Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

Reading Live From New York gave me impetus to rewatch Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.  The show went off the air in 2007 following its first and last season.  I watched it as it aired and probably saw the DVDs via Netflix.  Now the episodes are available on Amazon Prime streaming.

Studio 60 suffered many of the same criticisms lobbed at Newsroom, as well as from unattainable expectations following West Wing's commercial and critical success*.  Critics panned the show for the same qualities they supposedly enjoyed in West Wing.  And when ratings didn't measure up to expectations (Studio 60 placed #63 in ratings that season) critics took more joy in tearing the show down for the lower than expected ratings rather than put any effort into writing about the show's content. Nevermind that it went head to head with CSI: Miami, the #11 show for the season, acted as a non sequitur to its lead, Heroes.  And despite the audience's moderate size, it was particularly affluent (think Mad Men's audience of today). 

*While Sorkin left West Wing in 2004, only a summer separated the series finale of West Wing and series premiere of Studio 60.

Premiering at a time of limbo for quality television, Studio 60 was either too early or too late for its aim.  Reality programming was pushing quality dramas out of broadcast television.  Cable had yet to pilot the high quality shows that define the current era.  The Sopranos and The Shield were on the air but we certainly didn't dedicate the time and energy to dissecting those shows the way we do today.  Had Studio 60 aired in the 90s it may have found similar support as West Wing and had it come a few years later, it may have benefited from a streamlined format with more leeway in what could be included as content. 

Containting three areas of focus for the season, Studio 60 could have done thirteen high quality episodes on two of them.*  The show opened with an assault on reality programming, name checking Network in the series' epic pilot **.  It brought to mind the "raising the level of debate" conversation found so often on West Wing, whether it was on the issues or electing the elite Bartlet or his man of the people opponent.  

* The third (i.e. weakest) area of focus would be a romantic comedy angle which seemingly came as a result from network notes

** I wonder if the pilot would have worked as a movie as well.  It is without a doubt the best pilot of Sorkin's four shows. 

The other quality storyline involved the acceptability of humor and political criticism in a post-September 11th America. Written and produced at a time when George W. Bush had just been elected to a second term on the heels of wrapping himself in the flag and calling anyone who dared lend an opinion unpatriotic, Studio 60 explored what it meant to voice unpopular opinions at tenuous times for the country, including addressing the war and the media's failure to cover and criticize it.  It also covered themes a few years ahead of the political climate like gay marriage, how the FCC chooses to spend its day, and giving everyone an unpleasant and necessary reminder that we should probably still be helping out post Katrina New Orleans. 

Studio 60 was a victim of timing and unrealistic expectations.  In hindsight, the timing makes the show more interesting since I now view it as a good depiction of the political and television climate of 2006.  And if nothing else, it's worth a watch for that.

I can't pardon a turkey!

Jed, Charlie, the Knife, Turkey Pardons and the Butterball Hotline.  Scenes like these are what made the West Wing staff family and what set the show apart.

 Happy Thanksgiving!

Tomorrow

During the federal government shutdown I re-watched episodes of West Wing, including......"Tomorrow"


You thought I was going to say "Shutdown"*


* That scene is not actually from "Shutdown" but the line is too appropriate to not use

I mentioned previously that "Tomorrow" is up there with the best recent series finales in the game due to how well it addresses the point of the series (show public service through the Bartlet administration) and gives farewells to characters we love.


The plot driving much of the final two seasons is wrapped up.  It was wrapped up episodes ago on Election Day Part I and II.  A few loose ends from the campaign and the new Congress were tied up in the subsequent episodes leaving for the finale...exactly what?

The absence of a larger storylines urgency allows the characters to reflect on their service and take the steps to the next station in life.  "Tomorrow" manages to not dawdle on newer characters, save for some Mr. & Mrs. Santos scenes (it'd e silly to completely ignore the new president we spent two years building toward) and focus on the longer tenured characters like CJ and Will and most of all Jed.  They head nod to others like Josh and Sam and we get to see cameos by Ron Butterfield and Mallory which not only do not feel forced for the sake of the finale, but woven in well with the episode's storylines. **


** I will admit there is one thing in this episode that drives me nuts.  Abigail wonders whose bright idea it was to hold an inauguration in January and Jed replies it was the Founding Fathers.  You know, Jefferson and those guys.  Except this is wrong.  Originally inauguration was held in March, partially because word traveled a lot slower in those days.  It was not until the 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933, and first being put into practice for FDR's second of eighteen inaugurals in 1937 that inauguration was held in January.  

