A Few Good (Liberal) Men
by Stage RightAaron Sorkin really pisses me off.
And not for the reasons you might think.
Yes, he’s a liberal’s liberal. And he epitomizes all that Big Hollywood rails against. He infuses his politics into everything he writes. He purposefully paints most conservative characters with broad, stereotype strokes which leave them characterized as either stupid or evil. He makes liberal characters out to be earnest, hard-working idealists with hearts of gold. They are all intelligent and sympathetic and their only fault seems to be that they just care too much. Even when he’s writing about sportscasters or a sketch comedy show, liberal political positions come out of most of his character’s mouths as if they are given facts, gospel truths. When he does offer up a sympathetic character with conservative views (Ainsley Hayes or Harriet Hayes) they are “lone voices” that always seem to be outnumbered, shouted down or merely there as a foil for the lead character (heroic liberal) to intellectually vivisect for the happy ending.
But, no, that’s not why he pisses me off. He pisses me off because he’s SO DAMN GOOD!
Sitting in the Music Box theatre for the first public performance of A Few Good Men was one of the most electric theatrical experiences of my life. The energy from that cast as they worked the not-yet-legendary “Sorkinese” was something to behold. If you get a kick out of following the characters on “Sports Night” or “West Wing” as they meander the hallways of their workplace trading rapid-fire verbal barbs that make the Algonquin look like an I-Hop, then you really need to experience Sorkin’s work live in the theatre. There’s nothing like being in the same room with the actors and being part of the pace and build and crescendo of his scenes.
And although Sorkin has devoted most of the past fifteen years to television drama, I would contend that each episode of “Sports Night” or “West Wing” or the under-appreciated “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” were mini-plays. They were structured like plays and mostly worked within the confines of two or three sets that could have been constructed on a proscenium stage. Sorkin is a man of the theatre and that’s one of the reasons he is so good at character, plot and dialogue (you know, the three things writing used to be about).
Now, of course, the fact that he is so good is not what really pisses me off… but it’s part of it. You see, because he’s so good, I know that he could write a play with a conservative protagonist. I know he could make that conservative person intelligent, and heroic and I know he could get the whole audience rooting for him. I can prove it. Pretend you don’t know the end of “A Few Good Men.” Pretend you haven’t already spent 90 minutes rooting for Tom Cruise and Demi Moore (Demi in a Navy uniform no less!). Pretend you don’t already know that the Col. Jessup character is sinister in some way… now read this:
Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Sorkin’s words are powerful, patriotic and true. But, they are used in a context that paint the Col. Jessup character into an evil, twisted and angry man. Couldn’t this dialogue been used for a protagonist instead of a villain? Sorkin could do it…. he could. He doesn’t want to. I don’t believe that because he is a liberal he is incapable of writing a sympathetic conservative character. There is too much in the script of “A Few Good Men” that betrays his respect, understanding and admiration of the military.
Dawson: We joined the Marines because we wanted to live our lives by a certain code, and we found it in the Corps. Now you’re asking us to sign a piece of paper that says we have no honor. You’re asking us to say we’re not Marines. If a court decides that what we did was wrong, then I’ll accept whatever punishment they give. But I believe I was right sir, I believe I did my job, and I will not dishonor myself, my unit, or the Corps so I can go home in six months… Sir.
Kaffee: A crime? What crime did he commit? Lieutenant Kendrick? Dawson brought a hungry guy some food… what crime did he commit?
Lt. Kendrick: He disobeyed an order!
Kaffee: And because he did. Because he exercised his own set of values. Because he made a decision about the welfare of another Marine which was in conflict with an order of yours he was punished. Isn’t that right.
Lt. Kendrick: Lance Corporal Dawson disobeyed an order!
Kaffee: Yeah, but it wasn’t a real order, was it? I mean it’s peace time. He wasn’t being asked to secure a hill or advance on a beach head. Surely a Marine of Dawson’s intelligence can be trusted to determine, on his own, which are the really important orders and which orders might, say, be morally questionable? Lieutenant Kendrick? Can he? Can Dawson determine on his own which orders he’s going to follow?
