One of the TV critics - the ones who actually get paid for this - that I respect a lot is Alan Sepinwall of the Newark Star-Ledger. I remember Alan from the time when he was a regular on the rec.arts.tv newsgroup back when you didn't have to step over the racists and raging Right posters to find something interesting. Now Alan not only has his Star-Ledger columns, but also his personal blog, and he's still worth reading, and sometimes worth disagreeing with. His assessment of Sunday's West Wing episode in his personal blog and for the Star-Ledger is one of those times.
If I can briefly sum up the gist of both the articles, he takes the position that having Leo's death (necessitated by the death of John Spencer) occur at the start of the second part of "Election Night" was disrespectful to the character. In the Star-Ledger article he writes "But by having Leo's death take place on Election Day, then using it as a plot device to create tension about how it might affect voter turnout on the West Coast, Wells has done a disservice to the fans and himself." He wants us to see the initial reactions of the various characters to the news to the exclusion of other aspects of the story. Again in the Star-Ledger he writes "Aside from Josh (Bradley Whitford) and, to a lesser extent Bartlet (Martin Sheen) and C.J. (Allison Janney), none of the characters who were so close to Leo in the first six seasons get time to show much, if any, reaction to his passing. Toby and Charlie don't even appear, and several of the characters who do, learn the bad news off-screen. How do you fail to show the initial conversation between C.J. and the president? Or the reaction of Leo's long-suffering assistant, Margaret? How do you screw up something that obvious?" Worst of all, by the mid-point in the episode, Leo's death seems to have been forgotten and people are dancing and singing (I think here he's referring to the scene where the Santos election team sing "The Eyes Of Texas Are Upon You" when they learn that the candidate has won Texas). In his personal blog he adds "Would it have been so hard to wait a week, keep Leo off-screen during the election stuff (I think the audience would have accepted whatever excuse they gave for Leo not being on stage for the acceptance speech) and deal with his death more fully at a time when we could devote an entire episode to the reactions of the original characters?"
Well in truth I think maybe it would have. I have high admiration for John Spencer as an actor (I've always thought that he as much as Martin Sheen should have been nominated for Outstanding Actor In A Drama at the Emmys) and Leo McGarry as a character but I can't help but think that focussing an episode on the character's death would have been anticlimactic in that hit wouldn't provide any dramatic depth. It may well be that having Leo die while the polls are still open on the west coast is cynical ploy, but as a dramatic device it works. It does add to the tension that we feel as the election results come in. But it's more than that because it makes this episode about two people, Josh Lyman and Arnie Vinnick.
Let's look at Josh first. This election is his moment of personal triumph - he has found and groomed the man who can be the next president of the United States. If Leo's death weren't included then it would simply be one in a series of triumphs for him. By having Leo die during election night makes it a bittersweet triumph which only his constant companion, colleague and most recently lover Donna is able to fully understand. Even Annabeth Schott (Kristin Chenoweth - and will someone make sure this woman gets a job in a really high quality drama as soon as possible; forget the voice, this lady can act!) who we are led to believe has fallen in love with Leo (although I didn't see the part of the episode where it is suggested that they have something other than a work relationship) doesn't feel his death in the way that Josh does. Her scene at the hospital, where she tells Josh that Leo has died and then collapses into his arms in tears is utterly devastating but it's Josh's reaction that is more telling and apparently longer lasting. Leo is a father figure for Josh - more since his own father died eight years before on the night that President Bartlet won the Illinois primary - and he's forced to hold onto his grief while trying to manage the final stages of his victory. There's work to be done but he can't fully delay the grief to complete the job. There's that moment in Leo's hotel room where he tries to take the blame for Leo's death. He says "I talked him into this", by which he really means "If it weren't for me Leo would still be alive." It takes Donna to remind him that Leo couldn't be talked into doing anything he didn't want to do, and because it's coming from Donna he knows that it is true. Only Donna who can say this; coming from any other character present in the election war room - Lou, or Santos, or even Annabeth - it would be hollow simply because they didn't know Leo in the same way that Josh and Donna did. That's the reason why the others can sing "The Eyes Of Texas Are Upon You" - they don't have the intimate connection with Leo.
