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.
...and yet the rules back then we're to allow leaders to live so some could stop the conflict and surrender when it was time. They don't call the flag officers for nothing. I he was sitting on an Aircraft Carrier... ok, I got it... but come on, man. Fitz was keeping it real.
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.
Just heard the tragic news of John Amos' passing and came here first. I doubt I'm the only one. The gravitas that these two men were uniquely capable of providing, on a show whose cast was already littered with accomplished actors, is something to behold. This is my favorite scene in the entire show.
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!
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! ❤️
@@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.
@@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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
+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.
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.
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.
Your response has now prompted me to watch the series for the first time. If you've watched every episode four times, then there's got to be something to it. Thank you!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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?
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure you guys are both right and Aaron Sorkin has proven himself a historical idiot. Seriously who could possibly think that about Medieval warfare. Sure there were rules, but the rules were unless you're worth some money you either successfully run away or we kill you.
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
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)
@@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.
Leo’s face when he starts to pick up what Fitz was putting down was phenomenal “I don’t like where this conversation is goin-in the situation room, Fitz!”
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?
Also, when William Pitt t.y. was PM Napoleon had the Duc de Enghien targeted and murdered. Napoleon did this in response to a royalist attempt to murder him iirc.
To be fair to Henry V, even before the battle the English were completely out of supplies and starting to starve - the French cut their supply lines and stood in the path of their retreat. Henry V simply did not have the numbers nor the supplies to manage that many prisoners.
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.
![[ENGSUB] UNPRODUCTIVE DAY ใช้ชีวิต (เปื่อยๆ) ด้วยกัน 1 วัน! | OUROAD CLOSEFRiEND SS2 EP.9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pyYKZ3kra9w/mqdefault.jpg)
!["สนธิ" ห่วงมีขบวนการปกป้อง "ทนายตั้ม" : [THE MESSAGE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2GQNp3EoMc0/mqdefault.jpg)
John Amos was always brilliant as Admiral Fitzwallace. His gravitas and intelligence always just knocked me down.
John is one of the great actors of this generation
He should have had more roles like this, so many more damn roles like this. The man was amazing. Rest in Peace.
@@sadjaxxJohn Spencer is dead, but John Amos is 84 and counting.
He did serve in the US Coast Guard
To be fair, yamamoto was legit military target. A uniformed officer in the front lines during an openly declared war.
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.
Fitz's entire point is that wars don't work like that anymore.
His point is war used to almost never be about individuals, and the few single people that mattered, were not targeted
the rule of international law in war from time immoral is that you can not kill officers such as Admirals and Generals.
...and yet the rules back then we're to allow leaders to live so some could stop the conflict and surrender when it was time. They don't call the flag officers for nothing. I he was sitting on an Aircraft Carrier... ok, I got it... but come on, man. Fitz was keeping it real.
You can probably count on one hand the number of characters in the entire history of television that carried as much dignity as Fitzwallace.
Two world-class actors in an incredible scene. Doesn't get any better.
I was crushed when they killed off his character. Fitz was one of my favorites. John Amos is an incredible actor.
Fantastic. Always convincing.
Big fan of John Amos too. Always excellent in whatever role he has had. John Spencer was great too, RIP.
I was blindsided by the deaths of James Evans and Percy FitzWallace. John Amos gut punched me twice in prime time.
He always demanded respect in any role he played and he was GREAT as a Navy Admiral
I remember crying...
The dialogue in this scene is absolutely perfect, EXCEPT a Navy admiral would call himself a sailor, never a soldier.
I agreee, however when this discussion became philosophical I believe he used the term soldier for that philosophical argument
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. 😉 🙌🏽
killnotic thank you for capitalizing the title. 🤘🏽
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.
Give him a break... he was distracted by Leos hair.
Just heard the tragic news of John Amos' passing and came here first. I doubt I'm the only one. The gravitas that these two men were uniquely capable of providing, on a show whose cast was already littered with accomplished actors, is something to behold. This is my favorite scene in the entire show.
May you Rest in Peace John Amos. One of America's greatest and underrated actors.
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.
Shame that half of it is flat-out wrong.
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.
how so?
This one and his equally forceful, but wrapped in a velvet glove scene on gays in the military are both master classes.
Meeting Jon Amos would floor me.
I just heard about John Amos. I came back to this scene in my head. Immediate wanted to come here.
"The laws of nature don't even apply here." John Amos delivered that line perfectly. And, when dealing with extremists, truer words were never spoken.
Even right-wing "christian" extremists?
@@bikesnippets Extremists are the same, no matter the religion used.
@@bikesnippets Depends on whether they're the killing type.
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?
@@bikesnippets Even left wing "communist" or "Antifa" or environmental extremists? Violent extremists come in all shapes!