Lt. Kendrick: No, he cannot.
Lt. Weinberg: Why do you like them so much?
Galloway: Because they stand upon a wall and say, “Nothing’s going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch.”
He can do it. I think any good writer can do it. God knows there are many conservative writers in Hollywood forced to work on product that goes against their ideals, but they do it because they are talented writers and that is their job. Sorkin is so damn good.
He could do it to. But he chooses not to.
And that pisses me off.
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
49 Comments
He IS good
I agree with you SOOOOO much. He’s the Mamet of Television and I think about Mamet moving his political focus and can only pray that Sorkin might at sometime do the same. He is enamored by the right in a way that is glimpsed by his highly HIGHLY likable “Right wing” characters (the 2) in Studio 60 and West Wing. In fact watching some of his shows (currently moving through the 3rd season of West Wing) I always laugh as Sorkin plays with the Conservative answer to a problem, but alot of the time when it comes to the lefts response he changes mid stream into emotional hyperbole and sometimes just oversteps the actual argument all together!
He is good.
I sorely miss Studio 60. It was a crime that “they” didn’t let it continue. And an excellent example using “A Few Good Men”. But I must say that the Mamet of TV is David Mamet. Witness “The Unit”. Week in and week out, it’s the strongest case of emotional connection to an ideal in all the shows that I consistently watch. And it’s not biased, just fair.
My wife introduced me to Sports Night. I have to say that I got addicted pretty darn quickly. What makes it is the interplay between the characters. Of course having Robert Guillaume never hurts.
I only ever saw a few episodes of the West Wing, but one line in particular keeps sticking out: “I can’t smoke in my living room, but she can pee in my closet.”
Hey, Mister B,- just sit tight and watch if you want to see some serious compromising of democracy
Regarding his dialogue for Studio 60, Mathew Perry’s character was supposedly based on Sorkin himself, the character’s relationship with the religious actress was based on one Sorkin himself had with actress Kristin Chenoweth. She publicaly stated he took arguments they had and played them out virtually verbatum and used them on the show.
So much for original dialogue.
With that said I loved Sports Night and A Few Good Men but couldn’t stomach West Wing.
I enjoyed Sorkin’s dialogue on Sports Night, but it struck me when watching West Wing how unrealistic it was. No one, whether in a newsroom, or at the White House, is ever that on top of things all the time. No one is ever that quick with the one-liners and retorts 24/7 as all the people on these shows seemed to be. Its fun to listen to, but very few individuals are that quick-witted on a regular basis, much less a whole workplace.
I loved The West Wing (I’d rather watch Sorkin’s repeats than almost anything on TV now), but some of the platitudes spewed out by the Liberals on the show were just painful. Anything having to do with education was always the worst (Sorkin’s lines always reiterated the nonsense that we just don’t pay enough, which is why the system is failing in so many places). I did enjoy the character’s passion, and he was better than anyone else I’ve ever heard at keeping consistency in their behavior.
One of my favorite non-Liberal moments was Christian Slater’s character explaining to Donna Moss why an ashtray on a nuclear sub could cost so much by smashing it with a pipe wrench (then immediately saying he wished he hadn’t done that). The military figures on the show were the only portion that he never messed with. They were almost always honorable and willing to serve the President….even one they didn’t agree with.
Yeah. Even as a conservative I really liked A Few Good Men. I thought the Marines came off well. Part of the underlying issue is the ongoing conflict between the two sides of the military, you could call them the warriors vs. the bureaucrats. Everyone in the military is not a warrior. I too really enjoyed studio 60 and thought his treatment of the Christian actress was quite sympathetic, so sympathetic, in fact, as to be shocking on television.
I’ve tried to enjoy Sorkin – A Few Good Men, Sports Night, West Wing,Studio, and have never liked any of it. And it’s not just the politics because that wasn’t a problem with the episodes of Sports Night I watched. The talk never seemed real to me. Maybe it’s just me, but with me it didn’t click.
