I guess I’m getting what I deserved. As much as I like “The Left… I mean, West Wing,” I got annoyed by the sanctimonious liberal speechifying, and wished for a little balance.
Well, this week, they added a conservative, and gave her some sanctimonious speeches of her own… and she’s TERRIBLE! It’s not Aaron Sorkin’s fault, either. He wrote her some terrific diatribes (apparently, he’s quite capable of writing good arguments for positions he finds repulsive), but the woman can’t act her way out of a paper bag! Ordinarily, good writing covers a multitude of sins (Sorkin’s writing is good enough to make even Rob Lowe look like a master thespian), but this bimbo is just awful.
As long as she’s on the show, Chuck Norris will only be the SECOND worst actor on television.
The only thing that really annoyed me about the episode was the way they let “Think about that the next time you make a joke about the South” be the last word on the gun argument that wossername and Sam were having in Leo’s office.
Where did that even come from? Hello, Mr Sorkin, left field is calling, it wants the idea back.
My Very-Democratic mum just SUCKS this show up like the way Monica- oh well let’s not start all that again. She’s stuck in a civil service quota position just a couple years away from gov’t-funded retirement; she has no choice but to support Dems now, and I think this show is how she wishes Dems actually behaved.
~ I think that as well as not having any balance at all, (if all the Dems were women and all the Republicans were men, it would be much like -any- show on LifeTime for Women) it’s just poor stories that romanticize to the point of sappiness. - MC
But, the actress portraying the new character, Aynsley Hayes {droool}, seems to have suffered from watching the program too much before landing the job. Her speech pattern when addressing anybody is almost identical to the cadence of the patter between Josh and his secretary - that staccato give and take that just doesn’t sound like natural speech flow. It’s okay between two characters that have been established as simpatico, or whatever, but a new character just can’t pull it off.
Besides, I just don’t get the logic. Why would a bleeding heart liberal want a staunch right-winger in his council office? Why would said right-winger even consider taking the position? Even if she does admire the man, she must realize that she’ll be counseling him on agendas diametrically opposed to her own. Why in hell would she do that to herself? The character seemed too strong a conservative to just fold like that.
Obviously the people here missed the point of the character, which was that, when nervous, she tends to run off at the mouth and talk a mile a minute. It was a nice little character quirk; I know people like that. In the situations where she wasn’t nervous (e.g., with C.J., she was much quieter).
Why take the job? She explained. She always wanted to work in the White House, and she felt that, despite her philosophical disagreements, the people there were working from a deep belief of what was good for the country, which didn’t make them all that different from her.
As for the comment about the South, didn’t you notice she spoke with a slight southern accent? An astute viewer would understand that part of her indignation was due to having to put up with “southern redneck” comments.
As for the speech pattern, all of Sorkin’s characters talk that way (even in Sports Night). So what if it’s not “natural” or “realistic”? Shakespeare isn’t, either. Realism is overrated.
I actually liked the Aynsley character, and I liked the set-up – far fetched though it was.
My only problem was the very end of the episode. She overheard Bartlett during his compassionate scene with the African prez, and his behavior, of course, convinced her to take the job. Because I saw this plot twist coming a thousand miles away, I was particularly mindful of what Bartlett was saying and doing that would convince her to take the job – and, incidentally, to make that dramatic, reproachful goodbye speech to her Republican buddies at the resaurant.
The problem was that Bartlett didn’t say or do anything great! In fact, the whole focus of the scene was on the African guy. Nothing Bartlett said/did showed extraordinary courage, compassion or resourcefulness. I would expect any reasonably competent politician – of either party – to have behaved exactly as he did in that situation. So why was it such a defining moment for Aynsley? Kinda weak if you ask me.
An even more astute viewer, however, might be tempted to observe that although Prez. B. & Crew may be a bunch of unreformed Yankees, they’ve never been heard to utter any of the “southern redneck comments”.
Heck, the guys who shot at Charlie were from West Virginia Whit Pride, and West Virginia (as everyone knows) isn’t part of the south
(Btw, I think the proper spelling is ‘Ainsley’, like the effeminate british chef)
The intro was great… “Leo, you gotta see this. Sam is getting beat up by a girl.”
The middle… so, so. Some character development, like the nervousness aforementioned. Her friends were stereotypical @$$holes. Kinda cool.
I had the same double take… like, okay, because he showed some sympathy at the fact that the guy just lost his brother and two sons, that made her change her mind? And moreover that whole ‘how dare you’ speech at the end. These are supposed to be her friends and she blows them off from a snotty comment because … why? Her heart is totally changed and she is going leftist now? That exit didn’t quite compute.
