The West Wing Live Debate

I didn't arrive early to "The West Wing". More's the pity, because once I started watching it (somewhere in season 3, I think) I got hooked on the crispness of the writing. Whip-smart dialogue (assuming that a whip is, in fact, somehow smart) being delivered by characters that are quirky and intelligent and flawed and real will hook me every time.

So. Imagine my disappointment as the seasons went on, and what had been crackling dialogue became polemic; what had been human characters became inexplicably-acting ciphers. "The West Wing" slowly turned from 'must watch' to 'will watch' to 'background noise for boxer-folding'.

The ratings have reflected it, as well, which is why last night they resorted to stunt. The fictional presidential candidates held a debate, and they did it live. Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits are veteran enough (and have enough stage experience) that the plan can't have been too too daunting. Being as susceptible to stunt as the next guy, though, I did watch, for (probably) the first time this season.

Smits and Alda did well -- better than well, probably. They looked and sounded presidential, and they portrayed their quintessential political stances with believability and conviction. Further, the live aspect of it played well, as the occasional stumble over words added a verisimilitude that only added to the overall effect. So, give "The West Wing" an A (or A-, anyway) for execution.

But. But. It still wasn't a success in any artistic (or story/character arc) way. First, the script tried desperately to have it both ways. It tried to present both liberal and conservative points of view in realistic ways. Alda's conservative senator is a good man who embraces conservativism as the proper program for America -- ditto Smits's liberal senator -- yet at the same time, it portrayed Smits as vibrant and thoughtful and youthful while Alda smirked and postured and spouted. It's difficult to imagine any real person watching such a real-world debate siding with Alda's conservative agenda. It's okay for a show to take a stance (and I have no problem with the stance it took), but to pretend to be balanced while so obviously leaning to the left seems presumptuous at least, and pretentious and prevaricatious (which, if it ain't a word, should be) at worst.

Worse that that, however, is this: political debates are inherently dull. One watches in the real world when one is trying to decide between real-life candidates. One rarely (or never) watches them for entertainment. Last night's experiment (stunt) was too realistic (by far) -- it not only captured the ambiance and clutter of a political debate, it captured its boredom.

Is "The West Wing" now done as a viable series? Maybe. Probably. And yes, that makes me sad.