John Amos is one of our finest actors, equally adept at comedy and drama. Paired with the amazing John Spencer, this scene showcases them both.
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!
In my opinion he was unfairly killed off of two shows, both of which suffered for his loss.
DY-NO-MITE
You bet. I remember him in the Mary Tyler Moore Show, Good Times, ROOTS, et al. The ultimate professional actor!!
When did he transfer from the SOF?
John Amos is simply a great actor. Any time Fitzwallace was in a scene, he simply commanded attention.
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! ❤️
“Can you tell when it’s peace time and war time anymore?”
It’s sad that applies today
tyler hilpisch It has been true since, at least, the early 50s.
tyler hilpisch It has been true since, at least, the early 50s.
I think we can thank the "religion of peace" for that. Invading, infiltrating, and conquering since the 7th century.
@@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.
It's been like this for a very long time. There once was a war people said to be The War to end All Wars. It's done the very opposite.
The shampoo interchange between Fitz and Leo was such a great way to diffuse the tension.
"I don't know who the leading expert on warfare is but any list of the top has got to include me."
Only Sorkin writes a line like that.
dumb, if anyone ever said that kind of thing in real life to me, id laugh and walk away.
@@nameommited I think if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it, you'd best listen.
@@msalzberg4962
If the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said it to me I’d dam well stand to attention.
@@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.
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”.
It makes no sense, though. Yamamoto was a serving military officer killed in battle. The Lord High Admiral is proposing a peacetime assassination.
RIP John Amos aka Admiral Fitzwallace! You truly were one of a kind and one of the best!!!
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.
Because Sorkin has no equal.
That is a fantastic work of dialog.
from what I have read Sorkin was brilliant, but also had issues with drugs. perhaps the two are related?
@@TheLibran38 No. Drugs don't fuel the man's work. The drugs are only a struggle to overcome.
@@zylosmom Agreed!!!
Came here as soon as I heard the news, rest in peace such an iconic actor.
John Amos was quite literally the PERFECT man to play this role. His delivery here was flawless.
Everyone on this show was the perfect actor for their part!
"The laws of nature don't even apply here." Truer words were never spoken.
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.
To unbelievable actors, there were so many in this program.
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.
+Doubting Thomas no, they fought the british (welsh archers)
No, Britain didn't exist until the acts of Union in 1707. Welsh archers or no, France fought England.
Two Johns. Two Masters of the Craft. Two Bull Elephants of acting. Rest in Peace John Spencer and John Amos.
This show started in the 1990's and there STILL has never been a better show.
+Boyd Crowder Agree. The West Wing and the original Star Trek are two shows I can watch over and over again with getting tired of it.
+Ryan Thomas Riddle Two brilliant shows right there.
+Boyd Crowder Agreed. Others have been as good. But none better.
+Boyd Crowder --Except "Better Call Saul" shows promise.
+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.
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.
Two great actors hitting brilliant dialogue out of the park.
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.
Your response has now prompted me to watch the series for the first time. If you've watched every episode four times, then there's got to be something to it. Thank you!
John Amos brought a level of dignity to that role that could be measured in megatonage.
Naw not megatonage, more like gigatonage.
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 loved John Amos in this role.
Brilliant casting.
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.
I do, anyway.
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.
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.
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.
John Amos' character is killed off in this show?? Damn, I was interested in watching it...!
RIP to both of these very exceptional actors. 😔
RIP John Amos. The news of his passing just broke today.
We are living in this episode now.
Andrew Nibbi Yes, it seems to be a recurring storyline.
season 1: "what is the point of a proportional response"
and then years later:
th-cam.com/video/lhs4W4kX2uo/w-d-xo.html
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.
Meaning Drumpf?
No we're not, the USA has an idiot for a president in the real world, give the world Bartlet any day over the current moron
RIP John Amos. Great actor.
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.
He also used the word "British". He should've said "English".
Also he's completely ignoring what happened to all the common soldiers in virtually every medieval battle.
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.
One of the best scenes in this series.
One of the best monologues ever delivered, and delivered by John Amos. Powerful stuff.
Rest in Peace John Amos
“I like to look good for ya”…. that tension breaker line is so good, so poetic.
after watching clips on u tube, I think $65 for the full series of West Wings is worth the money
Absolutely.. I've started rewatching the whole thing for the 4th time...
The entire series is on Netflix just fyi
Steven Goehring~ I’m re-watching it... again. I take it out of the library on DVD. That said. I agree with you completely. 👏🏻🎬🎁🎆🍾💖
Very much agree as the whole series is currently on Netflix
Good god, no. Just torrent it all.
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.)
I was thinking the same thing, not a great example.
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.
