, as Leo and Toby admitted, they weren’t the ideal choices as marital advisers, and as Charlie commented, it’s not an ordinary marriage, given the givens. Her saying she was thinking of voting for him admitted as much.
Margaret scolding Leo for making appointments off his own bat was the preciousest, although Bruno trying to negotiate with the President (‘oh give him 12.5’, I yelled though I’m no professor of economics) and failing to get all he wanted because Leo is Bartlet’s guy (and unfettered access to POTUS, Bruno, REALLY? All that Bartlet had to do over Haiti showed plainly that that wasn’t ever going to happen.)
So, A LOT happened, and that complexity was great, both thoughtprovoking and engaging, and, as ever, giving up more the more I think about it.
The start of the third season felt like long past time to try to get The West Wing icons.
3.1 and 2 Manchester (Parts 1 and 2)
While I like that we got most of the last scene of season 2 and a little extra – the superfluous ‘Yeah’ because we’d known what Bartlet had decided – and continued to pick up right where we left off, because I was watching after a fortnight not months of a break, certainly in the first part, the jumps to four weeks later didn’t quite work for me, although the links between timelines were as slick as in ‘In The Shadow of Two Gunmen’. At the end of Part 1, I muttered, ‘Wow, that was dense’ (and the podcast admitted as much, encouraging us to rewatch it to pick upmore, advice that I didn’t follow, as I’d watched both eps as a double.) I was more receptive to the future timeline by the second part, possibly because enough had been learned about that future to make me care whether there would be pay-off i.e. reconciliations between Bartlet and staff, Bartlet and CJ and Jed and Abbey. (And, again, the podcast pointed out that there were continual bumps and obstacles in part 1, indeed, that the whole reason they were in Manchester was because they hadn’t been able to capitalise on the rush of the announcement. I was relieved that Hrishi preferred Part 2 too, because we got more resolution.)
I was delighted to rediscover that Stockard Channing was in the credits now (I don’t remember if this was regularly the case in season 3, but obviously, there was a storyline for Abbey, and I’d always felt, once we met her, that she was such a vibrant presence that I missed her, back when the First Lady’s absence wasn’t seen as a signal for the state of the Bartlets’ marriage. I was also pleased to rediscover new-old faces, particularly the start of Bruno/Mararet, er Bruno, and a young Connie Britton.
Our regulars were still under pressure, with Bartlet’s MS disclosure and decision to run again CHANGING EVERYTHING, while the Haiti situation was ongoing. Their handling of that led to this speech four weeks later and the irritating invasion of Bruno’s people (this was mainly Doug, because even when he was right about the arrogance etc, he was irritating.)
I am worried about Charlie! Where’s he going to get $100,000 from? As Babbish laid out, he probably doesn’t have perfect recall and there are clear pressure points even if he tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth as urged by Bartlet. And yet he seemed relaxed as he made $20 in a pool game. Heh, I knew Toby was going to get hustled there.
Obviously, we were meant to be worried about CJ – something clearly wasn’t right with her in Manchester, and then they did a great job in showing the barrage that she was under from the press before she slipped. And I think the podcast was right, that had started in the repeated opening. ‘Relieved!’ as they all repeated, although I liked the sense that the boys (especially Sam) spoke up for her. She did look tired and she was hurting (and we knew she was carrying the weight of having witnessed the injection.) Plus she was having to deal with Abbey, although she did find a way offscreen to get her to introduce the President. Which was probably CJ trying to help the marriage via legitimate professional concerns too.
The line about Bartlet seeing her as a daughter from, what, season 1, rang out for me in his scene with CJ. Her raising her voice at him for lecturing her was great, letting loose the anger Bruno’s team had identified (see also Sam’s repeated raising of the fact that Bartlet hadn’t apologised to the public i.e. them). Bartle eventually acknowledged it and gave them their apology.
