Jai

Thanks for your suggestion but as I live in rural, I am forced to wait until the next series is out on DVD.

Our only Sky English channel is BBC Prime (thanks to Mr Murdoch)which is currently showing Yes Minister, Keeping Up Appearances and a constant string of house makeover programmes and boring people cleaning out their attics hoping to find a long fotgotten Constable! On one Italian channel we can get Spooks - not dubbed in Italian, unlike Frasier, another favourite of mine, which is! The modt amusing however is The Office dubbed - the Italians don't get it at all.

Shirley

Davey and Terry

Considered simply as a piece of entertainment, I would say WW is satisfying and better written than most. And in the end course that is all it is. It certainly has elements of slickness easy to criticise.

However: with liars in the White House and Downing Street and the voice of liberal America shamefully silenced by the universal cowardice of the the US media since 9/11, the sanity and respect for reason reflected fictionally in the WW is I think something to celebrate and be grateful for.

Idealism always looks impractical and unrealistic. Serious liberal themes recur in WW and most importantly are coherently argued: abortion and the issue of a woman's right to choose; the lunacy of American attitudes to guns and manipulation by the gun lobby; serious attention to the real threat of global warming and the need to resist the overwhleming power of the Oil lobby; the systematic distortion of complex issues to narrow, flag-waving chauvinism; the bigoted so-called Christian fundamentlism that sees itself, ludicrously engaged on a "Crusade" against the forces of evil i.e. other belief systems of which Bush is historically, spiritually and even politically ignorant. etc etc etc.

To its credit the WW often exposes even its own liberal agenda to coherent Republican critique. The WW does not in any way demonise or dismiss sincerely held and seriously argued republican/non-liberal views through e.g. the appointment of a feisty female Republican to the Attorney General's office.

I find it comforting that at a time when the Democratic candidate for President in the real world election, was too cowardly to stand explicitly on the platform of his true beliefs, that even with its overtly liberal sentiments, the WW has continued to be watched by sufficent numbers of ordinary Americans to remain an award-winning show. Sadly it is true that Bush's illiberal, populist agenda has coincided with some diminution of the WW's fortunes - but it is still hanging in there.

Finally, even in fiction, I cherish a president of genuine intellect and education, who knows something about the history of other nations and technically has some knowledge of economics. But most fundamentally: when the real President of the United States and our own Prime Minister, surround themselves with brown-nosing, self-serving acolytes who tell them only what they want to hear, I admire the aspiration implied by the way the Bartlett character is written, who constantly and determinedly forces all closest to him, to take the risk of saying what they believe and standing up to him when they think he is wrong - come what may. Whether fictional or real - that is a defining characteristic of true leadership rather than the attitudes of the tawdry, unprincipled corporatists who currently run both our countries.

The fictional world of the WW puts our real politics and politicians to shame: not because it isn't without its dramatic license, or human interst storylines, but because if you listen say to the WW presidential debate, or discussion of a whole range of other serious issues, you see how reason, respect for the truth and the responsibilities of power might be exercised. I would be greatly comforted if I thought GW or even TB spent half the time the Bartlett character does agonising about the consequences of any major decisions he has to to make, that have the risk or even certainty of death and suffering to ordinary people - at home or abroad.

It is a measure of the corruption of our real ideals and political aspiration; and our current self-serving cynicism, that we have to look to a fictional TV series to see these qualities given any coherent demonstration at all.

Regards

Z

Zettel,

Well put. I guess you're talking, in a way, about the power of story-telling and how it can actually get us thinking differently.

I watched 'The Motorcycle Diaries' last night, about Che Guevara (spelling?) when he was young, travelling around South America with a mate on an old motorbike. One of the things I liked about the film was that its idealism got me questioning myself. Che, on the journey, sees much injustice and unnecessary poverty, and you know that this is shaping what he goes on to do with his life. There's a lovely scene where his friend begs him for the money Che's been keeping back (to buy his rich girlfriend a US swimsuit, if they ever get there) to pay for a prostitute he's just met. Che tells him that he doesn't have it anymore, that he gave it to the impoverished couple they met some time ago who'd been thrown off their land with no work. His mate's face is a picture. And this idealism (because I'm sure the film has tarted up the actual events) makes me question myself in these areas. What am I doing about injustice?

This morning I went into W H Smiths and read the last chapter of Gianfranco Zola's biography (no, I didn't buy it!). He was offered a new contract with Chelsea that was half his current wages. He wanted the club to offer just a token bit extra as good faith, but they stalled on the deal. Then Cagliari asked him to come back to Sardinia and play for them. He agreed and signed a contract. The very next day Ambramovich bought Chelsea and was desperate to get Zola back. He offered him £3m a year, which was about seven times what he would get in Sardinia. Zola refused, saying he'd given his word. Ambramovich even tried to buy Cagliari so he could get him back, but the club refused to be sold and Zola stayed in Italy. It's a nice story, but it's good to question oneself in light of it: what would I do? Would I really turn down £3m a year on a point of honour?

I think it's the same with the WW: what would I do if I was in that position? Would I remain as liberal as I think I am? Could even if I wanted to?

Terry

Terry

I agree entirely about The Motor Cycle Diaries. Superb (review here on WW). It was clever to confine the period of the film to Che's early life. There was probably a bit rose-tinting there but I am sure the idealism was real whatever view one takes of later events.

Regards

Z