This grates like nails on a chalkboard, or spelling Pittsburgh without the "h".  But it is not because of the factual error.  West Wing has more than it's share of incorrect, fictional or debatable facts on the show and these are often done in the interest of furthering a character, a mood, a scene or a plot.  This one is an unforced error because it does none of these things.  Jed, a student of history who can speak at length on every single national park, who stalls poker games with useless trivia, who annoys his Ford's Theater seatmates with endless Lincoln facts, would never get this wrong and it is incredibly out of character for him to do so.  Thank you for indulging me, rant over.


We know where Josh, Sam and Donna are going (to run the White House in their new, promoted, roles) so a quick acknowledgement is all we need.

Through CJ and Will and Charlie we are able to reflect on their time and service to the country.  A lot is said in a wordless scene where Will pops into the office to find his compter contents archived.  Here, West Wing manages to give a "life goes on" type ending.  Even though the characters are moving on, there is still business to be done.  Capped by a changing of the guard type scene taking place exactly at noon, the White House service staff move the Bartlet portrait down and the Santos portrait up.  It's the best since Tim Bayliss left BPD Homicide


Toby's pardon situation provides a semi-suspenseful story throughout the episode so as to include some sort of conflict, which is good considering the other storylines are wrapped up.  Appropriately, it involves Jed's internal conflict weighing his principals the office of the presidency right up until he signs it as his final act, knocking on the desk like a judge ending court.

Mallory's appearance is more than welcome due to her gift to the president, and her being the only person who could logically give it to the president.  While the show was about public service via Bartlet's presidency, the soul of it lay in the friendship between Jed and Leo.  How the oldest of friends supported each other through the toughest of times including world conflicts, addiction and disease was what made the show so endearing.  All other relationships on the show took their cues from Jed and Leo and would be viewed relative to theirs.  With John Spencer's sudden passing and the characters and the actors lost a dear friend.  The napkin lets us remember some of the finest moments in the show's run as well as our fictional mentor if there ever was one.

This fiction doesn't seem real

SPOILER - If you have not watched Homeland Season Two (2012), move along.  Move along.

I always get a kick out of when a supposedly unrealistic storyline is panned, only to have it pointed out that the basis of the story actually did happen in real life.

Jason Alexander complained to Larry David that George Costanza was behaving unrealistically in  particular situation until David told Alexander that the situation actually happened to him and he behaved in the manner written in the script.

I can remember at the end of West Wing Season Six some found it unrealistic that Matt Santos would nominate Leo, with his health problems, as his vice president.  It was pretty simple to point out Dick Cheney, who has had five heart attacks, won two elections for veep.

Though you may want to see an example actually found in the press...

An episode of Newsroom ran featuring election night 2010, where the Tea Party swept into Congress.  Will posed a question about the debt ceiling and was trashed in this review for being clairvoyant, indicative of the show being written sanctimoniously with the benefit of hindsight, even though there were similar questions at the time about whether the GOP would threaten the debt ceiling. 

Homeland Season Two strode into bizarre territory with its storylines, including international blackberry texting to warn about attacks, chasing down a terrorist with nothing but a pipe, and a car accident with Friday Night Lights Season Two-esque consequences.

One of the almost too unbelievable storylines was the Abu Nazir terror network trying to murder the veep via hacking into his pacemaker. In quite possibly the most -24- scene of the series, exactly that occurs.  It's ridiculous, but also highly entertaining and exciting and memorable, as shows often are with a lead or secondary character's death.

In this past Sunday's 60 Minutes, a piece focusing on Vice President Dick Cheney's health says "not that ridiculous..."

In 2007, when Cheney needed his implanted defibrillator replaced, Dr. Reiner ordered the manufacturer to disable the wireless feature - fearing a terrorist could assassinate the vice president by sending a signal to the device, telling it to shock his heart into cardiac arrest.

Cheney goes on to directly address his perception of the Homeland scene.

Well, I was aware of the danger, if you will, that existed but I found it credible. Because I know from the experience we had and the necessity for adjusting my own device that it was an accurate portrayal of what was possible.

Who'd have thought that?  I generally have a high level of suspending disbelief for television, especially my favorite shows.  If Breaking Bad wants to make a leap to bring the plot along, they get the benefit of the doubt.  If Homeland wants to do an absurd hit and run, I'll see where it goes. 

