- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

The Crackpots and These Women—Smallpox, WWII, and Western Exceptionalism
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:10 am
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:10 am
This is title of the 5th episode of The West Wing that I’ve started a re-watch on. It 1st aired in October of 1999. I almost started this thread a couple of days ago, but after reading the WWIII thread this morning I thought it was appropriate.
There are 2 standout scenes (well, they all are really) relative to this time. For those not familiar with the show, a tiny bit of background: The 1st scene shows 2 White House senior staffers CJ and Josh. Josh has been bothered that he was chosen to be whisked away for protection in worse case scenario of a nuclear attack on the U.S. and his friends and peers were not. In the parlance of our times, he has been deemed essential.
In the following exchange, he predicts what a present-day world war would actually look like. It seems somewhat prophetic having been written over 20 years ago. Notice the contrast of the bleakness of what he says with the beauty of Schubert’s “Ave Maria” playing in the background. I’ll make a separate post regarding the 2nd scene.
WWIII Will Look Like This
There are 2 standout scenes (well, they all are really) relative to this time. For those not familiar with the show, a tiny bit of background: The 1st scene shows 2 White House senior staffers CJ and Josh. Josh has been bothered that he was chosen to be whisked away for protection in worse case scenario of a nuclear attack on the U.S. and his friends and peers were not. In the parlance of our times, he has been deemed essential.
In the following exchange, he predicts what a present-day world war would actually look like. It seems somewhat prophetic having been written over 20 years ago. Notice the contrast of the bleakness of what he says with the beauty of Schubert’s “Ave Maria” playing in the background. I’ll make a separate post regarding the 2nd scene.
WWIII Will Look Like This
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:12 am to Hot Carl
quote:But why?
I’ll make a separate post regarding the 2nd scene.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:13 am to Hot Carl
Schubert was crazy, you know.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:21 am to Hot Carl
quote:
Notice the contrast of the bleakness of what he says with the beauty of Schubert’s “Ave Maria” playing in the background. I’ll make a separate post regarding the 2nd scene.

Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:23 am to Hot Carl
I was vaccinated for small pox before this episode aired, what the frick is he talking about?
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:31 am to Hot Carl
Movie and TV board? What the frick even is this.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:33 am to Hot Carl
That scene sucked. The West Wing sucked too. It had a very naive view of power and how it works. It's cringey as hell now.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:33 am to Hot Carl
2nd scene is the President addressing his staff at the end of the episode. It’s much more optimistic, as is the entire show. It’s idealist, and while we’ll never be able to live up to those lofty ideals in real life, I see no reason why we shouldn’t try. I’ll post 2 clips of the same scene. The 1st one is shorter and gets to the point:
Surely we can do it again
The 2nd link is the entire scene (a little under 3 minutes), and while a lot of you won’t agree with its politics, surely you can appreciate the message of the inevitable triumph of the human spirit:
...and touched the face of God
Surely we can do it again
The 2nd link is the entire scene (a little under 3 minutes), and while a lot of you won’t agree with its politics, surely you can appreciate the message of the inevitable triumph of the human spirit:
...and touched the face of God
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:45 am to red sox fan 13
quote:
Movie and TV board?
I don’t want to discuss the show, but the content of the scenes that are relevant today.
quote:
What the frick even is this.
It’s a post on a message board. Perhaps posting is not your game. I know—let’s have a spelling contest.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 10:54 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
That scene sucked. The West Wing sucked too.
While most art is certainly subjective, The West Wing sucking is objectively absurd.
quote:
It had a very naive view of power
Meh. Like I said, it’s certainly idealist, but it was very self-aware of that fact. It was never meant to be realistic, but a lofty look at what an administration, country, world could be if, as they say in an earlier episode, our better angels shouted down our demons. But alas, we are humans, flawed and destined to fail from time to time. But it shouldn’t mean we just throw our hands up and settle for the less than mediocre status quo.
quote:
It's cringey as hell now.
It’s 21 years old and has held up better than your 21-minutes-old post here.
This post was edited on 5/30/20 at 10:58 am
Posted on 5/30/20 at 11:15 am to Hot Carl
quote:
Like I said, it’s certainly idealist, but it was very self-aware of that fact. It was never meant to be realistic, but a lofty look at what an administration, country, world could be if, as they say in an earlier episode, our better angels shouted down our demons. But alas, we are humans, flawed and destined to fail from time to time. But it shouldn’t mean we just throw our hands up and settle for the less than mediocre status quo.
Christ this is cringey. You're a regular Beckett of the Bayou.
Again, this is hopelessly naive. Sorkin's politics are utterly idiotic. If the exercise was, as in your view, fantasy, then it was even more pointless. It was a particular type of neoliberal fantasy, an obsession with policy, as though that has actually ever mattered.
LINK
This scene from Yes Prime Minister is far better, from a writing point of view and in its prescience. You're acting like Sorkin was John Brunner, who was far more prescient in Stand On Zanzibar. Sorkin has his own peculiar myopia, which isn't all that interesting when he repeats it over and over again.
