The scene where Leo and Fitzwallace talk about Yamamoto and assassinating Abdul Shareef. One of my favourite scenes from The West Wing. Impressive acting by John Amos!
Had the honor of speaking with Jon Amos today about this scene. He just humbly praised Aaron Sorkin's writing. This scene is indelibly imprinted in my mind.
The acting is superb, and Amos was a humble guy from Newark, the place I met him last year. My response is a reaction to the brutality that current low-level conflicts and terrorism are creating, especially among civilians. Regarding Yamamoto, I am relying upon accounts in Wikipedia. I am witholding my thoughts on the operation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance.
Well but isnt it a mockery of laws if we say they dont aply, is not the idear to seperate laws from gudings, a law ALWAYS apply in its field, because its a law?
absolutely. John Amos brought such a gravitas to his role. Kudos to the writers and casting director, and huge props to the man himself for adding to the character. This scene always gives me chills, because it argues the points as they SHOULD be argued. "And pretty soon, it's just another crazy general with guns....sorry, Fitz!" LOVED THAT SHOW!
I don't think it's out of character; Fitz's always given off an old soldier vibe. I also think Admiral Fitzwallace was trying to connect with Leo, an airman, by reminding him of their shared service without bogging things down in semantics. Besides, only Marines constantly need to remind people they're Marines. 😉 🙌🏽
Its little stuff like this non military people do not get. Many feel these terms are interchangeable or dont matter....My thing the concept of a black ⭐⭐⭐⭐ admiral amazing then being the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff lets you know in principle Fritz not to be messed with. That man cruised hell with a broken bottle and a gallon of gas looking daring trouble to show up.
The look in John Amos eyes when he says "I've got an enemy I can kill" still sends goosebumps op my spine, acting, writing doesn't get any better the this! ❤️
The look on his face just before he says "I've been a soldier for 38 years..." is the key moment. You can see the look on his face change when he realizes what he's going to say to Leo.
The West Wing is responsible for some of the greatest scenes in Drama Television history. This scene is a contender for the best written, directed, acted, and all around presented television ever. “Beat that with a stick”.
@@Trust-Yourself-1st Pretty much the same difference IMO. If it weren't for mohammed (piss be upon him), I doubt the saudis would be much problem; no mohammed, no wahhabi. (unless they found somethings else to get their burnooses in a twist over.) HAGO.
Fitz: "Have you changed shampoo? You have. I can tell. 'cause your hair seems bouncy and more manageble." Leo: "I like to look good for you." Fitz: "Well, I appreciate it." This is such a beautiful start of the conversation on war and what is human. How does a writer come up with that.
@@nameommited Depends on the context, but I'm guessing you would never be in a position to speak this frankly with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
As a CJCS, he'd have gone to a War College (or several) and had practical experience leading forces in battle, and the US (often unfortunately) has the most battle experience of any nation. His statement is valid. It's like the scene in Good Will Hunting in the park, tons of people can claim expertise in the *scholarship* of war, reading the historiography of it and making their own postulations, but someone like Fitz has a lifetime of practical experience, having started as an enlisted man and ending up as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Along with the scene in the Oval Office when Toby confronts Bartlett about M.S., this scene was the best television I've ever watched. Aaron Sorkin must have been so pleased to see this gem of a scene he wrote get nailed by two incredible actors that knew their roles so well. "The laws of NATURE don't even apply here!" I'll never forget that line, it really stuck.
I have every episode, and have watched them all four times over. As far as I'm concerned, there has never been before or since The West Wing a show that has Every Thing. It had comedy, drama, action, sexual tension, sad bits, happy bits, darkness and light, etc. etc.. Above all of that, however, was a combination of three things: great scripts, great acting and awesome directing. Each and every person involved in the creation and delivery of this masterpiece deserves nothing but the highest of honours.
+Boyd Crowder The Wire is the only other contender in terms of the level of political/social realism achieved in The West Wing. I love both shows equally.
It's actually a gaping, bleeding hole in his entire argument. Only Kunta Kinte could deliver it with such delicious bite, but it makes him seem stupid, and Lord High Admiral Fitzwallace was hardly stupud.