The effect of Leo's death on Arnie Vinnick is different. Leo is someone that Vinnick has had numerous dealings with over the years. They've known each other a long time, possibly even been "friendly enemies". More to the point they're contemporaries, so Leo's death could just as easily have happened to him. He can't regard it as a subject for mere strategy in the way that all of his advisors except Bruno Gianelli do. Particularly angering for him must have been the incredibly insensitive comments from Jane Braun (Melinda McGraw) about the Democrats practically wheeling Leo from his previous heart attack to the nominating convention in the hopes that he might have a couple of thousand more hours in him. By ridiculing Leo, Braun - the Conservative Bitch who was forced on Vinnick following the nuclear accident in California - points out all that is wrong about politics. Her insensitivity insults Vinnick to his core because he is in the end an honourable and compassionate man. This is his ally? The inevitable result is that he decides that he will behave in an honourable manner - he won't contest the close votes in Nevada and Oregon but will trust the decision of the voters even if it means that he loses the election.
The fact is that I'm not sure what would have been gained by making Leo's death the centre piece of an entire episode. Would the viewer have been better served by watching Leo's loyal if somewhat strange former secretary Margaret break down in tears; by seeing the shock register on C.J.'s face as she answers the actual phone call from Donna or Annabeth; by watching Toby and Will talking about their old friend; by seeing Jed and Abbey flying on Air Force One to comfort Josh and Donna? I don't think so. We need the shock of discovery but it needs to have meaning within the dramatic scheme of things and while staging the discovery of Leo's death at the end of the episode, just before Santos's acceptance speech it wouldn't have given us this intimate view of Josh or shown us once and for all the compassionate and honourable side of Vinnick. In truth I can't see this situation being dealt with in a manner that would work as drama any better than the way it has. At least not by John Wells and probably not by Aaron Sorkin (or do we choose to forget the death of Mrs. Landingham). I can't say that this is the best episode of the season, but I won't say that it is as bad a handling of the situation as Alan Sepinwall thinks it was.
I hate writing obituaries but sometimes there are people who you just have to write about. John Spencer, who died late on Friday, was one of those. He would have been 59 on Tuesday.
On TCM they sometimes have a brief segment following some of their movies called Damned Good Actors. It think that this is a description that fit John Spencer to a T. He made his television debut as a teenager on the second season of The Patty Duke Show. His character disappeared when production of the show moved from New York to Hollywood after Patty Duke turned 18 (New York Law was less restrictive with regard to the hours a juvenile actor could work than California law). He was a student at New York's Professional Children's School where some of his fellow students were Liza Minelli and Pinchas Zuckerman. Spencer worked in regional theatre and off-Broadway productions for much of the 1970s and '80s, winning an Obie for his role in the play Still Life and a Drama Desk nomination for The Day Room.
His film career began in the early 1980s with small parts, like one of the airman at the missile silo at the start of War Games, and often parts in cheap movies. In 1990 he had a major supporting role in the Harrison Ford movie Presumed Innocent which probably led to his first major break, the role of Tommy Mullaney on L.A. Law. He was perfectly cast as the gruff former prosecutor whose alcoholism had led to the end of his marriage and nearly the end of his career before he got a second chance with Mackenzie Brackman. Adding Spencer was a major - and positive - addition to the cast of L.A. Law and he was one of the outstanding figures on the show particularly after Susan Dey, Harry Hamlin and Jimmy Smits left the cast. Spencer's role on L.A. Law helped his career insofar as it got him a better class of supporting roles including parts in forget Paris, The Rock, Copland and The Negotiator although he still appeared in some pretty awful movies. In 1998 he was one of the leading characters in the short-lived NBC series Trinity, co-starring as Jill Clayburgh's husband.
