Were you to tune in to NBC last night during prime time, you would have wondered why Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda were arguing on a live news broadcast. The network did everything it could to make this “live debate,” a special episode of the presidential drama "The West Wing," look like the 2004 Bush v. Kerry debates gone wild: First, the "candidates" scrapped the rules, and then the actors bickered back and forth while real-life journalist Forrest Sawyer, as "moderator," tried his best to keep the peace.
Smits (Democrat Matthew Santos) and Alda (Republican Arnie Vinick) were spectacular, save for some stuttering that left me wondering if they were making character choices or struggling to remember their lines. They played their respective roles to a party-defined T, right down to Alda’s sputtering Republican shouting down Sawyer and demanding a chance to rebut his opponent, ála George W. Bush in 2004. As Santos, Smits’ usual charisma shone through, and there were wonderful moments throughout the debate where he pointed out every time Alda’s Vinick didn’t answer a question he had been asked.
The whole “debate,” however, seemed less like a presidential debate and more like an effort by the "West Wing" writers to point out issues that went uncovered in last year's debates and to show flaws in current US political policies. There was an agenda behind the "debate," all right, but it wasn’t a fictional one.
No, the issues were and are real: Vinick and Santos discussed theories on African debt relief, spelled out energy proposals, shouted about school vouchers, examined health care and Medicare, and sparred over tax cuts (wouldn’t it be nice if only the people who made more than $100 million a year received tax increases?). In fact, this issue was the primary one of the night — tax cuts appeared to be Vinick's solution to every problem and question put before him.
Article comments
1 - Nancy
There weren't any lines & it wasn't actually 'scripted' in the normal sense: the two actors actually did debate, "in character". That was their only "script": that they stay in character & in party. I wish I'd seen it; I'll bet, knowing that this entire thing was unrehearsed, unscripted, & entirely being made up as they went along, that it was a tour de force on the part of both actors.
2 - Erin
Knowing now that it wasn't scripted, which I didn't know last night or this morning, makes me lust after Jimmy Smits' and Alan Alda's improv skills. Now I wish I'd taped it.
3 - Natalie Davis
It was unscripted? Wow. Kudos to the actors (and their coaches). Liberal Alda must have had a ball with this role -- in fact, I'll give him points for playing against type so convincingly.
4 - Dave Nalle
I find that I like Alda even less as a conservative than I do as a liberal. And while it was unscripted, the actors were clearly prepped and given a gameplan as far as what they needed to address and some basic points to make on key issues. I imagine they were prepared much the way that actual candidates are, but it probably worked way better for them because they're more trained and experienced than most real politicians.
I wish the West Wing had really had some balls this past season when they started this campaign and cast retired Tennessee Senator and excellent actor Fred Thompson in the Alda role. Then we would have seen a debate and I don't think it would have been anywhere near as even as what we saw last night.
Dave
5 - Dave Nalle
BTW, if you aren't familiar with Thompson, watch him at work on Law and Order Criminal Intent as DA Arthur Branch. Damn I wish he'd run for president.
Dave
6 - Temple A. Stark
I haven't watched yet, but I find it hard to believe there's wasn't some serious set pieces of a script.
Fred Thompson would be pretty good on the show. Alda just looks weak and tired and that's unfair.
>>The whole “debate,” however, seemed less like a presidential debate and more like an effort by the "West Wing" writers to point out issues that went uncovered in last year's debates ....
Good. The real debates are empty theater manufactured by media and partisan hangers-on into something large. They are 90 percent hot air.
They are terrible as education and are more scripted then this Santos and Vinick. The debates need to have NO rules (except time limits) and, as been argued by many the parties - nevermind just the two main parties - should not be in charge of laying the groundrules for the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Debates are for the citizens and the only thing worse is the money involved in politics which corrupts democracy for citizens something fierce.
I look forward to watching this episode. I taped it. If Santos did looked into the camera with a "no war for oil" pledge - with thise words, that sounds like a big time clunker moment.
A pledge to never again wage war without Congress' approval - there's a thing.
7 - Dave Nalle
>>A pledge to never again wage war without Congress' approval - there's a thing.<<
But how meaningful would it be? We had full-on, enthusiastic congressional approval for Iraq, so such a pledge certainly wouldn't be what the left would wish it to be.
Dave
8 - Temple A. Stark
What's The Left got to do with it?
It's consitutional for Congress to declare war and appropriate funds;. Oct. 2002 efforts were not a declaration of war in many people's minds - even Congressional members. And in fact today is not being thought of as one in a technical sense by anyone in charge, left or right that I have heard.
Anyway. West Wing. - I'm going to miss West Wing when it goes. Or does anyone think alda or smits can carry it out from Cancellation Corner?
To me it seems the creators are trying to go out on a high. ???
9 - Alan Alda
I find that I like Dave Nalle even less as a conservative than I do as a disc golfer.