The bit about the battle of Agincourt was ridiculous. Heralds didn't decide the winners, the French withdrawing from the field after suffering massive casualties did. And if a soldier laid down their arms, they were treated humanely and then ransomed, UNLESS they weren't noble. If they weren't noble they were usually murdered. Common wounded on the battlefield were usually murdered by scavengers from the winning side and the locals in the surrounding area. Safe conduct was only a real possibility to the ennobled. I don't get how they get that so wrong in this clip because it's such a fantastic show.
+hilariousnickname It's a good story. "Hollywood" (the movie/tv industry really) gets *everything* wrong - from medicine or flying aeroplanes (despite many actors being pilots who should know better), or infinite zoom on photos, down to the simple act of brushing teeth. Some of it is ignorance, some is difficulty depicting things properly, but *most* of it comes down to simply ""this reads better".
+hilariousnickname That was true until the Hundred Years war and famously after the Battle of Agincourt the noble hostages were murdered (for good reason but still)
All true. It's worth noting Admiral Fitzwallace got another detail wrong; it was not the French fighting the British. It was the French fighting the Engliah.
The character of ADM Fitz was very well thought out, equal mix of warrior, philosopher, and person. He brought a very articulated point of view to whichever topic involved with. Didn’t hurt the ADM was played by a great actor Mr Amos.
The level of acting and of writing and of thought on this show was absolutely staggering in its brilliance. How I had always wanted to see John Amos in a great role like this.
I love Admiral Fitzwallace. I love Leo McGarry. Getting them both in the same scene with such great dialog gives me chills. Amazing characters and outstanding acting by both of these men in every scene they are in.
Unfortunately he's wrong about Agincourt. It's literally the exception to the rule he talked about, because Henry V ordered the exhausted, defeated French knights massacred when he was worried he might lose the battle, in a violation of the customs of the time where normally captured knights would be ransomed.
I'm not an expert in warfare, nor a historian, but Fitz is not in a debate or writing an essay for which he expects to be graded. The man's trying to make a point, and in this case it's pretty human to make generalizations and take shortcuts. Everybody does that in normal conversation. No one always says things which are 100% correct. So it's realistic to quote and example that only partially applies. Plus, the battle he mentions is indeed that: an example. Not his point! His point is he has to kill an enemy he has spotted, and ( his arguments) the laws that prevent him from doing so are not only outdated but totally ignored by the other side.
@@valyriantime910 personally I wouldn't even consider believing anything argued if the facts used to bolster the argument are wrong. Unless I know the source and already trust them pretty strongly (in which case I'll probably give them a little grace that their argument might still be valid). But otherwise if you can't get the easy stuff like facts right why would I trust you on the hard stuff like logic, morality, and critical thinking?
FYI I haven't seen the show, but I almost certainly agree with what Fitz is arguing for as well. But if I did need convincing his method would have been very ineffective.
I loved John Amos in this show. The relationship between Fitzwallace and Pres Bartlett seems to naturally grow over time as they begin to understand who each other are. They were both uneasy with the other initially and Fitzwallace ends up as a high level assistant to the Pres when he’s assassinated.
One of my favorite scenes, and not just from this series. Amos is on fire, especially his last lines. You believe he’s prepared to move ahead, with or without orders.
And yet we know Fitzwallace would have the integrity to resign before defying or disobeying orders. It just isn't in him to do so. So now we know he has the passion for the mission that you describe, harnessed by his integrity. He's rolling for a seven with this conversation with Leo, to continue the mission, using an argument he could not make with Bartlett. He knows Leo could complete the play, and he was right. One of my favs as well. The layers are thick.
If this isn't absolute proof of the incredible genius that was/is Aaron Sorkin.....this is by far THE best written show in the history of television. Period.
When I think of the sh*t show of the Trump years, that is when I think about what could, should have been (and not with Hillary either). How many network shows think enough of their audience to give an episode a title in Latin, or have the main character curse out God in Latin?