I loved the insight that Bartlet hadn’t run seriously at first. I don’t know how much of that is Bartlet lying to himself then and now, because if he recognised Hoynes needed to be ‘kept honest’, he must have recognised Hoynes wasn’t up to it, and we know Bartlet’s ego would rightly make Bartlet believe that he was, but as we now know the MS and pressure from Abbey were part of the mix of motives and thoughts back then. But revealing that the staff – and never forget it all started with Leo’s vision – believed Bartlet was the real deal and helped make it happen. aww.
But yeah, Sam got to give voice to the fact that some of them (him, CJ and even Josh) had known for a shorter length of time. And the podcast raised how frustrated the team were that MS had changed the re-election campaign they’d hoped to wage, but had to be pushed into admitting it.
Josh’s mistake over tobacco echoed CJ’s mistake over ‘relieved’, even if it wasn’t as public, and his reaction was equally violent as hers was when she left the briefing, although in the moment more frightening, because of the memories of his PTSD symptoms.
There was a lot of Josh/Donna – both being so exhilarated after Bartlet’s press conference, but sublimating in work; playing the couple arriving at the hotel and Donna resigning herself to a life of getting the bags even though he’s physically stronger; the bickering over the food that he should have seen coming and him just having to take it. I even found the latter charming, although my general attitude is that women should own their appetites and I don’t like how much media portrays this gubbins as a feminine trait. The Gilmore Girls aside.
But we’d had Josh clearly questioning the wisdom of his desire to leak the press release, because he asked two people, and both Joey and Sam told him to hold it. But he didn’t listen – Joey also identified why, but it took Bruno, seeing the act in the electioneering context, which Josh had TOTALLY blanked on, to reveal the extent of the error of his ways. So, political operative!Josh admitting to Donna that he’d helped make the re-election bid theyboth had been so exhilarated about more difficult (or challenging, if you will) was great, because of all the Josh/Donna.
And it obviously stayed with him, as he then recognised, with him referencing tobacco when he meant the FDA thing. I didn’t dislike that Freudian slip as much as the podcast did, although I loved their runthrough of the way that plotline had developed as it crossed seasons. Every time Josh whined he could fix it, I was like, ‘Josh, listen to yourself’. Fortunately Leo got him to listen to him.
And of course, we’d had the conversation between Bartlet and Leo in Part 1 recognising that the subpoenas would be landing as soon as he made an announcement (or repeated it) of his bid for re-election. Oh Toby, crossing out the posters: is that what a communication director should do?
Bartlet’s great confidence throughout that he would win again was striking. After he talked to CJ, it became clear that it was confidence in his team even if that had seemed in question because these new people had been brought in. Plus, I suppose it carried over from his epiphany in the Oval Office at the end of seaon 2, although I accept the podcast’s observation that Bartlet still hadn’t processed his wrongness.
There remained niggles about the state of him and Abbey – she had every right to be spitting fire, but here again, things developed in a more complex way. It seemed clear that they hadn’t been talking properly a lot, so had she even been allowed to discuss the legal isues she was going to face with her husband, let alone everything else? Although indeed, as Leo and Toby admitted, they weren’t the ideal choices as marital advisers, and as Charlie commented, it’s not an ordinary marriage, given the givens. Her saying she was thinking of voting for him admitted as much.
Margaret scolding Leo for making appointments off his own bat was the preciousest, although Bruno trying to negotiate with the President (‘oh give him 12.5’, I yelled though I’m no professor of economics) and failing to get all he wanted because Leo is Bartlet’s guy (and unfettered access to POTUS, Bruno, REALLY? All that Bartlet had to do over Haiti showed plainly that that wasn’t ever going to happen.)
So, A LOT happened, and that complexity was great, both thoughtprovoking and engaging, and, as ever, giving up more the more I think about it.
no subject
Date: 2021-08-15 03:34 am (UTC)On to Manchester!
These are my least fav season openers for 1-4, probably because of how dense they are and how unhappy everyone is, but they are still very good.