Look, here’s how it is (Get used to it):
Democracy is the most idiotic form of government ever devised by man… except for all the other ones. Democracy is rule by fool precisely because the masses are asses. That’s why Heaven is a Kingdom, and not a democracy. The perfect government is run by an all-knowing and all-seeing benevolent dictator who has nothing but the greater good and justice in mind. Unfortunately, no human being fills the bill for that particular position.
As a result, we few with brains – that would be the libertarian-conservatives – are, unfortunately, often at the mercy of the BB-brained butt-boils on the left. This wouldn’t be a bad thing if they were magnanimous in both victory and defeat – as we usually are – but leftards are, well, mentally retarded, and spiritually, they are mongoloid idiots. So, all they think about is exacting revenge when they are given the reins.
Well, the retarded mongoloids – the barbarians we’ve held at the gate for so long – they have the reins now.
Like I said, get used to it.
As for myself, I vow to become even MORE militantly anti-PC… damn, I haven’t shot and killed anything today. At least I grilled something and ate it.
I’ve seen a Few Good Men about a million times–before, during, and after I served in the military. Both the play and the movie are brilliant. Compelling characters, complex yet follow-able plot, and seriously clever dialogue. COL Jessup’s final speech ["Son, we live in a world with walls, and those walls need to be protected by men with guns. WHO's going to do it?! YOU?..."] is one of the best speeches (even though Jessup was the “bad guy”) about the purpose of the U.S. military that you’ll find in any piece of film or theater of the last 50 years.
But one thing that bugs me about it, to this day, is the premise that the entire story is based on: That the Marines prioritize everything they do through the following code: “Unit, Corps, God, Country.”
Now I was an Army guy, not a Marine, (”Ain’t Ready for Marines Yet,” yeah, yeah) but I served with enough Marines (and objectively know enough about military history) to know that that code does not exist. Sorkin made it up. He completely made it up out of whole cloth. Because of THAT movie, millions of people throughout the world–to this day–think that there is a branch of the military in the United States that actually, as part of their “code” puts their professional killing organization ABOVE God Almighty. (Not to mention their country.)
There is not a Marine in the world that lives by such a code. Except in Hollywood, of course. Thank you, Aaron Sorkin.
Studio 60 was awful. By the time the third episode was over, I kind of got the sense that Sorkin’s diatribes against conservatives, Christians, and anyone who dared judge him for his drug habits were starting to slow down. But I didn’t find out, because that’s when I’d had enough, and quit watching. The show wasn’t funny enough to keep afloat amongst the waves of crybaby liberal kvetching. Sorkin wasted the opportunity to get back into the TV game.
As a Navy vet and a criminal defense lawyer, I actually enjoy the movie for what it is. It’s no less accurate legally than any other average courtroom drama. When I was in law school, I actually used the opening statements to help teach a high school class to do a mock trial. (Both statements have a clearly defined theme and theory, and exemplify the truth that brevity is the soul of wit. But I digress…)
It’s just too bad that COL Jessup is such a caricature. There really are overzealous military officers who abuse their subordinates “for the greater good,” although they’re in the minority, and it usually more resembles Dilbert’s Pointy Haired Boss than Biff from Back to the Future. But there also really are dirtballs in the ranks who anchor the whole command with their laziness, incompetence, malingering, and whining (yes, sometimes even in letters to Congressmen) and it’s not like you can just fire them and send them home. It’s a sticky problem of properly running, disciplining, and employing a military unit while at the same time respecting the Marines (or sailors, soldiers, or airmen) as individual people.
The funny thing is that most of us really liked that whole “we live in a world with walls” spiel, as over-the-top as it was. Almost every shop had some version of it kicking around (The YNs talked of “living in a world of bureaucracy, and that world has paperwork! Who’s gonna do it – you, Kaffe?”) It’s damned frustrating to work that hard and feel unappreciated by politicians, the press, Hollywood, the local community, and even friends and family, which is something I think anyone who has ever gone on deployment has felt at one time or another. Sometimes a little hyperbole and pushback feels cathartic, even if it’s not really what we’d say or how we’d really act.