Truth stranger than fiction.  So I allow a lot of latitude when watching a show, rather than point out seemingly obvious flaws.  Because, after all, it is fiction.  And a hit and run may actually be a plot device used to drive a wedge between the politically chummy Brody and veep families. 

More than the realism of plot points, I'm interested in watching how carefully constructed characters react to these plot points.  The better the characters are constructed, the more lenient one can be with the plot's realism.  Frankly, I find it a lot more offensive to the brain when a character is acting out of character or a continuity error occurs than when the fictional plot doesn't seem like non-fiction.

Raw Data: First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers

These are initial observations for Newsroom episode 2-01 "First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Lawyers" written by Aaron Sorkin and Ian Reichbach, and directed by Alan Poul.  There are a few credits for these guys you may find interesting.

Reichbach has worked on numerous Sorkin projects including as a writing assistant on Studio 60 and story editor on the first season of Newsroom, as well as working on features  including Charlie Wilson's War and The Social Network.  IMDB.com also says he acted on Saved by the Bell*.  Poul's resume includes directing episodes of Rome and of Six Feet Under, and executive producing Six Feet Under and My So Called Life.

* Which I have never seen.  This fact invokes ridiculous reactions when it becomes known.

• We're treated to a new opening credits.  The theme sounds altered as well
• The title refers to a Shakespeare quote, which I believe people commonly misinterpret as being serious.  I believe it comes from a foolish character in order to demonstrate the rule of law is important and only a fool would actually get rid of lawyers.  I do not remember the play or character or even if that is correct context.
• Marcia Gay Harden was great as the general counsel for UNR on Damages, but if we are going to do lawyer speak and depositions and such in conference rooms, then we need Patti Hewes to visit.  It should not be difficult, they both are located in New York City.
• MacKenzie has some uber-competent moments during the show (so the "pajama people" will look for other stuff to complain about) splicing in sound from a reporter correcting ill-checked information that would probably open the door to a law suit, while still maintaining the piece.  
• No surprise Maggie, who is awful, fucked that up.
• Everything (Blue coat, khaki pants, yellow tie...his fucking haircut) about this prick Romney guy screams prick Romney guy and would be thought of as a stereotype if we hadn't spent twelve months watching Mittens and his supporters.  
• Maggie (who is awful) is so lame that Jim would be lame by association if he weren't lame on his own merit.
• The new producer replacing Jim, Rand McNally, or whatever, has more of an agenda and seems to be more of a climber than Jim.  As much as I don't like Jim's personality, he is uber-competent and his loyalty lies with the news, the viewers, and MacKenzie.  I get the sense Mr. McNally's loyalty is not to his constituency but to himself.  
• McNally has a similar trait to Neil where he seems like he may push a story because he wants it to be real, not because it is real.  Or because it may win him some prize.  
• I was going to say ol' Rand boy here seems more forceful than Jim, but the more I thought about it, Jim has an effective way of getting his point of view across.  It is just in a whinier, more righteous tone.
• Randle's friend, Cyrus West, or whatever, seems to also suffer from a version of climberism.  He wonders if he'll be asked back on the show.  It seems to be a no so Cy wonders to himself, if he dresses up as a woman maybe he can comeback as a whole new person, Myrus Best.
• Maybe not climber-ism where he steps on people but he is clearly a parasite of sorts.  Cy wants to feed him a story and latch onto it, riding it for more exposure.
•  Will almost takes a backseat in this episode to the other machinations of the newsroom.  He serves as an occasional narrator and tier of things together but does not exactly have a storyline
•  Nice to see Sorkin employing the vehicles that made West Wing so good, like flashbacks.  
• The structure of this episode is a lot like The Social Network, and I would not be surprised if that continued this season
•  Did they bring the funny?  These were hilarious
• Sloane using a blank paper as a prop
• "Ben Franklin.  Nailed it!"
• Will singing "Friday"

Evoking West Wing
Sam Seaborn once mentioned he billed at $500 an hour (in 1999 dollars).  This lady bills at $1,500.  Even accounting for inflation, she bills at $800 more than Sam.  Who is a genius.  So they are in some stuff here.



MacKenzie gets a fax (which I only use when I'm dealing with local government agencies like the DMV or tax office, so it is probably surprisingly appropriate here) about the protests in NYC and it reminded me of a fax from NASA that Donna is concerned about, which states a Chinese satellite is crashing into the Earth ("The Fall is Gonna Kill You").