Abbey! S3 is a good one for her. Stockard's in the credits from this point on for any episode she appears in, I believe. The Bartlet marriage is always so fascinating to me - they're the sort of couple who clearly love each other very deeply, but often don't seem to like each other much. I suspect they were always at their best when they could be united against a common enemy, and less so once Jed became the most important person in the world and Abbey and her concerns necessarily came second. But that'll come up more again later on.
Which was probably CJ trying to help the marriage via legitimate professional concerns too.
What Jed never wants to acknowledge (or Abbey either) is that his relationships and family are a professional concern. His team needs him to be in a good, strong place mentally and emotionally, which means support from his partner, or at least not dealing with sniping from her. I wouldn't like it either, but I never had a ton of sympathy for Bartlet when he went on those rants. It's the position you chose, buddy.
I loved the insight that Bartlet hadn’t run seriously at first. I don’t know how much of that is Bartlet lying to himself then and now
I do think he honestly never expected to be a serious candidate when he started out - it's part of why he's so shocked when Leo fires everyone but Toby in the ITSOTG flashbacks. He's just "giving some speeches" so what does he need a real, national level team for? Leo was always the driving force there, cause Leo knows (as Mrs Landigham did, as Abbey does) that Jed has greatness in him, but needs someone to push him.
I am worried about Charlie! Where’s he going to get $100,000 from?
Right?? My headcanon has always been that either the Bartlets or, more likely given the ethical concerns, Leo quietly paid for Charlie's legal council. There's no possible way he could afford it on his own.
The Josh/Donna bits of the ep are indeed fantastic, and yes, Josh's breakdown and rant about how he could fix the FDA but blew tobacco are both sad and scary. Bradley Whitford did great work with that.
I even found the latter charming, although my general attitude is that women should own their appetites and I don’t like how much media portrays this gubbins as a feminine trait.
I also hate this! It's slightly better here given that we've seen Josh & Donna regularly share food & drinks previously, so it seems to be a regular thing for them - and that Sam does the same thing to Laurie back in S1! I think Sorkin just likes the "sharing/stealing food as a sign of intimacy" trope. Super annoying that it's the woman doing the stealing 95% of the time though. Dudes love to filch food too, writers!
Is that a hint of Bruno/Margaret shipping I see?? I do love his introduction, with her just asking Leo who the hell he is with full knowledge Bruno can hear everything.
no subject
Date: 2021-08-17 09:41 am (UTC)Not on the platform I've been rewatching the show on. I didn't try to look for it at the time, preferring to carry straight on. I am curious to see it for the reasons you raised, so I'll have a look elsewhere, although there's less drive as it's not part of the main continuity.
The Bartlet marriage is always so fascinating to me - they're the sort of couple who clearly love each other very deeply, but often don't seem to like each other much. I suspect they were always at their best when they could be united against a common enemy, and less so once Jed became the most important person in the world and Abbey and her concerns necessarily came second. But that'll come up more again later on.
I can see that. Abbey and her concerns being pushed into second place must have been a process, though, from when he became Governor.
his relationships and family are a professional concern. His team needs him to be in a good, strong place mentally and emotionally, which means support from his partner, or at least not dealing with sniping from her.
I hadn't quite thought of it like that, to my shame, I was concentrating more on the outside perception of the marriage and the danger of that being the story being a valid professional concern, but of course what you say is also true. And yes, while I can respect Jed's take on the privacy of his daughters and grandchildren, all this comes with the job, so it's hard to sympathise with his tetchiness here.
Leo was always the driving force there, cause Leo knows (as Mrs Landigham did, as Abbey does) that Jed has greatness in him, but needs someone to push him.
Indeed.
I like your headcanon for how Charlie could afford legal representation.
It's slightly better here given that we've seen Josh & Donna regularly share food & drinks previously, so it seems to be a regular thing for them
That's a good point. I hadn't conscously remembered it, but their history and that Sorkin likes it as shorthand for intimacy help. But yeah, Im with you n the genreal gendered trend.
Is that a hint of Bruno/Margaret shipping I see??
Er, yes, that's something that stuck with me! I suppose it comes from wanting Margaret appreciation.