Isaac and Ishmael

[coalescent]

In September of 2001, The West Wing was gearing up to start its third season. Then came September 11th. Aaron Sorkin's response to that day is mentioned on this page:

At the time of the attack, Aaron was in the middle of writing the 6th episode of the season. A Halloween ep. He immediately stopped writing and tossed the script. He said that it didn't feel right to write. That all of a sudden what artists and writers did seemed "despicably silly."

After 2 days, he and his staff "dug in" to learn the history of terrorism. this happened over that weekend, and come monday he pitched the script idea to tommy schlamme and john wells and he wrote it in roughly 2-3 days, and then rewrote, and rewrote and rewrote ... he rewrote it quite a bit.

What he came up with was 'Isaac and Ishmael'. The episode aired on October 3rd, 2001, after a ten-day production schedule (compared to the usual six weeks). Media reaction was ... mixed, to say the least.

The episode, as introductory speeches by the actors (not the characters) makes clear, sits outside the normal chronology of The West Wing. There's no real point trying to work out where it fits into the series timeline, because it doesn't really fit anywhere. For that reason, it's never aired in this country; and for that reason, I'd never seen it before tonight, when I watched the DVD copy I'd borrowed from Su. The title comes, of course, from the Bible; in the episode, the story is related in this way:

STUDENT: How did all this start?

ABBEY: How did what all start?

STUDENT: Well... this...

ABBEY: Sarah... God said to Abraham, "Look toward the heaven and number the stars and so shall your descendants be." But Abraham's wife, Sarah, wasn't getting any younger, and God wasn't coming through on His promise... I was very young when I had my kids. I was very, very, very, very young. I was barely even born yet when I had my oldest daughter, Elizabeth.

... Anyway, Sarah was getting older, and she was getting nervous because she didn't have any children. So he sent Abraham to the bed of her maid, Hagar, and Abraham and Hagar had Ishmael. And not long after they did, God kept His promise to Sarah, as He'd always intended to, and Abraham and Sarah had Isaac. And Sarah said to Abraham, "Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of the slave woman will not be heir with my son Isaac." And so it began: the Jews, the sons of Isaac. The Arabs, the sons of Ishmael. But what most people find important to remember is that, in the end, the two sons came together to bury their father.

JOSH: I think most people also find it important to remember that the whole thing took place about 73 million years ago.

[full transcript]

As part of the introduction to the episode, Bradley Whitford describes 'Isaac and Ishmael' as a play. As the above quote may suggest, that's not entirely accurate. More than a play, it's a lesson.

The West Wing is not above being didactic when the mood takes it, but in 'Isaac and Ishmael' that tendency is ramped up to eleven. The scenario is this: in the wake of some unspecified terroist attack, the White House is experiencing security alerts on at least a weekly basis. When this happens, the whole building is 'crashed'; nobody is allowed to enter or leave (there's a faint siege mentality about the whole situation; everything seems subtly darker than the normal West Wing universe; and if that is an alternate of ours, then what we see here is an alternate of theirs).

During this particular crash, a group of high-school students are visiting the White House, and Josh was assigned to meet them and answer any questions they may have. Inevitably, the discussion turns to terrorism; the causes of it, and possible solutions. One by one the other characters--Toby, Sam, CJ, Bartlet, Abbey, Charlie--happen by the room and offer their opinions. Josh starts out by inviting the students to fill in the blank: 'Islamic extremist is to Islamic as "blank" is to Christianity.' The students first guess 'fundamentalist', but what Josh has in mind is the KKK. "It's the Klan, gone medieval and global."

When Toby turns up, he makes his own analogy, borrowed by Sorkin from a Salon article of the time:

TOBY: [looks at the visual aid, reads] "Islamic Extremists is to Islamic as KKK is to Christianity." That's... that's about right. That's a good religious analogy. What's the political analogy? What's an analogy using governments?

BOY 1: They don't have a government.

BOY 2: They have the Taliban. They have the government of Afghanistan.

TOBY: The Taliban is not the recognized government of Afghanistan. The Taliban took over the recognized government of Afghanistan. And there's your political analogy.

BOY 2: What do you mean?

TOBY: When you think of Afghanistan, think of Poland. When you think of the Taliban, think of the Nazis. When you think of the citizens of Afghanistan, think of the Jews in concentration camps.

In parallel to all this, we see the investigation into the reason for the crash. A known terrorist detained crossing the Canadian/US border named several coconspirators, one of whom was 'Raqim Ali'. It turns out there are three Raqim Alis: one is a software designer in Spokane, one is a caterer in LA, and the third works at the White House.

