![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shallownessThe West Wing
3.09 Bartlet for America
The show raises its standard for yet another Christmas episode what with the hearing and the flashbacks to the campaign, from its very beginnings to the Democrat nomination by way of Leo’s relapse, with a bit of Mike Caspar at the White House. Clark Gregg totally got Coulson based on this performance, didn’t he? Or is it fairer to say Coulson is based on Caspar (I have no idea about the comics versions of Coulson.) Even the whining about being on forced desk duty reminded me of a dozen post-Avengers fic, and not wanting the curtain call is very much agent of SHIELD!
One unfortunate phrase that rattled around in my head from this ep was Bartlet’s ‘The things we do to women’, because his urging Leo to hit on his lawyer while she was working? Not to mention Josh using the term ‘woman’ derogatorily to Caspar. STOP DOING THOSE THINGS TO WOMEN, THEN.
Ahem.
The podcast read this statement, which was in response to Abbey getting attacked in the hearing, as ‘treating women like men’, although it’s not like the States had had or has had that many male spouses of Presidents for political opponents to knock. I saw it a little more as Bartlet acknowledging what his decisions about the positions they’d be in with him not disclosing his MS cost Abbey, which is not to say that she didn’t choose to keep things quiet a lot of that time.
When first drafting this, I wondered if Toby, CJ and Sam had anything to do in the present, except for Sam failing to get that politician out of the room, so it was good that the podscast confirmed that they hadn’t. Once Gibson started questioning and showing his true, barracuda nature, it was fairly obvious that there was no way he could have been pulled out.
Cliff seemed to have quite a senior role in the hearing, compared to how he’d been introduced. I understood it for the drama, he’s an already established character and to be a guy that Donna would give the time of day to, he probably needed to have qualms when the politicians did what CJ had set them up to only in a personal attack on Leo.
I liked the echoes of the previous Christmas episode, the allusion to the ‘friend in the hole’ story was just enough to show that Josh was trying to repay his friend back. (The podcast did well to give time to Leo’s reading of Josh, which I had skipped over, I admit.) Beyond informing the main plotline of Bartlet’s health and who’d known what, and Leo’s relapse, the flashbacks were enriching again, most obviously the totemic napkin (excuse me while I have a think about how I’d use ‘serviette’ in other contexts) and letting us see some Governor Bartlet-Mrs Landingham interaction. Hoynes finding out was meaty, offering a little more enlightenment as to his and Bartlet’s poor relationship. Although it was still clear that Hoynes should have listened to Josh and that Bartlet, for all his flaws, is the better person to be President, I was more sympathetic to Hoynes after that scene.
I like Jordan. She was smart enough to know there was something Leo wasn’t telling her and perfectly within her rights to insist on the break for her to get the story from him so she could offer useful advice. I think Leo’s too old for her and the client/lawyer thing is squicky – great articulation of why asking her out like that was on the podcast - but they had fun banter, and of course she was another workaholic who didn’t relalise it was Christmas Eve eve. In an episode where Leo’s alcoholism was to the fore, one wondered whether workaholism, even if it’s understandable in such an important role, was the best idea, especially because personal loyalty was such a big part of their judgment calls here.
3.10 H. CON-173
Maybe a slightly lesser episode, but Bartlet gave me some satisfaction here, even if it took Sam dropping a metaphorical anvil in the Oval Office about not being casual with the truth to get him there. Otherwise Sam was overly concerned about the silly book, which still felt a little lightweight to me.
Of course, Josh was on the inside, but Josh was ridiculous for most of the episode – going to Toby for guidance on his love life!? I mean, Toby clearly isn’t quite the bitter old curmudgeon claimed in the silly book, but…Toby!? I know Josh was looking for an excuse to talk to Amy, which she rightly called him out on. I know the justification was the funny, but I was ‘oh, Josh.’