In a balanced way as well, although medieval war was not as idealized as he claimed it was, war never has been. This scene was fair to both points of view, no leftie bias here, like in most TV. Not sure that was always the case with West Wing, they did have leftie bias sometimes, but not in this scene.
@@richard40x Dude ,West Wing had Liberal bias top to bottom, from the characters to the viewpoints to the payoffs and messages. Adding a couple of token Republican-good-guy characters doesn't make it 'balanced' by any standards. But then again, it's a simple fact that you can't create complex meaningful heroic characters on Right wingers. Like someone said Reality does have a Liberal bias. You can't champion a character/hero who doesn't believe in socio-political-religious individual freedom and human equality. Unless of course you're writing a John McClain for a Die Hard, but that's a different kind of entertainment we're taking about.
One thing that is amazing about this scene is that there is a whole 30 seconds of silence from the start of the vid. 10 seconds are just establishing that Leo and Fitz are alone, and the remainder 20 seconds are of just Leo and Fitz' current state of mind
We've been living in it since before terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon in the 1980s. Terrorists do not surrender, do not follow the rules of war, do not care if they die as long as they are attempting to kill their enemies. You cannot make peace with terrorists.
Amos added incredible depth to the series--they should have kept him to the end. He portrayed complexity with the subtlety of a light breeze--a breath of air, a darting half-glance. Where is American TV now without this?
The genius of that line is something else. Fitz is showing exactly how astute he is to what's around him to the point where he can tell when Leo has changed shampoos, one of the most minute details imaginable. This is immediately before he makes it clear how the world has changed so much that he, one of the top experts on warfare, cannot tell the difference between peacetime and wartime. The details of everything around him are so muddled he cannot tell anymore, yet he can tell, based on appearance, that Leo changed shampoos. Goes to his point how fucked up the world stage looked to him at that time. And if it looks fucked up to Fitz twenty years ago, how fucked up must it look now to people in his position?
Many of the commenters seem to have forgotten that this is not a 3 minute webisode, but rather 3 minutes out of an hour-long (okay, 45-minute long) episode in a series where this specific plotline had negative ramifications that drove future storylines. I don't think it can be claimed that the assassination discussed in this clip was handled without sufficient gravitas ... and that certainly cannot be claimed by anyone who hasn't watched at least the whole episode.
@@TBro278 nah, I can second the person that suggested you were a dunce. It's clear what he wrote. It's also not speaking. You don't have to ask him to repeat it, just read the thing over again. Jesus Christ.
The whole thing started because Abdul Shareef attempted to bomb locations in America, particularly the Golden Gate Bridge. However, the ambiguity lay in the evidence sources and the lack of ability to bring Shareef to a court of justice, physically or legally. Can you imagine if we put Osama Bin Laden on trial instead of killing him in a covert mission? It took more than a year for the US's role in assassinating Shareef to be uncovered, during a time when president Bartlett could not function because his daughter was kidnapped, so the Republican Speaker of the House, Glenn Walker, has to take charge. At that time, Walker defended the assassination. "We live in the real world. Our moral values only work if we all abide by the same rules."
"And if a soldier laid down his arms, he was treated humanely." Hardly. If he was a wealthy lord that could be ransomed yes he would be taken prisoner and his family would be forced to nearly bankrupt themselves to see him set free. A common soldier? More often than not he was killed, looted for anything of value, and then his corpse was left to rot or, if he was lucky, end up in a mass grave. A man like Fitswallace would know this. There is a dangerous notion that exists today that warfare can be humane. There are measures that can be taken, but war is meant to be terrible. It is meant to be such a nightmare that eventually one side can no longer take it and either surrenders or dies. "It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
+Murphy82nd have to agree.... doubt those who laid down their arms were treated humanely in the middle ages... unless you were worthy of getting a big ransom for sale back to the enemy.... the French sometimes cut the finger off the british archers........ that being said... this west wing scenee, or should I say all scenes are magnificent..... writing, casting, acting is superb.....