It was with The West Wing that actor and character came together in one of those perfect fits that happen so rarely. Although Spencer said of Leo McGarry "He has qualities that I wish I had more of. I often say to Aaron [Sorkin], 'You're writing the man I'd like to be.' " the two men were close in a lot of ways. Like McGarry, Spencer was an alcoholic and a workaholic. In an interview for AP he said "Like Leo, I've always been a workaholic, too. Through good times and bad, acting has been my escape, my joy, my nourishment. The drug for me, even better than alcohol, was acting.'' Spencer was nominated for five Emmy Awards as Best Supporting Actor and won once in 2002. It always seemed to me to be a bit of a snub to nominate him in the Supporting Actor category as it always seemed to me that the role of Leo was very much the equal of Martin Sheen's Josiah Bartlett, and it seemed particularly strange in those years when Stockard Channing was nominated as Best Supporting Actress for doing far less. True, Bartlett was the showier part but in so many ways Spencer was the glue who held the show together, who linked Bartlett with the bulk of his staff. Indeed, if the original plan for the series had proceeded, where the President either wasn't seen or rarely seen, McGarry would have been the principal character even if Rob Lowe was getting more money per episode. Spencer brought the proper weight to the tough brilliant and occasionally troubled character of Leo. There are so many great scenes with Leo that John Spencer made live. My favourite Leo scene was one where Spencer made the words seem like his own experience. He's explaining to his lawyer - played by Joanna Gleason - that he can't have just one drink, that he can't understand people who can only have just one drink. It's a rivetting near soliloquy and one of his best performances on the show.
There is a certain irony to a couple of events on the show in light of John Spencer's death. In the sixth season episode "Birnam Wood" Leo suffered a near fatal heart attack which took him away from his job at the White House. The episode seemed to have an impact on Spencer. He stated that "I do not want to have a heart attack. Since (I shot that episode) I have taken much better care of myself. I did the thing I have been trying to do for years - I stopped smoking." Reportedly the next episode of The West Wing which was to air on January 6 was to feature Leo in a Vice-Presidential debate where the issue of health care comes up. Reportedly the character was supposed to say "By an overwhelming percentage, the first warning symptom of a heart attack is death. I'm fortunate to be here." There are no reports at the moment of how The West Wing will be handling John Spencer's death.
Spencer was an only child who was married and divorced in the 1970s. According to his publicist he is survived by "cousins, aunts, uncles, and wonderful friends." Not to mention a great many stunned fans.
I mentioned in an earlier post that this season of The West Wing has split its focus between the last days of the Bartlet presidency and the campaign to replace Bartlet. Last week's episode was a "White House" episode while tonight's episode was a "Campaign" episode. While I don't intend to describe one type of episode as better than the other, I do think that the campaign episodes tend to illustrate what viewers liked about the show initially.
At one point Aaron Sorkin apparently said that the Bartlet administration was meant to represent an idealised version of the Presidency. I even recall that he - or someone associated with the show - was more specific and said that The West Wing was meant to depict what the Clinton presidency should have been. The campaign episodes seem to be an effort to get back to this sort of view. It seems clear that in the depiction of the Santos campaigns what we're seeing is the sort of political campaign that people want (or at least say they want until they don't vote for politicians who try to run that sort of campaign).
