Commander in Chief -- A Series in Review
Every time Aaron Sorkin does anything, it will be compared to The West Wing, one of TV's all-time greats. The number of Emmys and other awards that this show was nominated for, and won, is simply astonishing, but rightly so -- The West Wing, known for its brilliant dialogue, compelling performances, dynamic "walk and talk" scenes, and ability to make even the most complex politics accessible without dumbing it down, was truly a remarkable show.
Almost forgotten, ABC's Commander in Chief is often seen as a poor imitation, relying too heavily on its central gimmick -- look, this time, the President's a woman! -- to draw in readers.
Like many others, I too dismissed Commander in Chief as a doubtful West Wing imitation when it originally aired. But now that the series is on DVD, I have found that the show has its own merits.
Here's the set-up: Geena Davis stars as MacKenzie Allen, the first female Vice President of the United States of America. In the pilot episode, President Theodore Roosevelt "Teddy" Bridges suffers from a stroke and, before he dies, begs Allen to resign so that his personal friend, Speaker of the House Nathan Templeton, can assume office under the 25th Amendment. Allen nearly does so, but at the last moment, decides that the intentions of the Constitution are more important than the intentions of Teddy Bridges. This angers a great deal of Teddy's most loyal followers and friends, most notably Templeton and White House Chief of Staff Jim Gardner. Allen placates Gardner by allowing him to keep his job as chief of staff, but Templeton more or less swears himself Allen's mortal enemy. Now, Allen must simultaneously deal with being the first female president, fight off political enemies in every corner of Washington, including even her own White House (and, as an Independent, having a notable lack of allies), overcome the political fallout from accepting the office of the presidency despite the increasingly public knowledge that Bridges asked her to resign -- and, oh yes, run the country and its military.
The writers, led by Rod Lurie, do a very good job of balancing all of these storylines. They understand that the key to drawing viewers into a good political drama is to populate it with interesting characters. As First Gentleman, Kyle Secor (whom you may remember as Detective Tim Bayliss from the excellent Homicide: Life on the Street) is thoroughly likable. As the first First Gentleman, Rod Calloway suffers from a series of humiliations, most notably being immediately replaced as Allen's chief of staff "because they can't think I'm in office only because I have a man helping me." Harry Lennix also deserves some praise for his nuanced performance as Chief of Staff Jim Gardner.
But the real star of the show isn't Lennix, Secor, or even Geena Davis. That honor goes to Donald Sutherland, who plays Nathan Templeton as one part noble lion and one part slimy bastard. As Teddy Bridges's intended successor to the presidency, Templeton feels a sense of entitlement that, in his mind, justifies some truly dirty political tricks. And yet, there are times when he clearly does have the nation's best interests at heart, and he's not above helping President Allen when he has to. These two political enemies can work together when necessary -- although even at his most helpful, Templeton always has a hidden agenda up his sleeve.
When Commander in Chief originally aired, both critics and ABC's own publicity for the show made a big deal about Sutherland's presence in the series, and his compelling performance as the series villain. But the truth is that, while Sutherland is indeed powerful in the role, its impact comes from the writers, who do an excellent job of mixing a bit of moral ambiguity into Templeton's villainy. Every time you think he's nothing but a worm, he turns around and does something noble -- but every time you think he may be redeemable, he turns around and does something despicable. The phrase is used too often, but Nathan Templeton really is "the character you love to hate."
The show is not without its faults. My biggest complaint is that the show can never seem to make up its mind who's got what job in the White House and elsewhere in Washington; characters quit, get fired, resign, and get replaced in every damn episode. In a couple of instances, they lose their job and then come back a few episodes later, making me wonder what the point of the whole thing was in the first place. After a while, watching yet another character lose his or her job becomes redundant. This flaw is especially interesting when you consider that the exact same thing was happening behind the scenes; original show runner Rod Lurie was replaced by Steven Bochco, who was replaced by Dee Johnson, and both Bochco and Johnson at some point unofficially turned some of their power back over to Lurie -- and all of this during the span of one season! Ostensibly, the behind-the-scenes transition from Lurie to Bochco to Johnson is seamless in the overall narrative and tone of the show, but I can't help but wonder if the revolving door of producers helps to explain the revolving door of characters.
The show also ends rather abruptly. All of the characters clearly have more to do in the storyline when the show ends (on a cliffhanger) and so there's more than a bit of irony to the fact that the final episode's title -- a reference to a bit of dialogue in the last scene, not originally intended to refer to the series' end -- is "Unfinished Business."