I think it is quite the insult to Sam though. How long before the two of them end up in the sack? Bets anyone?
My question about the episode, unrelated to the OP, is what was so heroic about the African president going back to his country knowing he would be killed immediately? When it was an offer to sacrifice himself for the return of Americans, it was noble because it was for a practical purpose. But that reason was pretty clearly taken away by Bartlett.
What did he think he would accomplish by going back? The disloyal opposition (sorry, bad joke!) wasn’t going to be impressed by the courage of his convictions and lay down their weapons as he stepped off the plane. Theoretically, he’s a martyr, but ISTM that in the face of a armed takeover like that, “people power” isn’t likely to mean much to the coupists (proper word?). We’re not talking about the publicity-worried Brits versus Gandhi here. And with him gone, who was going to lead the effort to take the country back, not to mention lead the country itself once the rightful government was restored?
I think the writers of the show did a good job of putting the character’s death in ambiguous highlight by stating that the assassination occurred in the airport parking lot. Not the historic and dramatic (mental) image of a sniper shooting him as he came down the stairs from the plane, but a prosaic, banal, location like an airport parking lot.
At first I thought the same thing, but then I changed my mind. I think the African president went back because of his family. They said his wife was missing, and that they believed his sons and brother was dead. If it was my family, I would try to go back as well, even knowing what might happen.
Well, I’ll throw my hat into the “liked her” ring.
Obviously they brought in a conservative voice to bounce off of the main characters (particularly Toby). What I want to know is how they are going to justify that. How often does an associate deputy counsel get to hold policy arguments with the bigwigs?
It was nice to see that Sorkin can write good speeches for conservatives. I thought her speech nicely pointed out what is wrong about the way many liberals view conservatives (cold-hearted, hateful, stupid people). I hope Sam gets to return the favor soon.
I thought it was less about the actions of the President, and more about a new understanding of what the White House does. That circle of friends of hers seems to see politics as a game–us against them, the White House being them. She realized that on the other side, they’re doing something more important than that, something that transcends the partisan bickering.
I loved the scene between Ainsley and Leo.
Leo: “You have an interesting manner of conversation.”
Ainsley: “It’s a nervous condition.”
Leo: “I had one of those.”
Ainsley: “What did you do?”
Leo: “I drank a lot of scotch.”
Ainsley: “I get sick when I drink too much.”
Leo: “I get drunk when I drink too much.”
“The West Wing” is easily my favorite show on television right now, edging out “Futurama”. (It pains me to admit that “The Simpsons” has slipped, but it has. Maybe it’s time for a comeback.)
And a truly astute viewer would notice she wasn’t talking about the Bartlett White House, but about southern redneck bias in particular – which it wouldn’t be surprising if the Bartlett White House had, even if they didn’t show it in this episode.
I know, tv is not realistic…but would Ainsley really be able to witness the meeting between Bartlet and the African president? Usually Sorkin is good about that kind of thing.
And as for Ainsley, I think I like her. And I especially liked the speech to her friends about calling the Bartlet administration worthless. I appreciate even-handedness.
As a White House counsel, doesn’t she just advise on the legality of the administration’s actions? I don’t think she would be too involved in policy.
I thought her rebuking speech to her friends at the end would have been much better in a later episode - maybe the last one of this season. That would give her a chance to get to know the people and see how the West Wing functions. Instead, her about-face was really jarring - how does she decide they are patriots from one day of interaction/eavesdropping? And BTW, she mentions hers is an old North Carolina family, so she does take the redneck stereotype personally.
Yes, but the administration’s actions would probably be in a direction that she herself would not advise if she were in a position to do so.
Listen, if Pat Boone knocked on my door right now and offered me twice my current salary to be his road manager, I wouldn’t do it because I hate Pat Boone. Yeah I know - apples and oranges, but you see my point.
I liked the character I suppose, but agree that the actress wasn’t all that great. Maybe she’ll loosen up a bit as she becomes more comfortable.
Also agree that it rang false that she would be allowed to wander down the hallways of the West Wing and overhear a conversation between 2 heads of state.
Anyway, I wonder if Ainsely is there as a love interest for Sam or as a potential distraction for President Bartlett? Jeb enjoys a good argument, he obviously thought Ainsely was spirited and intelligent, she’s young and beautiful… and his wife is always fussing at him about his medication (she just doesn’t UNDERSTAND him anymore!)!
