8.1/10. You have to admire the chutzpah it took to put on this episode. Going live isn’t that brave – live episodes have been ratings stunts for years, and The West Wing’s corporate cousin Saturday Night Live has put on a live show on weekly basis since 1975. But doing a live show in the context of a debate, a discussion of policy and talking points, is pretty bold. Sure, the show may attract more politically-minded viewers who could be more interested in seeing that type of presentation, but showing politics, even an act of political theater, without the razzle dazzle of Hollywood editing and lighting and cinematography and score and all the other elements, great and small, that the folks behind the scenes use to communicate their themes and help the medicine go down takes moxie, and doing it without a net on live television takes even more.
The results weren’t flawless, but they were interesting. Some of the live elements were a little shaky. For instance, the camera knew to cut to Vinick for footage of him interrupting before he’d actually begun speaking, and both Jimmy Smits and Forrest Sawyer had some trouble making the scripted moments feel spontaneous. That said, in many ways, the shagginess of the production helped to make the exercise feel a little more daring, even if we could see the strings.
And kudos to the West Wing’s brain trust for giving us forty-five minutes of substance. Some of that substance was still gussied up and prepackaged for easy consumption, but this could pass for a somewhat outsized and exaggerated version of a real debate, and the show deserves real credit for that. Stunts like Vinick asking to scrap the rules at the beginning of the debate or Santos going all Price Is Right with the audience when asking how much Medicare spends in administrative costs felt unrealistic or tailored for the narrative the show is going for, but for the most part, the candidates engaged with one another on real issues, whether it be healthcare or energy independence or pharmaceutical companies or jobs. The writers did a nice job of balancing parts of the candidates we’ve seen them discuss, like tax cuts or education plans, with ones we haven’t really seen them tackle, but which voters would be interested in like drilling in Anwar or the death penalty.
What I’m most curious about is how the next episode of the show treats the debate. Presumably, the next few episodes of the show had been completed long before this live episode had aired, given the usual TV production schedule, which means that John Wells & Co. presumably already had and have a narrative in mind about how the debate went and how the public responded to it. It’ll be very interesting to see how much that matches up to the live performance out there.
Because if I’m scoring at home, this was a good performance for Vinick and a solid but kind of shaky one for Santos. But maybe that plays into the narrative that had been previously established. Despite his early awkward pause (which may have been intentional given the context), Alan Alda seemed pretty relaxed and natural out there, even during some of the more obviously scripted parts. Jimmy Smits, by contrast, felt a little stiff, mannered, and overly rehearsed, even when he got some of his big lines in. That could work though, if we believe Josh and Lou’s prior sell that Vinick is a known debater and Santos is much more of a neophyte at doing this under a spotlight this bright.
What’s exciting, and another great credit to the people who produced this episode, is that I’m not really sure where the show’s going to go with “The Debate.” There’s a lot of potential narratives out there. Does Vinick somewhat dominating the time show him as a seasoned orator who could engage with the issues, or is he meant to come off like a bully who wouldn’t let Santos get fair time? (Particularly with Sawyer basically shushing him.) Does Santos’s request that Vinick join him a pledge not to go to war for foreign oil come off as the Democratic candidate taking a stand with his rival lacking the integrity to do the same, or does it play as a political stunt that gets Santos backlash? Does Vinick’s closing speech about trusting liberty over government unify the country as Bruno suggested or alienate voters on the left side of the political spectrum? Does Santos’s final statement about his heritage inspire voters to see what he’s achieved despite discrimination and implicit biases or does it come off as him playing the race card? Are we supposed to walk away from this episode buying Santos’ pitch for taking action and not just saying no, or for Vinick’s pitch for the need for maturity and experience?
I don’t know, and that’s a testament to the nigh-cinema vérité approach that The West Wing took in this episode. In truth, the only moments that really felt like they were biased, slanted, and awkward, were the ones where The West Wing was clearly commenting on the contemporary Bush administration and the political climate of the real world in ways that didn’t really match up with the one that was about to finish up eight years of a Bartlet presidency. The comments about not going to war for oil, or Santos’s big speech about reclaiming the term “liberal” felt more like the candidate arguing against the real life President and his party rather than his opponent, and it made certain chunks of the episode feel a bit strained.
That said, “The Debate” is a major accomplishment for the series, not only for doing this whole thing live, not only for packing in forty-five minutes of some real (if slightly sugared up) substance, not only for making back and forth policy debates compelling without the benefits of dramatic cuts or soaring music, but for creating an episode where the fallout is so uncertain. In real world debates, it’s often easy to walk away with both sides declaring victory and it being difficult to discern how the public writ large will respond. Being able to achieve the same thing in a fictional context, especially on a show that so often tips its hand, is a mean feat. “The Debate” is more than just a stunt; it’s an achievement.