EDIT: Now that I think about it some more, this is structured more like "Celestial Navigation" where one character is recounting an odd sequence of events.  Josh Lyman mentioned a news cycle that wouldn't end which "started either with a cabinet secretary losing her temper, a committee chairman baiting her during a hearing, the President answering a question he shouldn’t have, a dentist appointment, or me being stupid."  Will recounts some of the things that transpired to bring about their apparent Operation Tailwind-esque mistake. 


 Sometimes I try to guess what everyone's going to be angry about this week:

• "...women try things" regarding Maggie's* horrible haircut.  Thanks for giving us another reason to ridicule Maggie*, I was worried it'd have to rely on her personality again.  Also, Sorkin hates women
• "Money Skirt" regarding Sloane, which should be written at "$kirt".  Remember, this has everything to do with Sorkin hating women and this has nothing to do with the funny way his characters, Sloane (maybe the best character on the show) and Charlie, express their fondness for each other via hijinks and japes
• "Pajama people" which I assume refers to people who write or comment on the Internet from the comfort of their homes and in their sweats.  Sorkin hates the Internet!
• This will conveniently ignore Neil citing Reddit and Twitter as evidence a story is gaining traction later in the episode.  Also Sorkin writing a whole movie about Facebook
• Given the strong desire out there by many people to never be happy with anything, I don't find comments like these out of line

* Who is awful

Hill Street Blues was a Network Show - Part 2

Part I - Hill Street Blues was a Network Show

 The thing about network shows is they are simply so much more watched than cable.  While watching television is done much less often by watching television than it has in the past, and even more less often at the appointed times on channels seen by most, the best way for a lot of people to watch a single program is on the networks.

As ubiquitous as ESPN is, there is a reason Monday Night Football Ratings dropped when they moved from ABC to ESPN, and Sunday Night Football became the most watched show on television after moving to NBC.  Part of the fun of watching shows is talking about them the next day and the way we watch television now does not lend ourselves to doing that.

The last network event was the Lost series finale in 2010 was somewhat tame compared to the big ones like Seinfeld or Friends.  But still, you could not avoid running into the accompanying media coverage.  Series finales of classic shows like that always draw huge audiences and there is a reason M*A*S*H finale remains and will remain the most watched program in the United States.

The Office had a finale of similar nature.  It turned in a solid ratings boost for the finale, though by no means was a ratings boon.  In the retrospective for that very show, the actors interview about how the show began as a ratings (and critical) disaster, but it was saved by iTunes, being the number one show on that service.

The point is The Office finale was one of the rare shared viewing experiences that people can talk about, whether it be friends, co-workers or mere acquaintances.  Most conversations about television now go something like this:

Do you watch Breaking Bad?
Yes, but I just started, so don't tell me anything.

or

How far are you?
Season two.
Oh man, just wait until season three!

or

This isn't a spoiler but...[spoiler!]

With the release of House of Cards, critics began more broadly using a term for an action that had already been going on for years: binge watching.  This is something any West Wing fan who received Bravo on their cable system was already familiar with (every Monday in the mid-2000s!).

While the convenience of a la carte/on-demand viewing cannot be beat, there is something to be said for a shared viewing experience, taking a show one week at a time with a whole lot of other people at the same time.  The Internets do allow for us to read articles from and talk with a lot of people we don't know about shows currently airing, so maybe the point is moot.

More outlets for writers and actors to work on*, and more choices for viewers are indisputably a good thing.  More flexibility for viewers on when to watch whatever they want is indisputably a good thing. 

But that doesn't have to mean there are so few quality options on the networks.  And it doesn't mean that networks can't produce quality television because they can't say "god damn."

Maybe one approach is re-thinking up-fronts.  There's no doubt that would cause an up-rising among advertisers, but if they coupled it with a smarter ratings system and showed them why it would stretch their ad dollars farther, maybe some wouldn't object.  Surely there has to be a better way than rolling out a host of new shows each year with the hopes of one or two sticking, while axing the rest by October.

Keep at it ABC.

* Cable seasons, generally 13 episodes, also give actors the rest of the year to work on other stuff.  Two very popular movies from this past year were boons for actors you recognize from outstanding cable shows: Argo and Lincoln.

In Support of Newsroom - Part 1

Yosemite?!
-Will McAvoy


Newsroom premiered last year, Aaron Sorkin's return to television since leaving us with a single season of Studio 60 and spending some time writing movies.  It premiered in the same manner as Studio 60 in the form of a character ranting about the state of things.

