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….