Commander-In-Chief
“If Moses had been a woman leading the Jews in the desert, she’d have stopped and asked for directions. They’d have been in Israel in a week.� –former first lady, Grace Bridges.
Commander-In-Chief’s primary achievement is managing to almost make the possibility of its premise plausible. In some ways, this show seems like another entry in the science fiction/fantasy boom of shows, after all, we’re talking about a woman, Independent (as opposed to Republican or Democrat), former university chancellor occupying the Oval Office. I’m on record believing that this country would sooner see a black man than a woman as president, though the show wants to seize the moment of a possible presidential bid by Senator Hillary Clinton.
Created by Rod Lurie (the short-lived, but superb, Line of Fire, The Contender) and going where The West Wing has gone before, Commander-In-Chief mines whatever zeitgeist is left for interest in presidential politics. Balancing family drama and the world of cutthroat politics, Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis, displaying a gravitas that will finally put Pirate Island long behind her), like President Barlett, seems too good to be true, a fantasy creation of wish fulfillment. She plays her president with a mix of idealism and maternal groundedness (though with enough edge to order the boys around).
The show features a superb supporting cast. Kyle Secor (Homicide: Life on the Streets) plays Rod Allen, President Allen’s husband and former chief of staff when she was only the vice president. Harry Lennix (Matrix Reloaded, Matrix Revolutions) is Jim Gardner, her new chief of staff. Hopefully they will give US Attorney General Melanie Blackstone (Leslie Hope from 24 and Line of Fire) more to do. Most of the characters, thus far, are one note ciphers, underutilized at best. At any rate, they have cast the scene chewing Donald Sutherland (Lord of War, The Italian Job, Cold Mountain) as the president’s arch-political rival, Speaker of the House Nathan Templeton, “an SOB and a liar and he cheats at poker� (as the former president describes him). He oozes both charm and venom with every sentence, a perfect villain to balance President Allen’s innate goodness.
Several storylines and tensions are ably played against each other. This show suffers in comparison to The West Wing, which it will invariably be compared, lacking both its intelligence and complexity. Nor does it particularly aim to rise above competent drama, choosing to play up the family drama in order to distinguish it from The West Wing.
“She’s a woman. It’s so easy to deal with women if you just remember they’re not men.� –Nathan Templeton
The show is not subtle, framing their argument such that only old school, repugnant chauvinists out of step with the times would oppose the idea of a female president, Commander-In-Chief allows the opportunity for an interesting examination of role reversals. Rod Allen, already used to being the husband of a powerful woman, is shunted from being her chief of staff to learning the art of being the first ... gentleman. He has to figure out how to do the role traditionally left to women of powerful men, trying to figure out what it means to be her help-mate and the proper support. The task falls to him to keep a stable home life while she does the salaried “work�.
The show also ramps up the debate on how we view women in society. On the one hand, modern society says that all people are created equal. On the other hand, we relegate women to second class citizen status. The same values that run through our still patriarchal society infect the church also. Within the church’s more conservative circles, teachings espouse traditional “gender roles� as biblically mandated, as part of the “creation order� (Adam then Eve, to reduce the point to its most basic argument). The father/husband should be the head of the household (overlooking two important things: 1) we’ve applied the connotation of “authority� and “master� to the verse’s use of the word “head�, implying a hierarchical order; and 2) we conveniently forget such context setting verses like how we are to “submit to one another�). Furthermore, the idea of male headship has been extrapolated into every aspect of societal leadership in general.
Some argue that this role of male unilateral decision making is unbiblical and contrived by taking the Bible out of context and forcing, or rather, justifying our societal mores with the original biblical text language. This wouldn’t be unprecedented: for hundreds of years, the Bible was used to justify slavery and segregation, then as society’s views on this changed, the way people interpreted the Bible’s position on the topic changed as well. Maybe now we are ready to believe and practice that men and women are created to be equal partners, to be equally valued, and both to exercise dominion in creation and redemption.
“Why do you want to be President ... the answer that you should be giving me is that you want to be President because you want the power to control the universe ... People who don’t want power have no idea what to do with it, they have no idea how to use it when they have it.� –Nathan Templeton
The question that comes to mind is what do we want in and ask from our leaders? We hold them a higher standard, to a moral high ground, and want them to lead by example and with humility because they represent the best of us. They devote themselves to a higher principle, be it God, Nation, The Corporation or Duty. The role of a spiritual leader, for example, is pursue God’s will first, then to move people from where they are to where God wants them to be. By persuasion and example, leaders move their followers from pursuing their own agenda to God’s, serving and empowering them in the process. Leaders realize that they are ultimately accountable to God, or to their higher principle, such as The Nation. They don’t blame their followers, they don’t make excuses. Christ was a servant-leader, not a dominator forcing people to his will. By our standards of power usage and what it means to be a kingdom, this may seem naive, but Christ’s mission has always been a subversive one, not using the ways of the world to accomplish it.