It's difficult to avoid all the Newsroom-related hate spun toward Sorkin.  There could be two reasons for this.  One is the media is getting a harsh look at themselves and doesn't like it, and secondly, expectations are impossible to overcome.

Why though?  Newsroom is done in the exact same vein as West Wing.  It takes an important, behind the scenes setting and creates and idealized, fictional version of it.  

Generally, Newsroom catches a lot of flack for being preachy, and of course this is the first work of Sorkin's to be preachy?  Have you seen West Wing?  The show many Newsroom-haters profess to love so much?  It was on Wednesdays at 9 p.m. on NBC from 1999-2006.

West Wing was not without flaws.  It could be accused of posessing straw often set up to allow the main characters to succeed.  It also focused two seasons (post-Sorkin) on a completely self-righteous candidate (Santos) who could do no wrong. 

I imagine the same people who criticized Stephen Colbert for his Correspondent's dinner roast, or Jon Stewart and Colbert for their Rally to Restore Sanity, or Season Five of The Wire * (immediately after heaping unadulterated praise on Season Four)  are the same people criticizing Newsroom.  That's because all target the media and it's unlikely the butt of the joke is going to find it very funny.

* Even the title of articles like this one rubbed me the wrong way.  Phrases like "Our show" (which it's not, it's Simon's) lead to the sort of thinking that a personal preference is the same as a "correct" interpretation.  Also, if everyone who claimed to watch The Wire from the start had been watching it from the start it never would've been in constant cancellation danger.  Kind of like how if everyone who claimed to have ancestors on the Mayflower actually had ancestors on that ship, it would've been way over capacity and never made it out of English waters. 

Drama vs. Reality
Q: Newsroom doesn't accurately portray how a newsroom functions.
A: That's not a question.  And, well, yeah...  Life doesn't happen in scenes and people do not speak in dialogue.  You know the pithy comeback you think of hours after a conversation is over?  That is dialogue...how people would talk if they had time to write, re-write and mull over words.  If television dialogue mirrored real life dialogue, no one would watch.

Newsroom is fiction after all, not a documentary.  I did enjoy this backhanded version of the old "it's not realistic" argument, from Dan Rather which is true of most interesting television characters:

"...average newsroom people are seldom as smart or as high-minded as most of the lead characters in this fictional drama"

Additionally, the show takes a lot of guff for including dramatized reactions to real life events.  It is historical fiction.  I do not think historical fiction has to be confined to history from hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Much like West Wing employed Dee Dee Myers and Gene Sperling to add realism, Newsroom's consultant list reads like the panel guest list from HBO colleague Bill Maher's Real Time.

Impossible Expectations
Expectations are so incredibly high for showrunners who have successfully produced much loved movies or television shows.  Look at reactions to David Simon's Treme.  Wait until everyone hates Vince Gilligan's next show.  I think it follows how series finales are criticized so much, especially in cases open to interpretation like Lost or The Sopranos.  The shows are an institution unto themselves and there is no way to please everyone with an end.

That is why the showrunners should continue follow their own creative path of what makes them happy and what they are trying to create.  It may not please everyone.  But being upset at the new product from one of these guys, or at the way they choose to end a series is like being upset at a chef in a four star restaurant because they cooked food the way they like to cook it as opposed to the way you like to cook it, with extra ketchup.  It's possible for a show to both be good and not within someone's personal taste or expectations.

Bias of Objectivity - finally addressed!
With the cable news setting, Sorkin addresses one of the concerns that prevented Studio 60 from succeeding.  It tried to address big issues occasionally but with the backdrop of a sketch comedy show, the stakes were simply not high enough and the characters could not affect change on a meaningful enough level.  That is addressed in Newsroom with the Fourth Estate. 

Back to the show's inherent criticism of the media.  One of the issues it addresses is the bias of objectivity, which the show states is media's false objectivity where they pretend each story has two and only two sides to it, and that each of the two sides should be given equal weight and credence.  Sometimes there are three or four or more reasonable approaches to a story.  And sometimes, one of the arguments is so insane and unreasonable it should be stated as such, and the story should be reported more as facts from the sane side than as a reasoned argument from two sides.  For example:

It’s even more amazing to see [the media] pass along Republican outrage that Obama isn’t cutting Medicare enough, in the same matter-of-fact tone they used during the campaign to pass along Republican outrage that Obama was cutting Medicare.

This isn’t just cognitive dissonance. It’s irresponsible reporting. Mainstream media outlets don’t want to look partisan, so they ignore the BS hidden in plain sight, the hypocrisy and dishonesty that defines the modern Republican Party.