Actually, I found him being judgy about ballet and supportive dates who like someone enough to go with them to the ballet that they love enraging. Josh has so many issues! Hating on the ballet probably goes back to that ballerina thing from his chidhood, but there was a nasty edge to what he was saying about masculinity that I thought should have sounded klaxons in Amy’s head. BUT, there was enough vulnerability there for me to forgive him and see why Amy might. A big part of it, for me, was Josh admitting he wasn’t the smartest (referencing IQ an ep after Leo had done, Leo who seems confident in his smarts and in Josh’s, and Josh has always seemed savvy enough about the politics, give or take his blindspots, but clueless about relationships and feelins. That he admitted as much to Amy was winning.
Donna was clearly not impressed by what she suspected Josh was up to when it came to the snow. But I liked that Leo in need overshadowed everything, because from the outset, Leo’s unilateral decision not to accept the deal seemed off. It was something to discuss with Jed, and okay, while it had become clear that Bartlet hadn’t outright lied about his MS, he’d omitted to tell the truth. For all the talk of politics, it was Bartlet coming to the point where he dealt with the morality of what he’d done and was willing to be held accountable for it, especially given the opportunities we’d seen he’d had in the previous episode. I thought Josh Molina argued a fair point on the podcast about it being strange that the decision was not framed more by the re-election bid, but I was really more engaged with the moral aspect while watching the ep that I don’t care.
And rewatching in 2021, when there are all manner of books claiming all manner of things that went on in a real presidential administration not to mention the things that someone did that (parts of) another branch of government felt obliged to take them to task for….
CJ wore a lovely colour in an episode where she didn’t have much to do. Bartlet got stuck in another stand-off where all the staff had to explain politics 101 to him about the map. (It was never clear what Charlie felt he had to suck up to him for, but I felt really envious of Charlie’s gift for wandering around a flea market and finding a perfect gift like that.) I should admit that I could almost believe that Carol had hed a séance to contact Margaret’s grandmther, (sorry Carol and Margaret) and that Charlie was merely mocking Sam for thinking he’d gone to it, but a few beats laetr, I realised that the whole thing had come from that book and was nonsense. So, I had my own experience of falling for a gag as Hrishi had on the podcast.
3.09 Bartlet for America
The show raises its standard for yet another Christmas episode what with the hearing and the flashbacks to the campaign, from its very beginnings to the Democrat nomination by way of Leo’s relapse, with a bit of Mike Caspar at the White House. Clark Gregg totally got Coulson based on this performance, didn’t he? Or is it fairer to say Coulson is based on Caspar (I have no idea about the comics versions of Coulson.) Even the whining about being on forced desk duty reminded me of a dozen post-Avengers fic, and not wanting the curtain call is very much agent of SHIELD!
One unfortunate phrase that rattled around in my head from this ep was Bartlet’s ‘The things we do to women’, because his urging Leo to hit on his lawyer while she was working? Not to mention Josh using the term ‘woman’ derogatorily to Caspar. STOP DOING THOSE THINGS TO WOMEN, THEN.
Ahem.
The podcast read this statement, which was in response to Abbey getting attacked in the hearing, as ‘treating women like men’, although it’s not like the States had had or has had that many male spouses of Presidents for political opponents to knock. I saw it a little more as Bartlet acknowledging what his decisions about the positions they’d be in with him not disclosing his MS cost Abbey, which is not to say that she didn’t choose to keep things quiet a lot of that time.
When first drafting this, I wondered if Toby, CJ and Sam had anything to do in the present, except for Sam failing to get that politician out of the room, so it was good that the podscast confirmed that they hadn’t. Once Gibson started questioning and showing his true, barracuda nature, it was fairly obvious that there was no way he could have been pulled out.
Cliff seemed to have quite a senior role in the hearing, compared to how he’d been introduced. I understood it for the drama, he’s an already established character and to be a guy that Donna would give the time of day to, he probably needed to have qualms when the politicians did what CJ had set them up to only in a personal attack on Leo.
I liked the echoes of the previous Christmas episode, the allusion to the ‘friend in the hole’ story was just enough to show that Josh was trying to repay his friend back. (The podcast did well to give time to Leo’s reading of Josh, which I had skipped over, I admit.) Beyond informing the main plotline of Bartlet’s health and who’d known what, and Leo’s relapse, the flashbacks were enriching again, most obviously the totemic napkin (excuse me while I have a think about how I’d use ‘serviette’ in other contexts) and letting us see some Governor Bartlet-Mrs Landingham interaction. Hoynes finding out was meaty, offering a little more enlightenment as to his and Bartlet’s poor relationship. Although it was still clear that Hoynes should have listened to Josh and that Bartlet, for all his flaws, is the better person to be President, I was more sympathetic to Hoynes after that scene.