While not having the realism and snap that heralded the early seasons of The West Wing, Commander-In-Chief is a capable show. Is America ready for a female president? Probably not, but before now, it was a difficult scenario to even imagine. Just as 24 laid the groundwork for a possible black president, Commander-In-Chief puts forth the idea that if we are truly the leaders of the free world, maybe we can continue to lead by example. Or, as President Allen puts it, “the character of any nation is judged by its people.�
Commander-In-Chief’s primary achievement is managing to almost make the possibility of its premise plausible. In some ways, this show seems like another entry in the science fiction/fantasy boom of shows, after all, we’re talking about a woman, Independent (as opposed to Republican or Democrat), former university chancellor occupying the Oval Office. I’m on record believing that this country would sooner see a black man than a woman as president, though the show wants to seize the moment of a possible presidential bid by Senator Hillary Clinton.
Created by Rod Lurie (the short-lived, but superb, Line of Fire, The Contender) and going where The West Wing has gone before, Commander-In-Chief mines whatever zeitgeist is left for interest in presidential politics. Balancing family drama and the world of cutthroat politics, Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis, displaying a gravitas that will finally put Pirate Island long behind her), like President Barlett, seems too good to be true, a fantasy creation of wish fulfillment. She plays her president with a mix of idealism and maternal groundedness (though with enough edge to order the boys around).
The show features a superb supporting cast. Kyle Secor (Homicide: Life on the Streets) plays Rod Allen, President Allen’s husband and former chief of staff when she was only the vice president. Harry Lennix (Matrix Reloaded, Matrix Revolutions) is Jim Gardner, her new chief of staff. Hopefully they will give US Attorney General Melanie Blackstone (Leslie Hope from 24 and Line of Fire) more to do. Most of the characters, thus far, are one note ciphers, underutilized at best. At any rate, they have cast the scene chewing Donald Sutherland (Lord of War, The Italian Job, Cold Mountain) as the president’s arch-political rival, Speaker of the House Nathan Templeton, “an SOB and a liar and he cheats at poker� (as the former president describes him). He oozes both charm and venom with every sentence, a perfect villain to balance President Allen’s innate goodness.
Several storylines and tensions are ably played against each other. This show suffers in comparison to The West Wing, which it will invariably be compared, lacking both its intelligence and complexity. Nor does it particularly aim to rise above competent drama, choosing to play up the family drama in order to distinguish it from The West Wing.
“She’s a woman. It’s so easy to deal with women if you just remember they’re not men.� –Nathan Templeton
The show is not subtle, framing their argument such that only old school, repugnant chauvinists out of step with the times would oppose the idea of a female president, Commander-In-Chief allows the opportunity for an interesting examination of role reversals. Rod Allen, already used to being the husband of a powerful woman, is shunted from being her chief of staff to learning the art of being the first ... gentleman. He has to figure out how to do the role traditionally left to women of powerful men, trying to figure out what it means to be her help-mate and the proper support. The task falls to him to keep a stable home life while she does the salaried “work�.
The show also ramps up the debate on how we view women in society. On the one hand, modern society says that all people are created equal. On the other hand, we relegate women to second class citizen status. The same values that run through our still patriarchal society infect the church also. Within the church’s more conservative circles, teachings espouse traditional “gender roles� as biblically mandated, as part of the “creation order� (Adam then Eve, to reduce the point to its most basic argument). The father/husband should be the head of the household (overlooking two important things: 1) we’ve applied the connotation of “authority� and “master� to the verse’s use of the word “head�, implying a hierarchical order; and 2) we conveniently forget such context setting verses like how we are to “submit to one another�). Furthermore, the idea of male headship has been extrapolated into every aspect of societal leadership in general.
Some argue that this role of male unilateral decision making is unbiblical and contrived by taking the Bible out of context and forcing, or rather, justifying our societal mores with the original biblical text language. This wouldn’t be unprecedented: for hundreds of years, the Bible was used to justify slavery and segregation, then as society’s views on this changed, the way people interpreted the Bible’s position on the topic changed as well. Maybe now we are ready to believe and practice that men and women are created to be equal partners, to be equally valued, and both to exercise dominion in creation and redemption.