Still, I have to say that watching Commander in Chief was a lot of fun. It's true that the writing doesn't match Aaron Sorkin at his best, but I feel safe to say that if you liked The West Wing, you'll also like Commander in Chief. And to be honest, I have no idea if the makers of either show would approve that statement.
Almost forgotten, ABC's Commander in Chief is often seen as a poor imitation, relying too heavily on its central gimmick -- look, this time, the President's a woman! -- to draw in readers.
Like many others, I too dismissed Commander in Chief as a doubtful West Wing imitation when it originally aired. But now that the series is on DVD, I have found that the show has its own merits.
Here's the set-up: Geena Davis stars as MacKenzie Allen, the first female Vice President of the United States of America. In the pilot episode, President Theodore Roosevelt "Teddy" Bridges suffers from a stroke and, before he dies, begs Allen to resign so that his personal friend, Speaker of the House Nathan Templeton, can assume office under the 25th Amendment. Allen nearly does so, but at the last moment, decides that the intentions of the Constitution are more important than the intentions of Teddy Bridges. This angers a great deal of Teddy's most loyal followers and friends, most notably Templeton and White House Chief of Staff Jim Gardner. Allen placates Gardner by allowing him to keep his job as chief of staff, but Templeton more or less swears himself Allen's mortal enemy. Now, Allen must simultaneously deal with being the first female president, fight off political enemies in every corner of Washington, including even her own White House (and, as an Independent, having a notable lack of allies), overcome the political fallout from accepting the office of the presidency despite the increasingly public knowledge that Bridges asked her to resign -- and, oh yes, run the country and its military.
The writers, led by Rod Lurie, do a very good job of balancing all of these storylines. They understand that the key to drawing viewers into a good political drama is to populate it with interesting characters. As First Gentleman, Kyle Secor (whom you may remember as Detective Tim Bayliss from the excellent Homicide: Life on the Street) is thoroughly likable. As the first First Gentleman, Rod Calloway suffers from a series of humiliations, most notably being immediately replaced as Allen's chief of staff "because they can't think I'm in office only because I have a man helping me." Harry Lennix also deserves some praise for his nuanced performance as Chief of Staff Jim Gardner.
But the real star of the show isn't Lennix, Secor, or even Geena Davis. That honor goes to Donald Sutherland, who plays Nathan Templeton as one part noble lion and one part slimy bastard. As Teddy Bridges's intended successor to the presidency, Templeton feels a sense of entitlement that, in his mind, justifies some truly dirty political tricks. And yet, there are times when he clearly does have the nation's best interests at heart, and he's not above helping President Allen when he has to. These two political enemies can work together when necessary -- although even at his most helpful, Templeton always has a hidden agenda up his sleeve.
When Commander in Chief originally aired, both critics and ABC's own publicity for the show made a big deal about Sutherland's presence in the series, and his compelling performance as the series villain. But the truth is that, while Sutherland is indeed powerful in the role, its impact comes from the writers, who do an excellent job of mixing a bit of moral ambiguity into Templeton's villainy. Every time you think he's nothing but a worm, he turns around and does something noble -- but every time you think he may be redeemable, he turns around and does something despicable. The phrase is used too often, but Nathan Templeton really is "the character you love to hate."
The show is not without its faults. My biggest complaint is that the show can never seem to make up its mind who's got what job in the White House and elsewhere in Washington; characters quit, get fired, resign, and get replaced in every damn episode. In a couple of instances, they lose their job and then come back a few episodes later, making me wonder what the point of the whole thing was in the first place. After a while, watching yet another character lose his or her job becomes redundant. This flaw is especially interesting when you consider that the exact same thing was happening behind the scenes; original show runner Rod Lurie was replaced by Steven Bochco, who was replaced by Dee Johnson, and both Bochco and Johnson at some point unofficially turned some of their power back over to Lurie -- and all of this during the span of one season! Ostensibly, the behind-the-scenes transition from Lurie to Bochco to Johnson is seamless in the overall narrative and tone of the show, but I can't help but wonder if the revolving door of producers helps to explain the revolving door of characters.
The show also ends rather abruptly. All of the characters clearly have more to do in the storyline when the show ends (on a cliffhanger) and so there's more than a bit of irony to the fact that the final episode's title -- a reference to a bit of dialogue in the last scene, not originally intended to refer to the series' end -- is "Unfinished Business."
Still, I have to say that watching Commander in Chief was a lot of fun. It's true that the writing doesn't match Aaron Sorkin at his best, but I feel safe to say that if you liked The West Wing, you'll also like Commander in Chief. And to be honest, I have no idea if the makers of either show would approve that statement.
posted by Movie Man at
6:17 AM
0 Comments