I like Jordan. She was smart enough to know there was something Leo wasn’t telling her and perfectly within her rights to insist on the break for her to get the story from him so she could offer useful advice. I think Leo’s too old for her and the client/lawyer thing is squicky – great articulation of why asking her out like that was on the podcast - but they had fun banter, and of course she was another workaholic who didn’t relalise it was Christmas Eve eve. In an episode where Leo’s alcoholism was to the fore, one wondered whether workaholism, even if it’s understandable in such an important role, was the best idea, especially because personal loyalty was such a big part of their judgment calls here.
3.10 H. CON-173
Maybe a slightly lesser episode, but Bartlet gave me some satisfaction here, even if it took Sam dropping a metaphorical anvil in the Oval Office about not being casual with the truth to get him there. Otherwise Sam was overly concerned about the silly book, which still felt a little lightweight to me.
Of course, Josh was on the inside, but Josh was ridiculous for most of the episode – going to Toby for guidance on his love life!? I mean, Toby clearly isn’t quite the bitter old curmudgeon claimed in the silly book, but…Toby!? I know Josh was looking for an excuse to talk to Amy, which she rightly called him out on. I know the justification was the funny, but I was ‘oh, Josh.’
Actually, I found him being judgy about ballet and supportive dates who like someone enough to go with them to the ballet that they love enraging. Josh has so many issues! Hating on the ballet probably goes back to that ballerina thing from his chidhood, but there was a nasty edge to what he was saying about masculinity that I thought should have sounded klaxons in Amy’s head. BUT, there was enough vulnerability there for me to forgive him and see why Amy might. A big part of it, for me, was Josh admitting he wasn’t the smartest (referencing IQ an ep after Leo had done, Leo who seems confident in his smarts and in Josh’s, and Josh has always seemed savvy enough about the politics, give or take his blindspots, but clueless about relationships and feelins. That he admitted as much to Amy was winning.
Donna was clearly not impressed by what she suspected Josh was up to when it came to the snow. But I liked that Leo in need overshadowed everything, because from the outset, Leo’s unilateral decision not to accept the deal seemed off. It was something to discuss with Jed, and okay, while it had become clear that Bartlet hadn’t outright lied about his MS, he’d omitted to tell the truth. For all the talk of politics, it was Bartlet coming to the point where he dealt with the morality of what he’d done and was willing to be held accountable for it, especially given the opportunities we’d seen he’d had in the previous episode. I thought Josh Molina argued a fair point on the podcast about it being strange that the decision was not framed more by the re-election bid, but I was really more engaged with the moral aspect while watching the ep that I don’t care.
And rewatching in 2021, when there are all manner of books claiming all manner of things that went on in a real presidential administration not to mention the things that someone did that (parts of) another branch of government felt obliged to take them to task for….
CJ wore a lovely colour in an episode where she didn’t have much to do. Bartlet got stuck in another stand-off where all the staff had to explain politics 101 to him about the map. (It was never clear what Charlie felt he had to suck up to him for, but I felt really envious of Charlie’s gift for wandering around a flea market and finding a perfect gift like that.) I should admit that I could almost believe that Carol had hed a séance to contact Margaret’s grandmther, (sorry Carol and Margaret) and that Charlie was merely mocking Sam for thinking he’d gone to it, but a few beats laetr, I realised that the whole thing had come from that book and was nonsense. So, I had my own experience of falling for a gag as Hrishi had on the podcast.
no subject
Date: 2021-10-09 09:42 pm (UTC)Clark Gregg totally got Coulson based on this performance, didn’t he?
The minute Coulson opened his mouth in Iron Man, I was like 'hey, I know that guy!' just based on his cadence. Caspar and Coulson definitely feel like they could be alternate versions of the same man.
STOP DOING THOSE THINGS TO WOMEN, THEN.
