Myreader.co.uk  
uk news, chat and community
   home   |   control panel login   |   archive   |  
 
media.tv
angel
brookside
buffy-v-slayer
cable
childrens
dawsons-creek
er
friends
hollyoaks
misc
robot-wars
sf.babylon5
sf.drwho
sf.farscape
sf.misc
sf.startrek
sf.x-files
simpsons
sky
smallville
time-team
twenty-four
us-sitcoms
west-wing
xena
  
 
date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:05:14 GMT,    group: uk.media.tv.west-wing        back       
Commander in Chief - Initial Thoughts - SPOILERS ep 1 and ep 2 (if you care)   
My name's Jonathan. I'm a wingnut.

I have NTL cable which includes abc1 so I saw Commander in Chief (first two 
episodes, shown back to back) recently.

As a fan of TWW I was looking forward to CinC - not because I was expecting 
anything as good - but because anything so obviously developed in the shadow 
of The West Wing would have to be reasonably interesting.

Oh dear, oh dear.

I'm afraid this is going to be one of those whingey posts about how X isn't 
as good as Y because ...

The basic proposition is interesting.  Female Vice President becomes 
President following death of president.  Interesting twist that (Republican) 
President chose Independent female running mate to appeal to soccer mom, so 
his death means the first Independent president, as well as the first 
female.

Let's allow suspension of disbelief on the core proposition for a moment (a 
moment that stretches credulity about as much as Jack Ryan's elevation to 
President).  So let's accept the core proposition and see how it unfolds.

There is a substantial theme about the pressures on working mums.  I'll 
return to that later.  The secondary theme in the first episode at least is 
the fact that on hearing the President is ill, all and sundry (including the 
sick president) ask her to resign in order that a true Republican can take 
over, because everyone knows she was only on the ticket for cosmetic 
reasons.  Hello! Excuse me, what about the voters? Nowhere is it even 
mentioned that she was actually voted for, it doesn't seem to come into her 
mind or others that people voted for them together.  And how would such a 
strong person (as she will no doubt turn out to be) be prepared to accept a 
role as Patsy in chief?  Her rationale for actually deciding to accept the 
Constitution and the will of the people and claim what is rightfully hers is 
pathetically single issue (not unimportant, but she does it on a whim, 
almost out of spite).  A complete obverse of Bartlett frequently having to 
subjugate individual concerns for a wider truth.

We have Bartlett realistically agonising over the difficulties of a 
civilian, liberal, president winning the credibility and support of the 
Joint Chiefs.  This President seems to win them over, to participate in a 
preposterous charade which would put soldiers' lives in extreme danger, 
within 24 hours.

The bit about the working mum bit also had potential.  Jed and Abi, as we 
know, have all sorts of issues which emerge from being highly intelligent, 
driven people, bringing up children with enormous love but not enough time. 
When Madam President Allen says "I need to clear an hour in my schedule to 
see my family this evening" she's actually very much better off than all of 
the working parents who don't have valets, chefs and others at beck and call 
to organise everything else.

The villain is right out of a pantomime  He's behind you! He's behind you! 
My goodness - he even _says_ that he's behind her!

The treatment of the husband/wife relationship between Abi and Jed is 
nuanced, complex and believable.  President Allen does something pretty 
unpleasant to her husband in episode 1 and it takes him about 4 nanoseconds 
to forgive her.  No subtle story lines over many episodes here, then.  The 
story strand which really irks is about the "first gentleman" and how he's 
expected to sit in a pink upholstered room and look after the White House 
menus.

Ok.  So it really, really, isn't the West Wing.  It's not even the same sort 
of programme as the West Wing.  The drama isn't dramatic, the comedy is 
cheap, the pathos is from some artificial sweetener.

If you're a freeveiew or terrestrial viewer wondering what you're missing, 
really don't give it another thought.

If you're a Sorkin-ista who bemoaned the crassness of S5 - you haven't seen 
anything yet - look upon this and thank heaven for what might have been.

I will probably carry on watching it, out of a sense of momentum and 
disbelief.  But I'm not going to buy it on DVD, or watch any epsiode more 
than once - not based on this initial showing.

If you really, really lower your expectations; get drunk; pay more attention 
to the huge budget than the eastenders dialogue; and watch it whilst doing 
something actually interesting, then you may be pleasantly surprised.

But I doubt it.

J
date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:05:14 GMT   author:   jonathan flowers

Google
 
Web myreader.co.uk


    COPYRIGHT 2007, YARDI TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, ALL RIGHT RESERVE  |   contact us