Part 2 coming soon

The West Wing in Ten Episodes - Part 2

This is the second of two posts exploring the ten most representative episodes of The West Wing.  Here are the first five episodes

"In this White House" Episode 2-04
General Douglas MacArthur once said  "Duty, honor, country.  Those three hallowed words irreverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be."

The introduction of Ainsley Hayes is a landmark for the series because it provided a consistent, competent opposition voice to the liberal Bartlet administration.  Having a recurring conservative character probably made it easier for Sorkin to write her as likeable, than as the Republican Of The Week who sometimes, especially late in the series, drifted into straw man territory.  Considering her first scene is to completely smack Sam, who we know to be brilliant, up and down the Capitol Beat show they appear on, her credentials are well established.

Leo and Jed appeal to her sense of duty and public service to work for a Democratic administration.  Characters will often do things either against their political views in the interest of another, greater good or principle such as voting against a gun bill because it's not a strict enough or abstaining from a vote because of ethical concerns about being a lame duck.  It is again a "valentine to public service."  Putting politics aside for service is never more evident than when Ainsley joins the White House. 

"The Two Bartlets" Episode 3-12
Much of Season Three and Season Four focus on the re-elect and the common theme is intellectualism versus commonality.  Sorkin takes issue with intellect painted as aloofness and the implicitl argument that it's better to be folksy and accommodating.

This episode also raises a similar issue first explicitly stated "Let Bartlet Be Bartlet" where Leo challenges the staff to "raise the level of debate" though the idea is a major theme of the entire series.  Unfortunately, Season Three took a slightly more cynical tone where the practicalities of implementing such a vision are far from easy, especially when walking a tight line to re-election.  Much of the cynical tone may be a result of the show finding footing post-September 11th.  Compare the season premiere, written and produced before September 11th, and "Two Bartlets", written and produced after September 11th.

"Manchester Par II"
BARTLET
There's a new book and we're gonna write it.  You can win if you run a smart, disciplined campaign, if you studiously say nothing - nothing that causes you trouble, nothing that's a gaff, nothing that shows you might think the wrong thing, nothing that shows you think.  But it just isn't worthy of us, is it, Toby?

TOBY
No sir.

BARTLET
It isn't worthy of us, it isn't worthy of America, it isn't worthy of a great nation.  We're gonna write a new book, right here right now.  This very moment.  Today.

versus "The Two Bartlets"

BARTLET
I don't want to campaign today.

TOBY
What happened to writing a new book?

BARTLET
We will, but we don't...man we don't have to piss people off everyday...

The show explores the dynamic via Toby and Jed's conversations and Toby's point that there are "two Bartlets", each embodying folksiness or intellect.* 

Once the censure and the MS coverup was resolved, the show shifted it's storyline to re-election which included the underlying theme of the elite versus the everyman.  Other episodes would delve further into this including Jed's tete-a-tete with Richie in "Posse Commitatus" leading to one of the most epic lines of the series** and in "20 Hours in America" as Donna, Toby and Josh flounder their way through Real America.  But there are probably few episodes that set off an exploration of the life feelings of America, and liberals' disgust towards both George W. Bush, the media coverage of him and the scorn received for having any opposing opinions,*** than this one.

* It also has a bonus of Jed taking a speech that Toby was working on for him and using it, but simultaneously making it his own...a window into how the president relies on his staff but still is his own man.

** "Crime, boy, I don't know" is when I decided to kick your ass.

*** Say what you will about George W. Bush but he was the catalyst for a lot of great television, especially from the Davids Three (Chase, Milch and Simon) and even comedies like Arrested Development.  That is the topic for a post I'm currently working on.

"Twenty Five" Episode 04-23
Sorkin departed West Wing at the end of Season Four but not without symbolically taking away the leader of the free world.  John Wells took over as showrunner starting in Season Five.  He picked up the plot where Sorkin left it, where the Bartlet administration was no longer the Bartlet administration.

When Zoe is kidnapped in a scenario he foretold in Season One, Jed recuses himself from the situation so it can be dealt with effectively and impartially.  Unfortunately, that means handing over the keys to his political enemy, the Speaker of the House. The stakes of doing so show just how much respect Jed has for the office, and that he truly believes the office is bigger than the man occupying it.