Review by Andrew BloomVIP 9BlockedParent2016-10-08T23:05:48Z
8.1/10. You have to admire the chutzpah it took to put on this episode. Going live isn’t that brave – live episodes have been ratings stunts for years, and The West Wing’s corporate cousin Saturday Night Live has put on a live show on weekly basis since 1975. But doing a live show in the context of a debate, a discussion of policy and talking points, is pretty bold. Sure, the show may attract more politically-minded viewers who could be more interested in seeing that type of presentation, but showing politics, even an act of political theater, without the razzle dazzle of Hollywood editing and lighting and cinematography and score and all the other elements, great and small, that the folks behind the scenes use to communicate their themes and help the medicine go down takes moxie, and doing it without a net on live television takes even more.
The results weren’t flawless, but they were interesting. Some of the live elements were a little shaky. For instance, the camera knew to cut to Vinick for footage of him interrupting before he’d actually begun speaking, and both Jimmy Smits and Forrest Sawyer had some trouble making the scripted moments feel spontaneous. That said, in many ways, the shagginess of the production helped to make the exercise feel a little more daring, even if we could see the strings.
And kudos to the West Wing’s brain trust for giving us forty-five minutes of substance. Some of that substance was still gussied up and prepackaged for easy consumption, but this could pass for a somewhat outsized and exaggerated version of a real debate, and the show deserves real credit for that. Stunts like Vinick asking to scrap the rules at the beginning of the debate or Santos going all Price Is Right with the audience when asking how much Medicare spends in administrative costs felt unrealistic or tailored for the narrative the show is going for, but for the most part, the candidates engaged with one another on real issues, whether it be healthcare or energy independence or pharmaceutical companies or jobs. The writers did a nice job of balancing parts of the candidates we’ve seen them discuss, like tax cuts or education plans, with ones we haven’t really seen them tackle, but which voters would be interested in like drilling in Anwar or the death penalty.
What I’m most curious about is how the next episode of the show treats the debate. Presumably, the next few episodes of the show had been completed long before this live episode had aired, given the usual TV production schedule, which means that John Wells & Co. presumably already had and have a narrative in mind about how the debate went and how the public responded to it. It’ll be very interesting to see how much that matches up to the live performance out there.
Because if I’m scoring at home, this was a good performance for Vinick and a solid but kind of shaky one for Santos. But maybe that plays into the narrative that had been previously established. Despite his early awkward pause (which may have been intentional given the context), Alan Alda seemed pretty relaxed and natural out there, even during some of the more obviously scripted parts. Jimmy Smits, by contrast, felt a little stiff, mannered, and overly rehearsed, even when he got some of his big lines in. That could work though, if we believe Josh and Lou’s prior sell that Vinick is a known debater and Santos is much more of a neophyte at doing this under a spotlight this bright.
What’s exciting, and another great credit to the people who produced this episode, is that I’m not really sure where the show’s going to go with “The Debate.” There’s a lot of potential narratives out there. Does Vinick somewhat dominating the time show him as a seasoned orator who could engage with the issues, or is he meant to come off like a bully who wouldn’t let Santos get fair time? (Particularly with Sawyer basically shushing him.) Does Santos’s request that Vinick join him a pledge not to go to war for foreign oil come off as the Democratic candidate taking a stand with his rival lacking the integrity to do the same, or does it play as a political stunt that gets Santos backlash? Does Vinick’s closing speech about trusting liberty over government unify the country as Bruno suggested or alienate voters on the left side of the political spectrum? Does Santos’s final statement about his heritage inspire voters to see what he’s achieved despite discrimination and implicit biases or does it come off as him playing the race card? Are we supposed to walk away from this episode buying Santos’ pitch for taking action and not just saying no, or for Vinick’s pitch for the need for maturity and experience?
I don’t know, and that’s a testament to the nigh-cinema vérité approach that The West Wing took in this episode. In truth, the only moments that really felt like they were biased, slanted, and awkward, were the ones where The West Wing was clearly commenting on the contemporary Bush administration and the political climate of the real world in ways that didn’t really match up with the one that was about to finish up eight years of a Bartlet presidency. The comments about not going to war for oil, or Santos’s big speech about reclaiming the term “liberal” felt more like the candidate arguing against the real life President and his party rather than his opponent, and it made certain chunks of the episode feel a bit strained.
That said, “The Debate” is a major accomplishment for the series, not only for doing this whole thing live, not only for packing in forty-five minutes of some real (if slightly sugared up) substance, not only for making back and forth policy debates compelling without the benefits of dramatic cuts or soaring music, but for creating an episode where the fallout is so uncertain. In real world debates, it’s often easy to walk away with both sides declaring victory and it being difficult to discern how the public writ large will respond. Being able to achieve the same thing in a fictional context, especially on a show that so often tips its hand, is a mean feat. “The Debate” is more than just a stunt; it’s an achievement.