Aaron Sorkin’s America: Politics, Trauma, and the Liberal Genius Samantha Gray PhD 2020 Aaron Sorkin’s America: Politics, Trauma, and The Liberal Genius Samantha Gray A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Manchester Metropolitan University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of English Manchester Metropolitan University 2020 2 Abstract This thesis demonstrates that, across his body of work, Aaron Sorkin constructs an American cultural imaginary that foregrounds ideas of intelligence and community, areas of his writing that have typically been neglected in existing scholarship. Scholarship on Sorkin’s work has tended to focus on The West Wing (1999-2006), which is arguably the most critically successful to date. However, I argue that the rest of Sorkin’s oeuvre just as overtly demonstrates notions of honour and decency that are forefront in the America that he has constructed, and that any examination of his writing should also take into consideration his films and other, critically neglected television series. Alongside a critical re-evaluation of The West Wing, this thesis pays particular attention to Sorkin’s television series Sports Night (1998-2000), Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (2006-2007) and The Newsroom (2012-2014); and his screenplays, including The Social Network (2010) and Steve Jobs (2015), and directorial debut with Molly’s Game (2017). This thesis is divided into eight thematic chapters, examining notions of civic duty and journalistic responsibility; education, intelligence and elitism; the newly identified character type of the Liberal Genius; individual and national trauma; family and relationships; and religion and Republicanism. The thesis not only identifies the continued reoccurrence of these themes throughout Sorkin’s work, but engages with their presence in American life and popular culture more broadly, such as the changing role of the genius from the Founding Fathers to contemporary television series. This thesis also examines how Sorkin’s engagements run counter to more traditional media responses to, among others, intellect, journalistic practice and political action, to avoid more reactionary stances in favour of a measured representation. Through identification of different themes and characters in Sorkin’s work, this thesis argues that he has constructed a fantasy of America that presents a return to an earlier idealism in which intelligent and civic minded individuals, regardless of the industry in which they work, have a responsibility to come together in order to make nation a better place. 3 Table of Contents Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 5 Introduction — “Quo Vadimus” 6 Chapter One — “It’s not news just because it’s entertaining.”: Civic and Journalistic Responsibility 23 Chapter Two — “Make this election about smart, and not, make it about engaged, and not. Qualified, and not.”: Education, Intelligence, and Elitism 52 Chapter Three — “You have a once in a generation mind.”: The Liberal Genius: Part One 80 Chapter Four — “How can someone so smart and beautiful be so consistently wrong and dumb?”: The Liberal Genius —Part 2 108 Chapter Five — “I never remotely prepared for this scenario”: Individual Trauma 130 Chapter Six — “This thing’s gonna be over by dinner.”: National Trauma 156 Chapter Seven — “You’ve got friends and this is what friends gear up for.”: Family and Relationships 179 Chapter Eight — “Lady, the God you pray to is too busy being indicted for tax fraud!”: Religion and Republicanism 212 Conclusion — “What kind of day has it been?” 239 Bibliography 248 4 Acknowledgements First, I would like to acknowledge the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at Manchester Metropolitan University for allowing me the opportunity to undertake this research. I would like to thank my supervisory team, Nick Duffy and Liz Nolan, for all the helpful advice and suggestions. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my Director of Studies, Sorcha Ní Fhlainn, for all of the support and invaluable guidance, as well as keeping me sane for three years. Thank you, Leah and Lorene, for always being happy to discuss Sorkin’s work with me. I would like to pay special regards to Daniella Ferluccio for sixteen years of friendship and bickering; I would be lost without you. And to my parents, Andy and Hazel, for all of the unwavering love and support, and for being the best parents I ever could have asked for. Finally, to my Gran, Elain MacDonald. This thesis would not have been possible without you, words cannot express how grateful I am for everything that you have done for me, and I dedicate this work to you. 5 Introduction — “Quo Vadimus”1 The third season of Aaron Sorkin’s The West Wing (1999-2006) opens with President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) running for re-election.2 The administration holds his announcement event at a New Hampshire high school and while