Sorkin did not leave on the best terms and the show did not find its footing again for over a season and a half.  Even then it did not live up to its hey day of Season Two, albeit still a good show.  Season Five is most similar to Season Three in that it is darker and more cynical.  The sets even seem, literally, darker, as though Warner Brothers was saving money on electricity.  Not only that, but Season Five was almost completely devoid of humor.  Instead we saw infighting by the staffers as Jed retreated far into himself.  The series also for the first time introduced recurring political opponents in Speaker Haffley and Vice President Russell.

Twenty Five represented a turning point for the series, and possibly a symbolic middle finger as Sorkin walked out the door.

"King Corn" Episode 6-13
West Wing split time between the West Wing and the campaign trail beginning mid-Season Six.  On the trail they spent time mainly with three candidates, Vinick, Russell and Santos.  Vinick was a longtime senator putting the cap on a distinguished career.  Russell was an automaton who did whatever Will told him.  Santos was difficult for Josh to control as he tried to reconcile what he would have to do to become president in order to give the country the president he thought it needed.  "King Corn" split the episode into three vignettes "A Day in the Life of...." those three candidates.  It gave a peek into the grueling schedule candidates had to keep, the provincial events they had to attend and the compromises they had to make within themselves to get where they wanted to be.  It also showed the lives of the staffers and the sad Holiday Inn hotels they slogged through the snow to get to before crashing for a few hours until they had to get up with the candidate.  Details such as staffers receiving automatic wake up calls versus candidates receiving calls from actual people helped paint the picture of the different roles people filled on the trail and the direction the final season and a half went for the series.

"Tomorrow" Episode 7-22
The most one can hope for series finales is to do the show justice, and "Tomorrow" did just that.  Expectations for finales are so high they are near impossible to meet, but I would rate "Tomorrow" up there with finales like "Made in America" and "Everyone's Waiting"*. (**EDIT)

It covered a lot of ground, tied up loose ends, resolved longtime characters' threads and moved things into motion for the new administration (and sometimes did both at the same time).  The progressions felt natural and organic and in character, rather than forced.

While I think the goal of "-30-" was to show the never-ending cycle of destitution and institutional problems that inhabit American cities, and used characters as a vehicle to display that, "Tomorrow" took the other side of it, more optimistic.

It showed the idea and ideals of America are larger than one man or one administration, even a man as great as Jed Bartlet and used the naturally occurring courses of action in the supporting characters to show the idea that the country and the office continues. 
 
The show, originally conceived with the though of never showing the president, then only visiting the president periodically, clearly was about Jed Bartlet and the Bartlet administration through and through whether it be the president himself, his staff or the ideals they embraced and that the show conveyed through those characters.  The natural, and only possible, ending point for the show is the end of the Bartlet administration at noon on January 20th.

 As his final act he pardons Toby.  Then, he raps his fist once on the desk, like a judge ending court.

And in the final scene, it reminds us that for all the social studies lessons, pontification and calls to duty the show gave us, it would not be effective in the slightest if not for the strong characters and relationships Sorkin created. 

* "Everyone's Waiting" is up there not just in great finales, but in great episodes

EDIT ** Upon reflection, it is a bit of an exaggeration to put this finale in the category with those of The Sopranos and Six Feet Under.  Probably my own bias and favoritism of West Wing creeping in on that statement.

Honorable Mentions
"And it's Surely to their Credit" & "Posse Commitatus" both examine themes of duty to public service and the Office of the Presidency but those are covered in other episodes listed.

"The Supremes"
Noteworthy as the clear high point of Season Five, which is why it's not representative

"2,162 Votes" & "Election Day"
Both are frantic episodes involving counting.  "Election Day", and I am lumping Parts 1 and 2 together, represents the pinnacle of West Wing 2.0 and the viewer has sincere motiviation to root for both sides.  "2,162" represents both the end of the primary and the launching point for the final season, putting characters into place so they can fulfill their Season Seven roles, whether as candidates, or back in the West Wing, and notable for fulfilling an allusion from all the way back in Season Four's "Commencement". 

The West Wing in Ten Episodes - Part 1

Aaron Sorkin's Newsroom is returning on HBO soon, so now is a good time as any to talk ab bit about his great work, The West Wing.

A tweet from a political scientist led me to Buzzfeed's 10 best West Wing episodes, and I found I disagreed with a lot of it.  Though, rather than do my own top 10 list (filling in early Christmas episodes and "In the Shadow of Two Gunmen" and "Two Cathedrals" doesn't leave much space), I thought I'd follow AV Club's model of:

“The 10 episodes that best represent a TV series, classic or modern. If you watch those 10, you’ll have a better idea of what that series was about, without having to watch the whole thing. These are not meant to be the 10 best episodes, but rather the 10 most representative episodes” . 