+Murphy82nd In the Late Middle Ages (100 Years War era) you could negotiate terms. Negotiating terms meant that an army could withdraw from the field if certain conditions were met. This held in case when one force was unable to utterly obliterate another. Fielding an army was an expensive affair, just as it is today. Commanders weren't fond of losing them. Also a retreating army could still cause significant damage. So pursues were rarely more than an effort to maintain pressure and force the retreating army to stay on the move to prevent a rally. After the Battle of Agincourt Henry had the French prisoners, or at least most of them killed. This for two reasons, one the prisoners outnumbered their captors, which meant there was a serious risk they would turn on him, two, there was a large French reserve standing by and Henry wanted to frighten them to prevent them from giving battle. In this he succeeded. Regardless this was a fairly nefarious incident for the time, as Henry's own knights refused to participate in the killings, considering them distasteful and while nobody criticized the strategical decision, not even the French, it was still a shocking and very unusual event. The English still left the battle with over 1500 French prisoners, only part of them actual nobleman.
***** Soldiers do very little to protect me from any of those, not even the police really protect you from those people. But let's actually look into that... "But those who pass that test become a kind of secret weapon for an army: merciless fighters whose self-preservation skills and ability to kill without remorse can be consciously utilized by their superiors." You might find the idea of using such "humans" an asset, as i see it there is no distinguishing these people from the SS who ran the death camps, the Chimera rouge who seeded the Cambodian killing fields, or the Hutu's who hacked apart their neighbors and their children in Rwanda, the only thing that makes these people any different is the uniform and nationality... If you asked them to murder and torture they would, you ask them to hack apart children, they would, and they owuld see no issue with it. I do not consider that either confronting or reassuring. "They are natural leaders who will motivate other soldiers to kill. They are also fiercely competitive and will aggressively pursue victory." -US Army Major David S. Pierson on "natural killers"" "He describes high-functioning psychopaths as bringing "obvious advantages to a unit. They will personally kill the enemy in droves. They are natural leaders who will motivate other soldiers to kill. They are also fiercely competitive and will aggressively pursue victory." According to Pierson, these individuals generally gravitate toward infantry, armor [tanks], and, above all, special operations units. He advises officers to keep an eye out for them so their skills can be well-positioned and utilized." See the military likes it for that very reason, they can kill, get others to kill, and we don't have to worry about silly things like morality, ethics and or humanity, since they lack all of that...and that is the best soldier the one who doesn't ask why they should the pull the trigger but how long they can go before they have to stop. ""I was actually court-martialed in 2010, but I didn't get kicked out." Chris says. "I have no idea how I got so lucky, but I was drinking in Thailand and stabbed two of my friends. We were arguing, someone pulled a knife, and it got pretty bloody. I didn't feel bad about it. I don't think I ever told them I was sorry. One of them almost died. He had arterial bleeding. "I got court-martialed, lost one rank, and spent fifteen days in the brig," he adds with a hint of pride. "They originally tried to get me for attempted murder, but I had a good military lawyer, and he got it down to assault and battery." i feel so safe. see the problem with this is, the reason these people don't suffer from ptsd, or care is because they do not have it in them, they are incapable of caring, some of them don;t commit crimes because they approach everything with thought and logic, but they couldn't care less, whether it be enemy soldiers, their own mainly and or you or i on the street, if they wanted to, decided to and or had to they would kill all of us without question, feeling or care... these might make good soldiers, they do not make great human beings. There is no difference between half of the soldiers in that article and amon goeth, Ted bundy etc. the only difference is their focuses, motivations and of course side. The only good thing about war is we can shove these people there, use them and then hope they catch a bullet and or stay there, rather than have them in the general population.
Again the only use these people have is their ability to not let things like humanity affect them, and yes quite alarmingly these people can do quite a lot and get done quite a lot in many fields... but that doesn't make them human, they are incapable of emotion, of genuine empathy or caring thought, they don't feel remorse, heck some of them feel nothing at all, complete emotional shut out... 4% of the population has this kind of condition in varying degrees, i find it funny how we seem to tolerate these people and yet go after the mentally ill, and or molesters, well these people are just as much something to look out for as well. I don't think it's a coincidence that the field that seemingly actively searches for these kind of people is the one that involves killing.
