« Taking 'Wing' Again | Main | ‘West Wing’ episode to feature Dayton »
November 06, 2002
Exit poll: 'West Wing' is sinking. Why?
By Alan Sepinwall
nj.com
In politics, perception is reality. In television, too, and right now the perception is that the fictional politicos on "The West Wing" are losing the hearts and minds of the viewing public.
But how real is that?
In terms of the Nielsen polls, the show has definitely slipped. This season's overall ratings are down about 20 percent -- 30 percent among the 18-to-49-year-old viewers coveted by advertisers -- from the same point last season. It's not a dramatic enough slide to warrant even thoughts of cancellation, but it's a troubling development at an age -- early in year four -- when most hits are peaking.
You can blame some of that decline on more competition in the Wednesday at 9 timeslot, particularly from ABC's comedy train wreck-cum-game show "The Bachelor," whose core young female audience is exactly the demographic that has abandoned "West Wing" this year.
But fluffy alternatives like "The Bachelor" and Fox's "Fastlane" aren't the sole source of the "West Wing" woes. The Bartlet administration and its real-life creators also have to take some blame for losing so many constituents.
The problem lies less with this season's handful of episodes than with last season, which was as bad a stretch for a presidency, real or fictional, since Nixon took his helicopter and went home.
The Very Special Episode about terrorism, which was thrown together in a week after creator Aaron Sorkin felt he had to address 9/11, came across as well-meaning but patronizing. The story of President Bartlet's multiple sclerosis cover-up dragged on and on and on, long after the interesting parallels to Lewinsky-gate had been exhausted. Mary-Louise Parker derailed every episode she appeared in as women's rights lobbyist Amy Gardner, a walking, talking repository of anti-feminist stereotypes. And the season closed with a shameless, implausible arc guest-starring Mark Harmon as a doomed Secret Service agent who won CJ's heart before being shot through his own while trying to stop a convenience store robbery. (He died, by the way, because he made a mistake that no rookie beat cop would.)
With the exception of the now-obligatory Christmas showcase for a member of the supporting cast (in this case, John Spencer, who, like Richard Schiff and Brad Whitford before him, won an Emmy for his holiday magic), the third season seemed like a pale imitation of the first two. Even Sorkin acted stunned when the show won a third consecutive Emmy for Outstanding Drama Series.
Given a year-long creative slump, is it any wonder that so many viewers didn't bother to come back when summer vacation ended?
(Some of them had already fled before summer began. While the ratings are down significantly from this point last year, they're only slightly lower than the numbers from last May.)
To Sorkin's credit, he's done a solid job of attacking some of last year's flaws. Amy Gardner, for instance, doesn't come across quite as shrill as she used to, and the air of pessimism that hung over the characters has mostly dissipated.
But the show is still paying for mistakes Sorkin made months or even years ago.
Start with the election plot, which has Martin Sheen's mentally agile Bartlet running against vapid Florida Gov. Ritchie (James Brolin), who is such a blatant dig at President Bush and his perceived stupidity that they might as well have cast Will Ferrell in the part.
The American voter's preference for plain talk over refinement isn't a bad idea for a political drama, especially one by a writer like Sorkin, who has made love of erudition a pet theme going back at least to his script for "The American President." But Ritchie isn't a character; he's a straw man for Bartlet and the other regulars to knock down with ease. Last week's debate episode was so blatantly one-sided that Brolin needn't have bothered showing up; a cardboard cut-out would have done just as well.
If Sorkin really wanted to tackle anti-intellectualism in politics, he would have been better served making Ritchie a clever guy who thought the best strategy was to play dumb. That might have been a character worth spending more than a season on.
And why is Sorkin even doing a major election arc? No matter who the opponent is, the audience knows that Bartlet's going to win. NBC isn't going to fire the entire cast in midseason and start over. This victory is a done deal; better that the show just treated it that way by making Bartlet's opponent a no-hoper (a la Mondale in '84) and leaving the campaign in the background.
Unfortunately, I suspect that tonight's election day episode won't be the end of the Bartlet for America story. The entire plot has been Sorkin's fantasy re-interpretation of Gore/Bush, which means we still have to cover the Florida debacle.
If that happens, it would be the latest example of how fact and fiction don't blend well on this show.
"The West Wing" originally took place in a world far removed from our own, and was less a show about politics than one about characters who happened to work in politics. Their passion and idealism were more important than their ideology, which early episodes glossed over in the same way "ER" treats medicine as a foreign language. Substantive topics were occasionally debated, but briefly and in a light-hearted manner. Think Josh and Donna playfully arguing about the tax rebate, or Sam explaining the census to CJ.
Sorkin may have started to believe the glowing press clippings about his ability to convey the issues of the day, or he decided that a show set in the political arena had to have a serious political agenda. Either way, the show's leftist bent quickly grew more pronounced, to the point where on some weeks it seemed less a drama than an infomercial for the Democratic Party.
"The West Wing" isn't at its best when Sorkin is trying to rewrite the Clinton presidency or support the war on terror, but simply when the characters are rushing pell-mell through the corridors of the White House, exchanging banter and demonstrating an enthusiasm for public service that's admirable and entertaining no matter your political affiliation.
The new season's most appealing subplot has speechwriter Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe, who will probably leave the show later this year) pondering a last-ditch bid for Congress, replacing a candidate who dropped dead during the campaign, in an overwhelmingly Republican district. It's a winner not because we necessarily agree with Sam's stance on gun control, but because the idea of running for office in an unwinnable race perfectly fits what we know about Sam's romanticized view of government. (It also helps that Lowe has good chemistry with guest stars Joshua Malina and Danica McKellar, who are playing the dead candidate's top staffers.)
There are other problems with recent episodes. All the interesting developments in a subplot about the fictional terrorist nation of Qumar are occurring off-screen. Lily Tomlin's flaky secretary Deborah Fiderer is a very poor substitute for Kathryn Joosten's unflappable Mrs. Landingham. After three years, Sorkin still doesn't know what to do with Dulé Hill's Charlie Young, and the show badly misses recurring character Ainsley Hayes, who was Sorkin's attempt to portray at least one conservative in a sympathetic light.
Overall, though, this is a much more promising start than what we saw at this time last year. If Sorkin can learn to re-emphasize the people over their politics, it may not be too late for "The West Wing" to stage a rally.
"The West Wing" (Tonight at 9 on Ch. 4) On election night, President Bartlet's staff tracks poll results, while Sam waits to see if he'll have to keep his promise to run for Congress in a dead man's place.
Posted by MorganG at November 6, 2002 05:54 PM