Considering Aaron Sorkin : essays on the politics, poetics, and sleight of hand in the films and television series

231 Pages·2005·9.17 MB·English

by  Sorkin

Considering
Aaron Sorkin

Considering
Aaron Sorkin
Essays on the Politics, Poetics
and Sleight of Hand in the
Films and Television Series
Edited by THOMAS FAHY
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Jefferson, North Carolina, and London
LIBRARYOFCONGRESSCATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATIONDATA
Considering Aaron Sorkin : essays on the politics, poetics and sleight of hand
in the films and television series / edited by Thomas Fahy.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-¡3: 978-0-7864-2120-6
(softcover : 50# alkaline paper)
¡. Sorkin, Aaron—Criticism and interpretation. I. Fahy, Thomas Richard.
PN¡992.4.S62C66 2005 8¡2'.54—dc22 200500009¡
British Library cataloguing data are available
©2005 Thomas Fahy. All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Cover photograph ©2005 PhotoSpin
Manufactured in the United States of America
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Box 6¡¡, Je›erson, North Carolina 28640
www.mcfarlandpub.com
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Thomas Fahy
1. An Interview with Aaron Sorkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Thomas Fahy
2. Mannerist Noir: Malice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Robert F. Gross
3. In Plain View and the Dark Unknown: Narratives of the
Feminine Body in Malice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Susann Cokal
4. Athletes, Grammar Geeks, and Porn Stars: The Liberal
Education of Sports Night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Thomas Fahy
5. A Phantom Fly and Frightening Fish: The Unconscious
Speaks in Sports Night . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Douglas Keesey
6. His Girl Friday (and Every Day): Brilliant Women Put to
Poor Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Kirstin Ringelberg
7. Depictions of the U.S. Military: Only “A Few Good Men”
Need Apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Fiona Mills
8. Giving Propaganda a Good Name: The West Wing . . . . . . . . . 115
Ann C. Hall
v
vi CONTENTS
9. Handling the Truth: Sorkin’s Liberal Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Spencer Downing
10. Virtue from Vice: Duty, Power, and The West Wing . . . . . . 147
Nathan A. Paxton
11. Women of The West Wing: Gender Stereotypes in the
Political Fiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Laura K. Garrett
12. The Republic of Sorkin: A View from the Cheap Seats . . . . 193
John Nein
Appendix: Sorkin’s Works for Film and Television . . . . . . . . . . . 211
About the Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Introduction
Thomas Fahy
As a culture, we are fascinated with stories about genius and the process
of creation. After the birth of her first child, Sylvia Plath dealt with her
insomnia and depression by getting up at four in the morning and writing
poetry. Jane Austen worked in the parlor of her house, secretly writing nov-
els on a notebook that she hid during social visits. And Sir Arthur Conan
Doyle often scrawled ideas for stories about his character Sherlock Holmes
on napkins at dinner parties. Given the tremendous popularity of biogra-
phies (from tabloids to television programs), it is not surprising that we
enjoy hearing and retelling such stories. They humanize public figures and
connect genius with the everyday. In this media-saturated age, the inherent
intimacy of television (a television sits in most living rooms and bedrooms
in America, for example) encourages an obsession with celebrity—a desire
to learn more about those in the public eye.
Writer and producer Aaron Sorkin has received his share of such atten-
tion. As with so many prominent figures, a mythology surrounds him and
his work. One of the most famous legends refers to the play that launched
his career, A Few Good Men (¡989). As Sorkin recalls in an interview with
Charlie Rose (August ¡3, 2003):
I wrote [A Few Good Men] on cocktail napkins during the first
act of Broadway shows where I was serving as a bartender. You
work what’s called the “walk-in,” which is the half hour before
the show when people are coming in; you work the fifteen min-
utes of intermission. During the first act you have nothing to do,
and I was writing A Few Good Men on cocktail napkins. I’d go
home with my pockets filled with cocktail napkins; I’d dump
them out. I had a Mac 5¡2 K which was the second-generation
MacIntosh computer which my roommates and I—we pooled
1
2 CONSIDERINGAARONSORKIN
our money and we bought it—and I’d start to type it and that
would be my first polish that I was doing. I’d type it out, and I’d
cross things out, and I’d type it again. I would do seven, eight,
nine, ten drafts before I would even show anybody the thing. But