Season 3, Episode 6, aptly titled "War Crimes" Transcript: www.westwingtranscripts.com/search.php?flag=getTranscript&id=50 The guy talking to Leo had been the forward air commander in the operation in Vietnam. It's an impressive scene. And more than that, it's worth watching, then reading the transcript, then watching again. Because it takes a bit of repetition from different angles to follow how they're really working the idea that individuals can't comprehend the "crimes" they're involved in while they're happening. Which is really the guy's point: hey Leo, you didn't even know you're a "war criminal" according to this (eh, fictional) treaty. With this new information, do we the viewers consider him a war criminal? Well, it's open to quite a bit of interpretation, which is totally the point of the framing. And that's really awesome TV.
out of all 7 seasons this is absolutely the best scene of them all. I just keep coming back to it because its just phenomenal, and it's carried by a guest star, only slightly recurring at best! Like I don't love this show as much as most, I personally think there are plenty better but this scene is just gorgeous.
It's not easy to put John Spencer in the shade, John has such gravitas in his role as Leo McGarry. In this scene John Amos does standing on his head. What a performance he delivered in this series as Fitzwallace. Big props
This is one of the six or seven greatest scenes in the whole series, knock-your-socks-off kind of scene. John Amos is such a great actor, and so was Jon Spencer.
Interesting that he brings up the Battle of Agincourt as an example of how "if a soldier laid down his arms he was treated humanely." In fact, at Agincourt, when it seemed like the French army might break through to the English rear area, the English King Henry V ordered the slaughter of some 2,000 prisoners because he feared they might overpower their guards and join in the French attack. His nobles were reluctant to carry out the order, not because of some code of conduct but because they would lose the ransoms they would have been paid for live prisoners. Henry had to order his archers to carry out the executions since, as commoners, they had no right to collect ransoms anyway and so had no qualms about butchering prisoners in cold blood. (The story that the executions were in retaliation for the French killing the boys in the baggage train was pure spin created by Shakespeare to justify what was clearly a very un-chivalrous act.)
Yeah, Henry V was the one that Timotheé Chalumet played? Because that guy didn’t seem noble at all. Struck me as the sort of guy who would execute the cook if his mutton was overcooked.
FitzWallace is making the mistake of portraying Agincourt as a humane battle where everyone behaved with chivalry and gallantry. What really happened was that the English peasant archers filled the flower of French aristocracy full of arrows, filled a lot of French peasant soldiers with arrows too, and then walked through the killing ground finishing off the dying with little knives, axes and clubs so that they could loot the corpses. It was slaughter on a scale the world had rarely seen. And actually one couldn't usually tell when it was peacetime and wartime because all the European nations were continuously fighting on-off wars with each other, getting everyone else involved and changing sides every other week. There was never a period of the Middle Ages where one could be certain of whether your country was at peace or at war.
Agincourt was a battle fought during the Hundred Year war, which actually lasted 117 years, though there were many periods of inactivity. There were no official rules of war, the only people protected were people rich enough to ransom if captured, anyone else would be killed out of hand. Also armies went through the countryside looting and burning, killing and raping anyone they came across.
+Fake Name A minor slaughter, the Mongols slew many more people. Many, many more. The Romns had battles that dwarf Agincourt, as did the Japanese or even the Chinese.
But compare it to today; civilians are fair targets; cities are firebombed; leaders assassinated by drone or sniper. Asymmetrical warfare is the order of the day. And have I mentioned, germ warfare? The soldier of Agincourt, of Hattin, hell, even of Culloden, wouldn't recognize the battlefield "rules" of today. Even as the Geneva conventions are merely winked at now. "Progress" we call it.