Leo is present at the interview--interrogation, really--of that Ali. He doesn't come out of it well, seeming paranoid and bigoted and too eager to believe that the man is guilty. Seeming, in short, not like himself; and indeed, that's what he says at the end of the episode, when Ali is found innocent. He apologises, and says they've been under a 'greater than usual' amount of stress.

It's not an episode that works as drama, not really. There's no real debate, no real conflict; the arguments of Josh and Sam and Toby are never really tested, and Josh's summing up at the end is falsely heartwarming:

JOSH: But listen, don't worry about all this right now. We've got you covered. Worry about school. Worry about what you're gonna tell your parents when you break curfew. [...] Learn things. Be good to each other. Read the newspapers, go the movies, go to a party. Read a book. In the meantime, remember pluralism. You want to get these people? I mean, you really want to reach in and kill them where they live? Keep accepting more than one idea. Makes 'em absolutely crazy.

It's too much, and it's not the only rough edge in the piece. But that said, overall it's still a fascinating piece of television. The longer-term effects of September 11th on The West Wing play out through the third season, and the fourth; there's a greater emphasis on foreign policy rather than domestic, and more than one discussion about how America should use its power. 'Isaac and Ishmael' is a snapshot; and as depressing as it is to realise that the real White House seems nowhere near this well-informed or tolerant, it's equally heartening to realise that this sort of statement could be made, less than a month after the attacks. Not something to watch if you're unfamiliar with The West Wing, probably; but for fans, I think it's essential.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I thought the episode was biased - but I also thought it was carried off well and is certainly one of the best responses I've seen to 9/11.

[scribeoflight.livejournal.com]

Here is what I thought at the time:

I thought the first episode [in the boxed-set], 'Isaac and Ismael', was entertaining enough, if slightly contrived - but as it was written specifically to address an issue, and a shared national (international, even) experience, that was inevitable. Overall, however, the drama (The West Wing is, first and foremost, a drama) worked, and the episode didn't feel too much like a Civics lesson (is that what they call it in the States? Civics?); a brave move that wasn't nearly as bad as it potentially could have been. I was eager at the end of it to rejoin the story proper.

Actually, my main problem with that episode wasn't so much the approach to the issues in general as the way the script dealt with Leo in the interview room: the characterisation, in my opinion, was off. Yes, perhaps in a tense situation he would come out with some of those comments, but the lines about the perception of Arab-Americans felt a little too off for Leo. They even had him come back at the end of the episode and say something like: "If you ask people who know me, they'll tell you I don't normally say things like that."

The people who know Leo the best, and who know best how he acts, are the audience, so the script was almost speaking to the viewer at that point - look, it said, I know we've used this character crudely to make a point about the stereotyping of Arabs, but you and I both know that he ain't usually like that. What it needed was more tension - we needed to see Leo getting more and more anxious, and we needed to be given a stronger sense of an imminent sense. Then, when Leo did "crack", and come out with the comments, it would seem more plausible, dramatically, and be more faithful to the character.

And we got that sort of movement in the next episode - CJ "cracks" while under pressure in a press conference, and the narrative builds up to this point (she looks flustered, the camera sways as though from her POV, etc.) so that when it occurs, it feels right.

Linky:

http://scribeoflight.livejournal.com/140626.html

Leo was the big problem for me - as I mention, there didn't seem to be any dramatic arc leading to his "outburst", which was odd because The West Wing is usually so good at creating slow-building dramatic arcs.

[ajp.livejournal.com]

I agree with your comments. At times it really does feel like a social studies lecture.

Possibly the best way to see it, is as an essay. Aaron steps outside of regular conventions, contrives some situations, and makes some of his characters act uncharacteristically; but all of these are a means to his end.

Also, for the record, it was show once in the UK (but not on terrestrial television).

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's extremely self-conscious, stagey, and didactic.

Oddly the Leo part did work dramatically for me (albeit on a very obvious level) but for the rest they may as well have stayed in talking heads mode for all the dramatic tension that was involved. It's a discussion piece, pure and simple.