on The West Wing, we’d shoot my first draft. There wasn’t time to
polish it.*
This story is part of the mythology that characterizes Sorkin as a genius—
a writer with words spilling out of him feverishly, almost uncontrollably. A
writer who turns in television scripts at the last minute and doesn’t com-
promise his vision.
Of course, Sorkin is not an actor or politician or rock star; he’s pri-
marily a writer, someone who spends most of his time in front of a com-
puter screen, not a camera. So how do we explain his highly visible presence
in the media? It’s di‡cult to think of another screenwriter with a compara-
ble public profile. Perhaps David E. Kelley—the creator of shows such as
Boston Public, Ally McBeal, The Practice, Chicago Hope, and Picket Fences—
comes close, but we know far less about his writing process than we do about
Aaron Sorkin’s. And no matter what accolades Martin Sheen or Allison Jan-
ney receive for their work on The West Wing, Aaron Sorkin is always promi-
nently featured in discussions of the show. We don’t think about the team
of writers behind Sports Night or the sta› generating story ideas for The West
Wing; we think only of Sorkin. Whether intentionally or not, Sorkin has
made himself and his image an integral part of his work.
The language commonly used to describe Sorkin’s work also distin-
guishes him from most other television writers. Even some of his harshest
critics consider Sorkin’s writing “brilliant,” evidence of “genius.” These labels,
along with his prolific output, critical successes, and, of course, his highly
publicized drug problem, place Sorkin in a long tradition of literary genius.
It is rather clichéd to talk of writers with alcohol and drug problems, but
this is particularly relevant to Sorkin’s public image. We associate genius
with such problems. We see it as something out of bounds, as something
that goes hand in hand with self-destructive behavior. In the introduction
to The West Wing Script Book (2002), Sorkin subtly links his problem with
drugs to his art:
My first play, A Few Good Men, opened on Broadway when I was
28 and didn’t close for another 497 performances. I followed that
with an o›–Broadway disaster called Making Movies. I followed
*Excerpts from this interview with Charlie Rose are available at http://westwing.bewarne.com/
credits/sorkin.html.
Introduction (Thomas Fahy) 3
that with the screen adaptation of A Few Good Men and then
Malice and then The American President. I followed The American
President with a 28 day stay at the Hazelden Center in Minnesota
to kick a cocaine habit [3].
By following this long list of accomplishments with a reference to his addic-
tion, Sorkin makes his cocaine habit part and parcel of his artistic identity.
He has been both a writer and a drug addict. We accept it almost as non-
chalantly as Sorkin writes about it because we typically define genius in terms
of extraordinary accomplishment as well as manic and self-destructive behav-
ior. Sorkin has both, and both have made him an icon in American culture.
Fast Talkers: The Craft of Aaron Sorkin
Like Aaron Sorkin, Arthur Conan Doyle was an incredibly prolific and
diverse writer. Both writers wrote on napkins. Both appeal to a popular mar-
ket. Both use episodic formulas (detective fiction and teleplays), recurring
characters who behave in predictable ways, and highly structured plots. Writ-
ing in the ¡890s, Conan Doyle examined the increasing complexity of life
in London at the height of the British Empire. His Sherlock Holmes bal-
ances keen rationalism with intuition to solve crimes. A master of disguise,
Holmes takes on the London underworld in order to understand it, recog-
nizing the need to get his hands dirty in order to engage with the moral com-
plexity of right and wrong. Yet in the end, he still emerges with certain ideals
intact. Justice and harmony are restored, and we are better for confronting
these social problems.
Aaron Sorkin also takes his audience on an oftentimes dirty and frus-
trating journey into moral complexity. The politics of law, art, education,
gender, sexuality, and race preoccupy much of Sorkin’s work, and, as he
reminds us, politics is messy. To illustrate this, Sorkin often presents good
people doing the “wrong” thing for the “right” reason. An intern working for
the White House in “Take Out This Trash Day” (The West Wing), for exam-
ple, reveals sensitive information about Leo McGarry (chief of sta›) after
reading his personnel file. What starts out as an unethical violation of trust
becomes something that the audience can understand and even forgive:
LEO: When you read in my personnel file that I had been treated
for alcohol and drug abuse, what went through your mind? …
KAREN: My father drank a lot…. My father used to … You have
all these important decisions to make in your job. Every
day…. People’s lives….