Well, we saw the debut of the first Aaron Sorkin-less “West Wing” last night.
Although the show no longer feels like a rat-a-tat-tat dialogue 1930’s-esque film, it’s still a good drama. The continuation of the search for the President’s daughter, the growing strain on the President’s family (including the arrival of one of his never-before-seen elder daughters), and the grudging acknowledgment amongst the staff that fill-in president Walken came across in his first news conference as “presidential” (and the devastating observation that Sheen’s Bartlett seemed “so small”) made for compelling viewing.
I’ve never understood, though, the criticism over the show being “too liberal.” The series was obviously Sorkin’s idealized Democratic White House. Yes, it didn’t bear resemblance to reality. So what? “Marcus Welby” and many other medical series portrayed idealized versions of doctors that bore no resemblance to typical overworked doctors normally encountered in our day to day lives. John McClane of the “Die Hard” films is a super-cop. Rambo is a super-soldier. But, what? We draw the line at presenting a “super-Democrat commander-in-chief”–tough minded, literate, knowledgable, confident, eloquent. That’s just too over the top for people to accept, and Sorkin is lambasted for it? Sorry. Just not seeing it.
PAD
• 
PAD said:
I’ve never understood, though, the criticism over the show being “too liberal.” The series was obviously Sorkin’s idealized Democratic White House. . . . That’s just too over the top for people to accept, and Sorkin is lambasted for it?
Is the complaint that the concept is unrealistic? From what I’ve seen the “too liberal” complaint is more a matter of not wanting to be beaten over the head with politics.
Which, considering the show is set in the Whitehouse and sold as such, strikes me as pretty silly.
Although the show no longer feels like a rat-a-tat-tat dialogue 1930’s-esque film, it’s still a good drama.
Not to mention (though I enjoyed it overall), did you notice all the strange camera angles, none moreso than the multiple gratuitous shots of the top of Leo McGarry’s head? I’m wondering if that’s a function of the new writing or directing team, too.
PAD: I’ve never understood, though, the criticism over the show being “too liberal.”
Before anything, I should probably point out that last night’s episode was only my second viewing of the show, so some might wager my opinion is uninformed.
Regardless, while I wouldn’t complain about the show being “too liberal,” that’s mainly because I am a liberal. But I can see why other folks might have a problem with it.
The President of the show is a democrat, and so likely all of his staff are democrats. Walken, the conservative replacement, is treated as a necessary evil. Despite the grudging respect Bartlett’s staff gave him towards the end of the episode, they still see him as an outsider. Part of the suspense of these episodes, it seems to me, centers around whether or not Walken will hand the reins back to Bartlett once the Zoe situation is resolved. So, in spite of everything, Walken is still viewed as an antagonist, and part of the reason he’s an antagonist is that he’s a Republican.
If the situation were switched, and I was watching a show about a bunch of conservative White House staffers who viewed their Democratic Presidential fill-in as an antagonist, I can’t honestly say I wouldn’t think the show was too conservative.
All of that aside, I think I’ll probably be watching the show regularly now. I was actually kind of annoyed because my girlfriend kept asking me to switch back and forth between “West Wing” and “Performing As.”
I have to say, watching the little bits of “Performing As” made me a little embarassed of myself. After the Aretha Franklin impersonator won instead of the Frank Sinatra impersonator, and I got mad about it, I found myself pulling my hair and moaning, “Oh my God, why do I care?”
Maybe a lot of people are confusing West Wing with Comedy Central’s That’s My Bush!.
We were pleased by the premiere (even though we missed the fourth season finale both times it aired). If they can keep up this kind of quality, maybe Sorkin won’t be as sorely missed as I feared, although there will certainly be an undefinable “something” missing without him.
It was interesting watching the senior staff feeling so out of the loop, particularly when contrasted with Bravo’s second-season rerun that introduced Ainsley Hayes (man, my wife and I miss that character…mixed emotions about Emily Procter getting the gig on CSI: Miami since it effectively precludes Ainsley showing up much, if at all), and her speech to Josh & Sam about the Bartlet White House being exclusionary towards Republicans.
While visually and emotionally stunning, something about the scene with Josh and Donna at the vigil outside the White House gates for Zoey did seem a bit more suited for Wells’ other prominent show, ER, but that’s small potatoes in the big picture.
Looking forward to the next episode.