It's that tone deafness again, isn't it? Bartlet, for all his wonderful qualities and father-of-daughters thing, is very steeped in benign sexism. I admit to loving the "you're like a 50s screwball comedy" line, though. On a related note -
I saw it a little more as Bartlet acknowledging what his decisions about the positions they’d be in with him not disclosing his MS cost Abbey, which is not to say that she didn’t choose to keep things quiet a lot of that time.
I saw that line of his as a tacit acknowledgement of the way powerful men tend to drag the women in their lives along behind them, into and through whatever muck they get into, and then so often use them as shields and scapegoats. So I definitely agree with you over the podcast! I wonder if that's a difference in male vs female perspective.
I liked the echoes of the previous Christmas episode, the allusion to the ‘friend in the hole’ story was just enough to show that Josh was trying to repay his friend back.
Josh and Leo's interactions in this one are so good! Really tugs at the old heartstrings. Leo's reading of Josh is just...so accurate and blunt, but delivered with such wry love.
Right there with you on Hoynes - I never liked him much, but it's hard not to understand his dislike of the administration after seeing that. He had to swallow everything in that moment for the good of his party - knowing they'd never win if he went public with the admission their favored candidate had been hiding that big of a secret - and that's not something a person is just going to get over.
I think Leo’s too old for her and the client/lawyer thing is squicky – great articulation of why asking her out like that was on the podcast - but they had fun banter
John Spencer was only four years older than Joanna Gleason, actually! I think that's a massive demonstration of the way men in Hollywood (and life, really) are allowed to age, but women aren't. I always assumed they're supposed to be contemporaries in age. Regardless, yes, the client/lawyer relationship means a more personal relationship is not a good idea, you two! Come on, Leo. (The banter is fun. I see why Bartlet ships it.)
Onto H. Con-173! As you said, it can't compare to the previous one, but it's fine.
Josh was ridiculous for most of the episode – going to Toby for guidance on his love life!? I mean, Toby clearly isn’t quite the bitter old curmudgeon claimed in the silly book, but…Toby!?
RIGHT? Oh, Josh. My only justification for that is he knows that if he went to Sam or CJ, they'd give him actually practical advice ("just tell her you want to go out, dummy"), and that was very much not what he wanted to hear. So instead, Toby.
He's super gross about the ballet, though it's obviously borne of jealousy and not necessarily his honest opinion. Still awful, and another point in the "ugh, Sorkin, please stop being so weird about sexism and masculinity, please" column.
I should admit that I could almost believe that Carol had hed a séance to contact Margaret’s grandmther, (sorry Carol and Margaret)
Ha! I can absolutely see Margaret doing it, no problem. Carol...maybe. Charlie's face when Sam presents that one to him is priceless.
no subject
Date: 2021-10-10 01:43 pm (UTC)Bartlet, for all his wonderful qualities and father-of-daughters thing, is very steeped in benign sexism.
Absolutely.
I wonder if that's a difference in male vs female perspective.
Quite possibly. I'll try to keep an eye out for how Bartlet approaches what Abbey has yet to go through, also.
it's hard not to understand his dislike of the administration after seeing that. He had to swallow everything in that moment for the good of his party - knowing they'd never win if he went public with the admission their favored candidate had been hiding that big of a secret - and that's not something a person is just going to get over.
Thanks for reminding me of the context of his responsibilities to the party as well. It would have been at the forefront of his thnking at that point in time.
John Spencer was only four years older than Joanna Gleason, actually! I think that's a massive demonstration of the way men in Hollywood (and life, really) are allowed to age, but women aren't.
Ack, my bad! Although I did assume within that context of double standards around ageing.
I always assumed they're supposed to be contemporaries in age.
But also in my defence, he did seem to be prioritising his experience and power in politics over her experience and profesional standing as a lawyer.
My only justification for that is he knows that if he went to Sam or CJ, they'd give him actually practical advice ("just tell her you want to go out, dummy"), and that was very much not what he wanted to hear. So instead, Toby.
Actually, that is a pretty decent justification!
Charlie's face when Sam presents that one to him is priceless.
Ooh, can you imagine Charlie's face if Josh had gone to him instead of Toby, though?