This is absolutely terrible. LINK
Posted on 5/30/20 at 11:49 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
crazy4lsu
Thank you for the substantive reply. I appreciate you linking the scenes and will respond later after I have time to watch.
Though our personal politics differ (mainly because I know his don’t work in the real world), I am an unapologetic sucker for Sorkin. There’s a time for all different types of art, but I can’t help but enjoy the feeling of being moved that most of his works tend to evoke in me.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 12:15 pm to Hot Carl
Good Lord, that was cringeworthy. Could that character have been any more clichéd? Tie loosened and top button undone? Check. Sleeves rolled up? Check. Earnestly selfless? Check.
The West Wing was one long paean by Sorkin to the Clinton presidency. What Leni Riefenstahl did with visual images for the Third Reich, Aaron Sorkin did for Clinton with dialogue.
The West Wing was one long paean by Sorkin to the Clinton presidency. What Leni Riefenstahl did with visual images for the Third Reich, Aaron Sorkin did for Clinton with dialogue.
Posted on 5/30/20 at 12:36 pm to Hot Carl
Just screwing with ya man. Enjoyed the scene 
Posted on 5/30/20 at 12:41 pm to SoFla Tideroller
You know a topic sucks balls when half the replies are from the OP
Posted on 5/30/20 at 12:55 pm to Hot Carl
I can't forgive Sorkin for infecting a whole generation of people with this notion of how politics "should" work, and then the disaffection that occurred as a result. The darker view of politics is always more representative. I don't find a TV show currently that doesn't induce cringe. Homeland's portrayals of ME politics are utterly retarded. The newer version of House of Cards also struck me as cartoonish, especially in comparison to the original.
There are a variety of works that do represent politics well. I think Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and 2nd GIG wonderfully imagines a complicated bureaucracy, and is not wistful about the representation. I think The Wire does a fantastic job, through writing, of representing an entire city and the complicated lives that make it up. I think films like The Battle of Algiers were both prescient (or perhaps instructive) in how modern resistance movements would operate. I think movies like The Mouse that Roared and Being There, though satirical, do wonderful jobs of presenting how "power" is expressed. I think a film like Reds is probably a precursor to much of Sorkin's stuff. There are a number of other films, books, and shows that are better representations of politics too.
I don't mean to take away something from you, as if you find joy in Sorkin's work, then by all means experience it and enjoy it. There are works that I love that were formative for me, and would be generally regarded less than favorably, though I think The West Wing was critically lauded. My personal opinion is that the maudlin veneer of the show drives it to the realm of the unreal. Contrast the show with things like The Fog of War, or reading Rumsfeld's cables during the early days of the Afghanistan war, and notice the difference. I never get the sense that there are things unknown with Sorkin's work. The sense of mystery is absent, and the appeals to wonder are too direct. Like in the above scene, setting the music to Ave Maria is too on the nose, to direct an appeal, as though the direction wants me to feel something in particular, rather than letting me feel for myself. American films since 9/11 are especially fond of this too. The mystery has been washed away, and fast cuts with short quips have taken the place of a particular type of thoughtfulness that film allows you to enjoy. Maybe this is there in Sorkin's work, but I've never been able to sit through it long enough without it annoying the living shite out of me.
I don't blame Sorkin in particular for predominant political aesthetic that is almost in every political thriller, but I do blame him for his pose to the audience, and what he is ultimately selling. I also blame him for the obvious instances of poor writing.
There are a variety of works that do represent politics well. I think Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and 2nd GIG wonderfully imagines a complicated bureaucracy, and is not wistful about the representation. I think The Wire does a fantastic job, through writing, of representing an entire city and the complicated lives that make it up. I think films like The Battle of Algiers were both prescient (or perhaps instructive) in how modern resistance movements would operate. I think movies like The Mouse that Roared and Being There, though satirical, do wonderful jobs of presenting how "power" is expressed. I think a film like Reds is probably a precursor to much of Sorkin's stuff. There are a number of other films, books, and shows that are better representations of politics too.
I don't mean to take away something from you, as if you find joy in Sorkin's work, then by all means experience it and enjoy it. There are works that I love that were formative for me, and would be generally regarded less than favorably, though I think The West Wing was critically lauded. My personal opinion is that the maudlin veneer of the show drives it to the realm of the unreal. Contrast the show with things like The Fog of War, or reading Rumsfeld's cables during the early days of the Afghanistan war, and notice the difference. I never get the sense that there are things unknown with Sorkin's work. The sense of mystery is absent, and the appeals to wonder are too direct. Like in the above scene, setting the music to Ave Maria is too on the nose, to direct an appeal, as though the direction wants me to feel something in particular, rather than letting me feel for myself. American films since 9/11 are especially fond of this too. The mystery has been washed away, and fast cuts with short quips have taken the place of a particular type of thoughtfulness that film allows you to enjoy. Maybe this is there in Sorkin's work, but I've never been able to sit through it long enough without it annoying the living shite out of me.
I don't blame Sorkin in particular for predominant political aesthetic that is almost in every political thriller, but I do blame him for his pose to the audience, and what he is ultimately selling. I also blame him for the obvious instances of poor writing.
Popular
Back to top
10











