Connect with us

Entertainment

Opinion: Tempted to vote for Jed Bartlet in 2024? 'The West Wing' was always a fantasy

Published

on

Opinion: Tempted to vote for Jed Bartlet in 2024? 'The West Wing' was always a fantasy

As another terrifyingly significant presidential election nears, it’s hard not to fantasize about how different things could be. Imagine, for instance, having a president who put deeply held values above the pressures of their biggest donors. Imagine one who was able to truly listen and learn when faced with issues they didn’t understand rather than adhere to whatever stance happened to be the most politically convenient at the time. Imagine, even, a president who inspired you, who made you feel a glow of patriotism, skeptical as you might be of the concept. In short, imagine Josiah Edward “Jed” Bartlet, president of the United States as envisioned by Aaron Sorkin and brought to life by Martin Sheen across seven seasons of the award-winning and critically acclaimed NBC series “The West Wing.”

Two of the show’s cast members, Melissa Fitzgerald (who played Carol Fitzpatrick, assistant to the White House press secretary) and Mary McCormack (who played deputy national security advisor Kate Harper), certainly still believe in the show’s sticking power as well as its overall positive framing of politics. They have written a book about it that is plainly geared toward existing fans of the show: “What’s Next: A Backstage Pass to the West Wing, Its Cast and Crew, and Its Enduring Legacy of Service.”

Look, it’s true: Every so often, I make hot chocolate in my “Bartlet for America” mug and sip it wistfully, imagining a world in which we’d had a President Bartlet instead of a second President Bush, perhaps followed by a President Santos — the character played by Jimmy Smits who had sweeping, truly inspired education reform plans. It’s a lovely dream, a White House that’s more “West Wing” and less “Veep,” functional and nearly scandal-free, earnestly dedicated to bettering the lives of everyday Americans by doing the slow yet essential work of policy change.

Yes, I know this is extremely naive; yes, I’m aware that Bartlet was problematic in plenty of ways, as were his staffers; and yes, I know that “The West Wing” was, in many ways, a liberal fever dream that bought into American exceptionalism and the ideals of patriotism. But that’s just it: The show was a fantasy, one that gestured at an idea of how things could be, but that wasn’t trying to claim that this was how things really were. Sorkin himself insisted that “first and foremost, if not only, this is entertainment. ‘The West Wing’ isn’t meant to be good for you. … Our responsibility is to captivate you for however long we’ve asked for your attention.”

And entertain us it did, across more than 150 episodes, some more memorable than others, but all including at least one rousing monologue that made this viewer, at least, believe in the possibility of a government that really works, or that really tries to work, or that really wants to work. It helps that I first watched bits of it as a tween, long before I’d moved to the States, when my trips to California were strictly family visits during which I was loved and spoiled by my grandparents and aunts with as much frozen yogurt as I wanted, unrestricted TV time during which I enjoyed more channels than I knew what to do with and endlessly fascinating commercials for toys I would never get, and best of all, bookstores so large I could get lost in them. It felt like a more innocent time.

Advertisement

But, of course, it wasn’t. “The West Wing” was airing as George W. Bush took office following a close and contested election. It was on TV when 9/11 happened, as the Patriot Act was signed, and as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were launched. The show offered a rosy alternative, which appealed especially to a certain income bracket; its biggest chunk of viewers, according to a 2001 study, were earning more than $70,000 a year — or, in today’s money, more than $120,000. Largely sheltered from systemic injustices contributing to and caused by poverty, affluent people experienced fewer of our government’s shortcomings and probably found the show’s vision more plausible than it was.

As a (rather sheepish) devotee of the show, I bought into it too, especially the first couple of times I watched it front to back, in my late teens and early 20s. It managed to make the American political process — which I found deeply baffling, having never learned how it worked in school — exciting. Partially, I’m sure, it was the speed of the quippy dialogue, which Sorkin is famous for, as well as the way the show was shot, its long walk-and-talk scenes lending a sense of urgency to matters of dry policy. The humor was helpful too, and sometimes educational. I’ll never forget the Big Block of Cheese Day episode during which deputy communications director Sam Seaborn is required to meet with a ufologist — and Press Secretary C.J. Cregg and Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman learn (along with the rest of us) that the maps we’ve all grown up with are both imperialistic and frankly just wrong.