Actually that's not right. It's not even a discussion - it's an educational piece, as you say. Designed to counter the general wave of ignorance, fear and anger that welled out in the aftermath of 9/11. Like Niall I find it very heartening that someone was prepared to be this balanced and well-informed at a time of such national (and international) shock and incoherent outrage. But it's best viewed as a historical artefact rather than an enduring piece of drama. It's the product of a specific moment in history. The very fact that it was produced says much about the impact that 9/11 had, and also says much about the prevailing mood at the time, to which this is something of a response.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

they may as well have stayed in talking heads mode for all the dramatic tension that was involved

Ah, but then we'd never have seen 'Fred'. :)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Also, for the record, it was show once in the UK (but not on terrestrial television).

D'oh! Yes, I knew that. Thanks.

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Never seen it (for the reasons you cite). Though Season 3 is next on the shopping list. I've read bits about it here and there, mostly suggesting that it was rather heavy-handed, some that it was just awful. What you've written here sounds a little more even-handed, and I'm relieved.

*goes to price Season 3 on Amazon and play.com*

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's absolutely heavy-handed and biased. As Iain says, it's designed specifically to counter certain attitudes. It's just very interesting with it. :)

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

Heh. I'll let you know what I think, when I get around to buying it. "AAAGH" may well cover it, though.

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

For that reason, it's never aired in this country;

I'm sure I saw it one night on C4. I've definitely seen it and I can't think of another source.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Hrm. Maybe I'm wrong, then. In which case, I'm annoyed with myself for missing it then. ;-)

What did you think of it?

[ang-grrr.livejournal.com]

Actually reading through the comments it looks likely that I saw a tape of it from E4. Bad Ang!

From what I remember I felt very uncomfortable watching it, but then I feel very uncomfortable watching anything that connects with 9/11. It was that long ago I can't remember anything much apart from that I found it preachy.

Did they only just air it?

[applez.livejournal.com]

In any case, I'm glad you noticed the gap between it's White House and the real one ... I think it was around this episode that I stopped watching the series for a while.

Re: Did they only just air it?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Did they only just air it?

No, I was watching a DVD copy borrowed from veggiesu. As ajp notes elsethread, it's aired on satellite but not ever on terrestrial tv.

In any case, I'm glad you noticed the gap between it's White House and the real one ...

Hard to miss, since they have the actors telling you this is a one-off at the start. Or did you mean the differences between Bartlet and Bush? ;-)

Re: Did they only just air it?

[applez.livejournal.com]

I think you answered your own question.

---

Incidentally, if there is any silver lining to another 4 years of Bush, it is 4 more years of popular leftist and critical mediahedz ... be it John Stewart, or some other venue. :-)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Here's what I wrote on umtww at the time:
"First off, unlike many posters here, I actually enjoyed this episode. I didn't find it any more preachy than many other TWW eps. For example, the Sabbath Day ep involved just as much preaching on the pros and cons of capital punishment as I & I did on terrorism. Neither did I find the Presidential Classroom setup particularly awkward - no more so than the live hookup to classrooms for the Gallileo Mars explorer thingy, or using the WTO protests as a means to and explanatory end. In fact, given the circumstances of the writing and filming, I found the whole thing to be restrained, considered, and relatively balanced. In fact, very few American shows, even pre-September 11th, would have tackled terrorism in such a "non-kneejerk" fashion.
I agree with Steve K to a degree, there was too much flag-waving, but that is not a foult of this ep alone - it is about the only thing that annoys about the series as a whole. Finding out that Sam was a terrorism expert though was, as someone else has pointed out, a small surprise.
We are viewing this ep with the benefit of three months hindsight; at the time this was written, stating facts such as "not all muslims are terrorists", "terrorism is not a true expression of islam any more than it is a true expression of christianity" was, as Toby said, worth stating twice.
I was particularly impressed with the other side of the storyline. Yes, Leo acted like a complete jerk, amazing how many people can and do when they think that they're right. Have you seen the way all the staffers react to the slightest (implied) threat to POTUS or each other? Think of Josh's reaction when Leo's alcoholism and drug-addiction where about to be exposed, or Sam when the FBI guy mentioned the assassination attempt. Reasonable people do unreasonable things. The apology was less effusive than I would like to have seen, but then Leo isn't much given to apologising. Of course, from a British point of view, the irony was in Leo's assuming the guy was a terrorist because he was of Arabic descent, given Leo's own Irish roots.
So overall, yup, I liked it. And Iain, have some (((choccy)))"

Yes, I've left the original typos in. No, I have no idea why I was offering Iain chocolate.

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Yes, I've left the original typos in. No, I have no idea why I was offering Iain chocolate.

Never second guess *why* you might be giving me chocolate. Just give me chocolate! :-)