AFGM – what a joke of a movie. The problem wasn’t that it was good – from a paratrooper’s perspective – it was horrible.
How much more of a “Snidely Whiplash” character did Jack N. have to be? He so gacked it with his absolute unbelieveability of any leader I’d ever seen in the military.
What, was Jack going to tie Demi to the train tracks next while he tweaked his mustache and cackled as he ran away?
What a joke. C’mon, you expect guys like us who served to believe that we need to be served that kind of crap? I’m sure Sorkin does and so deserves my spite.
His one-dimenstional Liberal good, Conservative/Patriot bad approach reminds me of why I can’t stand him, West Wing.
What is Sorkin anyway, but a Boris and Natasha character gone awry?
Why watch anything like that?
Seriously – South Park – a real cartoon – has much more depth and humor to boot.
So next time you hear (on a past episode) Kyle, Stan and Eric look for whoever killed Kenny – think:
“Sorkin – you bastard!”
It’s as believeable as Sorkins’ characters anyway so why not?
He may be a bleeding-heart liberal, but I know several military folks who can recite Col. Jessep’s monologue. Removed from the context of the movie, it is quite appropriate.
Sorkin may be good getting his message out, but isn’t it just a little too tidy? Example: In “A Few Good Men,” don’t you think the Kevin Bacon character would have jumped in to “disrupt” Tom Cruise from badgering Jack Nicholson to the breaking point(sort of like a time out for your team to regain its composure and break the momentum of the other team when it’s running up the score)? Of course, that would have ruined the “gotcha” moment, which makes for good cinema. Although it was a little too tidy for the real world, Sorkin made sure we knew who the bad guy was.
Also, there are plenty of “right of center” writers out there, but they would never, EVER be given the chance push their agenda as Sorkin does. In Hollywood, if you’re not a “Pod Person,” you’re out!
I loved West Wing. Sure, it was typically preachy about the good that government can do. Yet, I don’t recall another show that allowed its protagonists to screw up so royally and receive dressings down. Name me another show that gave Ron Silver significant work after he came out as a non-liberal. Then, it had him verbally vivisect main characters when they were being stoopid.
He was a bit of a visionary in the creation of Alan Alda’s Senator/presidential candidate Arnie Vinick. I swear McCain took notes!
But, my all-time favorite was Ainsley. She never once lost an argument. She didn’t get her way, but she was the brightest of the bunch (save Bartlet hisself). I could watch her destroy Rob Lowe on that talk show all the live long day.
I’m coincidentally on a bit of a West Wing marathon lately, living in rural Canada with only 3 channels, and a DVD of season 2. I find it a very watchable and enjoyable show. I have noticed however that whenever it comes to an “issue”, the last word is almost always some sentimental story of some single mom, or somebody’s poor old dad, or some crime victim, which is very poignant and makes it obvious to any right thinking person that the only compassionate thing the government can do is regulate the hell out of it.
In Charlie Wilson’s War Aaron Sorkin portrays beating the Soviets in Afghanistan as heroic AND it’s a great watch.
While in The Supreme’s, my favourite West Wing William Fichtner’s conservative Justice Christopher Mulreaday was portrayed as much cleverer than just about everyone.
And he is just damn good. One can forgive so much for sheer writing splendour.
regardless of how everyone feels about Sorkin (personally, i don’t like his series), can we all agree that there’s nothing(*) whatsoever redeeming on David E. Kelly’s resume? can anyone say… time for another strawman argument?
(*) Denny Crane excepted, but i think that character is more the result of Shatner’s brilliance than anything written on the script. all hail Shatner!
Sorkin’s written some very good, very nuanced conservative characters, such as Ainsley Hayes (”Toby, come quick. Sam’s getting his ass kicked by a girl.” “Ginger, get the popcorn,” ), and on Studio 60, he brilliantly summed up the right/left cultural divide in one sentence: “Well, my side hates your side ’cause we think you’re stupid, and your side hates our side ’cause we think you’re stupid.”