+DAngelo136 Compare to yesteryear where for example where gauls, franks vandals and goths would constantly raid roman's when their back was turned or vikings against basically anyone. What about the English against the Irish, Scottish, French, Africans, Australians, Indians (Basically anyone cos the English are just kinda (historically speaking) awful people in general). What about siege warfare. Or when a city is taken by mongols or romans or basically anyone throughout history and they just decided. Well lets just kill everyone then. The Mongols reportedly left the ground around the citys they had taken slippery with grease from all the rotting bodies with mountains of bones. Germ warfare. What about the use of rotten corpses flung into besieged cities to kill populations. What about the Assyrians poisoning wells. The use of smallpox against native Americans (Although that one is debated). Killing people isn't a new concept. Part of the reason the Geneva Convention exists is that people started to realize that post ww1 and ww2 we got real good at killing people and we had come up with all sorts of creative ways to do it. But thats only part of it because if you look back at the mongols the population of China before Genghis Khan was about 120 million according to a census whereas after about 20 years census data put the population at abouts 60 million. Sure alot of that was people fleeing the Mongols but a very significant portion of that was the reason they fled. No one really can give an accurate answer on how many died but suffice to say it was allot. I think alot of what caused the geneva convention was the same sort of thing that caused the backlash for the veitnam war. It was the start of the spread of information about the war. Even with the culture of silence that existed with the troups of ww1 and ww2 peope where able to see what was actually happening for the first time. Everything that ive written above seems pretty horrific but its really different if you see a picture of it. Even more so if you see a picture of it and know that somewhere in the sea of red is your father/husband/brother/son etc (Not sometimes all 4). The main thing is that its complicated and more nuanced than just. well it wasn't like that back then. Cos i guarantee if Charlemagne or Julius or Countless others had have had machine guns war wouldn't look to much different than it does today. Might have looked worse.
For those comparing the assassination of Sulemani with this storyline, there is one big difference. The person they were going to kill in the West Wing, Shareef, was not only a family member of the royal family of Qumar (fictionial country), he was also a minister of country who the US considers an ally. (In the show, Qumar is an ally of the United States)
pac401 IT could be was if he is referring to the performance given to the character on this show, if you already know what the said fate of that character is.
John Amos is/was one of those famous people who seems to keep dying over and over again. I could have sworn he was dead too. In fact, I could have sworn I remember hearing he had just died and thinking "What? I thought he died _years_ ago!" (He's still alive as of 7 Feb., 2020.)
LOL Bad example, at the battle of agincourt King Henry slaughtered several thousand French prisoners only keeping the ones that could be ransomed for a high value :D
Troublesome2008 you would think they would take a second to look it up :D or maybe they did it as a joke considering he references the exact opposite of what he means
He slaughtered several thousand of them solely because the number of French prisoners outnumbered his surviving army, and there were a lot of weapons strewn on the battlefield which means there could have been a riot and he may have lost. Furthermore, there were a lot of french militia waiting on the other side, they could have assisted them and Henry may have lost. That's why he slaughtered them, and after that the French fled and the nobles were ransomed.
I must have watched this a dozen times already but I come back for more like an addict. It is about as good as American tv drama writing/acting gets. Shivers up my spin.
The "Battle of Agincourt" was between the French and the English. The British weren't a people until England and Scotland United their Kingdoms and the Scottish were famously allied with the French for much of this conflict (The Hundred Years War). Furthermore, the battle was horrific. Lightly armoured Englishmen slaughtered heavily armoured French soldiers who were stuck in mud from the heavy rain storms, after they'd been peppered with arrows trying to cross the field in the first place. Those who laid down their arms were slaughtered excepting the noblemen who could fetch a pretty ransom. But other than that this scene is excellent!
@@nelauren It's nonsense anyway, any French solider who had a half decent shot at taking down Henry V would have done. Also, the USA did not win World War Two by the combination of assassination and precision strikes required. Instead they ground down the Japanese through a merciless (but necessary) campaign of strategic bombing which included the use of atomic weapons. All this history in this scene seems to have been made up by the writer as they went along.