I enjoyed the episode and thought it was particularly well directed. A lot of the often-used sets were shot in such a way that they looked to be new…also, there were some interesting things done with the lighting as well. Looking forward to the next one.
I also noticed the new camera angles, a more of a NYPD Blue type of feel. I’m not sure how I feel about it.
The music, however, at the closing of the show, I found very powerful. Did anybody recognize it?
From what I’ve seen the “too liberal” complaint is more a matter of not wanting to be beaten over the head with politics.
Actually, I think it’s the same complaint made about Peter’s work, “I don’t want to read/watch material dealing with political views I disagree with.”
To which my response is, invariably, “wah wah.”
I thought the dialogue felt a little flat, but it was a hard one to judge, given the amount of action. It will be interesting to see if John Wells falls back on his standard ER tropes (his well-worn ‘child in peril’ plot ws aired out last night — but I can’t lay that on him, since he didn’t start it).
I got tired of watching years ago because I realized I was watching the same show over and over again. Hopefully he can bring a little more origionality to WW.
I don’t have high hopes for this show without Sorkin, though.
I thought the show had lost a certain snap in its dialogue, and the attempts at Sorkin-esque patter were noble but not entirely successful. There was a sureness and a confidence to the show under Sorkin, even in the gooniest, most mushroom-fueled episodes, that wasn’t quite present this week.
I was also seriously hacked off that after a whole summer of waiting, we still don’t know what’s happened to Zoe, and that they’ll inevitably drag that question out until the closing seconds of next week’s show.
That said, Sorkin-free West Wing is still smart and well-acted and far from awful, and for every scene of Walken as a bloated, cartoonish reactionary, we got some other moment of him being entirely reasonable and intelligent.
Also, on a related note: is it me, or is the NBC promotion department overdue for massive layoffs? I’m sick of their overuse of anonymous, non-specific nouns, i.e. “… Now, a father must choose, while a country waits.”
PAD Said: Well, we saw the debut of the first Adam Sorkin-less “West Wing” last night.
-Sigh-
It’s Aaron Sorkin. Not Adam Sorkin. People need to stop assigning me credit for his work…
Yeah, yeah, I corrected that already. Not fast enough, apparently.
PAD
I find that most people who seriously believe the show is “too liberal” are the sort who can’t stand being told anything positive about the left wing.
Historically, the show has been very good at not turning the Bartlet administration into a bunch of white knights. Bartlet often loses that magnificent mind of his, Josh has been too blinded by his own anti-conservative prejudices, CJ has made some colossal blunders…and the vice versa can be applied to the right as well. Acting President Walken is a blunt object, but you can believe that he has the best interests of the country in his heart. Ainsley was smart, sassy, and very often she was right.
I’d be very curious, however, to see a skewed-conservative version of this show. I don’t have much faith that the liberals on such a show would be anything more than cartoonish bleeding hearts and whiners.
Maybe Peter, it’s because every portrayal of the White House that comes out of Hollywood has the Democrats wearing the white hat and the Republicans wearing the black one. There’s no balance. Take “the American President” for example-the Democrat President is a good man, while his foe is the Evil Republican. The same goes for the comedy “Dave” or “The Contender.” It’s always very one sided to the point where it’s become a cliche.
Maybe Peter, it’s because every portrayal of the White House that comes out of Hollywood has the Democrats wearing the white hat and the Republicans wearing the black one. There’s no balance. Take “the American President” for example-the Democrat President is a good man, while his foe is the Evil Republican.
Hardly surprising in that case, since Sorkin wrote The American President as well.
Actually, I don’t remember what party the president in “Dave” was, but either way, the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ all came from the same party – the conflict was within the president’s staff, not between the president and Congress.
Bunch: Take “the American President” for example-the Democrat President is a good man, while his foe is the Evil Republican. The same goes for the comedy “Dave” or “The Contender.”
I’ve never seen “The American President,” and it’s been too long since I’ve seen “Dave,” but as far as “The Contender” is concerned, you’re just plain wrong. The Democratic candidate for VP is said to have originally been a Republican. Christian Slater’s character, who is an absolute antagonist for most of the flick, is a democrat. And while they never name them, it is mentioned there are a number of democrats on the committee Gary Oldman’s character chairs. The democratic president, in my opinion, is not even shown in a very complimentary light. In a lot of ways, he’s just as narrow-minded and vicious as Gary Oldman’s character, the difference being that he wants be able to say he did something “big” at the end of his second term (in the movie, they keep referring to it as his “swansong”).