He’ll toss in a few caricatures and stereotypes, to be sure, but by and large, I find him one of the few lefty writers who takes the time to portray conservatives as living, breathing, *thinking* individuals, rather than just straw men for Our Hero to knock down (and yes, I am looking at you, Law And Order).
And remember, Sorkin’s role models are Gilbert and Sullivan, not Berthold Brecht. He tends to think in terms of Dear Little Buttercup rather than Death of a Salesman.
Sorkin is “So Good?” Listening to a Broken Record is never anything other than a Tired Joke. Get over it. Think of the IQ’s that are drawn to it. You might find them taking a Loyalty Oath to a Politician and then putting it on Youtube.
Aside from his over the top liberalism, my main complaint about Sorkin’s writing, particularly in THE WEST WING, was the almost lack of distinction between characters. A lot of quick “I’m so smart and clever,” banter back and forth, usually walking and talking at a fast pace, and most of it totally interchangeable between characters. Nearly every one of Sorkin’s characters say lines of dialogue that could just as easily be said by any of the other characters and no one would notice.
Why glorify the idiocy of Sorkin and the Hollywood leftists?
Is anyone else as sick of the liberal love fest going on in America’s media today? It’s fine to believe in a fantasy (Obama saving the world from the evil Republicans), but at some point reality is going to set in (Bush’s tax break not getting renewed) and Obama launching Hellfire missle strikes in Pakistan just last week.
We now face the wonderful possibility of the Guantanamo prisoners being relocated to Southern California, Kansas, and South Carolina. No doubt the locals are overjoyed with this moronic policy. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there never will be.
The bottom line is for every liberal icon there’s a downside that’s rarely discussed (50 million abortions and counting since Roe v. Wade) that more often than not create huge longer term problems (no one left to pay for Social Security).
We’ve already spent 7 trillion dollars (ten times more than the Bush bailout) on welfare since the Johnson Administration and achieved what so far? The poverty rate is the same as it was in 1964.
George Bernard Shaw had it right, “Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul will inevitably have the support of Paul”. Yet Obama is already making comical excuses for not delivering on his campaign promises a week into his administration.
I can’t help but believe the same Democrats that spent eight years bagging on Bush’s leadership also held a fundamental role in the collapse of our economy (Schumer and IndyMac mouth off cost us $9 billion alone); placing the goal of regaining their political power far above that of the the country’s overall interest.
I was fascinated to read that Bush left the White House in good shape, remembering the destruction and graffiti at the end of the Clinton administration. Not one peep about that in the media, naturally. Or even the West Wing.
That is the true legacy of the Adam Sorkins of the world.
Perhaps one of the many comments above captured this, SR, but consider the following perspective:
There’s no need to wish for Sorkin to create such a hero. He already has. Sorkin has unwittingly created the hero in Col. Jessup (and not Tom Cruise’s star character), just as Kubrick created the hero in Senior Drill Instructor Gunnery Sergeant Hartman and not Private Joker in ‘Full Metal Jacket.’
Think about it. When you and the vast majority of movie-goers watch these two movies, what are the lines and charcters they remember and champion most? Why, it’s Jessup’s “You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall!” and Hartman’s “You are nothing but unorganized, grab***tic pieces of amphibian ****” and the like.
Because, though Sorkin and Kubrick (et al) see the thi9ngs thhese characters say and do as repulsive, most Americans simply do not. THey see through the sheen of presentation and recognize the characatures being fed to them and see something else. Strong, assertive, masculine and courageous.
Because the bottom line is that we DO need them on that wall, and we DO need Marine recruits brokken down to their lowest common denominator to be built back up before plunging into warfare, where there are no screenwriters or congressmen to write and complain in the heat of battle.
We do not see the Hartmans and Jessups as the psychotics they are presented to us as. We sinmply don’t.
