Ask Not Why It's Gone...
...merely rejoice that it's going away.
West Wing has been un-elected by viewers after seven seasons.
I saw it perhaps half a dozen times. I found it well-written, well-acted - and determined to slather a gauzy soft-focus sheen on the mechanics of government. Martin Sheen - whose Josh Bartlett was sort of a Clinton with backbone - played the same character Aaron Sorkin wrote into the American President with Michael Douglass; a three-dimensional human...
...which was more than he gave his opposition, which with few exceptions were portrayed with the subtlety of a black-hatted villain in a turn-of-the-century melodrama; they might as well have been shown twirling the ends of their handlebar mustaches and laughing maniacally as they tied CJ to the railroad tracks (see Donald Sutherland's sneering GOP capo in Commander in Chief).
Martin Sheen smears vaseline on the lens:
Sheen said the show's most positive impact on the country was, during a cynical time, to make people realize the important job that public servants perform.
Didn't Leni Riefenstahl do a lot of that?
I digress:
Series producers have only in the past few days decided who would win the presidential campaign that has been this season's main story; it will be revealed in April. The contest pits a Democrat played by Jimmy Smits and a Republican portrayed by Alan Alda, and the show's writers have fought over who should win.
"It's been quite a brawl," said John Wells, executive producer.
Does anyone honestly think this show will pass up the opportunity to snark at the right?
Posted by Mitch at
January 23, 2006 05:45 AM
| TrackBack
Why do these shows always seem to cast the most flaming of moonbats to play the Eeeevil Republican foil? Alan Alda? Donald Sutherland, for crying out loud?
Posted by: Kermit at January 23, 2006 10:56 AMFirst to Kermit, they also had John Goodman play the Speaker who succeeded Sheen for a few episodes. he isn't a moonbat.
For Mitch-
It wouldn't surprise me at all if there was so infighting at the WW set over who should win. Until this last weeks episode, Alan Alda's character was hands down the best Presidential candidate I've ever seen in my life. He's pro choice, but short of that, I'd vote for him in a second! They actually allowed him to tell it like it is and be honest with America in the live debate. He's more dynamic and personable too
That being said, I never really thought anyone but Smits would in.
Posted by: CCK at January 23, 2006 11:59 AMI agree with CCK. No matter who won, the writers made darn sure the president would be Pro-Choice, so it's win-win for them. They can show they're 'diverse', while still not being so. Unfortunately I missed the live 'debate', but I'm sure I'll catch in on re-runs on Bravo. Being a Republican, I knew they would snark at the GOP every chance they got, but man! Did I love Goodman as the Speaker-turned-President. That's what the Dems deserved by having a Casanova as a Vice-President. "If Zoey Bartlett ends up dead, I'm gonna bomb something." (approx quote)....I thought the staff was going to implode at that one. Anyway, it would be hard to continue the show without Leo, kinda like News Radio had a hard time after Phil Hartman died.
Posted by: Lori at January 23, 2006 12:59 PMIn light of the right's caterwauling about "The West Wing" it's ironic to note that Martin Sheen purt near got an Oscar nomination for his 1983 portrayal of Greg Stillson ("The Dead Zone"), a candidate that today's GOP base would only find too ideal:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0085407/quotes
Posted by: Tim at January 23, 2006 03:50 PMTim:
Stillson acted more like Dean than a Republican.
Posted by: Davod at January 23, 2006 03:58 PMMitch, I still have the debate episode in the buffer. GREAT TV.
Flash
Posted by: Flash at January 24, 2006 10:25 AMBTW, my wife is staying home tonight, so I am taking #1 son instead. E-Mail me.