One thing about West Wing that made it unique. It talked about issues.
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.
Spencer was always good ,but Amos killed it.
This was "steel sharpens steel" acting
Two top notch actors at the top of their game.
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.
And not only this episode. It was a thread for a while.
You took all that time to say, what exactly?
Cindy Tartt drivel? Duly noted.. thank you for setting me straight and being Lord of the comments section
@@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.
He took the time to (correctly) say this scene is not the end of this episodes depiction of assassionation and the consequences.
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?
R.I.P. John Amos
Greatest TV father of all time.
What an impressive scene. I love the fun beginning and the build up to the argument.
"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.
RIP John Amos❤
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?
Brilliant actor, John Amos rest easy sir
Undeniably one of the best scenes in one of the best dramas ever.
RIP, John Amos. Always was one of my favorites.
This hits a little closer to home after the attack on Israel on October 7th
He describes the country of Israel perfectly. This genocide needs to stop.
@@play030 you have utterly missed the point.
@@Rambam1776 Someone has.
@@kenle2 try actually studying instead of watching TH-cam.
RIP to John Amos. Will be missed.
*John Amos is one of the most UNDERRATED ACTORS in history.*
Good Times wasn't worth watching after Amos left
RIP John Amos
We'll miss them both now.
rest in peace john amos
Fellow East Orange, NJ native John Amos. Terrific actor
Welcome to the Hall of Famous World Class Cinematic Scenes.
John Amos was a terrific actor.
pac401 Is not was, he is still alive and acting.
G-JeeSe M Correct IS not WAS.
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.)
Is
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 the best scenes in The West Wing, seriously.
RIP John Amos. Came to this scene after I learnt he died.
What acting is all about. It pull you into the screen and makes you forget everything around you
I can't remember how many times I've replayed this scene.
All of us are in the Situation Room during this scene, clearer than seeing it on IMAX.
RIP, John Amos and John Spencer.
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
true
Wyn Williams don't let the truth get in the way of a great scene!
It's an American show... XD
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"m 71 and this is the finest rv scene I've had the pleasure to view. The writing, the context, the performances - just stellar
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.
Matt Dean Shit I thought that was Game of Thrones!
+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.
God rest these men’s souls. So much magnitude in this scene. Powerful.
The look of discomfort on Leo’s face before he says he doesn’t like where.the condos going.. just perfect acting.
Spencer was the ultimate facial expression master of an actor. WIll never forget how he delivered the Zoey kidnapping news to the President...
Fitz was such an awesome character.
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.
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.
100%
I've watched this clip dozens of times and it doesn't get old for me.
One of the very best scenes in one of the greatest series in TV history. Johns Amos & Spencer were magnificent.
And today it is 80 years since Yamamoto was killed.
one of the best scene of the entire series
John Amos stole pretty much every scene he was was in on West Wing.
As far as I remember, the battle of Agincourt ended with the English killing several thousand French prisoners.
Only peasants, the nobs were ransomed as there was cash in it.
I'm pretty sure you guys are both right and Aaron Sorkin has proven himself a historical idiot. Seriously who could possibly think that about Medieval warfare. Sure there were rules, but the rules were unless you're worth some money you either successfully run away or we kill you.
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
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)
this would be more comparable to the United States assassinating someone in MBS' royal family after a trip to DC
There is no better dialogue in the series.
"Targeting a single person was unhead of"
The Romans would argue otherwise.
faolan1686 Watch the scene again. Fitz notes when current international laws had their root.
@@nelauren. I know. But Leo says "it's been that way since the Romans."
@@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.
Rest In Peace, Admiral.
Leo’s face when he starts to pick up what Fitz was putting down was phenomenal “I don’t like where this conversation is goin-in the situation room, Fitz!”
He knew Hamas was coming.
Fitz was always my favorite of the side, recurring characters... "This is where you usually say something..." "Have you changed shampoos?" lol
Bayougirl78 Mine was Joey Lucas.
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?
Beat that with a stick.
The acting of both gentlemen. The writing and the music 🎶. Poetry at its finest.
BTW, at Agincourt Henry V ordered his men to execute the prisoners of war.
Also, when William Pitt t.y. was PM Napoleon had the Duc de Enghien targeted and murdered. Napoleon did this in response to a royalist attempt to murder him iirc.
To be fair to Henry V, even before the battle the English were completely out of supplies and starting to starve - the French cut their supply lines and stood in the path of their retreat. Henry V simply did not have the numbers nor the supplies to manage that many prisoners.
no he did not.
@@mikeggg5671 He did actually. They took more prisoners than they had men and there was still half of the French army chasing them.
John Amos is a force of nature. The weight of authority he wields in this character is truly impressive beyond words...
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.