In Wednesday's episode, Josh Lyman is desperately trying to get his candidate noticed. His problem is that he doesn't have the money to compete against the advertising dollars that the two leading candidates, former Vice President John Hoynes (who resigned his office in disgrace) and current Vice President "Bingo" Bob Russell, have. The crisis point is that the New Hampshire newspaper that is sponsoring the final debate before the primary day only wants the two leading candidates not all "seven dwarfs" (a phrase coined by Amy Gardner, Josh's ex-girlfriend, which refers to all of the Democratic candidates including Hoynes and Russell although neither of them thinks the phrase refers to them). Josh wants to do everything he can to get his man into the debates including court challenges and sending two guys in chicken suits to campaign stops of the two major candidates asking why they won't debate; in short he wants to play politics as usual. Santos doesn't want a court case, doesn't want guys in chicken suits, doesn't want debates that are merely beauty contests and opportunities for the big candidates to spout their selected sound bites, and if he loses then at least he did it his way. Meanwhile we are treated to some of the campaign ads that Russell and Hoynes are throwing at each other. Instead talking about policy they are attacking each others supposed record, trying to show who is less suitable to be president. Following the Russell campaign, which is after all being run by regular cast members Will Bailey and Donna Moss we see politics as usual, the candidate doing all of the expected things and telling - and retelling to the next audience - all the same jokes that other candidates have used over the years.
Things come to a head when Josh unveils the ad that he wants to use to resurrect the campaign; an attack ad using the chicken motif and asking why the leading candidates didn't want to debate the five candidates who are described as having no chance, including Santos. Santos refuses to approve it. After some discussion with one of his aides about the meaning of the "Presidential voice" Santos decides to go to he one TV station that they were able to buy time on and do a one minute live ad explaining exactly why he's running and promising that as long as he's in the campaign he'll never use a negative ad and will always be honest about his positions. By the time they get back to their campaign headquarters the phones are ringing off the hook with campaign contributors, the media is asking Santos all of the pertinent questions, and an alternate debate that Josh had set up as a ploy to get Hoynes and Russell to let the minor candidates into the big show (and which no one, even the minor candidates wanted to be part of) suddenly has all six of the other candidates falling over themselves to get in, even if it does use Santos's rules.
The episode has some references to a couple of real incidents. The fight over who would be invited to the debates refers to the 1980 incident where the Nashua Telegraph set up a debate between George Bush and Ronald Reagan. Bob Dole complained to the Federal Elections Commission, claiming that this constituted an illegal campaign contribution (just as Josh wanted to do in this episode) and the Commission agreed. Reagan then offered to pay for the debates himself and invited the other candidates to attend. When they arrived at the hall they found Bush, a table and two chairs, and Bush's campaign chief, James Baker, said that unless the other candidates left Bush would not debate. When the crowd started reacting to the attempts to remove the other candidates, Reagan tried to explain only to have an editor from the Telegraph tell the sound man to turn off Reagan's microphone, which led to Reagan's outburst: "I'm paying for this microphone."
The other incident relates to the title of the episode, "Freedonia". In the episode Josh tells Santos of an incident in a New Jersey Senate campaign in which a candidate was asked to comment about some incident in Freedonia and the candidate did. The next day there was nothing in the press about what the candidate had said. This probably refers to an incident in the 2000 when Canadian satirist Rick Mercer asked candidate George W. Bush to comment on an endorsement given to him by Canada's Prime Minister Poutine. Bush said that he was happy to hear about the endorsement. Of course the Prime Minister of Canada was not Mr. Poutine - "Poutine" is a popular food item popular in Quebec consisting of French Fries topped with cheese curds and gravy - but while Bush's not knowing who the Prime Minister of Canada was got lots of play in the Canadian media, it was barely acknowledged in the United States.
The whole thing is an idealised vision of reality of course. People say they want candidates who talk about the issues. They say they want candidates who don't use negative campaigning. They say that they want smart, well informed candidates. They say that they want campaigns that aren't won by the guys with the most money in their war chest. They say they want real debates not shows designed to generate sound bites that can be spun to make a candidate look good. But, look at who they vote for. The West Wing is providing an idealised vision of a campaign where people will vote for candidates who are straight shooters, who speak their minds and are partners with their handlers not products packaged by them who at the end of the election ask, as Robert Redford's character in The Candidate asked "What do we do now?"