This is you would use to show what this show is about to someone who's never seen it, like an alien or a foreigner, or an alien foreigner. 

Here are 1-5, in chronological order:

1. “Five Votes Down” Episode 1-04

Bartlet opens the episode in front of a banner proclaiming “Practical Idealism” which was a theme of the entire series, or at least the first part of Jed’s administration. Sorkin wrote the show as a “valentine to public service.” Part of this was showing the toll it takes on the personal life, and that’s not better represented than when Leo’s wife leaves him. He even admits to her that his job is more important than his marriage. The sense of duty permeates the rest of the series.  Not only that but it showed motivations of different politicians Josh and Leo whip for votes seeing hold outs for reasons petty and noble. Ultimately Leo’s political foe, the vice president, offers Leo to attend his own AA meeting when he worries Leo may relapsedue to his impending divorce (oh yeah, they are both alcoholics!).  Hoynes also helps his own agenda by getting the final vote the Bartlet people need, ultimately getting all the credit.  For all their efforts the Bartlets get criticized for not going for a stronger bill and do not even get the credit for the bill they desperately worked to pass.

2. “These Crackpots and These Women” Episode 1-05

West Wing had a nerdy fascination with history.  It showed through characters like Sam and Jed and Leo, who created Big Block of Cheese Day. Each staffer took meetings with advocacy groups they normally viewed as “below them” or at least not at the level to swing a meeting at the White House.  Slowly but surely the staffers came around to care about the Plue the wolf or the injustices of the Mercator projection*. And isn’t that what government is about?**  West Wing was there to inspire confidence in government and that one person can make a difference, blah blah blah, Margaret Mead. 

Josh’s survivor’s guilt was introduced and would play a major part in his character. And at Jed's chili party he combines his roles as boss and grandfather to the staff (and country) by exercising one of the perks of the presidency by forcing everyone to come (“Look down at the seal, now back up at me”) but all with the good intention of surrounding himself with the people he loves. It gave the staff a family feel which continued throughout the show especially when one staffer would come under attack. 

* Greenland never seemed to mind.

** No.  Not really.

3. “The State Dinner” Episode 1-07

Even the president and all his men are helpless sometimes.  Believe it or not there's no magic lever for the present to autonomously control the economy, or anything else for that matter.

The staff face crises of the hostage, diplomatic, labor and nautical varieties. In the end, after steering a small ship directly into the path of a hurricane, the president and his staff sit in evening wear around a phone listening to the lowliest sailor on the lowliest ship in the fleet, staying with him until they inevitably drown. Bartlet is so frustrated and angry that he even brings it up during his Latin laced tirade with God a season and a half later (“They say we haven't had a storm this bad since you took out that Tender ship of mine in the North Atlantic last year. Sixty-eight crew. You know what a Tender ship? Fixes the other ships. It doesn't even carry guns, it just goes around, fixes the other ships and delivers the mail. That's all it can do.”)

4. "In Excelsis Deo" Episode 1-10

One of few episodes that eschews politics as the main plot. Until now, Toby’s been the “prickly mumbly Communications Director” but goes out of his way to properly honor and bury a homeless veteran who he never knew but came across by happenstance. A larger issue is at hand regarding veterans’ treatment, and this before we made a whole bunch of new veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The storyline speaks more about human decency than the politics of it, which is really how it should be viewed in the first place. 

A part often overlooked is Mrs. Landingham talking about her sons being killed in Vietnam, which no doubt contributes to why she is so dedicated to her job and duty.

The episode also features a great ‘behind the scenes’ look when Bartlet goes Christmas shopping at the bookstore…behind the scenes being another crux of the series…and possibly the first moment Josh and Donna take off when he gives her a book with a note inscribed.

5. "Take this Sabbath Day" Episode 1-14

Thoughtful and didactic without being preachy, West Wing could elevate mundane policy and everyday social studies vocabulary (the census, a filibuster, the Lend Lease Act) to be compelling television. So when it tackled the emotionally charged issue of capital punishment, it really ran with it.  The episode is rare because there is only one storyline and all the characters participate.  Each character has their own view of capital punishment born out of their background. The episode also takes pains to show Jed’s internal conflict with religion and executing the law, and the larger theme of the president being both a man and an office.

Numbers 6-10 coming soon...