shallowness (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
shallowness) wrote2023-08-15 09:55 am
shallowness) wrote2023-08-15 09:55 am
Entry tags:
TWW: Guest stars and changes of style
5.17 The Supremes
As I watched this, what was actually going on in Israel as the executive started to limit the judiciary (I checked and Nehatyanu wasn’t in charge when this episode aired) was present in my mind. (The podcast was being made at the same time as Kavanaugh’s hearings, and plenty has happened in the US since then…)
Maybe I half-remembered this episode, because it seemed obvious to me way before Josh had his eureka moment eating cookies with Donna as she mumbled something about cats? Cats and her mother? that Judge Glenn Close could replace Ashman, not the dead guy.
This was a very good episode, my favourite of this season so far. Judge Glenn Close was a delight, so impressively smart, showing how good the regulars are, sparring with Judge William Fitchner (who also kept up with her) and then letting the emotions brim over in the final scenes where she’d got the job, but her respect for Ashman and all her feelings about taking it on and what it meant for the future were there too. (It makes sense that extra efforts were made to light Close well. They were worth it.)
It was all so deft, with plenty of comedy (Debbie having to squirt Josh to get him to stop quarrelling with Toby outside of the Oval Office, drunk!Josh, drunk!CJ and drunk!uncle Pierce, not to mention Donna’s treatment of Intern!Ryan.) Said comedy balanced out all the serious arguments about the law and constitution, and people (Judge William Fitchner) not being who you thought they’d be. And then I learned from the podcast that the writer was embracing the farce because she was losing her mother at the same time.
I loved how Josh-Toby-CJ, but mainly the first two, interacted, with great use of Bartlet (the shouting through the door, the interviews with Judge Robert Picardo and Judge Fitchner.) And how Janney played the scene where she’d clearly been e-mailing Ben, plus the scene where she was laughing at Josh. Meanwhile, Josh’s story about the cookies may only circulate among his future in-laws.
Great use of Rina as well as the other assistants, and there was just enough to the subplot with Andi (ha, I had wondered when hearing she was going abroad what that would mean for the twins, and she got all the moral high ground for pointing out that Toby ought to have thought about that, parenting being about more than getting impressive autographs for you kids. Though, point taken about Andi lashing out about ‘cute’ assistant Rina, podcast.)
Meanwhile, his uncle was not that impressed with Ryan (why did Donna and I worry about him in the previous episode? Entitled human india rubber) and he wasn’t wrong about how to handle his uncle. I didn’t feel as strongly about how much complexity Intern!Ryan gained in this episode as Hrishi and Josh did on the podcast.
What the viewer knew more than the characters was the upbraiding Ashman had given Bartlet, which added weight to what he had to say about seeing this as a historical moment.
I had a feeling that what the judge was telling Charlie about affirmative action probably needed a much longer debate, and I certainly agree with the writer that Charlie going, ‘I need to write this down’ was too on the nose in hindsight.
5.18 Access
When the info came up that this had been funded by foundations and whatnots, I was worried and confused. ‘Uh-oh, what is this special episode, and why don’t I remember it?’ For me, the change of style to a documentary got in the way, rather. I kept noticing how the actors, especially Janney, had to adapt for the to-camera bits and thinking about whether the blocking had changed because the camera style had, and how many lines Janney had to learn, because it was so CJ centric rather than going with the flow.
But I liked getting to see the action from a different perspective, although I think the criticism that in this episode our access as viewers was more limited is valid. And okay, it was a slightly different perspective on what CJ can tell the press and public and why she is in the room and why she isn’t and how that hinders her in the pursuit of her job of getting out the administration’s message, but mostly we’ve seen that before. As we’ve seen the price of her father’s Alzheimer’s versus her professional calling. And we’ve seen CJ having to drag Bartlet to do some other Presidential duty – here meeting some kid rangers and acknowledging it’s a huge deal for them, while leaving behind a room discussing weighty matters – before. I found the podcast’s criticism of the retconning around the previous case that happened before the show’s timeline fair, and once you start thinking in depth about the timeline this is supposed to stick to – we’re in the days of the next administration now, then? – it makes the head hurt and for what? And yes, they made themselves hostages to fortune too.
I jumped on how a few clips got repeated but landed slightly differently each time, whereas when watching a real documentary, I just get irritated because you have been paying attention and retained the info, thanks. I didn’t love the ep, but I didn’t hate it as the fandom at large seems to. But, again, fair criticisms about how some of the aspects of this supposed documentary weren’t very good.
I kept being both impressed at the casting of the junior Press Office staff and thinking ‘I’ve never seen you before.’ Ditto the former press secretaries (and yes, even I was thinking of more recent real press secretaries who became the subject of skits on SNL). But, the podcast made a good point that some of these characters could or should have recurred.