“Why do you want to be President ... the answer that you should be giving me is that you want to be President because you want the power to control the universe ... People who don’t want power have no idea what to do with it, they have no idea how to use it when they have it.� –Nathan Templeton
The question that comes to mind is what do we want in and ask from our leaders? We hold them a higher standard, to a moral high ground, and want them to lead by example and with humility because they represent the best of us. They devote themselves to a higher principle, be it God, Nation, The Corporation or Duty. The role of a spiritual leader, for example, is pursue God’s will first, then to move people from where they are to where God wants them to be. By persuasion and example, leaders move their followers from pursuing their own agenda to God’s, serving and empowering them in the process. Leaders realize that they are ultimately accountable to God, or to their higher principle, such as The Nation. They don’t blame their followers, they don’t make excuses. Christ was a servant-leader, not a dominator forcing people to his will. By our standards of power usage and what it means to be a kingdom, this may seem naive, but Christ’s mission has always been a subversive one, not using the ways of the world to accomplish it.
While not having the realism and snap that heralded the early seasons of The West Wing, Commander-In-Chief is a capable show. Is America ready for a female president? Probably not, but before now, it was a difficult scenario to even imagine. Just as 24 laid the groundwork for a possible black president, Commander-In-Chief puts forth the idea that if we are truly the leaders of the free world, maybe we can continue to lead by example. Or, as President Allen puts it, “the character of any nation is judged by its people.�
8 Comments:
Left a long comment on the foolishness of claiming that women live in second class status in America in 2005. It must be nice living in a bubble where you make absurd comments on a blog and not have to face any contradiction. Why have the comment box at all?
Since the comment above took, it looks like I might have pushed the wrong button after I refuted the nonsense about women as second class citizens. AAARRRGGGHHH. Sorry about the bubble comment above.
Well, let me try to summarize why I think it is patent nonsense to claim that women are second class citizens in America in 2005. Women serve at all levels of government in State and Federal offices (with the exception of the Presidency). Women are Governors, Federal Senators and Representatives, State Senators and Representatives. Several women have served as U.S. Secretary of State. Women serve as CEOs, COOs and CFOs in the business world. Women make up almost 2/3rds of undergraduate and graduate college students.
Please explain to me how women are second class citizens in America in 2005. And don't claim that some men make a biblical claim to being the head of the household as your evidence. What happens in the homes of a few folks has no bearing on whether or not women are second class citizens in America.
my point is that this country has a history of treating women as second class citizens, some of which we've managed to justify using (our interpretation of) holy scriptures. and i think there is a prevailing attitude that lingers as the legacy of this history.
you will have to forgive me if my passion on the topic leads me to hyperbole, though i would still maintain that i don't overstate the case by much. what you see as "what happens in the homes of a few folks" i see taught from the pulpit, or in the programs, of many churches.
and as long as your comments are on point and relatively brief (and not spam), i don't delete them.
long rambling diatribes that meander all over the place, on the other hand, are subject to deletion.
Maurice, I won't try to refute what you have heard preached. I can only respond with very different experiences.
But I would just ask if what you hear preached is played out in practice in the larger society?
Commander-In-Chief is presented as a drama that plays off the idea that women still live in some kind of 'second class status' in America today because we have not elected a female president. This isn't drama, it is science fiction or fantasy. What this show is not about is how some preachers talk about the status of women from the pulpit.
It seems that your experience in some churches led you to reinforce the inaccurate perception some folks (who generally reside on the Left side of the political spectrum) have about women in society today.
Again, I'm not arguing against what you heard preached. It is about the actual status of women in America in 2005 and the nonsense put on the small screen by Commander-In-Chief.
Another fact about how American society values women over men is the amount of money the gov't spends on breast cancer versus prostrate cancer. "Although the breast cancer death rate and that of prostate cancer are nearly equal, the research funding for breast cancer is about seven times that for prostate cancer. The result is that, whereas the death rate due to breast cancer is dropping, the death rate due to prostate cancer has risen for the past thirty years."
To me, it is more important how a society behaves, then what some within it say.
Even if there were a woman president, women in America would still not be "equal". (Would not be treated equally, that is. Would not have the same amount of power socially.)
Just as, even if there WERE a black president... same thing.
It is a shame that such a mindless, over-hyped garbage like this show is the reason we are talking about a female as a president. This is like the west wing only without the smart writing or interesting story line. Why is it that awful shows like this get picked up and worth-while shows like Arrested development or Sports Night get cancelled. It's one and only merit is that it isn't another reality show. If this is the best the networks have to offer (and given the cancelation of everything else, it must be), I am seriously considering getting rid of my TV. If I want to waste an hour with no redeeming value, maybe I'll stare off into space...
which is why i own west wing (only seasons 1-4) on dvd. and sports night. and arrested development is next on my list.
Post a Comment
<< Home