And that’s why with both of these contemporary films, neither is remembered by the consuming public for the lofty, lefty reasons the screenwriters, producers and directors intended. Ratrher, they are remembered for the men – the characters – whom they tried to sully in two overarchingly anti-military movies.
And this reality makes me smile as a veteran Marine. Most of us still get it, no matter who incessantly the anti-military, anti-conservative messages are thrown at us in popular culture. Our brains still function independently.
Sorkin and Kubrick make me smile, not frown. And I doubt they even get it. All the merrier.
Semper Fi.
I have no use for Sorkin.
His shows are interchangeable. No matter what show it is, it’s all about Aaron Sorkin.
“Look at me! Look how smart, clever and witty I am!”
Yes, Aaron. Anyone who’s spent 5 minutes watching anything you’ve done knows that you think very highly of yourself.
I’d sooner go to the dentist than sit through anything with his name on it.
Loved Ainsley!! When WW began, my thought was “wouldn’t it be great if everyone in the White House was there because they were such single-minded, hope-filled, idealogues”. And I mean that seriously. We hear too much about McClellan’s book or others that aren’t sincere in their service – what’s in it for me… So, even though I hated their politics, when WW started I could enjoy the idea – and they weren’t rabidly liberal, still feeling out their audience. But I didn’t get past the re-election as a regular watcher. I was sad when Ainsley left, even though she showed up in Miami.
Ainsley Hayes has to be one of the most delightfully erudite characters of any political stripe seen on TV in a long, long time. No one is better than Sorkin. Period.
The love for Ainsley Hayes is appropriate and well founded. As I said in my post, Sorkin CAN create a great conservative character and put amazing words in their mouth. My point is: Why can’t Ainsley be the central figure? Don’t we think Ainsley Hayes, Senator from north Carolina would be a great spin-off? But it doesn’t happen. Ainsley is great, but why must we only have Ainsley as the one voice of dissent? How about Ainsley and all of her Republican staffers in their Capitol Hill office as the setting for a show? And she can hire a Democrat as a junior aide, just to mix things up a bit.
[...] Hollywood discusses Aaron Sorkin (Disclaimer: I LOVE the West Wing and, even more so, Sports [...]
It must be a heavy weight, all that self-absorption. Having to write every line so that the fairly tale of liberalism breathes throughout.
On the other hand, it is fairly profitable.
It certainly seems that Sorkin has some respect and admiration for the military–in The West Wing, and even in Studio 60, he depicts use of force as a) necessary and b) honorable and c) dependable (rescue of Studio 60 character’s airman brother). What I wonder about the Jessup conundrum is how did Sorkin himself feel about the substance of Jessup’s famous speech? Was he using it as a “punchline,” a ridiculous defense from a man willing to get an innocent if ineffective marine killed if that’s what it took to produce discipline in the ranks, or was he trying to portray Jessup as a double-sided, twisted yet honorable character who was speaking the writer’s beliefs about the ideal of the military?
The problem is that it’s too hard to believe that any truly honorable military commander would have ordered that Code Red behavior rather than just transfer or discharge the problem recruit. The substance of his speech is part of the core of what the military is about, but it comes ill off the lips of a man who ignored evidence that there were more than disciplinary reasons why a marine was not up to standard, especially when he includes getting that marine killed as part of “the way I provide” the defense that is so obviously necessary.
In case it’s not clear, I also have a love/exasperation relationship with Sorkin’s writing. He really fell down on the job by the time he got to Studio 60–in The West Wing, at least, political diatribes were a part of life, coming as they were from political operatives. They also had some subtlety and wit. In Studio 60 they were forced and rehashed and far more shrill, not to mention rather out of place in trying to build a sketch show, and seemed to be leveled at anybody who’d ever insulted Sorkin personally rather than sticking to ideas and principles.
I love the West Wing and own the first five seasons. I loved The American President, I love A Few Good Men. Very well written with a great rythme….Aaron Sorkin? I would hire in a second BUT good not disagree with him more:)
You must be logged in to post a comment.