But as funny and inspiring (often at the same time, as in the brilliant two-parter “20 Hours in America”) as the show can be, there are glaring issues in it. When I rewatched it more recently, I was incredibly disturbed, for instance, by the dynamic between Lyman and his assistant, Donna Moss. What was framed as a cute “will they/won’t they” relationship between boss and devoted employee now read to me as not only extremely unprofessional but even downright abusive, with Donna bearing the brunt of Josh’s temper tantrums and putting up with being constantly belittled by him. But it’s more than the interpersonal dynamics; the show’s occasionally over-the-top optimism and sincere belief in the United States as the greatest nation on Earth — not to mention its very white casting and casual yet consistent sexism — has, speaking anecdotally, made it feel cringey to many leftists of my generation.

The old critiques about the show’s idealism still ring true. Cynicism about and frustration with the slow gears of government have likely always existed throughout the left-right spectrum. Now, with social media adding a second-by-second commentary on an already speedy 24-hour news cycle, these sentiments feel much louder and more visible.

The authors of “What’s Next” don’t address the ways the show has aged poorly. They’re instead relentless in pointing to its positives, and to be fair, when it was originally airing there was no other TV show depicting government functions, and so the policies that “The West Wing” explored were likely eye-opening to many of its viewers. An episode in the first season, for instance, includes a compelling argument for financial reparations for the descendants of enslaved Black people, a concept as old as abolition but which plenty of the show’s viewers might have never encountered before.

Advertisement

This particular example isn’t mentioned in the book, though, which focuses instead on the broad idea of service and lionizes the show’s cast members for their various social and political activism. Many have worked to support veterans and treatment courts, which emphasize rehabilitation for individuals with substance use disorders. “What’s Next” is a cheerleading text, a fun and breezy read that doesn’t delve into any cringe aspects or difficulties on set.

But “The West Wing” would, like almost any piece of enduring media, only suffer from an insistence that it’s perfect. The show is a messy piece of very entertaining — and occasionally educational — television, full of extremely talented actors giving incredible performances, but it’s not a road map for reality, nor should it be.

After President Biden’s debate debacle this summer, the show’s creator, Sorkin, penned a bizarre op-ed suggesting that the Democrats nominate Mitt Romney, a moderate Republican, for president, a strategy to poach enough conservative voters to keep former President Trump from regaining power. But when Biden stepped out of the race, Sorkin quickly took back the suggestion. His op-ed was, depending on whom you asked, a frustrating or entertaining thought experiment, but it should never have been seen as real advice for the real world. Like “The West Wing,” it was a break from reality.

Ilana Masad is a books and culture critic and author of “All My Mother’s Lovers.”

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

‘The Tank’ Review: A War Film More Abstract Than Brutal (Prime Video) – Micropsia

Published

on

‘The Tank’ Review: A War Film More Abstract Than Brutal (Prime Video) – Micropsia

The Tiger Is the Tank. Or rather, the type of German tank that gives the film its international title—just in case anyone might confuse this war story with an adventure movie involving wild animals. The tank itself is the film’s container, much as The Boat was in the legendary 1981 film it openly seeks to emulate in more than one respect, or as the more recent tank was in the Israeli film Lebanon (2009). Yes, much of Dennis Gansel’s movie unfolds inside a tank called Tiger, but what it is ultimately trying to tell goes well beyond its cramped metal walls.

This large-scale Prime Video war production has been described by many as the platform’s answer to Netflix’s success with All Quiet on the Western Front, the highly decorated German film released in 2022. In practice, it is a very different proposition. Despite the fanfare surrounding its release—Amazon even gave it a theatrical run a few months ago, something it rarely does—the film made a far more modest impact. Watching it, the reasons become clear. This is a darker, stranger movie, one that flirts as much with horror as with monotony, and that positions itself less as a traditional war film than as an ethical and philosophical meditation on warfare.