It is absolute nonsense you are right. Even the thing about heralds. Yes, they existed, mainly as messengers and organisers. And they could technically decide the results of battles but I am yet to come across an example of an undecided battle that heralds adjudicated on. Battles are (obviously) decided by either casualties or possession of the ground. Their role was diplomatic and ceremonial - not as referees to war like this scene tries to suggest. As others have mentioned the english slaughtered the prisoners and I wouldnot like to rely on throwing my weapon down relying on the mercy of the adrenaline fuelled blood crazed man opposite me to accept my surrender in the middle of a chaotic battlefield ... the romanticised view of middle ages warfare is ridiculous. Examples of civilian populations being allowed to leave cities unharmed (eg; saladin ... Once) are praised precisely because they were a rare deviation from raping, robbing and killing all inside. War is war, people can be cunts. Always been that way, always will.
Yamamoto donned an uniform demonstrating unquestionable allegiance to the IJN. He was no different from any soldier, airman, or sailor of the IJN. He was fair game. Much like a sniper prioritizing higher value targets that have the most impact to a battlefield, a submarine sinking the most prized ship in a convoy, or the field grade leadership losing their lives to an ambush. I don’t care how many decorations you have on your uniform. You are fair game in war if you are military or paramilitary. Especially terrorists organized in a military fashion.
I've known John Amos since 1964, Colorado State University, Edwards Hall, " The Amos Hour". --------------A class act------a decent guy-------with looks & charisma off the chart--------THAT was Johnny Amos, 1964. ---------Honored to say, I was a friend. He used to call me " Surfin Mike". He knew that in addition to loving The Temptations, & Motown, I also loved The Beach Boys. -------------------------------------Wolfsky9
He's always been one of my heroes I love John Amos strong presence good man fabulous actor I wish he would have done more roles in Motion Pictures lead roles he's awesome love the man
@@Wadey1212 they talk about that in the episode where they consider replacing Hoynes. They mention Eisenhower and Grant as examples. I agree that Fitz would've been a good VP pick, but that was after Sorkin left. Also, the actor might have wanted to be done.
i would follow John Amos to the gates of hell. What an actor. He exuded the passion of what was the right thing to do. Fantastic writing and performance of the script
One of my favorites scenes from The West Wing. A combination of Aaron Sorkin's fantastic writing, John Amos WAS Fitzwallace and John Spencer was effortlessly incredible as always.
He brings up the battle of agincourt and men who surrendered being treated fairly, ignoring the fact that the British slaughtered French prisoners in that battle.
It's amazing how right Amos is in this scene how the nature of war has changed and how you were able to tell who your enemies were not that long ago but now in just a few decades we have calculated strikes to takeout one target vs chaos and carnage.
Only one mishap of this scene was that he said he was a "soldier" for 38 years when the script should have said "sailor". Most service members past and current picked up on that. it was noticeable. Other than that the scene was brilliant. ADM Fitzwallace and Leo having the realest convo of the show
I love TWW and I never saw this episode but found it funny (strange) since my Father was one of the top WWII language Officers that translated and helped plan the shooting down of Yamamoto's plane. I remember him telling me about it once in just such a conversation between us like this one. It was a matter-of-fact sort of recitation and his answer was "we were at war." I never got the chance to have a conversation with him about current considerations of war but it seems that all the "rules" have changed and more and more extreme cases of "guerrilla warfare" are the new rules of the game.
@@nicksambides2628 I wish he had been the type to have told me about things but he was like so many of that generation who internalized it all. Generally, the lower on the totem pole the more that had stories to tell. The higher-ups just saw things as duty, honor politics, and a job to be done.
@@superbmediacontentcreator I don't doubt it. My Uncle John served during the war in the same photographic unit as did William Wyler and John Huston, though he never met either. (He ended up with Wyler's foot locker.) He was the same way.
This scene chokes me up...powerful acting...superb writing... but damn if this man is not right...and the fact that I know AND understand what he is saying....."I will do horrible things to protect the folks I love." Simple. Necessary. Real. This is why I choke up on this scene.
Measuring success is different to saying whether it was successful or not. You could win but lose all but one dude and it would be a success, but it would be a disaster when measuring the cost
The first four seasons of this series, may very well be the greatest of any television show, ever. At the very least...The West Wing is way up the list. This scene, is one of the (many) reasons why. Brilliant.