they are using a classroom to go over the speech that Bartlet is about to give, the senior staff and campaign staffer Doug Wegland (Evan Handler) argue over its content. Doug is concerned that those listening won’t understand the meaning of the word ‘torpor’, to which Bartlet tells him that if they don’t, they can look it up. Bartlet doesn’t want to hide the fact that he has an education and intends to continue being the ‘education president’. Bartlet declares that: “It’s not our job to appeal to the lowest common denominator…It’s our job to raise it.”3 This moment is monumental in the context of both the episode and the series as a whole because America is presented with a leader who values education and intelligence at a time in which anti-intellectualism has seeped into every aspect of American culture. Moreover, it has become the norm for politicians, in seeking the votes of their constituents, to make themselves as broadly appealing as possible. This effectively means that they must appeal to the lowest common denominator for fear of alienating voters. What screenwriter Aaron Sorkin gives us in Bartlet is a president who refuses to make himself appear anything less than highly intelligent and expects the American public to educate themselves if there is something that they did not understand. However, it is also indicative of a broader message that bleeds across Sorkin’s body of work. In an interview with CBS News, Sorkin stated that “I have a big problem with people who glamorise dumbness and demonise education and intellect”4 and this idea is apparent across his entire oeuvre. This thesis explores the ways in which Sorkin’s work intersects with notions of genius and intellect, anti-intellectualism in American culture, and 1 ‘Quo Vadimus’, Sports Night, dir. by Thomas Schlamme, written by Aaron Sorkin, season 2, episode 22. First broadcast, ABC, 2000. The title of this episode is Latin for ‘where are we going.’ 2 While the episodes ‘Manchester Part I’ and ‘Manchester Part II’ were the intended opening episodes for the third season, they were preempted by a play titled ‘Isaac and Ishmael’ which was written in response to the events of 9/11. As with much of the fall television season of 2001, The West Wing was pushed back until October, with the first of the two ‘Manchester’ episodes airing in October 10th and ‘Isaac and Ishmael’ airing on October 3rd. 3 ‘Manchester Part II’, The West Wing, dir. by Thomas Schlamme, written by Aaron Sorkin, season 3, episode 2. First broadcast, NBC, 2001 4 CBSNews. “Aaron Sorkin: From Addict to Academy Award Nominee”. 2011. <https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ObIfH4utYPU> [Accessed on: 3rd September 2020]. 6 theories of trauma and relationships. Previous scholarship on Sorkin’s work focuses primarily on the presidency in The West Wing. I argue that his wider body of work provides just as valuable a commentary on the wider world. It is because these ideas extend beyond The West Wing that study of his writing must be more inclusive, particularly examining his more overlooked and less successful shows such as The Newsroom (2012-2014) and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (2006-2007). This thesis does not attempt to examine the TV industry as a whole, nor is it an exploration of casting or visual style: this thesis examines Aaron Sorkin’s works as a writer through his particular interest in intellect and integrity in the way one conducts themselves in their professions as a utopian, idealistic aspiration in the representation of the United States onscreen. Although there are significant differences between being a showrunner in television and a screenwriter in a feature film, Sorkin bridges the gap between the two roles. In film it is the director who is in charge of a film’s vision and the screenwriter is usually, at best, given limited opportunity to influence, and, at worst, utterly powerless to prevent alterations once they have delivered their script. This is quite the opposite in television. In television it is the showrunner (or head writer) who is in charge of the series creative vision, and the directors are often interchangeable.5 While the rise of the screenwriter’s influence is evident in US television as early as the 1970s6 with series such as M*A*S*H (1972-1983) and The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970-1977) — television producer Jeff Melvoin stated that The Mary Tyler Moore Show was one of the first to give writers creative freedom — the notion of the showrunner is now well established in contemporary television.7 Sorkin is credited as the writer for all but eight episodes across all four of his shows (with a combined episode total of a hundred and seventy-nine) and Maciak argues that “the writer is king on television, in part because Aaron Sorkin staged a coup.”8 Despite 5 Sorkin does frequently reuse directors in his television series, the most frequent collaboration being with Thomas Schlamme.