The first section—an intense and technically impressive combat sequence—takes place during what would later be known as the Battle of the Dnieper, which unfolded over several months in 1943 on the Eastern Front, as Soviet forces pushed back the Nazi advance. Der Tiger is the type of tank carrying a compact platoon—played by David Schütter, Laurence Rupp, Leonard Kunz, Sebastian Urzendowsky, and Yoran Leicher—that miraculously survives the aerial destruction of a bridge over the river.

Soon afterward—or so it seems—the group is assigned a mission that, at least in its initial setup, recalls Saving Private Ryan. Lieutenant Gerkens (Schütter) is ordered to rescue Colonel Von Harnenburg, stranded behind enemy lines. From there, the film becomes a journey through an infernal landscape of ruined cities, corpses, forests, and fog—a setting that, thanks to the way it is shot, feels more fantastical than realistic.

That choice is no accident. As the journey begins to echo Apocalypse Now, it becomes clear that the film is less interested in conventional suspense—mines on the road, the threat of ambush—than in the strangeness of its situations and environments. When the tank plunges into the water and briefly operates like a submarine, one may reasonably wonder whether such technology actually existed in the 1940s, or whether the film has deliberately drifted into a more extravagant, symbolic territory.

This is the kind of film whose ending is likely to inspire more frustration than affection. Though heavily foreshadowed, it is the sort of conclusion that tends to irritate audiences: cryptic, somewhat open-ended, and more suggestive than explicit. That makes sense, given that the film is less concerned with depicting the daily mechanics of war than with grappling with its aftermath—ethical, moral, psychological, and physical.

Advertisement

In its own way, The Tank functions as a kind of mea culpa. The platoon becomes a microcosm of a nation that “followed orders” and committed—or allowed to be committed—horrific acts in its name. The flashbacks scattered throughout the film make this point unmistakably clear. The problem is that, while these ideas may sound compelling when summarized in a few sentences (or in a review), the film never manages to turn them into something fully alive—narratively, visually, or dramatically.

Only in brief moments—largely thanks to Gerkens’s perpetually worried, anguished expression—do those ideas achieve genuine cinematic weight. They are not enough, however, to sustain a two-hour runtime that increasingly feels repetitive and inert. Unlike the films by Steven Spielberg, Wolfgang Petersen, Francis Ford Coppola, and others it so clearly references, The Tank remains closer to a concept than to a drama, more an intriguing reflection than a truly effective film.


Continue Reading

Entertainment

Electric violinist sues Will Smith, alleging sexual harassment, wrongful termination

Published

on

Electric violinist sues Will Smith, alleging sexual harassment, wrongful termination

Will Smith and his company Treyball Studios Management Inc. are being sued by an electric violinist who is claiming wrongful termination, retaliation and sexual harassment — allegations denied by the actor-rapper-producer in a statement from his attorney.

Brian King Joseph alleges in a lawsuit filed earlier this week that Smith hired him to perform on the 2025 Based on a True Story tour, then fired him before the tour began in earnest in Europe and the U.K.

Joseph, who finished third in Season 13 of “America’s Got Talent,” went onto Instagram in the days before filing his lawsuit and posted a Dec. 27 video saying that he had been hired for “a major, major tour with somebody who is huge in the industry” but “some things happened” that he couldn’t discuss because it was a legal matter.

Electric violinist Brian King Joseph, seen performing at an awards show last October, is suing for wrongful termination, retaliation and sexual harassment.

(Tommaso Boddi / Getty Images for Media Access Awards)

Advertisement

But, he said, “Getting fired or getting blamed or shamed or threatened or anything like that, simply for reporting sexual misconduct or safety threats at work, is not OK. And I know that there’s a lot of other people out there who have been afraid to speak up, and I understand. If that’s you, I see you. … More updates to come soon.”

In the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court and reviewed by The Times, Joseph alleges that he and Smith struck up a professional relationship in November 2024, after which Joseph performed at two of Smith’s shows in San Diego and was invited to perform on several tracks for Smith’s “Based on a True Story” album, which was released March 28.