Most long term fans of The West Wing tend to divide the history of the show into the Aaron Sorkin Era and the John Wells Era. Or as they sometimes put it "when the show was good" and "now". The story of how Wells came to take charge of The West Wing is fairly well known, but in the first season that he had full control things did not go as well as he, Warner Brothers (which produces the show) and NBC (which airs it) had hoped. The shows were finally being delivered on time and - just as important - on budget, which had been a problem in the Sorkin Era, but the shows lacked a certain spark. What they didn't have was Sorkin's biting wit and rapid-fire dialogue. The show suffered because of this in terms of ratings. and there was some expectation that this would be the final year. Instead there was a turn-around in the fortunes of the show. Ratings have gone up and not all of that can be attributed to not having American Idol in the same time slot.
The biggest change in the show this season has been a major shift in focus indicted by a decision to shift the story line ahead a year. We are now in the primary season for the election the will replace President Bartlett. At the White House people are talking about "the Bartlet Legacy" while outside the White House candidates are positioning themselves to replace Bartlet. As a result you have two sets of story lines, with the added complications in the White House storylines of the decline in the President's health. The President's Multiple Sclerosis, which had been introduced in the first season as a way to allow Bartlet to comment on daytime television shows, has reached a crisis point which restricts the amount that he is able to do. At this stage, too much work can aggravate the disease. The series has, since December, split the episodes and the cast between White House episodes and Campaign episodes.
Wednesday's show was a White House episode. As usual there is a crisis (so what else is new?). The Iranians have shot down a British passenger plane and needless to say the Brits are pissed. The problem is that the President needs his sleep and the question becomes, when do you wake the President? The answer, it seems, is far too early for Dr. First Lady and far too late for the guy who actually has the job and just about anyone else involved in the crisis. This includes the British Ambassador and his country's Prime Minister, the government's pipeline to the Iranian government (Chet, or as Leo McGarry puts it the new Phil), the media, and several of the candidates running for the Presidency. The latter is symbolized by a TV clip of Alan Alda's character criticizing the current Administration's lack of action which prompts Bartlet to say that it's easy to have a position when you don't have to deal with the realities of the situation. Caught in the middle of all the conflicting interest is Chief of Staff C.J. Cregg Eventually, of course, the crisis is resolved in a 40-something minute (plus commercials) day, although there is fall-out in the form of a First Lady who is angry at just about everyone. A "B" Plot about writing a new constitution for Belarus is handled as part comic relief, part elementary education on how democracy can be developed in a country by influencing a handful of men if they're the right men. The major comic relief concerns the visit of the new "Miss World" from Bhutan - something that Leo always looked forward to when he was Chief of Staff but which C.J. has handed off to Communications Director Toby Ziegler. She's instrumental in keeping the most persistent member of the media from pursuing the story of what he President knew and when did he know it that Bartlet's people don't want getting out.
Tonight's episode probably wasn't the best of the current batch of White House shows but it is illustrative of what Wells is trying to do with the show, and there are some rather nice scenes. There is a contrast between the President, who wants to be treated like the paralyzed but otherwise healthy Franklin Roosevelt, and his wife, who expects him to be treated like the stroke afflicted Woodrow Wilson and bothered as little as possible with the business of government. The solution lies somewhere in the middle and it's left to C.J. to find the right balance. The final scene of the episode, in which we cut from Bartlet and his wife engaged in an increasingly loud argument to C.J.'s office is tremendously effective. As the voices grow louder C.J. rises from her desk and closes the door, incredibly like a daughter closing the door so as not to hear her parents fighting. This sort of scene is the type of thing that gives long time viewers some hope for the continued life of the series. It may not be what Sorkin would have done but it is an approach that's improving as time goes on.
One of the TV critics - the ones who actually get paid for this - that I respect a lot is Alan Sepinwall of the Newark Star-Ledger. I remember Alan from the time when he was a regular on the rec.arts.tv newsgroup back when you didn't have to step over the racists and raging Right posters to find something interesting. Now Alan not only has his Star-Ledger columns, but also his personal blog, and he's still worth reading, and sometimes worth disagreeing with. His assessment of Sunday's West Wing episode in his personal blog and for the Star-Ledger is one of those times.