I was most impressed at the detail of press clippings/footage.
As I watched this, what was actually going on in Israel as the executive started to limit the judiciary (I checked and Nehatyanu wasn’t in charge when this episode aired) was present in my mind. (The podcast was being made at the same time as Kavanaugh’s hearings, and plenty has happened in the US since then…)
Maybe I half-remembered this episode, because it seemed obvious to me way before Josh had his eureka moment eating cookies with Donna as she mumbled something about cats? Cats and her mother? that Judge Glenn Close could replace Ashman, not the dead guy.
This was a very good episode, my favourite of this season so far. Judge Glenn Close was a delight, so impressively smart, showing how good the regulars are, sparring with Judge William Fitchner (who also kept up with her) and then letting the emotions brim over in the final scenes where she’d got the job, but her respect for Ashman and all her feelings about taking it on and what it meant for the future were there too. (It makes sense that extra efforts were made to light Close well. They were worth it.)
It was all so deft, with plenty of comedy (Debbie having to squirt Josh to get him to stop quarrelling with Toby outside of the Oval Office, drunk!Josh, drunk!CJ and drunk!uncle Pierce, not to mention Donna’s treatment of Intern!Ryan.) Said comedy balanced out all the serious arguments about the law and constitution, and people (Judge William Fitchner) not being who you thought they’d be. And then I learned from the podcast that the writer was embracing the farce because she was losing her mother at the same time.
I loved how Josh-Toby-CJ, but mainly the first two, interacted, with great use of Bartlet (the shouting through the door, the interviews with Judge Robert Picardo and Judge Fitchner.) And how Janney played the scene where she’d clearly been e-mailing Ben, plus the scene where she was laughing at Josh. Meanwhile, Josh’s story about the cookies may only circulate among his future in-laws.
Great use of Rina as well as the other assistants, and there was just enough to the subplot with Andi (ha, I had wondered when hearing she was going abroad what that would mean for the twins, and she got all the moral high ground for pointing out that Toby ought to have thought about that, parenting being about more than getting impressive autographs for you kids. Though, point taken about Andi lashing out about ‘cute’ assistant Rina, podcast.)
Meanwhile, his uncle was not that impressed with Ryan (why did Donna and I worry about him in the previous episode? Entitled human india rubber) and he wasn’t wrong about how to handle his uncle. I didn’t feel as strongly about how much complexity Intern!Ryan gained in this episode as Hrishi and Josh did on the podcast.
What the viewer knew more than the characters was the upbraiding Ashman had given Bartlet, which added weight to what he had to say about seeing this as a historical moment.
I had a feeling that what the judge was telling Charlie about affirmative action probably needed a much longer debate, and I certainly agree with the writer that Charlie going, ‘I need to write this down’ was too on the nose in hindsight.
5.18 Access
When the info came up that this had been funded by foundations and whatnots, I was worried and confused. ‘Uh-oh, what is this special episode, and why don’t I remember it?’ For me, the change of style to a documentary got in the way, rather. I kept noticing how the actors, especially Janney, had to adapt for the to-camera bits and thinking about whether the blocking had changed because the camera style had, and how many lines Janney had to learn, because it was so CJ centric rather than going with the flow.
But I liked getting to see the action from a different perspective, although I think the criticism that in this episode our access as viewers was more limited is valid. And okay, it was a slightly different perspective on what CJ can tell the press and public and why she is in the room and why she isn’t and how that hinders her in the pursuit of her job of getting out the administration’s message, but mostly we’ve seen that before. As we’ve seen the price of her father’s Alzheimer’s versus her professional calling. And we’ve seen CJ having to drag Bartlet to do some other Presidential duty – here meeting some kid rangers and acknowledging it’s a huge deal for them, while leaving behind a room discussing weighty matters – before. I found the podcast’s criticism of the retconning around the previous case that happened before the show’s timeline fair, and once you start thinking in depth about the timeline this is supposed to stick to – we’re in the days of the next administration now, then? – it makes the head hurt and for what? And yes, they made themselves hostages to fortune too.
I jumped on how a few clips got repeated but landed slightly differently each time, whereas when watching a real documentary, I just get irritated because you have been paying attention and retained the info, thanks. I didn’t love the ep, but I didn’t hate it as the fandom at large seems to. But, again, fair criticisms about how some of the aspects of this supposed documentary weren’t very good.
I kept being both impressed at the casting of the junior Press Office staff and thinking ‘I’ve never seen you before.’ Ditto the former press secretaries (and yes, even I was thinking of more recent real press secretaries who became the subject of skits on SNL). But, the podcast made a good point that some of these characters could or should have recurred.
I was most impressed at the detail of press clippings/footage.