After the performances in San Diego, Joseph posted video of a show on Instagram with the caption, “What an honor to share the stage with such legends and a dream team of musicians. From playing in the streets to sharing my music on stages like this, this journey has been nothing short of magic — and this is just the beginning. Grateful beyond words for every single person who made this possible.”

While working on the album, the lawsuit alleges, “Smith and [Joseph] began spending additional time alone, with Smith even telling [Joseph] that ‘You and I have such a special connection, that I don’t have with anyone else,’ and other similar expressions indicating his closeness to [Joseph].”

Advertisement

Joseph soon joined Smith and crew for a performance in Las Vegas, the lawsuit says — on March 20 at the House of Blues at Mandalay Bay — with Smith’s team booking rooms for everyone involved. Joseph left his bag, which contained his room key, in a van that took performers to rehearsal, and then the bag went missing for a couple of hours after he requested someone get it for him, the suit says.

When Joseph returned to his room late that night, according to the complaint, he found evidence that someone had entered his room without his permission.

“The evidence included a handwritten note addressed to Plaintiff by name, which read ‘Brian, I’ll be back no later [sic] 5:30, just us (drawn heart), Stone F.,’” the document says. “Among the remaining belongings were wipes, a beer bottle, a red backpack, a bottle of HIV medication with another individual’s name, an earring, and hospital discharge paperwork belonging to a person unbeknownst to Plaintiff.”

Joseph worried that “an unknown individual would soon return to his room to engage in sexual acts” with him, the complaint says.

It adds that Joseph, “concerned for his safety and the safety of his fellow performers and crew,” alerted hotel security and representatives for Treyball and Smith, took pictures, requested a new room and reported the incident to police using a non-emergency line. Hotel security found no signs of forced entry, and Joseph flew home the next day.

Advertisement

Several days later, rather than being called on to join the next part of the tour, a Treyball representative told him the tour was “going in a different direction,” the lawsuit says, and that his services were no longer needed. The representative “redirected the blame for the termination onto [Joseph], replying, ‘I don’t know, you tell me, because everyone is telling me that what happened to you is a lie, nothing happened, and you made the whole thing up. So, tell me, why did you lie and make this up?’ [Joseph], shocked at the accusation, had nothing further to say,” as he believed the reports and evidence from Las Vegas spoke for themselves.

Joseph alleges in the lawsuit that as a result of events in Las Vegas and in the days immediately afterward, he suffered severe emotional distress, economic loss and harm to his reputation. He also alleges that the stress of losing the job caused his health to deteriorate and that he suffered PTSD and other mental illness after the termination.

“The facts strongly suggest that Defendant Willard Carroll Smith II was deliberately grooming and priming Mr. Joseph for further sexual exploitation,” the lawsuit alleges. “The sequence of events, Smith’s prior statements to Plaintiff, and the circumstances of the hotel intrusion all point to a pattern of predatory behavior rather than an isolated incident.”

The Times was unable to reach publicists or a lawyer for Will Smith because of the holiday. However, Smith attorney Allen B. Grodsky told Fox News on Thursday that “Mr. Joseph’s allegations concerning my client are false, baseless and reckless. They are categorically denied, and we will use all legal means available to address these claims and to ensure that the truth is brought to light.”

Joseph’s attorney, Jonathan J. Delshad, recently filed sexual assault civil suits against Tyler Perry on behalf of actors who say they were not hired for future work by the billionaire movie and TV producer after they rejected his alleged advances.

Advertisement

Joseph is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and payment of attorney fees in an amount to be determined at trial.

The Based on a True Story tour played 26 dates in Europe and the U.K. last summer. Nine of the acts were headlining gigs, while the rest were festivals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Marty Supreme’ is Supreme Cinema – San Diego Jewish World

Published

on

‘Marty Supreme’ is Supreme Cinema – San Diego Jewish World

By John E. Finley-Weaver in San Diego

John E. Finley-Weaver
(SDJW photo)

My wife convinced me to watch a movie about ping pong. And, having acquiesced to her proposal, I dove face-first into a kettle of willful ignorance, knowing only that Some Guy Timothée Chalamet of Dune 1 and Dune 2 and A Complete Unknown (another of her suggestions) was the lead, and that what we were soon to watch might move me. Or, at the very least, that it might entertain me.