In fact, the very first Democrat who shows up in the movie, the male Governor who’s hoping to become VP, eventually ends up inadvertently causing a woman’s death to further his own career (I won’t get into specifics, in case anyone hasn’t seen it yet and wants to).
Republicans and Democrats are barely mentioned and aren’t the problem in Dave–the problem is power-hungry politicians of either party. The problem is the administration players trying to use Kevin Kline as a puppet president.
I have to wonder why you made the assumption that Dave was a Democrat.
It’s always very one sided to the point where it’s become a cliche.
Perhaps in other examples, but I wouldn’t count The West Wing among them. As was noted above, while no one who’s seen the show would dream of trying to deny that the central characters are Democrats…they’ve made no secret of that since the pilot episode. However, while some Republicans are indeed painted as “black hats,” so are some Democrats…and vice versa. The MS storyline and assassination that led to the season finale/premiere kidnapping of Zoey presented a story in which Bartlet was painted in a less-than-positive light. Through most of the first two seasons, VP Hoynes was an out-and-out jerk. On the flip side, Ainsley was a well-received Republican character who, as noted earlier, was often right (and, in fact, was introduced by soundly thrashing Sam around on a political talk show…or, as Josh excitedly told Toby, “Come quick! Sam’s getting his ášš kicked by a girl!”). It would seem that the only reason the character no longer appears is that the actress, Emily Procter, now plays Calleigh Ducane on CSI: Miami. Sure…the central characters are going to be right more often than not…the show’s about them.
What I’ve often wondered is, if the show survives until and beyond its eighth season, how will it go forward? Will the Democratic nominee win and keep Bartlet’s senior staff, or will the entire cast change, regardless of the winning party?
Someone else has discussed “The Contender.” As noted, “American President” was also Sorkin. As for “Dave”, let’s say–just for kicks–that the protagonist was Democrat. I don’t remember it being stated, but let’s say it. In that case, the Democrat president Dave replaced was a philandering, cold-hearted, irresponsible lawbreaker (as we realized in the film.) Hardly a sparkling depiction of a Democrat.
PAD
I think the lack of “rat-a-tat dialogue” works, for the beginning. Normally, the fast pace of the dialogue reflects the fact that staff is trying to do 10 things at once. Right now, they’re focused almost exclusively on the fate of Zooey and dealing with a Republican in charge. Once the show gets back to normal, I’d hope the dialogue returns to its former pace.
As for being “too liberal,” the show is the Democratic fantasy. President Bartlett is far more intelligent and well-spoken than the current Bush. He’s also more ethical than Clinton was. (Remember when Bartlett told Charlie that if he (Charlie) lied, for any reason, during the investigation of the MS scandal that he and Charlie would be finished? Can anyone imagine Clinton demanding honesty during his scandals?) It’s idealized, the fantasy of the (near-) perfect Democrats in power. (The closest parallel could be the cops in NYPD BLUE: They’re always ignoring Miranda, beating up suspects, bending the law — but they’re always right.) And shows can set the tone for their worlds. THE WEST WING can be clearly liberal, just as a show like SEVENTH HEAVEN can be extremely conservative.
Incidentally, I’m told that there’ll be more Republican views and characters on TWW this season. This is being done both to attract more viewers and to acknowledge what the nation faces with Bush Jr. in office.
Y’know, I’m surprised PAD hasn’t mentioned his ST:NF novel “Gods Above” that was released this week.
Nothing to do with West Wing, but…
As for “Dave”, let’s say–just for kicks–that the protagonist was Democrat. I don’t remember it being stated, but let’s say it. In that case, the Democrat president Dave replaced was a philandering, cold-hearted, irresponsible lawbreaker (as we realized in the film.) Hardly a sparkling depiction of a Democrat.
The assumption, I believe, would be that Dave himself would be a Democrat, while the guy who’s REALLY the President that Dave replaces was a Republican.
“So. ‘The West Wing’ was on last night.”
“Last night?”
“Yeah. The first without Sorkin.”
“No Sorkin?”
“Totally Sorkinless.”
“Huh. How’d that go?”
“Strange.”
“Strange?”
“Yeah. Everyone talked normal like.”
“Normal like?”
“Yeah. Like the way normal people talk and not the way Hollywood screenwriters think normal people talk.”
“Uh huh.”
“Yeah. It was like totally more normal than normal. It was Hypernormal.”
Enjoyed last nights opener of TWW. I wonder how long Zoe will be missing or if she will turn up dead. The show is not above that, they did knock off CJ’s boyfriend in a past season. She will be gone as long as it gives a bump to the ratings which were off last year. I don’t think we will find out for sure till the October sweeps.
As far as the show being too liberal goes let me ask this. Would you watch a show about a White House where they give tax breaks to rich people, call anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic, make it easier for big corporations to send jobs overseas, loosen health and safety regualtions and give a blank check for more air and water pollution? I don’t even think FOX would try that.
Another thing about “The Contender”…sorry if I’m beating a dead horse here (I REALLY loved that flick), but I wanted to point out something I forgot to mention before.
In one of the committee hearings, the antagonist in “The Contender” proudly admits that she voted to impeach Bill Clinton. I think, if nothing else, this would be the “smoking gun” as to the question of whether or not this flick was too biased.
Anyone know what Lyman’s Lemons thought of it, though? 🙂
Huh – now that I think of it, I always assumed that the President in “Dave” was a Republican. Not even sure why, come to think of it. My own internal prejudices, I assume.
As for “The West Wing,” I think we should have a pool to see which staff member resigns first (assuming Walken stays in office for more than two episodes). Me, I’ll vote for Josh – hëll, look at his scene as the Republican leadership marches into the White House.
Re: Lyman’s Lemons; The http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com reviews are usually up about 3-4 days after an episode. 🙂
Hey, I never thought there’s be anything wrong with an idealized President from either party. The trick is getting the idealized version instead of the ones that we actually get.
I started watching “West Wing” two years ago (since I was turning on the TV for “Enterprise”), so I can’t comment on earlier seasons. But I will say that my impression of the show two seasons ago was that you had to look pretty hard to find a Republican who wasn’t an ášš, while last season there seemed to be more reasonable sorts around.
I haven’t seen this season’s opener yet (visiting friends from Winnipeg were in town), but I’ll catch it soon — I hope!
Huh – now that I think of it, I always assumed that the President in “Dave” was a Republican. Not even sure why, come to think of it. My own internal prejudices, I assume.
The strongest clue that Bill Mitchell (the real President in “Dave”) is a Republican is the clip we get of Alan Simpson, then (IIRC) the Republican Senate whip, complaining about how he’s been up on the Hill trying to carry water for Mitchell but wasn’t consulted about this crazy jobs program.
A smaller hint is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s presence at a kids’ fitness event at the White House, but that’s more attributable to Schwarzenegger’s having worked with Ivan Reitman in the past than a subtle attempt to clue the audience in on Mitchell’s partisan affiliation.
thought the show had lost a certain snap in its dialogue, and the attempts at Sorkin-esque patter were noble but not entirely successful.
For what it’s worth, I read a comment from John Wells during the summer…I believe on CNN.com…stating that (to paraphrase), “…there will be less of the characters walking through the halls shooting rapid-fire back-and-forth dialogue at one another. That’s one of the things that Aaron Sorkin does very well, but not everyone does. To try to completely duplicate his style would be suicide.”
Granted, snappy dialogue is one of the show’s signatures, so there will almost have to be some, but I think, as we started to see last night, we’ll be seeing it in slightly different forms than we have to date.
Huh – now that I think of it, I always assumed that the President in “Dave” was a Republican. Not even sure why, come to think of it. My own internal prejudices, I assume.
Here’s another hint: In Dave’s address to Congress, his former chief of staff has a bunch of people over at his house to watch it on TV. One of his guests is former Nixon speechwriter, Ben Stein.
“Anyone?”
“Bueller?”
Note that Dave’s own party affiliation is never mentioned, but the conflict of the movie is a power struggle within the President’s party, not between the D’s and the R’s
Bartlet often loses that magnificent mind of his
Don’t get me wrong, I love the show and at least marginally identify with it politically, but Jed Bartlet is an obnoxious, ill-tempered crank.
He’s lovable, to be sure, but he’s hardly the perfect being a lot of people seem to make him out to be.
Here’s another hint: In Dave’s address to Congress, his former chief of staff has a bunch of people over at his house to watch it on TV. One of his guests is former Nixon speechwriter, Ben Stein.
I thought that made it obvious that Dave/President Mitchell was actually a Republican, but in all honesty there probably aren’t too many people who would identify Ben Stein as a former Nixon aide.
JLK
I’ve never had any problem with TWW being too liberal. It is clearly liberal, but it’s intelligently liberal. It’s idealistic. As PAD said, its protagonist is supposed to be SuperDemocrat, able to leap tall policy problems in a single bound. If real Democratic politicians were like Bartlett, even I would have to reassess my party affiliation. That’s part of the appeal of the show. Honestly, it would be the same program if it were an intelligently written series about a SuperRepublican administration. If it lasts to a ninth season, maybe we’ll get that. If the quality holds up I’ll be watching either way.
RE: too liberal.
As a Canadian conservative (in the US, slightly right of centre; I LIKE balanced budgets, don’t care what you do in the bedroom), I’d say the ‘too liberal’ part is the tendency to lump the Republicans together in viewpoints, plus getting the dumbest possible guy to be the Rep presidential candidate. May be a rip on Bush, but Al Gore’s no Bartlet… some idealized Republicans might be nice. That’s where I’m liking Goodman’s character.
And the ‘lumping them together’ isn’t all true; WW has had its share of sparkling Reps who are interesting to watch and hear from, and create strong arguments for right-wing viewpoints. The one rip by Ainsley on the way liberals can disempower women through Affirmative Action-type programs (I think that’s what it was) was beautiful.
Essentially, I think a *slightly* more balanced viewpoint might not be out of order, but they’re usually careful to keep things on an even keel. Some of the critics are just plain goofs.
I’m a moderate in Texas (which makes me a Conservative to most), and we’ve loved the West Wing since it first began. As far as the “too liberal” label, what I have found annoying is not the imbalance – that’s expected since the protagonists are Democrats – it’s the motivations. The Democrats are (generally) portrayed as principled servants of the people and the Republicans are (generally) portrayed as more political than principled.
I would rather see the debate on WW be an honest one – show real debate on positions. One of the best ones was the first season where Sam wrote a paper on school vouchers. It turned out he was doing opposition research and playing Devil’s Advocate, but up until it was revealed there was more principled debate happening. Unfortunately, that was seldom seen – too often Sorkin fell into the trap of the “evil Republicans”.
West Wing CAN be better. It’s a very good show, but certainly a better job of presenting BOTH sides of sticky issues could be done.
This is a rant I’ve performed before.
The critics who attack THE WEST WING on the grounds that its President is an idealized too-perfect liberal should note that President Bartlett —
— was by the show’s own admission paralyzed by indecision for much of his first term; that he had an explosive temper that sometimes affected policy decisions (and sometimes required intervention by his chief of staff); that he carried grudges, pointlessly, against his Vice President and against a candidate for Fed Chairman; that on several occasions he was so intent on displaying his own breadth of education that he neglected to actually take action on the issue under discussion; that he hid serious health problems from the American people; that he was on several occasions downright antagonistic, for no reason, to members of the opposing party; that he broke international law by ordering the assassination of a major member of a foreign government, and by so doing seriously jeopardized American standing abroad.
Too perfect?
He’s a seriously FLAWED president.
Why do people say he’s too idealized? And why do so many viewers of the show wish he could be President for real?
Could be the fact that he’s passionate about the Constitution; that he cares about the less-fortunate, that he’s well-informed and articulate on a wide range of issues, that he stands behind his people, and that he makes many of his decisions based on his understanding of what’s right and wrong and NOT what’s profitable for his supporters.
One other point:
Connie Hirsch calls the Presidents in THE WEST WING and THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT (and arguably DAVE) fantasy Clintons.
There have been fantasy Bushes.
I think Harrison Ford’s heroic, kickass Prez in AIR FORCE ONE was one of them.
West Wing CAN be better. It’s a very good show, but certainly a better job of presenting BOTH sides of sticky issues could be done.
Why should it have to? The show has a viewpoint – I don’t see why they should have to dilute it if they don’t want to.
Given that they’ve announced that they’re going to be doing precisely that this season this is largely a moot point, but to me that’s more the show’s production team wimping out in the face of those kinds of criticisms. Even back when I strongly disagreed with the show politically, I deeply admired the conviction with which they presented their views. Now, not so much.
JLK
He’s a seriously FLAWED president.
Eh, all that stuff you said is just what I said earlier, you just didn’t use the word “crank.”
JLK
I’ve never understood, though, the criticism over the show being “too liberal.”
That’s because people tend to see things they disagree with more than the things they agree with. That is, things they disagree with stand out stronger.
My answer to folks that say things like that is “It’s only a TV show”.
The assumption, I believe, would be that Dave himself would be a Democrat, while the guy who’s REALLY the President that Dave replaces was a Republican
That’s a hëll of a lot of presumptions to make just for the purpose of taking offense.
And in the end, he winds up with Sigourney Weaver, who we presume is the same party as her late husband was.
PAD
Watched and enjoyed. I did notice that the new writers used a lot of silence and face(knowing glances/emotional close-ups)to get to the heart of the matter; and it worked for the personal drama that was engulfed in the larger drama. As we get back into the thick of the politics, I’m sure they will dabble in the hyperspeak to see if they can get a handle on it.
Is the show too liberal? It’s a DreamDem presidency, so of course they are liberal. Still, I miss Ainsly. They do need to give us some Republican adversaries with as much personality and honest, heartfelt convictions. Maybe they could get a Maitlin/Carvelle relationship going with one of the regulars and a new character.
What about Zoe? I thought that, if they kill her off, the dark shadow over the show would be too much to bear and would send it in directions that would distract from the focus of the show. Unless the actress is leaving, I think she’ll be saved. Okay, done blithering now.
I have never seen an episode of The West Wing, although I’m hoping its released on dvd one day (the provider of most of the television I watch).
That being said, it’s a shame Sorkin left. Sports Night is one of my favorite shows. It’s a shame it didn’t last longer.
That dámņ laugh track was a bigger shame.
Ok, I personally saw one episode, and it ticked me off. Not because the show was too liberal, just because I thought it wasn’t well done.
More than being too liberal or conservative I thought it was too heavy handed. This was an episode where at the end Alison Janney’s character gave this awful “hit them over the head” speach to the press about gun control.
And someone mentioned “Air Force One”(the movie) so I have to ask what people thought of “NAVY NCIS” if they saw it. There is a clever “Air Force One” connection.Basically, for those of you wondering, Mark Harmon uses his knowledge of the movie to solve the case. It had clever dialogue and Sasha Alexander isn’t exactly hard on the eyes. 🙂
Michael Norton
Well in Dave (Sorry missed TWW) I believe Dave was supposed to be much like the man he was replacing used to be. I think he was replacing a, for the lack of a better term, compassionate conservative. Its just he got too caught up in the system and it turned him, not right or left, just self centered.
I believe Sigourney Weaver made a comment in the movie that Dave was acting like her husband used to. And while I believe he was supposed to be republican in the movie (the Arnold cameo, the Stein cameo, and the constant questioning of his liberal policy decisions) I dont think it was really painting the republicans badly. Just the Antagonist, since even all the republicans abandoned his side when he was revealed to be a man of poor character.
Man, now I’ll need to watch Dave when I get home (I bought it about a year ago on DVD and I think I may have never actually watched it yet).
-Andy
I say slip in a new Sorkin. Give Arlene Sorkin a shot at writing The West Wing.
Let’s see a Harley Quinn inspired White House!
I’ve never understood, though, the criticism over the show being “too liberal.”
I don’t understand it either. It’s just entertainment; not a political platform. I never even noticed this the half-dozen times I’ve watched the show, and I’m a christian, right-wing republican (hey, don’t blame me; I was born that way).
Anyway, the true tragedy is that I spent 45 minutes watching “Friends” last night, all because I didn’t want to miss the season opener of “Scrubs”. Now I have to do it all again next week. Arrgh.
And in the end, he winds up with Sigourney Weaver, who we presume is the same party as her late husband was.
And we all know Sigourney is for guns and against (illegal) aliens, which I guess makes her a republican.
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
For the person who asked about the music at the end (ah… let’s scroll up and look… SCampa…), that was a Dead Can Dance tune. At the moment, I can’t remember which one, but it was definitely DCD.
I’m reserving judgement on the Sorkin-less West Wing for now, honestly. This storyline is a special case. It’s a crisis situation, so the characters aren’t doing what they normally would be doing. I guess there wasn’t as much of a feeling of the day to day thing, so I felt that the normal patter wasn’t going to be there anyhow. I’ll give the writing team a chance. The actors know their characters by now, which helps.
Some of the camera stuff was questionable, though. That whole sequence at the beginning with the weird blurred effect they kept doing worried me. I felt like I was being “ripped from the headlines” right there. They just have to stop shooting Leo from his forehead. He looks evil that way.