The movie did not disappoint.

In fact, Marty Supreme is the absolute best film about table tennis that I have ever seen. And I’ve seen all of one of them so far, although I am aware of and have seen a few clips of Robert Ben Garant’s Balls of Fury.

Advertisement

But, holy mackerel, Marty Supreme is not just a movie about some lanky goniff whose inner craving for focused dominance in one specific realm compels him to pursue a shiny, sportsball “X” trophy, culminating in a crowd-pleasing, applause roar of triumph . . . a  n  d . . . cut to the end credits, supplemented by a catchy, happy song . . . . “Honey, let’s get to the restroom, fast!”

Uh-uh. Nay. Marty Supreme is a lived-in world (like the Star Wars universe, but way different and way better) populated by tactile characters, each of whom has their own, inferred history and glob of yearnings. And they have warts. Lots of warts. Warts and all.

Marty Mauser, the Jewish protagonist of Marty Supreme, is a plucky ping pong imp and shoe salesman, in addition to being a nimble and loquacious malarkey artist. He is also a shockingly-gawdawful, verbal bastard person to his mother, played by Fran Drescher, who left her specific, discount Phyllis Diller voice in the dustbin of screen history where it belongs, much to the contentment of my sensitive ears.

Marty Mauser is even more a womanizer and a thief. And he is a delight. And, because boring, nice boys don’t have movies made about them, he does something for his ema that is chutzpahdik, illegal, vandalicious, unhistorical, and tear-inducingly sweet.

And again, dear Reader, I went into this movie knowing most of nothing about it. If you are like me, fear not: I shan’t disclose the plot.

Advertisement

Marty Mauser’s partners in life and “crime” are the facially-delicious Rachel, played by Odessa A’zion and best bud Wally, performed by Tyler Okonma, each complementarily savvy to Marty’s needs and wants.

The remainder of the film’s actors is a gathering of casting directorial genius: Kevin O’Leary, the that guy from some reality television show that I will never watch; Gwyneth Paltrow; director Abel Ferrara; Sandra Bernhard, my lukewarm, high school “bad girl” crush; Géza Röhrig, whose character is seven year’s fresh from a Nazi death camp and hauntingly beautiful; Koto Kawaguchi, the movie-world champion and legally-deaf Tommy-esque pinball wizard of ping pong and real-world champion of the game; Pico Iyer, Indo-Limey travel writer, meditator, and inveterate outsider; George Gerwin, a very retired basketball player; Ted Williams and his golden voice; Penn Jillette, agrarian and blasty; Isaac Mizrahi, obviously “out” in 1952; and David freaking Mamet.

Gush.

And great googly woogly. They all do their jobs so gosh darn well that I don’t notice them as actors acting.

And then, as I have done since I was a child, for science fiction books, for television, and for movies, I recast, in my mind’s eye, all of the characters and their associated journeys as different people. I made an all-Negro cast of the film. And it worked. No radical changes to the script were necessary. I did the same for a spunky, mid-West farm girl as the lead. That worked. I tried again, using a Colombian lesbian. That worked too.

Advertisement

I praise the cinematic vision of Director Josh Safdie. I praise the wide accessibility of the script he co-wrote with Ronald Bronstein: Thank you. The expected plot points, the tropes of moviedom, the “inevitable” happenings of standard movies never really happened. Marty Supreme zaggled and Zelig’d when I expected it to zig.

A lesser film would not have surprised me in most of its story structure, its scenes, or its character paths. A lesser film would have had me in my seat, either smugly prognosticating the next events, or non-thinkingly rapt for entire scenes. This film, this masterpiece of storytelling and visual and aural execution outsmarted me. It outsmarted my movie mind, and for that, I am grateful.

Marty Supreme is a very Brooklyn Jewy movie, but it sings from the standard Humanity of us all, to each of us. And that is movie making at its finest.

*
Cinema buff John E. Finley-Weaver is a freelance writer based in San Diego.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending